The number of alcoholics has risen steadily for the past 20 years, and so has the number of treatment centers. Therefore, to cut down on alcoholism we should eliminate the treatment centers.

What type of fallacy statement is "From one politician about another: “He’s a two-faced, liberal, anti-family, anti-values idealist!”

The number of alcoholics has risen steadily for the past 20 years, and so has the number of treatment centers. Therefore, to cut down on alcoholism we should eliminate the treatment centers.


Affirming the consequent. It assumes there is only one possible reason for the rise in alcoholism.

It would seem a more simple solution to simply raise the tax on alcohol, like they have with cigarettes, make it less available to the masses instead of encouraging the outcome. Thus eliminating the supply to the lower-class.

Your statement proves false using the cigarette as an example, there are government programs to help people quit, yet the rise in cost has eliminated more smokers annually than the treatments made available for free to help people quit.

I wouldn't go as far as removing the treatment centers. There are alcoholics that choose to be and are fine with being alcoholics, and then there are those who regret their mistake in slipping so far. To deny treatment would be cruel, not everyone is intelligent or perceptible of their problems. As for those alcoholic by choice, all you can do is accept it or reject it and worn them of the potential harm. To do anything more would be absurd. People change only when they want to change, it took me many years to learn that truth.

The number of alcoholics has risen steadily for the past 20 years, and so has the number of treatment centers. Therefore, to cut down on alcoholism we should eliminate the treatment centers.

This fallacy is known as, the fallacy of non sequitur , or 'does not follow'

While it is possible that the premise is true, ie. the rise in the number of alcoholics. It does not follow that the conclusion is true, ie. getting rid of treatment centres will solve this problem.

It can be said that there has been a giant argumentative leap taken place here.

What type of fallacy statement is "From one politician about another: “He’s a two-faced, liberal, anti-family, anti-values idealist!”

This is an easy one. Fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Politicians do this every day of the week. They are attacking the character of a person rather than addressing what they are saying.

A persons character is irrelevant to any debate. I can be the worst person on the face of the earth while at the same time being the world's greatest scientist. Does this mean that my research is worthless based on my character. Of course not.