Unmasking Fallacies: Analyzing 'The DeVos Family Dynasty'

A fallacy is defined as a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid, faulty reasoning, or a misleading or unsound argument. There are many kinds of fallacies and even websites devoted to describing the various kinds of logical fallacies. Fallacies, though, are slippery little fiends, which do not hesitate to creep in even where they are unwanted. No one wants their argument proved false, but careful, critical readers can spot these shifty deceivers. On the website of the Center for American Progress, there is an article – authored by Catherine Brown and Ulrich Boser – called “The DeVos Family Dynasty.” This article is a poor example of persuasive communication because there are many cases of ad hominem fallacy, the authors repeatedly

DeVos, or her family? From the tone of the article, it seems that her family’s views and actions should be the determining factor in her appointment. At one point, they say, “This is not to say that DeVos should be judged on the character of her relatives.” They then proceed to do just that. To quote a later section of the article, “The DeVos family’s radicalism goes back more than a century.” A few paragraphs later, the authors call DeVos’s parents’ integrity into question. “What’s more, both Edgar and Elsa Prince advanced their right-wing cause using backhanded tactics.” Throughout the article, the authors attempt to use the character and actions of DeVos’s family to discredit her. This is a clear case of guilt by association. Nearly everyone loves their family and friends, but most people would rather not have them be the only factor determining their options in

The authors argue that the DeVos family are extreme right-wing radicals, and all their evidence is chosen to support that claim. They never show the other side of the story, except in a disparaging way. For instance, they mention Betsy DeVos’s husband’s gubernatorial campaign. “[Dick] DeVos ran for governor of Michigan on an extremist platform. During his campaign, he pushed for teaching creationism in schools and for voucher programs that would allow parents to send their children to religious schools with taxpayer dollars. With these views, it’s not surprising that Dick DeVos lost the governor’s race[.]” Although they acknowledge his policies, the authors promptly discredit them, assuming their audience will agree with them. Here, they also reference pathos by only mentioning Dick DeVos’s views on schools. Any parent who disagreed with DeVos’s proposed policies would be affected by imaging their children being taught those things in