Medicine Grizzlybear Lake Argument

In Medicine Grizzlybear Lake’s argument, “An Indian Father’s Plea,” he is making a disagreement against his son’s teacher’s claim. The teacher has labeled Wind Wolf “a slow learner,” and Lake’s argument against that is saying that his son has been taught different ways. Lake’s argument explains how Wind Wolf was brought up in a different culture and has learned in different ways.

Although Lake presents a lengthy and very descriptive argument, not all of his points refer to the claim he is trying to counter. Lake starts by introducing the story of Wind Wolf, and how “he has already been through quite an education” at the age of five. This is a straw man fallacy. We can see how Lake is attempting to use this as a way to convince the teacher

He says, “You wanted to call him “Wind” – insisting that Wolf must somehow be his middle name.” This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy. This is because Lake is now directing the argument towards the teacher rather than her claim. This weakens Lake’s argument and makes it less effective.

Furthermore, many statements presented to support Lake’s claim are a non sequitur fallacy. Lake argues that his son may be slow at learning but this is because of the change in culture. He tells the teacher that Wind Wolf “recently encountered his first harsh case of racism.” This in reality has little to do with the speed of his learning but is still presented as a counter argument to the teacher’s claim. This further weakens Lake’s argument and hence, very few statements significantly support Lake.

Although Lake states many points in his argument, many do not counterclaim the teacher directly. There are a number of fallacies in Lakes argument including a vast range of non sequitur examples. Many of Lake’s statements were informing the teacher about his son rather than why his son should not be considered a slow