Ya hay! You are correct!
Everett commits False Cause.
People sometimes use the word "dependence" to mean a psychological inability to function without something. A person would be "dependent" on Histafix if he had a psychological inability to function without his daily dose of the drug even though he really didn't need it for any allergies. A person who actually needs the drug to control actual allergies isn't dependent in this sense.
In order to show
that something causes "dependence" you would have to do several things.
First and foremost, you would have to show that people don't have an independent need for that thing. If you can show that some of the people who take Histafix actually do fine without the drug, but still continue to take it once they know they don't have allergies, then these people might be dependent on Histafix.
Second, you have to show that this dependence didn't exist before prolonged exposure to that thing. If you can show that people
who don't physically need Histafix don't feel any psychological need for Histafix before they've been induced to take Histafix over several weeks, then that would help show dependence.
Finally, you have to show that non-dependent people actually do become dependent after prolonged exposure. If you can show that many people
who don't physically need Histafix don't feel any psychological need for Histafix before they've been induced to take Histafix over several weeks, but do feel that need after that period then that would probably show dependence.
Everett, of course, doesn't do any of those things. He commits the fallacy of false cause by ignoring the existance of allergies, which is the common cause of both taking Histafix and continuing to take Histafix
Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.
This Site is Proudly
Hosted By:
