Wayne Allyn Root, a capitalist evangelist and a Republican supporter, is the writer of this article. He gives a history of past predictions he has made in elections as well as reasons as to why he makes this prediction. He commits a logical fallacy by predicting that his candidate, Mitt Romney, is going to win the presidential elections twenty seven days away just because he won in one of the presidential debates seven days ago and so won himself the hearts of the voters. Voters are less likely to use this debate as the only factor to choose their candidate. Again, you never know how Obama will perform in the next debate. In his opinion he thinks that Romney may be elected because during the second last debate he overtook Obama in tackling challenging questions facing American people locally or internationally.
Wayne Allyn Root has in the past predicted and so correctly that a particular candidate will win in the upcoming elections. Some of these predictions in which his predicated candidates won include that of the presidential candidate, Bush, in November 2004 and GOP presidential nomination candidate, Mitt Romney, in December 2011. Given his past correct predictions, Wayne believed Mitt Romney was going to win the presidential elections on November 6 despite him trailing Obama in almost all the polls. This is a faulty analogy because most past events are less likely to influence the outcome of the elections. Most voters do not vote based on historical events but rather on the suitability of the candidate. Wayne Allyn uses the past occurrence to base on the presidential outcome results. This is because in the past years he was 100% correct in all the prediction made as per who was to be the next president of USA
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
The logical fallacy is in the fact that the reasons which Wayne presents for his stand are logical but they are not what the voters will look at while voting. The writer’s reasons for predicting a win for Mitt Romney include; the fact that Republicans have the most governor seats unlike in 2008 which influences voters, Romney was likely to spend more in the last days to election date that Obama since voters are swayed by a candidate who has and spends more than the other during campaigns, the Christians who did not vote last time and who Obama has offended might turn out in large numbers to vote against him, history shows that undecided voters eventually vote for the challenger, among other reasons.
All these reasons could be logical, but they are not determinants of a winner in the elections. Wayne’s argument is logical because he has overwhelming reasons to support it. In as much as it is logical to believe that voters will base their decisions on some of the above reasons, Obama’s side could be offering more valid reasons. Almost all the polls show a different case from what Wayne is presenting, a win for Obama. If the polls were to be held as depicting a true picture as to what the outcome would be, then Wayne will have been fallacious in his arguments. In addition, Wayne holds a convincing record of correct predictions in the past involving similar situations. It is on these predictions that he heavily leans on when he confidently predicts a landslide for Romney. This analogy is faulty since a prediction is just a prediction and previous ones do not guarantee the correctness of another.