Politics and Logical Fallacies

Today, I will be looking at two different articles which discuss the “big, beautiful bill,” and the consequences of it. One is from CNN and the other is from MSNBC. We will be looking at these articles, and pointing out some fallacies that weaken or distract from their arguments. As I am against this bill, I wanted to look at how popular news is trying to combat the rhetoric about the bill from Republican proponents of the bill. The three logical fallacies we will be looking at through these articles are: 

1) Invalid Analogy, or drawing a dramatic or unrealistic connection between two cases,

2) Either/Or, or presenting only two options where more exists, and

3) Ad Hominem, or personal attacks. 

Now, since these are from accredited news sources, these writers are most likely aware of these fallacies, and in some ways, seemed to employ them to their use. First, looking at the article from CNN. I almost wanted to call out this article for “False Cause,” because it draws the conclusion that the Treasury sell-offs were a result of this bill being passed in the House. You could argue that this is correlation, and not causation, but in a way, the same exact thing happened when Trump announced the tariffs, and then in reverse when he reined in his tariff plan. I definitely think the author could have benefitted from making that connection more clear, but I don’t think it warranted a fallacy. However, what this author, Phil Mattingly, is guilty of is using the invalid analogy and either/or fallacies. The first analogy he drew between Trump’s tax plan and a three-legged stool worked as an argument, where if one “leg,” falls, so does the whole thing. However, he uses another analogy later on which is less well-planned: 

    “At its conception, his economic agenda was a high wire act with not net – one that mainstream economists from both parties largely found completely implausible.”

Not only is there a typo here, “not” instead of “no,” which disrupts the flow of the image, it is just a poorly articulated and reasoned statement. Sure, the audience can fill in the wholes, but is high economic plan really the same walking on a high wire with no net? I don’t think I would draw that conclusion, and it wasn’t one that resonated as true to me. If you fall from your act, it is only you who is affected. 

The second fallacy, the either/or fallacy, he employs as two sections of his article: “The Worst Case Scenario,” and “The Best Case Scenario,” doing exactly as the fallacy definition says: presenting two options where there are more. While he does acknowledge that perhaps neither of these are most likely to happen, these are the only two paths he presents. This signals to the audience that this bill can either go really good or really bad, and that just isn’t true. However, as I mentioned, he was probably aware of this, and used these two contrasting images to get a reaction from the audience. Perhaps anger, perhaps worry, but his goal wasn’t just to educate here, it was to rouse people to the realities of the bill (even if he needed to dramatize them a bit). 

Taking a look at the article from MSNBC written by Jessica Reidl, we will be assessing the Ad Hominem fallacy and its use here. This article, for the most part, was well articulated with both sides of the story being told. The information was presented in a flow of what has happened and how that has affected us, to what is happening now and how that might affect us; using a similar case to draw conclusions. However, she uses this term “Washington Gimmicks,” and links it to her article detailing what those are, to describe the actions of Republicans: 

    “Another stale Washington gimmick has Republicans claiming that tax relief will unleash roughly $13 trillion in additional economic growth over the decade, in turn producing $2.5 trillion of additional tax revenues.”

My problem with this inclusion is this — it disparaged the character of almost all (if not all) of the politicians in her article. This remark is close to the beginning, and this kind of information makes me think twice about her relationship with politicians and their actions. Is she too cynical? This was a small example of this type of logical fallacy, but when your article is so pristine, something like this really sticks out like a sore thumb. It also seems like she could have put it in there to advertise herself and her other work. That might not be the case, but it does make me, as a reader and the audience, question my trust in her. 

If you want to learn more about the “big, beautiful bill,” I suggest this article from PBS, a new source I generally find to be more transparent and neutral than most. This is a breakdown of the bill in a way most people can understand and digest it. As always, there is a copy of the bill on the House website, but I don’t recommend reading straight from the bill because it is hard to understand the actual impacts of all of the fancy words and numbers. 

Works Cited

Green, Julia. Oregon State University. “Persuasion Lecture”https://kaltura.oregonstate.edu/browseandembed/index/media-redirect/entryid/1_1bea9rob/showDescription/false/showTitle/false/showTags/false/showDuration/false/showOwner/false/showUploadDate/false/playerSize/640x394/playerSkin/55338793/thumbEmbed//autoPlay//startTime//endTime/

Mattingly, Phil. 2025. “Trump and the GOP have no way out of the ‘big, beautiful bill.’ That’s the                   problem.” CNN.                                                                                            https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/22/business/big-beautiful-bill-bond-market?    iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc

Riedel, Jessica. 2025. “Trump’s tax cuts will be cripplingly expensive for most Americans.” MSNBC.       https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-tax-cuts-will-cost-americans-rcna208852