Article Rebuttal Paper
The article selected is entitled “No children ... but with pets!” The article discusses the issue of couples that cannot or decided not to have kids and decide to replace that responsibility with the integration of pets in their daily life. A popular saying expresses that “To whom God does not give children gives lots of nephews”, but for the author, instead of nephews, it gives her pets and that why her nephews loves her more. As she says, for many people who have chosen not to have children or simply have not been able to procreate, pets become precious family members.
Many people do not understand this kind of relationship, being at times criticized by the outpouring of attention to them. She says to her readers that they do not know what they are missing, claiming, among other things, that a pet gives you unconditional love; that you are the best to them and they do not care who you are; not what your social status is, your income is or what you represent to society. A pet deeply appreciates the care and love you lavish on them and it takes very little to make them happy.
The author is talking about her own experience. Nevertheless, the problem with this article is that it doesn’t give any reliable data that proves her right or wrong.
In this article we have two fallacies. We see the use of the fallacy of “Hasty Generalization” that is making an assumption of a whole group that is inadequate. The author claims that families that do not have kids are replaced by pets.
The other fallacy is the false cause or "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc". This type of fallacy establishes a cause first followed by the second part, which is the effect that is not necessarily
true. In this case, the cause is established that it is the people who do not have children and the effect that they make a pet a member of a legally defined family that does not exist. This may be true, but not