Appeals to inflammatory hypotheticals constitute the argumentum ad populum fallacy

Evidence

The majority unnecessarily and gratuitously injects into its analysis an inflammatory hypothetical—not present or suggested in this case: “Posting a sign, for example, that reads ‘No Blacks Need Apply’ or that reads ‘No Union Members Need Apply’ and that succeeds in its objectives is just as effective (and just as offending) a method of discrimination as a point-blank refusal to hire ….” This of course is the classic informal fallacy of argumentum ad populum, an appeal to strong feelings of the multitude. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1062

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines argumentum ad populum as an appeal to the strong feelings of the multitude, using a real case hypothetical as the illustration.
• SEED: An essay angle on how judges use rhetorical hypotheticals framed as neutral examples but engineered to trigger emotional responses - and how to identify this fallacy in judicial opinions.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1062
• XREF: connects to: A fallacy is an argument that seems valid but fails logic — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 776; Proving a different point than the actual issue is the fallacy of irrelevance — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1012; Appeals to pity are fallacious when the question is purely factual — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1039 (+1 more)