English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
As an example, mandating that every single car driver wears a motorcycle helmet would probably reduce the number of deaths and head injuries from car accidents. But of course it would be highly impractical as all drivers would be sweating profusely inside the helmet due to the lack of wind that’s present when riding a motorbike.
What’s the name of a fallacy where the person talks about a policy (“let’s all wear helmets!”) but completely ignores the downsides?
Peter Suber has written an article (archive link) describing this kind of argument; he calls it the "one-sidedness fallacy."
The fallacy consists of giving reasons for your thesis without considering reasons against it, or giving reasons against an opposing view without considering reasons for it. [....]
The one-sidedness fallacy does not make an argument invalid. It may not even make the argument unsound. The fallacy consists in persuading readers, and perhaps ourselves, that we have said enough to tilt the scale of evidence and therefore enough to justify a judgment. If we have been one-sided, though, then we haven't yet said enough to justify a judgment. The arguments on the other side may be stronger than our own. We won't know until we examine them.
