By him stating that, it seemed to be composition/division logical fallacy. Composition/division is when one part of something has to be applied to all, or other parts of it, or that the whole must apply to its parts. By Trump comparing his movement to Reagan's, its as if Trump will succeed as Reagan did, just because he is assembling a similar movement. But that is not the complete case. Trump believes that the extent isn't the same, as well as the intensity, but that doesn't mean it could be any better than Reagan. This may have an affect on our culture because there are already mixed feelings regarding Trump. By him stating something as such, it could give him more credibility or the opposite. What readers can do to address the fallacy is look more into Reagan's movement and really compare it to what Trump is trying to do as well. See where Trump is succeeding in and what he's flunking in. That would allow the readers to have actual facts and realize why it would be a composition/division fallacy for him to say that.
You make a complex argument here. The one of composition/division is intriguing, especially when comparing Trump to Reagan. The hubris coming from Trump is extreme, and he's certainly comparing both candidates makeup, that "je ne sais qua" that makes someone a star, a leader, special. So if Reagan only had a little bit of it, and Trump has so much of it, then for Trump it stands to reason, he's 10 times the man Reagan was. Wow.
ReplyDelete