Lanny was pulled over by the police for driving erratically. After a breathalyzer test, Larry claimed, "I can't be drunk. My blood alcohol is only 0.08%."

Question

Lanny was pulled over by the police for driving erratically. After a breathalyzer test, Larry claimed, "I can't be drunk. My blood alcohol is only 0.08%."

(Note: 0.08% is the legal limit for Driving Under the Influence.)

What fallacy has Lanny committed?

Group of answer choices

Red herring

Straw man

Appeal to ignorance

Solution aversion

Ad hominem

Answer 1

Hi Mike S.,

So, Lanny interpreted the law as DUI = blood alcohol >0.08%, whereas the actual law is DUI = blood alcohol >= 0.08%. I suspect that's "Appeal to Ignorance", though I'm not sure. If he starts making an argument drawn on possible rounding errors of the test apparatus, he won't get anywhere with that, either.

Argument with the arresting officer does indicate impaired judgement, right there. A good reason to cite him for, if not DUI, perhaps interference with a law officer.

Additionally, he may exhibit poor judgement or coordination at lower alcohol levels, if he has additional drugs in his system. No way to be sure of that, without a drawn-blood test.

Don't drink and drive; don't drug and drive. If you are thinking that you, unlike the rest of humanity, can handle variously unlawful drug use, then you really don't have any neurons to spare to begin with ....

--Cheers, -- Mr. d.