They're the most destructive fires in California history. For over a week, the Camp Fire and the Woosley Fire have been making national news, and for understandable reasons: as of November 18th, 76 people have been reported dead and over 1,000 missing in the Camp Fire near Paradise, and the Woosley Fire near Los Angeles has killed 3 and has caused many celebrities to have to evacuate.
But as if all of this wasn't enough to make headlines, the initial response of President Donald Trump to this horrific situation has been garnering quite a bit of talk of its own:
Upon first glance, this tweet may simply seem unsympathetic and frankly, an unbelievably rude response to such a terrifying situation. In fact, many people also took to Twitter to express their anger-- leaders, locals, celebrities, and firefighters alike. Leonardo DiCaprio, for example, including in a tweet that, "Helping victims and fire relief efforts in our state should not be a partisan issue." Additionally, the L.A. County Fire Chief responded to the tweet, saying that it was "very hurtful for all first responders."
But what does all of this have to with logic and with fallacies, you might ask?
The answer is that the basis of Trump's tweet is a logical fallacy, specifically, a non sequitur. A non sequitur means "it does not follow," or in other words, that the evidence you provide does not make sense or lead to the conclusion you're trying to make. In Trump's case, he's trying to use the evidence of "poor forest management" as reasoning for why the fires started.
However, this evidence is not at all sufficient, as detailed in an article from the New York Times, and of which I will summarize shortly. For starters, these fires are wildfires, not forest fires. They're burning in distinctly urban areas (or more specifically, "the wildland-urban interface": places where communities are close to undeveloped areas), and therefore, are out of the control of "forest management" to begin with. Additionally, the NYT article also details that since 2000, wildfires in California have become bigger and more unpredictable than ever before, therefore making Trump's claim that the fires were caused by "poor forest management" even more unrealistic--they clearly cannot be controlled. Lastly, there's also the fact that even in the case of a forest fire, not a wildfire, most of California's forests are not state-controlled; in fact, only 3% of the forests in California are controlled by state and local agencies--therefore, California's forest management is not to blame. I could go on about how wildfires also aren't caused by poor forest management, but rather climate change and human activity, but I'll spare you the rest.
Analyzing Trump's tweet about the California wildfires is just one of many examples of why fallacies are important to learn about: although the research I've done shows that they can be used to oppress, they can also help to point out sneaky rhetorical moves made by those in power, and to recognize when their reasoning is flawed so we don't fall trap to it. Try scrolling through Trump's tweets sometime and seeing just how many fallacies you can find. It's more than you think.