In “The Argument for Torture,” Michael Levin presents logical fallacies that arise from the author's desire to connect the importance of his message . Although his specific argument is a very plausible solution to a taboo problem, the way he presents it has some errors that make it unsupported. Levin argues that torture should be used on terrorists in order to save people from terrorism. He further implies that this is the morally correct thing to do, because it ensures the good of the people. Although his argument would be plausible in a utilitarian society, it is formidable within American cultural ideals, because democratic societies generally tend to gloss over techniques that violate natural rights and/or ethics. Therefore, Levin works excessively to convince his audience of his position. He uses three extreme, hypothetical examples in which torture may be necessary. One being a situation where a terrorist on the island of Manhattan is plotting to detonate a bomb on the 4th of July, another being a bomber on a jet wanting his demands met, and the last one, a scenario questioned in which a terrorist group kidnapped newborn babies from a hospital. He also asserts that torture should not be a punishment for assault, but rather a means to prevent such assault from occurring. He then states that there must be "obvious guilt" for someone to torture for these purposes. Finally, he emphasizes that the implications that the acceptance of torture in Western culture will have for the rest of the world are non-existent and that democracy will not go astray. Levin attempts to persuade the reader that torture is the only way to ensure justice by using multiple fallacies in a single statement that include: the either-or fallacy, a contradictory...... middle of paper ...... support the government's action and in presenting the liberal side of this argument it is also suggested that torture should be extended to the government - which is the general argument. In this case, Levin uses prejudiced language in order to convey the overall argument of the essay. In summary, the essay has implications that are fallible and questionable because they are only valid on the level of hypothetical evidence and theory. Additionally, the argument relies heavily on emotion to achieve its goal, so much so that persuasion is more about fear than actual conviction. The errors found do not mean that the argument is devoid of good intentions, but simply to say that it is conveyed in such an inappropriate way that it cannot be heard on its own merits. Works Cited Levin, Micheal. “Michael Levin: The Case for Torture.” Michael Levin: The case for torture. Np, and Web. February 19. 2014.