Is it wrong to analyze the logic of arguments related to the Trayvon Martin shooting?
One commenter thinks so. My response:
In December 2010, I wrote about the logical fallacies surrounding the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. A commenter responded, "There is a point where LSAT logic holds no relevance in this argument..."
Being an LSAT tutor, I believe logic is always relevant, whether it's finding a flaw in an argument, a weakness in it, or a principle underlying it. And, fine, I'll admit that I live and breathe this logic stuff.
So a little part of me died inside when I got a somewhat-similar comment on this week's blog post analyzing the logic surrounding the Trayvon Martin case: