Gloria LaRiva Data Table

Fallacy	Example	Explanation
Appeal to Ignorance	“The list is completely without substance, a pathetic attempt to boost her ratings among Latina and Latino voters”	There is no factual evidence making this claim true, therefore it cannot be proven that it is indeed what she was trying to do. The meaning of “just like your abuela” could have a completely different context to people who have a connection with Hilary Clinton and for her to call her out is unethical. Saying that the list is without substance also is a very hasty thing to say that isn’t clarified, what is substance? And why is it important to fulfill if you are running in an election? By her not clarifying this it’s making her argument seem foolish.
Black or White	“I bet she’s nothing like yours either, unless your grandmother: sat on the board of Walmart and fought for anti-labor free trade deals, voted for the war in Iraq, helped welfare for poverty stricken families, orchestrated the escalation of drone warfare, promoted deadly regime change efforts in third world countries, stood against marriage equality, called for mass deportation of undocumented children in central American violence, received huge campaign funds from wall street investors and military contractors.	This is clearly a black or white, because she points out all of these terrible reasons of what you wouldn’t ever want to compare your grandmother to, making it a forced choice to take her side on the campaign. Now that no one’s grandma has actually ever done any of these things she is asserting you then must agree with her argument. By listing all of these things that Hilary may have taken part in, she doesn’t list proof, or any details as to what the reasons were behind her actions.
Strawman	“I bet she’s nothing like yours either, unless your grandmother: sat on the board of Walmart and fought for anti-labor free trade deals, voted for the war in Iraq, helped welfare for poverty stricken families, orchestrated the escalation of drone warfare, promoted deadly regime change efforts in third world countries, stood against marriage equality, called for mass deportation of undocumented children in central American violence, received huge campaign funds from wall street investors and military contractors.	She has no proof of what involvement that Hilary has actually taken part in, like I said above she has made claims about Hilary but has stated no proof or reasons.
Unrepresented Sample	“.01%”	This statistic has no relevance to what she is arguing for. All it is doing is serving as a fact to make her look lesser. There is no citation for where she got this statistic from and there is nothing showing how this is actually significant. It works though because if you were to read this you would be like “wow this is a very low number, she must be a terrible person” this is obviously what she wanted to go for, but she didn’t cite how this is truthful therefore her followers are not making the most intelligent choices to follow her claims.
Guilty by Association	“If your grandmother is a war criminal…”	If you have a grandmother that follows or supports any of these things that Hilary has done, then you are taking her side in the stands. No one’s average grandmother actually could ever take part in any of these events, so she is making it clear and certain that you agree with her by comparing her ideas against “the crazy grandma”
Appeal to Consequence	“If, instead, you defend immigrants…then join us in building a new socialist movement in this country”	This is saying that you now have to take her side, if you join my side, all of these things I just listed will happen. But by comparing it to something that is irrelevant it makes it seem as if she is the one in the green and Hilary is in the red.