Middle Ground Fallacies

Middle Ground Fallacies

The middle ground fallacy is also known as the fallacy of golden mean and moderation fallacy. It essentially refers to the fallacy of presuming that the middle ground of any two extremes is correct. This line of reasoning is actually fallacious as it does not always follow that a position must be correct because it exists in the middle of any two extremes. Examples of middle ground fallacies include:

1. The president said that James Lebron is better than any other player in the world. The Chicago Bulls team coach said that his players are better than any other player in the world. The truth is therefore that James Lebron must be playing for Chicago Bulls. But he is not!


2. James lebronSimon points that Lebron James currently plays for Cleveland Cavaliers while peter says that he plays for Miami Heat. Therefore, the truth has to be someplace in between.


Gambler Fallacies

Gabbler fallacy is typically committed when one assumes that a departure from what is expected to take place in the long term or on overage will actually be solved in the short term. This is fallacious because one truly assumes that some result is ought to be due because the preceding results depart from what is actually expected in the long term or on average. Examples of Gambler fallacies include:

3. James Lebron asks, “who is the fairest of us?” His friend replies, “We are not at a catwalk.” “But don’t I look like one.” Lebron replies.


4. Lebron scores in the in the field. His wife says she is not aware because he does not score at home. She hopes that he just started scoring just recently.



Post Hoc Fallacies

Post Hoc fallacy is committed when a person actually concludes that an event causes another because the planned cause occurred earlier than the proposed effect. This is fallacious because people do not take care when they reason. Examples of Post Hoc may include:

5. Lebron does not play against the New York Knicks because of an ankle injury. The New York Knicks beat Lebron’s team. The New York Knicks wishes that Lebron gets sick every time he is playing against them.


6. Is James Lebron a bird, wonders an opponent player aloud. His teammate answers, maybe, I saw him scoring from the sky.

Slipper Slope 

The slippery slope refers to a fallacy where one claims that an incident must unavoidably trail from another without any arguments for the certainty of the event on table. This is fallacious because there are no strong reasons to consider that an event must unavoidably follow from another with no arguments that are to be attached to such a claim. Slippery slope fallacies may include:


7. A Chicago Bulls player warns his fellow players, “we need a goalkeeper to stop Lebron from scoring or else we are out of the league.”

8. The Chicago Bulls coach warns his players, “we should not put Lebron under pressure; under pressure he will yield more scores.”  “You can never give anyone pressure, or they will cook you.”

Looking for someone to help with homework?

Evidence Cases

Evidence Cases


The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine is a rule stipulated in the criminal law which states that evidence resulting from an illegal interrogation, arrest or search is not admissible. It originates from the landmark Supreme Court case, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). This is because the evidence, referred to by “the fruit” is tainted since it is obtained from illegal search and arrest (poisonous tree). By extension, any other evidence that must have been obtained by exploitation of this initial evidence is also excluded. The latter evidence is deemed by the courts as the tainted fruit of the poisonous tree. The main aim of this paper is study the evidence collected and determines whether they will be admissible or be suppressed in the process of pursuing criminal justice.


Case 1

This depends on whether or not the first photographic lineup was a proper line up. If the first lineup conducted was improper then all subsequent identifications can be invalidated as tainted by the first line up. When you say he was improperly and illegally detained, I am presuming that is just a given fact without any further information given. If he was not improperly detained for this crime, then the poisonous tree doctrine would not apply as the detention was not for the crime charged as they can prove that the identity would have inevitably been discovered despite the illegal stop.
In determining whether evidence is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” and therefore inadmissible the correct inquiry is “whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” ‘There are three recognized avenues for admitting the “fruit of a poisonous tree” despite its illegal origins. Two of them are (1) the same evidence was discovered through an independent source not tainted by the poisonous tree. (2) The evidence was not found through a second untainted source but it should not be suppressed despite law enforcement’s illegal acts because the same evidence would have been inevitably discovered through legal means. (The inevitable discovery rule is “a variation upon the ‘ “independent source” ‘ theory, ‘but it differs in that the question is not whether the police did in fact acquire certain evidence by reliance upon an untainted source but instead whether evidence found because of a Fourth Amendment violation would inevitably have been discovered lawfully.’ See: Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 488 [83 S.Ct. 407, 417-418, 9 L.Ed.2d 441], quoting Maguire, Evidence of Guilt (1959) p. 221.)


Case 2

The police who come to conduct the improper arrest of Watson happen to get evidence connecting Watson to a recent bank robbery. They did not use any coercive interrogation or unreasonable search to get the information from the neighbor, Mrs. Lopez. The fundamental rights of Watson are not violated in any way. If the evidence that Watson was in possession of nitroglycerin as witnessed by the neighbor, Mrs. Lopez is relevant, then it could have been obtained even whether legal or illegal process is used to obtain it. Watson was arrested improperly which means that the officers had no warrant for the arrest. The improper arrest, therefore, qualifies to be a poisonous tree and hence the evidence collected during this arrest is inadmissible.  Therefore, not only the method by which the evidence was obtained illegal but also that the evidence obtained from such means shall not be used at all hence inadmissible. However, not all evidences acquired unlawfully have to be inadmissible. If an “independent” source is used by the authorities to confirm that evidence and yet the relationship between illegality and the evidence may be so far-flung to allow the admissibility of the evidence.


Case 3

An inmate used to act as an informant becomes a government agent if he is promised specific benefits according to the Sixth Amendment stipulation of the Constitution of the US and as stated by the Declaration of Rights [465-468]. The informant can therefore give a testimony in court on being called to do so, on condition that court instructions are adhered.  In the supreme court of California, the court gives instructions to the jury monitor the testimony given by the informant closely and with scrutiny to ensure it was not influenced by the expected benefits to be given by the party requiring the informant to testify (PEOPLE v. BIVERT, No. S099414).

The admissibility of the evidence depends on whether or not the informant is promised something or given a grant in exchange of the testimony. Some of these promises may be reduction of the informant’s sentence and prosecution immunity. According to a new bill In Texas, no evidence will be admissible if there is such an agreement.  The admissibility of the testimony given by the informant must not violate the defendant‘s right to a fair trial according to the Sixth Amendment.

The statements obtained by the In-custody informant from the defendant if found reliable and hence becomes very crucial in the determination of the cases to know who is guilt. However, there must be adequate scrutiny to avoid making a conviction based on false statements, some requirements must be met.  The prosecution has to file a statement of all considerations that the in-custody informant is promised or already given. Another condition for the admissibility is that the statement filed is not to limit the right of the defendant to disclosure of information as provided by law. Therefore, a copy of the statement has to be given to the defendant or the attorney of the defendant a given duration before the trial commences. The statements have to be scrutinized to ensure they meet standards required of evidence (COMMONWEALTH vs. FREDERICK MURPHY).


Case 4

The statement that Orozco gave when the police went straight to his bedroom should not be admitted as evidence. The police, knowing what they were doing, questioned Orozco about facts which they wanted to use to incriminate him since they know he needed to be informed that he had a right to keep quiet, engage a lawyer to advise him on how to make a statement and seek to have a lawyer hired to represent him incase he would not afford to hire one for himself. He was then held for having violated the Self Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the US and which stated that “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against t himself”. The statements he gave not to be admissible but need to deploy an “independent “source to come up with other evidences to confirm the conviction. If the statements obtained by the police from the petitioner by the police becomes admissible as part of the evidence, then that would be contravention of Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment

The interrogation of the petitioner in his own bed also compromised right of the petitioner as he was arrested in that familiar environment and thereafter was not granted any freedom of movement end expression. If the warnings of the police to the petitioner to remain silent during the arrest would only be applicable when the petition was in custody at the police station, then the police should have held there interrogation until the petitioner was delivered to the station. The interrogation of the petitioner in his bedroom and denial of freedom of expression or action  in a significant way as he would have wished to get himself out of trouble and also ensure a fair hearing during  the trial that was to follow was in itself a violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The petitioner was forced to speak in a setting isolated apart from the police station where chances of the police using intimidation and trickery to force a false confession from the petitioner were high. If the interrogation was done in a police station setting then the presence of impartial observers would ensure that such loop holes leading to wrongful ways of obtaining information from the petitioner would not have happened and therefore justice would take place (FindLaw: Cases and Codes)

According to the report of the ballistics tests, the gun owned by the petitioner and which at the time of arrest was with him, was the gun that fired a shot that took the life of the deceased. The gun was hidden in the washing machine indicating that. .  If he the police would have given him the warning he would have not have answered the police questions, was to be  arrested and after the house was to be searched, the gun was to be found and all the evidence was to be admissible. But according to the “fruit of the poisonous tree” the failure of the police to advice the petitioner to remain silent is a “poisonous tree” and therefore the finding of the gun that fired the fatal short is the “fruit”. This renders the gun not to be admissible as evidence against the verdict at Miranda (FindLaw: Cases and Codes)


The court, the jury, the respondent, the plaintiff and the constitutional amendments play an important role to ensure that the right evidence is obtained, processed and presented to enable justice to be done in determining the guilt and therefore ensuring that justice is done. Any violation of the laws or respective amendments at any of the stages would compromise obtaining or loss of vital evidence that would see the guilt set free or jailed when the opposite verdict is possible. The plaintiff may also loose a case which would have obviously been ruled in the plaintiff’s favor probably as a result of overlooking some minor but crucial stages such as presenting to the respondents the copies of the evidences held against the party. Therefore, fore justice to be done in any law suit it is paramount that a lawyer is engaged right from the primary stages of case development and trial to the final verdict made after all possible appeals if there be any.










FindLaw. (n.d.). U.S. Supreme Court: OROZCO v. TEXAS, 394 U.S. 324 (1969). 394 U.S. 324. OROZCO v. TEXAS. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. No. 641. Argued February 26, 1969. Decided March 25, 1969. FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Retrieved June 15, 2013, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=394&invol=324

FindLaw. (n.d.). U.S. Supreme Court OROZCO v. TEXAS, 394 U.S. 324 (1969) 394 U.S. 324 OROZCO v. TEXAS. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. No. 641. Argued February 26, 1969. Decided March 25, 1969. FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Retrieved June 15, 2013, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=394&invol=324

PEOPLE v. BIVERT, No. S099414. July 11, 2011 – CA Supreme Court | FindLaw. (n.d.). Caselaw: Cases and Codes – FindLaw Caselaw. Retrieved June 15, 2013, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1573845.html

COMMONWEALTH vs. FREDERICK MURPHY. 448 Mass. 452. September 8, 2006 – March 6, 2007. Hampden County. Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, & CORDY, JJ. Retrieved June 15, 2013, from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/448/448mass452.html

Personality Traits of John F Kennedy

John F Kennedy Charismatic Personality

A charismatic theory enables people to influence others as well as influence our external environment. Being charismatic means that one is assertive and it is a force of human personality which can be understood, measured as well as developed. Charisma is good as it can be used to inspire others. John Kennedy had the ability of a leader and could exercise diffuse as well as intense influence over his followers.

As the 35th US president, John F. Kennedy was known to be a very charming and charismatic person. In fact he was admired more for his charismatic personality. Kennedy had articulated his vision for change that had brought a constituency to identify itself as his followers and had aroused many more people. He was able to transform the preferences, values, and needs of his followers. Kennedy could motivate his followers to serve the interest of the larger collective. According to Weber, a new genre of leadership theory merged in the 1970s that invoked visionary, inspirational and symbolic behavior. The new genre, christened charismatic leadership theory, attention shits to exceptional leaders like John Kennedy who had extraordinary leadership qualities that have an effect on their followers and later on social systems.

To be an outstanding president of the United States John Kennedy needed to be charismatic to overcome his stereotype- based barriers though garnering political power. He was able to do this by always connecting emotionally with his followers even by using nonverbal skills. Be charisma means he was able to use facial displays of whatever feelings he had which are naturally expressed almost all the time as though everything in his environment was a stimulant. This was the reason that enabled him to achieve enormous popularity as a US president.

The personality seems to have one loop hole. Charisma led John Kennedy to become a compulsive womanizer or sexual addict. His pursuit became sexual gratification which became automatically intertwined with quest for power, a scenario that becomes a task for the psychologists to explain. John Kennedy utilized his charismatic personality to seek whatever he could not get from his genuine or rather intimate connection between him and his people. That is probably how he also fell into the trap of being a compulsive womanizer, a habit which is private and limited to a few individuals. It is also likely that their womanizing behavior which is mainly a weakness of charismatic leaders became a means of expressing the rage harbored for many years against his mother and these women as a result of being abandoned and neglected early in his life (Bloland, 2000).


John F Kennedy Introversion Personality

Introversion can be defined as being a person who gains a lot of energy from being alone but whose energy is reduced when he/she is with others. There have been many introversion leaders in the history of America and John F. Kennedy is one of them. As an introvert and a leader, Kennedy had a lot of grit and had to learn to roll with punches in an extraverted world. As an introvert, Kennedy was thought oriented and could seek the depth of knowledge within himself.

Kennedy once remarked himself as being an introvert, he was said to be thoughtful, intelligent, creative as well as interesting and comfortable to be with. Introverts are gifted and their time alone improves their talents and gifts. This did not mean that Kennedy was shy, it is just that he preferred to stay alone and think how to run the country with no external interference.

To this president, everything is simply possible because he was full of ideas to negotiated whatever he wanted with anybody whom he believed would give him what he wanted to achieve. It was very easy for the introvert John F Kennedy to discern inner pattern forms which he would then operationalize using materials in the real world. Many believe he was an idealistic leader who embodied not only the best values of his country, but also almost every virtue. For instance, he never lost his temper and had an unusual ability of handling his critiques a reason why he many times faced the editors with complaints of stories in the news which he found to be critical to him. That is why he tried to eject David Halberstam, a correspondent with the The New York Times from office in 1963 but failed. David was guilty of writing flattering stories about the president.

As an introvert, President Kennedy was a peacemaker and this is why he chose a diplomatic approach in relationship with other nations such as solving disputes in various foreign lands. This he did by ending war in the war-tone areas until peace prevailed. Quite characteristic of introversion leaders, President Kennedy did not have to rely on so many protocols and meetings to address the miscalculation problem that was the root cause of conflicts with other nations but relied on his own hard work. The reason why the introversion President performed all of his duties single handedly is because he feared failure hence his focus had to be achieving whatever he intended and that nobody’s influence thwarted his plans. One of such achievements was the successful creation of the Immigration and Nationality Act which he signed into law in 1965. This important step partly saw the civil rights policies renewed  and discrimination that was quite prevalent then abolished.



It is important that we understand the personality of people and psychological theories only help us understand the personality from a better perspective. This is because psychological theories can help us understand by empirical evidence especially if they are scientifically sound. Therefore, this means that psychological theories can only help us increase our understanding of personality; that personality cannot be understood better by psychological theories only if they can be tested or proven. However, some there are experimental forms of psychology that are useful.

It is however worth noting that much about personality domain remains largely unknown but the best explanation related to personality comes from theories related to personality. Benefits of the Personality Psychology include being able to adapt to changes in our society and the environment, help people to clarify about their academic goals, as well as improve self esteem and self actualization.

The personality of President John F. Kennedy is ranges from being a charismatic to an introversion person. His upbringing might have played an important role in nurturing this personality because after abandonment by his mother, he had to find a way of creating a good rapport with the people around him. This required him to be charismatic which enabled him to be a darling for many people especially women.


















House, J. R., Spangler, W. D. & Woycke, J. Personality and Charisma in the U.S. Presidency: A Psychological Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3

Bloland, S. (2000) Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy: The dark side of charisma. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 10(2), 285-289. Doi: 10.1080/10481881009348541

Personality Psychology. Retrieved on June 12, 2013 from  http://www.zeepedia.com/read.php?personality_psychology_new_directions_in_the_discipline_personality_psychology&b=94&c=45