These natural laws are incontrovertible; . . those who resist them will be wiped out. biology not only tells us about animals and plants, but also shows us the laws we must follow in our lives, and steels our wills to live and fight according to these laws. the meaning of all life is struggle. the excerpt above is an example of a false dilemma. which of the following choices explains the logical fallacy in this excerpt, as well as the reason it fails to prove its point? a. the excerpt is an example of a testimonial not a false dilemma. it fails to persuade the audience to buy more animals and plants to ensure survival. b. the excerpt is an example of a false dilemma because it tries to say that humans survive because they behave differently than animals and plants. the argument does prove this point. c. the excerpt is an example of a false dilemma because it states that humans function exactly like animals and plants. by drawing this comparison, it fails to acknowledge the many factors that affect and alter the life course of animals, plants, and humans. d. the excerpt contains no logical fallacies but uses true statements to persuade the audience of life’s common struggle.

Question:  

"These natural laws are incontrovertible; . . . Those who resist them will be wiped out. Biology not only tells us about animals and plants, but also shows us the laws we must follow in our lives, and steels our wills to live and fight according to these laws. The meaning of all life is struggle.

The excerpt above is an example of a false dilemma. Which of the following choices explains the logical fallacy in this excerpt, as well as the reason it fails to prove its point?"

I think your answer would be:

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.

i think there should be answer choices