Tipline BannerTell a FriendDonate to Canadians for Integrity
SIGN UP NOW for our e-newsletter to receive free updates on our actions, news, and the latest articles. Please click on the button below. You are free to unsubscribe at any time.

How The Economical Insurance made unauthorized two extra withdrawals from my bank account causing NSF (Non-Sufficient Funds), canceled my auto insurance because of this NSF, refused to reinstate my auto insurance, lied to me, ruined my driving history with not existing claim…
Knowing the game and how not to get duped series


An argument is used to support conclusion. An argument uses a set of facts or assumptions. An argument is a reason or reasons offered for or against something.

A set of facts or assumptions (proposition) upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn, is called premise.

An argument that is logically inconsistent and fails to create a compelling case for its conclusion might contain error in reasoning, or fallacy (From the Latin fallacia (“deceit,” “trick,” or “fraud”).

An argument that is not supported by and is incompatible with logic when analyzed with care is called fallacious argument (deceptive argument).

Two Wrongs Make a Right

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. Lake many fallacies, it typically appears as the hidden major premise in an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion.


At a party leaders’ televised debate the leader of the largest opposition party asks why the governing party has done nothing to stop its practices of giving lucrative contracts without taking competitive bids to its party-friendly firms. The leader of the party in power replies by detailing how many times the opposition party’s previous government has also given lucrative contracts to its party-friendly firms.


As in the previous example above, the replying party’s leader makes an argument, but it is an irrelevant one that says nothing about why the wrong practice was not ceased.

The unstated premise is that giving lucrative contracts without taking competitive bids to your party-friendly firms (the wrong) is justified, as long as the other party also does so.

Although some strong supporters to the party might cheerfully react to the answer “You guys did the same thing a few years back,” it should be noted however that giving lucrative contracts without taking competitive bids (1) is at least a wasteful spending of taxpayers money; (2) is an act in which corruption might have played a role; (3) sets a precedent for an excuse of abuse of power and public funds while a criminal activities might have also been involved.

Politician who tries to justify his or her immoral and unethical conduct with other’s party equivalent or similar conduct should be condemned, denounced, and hold accountable, whenever possible.

In Conclusion

Missing the Point
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Appeal to Fear
Personal Attack

With files from various sources

Stay informed! Join other subscribers to receive free updates on our actions, news and press releases. Click on the button below to sign up now. You are free to unsubscribe at any time.

Related Articles, Links and Materials
Currently not available


ABOUT CFI: Canadians for Integrity (CFI) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to identifying, challenging, and deterring public officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests.