Chris Cridge's Fallacies ... Pennsbury's Potential Problem

In his opinion piece in the Bucks County Courier Times on October 17th, Pennsbury School Board candidate Chris Cridge asserts that incumbent Linda Palsky was wrong to vote against a particular contract change order. This is his conclusion, and it is a great first step that he states it so clearly. Unfortunately he doesn’t take care of the next step, and provides nothing but fallacies to support that conclusion.

First of all, he starts out with an appeal to pity. He tells us about the struggles of the “small business owners” who appealed for the change in the contract. I am sure that no one is happy to see a “local family” put out, but I’m not sure what that has to do with whether or not the contract in question (for insulation work) should be amended to allow a “district-based family business employing Pennsbury graduates and a war veteran” to keep it. Do local businesses that employ war veterans get to bend the rules because they are local businesses that emplopy war veterans?

To follow up his appeal to pity, Cridge trots out a straw man. The “family business” he supports wants to remove a clause from the contract. A clause that Cridge describes as: “an obscure, single sentence technicality.” Who wouldn’t want to remove an obscure technicality? Probably fewer people than might have a problem removing a training requirement that any bidders were supposed to meet, the voiding of which could open up the district to legal challenges. It is certainly easier to argue against anyone who chooses an obscure technicality over the welfare of a local business.

This leads us to our third problem with Cridge’s argument. He never really tells us what the unreasonable Palsky was thinking in her opposition to this reasonable suggestion from the family owned business that employs war veterans. It sure is easier to counter an argument that you don’t even acknowledge. All we know is that Palsky was supported by someone from Trenton, which brings us to the next problem.

Cridge attacks this man from Trenton without telling us a thing about what he said or who he is beyond being from Trenton. This is a circumstantial ad hominem. Cridge attacks the man’s residence rather than his argument. What matters is that Palsky, aided by an outsider, voted against only one change order, the one put forward by this family business run by Pennsbury graduates.

This brings us to the last problem. Cridge tells us several times that Palsky has only voted against this one change order. That of course, is not a reason why she is wrong. Maybe this was the only problematic one. Since we know nothing about the others, it is hard to reach much of a conclusion as to what Palsky’s votes on those change orders mean for this one.

The conclusion of my argument is as simple and straightforward as Cridge’s conclusion. The only difference is that he provides real support for mine. What Cridge has here is a conclusion without any logical support. Rather than proving his argument by utilizing reason and logic, he falls back on pity, anger, and ad hominem attacks. This is regrettable. It might even be reprehensible. It surely is plenty enough to disqualify Cridge as a representative of anyone who needs/deserves quality representation. It’s about all that Cridge manages to prove.