a).    In supporting the argument, the proponent uses three logical fallacies: ad populum, begs the question and hasty generalizations.

Ad populum fallacy is used, and the intention is to make the audience believe that the argument is correct, simply because most people believe in it. According to the author, leadership is influential. It also seems to dispute that the fact that a leader has the capacity or the potential to influence others instead focuses on the significance of situations. However, in every case leadership is important. I believe that real causes of ineffective and effective leadership reside in the existing structural features and not on the people’s characteristics. The leaders’ traits are a reflection of the mechanisms under which they selected (Almossawi & Giraldo, 2014).

The author also begs the question. The author’s conclusion and premise talk about the same thing.  For example, situations are a reflection of leadership. The author fails to appreciate that mechanisms are not usually reflected in a given environment. The situations constrain the leaders’ behavior. Therefore, it is true that situations shape the leader’s behavior. For example, most orchestra conductors, army generals, and soccer coaches are receipts for adulation for blame and success; successful performance is from coordination of the rest of the team members.

The proponent applies hasty generalizations in the argument. The proponent uses just one example to support the argument leading to a sweeping generalization. For example, the only used example is from the cycling group. The author fails to use open systems, including large firms and corporations, goal attainment is impacted upon by the competitors’ actions, enactment of new laws, and change in interest rates, new technologies and currency fluctuations. The mentioned factors might have effects on the existing situations, and this can change leadership types. However, situations do not entirely influence leadership, and that is a pure fallacy that should be addressed (Almossawi & Giraldo, 2014).

Environment affects people and leaders are not exceptional. The leadership field identifies the individual differences. The leaders’ actions should be modified in a way that they meet the situations demand, and situations should not be used to measure the effectiveness of leadership.  For example, a leadership style that is deemed right for a particular situation might be wrong for another one. The above argument does not address the aspect of leadership style.

b).     Ad populum, begs the question and hasty generalizations have different implications within the workplace.

In the workplace, if something is allowed to happen, then there are a series of related consequences. Discriminatory leadership is a relevant element in the workplace. When someone does generalizations about on leadership category, then it is called discrimination act. People can be discriminated on the basis of sex, age or gender.  A leader can be discriminated because she is a woman. Some firms also fail to hire women past on the past occurrences. Therefore, companies can make hasty generalizations on the same, and this might be dangerous. The discrimination affects both the employer and employee negatively.  Regarding beg the question fallacy, a leader can focus on making the same premise and conclusion. This denies the employees to participate in the decision-making process actively. Lastly, the ad populum can make the employees that the decisions undertaken by the leaders are correct even though they might affect the entire organization negatively (Almossawi & Giraldo, 2014).

The person used the tactics so emphasize the point that situations dictate the kind of leadership that organizations adapt.

c) The person making the argument could have avoided making the mentioned fallacies. On the hasty generalizations, the proponent could have used more examples and data to support the claim. On begs the question fallacy, the proponent could have considered exploring different premises before reaching a conclusion on the issue. The author could have avoided using the ad populum fallacy completely. He could have used facts and statistics to convince the audience.

References

Almossawi, A., & Giraldo, A. (2014). An illustrated book of bad arguments. Oxford: Oxford        University.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?