Appendix B - Logic Check Experiment: Reddit CMV on Local vs National Politics

Table of Contents

Source

r/ChangeMyView CMV: Local politics is much more important to your daily life than national politics

🔍 Prompt (used in all three cases)

Identify any flawed reasoning and explain why:

(comment text)

Case 1

💬 Comment

Would you say the difference between two different towns of the same size in your state is more or less significant than the difference between your town and the most similar Canadian analog? Because it seems to me that one town’s very like another when your head’s down over your pieces, brother whereas countries are much more strongly different from one another. Because national politics really varies much more sharply. In theory local politics could vary more sharply but in practice it doesn’t because towns and cities mostly just copy one another and if they do try to do crazy stuff people move away.

🤖 GPT Response

This passage contains several instances of flawed reasoning, particularly in terms of overgeneralization, false equivalence, and unsupported assumptions. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Overgeneralization:

“Towns and cities mostly just copy one another…”

  • This is an overgeneralization. While towns may adopt similar policies due to shared challenges, many diverge meaningfully in leadership, culture, and priorities.

2. False Dichotomy / False Equivalence:

“One town’s very like another… whereas countries are much more strongly different…”

  • The comparison oversimplifies. Some Canadian towns may resemble American towns more than other American towns do.

3. Unsupported Causal Claim:

“…if they do try to do crazy stuff people move away.”

  • People move for many reasons; the claim assumes too direct a relationship between local policy and migration.

4. Appeal to Subjective Experience:

“…when your head’s down over your pieces, brother…”

  • Rhetorically colorful, but relies on personal sentiment rather than logic or data.

Conclusion: The reasoning overstates national variation and downplays meaningful local differences through generalizations and untested assumptions.

Case 2

💬 Comment

Local politics define if there’s some bollards or speed bumps on my street. National politics decide if I have healthcare, how much I pay for university and if I can buy a house someday or not.

🤖 GPT Response

💡

The statement draws a reasonable contrast but contains oversimplifications and false dichotomy. Key issues include:

1. False Dichotomy / Oversimplification:

  • It implies only federal politics matter for big issues. In fact:
  • Housing affordability is heavily influenced by local zoning.
  • University costs often depend on state funding.
  • Healthcare access is shaped by both federal and state policy.

2. Implied Value Judgment:

  • It subtly dismisses local politics as trivial (“speed bumps”), ignoring important local functions like schooling, transit, and public safety.

3. Selective Framing:

  • The examples cherry-pick federal power while ignoring where local control is dominant.

Conclusion: While the federal government shapes many broad systems, the argument overstates its exclusivity and underrepresents local impact on life outcomes.

Case 3

💬 Comment

No one’s ever been drafted by their state or county government. Federal taxes are much higher than local. Teaching to the test is exacerbated by W’s No Child Left Behind bill. Many local road projects are majority funded by federal funds, even more so for highways. Almost everyone will come to depend on Medicare and Social Security at some point in their lives.

🤖 GPT Response

The comment builds a case for federal dominance in influence, but relies on selective evidence, scope neglect, and equivocation.

1. Cherry-Picking:

  • It highlights federal powers (e.g., draft, taxes, entitlements) while ignoring where state/local governments are deeply consequential (e.g., police, schools, housing).

2. Scope Neglect:

“Federal taxes are much higher…”

  • Often true, but ignores that local taxes fund vital, visible services (schools, water, fire).

3. Oversimplification:

“Teaching to the test is exacerbated by No Child Left Behind…”

  • True to an extent, but the law was interpreted and implemented differently by each state, and local schools determined how to meet test mandates.

4. Equivocation on ‘importance’:

  • It conflates scale of policy with impact on daily life. For many, local decisions (e.g., crime, housing, school quality) are just as impactful as national ones.

Conclusion: The argument rests on a one-sided portrayal of federal authority, minimizing the real power and variability of local governance.