Phil, a visitor to this blog with an interest in fallacy-hunting emailed me to alert us to an article by Greg Sheridan in the Australian newspaper. The article, is an opinion-piece on the Australian Wheat Board controversy, and it includes the following paragraph:The basic argument seems to be a non-sequitur. The oil-for-food program was corrupt. Australian companies were involved in the oil-for-food program. Therefore the Government must have known that Australian companies were behaving corruptly. It would be a very bad day if the Government operated on the basis that our companies were assumed to be corrupt. The Government is entitled to assume that companies are behaving OK and it should help them.
Sheridan is putting up a Straw Man argument in order to knock it down. The proper role of the media and opposition politicians is to question government in order to find out whether or not "the Government must have known that Australian companies were behaving corruptly". There is also no suggestion from critics of the Government that the Government should have "operated on the basis that our companies were assumed to be corrupt". (my emphasis)
The actual argument is to what degree the Government should have scrutinized the operations of such companies - not that the Government should or should not have assumed the companies were corrupt.
