Critique of Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine”

603 Words2 Pages

Michael Moore’s documentary, “Bowling for Columbine,” attempts to expose the truth of gun violence in the United States of America. While his argument is persuasive, its impact is lessened with his use of logical fallacies, such as hasty generalization, post hoc, and appeal to doubtful authority. Moore’s film is thrillingly entertaining, but it is hard to look past the gaping holes in some of his logic. The documentary format obviously does not allow every person in the population to speak or give his or her opinion, but Moore has a few select people to speak about gun control, and lets the viewer assume that is what most others of that population believe. This use of hasty generalization is a bit difficult to notice whilst watching the film, but once the documentary is over, the viewer may start to realize that the opinions presented in the film may simply not be the general consensus. For example, Moore interviews a small group of teenagers near a fast-food restaurant and asks them if they believe Canada is a less violent country than the United States. Simply because of this segm...

Open Document