Arena argument full of fallacies

Phil Tank's opinion piece on Saskatoon's proposed arena district falls prey to several logical fallacies, weakening his argument.

He asserts a false dilemma by framing the choice as either extravagantly renovating Sasktel Centre or building a new downtown arena, neglecting other potentially better options that balance cost, community benefits and functionality. His appeal to authority, by relying on the Sasktel Centre CEO for cost projections, ignores the need for a wide-ranging analysis, sidelining independent assessments and varied viewpoints that could provide a fuller financial picture.

Tank's argument is further diminished by a bandwagon fallacy, suggesting that since the council approved the project and there's little public outcry, it must be the right decision. This overlooks the importance of engaging the entire community in discussions about significant financial commitments.

By labelling renovation proponents' arguments as simplistic (straw man), he fails to engage seriously with their concerns, disrespecting the democratic process. Comparing the renovation's costs to more expensive projects (appeal to worse problems), he trivializes valid concerns about fiscal responsibility.

Accusing opponents of laziness or apathy (ad hominem) shuts down open debate, essential for public decision-making.

Assuming limited opposition equates to widespread agreement (hasty generalisation) ignores the diversity of community opinion, which cannot be gauged merely by committee feedback.

An informed decision on the arena must be free from fallacies, embracing thorough, transparent analysis that allows for prioritization of Saskatoon's long-term interests. Citizens deserve a vote on such a massive tax burden.

Jeff Phillips, Saskatoon