The phrase, “loose lips sink ships,” was coined during World War II when it appeared on propaganda posters to warn civilians that leaking any kind of important information to the enemy could in fact result in danger for the soldiers. (Martin) This slogan can be classified as a faulty casualty. The slogan stated that because of “loose lips” citizens could be responsible for “sunken ships,” when in reality, most of the general public were probably never in direct contact with the enemy. The claimed outcome was highly unlikely when considering the first statement. What the propaganda was meant for, was to create hatred for the enemy and build up nationalization. I think for what the phrase was truly meant for, it was a success, however, the phrase itself, if taken literally, was a failure and definitely a fallacy.

“Remember the Alamo" is a non sequitur fallacy in today’s society. Originally, the phrase was used as a battle cry during the “massacres by Mexican forces at the Alamo in San Antonio.” (Answers) I believe the original rendition of the slogan was completely relevant to its said situation, but today, people use the phrase as a way to convey strength and honor in essentially any situation. In this case the slogan can be a non sequitur fallacy because the original claim usually has no correlation to what a person may be talking about. People like to use the slogan simply because it can add power to a statement, therefore making it a fallacy and unsuccessful in its purpose.

“Guns don’t kill people, people do,” is a slogan from the National Rifle Association. (Lunsford) This statement is recognized as an equivocation fallacy due to the fact that it can be seen as a half-truth. Yes, guns kill people, and yes, people kill people, but is one the result of the other? It is questionable. The NRA uses this slogan to give themselves a good image by claiming that it is not their weapons that kill people when in reality, if the weapons were illegal, there could be less deaths. Some people, however, find truth in the slogan, therefore making it a successful fallacy.

During his election, Hoover used the faulty analogy, “a chicken in every pot,” as an advertisement for his campaign. (Wikitionary) He used the saying to guarantee an impossible thing. Society has never been able to end hunger, but he used the relatable analogy so people could easily identify with his goal. A chicken in every pot may never be an attainable goal but I think the fallacy was successful in convincing people of Hoover’s plan during the depression.