I ran the FTC’s press release (about blocking the Kroger-Albertsons merger) through the credAIble.com analysis, which found three significant logical fallacies: “False Cause, Slippery Slope, and Appeal to Emotion.”
The text presents a forceful argument against the Kroger-Albertsons merger, emphasizing its potential anticompetitive outcomes. It leans on the logical fallacy of False Cause by directly attributing potential price increases and quality reductions to the merger without acknowledging the complex dynamics of market competition and external factors. The Slippery Slope fallacy is employed by suggesting that the merger will lead to a cascade of negative effects for consumers and workers without considering possible mitigating factors or regulatory measures. An Appeal to Emotion is evident in the depiction of worsening conditions for workers and consumers, aiming to elicit a strong emotional response that may overshadow an objective analysis of the situation. The argument, while raising valid concerns, tends to simplify the complexities of antitrust issues and the potential benefits of corporate restructuring.
I’m instinctively skeptical when the federal government blocks mergers, but open to reason. Even so, the aggressive case made this week by the Federal Trade Commission suing to halt the merger of grocery companies Kroger and Albertsons caught me by surprise. Kroger announced that it would acquire Albertsons for $24.6 billion in October 2022. News coverage has been widespread. What frustrates me is how rare it is for news outlets to link to the FTC source, but was able to find it myself on the FTC website. You can find that link, and more links to other articles, at the credaible.com website.
The analysis is interesting, but ultimately a lawsuit isn't grounded totally in logic and won't succeed if it attempts to create arguments grounded totally in logic. Maintaining support and sponsorship for the political and policy platforms it seeks partially to vindicate by bringing the lawsuit is, of course, one of the FTC's objectives. So it will definitely invoke illogic. I'm only surprised more fallacies weren't triggered.
Legally, what will matter is (a) whether FTC can prove each element of the case it is arguing using factual evidence, and (b) whether there are valid counter-arguments which nullify or mitigate one of more of those elements. It needn't be logical in doing so. In fact, I might argue that litigation has both its own grammar and its own (perverse) logic. (H/T Clausewitz).
Pretending the absence of perfect logic impairs an argument is itself a logical fallacy, it seems to me. Maybe we need to codify and label it as "Appeal to Impossibly Perfect Logic in Human Activity."