Michael Moore's documentary, 'Bowling for Columbine', attempts to expose the truth about gun violence in the United States of America. Although his argument is compelling, its impact is diminished by his use of logical fallacies, such as hasty generalization, post hoc, and appeal to questionable authority. Moore's film is incredibly entertaining, but it's hard to get past the gaping holes in some of its logic. The documentary format obviously doesn't allow every person in the population to speak or give their opinion, but Moore has a select few. to talk about gun control, and leaves the viewer to assume that this is what most other members of this population believe. This reliance on sweeping generalizations is a little difficult to notice while watching the film, but once the documentary is over, the viewer may begin to realize that the opinions presented in the film may simply not fit with the general consensus . For example, Moore interviews a small group of teenagers near a fast food restaurant and asks them if they think Canada is a less violent country than the United States. Simply because of this segment...