Reign and logical fallacies

“Reign” is a Netflix series that I watch whenever I have free time it follows the story of a young queen Mary queen of Scotts and how she uses her skills to further strengthen the relationship between Scotland and France as well as protecting her interests back home as queen of Scottland. After watching “Reign”, there were a multitude of logical fallacies that stuck out like a sore thumb. In a scene where they king and queen are in court, Mary can be witnessed using the Hasty generalization, Ad hominem and the sweeping generalization fallacy. When in the court room, Mary attacks the peasant, testifier, accusing him of murder without any evidence. Mary based it off speculation. “You tore a community apart, you tore families apart, you destroyed lives because of your desire of my throne, admit that you killed…” is a statement made by Mary that helps represents a Hasty generalization and because King Francis and Mary are not to kind of each other, Mary attacks him with things different from the case, representing the Ad hominem fallacy. Mary came up with a conclusion without any evidence, but off emotions. Prior to the court room scene, Mary admits that the court of France is her court and that right now the court isn’t acting in her best interest. “The statement she made is a sweeping generalization because the court system does not only reward those with power and punish those that tell the truth. Because this show is based upon unsubstantial and substantial evidence, accusations, and emotions, Hasty and sweeping generalizations are common throughout.