Usually, such an appeal is not made openly or obviously

a couple of causes are multiplied into many (exaggeration)

Although it is true that an explanation should be no more complicated than necessary, one must be very careful not to construct an explanation which is less complicated than necessary

assumes

can be attributed to a single cause

A myriad of other factors in society are completely ignored, as if the social and economic conditions haven't changed in any relevant way.

there is a wide variety of different factors which can influence the morality of individuals and groups

the sole or even primary cause

A common reason for oversimplification, especially in the political realm, is a personal agenda

taking credit

placing blame

The logical problem here is the dismissal of all the other factors which contribute

causal factors which contribute

often ignored by those who oversimplify the situation

its error lies in vastly oversimplifying

to the point where it becomes unrecognizable.

not the only process which is involved

a one-dimension theory which cannot possibly be true

portray

an identifiable effect

the support offered is completely inadequate to the task of supporting them

independently evaluate the data which they have used

Here we don’t even know if the so-called “experts” are qualified authorities in the fields in question — and that is in addition to not knowing who they are so we can check the data and conclusions.

check for ourselves

a good basis for their position

The insult comes in via the implication

who reject the above are automatically excluded from consideration

who is this “they” who says so?

evaluate the claim

vacuous

vague

When “they” say things, that is just a rumor — it might be true, or it might not be. We cannot accept it as true, however, without evidence

find that evidence when asked

an anonymous authority isn’t sufficient to get us to believe the claims in question

provide more substantive support

men and women have to be socialized to accept such things

America, which is the most religious nation in the industrialized West, not only has higher rates of crime than less religious nations, but also has the highest rates of social dysfunction on every measurable scale

areas with the highest rates of religiosity have the highest rates of crime and social dysfunction

prudential reasons

when two terms are contradictories, the falsehood of one necessarily implies the truth of the other

assumes

some sort of ambiguity is introduced either in the premises or in the conclusion

an apparently false idea can be made to appear true so long as the reader does not notice the problematic definitions

make use of premises which are logically irrelevant to the final conclusion

the premises already assume what they are supposed to prove

These assumptions are just as questionable as the point under contention

it is quite possible that the unexplained images have ordinary causes that scientific investigators have failed to discover

not very coherent

does not really "explain" anything

to someone already inclined to believe it, it certainly looks valid

has no testable consequences

the "explanation" offered is only expected to apply to the one instance in question

it contradicts some other basic assumption

the "explanation" has no testable consequences

the "explanation" offered above provides us with nothing to test

failed to provide a better understanding of the circumstances

a defective explanation

most ad hoc rationalizations do not really "explain" anything at all

the above rationalization makes the situation less understandable and less coherent

At no point is any substantive argument being offered

vague circumstances are hinted at