Entry 4_ Trinh Tuan Ngoc

Argument structures and fallacies

Item 1:

Continue reading

Entry4_Phi Thi Hong

Monday, November 22, 2011

Entry4_Phi Thi Hong

Item 1:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut2l87mUCBQ

Analysis:

Premise:          The woman uses Da Huong

                        The woman is happy

                       _________________________________                         

Conclusion:      All women using Da Huong are happy      

This argument is inductive invalid but weak

Item 2:

Tưởng tượng phong phú

Vài tuần sau khi một anh chàng được nhận vào làm việc, anh ta bị gọi lên phòng nhân sự.

– Thế này là thế nào? – viên quản lý hỏi – Tại sao khi nộp hồ sơ vào công ty, anh lại khai là anh có 5 năm kinh nghiệm? Bây giờ chúng tôi mới phát hiện ra anh chưa từng làm công việc này bao giờ.

Anh chàng trả lời:

– Ô hay, thưa ngài, thế chẳng phải là trong thông báo tuyển dụng, các ông đã nói là cần người có óc tưởng tượng phong phú là gì?
Source: http://cuoi.xitrum.net/danong/1191.html

Analysis:

  • Ø Argument 1

Premise: Anh chàng chưa từng làm công việc này

               Anh ta khai là có 5 năm kinh nghiệm

               ______________________________________

Conclusion: Anh ta có óc tưởng tượng phong phú

This argument is a valid one. It is sound argument.

  • Ø  Argument 2:

Premise: Anh ta có óc tưởng tượng phong phú

               Công ty cần người có óc tưởng tượng phong phú

              __________________________________________

Conclusion: Anh ta nên được nhận vào công ty

This argument is also very good valid.

Item 3:

Nghe lời mẹ

Một tay trẻ tuổi quay sang hôn cô gái không quen biết ngồi kế bên trên ghế đá trong công viên.

Chẳng thấy cô gái có phản ứng gì, anh ta bèn hôn cái nữa nhưng cô gái vẫn ngồi im. Ngạc nhiên quá, anh ta hỏi:

– Tại sao em lại im lặng, không phản ứng gì cả?

– Là bởi vì mẹ tôi luôn dặn: “Chớ có bao giờ trò chuyện với những người đàn ông không quen biết”.

– !!!

Source: http://cuoi.xitrum.net/danong/2059.html

Analysis:

Premise: Mẹ cô gái dặn : “Chớ có bao giờ trò chuyện với những người đàn ông không quen biết”

               Cô gái nghe lời mẹ

               Chàng trai không quen cô gái

              _________________________________________________________

Conclusion: Cô gái không nói chuyện với chàng trai

This deductive argument is good one because when all its premises are true, its conclusion must be true.

 

 

 

 

 

ENTRY no.4_TRAN THI LE HUYEN @_^

                                                            ENTRY no4

                                         Argument Structures and Fallacies

ITEM 1:

Source:

uống trà Vfresh atiso giống như SiuBlack nhẹ tựa lông hồng ”

Analysis:

–Fallacy of structure:

       + fallacy of denying the antecedent:

               ” Nếu uống trà Vfresh atiso như SiuBlack, sau đó mình sẽ nhẹ nhu long hồng

Không uống trà Vfresh atiso

–> Do đó sẽ không có cảm giác nhẹ như lông hồng ”

 Fallacy type:  If A, then B

                          Not A

                   –> Therefore, Not B

==> Drinking Vfresh only is necessary condition but is not sufficient condition to have  a  fresh and light body.

–Fallacy of content:

      + fallacy of relevance –> appeal to authority

 The opinion of SiuBlack, a famous person is supported to guarantee the truth of the conclusion about good quality of product. SiuBlack is a famous singer so she can have good advices on music but it doesn’t mean that she also gives good advices  on nutrition. Even in the area where they have excellent knowledge or skills, experts or famous persons also can be mistaken, so we can accept their idea as an extra evidence but not complete truth for a conclusion. An individual cannot represent the truth.

ITEM 2:

In a school debate, Bill claims that the President’s economic plan is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying “the freshman has his facts wrong.”

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

Analysis:

–Fallacy of structure:

In the debate, the professor gaven the statement ” the freshman has his facts wrong ” to refuse Bill’s claim. Structure is that:

+Premise 1:                 the freshman has his facts wrong

+Hidden premise 2: Bill is the freshman

………………………………………………………………….

Hidden conclusion: Bill has his facts wrong –> Bill’s claim is unreliable

The professor had a weak hidden conclusion because the premise 1 is not completely true.

This is invalidity –> invalid weak argument

Fallacy of content:

+ fallacy of relevance: personal attack

The statement  ” the freshman has his facts wrong ” is fallacious. The professor rejected Bill’s claim only because Bill is his opponent but not base on any merits of the claim itself. The attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

       +fallacy of presumption : hasty genneralization

It is in the content of the claim ” the freshman has his facts wrong “. Not all of persons who are freshman have their facts wrong. This presumption is given without any evidence to prove.

ITEM 3:

 

 
 

 

Source: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/08/rewriting-history/

Analysis:

Fallacy of content: fallacy of ambiguity

The statements are given with very unclear meaning without any evidences and make readers much embarrassed to misunderstand.

” War  is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength ”

fallacy of a worthless argument: because it is not able to say that ”War is Peace, ……..”

 

 

 

 

 

 

entry 4_nguyenthithuy16061990

ARGUMENT STRUCTURES AND FALLACIES

Item 1: Quảng cáo bột giặt Omo

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPKkTxcZn7A

– Error argument:
1, Structural fallacies (deny the antecedent)

If the young use Omo to wash their clothes (A), then both their clothes are white and they become more attractive to everyone, especially is love. (B)

Therefore, if not A, then not B
2, Content fallacies (hasty generalization)
– Analyze: Actually, the young are attracting to others by many other factors, without using Omo. Moreover, using Omo to wash clothes is not factor to succeed in dating, because there are many people are using Omo but they are still failed in dating and love.  

–> Deductively invalid and relevant  weak argument.

Item 2: Penguin Logic Cartoon!!

Source: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/1807043-penguin-logic-cartoon

 

1, Structure Fallacies ( Reasoning a chain with some)

Some S are P

Some P are Q

Therefore, some S are Q

 2, Content fallacy:  (Falacies of presumption)

Analyze:

Penguins (S) are black and white (P)

Some old TV shows (Q) are black and white (P)

Therefore, some penguins (S) are old TV shows (Q)

–>  invalid weak argument and invalid conclusion.

 

Item 3:

Source: http://www.tin247.com/ho_hoai_anh_bi_nghi_ngo_dao_nhac-8-21244495.html

 

Vừa tung Lưu Hương Giang vol.2 “Cải Bắp” chưa được 1 tuần, chủ nhân của những ca khúc rock trong album – nhạc sĩ Hồ Hoài Anh – không khỏi bất ngờ khi biết bài “Tạm biệt” của mình bị các diễn đàn trên mạng nghi ngờ “đạo nhạc”. “Không thể có chuyện này”, chàng nhạc sĩ nói chắc như đinh đóng cột.

“Nghi án” này đang được bàn luận khá sôi nổi trên một blog. Tại đó, các blogger phân tích sự giống nhau giữa 4ever của cặp song sinh nữ The Veronicas và Tạm biệt do Lưu Hương Giang thể hiện: “Đoạn mở đầu của cả hai bài hát có vẻ đều đều. Ngay cả chuyển đoạn cũng khá giống nhau và lời tiếp theo cũng trùng về tiết tấu. Điệp khúc thực sự giống. Lưu Hương Giang ‘yeah yeah’ khá giống The Veronicas, thậm chí cô ca sĩ Sao Mai – Điểm hẹn thể hiện còn có phần hấp dẫn hơn”.”

Analyze: Bloggers only show a few details that( Đoạn mở đầu của cả hai bài hát có vẻ đều đều. Chuyển đoạn cũng khá giống nhau và lời tiếp theo cũng trùng về tiết tấu. Điệp khúc thực sự giống. Lưu Hương Giang ‘yeah yeah’ khá giống The Veronicas, thậm chí cô ca sĩ Sao Mai – Điểm hẹn thể hiện còn có phần hấp dẫn hơn”) they might blaim Ho Hoai Anh musician on plagiarizing music of other.

–> Hasty generalization

 

Entry 4_Nguyễn Thị Kiều Linh

Item 1: Structural Fallacies

-Type:

Structural Fallacy: deny the antecedent (If A, then B. Not A, then not B)

-Analyse:

If your children use Kideye, then they’ll not be short-sighted people.

If your children do not Kideye, then they will become  short-sighted people.

Actually, children are short-sighted by many other factors, probably without eating Kidney. The fact that many children in Vietnam have good eyes without using this product.

Item 2:

Bill: “I don’t think it is a good idea to cut social programs.”
Jill: “Why not?”
Bill: “Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly eas . Others yare born into poverty and…”
Jill: “You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head.”

Fallacy of structure:

Structure of this argument  is that:

+Premise 1:some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy

+Premise 2:some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy

+Premise 3:Others are born into poverty and ( need nothing)

+ Hidden Premise :  Social program is for those who really need help

Conclusion: cut social programs

This is an invalid weak argument

Fallacy of content:

+ fallacy of relevance: personal attack

 +fallacy of presumption : hasty genneralization

Item 3:

Source: http://www.saokim.com.vn/images/gallery/chuo-i-cu-a-ha-ng-pappa-roti0_1285139639.jpg

Content Fallacy: Fallacy of Relevance (the considerations they offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determine whether that conclusion is true or not)

– Analyze:

The ad uses the image of many people: a young couple who is students. However, the fact that they are  irrelevant to determine whether this kind of cake is good or not and it is not sure that those people eat  Papa Roti.In conclusion,  this ad is an irrelevant appeal.

Nguyen Thi Hong Nhung- Entry 4

ARGUMENT STRUCTURES AND FALLACIES

Item 1:

I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am.  – Joseph Baretti, quoted by James Boswell, 1766, commonly misattributed to Samuel Johnson

Source: http://www.quotegarden.com/integrity.html

– Structural Fallacy: Fallacies of  presumption ( reasoning in a chain with some)

– Analyze:

I am involved in  mankind

I am bad

Therefore The  mankind are bad

Joseph Baretti is wrong in his conclusion that  the whole mankind are bad just because he is one of them and he is bad.  Actually, not everyone is bad. The human being are full of kindness and every year a lot of people do charity.

Hasty generalization: What’s true for a member is true for the whole group

 

 

Item 2:

Không có hoa hồng, không có tinh yêu.

Không có người mẹ không có anh hùng

Source: http://preciousthin9s.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html

– Content Fallacy: Fallacies of relevance

– Analyze: 

Weak analogy

Item 3:

Source:  http://www.demotivation.us/logic-1258450.html

– Content fallacy:  Falacies of presumption ( reasoning in a chain with some)

– Analyze: 

Penguins are black and white

Some old TV shows are black and white

Therefore, some penguins are old TV shows

This is an weak invalid argument. The conclusion is wrong definitely.

 

 

ARGUMENT STRUCTURES AND FALLACIES

Item 1:

I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am.  – Joseph Baretti, quoted by James Boswell, 1766, commonly misattributed to Samuel Johnson

Source: http://www.quotegarden.com/integrity.html

– Structural Fallacy: Fallacies of  presumption ( reasoning in a chain with some)

– Analyze:

I am involved in  mankind

I am bad

Therefore The  mankind are bad

Joseph Baretti is wrong in his conclusion that  the whole mankind are bad just because he is one of them and he is bad.  Actually, not everyone is bad. The human being are full of kindness and every year a lot of people do charity.

Hasty generalization: What’s true for a member is true for the whole group

 

Item 2:

Không có hoa hồng, không có tinh yêu.

Không có người mẹ không có anh hùng

Source: http://preciousthin9s.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html

– Content Fallacy: Fallacies of relevance

– Analyze: 

Weak analogy

Item 3:

Source:  http://www.demotivation.us/logic-1258450.html

– Content fallacy:  Falacies of presumption ( reasoning in a chain with some)

– Analyze: 

Penguins are black and white

Some old TV shows are black and white

Therefore, some penguins are old TV shows

This is an weak invalid argument. The conclusion is wrong definitely.

 

Entry no 4 _ Dang Thu Phuong

ARGUMENTS

ITEM 1

“Live Free or Die” 

– Source: http://my.opera.com/trananhtuan/blog/show.dml/1704999

– Content fallacies: Fallacies of presumption: the argument lacks premises.

– False dilemma: In the premise, there only two choice: live free – die. In fact, we have more options.

Continue reading

Entry No.4 _ KimThuThuThao

Item 1

(1) Most people believe in a god or ‘higher power’.
Therefore:
(2) God, or at least a higher power, must exist.

This argument is an appeal to popularity because it suggests that God must exist based solely on the popularity of belief in God. An atheist could, however, accept the premise of this argument (the claim that belief in God is widespread) but reject its conclusion without inconsistency.

Continue reading

Entry No.4 _ Nguyen Thi Xuan

Entry No.4 _ Nguyen Thi Xuan Continue reading