Item 1:

Source: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news

There are 2 fallacies of hasty generalization:
1.
The manager does not have authority to approve anything important
He does have authority to reject things

He have authority to reject all things
Analyze: unsound deductive valid: Having authority to reject things does not mean that having authority to reject all things.
2.
If the manager does not reject approvals  nothing for him to do  he will get fired  he might never get another job  he could starved to death.
Conclusion: if the manager does not reject approvals, he could starved to death
Analyze: Slippery slope: the manager uses insufficient premises when there’ s only nothing for him to do doesn’t go along with the incident of being fired (false premise). One by one results in final false premises.

Item 2:
Penguin Logic Cartoon

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

Argument error: Structure Fallacies – Reasoning a chain with some:
S(Penguins) are P(black and white).
Some Q(old TV show) are P(black and white).
_____________________________________________________
Therefore, some S(penguins) are Q(old TV show)

Item 3:
“Tôi cho là rất bình thường, có khác gì cắt giảm điện 1 khu phố: Hôm nay cắt bên số chẵn, mai cắt bên số lẻ. Ai cũng thấy hợp lý và phải chấp nhận. Với biển số xe càng phải thế: thành phố chắc chắn giảm được 50% số xe vào nội thành. Cứ đợi đồng thuận thì chẳng làm được gì, cũng như việc đội mũ bảo hiểm ngày nào.”
Source: http://dantri.com.vn/c728/s728-473324/nguoi-dan-van-phan-ung-voi-y-tuong-chan-le.htm
Thực hiện thành công việc cắt giảm điện giảm điện 1 khu phố: Hôm nay cắt bên số chẵn, mai cắt bên số lẻ
Thực hiện thành công việc bắt buộc đội mũ bảo hiểm

Việc thực hiện biển số xe chẵn lẻ sẽ thành công và thành phố chắc chắn giảm được 50% số xe vào nội thành.
Type of Fallacy: Fallacy of relevance – Weak analogy
Although two premises are true, the conclusion is false because cutting power, wearing helmet and banning car are three different things. Therefore, the successful implementation of the two things does not mean that the other will be successful too.

3 responses »

  1. phithihong says:

    Hi Thu, Your entry really impressed me. However, i want to add something in item 3. I think its argument is inductive invalid but weak. It is myself opinion. I hope you will make your entry perfect. Good luck to you!!!

  2. Hi Thu, I see your analyses are good. However, I only have comment for the way you show your items, especially images. In item 1, I cannot see images and read the dialogue on it. In item 3, it is quite difficult to see clearly. Therefore, you should mind that to make your entry perfect.🙂

  3. hi, Hồng, thanks for your cmt, i think you have something wrong here, there is not inductive invalid, that may be deductive invalid, inductively weak.🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s