ITEM 1.

http://rhetoricperiodseven.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html

 –> Deductive valid

Analysis: All Monkeys like bananas, and Lucy is a monkey. Therefore, Lucy likes bananas. The word “ALL”  in the premise is correct and proved. Lucy just is one monkey of this group, so he also likes bananas. The conclusion must be true and thus valid.


ITEM 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

  1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
  2. Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.
  3. Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.

–> This is a fallacy of equivocation.

Analysis: The premise A hamburger is better than nothing does not provide anything to this argument. This fact really means that “Eating a hamburger is better than eating nothing at all”

 

ITEM 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

 

I always hang pictures on nails.

Therefore:

All pictures hang from nails.

–> Weak Induction

Analysis: The link between the premise and the conclusion is very weak. Not all pictures are hung from nails; moreover, not all pictures are hung. Therefore, this argument is an instance of weak induction.


8 responses »

  1. Hi Mo! I think you analyzed exactly in item 1 and item 2, but in item 3, I think you should analyze more clearly. In my opinion, there is a premise hidden in item 3. Moreover, it is the structure fallacy. Hopefully, you will check it again to make it better. ^ ^
    Anyway, I like your entry, it is quite good.

  2. phamthingan says:

    I like your item 1 most. it is really interesting and easy to understand. I agree with Huyen that you should analyze more clearly in item 3. Actually, I wonder that in item 2, the second premise is invalid, so I can not understand it. can you make it more clear? tks and gluck:x:x

    • vuthimo says:

      Thank Ngan,
      The second premise say that “eating a hamburger is better than nothing”. “Nothing” here means “eating nothing”. So people misunderstand “nothing” in the second premise with “nothing” in the first one. Actually, two “Nothing” in two premises do not have any relationship at all, so they are invalid.

  3. Actually, I can see that you did not make an afford to complete this entry no.4. Also, I think that three items you should give more details. The final thing is, you should not take examples from the websites in which the fallacies in the arguments have been identified.
    Goodluck!

    • vuthimo says:

      Oh, thank Huyen for your comment.
      It is so ridiculous of you to say I did not make an “afford” in entry 4. Actually, I took time to do it and I am not so fool that I have to “make any afford” to do this. Let me ask you a question “You did not take any of your item in websites, did you?” . I took them from websites, is this wrong? I tried to find out something interesting to share with others and absolutely, I understood them, which is enough for me and for anybody who read my entry. And finally, I took much “effort” to finish this entry with the “references” given so that everybody can get these websites for more information. Anyway, thanks

  4. VuhaThanhLuan says:

    Hi Mo,
    Actually, all items you have are simple, but qualified for critical thinking in arguments, especially I like item 1 most, so lovely. However, in your item 3, i would like you express your ideas more clearly in your way to make sure that you are understandable.
    In generally, you succeeded in your entry no.4. thanks

  5. vuthimo says:

    Thank Luan so much for your suggestion
    I will explain the third item again.

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