Source:
Argument structure
Premise 1: younger-looking eyes never go out of fashion
Premise 2: olay products make you have younger -looking eyes
Conclusion => if you do not use Olay, you will be out of fashion!
Analyses: The fact that, Olay products make woman become more beatiful, this can be true! however, it is not sure to claim SO is fashionable or not by their younger- looking eyes!
This is: inductive arguement!
Item 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5HW3xgWGLs&feature=related
Premise 1: The man in romano ads is cool
Premise 2: He used Romano
=> If man want to look cool, they have to use Romano because Romano make him stay cool.
Analyses: Actually, Romano is not the only method make the man in the ads stay cool, so we can sure about that. It depends!
Therefore: This is inductive argument too.
Penguins are black and white
Some old Tv shows are black and white
=> Some penguins are Tv shows
Analyses: This argument is definitely wrong. because Tv shows and penguins doesnot belong to the same group of objects which is relevant to each other. They just belongs to the group of objects which is black and white.
Invalid inductive
CT11E12 
I think your conclusion in the argument structure is problematic Personally I find that the producer doesn’t mean that if you do not use Olay, you will be out of fashion. Instead, he/ she just wants to convince women to buy the product because Olay has the ability to make you look young or whatever.
You should reconsider this.
Hello Hang,
Firstly, I agree with Trinh’s opinion in terms of item 1.
Secondly, you should reconsider some minor grammar mistakes such as:
– If man want to look cool ==> If man wants to look cool
– Romano make him stay cool==> Romano makes him stay cool
– because Tv shows and penguins doesnot belong to the same group of objects ==> because TV shows and penguins do not belong to…
– They just belongs to the group of objects which is black and white.==> They just belong to the group of objects…..
Thirdly, I think you should consider other kinds of argument, not only inductive one.
Finally, I think item 2 is ok. However, you had a contradiction when worte that ” because Tv shows and penguins doesnot belong to the same group of objects which is relevant to each other. They just belongs to the group of objects which is black and white.”
===> you should reconsider this.
Goodluck!
Thanks!
Hey Hang !
I also want to draw some ideas to your entry.
In item 1: I think your analysis also is not completely wrong but to my mind, I will analyze that:
Olay makes younger-looking eyes
Younger-looking eyes never go out of fashion
She uses Olay
–>Her eyes become younger-looking and never go out of fashion when using Olay
–> If you use Olay , you also will have such eyes like her
All premise may be right but conclusion isnot completely right. Because it can be right with her but not right at all with others. That seems to have error in the inference and a conclusion without strong enough.
Moreover, it also has content fallacy with lack premise because it’s only necessary condition but not sufficient condition for all women
In item 2: your analysis seems to be a little hasty and not enough yet. I think you should consider it more detailed. It may be right that He becomes cool when using Romano but not all men using Romano will look cool or they will become cool but not like that.
In item 3:You also need point out what fallacy of structure is and analyze more carefully. In my opinion, it has content fallacy about fallacy of ambiguity. Here it use imprecise language to support its conclusion. Having the difference between the black and white of penguins and of some old TV shows because one is the color of feather and one is the color of kind of TV show. It takes advantage of the similarity about languge to draw wrong conclusion and make everyone embarrass.
That’s my some own analyses. Hope it is worth for you to see. Hehe!