Entry No.4 _ Nguyen Thi Xuan



“When a woman loves you she’s not satisfied until she possesses your soul. Because she’s weak, she has a rage for domination, and nothing less will satisfy her. She has a small mind, and she resents the abstract which she is unable to grasp. She is occupied with material things, and she is jealous of the ideal. The soul of man wanders through the uttermost regions of the universe, and she seeks to imprison it in the circle of her account-book. Do you remember my wife? I saw Blanche little by little trying all her tricks. With infinite patience she prepared to snare me and bind me. She wanted to bring me down to her level; she cared nothing for me, she only wanted me to be hers. She was willing to do everything in the world for me except the one thing I wanted: to leave me alone.”

(p37 – Chapter 41- The moon and sixpence by William Somerset Maugham in English Literature CFL-VNU)

-> Structural fallacy: Arguing backwards with all

All S are P

a is P


Therefore a is P


Women are not satisfied untill they possesses you soul….has small mind…

My wife (Blanche) is a women

She prepared to snare me and blind me…. She was willing to do everything in the world for me except the one thing I wanted: to leave me alone


The first premise is false.




-> Structural fallacy: denying the antecedent

If A, then B

not A


Therefore not B


If you use New Rexonal Powder Dry, you can prevent wetness which slow you down

If you do not use New Rexona Powder Dry, you can not prevent wetness which slow you down

The fact is that we can prevent wetness by many other way without Rexona.


ITEM 3:Truyện “Thầy bói xem voi”

Nhân buổi ế hàng, năm ông thầy bói mù chuyện gẫu với nhau. Thầy nào cũng phàn nàn không biết hình thù con voi nó ra làm sao. Chợt nghe người ta nói có voi đi qua, năm người chung nhau tiền biểu người quản tượng xin cho con voi đứng lại để cùng xem.Thầy sờ vòi, thầy sờ ngà, thầy sờ tai, thầy sờ chân, thầy thì sờ đuôi.

Ðoạn năm thầy ngồi lại bàn tán với nhau.

Thầy sờ vòi bảo:

– Tưởng con voi nó thế nào, hóa ra nó dài như con đỉa!

Thầy sờ ngà bảo:

– Không phải, nó cứng như cái đòn càn chứ!

Thầy sờ tai bảo:

– Ðâu có! Nó to bè bè như cái quạt thôi!

Thầy sờ chân cãi lại:

– Ai bảo? Nó sừng sững như cái cột nhà!

Thầy sờ đuôi lại nói:

– Các thầy nói không đúng cả. Chính nó tua tủa như cái chổi xể cùng.

Năm thầy, thầy nào cũng cho mình nói đúng, không ai chịu ai, thành ra xô xác, đánh nhau toạt máu đầu, chảy máu.

-> Content fallacy: fallacy of presumption – hasty generalization

-> False conclusion

5 responses »

  1. Firstly, I love your three items. I would like to add my opinion to your entry:
    _Item 1: Are you sure when you wrote “ALL S are P”. Actually, the author wrote that “When A WOMAN loves you she’s not satisfied until, etc.” Therefore, I am not sure when wrote above.
    _Item 2: I think that it is ok.
    _Item 3: You should give more details to your analysis.
    Finally, it is my subjective opinion; however, lets consider it!

  2. nguyenmaile says:

    i like your items. however, i think that:
    – in item 1: you make a mistake in arguing backwards with all “therefore, a is S not P” so i think that the conclusion is not completely related the premises.
    – in item 2: it will be better if you point out content fallacy.
    – in item 3: you should analyse more.

  3. I would like to give comments on your first item.
    Firstly, “a woman” here stands for every woman,in general. So, All S is P is true.
    Secondly, P means :” not satisfied until she possesses your soul.”
    Therefore, the structure of this argument is:
    All S is P
    a (the wife) is S
    a is P.
    This argument is strong and valid. yOU should consider this!

  4. Hi, Xuan
    All of your Items are vey interesting to analyse. I just want to give you some comments below.
    In item 1, if you choose these premises, the conclusion must be relevant to it – that is “My wife is not satisfied …..” and then it is logic to what you conclude.
    Item 2, I think it is ok
    Item 3, you have to analyse the structure of the argument in this item to make us understand more clearly.
    Good luck!

  5. Hi hali, I ‘ve just take a look to your entry 4. I don’t like it much like other ones.
    – item 1: your structural fallacy is wrong, it must be:
    All P are S
    a is P
    so a is S
    – Item 2: I have no idea
    _ Item 3: make your analysis clearer.
    Love u!

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s