ENTRY 4

Argument Structure and Fallacies

Item 1: “Beverage C2” Advertisement

“Tôi chỉ yêu Việt Nam quê hương tôi
yêu bình minh rạng ngời ngày mới lên
và tôi chỉ yêu một mái nhà thân thương
nơi bình yên ấm áp những vòng tay,rộn vang tiếng cười
tôi chỉ yêu em yêu nữ kia luôn cùng tôi sẽ chia
yêu cuộc sống khát khao mạnh mẽ,yêu gian nan thời minh nghĩa vinh quang
và tôi yêu một vị trà xanh mát lành thanh khiết
chỉ một tình yêu…chỉ một C2”

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

Fallacies: Content fallacies – Fallacies of Relevant – Week analogy

Analyse: Actually, there is no relationship between the love for Vietnam, for sunrise, a warm house nad so on and the love of C2. Therefore, the premises are not relevant at all, the argument, as a result, is invalid.

 

 

 

Item 2: Sepp Blater’s scaldal

“Khi được hỏi rằng liệu ông có tin những hành động phân biệt chủng tộc đang diễn ra trên các sân bóng đá hay không, ngài Blatter cho hay: “Tôi bác bỏ điều này. Không có phân biệt chủng tộc trong bóng đá. Có thể một cầu thủ nhằm vào cầu thủ khác. Cậu ta có lời nói hoặc hành động, vốn không đúng mực, song với cầu thủ bị nhắm tới, cậu ấy có thể nói rằng đó là một trận đấu. Chúng ta đang thi đấu và khi trận đấu kết thúc, chúng ta bắt tay nhau. Tôi nghĩ đây là cách hiệu quả vì chúng tôi đã rất nỗ lực trong cuộc chiến chống phân biệt chủng tộc và phân biệt đối xử.”

Sorce: http://phapluattp.vn/20111117031214549p1020c1090/chu-tich-blatter-va-mom-ve-vu-phan-biet-chung-toc.htm

 

Structure:     When one football player has a discriminatory action in a game

Then he can shake hand with the people who are discriminated to show that he did not behave so.

                        ———————————————————————————-

                        There is not race discrimination at all in football.

Fallacies: Week Argument

Shaking hand is, in fact, not a solution to race discrimination. Race discrimination can not be solved, denied or justified by only a shaking-hand. Thus, the conclusion is wrong and not valid at all.

 

 

Item 3: “Chewing gum “Frist” advertisement”

Description: One boy comes to a girl’s house to invite her to go out. However, his breath seems not very good; and he feels inconfident about this. So, before meeting his girlfriend, he must eat the “Frist” chewing gum to gain self-confidence.  Upon entering the girl’s room, the dog in the house who is sitting near him also does not welcome him because of his breath, too. After that he eats “Frist” and immediately, the dog is so attracted by the gum’s flavor that it, then, kisses him.

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

Structure:       If he does not eat chewing gum “Frist”, then he does not feels condident and is not attractive.

He eat the chewing gum,

———————————————————————————————–              He feels confident and is attractive.

Fallacies: Structure fallacies:

IF A, then B

Not A

Not B

4 responses »

  1. I agree with you in item 1 and 2. I think the second item should be careful considered. You should point out the type of argument. Moreover, the structure analysis might be not exact (The sentences you gave out are not premises, actually)

  2. I like your interesting video and exact analysis in the first item. I suggest that the structure of item 3 is:
    If you eat the chewing gum, you will feel confident and be attractive.
    If you do not eat the chewing gum, you will not feel confident and be attractive
    -> If A, then B
    not A
    therefore not B
    -> Structural fallacy: denying the antecedent.

  3. huyenpj says:

    Hi boy!
    I’m here to say to you that I read your entry and now would like to give some ideas to it.
    In item 1: I also agree with your analysis that it is fallacy of weak analogy
    In item 2: I think you should analyze more in detail.To my mind, I see not only fallacy of structure but also fallacy of content. That maybe is fallacy of presumption. Only with the action of shaking hand to stop race discrimination in football is not possible. It’s only necessary condition but not sufficient condition.
    In item 3: it also should be analyzed more clearly. About structural fallacy, it is fallacy of denying the antecedent. About content fallacy, it seems to be fallacy of presumption to mean that:
    He ate chewing gum then he had an irresistibly fresh breath so if eating chewing gum, you will have the attraction with your breath. It draws a conclusion without strong enough because that is only necessary condition but not sufficient condition. People still can have attractively fresh breath by other ways without eating chewing gum.
    That’s all.he!

  4. Hi Tuan Anh, i think that you did a good job in this en try. I agree with your analysis because it is clearly and quite good. However, in item 2, you should pay more attention. Personally, it is not a argument. It likes meaningless word and irrelevant because what he said are not relate to conclusion. Moreover, it proved nothing. It is my opinion that may make your entry better. Anyway, i love your entry.

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