Item 1: Structural Fallacies

-Type:

Structural Fallacy: deny the antecedent (If A, then B. Not A, then not B)

-Analyse:

If your children use Kideye, then they’ll not be short-sighted people.

If your children do not Kideye, then they will become  short-sighted people.

Actually, children are short-sighted by many other factors, probably without eating Kidney. The fact that many children in Vietnam have good eyes without using this product.

Item 2:

Bill: “I don’t think it is a good idea to cut social programs.”
Jill: “Why not?”
Bill: “Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly eas . Others yare born into poverty and…”
Jill: “You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head.”

Fallacy of structure:

Structure of this argument  is that:

+Premise 1:some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy

+Premise 2:some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy

+Premise 3:Others are born into poverty and ( need nothing)

+ Hidden Premise :  Social program is for those who really need help

Conclusion: cut social programs

This is an invalid weak argument

Fallacy of content:

+ fallacy of relevance: personal attack

 +fallacy of presumption : hasty genneralization

Item 3:

Source: http://www.saokim.com.vn/images/gallery/chuo-i-cu-a-ha-ng-pappa-roti0_1285139639.jpg

Content Fallacy: Fallacy of Relevance (the considerations they offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determine whether that conclusion is true or not)

– Analyze:

The ad uses the image of many people: a young couple who is students. However, the fact that they are  irrelevant to determine whether this kind of cake is good or not and it is not sure that those people eat  Papa Roti.In conclusion,  this ad is an irrelevant appeal.

5 responses »

  1. Hi Linh, I would like to give u some comments
    In item 2, you should make the analyse the item more clearly. You should explain why it is an invalid weak argument in structure fallacy. Besides, you said that there is content fallacy. But you do not give the reason for it.
    In item 3: In my opinion , the pictures show the different kinds of the customers( age, job, …) who use the products. I think it is suitable with the purpose of the advertisement that everyone can use it. It should be better if you check it again.
    Actually, I love your entry.Hopefully, you will check it again to make it more perfect.

  2. Monitor, I like to give some comments. Firstly, in my opinion, your item 1 is ok . However, in item 2, I think you have some mistake in conclusion. mabe, conclusion is “not to cut social program” not “cut social program” as you analyze. Moreover, I agree with Huong’s comment that you should analyze more details to show how does it has hasty genneralization and weak argument? Finnally, in Item 3, I think this ad show all kinds of objects and places who and where use the product, not as you analyze. and its conclusion, I think, is deductive weak argument. You also consider its structural fallacies.
    I hope my comment can help your entry is better. Actually, I love is.

  3. Monitor, I like to give some comments. Firstly, in my opinion, your item 1 is ok . However, in item 2, I think you have some mistake in conclusion. mabe, conclusion is “not to cut social program” not “cut social program” as you analyze. Moreover, I agree with Huong’s comment that you should analyze more details to show how does it has hasty genneralization and weak argument? Finnally, in Item 3, I think this ad show all kinds of objects and places who and where use the product, not as you analyze. and its conclusion, I think, is deductive weak argument. You also consider its structural fallacies.
    I hope my comment can help your entry is better. Actually, I love it.

  4. Hi Linh, I have some comments for your entry
    – In the Item 1, I can understand what you mean but I think you can make it clearer. the argument in this item should be done as its structure:
    If children do not use Kideye, they are short-sighted
    Children use Kideye
    ……………………………………………………………………………….
    Therefore, they are not short-sighted
    Item 2, Why do you think it is an invalid weak argument? please analyse it. moreover, I find it very confuse with its premises and conclusion as you analyse(premise 1 and 2 are the same as well). they have no relationship at all.
    Item 3, you should not explain it by your acknowledge. it should be analysed by using structure to show where it is wrong. In addition, I agree with Huong and Thuy that the content of this ad seems to be different from what you say.

  5. Hi Linh^^, your three items are very nice. I also have some comments for you:
    – The 1st item, I agree with Hien that its structure must be
    If children do not use Kideye, they are short-sighted
    Children use Kideye
    ____________________________________
    Therefore, they are not short-sighted
    – The 3rd item, I also agree with Huong that Papa Roti is suitable for everyone of all ages. The message here is if people eat Papa Roti, they will be happy ^^
    That’s my idea ^^.

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