ARGUMENT STRUCTURES AND FALLACIES
Item 1:
I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am. – Joseph Baretti, quoted by James Boswell, 1766, commonly misattributed to Samuel Johnson
Source: http://www.quotegarden.com/integrity.html
– Structural Fallacy: Fallacies of presumption ( reasoning in a chain with some)
– Analyze:
I am involved in mankind
I am bad
Therefore The mankind are bad
Joseph Baretti is wrong in his conclusion that the whole mankind are bad just because he is one of them and he is bad. Actually, not everyone is bad. The human being are full of kindness and every year a lot of people do charity.
Hasty generalization: What’s true for a member is true for the whole group
Item 2:
Không có hoa hồng, không có tinh yêu.
Không có người mẹ không có anh hùng
Source: http://preciousthin9s.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html
– Content Fallacy: Fallacies of relevance
– Analyze:
Weak analogy
Item 3:
Source: http://www.demotivation.us/logic-1258450.html
– Content fallacy: Falacies of presumption ( reasoning in a chain with some)
– Analyze:
Penguins are black and white
Some old TV shows are black and white
Therefore, some penguins are old TV shows
This is an weak invalid argument. The conclusion is wrong definitely.
CT11E12 
Hi monitor,
I find your careful analyzing in your entry but maybe your flexibility is not showed well. For instance, in item 1 and 3, you only analyzed about ( reasoning in a chain with some).
It is better if you come into other errors.
In anyway, actually, you and your critical thinking in this kind are one because of your understanding.
Thanks
Hi, Nhung. I have some comments for you.
– In item 1, I think the conclusion here should be “I hate mankind”, not “the mankind are bad”. so you should find an other analysis.
here is my suggestion:
I am man – one of the best man.(man means mankind, not means man and woman)
I am bad
i hate myself
…………………………………………………….
therefore mankind are bad and I hate mankind
In item 2, you do not analyse the structure, so that I can not understand this item. please analyse it and show how it is weak argument
Item 3, I think it ok
Hi Rose,
I find some mistakes in your analyses:
– In item 1, you wrote: “Structural Fallacy: Fallacies of presumption ( reasoning in a chain with some)”. Actually, Fallacies of presumption belong to Content Fallacy. Personally, you should see again kinds of Structural Fallacy and Content Fallacy.
– Item 2 is Ok
– Item 3, I think it is a structural fallacy (reasoning in a chain with some): Some S are P, some Q are P, therefore some S are Q.
Hi Rose, after reading your items, I love to give some comments that I love your items because their contexts are short enough to read. However, they are so interesting.
Your analysis has some mistake.
+ in item 1: I agree with xuan’s comment. You said its Structural Fallacy – reasoning in a chain with some. Acctually, with reasoning in a chain with some are (some S are P; some P are Q; Therefore, some S are Q) maybe, you are mistake. You should consider it.
+ in item 2: it had better if you give more Structural Fallacy and analize to make more understand.
+ in item 3: it is ok