NGUYỄN ANH TUẤN_ ENTRY 4

ENTRY 4

Argument Structures and Fallacies

ITEM 1

A professor is lecturing to his class.

Prof: "So you can see that a new and better morality is sweeping the nation. No longer are people with alternative lifestyles ashamed. No longer are people caught up in the outmoded moralities of the past."

Student: "Well, what about the ideas of the great thinkers of the past? Don't they have some valid points?"
Prof: "A good question. The answer is that they had some valid points in their own, barbaric times. But those are old, mouldy moralities from a time long gone. Now is a time for new moralities. Progress and all that, you know."

Student: "So would you say that the new moralities are better because they are newer?"
Prof: "Exactly. Just as the dinosaurs died off to make way for new animals, the old ideas have to give way for the new ones. And just as humans are better than dinosaurs, the new ideas are better than the old. So newer is literally better."

Student: "I see." 

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-novelty.html

 

      + This sort of idea has the following form:

1.      X is new.

2.      Therefore X is correct or better.

       + Fallacy: Appeal to Novelty

Item 2:

có người nói : “Anh là ngỗng, vì anh ăn Bắp cải”

Source: Phương pháp giải các bài tập của Logic học, NXB Bách Khoa Hà Nội, 2010, trang 196

      + This statement has the following form:

           Almost all S are P                                                        Tất cả ngỗng ăn bắp cải (hiden)

           a is P                                                                            Anh ăn bắp cải

                                                                                               

            Therefore, a is S                                                            Nên, anh là ngỗng 

      + Fallacy type: Reasoning in a chain with almost all à wrong conclusion

                      

ITEM 3:

HLV Văn Sỹ: “Việt Nam thua do thiếu may mắn”

Source: http://www.baomoi.com/HLV-Van-Sy-Viet-Nam-thua-do-thieu-may-man/87/5322678.epi

è Week argument:

      +  Analysis:

                        “Đủ” may mắn là yếu tố duy nhất giúp một đội bóng dành chiến thắng (hiden)

                         Đội bóng Việt Nam thiếu may mắn

                         Đội bóng Việt Nam thua trận

+ The first premise is invalid.

Entry 4: Nguyễn_Thị_Thuỷ

ENTRY 4

Item 1:

            http://www.militaryplaques.com/store/love

False of presumption: False dilemma
- Analysis: This is a slogan to state the patriotism of American and American citizens. It means that “If you don’t love America, leave it”. Actually, there are still some other choices could be happened. For example, someone don’t love America but they are forced to work in there so they have to live in America beause of some reasons (good work environment, high salary....)

Item 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60HPbM101vQ

Structural fallacies (denying the antecedent):

If you eat Tiger Biscuit, then you can be healthy and take the lead.
Not eating Tiger Biscuit.
------------------------------------------
 
Therefore, not being healthy and taking the lead.
-> Denying the antecedent
That you eat Tiger Biscuit is not sufficient for a good healthy and the ability of taking the lead.

Item 3:

Một thời gian truyền hình có phát đoạn quảng cáo về cảnh ông chồng về nhà vào bếp nấu nướng, tắm rửa cho con cái và dạy con cái học bài… những clip như vậy khiến phụ nữ rất mừng vì cho rằng họ đã bình đẳng trước xã hội. Bây giờ, những đoạn quảng cáo như vậy rất ít…

http://vnexpress.net/gl/kinh-doanh/2011/11/dai-bieu-quoc-hoi-nong-voi-quang-cao-trong-nam-khinh-nu/

Structural fallacies:
Quảng cáo về cảnh ông chồng về nhà vào bếp nấu nướng, tắm rửa cho con… thể hiện bình đẳng giới. (If A, then B)
Có rất ít những đoạn quảng cáo như vậy. (Not A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do đó, vẫn còn bất bình đẳng giới trong xã hội. (Therefore, not B)
-> Denying the antecedent
In fact, those advertisements just want to introduce their products, not imply or aim at gender discrimination.

ENTRY 4 _ NGUYỄN THỊ KIM DUNG
                       
                                          ENTRY 4: ANALYSING ARGUMENT
item 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRGvMlUuX0

Argument errors: Content fallacies

1. logical fallacy-false dilemma

2. fallacy of presumption

3. inductive reasoning fallacy- hasty generalization.

Analysis:

1. MC Xoay :"Kê cao gối hoặc kê gối thấp".

 In fact, there are another positions like medium position, slightly high position or slightly low position,...rather than only high or low position.

---> logical fallacy-false dilemma

2.1.MC Xoay: “ nếu người ta ngáy thì cứ hồn nhiên mà ngáy tại sao lại phải kê cao”

->Pro.Cu Trong Xoay “anh nói thế là anh hơi ích kỷ”

2.2. MC Xoay “để làm sao cái đường cong quay về tròn  như cũ” ( Nguyen Hai Phong needed to fix his bycycle)

->Pro.Cu Trong Xoay:" Chứng tỏ anh này là cái người duy mĩ và tương đối cầu toàn"

Refering from only one utterance of one person, Pro.Cu Trong Xoay did not have enough premises but immediately jump to the conclusions of others' trait.
---> fallacy of presumption.

3.Chúng ta ngáy khi nào

Khi chúng ta đi ngủ

Tại sao lúc ngủ chúng ta lại ngáy

Khi  chúng ta hô hấp

Hít vào thở ra phát sinh ra tiếng gáy

Muốn triệt tận gốc việc ngáy

Đừng hô hấp nữa

The reasons lead to snoozing are not only by breathing itself but also many other causes.. For instance, the surplus amount of fat narrows the windpipe, the characteristics of the windpipe of the old and malformation of sinusitis,... contributing to snoozing.

--->fallacy of presumption (lack premises)

4.“người ta dạy được thú, chó làm toán, gấu chồng cây chuối, nhảy disco, voi đi xe đạp…

=>Cái gì chẳng dạy được
dogs, bears,.. are just some kinds of intelligent animal that can be taught to perform in the circus. This small number of animal is not enough to conclude that people cant train every kind of animals
--->inductive reasoning fallacy- hasty generalization.

5.
major premise: tất cả mọi thú vật đều có thể dạy được ( cái gì chẳng dạy được)
minor premise: trâu bò là thú vật

conclusion: trâu bò có thể dạy được (tập trung trâu bò để giáo dục ý thức)

mọi thú vật :S
đều có thể dạy được : P
trâu bò :a

=>structure :

 All S is P

a is S

a is P

the argument is valid but unsound because its major premise based on a hasty generization

Item 2

http://sachhiem.net/CHARLIE/CN_TGHG/PhunuHG.php

Trải qua 14 thế kỷ, kinh Koran đã gieo biết bao tai họa cho các phụ nữ Hồi giáo nhưng vì các tín đồ ngoan đạo đều coi Koran là "Chân lý Tối Hậu của Thiên Chúa" (The Final Truth of Allah) nên không ai dám coi đó là những điều vô lý hoặc bất công. Các tín đồ nam cũng như nữ không còn con đường nào khác là phải tuyệt đối vâng phục ý Chúa vì Đạo Hồi có nghĩa là sự vâng phục hoàn toàn ý của Chúa (Islam = Submission to God).

Kinh Koran minh thị xác nhận uy quyền của đàn ông đối với đàn bà: "Đàn ông có quyền đối với đàn bà vì Chúa đã sinh ra đàn ông cao quí hơn đàn bà..Đàn bà tốt phải biết vâng lời đàn ông vì đàn ông săn sóc cả phần tinh thần của đàn bà. Đối với những phụ nữ không biết vâng lời, đàn ông có quyền ruồng bỏ, không cho nằm chung giường và có quyền đánh đập".

Ø       Good women should obey to men                       if A, then B

       Don’t obey men                                             not B

     ----------------------                           ----------------------

        Not good women                                therefore not A

valid but unsound  (because false premise: good women should  obey men)

Ø       God born men and women                          valid but unsound ( false premise)

           God decide power to men and women

            Noble is power

            God give men more noble than women

         ----------------------

            Men more power than women

In the sentence :" Đối với những phụ nữ không biết vâng lời, đàn ông có quyền ruồng bỏ, không cho nằm chung giường và có quyền đánh đập". Fallacy of  presumption in particular,slippery slope because insufficient to conclude that.

Addition, there is fallacy of relevance

Appeal to tradition ( in this case is ritual custom .It force women to strict rules and regulations… Women have to follow it. They became independent, unprotected and suffer many bias..)

Appeal to consequence:

Women are be abused, tortured, beaten if they don’t obey men….   →   they have to obey men if they don’t want to suffer violence and discrimination

Item 3

 http://scotthibberson.co.uk/eLearningLibrary/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/books.png

If you buy books, you have happiness               if A, then B            →structual fallacy

You don’t buy books                                           not A

-----------------------                           ----------------------- 

You don’t have happiness                            not B              

Having something by buying it    valid but unsound ( false premise: books is                         

 can’t buy  happiness               happiness. In addition, I think there is Fallacy of        

  can buy   books                   presumption in particular, slippery slope because                

 books is happiness               insufficient to conclude that. It  depends on reader’s

 ----------------------                  interest, attitude and his feeling about books)                                          

Buying books is buying happiness

fallacy of relevance:

·         Buying books means buying happiness            

·         Books is happiness

weak anology ( we can’t say buying books means buying happiness because books and happiness is not in the same field. Therefore, it can’t say: that is kind of same thing!. As I said before,  it is not always true that Books is happiness , it depend on each person feelings.)

ENTRY 4_ĐINH KIM ANH

ENTRY 4

ANALYZING ARGUMENTS

Item 1: Video: Advertisement of Number One

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xhYyYN2wKk

1. Description of the advertisement:

A man drinking Number One can be so strong, active and energetic that he could save the woman. Whereas, the other man who does not drink Number One can not be such strong.

2. Argument structure:

-         Premise: If you drink Number One, then you are strong, active and energetic.

-         Premise: You do not drink Number One.

-         Conclusion: Therefore, you are not strong, active and energetic.

3. Fallacy : Structural fallacy - Denying the antecedent.

4. Analysis:

If A, then B

Not A

Þ not B

The similar valid:

If A, then B

Not B

Þ not A

In fact, there are many factors making a man strong, active and energetic apart from Number One, such as: exercises, reasonable diet, and so on.

Item 2 : Image :

Source : http://jazzroc.wordpress.com/tag/truth

1.     Fallacy : Structural fallacy - Reasoning with “some”.

2.     Argument structural:

Penguins = S

Black and white = P

Old TV shows = Q

-         Premise: Some S are P.

-         Premise: Some Q are P.

-         Conclusion: Some S are Q.

3.     Analysis:

The phrase “ black and white” is too general, and there are many things which are “black and white”. “Penguins” and “some old TV shows” can be “black and white” but they can not be the same. In this argument, the premises are right, but the inference are wrong à invalid argument.

Item 3: Video: "Don't Wake Up in a Roadside Ditch"

Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udQSHWpL88

1. Description:

-  When your cable company keeps you on hold, you get angry. 

- When you get angry, you go blow-off steam. 

- When you go blow-off steam, accidents happen. 

- When accidents happen, you get an eye-patch. 

- When you get an eye-patch, people think you’re tough. 

- When people think you’re tough, people want to see how tough. 

- And when people want to see how tough, you wake-up in a roadside ditch. 

- Don’t wake-up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of cable. 

2. Fallacy: Fallacy of presumption - Slippery slope

3. Analysis:

- When your cable company keeps you on hold (hidden premise: people get angry when their company puts them on hold).

- When you get angry (hidden premise: people go blow off when they get angry à factual error).

- When you go blow off (hidden premise: people make accident when they go blow off à factual error).

- When accidents happen (hidden premise: people get eye-patch when accidents happen à factual error).

- When you get an eye-patch (hidden premise: you are thought to be tough when you get an eye-patch à factual error).

- When people think you are tough (hidden premise:  people want to see how tough when they think you are tough à factual error).

- When people want to see how tough (hidden premise: people will make you wake up in a roadside ditch when they want to see how tough à factual error).

This argument has lots of insufficient and untrue premises which lead to other false premises. Consequently, the conclusion “get rid of cable” seems to be unreasonable and unsound.

Item 4: Saying:

“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists…”

(George W. Bush, The Washington Post, 2001)

Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html

1.     Fallacy: Fallacy of presumption - False dilemma.

2.     Analysis:

George W. Bush, in his speech, declared that: “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”. He only gave readers 2 choices: “with us” and “with terrorists”. However, in fact, there are some other choices which could be made by every nation apart from these 2 selections, they can decide to be neutral, not “with us” or “with terrorists”, to name just a few.

 Item 5: Image:

Source: http://www.apenotmonkey.com/2011/01/11/logical-fallacy-post-hoc/

1.     Fallacy : Fallacy of presumption - Post-hoc fallacy.

2.     Analysis :

-         The issue that the bear said that the white dog was poopy-head does not cause the conflict between the pig and the turtle. However, the white dog blames this conflict on the bear à false premise.

-         The issue that the bear said that the white dog was poopy-head = event A.

-         The conflict between the pig and the turtle = event B.

-    Event A happens before event B; however, event A can not be the cause of event B.