ENTRY 4: LÊ DANH KHOA

ENTRY 4:

ARGUMENT STRUCTURES AND FALLACIES

 ITEM1:

 Dog experiments

Some scientists decided to do the following experiments on a dog.

For the first experiment, they cut off one of the dog's legs, then they told the dog to walk. The dog got up and walked, so they learned that a dog could walk with just three legs.

For the second experiment, they cut off a second leg. Then they told the dog once more to walk. The dog was still able to walk with only two legs.

For the third experiment, they cut off yet another leg from the dog and once more they told the dog to walk. However, the dog wasn't able to walk with only one leg.

As a result of these experiments, the scientists wrote in their final report that the dog had lost its hearing after having three legs cut off.

Ananlysis:

if the dog walks after having three legs cut off, the dog still listens what they tell 

   IF                   A,                                           ,THEN    B

the dog can't walk after having three legs cut off

    NOT     A

Therefore, the dog had lost its hearing after having 3 legs cut off

THEREFORE, NOT B

=====> DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

SOURCE: http://www.tienganh123.com/hoc-tieng-anh-qua-truyen-cuoi/6735-dog-experiments.html

ITEM 2: 

Analysis: 

according to the picture, he/she gets a cold after eating a loaf of bread. therefore, he/she believes that the loaf of bread he ate results in sickness. So, 

A after B

Therefore, B caused A

========> Post-hoc fallacy.

source: http://www.google.com.vn/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1285&bih=707&tbm=isch&tbnid=l1jRrIwtDSjG8M:&imgrefurl=http://berkeleypsychiccult.blogspot.com/2010/04/post-hoc-ergo-properter-hoc-this.html&docid=KmPyQef3DNIyBM&imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rmGVRYg7iJg/T9bRlO40QpI/AAAAAAAAAa4/HOm37enHVOA/s1600/whitebreadloaf.jpg&w=400&h=298&ei=VGurUIPXCsSZiQemgIGQAg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=315&sig=104582892761375107204&page=1&tbnh=126&tbnw=186&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:0,i:111&tx=45&ty=54

ITEM 3: 

A guy sees his new neighbor out in his backyard, so he decides to get acquainted. After introductions, he asks the new neighbor what he does for a living.

The new neighbor says, "I'm a professor." The first neigbhbor then asks, "Oh yeah, what do you teach?"

"Logic," the professor reponds.

"What is that?" the neighbor inquires.

"Well, let me see if I can give you an example...you have a dog, right?"

"Yeah, that's right," neighbor #1 responds.

"And you have children too, right?" says the professor.

"Wow, right again!" exclaims the neighbor.

"So, then you must be married and that would make you a heterosexual, right?'' proclaims the professor.

"Unbelievable, you're absolutely correct. How do you know all this about me?"

"Well," the professor says, "I observed there was a dog house in your backyard, so you must have a dog. I also saw bicycles next to your garage, so you must have children. And if you have children, you are probably married and if your married, you are most likely heterosexual... it was all logical!"

The next afternoon, the neighbor runs into his old friend. His friend asks if he has met the new neighbor. The man says that he met him yesterday.

"What's he like?"

"Well," the man says, "he's nice and he is a professor of logic."

"Oh," says the friend, "what's logic?"

"Maybe I can give you an example. Do you have a dog house?"

"Why, no, I do not," responds the friend.

"Well, then," proclaims the man, "you must be gay!"

Analysis:

1. in the first situation:

• In the first example:

If you have a dog, you have a dog house (hidden premise)

IF A, THEN B

you have a dog house

B

Therefore, you must have a dog

Therefore, A

=======> DENYING ANTECEDENT

• In the second example: 

If there are bicycles next to your garrage, 

                         È              (hidden premise: almost children have bicycles)

 you must have children 

                     È       ( insufficient to conclude that)

 you must are probably married

          È       ( hidden premise: most people being married are heterosexual)

you are most likely heterosexual.

===> FALLACY OF SLIPPERY AND SLOPE

2. In the second situations:

if you have a dog house, you must not be gay

IF A, B

 you dont have a dog house

NOT A

therefore, they will be gay.

THEREFORE, NOT B

====> DENYING ANTECEDENT

SOURCE: http://joke.culture-world.org/College/Professor-of-Logic-7074.html