Thứ Bảy, 23 tháng 11, 2013

ENTRY 4: BÙI THU TRANG (14/10/1991)

ENTRY 4: Argument Structures and Fallacies

ITEM 1:
Connan: "You know father, when I was going to school in the United States I saw that American women are not treated as property. In fact, I read a book by this person named Mill in which he argued for women's rights."
Gunthar: "So, what is your point son?"
Connan: "Well, I think that it might be wrong to trade my sisters for cattle. They are human beings and should have a right to be masters of their own fate."
Gunthar: "What a strange and new-fangled notion you picked up in America. That country must be even more barbaric then I imagined. Now think about this son. We have been trading women for cattle for as long as our people have lived on this island. It is a tradition that goes back into the mists of time. "
Connan: "But I still think there is something wrong with it."
Gunthar: "Nonsense my boy. A tradition this old must be endorsed by the gods and must be right."

 à Appeal to Tradition
In this sittuation, Ganthar inferred from the following argument:
All (A) is (P): All tradition must be right.
(B) is  (A): Trading women for cattle is tradition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Therefore,  (B) is (P): Therefore, trading women is right.

à This argument is Valid but unsound.
Because Gunthar’s point just was accepted in past time but not true nowadays.

ITEM 2:

à This is an invalid argument because of false dilemma.
Analysis:
Denying the antecedent
If you drink Pepsi (A), then you will make difference (B).
Not (A): If you don’t drink Pepsi
--------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, not (B): you won’t have differences.
The difference in this situation means that cool and impressive. However, you can be cool or impressive by many other ways, not by drinking Pepsi.

ITEM 3:
Không thể đọc được
Ông bác sĩ hỏi cô gái đang lấp ló ở cửa phòng:
- Này cô, cô đến khám gì?
- Dạ, em không khám ạ! Em đến nhờ bác sĩ tí việc.
- Xin cô cứ nói.
- Dạ, em nhờ anh đọc hộ bức thư của người yêu em mới gửi về.
- Thư của cô sao lại nhờ tôi đọc, cô không biết chữ à?
- Dạ, em biết chữ, nhưng vì người yêu em cũng là bác sĩ nên mới đến nhờ anh.

à Hasty generalization
The girl made invalid conclusion with the lack of premise. She considered that the doctor and her lover are both doctor so the doctor can read her lover’s letter.


3 nhận xét:

  1. In item 3, I think it's weak analogy because She thought that the doctor and her lover are both doctor so the doctor can read her lover’s letter

    Trả lờiXóa
  2. In item 1,I think you shouldn't take examples from the websites in which there are examples of fallacies.

    Trả lờiXóa
  3. I totally agree with Nguyen Tinh's comment. I think in Item 3, it's weak analogy. She thought that the doctor and her lover are both doctor so the doctor can read her love's letter. But in fact, It is a compare hobbled. The doctor and her lover does not relevance in this case.

    Trả lờiXóa