Entry 4_ Phung Hoai Linh _ 11041266_02/04/1993

Entry 4

Argument Structures and Fallacies

Item 1: “Grizzly bears can't be dangerous to humans, because they look so cute.”

Source: http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06a.htm

è Content fallacy (Fallacy of presumption – Fallacy of Relevance)

-       Analysis

The remark "they look so cute" may be good enough to make you want to hug a grizzly bear, it isn't enough to support a conclusion on the dangers of grizzly bears. So, this is an argument is irrelevant.

Item 2: “Southerners talk fast. I was just on the phone with one and he sure talked fast.”

Source : http://www.christianlogic.com/articles/read/short-list-of-fallacies/

è Invalid, weak argument.

è Hasty generalization

-       Analysis

Premise 1: I was just on the phone with a southerner

Premise 2: He talks fast

Conclusion: Southerners talk fast.

This person generalizes about a group of people based upon a small and poor sample. If there is a southerner who doesn’t talk fast this conclusion is false.

Item 3: Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

è Invalid

è False dilemma

-       Analysis

This conversation has structure:

Either A or B: Either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge                 deficit

Not B: We can’t live with the deficit

Therefore A: We will have to cut education funding (this year)

So, Bill seems to be the only possibility: Cut education funding.