Thứ Ba, 20 tháng 11, 2012

entry 4: Lang Thi Anh


Item 1:  Structural Fallacies




Analysis:
If you who are blondes use the Lustre – Crème Shampoo, you will be attractive blondes like Marilyn Monroe. Gentlemen prefer blondes
If A, then B
The blondes don’t use the Lustre – Crème Shampoo
Not A


You won’t attract gentlemen
Therefore not B
If you who are the blondes use the Lustre – Crème shapoo , you will be attractive. This impresses gentlemen
If you don’t use the Lustre – Crème Shapoo, you won’t attract
However, you – the blondes can be attractive by many other ways, not only like this
Moreover, this is hasty generalization fallacy when this advertisement says “ gentlemen prefer blondes” because we don’t see the reason for this conclusion
Item 2: False dilemma

Analysis : In the picture, you only choose one button. When choose the red button, you will receive 1 billion immediately .  Choosing the green button, you will receive 50percent of 1 billion. However , you can choose other ways which you quit the above game by not choosing two buttons. Therefore it is false dilemma.

Item 3: Necessary and sufficient condition
Radiation causes cancer, Kevin has cancer, therefore he was exposed to radiation.
Analysis:
Radiation causes cancer (a sufficient condition to cause cancer)
Kevin has cancer (caused by many other reasons not only by exposing to radiation)


Therefore, it is not enough evidences to conclude that he was exposed to radiation

Thứ Hai, 19 tháng 11, 2012

Entry 4_Vũ Thị Hiền


ENTRY 4
Argument Structures and Fallacies

ITEM 1



"Hà Tăng đi lấy chồng, ai sẽ thành "ngọc nữ"?"


Analysis:

Structure of the argument:

Women will no longer be called "ngọc nữ" when they are married
Tang Thanh Ha used to be called "ngọc nữ"
Tang Thanh Ha is going to get married
__________________________________________________
Tang Thanh Ha will be no longer called "ngọc nữ"

Fallacy type:
Content fallacy (weak argument) caused by clearly false premise. This weak argument is caused by bias (stereotype).

It can be seen clearly that the first premise of the argument "Women will no longer be called "ngọc nữ" when they are married" is not true. "Ngọc nữ" is a term used to refer to a woman who is very beautiful, talented and loved by many people, no matter she is already married or not yet. Neither the fact that Tang Thanh Ha is going to get married nor she is married affects her fame and her quality as a  "Ngọc nữ". Getting married can not mean Tang Thanh Ha loses her popularity.

The failure of the argument is caused by the stereotype that a married woman is no longer beautiful, talented and popular.



ITEM 2


"Either you support the President in everything he says and does or you are not a patriotic American"



Analysis:

Structure of the argument:

EITHER   A   OR   B

Fallacy type:
Content fallacy of presumption (False dilemma).

The argument gives its object just two choices and there are no more choice. In fact, patriotic American may disagree with some of the President's sayings and doings if they are wrong.



ITEM 3


"Britney Spears says that George W. Bush has got a great plan for the economy, and so therefore I am supporting him because I trust what she has to say"


Analysis:

Structure of the argument:

I trust what celebrities say
Britney Spears is a celebrity
Britney Spears says that George W. Bush has got a great plan for the economy
_______________________________________________________________
I will believe that George W. Bush has got a great plan for the economy (I will support him)

Fallacy type:
Content fallacy of relevance (irrelevant appeal to popularity).

In this argument, the author is obviously appealing to the popularity of Britney Spears - a celebrity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.eva.vn/lang-sao/ha-tang-di-lay-chong-ai-se-thanh-ngoc-nu-c20a117602.html
[2] http://www.uwec.edu/ranowlan/logical%20fallacies.html
[3] http://www.uwec.edu/ranowlan/logical%20fallacies.html



Entry 4_Trịnh Thị Mai


ENTRY 4
Analyzing Argument
Item 1
 “Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil”
-Analysis:
+ Fallacies of  Presumption( False Dilemma)
+This statement shows that people in over the world are either wholly good or wholly evil. This conclusion is false Dilemma because every person has both good and  bad points. Therefore, not people absolutely are good and not people absolutely are bad.  In our life, There  still exists people who do both  good things  as well as wrong ones.

Item 2

“ Smoking marijuana definitely leads to heroin use. A report by the U.S. Commissioner of Narcotics on a study of 2,213 hardcore narcotic addicts in the Lexington, Kenturkey, Federal Hospital shows that 70.4 % smoked marijuana_before_taking heroin”
+Analysis:
+Fallacies of  Presumption (Post-doc fallacy ).
Many people smoked marijuana before taking heroin
Many people are addicted to heroin
_________________________________________

Smoking marijuana definitely leads to heroin use

 Many addicts in Federal Hospital, US smoked marijuana before taking heroin and it is concluded that Smoking marijuana definitely leads to heroin use. This is Post-doc because there are a lot of causes resulting heroin use not only smoking marijuana before such as smoking tobaco.  Even they  start using  heroin  without smoking anything before.
                                                          
Item 3
A frustrated Ford owner says: “My car broke down today!  Fords are worthless pieces of garbage!”
-Analysis:
His car is a Ford
His car broke down today
His car is worthless piece of garbage
_______________________________
Ford cars are worthless pieces of garbage

+ Fallacies of  Presumption ( hasty generalization)
+  From his broken car, he concludes that all Fords are worthless pices of garbage. His conclusion is hasty generation because there are many reasons cause his broken car as time-using . Moreover, from only his broken car can not have enough evidence to conclude  other Fords that are worthless pieces of garbage as his car.

Entry 4_Vũ Thị Thúy Nga




ENTRY 4
Argument Structures and Fallacies


ITEM 1:

Xe 4 bánh

SV1 gặp bạn là SV2 đang chạy xe máy đi học.
SV1 : Thời đại ngày nay SV mà còn chạy xe máy đi học.
SV2 ngạc nhiên hỏi lại : Thế mày đi bằng gì.
SV1 : Tao ấy à ? Phải ô tô 4 bánh trở lên mà còn tài xế đưa rước nữa chứ.
SV2 : Vậy à. Mày làm gì mà sang thế. Thế mày đi xe hiệu gì ?
SV1 : Vừa nói vừa co giò chạy  "Nào ta cùng Buýt"
http://www.truyencuoi.vn/truyen-cuoi/xe-4-banh

Fallacies: Necessary and sufficient conditions
Student 2 draws wrong conclusion when basing on insufficient information. 4 wheels and driver is just necessary conditions for a car, not sufficient conditions.

ITEM 2:

Sau một đêm dầm mưa xếp hàng, sáng 12/5 hàng trăm phụ huynh đã đạp đổ cổng sắt ùa vào trong sân trường PTCS Thực nghiệm (Hà Nội) để tranh suất mua hồ sơ thi vào lớp 1. Trường Thực nghiệm là nơi nhiều nhà khoa học tên tuổi từng học, trong đó có GS Ngô Bảo Châu. 


Hasty generalization: Many parents think that Thuc nghiem primary school has educated many outstanding people so all students at that school are good at studying. Therefore, they want their children to learn there without considering other factors.


ITEM 3:

Little John doesn't do his homework. His mother tells him : "If you learn hard, you will become a doctor as you dream. If you keep lazy like this, you won't."


- Structural fallacies:
If you learn hard, you will become a docto
 You don't learn hard                                               
__________________                                      
 you won't become a doctor


=> If    A, then B
      not A
_____________
Therefore, not B                       





Entry 4_Trần Thị Hiệt


ENTRY 4
Argument Structures and Fallacies

ITEM 1



=> Appeal to popularity (Fallacies of Relevance)
Analysis:
Hàng triệu bạn gái dùng dầu gội Sunsilk
Và họ có được mái tóc mềm mượt
…………………………………………
Vì vậy dùng Sunsilk bạn sẽ có được mái tóc mềm mượt
=> This is weak and invalid argument

ITEM 2
Chồng con kêu con là chó
Ông chồng và bà vợ đang tranh luận về việc nấu nướng. Bà vợ cho rằng nấu khoai tây thì mỗi nồi chỉ nên cho một muỗng muối trong khi ông chồng cho rằng hai muỗng thì ngon hơn. Ông chồng nhẹ nhàng:Cười
- Tôi nghĩ, trong chuyện này mình không hẳn đúng đâu.
- Cái gì? Tôi không đúng? Ông nói thế là ý gì hả? Ông định nói rằng tôi không đúng. Ông định nói là tôi hoàn toàn sai chứ gì? Tôi sai nghĩa là tôi đã nói dối phải không! Tôi nói dối thì có nghĩa là tôi ăn nói không như một con người. Ông định nói là tôi sủa bậy như con cún phải không? Ối mẹ ơi, chồng con nó kêu con là chó. Mẹ ơi!

=> Slippery slope ( Fallacies of Presumption)
Analysis:
The wife’ inference follows this:
If the husband says that she is incorrect.
(Hidden premise:  If she is incorrect, she totally wrongs)
Then she totally wrongs.
(If she totally wrong, it means she lies)
Then she lies
(If she lies, she is not speaking like human)
Then she is not speaking like human.
(The person not speaking like human, she barks like a puppy)
Then she barks as a puppy
(Puppy is dog, so her husband calls her a dog)

Then her husband calls her a dog.

•        The structure of the wife argument is:

All the incorrect saying is baked by a dog.
She is incorrect.

 Therefore, she likes a dog.


In this story, the wife makes a “slippery slope”. She base on the false premises and insufficient premises to infer her husband saying to absolute different meaning.

ITEM 3
The accident


You are an emergency worker that has just been called to the scene of an accident. When you arrive, you see that the car belongs to your wife. Fearing the worst, you rush over to see she is trapped in her car with another man.
She sees you and although barely conscious, she manages to mouth the words “I’m sorry...”
You don’t understand, but her look answers you question. The man next to her is her lover with whom she’s been having an affair.
You reel back in shock, devastated by what her eyes have just told you. As you step back, the wreck in front of you comes into focus. You see your wife is seriously hurt and she needs attention straight away. Even if she gets attention there’s a very high chance she’ll die.
You look at the seat next to her and see her lover. He’s bleeding heavily from a wound to the neck and you need to stem the flow of blood immediately. It will only take about 5 minutes to stop, but it will mean your wife will definitely die.
If you tend to your wife however, the man will bleed despite the fact it could have been avoided.

=> False dilemma (Fallacies of Presumption)
Analysis:
The man has falsely gotten himself into a dilemma because he was limited to only two choices. There is also another way for the man to solve the situation. There are many emergency workers going with him, so he just needs to ask another skilled worker to help his wife's lover while he helps his wife with her injury. By demanding other choices beyond these limited ones, the man can avoid being on the horns of a dilemma.
Source
Item 1: http://www.google.com.vn/imgres?q=quang+cao+sunsilk+cua+ho+ngoc+ha&num=10&hl=vi&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=-rwRCwX8pVFKGM:&imgrefurl=http://brand.hoo.vn/dai-su-thuong-hieu.xml&docid=ssO-PTAP-fnECM&imgurl=http://brand.hoo.vn/content/uploads/2010/07/sunsilk.jpg&w=400&h=400&ei=4VeqUOqmIeqviQeW2IH4Bg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=2&sig=102808922170157575109&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=137&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:66&tx=292&ty=266
Item 2: http://hoibi.net/truyen-cuoi/3510-suy-dien-logic-dieu-toa.htm
Item 3: http://listverse.com/2007/10/21/top-10-moral-dilemmas/

ENTRY 4_VÕ PHƯƠNG LINH

ITEM 1
Chắc mấy bạn ai cũng từng cho tiền những người ăn xin đúng không, bạn cho người ta vì thấy người ta tội nghiệp, cần giúp đỡ và mình cho đi không nghĩ ngại gì hết, vì đó là lòng thương người thật sự, đó là lúc mình sống vì người khác, biết quan tâm chia sẽ với người nghèo khổ, nhưng chính vì lòng thương người nên họ bắt đầu lợi dụng làm bộ nghèo khó đi xin tiền người khác, mọi người ko biết thì vẫn cho bình thường nhưng không có chuyện xấu nào mà không bị phát hiện rồi từ đó mọi người sẽ không cho tiền họ nữa, tương tự như những hành động cứu người khác rồi bị người khác lợi dụng... nên riết rồi không ai dám giúp đỡ ai hết và sống khép kín


Analysis
Type of fallacy: Necessary & sufficient conditions
If you see someone who is poor, you will help
If you are cheated many times by someone who is not poor
You won’t help anyone
In fact, the premise is lack “you lost belief in other people”




ITEM 2














 Phạm Sơn (1989, trú xóm Trung Long, xã Trung Lộc, Can Lộc, Hà Tĩnh) giả danh cảnh sát hình sự, cảnh sát phòng chống ma túy đang công tác tại  Công an TP Hà Nội, Nghệ An, TP Huế... để tạo niềm tin cho các nữ sinh viên rồi trộm cắp tài sản, cưỡng dâm một số SV đang theo học tại các tỉnh, thành phố Hải Phòng, Hà Nội, Móng Cái, Nghệ An, Hà Tĩnh, TT-Huế, TPHCM, Cần Thơ...đã bị cảnh sát bắt giữ tại ga Huế. 
Khi được Thiếu úy Trần Đình Tuấn - ĐTV hỏi về những hậu quả mà bị can đã gây ra cho các nạn nhân, Sơn trơ tráo, lì lợm và khai báo gian dối nhằm tránh tội. Rồi, khi kể về một số sinh viên là nạn nhân của Sơn đang theo học ở Huế, Sơn nói: “Mấy con đó cũng thuộc loại cô hồn chứ không phải là loại con gái đàng hoàng. Nếu đàng hoàng thì quen ngày một, ngày hai sẽ không đi theo tôi...”.

Type of fallacy: Structural fallacy
If his victims are well-educated girls, they won’t follow him
His victims are not well-educated
His victims will follow him

If A, then B
Not A
Therefore, not B
ð This structure is false
The true structure is
    If A, then B                        If his victims are well-educated girls, they won’t follow him
   Not B                                   His victims will follow him
 Therefore, not A                  His victims are not well-educated
                                   

Entry 4_Hoàng Thị Mỹ Hạnh



Item 1

Joan is scratched by a cat while visiting her friend. Two days later she comes down with a fever. Joan concludes that the cat's scratch must be the cause of her illness.

Analysis:

Premise 1: Joan is scratched by a cat.
Premise 2: She comes down with a fever.
____________________________________
Conclusion: The cat’s scratch makes her ill.

=>     Post-hoc fallacy
There is no causal relationship between the cat’s scratch and Joan’s illness. It can be true if after being scratch, Joan was in completely sterile condition. 


Item 2




Analysis:

Premise 1: Saddam committed 9/11.
Hidden premise:  The event 9/11 is a disaster, Saddam is dangerous.
Premise 2: Bush caught Saddam.
__________________________________
Conclusion: Bush made America safe.

=>   Hasty generalization: Assuming that safe is only without terrorists. Moreover, “safe” itself is an ambiguous word.


Item 3


Analysis:

Premise 1: Two is a number
Premise 2: One is a number
______________________
Conclusion: One is two

=>    Structural fallacy

All S are P
a is P
_________________
Therefore a is S

Source: http://niyamaklogic.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/fallcy.jpg?w=220&h=167