Entry 4 _ Ngô Ngân Hà

Entry 4:

Argument Structures and Fallacies

 [Item 1] Structural Fallacy

-Description: It is a poster to advertise a night club called Клуб Up&Down  in Moscow, Russia. In the poster, there is an elegant man and an attractive woman with the slogan “No money, no honey”

->Message: If you have money, you can go Up and Down club to find your honey.

-Type: Structural Fallacy.

- Structure of Argument

(Denying the antecedent)

Premise 1: If you don’t have money, then you can’t go to Up and Down club to have honey.

Premise 2: You have money
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: Therefore, you can go to Up and Down club to have honey.

If A then B

Not A
--------------------------

Therefore Not B

The above argument is invalid. In fact, you may still have your own honey without having money to go this night club.

 [Item 2] Content Fallacy

There is a saying of the insurance company called Mutual like this:

“It was an easy choice, I either went with Mutual or I went with pain.”

-Type of Fallacy: Fallacy of presumption (False dilemma).

-Structure of Argument:

Either did I go with Mutual or I go with pain

I didn't go with Mutual

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

I went with pain.

-Analysis: The saying gives a choice between using Mutual and being painful. It means a choice between Mutual’s policies and terrible outcomes without using it. However, there are more choices which could be made. You still might be painful while you don’t use this insurance like diseases, accidents.

[Item 3] Content Fallacy

“Có 1 anh thầy lang băm ở làng nọ. Một hôm anh được một gia đình mời về thăm bệnh cho cô con gái nhà đó. Sau khi bắt mạch, anh thầy lúng búng mãi không biết là bệnh gì cứ gãi đầu gãi tai.

Bất chợt anh nhìn thấy dưới gầm giường nhà cô gái có vỏ quả cam. Mừng quá, anh hỏi chủ nhà:

-Có phải là nhà ông vừa cho con ăn cam đúng không?

Ong bố ngạc nhiên hỏi:

-Dạ, bẩm sao thầy biết ạ?

Tôi còn lạ gì, bệnh này là do ăn cam đây mà. Không ăn cam sao lại mắc bệnh được.”

-Type of Fallacy: Fallacy of presumption (Post-hoc Fallacy).

- Structure of Argument

The girl ate oranges and she is ill now.

 The action that she ate oranges preceded her illness.

The preceding action is the cause of the following one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eating oranges makes her ill.

-Analysis: The charlatan doctor in the above story concludes that the disease of the girl is from eating oranges when he sees their rinds. It might not true because 2 actions above might happen accidentally and there are other reasons causing her illness. 

Sources:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=259820457473824&set=a.192620780860459.39592.191379320984605&type=1&theater

http://suite101.com/article/teaching-students

"Truyện cười dân gian Việt Nam" (NXB Trẻ, 2000)