ENTRY 4
Argument Structures and Fallacies
ITEM 1
Because of absence
Mother: Why did you get such a low mark on that test?
Junior: Because of absence.
Mother: You mean you were absent on the day of the test?
Junior: No, but the kid who sits next to me was.
Source: http://www.webtretho.com/forum/f118/tuyen-tap-truyen-cuoi-tieng-anh-55257/
→post-hoc fallacies
In the above conversation, the child explained with his mother about his low mark on test. He said that the reason for that is because the kid who sits next to him was absent on the day of the test. Therefore, the kid was absent leading him to get a low mark on the test. It is unreasonable
ITEM 2:
Father to daughter: Either you buy a large car and watch it guzzle away your paycheck, or you buy a small car and take a greater risk of being injured or killed in the event of an accident.
Source: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#cliche
→ False dilemma
In the speech, father gave his daughter only two choices without considering other ones. He also pointed out that one of two outcomes is inevitable, and both have negative consequences. In fact, apart from the two above ones, the daughter can choose other ways for her. She can go on foot or other means of transportation such as buses which are safe.
ITEM 3:
The River Isn't Deep
A stranger on horse back came to a river with which he was unfamiliar. The traveller asked a youngster if it was deep.
"No", replied the boy, and the rider started to cross, but soon found that he and his horse had to swim for their lives.
When the traveller reached the other side he turned and shouted : "I thought you said it wasn't deep ?"
"It isn't", was the boy's reply : "it only takes grandfather's ducks up to their middles !"
Source: http://www.tuyenquangonline.net/showthread.php?t=21603
→Hasty generalization:
Analysis:
A river is deep it must be over the head everything
The grandfather’s ducks take up to their middle (not over the head)
So, the river is not deep
→ weak premise.
I think that in the 1st item, it is not post-hoc fallacies because that junior gets low mark on test because of the absence of the kid next to him is not unreasonable as you say. Because it implies that Junio didn't prepare well for the test and he wanted to copy the paper of that kid but he didn't take part in the test so Junior can't copy his paper =>he got low mark. it is REASONABLE, not post-hoc fallacies
Trả lờiXóaI have some comment for your entry:
Trả lờiXóaFirstly, I think you should choose various types to analyze Argument Struture and Fallacies, not only a short story or a sentence, you can analize a poster,...
In item 1, I agree with Thuy. Your analysis is not enough clear. I suggest:
The kid who sits next to him was absent on the day of the test.(Event A precedes event B)
The kid was absent leading him to get a low mark on the test( Event A caused event B)