Ø
Entry 4_ Nguyễn Thị Thúy
Entry 4
Analyzing Arguments
Item 1
Bộ Văn
hóa - Thể thao và Du lịch chiều qua (28/9) đã quyết định bổ nhiệm bà Trần Thị
Thanh Nhàn (nghệ danh Lý Nhã Kỳ) làm Đại sứ Du lịch Việt Nam
Source:
Analysis
Fallacies of Relevance (personal attack)
Actually, that Ly Nha Ky had so many scandals
didn’t affect her ability to be Vietnamese Tourism Ambassador. Maybe she had
private life’s scandals but it didn’t mean that she couldn’t introduce the
country’s image to international friends and promote Vietnam Ky.
Item 2
Analysis
With Ponds, you know you are more
beautiful
===> Hidden premise: If you use
Ponds, you will be more beautiful
If A then B
You don’t use Ponds
Not A
--------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, You won’t be more beautiful
Therefore, not B
ð structural fallacies
This ad means that if you
use Ponds you will be more beatiful. In contrast, if you don’t use Ponds, you
won’t be more beautiful. But actually, you can make youself more beatiful in
other ways without using Ponds.
Item 3
Source: http://tdpp09e8.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/jfa2058l1.jpg
ð Fallacies of presumption ( false
dilemma)
In the picture, there are only 2
choices for employees to choose the quality of their job: “fulfillment without
wealth” or “wealth without fulfillment”. They have to choose one of 2 job’s
qualities without any other choices. However, actually, they can choose job
consisting of two above factors, or consisting of none of them. Therefore, it
is false dilemma which gives a
choice between one or another though there are other choices which could be
made.
Item 4
“ Joe did not want to study at a
university. Instead, he decided to go to a technical school. He is now making
an excellent salary repairing computers. Bill does not want to study at a
university. Therefore, he should go to a technical school to become financially
successful.”
Source: Keith S. Folse, April
Muchmore- Vokoun, & Elena Vestri Solomon, Great Writing 4, p. 122, Heinle
CENGAGE Learning.
Analysis
ð Hasty Generalizations
Athough Joe and Bill have something
in common ( both of them don’t want to study at a university), we can’t prove
one thing that Bill will be successful like Joe if he goes to technical school.
There are many factors that decide the success of one person. Therefore, we
can’t make hasty generalizations ( all people go to technical school can become
financially successful ) just base on an example of Joe.
I have some comment about your item:
Trả lờiXóa_all item is quite ok, but I think you should give type of fallacy in the detail.
_item 2 does not have hidden premise like you showed. We can see it clearly in the picture. I want to add fallacy type is denying the antecedent.
_ Item 4 is content fallacy: fallacy presumption(hasty generalization.