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)
