CRITICAL THINKING
(Argument errors)
Entry 4- 10e14: Pham Thi Thanh Tuyen
- ITEM 1:
Bill: "I don't think it is a good idea to cut social
programs."
Jill: "Why not?"
Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and..."
Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head."
Jill: "Why not?"
Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and..."
Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head."
Fallacy of structure:
Structure of this argument
is that:
Some people have wealthy parents and have
it fairly easy
Others are
born into poverty and (need nothing)
(Social program is for those who really need help)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: cut social programs
=> This is an invalid weak argument
–Fallacy of content: personal attack
II. ITEM 2:
1, Structure Fallacies
Some A are B
Some A are B
Some B are C
-------------------------------------
Therefore, some A are C
2, Content
fallacy: (Fallacies of presumption)
Analyze:
Penguins (A) are black and white (B)
Some old TV shows (C) are black and white (B)
Therefore, some penguins (A) are old TV shows (C)
–> Invalid weak argument and invalid conclusion.
III. ITEM 3
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.
Content fallacy: False dilemma
Analysis:
Content fallacy: False dilemma
Analysis:
Father just gave
his daughter only two choices without considering other ones. He showed out
that one of two outcomes is inevitable, and both have negative consequences. In
fact, apart from the two above, the daughter can go on foot or other means of
transportation such as buses which are also safe.
Source: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#cliche
thank u for your entry :)
Trả lờiXóai would like to give u some comments
- item 1: i think the arguments u should analyze is Bill's argument
+premise 1: Social program is for those who need help
+premise 2:people born in poverty don't have fair start in lives, so they need helps
------------------------------------------------
Therefore, social program shouldn't be cut
And then Jill rejects Bill arguments by saying :"You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head." not by giving any evidences
--> it is personal attach
- item 2: it's just a small mistake when u write the structure of the argument. i suppose to change it like
Some A are B
Some C are B
-------------------------------------
Therefore, some A are C
Group B is too general (many things have two colors black and white not just Penguin and old TV show)
--> this argument is invalid weak, unsound
- item 3: i just want to add that the daughter's argument also has fallacy of relevance - appeal to consequences