Entry 4 - Phạm Thuỷ Tiên

ITEM 1:

(Retrieved April 22^th, 2012  

From http://www.morinimontanari.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/012_ad.jpg)

Analysis:

• Your hands are only as clean as the towel used to dry them
  ( Hidden : If the towel is clean , your hands are clean and If your hands are clean, it means the towel is clean)
• The towel ( in this picture ) looks filthy and disgusting

à If you use that towel, your hands will also be filthy like that

• Hands are only as clean as the towel used to dry them
• ( Hidden : If the towel is clean , your hands are clean and If your hands are clean, it means the towel is clean)
• New Kleenex hand towel is clean,fresh towel every time

        à If you use Kleenex hand towel , your hand will be clean and fresh every time

*1.    If A, then B

          not B

         àTherefore, not A

A: your hand is clean

B : the towel is clean

*2     If A, then B

          A

           àTherefore, B

A: the towel is clean

B: your hands are clean

                In term of structure, the argument is valid; however, this is an implied False Dilemma. False Dilemma says that you only have two options. In this case you can use a filthy, disgusting cloth towel OR you can use “Kleenex Hand Towels – a clean, fresh towel every time!” There are other options though…like changing out your reusable cloth towel before it looks like the microbe farm shown in the picture. 

Item 2:

(Retrieved April 22^th, 2012

From   http://jokes4u.mycybernet.ca/tinymoun.htm)

                                                A Tiny Moutain Village

The scene was a tiny mountain village in a remote section of West Virginia. An old mountaineer and his young wife were getting a divorce in the local court. But custody of the children was a problem.The mother jumped to her feet and protested to the judge that since she had brought the children into this world, she should retain custody of them.

The old mountaineer also wanted custody of the children. The judge asked for his side of the story and, after a long moment of silence, the mountaineer slowly rose from his chair and said, "Judge, when I put a quarter in a candy machine and a candy bar comes out, does it belong to me or the machine?"

Analysis:

A is B

             B has X

è Therefore, A has X.

The mountaineer argues against his young wife to gain the custody of the children by comparing the child-bearing with a candy-making, but this analogy is very weak. Here are some of the relevant differences:

·         Wife can give baby who will be grown up and do many great things; but the candy machine is only used to produce sweet.

·         People can create a lot of machine; but machine cannot give birth.

·         The child and wife are people, while the candy bar and candy machine are things. So it’s an inappropriate comparison.

Item 3:

(Retrieved April 22^th, 2012

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/moral.html)

One argument often used by Christians trying to prove the existence of their God is as follows:

If there are objective moral values then God exists. 

There are objective moral values. 
Therefore, God exists.

Analysis:

§  We can summarize the argument above:                                                               

 1. Without God, there are no objective moral values                                              

 2. There are objective moral values                                                                      

  àTherefore, God exists

If A, then B                                                                                                            

 Not B                                                                                                                  

è Therefore not A

§  However, there argument is not sound because the considerations that Christians offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determining whether that conclusion is true. This argument they offer is that: X (the existence of God) is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. It is just a reason to accept the belief because of some external factors such as fear, a threat, a benefit or harm that are relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim.

–> Therefore this is content fallacies, fallacies of relevance which is appeal to consequences of a belief.