Entry4_Lê Thị Thủy

Item 1
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

Gunthar is the father of Connan. They live on a small island and in their culture women are treated as property to be exchanged at will by men.
Connan: “You know father, when I was going to school in the United States I saw that American women are not treated as property. In fact, I read a book by this person named Mill in which he argued for women’s rights.”
Gunthar: “So, what is your point son?”
Connan: “Well, I think that it might be wrong to trade my sisters for cattle. They are human beings and should have a right to be masters of their own fate.”
Gunthar: “What a strange and new-fangled notion you picked up in America. That country must be even more barbaric then I imagined. Now think about this son. We have been trading women for cattle for as long as our people have lived on this island. It is a tradition that goes back into the mists of time. “
Connan: “But I still think there is something wrong with it.”
Gunthar: “Nonsense my boy. A tradition this old must be endorsed by the gods and must be right.”
- Fallacy: Appeal to tradition
- In this conversation, it is easy for us to realize that the father is a person who always follows the tradition. He assumed that the things his son said were wrong and the tradition is right because “A tradition this old must be endorsed by the gods and must be right.”

Item 2:
Adapted from: http://forum.lhu.edu.vn/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=290789
Đừng làm mất bút…
Mất bút
-> Không có bút
-> Không chép bài
-> Không học bài
-> Thi rớt
-> Không bằng cấp
-> Không có công việc
-> Không có tiền
-> Không có thức ăn
-> Ốm
-> Xấu
-> Không người yêu
-> Không có con
-> Cô đơn
-> Trầm cảm
-> Tự sát
====> đừng làm mất bút, nếu không bạn sẽ tự sát đấy
Analysis:
• It is a chain of structural fallacies.
Nếu Mất bút (A) thì sẽ tự sát (B)
Không mất bút (not A)
Nên không tự sát (not B)
• Besides, it also is a slippery slope.
Mất bút
-> Không có bút (you can buy another pen -> the premise will be changed)
-> Không chép bài (you can also borrow a pen or make a copy of your friend’s -> the premise will be changed)
-> Không học bài (you can learn from book, not from notebook -> the premise will be changed)
-> Thi rớt (you can pass the exam by luck or cheating -> the premise will be changed)
-> Không bằng cấp (you can buy a degree or earn another one -> the premise will be changed)
-> Không có công việc (not all job need a degree -> the premise will be changed)
-> Không có tiền (you can get money from your family, state aid, etc. ->the premise will be changed)
-> Không có thức ăn (you can beg for some foods or your relatives give you food -> the premise will be changed)
-> Ốm (the premise of this conclusion is wrong then it is wrong too -> the premise will be changed)
-> Xấu (being sick does not mean that you are ugly -> the premise will be changed)
-> Không người yêu ( You still can have a lover even when you are as ugly as sin -> the premise will be changed)
-> Không có con ( you can be pregnant even when you are single -> the premise will be changed)
-> Cô đơn ( in addition to children, there are others people to make you not feel lonely -> the premise will be changed)
-> Trầm cảm ( loneliness cannot cause depression in all cases -> the premise will be changed)
-> Tự sát (depression can be over, -> the premise will be changed)
-> Wrong conclusion withdrawn from false premises and insufficient premises

Item 3:

“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists…”

(George W. Bush, The Washington Post, 2001)

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html
- Fallacy of presumption: false dilemma
- Analysis: (“either-or”) It gives a choice between “with us” and another “with the terrorists” even though there are other choices which could be made. People can be a neutral, for example.