Entry 4 - Lê Văn Hồng

Entry 4: Arguments

Item 1:

Source < http://www.fibonicci.com/logical-reasoning/syllogisms/examples-types/>:

Premise 1:       If Johnny is eating sweets everyday, he is placing himself at risk for diabetes.

Premise 2:       Johnny does not eat sweats everyday.

Conclusion:                 Therefore, Johnny is not placing himself at risk for diabetes.

This conclusion is invalid because there are a lot of different reasons besides eating sweets that make Johnny face diabetes. He can place himself for the disease when eating cakes instead of candies.

Item 2:

Source < http://www.fibonicci.com/logical-reasoning/syllogisms-test/medium/>:

Premise 1: All houses are residences.

Premise 2: All sheds are residences.

Conclusion: All houses are sheds.

This conclusion is invalid. There must be no valid conclusion because three cases can occur: All houses are sheds; or Some houses are sheds; or No house is sheds. The inference can be indicated in the diagram below:

Item 3:

Source: < http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html>

“I can't believe you voted to restrict welfare. Either you didn't understand the proposition, or you just don't care about those less fortunate than yourself.”

This is an example of false dilemma because the speaker assumes that there are only two kinds of people mentioned in the verse above. However, there must be plenty of others who understand the proposition and care about the unfortunate but voted to restrict welfare for some reasons. They might care more about limiting the role of government.