Name : Nguyễn Thị Hương Giang
Class: 10E14
CRITICAL THINKING
ENTRY 4 : ARGUMENT
Item 1 :
Analysis:
·
In this items it provides content fallacies because of
dubious and clearly false premises
·
The premises are used to explain for each other in a
circle way with invalid and sufficient information to account fully for the
problems.
·
The author uses the premise to account for other premise and
have no clear why the bible is the world of god.
Item 2 :
Example:
In a cartoon, two elephants are driving their car down the road
in India. They say, “We’d better not get out here,” as they pass a sign saying:
ELEPHANTS
PLEASE STAY
IN YOUR CAR
Analysis:
Upon one interpretation of the grammar, the pronoun “YOUR”
refers to the elephants in the car, but on another it refers to those humans
who are driving cars in the neighborhood. So it is syntactic
ambiguity, ambiguity caused by multiple ways of understanding
the grammar of the phrase.
Item
3 :
“Smith,
who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State
University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is
walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels
chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family
that American squirrels are white.”
Analysis:
Premise 1: see two white squirrels chasing each other around a
tree
Premise 2: all the American squirrels are alike
____________________________________________
Conclusion: American squirrels are white
Fallacy of presumption: hasty generalization
The second premise is incorrect
The man in the example draws a conclusion about the American
squirrels based on two
white squirrels. The two squirrels are
taken from the American squirrels but
two are not enough to present the whole population
==> The man comes to wrong conclusion
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét