Entry 4 -Ngô Minh Đức

Argument Structures and Fallacies

Item 1:  Deductive argument

If we don’t stop the Communists in South Vietnam, they’ll take over the whole country.

If they take over Vietnam, next they’ll conquer Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand.

Once they have Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand – they’ll overrun Indonesia and the rest of the Pacific Rim.

Once they conquer the Pacific Rim, they’ll take Japan – and the next thing you know, they’ll be off the coast of California! 

Source: http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Slippery_Slope.html

Error: Content fallacies of Presumption (Slippery slope)

Analysis:

It's form of a valid - i.e., a string of "if-then" statements which lead to a conclusion:

A: don't stop Communists in South VN ==> B:Communists will take over VN

B ==> C: They will conquer Laos, Cambodia, Thailand

C ==> D: They are overrun Indonesia and Pacific Rim

D ==> E: They will take Japan

E ==>  F: Communists will invade California

The implicit: Communists invading California is unacceptable

The explicit: We must stop the Communists in South Vietnam. It does not explain how the first lead the to the next and even the last.

Item 2:  Fallacy: Personal Attack 

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say." 

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Analysis:

1. Bill makes a claim: abortion is unmoral

2. Dave makes a claim attack Bill

3. Therefore Bill's claim is false

Item 3: False dilemma

“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.