Entry 4_Đinh Tuyết Mai

Item [1]
Đứng về phía ủng hộ, đại biểu (ĐB) Trần Tiến Cảnh (Hà Nam) dõng dạc: “Những nơi có chỉ số IQ cao thì nơi đó có ĐSCT như Nhật Bản, Trung Quốc, Pháp, Đức, Ý, Thụy Điển, Hà Lan, Anh, Hàn Quốc, Bỉ… Brazil, Nga, Indonesia thì đang triển khai. Việt Nam ta cũng có chỉ số IQ cao. Với tinh thần Việt Nam không còn là nước nghèo, với quyết tâm chính trị của cả dân tộc, đề nghị Quốc hội tán thành chủ trương xây dựng dự án trong kỳ họp này”.
*Analysis:
a) Structure

• Premise 1: Countries with high IQs build metro (All S are P)
• Premise 2: Vietnam has high national IQ     (a is P)
• Conclusion: Vietnam must build metro (Therefore, a is S)

=> Structural Fallacy
b) “Những nơi có chỉ số IQ cao thì nơi đó có ĐSCT…”
He mistook the “high IQ” as the sufficient condition for building metro whereas it is merely a necessary condition without an immense investment and prudent infrastructure management.
=>Fallacy of Presumption =>Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
c) “Việt Nam ta cũng có chỉ số IQ cao.”
He had no explanation or justification showing how relevant or exact the “high IQ” is. =>Fallacy of Ambiguity
d) “…Nhật Bản, Trung Quốc, Pháp, Đức, Ý, Thụy Điển, Hà Lan, Anh, Hàn Quốc, Bỉ… Brazil, Nga, Indonesia thì đang triển khai.”
He repeatedly said that the so-called high IQ countries had or were building metro system, whereas only a number of them did. The statistics from a small sample size insufficiently represent an entire specific group (High IQ countries).

=>Fallacy of Presumption => Hasty Generalization

However, there is no concrete evidence backing up the speculation that the countries he mentioned had high nation IQs, not to mention Vietnam. But to explicitly point out the flaws in his deductive reasoning, it is adequate to postulate that the “facts” he based on were true.
 

Source:http://vnn.vietnamnet.vn/chinhtri/201006/Cac-nuoc-co-IQ-cao-deu-lam-duong-sat-cao-toc-914859/

____________________________________________

Item [2]

*Analysis: The above picture offers only two options: [loving the country] or [leaving it (if you do not love her)]. In fact, there are other choices to be made :

• Leave but still love America: US soldiers have to fight thousands miles away from their country but their stalwart patriotism never wavers.
• Live a life full of hatred for America, wanting to damage or change the country: the calm and perseverant terrorists would be willing to wait indefinitely inside the heart of the country for a once-in-a-lifetime chance to plan a foolproof devastating terrorist attack.

=> Content Fallacy – Fallacy of Presumption – False dilemma

Source:http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/falsedilemma_5.htm

_________________________________________

Item [3]

You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.
*Analysis:
Start gambling
↓ Hidden Premise: Gambling addiction is inevitable
=> Find it hard to stop
=> Spend all money on gambling
↓ Hidden Premise: U earn money by committing crimes
=> Turn to crime to support gambling
The above argument simply shows the unfavorable escalation of the events without a clear explanation or justification of how all the sequences occur and operate .
=> Content Fallacy – Fallacies of Presumption – Slippery slope

Source:http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/ss.htm