Item 1 :
Hai cậu bé nói chuyện
với nhau:
- Em tớ được 1 tuổi rồi.
- Con chó nhà tớ cũng một tuổi, nhưng nó đi nhoay nhoáy, chứ không nằm một chỗ như em cậu.
- Con chó có những bốn chân mà lị!
- Em tớ được 1 tuổi rồi.
- Con chó nhà tớ cũng một tuổi, nhưng nó đi nhoay nhoáy, chứ không nằm một chỗ như em cậu.
- Con chó có những bốn chân mà lị!
 Argument structure |
Con chó 1 tuổi, đi
nhoay nhoáy
If A, then B
Em tớ cũng 1
tuổi
A
Người em phải đi nhoay nhoáy Therefore B
(If A
then B
B
--------------------------
Therefore A)
Ø Argument fallacy.
Item 2: Vietnam commercial ad -- Biti's Nâng niu bàn chân Việt
-
Analysis:
+ Long
Quân: The Dragon, father of the Vietnamese – Long Quan’s steps passing down the
ocean.
+ Âu Cơ: The Immortal, mother of the Vietnamese – Au Co’s steps passing up to the mountain
+ Tây Sơn: To defeat Qing troops (China) in 1789 – Tay Son’s steps making the legend of speed.
+ Trường Sơn range: To cross the mountain range to defeat U.S troops in Vietnam War – Steps passing over Truong Son range.
+ Âu Cơ: The Immortal, mother of the Vietnamese – Au Co’s steps passing up to the mountain
+ Tây Sơn: To defeat Qing troops (China) in 1789 – Tay Son’s steps making the legend of speed.
+ Trường Sơn range: To cross the mountain range to defeat U.S troops in Vietnam War – Steps passing over Truong Son range.
Item 3:
Father to daughter: Either you buy a large car and watch it
guzzle away your paycheck, or you buy a small car and take a greater risk of
being injured or killed in the event of an accident.→ False dilemma
Father just gave his daughter only two choices without considering other ones. He showed out that one of two outcomes is inevitable, and both have negative consequences. In fact, apart from the two above, the daughter can go on foot or other means of transportation such as buses which are also safe.
Source: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#cliche
In the 1st item, I think it still has one more agrument:
ReplyDeleteCó nhiều chân hơn thì sẽ đi nhanh hơn
Chó có 4 chân, người có 2 chân
=> Chó đi nhanh hơn người
Moreover in the item 2, I don't think it's a agrument
In my opinion, you should make your analysis more clearer for the readers can understand the argument. In addition, there still has an other argument in the first item:
ReplyDeleteVì chó có 4 chân nên nó đi nhanh nhoay nhoáy
Em bé có 2 chân
---------------------------------------------
Em bé không thể đi nhanh nhoay nhoáy
Moreover, I agree with Linh that the second item is really not an argument:)
In the first item,as far as I'm concerned, you have to indicate what the argument fallacy is. And based on the argument structure you detected, it's clear to be structural fallacy. Do you think so?
ReplyDeleteIn your item1, i agree with Phuong and Linh that there is one more argument but should we add one more premise that both of the dog and the baby are 1 year old like this:
ReplyDeleteChó 1 tuổi có 4 chân đi nhoay nhoáy
Em bé 1 tuổi có 2 chân
=> em bé nằm một chỗ
And they are structural fallacies as Ngoc said ^^.
In my opinion, the item 2 is an argument and it commits fallacy of relevance (appeal to traditional) as Mai said. In this ad, Biti's use Vietnamese traditions to advertise their product. Biti's cheris Vietnamese feet to step into new millenium like Long Quan’s steps passing down the ocean, Au Co’s steps passing up to the mountain, Tay Son’s steps making the legend of speed, Steps passing over Truong Son range.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that we should detect fallacies in authentic situations and analyse them ourselves. In your Item 3, the fallacies are already pointed out in the source
ReplyDeletecan u make you opinion in item 2 more clearly?
ReplyDelete