Argument Structure:
Premise 1: If one has
these shoes, he’ll succeed in putting the ball in the basket. ( If A, then B)
Premise 2: The person doesn’t have these shoes ( Not A)
Premise 2: The person doesn’t have these shoes ( Not A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He will fail to put the ball in the basket ( Therefore, not B)
=> Structural Fallacy
He will fail to put the ball in the basket ( Therefore, not B)
=> Structural Fallacy
A person who can put
the ball in the basket or not, it's depend on many factors. We can say that he
doesn't succeed because he doesn't use these shoes.
Item 2:
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.
· => Content Fallacy - Fallacies of Presumption - Slippery slope
* Analysis:
Premise 1: It is hard to stop gambling
Premise 2: you will spend all your money on it
Premise 3( Hidden premise): To have more money, you may even earn money by committing crimes.
=> conclusion: if you don't stop gambling, you will turn to crime and become a criminal.
In fact, there is no evidence that if you gamble, you will become a criminal. you gamble and be a criminal or not, it depends on your actions.
Item 3:
=>Content Fallacy - Fallacy
of Presumption - False dilemma
Analysis: The above picture offers only two options:
Loving the country VS Leaving it (if you do not love it).
In fact,
there are other choices to be made:
- Leave but still love America
·
Live a life full in America but really don't love this country.
Sources:
Item 2: http://intercontinentalcry.org/an-examination-of-logical-fallacies/
Item 3: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/sarah-palin-speaks-out-on-the-media/question-2525411/?link=ibaf&q=love+it+or+leave+it+pictures&imgurl=http://www.gottagottahaveit.com/6-03/prod/images/tshirts/america%252520love%252520it%252520or%252520leave%252520it.jpg
Hi, can you provide us the sources of your items so that we can see it?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nhan.You should attack the sources
ReplyDeletei think in your item 1, there is no structural fallacy because the advert just says that " it's all in the shoes". it means that if you wear the shoes, then you can throw the ball into the basket, and there is no clue saying that if you don't use them, you cannot throw the ball into the basket like you analysed.
ReplyDeletei agreed with Lan. The ads just emphasizes that the shoes are key to the success, it doesn't say anything vice versa ( no shoes - nno success). I don't think there is a fallacy here
ReplyDeleteTuong VI
Hi there,
ReplyDeletePersonally, I disagree with Thuy Lan and Tuong Vi and agree with Thuy Phuong about the item 1. In fact, almost of manufactures use fallacies in their ads as it is an effective method to sell products. However, We have to find the implicities of the ads. In this poster, the slogan is "It's all in the shoes". It means that if you use the shoes, you'll succeed in putting the ball in the basket like that man, and unless you have one, you won't do that. It commits fallacy since the 1st premise is questionable. The argument here is invalid.