22 Nov

Item 1:

– Why is it you limit your employees to married men?  Is it because you think women are weak, dumb, cantankerous…….or what?’

– ‘Not at all, Ma’am,’ the Factory Manager replied. ‘It is because our employees are used to obeying orders, are accustomed to being shoved around, know how to keep their mouths shut and don’t pout when I yell at them.’



Pr 1: All married men know to obey orders, to keep their mouth and can be shoved around.

Pr 2:  our employees are married men

Conclusion: our employees know to obey orders, to keep their mouth and can be shoved around.

(All S are P; a is P; Therefore a is S)

==> Fallacy of presumption: hasty generalization

This fallacy is caused by the bias that married man after suffering family life, especially his wife, will obey well, can deal with many troubles and know to keep silence. In fact, not all married men behave like that; whereas, not all unmarried men can not behave this way.


Item 2:

“ Bước chân Long Quân xuống biển

Bước chân Âu Cơ lên non

Bước chân Tây Sơn thần tốc

Bước chân bộ đội vượt rừng

Bước chân tiến vào thiên nhiên kỷ mới

Biti’s, nâng niu bàn chân Việt”


Analysis: this advertisement is about Biti’s shoes and sandals. There are many periods of history reflected in this advertisement. However, those periods do not help to support the conclusion and is quite irrelevant as well. Because in the past mentioned, no one wears Biti’s products.

==>Fallacy of relevance: irrelevant appeal ( to periods of history)


Item 3:

Mẹ: “Tôki ơi, coi chừng mèo ăn mất cá đấy! Con chú ý giùm mẹ nhé!”
Tôki: “Con đã chú ý lâu lắm rồi. Bây giờ nó sắp nuốt tới cái đuôi đó mẹ.”.


Analysis: in this funny story, the mother uses the word “ chu y” with the meaning that her son can look after the fish and keep it away from the cat. However, Toki understands this word with another meaning: keep looking at it. Thus, this fallacy is caused by their imprecise use of language.

==>Fallacy of ambiguity


6 Responses to “entry4_phungvuchaulong”

  1. nguyenlelinh November 23, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    I don’t think the 3rd Item is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t contain any argument. No premise. No conclusion.
    It’s a just a funny story in which the kid misunderstands the ambigious word of his mother.

  2. lythithuy November 24, 2011 at 2:50 am #

    Item 2: I think it is not a logical fallacy. When we read these statements, we should pay attention to the images on the screen. It means that in each period, Vietnamese people wore a kind of shoes or even went on foot. These statements were used to compare kinds of shoes in each period in the past and now. \
    I think it contains structure fallacies.

  3. daothihongnhung November 24, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    In your third item, it seems not to be a fallacy. As Linh mentioned, this has no argument or anything related to it, it is just a joke.

  4. buihoangdinh November 24, 2011 at 1:02 pm #

    i think that the 2nd item is not suitable for this entry _ an entry of analysising argument. it is an advertisement and there is no argurment or debate or . “Biti’s, nâng niu bàn chân Việt” is not a conclusion. i suggest that you can read this article to know more about this advertisement’s analysis. Here’s the link http://dactrung.net/phorum/tm.aspx?m=219411

  5. duongthithuhuong November 24, 2011 at 6:03 pm #

    – I think you identfied the wrong premises and conclusion in the first item
    Pre 1: All married men know to obey orders, to keep their mouth and can be shoved around.
    Pre 2: Our employees must be the people who know to obey orders, to keep their mouth and can be shoved around
    Conclusion: Our employees are married men
     In my opinion, it is content fallacy when the argument is valid but unsound
    – The second item contains no fallacy as you said. Through history, people are aware of the need to protect their feet from being barefoot to wearing straw shoes. And now, in the door of new century, bitis will take care of your feet according to the advertisement

  6. nguyenhuyenmy09e24 November 25, 2011 at 1:25 am #

    In my opinion, you may misunderstand the 2nd item. the banner ” biti’s, nâng niu bàn chân Việt ” is just a banner. It is not the conclusion for the premises above. The item may have structure fallacies

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: