Item 1: Structural fallacies.
Some vertebrates are warm- blooded.
Frogs are vertebrates.
Therefore, frogs are warm-blooded.
(Source: http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A821107)
Analysis:
The above argument can be analyzed according to the pattern:
Some S are P.
A is S.
Therefore, A is P.
This example is a typical of an invalid argument. Although both of the premises are true, the conclusion is false. In a valid argument, the conclusion is never false when the premises are true. However, this particular argument is invalid because it does not work with the quantifier “some”, only with the quantifier “all”. Actually, this argument will be true to some cases, however, in this situation it turns to be wrong because people jump to conclusion with all cases. In reality, some vertebrates are warm-blooded but to what some extent, this thing is not true, such as frogs, spiders, snakes, alligators. Therefore this is an invalid argument.
Item 2: Slippery slope (Content fallacies- Fallacies of presumption- Slippery slope)
By filling in this form, you will be buying into a business enterprise that will make you a millionaire in five years and help you get married with a beautiful woman. Then, you would have extramarital relations with charming girls like other businessmen.
Analysis:
This fallacy points out an unstoppable chain of events at the first step. They do not care about the following ones can happen or not. Maybe, after filling the form, people can buy a business enterprise and begin running the company or carry on business to make their fortune. However, we do not know about their jobs later. They can earn a great deal of money to become the wealthy, and then get married with pretty women. On the contrary, they totally have a possibility to go bankrupt unless they do business successfully. Moreover, we cannot make sure that he has love affair like other people. This implication is quite unreasonable.
Item 3: Content Fallacies- Fallacies presumption– False dilemma, before you know it you will meet up with some
“Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students’ safety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone’s safety, so we must tear the building down.”
(Source: http://xiamenwriting.wikispaces.com/False Dilemma)
Analysis:
In this argument, the author raises only two solutions to the problem of the Caldwel Hall (tear it down or put up it). In reality, we are able to find several suitable ways to solve this problem. Apparently, the author neglects to mention the possibility that people might repair the building or apply some ways to protect students from the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms.