ENTRY 4
Argument Structure and Fallacies
ITEM 1
“I am going to tell you exactly what’s wrong. I am going to give you 4 tips that will turn things around. If you listen to my advice you WILL get big and strong. If you ignore my advice you will remain small and weak. It’s your choice. The following tips work. I know because I have used them myself to make rapid progress”.
Source: http://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/four-big-reasons-still-small-weak.html
–> Structural fallacies: denying the antecedent
Analysis:
if A (you listen to my advice), then B (you WILL get big and strong)
not A (ignore my advice)
therefore not B (remain small and weak = not big and strong)
ITEM 2:
Vintage advertising
“How are your Bowels?
In ancient times, people did not say “How do you do?” They said, “How are your bowels?” The ancients thought that the bowels were the seat of the emotions. We find in the Bible, the expression -“Bowels of Compassion.” Today the same writer would probably say -“Heart of Compassoin.”
Source: http://timriedel.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/vintage-ads-how-are-your-bowels/
–> Content fallacies: appeal to authority
Analysis:
The advertiser tries to sway us by citing the Bible as an authority on the importance of bowels. Today’s healthcare is far more effective than it was in biblical times as our current life expectancy is far greater than it was when the Bible was written.
The disparity between ancient and modern life expectancy shows that the Bible possesses outdated information on healthcare, and thus is a weak authority on the bowels because of insufficient expertise.
ITEM 3
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_vHDjG5Wk
Here is the transcript from the clip:
LEO: What else?
C.J.:The Ryder Cup team is declining our invitation to come to the White House.
LEO: You’re kidding.
C.J.:Because of the joke.
BARTLET: You’re kidding.
C.J.: I’m not.
[Mrs. Landingham comes in and gives Bartlet his schedule.]
BARTLET: The Ryder Cup team?
C.J.: It’s a group of the best golfers in the country…
BARTLET: I know what the Ryder Cup team is. Thanks Mrs. Landingham.
C.J.: Sir, this may be a good time to talk about your sense of humor.
BARTLET: [looks at his schedule] I’ve got an intelligence briefing, a security briefing, and a 90-minute budget meeting all scheduled for the same 45 minutes. You sure this is a good time to talk about my sense of humor?
C.J.: No.
BARTLET: Me neither.
LEO: What else?
C.J.: It’s just that it’s not the first time it’s happened.
BARTLET: I know.
TOBY: She’s talking about Texas, sir.
BARTLET; I know.
C.J.: U.S.A. Today asks you why you don’t spend more time campaigning inTexas and you say it’s ‘cause you don’t look good in funny hats.
SAM: It was “big hats.”
C.J.: What difference does it make?
BARTLET: It makes a difference.
C.J.: The point is we got whomped in Texas.
JOSH: We got whomped in Texas twice.
C.J.: We got whomped in the primary, and we got whomped in November.
BARTLET: I think I was there.
C.J.: And it was avoidable, sir.
BARTLET: C.J., on your tombstone, it’s gonna read, “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.”
C.J.: Okay, but none of my visitors are going to be able to understand mytombstone
BARTLET: Twenty-seven lawyers in the room, anybody know “post hoc, ergo propter hoc?” Josh?
JOSH: Uh, uh, post, after, after hoc, ergo, therefore, after hoc, therefore, something else hoc.
BARTLET: Thank you. Next?
JOSH: Uh, if I’d gotten more credit on the 443…
BARTLET: Leo?
LEO: After it, therefore because of it. [Josh, a little weirded out, looks]
BARTLET: After it, therefore because of it. It means one thing follows the other, therefore it was caused by the other, but it’s not always true. In fact, it’s hardly ever true. We did not lose Texas because of the hat joke. Do you know when we lost Texas?
C.J.: When you learned to speak Latin?
BARTLET: Go figure.
Translation
The banter which makes the West Wing such a great program gets in the way here, the main gist is this:
C.J.: The Ryder Cup team is declining our invitation to come to the White House.
Because of the joke.
Sir, this may be a good time to talk about your sense of humor.
It’s just that it’s not the first time it’s happened.
TOBY: She’s talking about Texas, sir.
C.J.: U.S.A. Today asks you why you don’t spend more time campaigning in Texas and you say it’s ‘cause you don’t look good in funny hats.
The point is we got whomped in Texas.
We got whomped in the primary, and we got whomped in November.
And it was avoidable, sir.
BARTLET: C.J., on your tombstone, it’s gonna read, Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “after it, therefore because of it.”
It means one thing follows the other, therefore it was caused by the other, but it’s not always true. In fact, it’s hardly ever true.
–>Content fallacy: Post-hoc
Analysis:
In this video, character C.J. argues that because President Bartlet made a joke about Texan hats prior to two unsuccessful votes in Texas, it follows that the joke was the reason he lost the votes. Bartlet points out that this inference is fallacious because it assumes that if one thing follows another then the first thing caused the second; this assumption is a fallacy of logic. C.J.’s argument committed the post hoc fallacy.- After it, therefore, because of it – don’t simply assume that because one thing follows another, the first thing caused the second thing to happen
e8ulis 
