Logical Fallacy Examples (1-5) by 국제교육부

Sentence

sghs_intl — 2024-05-08 03:26:30 UTC

My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day from age 14 and lived until the age of 95. So smoking really can't be that bad for you.

Sentence

sghs_intl — 2024-05-08 03:26:30 UTC

After I dropped off donatiaons for the food bank, I picked up a lottery ticket at the corner store, and it was a winner. That must've been my reward for doing a good deed.

Sentence

sghs_intl — 2024-05-08 03:26:30 UTC

The government should not prohibit drugs. Otherwise, the government would also have to ban alcohol and cigarettes. And then sugar and junk food would have to be regulated, too. Next thing you know, the government is forcing us to exercise every day! In the end, the government would control every aspect of oru lives!

Sentence

sghs_intl — 2024-05-08 03:26:30 UTC

If you want better salaries for low-level employees, we'll have to significantly increase prices, which will hurt consumers.

Group 5 🍳

2024-05-13 05:26:36 UTC

You're addressing the Hasty Generalization. One example cannot generalize a fact as it may not be true for others. Your father would be an exception.

G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

2024-05-13 05:26:41 UTC

Hasty generalization

The speaker's father doesn't represent all of the smokers, so it's a statement that was based on insufficient evidence.

Group 3

2024-05-13 05:27:33 UTC

Hasty generalization

The only sample provided is the speaker's father.

Group 4(Members:2, 8, 12, 22)

2024-05-13 05:27:44 UTC

Hasty generalization

The conclusion is based on a single sample, which can be an exceptional case. It can lead us to stereotype about smoking.

group 6 영재 예준 황기 준영

2024-05-13 05:27:58 UTC

You are basing your opinion only on your father's case. One example might not be the same as other cases.

Group 5 🍳

2024-05-13 05:29:49 UTC

You're addressing the Slippery Slope. You're exaggerating the government's reasonable act and rushing to the unrelated conclusion. The government's prohibbiting drugs can't be seem to lead to every aspect of our lives being controlled.

G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

2024-05-13 05:29:51 UTC

Either-or

-It suggests only two options: prohibiting everything or not.

Slippery slope

-It asserts a chain of events resulting in drastic changes.

Group 4

2024-05-13 05:30:03 UTC

False cause

Since the cause(donating) and the effect(winning lottery) isn't really connected, this conclusion may be a single coincidence.

Group 3 (강희원, 윤채원, 정솔, 한서연)

2024-05-13 05:32:00 UTC

Slippery-slope

There is no direct evidence saying that the chain reaction will definitely happen.

(Either Or

It's 'The government will regulate everything about our life!' or the government does not regulate anything

maybe...?)

G4🩷

2024-05-13 05:32:02 UTC

It took a leap forward by expanding one drug regulation case to routine control, even though it did not bring direct consequences.

Group 3

2024-05-13 05:33:17 UTC

Either-or

Gives only one option: increase price, while government subsidy is available.

Group 5 🍳

2024-05-13 05:34:09 UTC

You're addressing the False Cause logical fallacy. Your winning a lottery ticket may not be the consequence of your having dropped off donations for the food bank.

Group 3 (강희원, 윤채원, 정솔, 한서연)

2024-05-13 05:34:21 UTC

False Cause

The two events are not necessarily causally related.

It is only a coincidence.

group6

2024-05-13 05:35:45 UTC

There is no evidence that prohibiting drugs will lead to banning alcohol and cigarettes and cause more problems. So, you are asserting that a small step will lead to a chain of events without evidence.

🐽🐽🐽🐽

2024-05-13 05:36:54 UTC

Hasty Generalization

Just one case (in this case, the father's case) can't be a common phenomenon for all. It is suggesting insufficient evidence + example.

G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

2024-05-13 05:37:14 UTC

Either-or

It provides only two options(better salaries or lower salaries for low-level workers), but there can be other compromises.

Group4

2024-05-13 05:38:55 UTC

Either-or

It oversimplifies a complex issues by giving only two options.

group 6

2024-05-13 05:39:14 UTC

You dropping off donations for the food bank, doesn't cause you winning a lottery. so you are assuming that two events are causally connected when they aren't.

🐽🐽🐽🐽🐽

2024-05-13 05:39:16 UTC

Slippery Slope

It is suggesting if the government prohibits drugs, it will ultimately cause the government would control every aspect of our lives, but there is no evidence to prove this result will inevitably happen.

G2(유지민, 신효주, 정은교, 김세빈)

2024-05-13 05:39:26 UTC

False casuse

There is no causal connection between donating for the food bank and winning the lottery. It seems to be just a coincidence.

Group 5 🍳

2024-05-13 05:41:03 UTC

You're addressing the Either-Or logical fallacy. You derived the listener to choose an unbeneficial option for low-income labors and make him or she cannot come up with the better alternatives.

Group 6

2024-05-13 05:41:34 UTC

there isn’t only one solution to the problem.

There might be many solutions to the problem, but you are suggesting only one solution. That means that you ignore all the variables.

G. 4(new sentence, new situation)

2024-05-13 05:42:56 UTC

Milk has no effect on my height because I haven't grown an inch despite having a glass every morning.

🐽🐽🐽🐽

2024-05-13 05:43:39 UTC

Either-or

There is no significant connection between higher salaries for low-level employees and increasing prices.

🐽🐽🐽🐽

2024-05-13 05:45:34 UTC

False Cause

That two phenomena (donating and winning the lottery) can be a coincidence and can't be said as actual cause and effect.