Do you think the analogy proposed by the interviewer in this video a strong analogy?

Explain
your answer!

In my opinion, the interviewer does not make a strong analogy. The problem is he
misinterprets the concept of socialism. In socialism, everyone has the same right/access to the
basic needs (food, shelter, education, etc.). Think of BPJS, KIP and other social aid from the
government. These social aids are in order for the poor to have the same access to the basic
needs as the rich. These are what socialism’s ideal society is. In contrast, capitalism country
such as U.S.A does not provide its citizens with such social aids. In short, socialism does not
mean equal share for everyone, it means everyone should have the same access for their basic
needs. The interviewer misinterprets socialism as equal share therefore he uses the analogy of
equal share of GPA in support of socialism. This analogy is flaw as the premise of socialism
is misinterpreted in the first place. Moreover, the concept of socialism is political concept.
Meanwhile, GPA is form of academic performance. Political system and academic
performance cannot be equated since the two stands on the different ground. Therefore, I
think the interviewer does not make a strong analogy. Instead, I think he commits weak
analogy fallacy.

Task 1 Fallacy of Presumption

1. I rarely go to church. No wonder my business has been going downhill lately.

The argument commits false cause fallacy. False cause happens when the speaker link
between going to church with their business that going downhill. The two do not have any
clear correlation. Rarely going church becomes the cause of the declining business stands on
the imagined causal. Thus, the sentence commits false cause fallacy post hoc ergo propter
hoc (after this, therefore because of this).

2. The firearm is like a hammer. We can't prevent people from owning a hammer, so we
shouldn't prohibit people from owning a gun.

The argument commits weak analogy. Firearm cannot be equated with hammer. The first has
a power to hurt and kill people. While the latter can be used to hurt people too, it is rarely
used to do so instead it is used for doing work (such as handicraft). Firearm does not have the
same practical use as hammer. Thus, the two are not similar and cannot be equated.
Consequently, the argument commits weak analogy fallacy.

3. Don't like biting your nails! If you keep doing that, you can bite your entire hands out
unconsciously.

The argument commits slippery slope fallacy. It rests on the claim that biting nails (first step)
can end up in biting entire hand (second step). While the first step is true, the second step is
exaggerated which makes it a slippery slope fallacy.

4. Freedom of expression is a right protected by law. So, I may express my opinion in when
the pastor of the church is giving a sermon in Sunday Worship.

The argument commits accident fallacy. A general rule of freedom of expression is applied in
the specific case viz. Sunday worship sermon. This specific case is not intended to be covered
by the general rule (as it contains its own rule viz. all the audiences should follow the sermon
quietly). Thus, the argument commits accident fallacy.

5. I am sure he will be late for the office this morning, because I really believe that he will be
late for the office.

The argument commits petition principii (begging the question) fallacy. The arguer leaves
out the key premise, they do not actually state the reason why they think he will be late for
the office.

6. A teacher to his student

Teacher: "Reno, where did you hide Budi's cellphone that you stole?"

Reno: "Haa ?? I didn't steal it, sir. I don't know at all"

Teacher: "Come on, admit it, where did you hide that cellphone?"

What fallacy can the Teacher be said to commit?

In this conversation, the teacher commits complex question fallacy. They ask Reno “Come
on, admit it, where did you hide that cellphone?" in order to frame him as a thief.

7. There was never a problem with our housing environment before Pak Andi and his family
moved to our housing.
This argument commits false cause fallacy. There is actually no clear relationship between
problem in housing environment and Pak Andi that moved in.

8. I couldn't help thinking that anyone would eat rabbit meat. That's so disgusting! Why?
Because it's a rabbit! How could anyone want to eat rabbit meat?

This argument commits petition principii fallacy. Petition principii happens when instead the
arguer provides reasoning on the prohibition of eating rabbit meat, they only assume the truth
of the conclusion.

9. Many people lie. Smoking is actually not bad for health. My grandmother, a heavy smoker,
lived to be 112 years in general.

This argument commits false cause fallacy. The arguer concludes that smoking is actually
good for health since their grandmother lived to 112 years despite of smoking. They commit
cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this), with their grandmother living
a long year therefore because of smoking is good for health. It is considered a fallacy since
the relationship between the two are unknown.

Task 2 What informal fallacy?

1. I have the right to watch "The Real World."  Therefore it's right for me to watch the
show.  So, I think I'll watch this "Real World" marathon tonight instead of studying for my
exam.

This argument commits equivocation fallacy. In this argument, the arguer uses right to watch
“The Real World” in a multiple senses within an argument. In the first sense, it is their right
to watch the show. Nevertheless, they cannot depend on that fact to legitimate his marathon
instead of studying for exam.

2. "They said they suspect several people of setting the fire. Therefore I can't be under
suspicion, since I was alone that night."

This argument commits amphiboly fallacy. The arguer misinterprets ‘suspect several people
of setting the fire’ as there are multiple people who was setting the fire. Thus, he can
conclude that he is not under suspicion since he was alone. However, it is misinterpretation of
the syntactically ambiguous utterance. Hence, this argument is amphiboly.
3. Never apply for a credit card! You will spend money you actually don’t have until
you have reached the limit of your card. Then, you will not be able to pay the credit, your
family is terrorized by debt collectors. Your life will be in misery!

The argument commits slippery slope fallacy. The argument’s chain of reasoning is
exaggerated. Then, the conclusion rests on the claim of exaggerated chain of reasoning. Thus,
the argument commits slippery slope fallacy.

4. "John is the most brilliant student in our school. Since he is in my class, I must be in
the most brilliant class."

This argument commits composition fallacy. The arguer thinks that what is true of the parts is
true of the whole. In other word, just because there is a brilliant student, the arguer think that
everyone (including themselves) is brilliant too.

5. I gained 6 kilos in the last two months. This must be because I watched Korean
Drama a lot.

The argument commits false cause fallacy. There are no clear relationship between gain 6
kilos and watch Korean Drama. The arguer thinks post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this,
therefore because of this). After watching Korean drama, they gain 6 kilos therefore they
think the weight-gain is caused by Korean drama. Consequently, the argument commits false
cause fallacy.

6. My 102-year-old neighbor is a card-carrying member of an organization of thugs that

requires its members to kick babies.  Therefore, my neighbor is a thug...and she wears way
too much perfume.

This argument commits division fallacy. It happens when one reason that something that is
true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts. In the argument, the arguer
assumes because their neighbor carry card of a thug of organization, she is a thug too, and all
her behavior is thug-like (wear too much perfume).