Answer to Question #166490 in Philosophy for Ajay Kaswan

Question

4. Identify and explain the following fallacies: [ 2 marks]

i. Only man is rational. But no woman is a man. So, no woman is rational.

ii. None has proved that taking vitamins is good for health. Therefore, taking vitamins is a waste of money. 

Answer 1

Identify and explain the following fallacies: [2 marks]

       i.           Only man is rational. But no woman is a man. So, no woman is rational.

This argument represents the fallacy of equivocation since the validity of the argument is an interpretation of two different statements. The fallacy appears to be valid but it cannot be validated in the real-world situation. This argument can only be valid if the interpretation of a man means an adult male, whereby no woman can be represented similarly. Therefore, if a man only means an adult male human, then an adult female (woman) cannot be a man, and thus, premise three is true. However, the interpretation of a man to mean any human being negates the second premise, and therefore, the argument cannot be true. The general interpretation of a man as a human being means that all women are men (human beings), which means that the first premise of the argument is true, whereas the rest of the argument gets is false.

       i.           None has proved that taking vitamins is good for health. Therefore, taking vitamins is a waste of money.

This argument is a fallacy that represents an ignorant appeal, whereby the claim in the first premise portrays ignorant reasoning that fails to provide any evidence for validity. Generally, the purchase and consumption of vitamins are considered as a positive expenditure since the vitamin is good for health. Therefore, if there is no existent proof that vitamin is good for health, then the argument may seem true due to lack of evidence. The basic knowledge used is that we require money to buy vitamins based on the fact that they are helpful to our bodies. Otherwise, we should not buy vitamins.

References

Petric, D. (2020). Logical Fallacies. UHC Split. 1-13. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24781.18401/1