180 likes | 194 Views
Economics Project. Deduction Versus Fallacy. CASE 1 URINATE ?? WATER??. I have drunk two cans of coke two hours ago, so I have to urinate now !. If you have drunk water, then you must urinate later. 2. You must have drunk a lot of water today. 1. I have to urinate also!.
E N D
EconomicsProject Deduction Versus Fallacy
CASE 1 URINATE ?? WATER??
I have drunk two cans of coke two hours ago, so I have to urinate now ! If you have drunk water, then you must urinate later.
2. You must have drunk a lot of water today 1. I have to urinate also!
1. NO, I did not. ?? ?? 2. Donald is wrong.He has committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Because you can also absorb water from having vegetables and Fruits instead of drinking water.
2. OH DEAR!You haven’t drunk water for a whole day!How come you have to go to the toilet? 1. HURRY ! I have to go to the toilet right now!
Pluto, you are wrong. You have committed the fallacy of denying the antecedent! As I have mentioned before, you need to go to the toilet may not because of drinking water.
CASE 2 SEX AND THE BABY
Minnie and I have babies now because We have had sex ten months ago. If you have a baby, then you must have had sex before
2. Oh …we have sex also,we should have a baby…... 3.But why we don’t have baby…. 1. You and Daisy don’t have baby.Is it true that you two haven’t had sex before?
Both of you are wrong. Mickey,you have committed the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Donald has no baby.It does not mean they do not have sex.They don’t have a baby may because of they have used condoms, or other measures.
And Donald, you have committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Having baby or not depends on many factors, not only you have had sex or not, maybe Daisy is not healthy enough to have a baby . So without a baby does not mean they don’t have sex and having sex also does not mean you will have a baby.
Produced by Trina Kwan(6) Olivia Cheung (1) Agatha Leung (12)