This clip was a huge fallacy, the arguments were completely invalid in the entire clip, making the overall conclusion unjustified. She is not actually a witch. The people picked stupid, made-up "facts" about witches to condemn an innocent woman to death. Made-up facts, automatically, make arguments invalid. The town's people dressed up the woman to make her look like a witch, they put on a hat and false nose. Also, there was absolutely no evidence presented by any of the town's people to justify arguments. One man said, "She turned me into a newt. I got better," (1.15). Conveniently, he was turned back to human and can accuse the woman, his word against hers. No person had actually seen any of the accusations that people were saying to classify the woman as a witch. There is no evidence and no validity to the people's arguments. Monty Python used logical fallacy as well. First, the town's people argument was that the woman merely looked like a witch (whatever that means). Then deduced, by stretched reasoning, that, "If she weighs the same as a duck, then she must be made of wood." The town's people tried to persecute the "witch" using stretched and illogical reasoning. The inconclusive arguments that the people used to legitimize their goal were only successful because of circumstance. The circumstantial fact was the woman just so happened to weigh the same as a duck. Both validity and logical fallacies were used.
I was having a conversation with a girl in my sorority. I asked her if she was going out on Saturday night. She said, " Yes I am, you have to everyone else is going and it's going to be so fun". I was hesitant, but she used the bandwagon method and told me that I had to go out because everyone else was. This is a fallacy because she is giving a one sided position. She doesn't hear the whole story of why I want to stay in.
This Monty Python clip was full of fallacies and criteria that make up what a fallacy is. It begins with a hasty generalization, accusing a girl of being a witch. They dress her up and put a nose on her, claiming that she turned someone into a newt. There is also example of bandwagon, because everyone in the group claims she is a witch, because everyone says she is. They are going along with the group. There is also false authority present. The man who is in charge of deciding whether she is a witch or not has no expertise on witches. He is assumed to be an expert by the people even though there is no proof he is. If there was a real issue at hand and the people are trying to blame the girl for being a witch as a distraction, then this would be an example of ad hominem.
This advertisement is an ad hominem because Joe Sestak is attacking opponent Arlen Spector, the Republican candidate opposing Sestak. An ad hominem is an attack on the person, which draws attention away from the main issue Sestak, does just that. He should be focusing on the political issues that face him if he should win the election. However, he is exposing Spectors political party change. For most of the advertisement, Sestak shows President Bush’s support for Spector. Nowhere in the advertisement does Sestak mention anything about what he can do for the people of Pennsylvania or even what he hopes to accomplish during his turn. It is just an ad meant to discredit his opponent.
There are numerous examples of a fallacy throughout the Monty Python clip. The first fallacy that became obvious to me would be classified as a Non sequitur fallacy. The townsfolk believed that the accused lady was a witch because she simply had a wart on her cheek. This specific classification of fallacy continues on once more when the townsfolk conclude that they will be able to tell if she is a witch if she burns, because witches are made out of wood. The woman obviously wasn’t made out of wood and there are many other possible materials that burn when set aflame. Therefore, this argument also is illogical. This clip also included the use of the false analogy. The townsfolk presumed that since a witch was made out of wood, witches float on water. Since ducks also float on water, the accused woman would be a witch if she floated on water also. The relevance behind relating the accused woman to a duck is nonexistent. How does floating like a duck make someone a witch? If anything, the argument would be more credible if they were accusing her as a duck. This also is completely not the case. Furthermore, the townsfolk even dress her up like a witch, to make her guilty by association. This is a ridiculously invalid argument because the townsfolk themselves directly changed her appearance. This would be the equivalent of putting a baseball hat on a stranger and telling everyone he is baseball player because he has your hat on. Overall I found this video hilarious because of all the distinct inaccurate arguments.
This ad is a funny anti-marijuana ad that pretty much says that smoking weed is always going to lead to bad things. This is a hasty generalization made by millions of Americans who oppose smoking weed. People think that marijuana consumption is a high risk activity and will lead to danger. This also falls under the slippery slope rhetorical fallacy. People think that marijuana usage will always lead to worse drugs. Marijuana is a very controversial topic and several rhetorical fallacies are often correlated with it.
As a fan of this movie I know that the entire movie is based on fallacies. In this clip particularly there is just about every type of rhetorical fallacy there is. Non sequitur is used for all the faulty the reasoning the towns people use to qualify er as a witch. Bandwagon is used by the followers of the towns people, when they want to burn a clearly home made witch. False analogy is very prevalent throughout the witch questioning process. Each criteria for being a witch that made was by no means true. For example, the woman in the video was not made out of wood. As for other fallacies in the video, were guilt by association, just because she looked like a witch does not make her one. Hasty generalization and oversimplification are used due to the extreme lack and biased based evidence that is used to dismiss relevant information like the fake nose. Almost, if not all the rhetorical fallacies are used in this video in a number of different ways.
This clip was oozing with fallacies. Right off the bat in the opening scene we see that this group of dumbfounded people have accused a woman to be a witch. However, they have no evidence to back this up, this qualifies as hasty generalization. Next, the pople speak of all of the things that must be done to get rid of her because she is a witch. This means burning her alive. They say that this is what everyone does to get rid of witches, thus the theory of bandwagon comes into play. Also, the fact that the people think she is a witch, sets the stage for many fallacies to come later in the clip. The knight goes off on a deep conversation that if she is a witch then she must also be made out of wood, she must be a duck, and she must float on water. Because of the accusation against her, the rest of the clip is filled with other fallacies-non sequitur. Lastly, the false authority fallacy exists in this clip. The knight is not a witch doctor or a witch or even anyone of high stature to determine whether or not the woman is in fact a witch. He thinks that because he is skilled at one thing, he has the authority to determine who is a witch and who is not. We call this false authority.
The townspeople of this clip are a part of a huge fallacy that is evident almost from the beginning of the scene. As noticed right from the start, bandwagon is one type of fallacy that is shown. The large crowd is running around yelling about someone who they believe to be a witch. Instead of every person in the crowd thinking separately about whether or not she is a witch, everyone gets caught up in the moment and joins the loud and exciting crowd in their one singular idea. Once they get to a leader figure, they start making accusations using the fallacies of false cause and hasty generalization. Because she is dressed like a witch, she obviously must be one. This is the reasoning of the three men who speak for the crowd. They have no real evidence of her being a witch, and thus are making hasty generalization based off of exactly no real evidence. The evidence that the three men do in fact present are an example of begging the question. Again, she has a wart, so she is a witch. They have no proof that all witches have warts, or that no normal person has a wart. They are in a circular argument with no clear evidence to support their reasoning. Overall, these men and this entire crowd are jumping to a conclusion and making a hasty decision to denounce this woman as a witch, with absolutely no evidence to back up any of their claims.
This is one of the new old-spice commercials, in which the company uses Ray Lewis to advertise their body wash. The ad uses many different fallacies including non sequitur, false analogy, and false authority. In the beginning of the advertisement, Ray Lewis tells the audience of what makes him a football player. He ends this list by stating that old spice body wash makes him a good football player. This is simply not true, because there is absolutely no logical connection between the two parts. The second fallacy, which is similar to the first, is false analogy. False analogy derives from the concept of non sequitur in which false analogy compares to completely unrelated things. The two things in comparison in this add - being a great NFL player and using Old Spice. This connection is false, and is therefore a rhetorical fallacy. Lastly, the most powerfully used fallacy in the Old Spice advertisement is false authority. Ray Lewis, a widely known professional football player, uses old spice body wash in the advertisement, but he does not have any credibility with old spice body wash. The only reason old spice uses Ray Lewis is because of his popularity amongst males across the nation. His lack of credibility but immense popularity is why false authority is a fallacy in this advertisement.
The Monty Python video is considered a fallacy and has many fallacies within the video. In the beginning, the townspeople are running around screaming that she is a witch. This persuaded other townspeople to believe she is a witch merely because they are just listening to what other people say. When the townspeople are asked why she is a witch, the men reply that she simply looks like a witch. This is a fallacy because just because she looks like a witch, doesn't mean she is one. The townspeople generalized that witches are made out of wood, they have warts, and many other things. This fallacy is called non sequitir because they had no real evidence to prove she was a witch. Another type of fallacy used is false authority, which the knight believes he has the authority to determine who is a witch or not. The men or the knight do not have concrete evidence to prove she is a witch. This video displayed many different fallacies.
An example of a rhetorical fallacy that i found online that i found clever and humorous is:
"Cutting people is crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals"
This is fallacy because cutting people is only sometimes a crime. Cutting people in surgery is definitely not a crime. Surgery is something that a patient legally agrees to before they go under surgery. While, cutting a human without their consent is certainly a crime. If you stab somebody with a knife or other weapon you are a criminal. Wrong assumptions can be made by fallacies and this example of a fallacy clearly proves that. This kind of fallacy is categorized as a 'sweeping generalization' because it is a generalization that disregards exceptions.
The first minute of this clip from the TV show "Friends" is an example of false cause. In the beginning Joey is trying to mess around with the fridge to get it fixed, when Rachel walks in. She has just recently become his roommate and he tries to blame the broken fridge on her. This is a false cause because there is no correlation between his fridge that he had since he was a kid and Rachel just moving in making it break.
"Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty !" This is an example of a non sequitur that I found online. It is a fallacy because these two statements have nothing to do with each other, though they are grouped together as an argument for the existence of life on other planets. This is making a false argument that doesn't make sense. There is absolutely no truth in the first statement that would make someone believe that the second statement is true. Non sequiturs are commonly used in advertisements to trigger the audience to take action in some way.
This particular scene of Monty Python and the Holy Grail is the epitome of Middle Age science, which would now be considered logic. Although it was regarded as logical then, today it is clearly illogical and consistent of many rhetorical fallacies. At the beginning, they attempt to condemn the poor woman as a witch because she was merely dressed as one, which is an example of hasty generalization. After the ruse of her outfit was debunked, the prosecutors said, "Well she has got a wort." That is non sequitur because having a wort does not necessitate being a witch. The whole reasoning process of Sir Bedevere after that has oversimplification, is non sequitur, and culminates to a false analogy. The false analogy is as follows: "If she weighs the same as a duck then she is made of wood!" Wood floats in water, and is what witches are burned upon, so therefore she is a witch. Very illogical.
Fallacies are used throughout the whole clip. The innocent woman in the clip was convicted to be a witch. However, the people cannot find any valid proof. The people argued the woman is a witch by saying that she has witch’s nose and is wearing a hat. Nevertheless, the woman’s nose is fake, and the hat is put on for her by the people. Also, one of the characters claimed “she turned him into a newt.” Then he realizes his claim is invalid and added “I got better now.” Another fallacy was shown in the clip which seems logical to the town people but actually are invalid arguments. A man found a way to prove the woman a witch by making people think in reverse. He claimed “if she is a witch, she is made in wood. If she is made in wood, she weighs the same as a duck.” This argument is logically wrong, thus it is a logical fallacy.
The Monty Python clip is a very good example of a bunch of fallacies. The title describes the first fallacy that the towns people bring up is that the random girl is a witch. They try and say that the carrot nose and funnel hat is what makes this girl a witch. They then create more fallacies when asked how they actually know she is a witch, one man states that she turned him into a newt. As everyone stares blankly at each other, he then establishes that he has all of a sudden become fine. The town scientist you could say asks the people how they would test that she actually is a witch. Confusing people by saying that wood burns but floats, as well as ducks float. Everyone seems to be on this bandwagon effect to burn a witch that there is zero logic in any of their arguments. Their generlazations and non sequitur fallacies, create a huge circle of no legitimate arguement, which will probably ultimately to the burning of an innocent girl. These types of fallacies happen all around us daily, the truth is always avoided and people will just follow whatever someone else says or does.
This commercial has a few rhetorical fallacies. The first kind it uses is sentimental appeal. The actor in the advertisement is used to distract the viewers from the product. Another fallacy it has is slippery slope. The ad tries to convince you that is you use their product, you will end up looking like the man in the commercial. A final fallacy is false need. The ad tries to convice you that you must have the product in order to be a good man.
A common rhetorical fallacy seen on TV every day is the idea that if you buy Axe Body spray, women will uncontrollably flock to you.
A prime example of this marketing campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9tWZB7OUSU
Axe advertisements appeal to men because they promote a male fantasy in which women are sex slaves who can't help but be drawn to you. One fallacy in this campaign is the idea that buying the product will attract girls, let alone have any effect. Another fallacy is that Axe is a cologne (which is supposed to be used lightly to spark arousal through smell), when instead, Axe is mainly for people who sweat uncontrollably and need to cover bad B.O. This fallacy can be seen changing throughout the Axe marketing campaigns. The first Axe commercials had users spraying conservative amounts. Later commercials show users showering in the spray, as if their social life depended on it. Another fallacy in the commercial, which may be up for debate in general, is that women find Axe to be appealing at all. In one study conducted by Yahoo! associated content, women who were asked to smell the product said they enjoyed the smell, but would never want their significant other (A.k.a the person they mate with) to wear the product (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/134267/do_women_like_axe_body_spray.html?cat=41). If only men who wear the product knew they wouldn't attract mates with it, then maybe they would be forced to bathe more, in turn, making the world smell just a little better.
I concur this video clip are fulled of fallacies. The first fallacy is when the towns people accuse the women for being a witch. Their reasoning was because she dressed like one. This reasoning is false because no matter how different one dress, it doesn't give them the right to judge and claim her as a witch; especially when they dressed her up. One of the citizen blamed her for being a witch because she has a mole. I have plenty of moles on my body, that doesn't mean I am a witch. Also another citizen blamed her for turning him into a newt; when clearly he is a normal human being with low IQ. Even when the knight spoke of his "intellect" he also used fallacies. His way of describing a witch was false. For example his reason why a witch burns is a fallacy. "They are made of wood." We all know that humans are not made of wood and if thrown into water we will sink. The knights way of comparing the lady to a duck was also a fallacy. We all know that humans do not weigh the same as a duck. Of course the last fallacy is that the fact that the video showed that the balance were equal when the lady was balance between the duck. This video clip is full of fallacies and was meant to be taken as a joke.
This video clip is playfully strewn with rhetorical fallacies. The first would be Bandwagoning because the mob that builds around the woman being accused of a witch is due to people just hopping aboard because everyone else is doing it. The clip also displays a non sequitur fallacy because their assumptions of her witchdom are based upon her appearance. They rioting group oversimplifies the situation and concludes that the only solution is to burn the witch. Hasty generalizations are linked to bandwagoning and false cause because she is dressed like a witch, so she must indeed be a witch. The claim the a townsfolk makes of being turned into a newt is biased in condemning the witch because he looks fine and has no proof of her power of transformation. This clip is completely non sequitur because every conclusion is based on faulty connections. Like witches are made of wood because she weighs as much as a duck and what you do with witches is you burn them.
This clip was a huge fallacy, the arguments were completely invalid in the entire clip, making the overall conclusion unjustified. She is not actually a witch. The people picked stupid, made-up "facts" about witches to condemn an innocent woman to death. Made-up facts, automatically, make arguments invalid. The town's people dressed up the woman to make her look like a witch, they put on a hat and false nose. Also, there was absolutely no evidence presented by any of the town's people to justify arguments. One man said, "She turned me into a newt. I got better," (1.15). Conveniently, he was turned back to human and can accuse the woman, his word against hers. No person had actually seen any of the accusations that people were saying to classify the woman as a witch. There is no evidence and no validity to the people's arguments. Monty Python used logical fallacy as well. First, the town's people argument was that the woman merely looked like a witch (whatever that means). Then deduced, by stretched reasoning, that, "If she weighs the same as a duck, then she must be made of wood." The town's people tried to persecute the "witch" using stretched and illogical reasoning. The inconclusive arguments that the people used to legitimize their goal were only successful because of circumstance. The circumstantial fact was the woman just so happened to weigh the same as a duck. Both validity and logical fallacies were used.
ReplyDeleteI was having a conversation with a girl in my sorority. I asked her if she was going out on Saturday night. She said, " Yes I am, you have to everyone else is going and it's going to be so fun". I was hesitant, but she used the bandwagon method and told me that I had to go out because everyone else was. This is a fallacy because she is giving a one sided position. She doesn't hear the whole story of why I want to stay in.
ReplyDeleteThis Monty Python clip was full of fallacies and criteria that make up what a fallacy is. It begins with a hasty generalization, accusing a girl of being a witch. They dress her up and put a nose on her, claiming that she turned someone into a newt. There is also example of bandwagon, because everyone in the group claims she is a witch, because everyone says she is. They are going along with the group. There is also false authority present. The man who is in charge of deciding whether she is a witch or not has no expertise on witches. He is assumed to be an expert by the people even though there is no proof he is. If there was a real issue at hand and the people are trying to blame the girl for being a witch as a distraction, then this would be an example of ad hominem.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x97DdZho11k
ReplyDeleteThis advertisement is an ad hominem because Joe Sestak is attacking opponent Arlen Spector, the Republican candidate opposing Sestak. An ad hominem is an attack on the person, which draws attention away from the main issue Sestak, does just that. He should be focusing on the political issues that face him if he should win the election. However, he is exposing Spectors political party change. For most of the advertisement, Sestak shows President Bush’s support for Spector. Nowhere in the advertisement does Sestak mention anything about what he can do for the people of Pennsylvania or even what he hopes to accomplish during his turn. It is just an ad meant to discredit his opponent.
There are numerous examples of a fallacy throughout the Monty Python clip. The first fallacy that became obvious to me would be classified as a Non sequitur fallacy. The townsfolk believed that the accused lady was a witch because she simply had a wart on her cheek. This specific classification of fallacy continues on once more when the townsfolk conclude that they will be able to tell if she is a witch if she burns, because witches are made out of wood. The woman obviously wasn’t made out of wood and there are many other possible materials that burn when set aflame. Therefore, this argument also is illogical. This clip also included the use of the false analogy. The townsfolk presumed that since a witch was made out of wood, witches float on water. Since ducks also float on water, the accused woman would be a witch if she floated on water also. The relevance behind relating the accused woman to a duck is nonexistent. How does floating like a duck make someone a witch? If anything, the argument would be more credible if they were accusing her as a duck. This also is completely not the case. Furthermore, the townsfolk even dress her up like a witch, to make her guilty by association. This is a ridiculously invalid argument because the townsfolk themselves directly changed her appearance. This would be the equivalent of putting a baseball hat on a stranger and telling everyone he is baseball player because he has your hat on. Overall I found this video hilarious because of all the distinct inaccurate arguments.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wixlfPnxJTo
ReplyDeleteThis ad is a funny anti-marijuana ad that pretty much says that smoking weed is always going to lead to bad things. This is a hasty generalization made by millions of Americans who oppose smoking weed. People think that marijuana consumption is a high risk activity and will lead to danger. This also falls under the slippery slope rhetorical fallacy. People think that marijuana usage will always lead to worse drugs. Marijuana is a very controversial topic and several rhetorical fallacies are often correlated with it.
As a fan of this movie I know that the entire movie is based on fallacies. In this clip particularly there is just about every type of rhetorical fallacy there is. Non sequitur is used for all the faulty the reasoning the towns people use to qualify er as a witch. Bandwagon is used by the followers of the towns people, when they want to burn a clearly home made witch. False analogy is very prevalent throughout the witch questioning process. Each criteria for being a witch that made was by no means true. For example, the woman in the video was not made out of wood. As for other fallacies in the video, were guilt by association, just because she looked like a witch does not make her one. Hasty generalization and oversimplification are used due to the extreme lack and biased based evidence that is used to dismiss relevant information like the fake nose. Almost, if not all the rhetorical fallacies are used in this video in a number of different ways.
ReplyDeleteThis clip was oozing with fallacies. Right off the bat in the opening scene we see that this group of dumbfounded people have accused a woman to be a witch. However, they have no evidence to back this up, this qualifies as hasty generalization. Next, the pople speak of all of the things that must be done to get rid of her because she is a witch. This means burning her alive. They say that this is what everyone does to get rid of witches, thus the theory of bandwagon comes into play. Also, the fact that the people think she is a witch, sets the stage for many fallacies to come later in the clip. The knight goes off on a deep conversation that if she is a witch then she must also be made out of wood, she must be a duck, and she must float on water. Because of the accusation against her, the rest of the clip is filled with other fallacies-non sequitur. Lastly, the false authority fallacy exists in this clip. The knight is not a witch doctor or a witch or even anyone of high stature to determine whether or not the woman is in fact a witch. He thinks that because he is skilled at one thing, he has the authority to determine who is a witch and who is not. We call this false authority.
ReplyDeleteThe townspeople of this clip are a part of a huge fallacy that is evident almost from the beginning of the scene. As noticed right from the start, bandwagon is one type of fallacy that is shown. The large crowd is running around yelling about someone who they believe to be a witch. Instead of every person in the crowd thinking separately about whether or not she is a witch, everyone gets caught up in the moment and joins the loud and exciting crowd in their one singular idea. Once they get to a leader figure, they start making accusations using the fallacies of false cause and hasty generalization. Because she is dressed like a witch, she obviously must be one. This is the reasoning of the three men who speak for the crowd. They have no real evidence of her being a witch, and thus are making hasty generalization based off of exactly no real evidence. The evidence that the three men do in fact present are an example of begging the question. Again, she has a wart, so she is a witch. They have no proof that all witches have warts, or that no normal person has a wart. They are in a circular argument with no clear evidence to support their reasoning. Overall, these men and this entire crowd are jumping to a conclusion and making a hasty decision to denounce this woman as a witch, with absolutely no evidence to back up any of their claims.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/user/OldSpice?v=sxqlw3cKZHA&feature=pyv&ad=5297096537&kw=funny%20commercials&gclid=CI_b1r7dkaUCFctL5Qod1XpvNA
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the new old-spice commercials, in which the company uses Ray Lewis to advertise their body wash. The ad uses many different fallacies including non sequitur, false analogy, and false authority. In the beginning of the advertisement, Ray Lewis tells the audience of what makes him a football player. He ends this list by stating that old spice body wash makes him a good football player. This is simply not true, because there is absolutely no logical connection between the two parts. The second fallacy, which is similar to the first, is false analogy. False analogy derives from the concept of non sequitur in which false analogy compares to completely unrelated things. The two things in comparison in this add - being a great NFL player and using Old Spice. This connection is false, and is therefore a rhetorical fallacy. Lastly, the most powerfully used fallacy in the Old Spice advertisement is false authority. Ray Lewis, a widely known professional football player, uses old spice body wash in the advertisement, but he does not have any credibility with old spice body wash. The only reason old spice uses Ray Lewis is because of his popularity amongst males across the nation. His lack of credibility but immense popularity is why false authority is a fallacy in this advertisement.
The Monty Python video is considered a fallacy and has many fallacies within the video. In the beginning, the townspeople are running around screaming that she is a witch. This persuaded other townspeople to believe she is a witch merely because they are just listening to what other people say. When the townspeople are asked why she is a witch, the men reply that she simply looks like a witch. This is a fallacy because just because she looks like a witch, doesn't mean she is one. The townspeople generalized that witches are made out of wood, they have warts, and many other things. This fallacy is called non sequitir because they had no real evidence to prove she was a witch. Another type of fallacy used is false authority, which the knight believes he has the authority to determine who is a witch or not. The men or the knight do not have concrete evidence to prove she is a witch. This video displayed many different fallacies.
ReplyDeleteAn example of a rhetorical fallacy that i found online that i found clever and humorous is:
ReplyDelete"Cutting people is crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals"
This is fallacy because cutting people is only sometimes a crime. Cutting people in surgery is definitely not a crime. Surgery is something that a patient legally agrees to before they go under surgery. While, cutting a human without their consent is certainly a crime. If you stab somebody with a knife or other weapon you are a criminal. Wrong assumptions can be made by fallacies and this example of a fallacy clearly proves that. This kind of fallacy is categorized as a 'sweeping generalization' because it is a generalization that disregards exceptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ewWFWQwlTs
ReplyDeleteThe first minute of this clip from the TV show "Friends" is an example of false cause. In the beginning Joey is trying to mess around with the fridge to get it fixed, when Rachel walks in. She has just recently become his roommate and he tries to blame the broken fridge on her. This is a false cause because there is no correlation between his fridge that he had since he was a kid and Rachel just moving in making it break.
"Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty !"
ReplyDeleteThis is an example of a non sequitur that I found online. It is a fallacy because these two statements have nothing to do with each other, though they are grouped together as an argument for the existence of life on other planets. This is making a false argument that doesn't make sense. There is absolutely no truth in the first statement that would make someone believe that the second statement is true. Non sequiturs are commonly used in advertisements to trigger the audience to take action in some way.
This particular scene of Monty Python and the Holy Grail is the epitome of Middle Age science, which would now be considered logic. Although it was regarded as logical then, today it is clearly illogical and consistent of many rhetorical fallacies. At the beginning, they attempt to condemn the poor woman as a witch because she was merely dressed as one, which is an example of hasty generalization. After the ruse of her outfit was debunked, the prosecutors said, "Well she has got a wort." That is non sequitur because having a wort does not necessitate being a witch. The whole reasoning process of Sir Bedevere after that has oversimplification, is non sequitur, and culminates to a false analogy. The false analogy is as follows: "If she weighs the same as a duck then she is made of wood!" Wood floats in water, and is what witches are burned upon, so therefore she is a witch. Very illogical.
ReplyDeleteFallacies are used throughout the whole clip. The innocent woman in the clip was convicted to be a witch. However, the people cannot find any valid proof. The people argued the woman is a witch by saying that she has witch’s nose and is wearing a hat. Nevertheless, the woman’s nose is fake, and the hat is put on for her by the people. Also, one of the characters claimed “she turned him into a newt.” Then he realizes his claim is invalid and added “I got better now.” Another fallacy was shown in the clip which seems logical to the town people but actually are invalid arguments. A man found a way to prove the woman a witch by making people think in reverse. He claimed “if she is a witch, she is made in wood. If she is made in wood, she weighs the same as a duck.” This argument is logically wrong, thus it is a logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteThe Monty Python clip is a very good example of a bunch of fallacies. The title describes the first fallacy that the towns people bring up is that the random girl is a witch. They try and say that the carrot nose and funnel hat is what makes this girl a witch. They then create more fallacies when asked how they actually know she is a witch, one man states that she turned him into a newt. As everyone stares blankly at each other, he then establishes that he has all of a sudden become fine. The town scientist you could say asks the people how they would test that she actually is a witch. Confusing people by saying that wood burns but floats, as well as ducks float. Everyone seems to be on this bandwagon effect to burn a witch that there is zero logic in any of their arguments. Their generlazations and non sequitur fallacies, create a huge circle of no legitimate arguement, which will probably ultimately to the burning of an innocent girl. These types of fallacies happen all around us daily, the truth is always avoided and people will just follow whatever someone else says or does.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE
ReplyDeleteThis commercial has a few rhetorical fallacies. The first kind it uses is sentimental appeal. The actor in the advertisement is used to distract the viewers from the product. Another fallacy it has is slippery slope. The ad tries to convince you that is you use their product, you will end up looking like the man in the commercial. A final fallacy is false need. The ad tries to convice you that you must have the product in order to be a good man.
A common rhetorical fallacy seen on TV every day is the idea that if you buy Axe Body spray, women will uncontrollably flock to you.
ReplyDeleteA prime example of this marketing campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9tWZB7OUSU
Axe advertisements appeal to men because they promote a male fantasy in which women are sex slaves who can't help but be drawn to you. One fallacy in this campaign is the idea that buying the product will attract girls, let alone have any effect. Another fallacy is that Axe is a cologne (which is supposed to be used lightly to spark arousal through smell), when instead, Axe is mainly for people who sweat uncontrollably and need to cover bad B.O. This fallacy can be seen changing throughout the Axe marketing campaigns. The first Axe commercials had users spraying conservative amounts. Later commercials show users showering in the spray, as if their social life depended on it. Another fallacy in the commercial, which may be up for debate in general, is that women find Axe to be appealing at all. In one study conducted by Yahoo! associated content, women who were asked to smell the product said they enjoyed the smell, but would never want their significant other (A.k.a the person they mate with) to wear the product (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/134267/do_women_like_axe_body_spray.html?cat=41). If only men who wear the product knew they wouldn't attract mates with it, then maybe they would be forced to bathe more, in turn, making the world smell just a little better.
I concur this video clip are fulled of fallacies. The first fallacy is when the towns people accuse the women for being a witch. Their reasoning was because she dressed like one. This reasoning is false because no matter how different one dress, it doesn't give them the right to judge and claim her as a witch; especially when they dressed her up. One of the citizen blamed her for being a witch because she has a mole. I have plenty of moles on my body, that doesn't mean I am a witch. Also another citizen blamed her for turning him into a newt; when clearly he is a normal human being with low IQ. Even when the knight spoke of his "intellect" he also used fallacies. His way of describing a witch was false. For example his reason why a witch burns is a fallacy. "They are made of wood." We all know that humans are not made of wood and if thrown into water we will sink. The knights way of comparing the lady to a duck was also a fallacy. We all know that humans do not weigh the same as a duck. Of course the last fallacy is that the fact that the video showed that the balance were equal when the lady was balance between the duck. This video clip is full of fallacies and was meant to be taken as a joke.
ReplyDeleteThis video clip is playfully strewn with rhetorical fallacies. The first would be Bandwagoning because the mob that builds around the woman being accused of a witch is due to people just hopping aboard because everyone else is doing it. The clip also displays a non sequitur fallacy because their assumptions of her witchdom are based upon her appearance. They rioting group oversimplifies the situation and concludes that the only solution is to burn the witch. Hasty generalizations are linked to bandwagoning and false cause because she is dressed like a witch, so she must indeed be a witch. The claim the a townsfolk makes of being turned into a newt is biased in condemning the witch because he looks fine and has no proof of her power of transformation. This clip is completely non sequitur because every conclusion is based on faulty connections. Like witches are made of wood because she weighs as much as a duck and what you do with witches is you burn them.
ReplyDelete