Entry 4- Đinh Thị Ngọc Chi

Item 1: A poster
Source: http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Luster-Creme-Posters_i1113509_.htm

Structure of argument:
Premise 1: Marilyn Monroe says she uses Lustre Creme Shampoo
Premise 2: you use Lustre Creme Shampoo
______________________________________________________
Therefore, you too can look like Marilyn Monroe

This fallacy is commonly used in advertisements. They tell us how we are best and something like the picture above is our result.

Item 2: Video
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_rZXF4VmOQ

Structure of argument:
Logical fallacy:
Premise 1: If you go to Wendy's, then you will have a lot of beef inside your bun
Premise 2: you don't go to Wendy's (but some other restaurant)
_______________________________________________________________
Therefore, there will be no beef inside the bun (in that restaurant)

Item 3: 
Source: 
We cannot unlock our child from the closet because if we do, she will want to then roam the house.  If we let her roam the house, she will want to roam the neighborhood.  If she roams the neighborhood, she will get picked up by a stranger in a van, who will sell her in a sex slavery ring in some other country.  Therefore, we should keep her locked up in the closet.

Structure of argument:
If A then B; if B then C; if C then D....eventually Z. You don't want Z, don't you?  So you must prevent A.However, the consequence in each if clause will just probably happen, not necessarily. Like in this example, if we don't lock the child in the closet, the child may not want to roam the house, or if we let her roam the house, we cannot be sure if she wants to roam the neighborhood or not. The implicit argument is that since there is no "bright line" demarcating where to stop the progression, the progression will not stop. That is fallacious.