There are several logical flaws in the argument. The argument is that there were pig footprints leading from the windmill. Snowball is a pig. Therefore the footprints belong to Snowball. However, this is a hasty generalization because there is more than one pig on the farm. The footprints could belong to Napoleon, Squealer or any one of the other pigs. The other assumption is that the footprints were left by the one who sabotaged the windmill. This is an example of post hoc, or attributing false causes to an event. It is also an example of jumping to conclusions before there is an adequate amount of evidence and non sequitur because just because there were pig footprints left at the windmill, it does not follow that the prints were left specifically by Snowball or the saboteur.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What is the main function of the fool in "King Lear"? What is the secondly function?
The fool as a character is confusing, but part of this is the difference between the 1600s and today, as well as the difference in place. If...
-
"Anthem (1938) is a science fiction novelette of a future primitive society in which the word "I" is forbidden. Rand's po...
-
It is significant that Ray Bradbury's exposition juxtaposes the character of Montag with Clarisse because the marked contrast alerts the...
-
He is in the middle of the marketplace where he and his aunt are walking "through the flaring streets, jostled by drunken men and barga...
No comments:
Post a Comment