Answer+Key

 **__1__** **) (i) "I saw these girls (showing the photo she took of them) sitting on the floor and they were eating, as if they were having a picnic. What a sight! People were looking at them but no one dared to say anything. They shouldn't have done that. They give Singapore a bad image. Check again, these girls look like foreigners! All these foreigners; they don't know how to follow the rules!" (line2-6))** "Check again, these... to follow rules." (line 5-6 ) (ii) P1: I saw these girls sitting on the floor of the train and they were eating. P2: These girls are foreigners. P3: They were breaking the rules. C: Therefore, foreigners do not know how to follow rules. __(iii) Hasty Generalisation__ (iv) Maria generalises from this single example of foreign girls not following rules. Unfortunately, this sample is too small to represent the entire foreigner population as foreigners could be made up of people of different genders, ages, and races. -- **2) (i)"They look very**  **hungry. After all, they are also** **human beings, right?" (line 7-8)**    (ii) P1: The girls look very hungry   P2: They are also human beings that get hungry   C: Therefore, we should not get angry about their rule-breaking behaviour.     (iii) Appeal to Pity     (iv) The appeal of pity relies mainly on the emotional appeal of the hungry look and state of the girls to excuse their rule-breaking behaviour, and no other reasons to explain their behaviour.    --  **3)** **(i)** **Look, if they are allowed to break the "no eating rule", then they will break the "jaywalking" rule, and they will break all laws in Singapore.** (ii) P1: If they are allowed to break the 'no eating' rule, they will break the jaywalking rule.  P2: If they break the jaywalking rule, they will go on to break all laws in Singapore.  C: So we must stop the breaking of the "no eating" rule, otherwise they will go on to break all laws in Singapore. (iii) Slippery Slope (iv)This argument is a slippery slope. The argument claims that allowing the girls to break the 'no eating' rule, they will go on to break the jaywalking rule. Th i s will in turn lead them to break all the country's laws. However, this is a weak argument. This is because, the action of breaking the "no eating" rule, does not mean they will break the jaywalking rule since the jayw a lking rule p unishment i s mo re sever e than the no eating rule. Thus, the girls will not want to break the jaywalking rule because it will cause harsh punishment. Since P1 is not necessary, the conclusion will not be necessary. This argument is a slippery slope. //(This is a slippery slope, then outline the chaine of cause and effect, point out the weak link, suggest measures that might stop the slippery slope, then conclude!)// -- **4)** (i) <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">**Or if their actions are tolerated, others will follow them; and everyone will just eat in the train, which can lead to making our trains dirty.**    (ii) P1: If th <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">e ir actions are tolerated, others will fol <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">l ow their example.   P2: <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> When people follow this example, everyone will start eating in trains.  <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P3: If everyone just eats in the tra i <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">n, that will lead to our trains being dirty. C: Therefore, since we do not want our trains to become dirty, so we should not tolerate their actions. (iii) Slippery Slope <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh i" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">//( you want your conclusion to read: "if A then D", or alternatively you can say "Since we don't want D, then we shouldn't allow A")// (iv) <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> The argument claims that <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">--  5) (i) **"I heard from someone... why they did that" (line 18-20)**     (ii) P1: I heard from someone that doctors advise you to eat when you are hungry even if you're on the train, otherwise you'll get sick.   C: You should eat when you are hungry even if you are on the train.     (iii) **Anonymous authority**     (iv) This someone is a indeterminant witness. It is anonymous. These doctors are not identified. They may not be specialised in <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">the right areas that concern the argument. They could be vets, or dentists, or neurosurgeons. They'd all be doctors <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> but have no link. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> //Appeal to authority//  We know who it is and we can judge. However, their expertise is inapproriate. VS <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> //Anonymous authority//   Insufficient info to identify the authority. Cannot evaluate if they are suitab l e experts <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">/whether it is the right kind of expertise. We may not and we cannot. :p  Note: Arguments cannot be false. Conclusion can be true/false. But try to avoid saying if it is true or false. Conclusion is doubtful or questionable or uncertain or dubious <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Be careful about saying whether a conclusion is False. Use the word 'doubtful'. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">-- <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">**6) (i)** **"** <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">**Furthermore, I have been to many cities in the world, like Beijing, Seoul, Paris, New York, and I usually travel by train and i noticed that people eat in the train.** **" line 22-2** <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">**3**    (ii) P1: In Beijing, people eat in the train.   P2: In Paris, people eat in the train.   P3: In NYC, people eat in the train.   P4: In Seoul, people eat in the train.   P5: Eating in the trains is a common practice in many <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> (leading/major) cities. C: Therefore, it should be allowed in Singapore as well. (iii) Appeal to <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Popularity (iv) <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> Just because other cities in the world allow people to eat in the train doesn't mean SIngapore should allow its train users to eat (??????) haha dapang! the class is so dead.... <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> XD   <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> - (ii) 1: Beijing is a major city with a rail network and people eat in the train. P2: Paris is a major city with a rail network and people eat in the train. P3: NYC is a major city with a rail network and people eat in the train. P4: Seoul is a major city with a rail network and people eat in the train. P5: Singapore is a major city with a rail network and people eat in the train. C: Therefore, eating on the train should be allowed in Singapore as well. (iii)False Analogy (iv) <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">-- **7 (i) "Since there were** <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> **riots before the "no eating" rule was made, these riots could have** **caused this rule." (line 27-28)** (ii) P1: There were riots in Singapore. P2: After the riots, the "no eating rule" was made. C: The "no eating" rule was cas caused by the riots in Singapore. **(iii) Doubtful Cause** (iv) Just because the riots happened before the "no eating" rule was made does not show a causal relationship between them. There may be other factors such as the increase in number of people littering after eating their food in the trains that caused the implementtion of the "no eating" rule. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">-- **8 (i)** <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">**Oh wait, now I see. You are defending those girls because you are a foreigner yourself! (line 36-37)** <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">(ii) P1: The girls are foreigners <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P2: You are a foreigner as well. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P3: You are defending the girls. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">C: You are defending them just because you all are foreigners. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">**(iii) a) Poisoning the Well** <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> b) [Attacking the Person, but Poisoning the Well is the more obvious case here]    (iv) Maria doesn't deal with Martha. Instead she attacks Martha for being a foreigner and having a vested interest in defending people who are similar to her. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">-- <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">**9. (i) "Don't give me that 'holier than thou' attitude as if you're a paragon of law abiding virtue? Last Monday, I saw you chewing a gum which is also against the law." (lines 40-41)** <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P1: You criticize others breaking the law by eating on trains. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">P2: But you yourself break a law by chewing gum. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">C: Your judgement must be disregarded. Circumstantial Since Maria is herself not law-abiding therefore, her argument about tolerating the girls who broke the law, should be disregarded. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">--  <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> **10. (i)** **" Are you for** <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> **me** **or against me?" (line 46)**  <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> (ii) P1: You have to be for me or against me. P2: You are my friend. C: Therefore, you should be for me. **(iii) False Dilemma** (iv) <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> Maria tries to false Martha into a dilemna where Martha has to choose to be either for or against Maria. But Martha does not need to choose to take sides because she can just tackle the issue objectively and in a balance view, without taking sides. Issue that they disagree, but doesn't mean it affects their friendship. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Students can point out that this 'for me and against me' thing is just too stuck, there are many points in between, not just these two categories. Friends can agree to a greater or lesser extent, doesn't have to be strictly for or against. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">Friends need not agree on anything, on every single issue. <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh u" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">__There are not just two options, the two options given are not the only options available. Elaborate on the other possible options.__ <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">-- <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"> <span class="author-g-877h7s1z122zz122z3dvbqbh b i" style="cursor: auto; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;">**//The end :)//**