Semester 2 2021/2022

GBT 0002: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills

ASSESSMENT 1 (30%)

Name: Yap Fong Yeng

Matric number: U2103953/1

Article :

Samuel Chua. (2022, March 10). Government warned of tourism losses if nightclubs don’t
reopen. FreeMalaysiaToday. Retrieved from
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2022/03/10/govt-warned-of-tourism-loss
es-if-nightclubs-dont-reopen/
1. Identify and define two (2) different fallacies based on the selected arguments.

2. Identify and explain the types of argument.

3. Explain the claim and conclusion from the same arguments.

Scare Tactics is the first fallacy that can be identified from the article. Scare Tactics is a
strategy which threatens harm to the listener either in physical or non-physical form if
audiences do not undertake the argument’s conclusion. The common form of scare tactics is,
something bad will happen to you if you do not do or believe something. For instance,
operators claimed that tourism losses if nightclubs do not reopen (Argument 1). Operators
used scare tactics to warn the government so that nightclubs are allowed to reopen during the
endemic phase on April 1.

Secondly, Appeal to Pity is the second fallacy. Appeal to pity is a fallacy using inappropriate
attempts to evoke feelings of empathy, understanding or even guilt from the opponents. It is
one of the types of appealing to emotion by convincing audiences to accept one’s argument.
As we can see from the article, operators claimed that they are sad as they incur more losses
if they still cannot run their business (Argument 2). It is because nightclubs would be the only
type of business not allowed to reopen when the country transitions to the endemic phase on
April 1.

In this article, both argument 1 and 2 are inductive reasoning. Inductive arguments claim that
the conclusion is probably true if the premises are true although it is logically consistent to
assert the premises and deny the conclusion.

Argument 1 will be a Causal Argument. Causal Argument asserts or denies that something
is the cause of something else happening. Based on Argument 1, tourism losses if nightclubs
do not reopen. The statement assumes that the tourism losses due to the nightclubs not
reopening. In this case, the root or cause will be the nightclubs not reopening while the
tourism losses will be the outcome of the cause.

Then, Argument 2 will be a Predictive Argument. Predictive Argument stated what may or
will happen in the future. Experts use their past experiences to estimate the likely effects
which will occur if the conditions remain constant. For instance, Operators incur more losses
if they still cannot run their business. Based on operators’ past experience, they suffer losses
when they cannot run their business. Thus, operators will make a prediction on their
businesses’ future.

From the first claim, if nightclubs do not reopen, then tourism losses. Nightclubs do not
reopen. Tourists will look at the availability of avocations to decide their destination.
Therefore, tourism losses. However, in conclusion, operators should not apply scare tactics to
threaten the government because it might result in the government making a false decision,
Covid 19 cases escalate.
From the second claim, if operators still cannot run their business, more losses incur.
Operators still cannot run their business. There is no income when business is closed but
nightclubs operators still need to pay for the rental and employees’ salaries. Therefore, more
losses occur. In conclusion, operators should not appeal to pity as it will manipulate the wise
decision.

(Q2+Q3 300 words)