Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
AND LOGIC
WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING
당신이 잠든 사이에
V. Fallacies
I. Legal Reasoning and Arguments
Time Mark: 8:10-8:17
“Do you know what’s more awful than not knowing anything?”
“Thinking that you know everything.”
Episode: 6
Topic/ Concept: Arguments distinguished from unsupported opinions
Explanation: Statements of belief or opinion are statements about what a speaker or writer
happens to believe. Such statements can be true or false, rational or irrational, but they are parts
of arguments only if the speaker claims that they follow from, or support, other claims. Here,
Jae-chan, claims that what’s more awful than not knowing anything is thinking that one knows
everything. This cannot be considered an argument because actually there is no premise or
reason given why the latter is true nor was there a basis for the statement.
03:46
“Whenever people watch So Yoon’s performance, they will think of her
convicted dad. Mr. Park is not the one who will lose everything after the trial,
it’s you two.”
explanation: it wrongly infers that what holds true of the individuals automatically holds true of
the group of individuals.
Chapter: 5
Episode No: 18
Time mark and lines: 11:18
“No media outlet will report the truth about the Do Hak Young Case. xxx the media will never take our
side. The public’s view won’t change either. The protesters will continue to protest and curse at you.
And they’ll criticize the work you do for every case you take on from now on”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Shin is arguing here what would be the possible response of the people in case
Prosecutor Jung will not indict Do Hak Young. This scenario falls within the fallacy of division because
she concludes that the people usual response will likewise be the same in this case.
Chapter: 5
Episode No: 19
Time mark and lines: 15:31-15:42
“He’s showing the symptom of unclear mindsets. xxx Whatever he’s saying doesn’t mean anything.”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Son is stating here that because Prosecutor Jung is showing symptoms of
unclear mindset, he is likewise saying thing that has no meaning. She is inferring that all persons
showing signs of unclear mindset say things with no meaning.
Chapter: 5
Episode No: 20
Time mark and lines:
19:21 – 19:53 “I have met many people around Yoo Su Kyung for this case. Everyone around her
praised, respected, and loved her. Xxx This was the most crucial evidence that she was not killed”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Jung was telling the parents of Yoo Su Kyung that the latter is not killed because
she is a nice person. This is a fallacy of division because not all nice persons have the absolute
impossibility of being killed. He inferred that what is true generally with nice persons are also true in the
case of Yoo Su Kyung.
Chapter: 5
Episode No: 22
Time mark and lines: 21:18
“We need to have firm evidence.”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Vicious Abstraction
Explanation: Prosecutor Lee in this scenario is arguing that they must have a firm evidence before
deciding whether to order the autopsy or not. He is argument is vague since the term “firm evidence”
has no exact meaning and cannot be used as basis in an argument.
Chapter: 5
Episode No: 22
Time mark and lines: 23:42
“If I’m that teaching assistants parent, I want to know why my son died. It’ll be more important than
saving the life of someone else’s child”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Son stated in this scenario that a parent in general would feel the same as she
would and she concluded that this is also the same case with the teaching assistant’s parent. She is
inferring that what is true about a parents feeling towards this situation is also true in the particular
case.
Chapter: 5
Episode No: 23
Time mark and lines: 02:14
“Rat! There’s a rat! I mean I have a cramp in my leg”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Equivocation
Explanation: Prosecutor Jung here uses the term “rat” that would either mean an animal or in this case,
a cramp in his leg. This is a fallacy of equivocation because he used a word that has more than one
meaning.
Chapter: 5
Episode No: 23
Time mark and lines: 16:18
“That’s my point. He’’ be scared to talk in front of all those men’”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Prosecutor Jung concludes here that the five year old witness cannot stand a trial because
children with such age are usually afraid to talk in front of many people.
Chapter: 5
Episode No: 25
Time mark and lines: 25:52
“Criminals always come up with plausible stories and excuses. You pity them and feel that they might
have been wronged, but you’ll get in serious trouble if you fall for that.
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Division
Explanation: Mr. Choi stated in this scenario that criminal often make stories and excuses. He concluded
that Myung Si Yuk did the same and if Prosecutor Jae Chan will fall for it, he’ll be in a serious trouble. He
inferred that what holds true to all criminals also holds true in case of Myung Si Yuk.
Chapter: 5
Episode No: 32
Time mark and lines: 4:48-06:05
“Me being here today could be your future too. xxx It’s hard to get 100 percent right even on your
dictation tests. xxx You must have a few cases that went wrong. xxx You’re all standing there is just
because you are lucky that your misjudgements weren’t found. The reason I am here is my judgement
being found on a bad luck.”
Topic/concept: Fallacy of Composition
Explanation: Lee Yu Beom here is arguing that what happened to him as a lawyer who is a former
prosecutor would happen to all the prosecutors. He infers that what is true to him would also be true to
all the prosecutors.