Chapter 103 <If no one throws things, you will be unemployed>

There was a young man spitting casually on the street and throwing fruit peels.A cleaner went to dissuade him, criticizing him for his unhygienic and uncivilized behavior, which violated the relevant provisions of the city's sanitation management regulations. The young man quibbled: Why don't I talk about hygiene?I am much cleaner than you.Besides, no one is throwing things, so what do you need?Are you unemployed? There are two logical errors in this young man's rebuttal: First, the cleaners criticized him for not paying attention to hygiene, obviously referring to not paying attention to public health, but this young man distorted it as not paying attention to personal hygiene, which secretly changed the topic of the rebuttal;

Second, an omitted argument is used in the rebuttal: Only if someone litters, you cleaners will not be unemployed, which is a hypothetical judgment of a necessary condition.According to the logical nature of the necessary condition hypothesis judgment, it can be concluded that it is false, because the former is not a necessary condition for the latter that you cleaners will not lose their jobs. In fact, in addition to cleaning phlegm, fruit peels and other things that people spit and throw away, cleaners have more work to clean up garbage, sundries, sewage and other things that pollute the environment.Therefore, the young man's rebuttal made the mistake of false arguments.

Rejecting legitimate criticism from others by stealing topics and using false arguments to justify one's lack of social morality is clearly sophistry or sophistry.