Introduction: This example comes from a cartoon, entitled “Rabbit’s Kin,” featuring Bugs Bunny, starring Mel Blanc and Stan Freberg. It was put out by Loony Tunes.
Key Facts: N/A.
Text: Bugz Bunny invites Pete Puma to enjoy a cup of tea, wherein the following exchange takes place (text taken from IMDB):
Bugs Bunny: There’s nothing as sociable as a nice cup of tea, I always say. How many lumps do you want?
Pete Puma: Oh, three or four
Bugs Bunny: [Bugs bunny whacks Pete on the head with a mallet 5 times and 5 lumps appear on his head] Oh dear, I gave you one too many. Well we can fix that.
[whacks the 5th lump back in his head]
ANALYSIS
Comments: This is of course a joke.
Statements: Much of this argument has to be inferred from the context of the exchange and the actions of the character’s in question. It ends up being a simple argument with an unstated conclusion. (Bugs acts on the conclusion rather than telling us what he has inferred from Pete Puma’s answer.
[1] [I want] 3 or 4 [lumps].
[2] [Pete Puma wants 3 or 4 lumps on his head.]
Diagram: This is a simple argument.
2 ->[1].
Discussion: This raises three themes; Dialectic, Equivocation, Missing Assertions, and Playful Reasoning.
Dialectics: Bugs builds up to the punchline of this gag by questioning his intended victim (Pete Puma). It’s perversely Socratic, …which come ton think of it may be true of many of his cartoons, as well as those of Daffy Duck. Both of these tricksters consistently engage in a kind of dialogue with their adversaries and base whatever punishment they have in mind when the other party’s own choices.
Missing Assertions: Insofar as the conclusion of this argument must be supplied (using Bugs’ actions to determine the conclusion he has drawn), this is an example of a missing assertion.
Equivocation: Bugs clearly shifts the meaning of “lumps” over the course of this exchange. When he asks how many Pete Puma wants, there is a strong implication that he means “lumps of sugar.” After getting his answer, Bugs shifts the meaning to “lumps on the head.”
Playful Reasoning: This is not a serious argument, of course. It is a joke. It is accordingly cheating to use this as an example of the equivocation fallacy.
…If I doos it, I get a whippin.
I doos it!
Evaluation: The argument is of course unsound as it commits the fallacy of equivication.
Final Thoughts: Yes, this post is self-indulgent.
Hinterlogics 