Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking
Virginia uses the association fallacy to blame her father’s dominance when she says that she could not have written as much as she did if her father would be alive. She uses a fallacy that cannot be supported fully with justifiable evidence. There is also the use of rival cause in this story where the writer indicates; “had it not been for Leonard, Virginia would probably have been committed.” The reason for the use of rival cause is to simplify the important role that Leonard played in informing the medics about her overdose. He was intimately concerned about her wife basing on her mental instabilities. There is the use of rival cause when the writer says, “Leonard was not unaware that Virginia had a history of mental instability before he married her.” Virginia was not happy with the conditions especially after the death of her mother. Things went worse when her novel “The Voyage Out” was published and received great reviews. She resumed her job although she was not in a stable condition. By 1928, Virginia was receiving monetary gifts, the moment she was 47 years. However, things did not go on well with her as she could not withstand insomnia and the nervousness that she experienced in 1940. In her death, which the author says that; Virginia had put large stones into her coat pocket, threw herself into the river and drowned” can be seen as a syllogism fallacy. The conclusion is not justifiable as it looks odd when the author talks about inserting a stone in the pocket to die.

The death of the author can be seen as an incident that came as a result of pressure from the external experiences and suffering. Looking at the presence of the walking stick, the author concludes using a causation fallacy by indicating that Virginia placed a stone in her coat pocket and threw herself into the river.