Family Dispute and Social Media

This assignment examines a public dispute between the successors of Lee Kuan Yew, which unfolded primarily on Facebook. It analyzes the arguments presented by both sides, highlighting the ethical concerns and potential consequences of airing personal disagreements on social media. The author proposes alternative solutions, advocating for mature platforms like family courts to resolve such conflicts.

Thinking Critically

Table of Contents
SECTION A.....................................................................................................................................1
Question 1(a)...............................................................................................................................1
Question 1(b)...............................................................................................................................1
Question 1(c)...............................................................................................................................3
SECTION B.....................................................................................................................................3
Question 2....................................................................................................................................3
Question 3....................................................................................................................................3
SECTION C.....................................................................................................................................4
Question 4....................................................................................................................................4
Question 5....................................................................................................................................4
Question 6....................................................................................................................................4
Question 7....................................................................................................................................4
Question 8....................................................................................................................................5
SECTION D.....................................................................................................................................5
Question 9....................................................................................................................................5
Question 10..................................................................................................................................5
SECTION E.....................................................................................................................................5
Question 11(a).............................................................................................................................5
Question 11(b).............................................................................................................................5
Question 11(c).............................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

SECTION A
Question 1(a)
Propositional logic is considered to be a branch of logic which helps in studying ways of
joining and modifying entire propositions statement and sentences out of the complicated one. It
helps in finding out the logical relationship between them and categorize the statement based
upon true and false (Da Xu and et.al., 2012). Hence, it leads to the better interpretation of the
sentences in a mathematical format.
The stated argument is related to various conditions that have been stated below:
 A: Trump is intelligent.
 B: Trump is popular.
 C: Trump is capable or mandate to become the President of USA.
The above sentences help in defining all the statements and indicate them with a particular
alphabet.
Question 1(b)
The propositional logics can be connected based upon five logics. These are, “Or”, “And”,
“Negation / NOT”, “Implication / If – Then” and If and only If.
Truth table for conjugation can be prepared for given conjugation in the following manner:
0 stands for False
1 stands for True
A B C A ^ B ( ( A ^ B ) -> C ) B ->C ( A-> ( B -> C ) )
0 0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0 1 0 1 1 1
0 1 0 0 1 0 1
0 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 0 0 0 1 1 1
1 0 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 0 1 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
For the first two argument presented, the “Or” table can be stated in the following format:
A B A v B
1

True True True
True False True
False True True
False False False
For the first two arguments, AND operation can be prepared in the following manner:
A B A ^ B
True True True
True False False
False True False
False False False
Negation proposition can be applied in the following manner:
A Negation A
True False
False True
If and Then operations can be applied in the following manner:
A B A->B
True True True
True False False
False True True
False False True
If and only if function can be applied in the following manner:
A B A<->B
True True True
True False False
False True False
False False True
2

Hence, it can be stated that the condition is said to be true, if all the other conditions are
able to comply with the fact which is required to be true so as to make the whole sentence in the
affirmative manner.
Question 1(c)
The argument is valid in majority of the possibilities. The framed possibilities are:
 A: Trump is intelligent.
 B: Trump is popular.
 C: Trump is capable or mandate to become the President of USA.
The statement will prove to be incorrect only if A and B conditions are true and C condition
is false. In that case the whole argument will fall in a negation format.
SECTION B
Question 2
Inductive arguments are statements which contains a premise and a conclusion. Premise is
the reason or support that helps in reaching to the conclusion. There can be only one argument
present in each statement (D'Agostino and et.al., 2013).
Based on the argument presented in the question, premise and conclusion for statement can
be in the following manner:
Premise: Documented evidence is present where, several mass murders grew up playing violent
games and remained addicted to the same in their adulthood as well.
Conclusion: Parents should prevent their children from playing such games
Question 3
Based upon the concept of premise and conclusion, it can be divided for the provided
sentence in the following manner:
Premise: Equivalent internship opportunities and active career care centre are received by
students in MBA programme NUS and NTU.
Conclusion: Similar employment rates will be present for NUS and NTU graduates.
3

SECTION C
Question 4
The fallacy in the sentence is due to incorrect placement of the word “private” in the
sentence. It has changed the whole meaning as there is no word present like “private American
Citizens”. It must have been placed before the word “gun” and after the word “own”. In this
manner it would have been able to provide rather better meaning to the whole sentence. Hence,
in such case, the correct sentence could have been:
“The founding fathers of the American constitution considered it right for American citizens to
own private guns. Who are we to question their wisdom?”
Question 5
Phrase placement has gone wrong in the stated sentence. It is difficult to identify the
meaning of the whole sentence and in what context it has been stated. In the first line, text
mentions in the second person format, that is with the use of word “you”. It sounds like the
statement has directly been referred or said to somebody. However, second sentence is more like
a narration format due to which various things have happened to the individual. Again, the third
and last sentence of the argument is in conversing format. Hence, it is difficult to understand the
sentence.
Question 6
The sentence placement is correct for this argument. Moreover, it is quite understandable
that based on the support argument, the narrator has reached to the specific conclusion for Roger
Federer. Hence, it can be stated that there is no fallacy in the stated statement in terms of
understanding. However, in the place of “drug” which has been used for the second time in the
statement, “them” word could have been replaced with it. Hence, the statement has fallacies in
terms of grammar. Hence, the statement could have been:
‘There is no proof, whatsoever, that Roger Federer takes drugs. So, he does not take them.’
Question 7
The sentence contains fallacies due to use of repetitive word “does not like” three times in
the first sentence. It has made the overall sentence difficult to understand and take interpretation
out of it in one go. Moreover, in the second sentence as well “Jane” which is noun has been used
again. In place of “Jane”, the word, “he” could have made the understanding aspect better.
Improved use of words could have described the scenario in rather more effective manner.
4

Hence, the correct sentence is stated below:
“Jane does not like bananas, milk and ice-cream. So, he will not like the banana milkshake you
have made for her.”
Question 8
The statement contains no fallacies as it is quite easy to make out the meaning from it.
Nouns and pronouns have been rightly with no mistake in sentence formation and placement.
SECTION D
Question 9
Ethical behaviour is a type of behaviour which demonstrate respect, key principles, such
as, fairness, honest, dignity, diversity and individual rights. Acting in a particular manner which
rather quite acceptable from the side of society which typically thinks that the individual holds
good moral values. The main issue that can be identified in the stated definition is that it does not
state that what type of behaviour is actually termed as ethical one. It is core and biggest failing of
stated definition for ethical behaviour. The statement stating that morally justifiable behaviour is
ethical. However, it is not mentioned that what type of behaviour is morally justifiable and on
what basis and intensity it is actually termed as moral or immoral.
Question 10
Charity is the act of giving money without taking any consideration in return. The definition
stated in the question is not clear and have only been able to provide one side of the charity. It is
not stated in the definition that to whom the money or services are rendered so that it can come
under the periphery of charity. Hence, it is the biggest failure and the definition lacks in to define
the core of charity that it is given to the poor and needy only. When anything given to family and
friends without taking anything in return can not be termed as charity.
SECTION E
Question 11(a)
The central argument of author is related to feud over social media platform. He has raised
concern regarding bringing issue, which is a family matter, in to the public. His concern is also
related to fight that has been taking place within the family due to the successor of money after
an individual’s death (Oxley Road dispute: Time to reflect, and seek the common good, 2017).
5

Question 11(b)
There are various reasons that have been stated to the conclusion he has made in the end.
One of the core argument that has been put by him in support of his conclusion is that the fight
that has been carried out by the family members on a social media platform like Facebook in
quite worthless as they won’t be able to reach to any specific conclusion. Rather, people present
on the platform will get a news or a movie to enjoy. Further, author stated that there are much
more issues present with the country on which people can focus rather than wasting time of
successor of wealth and property. Another argument that has been plated by the author is related
to the will, that was ultimately signed by PM Lee. He has mentioned all the circumstances in
which last will was prepared stating all the issues that could have been faced by him in the end.
Another argument that has been presented by the author include, mix of public interest and
interest of the family as people are including themselves in the fight and making comments
which may not be quite serious from their side. Rather, it has been changing the mindset of
family members, which is not right and appropriate to ultimately call off the fight. Hence, the
arguments presented by the author is effective enough based on which he has reached to the
ultimate conclusion.
Question 11(c)
I am quite satisfied and in support with the conclusion that has been given by the author.
The author has stated that there must be some mature place where these family disputes can be
sort out. Rather than fighting over a common matter it is important for the successors of Lee to
keep feelings like hurt, pride, fear and self-interest aside so that common interest of the
individual can be found out for the good so all who are involved in the disputes (Morse, 2015).
The author has also stated that people should focus upon big problems such as terrorism rather
than fighting upon petty issues such as money. Moreover, he has also stated that social media
platform is not there is not the right place to fight over any issue. Singapore, being a mature
country, have given platform to continue these fights in family courts and hence that would be
the best place to put arguments by the family members rather than Facebook where they will not
be able to reach to any specific conclusion. There is a little value of family wars ( Fairclough,
2013).
Social media is always a platform to share happy and sad news with family and friends.
However, making it a place for family argument can affect the overall dignity that may have
6

been hold by the family socially. Further, there are other reasons present on which discussion can
be made by people of Facebook, such as, corruption, terrorism, etc. Supportive argument for the
same can be that the author has been able to effectively understand the crux of over topic and
have been bale to give better suggestions to the family members (Jansson, 2013).
In the end, it can be stated that the circumstances that may be faced by the family could
have been settled at a better place rather than Facebook so that better results could have been
propounded by them. Moreover, it is important to analyse each and every aspect of the issue so
that one can reach to the specific conclusion and recommendation.
7