Question4

[premise1]: if someone obeys the law(A), then he will stay out of trouble with the police(B).

[premise2]:and someone has managed to stay out of trouble with the police(B)

[conclusion]: this person doesn’t go around breaking the law(A)

[attack]: I think that this fallacy is Affirming the consequence.Such an argument is fallacious is that in affirming the consequent and then affirming the antecedent as the conclusion.However, there may be several other reasons. Obeying the law is not the only reason that could bring about the fact that people will stay out of trouble with the police. As a matter of fact, there may be several other reasons that are sufficient for bringing about B in addition to A, which means that A is not necessary to B’s being true.

Question8

[premise1]: if a person is given a proper upbringing by one’s parents(A), then he or she will treat others with respect(B).

[premise2]: and a person treats others with respect(B).

[conclusion]: this person has indeed been given a proper upbringing.(A)

[attack]: Having been given a proper upbringing is not the only reason that could bring about the fact that this person treats others with respect. So it is a classic case of affirming the consequent.