Professional in front, Party in back.

So, I am attempting to try and grow out my hair long, but in order to do that, I unfortunately must go through that awkward mullet stage before I get it long and flowing. So, while I was talking about mullets with my hairdresser, she told me that mullets were slowly making a comeback in the fashion world. Her logic went as follows:

P1: I give more of my customers mullets.
P2: The number of people with mullets is increasing
C: Mullets must be making a comeback in the fashion world.

I happen to find this argument weak because the conclusion does not put forward strong evidence that mullets are indeed a rising fashion trend. What do you think?

To Court!

(Thanks http://www.smbc-comics.com for providing me with such humorous philosophical insights)

The Paradox of the court that is described in this rather humorous comic is a wonderful example of a seemingly unsolvable logical paradox. Protagoras and Eutharus both seem to have rational and logical points.

Protagoras's argument goes as:

P1: Eutharus owes me money if we wins a case

P2: Eutharus will owe me money if I sue him and win the case.

C: No matter what, Eutharus will owe me money

However, Eutharus's argument is as follows:

P1: Pythagoras says that until I win a case, I don't owe him money.

P2: If Pythagoras takes me to court for money and I win, I don't have to pay him because the court is on my side

P3: If I lose said court case, I have not won any case, so I don't have to pay Pythagoras any money.

C: I don't have to pay Pythagoras anything

Now, there is a solution to this paradox, but I will not say. Instead, try to figure it out yourselves.

Logic of Time Travel.

         Time travel is a very difficult concept to grasp and is prevalent in many fantasy and sci-fi novels. Yet there is much more logical problems and paradoxes than other controversial scientific theories. For example, if there was time travel, where are the time travelers? They should be around in the present day to accomplish whatever they need to do.
         There is also the issue of what happens when someone goes back in time to alter something? Take this argument:
P1: I punched Professor Silliman yesterday
P2: I used a time Machine to alter the past so that I did not punch Professor Silliman.
C: I did not punch professor Silliman.

This spawns many conflicts. If the conclusion is true, then the first premise, and consequently the second premise become untrue. It hurts my head.

Knowledge is Power.

Here is an 'argument' I remember hearing that I really like. I have taken some liberties to try and make it stronger.
P1: Reading educational books can lead to knowledge
P2: Knowledge leads to power
P2: Power leads to corruption
P3:Corruption is a crime
C: If you read educational books, you will be committing a crime.
Thus, I should no longer read my logic book, or else I might risk committing a crime.