[The number of pets in Japan has exceeded the number of children] Japan’s NHK TV said that as of April 1, 2021, the number of pets in Japan has exceeded the number of children under 15 in China. Japanese media also urged that keeping pets means taking responsibility, hoping that people can keep pets from beginning to end.
There is no correlation between the two things when put together and compared. It is a logical trap. Many people read the title if they are thinking-Japanese young people don’t want to have children, so they are more lonely. They choose to keep pets instead of children to accompany them. It’s sad. If you think about it this way, the text has introduced a logical trap. Japan’s low fertility rate is a fact; there are more pets in Japan; it is also a fact that there are more pets in Japan; and the combination of a weak fact and a strong fact proves that “You see because, so again, this is a logical trap.” Don’t worry, let’s take a look. Look, have you ever been misled like this in your life? First of all, it is misleading to put these two data together until there is no other data to support it. For example, we can boldly guess whether the increase in the number of pets is because the economy has been good in recent years, and more families can meet the requirements of their children to buy pets. After all, what kid didn’t ask parents to raise hamsters, puppies, etc. in their childhood? So families with children have added a lot of pets, and families without children have also added a lot of pets. Even because the statistics are the “number of pets”, is it possible that people don’t like raising cats and dogs, and they have become fish raising so the number has increased? Or let’s guess from another angle, is it because schools have recently moved closer to quality education that all children are required to write observation diaries during holidays, so children are asking parents to buy pets for observation? Or is it because Japan’s ageing is serious, and young people’s working hours increase, and older people choose to keep pets to accompany themselves? These are all things that can happen, and they can happen at the same time as the birth rate decline without any correlation. In fact, if you have the patience to click on the news link in the title and finish reading it, it is said in the video-because of the restrictions of the home order, people in order to pass the time at home, the number of pets in Japan has soared. Oh, it turns out that it’s because of the epidemic, so adults and children can’t go out. Keeping pets to pass the time has nothing to do with having children. Presumably because of the inability to go out, the number of pregnancies in Japan is increasing recently, but it takes 10 months for a child to be born, unlike pets that can be taken home at that time. Therefore, the number of newborns and pets in Japan may be on the rise, but the pets show faster. And the original video did not say that XXX caused XX, but objectively mentioned the NHK report, urging the owner to be responsible for the pet. Before there are data showing that “family without children is the main cause of new pets in order to resolve loneliness”, comparing these two data together like the subject of the subject will mislead readers. Some people may say, isn’t it because Japanese people have a low fertility rate? Isn’t it normal for young people not to have children to raise cats and dogs? Both of these logics are correct, but there are many reasons for the appearance of a result, and it is also misleading to replace the main cause with a weak cause. The number of cats and dogs in Japan has now increased dramatically-correct Japanese do not like to have children-correct Japanese do not like to have children, which directly leads to the increase in the number of cats and dogs-the title is not mentioned, but the text put together leads you to reason out This conclusion. There is a question like “3 people pay 30 yuan for staying in the store, and the shopkeeper charges 25 yuan and asks the Xiaoer to refund 5 yuan, but the Xiaoerzang 2 yuan. Then each person spends 9 yuan for a total of 27 yuan, plus the Xiaoerzang 2 yuan for a total of 29 yuan. , Where is the other one yuan?” Where is the mistake of this question? Misleading you with the last sentence. The reason that the three actually only spent 27 yuan was that each person had refunded 1 yuan, not that the shop Xiaoer had hidden 2 yuan. Dian Xiaoer’s 2 yuan is included in 27 yuan, and there is no logical relationship between it and 30 yuan. So where there is no one yuan. Similarly, in addition to the “increased purchases of home orders due to the epidemic” mentioned in the video, what else has caused the increase in the number of pets in Japan? The first is that the average life expectancy is extended and social welfare is good. Japanese old people generally have cats and dogs after retirement-this has nothing to do with young people not having children. The second is that the life span of cats and dogs has increased-it still has nothing to do with young people not having children. For more than ten years, the pet industry in Japan has been very developed. A special pet management agency has been established to conduct professional management of cats and dogs, cooperate with hospitals and special health checks, and increase the average life span of cats and dogs by 10 years. The natural life span of cats and dogs is short, which is almost doubled by 10 years. Old cats and dogs can also be taken care of, and new cats and dogs are still being born, and the number of natural pets directly rises. So, is it because young people do not have children because of the increase in the number of cats and dogs? No data was found, but it should be just one of the reasons, and the impact is lower than the first two. Because most young people in Japan live in apartments after leaving home, there are not many apartments that allow cats and dogs in Japan. At the same time, young people in Japan are under a lot of pressure in the workplace. They leave work late at night and cannot take good care of cats and dogs. The consumption motivation is not as good as the elderly. Another popular example: In the 1990s, with the popularization of home TV, people spent more time watching TV. According to the statistical results, an article title can be compiled, and the picture shows that the TV is not good. How do you think “People spend more time on TV shows than being with their families for the first time?” Readers saw that TV is really not a good thing, and it delays our being with our families. Because in fact, “people watching TV time” and “time with their families” are not in conflict or related. It’s just that people’s way of life has changed. You can watch TV while staying with your family. Even because the whole family can watch TV together, the time everyone spends sitting together at home has increased. In the past, everyone did their own thing in the room. It’s just that because I can watch TV when I’m alone, “the time spent on TV” exceeds “being with my family.” Both quantities are rising. And the more “time spent watching TV” increases, and the actual main occupancy is the time originally spent reading books and listening to the radio alone. “Watching TV” itself does not have any negative effect on being with the family, and even has a positive effect. It’s just that its numbers are growing faster, so when you compare it together, it seems to be a contradictory relationship. Even the title “Time spent on TV” is also an ambiguous statement. Does shooting TV programs also count? Do these hours of production of TV and TV commercials also count? These are all misleading readers. Local. For another example, there was a news before that Indians generally eat curry, and the number of Alzheimer’s disease (Alzheimer’s) in India is very low. So it led to a saying “Curry can prevent Alzheimer’s disease.” In fact, it is. After a few years, some people went back to the statistics and found that it was because India’s sanitary conditions were poor and the average life expectancy was very low. Alzheimer’s disease mainly occurred in 50 years of age and the patients were not diagnosed, so the number of cases was very small. The conclusion that the number of diagnoses of Alzheimer’s in India is small” is correct. “Curry is commonly eaten in India, and curcumin in curry is good for the health of the elderly”. The fact is also correct. However, the main reason for affecting the conclusion is life expectancy and medical treatment, not curry. This is the logical misleading of putting two parts of seemingly correct content together. In fact, people in our lives often use such logical traps to mislead others and increase their persuasive power. For example, parents scold their children: one day By the end of the day, I know that I’m going online. I spend more time on the Internet at home than reading and studying. So does my child’s “Internet” mean playing? If he’s watching Zhihu, this may itself be a new learning alternative to “reading books”. Method. (This point should be questioned by comments, and everyone can judge for themselves) Or is the time the child spends surfing the Internet originally as learning time? Or is the time he used to watch TV used to surf the Internet. A more rude way, It’s a direct attribution, for example, your parents think you often look at your mobile phone. Excessive use of your mobile phone is a bad behavior. This is a fact, and the new facts are bound to the old facts to establish a logical relationship. When you and your mother say: “Mom ,I have a headache. “Who told you to play mobile phones all day long.” “Mom, I failed the exam. “Who told you to play mobile phones all day long.” “Mom, I don’t have a boyfriend. “Who told you to play mobile phones all day long.” “Mom, I have stopped playing mobile phones recently, but my head still hurts. “Who told you that you used to play mobile phones?” “