ANALYSING ARGUMENTS

Objectives

Compare multiple view points on the same topic

Analyse and detect false forms of argument Understand ways of emphasizing and de-

emphasizing a point in a text

Multiple viewpoints The same topic may be presented with multiple

viewpoints. It depends on writer’s background, purpose, ideology, context, etc.

Let’s look at three texts on indentured servants.

The author’s perspective with regard to indentured servitude is neutral. The author states facts about both the drawbacks and the potential outcomes of being an indentured servant.

Text 1Early settlers in the American colonies had a lot of land but not enough people to work on it. So, beginning in the decade after the settlement of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, many men and women came to the colonies to live as indentured servants. In exchange for their passage overseas and room and board, these men and women agreed to work for a period of between four and seven years. Then they would be considered free. Until then, they had to fulfill their contracts by working very hard. Their lives were harsh and restricted. People who tried to run away could be punished by having their contracts extended. If they survived the hard labour, however, indentured servants received freedom packages which sometimes included at least 25 acres of land.

The author’s perspective with regard to indentured servitude is negative. His experience as an indentured servant has been very harsh. He is trying to convince his parents to send for him by showing just how harsh it has been.

Text 2

Virginia, 1623Loving and KindFather and Mother,There is nothing here to comfort me. Since I left the ship, all I have eaten is watery porridge and peas. There is not enough meat or poultry to be had; I haven’t seen any deer around, and I am working too hard to hunt for fowl. Early until late I work and work, awarded for my labor with yet more porridge. Four men have to share a meager serving of bread, so it’s little wonder that so many have fallen ill.Not only am I hungry, I hardly have any clothing. My cloak was even stolen by a man whom I believe sold it for food. Fortunately, Mr. Jackson in Jamestown is kind to me and has given me some fish, but I am still miserable and hungry. I want nothing more than to go home. I do beg you, good Father, to release me from my great grief. I know you would cry if you saw my pathetic state. Give my love to all my friends and family. The answer to this letter will mean life or death for me; please, Father, send for me as soon as possible.Richard

The author’s perspective with regard to indentured servitude is unsympathetic. According to Darby Skinner, John Turner belongs to him just as much as the horse does. Skinner feels that Turner owes him a debt, and he is trying to convince others to find Turner by offering a reward.

Text 3A white servant boy named John Turner, belonging to Mr. Darby Skinner of Hampton, was sent to Williamsburg and has not returned. It is suspected that he has run away. He had on a blue jacket and trousers and had with him a small bay horse. Whoever will bring the boy and horse to Mr. Darby Skinner shall have a reasonable reward, over and above what the law allows. 

The passages that follow are three accounts of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark’s trip through the West. Read each passage and identify the attitude of the writer towards the topic.

False forms of argument (Logical fallacies)

An Argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion.

A premise is a statement (may be true or false) which is offered in support of the claim being made.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning in which the premises do not give adequate support for the conclusion.

It is different from a factual error where the facts reported are wrong.

Common flaws in argument1. Ad HominemThis translates as “to the man” and refers to any attacks on the person advancing the argument, rather than on the validity of the evidence or logic. It includes sexist comments, abuses and personal attacks.e.g. “Don’t take his movies seriously, after all he is a homosexual.”

2. Affirming the Consequent

This is a fairly difficult fallacy to understand or spot. It is categorical in nature and, essentially, means reversing an argument. Note that in this fallacy the premises/reasons are actually correct or valid; the error is found between the premises and conclusion.  Usually, the error occurs because we incorrectly assume that the Premise was a sufficient condition, when in fact it was only a necessary condition (one of many conditions) necessary to prove the conclusion.

e.g.           Premise: Ducks are birds.

Premise: Ducks swim in the water.

Premise: Chickens are birds.

False Conclusion: Chickens swim in the water.

(Affirming The Consequent Fallacy:  not all birds swim in water; swimming is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to be a "bird")

3. Argument From Authority

This is the flip side of the ad hominem; in this case, the argument is advanced because of  those advancing it. Sometimes fallacious arguments from authority are obvious because they are arguments from false authorities. Supermodels who push cosmetics or pro athletes pushing home loans or even sports equipment are likely false authorities: first, we don’t know whether the supermodel or athlete uses the product at all (odds are not), and second we can assume that the supermodel is beautiful without the product and the pro athlete was successful without the equipment.

Authority can mean either power or knowledge.  In the case of knowledge, we often find we must trust people to help us make sense of the vast and complex array of knowledge surrounding an issue – for example, in courtroom trials to consult psychologists and forensic authorities etc., or to consult with trained meteorologists, geologists, physicists, chemists etc. when debating global warming etc.

4. Band Wagon

The basic fallacy of democracy: that popular ideas are necessarily right. 

e.g. "C'mon, dude, everybody's doin' it."

5. Circular Reasoning (Begging the question)This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument is essentially the same as one of the premises in the argument. This is basically repeating the claim and never providing support for the premises, or, in other words, repeating the same argument over and over again. 

e.g. Joe and Fred show up at an exclusive club. When asked if they are members, Joe says "I'll vouch for Fred." When Joe is asked for evidence that he's a member, Fred says, "I'll vouch for him."

“This book is really great. You should read it”. How do you know it is great? It is written in the book, do you see it?”

6. Dogmatism

This refers to the unwillingness to even consider the opponent’s argument. The assumption that even when many, perhaps millions, of other people believe otherwise, only you can be correct.  This is closely related to the Either/Or fallacy as it’s based on the usually false assumption that competing theories or perspectives cannot co-exist within single systems.  This stems from the assumption that those who disagree with you are “biased”, while you are “objective”.

e.g. Argument that only one particular theory is the best and everything else is crap

7. Either/Or, Black/White, False Dilemma, or Excluded Middle FallacyThis fallacy simply paints an issue as one between two extremes with no possible room for middle ground or nuance or compromise.  It is closely related to the straw man fallacy, which essentially paints one side, instead of both, as so extreme no can agree with it.

e.g. “You have to support our movement, if you do not you are not interested in the welfare of the people.”

8. Emotional Appeals

When it comes to determining the validity or factuality of a claim, any attempt to sway an argument via emotion, rather than the quality of the logic or evidence, can be considered a fallacy.  This includes in some but not all cases the fallacy argument from adverse consequences, or “scare tactic”; bad things will happen to us if you do not agree with my argument.

9. Fallacy of Exclusion

This is related to the Hasty Generalization, and refers to focusing attention on one group’s behaviour and assuming that behaviour is unique to that group; yet, in fact, the behaviour is common to many groups.  

e.g. Women can't drive! (If you examine the driving habits of women, you will observe that women are poor drivers.  Yet if you were to examine the driving habits of both women and men, you’d learn that men are far more likely to get into accidents).

10. Faulty Analogy

Our language functions through comparisons, and it is common and useful to argue the validity of one point by comparing it to another; but often the comparison suggests that two things are more alike than they really are.

e.g. "If we legalize gay marriage, next we'll legalize marriage between people and their pets."

11. Failing Occam's Razor

Occam’s Razor is the scientific principle that the simplest of any given hypotheses is likely to be the right one. Ignoring it can lead to a logical fallacy.

e.g. You are thinking of your best friend, Rufus, when the phone rings and it’s Rufus! You conclude that the two of you are magically connected.

Occam’s Razor: Random Coincidence.

You think of your best friend dozens if not hundreds of times a day; he calls you a couple times a day. The odds of him calling you once or twice a day at least once in a while are pretty good.

12. Hasty Generalization, Misunderstanding Statistics or Non-Representative Sample

This normally involves mistaking a small incidence for a larger trend. 

Racism is the most obvious example, especially when exposure to other races or groups is filtered thru the media, and so you have only seen a very small percentage of the actual group and what you’ve seen has been careful chosen rather than due to random chance.

13. Non Sequitur

Non sequitur translates as “it does not follow,” meaning that the conclusion does not follow the premises (usually because of a faulty Implicit Reason/Assumption/Warrant).  In other words the non sequitur means there is a logical gap between the premises or evidence and the conclusion. The non sequitur is a broad, categorical term, and so there are many different types of non sequitur fallacies, including post hoc, hasty generalization, slippery slope, affirming the consequent and simply faulty assumption or warrant.

e.g. “If you loved me, you’d buy me this car.”

14. Post Hoc or Faulty Causality, or Correlation vs. Causation

Post hoc is the shortened version of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, which translates as “after this, therefore because of this”.  In other words, the fallacy confuses correlation for causation, or mistakenly claiming that one thing caused another to happen since they happen in sequence. The flaw in the argument is that often a third cause exists, which is causing both to occur frequently, or perhaps the flaw is simply that both things commonly occur regardless of each other.

e.g. Drinkers are more likely than non-drinkers to get lung cancer, suggesting drinking causes lung cancer.  (It turns out there is a strong correlation between consuming alcohol and developing lung cancer. The post hoc fallacy would be asserting that alcohol consumption causes lung cancer; the actual reason is that people who drink more also tend to smoke, or smoke more, than non drinkers.)

15. Red Herring

This generally refers to changing the subject mid-debate, so that we start arguing about a tangential topic rather than the real or original issue.

e.g. We start debating the evidence supporting evolutionary theory, but you bring up the fact that believing this theory is depressing.

We start debating the evidence supporting global warming, but you bring up the argument that the rich nations are more responsible for this.

16. Semantics or Equivocation (also, Splitting Hairs, Playing With Words, or Using Legalisms)

Using the inherent ambiguity of language to distract from the actual ideas or issues, or deliberately rephrasing the opposing argument incorrectly, and then addressing that rephrasing. 

17. Slippery Slope

Arguing from the perspective that one change inevitably will lead to another.

E.g. “Why stop at $7.25 an hour? Why not raise the minimum wage to $15 or $20 an hour? For that matter, why not mandate the price of housing? ... If we believe Congress has the power to raise minimum wages, where do we go next?” 

18. Straw Man

One side of the argument is presented as so extreme that no one will agree with it. Often this is done by referring to the exception, rather than the rule, and inferring that the exception is the rule.

e.g. “We either leave right now or we’re never going to get there.”

“All PETA supporters support the bombing or destruction of laboratories.”

19. Weasel Words or Glittering Generality

This is the use of words so broadly defined – such as “love” or “freedom” or “rights” or “patriotism” etc. etc.  – as to become essentially meaningless. Technically, their use is probably not a fallacy, but their use tends to move an argument no where while inciting deep emotional responses. Thus, they are rhetorically useful and logically distracting.

Emphasising or de-emphasising a point Depending on our purpose(s), certain points need to

be emphasized while some others may be de-emphasized.

This is particularly useful in persuasive writing and negotiations.

For instance, you are talking in favour of subsidies in India. Then you may want to emphasize on its benefits and at the same time de-emphasize its drawbacks like burden on the exchequer.

There are different techniques for emphasizing or de-emphasizing a point.

Use charts or graphs.

Information in footnotes

To emphasize, use bullets, symbols like "�", "�", or ">", that introduce a paragraph. They pull the eye toward themselves and emphasize what comes after.

To emphasize, use the beginning and ends of sentences; to de-emphasize, use the middle: A sentence has two points of major impact: the beginning and the end. Of these two positions of emphasis, the end is the more emphatic. In a good sentence, just as in a good joke, the more you can push the point to the end, the more it packs punch. As with most techniques of emphasis, however, caution is in order. Not everything can be emphasized, and an unending succession of punch lines can get tiresome.

Use outlining and proportionality. The structure of an argument (i.e., outlining) and the relative lengths of the parts of that structure (i.e., proportionality) are both crucial ways to emphasize and de-emphasize.

Whereas outlining deals with position, proportionality deals with length. Generally, matters on which you spend a lot of time seem important and matters on which you spend only a little time will seem unimportant. Make this Rule of Proportionality work in your favour, rather than against you.

To emphasize or de-emphasize, place at the proper point in your outline (at all levels): Matters that are hierarchically higher in your outline seem important; matters that are hierarchically lower in your outline seem less important. This is true at all levels of the outline: the major point should be roman numeral I, the major point on the second argument should be roman numeral II A, and so on through each section, each sub-section, each sub-sub-section, etc. If your strongest point is roman numeral III (B) (2) (c), then you are not giving it proper emphasis. Roman numeral III (B) (2) (c), however, might the perfect point for something you want de-emphasized to be buried.

Proportionality is especially strong when combined with the other methods of emphasis and de-emphasis. For example, an extensive description (rather than a sketchy characterization) can be especially emphatic.

Sometimes, however, normal operation of the Rule of Proportionality is reversed, and instead of long being emphasized, short is emphasized -- especially very short. For this to happen, the Rule of Proportionality generally has to be operating with one or more of the other techniques of emphasis. For example, if Roman Numeral I is a very short argument, especially if it contains another technique of emphasis like a contrasting sentence or a chart, it can be very forceful.

To emphasize and de-emphasize, contrast within a sentence or paragraph: By contrasting within a sentence or paragraph, you can emphasize what you want emphasized while simultaneously de-emphasizing what you want de-emphasized. The physically closer on the page the contrast is, the stronger the effect. The closest contrasts and, thus, the strongest effects are those that are side-by-side in the same sentence, often with one-word arguments like "although", "nevertheless", and "however":

To emphasize or de-emphasize, be explicit. Don't be afraid to just come out and state that something should be emphasized or de-emphasized. Think about why are you discussing a case or some facts.

To emphasize or de-emphasize, reinforce with the typography and visual layout of the page. Use the typography and the visual layout of the page to reinforce what you want emphasized or de-emphasized. Important points should look important; unimportant ones should look unimportant. The explicit message and the subliminal message should reinforce each other. If, on the page, a minor point looks more important than does a major point, then you've undercut your own emphasis.