How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 DUDE? Why Did My Essay Suck So Bad?
Or…
How to Write Better Essays For Sociology Courses Dr. David Aveline Behavioural Science Department Mount Royal College
Revised, May, 2005
What Does the Professor Want Me to Write? - Part 2 How Does the Professor Want Me to Write? - Part 3 Download the full PDF document
Part One Introduction
1.) Ad Hominem 9.) Begging the Question 2.) Ad Verecundiam 10.) Biased Sample 3.) Appeal to Popularity 11.) Burden of Proof 4.) Appeal to Consequences 12.) Fallacy of Composition 5.) Appeal to Fear 13.) Confusing Cause and Effect 6.) Appeal to Flattery 14.) False Dilemma file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (1 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 7.) Appeal to Ridicule 15.) Non Sequitur 8.) Appeal to Tradition 16.) Next Demand
Introduction
The word “critical” is often misunderstood as negative. We think of film critics who lambaste the latest Hollywood blockbuster as inept and derivative, or people who criticize us for what we wear, say, or do. Faultfinding may well be part of criticism, but it is only one aspect. Criticism also has positive aspects in its effort to analyze issues.
Essays in sociology involve what is called critical thinking -- the ability to step back from an issue, recognize its components, and see the relationships among them. As a result, there is an analysis as well as a self-reflection of that analysis to ensure that it is not clouded by personal biases. If you were to explain why same-sex couples face obstacles when adopting children, you might look at the history of gay rights struggles, the influence of religion on people’s attitudes toward gays, and the political climate of a society. You might conclude that such couples have difficulty because of the way homosexuality is conceptualized in society. You would not say that same-sex couples are immoral, nor would you say that children should have both a mother and father. This is not critical thinking, it is valuative thinking which assesses issues as good or bad. Valuative thinking is not part of sociology. Sociology looks at issues as a whole and attempts to understand them as such. Nothing more.
Critical thinking has two basic components. First, there is identification. When answering a question, you should identify the relevant issues. If you were asked why India has had a rapid growth in population, you would identify factors that might have affected it -- poverty, economic climate, family planning, education, etc. If, however, you said that India’s population has grown because people don’t know when to stop having babies, or because they have nothing better to do than have sex, you would not have identified the relevant issues.
The second component is analysis -- to break an issue into its parts, explain the relevance of each, and show how all parts are connected. In the case of India’s population, you might say that the system of agriculture is important because large families are necessary to have enough labour to work the land. You might also say that poverty is relevant because children bring in revenue to poor families. In so doing, you have explained cause and effect and drawn connections for the reader.
Critical thinking is thus a process where one identifies relevant components and analyzes them on the basis of their connections. It is a disciplined approach to phenomena based on clarity, accuracy, consistency, the use of file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (2 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 good evidence, and good reasoning. It is first the development of those skills, and second the practice of them.
Often, wonder why they receive poor grades on their essays. They feel that they have given good arguments to support their claims and have thus carried out critical thinking. They are surprised when the instructor has not accepted them. One reason for poor grades is the use of logical fallacies. Claims appear to be supported by sound arguments, but those arguments fail upon closer examination. What follows is a list of some of the more commonly used logical fallacies. Read them carefully and avoid them in your essays.
1.) Ad Hominem, or “Of course she would say that.” Politicians use this logical fallacy often in their speeches. Typically, a claim is made by someone, and the argument against it is based not upon its logical construction but upon the person making the claim.
Examples:
● Janet: “Abortion is harmful to our society.” Latisha: “Of course you would say that. You’re a devout Catholic.”
● “Senator Rodriguez says that raising taxes is necessary to stabilize the economy. Of course, she is a Republican and her party has a history of such claims.”
In both cases, a claim is refuted not upon its own merits but upon the character or interests of the claim maker. The claim itself is ignored.
2.) Ad Verecundiam, or “It is be true because of who said it.” People often believe what others say because of who they are, even though they are not experts in a field. Politicians make scientific claims with no training; preachers make claims about social trends having done no research; sports figures endorse products constantly. If what someone says is to be taken as legitimate support of a claim, that person should have expertise. Simply being successful, famous, or an expert in another field is not sufficient.
Examples:
● “I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV. I can assure you that taking Headache-Eaze is the best way to get rid of headaches.”
● “I’m a mother of three small children. Children should not watch violent shows on TV because they will make them violent later in life.”
A scientific claim is made by an actor with no medical expertise and a claim needing applied research is made by someone who conducted no research at all. Playing a doctor does not make someone knowledgeable about medicine, nor does having children make one an expert on the psychological effects of media for all children.
3.) Appeal to Popularity, or “It must be true because many people think so.” file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (3 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 This logical fallacy is also called the “bandwagon approach.“ People are asked to believe a claim not because of its merits, but because many other people believe it. If something is widely believed, it is evidence of its popularity, not its truth. The truth of a claim should rest only upon its own merits.
Examples:
● “God exists. More than ninety percent of Americans believe in God.”
● “Nelson is a paranoid schizophrenic. I have spoken to three people he talked to this week and they agree.”
If millions of people believe in God, this attests to the popularity of that belief. It does not prove it. If many people think someone suffers from a mental disorder, this again attests to the popularity of the belief only. Arguments may be popularly accepted, but this acceptance should not be confused with support.
4.) Appeal to Consequences, or “Accept my idea or face the consequences” For this fallacy, a claim is said to be true because if it were not, there would be consequences. In reality, potential consequences have no bearing on the truth of a claim.
Examples:
● “God must exist. If not, there would be no morality and the world would be a terrible place.”
● “If everyone were homosexual, there would be no reproduction and the world would die out.”
The first example is a claim that God is the only source of morality when in fact there are others. The second is similar, suggesting that acceptance of any homosexuality will throw the world into a state of complete homosexuality to the exclusion of any reproductive desire. This is simply not the case. If claims are to be supported, they must have qualities of their own independent of any implied consequences.
5.) Appeal to Fear, or “Accept this as true or you will be sorry.” This fallacy is otherwise know as “scare tactics.” A statement intended to produce fear is made, and then a claim is said to be true because it will prevent the object of that fear.
Examples:
● “Would you want your daughter pregnant at age 15? No? Then never allow her to ride in cars with boys.”
● “Would you want to see your children get AIDS? No? Then we must not allow sex education in the schools.”
● “Senator Grundy is the best candidate for the job. Those voting for the other candidate will bring this country to ruin.”
Even though this type of reasoning has great effects on people’s behaviour, it is fallacious. Scaring people file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (4 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 into believing a claim has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of that claim.
6.) Appeal to Flattery, or “Accept this as true because you are a smart person.” Other names for this logical fallacy are “apple polishing,“ “brown nosing,” and “ass kissing.” A claim is made, and then people are told that they are likely to accept it because of the good qualities they possess.
Examples:
● “Dr. Grundy, you have always been a fair person who is on the side of students. I know that if you read my paper again you will see that I deserve a higher grade.”
● “You are the type of person who sees the truth of things. I have always had confidence in your ability to know what is right. Please sign this petition asking the Andersons to move out of the neighbourhood.”
● “Elizabeth, you are a sensible person. I know that you will make the right decision and vote for Governor Schawzenegger".
Credit card companies also use this one constantly. I get letters telling me that I am a discriminating person who has achieved a certain standard in life, and that signing on with them will be proof of my accomplishments. In reality, one has nothing to do with the other. The truth of a claim has nothing to do with whether one is good, fair, discriminating, or handsome.
7.) Appeal to Ridicule, or “What a ridiculous idea.” For this fallacy, an idea is presented, then ridiculed or mocked. The ridicule or mockery, often in the form of sarcasm or hyperbole, is then put forth as an argument to disprove the claim.
Examples:
● “My opponent claims that the key to solving the economic crisis is to raise taxes among high income earners. That is just laughable.”
● “Salvador believes that the best thing to do is to tell Eldora that her boyfriend is cheating. Yeah, right! That will go over big!"
● “Vincent says we should make abortion illegal because it will make people act more responsibly in their sexual relations. Ha! Coat hanger butcher jobs here we come!”
Although ridicule of an idea might be fair game, it is inadequate to disprove that idea. What must follow is sound reasoning as to why the idea is wrong.
8.) Appeal to Tradition, or “We have always done it that way.” This fallacy might be apparent to anyone who has served on committees. There is a discussion of what action to take, and someone claims that the committee should act one way because “that is the way it has always been done.” The action is traditional, therefore it is correct. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (5 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1
Examples:
● “People have believed in God for thousands of years. Can they be wrong?”
● Linda: “Our department needs to amend the present policy.” Greta: “But the policy has been around for over a decade.” Linda: “Yes, but it is outdated in view of the present circumstances.” Greta: “No one changed it before and it should not be changed now.” In reality, past use of any action does not render it correct. What renders it correct is its application to the present matter at hand.
9.) Begging the Question, or “Circular Reasoning.” This fallacy is otherwise known as tautological thinking. A statement is made, and the truth of that statement is set up within the statement itself.
Examples:
● “I know that God exists. It says so in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God.”
● “Jeffery Dahmer was mentally ill because he committed all of those gruesome murders. Anyone who would do so must be mentally ill.”
● “Homosexuality is wrong because having sex with the same sex is wrong. Gays have sex with the same sex. Therefore they are wrong.”
Each of these statements has been set up to define itself as true. The truth of any statement must be independent of the statement itself. To make a statement, and then set it up as true has no basis in logic.
10.) Biased Sample, or “Because three of my friends do it, everyone in the world does it.” This logical fallacy permeates much of our thinking whether we are aware of it or not. We believe that our observations on life are generalizable to everyone’s life. However, to say what “most people do” with any statistical confidence, we must conduct carefully designed surveys or at least refer to those who have done so. The fact that your friends do something is no evidence that everyone else does the same.
Examples:
● “I know that children are affected by violence on television. My three-year-old once saw a violent show and started hitting his sister. You should not let your children watch such things or they will be violent adults.”
● Jesse: “Most of the people in Canada have a strong belief in God.” Euripides: “Really, why do you say that?” Jesse: “I asked three people in the parking lot if they believed in God. All said yes.” file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (6 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 Please remember that sociology is a discipline which suspends all belief -- even that considered “common knowledge” -- until it has been supported be legitimate research. Whenever you begin a sentence with “Most people…” ask yourself if there is ample evidence to back up your claim.
11.) Burden of Proof, or “It is true because you cannot say that it is not true.” In this fallacy, the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. A claim is made, and it is rendered true because it cannot be disproved.
Examples:
● “You cannot prove that God exists. So he does not exist.”
● “Belinda is marrying Joshua for his money. You can’t give me any other reason, can you?”
The claims makers make no arguments as to the truth of their claims. Instead, they place the burden of proof on others in defying them to disprove what they say and render themselves correct by default.
12.) Fallacy of Composition, or “What is true of the part must be true of the whole.” This fallacy is seen when a conclusion about the whole of made based on features of the parts that make it up.
Examples:
● “People from Africa wear few clothes because it is hot there. Therefore, Africans would prefer to walk around our cities shirtless."
● “Scandinavians are used to cold weather. If you have a Danish tenant therefore, it is not necessary to turn up the heat in her apartment.”
● Fruit is good for you. You must therefore eat as many bananas as you can everyday.
In all three cases, one quality of some members in an entire category is highlighted and said to be true of everyone (or everything) in that category. In truth, there are many different kinds of people or things in categories, and there are little grounds to make such claims.
13.) Confusing Cause and Effect, or “They occur together so one caused the other.” Just because two things occur regularly together, it does not mean that one causes the other.
Examples:
● “Bringing back whippings in schools will make a better society. Look at the moral decay we have now. This never happened when we regularly whipped children who were unruly.”
● “We need to go back to basic religion to have a better society. You never had all of this unwanted pregnancy when people feared God.”
● Lately there has been a lot of music with violent lyrics. We also have a lot of school shootings. We should do our file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (7 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 best to ban this kind of music.
Cause and effect are complicated matters. While it is true that one event may cause another, merely happening at the same time, or in sequence, is not adequate support. One must instead draw logical connections.
14.) False Dilemma, or “This or that.” This is also known as black and white thinking. Two claims are made and it is reasoned that because one claim is false, the other must be true.
Examples:
● “Senator Abernathy does not support compulsory prayer in the schools. Therefore she is an atheist.”
● “Miguel is a communist because he does not support American foreign policy toward the eastern bloc.”
Both Senator Abernathy and Miguel may have other reasons for their claims. To say however that they are one thing if not another creates a false dilemma.
15.) Non Sequitur, or “It does not follow.” Non sequitur literally means it does not follow. A statement is made, then a second one based on that statement which does not follow, or the logical connection is not readily apparent.
Examples:
● “Many people are getting divorces after less than two years of marriage. The entire country is deteriorating.”
● “Devout Christians are against premarital sex. One should therefore use a condom.”
● In New Zealand there are more sheep than people. It is a good place to spend a vacation.
While the logical connections of these two statements may be apparent to the writers, they are not obvious to the readers. More information is needed to draw the connections between the two sets of statements.
16.) Next Demand, or “The next thing you know ” Here, it is stated that we should deny a reasonable demand on the basis that if it were granted, there would then be an unreasonable next demand which we will have no choice but to grant. Because we cannot grant that next demand, we should therefore deny the first one.
Examples:
● “We can’t boycott Acme Clothing Manufacturers because of their activities in South Africa. If we do, we will have to boycott all clothes and we will all be naked.”
● “We can’t let 18-year-olds vote in federal elections. Next thing you know people will demand that their dogs and cats have the right to vote and we will be a pet-run society.” file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (8 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1
● “We can’t allow same-sex marriages. Next thing people will want to marry their horses and we will have half-horse-half-human creatures all over.”
No one will be naked, few people will want their pets to vote, and there will be no centaurs in Canada since this is biologically impossible. The logic of denying reasonable demands, therefore, must have reasonable arguments against them.
Please keep such fallacies in mind when writing your essays. Logical connections are as important as factual information. They are what the reader looks at when deciding whether to accept your claim. If you are making a connection between one component and another, it is essential that it be joined with sound logic.
What Does the Professor Want Me to Write? - Part 2 How Does the Professor Want Me to Write? - Part 3 Download the full PDF document
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (9 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM]