DOCSLIB.ORG

Rhetorical and Argumentative Perspectives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE WORLD? RHETORICAL AND ARGUMENTATIVE PERSPECTIVES WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE WORLD? RHETORICAL AND ARGUMENTATIVE PERSPECTIVES Edited by Gabrijela Kišiček (University of Zagreb) & Igor Ž. Žagar ∫University of Maribor & University of Primorska) Windsor Studies in Argumentation Open Monograph Press Editors in Chief Leo Groarke (University of Windsor) Christopher Tindale (University of Windsor) Board of Editors Mark Battersby (Capilano University) Camille Cameron (University of Windsor) Emmanuelle Danblon (Université libre de Bruxelles) Ian Dove (University of Nevada Las Vegas) Bart Garssen (University of Amsterdam) Michael Gilbert (York University) David Godden (Old Dominion University) Jean Goodwin (Iowa State University) Hans Hansen (University of Windsor) Gabrijela Kišiček (University of Zagreb) Marcin Koszowy (University of Białystok) Marcin Lewiński (New University of Lisbon) Catherine H. Palczewski (University of Northern Iowa) Steven Patterson (Marygrove College) Chris Reed (University of Dundee) Andrea Rocci (University of Lugano) Paul van den Hoven (Tilburg University) Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez (Diego Portales University) Igor Ž. Žagar (University of Maribor & University of Primorska) Frank Zenker (Lund University) Co-published in: Digital Library Dissertationes series (volume 25): http://193.2.222.157/Sifranti/StaticPage.aspx?id=45. Editorial Board: Igor Ž. Žagar, Editor in Chief Jonatan Vinkler Janja Žmavc Alenka Gril. © Individual authors and WSIA 2013. All rights reserved. PREFACE .................................................................................................................................. 1 PROLOGUE ............................................................................................................................... 3 Gordana Varošanec-Škarić, University of Zagreb I. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ........................................................................................ 5 The Elements of Argument: Six Steps To A Thick Theory ................................................... 6 Leo Groarke, University of Windsor Argumentation as poliphony: one speaker, several voices................................................... 29 Igor Ž. Žagar, Educational Research Institute & University of Primorska The linguistic-discursive creation of the speaker’s ethos for the sake of persuasion: a key aspect of rhetoric and argumentation ................................................................................... 64 Paul Danler, University of Innsbruck The Sokal affair and beyond: on the strategic use of parody in the “science wars” ............ 84 Ana Dimiškovska, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje The acts and strategies of defining ..................................................................................... 115 Fabrizio Macagno, Universidade Nova de Lisboa Intolerance and the Zero Tolerance Fallacy ....................................................................... 143 Sheldon Wein, Saint Mary’s University II POLITICAL DISCOURSE ................................................................................................ 162 Political Discourse and Argumentation Profiles ................................................................ 163 Hans V. Hansen, University of Windsor Rhetoric of the Crisis. Polish parliamentarian debates on the future of the EU ................ 178 Agnieszka Kampka, Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW The Political Discourse on Croatia’s EU Accession: a Rhetorical Analysis of the Presentation of the European Union among Supporters and Opponents of the EU ........... 204 Gabrijela Kišiček, University of Zagreb Rhetoric ― Martial Art or the Art of Winning the Soul by Discourse? ............................ 234 Language of Politicians vs. Ethos, Pathos and Logos.......................................................... 234 Joanna Szczepańska-Włoch, Jagiellonian University The Analysis of Insulting Practices - Sticks and Stones in the Croatian Parliament ......... 262 Alma Vančura, University of Osijek & Diana Tomić, University of Zagreb III. LEGAL DISCOURSE ...................................................................................................... 293 Taking Judges Seriously ..................................................................................................... 294 Argumentation and Rhetoric in Legal Decisions ............................................................... 294 Maurizio Manzin, Research Centre on Legal Methodology (CERMEG), University of Trento IV. EDUCATION .................................................................................................................. 320 Debate as an Educational Tool: Is Polarization a Debate side effect? ............................... 321 Manuele De Conti, University of Padua Teaching the writing of argumentative genre through imitatio: A solid basis for the ‘beginner’ writers ............................................................................................................... 354 Fotini Egglezou, Athens V. MEDIA .............................................................................................................................. 384 Challenges of Rhetoric in the Era of ‘Bytes and Likes’ ..................................................... 385 Petra Aczél, Corvinus University of Budapest The Cowboys, the Poets, the Professor... – Antonomasia in Croatian Sports Discourse ... 408 Ana Grgić & Davor Nikolić, University of Zagreb Stakeholders in promotional genres. A rhetorical perspective on marketing communication ............................................................................................................................................ 430 Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati & Chiara Pollaroli, University of Lugano The Representation and Reception of Paraphrase in Newspaper Headlines ...................... 459 Anita Runjić-Stoilova & Josip Galić, University of Split ABOUT THE AUTHORS ..................................................................................................... 484 INDEX ................................................................................................................................... 489 PREFACE What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and Argumentative Perspectives is a book trying to answer the title question by contributing to rhetorical and argumentative studies. It consists of papers presented at the “First International Conference on Rhetoric in Croatia: the Days of Ivo Škarić”. The Conference was organized with the intent of paying respect to the Croatian rhetorician and professor emeritus Ivo Škarić who was the first to introduce rhetoric at the Department of Phonetics at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb. As a phonetician, professor Škarić was interested in all aspects of speech and therefore revealed natural connections between phonetics and rhetoric. As a founder of the School of Rhetoric, he trained many of his students to become teachers of rhetoric and to get involved with rhetorical and argumentation analysis. This conference was a sign of gratitude from his students. The conference was held at the island of Brač, professor Škarić's birthplace, between April 19th and 22nd 2012, and it gathered 60 rhetoricians and argumentation scholars from 10 European countries as well as North America. The papers presented at the conference are distributed into six chapters of the book: Theoretical Perspectives discussing argumentation theory, relations between philosophy and rhetoric, and visual argumentation; Political Discourse presents papers interested in rhetorical strategies and argumentation analysis in various types of pubic discourse, i.e. parliamentary debates, persuasion in political speeches etc; The Media chapter presents papers containing rhetorical analyses of the media discourse, especially those interested in figures of speech and the New Media; the Legal Discourse discusses argumentation and rhetorical strategies in legal discourse; while Education presents a chapter involved in the importance of the rhetoric in education system, i.e. implementation of debate in education, writings of the argumentative genre, etc. The final chapter Other 1 Approaches shows different approaches to rhetoric illustrating the multidisciplinarity of the conference. The common feature of all the papers in the book is the attempt to understand the role of rhetoric and argumentation in various types of public discourse and to present interdisciplinary work connecting linguists, phoneticians, philosophers, law experts and communication scientists in the common ground of rhetoric and argumentation. Gabrijela Kišiček 2 PROLOGUE The Significance of Ivo Škarić for the Academic Development of Rhetoric/Public Speaking in Croatia Gordana Varošanec-Škarić, University of Zagreb Professor Emeritus Ivo Škarić was born on 19 April 1933 here in Postira, on the island of Brač and he left us on 29 January 2009. Professor Škarić was an actual authority in the field of public speaking in Croatia. He authored seven books and about hundred and fifty scientific papers and he was also well-known to the Croatian public for his many newspaper articles and interviews on television. He published three books on rhetoric, U potrazi za izgubljenim govorom (In Search of for Lost Speech, 1st edition 1982), Temeljci suvremenog govorništva (Cornerstones of Contemporary Rhetoric, 2000, 2nd edition 2003) and Argumentacija (Argumentation, 2011). The last one – Argumentacija
Recommended publications
  • A Pragmatic Study of Fallacy in George W. Bush's Political Speeches Pjaee, 17(12) (2020)

    A Pragmatic Study of Fallacy in George W. Bush's Political Speeches Pjaee, 17(12) (2020)

    A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF FALLACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLITICAL SPEECHES PJAEE, 17(12) (2020) A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF FALLACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLITICAL SPEECHES Dr. Ghanim Jwaid Al-Sieedy1, Haider Rajih Wadaah Al-Jilihawi2 1,2University of Karbala - College of Education. Dr. Ghanim Jwaid Al-Sieedy , Haider Rajih Wadaah Al-Jilihawi , A Pragmatic Study Of Fallacy In George W. Bush's Political Speeches , Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 18(4). ISSN 1567-214x. Keywords: Political speeches, Pragmatics, Fallacy, Argument. Abstract: A fallacy can be described as the act of issuing a faulty argument to support and reinforce a previously published argument for purposes of persuasion. However, a fallacy is a broad subject that has been addressed from several viewpoints. A few experiments have tried to counter the fallacy pragmatically. However, the attempts above have suffered from shortcomings, which made them incomplete accounts in this regard. Hence, this study has set itself to provide pragmatic models for the analysis of fallacy as far as its pragmatic structure, forms, methods, and applications are concerned. These models use many models produced by several academics and the researchers themselves' observations. The validity of the established models was tested by reviewing seven speeches by George W. Bush taken before and after the war in Iraq (2002-2008). The analyses demonstrated the efficacy of the models created. Mostly because they have yielded varied results, it is clear that fallacy is a process of stages, with each round distinct for its pragmatic components and strategies. 1. Introduction: The fallacy has been regarded as a critical issue by numerous studies investigating the definition from different lenses.
  • 35 Fallacies

    35 Fallacies

    THIRTY-TWO COMMON FALLACIES EXPLAINED L. VAN WARREN Introduction If you watch TV, engage in debate, logic, or politics you have encountered the fallacies of: Bandwagon – "Everybody is doing it". Ad Hominum – "Attack the person instead of the argument". Celebrity – "The person is famous, it must be true". If you have studied how magicians ply their trade, you may be familiar with: Sleight - The use of dexterity or cunning, esp. to deceive. Feint - Make a deceptive or distracting movement. Misdirection - To direct wrongly. Deception - To cause to believe what is not true; mislead. Fallacious systems of reasoning pervade marketing, advertising and sales. "Get Rich Quick", phone card & real estate scams, pyramid schemes, chain letters, the list goes on. Because fallacy is common, you might want to recognize them. There is no world as vulnerable to fallacy as the religious world. Because there is no direct measure of whether a statement is factual, best practices of reasoning are replaced be replaced by "logical drift". Those who are political or religious should be aware of their vulnerability to, and exportation of, fallacy. The film, "Roshomon", by the Japanese director Akira Kurisawa, is an excellent study in fallacy. List of Fallacies BLACK-AND-WHITE Classifying a middle point between extremes as one of the extremes. Example: "You are either a conservative or a liberal" AD BACULUM Using force to gain acceptance of the argument. Example: "Convert or Perish" AD HOMINEM Attacking the person instead of their argument. Example: "John is inferior, he has blue eyes" AD IGNORANTIAM Arguing something is true because it hasn't been proven false.
  • 89% of Introduction-To-Psychology Textbooks That Define Or Explain

    89% of Introduction-To-Psychology Textbooks That Define Or Explain

    AMPXXX10.1177/2515245919858072Cassidy et al.Failing Grade 858072research-article2019 ASSOCIATION FOR General Article PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science Failing Grade: 89% of Introduction-to- 2019, Vol. 2(3) 233 –239 © The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: Psychology Textbooks That Define sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919858072 10.1177/2515245919858072 or Explain Statistical Significance www.psychologicalscience.org/AMPPS Do So Incorrectly Scott A. Cassidy, Ralitza Dimova, Benjamin Giguère, Jeffrey R. Spence , and David J. Stanley Department of Psychology, University of Guelph Abstract Null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is commonly used in psychology; however, it is widely acknowledged that NHST is not well understood by either psychology professors or psychology students. In the current study, we investigated whether introduction-to-psychology textbooks accurately define and explain statistical significance. We examined 30 introductory-psychology textbooks, including the best-selling books from the United States and Canada, and found that 89% incorrectly defined or explained statistical significance. Incorrect definitions and explanations were most often consistent with the odds-against-chance fallacy. These results suggest that it is common for introduction- to-psychology students to be taught incorrect interpretations of statistical significance. We hope that our results will create awareness among authors of introductory-psychology books
  • Fallacies Are Deceptive Errors of Thinking

    Fallacies Are Deceptive Errors of Thinking

    Fallacies are deceptive errors of thinking. A good argument should: 1. be deductively valid (or inductively strong) and have all true premises; 2. have its validity and truth-of-premises be as evident as possible to the parties involved; 3. be clearly stated (using understandable language and making clear what the premises and conclusion are); 4. avoid circularity, ambiguity, and emotional language; and 5. be relevant to the issue at hand. LogiCola R Pages 51–60 List of fallacies Circular (question begging): Assuming the truth of what has to be proved – or using A to prove B and then B to prove A. Ambiguous: Changing the meaning of a term or phrase within the argument. Appeal to emotion: Stirring up emotions instead of arguing in a logical manner. Beside the point: Arguing for a conclusion irrelevant to the issue at hand. Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s views. LogiCola R Pages 51–60 Appeal to the crowd: Arguing that a view must be true because most people believe it. Opposition: Arguing that a view must be false because our opponents believe it. Genetic fallacy: Arguing that your view must be false because we can explain why you hold it. Appeal to ignorance: Arguing that a view must be false because no one has proved it. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Arguing that, since A happened after B, thus A was caused by B. Part-whole: Arguing that what applies to the parts must apply to the whole – or vice versa. LogiCola R Pages 51–60 Appeal to authority: Appealing in an improper way to expert opinion.
  • Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I

    Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I

    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas. Adolf Hitler Until the habit of thinking is well formed, facing the situation to discover the facts requires an effort. For the mind tends to dislike what is unpleasant and so to sheer off from an adequate notice of that which is especially annoying. John Dewey, How We Think Introduction In everyday speech you may have heard someone refer to a commonly accepted belief as a fallacy. What is usually meant is that the belief is false, although widely accepted. In logic, a fallacy refers to logically weak argument appeal (not a belief or statement) that is widely used and successful. Here is our definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that is usually psychologically persuasive but logically weak. By this definition we mean that fallacious arguments work in getting many people to accept conclusions, that they make bad arguments appear good even though a little commonsense reflection will reveal that people ought not to accept the conclusions of these arguments as strongly supported. Although logicians distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, our focus in this chapter and the next one will be on traditional informal fallacies.1 For our purposes, we can think of these fallacies as "informal" because they are most often found in the everyday exchanges of ideas, such as newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, political speeches, advertisements, conversational disagreements between people in social networking sites and Internet discussion boards, and so on.
  • Quantifying Aristotle's Fallacies

    Quantifying Aristotle's Fallacies

    mathematics Article Quantifying Aristotle’s Fallacies Evangelos Athanassopoulos 1,* and Michael Gr. Voskoglou 2 1 Independent Researcher, Giannakopoulou 39, 27300 Gastouni, Greece 2 Department of Applied Mathematics, Graduate Technological Educational Institute of Western Greece, 22334 Patras, Greece; [email protected] or [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 July 2020; Accepted: 18 August 2020; Published: 21 August 2020 Abstract: Fallacies are logically false statements which are often considered to be true. In the “Sophistical Refutations”, the last of his six works on Logic, Aristotle identified the first thirteen of today’s many known fallacies and divided them into linguistic and non-linguistic ones. A serious problem with fallacies is that, due to their bivalent texture, they can under certain conditions disorient the nonexpert. It is, therefore, very useful to quantify each fallacy by determining the “gravity” of its consequences. This is the target of the present work, where for historical and practical reasons—the fallacies are too many to deal with all of them—our attention is restricted to Aristotle’s fallacies only. However, the tools (Probability, Statistics and Fuzzy Logic) and the methods that we use for quantifying Aristotle’s fallacies could be also used for quantifying any other fallacy, which gives the required generality to our study. Keywords: logical fallacies; Aristotle’s fallacies; probability; statistical literacy; critical thinking; fuzzy logic (FL) 1. Introduction Fallacies are logically false statements that are often considered to be true. The first fallacies appeared in the literature simultaneously with the generation of Aristotle’s bivalent Logic. In the “Sophistical Refutations” (Sophistici Elenchi), the last chapter of the collection of his six works on logic—which was named by his followers, the Peripatetics, as “Organon” (Instrument)—the great ancient Greek philosopher identified thirteen fallacies and divided them in two categories, the linguistic and non-linguistic fallacies [1].
  • 35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, Jstevemiller@Gmail.Com

    35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected]

    Kennesaw State University DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University Sexy Technical Communications Open Educational Resources 3-1-2016 35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Cherie Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm Part of the Technical and Professional Writing Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Steve and Miller, Cherie, "35. Logic: Common Fallacies" (2016). Sexy Technical Communications. 35. http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm/35 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources at DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sexy Technical Communications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve and Cherie Miller Sexy Technical Communication Home Logic and Logical Fallacies Taken with kind permission from the book Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense by J. Steve Miller and Cherie K. Miller Brilliant People Believe Nonsense [because]... They Fall for Common Fallacies The dull mind, once arriving at an inference that flatters the desire, is rarely able to retain the impression that the notion from which the inference started was purely problematic. ― George Eliot, in Silas Marner In the last chapter we discussed passages where bright individuals with PhDs violated common fallacies. Even the brightest among us fall for them. As a result, we should be ever vigilant to keep our critical guard up, looking for fallacious reasoning in lectures, reading, viewing, and especially in our own writing. None of us are immune to falling for fallacies.
  • Example of Name Calling Fallacy

    Example of Name Calling Fallacy

    Example Of Name Calling Fallacy Unreturning Lew sometimes dry-rot his eclectics naething and bead so stoically! Disheartened Rey still internationalizing: clostridialantistatic andDerrin hydrologic aromatise Napoleon her abnormalities spend quite widens contractedly while Alexander but discommoding insnaring hersome gutturals perinephrium fearfully. alarmedly. Einsteinian and What before the fallacy of deductive reasoning? Name calling the stab of derogatory language or words that recruit a negative connotation hopes that invite audience will reject that person increase the idea where the basis. Fallacious Reasoning and Progaganda Techniques SPH. If this example of examples of free expression exploits the names to call our emotions, called prejudicial language are probably every comparison is a complicated by extremely common. There by various Latin names for various analyses of the fallacy. Fallacies and Propaganda TIP Sheets Butte College. For example the first beep of an AdHominem on memories page isn't name calling. Title his Name-calling Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web. Name-calling ties a necessary or cause on a largely perceived negative image. In contract of logical evidence this fallacy substitutes examples from. A red herring is after that misleads or distracts from superior relevant more important making It wound be beautiful a logical fallacy or for literary device that leads readers or audiences toward god false conclusion. And fallacious arguments punished arguers of- ten grand into. Logical Fallacies Examples EnglishCompositionOrg. Example calling members of the National Rifle Association trigger happy drawing attention was from their. Example Ignore what Professor Schiff says about the origins of childhood Old Testament. Such a fantastic chef, headline writing as a valid to call david, and political or kinds of allegiance of? Look for Logical Fallacies.
  • Introduction to Informal Logical Fallacies Course Outline

    Introduction to Informal Logical Fallacies Course Outline

    Introduction to Informal Logical Fallacies Course Outline Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 ● Housekeeping ● Review ● Fallacies by any ● Introduction to Logic ● Common fallacies other name... ○ Values and Functions ○ Ad Hominem ○ Red Herring ( aka ○ Abduction, Induction, ○ False Dilemma Deflection) Deduction ○ Unwarranted ○ Begging the ○ Validity Generalization Question (aka ○ Soundness ○ Straw Man Circularity) ● Language to Logic ○ Appeal to Ignorance (aka Prove a Negative) Scope Informal Logic Set of techniques used to evaluate arguments made in everyday language. Formal Logic Set of formulae used to assign truth values to symbolic equations. Truth Values A ~A True False False True Logical Functions A B A Or B A And B True True True True True False True False False True True False False False False False Truth Values Excluded Middle A ~A A OR ~A A AND ~A True False True False False True True False Non-Contradiction Abductive, Inductive, and Deductive Reasoning Abductive Start with a concrete instance. Draw a conclusion based on the best explanation. My lettuce plants nearly always die in January. I conclude frosts in January kill my plants. Abductive, Inductive, and Deductive Reasoning Abductive Be on the lookout for conclusions that are not the best explanation. Abductive, Inductive, and Deductive Reasoning Inductive Start with an hypothesis. Find supporting evidence. Generalize. Frost kills lettuce plants in January. True in 1970 - 2002, and 2004 - 2018. False in 2003. For practical purposes, assume lettuce will not survive through January. Abductive, Inductive, and Deductive Reasoning Inductive Be on the lookout for false claims of evidence or insufficient evidence. Abductive, Inductive, and Deductive Reasoning Deductive Start with what you know.
  • The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies

    The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies

    The Thinker’s Guide to FALLACIES The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation RICHARD PAUL and LINDA ELDER ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • London 04 Fallacies TG 12.2012.indd 1 8/29/19 12:09 PM To understand the human mind, understand self-deception. Anon The word ‘fallacy’ derives from two Latin words, fallax (“deceptive”) and fallere (“to deceive”). This is an important concept in human life because much human thinking deceives itself while deceiving others. The human mind has no natural guide to the truth, nor does it naturally love the truth. What the human mind loves is itself, what serves it, what flatters it, what gives it what it wants, and what strikes down and destroys whatever “threatens” it. The study of fallacies can be pursued in at least two different ways. It can be approached traditionally: in which case one defines, explains, and exemplifies ways in which unsound arguments can be made to appear sound. Or it can be approached deeply, in which case one relates the construction of fallacies to the pursuit of human interests and irrational desires. Using the first approach, students gain little by memorizing the names and definitions of fallacies. They soon forget them. Their minds are left largely untouched and therefore unmoved. On the other hand, the second approach makes possible the acquisition of lifelong insights into how the mind – every mind – uses unsound arguments and intellectual “tricks” to further its ends. When we look closely at human decisions and human behavior, we can easily see that what counts in human life is not who is right, but who is winning.
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument

    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument

    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument <http://www.orsinger.com/PDFFiles/constructing-a-persuasive-argument.pdf> [The pdf version of this document is web-enabled with linking endnotes] Richard R. Orsinger [email protected] http://www.orsinger.com McCurley, Orsinger, McCurley, Nelson & Downing, L.L.P. San Antonio Office: 1717 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-5567 http://www.orsinger.com and Dallas Office: 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 273-2400 http://www.momnd.com State Bar of Texas 37th ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 1-4, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 11 © 2011 Richard R. Orsinger All Rights Reserved The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument Chapter 11 Table of Contents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION.. 1 II. PERSUASION IN ARGUMENTATION.. 1 III. BACKGROUND.. 2 IV. USER’S GUIDE FOR THIS ARTICLE.. 2 V. ARISTOTLE’S THREE COMPONENTS OF A PERSUASIVE SPEECH.. 3 A. ETHOS.. 3 B. PATHOS.. 4 C. LOGOS.. 4 1. Syllogism.. 4 2. Implication.. 4 3. Enthymeme.. 4 (a) Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonplaces... 5 (b) Selection of Commonplaces.. 5 VI. ARGUMENT MODELS (OVERVIEW)... 5 A. LOGIC-BASED ARGUMENTS. 5 1. Deductive Logic.. 5 2. Inductive Logic.. 6 3. Reasoning by Analogy.. 7 B. DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTS... 7 C. THE TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION MODEL... 7 D. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.. 8 E. ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES.. 8 VII. LOGICAL REASONING (DETAILED ANALYSIS).. 8 A. DEDUCTIVE REASONING.. 8 1. The Categorical Syllogism... 8 a. Graphically Depicting the Simple Categorical Syllogism... 9 b. A Legal Dispute as a Simple Syllogism.. 9 c.
  • Inductive Arguments: Fallacies ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning Analyzing an Inductive Argument

    Inductive Arguments: Fallacies ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning Analyzing an Inductive Argument

    Inductive Arguments: Fallacies ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning Analyzing an Inductive Argument • In an inductive argument, the conclusion follows from its premises with some likelihood. • Inductive arguments can be strong, weak, or somewhere between. • Ways to attack an inductive argument: • Introduce additional (contradictory) premises that weaken the argument. • Question the accuracy of the supporting premises. • Identify one (or more) logical fallacies in the argument. What is a Fallacy? • A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning in an argument. • Formal fallacy • A ‘formal fallacy’ is an error in the structure of an argument. • Formal fallacies are used to analyze deductive arguments for validity by means of symbolic logic. • Informal fallacy • An ‘informal fallacy’ is an error in the content of an argument. • This is the type of fallacy that will be discussed in this presentation. • An argument with a fallacy is said to be ‘fallacious’. Formal and Informal Fallacies • Formal fallacy example: • All humans are mammals. All dogs are mammals. So, all humans are dogs. • This argument has a structural flaw. The premises are true, but they do not logically lead to the conclusion. This would be uncovered by the use of symbolic logic. • Informal fallacy example: • All feathers are light. Light is not dark. So, all feathers are not dark. • The structure of this argument is actually correct. The error is in the content (different meanings of the word ‘light’.) It uses a fallacy called ‘Equivocation’. Lists of Fallacies • There are a great number of identified fallacies of the informal type. Following are some good websites that list them and provide definitions and examples.