CHAPTER 9 Problems in Critical Reading-Evaluating CHAPTER 9: PROBLEMS IN CRITICAL READING EVALUATING ARGUMENTS

 Inductive and deductive reasoning  The Toulmin method of analyzing arguments  Problems with arguments  Emotional appeals in arguments  Common logical  Detecting bias  The new media  An inductive (specific to general) is built upon a set of facts derived from observation or experience that serve as evidence and that lead to a conclusion. Inductive arguments are sometimes called probability arguments because the conclusion is only probable, not certain. Consider this example:  Evidence: In 2008 a majority of teenagers aged 12 to 17 used social networking websites.  Evidence :The popular networking sites MySpace and Facebook are used by both high school and college students as well as by adults.  Evidence :The growth of Club Penguin, a social networking website that caters to children and preteens, has been phenomenal.  Conclusion: Social networking websites will continue to gain in popularity.  Although the conclusion is a reasonable one given the three pieces of evidence, it, too, is only a claim of probability because its truth remains to be proved in the future. DEDUCTIVE REASONING  Unlike an inductive argument, which moves from specific to general, a deductive argument moves from general to specific; in other words, it moves from reason to conclusion or to specific application with certainty. Consider this example:  Premise 1:Things that harm the environment should be banned.  Premise 2 :Nonbiodegradable plastic bags are harmful to the environment.  Conclusion: Therefore, these plastic shopping bags should be banned As long as the argument follows the prescribed form of the syllogism, it is logically valid; further, if the premises are true, that is, if they consist of an acceptable claim, and not a generalization, then the argument is considered to be sound or reliable. THE TOULMIN METHOD

The Toulmin method breaks an argument into these parts—the claim, the qualifier, the warrant, the backing and grounds, and the reservation.  The claim is the writer’s argument or proposition and that claims can be classified into three types—fact, value, or policy.  The qualifier is a way of showing the probability of the argument, and involves the use of words like often, mostly, certain, sometimes, and so forth.  The warrant is the same as the assumptions upon which the argument rests.  The backing and grounds is the evidence—the support (whether facts, reasons, the testimony of, statistical data, and so forth) that makes the reader more likely to accept the claim.  The reservation is just another word for the refutation. PROBLEMS WITH ARGUMENTS (HASTY GENERALIZATIONS)  A hasty generalization is an all-inclusive statement and is made “in haste,” without allowing for exceptions and qualifiers.  For example: If you’re in the market to buy a dog, don’t get a Shetland collie. All Shelties are nervous and high-strung. My friend, Pamela Gentile, has a Sheltie, and that dog yaps at every little sound and even when the phone rings. He jumps all over people, too.  This generalization stems from an observation of only one Shetland collie and leaves no room for exceptions. (Notice that instead of using a qualifier in this argument, the writer uses “all”—an automatic red flag alert for the critical reader.) Producing even one calm Shetland collie negates the argument. A careful writer might qualify this statement by saying, “some,” “often,” “the one Shetland I have observed,” and so forth. STEREOTYPING  Stereotyping is similar to the hasty generalization, except that it results in generalizations about people because of their gender, age, ethnic background, race, attire, or other characteristics.  For example; In my college math classes I have observed there are more Asians than any other group. This must be because Asians are really good in math, and that makes it hard for the rest of us who have to struggle just to pass.  This stereotype places all Asian students into a category based on a supposedly shared characteristic. If the observation is true—that math classes tend to have more Asians than members of other races—there may be other reasons to account for this fact besides the questionable assertion of inherent ability. INCORRECT SAMPLING  Inductive arguments often include a sampling of a larger group, which, if done incorrectly, can produce a flawed conclusion.  Consider the results of this study based on a sample: In 2000 a team of scientists at the University of California at Berkeley published a study in the science journal Nature saying that differences in finger lengths might yield clues to sexual orientation. In brief, the researchers found that lesbians had more “masculine” hands than heterosexual women. Supposedly, the index fingers of lesbians—unlike those of heterosexual women—are significantly shorter than their ring fingers. The researchers concluded that “homosexual women were exposed to greater levels of fetal androgen than heterosexual women.” (Quoted in Carl T. Hall, “Finger Length Points to Sexual Orientation,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 30, 2000.)  This article was picked up by the national media and had women all over the country measuring their index fingers. However, the method of sampling was problematic: The scientists had set up booths at gay pride events in Berkeley and San Francisco. Then they offered willing participants a free $1 lottery ticket if they agreed to have their hands measured and to answer a detailed questionnaire. The team examined the hands of 720 adults. APPEALS IN ARGUMENT  Writers of argumentative and persuasive prose often use emotional and manipulative appeals. An appeal is something that makes an argument attractive, worth considering, or plausible. Appeals can be legitimate or illegitimate.

 An illegitimate appeal seeks to control our emotions by spurious means, meaning that the writer plays on emotions irrelevant to the argument. In other words, the appeal diverts us from the real argument. EMOTIONAL APPEALS: APPEAL TO AUTHORITY  A writer who uses the appeal to authority allows the claim to rest solely on the fact that a supposed authority is behind it. The authority may not be identified or may be highly biased.  Linus Pauling, a chemist from Stanford University who won both the Nobel Prize for science and the Nobel Peace Prize, believed that massive doses of Vitamin C could prevent cancer.  The fact that a famous scientist believes something doesn’t make it so, nor in this case did the rest of the scientific and medical community accept his theory. Also Pauling EMOTIONAL APPEALS:

 The appeal to fear arouses fear about what will happen if we adopt (or fail to adopt) a certain course.  Probably the most relevant and current example is the War on Terror, a term deliberately chosen to keep the public in a high state of fear and anxiety. The Bush administration used the War on Terror to justify governmental intrusions that the public might otherwise find unacceptable (some provisions of the Patriot Act, like warrantless wiretapping and investigating the books certain people borrow from the library, are only two examples). EMOTIONAL APPEALS: APPEAL TO PATRIOTISM The appeal to patriotism suggests that an argument is worth holding out of loyalty to one’s country or to one’s political party or some other group to which we belong. The appeal implies the accusation that going against the country or group’s policies is wrong.  If you were a true American patriot, you would support American foreign policy.  Common bumper sticker during the Vietnam War: “America: Love it or leave it.”  If my union tells its members to vote for a certain candidate, it must be right. EMOTIONAL APPEAL : APPEAL TO SYMPATHY OR PITY  Should we accept an argument simply because we feel sorry for someone?  An appeal to sympathy or pity asks us to suspend our critical judgment because we pity a victim of sad circumstances or because we can identify with someone else’s troubles.  The fact that Emma Jones hasn’t paid her rent for six months is no reason for her landlord to evict her. Her husband died, she recently found out that she suffers from high blood pressure, and she has three children to support on her salary as a Wal-Mart sales clerk. EMOTIONAL APPEAL: APPEAL TO PREJUDICE  Like the appeal to fear, the appeal to prejudice inflames negative feelings, beliefs, or stereotypes about racial, ethnic, or religious groups or about gender or sexual orientations. Emotion replaces reasoned discourse.  Of course the federal government should build a fence along the Mexican border. Illegal immigrants sneak across the border now and take jobs away from Americans who are out of work, and then once they’re here their children automatically become American citizens. EMOTIONAL APPEAL: APPEAL TO TRADITION  An appeal to tradition asks us to accept a practice because it has always been done that way or because it represents some long-standing venerable tradition.

 The Roman Catholic Church has forbidden women to become priests for nearly 2,000 years. Why should the Church abandon this practice now?

 The Democratic party has always stood up for the little guy. That’s why I’m a Democrat. OTHER MANIPULATIVE APPEALS BANDWAGON APPEAL

 The bandwagon appeal rests on the assumption that everyone likes to be on the winning side or to do what everyone else is doing. It’s an appeal to popularity. If everybody is doing it, it must be good. The origin of this metaphorically named appeal comes from the fact that lots of people ride on the bandwagon at a parade.

 Eighty percent of Mapleton residents support the petition for the city to build a new football stadium. That’s why I’m voting yes on Measure 11 on the November ballot. It’s inconceivable that the United States still has the death penalty.  All the nations in the European Union abolished this barbaric practice years ago.  Bandwagon appeals often use phrases like “everyone agrees,” “we all know that,” and similar expressions as a substitute for evidence to support the claim. OTHER MANIPULATIVE APPEALS: FLATTERY  A writer who uses flattery tries to put us into a group of people who we admire and want to identify with, whether we share their convictions or not.  Every well-educated person knows that James Joyce was one of the most important writers of the twentieth century.  Young people who have good taste and who follow fashion trends buy their clothes at American Eagle Outfitters.  We like to think of ourselves as being well-educated or having good taste, and the writer hopes to arouse this emotion in us with this appeal. OTHER MANIPULATIVE APPEALS: JUST PLAIN FOLKS  This appeal lies in the desire of the subject (usually a politician) to have himself or herself perceived as an “ordinary citizen” or just plain folks. The intent is to humanize the subject, but the careful reader needs to ask: Is this the basis for supporting a candidate?  John Edwards, the Democratic senator who ran for the presidency in the 2008 primaries, made millions of dollars as a trial lawyer suing large corporations before he ran for the U.S. Senate. During the campaign, however, he made much of his small-town roots, his father’s blue-collar job in a North Carolina textile mill, and the fact that he was the first person in his family to go to college.  All of these things, of course, were true; nonetheless, this is an example of the just-plain-folks appeal. OTHER MANIPULATIVE APPEALS: NAME CALLING  Like the playground bully who taunts weaker kids by calling them names, the writer who resorts to name calling uses this unfair manipulative tactic to deflect attention away from the real argument. One might think of name calling as character assassination.  During the 1992 presidential campaign, George W. Bush continually referred to Al Gore, Bill Clinton’s running mate, as “ozone man,” because Gore was an advocate of measures to stop global warming. (Gore made a popular documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, about the issue and won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental activism.) OTHER MANIPULATIVE APPEALS RIDICULE  This appeal asks the reader to dismiss an idea by subjecting it to ridicule rather than by analyzing its inherent weaknesses. A related tactic substitutes humor for supporting evidence.  When Intel announced a new, faster, smaller microprocessor, Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, called it “the biggest change in transistor technology since . . . the late 1960s.” But in response, Bernie Meyerson, chief technologist for IBM Systems and Technology, said that IBM would soon release hafnium-equipped chips. Meyerson ridiculed Intel’s breakthrough saying, “We don’t build scooters. We build Ferraris.” (Quoted in Tom Abate, “Intel Shrinks, Speeds Up Its Chips,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 27, 2007) OTHER MANIPULATIVE APPEALS: TESTIMONIAL  The testimonial appeal is a staple of television and magazine advertise- ments, in which famous people-actors, athletes, celebrities, or other notable figures-are paid enormous sums of money to endorse a particular product.  Tiger Woods wears Nike products from caps to athletic shoes; and until his fall from grace over an illegal dog-fighting operation, former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was a spokesman for AirTran Airways, Coca-Cola, and Kraft foods. ( According to a website called TheDivot.com, Woods currently makes $40 million per year off the golf course from endorsements.)  Why is this a manipulative appeal? The intent is to sell the product, not because of its merits or quality, but because a famous person is touting it. OTHER MANIPULATIVE APPEALS: TRANSFER  Like testimonial, the manipulative appeal known as transfer is most commonly associated with advertising. By using transfer, the advertiser suggests that favorable associations about a product will transfer or carry over to the consumer. In this case the image is almost more important than the product itself. Advertisers identify this phenomenon as “selling the sizzle, not the steak.”  A glance through Cosmopolitan, GQ, Marie Claire, Self, and similar glossy magazines will yield many examples of transfer. (Note that transfer operates with the appeals of both flattery and just plain folks.) Liquor, automobile, and cigarette ads make liberal use of transfer, with beautiful people laughing as they drink scotch, gorgeous models standing next to the car being advertised, or the Marlboro man riding off into the range. LOGICAL FALLACIES: ARGUMENT  Ad hominem in Latin means “to the man.” This can take two forms: The first is to attack the person’s personality traits rather than his or her position on an issue. For example, calling George W. Bush “stupid” and “arrogant” or Hillary Clinton “cold” and “cerebral” is unfair if these characterizations are irrelevant to their positions on the issues.  During the Vietnam War, Vice President Spiro Agnew characterized intellectuals (who were generally opposed to President Nixon’s war policies) with this famous alliterative phrase—“nattering nabobs of negativism”—thereby attacking their collective character rather than the principles they stood for. LOGICAL FALLACIES:  When a writer begs the question, he or she asserts as true that which has yet to be proved. This unproved “truth” then becomes the basis of the discussion. A simpler way of understanding this fallacy is to think of it as a circular argument: The writer assumes to be true that which it is his duty to prove.  The classic example of this fallacy is this question: When did you stop beating your wife? Either a yes or a no answer confirms that the person either has beaten his wife or still beats her, when in fact that charge itself needs to be established. CAUSE-EFFECT FALLACIES: FALSE CAUSE

 False Cause: This first type results either from citing a false or a remote cause to explain a situation or from oversimplifying the cause of a complicated issue.

 It is obvious that Sam Anderson would grow up to be an axe murderer. According to an interview I read, he was subjected to a rigid toilet-training regime when he was a toddler. (The remoteness of this “cause” makes the conclusion improbable or questionable.) CAUSE-EFFECT: POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC  Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: This second kind of cause-effect fallacy comes from Latin and means “after this, therefore because of this.” The fallacy suggests that because event B occurred after event A, event A caused event B; in other words, the writer makes a connection based on chronology. This fallacy accounts for many silly superstitions, for example, when someone breaks a mirror and then blames that action for seven years of bad luck.  Yesterday I forgot to wear my special Hawkeye hat during the annual Michigan-Iowa football game. No wonder Iowa lost.  Every time a Republican gets into the White House, the U.S. experiences a recession. That’s why I didn’t vote Republican in the last presidential primary. EITHER OR FALLACY  Sometimes called , the either-or fallacy discusses an issue as if there are only two alternatives available, thereby ignoring other possibilities. Rejecting one choice requires one to accept the other.  President George W. Bush in a speech to a group of 5,000 Republican supporters: “However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.” (Quoted in Michael Abramowitz, “Bush Says ‘America Loses’ under Democrats,” The Washington Post, October 31, 2006.)  Bumper sticker spotted in South Dakota: There are Americans, and then there are liberals. EVASION

 Evasion is a fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer evades or ignores the question by talking around it.

 In August 1997 the Democratic National Committee was under investigation for questionable fund-raising practices. When asked for his reaction to recent revelations about the alleged laundering of foreign money into the DNC coffers, President Clinton responded, “I was sick at heart” and “disappointed.” FALSE ANALOGY

 Although it does not carry the same force as factual evidence or good reasons, arguing by analogy can be effective and persuasive in supporting an argument. An analogy can break down, however, and become a false analogy if there are fewer similarities than differences, if the resemblance is remote or ambiguous, or if there is no connection between the two subjects at all.

 Every red-blooded American serviceman knows that gays should be banned from the military. In the military we’re like one big family living in close quarters, and a homosexual just wouldn’t fit in. NON-SEQUITUR

 A non sequitur, from the Latin for “it does not follow,” is a conclusion that does not logically follow from the evidence.

 We should hire Sam Hallstrom to be St. Helens Community College’s reading laboratory aide. He is a member of the local service employees’ union, you know. (Sam may be a union member in good standing, but drawing a conclusion about his ability to perform well as a lab aide does not follow from that evidence.) OVERSIMPLIFICATION

 The fallacy of oversimplification can involve either reducing a complicated issue to overly simple terms or suppressing information that would strengthen the argument.

 Strikes should be illegal because they inconvenience innocent people. •Human DNA has 23 chromosomes, while dogs have 39. Therefore, dogs are more complex than humans. (This argument oversimplifies the differences between humans and dogs and rests on a simplistic definition of the word complex.) RATIONALIZATION  A rationalization is a self-serving but incorrect reason to justify one’s position. It uses reasons that sound plausible but that are actually false, or at least questionable.  A student received a D in his college chemistry course. When asked by his parents why he received such a low grade, the student responded that he didn’t like the instructor.  Before the final Harry Potter book was published in 2007, various versions of the text had been leaked and were available on various blogs and websites. Some people called this stealing, while others said that we now live in an age where information is free to anyone who wants it. This colorfully named fallacy comes from the practice of dragging a fish across a trail to throw dogs off the scent of the fox. The fallacy works in a similar way: The writer who uses the red herring fallacy presents another argument that is irrelevant to the real question, thus throwing the discussion off the track.

 It doesn’t make sense for people to get so upset about violence on television. All they have to do is look around at the larger society, and they’ll see that violence is all around them. Why don’t these critics worry about that issue? (The issue under discussion is violence on television, not violence in the larger society.) The metaphoric name of the slippery slope fallacy will help you remember it. It suggests that one step in the wrong direction will lead to a chain of increasingly dire events or to doom.

 The New York law prohibiting drivers from talking on cell phones while driving provoked this response from one resident: “Denying drivers in New York the right to talk on cell phones is a bad idea. The next thing you know New York’s legislature will be passing laws forbidding drivers to change the radio station, eat a Big Mac, listen to the radio, or talk to their passengers while driving.” TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT The two wrongs make a right fallacy is commonly used to defend wrong- doing and make it appear legitimate because others engage in the same. In other words, the writer accuses the opposition of holding the same views or behaving in the same way.

 A driver has just received a speeding ticket: Policeman to driver: “Sir, did you know you were going 75 in a65- mile-per-hour zone?” Driver: “I don’t see why you pulled me over. Didn’t you see that guy in the red Acura? He must have been doing 85!” DETECTING BIAS  Bias occurs when a writer obviously favors one side over another, writing from a subjective viewpoint colored by -and possibly distorted by-his or her views about race, religion, politics, culture, and so forth. Bias also occurs when a writer carefully selects details that reinforce his or her viewpoint or when the writer omits, distorts, or suppresses relevant facts. Finally, bias can result from slanted language deliberately inflammatory words (sneer words) or words with highly positive connotations (euphemisms). Knowing a writer’s background can alert us to his or her particular point of view.  But Acceptable vs. Unacceptable Bias, the best way to uncover bias or to discern a writer’s likely bias is to read a large body of editorials and opinion pieces. SOURCE

 Spears, D. (2009). Developing Critical Reading Skills, 8th edition. San Francisco, CA.: McGraw-Hill Higher Education