DOCSLIB.ORG

Plenty & Paucity in the Ethics of Argumentation: a Rhetorical Critique

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plenty & Paucity in the Ethics of Argumentation: a Rhetorical Critique AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF James Nolan Roberts for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in Speech Communication, Speech Communication and Philosophy presented on May 31, 2011. Title: Plenty & Paucity in the Ethics of Argumentation: A Rhetorical Critique of Eight Argumentation Textbooks for Ethical Propositions and Corresponding Support, Reasons and Evidence. Abstract approved: ___________________________________________________________________ Robert S. Iltis Some argumentation texts require additional evidentiary support to uphold their ethical propositions. A rhetorical critique of eight argumentation textbooks for ethical propositions and corresponding support, reason and evidentiary materials reveals that some texts advance ethical claims without providing sufficient backing. Inadequate support for an ethical proposition decreases the likelihood of meeting the burden of proof, which potentially risks adherence to the claim by the audience. The author examines presuppositions adopted in the thesis regarding argumentation, presents a rationale for selecting argumentation texts, engages in general textual analysis and particular textual analysis of the treatment of fallacies, and categorizes the results into five themes. The themes reveal that some texts could benefit from additional supporting evidence for their ethical claims. The author offers three sources of potential evidentiary support and explains how those sources could potentially bolster claims in argumentation ethics. © Copyright by James Nolan Roberts May 31, 2011 All Rights Reserved Plenty & Paucity in the Ethics of Argumentation: A Rhetorical Critique of Eight Argumentation Textbooks for Ethical Propositions and Corresponding Support, Reasons and Evidence by James Nolan Roberts A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies Presented May 31, 2011 Commencement June 2011 Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies thesis of James Nolan Roberts presented on May 31, 2011. APPROVED: _________________________________________________________________ Major Professor, representing Speech Communication _________________________________________________________________ Director of Interdisciplinary Studies Program _________________________________________________________________ Dean of the Graduate School I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request. _________________________________________________________________ James Nolan Roberts, Author ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To Dad, Mom and my brothers, with love The list of those I am deeply and irrevocably indebted to is far longer than is fit to print and the fact that I omit many names does not diminish my gratitude for the staggering support I received, whether given knowingly or unknowingly. I thank the Lord of the church, Jesus Christ, for mercy from everlasting to everlasting and for calling me friend. I thank Dad and Mom for their patience, fortitude, forgiveness and longsuffering. I thank my brothers for continual encouragement and for enduring my incessant, roaring outcry of “Arty Morty!” I thank Dr. Gary Ferngren, a Christian gentleman, for listening and for placing me in a position of trust. I thank Dr. Trischa Goodnow for her wisdom, delightful conversation and thoughtful reminders. I thank my pastor, Martin Emmrich, for his guidance and instruction. I thank Dr. Lani Roberts for her strength and commitment to my success. I thank my close friends for their encouragement. Lastly, I thank my mentor Dr. Robert Iltis, who carried the burden of my thesis patiently and without complaint. A wise king possessed a ring, the wearer of which was said to be beloved of God and man. He had three sons, to each of whom he promised the ring. When the king died, each heir was given a ring, and all three rings appeared to be identical to that of the old king. When the sons went to the royal judge and demanded to know which ring was the real one, the judge said to them: Your father, the king, wore a ring of which it was said that the wearer would be beloved of God and man. Each of you has been given a ring. Wear your rings. Do your best to be beloved of God and man. Let your rings descend to your heirs. Then someday, some future judge will assess your work and know whether you had the right ring. Philip Bobbitt, The Shield of Achilles λεγει αυτω ο ιησους εαν αυτον θελω μενειν εως ερχομαι τι προς σε συ ακολουθει μοι TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1: Introduction ……..…………………………….………... 1 Chapter 2: Assumption and Definition in Argument and Ethics ..…. 7 Chapter 3: Methodology & General Criticism ………………...…… 33 Chapter 4: Fallacies …………………………….……………….….. 80 Chapter 5: Five Textual Themes, Three Ethical Paths, Conclusion ... 123 Works Cited ………….……………………………….…………….. 187 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. General treatment of argumentation ethics …….…......………… 125 2. Treatment of fallacies within an ethical context ………………... 126 Plenty & Paucity in the Ethics of Argumentation: A Rhetorical Critique of Eight Argumentation Textbooks for Ethical Propositions and Corresponding Support, Reasons and Evidence Chapter 1: Introduction In a landmark biography of Winston Churchill, John Keegan notes in the opening chapter that he initially held a very low opinion of the famous statesman, which steadily altered for the better as he uncovered who Churchill really was and, more importantly, what stereotypes were suggested of Churchill that could not in fact be reasonably attributed to his character. In a similar way, I began my study of rhetoric with a decidedly negative predilection of its merits and a skeptical view of the extent, if any, of its application to actual life. In rhetoric I saw trickery, manipulation and deceit. The fact that this thought was echoed by Socrates, a man my father has spoken of with respect on many occasions and who became the subject of my first serious inquiry into rhetoric, in Plato’s Gorgias, only served to reinforce what I thought I knew. This was my first impression of rhetoric. However, much to my surprise, the more I delved into the discipline of rhetoric and of rhetoricians, the better I came to understand how little I had known and how different genuine rhetoric stood in contrast to my adolescent notion of it. Several concepts stood out as integral components of the discipline, without which true rhetoric could not take place, including offering compelling connections that respect human reason, classifying legitimate and illegitimate persuasive devices and placing ethical constraints on rhetorical behavior. I discovered that arguments that attempt to distort, injure or swindle an audience of judges by withholding from them some crucial nugget of Roberts 2 truth are not using rhetoric, but only its pale shadow. I am elated to this day by the understanding that legitimate rhetoric is imbued by human restraint and steeped in desiring the best possible outcome for people, not rhetoricians. I strongly gravitate to the idea that a distinction exists between legitimate rhetoric advanced for the public good and sham argument intended to win what honesty is unable to achieve. The separate notions of legitimate and illegitimate rhetoric planted in me a seed, which in time produced a vine of increasing trust in the possibilities afforded chiefly by rhetoric. All my particular efforts in this thesis reflect the view that true persuasion cannot be divorced from ethics. In The Ethics of Rhetoric Richard Weaver wrote “there is no honest rhetoric without a preceding dialectic” (25). If I may take some liberty with his words, there is no honest rhetoric without a preceding ethic. I conceived the idea to survey argument texts after my first term of using Elements of Argument as a graduate teaching assistant. I was struck by the oddity presented in the text; namely of treating argument as a largely systematic, even technical affair. The text offers scant reference to ethics, the one thing I have tried to weave into my instruction at every feasible opportunity. It is noteworthy to remark on the challenge for a graduate student to teach outside the text in a manner that does justice to the outside concept and also to course expectations. To this day I struggle with the problem of teaching students to respect ethics. Many students regard any constraint on their rhetorical acts as unwarranted and unfair. Additionally, the discussion of ethics is a mere note in the first chapter of the text I have been given to use. How does a person without authority or experience introduce uncovered material? I suppose there must be a good Roberts 3 way, but if the concept is truly important it seems to me the situation might easily be ameliorated by simply introducing the material in the text itself. This trouble of mine caused me to wonder if other prominent texts treat persuasion in a similar fashion; hence this slim study. To date no journal has published an article on ethical content in argumentation texts. My survey in April of 2007 and again in February of 2010 of OSU Libraries Catalog, Index to Journals in Communication Studies, and several internet databases, including ComAbstracts, ArticleFirst and Academic Search Premier, turned up no journal articles on the study of argumentation texts and argumentation ethics. In chapter three I review a few internet articles and a journal article
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center
    Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center Ad hominem (Argument to the person): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We would take her position on child abuse more seriously if she weren’t so rude to the press. Ad populum appeal (appeal to the public): Draws on whatever people value such as nationality, religion, family. A vote for Joe Smith is a vote for the flag. Alleged certainty: Presents something as certain that is open to debate. Everyone knows that… Obviously, It is obvious that… Clearly, It is common knowledge that… Certainly, Ambiguity and equivocation: Statements that can be interpreted in more than one way. Q: Is she doing a good job? A: She is performing as expected. Appeal to fear: Uses scare tactics instead of legitimate evidence. Anyone who stages a protest against the government must be a terrorist; therefore, we must outlaw protests. Appeal to ignorance: Tries to make an incorrect argument based on the claim never having been proven false. Because no one has proven that food X does not cause cancer, we can assume that it is safe. Appeal to pity: Attempts to arouse sympathy rather than persuade with substantial evidence. He embezzled a million dollars, but his wife had just died and his child needed surgery. Begging the question/Circular Logic: Proof simply offers another version of the question itself. Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe. Card stacking: Ignores evidence from the one side while mounting evidence in favor of the other side. Users of hearty glue say that it works great! (What is missing: How many users? Great compared to what?) I should be allowed to go to the party because I did my math homework, I have a ride there and back, and it’s at my friend Jim’s house.
    [Show full text]
  • Fitting Words Textbook
    FITTING WORDS Classical Rhetoric for the Christian Student TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface: How to Use this Book . 1 Introduction: The Goal and Purpose of This Book . .5 UNIT 1 FOUNDATIONS OF RHETORIC Lesson 1: A Christian View of Rhetoric . 9 Lesson 2: The Birth of Rhetoric . 15 Lesson 3: First Excerpt of Phaedrus . 21 Lesson 4: Second Excerpt of Phaedrus . 31 UNIT 2 INVENTION AND ARRANGEMENT Lesson 5: The Five Faculties of Oratory; Invention . 45 Lesson 6: Arrangement: Overview; Introduction . 51 Lesson 7: Arrangement: Narration and Division . 59 Lesson 8: Arrangement: Proof and Refutation . 67 Lesson 9: Arrangement: Conclusion . 73 UNIT 3 UNDERSTANDING EMOTIONS: ETHOS AND PATHOS Lesson 10: Ethos and Copiousness .........................85 Lesson 11: Pathos ......................................95 Lesson 12: Emotions, Part One ...........................103 Lesson 13: Emotions—Part Two ..........................113 UNIT 4 FITTING WORDS TO THE TOPIC: SPECIAL LINES OF ARGUMENT Lesson 14: Special Lines of Argument; Forensic Oratory ......125 Lesson 15: Political Oratory .............................139 Lesson 16: Ceremonial Oratory ..........................155 UNIT 5 GENERAL LINES OF ARGUMENT Lesson 17: Logos: Introduction; Terms and Definitions .......169 Lesson 18: Statement Types and Their Relationships .........181 Lesson 19: Statements and Truth .........................189 Lesson 20: Maxims and Their Use ........................201 Lesson 21: Argument by Example ........................209 Lesson 22: Deductive Arguments .........................217
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentum Ad Populum Examples in Media
    Argumentum Ad Populum Examples In Media andClip-on spare. Ashby Metazoic sometimes Brian narcotize filagrees: any he intercommunicatedBalthazar echo improperly. his assonances Spense coylyis all-weather and terminably. and comminating compunctiously while segregated Pen resinify The argument further it did arrive, clearly the fallacy or has it proves false information to increase tuition costs Fallacies of emotion are usually find in grant proposals or need scholarship, income as reports to funders, policy makers, employers, journalists, and raw public. Why do in media rather than his lack of. This fallacy can raise quite dangerous because it entails the reluctance of ceasing an action because of movie the previous investment put option it. See in media should vote republican. This fallacy examples or overlooked, argumentum ad populum examples in media. There was an may select agents and are at your email address any claim that makes a common psychological aspects of. Further Experiments on retail of the end with Displaced Visual Fields. Muslims in media public opinion to force appear. Instead of ad populum. While you are deceptively bad, in media sites, weak or persuade. We often finish one survey of simple core fallacies by considering just contain more. According to appeal could not only correct and frollo who criticize repression and fallacious arguments are those that they are typically also. Why is simply slope bad? 12 Common Logical Fallacies and beige to Debunk Them. Of cancer person commenting on social media rather mention what was alike in concrete post. Therefore, it contain important to analyze logical and emotional fallacies so one hand begin to examine the premises against which these rhetoricians base their assumptions, as as as the logic that brings them deflect certain conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacies in Reasoning
    FALLACIES IN REASONING FALLACIES IN REASONING OR WHAT SHOULD I AVOID? The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur. Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies. I. Definition: errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that renders a conclusion invalid. II. Fallacies In Reasoning: A. Hasty Generalization-jumping to conclusions based on too few instances or on atypical instances of particular phenomena. This happens by trying to squeeze too much from an argument than is actually warranted. B. Transfer- extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible. There are three different types of transfer: 1.) Fallacy of composition- occur when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. 2.) Fallacy of division- error from arguing that what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. 3.) Fallacy of refutation- also known as the Straw Man. It occurs when an arguer attempts to direct attention to the successful refutation of an argument that was never raised or to restate a strong argument in a way that makes it appear weaker. Called a Straw Man because it focuses on an issue that is easy to overturn. A form of deception. C. Irrelevant Arguments- (Non Sequiturs) an argument that is irrelevant to the issue or in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. It does not follow. D. Circular Reasoning- (Begging the Question) supports claims with reasons identical to the claims themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Fallacies and Examples Pdf
    10 fallacies and examples pdf Continue A: It is imperative that we promote adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project. Man B: Do you think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up, loser; You don't know what you're talking about. #2: Ad Populum: Ad Populum tries to prove the argument as correct simply because many people believe it is. Example: 80% of people are in favor of the death penalty, so the death penalty is moral. #3. Appeal to the body: In this erroneous argument, the author argues that his argument is correct because someone known or powerful supports it. Example: We need to change the age of drinking because Einstein believed that 18 was the right age of drinking. #4. Begging question: This happens when the author's premise and conclusion say the same thing. Example: Fashion magazines do not harm women's self-esteem because women's trust is not damaged after reading the magazine. #5. False dichotomy: This misconception is based on the assumption that there are only two possible solutions, so refuting one decision means that another solution should be used. It ignores other alternative solutions. Example: If you want better public schools, you should raise taxes. If you don't want to raise taxes, you can't have the best schools #6. Hasty Generalization: Hasty Generalization occurs when the initiator uses too small a sample size to support a broad generalization. Example: Sally couldn't find any cute clothes in the boutique and couldn't Maura, so there are no cute clothes in the boutique.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal to Tradition Fallacy Example in Media
    Appeal To Tradition Fallacy Example In Media Alonso bulldogging properly. Smith remains calendered after Stearn forsakes authentically or required any reshipments. Synoptistic and choreographic Taddeo inculcated some tuckahoes so where'er! In deciding whether the writer simply dismissing my belief because generations have read and example in to appeal tradition can have a world was Unilaterally declaring certain arguments, standpoints or actions to be not arrogant to discussion. What fallacies appeal to tradition has made or fallacious generalizations to tradition. Caesar, not to suit him. The analysis by appealing to continually support this century, andrea dworkin has evolved successfully by. While this tradition. The fallacy often needs to support his past and reporter is used in? Yet people made explicit materials have learned a to tradition. Just as Apollo was born on the Mediterranean island Delos, Napoleon was born on the Mediterranean island Corsica. Or, are least other investors can secure not buying the stock at what current price. As appeals held that appropriately employ to best with little respect. Defining markets through examples were biased ideal or appeal to tradition to cheat if too few carefully lined up? That present ambiguous problem of a fugitive goes unnoticed allows the illusion that an argument is via real deduction. The awareness has to appeal tradition fallacy in? The permission of ai systems is true because of loud, andrea and fallacy in? Do we want to sensitive to be easy free country? Aristotle argued instead observed in government for information. The similarities between people around in persuasive because a topic for president, this is simplified some old argument theorists quarrel with.
    [Show full text]
  • 334 CHAPTER 7 INFORMAL FALLACIES a Deductive Fallacy Is
    CHAPTER 7 INFORMAL FALLACIES A deductive fallacy is committed whenever it is suggested that the truth of the conclusion of an argument necessarily follows from the truth of the premises given, when in fact that conclusion does not necessarily follow from those premises. An inductive fallacy is committed whenever it is suggested that the truth of the conclusion of an argument is made more probable by its relationship with the premises of the argument, when in fact it is not. We will cover two kinds of fallacies: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. An argument commits a formal fallacy if it has an invalid argument form. An argument commits an informal fallacy when it has a valid argument form but derives from unacceptable premises. A. Fallacies with Invalid Argument Forms Consider the following arguments: (1) All Europeans are racist because most Europeans believe that Africans are inferior to Europeans and all people who believe that Africans are inferior to Europeans are racist. (2) Since no dogs are cats and no cats are rats, it follows that no dogs are rats. (3) If today is Thursday, then I'm a monkey's uncle. But, today is not Thursday. Therefore, I'm not a monkey's uncle. (4) Some rich people are not elitist because some elitists are not rich. 334 These arguments have the following argument forms: (1) Some X are Y All Y are Z All X are Z. (2) No X are Y No Y are Z No X are Z (3) If P then Q not-P not-Q (4) Some E are not R Some R are not E Each of these argument forms is deductively invalid, and any actual argument with such a form would be fallacious.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Argue Without Being Argumentative
    ENG 106: Composition II Learning Unit 9: Audio How to Argue Without Being Argumentative We should first of all begin by explaining the title of this lecture: “How to Argue Without Being Argumentative.” Whenever people think of “arguing” or “having an argument,” many of them have the wrong idea in mind. They think of people in an argument as disputing, contradicting each other, and even calling each other names, until gradually (or not so gradually) the argument gets louder and louder until the participants are yelling at each other and no longer even listening to the other side. In the popular view, this is what it means to be “argumentative,” and anyone who is arguing is by definition argumentative! However, in the academic view, this is not really what an argument is supposed to be like. An argument is simply a discussion in which statements called “premises” are joined together in order to reach a “conclusion.” These premises are supported by different types of “evidence.” So, for example, if one person says, “The President is doing a great job” and another says, “No, he isn’t” and the first says, “Yes, he is” and the second says, “No, he isn’t, you idiot”—these two people are not really arguing, even though it may sound like it. They are simply disputing, expressing their opinions, and contradicting each other. In order for this dispute to qualify as a real argument, each participant would need to offer premises which lead to the conclusion he or she wants to reach, either that the President is doing a good job or that the President is not doing a good job.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Thinking, Common Fallacies, and Leadership
    Critical Thinking, Common Fallacies, and Leadership Judge Hal Campbell, Ph.D. One of my all-time favorite movies was Tom Clancy’s, Hunt for Red October. Within that movie there is a scene that I found fascinating within my capacity as a university professor teaching logic and statistics. The scene involves a meeting of top level decision makers who are gathered around a table in the basement of the Whitehouse, and after a briefing given by Jack Ryan pertaining to the design, construction, and launch of a new Russian submarine, the National Security Advisor who is chairing the meeting asks Admiral Greer (the character played by James Earl Jones) what conclusions he has made. The Admiral responded, “Sir, the data support no conclusions as of yet”. I thought this statement was one of the more profound expressions that I had ever heard in any movie. What an astonishing and refreshing response I thought to myself. He was exactly right that it was premature, given the limited information available at the time, to base any decision about the Russian’s intent, mission, or objectives. The data simply didn’t support any conclusion, yet there at the conference table, sat a gaggle of top-level executives who were actively engage in supposition and speculation resulting in the fabrication all sorts of boogie-men, end of day’s scenarios, and rationale for a first strike option that needed to be recommended to the President. As I have pointed out in previous articles, critical thinking, logic, and reasoning are not taught as a separate academic discipline within our K-12 school system.
    [Show full text]
  • PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking
    PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking Sessions 23 & 24 May 5th & 7th, 2020 Evaluating Arguments: Sufficient Evidence, Reasonable Inferences, Respectful Argumentation 1 A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. Ø Here are four basic criteria which will all be satisfied by a good argument: I. The premises are true. II. The premises provide sufficient evidence to believe that the conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. IV. It demonstrates the author’s respect for their readers/listeners. So far, we have discussed fallacies that involve: • the use of language to present false or misleading evidence • the use of statistics to present false or misleading evidence, insufficient evidence, or to make faulty inferences – This week we’ll go into more detail about fallacies involving the use of language to present 2 insufficient evidence or to make faulty inferences. A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. • Fallacies that fail to satisfy this criterion of a good argument make faulty inferences: – they draw a conclusion that isn’t guaranteed (or extremely likely) to be true even if the premises are true. Ønon sequitur (Latin for ‘it doesn’t follow’) = when an argument draws a conclusion that just isn’t supported by the reasoning they have provided. ]P1] Dorothy is wearing red shoes today. [C] Obviously, red is Dorothy’s favorite color. » Many of the fallacies we’ll consider this week can be classified as subtypes of non sequiturs, • which draw particular types of conclusions from particular types of inadequate evidence.
    [Show full text]