CHAPTER 9 Problems in Critical Reading-Evaluating Arguments 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 fallacies Detecting bias The new media INDUCTIVE REASONING An inductive argument (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: APPEAL TO FEAR 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.