Argumentation 3

8/9/2019 Argumentation 3

1/62


2/62

Contents

Recap!

Causal Argument

Language of Argument Logical Fallacies


3/62

Recap!

Types of Argument

y Induction

y Deduction

yAnalogy


4/62

Types of Argument

Causal Argument explain either why a

particular situation or phenomenon

occurred (or will occur) or what

produced (or will produce) a general

state of affairs.


5/62

Causal Argument

What cause A? Agent

y

A personyA situation

yAnother event

COMPLEXITY OF CAUSATION


6/62

Causal Argument

Types of Cause

y

Remote cause conditions & influencesy Proximate cause more immediate, much

closer in time to the event or situation

y Precipitating cause triggering event


7/62

Scenario

A house fire (Why?)

y

Lit cigarette dropped on a bed (why?)y The man fell asleep (Why?)

y The man who is old and ill had taken a

sleeping pill to help induce sleep.


8/62

Scenario

Remote causes: mans age & illness;

sleeping pill

Proximate cause: mans dozing off with

a lighted cigarette

Precipitating cause: cigarette igniting the

combustible mattress


9/62

Causal Argument

Isolating precipitating cause is usually

necessary to prevent events from

recurring.

However, often we need to go further

back to determine remoter causes or

conditions especially if were interestedin assigning responsibility for what has

occurred.


10/62

Scenario

Rias rear-end collision with a car in front

of her.

y Precipitating cause: cars too closeness to

the car in front or her

y Proximate and remote causes?


11/62

A good causal argument

Is based on a recognition of thecomplexity of causation that keeps usfrom rushing in to assert only one cause

for most events or situations.

Distinguishes carefully among types ofarguments.

yA alone caused B

yA was one of the several causes

yA was an influence


12/62

A good causal argument

Demonstrates more than just a time

relationship or correlation between A &

B.

y March precedes April.

y Good SAT scores and good college grades


13/62

Isolating Cause

Finding the common factor to similar

outcomes

Recognizing key difference

Process of Elimination


14/62

Common to similar outcomes

25 employees attend a company

luncheon. Later in the day, 10 report to

the area hospital, another 4 complain

the next day of having experienced

vomiting the night before.


15/62

Key Difference

If two situations are alike in every way

but one, and the situations result in

different outcomes, then the one they

differ must have caused the different

outcome.

Example: social science experiments


16/62

Process of Elimination

Examine all possible causes and

eliminate them one by one until we are

satisfied that we have isolated the actual

cause(s).

Ex. Plane crash


17/62

Language of Argument

Persuasion in argument not anything

goes

Abusive language, vicious or

condescending attacks on all who

disagree with your views are

unacceptable strategies in goodargument.


18/62

Language of Argument

Presenting your views in a clear and

honest mannerwill at least win the

respect of even those who cannot

accept your position.

Ifyou are crude, mean-spirited, or

manipulative, you will win few to yourside and lose the respect of most.


19/62

Language Argument

One technique is to establish a commonground with people who may disagreewith you or who otherwise may feel

threatened and become defensive.

Conciliatory arguments argumentswith opposing view presented in non-

threatening language and expressescommon grounds that opposing sidesshare.


20/62

Logical Fallacies

Arguments that do not work

arguments that fail to meet standards of

sound logic and good sense.

Causes of Illogic

y Lack of knowledge of the subject

y Ego problems

y Collection of prejudices and biases

y Human need for answers


21/62

Causes ofIllogic

Lack of knowledge of the subject

ignorance is no excuse for producing

weak arguments


22/62

Causes ofIllogic

Ego problems poor self-esteem

persons attach themselves to the ideas

and then feel personally attacked when

someone disagrees with them.

y Defensiveness great emotion & irrationality


23/62

Causes ofIllogic

Collection of prejudices and biases that

we carry around, having absorbed them

ages ago from family and community.

y Ethnic, religious, or sexist stereotypes

y Political views uncritically adopted

Distorted lenses poor judgment of facts andlogic


24/62

Causes ofIllogic

Human need for answers any answers

to the questions that deeply concern

us.

We want to control our world because

that makes us feel secure, and having

answers make us feel in control.


25/62

Causes ofIllogic

Can lead us to a twofold classification of

bad arguments.

y Oversimplifying the issue

y Ignoring the issue by substituting emotion

for reason.


26/62

Fallacies Resulting from

Oversimplifying

Errors in Generalizingy Oversimplifying

y Hasty or Faulty Generalizations

Forced Hypothesis Non Sequitur

Slippery Slope

False Dilemma False Analogy

Post Hoc Fallacy


27/62

Errors in Generalizing

Includes Overstatement and Hasty orFaulty Generalization (error in inductivepattern of argument)

In each fallacy, the inference drawn fromthe evidence is unwarranted, eitherbecause too broad a generalization was

made or because the generalization isdrawn from incomplete or incorrectevidence.


28/62

Overstatement

Overstatement occurs when the

arguments assertion is an unqualified

generalization that is it refers to all the

members of a category or class,although the evidence justifies an

assertion about only some in the class.

yAll, every, each, always, never


29/62

Overstatement

Lawyers are only interested in making

money.

Philippines is a country of maids or

domestic helpers.

All men practices infidelity. Its innate to

their gender and sexuality.


30/62

Hasty or Faulty Generalization

Hasty or faulty generalizations may be

qualified assertions, but they still

oversimplify by arguing from insufficient

evidence or from ignoring some relevantevidence.


31/62

Hasty or Faulty Generalization

Political life must lead many to

excessive drinking. In the last 6 months,

the newspaper has written about 5

members of Congress who have eitherconfessed to alcoholism or have been

arrested on DUI charges.


32/62

Forced Hypothesis

The explanation (hypothesis) offered toaccount for a particular situation isforced or illogical because either (1)

sufficient evidence does not exist todraw any conclusion or (2) the evidencecan be explained more simply and moresensibly by a different hypothesis.

Fails to consider other possibleexplanations.


33/62

Forced Hypothesis

Professor Ochoas students received

either As or Bs last semester. He must

be an excellent teacher.


34/62

Non Sequitur

Means literally it does not follow

Usually reserved for arguments withoutrecognizable connections, either

because..

y Whatever connection the arguer sees is not

made clear to others;y Evidence or reasons are not relevant to the

conclusion.


35/62

Non Sequitur

Donna will surely get a good grade in

physics; she loved her biology class.


36/62

SlipperySlope

Slippery slope argument asserts that we

should not proceed with A because, if

we do, the terrible consequences of X,

Y, and Z will occur.

y Without evidence usually by ignoring

historical examples, existing laws, or anyreasonableness in people


37/62

SlipperySlope

If Americans allow their government to

register handguns, next it will register

hunting rifles; then it will prohibit all

citizen ownership of guns, therebycreating a police state or a world in

which only outlaws have guns.


38/62

False Dilemma

False dilemma asserts only two

alternatives when there are more than

two. The other choice is usually

unacceptable so the arguer pushes thepreferred choice.


39/62

False Dilemma

The Federal Reserve System must

lower interest rates, or we will never pull

out of the recession.


40/62

False Analogy

False analogy occurs when a

fundamental difference was not taken

into consideration.


41/62

Post Hoc Fallacy

From the Latinpost hoc, ergo propter

hocliterally means after this, therefore

because of it

Oversimplifying causation.


42/62

Post Hoc Fallacy

We should throw out the entire city

council. Since the members have been

elected, the city has gone into deficit

spending.


43/62

Fallacies Resulting from Ignoring

the Issue

Begging the Question

Red Herring

Straw ManAd Hominem

Common Practice or Bandwagon

Ad Populum


44/62


Assumes a part of an argument as true

without supporting it.

Seeks to pass off as proof statements

are often introduced by the fact is,

obviously, as we can see, etc.


45/62


Clearly lowering grading standards

would be bad for our students, so a

pass-fail system should not be adopted.


46/62

Red Herring

In red herring, the debater introduces a

side issue, some point that is not

relevant to the debate.


47/62

Red Herring

The senator is an honest woman; she

loves her children and gives to charities.


48/62

Straw Man

An argument that attributes to

opponents erroneous and usually

ridiculous views that they do not hold so

that their position can be easilyattacked.


49/62

Straw Man

Those who favor gun control just want to

take all guns from responsible citizens

and put them in the hands of crooks.

The proponents of automated voting just

want to take control and cheat their way

to electoral posts in the elections.


50/62

Ad Hominem

Argument to the man

Sometimes the debate turns to an attackof a supporter of an issue; other times,

the illogic is found in name calling.

y Crazy liberals, illiterate farmers, immoralhomosexuals, etc.


51/62

Common Practice/Bandwagon

To argue that an action should be taken

or a position accepted because

everyone is doing it is illogical.

The majority is not always right!


52/62

Bandwagon

Theres nothing wrong with cheating;

after all, most if not all people I know

have cheated once in their school life.


53/62

Ad Populum

Arguments that appeal to the people,

to the audiences presumed shared

values and beliefs yet do not contribute

to a thoughtful debate.


54/62

Ad Populum

Good, law-abiding teachers must be sick

of students who cheat their way to high

grades. But we wont tolerate it

anymore, expel all students who will beproven guilty of cheating.


55/62

Evaluating the Use of Authority

and Statistics

When we present the opinions orresearch findings of authorities assupport for an assertion, we are saying

to the readers that the authorities aretrustworthy and the opinions are sound.

But what we are saying is actually an

assumption, part of the glue joiningsupport to claim, and as such it can bechallenged.


56/62


and Statistics

If the source of evidence can be shown

to lack authority, then the logic of the

argument is invalid.

We need to make careful judgments

about the authority of evidence in any

argument, including our own.


57/62


and Statistics

Evaluate authorities

y Is the study current? Is the evidence still

valid?

y If the authority presents a case study orgives examples, is the evidence

representative?

y Is the writer actually viewed as an authority?

y Do authorities agree?


58/62


and Statistics

We should also know that although

statistics dont lie, people lie with

statistics.

Numbers (statistics & results of polls)

are facts, but when they are presented

in an argument , they are being used bya person interested in supporting a

position.


59/62


and Statistics

Three techniques for distorting

numerical evidence:

y Writers can select only the numbers that

serve their position.y Writers can also alter the readers sense of

how big or how small the numbers are by

the form of the presentation.

y Writers can affect our response to statisticsby theirword choice.


60/62


and Statistics

Statistics

y What relevant information has not been

provided?

y Who sponsored the research?

y What is the sample size relative to the

numbers presented? Is it large enough to be

significant?

y How was the sample obtained?


61/62

Remember!

Writers of argument must be able to

justify their authorities and statistics.

Challengers must know how to take a

close look at the uses of authority and

numbers in any argument.


62/62

Individual Activity

Read and evaluate the article by Stanley

S. Scott.

Determine the claim of his argument.

Then consider the logic of his reasons

and the significance of his evidence.

Write in essay form.

Documents

Argumentation 3