Argumentation Process

8/8/2019 Argumentation Process

1/27

Argumentation Process


2/27

Argumentative Appeals LogosLogos facts and logicfacts and logic

EthosEthos appeals to the authors/readers valuesappeals to the authors/readers values

PathosPathos appeals to emotionappeals to emotion

Look at the diction that characterizes/colors theLook at the diction that characterizes/colors the

passagepassage


3/27

Deduction vs. Induction Murder is a terrible crime (general arg.)

Abortion is murder

Abortion is a terrible crime (specific arg.)

Deductive arguments move from a general

argument to a specific case.


4/27

Inductive reasoning More common, but more difficultMore common, but more difficult

Beginning with specifics and moving towardsBeginning with specifics and moving towards

general argumentsgeneral arguments

AIDS in the early 1980sAIDS in the early 1980s

Specific: AIDS cases were found in gay menSpecific: AIDS cases were found in gay men

Specific: These men died like cancer patientsSpecific: These men died like cancer patients General: AIDS is the Gay CancerGeneral: AIDS is the Gay Cancer


5/27

Problem! Hasty Generalization Inductive reasoning

fallacy.


6/27

What to do next when you determine

the argument style? Question the evidenceQuestion the evidence

Suppressed any facts?Suppressed any facts?

Manipulated any facts?Manipulated any facts?

Enough evidence?Enough evidence?

Too much evidence?Too much evidence?

Is the evidence current, or reputable?Is the evidence current, or reputable?


7/27

Logical Fallacies Fallacies of Relevance

Component fallacies

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of Omission

Occams Razor (not a fallacy by the way)


8/27

Appeal to Force Appeal to Force Argumentum ad Baculum/

might makes right argument

Uses force, the threat of force, or ANY otherunpleasant backlash to make the audience

accept the conclusion

Used as last resort when reason fails


9/27

Genetic Fallacy An idea must be untrustworthy

because of its racial, geographic, or

ethnic origin

Close to Argumentum Ad Hominem


10/27

Argumentum Ad Hominem argument towards the man

Personal attack

The person making the argument has nothing

to do with the argument itself! Two types:

abusive & circumstantial


11/27

Abusive An argument is false because it originates

with someone who is a


12/27

Circumstantial One should accept an argument because

of the circumstances in ones life.

Because one is a Republican/Democrat,

one should vote a certain way.

If youre a clergyman, you have to votethis way


13/27

Argumentum Ad Populum Bandwagon Approach Everyone is doing

it (the Earth was flat?)

Patriotic Approach- Draping oneself in theflag (overlaps pathos with ad hominem)

Snob approach- All the BEST people are

doing it Covering oneself in the Cross- This is the

Christian thing to do (like patriotic?)


14/27

Argumentum Ad Traditio Jacksonville has always had a fire

department with .

Kind of structure, so this is the way it

should continue.

If it isnt broken, dont fix it.


15/27

Argumentum Ad Verecundium Appeal to an improper authority

Having a famous spokesperson who isnt

an authority in the field of the argument

Attempts to capitalize on the feelings for

the famous individual


16/27

Subfield of this Appeal to a BIASED Authority

The person may be an authority

Has personal motivations that render his

professional judgment suspect


17/27

Argumentum Ad Misericordium Appeal to emotion (lit. to pity)

An emotional appeal concerning what should

be a logical issue during a debate

PATHOS should only reinforce a readers

sense of duty or outrage

If a writer uses it merely to get the reader toaccept what should be a logical conclusion,

then its fallacious


18/27

Component Fallacies These are deductive or inductive errors

or syllogistic terms that fail to overlap.


19/27

Begging the questionBegging the question

Circular reasoningCircular reasoning

Hasty generalizationHasty generalization False causeFalse cause

Non Causa Pro CausaNon Causa Pro Causa

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter HocPost Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

Irrelevant ConclusionIrrelevant Conclusion Straw Man ArgumentStraw Man Argument

Non SequiturNon Sequitur

Slippery SlopeSlippery Slope

FalseDilemma (Black orWhite Fallacy)False Dilemma (Black orWhite Fallacy)

Faulty AnalogyFaulty Analogy


20/27

Begging the Question Petitio Principii

Assuming as evidence for their argument, the

very argument you wish to prove.Where thefirst claim is initially loaded with the very

conclusion you wish to prove


21/27

Circular Reasoning Close to Begging the Question

Using the same terms in the initialpremises as in the conclusion


22/27

Hasty Generalization Dicto Simpliciter

Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when

there are too few examples to prove a point

Ex: Susan failed Biology, Herman failed

Biology, Ernie failed it too, therefore

everyone who takes Biology will fail. Closely related: misleading statistic


23/27

Non Causa Pro Causa Not the cause for the cause

Mistaking a false cause of an eventfor the real cause.


24/27

Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc Lit. After this, therefore because of this

When the writer mistakenly assumes that,

because the first event preceded the secondevent, it must mean the first event caused the

later one.

Sometimes it does, sometimes NOT though!This is how superstitions begin


25/27

Irrelevant conclusion Ignorantio Elenchi

When someone purports to arguetoward a certain conclusion, then

ends up proving a totally different

one.


26/27

Straw Man Argument Any lame attempt to prove an argument by

overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying

the arguments of the other side. When you substitute a cartoon version of the

opponent instead of addressing the subtle

points of the opponents argument.


27/27

Slippery Slope One one step is taken, then the 2nd

or 3rd will INEVITABLY follow.

This is a non sequitur argument.

Documents

Argumentation Process