trifles

Examples of Logic in Trifles

Key terms (from Barnet, From Critical Thinking to Argument: A Portable Guide): 1. Assumption: Unexamined beliefs 2. Premise: Stated assumptions used as reasons in an argument 3. Syllogism: The conclusion produced by the joining of two premises--statements

taken to be true 4. Sound argument: An argument is sound if all premises are true and the

syllogism is valid. 5. Deduction: The mental process of moving from one statement through another

to yet a further statement. To put it another way, deduction takes beliefs and assumptions and extracts their hidden consequences. Deduction does NOT give any new information.

6. Induction: Uses information about observed cases to reach a conclusion about unobserved cases (often using inferences and generalizations).

An example of how the sheriff’s assumptions and logical errors made it difficult for him to solve the case

Let’s look at an error in reasoning Syllogism #1: Premise #1: Mrs. Wright did not admit to killing Mr. Wright (Glaspell 965). Premise #2: “Kitchen things” are unimportant (Glaspell 966). Conclusion: There’s no motive for Mrs. Wright to kill Mrs. Wright (Glaspell 966).

This syllogism is false because premise #2 is false, which the women discover later in the play. The title of the play is ironic because the kitchen is full of trifles--unimportant things--that are later shown to be essential to solving the case.

We could also identify the sheriff’s error in reasoning as a logical fallacy.

Let’s look at a specific passage in more detail: “County Attorney (To the Sheriff): You’re convinced that there was nothing important here--nothing that would point to any motive? Sheriff. Nothing here but kitchen things” (Glaspell 966).

A hasty generalization is to move from true assertions about one or a few instances to dubious or even false assertions about all.

The sheriff makes a hasty generalization when he declares that there is nothing important in the kitchen. He quickly and incorrectly assumes that since there are some unimportant items in the kitchen that all of the kitchen items are unimportant. He makes this assumption without bothering to confirm whether his assumption is valid. (Of course, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters examine the kitchen items on their own and come to very different conclusions.)

An example of how Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters use logic to solve the case

Syllogism #2:

Premise #1: The birdcage was damaged (Glaspell 971). Premise #2: Mr. Wright was a “hard man” (Glaspell 972). Premise #3: The bird’s neck was snapped. Conclusion: Mr. Wright was capable of being abusive (he was a “hard man”) and he

killed the bird.

This syllogism is valid because the assumptions seem to be true based on the information that we have in the play. This syllogism is important because it reveals Mrs. Wright’s motive for killing Mr. Wright. (You could create an entirely new syllogism that explains why the bird was so important to Mrs. Wright in the first place--according to the reasoning of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters.)

Some Common Logical Fallacies: 1. Ambiguity: When there’s more than one possible interpretation, confusing the

reader.

2. Fallacy of division: Arguing from a property of a group to a property of a member of that group

3. Fallacy of composition: Arguing the true premise that each member of a group has a certain property to the not necessarily true conclusion that the group itself has the property

4. Equivocation: Giving utterance to two meanings at the same time in one word or phrase)

5. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: To ground a claim about causation on an observed temporal sequence (that is, to argue “after this, therefore because of this”)

6. Fallacy of many questions: When a question cannot be answered because one or more of its assumptions are false

7. Hasty generalization: To move from true assertions about one or a few instances to dubious or even false assertions about all.

8. Slippery slope argument: Implying that the first step necessarily leads to the second, and so on down the slope to disaster, when in fact there is no necessary slide from the first step to the second.

9. Parade of horrors: An array of examples of terrible consequences that will or might follow if we travel down a certain path

10. Straw man: Reframing your opponent’s thesis to make it easier to attack and perhaps refute

11. Fallacy of begging the question: When the conclusion of the argument is hidden among its assumptions (and so the conclusion, unsurprisingly, follows from the premises)

12. Either/or reasoning: Offering a pair of contrary alternatives that do not exhaust the possibilities

13. Oversimplification: Generalizations that exaggerate and therefore oversimplify the truth

14. Red herring: irrelevant thesis; occurs when one tries to distract one’s audience by invoking a consideration that is irrelevant to the topic under discussion

15. Genetic fallacy: Arguing against a claim by pointing out that its origins (genesis) is tainted or that it was invented by someone deserving our contempt

16. Poison the well: An attempt to shift attention from the merits of the argument--the validity of the reasoning, the truth of the claims--to the source or origin of the argument

17. Fallacy of appeal to ignorance: The argument relies on the premise that we don’t know something, but what we don’t know cannot be evidence for or against anything.

18. Ad hominem: Attack an argument or theory by trying to impeach or undercut the credentials of its advocates

19. Appeal to authority: When the authority of a figure is used as evidence for the truth of their views

20. Appeal to fear: Trying to persuade people to agree with you by threatening them with painful consequences

21. Death by a thousand qualifications: A bold assertion can be virtually killed, meaning that its true content reduced to nothing, bit by bit, as all the appropriate or necessary qualifications are added to it