work for suraya

textphil105.pdf

Home >Reading homework help >work for suraya

All Opinions Are Not Created Equal: Critical Reasoning Theory & Practice

“The Treachery of Images” by Rene Magritte

Registered™® US patent office, patent pending, © Peter Amato, 2007-15 all rights reserved, except in Guam. Use only as directed, apply only to affected areas, keep out of reach of children and pets. No active ingredients or moving parts. Does not contain nuts, gluten, wheat, wheat byproducts, preservatives or added sugars. This text contains no MSG, trans-fat, or triglycerides. No animals were harmed in the production of this text. In case of ingestion contact a physician or poison control center. Unauthorized reproduction or rebroadcast of the pictures, descriptions and accounts of this text without the expressed, written consent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Canadian Fish, Game and Wildlife Federation, The International Canasta Association, and the Philadelphia Phillies Baseball Club is strictly prohibited. The management warrants that for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of acquisition, this text, if operated as directed, will substantially achieve the functionality described in the completely nonexistent documentation. The management does not warrant, however, that your use of this text will be uninterrupted or that the operation of this text will be error-free. The management also warrants that the media containing this text, if provided by the management, is free from defects in material and workmanship and will so remain for ninety (90) days from the date you acquired this text. The management basically wishes you luck after that. Our sole liability for any breach of this warranty shall be, in the management's sole discretion: (i) to replace your defective media, or (ii) to advise you how to achieve substantially the same functionality with this text as described in the nonexistent documentation through a procedure different from that set forth in the aforementioned but nonexistent documentation, (iii) to send you and a friend for a week to the British Virgin Islands in order to distract you from the problem, or (iv) if the above remedies are impracticable, to refund the license fee you paid for this text. Repaired, corrected, or replaced text and nonexistent documentation shall be covered by this limited warranty for the period remaining under the warranty that covered the original text, or if longer, for thirty (30) days after the date (a) of shipment to you of the repaired or replaced text, or (b) the management advised you how to operate this text so as to achieve the functionality described in the aforementioned but nonexistent documentation. Only if you inform the management of your problem with this text during the applicable warranty period and provide evidence of the date you purchased a license to this text will the management be obligated to honor this warranty. The management will use reasonable commercial efforts to repair, replace, advise, avoid, elude, evade, ignore, confuse, distract, dismiss, destroy, demote, deport, rebuke or, for individual consumers, refund pursuant to the foregoing warranty within 30 days of being so notified. This is a limited warranty and it is the only warranty made by the management. The management makes no other express warranty, although it reserves the right to make highly suggestive remarks and innuendo including but not limited to bad puns and off-color comments at all locations through-out the office and at company parties wherever they are held. The management further makes no implied warranties, including without limitation, warranties of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, and of non-infringement of third parties' rights except those claimed by fans of the New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, or any professional sports team from Atlanta. Some jurisdictions do not allow limitations on implied warranty, so limitations may not apply to you (especially if you are in any way connected to one of the teams mentioned in the previous sentence.) No management dealer, agent, or employee is authorized to make any modifications, extensions, or additions to this warranty. This warranty shall not apply if this text is used on or in conjunction with hardware or text other than the unmodified version of hardware and software with which this text was designed to be used as described in the purely mythological and admittedly nonexistent documentation. If any modifications are made to the text by you during the warranty period, or if the media is subjected to accident, abuse, or improper use, or if you violate the terms of this agreement, then this warranty shall immediately be terminated. This warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may have other legal rights that vary by jurisdiction. Limitation of liability: under no circumstances and under no legal theory, tort, contract, or otherwise, shall the management or its suppliers or resellers be liable to you or to any other person for any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character including, without limitation, damages for loss of goodwill, loss of profits or revenues, loss of savings, loss of balance, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, Moose attack, or any and all other commercial damages or losses. In no event will the management be liable for any damages in excess of the amount the management received from you for this text, even if the management shall have been informed of the possibility of such damages, or for any claim by any other party. Furthermore, some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so this limitation and exclusion may not apply to you. End-user information: the name, address and payment information that you provide when you use the internet will not be processed or disclosed by the management except as permitted by this agreement or in some other very entertaining manner as determined by us. By becoming an end-user, you hereby agree that the management may share with other parties both aggregate information and limited individual information gathered during your use of the internet, especially any information about you that we find potentially embarrassing or funny. "Aggregate information" is information that describes the habits, usage patterns and/or demographics of its end-users as a group but does not indicate the identity of the particular end-user unless we don’t like him or her. "Individual information" is information about an end-user presented in a form distinguishable from information relating to other end-users but not in a form that enables the recipient to personally identify any end-user. You also agree that locator information about you may be gathered, processed or used as provided in the following paragraph. "Locator information" consists of an end-user’s name, e-mail address, physical address and/or other data that enables the recipient to personally identify the end-user. You agree that locator information on you may be gathered, processed or used in the following instances: first, we may provide locator information on you to the management so that they may notify you directly of special offers and communications regarding the management's products. Locator information and individual information will be processed and stored by the management in the United States and, if you do not live in the United States, possibly in your country of residence, but what the heck are you doing taking this class if you don’t reside in the United States, anyway? You may contact the management to determine whether such information has been accurately recorded and, if not, to request correction of any inaccuracies in the information recorded by us, but we are obviously under no obligation to even read let alone comply with your paltry request. U.S. government restricted rights: use, duplication or disclosure by the government is subject to restrictions set forth in the commercial computer-restricted rights clause at FAR 52.227-19 when applicable, or in the rights in technical data and computer software clause at DFARS 252.227-7013, or at 252.211-7015, or to The Management, Inc. Standard commercial license, as applicable, and in similar clauses in the NASA FAR supplement. Contractor/manufacturer is The Management, Inc. 12224 Magnolia Blvd, The British Virgin Islands. Export restrictions: you may not export or re-export this text or any underlying information or technology except in full compliance with all United States and other applicable laws and regulations. You wouldn’t have to worry about export restrictions if you were in the British Virgin Islands, would you? So, why not consider a vacation in the British Virgin Islands this year? They have beautiful sandy beaches and many lovely lakes, a wonderful telephone system, and many interesting furry animals including the majestic Moose. Registration: by using this text, you hereby agree to provide complete and accurate information about the Moose on your registration form, including its name, your legal name, verifiable e-mail address, address and the Moose’s vital statistics. You agree to notify the management within 30 days of any changes in the customer registration data, or in the case of illness to and/or incapacitation of the Moose, or illness and/or incapacitation owing to contact with it (him). Upon acceptance of your registration, you will be assigned a registration number for your and the Moose’s use. Your number may not be divulged to others. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your registration number and are liable for any harm resulting from disclosing or allowing disclosure of any registration number. In the event of breach of security, you will remain liable for any unauthorized use of this text until you notify customer support via e-mail at [email protected]. You are responsible for all activities and charges resulting from use of your customer account and for ensuring full compliance with the terms of this agreement. Your customer account may not be transferred without prior written approval from the management and is subject to any limits established by the management. High risk activities: the components of this text are not fault-tolerant and are not designed, manufactured or intended for use or resale as online control equipment in hazardous environments requiring fail-safe performance, such as in the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control, stupid Moose tricks, life support machines, or weapons systems, in which the failure of this text could lead directly to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage ("high risk activities"). The management and its suppliers and resellers specifically disclaim any express or implied warranty of fitness for high risk activities. Void where prohibited by law. Your mileage may vary. And on and on, in a similar vein...

Preface: This is Not a Textbook

Rene Magritte’s famous painting “The Treachery of Images,” reproduced on the cover of this book, features the image of a pipe set against a vague background above a caption which states, “This is not a pipe,” in French. Of course, it certainly looks like a pipe to most people who have seen the painting. But in an interesting sense the object before the viewer just as obviously is not a pipe. In a similar way, the book you are reading at this moment isn’t a textbook in an important sense, even though in another sense it obviously is. This book certainly looks like a textbook. And, yes, one of its intended uses is as assigned reading for a course. So, I will briefly explain here the sense in which the book you are reading isn’t intended to be used as textbooks typically are, and why that matters to it, to me, and to you.

A textbook is designed to provide an authoritative, foundational starting point for study in a particular field that is new to its intended readers. It should be like an operating manual or a compendium of information relevant to the subject matter. A good textbook introduces the basic issues, and questions of a field and the standard methods for addressing the more complex problems students are likely to encounter at more advanced stages of study. Hence, the idea of a “textbook case” reflects the notion that examples used for teaching can be so standardized and generic that if one should ever happen to occur, it seems slightly incredible. Nevertheless, since one can easily acquire a lot of useful information from a textbook, they are widely and effectively employed in courses in many disciplines. Whenever the main part of what is to be learned involves the conveyance of more-or-less settled basic principles and concepts, key ideas, theories, facts and events, or more-or-less standardized information, a textbook is a completely appropriate choice.

But courses like the kind this book was written for aren’t typical. In the first place, their aim is to assist students and readers in developing philosophically, in a sense that will be more fully described below. For now, it will suffice to say that the sense in which this book involves the reader in a philosophical activity means that it has very little to do with memorizing technical information, key theories, or facts of any sort. This is because its subject matter involves taking for granted as little as possible in the pursuit of the truth. To this extent, critical reasoning is always more concerned with the limitations of settled basic principles and concepts, established theories, and standard interpretations of important facts than it is with paying homage to their status as authoritative or foundational. This makes critical reasoning (and philosophy) powerful and also sometimes dangerous pursuits. They are powerful because they are likely to lead in the direction of questioning all kinds of things that most of us tend to take for granted. This kind of activity can bring into view exciting new vistas and present us with unheard-of and unthought-of possibilities. But critical reasoning and philosophy can also be dangerous since they lead to asking difficult questions that are not only hard to answer, but which also may give rise to resistance from some who prefer not to question things.

Second, while many courses train students to carry out protocols or procedures that are not obviously connected with everyday life, the basic subject matter of critical reasoning involves abilities that are rooted in the use of logic and language. Hence, critical reasoning doesn’t involve adopting a method that is unrelated to everyday life and imposing it on everything in sight. Instead, it focuses attention on the simple, basic analytical and evaluative abilities we all already have, and assists us in exercising and developing them. The analytical skills involve finding the point of messages we read and hear and determining what (if any) evidence has been provided to support them. The evaluative skills involve assessing whether or not the evidence that has been offered is convincing.

These are obviously skills we use in a variety of contexts from the personal and intimate to the public and formal. But it is important to note that despite the unparalleled usefulness of developing and using one’s own critical reasoning abilities, a great deal of public discourse and commercial activity is more-or-less explicitly designed to prevent you from doing so. It is the aim of corporate and political

advertisers and propagandists of varying political sympathies to manipulate public opinion in ways that support their own interests, sometimes using public relations and advertising tactics designed to manipulate and confuse us. Critical reasoning skills are our natural defense against such tactics. This book is devoted to encouraging the reader to develop confidence and facility in using such skills in the belief that it is essential to the interests of democracy, peace and social progress that persons think for ourselves and take responsibility for ourselves and one another. Critical reasoning is not concerned with teaching you how to win debates, manipulate perceptions, or accumulate power. It will not show you how to overcome the resistance of your opponents or outsell your competitors. It will not give your mouth sex appeal, make you look five pounds thinner, or fight the germs that may cause bad breath. Critical reasoning will show you how to resist the skillful manipulations of politicians, corporations, commercial enterprises, ideologues, and others in order to get closer to the truth about the issues that matter to you.1

The goal of this book is not to inform and edify so much as to empower, inspire and encourage the reader to think for himself and herself. But if it is to accomplish such goals, it is necessary that the reader approach the book in an active and engaged manner, the way one would read any worthwhile philosophical text—thoughtfully and with an attitude of questioning and application. There is not much information in the book to memorize, although (I hope) a lot of worthwhile stuff to think about and understand. I have purposely avoided technical issues where I thought the result of bringing them in would create a pointless distraction to the central task of the book as indicated. I have not included in this book everything I could think of that a critical reasoning instructor might possibly consider presenting as part of a critical reasoning class, but have striven to include what I believe is essential in a course on the subject. I introduce no specialized protocols for the reader to master, except for a simple method of argument analysis modeled on the natural activity of critical encounter with any topic or text offered in Chapter 2 and employed throughout.

In Chapter 1, I discuss the spirit and activity of critical reasoning by considering the fundamental concepts that make up the name of the subject and derive a working definition of it. Chapter 2 introduces a simple but sturdy notion of argument and a method of analysis that I hope the reader will find easy to understand, simple to use, and widely applicable to experience. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the logic of argumentation guided by a desire to make clear what is at stake for everyday life in the difference between good and bad arguments. I try to give the reader a working sense for why logical inferences are worth accepting when they are good and why they are worth doubting or rejecting when they are bad. In Chapters 4 and 5, I present inductive arguments and several patterns and styles of deductive syllogisms in detail, along with various selected inductive and deductive fallacies and questions to ask when assessing these different kinds of arguments. More attention is given to inductive as compared with deductive reasoning since what is distinctive about critical reasoning in contrast with the usual study of logic is its concern for how logic and language intersect and intertwine. Deductive arguments involve language too, of course, but the focus of my treatment of them in Chapter 5 is upon how the logic of deductive syllogisms can be expressed and decoded formally, something that it is not possible to do with inductive arguments. In the final chapter, some complexities and common logical pitfalls in the ways words are used and the repercussions for argument analysis and assessment are explored. ◊

Chapter 1. Introducing Critical Reasoning Theory & Practice 6 What is Critical Reasoning? 6

Review Questions 9

Chapter 2. What is an Argument? 10 The Four Main Elements of Argument 11

Logical Indicators 12

The Four Step Method of Argument Analysis 14

Simple and Compound Arguments 18

Review Questions & Practice Exercises 21

Chapter 3. Good Arguments & Bad Arguments 31 Deductive and Inductive Inferences 32

Fallacies: When Inferences Go Bad 36

Review Questions & Practice Exercises 40

Chapter 4. Assessing Inductive Arguments 48 Four Inductive Argument Types 48

Some Common Inductive Fallacies 54

Review Questions & Practice Exercises 62

Chapter 5. Assessing Deductive Arguments 72 Ten Deductive Argument Patterns 73

Rules for Making Substitutions in Hypothetical Statements 78

Review Questions & Practice Exercises 86

Chapter 6. The Use and Abuse of Language 98 Euphemism and Dysphemism 99

Jargon, Circumlocution, Slang 101

Problems of Ambiguity 102

Amphiboly 102

Equivocation 104

Vagueness 105

Review Questions & Practice Exercises 106

Recommended Further Study 114

Notes 117

Chapter 1. Introducing Critical Reasoning Theory & Practice

What is Critical Reasoning?

This is a book about the theory and practice of something called “critical reasoning,” which is a subject matter ordinarily taught by Philosophy professors. So, what does this name mean, exactly, and what does Philosophy have to do with it? These are sensible questions to ask and consider as we begin.

First let’s consider the name of this subject matter. If you think about the word “critical” and related words like “criticism” and “critique”, lots of images are likely to come to mind. One of the main senses of the word “critical” is importantly wrapped up with the idea of “criticism” as involving the attempt to reach some well-considered judgment about some subject matter. The word “criticism” is often used in the arts and academic subjects to communicate just this idea of judgment, oriented toward rendering some well-informed evaluation or assessment. So, for example, a person who writes about art or music for a magazine or website as a “critic” is employed to carefully assess works of art or music based on his or her knowledge and familiarity with the genre, the artist, etc. An art or music critic is not employed to simply produce opinionated attacks on works he or she doesn’t like, or doesn’t understand, or hasn’t thought carefully about.2 A person is qualified to be a professional critic because he or she has some significant background or expertise concerning the subject matter that makes his or her judgment constructive and worthwhile, not only for the reader who wants to enjoy and appreciate the subject of the criticism, but also for the artist whose work is criticized. Because a critic’s assessments and evaluations are well-informed and constructive, they are worth reading even if we don’t agree with the critic’s personal taste. A critic doesn’t merely tell us what shows to see and which we should avoid, but informs and educates the readers so we are better able to appreciate and understand that difference ourselves. Understanding what makes a particular work of art or music good enhances our appreciation and enjoyment of it, as well.

Nevertheless, words like “critical” and “criticism” are usually associated with judgments that are negative. So, in the news, for example, a reporter might identify the “critics” of a proposal as the source of arguments that it should be rejected. In this usage, the word “critics” is used as a synonym for “enemies” or “opponents.” This way of using the word is so common that when criticism isn’t meant in a negative or adversarial way, speakers will often carefully indicate that it is meant as “constructive criticism,” in order to qualify or cancel-out the negativity associated with the word “criticism.” It is important to recognize that when we talk about criticism in connection with critical reasoning, it is understood that its aim is fundamentally constructive and not adversarial or negative. In the context of logic and language—and in academic usage generally, the word “criticism” is intended in this positive and constructive sense. For example, Literary Criticism is an area of the study of Literature in which the term has the entirely positive sense of a kind of careful, informed analysis and interpretive study of various forms of written work. The idea of writing a critique in Philosophy is similar to this.

But the word “critical” also has a second familiar sense which contributes to the meaning of critical reasoning. If a topic or issue is one that doesn’t matter very much to us, we will understandably not feel strongly motivated to carefully assess and evaluate all available sources of information and evidence related to it. We are all naturally inclined in our everyday affairs to make more-or-less uninformed decisions about lots of things. Unless you have an allergy to a certain type of food, or are otherwise carefully following a diet, you may not be in the habit of reading the lists of ingredients in the foods you eat and serve to your family. You may from time to time enjoy an egg salad sandwich in the campus cafeteria and never stop to ask what else, (besides eggs, presumably), goes into making it. Similarly, you probably don’t know exactly what material the soles of your shoes are made out of, or what the main ingredients are in your tooth-paste, or hair shampoo. These are not topics most of us are

likely to spend much time discussing or developing well-formed opinions about. Most of the time, there are many topics that we do not have thoughtful, considered opinions about, because these are things we don’t need to care about or that don’t matter very much to us.

By contrast, when issues are important to you, things are very different. When you consider a topic or issue to be serious or urgent, you need to know the truth about it so much as that is possible. If, for example, you should one day discover that you or your child has a potentially deadly allergy to a certain type of food ingredient, food labeling would suddenly become a major concern for you. You could, in this case, no longer take for granted that the ingredients in the foods you buy are safe enough to eat. Because, under these circumstances, food ingredients would be a critical issue for you and your family, you would naturally feel compelled to carefully read the labels of the foods you bought, and not merely guess or just assume that they are okay to eat. Although health might be a particular issue that is eventually critical in this sense for everyone, the issues that matter to different people will differ greatly. In fact, at different times of a person’s life, the issues that are critical in this sense are likely to change. Maybe you never had much reason to think about how the economy works until you lost your job, or had a health insurance claim denied and couldn’t afford a needed medicine, or couldn’t afford to finish college. Perhaps you never thought much about wars in distant countries or foreign policy issues until someone close to you was directly affected by one of them.

The point here is that when an issue is significant to us—or critical, in the sense of being urgent and important—we should care what the truth is about it and put effort into finding it. So, the second reason why critical reasoning is called “critical,” is because it represents the way we approach issues when we care enough about them that we require the truth. But we must take pains not to confuse this idea of caring about an issue with the mere fact of holding strong opinions about something, because they are not the same thing. It is true that many people hold passionate opinions on controversial issues that they have not thought much about at all. In fact, it is easy to see that people can become all the more committed to a position on an issue precisely as the result of ignoring or being kept from seeing some of the facts or subtleties that make the truth less than black-and-white. Propagandists and demagogues, snake-oil salesmen and con artists are skilled at encouraging the natural human tendency to accept and hold on to simple and comforting beliefs even in the face of clear evidence that suggests they are wrong.3

Critical reasoning helps us resist the tendencies of political life and human nature to give up on the pursuit of the truth by taking an easy way out. The easy way out can be a comforting conformity, or simply a deferral of responsibility to others in whom we are willing to place our trust.4 But really caring about an issue involves taking the truth seriously enough to carefully assess a wide range of evidence in an unbiased and rational manner in ways that can challenge our expectations and our comfort. Pursuing the truth always involves the continual risk that our predispositions and prejudices could turn out to be partially or wholly mistaken.

The word “reasoning” is also important to define as part of the title of this course. “Reason,” “reasoning,” “reasonableness,” “rationality,” and related terms can be used in numerous ways and have shades of meaning in different contexts. But the meaning shared by all of them involves a very basic human capacity and activity and attitudes related to it. Essentially, reasoning is the activity of forming and justifying beliefs based on evidence. To be rational means having evidence for one’s beliefs and keeping that evidence open to scrutiny and criticism by others. A person is reasonable if he or she is willing to find out if his or her opinions stand up to such scrutiny, and agrees to accept the outcome of fair evaluation and assessment.

By contrast, opinions or beliefs that are held without concern for what the evidence indicates are called biased opinions. There are many related ways to use the word “bias” in everyday communication, but in philosophy and critical reasoning it is especially important to be clear about what

exactly we mean when we use this term. Although in everyday speech the word “bias” is often used just to indicate the tendency of a person or group to hold or favor a particular opinion or perspective, a more precise and logically helpful meaning of the word is used in critical reasoning and philosophy. The contrast between the two meanings can be easily demonstrated: if it is reasonable to avoid bias and bias means simply holding a particular opinion or perspective, then being reasonable would have to mean just having no opinion or perspective. But this is not what we mean when we try to be reasonable and unbiased! What we mean is that people should strive to make sure as best they can that the opinions and perspectives they hold are the ones that best coincide with what the relevant evidence seems to show. Bias, in other words, really means holding a particular opinion or perspective unreasonably.

Here is another way to express this: in critical reasoning, when we say that someone is biased, we do not mean just that the person has an opinion, but that the opinion the person has is irrationally maintained. An opinion could be irrationally maintained because it lacks any evidence or because the evidence that is offered in support of the opinion or position is contradicted by evidence which it evades, ignores, denies or dismisses. Bias is most clear when someone insists that something is true in the face of facts that would lead a reasonable person to question it.

A common and sometimes very subtle way biases catch hold of us is through a phenomenon known as “cherry-picking.” This occurs when a person selects from the body of available evidence on an issue only those facts and interpretations which support his or her predetermined perspective, while denying, dismissing, or ignoring those which do not. The person who cherry-picks seems to have reasonable evidence in support of those views, and may believe that he or she has done the work of seriously building a case to support his or her views rationally. But in fact beliefs that are supported with evidence that results from cherry-picking are biased because they depend on some relevant evidence having been avoided, denied, or suppressed. Most of us have a natural tendency to cherry-pick concerning some issues, because we gravitate toward the familiar and seek out support for the beliefs and assumptions we already favor. But being reasonable and pursuing the truth requires that we resist this tendency, and all forms of biased thinking.

It is important in thinking about what it means to be reasonable to recognize that there are different types of evidence appropriate to the different types of issues we might find ourselves looking at. Some evidence is objective, having to do with empirical, quantifiable, and formal kinds of issues. Objective evidence is the kind that doesn’t depend on anyone’s feelings, personal attitudes, points of view or interpretations, like the kind we normally think of using in the natural sciences and math. It is rational to use objective evidence in these fields because of the kinds of questions and issues they tend to be concerned with. Mathematical equations work and planes fly for reasons that have nothing to do with anyone’s feelings or perspectives but because of principles that hold for objects in space and time. The evidence that it is reasonable to consider when we are interested in such questions is of the objective type and usually has little to do with subjective considerations. It would be irrational not to think about problems in mathematics, physics, and natural science in as objective a manner as possible.

But, being rational isn’t always about just being as objective as possible. This is because many of the most urgent and important issues we face in life cannot be understood in a purely objective manner. Since this is true, in facing such questions rationally we must take account of evidence that is subjective. Evidence is subjective to the extent that it involves some people’s unique attitudes, interpretations, feelings, and points-of-view. Ethical and political questions are perhaps the most obvious types of questions that are widely understood to involve such concerns. But many of the questions we are personally most directly concerned with in life have large subjective aspects. Thus, answers that we might give to such questions could appear to be reasonable from some perspectives but not from others. And if one were to merely exclude some perspectives in order to approximate something like “objectivity” on such issues, the result would be bias.

Although in our own culture there has been a strong tendency to regard reasoning about subjective evidence as irrational, in everyday life and a lot of academic study it is often necessary to factor subjective considerations into our reasoning because of the subject matter. For example, if you have ever found yourself trying to explain to a friend why something that “makes sense” for him or her doesn’t also make sense for you, then you are familiar with this common situation. But, as noted above, the subjective type of evidence is also important in trying to understand ethical and political issues, where the perspectives and points of view of persons and groups are usually central considerations. For example, economic arrangements that can reasonably seem to make good sense from the perspectives of those with political power, can also and at the same time make no sense at all from the standpoint of others who are not or do not feel like they are sufficiently benefited by them. Whether we are talking about decisions in a family, in a community, or a state, how persons understand and feel themselves to be affected by some set of choices is important to consider in making reasonable decisions about what the right thing to do might be. To close this introductory chapter, it will be helpful to summarize the results of the foregoing discussion in terms of a working definition of critical reasoning: As we have seen above, the term refers to the study and use of skills related to the careful assessment and evaluation of evidence supporting our own and others’ opinions and beliefs, especially with regard to issues that matter to us in a way that we need to know the truth about them. This also suggests an answer to the question of why critical reasoning is usually taught as a Philosophy class: philosophical activity is essentially the pursuit of truth using rationality and evidence as described above. Of all intellectual disciplines, Philosophy is the only one whose central concern is the relentless pursuit of truth, rather than the accomplishment of particular goals or specific tasks. In the next chapter of this book, we will define and discuss the basic unit of philosophical activity and of critical reasoning, called the “argument.” ◊ Review Questions – Here are some questions you should be able to answer based on the Preface and Chapter 1 of this book, in at least about 5 sentences each. 1. Why are philosophy and critical reasoning sometimes regarded as dangerous? 2. Identify and briefly explain both of the meanings of “critical” that are used in the title of the course. 3. What is the central meaning of the word “reasoning,” as it is used in the title of the course? Relate it to either one of the two meanings of “critical” discussed in Chapter 1. 4. Explain the philosophical meaning of the word “bias” and how it is different from the most common way this word is used. Give an example or illustration of bias in the philosophical sense. 5. Carefully explain the difference between the two types of rational evidence and why it matters that we recognize them both.

Chapter 2. What is an Argument? The concept of an argument is at the heart of the notion of critical reasoning we have now begun to develop. In this book, the sense of argument we intend unless otherwise noted is captured in a simple definition that can be worded in many different ways: An argument is an attempt to answer a specific question in a rational manner through a deliberate appeal to evidence. Another way to say this is that an argument is when someone provides reasons or premises in order to give support for some claim in response to some issue.

Most obviously, an argument is not a mere statement or assertion, even one that might answer a question or issue, because it would still not have evidence or support behind it. An argument isn’t a simple narrative or a group of descriptive statements or assertions. It is not merely a report or an uncontroversial explanation. Further, although the most common use of the word “argument” indicates the presence of some kind of dispute, disagreement, or controversy, the word “argument” as used in critical reasoning and logic does not.

In the rest of this chapter we will examine the main elements of arguments and the basics of how arguments can be analyzed. In subsequent chapters, we will build upon this basic knowledge, learning about the different types of arguments and styles of reasoning, and the different ways arguments should be assessed and evaluated to distinguish good ones from bad ones.

Here are some examples of simple arguments. In each case, note whether it seems clear to you or not what the author’s point seems to be, and what evidence has been offered to support or establish that point. In analyzing spoken and written arguments we want first to figure out, “What is this person arguing?” Only when we have answered this can we move to the next question, “Is this argument any good?”∗

1. Since the coffee at Vegetate is the best on campus, we should go there after ice- skating. 2. Insider trading distorts the playing field and bends the rules in favor of those who are already powerful and wealthy. Therefore, insider trading is immoral even when it is not strictly illegal. 3. If you are convicted of a felony in many U.S. states you lose your right to vote, in some cases for life. Because being found in possession of a crack pipe is a felony, conviction for this crime could mean losing your right to vote for life. These are examples of simple arguments, but, as we will see, arguments come in many varieties

and degrees of complexity. This is because writers and speakers are often pursuing many kinds of aims simultaneously in making arguments. They may want to convince us of something, but they may also seek to spur us to action or inspire us. They may also be trying to emphasize something in particular, while hiding something else from view. They may seek our compliance or agreement despite not having compelling evidence for their views. In order to pursue their many and various aims, writers and speakers have both logical and rhetorical tools at their disposal. Logical tools are the ones that focus on getting the listener or reader to understand and grasp the position or point that the author argues for. The logic of an argument is the power it has to compel agreement with the author’s point by convincing you based on the relevance and strength of the support provided. Skill in using logical tools helps us get

∗ Try to determine what the basic point and basic evidence is for each of these arguments before peeking at the answers provided at the end of this chapter.

others to see what we think is true in a position, on the basis of evidence they already find plausible or true.

Rhetoric involves the ways an arguer can use language and imagery that appeal to our desires and emotions alongside or independent of his or her strictly logical case. Rhetoric can be used to assist the arguer in leading the listener or reader to accept a belief or claim, but, importantly, rhetorical tools also can be used in ways that are contrary to logic. It could be that the arguer doesn’t actually have a logically compelling argument for his or her position. Rhetoric, in such a case, can be used to mislead the listener or reader into accepting a belief or claim despite its being illogical or very weakly supported.

Rhetoric is commonly associated with the intention to persuade rather than the intention to provide a convincing logical argument. Although the words “persuasive” and “convincing” are commonly used as if they were synonymous, from a logical standpoint, it is important to carefully distinguish them from one another. A convincing argument is one that gets the listener or reader to assent to the arguer’s point because he or she sees that it is logically supported by the evidence provided. By contrast, a persuasive argument is one that gets the listener or reader’s compliance ultimately through the use of non-logical or rhetorical means. Often, persuasion happens precisely because none of the evidence on any side of an issue is convincing enough, and listeners are forced to or allow themselves to go along with or accept one side as most acceptable. Convincing and persuasive arguments are typically hard to distinguish in practice, and logical and rhetorical methods of argumentation are not always easy to separate in a clear-cut manner in many contexts. But critical reasoning focuses on the more directly logical part of the spectrum of arguments, which aim at convincing not merely persuading the listener.

The Four Main Elements of Argument

1. Conclusion: An argument offers a claim or proposition, which can be thought of as the author’s point. This claim or proposition is known in critical reasoning as the conclusion, because it is thought to follow logically from the arguer’s evidence. The conclusion of an argument is the arguer’s answer to some specific issue or question, which will sometimes be stated explicitly but is usually unstated because the arguer takes for granted that the listener or reader already knows what it is. A simple argument has one conclusion. A compound argument has more than one conclusion. 2. Premises: The premises are statements that contain the evidence or support presented by the arguer intended to establish the truth of a conclusion. Often, premises are called reasons. Test results, statistical data, observations of past experience or history, eye-witness reports, and expert testimony are commonly offered as forms of support for the claims arguers wish to establish (their conclusions). 3. Question: The question is the particular open or controversial issue that occasions an argument. It is the specific matter which the arguer is responding to and trying to resolve by offering a conclusion backed by some premises. A logical argument is offered as an attempt to answer a question as convincingly and conclusively as possible. 4. Basic Assumptions: An assumption is any belief stated or implied in an argument for which the arguer has not provided evidence. Thus, all premises stated in an argument without evidence to support them are, technically, assumptions. But the most interesting assumptions are the hidden ones, that are not stated in the argument’s premises. Some hidden assumptions provide the argument’s underlying belief structure in the sense that the argument could not be made without them. These are the argument’s basic assumptions. They are implicit or unstated beliefs which it is necessary for the arguer

to hold for the argument to be made. If basic assumptions are weak or false, any argument built upon them will be compromised.

Argument analysis seeks to identify each of the main elements just described so that we can see as clearly as possible what an argument’s reasoning is. This work is the basis for all worthwhile argument assessment, since our ability to make a fair judgment of whether an argument is good or bad will depend on how carefully we have understood its reasoning. A fair assessment of any argument is impossible without careful analysis. No matter what the conclusion of an argument is and however plausible or implausible it might be, judging whether or not a good case has been made depends upon starting with a clear and careful analysis. And there is no single tool of argument analysis that is more helpful than the logical indicator.

Logical Indicators

Logical indicators are words and phrases that help to illuminate the structure of an argument by reliably telling the reader or listener which statements the author regards as conclusions and premises. They are powerful clues to understanding and analyzing arguments when they are used, and can even provide us with clues to argument structure when they are not present.

Logical indicators come in two varieties: conclusion indicators and premise indicators. Conclusion indicators are words or phrases like thus and therefore, that signal to the reader that the statements they introduce are considered by the arguer as conclusions that follow from some evidence he or she has presented elsewhere. Premise indicators are words or phrases like because and since, that signal that the statements they introduce are intended by the arguer as support for a conclusion he or she is trying to establish. Here are ten useful indicators to recognize and remember:

Premise Indicators: Conclusion Indicators:

because

for

here’s why—

seeing as

since

consequently

hence

therefore

thus

These ten words and phrases are not the only logical indicators you will encounter in the English language, but they represent a handy starting point in coming to recognize how to make effective use of this type of clue to argument structure. It is important to understand why some words are indicators and some aren’t. Indicators can be very helpful because they are words or phrases that basically mean “here comes a premise....” or “here comes my conclusion....” Their meaning, and not the frequency of their appearance prior to premises and conclusions is what qualifies words or phrases to be considered as logical indicators. A word that frequently comes before premises shouldn’t be considered a premise indicator just because it does so. For example, the word “and” frequently occurs when an arguer adds premises to an argument. But this does not mean that “and” should be regarded as a premise indicator. The word “and” simply connects one statement with another and doesn’t mean, “here comes a premise.” Evidence of this is the fact that although arguers frequently connect premises together using “and,” this word is even more commonly used in contexts where no argument is being made and nothing is concluded. Hence, even though “and” often appears prior to premises, it is without usefulness as an indicator because it just as often appears prior to statements that are not offered as premises.

One way to think about this is in relation to common street signs. In the United States, a standard stop sign is a red octagonal plane with the word “Stop” written across the middle. This kind of sign means the driver should bring his or her car to a complete halt at the location of the sign before moving on. Although a careful driver would also normally bring the car to a complete halt at the location of a green rectangular sign with the words “No Left Turn” written across the middle, the latter sign does not mean that the driver must do so. This sign doesn’t tell the driver to stop. Logical indicators are words or phrases that mean what they logically indicate in the same way a Stop sign means “drivers must stop,” and a No Left Turn sign doesn’t. In the same way, words and phrases that happen to precede premises and conclusions are not logical indicators, because although they will often be seen preceding premises and conclusions they do not say or mean, “here comes a premise” or “my conclusion is....” In particular, the following five words are commonly mistaken for but should not be regarded as logical indicators: and, also, although, but, if.

Complicating things further, words and phrases that clearly are indicators in some contexts do not always have the same meaning when used in others. Consider, for example, the word “since.” This word is a very common premise indicator, and it plays this role in the following argument:

I think some reform of the health care system is clearly needed, since we in the United States currently spend more on our health care and receive less than most other industrialized nations.

Notice that in this example, the word “since” introduces a statement that offers evidence for what appears to be the arguer’s point or conclusion. But the word “since” does not perform the same logical role in the following argument:

Darla and Spanky have been seeing each other since about 1935. So, I believe they will never marry.

In this example, although “since” does not act as a logical indicator, another word does. Did you notice the conclusion indicator in this example?

Here is another example of a common premise indicator that, like “since,” is also often used in non-indicating ways. The word “for” functions as a premise indicator in the following argument:

I think some reform of the health care system is clearly needed, for we in the United States currently spend more on our health care and receive less than most other industrialized nations.

The word “for” does not perform the same logical role in this argument:

Darla and Spanky have been seeing each other for almost a century. Thus, I believe they will never marry.

Did you notice the conclusion indicator in the argument above?

Now that we have seen what logical indicators are and basically how they work, we are ready to introduce a method for argument analysis. An argument analysis is an account that identifies the main elements of a particular argument so that we can understand and assess the reasoning. Our method involves four steps that locate the arguer’s conclusions, premises, question, and some basic assumptions.

The Four Step Method of Argument Analysis

1. Find the conclusion or conclusions – A good way to start an argument analysis is by looking for and using any conclusion indicators that might be present. In the absence of any conclusion indicators, you can also find the main conclusion by locating what you believe to be the overall point the speaker or writer is trying to support or establish. If you think you know what the point of the argument is, and other statements that provide evidence for it, you can consider it to be the conclusion. Alternatively, if you already know what the question or issue is from the context of the argument, ask yourself what the arguer’s proposed answer to that question is. The main conclusion of an argument should always provide an answer to some question or issue. When you know what the arguer is trying to establish, you know the main conclusion of the argument. A simple argument has one conclusion. A compound argument has more than one. Here’s an example of a simple argument in which a conclusion is identified following the clue provided by the presence of a conclusion indicator, which I have put in bold-italics. The conclusion of this argument has been placed within square brackets:

2. Locate all the premises – First, look for and use any premise indicators. When present, premise indicators give you a strong clue about which statements contain the evidence that supports the conclusion. In the absence of any premise indicators, you can also find the premises by locating all of the statements that seem to be offered as evidence for the point or conclusion. Ask yourself what claims the arguer has offered that, if true, would make the conclusion more likely to be true. As noted above, test results, statistical data, observations of past experience or history, and eye-witness and expert testimony are common forms of evidence used by arguers. So, a handy way to find the premises is to look for statements that contain these kinds of claims. When you know the premises of the argument, you know the evidence the arguer has provided in order to support the conclusion. Here’s an example in which two premises have been identified following the clues provided by two separate premise indicators, which have been put in bold-italics. The premises are the underlined statements:

3. Identify the question – To find the question, ask yourself what issue the conclusion would answer if it were true. Once you know what the arguer’s conclusion is, this is easy. Find the conclusion, and then formulate as precisely as possible the specific question or controversy it would resolve if it were true. When you know what the question is that an argument answers, you know a lot that will be important for argument assessment when we get to that stage later on in the book. Many arguments that look like they are strong because they contain true statements as evidence can turn out to be very weak because these same premises are irrelevant to the question the arguer was supposed to be addressing. It can often occur that an arguer who is incapable of presenting a strong argument addressed to the question

at hand will deceptively change the subject by providing many truthful but irrelevant premises in the hopes that no one will notice! In the following example, in which the conclusion has been bracketed, the premises underlined, and the logical indicators bold italicized, the question has been written out below. I have included two different ways the question could be phrased in this case. Either would be acceptable:

4. Identify some basic assumptions – Assumptions are simply beliefs held by the arguer for which evidence has not been provided. Hidden or unstated assumptions that the arguer reasonably must make are called basic assumptions. To find basic assumptions, look at the argument and ask yourself what the arguer would have to believe in order to make this argument that has not been stated. Another way to put the question is this: What does this argument take for granted? The arguer’s premises are the place to start: Take each premise one at a time and ask what would have to be true for it to be a reasonable premise. Answering this requires us to imagine a realistic context in which the argument would be taking place. And since there can typically be many different realistic contexts in which a particular argument could be given, there will always be many possible basic assumptions one could identify for any reasonably interesting argument. Seeking out basic assumptions is one of the most important critical reasoning skills you can develop. When you know some of the arguer’s basic assumptions, you will be able to see directly the strengths and flaws of the argument that lie in its foundation. Like a house or any structure one might build, an argument may seem to be solid and well-built from the ground up, but it could be seriously weak anyway if it rests upon foundations that are questionable or flimsy. For example, notice how your sense of the following argument would change if you were to doubt or reject any of the basic assumptions I have identified for the fully analyzed argument in the example below:

Since it would increase the number of pet adoptions per year if they did so, and because it would also probably limit the number of gift-pets unwanted and abandoned by children who are unprepared or unwilling to take proper care of them, hence [people who are considering purchasing puppies or kittens as presents for children at birthdays or Christmas should visit animal shelters and pet adoption centers before buying a gift-pet.] Question: Should people who are considering purchasing gift-pets visit pet adoption centers before doing so?, How can we lessen the numbers of unwanted and abandoned pets crowding animal shelters and pet adoption centers? Assuming: We should try to limit the number of pets that end up at shelters each year. Assuming: The pets available at adoption centers and shelters are healthy and desirable. Assuming: Adoptions are less likely to result in abandoned pets than purchased pets are. A thing to notice about basic assumptions: there will always be a range from the extremely

obvious assumptions that arguers must make just to make sense, to more complex, interesting, and potentially controversial ones, which are the most useful ones to become aware of. Basic assumptions

that are simple and obvious are called “facile,” and the more interesting ones are called “interesting.” Although good critical reasoning practice involves always looking for the most interesting assumptions one can find, for the purposes of this book, it will usually also be okay to identify more-or-less facile ones too. The reason for this is that identifying basic assumptions is often the most difficult part of argument analysis for those who are working on critical reasoning for the first time. It makes it easier to get the hang of it if we start out in this manner. Making it a habit to always ask the question, What does this argument take for granted?, is also one of the single most effective and consistent ways to exercise and enhance your critical reasoning abilities. If you make identifying basic assumptions a regular habit of your reading and writing, finding ones that are more interesting and complex will become easier and more natural over time. Here are some examples of basic assumptions that are facile and some that are not. Let’s start with the following simple argument:

Because our children must be protected, we should outlaw aluminum bats in High School baseball.

This argument is based on some basic assumptions the speaker must hold that are fairly obvious and unlikely to be regarded as controversial. The following assumptions are more-or-less facile:

Assuming: At some High Schools baseball is played. Assuming: Baseball involves the use of bats. Assuming: Some bats are aluminum. Assuming: Children play baseball. Assuming: Aluminum bats are used in High School baseball.

One might go further and identify some assumptions that would be more interesting, like these: Assuming: Aluminum bats pose a serious danger to our children. Assuming: Bats can be made of something less dangerous other than aluminum. Assuming: Laws governing the use of sports equipment can be changed. Assuming: There aren’t better ways to enhance safety than outlawing the bats. Assuming: We want to continue having High School baseball despite its inherent risks.

Although assumptions in the first group are more facile than interesting and those in the second are more interesting than facile, all ten are basic assumptions made by the argument in question because none are stated directly in the premises of the argument and each is something the arguer would reasonably have to assume in order to make the argument.5 Sometimes, as in this example, basic assumptions will be fairly obvious and easy to think of. But sometimes it just isn’t easy to find basic assumptions. When the latter happens, one handy way to find some involves using the “unless trick.” There are two steps to using this trick to locate basic assumptions. First, place the word unless after the argument and think of a statement that would naturally and reasonably follow after it. Any statement that meaningfully fits into that space indicates the reverse of an assumption the arguer makes. Step two is simply to negate or reverse the statement that results from putting “unless” at the end of the argument. So, in the example I have been using, you will notice that if you were to negate any of the basic assumptions I have identified for you, any one would fit reasonably in the space that follows the word “unless” below:

Because our children must be protected, we should outlaw aluminum bats in High School baseball, unless: ________________________________________________________ Unless, aluminum bats pose no danger to children. The argument assumes they do.

Unless, bats cannot be made of something safe. The argument assumes they can. Unless, laws of sports equipment cannot be changed. The argument assumes they can.

Here is another example of a simple argument analyzed using the Four Step Method of

Argument Analysis we have introduced:

Genetically modified foods pose no health risks to human beings. Here’s why—The companies that produce them report that many scientific studies have been done to assure that these products are safe. And besides, if these foods were not safe, the FDA would have made sure they did not come to market.

Step 1. Find the conclusion or conclusions – There are no conclusion indicators in this argument, but overall point of this speaker’s comments seems to be that, “genetically modified foods pose no health risks to human beings.” Premises must be offered in support of that proposition, if this is an argument. So, if this first statement is the main conclusion, then we should find that if the other statements were true, they would tend to support this point, and not the other way around. Simple arguments have only one conclusion. So far, it seems like the conclusion here is:

[Genetically modified foods pose no health risks to human beings.] Step 2. Locate all the premises – There is a premise indicator here, the phrase “Here’s why.” This tells us that the author regards the statement, “The companies that produce them report that many scientific studies have been done to assure that these products are safe,” as a premise. Now, if this premise were true, it would tend to support the statement that “genetically modified foods pose no health risks to human beings,” although it would not seem to give me any reason to believe the claim that, “if these foods were not safe, the FDA would have made sure they did not come to market.” This suggests that the premises of this argument are these two statements:

The companies that produce them report that many scientific studies have been done to assure that these products are safe. If these foods were not safe, the FDA would have made sure they did not come to market.

Step 3. Identify the question – The question is the issue that the conclusion would resolve if it were true. The conclusion here seems to be that “genetically modified foods pose no health risks to human beings.” Hence, the question that this argument answers would be:

Question: Do genetically modified foods pose any health risks to human beings?

Step 4. Identify some basic assumptions – What does this argument take for granted? We aren’t interested in anything that is stated directly in the premises or the conclusion, and we should think of some beliefs the arguer would reasonably have to hold in order for the argument to make sense. Here are some basic assumptions:

Assuming: Genetically modified foods are edible. Assuming: There are companies that produce genetically modified foods. Assuming: It is possible to measure the health risks posed by different foods.

Simple and Compound Arguments As we have noted, all arguments involve reasoning from some evidence presented in at least one premise to at least one conclusion. The simplest way to do this involves just one “piece” of reasoning, as in the simple arguments analyzed above. In this text, our main focus will be on simple arguments like these, which contain only one conclusion and some number of premises for it. But it is common for arguments to be more complex than this in everyday experience. Compound arguments are arguments that involve more than one piece of reasoning: at least one conclusion is drawn as a component of a larger argument. For example, in the argument below, the statement “Maine gets heavy December snows,” is used by the arguer both as a conclusion and as a premise:

It has snowed heavily in Maine every December in recent memory. Therefore, Maine gets heavy December snows, and, consequently, I should buy a snow-blower before December comes.

We will analyze this argument below to demonstrate how compound arguments should be treated using the Four Step Method described above. In some cases, you will find that the arguer has made his or her reasoning clear by providing logical indicators. But arguers are not always so helpful! How can one be sure that one is not missing compound arguments when logical indicators aren’t present? The simplest way is to always remember to do a check after step 4 of the method:  Check for a second piece of reasoning – A compound argument can have any number of conclusions (above one!) In this book, you will only see compound arguments with just two. The compound arguments in this book will always have one premise that is a premise for one of the other premises. That is—one of the premises is both a premise and a conclusion. Here are two examples of compound argument analysis, one with two indicators to help you, and one without any logical indicators at all: Compound Example 1.

It has snowed heavily in Maine every December in recent memory. Therefore, Maine gets heavy December snows, and, consequently, I should buy a snow-blower before December comes.

Step 1. Find the conclusion or conclusions – There are two conclusion indicators here. They tell us that the statements that immediately follow them are both conclusions. The second conclusion is the main conclusion of the argument. The one that comes logically before it is a subordinate conclusion:

It has snowed heavily in Maine every December in recent memory. Therefore, [Maine gets heavy December snows,] and, consequently, [I should buy a snow-blower before December comes.]

Step 2. Locate all the premises – There are no premise indicators in this argument. However, the first sentence makes unsupported references to past experience, which, if true, would allow us to generalize to the first conclusion. And the first conclusion would seem to support the second one:

It has snowed heavily in Maine every December in recent memory. Therefore, [Maine gets heavy December snows,] and, consequently, [I should buy a snow-blower before December comes.]

Step 3. Identify the question – The conclusion that is not supporting any further claim is the main conclusion. So, the question for this argument would be the one that it directly answers:

Question: Should I buy a snow-blower before December comes? Step 4. Identify some basic assumptions – What are some things the arguer believes to be true that are not stated in the premises? Here are some things the arguer takes for granted:

Assuming: I am not able or willing to hire others to plough my snow for me. Assuming: Recent memory does not reflect an unusual or unrepresentative period. Assuming: I do not already have a snow-blower that I can use in December.

Compound Example 2.

I had better call someone to cover my shift. I am too sick to work today and should not expose my coworkers. Look at my temperature—it’s 103 degrees!

Step 1. Find the conclusion or conclusions – There are no conclusion indicators in this argument. So, the best thing to do is consider what seems to be the arguer’s main point:

[I had better call someone to cover my shift.] I am too sick to work today and should not expose my coworkers. Look at my temperature—it’s 103 degrees!

Step 2. Locate all the premises – There are no premise indicators in this argument either. But it does seem to make sense that one would need to look for a replacement if one had a temperature and were too sick to work:

[I had better call someone to cover my shift.] I am too sick to work today, and should not expose my coworkers. Look at my temperature—it’s 103 degrees!

Step 3. Identify the question – The conclusion that is not supporting any further claim is the main conclusion. So, the question this argument answers would be:

Question: Should I call someone to cover my shift? Step 4. Identify some basic assumptions – What are some things the arguer believes to be true that are not stated in the premises? Here are some things the arguer takes for granted:

Assuming: It is the employee’s responsibility not the boss’s to call a replacement worker. Assuming: The others are not all sick. Assuming: The arguer’s illness is communicable.

Now, if you didn’t already know this argument was a compound, you might be tempted to regard this as a complete analysis. But you would miss some of the reasoning if you did! That’s why you should always check for compounds after using the Four Step Method:  Check for a second piece of reasoning – Look at the premises. Does one premise look like it could actually be offered to support another premise? If so, the supporting premise should be underlined and the supported premise should be both underlined and bracketed:

[I had better call someone to cover my shift.] [I am too sick to work today, and should not expose my coworkers to my illness.] Look at my temperature—it’s 103 degrees!

Test the Four Step Method of Argument Analysis every chance you get! Apply it when you hear

arguments presented on TV and in the news media. Turn it loose in your other classes and apply it to the arguments you hear from friends, teachers, and parents. You will understand the things you read and hear more fully. If you start analyzing your own writing and thinking, you will become a better writer and thinker. And you’ll be a long way toward being able to effectively assess and evaluate these arguments too, but more about that later on. ◊

Simple analyses of the arguments in Chapter 2: 1. The arguer’s point is that “we should go to Vegetate after ice-skating” and that we should do so because their coffee is the best on campus. It makes more sense to see the first statement as evidence for the latter one than the reverse. If it’s true that the coffee is tasty, this would seem like a reason to go there (assuming we care about coffee!) It would be illogical to say that the coffee is good someplace because we should go there. 2. This person makes the point that “insider trading is immoral,” based on the evidence that “it distorts the playing field and bends the rules.” This makes more sense than interpreting the point as saying “it distorts the playing field and bends the rules” because “it is immoral.” The first interpretation is better since if the evidence were true, it would make the point more likely. In the second interpretation, the argument wouldn’t seem to establish anything. 3. In this example, the arguer seems to be trying to establish the point that conviction for possession of a crack pipe could lead to disenfranchisement depending on what state you are in. The evidence provided is that this crime is a felony, and that felons are barred from voting in many U.S. states. The fact that conviction for possession of a crack pipe could lead to disenfranchisement would not be evidence that many states disenfranchise felons. On the face of it, however, this fact might have been advanced by the arguer as a reason for concluding that this crime is a felony: Evidence: If you are convicted of a felony, you can lose your right to vote. Evidence: This is a crime for which you can lose your right to vote. Point: This crime is a felony. But there are several reasons to reject this interpretation. The most important to mention at this point is the following: the arguer used the word “because” to introduce the statement that “being found in possession of a crack pipe is a felony.” This word is one of the basic premise indicators. It tells us that the argument as intended by the arguer includes this statement as evidence for something else. Hence, the better analysis of this argument would be: Evidence: If you are convicted of a felony, you can lose your right to vote. Evidence: This crime is a felony. Point: This crime can lead to losing your right to vote.

Review Questions & Practice Exercises 2.1 Review Questions – Here are some questions you should be able to answer based on the preceding chapter in a clear and detailed way, in your own words, and in at least about 5 sentences each. 1. Carefully define “argument” as this term is used in critical reasoning and contrast this meaning with the more common everyday meaning of the word. Give an original example of an argument, (one you have created yourself.) 2. Carefully explain the difference between being persuasive and making a convincing argument. How is this difference related to the distinction between logic and rhetoric? 3. Define each of the Four Main Elements of Argument. Identify each element in the example argument you created for question #1. 4. Define “basic assumption” and explain the difference between facile and interesting assumptions. 5. Carefully explain what makes a word or phrase a logical indicator, and how logical indicators are supposed to work. 2.2 Argument Analysis – Instructions: Here are a number of simple and compound arguments. Look at them carefully and apply the Four Step Method of Argument Analysis: Circle any logical indicators that you find, place the conclusion in brackets, underline all of the premises, and then write out the question, and two basic assumptions in the spaces below each argument. Solutions below.

1. When I approached him, the stray dog barked and growled. I know from veterinary school that this

can be a sign that an animal is frightened, or in some kind of pain, and dangerous. So, we should not

approach him for now, but instead we should put some water and food out for him. Hence, let’s call the

animal shelter later.

Question:

Assuming:

2. Seeing as you have ordered pizza, you had better take an antacid, because you’ll get agita if you don’t.

Question:

Assuming:

3. If people don’t like the choices offered by the two major parties on Election Day, they should boycott

the election and refuse to vote. I say this because boycotts are a proven and effective way of influencing

the decisions of merchants.

Question:

Assuming:

4. Captain Columbus, you should turn these ships around right away! You are sailing west, and if you

continue to sail west you will take us over the edge of the Earth!

Question:

Assuming:

5. Pat Summitt had more wins than any other coach in the NCAA Division I. Furthermore, nobody

motivated players as well as she did. So, Pat Summitt was the best coach in the NCAA Division I. Hence

the Tennessee Lady Volunteers will win tonight against LSU.

Question:

Assuming:

6. In my view, Jimmie, it creates an unnecessary risk that the time it takes will interfere with his ability to

fight crime. Thus, Superman should stop using phone booths to change clothes in the future seeing as a

special crime fighting uniform is more trouble than it is worth.

Question:

Assuming:

7. If you study hard for your exams, then you’ll do well on them. Your grade for the class will be good if

you have done well on the exams. Consequently, if you study hard for your exams, your grade for the

class will be good.

Question:

Assuming:

8. Most of the time when I study hard for an exam, I feel calm during the exam and I am better able to

think through problems and remember details. Consequently, I expect to be calm on the Chemistry

exam tonight, seeing as I studied hard for it.

Question:

Assuming:

9. Main Street will be flooded again this Fourth of July. For as long as I have lived here, Main Street has

been completely flooded for the last two weeks of June and the first two weeks of July. Besides, there

have been no renovations or improvements to the ancient sewer and drainage systems since last

summer.

Question:

Assuming:

10. All college students are excellent dancers. Miriam is an excellent dancer. Consequently, Miriam is a

college student.

Question:

Assuming:

11. The English Industrial Revolution gave rise to a dynamic, revolutionary working class. Many Chinese

cities today are undergoing the same kind of development that English cities underwent during the

Industrial Revolution. Hence, China will soon see the rise of a dynamic, revolutionary working class.

Question:

Assuming:

12. I think Marilyn will enjoy traveling to Southern Italy next summer. Two years ago, she visited

Southern France and had a good time. Furthermore, she visited North Africa on her honeymoon and had

a wonderful time.

Question:

Assuming:

13. It will be better for me to go to a graduate school that is farther away from home if it is a less

expensive and smaller school. When I was an undergraduate, these things made the biggest difference

in how well I could focus my attention and how much time I had to devote to my work. So, I think I will

go to Wattsamatta U. after all.

Question:

Assuming:

14. In our clinical study, patients who were given the drug Nocera saw their symptoms associated with

Thripshaw’s Disease diminish at a significantly higher rate than patients who were given a placebo.

Consequently, this drug is an effective treatment for the symptoms of Thripshaw’s Disease.

Question:

Assuming:

15. You should stop prescribing the drug Nocera immediately. Seeing as this drug was consistently

associated with dramatic increases in the rate of stroke and paralysis among patients using it for more

than six months compared with patients using comparable drugs in our study, it is likely to be the cause

of these side effects which outweigh its health benefits.

Question:

Assuming:

2.3 Compound Argument Analysis – Instructions: Here are a number of compound arguments. Look at them carefully and apply the Four Step Method of Argument Analysis: Circle any logical indicators that you find, place the conclusion in brackets, underline all of the premises, and then write out the question, and two basic assumptions in the spaces below each argument. Solutions below.

1. Philadelphia has a world-class symphony orchestra and many great art museums. Also, it has several

talented theatre and dance companies, popular music venues, and jazz clubs. Consequently,

Philadelphia is a great city for the arts and cultural attractions, so, you wouldn’t mind living there.

Question:

Assuming:

2. You should teach your kids to ice skate because ice skating is the best of winter sports Here’s why—

when you skate, you are in almost constant motion, and you can feel the wind in your hair and the cold

winter air on your face. And skating involves the perfect combination of skill, strength, and speed.

Question:

Assuming:

3. I think it is a bad idea to get Harold a plant for his birthday. Harold has never been able to keep any

plant thriving for more than a week or two. While his plants live Harold worries that they will die and

when they start shriveling, he feels guilty and powerless. Then, when they die, he feels incompetent and

sad. Therefore we should get him a book.

Question:

Assuming:

4. Since a regular size can of soda contains the equivalent of about ten teaspoons of sugar, do not

encourage your children to drink soda, seeing as it is a good idea to limit one’s intake of such drinks,

especially if one has a genetic predisposition or a family history of diabetes.

Question:

Assuming:

5. I enjoyed my first coop very much but it didn’t help me decide whether or not to pursue a career in

business. Another coop might help me decide, but I am currently a 4COP, one coop student. Since it

would be good for me to have another coop, I should switch from 4COP to 5COP as soon as I can get an

appointment with my advisor.

Question:

Assuming:

6. Although it will be very hard for him to face up to it, Wile E. Coyote will never catch the Road Runner,

seeing as he will never be fast enough or smart enough to do so. So, he should stop risking his life with

risky and dangerous technological solutions, give up, and move back to Northern Minnesota.

Question:

Assuming:

7. I do not agree that the coalition fighting the Islamic State will be able to defeat this enemy, for most

of the members of the coalition distrust other members more than they fear the Islamic State fighters.

This is because they have enmities and suspicions dividing them that are very long-standing and very

deeply-felt.

Question:

Assuming:

8. It has snowed heavily in Maine every December in recent memory. Therefore, Maine gets heavy

December snows, and, consequently, I should buy a snow-blower before December comes.

Question:

Assuming:

9. The National Hockey League must stop tolerating fighting in hockey games immediately, for hockey

fights routinely involve several powerful blows directly to the head of each player involved in a fight and

blows to the head have been shown to result in concussion, serious long term memory loss, dementia,

and sometimes chronic fatigue syndrome. Hence, a serious change of the rules of the sport should begin

right away.

Question:

Assuming:

10. Philosophy classes are a very good preparation for law careers because they keep you practicing

critical reasoning skills and help you develop ease and confidence reading complex texts and writing

clear, effective prose. So, you should consider a minor or major in it.

Question:

Assuming:

2.2 Solutions, Argument Analysis: (*Indicates compound argument) *1. When I approached him, the stray dog barked and growled. I know from veterinary school that this can be a sign that an animal is frightened, or in some kind of pain, and dangerous. So, [we should not approach him for now, but instead we should put some water and food out for him.] Hence, [let’s call the animal shelter later.] Question: Should we call the shelter now or later? Assuming: The vet school gave good training, What the speaker learned applies to this case, A frightened animal can be dangerous, Dogs growl and bark, It will not be harmful to leave the dog at large. 2. Seeing as you have ordered pizza, [you had better take an antacid,] because you’ll get agita if you don’t. Question: Should you take an antacid before dinner tonight? Assuming: You get agita when you eat certain foods, Pizza triggers your agita, Antacids prevent agita, You haven’t had treatment that has ended this condition recently, You are in possession of or could acquire an antacid. 3. [If people don’t like the choices offered by the two major parties on Election Day, they should boycott the election and refuse to vote.] I say this because boycotts are a proven and effective way of influencing the decisions of merchants. Question: What should voters do if they don’t like the choices offered by the two major parties? Assuming: We have elections, People can refrain from voting, There are two major parties, No other candidates might be worth voting for, Boycotts have been used before. 4. [Captain Columbus, you should turn these ships around right away!] You are sailing west, and if you continue to sail west you will take us over the edge of the Earth! Question: What should Captain Columbus do?, Should Columbus keep sailing west? Assuming: The Earth is not round, It has at least one edge, Columbus is able to turn around, The ships are sailing, Columbus is not trying to kill them. *5. Pat Summitt had more wins than any other coach in the NCAA Division I. Furthermore, nobody motivated players as well as she did. So, [Pat Summitt was the best coach in the NCAA Division I.] Hence [the Tennessee Lady Volunteers will win tonight against LSU.] Question: Who is going to win tonight’s game? Assuming: Motivating players is part of coaching, Being the best motivator is part of what makes someone the best coach, Coaches are supposed to help their teams win, Being the winningest coach is part of what makes someone the best coach, Pat Summitt’s influence is still felt on the team. *6. In my view, Jimmie, it creates an unnecessary risk that the time it takes will interfere with his ability to fight crime. Thus, [Superman should stop using phone booths to change clothes in the future] seeing as [a special crime fighting uniform is more trouble than it is worth.] Question: Should Superman continue using phone booths to change into his outfit? Assuming: There is a Superman, Superman

changes into his crime-fighting outfit in order to fight crime, There still are phone booths, Future phone booths will not have doors that make changing easier, He won’t lose his powers without his uniform. 7. If you study hard for your exams, then you’ll do well on them. Your grade for the class will be good if you have done well on the exams. Consequently, [if you study hard for your exams, your grade for the class will be good.] Question: Will your grade for the class be affected by studying hard? Assuming: There are exams in the class, It is possible to study hard for exams, You are taking at least one class, It is possible to do well on one’s exams in this class, Exam scores count toward the grade for the class. 8. Most of the time when I study hard for an exam, I feel calm during the exam and I am better able to think through problems and remember details. Consequently, [I expect to be calm on the Chemistry exam tonight], seeing as I studied hard for it. Question: How do you think you’ll be during the Chemistry exam tonight? Assuming: This exam will be like your other exams, There is a Chemistry exam tonight, It is good to be calm, It is good to think and remember during exams, Chemistry is a subject in school. 9. [Main Street will be flooded again this Fourth of July.] For as long as I have lived here, Main Street has been completely flooded for the last two weeks of June and the first two weeks of July. Besides, there have been no renovations or improvements to the ancient sewer and drainage systems since last summer. Question: Will Main Street become flooded again? Assuming: It has been some time that I have lived here, Main Street is near “here”, The sewer and drainage systems are ancient, There were floods last summer, The floods in the past have had something to do with the sewer and drainage systems. 10. All college students are excellent dancers. Miriam is an excellent dancer. Consequently, [Miriam is a college student.] Question: Is Miriam a college student? Assuming: All college students have had their dancing abilities assessed, Some college students are excellent dancers, All excellent dancers are college students, It is possible to be a better or a worse dancer, Miriam has had her dancing abilities assessed. 11. The English Industrial Revolution gave rise to a dynamic, revolutionary working class. Many Chinese cities today are undergoing the same kind of development that English cities underwent during the Industrial Revolution. Hence, [China will soon see the rise of a dynamic, revolutionary working class.] Question: Will China see the rise of a dynamic and revolutionary working class? Assuming: China doesn’t already have a dynamic, revolutionary working class, China is undergoing significant change today, England did not always have the same amount of industrialization, The industrialization of England was a concentrated historical event, The English Industrial Revolution affected the cities of England. 12. [I think Marilyn will enjoy traveling to Southern Italy next summer.] Two years ago, she visited Southern France and had a goodtime. Furthermore, she visited North Africa on her honeymoon and had a wonderful time. Question: Will Marilyn enjoy a trip to Southern Italy? Assuming: The climate of Southern Italy is like that of Southern France and Northern Africa, The reasons she enjoyed her previous trips didn’t have to do with features specific to those places, It is possible to get to Italy from where Marilyn lives, Marilyn is married, Marilyn’s spouse will also enjoy Southern Italy. *13. [It will be better for me to go to a graduate school that is farther away from home if it is a less expensive and smaller school.] When I was an undergraduate, these things made the biggest difference in how well I could focus my attention and how much time I had to devote to my work. So, [I think I will go to Wattsamatta U. after all.] Question: Where should I go to graduate school? Assuming: If I were to go to a more expensive school, I’d have to spend time making money, The size of a school affects one’s

ability to focus, I plan to go to graduate school, I could be accepted at a small school that is not close to home, Focusing on schoolwork is desirable for a graduate student. 14. In our clinical study, patients who were given the drug Nocera saw their symptoms associated with Thripshaw’s Disease diminish at a significantly higher rate than patients who were given a placebo. Consequently, [this drug is an effective treatment for the symptoms of Thripshaw’s Disease.] Question: Is this drug effective at treating the symptoms of this disease? Assuming: Unknown factors did not cause the symptoms to subside, We are able to measure the symptoms, Participants are a representative sample, The symptoms are recognizable and measurable, The drug is approved for clinical studies. *15. [You should stop prescribing the drug the drug Nocera immediately.] Seeing as this drug was consistently associated with dramatic increases in the rate of stroke and paralysis among patients using it for more than six months compared with patients using comparable drugs in our study, [it is likely to be the cause of these side effects which outweigh its health benefits.] Question: Should you stop prescribing this? Assuming: The drug’s benefits would not outweigh its risks if used for less than six months, There are benefits of this drug, There are drugs similar to Nocera, The study followed appropriate procedures, You can prescribe drugs. 2.3 Solutions, Compound Argument Analysis: 1. Philadelphia has a world-class symphony orchestra and many great art museums. Also, it has several talented theatre and dance companies, popular music venues, and jazz clubs. Consequently, [Philadelphia is a great city for the arts and cultural attractions,] so, [you wouldn’t mind living there.] Question: Would you like living in Philadelphia? Assuming: Symphony orchestras, museums, theatre and dance companies, popular music and jazz venues are the signs that a city has an active art scene, People are attracted to art and cultural events, Philadelphians enjoy a variety of art and culture events, Not all cities are equally well-endowed with art and culture as Philadelphia, Philadelphia doesn’t have all these assets hidden away in inaccessible parts of the city. 2. [You should teach your kids to ice skate] because [ice skating is the best of winter sports] Here’s why—when you skate, you are in almost constant motion, and you can feel the wind in your hair and the cold winter air on your face. And skating involves the perfect combination of skill, strength, and speed. Question: What sport should you teach your kids? Assuming: One skates out of doors, One has developed the relevant skill, Speed, strength and skill are what make a winter sport great, It’s important to be in motion for a winter sport, No other winter sport achieves the same combination of qualities. 3. [I think it is a bad idea to get Harold a plant for his birthday.] Harold has never been able to keep any plant thriving for more than a week or two. While his plants live Harold worries that they will die and when they start shriveling, he feels guilty and powerless. Then, when they die, he feels incompetent and sad. Therefore [we should get him a book.] Question: Should we get Harold a book for his birthday? Assuming: We like Harold and don’t want him to feel bad, Harold has actually tried to care for plants in the past, Harold would like to be able to care for plants, It’s not possible to diagnose what Harold is doing wrong and teach him to succeed with plants, There is no plant simple and hardy enough that Harold would not be a threat to its life. 4. Since a regular size can of soda contains the equivalent of about ten teaspoons of sugar, [do not encourage your children to drink soda,] seeing as [it is a good idea to limit one’s intake of such drinks,

especially if one has a genetic predisposition or a family history of diabetes.] Question: Is it a good idea encourage your children to drink soda? Assuming: All regular cans of soda contain the same amount of sugar, Sugar is generally bad in large quantities, Diabetes runs in families, Sodas with sugar can be consumed in moderation, Sugar-free soda would be preferable to regular soda. 5. I enjoyed my first coop very much but it didn’t help me decide whether or not to pursue a career in business. Another coop might help me decide, but I am currently a 4COP, one coop student. Since [it would be good for me to have another coop], [I should switch from 4COP to 5COP as soon as I can get an appointment with my advisor.] Question: Whether or not you should switch to 5COP. Assuming: You can afford another year, The registrar will allow you to switch, Your major supports 5COP, Coops are able to help you decide about your future, You are still thinking of possibly pursuing a career in business. 6. Although it will be very hard for him to face up to it, [Wile E. Coyote will never catch the Road Runner,] seeing as he will never be fast enough or smart enough to do so. So, [he should stop risking his life with risky and dangerous technological solutions, give up, and move back to Northern Minnesota.] Question: Should Wile E. Coyote retire? Assuming: He hasn’t lost his desire to catch Road Runner, He isn’t on the verge of a technological breakthrough, He isn’t about to increase his speed or smarts, He would not die from boredom without the Road Runner to chase, He is from Minnesota. 7. [I do not agree that the coalition fighting the Islamic State will be able to defeat this enemy,] for [most of the members of the coalition distrust other members more than they fear the Islamic State fighters]. This is because they have enmities and suspicions dividing them that are very long-standing and very deeply-felt. Question: Will the coalition be able to defeat the Islamic State? Assuming: The coalition has not always been together, The coalition members feel threatened, It is essential for coalitions to work that there is trust, The coalition is not pursuing a non-military solution, Long-standing and deeply-felt enmities and suspicions are very hard to overcome. 8. It has snowed heavily in Maine every December in recent memory. Therefore, [Maine gets heavy December snows,] and, consequently, [I should buy a snow-blower before December comes.] Question: Should I buy a snow-blower before December? Assuming: I don’t plan to move out of Maine before December, Weather patterns have not changed dramatically so that they are not predictable, I do not already have a snow-blower, I do not have a friend who will clear my snow for me, I do not plan to stay inside the whole winter, A snow-blower will be sufficient for my snow-clearing needs. 9. [The National Hockey League must stop tolerating fighting in hockey games immediately,] for hockey fights routinely involve several powerful blows directly to the head of each player involved in a fight and blows to the head have been shown to result in concussion, serious long term memory loss, dementia, and sometimes chronic fatigue syndrome. Hence, [a serious change of the rules of the sport should begin right away.] Question: Should the rules be changed? Assuming: Fighting is tolerated, A rule change would make a difference to the occurrence of fighting, Some players have suffered long term effects from fights, More equipment would not be a preferable solution, The welfare of athletes is a concern. 10. [Philosophy classes are a very good preparation for law careers] because they keep you practicing critical reasoning skills and help you develop ease and confidence reading complex texts and writing clear, effective prose. So, [you should consider a minor or major in it.] Question: Should I consider a major or minor in Philosophy? Assuming: I am interested in a law career, Law careers involve these skills, I have room in my schedule for a minor, I could switch or add a major, I am not already expert.

Chapter 3. Good Arguments and Bad Arguments Understanding the purposes of argument and the role of each of the four basic elements allows one to see more clearly how these elements are supposed to relate to one another to produce the result a critical reasoner hopes for. Now we move from our analytical considerations about the structural features of arguments to more directly evaluative concerns regarding what makes them more or less successful in accomplishing the tasks we seek to accomplish using arguments. As should be obvious to the reader already, the central relationship in any argument is that between the premises and the conclusion. If this relationship is a healthy and strong one, then the argument can be seen as a successful one in terms of its basic mission, which is to establish that, given acceptable assumptions, a specific conclusion is supported by specific premises based on the evidence they provide. Another way to say this is that part of what it means to have a good argument is that the conclusion does indeed actually follow from the evidence provided.

But making sure that an argument’s conclusion follows is only part of the story of what it finally means to have a good argument. Recall that we noted in Chapter 1 that critical reasoning is something we do when we need to know the truth about a subject. The simple fact that a conclusion follows from the premises that have been provided does not mean its conclusion is necessarily true. To give a simple illustration of this, if the evidence provided in some premises to support a conclusion is not complete, or if the premises are supported by assumptions that are false, it could easily be the case that a conclusion might follow despite being false. As you look out the window each morning and observe the sun you will see that it appears low on the horizon early in the day and is farther from the horizon as you approach mid-day until, just at noon, it starts to descend again before disappearing at the other end of the earth at dusk. It follows from these observations that the sun is probably moving in relation to the earth, and specifically circling around it. The trouble with this conclusion is that it contradicts the conclusions we draw from a host of other observations.

It is also widely recognized that some conclusions seem to follow more strongly than others. But do conclusions that feel more compelling actually reflect reality better than conclusions that feel less compelling? To illustrate this problem, consider the three arguments below. Notice how the force or strength of each conclusion varies in your mind:

Each morning I see with my own eyes that the sun rises and sets while I do not move at all. In all the literature and scientific writings I have ever read, the sun’s circuit around the earth has been observed and reported similarly. Hence, the sun rises and sets by moving around the earth. The earth’s climate must be warming, because scientists from NASA, Columbia University, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have found that over the last ten years, more energy has been absorbed from the sun than has been emitted back into space.6 All sea-going creatures with fins are fish, and whales are sea-going creatures with fins. Therefore, whales are fish.

Most readers will probably see the conclusion of the first argument as following strongly, because it is based on first-person evidence, even though its conclusion is nevertheless clearly false. The second argument’s conclusion might be seen as following less strongly because the evidence is based on testimony from third parties, although this conclusion is more likely to be true than that of the first argument because of the credibility and independence of the expert testimony it is based on. The third argument has a conclusion that is obviously and patently false, but as we will see in what follows, the

conclusion nevertheless follows logically in the strongest possible way, with the necessity of a formal deduction.

The point I hope the above comparison helps to illustrate is the distinction between logicality and truth. The first thing to recognize in grasping the fundamentals of argument assessment is the difference between an argument’s being logical and the likelihood that its conclusion is true. It is important to distinguish these issues before showing how they relate to one another when they are connected in arguments. Below, I introduce the concept of inference in order to make it clear how this can be, and I distinguish between deductive and inductive types of inference to show the different ways arguments follow, and how this distinction affects our ability to judge whether arguments are good or bad.

Deductive and Inductive Inferences

Let’s look again at the last example argument that was provided in the comparison above: All sea-going creatures with fins are fish, and whales are sea-going creatures with fins. Therefore, whales are fish.

In this argument, the conclusion “Whales are fish” clearly follows from the two premises that are contained in the sentence that precedes it. If you did not recognize this when you first read it on the previous page, think about it now and consider it carefully, for the conclusion of this argument follows from its premises in the strongest possible way. Now, you are no doubt also aware, based on other things that you know about the world, that the claim made in the conclusion drawn in this argument is false. What you have before you is not a contradiction, but a demonstration of the fact noted above that whether or not an argument follows, and whether or not its conclusion is true are separate issues. Logicality and truth become connected in different ways, giving us the two different types of argument to be explained below, deductive and inductive.

In the meantime, let me say more about the key term in this chapter—inference. Basically, an inference is a mental action that happens when you see in your mind that something is implied by something else. In the presence of an argument, an inference happens when you mentally draw a conclusion from some premises or understand that it follows.7 Here is an example of an inference that occurred a moment ago: When you first considered that,

All sea-going creatures with fins are fish, and whales are sea-going creatures with fins,

you automatically concluded that,

Whales are fish.8

Even now as you consider this conclusion you might still draw it with a little hesitation because of your knowledge of marine science, which tells you, “Stop! No! Don’t go there! Whales aren’t fish! This conclusion is false!” The inference that logic compels you to follow makes you feel drawn to this conclusion, nevertheless. What is happening to create this tension is your mind grasps the formal logical structure of the argument at the same time it holds a view of the world which strongly resists the particular assertion made by the conclusion. This is what we meant earlier in saying that whether an argument follows or not (its logicality) and the truth or falsity of its conclusion are separate issues. This is an example of a deductive argument. Because their inferences are formal, deductive arguments may have false conclusions despite having inferences that follow. As we will see, because their inferences are

empirical, rather than formal, with inductive arguments the likelihood that the conclusion is true is directly connected to how strongly their inferences follow. Because they are formal, when the conclusions of deductive inferences follow, they can only do so in the strongest possible way. Again, think of the example above. Your mental grasp that the argument leads to the false conclusion that “whales are fish” includes the recognition that this conclusion follows necessarily, not just possibly or probably. If both premises of this argument were true, the conclusion would be unavoidable. Here is a further demonstration of what I mean: Note that your mind protests should you attempt to re-think the argument by making its conclusion sound like a claim that is only possibly rather than necessarily true:

All sea-going creatures with fins are fish, and whales are sea-going creatures with fins. Therefore, whales might be fish.

The reason it would be a mistake to conclude from the premises of the argument above that

“Whales might be fish,” is that the inference here is an example of a formal, deductive inference that does actually follow. This makes it a valid deductive inference. A deductive inference is valid if it follows formally from the structural properties of its argument’s premises, rather than empirically from purported facts about the world stated or assumed in the premises.9 If the formal pattern of a deductive inference follows, it is a valid inference, and the argument that contains it is also considered to be valid. But, if the formal pattern of a deductive inference does not follow, then it is an invalid inference and an invalid argument. But what does it mean to say that an inference is “formal” or that it “can be expressed formally”? Let’s look at the example about whales and fish again to make this clear. Observe what happens when we remove all the content expressed in the premises of the argument and substitute symbols that are meaningless in themselves in place of the key terms. On the left below is the original argument, presented with a line separating the premises, (above the line), from the conclusion, (below the line). To the right of each statement is the result of reducing it to its logical structure, where A stands in place of “sea-going creatures with fins,” B stands in place of “fish,” and x stands in place of “whales”:

All sea-going creatures with fins are fish, and = All instances of A are instances of B whales are sea-going creatures with fins. = x is an instance of A __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Whales are fish. = x is (must be) an instance of B

The result of separating the form of the argument from its content is that we get to see the formal pattern of inference clearly. The conclusion “x is an instance of B” follows necessarily from the argument’s formal pattern, owing to the structure of the premises: For anything we could possibly mean by x, if all instances of A are instances of B, and if x is an instance of A, then x would have to be an instance of B. To say that a conclusion follows formally means that your mind would unavoidably have to infer it based on the structural arrangement of the statements, not their content or the claims they make about the world. Here is another way to think about what it means to be a valid formal inference. Look at the valid formal deductive argument pattern below. (It is the same pattern that emerged from the argument above.) Use your imagination to consistently plug in any content you can think of in place of the variables A, B, and x.* What you will find is that no matter what meaning-content you give to these symbols, the experiment will result in an argument whose conclusion follows necessarily and with certainty: * I have included some examples at the end of this chapter.

All A are B x is A ________________

x is B But what about the argument concerning whales and fish? We saw that it is a valid argument

because the inference follows, yet we also recognized that it leads to a conclusion that is patently false. So, is this a good or a bad argument? Here is where the concept of soundness comes in. As we saw, a deductive argument is valid if it contains a deductive inference that follows formally. But in order for a deductive argument to be regarded as a good one, it must not only be valid, but its premises have to be true, relevant, and unbiased, (T.R.U.)10 When valid arguments contain premises that are true, relevant and unbiased, they are called sound deductive arguments. If a deductive argument is invalid, then it has to be regarded as unsound, even if the premises are very strong. Likewise, if a deductive argument is valid but contains a premise that is untrue or irrelevant, or if the argument evades, ignores, avoids, or dismisses evidence that would refute it, the argument is considered unsound. The whales and fish example that we have been looking at is an unsound argument, since one of its premises is clearly false even though the argument is valid. Because it is valid, if the premises were all true, relevant and unbiased its conclusion would be necessary, but, since the premises aren’t all true, it is just another unsound deductive argument! Thus far, we have introduced a number of technical terms in this chapter that we can pull together to create a summary of the main features of deductive arguments, so let’s review them: First, a deductive argument has a formal inference that may follow or not independent of the claims made in the premises. Second, if this inference follows, it makes the argument valid, and when a valid argument contains premises that are true, relevant, and unbiased, it makes the argument sound. Lastly, if a deductive argument is sound, its conclusion is necessary, that is to say, it must be true. A sound deductive argument makes a fully-convincing logical case for its conclusion.∗

Here are examples of deductive arguments with valid patterns that are different from the one we have looked at above. Think about whether each seems sound or unsound to you and why.

Annabelle can either Study Abroad next year or do her second coop here at home. But Annabelle told me that she did not plan to do another coop. So, she must be planning to Study Abroad next year. If you are dependent on energy drinks to get through exams then you have a learning deficit. Ron is dependent on energy drinks to get through exams. Thus Ron has a learning deficit. If you are caught using a cell-phone during an exam, then you fail the class. Melanie did not fail the class. Therefore she could not have been caught using a cell phone during the exam. If the NBA locks out the players, teams will lose thousands of fans worldwide. If teams lose thousands of fans, it will hurt the owners more than if they had accepted the players’ proposals in the first place months ago. Hence, if the NBA locks out the players, it will hurt the owners more than if they had accepted the players’ proposals.

It was important to start this discussion with deductive inferences because they are the clearest and most obvious kind. But most of the arguments we hear, read, and compose in everyday life do not involve deductive inferences. Most arguments are inductive arguments, which have three main features. First, they involve empirical inferences which cannot be expressed in formal patterns since ∗ The main features of deductive and inductive arguments are summarized in a chart at the end of this chapter.

they are based on the claims made in the premises which reflect our experience and knowledge. Second, when an inductive argument contains premises that are true, relevant, and unbiased, the argument is strong. Lastly, if the conclusion in an inductive argument follows, it is more-or-less probable. How probable or likely the conclusion is will depend on the strength and the amount of the evidence contained in the argument. But notice that with inductive inferences, by contrast with deductive ones, whether or not the inference follows is strictly and solely a matter of the quality of the evidence—this is what we mean by saying that the inference is an empirical not a formal matter. Whether the argument follows will thus be a matter of degree, depending on the strength of the evidence. A strong inductive argument makes a strongly-convincing logical case for its conclusion. Here is an example of an inductive argument which involves an inductive inference:

Most sea-going creatures with fins are fish, and whales are sea-going creatures with fins. ________________________________________________________________________

Whales are probably fish.

Notice in this example that even though reasonable people would regard both of these premises as true, they only combine to produce a chance, rather than a guarantee, that the conclusion is true. This chance is greater depending on specific facts about the world that could be researched—for example, how large a proportion of sea-going creatures with fins really are fish, and whether whales really are an instance of that group. Since the conclusion of an inductive inference is offered as following from facts about the world and not from a formal pattern, inductive conclusions can never be one hundred percent certain, although they can be established with very high probability if the purported “facts” really are true, relevant, and unbiased. Although the truth of inductive conclusions cannot be guaranteed, careful attention to rigorous scientific and philosophical standards achieves highly reliable inductive results. Indeed, all the results of sciences that generalize about phenomena on the basis of careful observation and experimental research are inductive results, and, to that extent, highly probable but non-necessary conclusions. Scientific arguments are typically inductive, not deductive arguments.

Below are some examples of inductive arguments. Think about whether each one seems strong or weak to you and why.

The lives of the poor people of the world are improving. I say this because economic growth, gross national product, and per capita income measures for a number of poor countries have shown increases during the last decade. Frank had a corndog and a fajita for dinner. Warren had chicken fingers and a fajita. Aaron had only two fajitas. Furthermore, Alex had a corndog, chicken fingers, and no fajitas, and everyone got sick after dinner but Alex. Thus, it was probably the fajitas that made everyone except Alex sick. In a study that compared data compiled over their child-bearing years from 250 nurses in Sweden, higher-than-average caffeine intake was found to be strongly correlated with an increased incidence of spontaneous abortion and miscarriage. Thus, caffeine places women at an increased risk of spontaneous abortion and miscarriage. It is unlikely that the city of Philadelphia will approve plans to open a casino for slot machines on City Avenue. My cousin is a lawyer for the city and she says that the most important political groups are going to see that the measure is defeated before it even comes to a vote.

So, now that we’ve described the two types of arguments and reviewed their main features, how does one tell them apart? Well, there are two tests that help us determine whether any particular argument should be considered inductive or deductive. The first is based on the following question: Does the conclusion follow unavoidably because of the formal pattern of inference, or as likely given the claims made in the premises? Deductive conclusions follow necessarily, which means they follow unavoidably and without exception. To apply the test, imagine that you know for sure the premises in the argument are true. If when the premises are true the conclusion follows necessarily, then the argument is deductive. If when the premises are true the conclusion follows with some degree of probability, then the argument is inductive.11

A second test to tell inductive from deductive arguments is to look for key distinguishing features of inductive and deductive arguments. Here’s how it works: Inductive reasoning is essentially reasoning to or from some kind of generalization. Deductive reasoning, by contrast, utilizes certain kinds of logical “switches,” often called logical operators, which structure the allowable logical moves one can make when reasoning from statements built out of them. In Chapter 5, we will look at a specific kind of deductive argument called a “syllogism” and we will see how different types of syllogisms can be constructed out of three types of statements that use such switches: disjunctive statements, which are based on the “either/or” switch, hypothetical statements, which are based on the “if/then” switch, and categorical statements, which are based on the “is/is not” switch. So, when arguments involve reasoning to or from generalizations, especially in the absence of any recognizable deductive operators like these, they are likely to be inductive arguments. By contrast, when the flow of an argument is regulated by hypothetical, disjunctive, or categorical switches, it is likely to be a deductive argument. This test is much less reliable than the first, and requires a good deal of judgment which you will develop over time mostly from practicing argument analysis and assessment.

Fallacies: When Inferences Go Bad

Understanding what inductive and deductive inferences basically are will make it easier to understand another crucial idea in thinking about arguments—the idea of an argument that is broken, which is called a fallacy. Although the word “fallacy” is often used in a general way in everyday speech to indicate simply that some idea or belief is false or mistaken, its more precise logical usage refers to the concept of an argument that is very weak because of a mistake or error in its reasoning. Here is a careful general definition of logical fallacy: in general, a fallacy is an argument in which the inference does not follow in a way that provides a convincing logical answer to the question it was intended to resolve.12 But the fact that an argument is a fallacy doesn’t mean its conclusion is necessarily false. The point of identifying an argument as a fallacy is that even if its conclusion happens to be true, the reasoning provided to support it isn’t adequately convincing. The difference between a fallacy and a false conclusion is very important for a number of reasons. For one thing, fallacies can be subtle and deceptive, and they are easy to make, especially in contexts where we may have strong feelings about issues. If we are already inclined to agree with a conclusion, or to trust the person who argues for it, most of us are more likely to accept weak premises for it than we tend to realize. It is common for people to judge premises as strong to the extent they are already committed to a conclusion they think the premises support. When we are disinclined to agree with a conclusion it is common to see premises offered to support it as weak even when they are strong. This is known as “reasoning backwards.” Our acceptance of conclusions should hinge on the adequacy of the evidence and reasoning provided, not the reverse. Holding beliefs rationally depends on our ability to separate the feelings and inclinations we may already hold toward them from the question of whether or not they answer our questions by following logically from good evidence and reasoning. Hence, argument assessment isn’t

focused on the conclusions of arguments, but involves judging whether or not the conclusions follow logically from the premises offered. If they do, then they should be regarded as more-or-less probable if they are inductive conclusions and as necessarily certain if they are the conclusions of sound deductive arguments. If they don’t follow logically, they should be regarded as fallacies.

Deductive Fallacies

A deductive fallacy is an argument in which the inference does not follow in a way that provides a convincing logical answer to the question it was intended to resolve because it contains a formal pattern of inference that does not follow. In other words, a deductive fallacy is simply an invalid deductive argument. Deductive fallacies most often occur as the result of an arguer’s misunderstanding or misconstruing some formal logical relationship between the terms in a deductive argument. We will discuss five specific deductive fallacies in Chapter 5. For now, here are two examples of common deductive fallacies:

All sea-going creatures with fins are fish. Furthermore, whales are fish. Hence, whales must be sea-going creatures with fins. If a student misses too many classes, then that student will fail Pete’s class. Jason did not miss too many classes. So, Jason will not fail Pete’s class. In the first of these two examples, the arguer begins by establishing that all members of the first

category (sea-going creatures with fins) are included in a second, larger category (fish). The second premise tells us another fact, that whales are included in the larger (second) category. From these two premises the arguer then claims that it follows deductively, (“must be”), that whales also belong to the first category. But even if it is true that everything included in the first category is included in the second, that doesn’t mean that anything that is included in the second must also be in the first. This pattern of deductive fallacy is called “Undistributed Middle.” No doubt this invalid argument reminds you of the earlier valid argument about whales and fish that I used as an example earlier in this chapter. Let us make clear exactly how these two arguments are different in their respective formal structures. The earlier valid argument follows, even though, as we said above, it is unsound. This new argument is also unsound, but it is unsound because it does not follow. In the valid argument, the second premise asserts formally that “x is an instance of A” and this leads to the conclusion that “x must be an instance of B.” The invalid argument makes a different assertion in the second premise and consequently does not draw a valid conclusion: 13

All sea-going creatures with fins are fish. = All instances of A are instances of B Furthermore, whales are fish. = x is an instance of B __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Whales must be sea-going creatures with fins. = x is (must be) an instance of A In the second example, the arguer establishes that if a specific condition is met, (“a student

misses too many classes”), then something else will also be the case, (“that student will fail Pete’s class”). As we will see later on, this is an example of a hypothetical statement, which is the basis for many types of syllogisms. The next premise then negates the condition, which tells us that the condition is not met, and then the conclusion is drawn that failure will not result. The problem however, is that this doesn’t follow from the reasoning offered. Nothing in the argument tells us that missing too many classes is the only way to fail the class—it is just one way. Thus, even if a student has not missed any classes, there are likely to be, (I am sorry to say), several other ways this result may occur! This pattern of deductive fallacy is called “Denying the Antecedent.”

Inductive Fallacies

Inductive fallacies are arguments in which the inference does not follow in a way that provides a convincing logical answer to the question it was intended to resolve because the argument’s premises or basic assumptions are untrue, or irrelevant, or biased. Inductive arguments are fallacies if they reason from premises or assumptions that are false or highly doubtful. But even true premises that have little or nothing to do with the conclusion or the question the argument was supposed to answer fail to support the conclusion. And when the claims an argument is based on overlook, ignore, evade, avoid, or dismiss important relevant facts or aspects of an issue, the argument is biased. We will discuss many specific types of inductive fallacies in Chapter 4. For now, here are two examples of common inductive fallacies:

I went to Europe last summer and we didn’t have any delays or problems boarding our flight leaving the USA. Therefore the recent claims by the Federal Aviation Authority that delays leaving the USA for Asian cities have become common are untrue. Captain Columbus, you must turn these ships around immediately, for we will fall off the edge of the earth if you do not, just as if we were riding horses and rode over a cliff! In the first of these examples, there is no reason to doubt the claims made in the premises.

However they are irrelevant to the question the arguer seems to be trying to answer, which is apparently about trips to Asia. (This makes it an instance of the fallacy Red Herring). Also, even if it was relevant, the arguer’s individual experience would reflect merely one instance in a very large set, so it could not speak for the general tendency or trend (Hasty Generalization).

The second example is an argument based on Analogical Reasoning, which will be discussed below. Since riding a horse over a cliff would be deadly, and sailing along in their current direction would be like riding a horse over a cliff, the arguer reasons that sailing along would be deadly too, and so, they should turn around. The problem here is that sailing along on the ocean is not at all like riding a horse. The argument thus reflects a factual misunderstanding of how the two things compared are dissimilar. This argument is a fallacy because it is based on a premise that is untrue. Since that claim is an analogy, this is an example of the fallacy known as Apples and Oranges another of the 16 inductive fallacies discussed below.

It is important to emphasize that arguments can be persuasive when they are not logically convincing.14 Sometimes this happens because an audience is already inclined to accept a conclusion. Unreasonable and unconvincing evidence often ends up persuading people because they want to believe the conclusion the evidence is offered to support. The reverse is also true—people tend to be more ready to recognize problems in evidence when it is offered in support of conclusions we don’t like or that we fear, than to notice shortcomings in evidence offered for conclusions we favor. This is another illustration of what we called “reasoning backwards” a couple of pages back (page 32).

It becomes easier to resist reasoning backwards as one develops a mature sense of the limits of one’s knowledge. It also helps to be aware of one’s own strong feelings and predispositions in advance of discussing certain issues with others, so as to make sure we are being as fair as possible to the evidence they may offer in support of views that we could find challenging. Critical reasoners reject reasoning backwards when others do it and work hard to avoid doing it themselves.

In thinking about fallacies we must always be aware of the fact that before information reaches us, it comes from sources and passes through filters. This is obvious in relation to what we learn about distant events and complex scientific issues, but even in everyday life, information we hear is often presented to us at some remove from its original source. First, we have to consider whether or not the sources are likely to have provided true, relevant, and unbiased information at the outset. Second,

information is always edited consciously and unconsciously in making its way to us. This is the point in calling the media, “media”—it is a collection of intermediaries standing between ourselves and original sources of information and analysis.

The media through which information and arguments reach us cannot help but distort what passes through them. In thinking about how sources and filters affect information, it is necessary to think about the nature and structure of the media we rely on for most of our news and ideas about the world. For example, commercial media do not present us with information and analysis in order to inform or educate us. Their purpose is, rather, to capture our attention and direct it toward their advertisers’ messages. The product of commercial media is not programming but attention, which is sold to corporate and political entities as the result of advertising and public relations. This affects all decisions about what will and will not be talked about, for how long, whether it will be presented favorably or unfavorably, which “experts” will be invited to present analysis and commentary about it, etc. This does not mean that all information presented in commercial media like news, television, radio and internet programing is useless and misleading. It means that, regarding an issue about which you want to know the truth, it is best to seek information from the most reliable sources through the largest number of the widest range of the most credible and independent media that are available, and then think about what they say carefully and critically. ◊

Main Features of Deductive Arguments Main Features of Inductive Arguments

A deductive argument has a formal inference that will follow or not independent of the claims in the premises.

An inductive argument has an empirical inference that will follow or not based on the claims in the premises.

When the argument is valid and the premises are true, relevant, and unbiased, the argument is sound.

When the premises are true, relevant, and unbiased, the argument is strong.

When the argument is sound, its conclusion is certain. When the argument is strong, the conclusion is likely.

Examples of Valid Deductive Arguments

All five arguments in the table below share the same valid formal deductive pattern as the main example of a valid deductive argument that was used in Chapter 3:

All A are B x is A ________ x is B

All cats are mammals. Mario LeMeow is a cat. Therefore your pet Mario LeMeow must be a mammal.

Mario LeMeow is a cat. All cats are mammals. Therefore your pet Mario LeMeow has got to be a mammal.

Of course Mario LeMeow is a mammal. He is a cat, and all cats are mammals.

All of the films of Akira Kurosawa were completed in the 20th Century. Thus, “Ran” was completed in the 20th Century, seeing as “Ran” is one of Kurosawa’s films.

You are a Drexel student, so you are automatically eligible for space travel, because all Drexel students are automatically eligible for space travel.

Review Questions & Practice Exercises 3.1 Review Questions – Here are some questions you should be able to answer based on the preceding chapter in a clear and detailed way, in your own words, and in at least about 5 sentences each. 1. State clearly the three main features of deductive and inductive arguments. 2. State clearly and explain what an inference is in general. What is the difference between an inference that is formal and an inference that is empirical? 3. Explain the general concept of fallacy fully and carefully. Then distinguish clearly between fallacies that are deductive and fallacies that are inductive. 4. Explain carefully what it means to say that arguments pass through “filters” and what the significance of this is for how critical reasoners should approach “the media” broadly understood. 5. What does it mean to “reason backwards” and how can critical reasoners avoid doing so? 3.2 Inductive or Deductive? – Instructions: Look at each simple argument in this section carefully and apply the Four Step Method of Argument Analysis to analyze it. Circle any logical indicators that you find, place the conclusion in brackets, underline all of the premises, and then write out the question, and two basic assumptions in the spaces below each argument. Then determine whether each argument is deductive or inductive based on the discussion of the two types of argument from Chapter 3. Solutions below.

1. The kind of noise your car is making could either be coming from an old worn-out alternator or a worn

timing belt. Your alternator is not an old one. Hence it must be the timing belt that is causing the noise.

Question:

Assuming:

Deductive or Inductive:

2. The National Hockey League will lock-out the players and cancel the season indefinitely, if it cannot

get the Players’ Association to accept a salary cap. The Players’ Association is unlikely to accept a salary

cap. So, there will be a lock-out and a cancelled season.

Question:

Assuming:

Deductive or Inductive:

3. You have a good chance to do well on your exams, if you study hard for them. Harold did study hard

for the midterm in his Physics class. Thus, he will do well on his Physics midterm.

Question:

Assuming:

Deductive or Inductive:

4. That was either a comet or a UFO, and it is impossible for a comet to move that quickly at such a

sharp angle toward the horizon. Therefore, I am sure that was a UFO.

Question:

Assuming:

Deductive or Inductive:

5. Wars of conquest are always accompanied by campaigns of propaganda and censorship. The

occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet forces was a war of conquest. Thus, it was accompanied by a

campaign of propaganda and censorship.

Question:

Assuming:

Deductive or Inductive:

6. The Sixers probably won last night, because Anne is happy today, and if the Sixers win, then Anne is

often visibly happy. So, therefore, they are on a winning streak.

Question:

Assuming:

Deductive or Inductive:

7. John Illsley is a bassist. Many bassists are eccentric. Therefore, John Illsley is eccentric.

Question:

Assuming:

Deductive or Inductive:

8. It is necessary to get the patient under a blanket quickly, if the patient shows any signs of

hypothermia. She is starting to show signs of hypothermia now. So, you must get her a blanket right

away!

Question:

Assuming:

Deductive or Inductive:

3.3 Inductive Fallacy or Not? – Instructions: Look at each simple inductive argument in this section carefully and apply the Four Step Method of Argument Analysis to analyze it. Circle any logical indicators that you find, place the conclusion in brackets, underline all of the premises, and then write out the question, and two basic assumptions in the spaces below each argument. Then, determine whether or not you would consider each argument an inductive fallacy using the three criteria for assessing the strength of inductive arguments from Chapter 3. For each fallacy identify the specific premise or assumption that is either untrue, irrelevant, or biased. Solutions below.

1. In our study, participants who received 500 milligrams of the new drug reported that symptoms

associated with migraine headache subsided at a rate three times faster than that reported by

participants who did not receive the drug, but got a placebo instead. So, it is likely the drug caused the

symptoms of those who took it to subside.

Question:

Assuming:

Inductive Fallacy or No Fallacy:

2. When the storm hit, Mrs. Howell probably had a life preserver and an emergency flare with her. All

first-class passengers on the S.S. Minnow were issued a life preserver and an emergency flare at the

beginning of the tour. And Mrs. Howell was a first-class passenger on the S.S. Minnow.

Question:

Assuming:

Inductive Fallacy or No Fallacy:

3. The companies that produce genetically modified foods are among the world’s largest and wealthiest

corporations, with billions of dollars in revenues each year. Hence, I am sure the products they produce

pose no serious health risks to human beings.

Question:

Assuming:

Inductive Fallacy or No Fallacy:

4. Some of the cattle and chickens whose meat is sold in supermarkets are raised in horrible conditions

on huge commercial ranches and farms. And many of those animals experience unnecessary pain and

are killed when we could eat other things for food. So, all commercial meat produce is unsanitary and

unethical.

Question:

Assuming:

Inductive Fallacy or No Fallacy:

5. Sharon probably meant her comment as a joke. It was either intended as a joke, or it was meant as an

insult. And I’m sure she did not mean to insult you.

Question:

Assuming:

Inductive Fallacy or No Fallacy:

6. Raising children has always been primarily a woman’s role in the family, and the men have been freer

to pursue their personal goals. So, Frank, I think it is right that your wife Emily should quit graduate

school to raise the baby so that you can finish your law degree and start your career.

Question:

Assuming:

Inductive Fallacy or No Fallacy:

7. You should generally avoid taking night classes over the winter term, since the shorter winter days

mean that it will be dark and cold when class is over and you’re ready to walk home.

Question:

Assuming:

Inductive Fallacy or No Fallacy:

8. Expanding and improving the university’s scientific facilities benefits future students and research

faculty, not students who are paying tuition now. Second, alternatives to raising tuition have not been

sufficiently explored. Hence, the proposed tuition increases are unfair to current students.

Question:

Assuming:

Inductive Fallacy or No Fallacy:

9. Professor, I know I did very badly on all the exams and assignments this term, and that my over-all

grade for the class was far below that required to pass. However, you should also be aware that as a star

intercollegiate athlete, I have achieved more than most students to bring positive attention and pride to

our beloved university as a result of my hard work. Consequently, I think I deserve a passing grade for

this class.

Question:

Assuming:

Inductive Fallacy or No Fallacy:

10. The Ptolemaic theory which says the Sun moves around the Earth provides an accurate picture of

the planetary system. I believe this is so because this theory was held to be true down through the ages

by most of the great scientists and scholars who have ever lived.

Question:

Assuming:

Inductive Fallacy or No Fallacy:

3.2 Solutions, Inductive or Deductive?:

1. The kind of noise your car is making could either be coming from an old worn-out alternator or a worn timing belt. Your alternator is not an old one. Hence [it must be the timing belt that is causing the noise.] Question: What is causing the noise in the car? Assuming: There are no other possible things that could be causing the noise except these two, Your alternator isn’t defective. Deductive Argument 2. The National Hockey League will lock-out the players and cancel the season indefinitely, if it cannot get the Players’ Association to accept a salary cap. The Players’ Association is unlikely to accept a salary cap. So, [there will be a lock-out and a cancelled season.] Question: Will there be a lock-out and cancelled season? Assuming: The government will not intervene at the last minute to avoid cancellation, A cap could not be imposed on the players without the Players’ Association accepting it. Inductive Argument 3. You have a good chance to do well on your exams, if you study hard for them. Harold did study hard for the midterm in his Physics class. Thus, [he will do well on his Physics midterm.] Question: Will Harold do well on his Physics midterm? Assuming: Harold is a student who is taking a Physics class, Harold doesn’t have an especially difficult time with Physics. Inductive Argument 4. That was either a comet or a UFO, and it is impossible for a comet to move that quickly at such a sharp angle toward the horizon. Therefore, [I am sure that was a UFO.] Question: Was that a UFO you saw? Assuming: The speaker can definitively speak about the movements of comets, There is no possibility of a fast aerospace or military vehicle or satellite the speaker saw. Deductive Argument 5. Wars of conquest are always accompanied by campaigns of propaganda and censorship. The occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet forces was a war of conquest. Thus, [it was accompanied by a campaign of propaganda and censorship.] Question: Was the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan accompanied by propaganda and censorship? Assuming: The Soviet Union had armed forces, The Soviet Union had the capability to coordinate communications through the media. Deductive Argument 6. [The Sixers won last night], because Anne is happy today, and if the Sixers win, then Anne is usually happy. So, therefore, [they are on a winning streak.] Question: Are the Sixers on a winning streak? Assuming: The Sixers are a team that Anne roots for, The Sixers played last night. Inductive Argument 7. John Illsley is a bassist. Many bassists are eccentric. Therefore, [John Illsley is eccentric.] Question: Is John Illsley eccentric? Assuming: John Illsley is like “many” bassists, Illsley plays a musical instrument. Inductive 8. It is necessary to get the patient under a blanket quickly, if the patient shows any signs of hypothermia. She is starting to show signs of hypothermia now. So, [you must get her a blanket right away!] Question: What should we do for this patient right now? Assuming: Blankets are effective at treating hypothermia, Blankets are somewhere available to us at the moment. Deductive Argument

3.3 Solutions, Inductive Fallacy or Not?:

1. In our study, participants who received 500 milligrams of the new drug reported that symptoms associated with migraine headache subsided at a rate three times faster than that reported by participants who did not receive the drug, but got a placebo instead. So, [it is likely the drug caused the symptoms of those who took it to subside.] Question: Did the drug cause the symptoms of those who took it to subside? Assuming: The participants in the study weren’t taking other drugs that we did not know about, The participants in the different groups all had migraines of the same strength and nature. No fallacy 2. [When the storm hit, Mrs. Howell probably had a life preserver and an emergency flare with her.] All first-class passengers on the S.S. Minnow were issued a life preserver and an emergency flare at the beginning of the tour. And Mrs. Howell was a first-class passenger on the S.S. Minnow. Question: Did Mrs. Howell have a life preserver and an emergency flare when the storm hit? Assuming: Mrs. Howell stayed on the boat until the storm hit, Mrs. Howell did not give her life preserver to someone else and shoot off the flare prior to the storm. No fallacy 3. The companies that produce genetically modified foods are among the world’s largest and wealthiest corporations, with billions of dollars in revenues each year. Hence, [I am sure the products they produce pose no serious health risks to human beings.] Question: Are genetically modified foods safe? Assuming: Financially successful corporations would not take risks with customers’ health and safety, If there were serious health risks involved in genetically modified foods the producers would know of them. Fallacy: this argument offers irrelevant reasons which have nothing to do with the question that is at issue. Whether firms are successful or not has no bearing on whether a particular product or line of products is healthful or safe to use. 4. Some of the cattle and chickens whose meat is sold in supermarkets are raised in horrible conditions on huge commercial ranches and farms. And many of those animals experience unnecessary pain and are killed when we could eat other things for food. So, [all commercial meat produce is unsanitary and unethical.] Question: Is commercial meat produce sanitary and ethical? Assuming: The cattle and chickens are illustrative of all commercially-produced meat, It is unethical to inflict needless pain on animals. Fallacy: this argument reasons from a sample that is evading evidence, leading to bias. 5. [Sharon probably meant her comment as a joke.] It was either intended as a joke, or it was meant as an insult. And I’m sure she did not mean to insult you. Question: Was Sharon joking or not? Assuming: The speaker has a reasonably good sense of Sharon’s intentions, The listener cares about Sharon’s intentions or her meaning. No fallacy 6. Raising children has always been primarily a woman’s role in the family, and the men have been freer to pursue their personal goals. So, Frank, I think [it is right that your wife Emily should quit graduate school to raise the baby so that you can finish your law degree and start your career.] Question: Should Emily quit graduate school so Frank can start his career? Assuming: If we have done something a certain way over time, that makes it right, Emily’s dreams and ambitions aren’t as important as Frank’s. Fallacy: this argument is based on reasoning that is both irrelevant and biased. Whether or not we have done something in the past is irrelevant to the question of whether it is justified. Also, the arguer dismisses or ignores the fact that it is also widely held that women have the same rights to pursue their dreams and aspirations as men.

7. [You should generally avoid taking night classes over the Winter term], since the shorter Winter days mean that it will be dark and cold when class is over and you’re ready to walk home. Question: Should you take night classes during the winter term? Assuming: I am taking classes and have some options with regard to the times I choose, I do not like to walk in the cold and dark. No fallacy 8. Expanding and improving the university’s scientific facilities benefits future students and research faculty, not students who are paying tuition now. Second, alternatives to raising tuition have not been sufficiently explored. Hence, [the proposed tuition increases are unfair to current students.] Question: Are the proposed tuition increases fair to current students? Assuming: The proposed tuition increases are intended to fund scientific facilities that will take years to build, There are not sufficient benefits to students attending the college today that offset the costs of facilities that will only be used by students in the future. No fallacy 9. Professor, I know I did very badly on all the exams and assignments this term, and that my over-all grade for the class was far below that required to pass. However, you should also be aware that as a star intercollegiate athlete, I have achieved more than most students to bring positive attention and pride to our beloved university as a result of my hard work. Consequently, I think [I deserve a passing grade for this class.] Question: Do I deserve a passing grade for the class, despite doing very poor work? Assuming: Grades need not be related to specific work done for specific classes, Grades can and should be used as rewards for generally good or positive behavior rather than as incentives for learning-oriented work in classes. Fallacy: this argument gives a premise that is highly doubtful but clearly completely irrelevant to the question. 10. [The Ptolemaic theory which says the Sun moves around the Earth provides an accurate picture of the planetary system.] I believe this is so because this theory was held to be true down through the ages by most of the great scientists and scholars who have ever lived. Question: Is the Ptolemaic theory correct? Assuming: The great scientists and scholars of the past were in a good position to judge astronomical matters of fact, There is some evidence by which to know what most of the scientists and scholars of the past thought on this subject. Fallacy: this argument reasons from biased evidence which dismisses several well-known facts, including the results of observations and experiments that scholars of the past could not have carried out.

Chapter 4. Assessing Inductive Arguments As we saw in the previous chapter, inductive arguments ask us to draw inferences from empirical claims that are based on knowledge, observation, and experience. The fact that inductive arguments involve reasoning from empirical claims means that, on the most fundamental level, they involve the mental activity of generalization based on the past in support of inferences about the present and/or future.15

We also learned that in order to determine whether or not an inductive argument is convincing we must ask if its premises and basic assumptions are true, relevant, and unbiased. Our ability to answer these questions hinges on bringing our knowledge of the world to bear on the argument. In this chapter we will see how critical reasoning helps with this work of argument assessment by identifying specific issues and problems that arise in making inductive arguments that can lead to fallacies even when most of the facts are clear.

The first step in identifying whether or not an inductive argument should be regarded as convincing is to produce a full analysis using the Four Step Method presented in Chapter 2. The second step is to then examine the premises and basic assumptions to see if any should be regarded as untrue, irrelevant, or biased. Then, we should carefully examine arguer’s reasoning in order to judge whether it is similar to any of the common fallacies presented below (step three). To the extent that the arguer reasons in same way as any of these common fallacies, the argument is a fallacy of that type.

Four Inductive Argument Types

Inductive arguments come in a variety of types, each of which has some specific difficulties and pitfalls associated with the kind of input it deals with. The data that provide the evidence out of which premises can be created comes in many possible forms. These include observed instances, correlations, analogical claims, and the claims of another person or organization invoked on the basis of their expertise. Reasoning from these different types of input are the basis for identifying the four general types of inductive reasoning that are discussed in this chapter: statistical, causal, analogical, and expert reasoning. 1. Statistical Reasoning involves drawing an inference to a general conclusion about a group or class of things or events, called a target, based on evidence provided by a smaller set of instances from that group, usually called a sample. This kind of reasoning makes up the largest proportion of our everyday inductive arguments and also those presented in the media and in the sciences. In the most general sense, when an arguer refers to some kind of data from history, prior knowledge or experience that does not specifically involve reasoning causally, analogically, or from expert testimony, he or she is using statistical reasoning. This will perhaps be clearer if one keeps in mind that a “statistic” is merely a quantified representation of data from experience. Here are some examples of statistical reasoning:

I expect that we will not have a hard time selling raffle tickets at the spring fund-raiser this year since we have never had any trouble selling them at previous fund-raisers. In the last seven years two crashes of Boeing 737’s both involved identical electrical problems. Consequently, Boeing 737 planes are dangerous and should be removed from service and redesigned. Most graduate programs in the Humanities place a lot of weight in admissions and aid decisions on GRE scores, seeing as 72% of the programs we contacted for our survey told us that this was the case at their schools.

Often, statistical arguments take the form of reasoning on the basis of past experience, as is most clear in the first two examples above. Or, as in the third instance, the results of an inquiry or a survey might be used as a basis upon which to generalize. Statistical reasoning can be a very powerful tool in pursuit of the truth, but problems associated with it stem from the difficulty people sometimes have in thinking about things statistically.16 The fact that something may have happened to you or may have happened to someone close to you provides a very weak basis upon which to generalize. Evidence that is gathered in an unscientific way from one’s own or the experience of a small group is called anecdotal. By contrast, careful statistical reasoning requires evidence that is carefully collected in a manner designed to create a sample that is as representative of its target as possible. If our generalizations are ever accurate, the instances or samples we generalize from must be able to “speak for” the targets they are intended to tell us something about. A sample of observations offered as evidence for a generalization is representative only if it contains the same range of relevant characteristics in the same proportions as the target it is trying to speak for. Evidence that isn’t sufficiently like the target we want to generalize about isn’t going to support accurate generalizations. For example, if I wanted to draw a conclusion about my students’ favorite flavor of ice cream, it wouldn’t make any sense to generalize the results of a survey in which my sample was only students from other colleges. If my target is “all the students in my university,” the opinions of students at other universities would be irrelevant. It would only make sense to generalize from a sample made up of students at my school. Further, if I intended to generalize about all students at my school, I would have to make sure that the sample contained the same proportions of different majors and classes and men to women as exist across the whole university. If not, I would have no basis to expect that my sample could accurately “speak for” the target as a whole, because it would be skewed toward the opinions and experiences of those with more of a voice in the sample than they should have had. The survey about students’ favorite flavor of ice cream would be unrepresentative if it contained, let’s say, only seniors, or five times as many juniors as sophomores, or 66% women and 33% men. For our sample to “speak for” the target, (all students at my university), it must contain the same proportion of students in each year and gender as the student body at that school, (as well as any other characteristics we would agree to regard as relevant to a person’s favorite flavor in ice cream.)

Fortunately, there are two ways to increase the chances that a sample is as representative as possible. The first and most obvious is to increase the size of the sample relative to the target. All things considered, a large sample of relevant observations provides a better basis to generalize from than a small one. If your best friend has only been to a particular restaurant once or twice, his or her opinion about the food there isn’t as valuable as someone who has dined there often. As our example of a theatre or film critic suggested at the beginning of this text, the opinions and ideas of a professional critic are worth listening to because he or she has carefully examined and extensively studied the subject matter—at least more carefully than most of us. There are well-recognized reasons for setting aside the kinds of logical mistakes that result from reasoning on the basis of small sets of observations— mistakes like stereotyping, creating sweeping generalizations, and others. These are the kinds of logical problems that result from reasoning with samples that are too small.

Making sure one has a large enough sample upon which to generalize usually works well in everyday life with relatively small targets. But it isn’t enough, especially for large and complex subjects. In national opinion polls, for example, it is quite possible to have a sample that is very large but that still does not adequately represent the relevant diversity of the target. Imagine a national poll on attitudes toward hot weather. One could select a sample of many millions of Americans to interview. But if these millions were selected from only the five hottest states in America, we could reasonably anticipate the poll to conclude that “Our study showed that Americans overwhelmingly love the heat.” One could, alternatively, select a sample of many millions of Americans to interview from only the five coldest

states in America, and reasonably expect to conclude that “Our study showed that Americans overwhelmingly hate the heat.” Each of these samples would be absurdly unrepresentative of the target of all Americans, even though each included many millions of interviewees who are Americans.

The problem, of course, is that while size is one way to increase the confidence one can put in the representativeness of a sample, the larger and more complex the target, the more randomness matters over and above size. Randomness refers to the manner by which the members of the sample have been selected. A randomized sample is one that results from a selection procedure that does not favor any particular segment of the target. Randomness in this context does not mean that the sample is put together in a manner that is chaotic, haphazard or ‘left to chance,’ quite the opposite! Randomization requires that carefully designed procedures are followed in selecting participants from a target for a sample in order to assure that some members or groups within the target are not disproportionately represented in the sample that results.17

In everyday statistical reasoning, the requirement of randomization amounts to making sure as much as possible that the evidence isn’t merely anecdotal or eccentric, and that however large the sample may be, its members have not been “cherry-picked,” or otherwise skewed toward achieving a particular result. Cherry-picking, as we saw earlier, is when one selects only evidence that backs one’s predetermined position, and ignores, suppresses, or avoids any evidence that does not.18 If the instances one is relying upon as evidence aren’t carefully selected in an unbiased manner from the full range of relevant instances, the sample is unrepresentative and likely to be “loaded” or “stacked” in favor of particular conclusions. This often happens as the result of poor survey design, but it can also be done deliberately as a method of skewing results for purposes of deception or manipulation. 2. Causal Reasoning involves drawing an inference to or from a generalization that something results in or brings about something else. In its simplest form, it involves reasoning from the observation of patterns in which circumstances or events are linked together known as correlations, to try to reach conclusions that establish whether or not some things generally or in a particular case result in or bring about others. Arguments based on causal reasoning are used extensively in the sciences, when carefully observed correlations are used as a basis for generalizations about how processes work, and what kinds of steps should be taken to bring about the results we want and to prevent the results we don’t want in the future. Here are some examples of causal reasoning:

I have always used the least expensive gasoline in the car, and I never thought it had anything to do with the knocking sound the engine always made. But I now believe the cheap gas caused that sound, because when I switched to a higher octane gasoline the sound stopped. The major framework for the last thirty years of social and economic policy has been privatization and deregulation. Over those decades, we have seen unprecedented rates of foreclosure, bankruptcy and unemployment, and increasing inequality in income and wealth. Therefore, deregulation and privatization have led to foreclosure, bankruptcy, unemployment, and inequality. I must have kneaded the pasta too much, for it is tougher than it should be, and pasta becomes tougher than it should be when it is kneaded too much. Standard causal arguments involve the attempt to identify particular or general causes based on

the analysis of some set of correlations, as is done in all three of these examples. Correlations are merely observed patterns of events or circumstances linked in experience. They never directly indicate the presence of causal relationships, but provide evidence that can be used to figure out whether or not

causal relationships are likely to exist. Causal relationships are never observed directly. They always have to be inferred.

Inferring that causal relationships do or do not exist in particular areas of experience is the point of a great deal of scientific activity. Reasoning on the basis of carefully observed correlations, we are able to determine whether or not there is more than simply coincidence in them. A scientist might observe, for example, that high cholesterol is strongly correlated with a higher than average incidence of heart disease. This would be a simple description that could be represented statistically. But does this observation in itself tell us anything about whether high cholesterol is causing the increased incidence of heart disease? Given the correlation, we would have to investigate further to determine if the cholesterol was causing the heart disease or the heart disease was causing the high cholesterol, or some third factor was causing them both. If we found that patients all reported high cholesterol prior to having heart problems, then we could conclude only that it is possible that high cholesterol is a cause of heart disease. Before we would be ready to carry out further tests to establish the likelihood of this causal connection, it would be necessary to determine that the suspected cause precedes the effect regularly and repeatedly.

But even repeated and regular correlation wouldn’t be enough. A causal hypothesis would require a plausible explanation in terms of causes and effects in space and time according to which a cause like the one we are considering would be able to bring about an effect like the one we are trying to account for. In other words, there has to be some manner describable in terms of chemistry and physics for the event we think is the cause to make the event we think is the effect happen without requiring us to invoke a miracle. If high cholesterol regularly and repeatedly precedes increased incidence of heart disease and there is a reasonable hypothesis about how high cholesterol could possibly have this effect, then it becomes reasonable to entertain the causal hypothesis that the one is possibly causing the other, and, to the extent possible, test that hypothesis and compare it with others.19

3. Analogical Reasoning involves arguing that because something is true in one case or circumstance it will also be true in some other since the two cases are literally similar in some way. Whenever we reason from an analogy between two persons, places, or things that what we think is true for the one will also therefore be true for the other, we are reasoning by analogy. This type of reasoning is used extensively in the sciences, as, for example, when experiments and observations of non-human animals are used as a basis for generalizations about what will work in the treatment of human diseases. But we also reason by analogy commonly in everyday experience.

All kinds of things can be compared to create analogies. They can refer to the observable characteristics of things, their hidden structures, their history, or their relationships. Some have claimed that all learning and language come down to the brain’s ability and drive, seemingly from the earliest moments of life, to catalogue experience in terms of similarities and relationships between things. Human culture, learning, and experience are deeply connected with our ability and inclination to see some things as being enough like others that we can base behavior on the expectation that they will act in the same way the others did.

Seeing these kinds of connections between events and experiences requires the use of a fundamental mental ability to recognize and judge the nature and degree of sameness between instances or types. This ability is basic to everyday life and experience, and the sciences, and the arts. Lawyers develop the ability to recognize how one case resembles others that have been decided and become “precedent.” Physicians develop the ability to judge when one patient’s mixture of symptoms resembles that encountered with a particular syndrome or disease. A scientist knows what some observed patterns or experimental results mean for generalizations about wider processes because he

or she can see how they are like or unlike them. So, it is no surprise that different sorts of analogy exercises have been a staple of standardized exams from the SAT to the GRE and LSAT for a long time.

By asserting a literal sameness between two things, an arguer can make a strong argument that what has been true in one case is likely also to be true in the other. As noted above, this is a common way of arguing in everyday life and also in the sciences. In all three of the following examples a real similarity is asserted as the basis for arguing that what seems to be true in one case will also be true in another case:

Amsterdam has had success legalizing some drugs that are illegally used in the United States. Philadelphia has roughly the same proportion of drug users in the general population as Amsterdam. Hence, Philadelphia is likely to have success if it were to legalize some drugs. Our earliest human ancestors probably left Africa seeking a better life for themselves and their children. They were probably not so different from ourselves in this respect. Our Grandparents left a poor, fractious country in search of better prospects and opportunities in a new and far-off place. Researchers fed one group of mice a diet including folic acid, while a second group was fed a diet lacking it. The mice received moderate amounts of a chemical that causes Parkinson-like symptoms. Those fed the folic acid showed mild symptoms of disease, while mice fed the folic acid-deficient diet developed severe Parkinson-like symptoms. Hence, folic acid deficiency may increase the human brain’s susceptibility to Parkinson’s disease.20 Arguments that involve analogical reasoning can be strong when based on good evidence. But

analogical arguments are only as strong as the analogies they are based on. As is true with all inductive arguments, whether or not we can judge a particular piece of analogical reasoning to be strong or weak will depend upon what all of the evidence shows. Most importantly, if the two things compared in an analogy aren’t really similar enough, or are only similar in ways that have nothing to do with the issue we are concerned with, then the analogy will provide only inadequate support for the reasoning that says what is true for one of the things compared will be true for the other. In the first case, the crucial premise, (the one that asserts the analogy), turns out not to be true. In the second case, even if the similarity is quite strong, the premise turns out to assert something that is irrelevant to the conclusion the arguer wants to draw. Either or both of these problems results in one of the common fallacies we will see below. 4. Expert Reasoning involves reasoning that something is likely to be true just because it follows from claims made by an expert or institution invoked as authoritative. This form of reasoning is appropriately done in contexts where an issue is particularly technical or complex, or where the evidence to construct an argument for oneself cannot be directly obtained. In the sciences, of course, the ideal is always to base our claims on demonstrable experiments or phenomena that can be directly observed by those to whom we are presenting arguments. Yet, the more complex the issue, the more likely it is that some of the evidence will have to be based on claims that aren’t going to be obvious to everyone and that may only be understood by experts we must to some degree trust would be able to show us the evidence if we asked for it and explain it to us if we requested they do so. Normally, we hold many beliefs about scientific issues based on the expectation that we can trust the folks at the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Air and Space Administration, and other institutions.21 Here are some examples of arguments of this type:

My father, who has had a successful career in plumbing and construction, told me that installing a shower in our upstairs bathroom would put too much stress on the structure of the house. Hence, we should reconsider our plans for renovating the upstairs bathroom. You should definitely go ahead with the surgery on your elbow. The orthopedic specialist Dr. Samuelson maintains that it will not take long to heal, so you don’t have to worry about missing spring training next season. And the consequences of not operating on it now, according to her, would be very damaging to your ability to pitch for more than another year or two. The earth’s climate must be warming, because scientists from NASA, Columbia University, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have found that over the last ten years, more energy has been absorbed from the sun than has been emitted back into space.22

In each example, evidence is provided in the form of claims made by someone other than the

arguer, whose expertise is implicitly regarded as legitimate. Assessing arguments of this type will involve considering whether or not such claims to legitimacy should be seen as adequate to establish a strong inference. Credibility and independence are the two criteria by which to judge whether an expert should be regarded as qualified or not. If the source isn't really authoritative and independent, this kind of argument turns into a fallacy.

There are several things to consider in applying these criteria. The first consideration is whether the person or group offering expert opinion has real first-hand experience, training, or credentials that are relevant to the specific area we have a question about. If an expert has received expert training or education at some time in the past, the expert should also be able to show he or she is current and up- to-date in the field. Obviously, anyone can "play a doctor on TV," and just pretend to have credentials for advertising or promotional purposes. Most often, persons delivering testimony in commercial messages are merely actors dressed up like experts to fool people who are not paying attention. In addition to making sure the expert is credible, we must consider whether the expert is independent. This means the person or organization whose opinion or testimony is presented as authoritative has no stake or vested interest in the issue. When someone has a vested interest in an issue this means the way the issue is decided will be likely to harm or benefit him or her in some way. In this case, he or she cannot be considered independent. It is reasonable for persons to act on behalf of what they perceive to be their own interests, and to view and interpret things from the perspective of those interests. The problem arises when doing so is likely to bring those who are supposed to decide an issue or provide a service into conflict with the interests and perspectives of others, or the public interest. The point is that in public, civil, and institutional contexts these other interests are supposed to have greater weight in how issues are decided. When persons or organizations with vested interests are involved in determining the answers to questions in which they have them, a conflict of interest is said to exist between that person or organization’s vested interest and the interests of others.

A common and obvious way experts have conflicts of interest is when they are paid for testimony. But even if an expert hasn’t been paid, as long as he or she has been solicited or engaged in order to give testimony, there is still a conflict of interest involved. An expert is usually selected by an interested party because of the expert’s favorable opinion toward the message the interested party wants to communicate. The effect of having that expert testify is to create the misleading impression that the scientific or professional consensus is being represented when it is not. If the expert was solicited, even if unpaid, he or she does not represent the result of a random selection of the actual range of scientific opinion.

Expert testimony also fails to meet the standard of independence when experts are associated with front groups or think tanks whose interest is to influence public choices and policies. These kinds of organizations exist to promote the commercial and political messages of those whose funding they rely upon. Front groups are organizations set up primarily to disseminate propaganda on behalf of clients, while hiding their vested interests, often behind a falsely public-spirited or academic façade.23 Corporations and pro-business lobbies often set up groups with vague, pleasant-sounding, apolitical names like, “The Business Roundtable,” “The Club for Growth,” “The Center for Progress,” “The CATO Institute,” “The Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition,”24 “The Center for Union Facts,”25 “The Institute for Humane Studies,”26 whose activities are devoted to advancing a definite political and social agenda. So-called “experts” affiliated with or presented by a think tank or a front group are not independent to the extent that their activities are devoted to propaganda, lobbying, and advocacy. Finally, experts can have personal stakes in issues, stemming from strong personal connections or emotional commitments. For example, if one has lost a loved one to a terrible disease, one might devote oneself to struggling with politicians and public policy professionals to allocate more resources to working for a cure and alleviating the suffering of others with the disease, in their memory. This kind of work could lead to one becoming extremely knowledgeable about the area to which he or she is devoted. The problem with such testimony is not that passionately-held positions cannot also be true. The difficulty is that such positions often tend to become one-sided and inflexible. The benefits of listening to a person with a strong commitment to a definite position on an issue can be quite substantial, but in itself, such a position is unlikely to reflect a wide range of experiences and perspectives. When an expert has a personal stake in an issue, the strength his or her testimony can add to the argument is matched by the danger that he or she make overlook some of the evidence that goes against it. Critical reasoners do not screen out or dismiss such testimony. Instead they listen very carefully to it and try to place it in perspective alongside the rest of the evidence. The simple fact that an arguer or his or her sources have a vested interest of some kind is not in itself evidence that an argument is biased. But it is important to recognize that biases can result from vested interests and it is best to seek out arguments from sources that are both credible and independent whenever possible.

Some Common Inductive Fallacies

1. Accident – This fallacy is committed when a reasoner draws the conclusion that some characteristic or property belongs to a member of a collection or group of things, entities or events only because it is generally true for that collection or group of things, entities or events. This is the fallacy that happens when someone treats a general tendency as if it were a categorical claim or an “iron law” that would be true in each specific instance or case, rather than as a claim that is true in some or most cases, but not all. In the field of probability there are many logical pitfalls. One is to reason to the probability of something being true or happening in the future simply from the statistical generality of its occurrence in the past. But, statistics and probabilities (or “odds”) are not the same thing! If one could easily and dependably reason to particular conclusions based simply on a general tendency, it would be a lot easier to make money betting on things like sports than it is! In fact, the simple tendency of a batter to hit a ball or a team to win its games at a particular statistical rate in the past is not enough in itself to support specific conclusions about the probability of any particular result in the next at-bat or game. Similarly, the bare fact that something is true in general for a group or collection is never enough in itself to establish that the same thing will be true for any single member of the group. Here are some simple examples of the Accident fallacy:

Whales are fish, because most sea-going creatures with fins are fish, and whales are sea-going creatures with fins.

She is a Drexel student, and in general, Drexel students are creative, intelligent, and energetic. Hence, I expect Anna to be a creative, intelligent, and energetic young woman.

Most of the animals at the zoo have “Property of the Zoo” stamped on them. Since this penguin is from the zoo, it should have “Property of the Zoo” stamped on it as well.

2. Ad Hominem – This is the common inductive fallacy that occurs when a reasoner offers irrelevant negative and usually abusive claims about the proponents or supporters of some position as the only evidence against the position. The Ad Hominem fallacy is commonly known as “name-calling,” and in politics is a basic ingredient of what has come to be known as “mud-slinging” and “negative” or “oppositional” campaigning. The Ad Hominem fallacy amounts to arguing that something is a bad idea for the irrelevant reason that it is promoted or held or was originated by persons the arguer dislikes or distrusts. The basic mistake of this fallacy is to shift attention away from the real question toward a different issue.27 But the characteristic feature that makes an argument Ad Hominem is that it draws attention to some deficiencies of the proponents or supporters of a position and away from the position itself or its merits. Here are some simple examples of the Ad Hominem fallacy:

Affirmative action programs are bad policies, since people who support them only do so out of political correctness. We can confidently dismiss Dr. Inkblot’s position concerning the war seeing as she’s a Psychology professor. What does she know about issues of war and peace and international diplomacy? Nixon’s foreign and domestic policies were certainly wrong-headed and misguided. This man was arrogant to the point of being paranoid and psychotic, and he couldn’t even manage to run his own life, let alone the business of the nation during a time of war.

3. Ad Populum – This is the common inductive fallacy committed when someone reasons that something is true just because everyone or a large number of people have endorsed it. The fact that even 100% of the population might agree with an opinion or practice doesn’t make right. Large numbers of people are often wrong, deluded, or ill-informed, the victims of propaganda and misinformation, or just conformists. The reason that “everybody says so” is so weak, and depends upon so many other assumptions being true, that it is in itself worthless as a reason that should convince us of anything. Arguments that are Ad Populum can nevertheless be very persuasive, especially in contexts where it is possible to play upon the listeners’ pre-existing fears and peer pressure. An important reason why is that this fallacy involves appealing to the listener’s sense of similarity to and connection with others. People like to feel that we belong to a larger community in which we are at home. We all tend to feel anxious and alienated when it seems like everyone is against us, or our views, or that we have been excluded from society. The Ad Populum fallacy plays on our fears of being regarded as different from others. The fact that people want to belong and want to be loved by others makes us all susceptible to the claim that we will be admired if only we buy whatever product the speaker is selling, or adopt the political perspective they wish us to adopt. Here are some simple examples of the Ad Populum fallacy:

I think you should study Business in college. Everyone knows a degree in Business is better than one in the Humanities or Liberal Arts. Just ask anybody! This President has the worst approval poll numbers in history. So, clearly his performance as President is unacceptable and inadequate.

There is something wrong about parents adopting children who are ethnically and racially different from themselves, seeing as everyone I have talked to about this issue and all my friends say that this is wrong.

4. Appeal to Ignorance – This common inductive fallacy occurs when someone claims that an idea or belief is true or false just because there is no clear evidence or good reason to believe otherwise. This kind of reasoning argues that we should accept that something is the case if it has not been ruled out, and that we should deny that something is the case if it has not been proven. While it is good advice not to accept something as true until there is good evidence for it, it is another thing entirely to conclude that some specific claim or belief is false because there is no evidence that proves it true. Similarly, although it is good advice not to rule something out as long as there is a possibility that it is true, it is another thing entirely to conclude that it is true because we haven’t proven it to be false. In either of these cases the reasonable thing is to withhold judgment and continue to seek more conclusive evidence in either direction. Here are some simple examples of the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy:

I believe that UFO’s must have visited the earth at some time in history, seeing as no one has yet been able to prove that they haven’t. The regime of Saddam Hussein probably had weapons of mass destruction at the time the US invaded Iraq, seeing as it hasn’t been completely established that it did not have them. No one has yet shown conclusively that garlic does not cure cold and flu symptoms, therefore, I say it does.

5. Appeal to Tradition – This is the fallacy committed when someone argues that because something has been thought to be true or practiced over a long time, it is for that reason right to think it or do it now. There are many things that are valuable about traditional beliefs and practices, but to value them for the simple reason that they are traditional may conceal and protect beliefs and practices that would not stand up to critical scrutiny. We can easily think of instances in which long-held ideas or practices turned out to be wrong, or were simply rejected after being accepted for a long time. The Appeal to Tradition is also problematic because traditional beliefs and practices differ substantially among persons and groups. So, to argue that someone outside our group’s traditions should adopt a belief or practice because our group has always done so would be tendentious. Here are some simple examples of the Appeal to Tradition fallacy:

In our society women have held jobs that have less prestige than men and they have been paid less for comparable work for as long as anyone can remember. Hence, there is no good reason why these practices should be seen as wrong or unfair. I am against the proposal for Wattsamatta U. to develop a football program. Ever since the school was founded in 1891, our school community has never felt the need to devote its energy and financial resources to fielding a football team. There is simply no good reason to consider having an environmentally sustainable and healthy Thanksgiving celebration this year. Thanksgiving has always been a festival of over-consumption and a tribute to gluttony and waste at our house and across America.

6. Apples and Oranges Fallacy – A common fallacy directly associated with analogical reasoning is known as Apples and Oranges. This is the fallacy committed when an argument is based on an analogy that is weak or irrelevant to the issue the argument is supposed to address. Although two things

compared in an analogy might really be similar in a few ways, the ways may not matter depending on what the issue is. And the two things compared may at the same time be quite different in other ways. For an Analogical Argument to be strong, the two things compared in the analogy must be alike enough to give strength to the expectation that what has been true in the one case will be true in the other. The more similar two things are, the stronger the analogy and, in general, the stronger the argument based on their sameness. But no matter how strong a similarity there is between two things, if the similarity is beside the point of the question we are trying to answer, any argument based on it is still going to be weak. So, the premise that asserts the analogy also has to be relevant to the issue the argument is designed to address. It is reasonable to assume that what has been true in the past will tend to be a good guide to future expectations about similar things. But the complexity of most “things” we might want to make arguments about recommends that great care be exercised whenever it is claimed that two things really are “similar.” It is very easy, especially when we are inclined to trust a speaker or to accept his or her conclusions anyway, to accept isolated and irrelevant similarities as if they were relevant and strong. Here are some simple examples of the Apples & Oranges fallacy:

You will have a lot of fun playing badminton with us in Clark Park, since you enjoy playing volleyball, and volleyball is just like badminton. Anyone who has operated a lemonade stand understands that the market determines winners and losers based on the ability to efficiently produce goods inexpensively and sell them at a profit. Thus, it is obvious what we need to do to fix our broken national system of health care. I should be allowed to text, tweet, play video games or do anything else I want while in class. Being in class is just like being on a bus or a train or in a movie theatre—you pay for your seat, and you are at liberty to do as you like.

7. Begging the Question – An argument commits the inductive fallacy known as Begging the Question whenever its premises simply re-state or assume the truth of its conclusion. Such an argument isn’t really an argument, since it is just re-asserting the conclusion in the premises as if it were self-evident or supported itself. Arguments that beg the question come in a wide variety of forms. What they share is the characteristic of reasoning in a circle—instead of advancing reasons for a position, the position is merely asserted again and again, often using slightly different words, but logically returning to square one. Thus, Begging the Question is often referred to as “circular reasoning.” Here are some simple examples of the Begging the Question fallacy:

Non-quantitative methods of study are worthless, because they don’t involve any measurements using numbers. Wattsamatta University cannot afford to undertake the registration changes requested by the Student Council at this time, since doing so would be expensive and inconsistent with current policies and procedures. It's very clear that the time has come to recognize that the only thing to do in Elbonia right now is to leave right away, and stop all this talk about small, incremental troop movements, seeing as we now have no choice but to leave immediately and unconditionally.

8. Composition – This is the common inductive fallacy committed when someone reasons that just because a property characterizes some or all of the parts or components of an entity or system, the same property characterizes the system or entity as a whole. It is easy to think of examples of things

whose properties are not simply reducible to the properties of their parts. The parts or components of things often mix and blend to create new and different properties than they individually had before they became integrated. There is nothing mysterious about this when you think about how a recipe creates a taste that isn’t simply the tastes of all the ingredients added together. A sports team, a complex living organism, and a musical ensemble share this feature of being characterized by properties that cannot be understood as the simple aggregate result of combining the qualities of their parts. This is why it is sometimes said of an entity that, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” This well-known expression captures the idea that something more and different arises when the parts come together and function as an entity or organism. Here are some simple examples of the Composition fallacy:

Each of its members is a fair and wise person, thus the Academic Honesty Committee will reach fair and wise decisions. Mary Anne likes the color orange, so I think Mary Anne will like that painting because the painting has some orange in it. The new amphitheater is constructed out of lightweight steel beams. The building is therefore very light.

9. Division – This fallacy is committed when someone reasons that just because some property characterizes an entity or system as a whole, the same property characterizes some or all of the parts or components of that entity or system. The fallacy of Division starts with the whole and draws a conclusion about all or some of its parts. Division is thus the direct opposite of Composition: while the Composition fallacy moves from the properties of parts to the whole, Division “divides” the whole, reasoning from properties of the whole to a part or parts. Division is also closely related to the fallacy of Accident. The difference between them is just that Division starts with a unified whole or organism and concludes to some claim about a part. By contrast, the fallacy of Accident starts with a collection of things or a group of individuals about which we have made a generalization, and concludes to some claim about a member or instance. Here are some simple examples of the Division fallacy:

Of course Carolyn enjoyed her freshman year at the University. She has always said she is very glad she graduated from the University and enjoyed being a student there. Moby Dick is one of the greatest novels ever written, thus, Chapter 42, “The Whiteness of The Whale,” must be one of the greatest chapters ever written. Spending more and saving less would be good for our troubled economy right now. Therefore, at this time, more spending and less savings will be good for each individual household in our economy.

10. Genetic Fallacy – This is the common inductive fallacy committed when someone argues that something is true about a thing or an idea, practice, or policy just because it was true of its origins or causes, or at its beginning or its source. The Genetic Fallacy happens because knowing about the origins and sources of things is often a good starting point for research. But research has to tell us whether or not there is a strong continuity between the source or origin of something and its present state or condition, which after all could be entirely different. This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of Appeal to Tradition, since both make the mistake of seeing a basis for justifying present practices or beliefs in the assertion that the practice or belief was supported at some time past. The difference is that Genetic Fallacy sees the origin or source of a thing as privileged in determining its present characteristics while the Appeal to Tradition argues from the maintenance of a belief or set of practices over time. Genetic Fallacy can also look a lot like Division under certain circumstances where what it

means to ‘come from’ something else is unclear (as in the first example below). Here are some examples of the Genetic Fallacy:

This perfume has got to be poisonous, so you should stop using it. Here’s why—in my botany class we examined the plant that the extract used in the perfume comes from, and that plant is a poisonous plant. The first governments were associations among humans who were willing to use violence to defend their power and maintain order. Hence, governments today are just organizations devoted to the use of violence to maintain order and defend their power and privilege. The liberal arts curriculum is a support for elitism and exclusion. It originated in the idea that people who were not slaves or servants could pursue a wide range of intellectual and artistic endeavors.

11. Hasty Generalization – A common fallacy associated with statistical reasoning is called Hasty Generalization. This is the common inductive fallacy committed when a reasoner argues to a conclusion about a collection or group of things based on a sample that is unrepresentative of the target the arguer is trying to generalize about. As we saw above, a sample of observations or instances that can legitimately “speak for” the larger group or target that one is trying to generalize about should be large and randomly-selected. If not, the result is likely to be a “sweeping generalization,” which can be especially dangerous precisely because it may really reflect a small sample that one happens to be working with, but doesn’t represent the group or class one is supposed to be reasoning about, (the target). A good deal of the thinking that results in ethnic, gender, and racial stereotyping, for example, reflects this kind of logical mistake. This fallacy is often also called the fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence. Here are some simple examples of the Hasty Generalization fallacy:

You won’t have a good time if you take the family to the Adventure Aquarium this summer. I visited there last summer and the ferry ride was choppy and the aquarium was crowded. The new migraine drug we have developed will be effective in the general population. The proof is that a clinical trial that studied twelve Sicilian nuns dramatically diminished their symptoms in a study that lasted several weeks. College students today are definitely more concerned with their own financial matters than world affairs. I know this because in a recent survey of business majors, 75% said they were more concerned about paying their credit card bills than the state of the world and the actions of their government.

12. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc – A common fallacy directly associated with causal reasoning is known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. This is the common fallacy committed when an arguer asserts a causal relationship between two events just because the one preceded the other. Although a cause must precede its effect, this does not mean that the observation of precedence, even if made repeatedly, is enough to allow us to conclude that a causal connection exists. As noted above, more is needed to establish the likelihood of a causal relationship than mere precedence. The most obvious cases of the Post Hoc fallacy are standard superstitious reactions and the faulty inferences people can make when they regard as causally connected two events or circumstances which later appear to be “merely a coincidence.” Here are some simple examples of the Post Hoc fallacy:

Literacy rates have steadily declined since the advent of television. Clearly television viewing impedes learning. He started using drugs just about the time he started seeing that girl. I knew she was a bad influence. Since the beginning of commercial nuclear power production in the 1950’s, the rate at which breast cancers have been diagnosed has steadily increased. Hence the increase in the incidence of breast cancer must have been caused by nuclear power production.

13. Red Herring – This inductive fallacy consists of providing premises that lead away from the issue or question at hand by changing the subject or diverting the listener’s attention. This happens whenever the premises are addressing a question other than the one that appears to have been intended. Here is an example:

The United States government is a very complex bureaucratic and organizational structure, and it would be foolish to take everything our leaders tell us at face value. Consequently, the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives detonated as part of a U.S. government conspiracy.

As noted above, Ad Hominem reasoning constitutes an evasion or distraction from the issue an argument is supposed to be about. This makes it a special case of Red Herring. In the following example, the arguer answers a question about Ecuador policy with an attack on the press whose effect is to change the subject:

There are many reasons for breaking diplomatic relations with Ecuador at this time. If the members of the liberal media would stop badgering the President about it and cease their unpatriotic and unfounded attacks on him, he would be better able to do the American people’s business, and protect U.S. interests around the world.

Another common and effective tool for diverting attention is the use of so-called “glittering

generalities” as Red Herrings. These are pleasant-sounding words and phrases like “progress,” “enterprise,” and “the American Dream,” which have strong positive emotional resonance, but which are frequently used in a vague way so that it is unclear exactly what they refer to. Invoking these kinds of words and phrases in this manner tends to draw attention away from the question at hand, and associates the speaker’s position with good feelings and images. Glittering generalities create a vague good feeling and promise very little. Here is an example of the use of glittering generalities to create a Red Herring:

In my view, the government acted appropriately and effectively in response to Super Storm Sandy. Here’s why—at this time the patriotic thing to do is to focus on rebuilding and healing, not nasty, partisan sniping. That’s the American Way!

14. Slippery Slope – This is the common inductive fallacy committed when an arguer invokes the domino effect as a kind of scare tactic predicting that calamitous consequences are inevitably going to follow from an action or choice, which are exaggerated and unsubstantiated by evidence. The “domino effect” is the notion that a relatively small and seemingly inconsequential event in one place will set in motion a sequence of causes and effects that eventually will lead to disaster. The Slippery Slope fallacy happens when there aren’t any good reasons to expect that the predicted calamitous consequences will actually follow from the small initial step. Here are some simple examples of the Slippery Slope fallacy:

You had better stay home and study Friday night. If you don’t, then you won’t get an A on Monday’s exam. If that happens, your grades won’t be good enough to get into the medical school you want, and then your whole life is likely to be ruined! If you take too many Philosophy classes, you’ll discover all kinds of interesting things you won’t get paid for thinking about. That will make it harder for you to preoccupy yourself with the petty distractions and delusions people need to focus on to stay employed and make money in our society, leaving you disillusioned, and unemployable. So, don’t take too many Philosophy classes. There are good reasons why the University has to raise tuition another 47% this year. If we don’t have this increase in revenue, we won’t be able to make the payments on the loans we took out to finance our various building projects. If that happens, we will have no choice but to default on our loans, sending the University into a desperate financial tailspin from which it might never recover. Nobody wants that!

15. Straw Man – An argument commits this inductive fallacy when it oversimplifies, exaggerates, or distorts an opposing or alternative position and argues against the distorted version, rather than against the real position. It involves presenting the other side of a debate in its weakest and worst possible light instead of arguing against its strongest version. The Straw Man fallacy thus typically occurs in the context of disputation and controversy, and amounts to setting up a flimsy version of one’s opposition so that one can make a show of how easily it is knocked down. The arguer who contends with a Straw Man instead of his or her real opponent is actually sidestepping the real contest. Anytime you hear someone characterize a view to which you know the speaker stands opposed, listen carefully for signs that he or she is presenting something other than that position, especially if it ends up sounding ridiculous and unappealing. Here are some simple examples of the Straw Man fallacy:

Those who do not support increasing troop levels and the intensity of our struggle with insurgents in Iraq would be happy if Osama bin-Laden rode into Baghdad as a conquering hero. Therefore there is no good rationale for considering the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Majoring in Classical Studies would be a real waste of time, since it revolves entirely around reading dusty old books written by dead White men on arcane subjects that have very little relevance to contemporary issues and real-world problems. It would be a waste of time for us to discuss building a pedestrian bridge over Chestnut Street to enhance student safety coming and going from the Hans. The Board of Trustees cannot just snap its fingers and take on a massive design and construction project between now and the beginning of classes.

16. Unqualified Expert – This is the common inductive fallacy that happens when evidence is provided by a person or institution invoked as authoritative whose expertise is either not credible or not independent. As noted above, credible, independent expert testimony adds strength to conclusions, but the lack of such testimony in itself isn’t a logical reason to deny or reject a claim. Vested interests and conflicts of interest are potential not automatic sources of bias in argument. Such ties are likely to have some effect on what people notice and how it is interpreted. But conflicts of interest and vested interests do not necessarily mean someone or some organization is biased. Remember, being biased does not mean simply having an opinion or a perspective, it means holding it without regard to what the evidence seems to show, and perhaps despite reasonable evidence to the contrary. Arguments that involve rejecting a claim just because it is offered by someone who is not an expert commit the Ad Hominem fallacy, (described below). Here are some simple examples of the Unqualified Expert fallacy:

Restrictions on smoking in restaurants are not necessary to protect public health. My brother is a pharmacist and he says they will make no difference to public health whatsoever. I think the proposal to donate Clark Park to the Nature Conservancy should be rejected because my friends who spend a lot of time playing Frisbee in the Park think it’s a very bad idea. You shouldn’t use cell-phones or let your family use them. My friend at the gym who is a History professor told me they give off a form of radiation that is as yet poorly understood which can make a person’s vision and hearing deteriorate and can cause brain tumors.◊

Review Questions & Practice Exercises 4.1 Review Questions – Here are some questions you should be able to answer based on the preceding chapter in a clear and detailed way, in your own words, and in at least about 5 sentences each. 1. Identify and describe carefully the four different types of input that provide the premises for the four types of inductive arguments discussed in the chapter. 2. Give a definition of statistical argument in your own words and then create an original example of a statistical argument. 3. What is the difference between the everyday meaning of the word “randomness” and the meaning used in critical reasoning? 4. Define the term “representativeness” and explain the two widely recognized ways to increase the representativeness of a sample. 5. Identify and carefully explain the three criteria for causal reasoning discussed in the chapter. 4.2 Inductive Fallacy Recognition – Instructions: Identify the inductive fallacy in each argument based on the first eight fallacies introduced in Chapter 4: Give a full analysis of the argument, circle the logical indicators, place the conclusion in brackets, and underline all of the premises, and identify the question and two basic assumptions. Then match each argument with the appropriate letter from the list of inductive fallacies. Solutions below.

A. Accident C. Ad Populum E. Appeal to Tradition G. Begging the Question

B. Ad Hominem D. Appeal to Ignorance F. Apples and Oranges H. Composition

1. ____ Our nation’s continued military occupation of Elbonia is wrong and our forces should

immediately be withdrawn. It is now clearly time for all of our military personnel to leave this ill-advised

and immoral foreign adventure.

Question:

Assuming:

2. ____ I will get you a ticket for the Music Festival since you won’t have to stay home and work on your

History term paper this weekend, because you can just write an A paper the night before it’s due like we

did when we were in High School!

Question:

Assuming:

3. ____ Since the profits of the large corporations in the agricultural and energy sectors of the economy

are certainly robust and healthy, therefore you should not believe what the pundits on TV are saying for

the national economy must be robust and healthy and is doing fine.

Question:

Assuming:

4. _____ Most of my friends and all of my teachers keep saying they support the plan for Drexel to

establish a campus on the beach in Tahiti. As a result, I think it will be a good thing for the future of the

University and therefore we should support it, seeing as a recent survey of administrators and deans

shows they support the project by an overwhelming majority.

Question:

Assuming:

5. ____ The veterinarian said that we cannot be sure that our cat Mario LeMeow is suffering from

cancer, so I am sure he does not. Consequently, I am not going to worry about him anymore.

Question:

Assuming:

6. ____ The political principles of the Occupy Movement are sensible and correct, seeing as they are

supported by millions of people across the country and in many countries around the world.

Question:

Assuming:

Assuming: 7. ____ Mike Rutherford is a talented and innovative bass guitar player. Consequently, the band Genesis

has been a talented and innovative band since 1967 because Mike Rutherford has been their bass player

since the band formed in 1967.

Question:

Assuming:

8. ____ In general, it is the case that sea-going creatures with fins are fish. Hence whales are fish, seeing

as they are sea-going creatures with fins.

Question:

Assuming:

9. _____ Restrictions on the availability of cigarettes should be blocked. Seeing as there are no calls for

equally stringent restrictions on the availability of other products like cheese and soda-pop that are also

dangerous to kids’ health, it would be unfair to place new restrictions on the availability of cigarettes.

Question:

Assuming:

10. ____ Presidential candidate Herman Cain’s tax plan is certainly a ridiculous and futile gimmick.

Here’s why—charges of sexual harassment and assault have followed him from one job to the next.

Question:

Assuming:

11. _____ Seeing as he has generally been accepted to the schools he has already applied to in the past,

I think Andrew is very likely to be admitted to Harvard Law School and so will go there.

Question:

Assuming:

12. _____ Don’t vote. All governments are nothing but means for the wealthy to protect their wealth

and prestige. I say this because governments everywhere have always acted this way in the past.

Question:

Assuming:

4.3 Inductive Fallacy Recognition – Instructions: Identify the inductive fallacy in each argument based on the final eight fallacies introduced in Chapter 4: Give a full analysis of the argument, circle the logical indicators, place the conclusion in brackets, and underline all of the premises, and identify the question and two basic assumptions. Then match each argument with the appropriate letter from the list of inductive fallacies. Solutions below.

A. Division C. Hasty Generalization E. Red Herring G. Straw Man

B. Genetic Fallacy D. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc F. Slippery Slope H. Unqualified Expert

1. ____ We should not allow students to have extensions on papers and homework. The reason for this

is simple. If just one of us is willing to extend deadlines, then all students will expect every professor to

do so no matter what the circumstances might be. If that should happen, it’s pretty clear that all sense

of the discipline of scholarly work will be irretrievably lost on our students.

Question:

Assuming:

2. ____ Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest alternative to oil and coal. The Dean of our Business School

gave a talk to our class about it last week, and he said this is so, and that nuclear power will

revolutionize our society and improve our way of life in the future as a result.

Question:

Assuming:

3. ____ The real meaning of Thanksgiving dinner in the lives of Americans today involves a message of

healing, forgiveness, gratitude, and unity. This is because these were the central ideas behind the

establishment of Thanksgiving as an official national holiday by Abraham Lincoln in 1863.

Question:

Assuming:

4. ____ The corporations that produce genetically modified organisms include the world’s largest and

wealthiest. So, I am sure their products present no serious health risks to human beings or the

environment. Besides, such products are becoming so common that nearly all agricultural enterprises

are involved with them at one stage of production or another.

Question:

Assuming:

5. ____ Let’s buy a yacht! Spending more and saving less would be good for our troubled economy right

now. So, at this time, more spending and less savings will be good for each individual household in our

economy.

Question:

Assuming:

6. ____ Emily’s eyes started tearing and she began to sneeze just after Uncle Freddy came into the room

and crossed her path wearing the new natural alpaca wool socks Aunt Mabel bought him for his

birthday. Emily must be allergic to alpaca wool!

Question:

Assuming:

7. ____ The Christian Democratic Party proposes that they will instantly restore prosperity to the

economy by slashing the education and housing budgets and taking food out of the mouths of hungry

orphans and widows and using it to pay the bankers their interest on ruinous and usurious loans. The

Christian Democrats’ plan should therefore be opposed by everyone!

Question:

Assuming:

8. ____ A recent study shows that NBA fans don’t miss NBA basketball as much as the owners had

expected and hoped. The study surveyed 1,200 basketball fans attending college basketball games last

weekend at the Palestra in Philadelphia. According to these fans, the cancelled NBA season is only a

minor disappointment.

Question:

Assuming:

9. ____ Juan told me that he really enjoys listening to classical symphonies. Thus, I am sure he will love

the album of violin solos that I got him for Christmas, seeing as violins are used in classical symphony

orchestras.

Question:

Assuming:

10. ____ College students today are more selfish than in the past seeing as they are definitely more

concerned with their own financial matters than world affairs. I know this because in a recent survey of

business majors, 75% said they were more concerned about paying their credit card bills than the state

of the world and the actions of their government.

Question:

Assuming:

11. ____ Let’s not play tennis anymore. I just learned that tennis was invented as an amusing distraction

for the Kings of France and Britain. Hence, it is not a sport that it is appropriate for working class people

to play.

Question:

Assuming:

12. ____ Discussing a pedestrian bridge over Chestnut Street between MacAlister Hall and the new

Papadakis Building would be a waste of time] since it is intended to magically resolve all the traffic and

safety issues that exist at the intersection of Chestnut and 33rd Streets, but this is completely

unrealistic.

Question:

Assuming:

4.2 Solutions, Inductive Fallacies: (*Indicates compound argument) 1. G Begging the Question [Our nation’s continued military occupation of Elbonia is wrong and our forces should immediately be withdrawn.] It is now clearly time for all of our military personnel to leave this ill-advised and immoral foreign adventure. Question: Should we end our continued immoral occupation? Assuming: We are currently occupying Elbonia, There are other reasons why we should leave, Immoral occupations are undesirable, We are able to remove personnel, It was irresponsible. *2. F Apples and Oranges [I will get you a ticket for the Music Festival] since [you won’t have to stay home and work on your History term paper this weekend,] because you can just write an A paper the night before it’s due like we did when we were in High School! Question: Should I get you a ticket for the Music Festival? Assuming: Writing a paper for High School is just like doing so in college, You wanted to go to the festival, You will have adequate time to work on your term paper without this weekend, You can’t work on the paper at the Festival, Staying home to write the paper was the only reason you weren’t going to go. *3. H Composition Since the profits of the large corporations in the agricultural and energy sectors of the economy are certainly robust and healthy, therefore [you should not believe what the pundits on TV are saying] for [the national economy must be robust and healthy and is doing fine]. Question: Should we believe that the TV pundits are saying? Assuming: the TV pundits are saying that the national economy is weak, Pundits don’t always get it right, There are large corporations in agriculture and energy sectors, As the large corporations go, so goes the national economy, Profits are a sign of health. *4. C Ad Populum Most of my friends and all of my teachers keep saying they support the plan for Drexel to establish a campus on the beach in Tahiti. As a result, [I think it will be a good thing for the future of the University] and therefore [we should support it], seeing as a recent survey of administrators and deans shows they support the project by an overwhelming majority. Question: Should we support the University establishing a campus in Tahiti?, Assuming: The Deans’ and others’ preferences have strongly to do with what is really good for the future of the University, Establishing a new campus on the beach in Tahiti would not cause the University to lose all of its credibility, The plan for Drexel to establish a new campus should depend on what students and teachers want. *5. D Appeal to Ignorance The veterinarian said that we cannot be sure that our cat Mario LeMeow is suffering from cancer, so [I am sure he does not]. Consequently, [I am not going to worry about him anymore.] Question: Should I remain concerned about the cat? Assuming: The vet has tested the cat carefully for cancer, The vet is credible and independent, The cat isn’t suffering from a disease other than cancer, It would be worrisome if the cat were diagnosed with cancer, If something cannot be proven it is false.

6. C Ad Populum [The political principles of the Occupy Movement are sensible and correct], seeing as they are supported by millions of people across the country and in many countries around the world. Question: Are the political principles of the Occupy Movement sensible and correct? Assuming: The Occupy Movement has principles and they are known, It is possible to tell if they are sensible and correct, The popularity of a principle is a sign of its correctness, There are Occupy Movements supporting similar principles around the world, The millions of supporters endorse the same principles. 7. H Composition Mike Rutherford is a talented and innovative bass guitar player. Consequently, [the band Genesis has been a talented and innovative band since 1967] because Mike Rutherford has been their bass player since the band formed in 1967. Question: Has Genesis been a talented and innovative band since 1967? Assuming: Mike Rutherford has been a good performer since 1967, The talents of the other performers don’t matter, The bass is an important instrument, They have not had any other bass players since 1967, It is possible to tell if a bass player is more or less innovative and talented. 8. A Accident In general, it is the case that sea-going creatures with fins are fish. Hence [whales are fish], seeing as they are sea-going creatures with fins. Question: Are whales fish? Assuming: If something is characteristic of a group or a collection of things, then it is probably characteristic of each member of the group, There are not significant and well-defined sea-going creatures with fins that are not fish, We are unaware that whales show clear signs of membership in the non-fish grouping, Whales have been observed in the sea, Fins are definitive of the status of “fish” for sea-going creatures. *9. F Apples and Oranges [Restrictions on the availability of cigarettes should be blocked.] Seeing as there are no calls for equally stringent restrictions on the availability of other products like cheese and soda-pop that are also dangerous to kids’ health, [it would be unfair to place new restrictions on the availability of cigarettes.] Question: Should restrictions on the availability of cigarettes be blocked?, Assuming: Cigarettes are a type of thing that is comparable to cheese and soda pop, The danger of cigarettes and the danger of cheese and soda pop are comparable, Some kinds of products can be regulated. 10. B Ad Hominem [Presidential candidate Herman Cain’s tax plan is certainly a ridiculous and futile gimmick.] Here’s why—charges of sexual harassment and assault have followed him from one job to the next. Question: Is Herman Cain’s tax plan worth taking seriously? Assuming: Herman Cain has proposed a tax plan, Aspects of his personal character or work history are relevant to the merits of his tax plan, He has worked at many jobs, The charges against him are not completely baseless, There are actually charges against him. *11. A Accident Seeing as he has generally been accepted to the schools he has already applied to in the past, [I think Andrew is very likely to be admitted to Harvard Law School,] and so [will go there]. Question: Will he go to Harvard Law School?, Assuming: The schools he has applied to all have the same standards and criteria as Harvard, Andrew’s application to Harvard is at least as good as the earlier ones, Andrew has applied to Harvard for admission. *12. E Appeal to Tradition [Don’t vote.] [All governments are nothing but means for the wealthy to protect their wealth and prestige.] I say this because governments everywhere have always acted this way in the past. Question: Should we vote? Assuming: We have good evidence of what governments have always done in the past, The present must continue to be like the past, Governments have not

undergone significant changes, There have always been wealthy and poor people, The poor have posed a challenge to the wealthy. 4.3 Solutions, Inductive Fallacies: (*Indicates compound argument) 1. F Slippery Slope [We should not allow students to have extensions on papers and homework.] The reason for this is simple. If just one of us is willing to extend deadlines, then all students will expect every professor to do so no matter what the circumstances might be. If that should happen, it’s pretty clear that all sense of the discipline of scholarly work will be irretrievably lost on our students. Question: Should extensions on homework and papers ever be allowed? Assuming: Professors are incapable of making judgments about circumstances and situations, Students benefit from learning to approach their work in a disciplined manner, Scholarly work can teach discipline, Students expect all instructors to maintain the same policies, All scholarly discipline rests on whether deadlines are met. *2. H Unqualified Expert [Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest alternative to oil and coal.] The Dean of our Business School gave a talk to our class about it last week, and he said this is so, and that [nuclear power will revolutionize our society and improve our way of life in the future] as a result. Question: Will nuclear power revolutionize our society and improve our way of life in the future? Assuming: The Dean is a credible and independent expert on the issue of energy, A safer and cleaner alternative would improve life, We are seeking an alternative to oil and coal, Some alternatives to these sources of energy are not as safe as others, The relative safety of forms of energy can be assessed and measured. 3. B Genetic Fallacy [The real meaning of Thanksgiving dinner in the lives of Americans today involves a message of healing, forgiveness, gratitude, and unity.] This is because these were the central ideas behind the establishment of Thanksgiving as an official national holiday by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. Question: What is the real meaning of Thanksgiving dinner today? Assuming: What is true for the origins remains true through time, Thanksgiving did not pre-date 1863, The need for healing has continued, Thanksgiving was not a national holiday before 1863, Lincoln was an influential figure in US history. 4. E Red Herring The corporations that produce genetically modified organisms include the world’s largest and wealthiest. So, [I am sure their products present no serious health risks to human beings or the environment.] Besides, such products are becoming so common that nearly all agricultural enterprises are involved with them at one stage of production or another. Question: Do genetically modified foods present a serious health risk? Assuming: Environmental risks are important to know about, Corporate agriculture can produce health effects, Large corporations would not engage in enterprises that put the environment or health at risk, If something is common then it isn’t dangerous or unnecessarily risk, Some of the world’s wealthiest firms are in agriculture. *5. A Division [Let’s buy a yacht!] Spending more and saving less would be good for our troubled economy right now. So, [at this time, more spending and less savings will be good for each individual household in our economy.] Question: What would be good for each household to do for its own economic benefit? Assuming: What is true for the economy as a whole is true for every part, Currently, the economy is troubled, Economic growth is needed, It would be possible to spend more, Families have savings. 6. D Post Hoc Emily’s eyes started tearing and she began to sneeze just after Uncle Freddy came into the room and crossed her path wearing the new natural alpaca wool socks Aunt Mabel bought him for his

birthday. [Emily must be allergic to alpaca wool!] Question: Is Emily allergic to alpaca wool?, Why is Emily sneezing and tearing? Assuming: Emily isn’t sick, There isn’t something else in the room she is allergic to, Allergic reactions include sneezing, Emily doesn’t normally sneeze, Freddy is not allergic. 7. G Straw Man The Christian Democratic Party proposes that they will instantly restore prosperity to the economy by slashing the education and housing budgets and taking food out of the mouths of hungry orphans and widows and using it to pay the bankers their interest on ruinous and usurious loans. [The Christian Democrats’ plan should therefore be opposed by everyone!] Question: Should the Christian Democrats’ plan be opposed? Assuming: There is not a wide range of views in the CD Party, This is not the fringe of the CD Party that the speaker is talking about, The speaker is a credible source on the CD Party position, The country owes the banks, There are costs associated with education, etc. 8. C Hasty Generalization [A recent study shows that NBA fans don’t miss NBA basketball as much as the owners had expected and hoped]. The study surveyed 1,200 basketball fans attending college basketball games last weekend at the Palestra in Philadelphia. According to these fans, the cancelled NBA season is only a minor disappointment. Question: Do NBA fans miss NBA basketball? Assuming: The owners expected fans to miss the game, The sample was representative, College is like NBA basketball, It appeared the season would be cancelled, It would have served the owners if fans missed the game. 9. A Division Juan told me that he really enjoys listening to classical symphonies. Thus, I am sure [he will love the album of violin solos that I got him for Christmas], seeing as violins are used in classical symphony orchestras. Question: Will Juan like the gift? Assuming: Whatever is true for the whole will be true for its parts, The symphonies Juan likes have violins in the, Juan’s love of classical music isn’t dependent on a large orchestra, Juan likes music, Juan doesn’t already own the album you bought him. *10. C Hasty Generalization [College students today are more selfish than in the past] seeing as [they are definitely more concerned with their own financial matters than world affairs.] I know this because in a recent survey of business majors, 75% said they were more concerned about paying their credit card bills than the state of the world and the actions of their government. Question: Are college students more selfish today?, Assuming: Students were more concerned about the state of the world once before, Selfishness involves not caring about world events, Business majors speak for the entire target, Students have credit card bills, The survey was done using credible methods. *11. B Genetic Fallacy [Let’s not play tennis anymore.] I just learned that tennis was invented as an amusing distraction for the Kings of France and Britain. Hence, [it is not a sport that it is appropriate for working class people to play.] Question: Should we keep playing tennis? Assuming: Tennis was invented in Europe, We have been playing tennis, We don’t have to play tennis, There are other ways to spend time, Sports can be appropriate to one’s class position in society. 12. G Strawman [Discussing a pedestrian bridge over Chestnut Street between MacAlister Hall and the new Papadakis Building would be a waste of time] since it is intended to magically resolve all the traffic and safety issues that exist at the intersection of Chestnut and 33rd Streets, but this is completely unrealistic. Question: Should we discuss a pedestrian bridge? Assuming: A proposal was made, It would be possible to build such a bridge, All the proponents believe it will be “magical”, There aren’t more realistic reasons to build it, There have been serious traffic and safety issues at that corner.

Chapter 5. Assessing Deductive Arguments

As we saw in Chapter 3, deductive arguments are built around formal patterns of inference. The fact that deductive arguments reason according to formal, abstract structures means their conclusions can follow with absolute certainty if their premises are beyond dispute. But it also means that we have to carefully distinguish the question of whether a deductive argument follows from the question of whether its conclusion is, in fact, true. As noted earlier, if the pattern of a deductive argument follows, it is a valid argument. This means it follows formally. But, once we have determined that a deductive argument is valid, we would then have to consider the premises to see if the argument was sound and therefore fully convincing. In pursuit of the analysis and assessment skills we have been talking about so far in this book, we will now examine the formal structures of logical reasoning in deductive arguments. One way to see this especially clearly is to study deductive syllogisms. A deductive syllogism is an argument whose formal structure consists of a Minor Premise used to draw a conclusion in a formal manner deductively from a Major Premise.28 This can work because a Major Premise sets out the range of allowable logical moves that a Minor Premise may use to bring the argument to a logical conclusion. These “allowable moves” reflect the nature and structure of the Major Premise and are expressed using a variety of specific words and phrases. There are several deductive patterns and rules of inference that can be used to construct valid syllogisms. In this chapter, we examine only five valid argument patterns and a specific fallacy that is closely associated with each one. Each type of argument reasons on the basis of a particular type of statement as its Major Premise. Disjunctive argument patterns reason from “either/or” type statements. The disjunctive argument pattern discussed below in this chapter is called Disjunctive Syllogism. Hypothetical patterns are those which reason from “if/then” type statements. The hypothetical argument patterns discussed below are called Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, and Hypothetical Chain. Categorical argument patterns reason from “is/is not” type statements that affirm or deny that something is true about a subject. The categorical argument pattern discussed below is called Universal Categorical Syllogism. The rest of this chapter introduces these patterns and a commonly-associated deductive fallacy for each one.

The first step in determining whether or not an argument is a deductive fallacy is to produce a basic analysis of it using the first two steps of the Four Step Method of Analysis. Since we are only interested in whether the argument is valid or not, it is essential only to identify the argument’s premises and conclusion and any logical indicators that are present. Second, we should use whatever clue words are provided to identify the argument’s Major Premise. Clue words help us by expressing the logical structure of a statement. Words and phrases like either, or, unless, and or else suggest that the arguer is reasoning from a claim that one thing or another thing will be the case, (disjunctive). The use of the word if, or a few others like whenever in a premise tells us the arguer is reasoning that some event or circumstance is sufficient but not necessary for another to be the case, (hypothetical). The use of words like all, any, everyone, whomever, whenever, etc., suggests that the arguer is reasoning from the idea that all members of some group are members of another, (categorical).

Once it is clear which premise is the Major Premise and what type of statement it is, we can determine whether the argument is valid or not (step three) by assigning letters consistently in place of the terms in all the premises and the conclusion to see what its pattern is. If the argument’s pattern of reasoning matches a valid syllogism, then the argument follows. If it does not, then it doesn’t follow, and so it is invalid, argument—in other words, a deductive fallacy.* * The five valid syllogism patterns and common deductive fallacies associated with them are summarized in a chart at the end of this chapter.

Ten Deductive Argument Patterns 1. Disjunctive Syllogism - The logical switch either/or structures disjunctive statements. The logical relationship expressed is one in which one of two propositions must be true but its truth means the other must be false. This relationship is actually referred to as exclusive disjunction, to distinguish it from cases where the word “or” should be interpreted inclusively. Exclusive disjunction means that only one of the two options can be true, either A or B, but not both, and not neither. In this book, we will interpret the phrase either/or as presenting an exclusive disjunction in this sense. Here are some examples of disjunctive propositions that involve exclusive disjunctions:

Either the pilot died when the cabin lost pressure, or was killed when the plane hit the mountain. You can pay me in full now, or you can pay me later, but you must pay me for the repairs. Invited guests at Vito’s reception had to choose between prime rib and swordfish steak. One can create the valid syllogism called Disjunctive Syllogism by reasoning from a disjunctive

statement in the following manner. If I know already that, Invited guests at Vito’s reception had to choose between either prime rib or swordfish.

and, if I learn that,

Aunt Millie is vegetarian and will not eat prime rib but is willing to eat fish, then, logically, I must conclude that,

Aunt Millie is going to have the swordfish.

This gives us the following argument:

Invited guests at Vito’s reception had to choose between either prime rib or swordfish steak. Aunt Millie is vegetarian and will not eat prime rib but is willing to eat fish. [Aunt Millie is going to have the swordfish.]

In a Disjunctive Syllogism, since one of the available options expressed by an exclusive disjunct in the Major Premise has been negated or denied in the Minor Premise, we can conclude that the other must be the case, since the initial premise established that our choices were one or the other, and not both. Looking at our example, we can substitute letters in place of the terms in order to divulge the formal, logical structure of the argument. The Major Premise contains two options, “prime rib,” (call it A) and “swordfish steak,” (call it B). The Minor Premise negates option A, (~A), and the arguer concludes B. The logical structure of the argument above would be written in the following manner: A B

Invited guests at Vito’s reception had to choose between either prime rib or swordfish ~A steak. Aunt Millie is vegetarian and will not eat prime rib but is willing to eat fish. [Aunt B Millie is going to have the swordfish.]

The formal pattern of this argument is: Either A or B ~A _________________

Since the Major Premise tells us that either A or B is the case, then we can negate either one and it will result in an inference that follows deductively by concluding to the other term. Here, the Minor Premise negates A, so we must conclude that B is the case. If the Minor Premise negated B, then we would conclude A: Either A or B

~B _________________

A Since we know that these are exclusive disjunctions, we can also infer from this pattern that

since A or B must be the case, but not both, the conclusion will follow if I move the negation to the conclusion for either term:29

Either A or B A _________________

~B First, we should note that in everyday speech and writing, things are not as neat as I have made

them appear in the examples above. People do not ordinarily lay out their reasoning in perfectly logical order. To illustrate, the three arguments right below this paragraph all have the exact same logical structure as the one considered above. Each has the same structure, even though the statements are in different order in each and some of the words are different, too:

The storm did not greatly diminish in strength in the last hour, so it had to hit with enough force to make thousands homeless and create vast amounts of damage, since either it had to greatly diminish in strength in the last hour before landfall, or it would hit with enough force to make thousands homeless and create vast amounts of damage. We know that the storm hit with enough force to make thousands homeless and create vast amounts of damage, since the storm did not greatly diminish in strength in the last hour, and it was going to hit with enough force to make thousands homeless and create vast amounts of damage unless it had greatly diminished in strength in the last hour before landfall. This storm was going to hit with enough force to make thousands homeless and create vast amounts of damage or else it would have had to greatly diminish in strength in the last hour. It did not, so it had to hit with enough force to make thousands homeless and create vast amounts of damage.

The logical structure of an argument is rarely the same as the order in which its statements are

presented. Obviously, a person can start off by announcing his or her conclusion, and only later tell you what the reasoning is to support it, even though, logically, the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises. This is why seeing a deductive argument’s logical structure is greatly aided by putting it in

standard form, where the premises are placed above a line separating them from the conclusion, which is below the line.

Another crucial thing to look out for with deductive arguments is negation. Negation is an action that doesn’t always result in a negative term! When a term starts out negative, (“I will not be going to Chelsea”), and is then negated, it becomes an affirmative term, (“I will not not be going to Chelsea” means “I will be going to Chelsea.”) Hence, all three of these examples are valid Disjunctive Syllogisms:

Ronald must be a supporter of the Demublican Party, since he must be either a supporter of the Demublican Party or he is a supporter of the Repocrats, and he has been expressing for months now that he believes the Repocrat Party’s time has passed.

Emma might stop chewing on the carpet soon, in which case we won’t need to replace it. Or else, she could keep it up and we will not be able to go on vacation this year since we will have to buy a new one. But there is no sign that Emma is going to stop chewing on the carpet anytime soon. Consequently, we are not going to be able to take our vacation this year. I see you have handed in all the assignments and participated regularly in the class. Either you hand in all the assignments and participate in the class, or you have no chance to pass the class. Thus, you do have a chance to pass the class.

Although each of the three arguments above is an example of a valid Disjunctive Syllogism, this

only tells us that none is a deductive fallacy. In other words, none of these arguments has a structural flaw in its formal inference. Each follows, but, remember—this doesn’t mean that each is a sound argument. As we explained above, to judge the soundness of a deductive argument, once we know the argument is valid, we have to consider whether the claims made in the premises are likely to be true, relevant and unbiased. If any are clearly untrue or at least highly implausible, then the argument—even if valid—will be unsound.

False Dilemma Fallacy

In this fallacy, the arguer reasons from an exclusive disjunction in the Major Premise where more than two logical choices are offered and treats them as if there were only two, so that the denial of one option makes one of the others seem to be necessary when it is not. Here are some examples of the fallacy False Dilemma. Notice that in each one, there are more than two logical options available in the Major Premise, but the reasoner treats the choice as a dilemma, in which a choice must be made between only two exclusive alternatives.

Samantha can have either a hoagie or a hot dog or a baked chicken sandwich at the game tonight. I know she will not go near hot dogs since she read Upton Sinclair's book, The Jungle. Hence, she will have a hoagie at the game tonight. The new Congress could pressure the President to implement all of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. Or else, it could pick and choose among the recommendations, and promote only a few of them. It could also take a completely new and different direction once debate begins. We already know there will be no support in Congress for implementing the full gamut of recommendations. Therefore, the new Congress will pursue a completely new and different direction. To complete your major in Philosophy, you will have to take either Contemporary Philosophy, Philosophy of Human Nature, Metaphysics, or Existentialism. You cannot take Metaphysics because you have already had it, so you must take Existentialism.

The problem in each of these cases is that the denial of one of several available options doesn't

narrow the field enough for us to conclude that only one of those options must be true, so the reasoning doesn’t follow. Arguments that are examples of False Dilemma like these should be formally represented in the following way:

Either A or B or C ~A _____________________________

B 2. Modus Ponens - The logical switch if/then structures hypothetical statements. The logical relationship expressed tells us that a specific proposition, called the antecedent, is a condition for regarding a second proposition as true. The second proposition is called the consequent. The meaning of the whole statement is that when the antecedent is true, the consequent will be true as well: If A is the case, then B will be the case too.

Normally the relationship between the antecedent, (which will usually be called “A”), and the consequent, (usually called “B”), is not a necessary relationship. This is because if all we know is that If A then B, we have no reason to believe that A is the only antecedent condition that will lead to B. In other words, this phrase only tells us that A is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for B. To say that one type of event or state of affairs is a sufficient condition for another means that if the one happens the other will also happen. But this says nothing about other possible conditions which also would lead to B's occurrence.

If A were the only way to get B to result, then we would call it a necessary condition for B. But if this were the case, the appropriate formal representation would not be If A then B, but, instead, if and only if A then B. A hypothetical proposition that expresses this kind of relationship is called a biconditional. In a biconditional, the antecedent is a necessary and sufficient condition for the consequent. This can be expressed in many ways:

If and only if you clean your room will you be allowed to go to the movies on Friday night. Unless somebody comes up with a lot of cash quickly, we aren't going to be able to travel to Mexico next summer. Persons are eligible for graduation with honors if and only if they have maintained a high grade point average. Except where you have some specific reason for regarding them as biconditionals, you should

consider hypothetical statements as just run-of-the mill conditionals when you see the phrase if/then used. Here are examples of normal hypothetical statements that are not biconditionals. In each case, the statement links an antecedent that is a sufficient but not necessary condition with its consequent:

If the Red Sox win the pennant, then I will eat my hat.

If the skies are clear Tuesday night, then the aliens will land on the roof of my sister’s garage in Newark.

You will not get a passing grade if you never show up for class.

The deductive pattern Modus Ponens starts with a hypothetical statement as the Major Premise. For example, if I know already that,

If you never show up for class, then you will not get a passing grade.

and then I learn that,

Harold never shows up for class,

then, logically, I must conclude that,

Harold will not get a passing grade.

This gives us the argument that:

If you never show up for class, then you will not get a passing grade. Harold never shows up for class. [Harold will not get a passing grade.]

In Modus Ponens, the affirmation of the antecedent in the Minor Premise requires us to conclude that the consequent must be true. In this example, we can substitute letters in place of the terms in order to divulge the formal pattern of the inference. This pattern is the one shared by all examples of Modus Ponens. In this argument, the antecedent of the Major Premise is “never show up for class,” which should be called A, and the consequent is, “you will not get a passing grade,” called B. The Minor Premise affirms A and the conclusion is B.

A B A If you never show up for class, then you will not get a passing grade. Harold never B shows up for class. [Harold will not get a passing grade.]

Here, we have argued in the following formal manner:

If A then B A _________________

B But, in everyday speech and writing, things are not so neat as they are in the example above.

Indeed, the next three examples all have the exact same logical (although not chronological) structure as the argument we just looked at:

You aren’t going to pass this class, seeing as you never show up for class and if you never show up, you fail. You never show up for class, so, you aren’t going to pass because you fail the class if you never show up. You never show up for class and people fail this class if they don’t show up, so you are not going to pass.

In light of this, seeing how letters should be used to substitute for terms in hypothetical statements can seem especially tricky at first, but it becomes easy when you recognize what to look for. Here are some rules that you can follow that should help:

Rules for Making Substitutions in Hypothetical Statements

• First, always remember that a hypothetical statement is one statement with two parts. The statement asserts a relationship between two states of affairs, one the condition (antecedent) and the other something we know will be true if the condition is met (consequent).

• Second, as noted above, don’t interpret a hypothetical statement as a biconditional unless the wording or context explicitly requires you do so. A statement like, “I will have a nice day if it does not rain today,” should not be interpreted as meaning I cannot have a nice day unless it doesn’t rain, or that there is nothing else that would make it a nice day.

• Third, in determining the formal logical structure of a hypothetical statement, distinguish which term is the antecedent and which term is the consequent carefully. The antecedent is the condition—so it will usually be the term that comes right after if. The consequent is what the arguer believes will be known by the antecedent. So, when the word then is used by an arguer, the consequent always will come after then.

If antecedent then consequent If it does not rain today then I will have a nice day

Don’t be confused by hypothetical statements that are written or spoken backwards, with the consequent coming first and the antecedent second. They have the exact same logical meaning either way. Here is the same hypothetical statement as above, for example, where the antecedent is at the end and the consequent is spoken or written first:

I will have a nice day if it does not rain today consequent if antecedent

• Fourth, always remember to give the letter that comes earlier in the alphabet to the antecedent

and the letter that comes later in the alphabet to the consequent regardless of which is stated first. The hypothetical above would be substituted in the following manner:

B (I will have a nice day) if A (it does not rain today)

• Fifth, as with all types of deductive arguments, you must always give the same letter to terms that stand for the same meaning when they appear in different premises and the conclusion.

Affirming the Consequent Fallacy

Modus ponens is in some ways one of the most basic and intuitive of the deductive patterns that reason from hypothetical statements. This does not mean it is always easy to avoid making mistakes with it. One of the most common deductive fallacies associated with Modus Ponens is called Affirming the Consequent. This is where a person argues in an invalid manner by asserting B in order to establish A, where we know that If A then B. Here is an example of this deductive fallacy:

If you are not allowing enough travel time to make it to work, then you will be late a lot. You are late a lot. Hence, you must not be allowing enough travel time to make it to work.

One way to be “late a lot” is to allow insufficient time. But this arguer wrongly infers that lateness automatically means that one is not allowing enough time. It could be that other causes or conditions that also bring about frequent lateness are occurring that may be quite independent of the person’s allowing enough travel time. The hypothetical If A then B tells us that A is one cause of B, but it does not tell us it is the only cause! (It's not a biconditional!)

Arguments that commit the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent should be formally represented in the following way:

If A then B B _________________

A 3. Modus Tollens – This deductive pattern starts with a hypothetical statement, just like Modus Ponens. Let’s say you already know that,

I will fail the class, if I miss too many classes.

For purposes of analysis, let's switch the parts of the proposition around so the logic is clear:

If I miss too many classes, then I will fail the class.

Now, let’s say I observe further that,

I did not fail the class.

It follows logically from these two premises that,

I must not have missed too many classes.

This gives us the argument that,

If I miss too many classes, then I will fail the class. I did not fail the class. [I must not have missed too many classes.]

In Modus Tollens, the negation or denial of the consequent of a hypothetical claim requires us to conclude the negation or denial of its antecedent. We can substitute letters in place of the terms in the argument above in order to divulge the logical structure shared by all Modus Tollens arguments. In this argument, the antecedent of the Major Premise is “miss too many classes,” which should be called A, and the consequent is, “I will fail the class,” called B. The Minor Premise denies B (~B), and the conclusion is ~A. This argument is an example of a valid Modus Tollens:

A B ~B ~A If I miss too many classes, then I will fail the class. I did not fail the class. [I must not have missed too many classes.]

The formal pattern of this argument is:

If A then B ~B _________________

The next three examples all have this exact same logical structure:

One fails the class, if one misses too many classes. So, I must not have missed too many classes, since I did not fail. I could not have missed too many classes, because I would have failed if I had, and I didn’t fail. Of course I didn’t miss too many classes. I passed, and you fail, if you miss too many classes.

Denying the Antecedent Fallacy

Notice that in Modus Tollens one must negate or deny the consequent in the Minor Premise of this kind of pattern, but never the antecedent. The deductive fallacy closely associated with Modus Tollens is called Denying the Antecedent, which means that this is exactly what we have done. Just like with Modus Ponens, in the Minor Premise the two terms are not interchangeable to produce a valid deductive argument. Below is an example to think about where the arguer denies the antecedent. As you can see from this example, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, even when they are true:

If I miss too many classes, then I will fail the class. I did not miss too many classes. So, I must not have failed the class. Arguments that commit the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent should be formally represented in

the following way: If A then B ~A _________________

~B 4. Hypothetical Chain - The deductive pattern known as Hypothetical Chain starts with a normal hypothetical statement and links it with a second hypothetical statement to conclude to a third hypothetical statement! Here’s how it works: If somehow I know already that,

If the skies are clear Tuesday, then aliens will land on the roof of my sister’s garage in Newark.

and, further, I learn that, If aliens land on the roof of my sister’s garage, she will shave her head and join the space program.

then, logically, it must follow that, If the skies are clear Tuesday, then my sister will shave her head and join the space program.

This gives us the argument that,

If the skies are clear Tuesday, then aliens will land on the roof of my sister’s garage in Newark. If aliens land on the roof of my sister’s garage, she will shave her head and join the space program. [If the skies are clear Tuesday, then my sister will shave her head and join the space program.]

Each hypothetical premise has an antecedent and a consequent. Each requires a letter to name it. If we substitute letters in place of the antecedent and consequent terms, we see the logical structure of this argument is the one shared by all examples of Hypothetical Chain:

A B If the skies are clear Tuesday, then aliens will land on the roof of my sister’s garage in B C Newark. If aliens land on the roof of my sister’s garage, she will shave her head and join A C the space program. [If the skies are clear Tuesday, then my sister will shave her head and join the space program.]

In the argument above, we have argued in the following formal manner:

If A then B If B then C _________________

If A then C Here are three examples of one Hypothetical Chain argument that all have the exact same

logical structure, despite different wording. Look at them carefully to make sure you understand how the terms would be labeled to produce the same valid pattern for each one:∗

My sister will shave her head and join the space program, if the skies are clear Tuesday, because the aliens will land on the roof, if the skies are clear Tuesday, and if they do, she will shave her head and join the space program. My sister will shave her head and join the space program, if the aliens land on her roof. Therefore, she will shave her head and join the space program, if the skies are clear Tuesday, since the aliens will land on the roof if the skies are clear Tuesday. My sister will shave her head and join the space program, if aliens land on her roof. If the skies are clear Tuesday, they will. So, if the skies are clear Tuesday, then my sister will shave her head and join the space program.

Broken Chain Fallacy

Notice that the most crucial part of a Hypothetical Chain is the linkage between the two premises. This linkage comes when the consequent of one of the hypothetical statements is the same as the antecedent of the other. The easiest way to end up with a deductive fallacy that looks like a Hypothetical Chain is to commit the fallacy Broken Chain, where this linkage between the two premises is missing. Here is an example of this fallacy:

If it rains tonight, then our stick ball game will be cancelled. If you make fish sticks for dinner again, then I am going to sit in front of the television all evening sulking.

∗ At the end of this chapter I have laid out how substitutions would be made for these arguments.

Consequently, if it rains tonight, then I am going to sit in front of the television all evening sulking.

Arguments like this one are examples of Broken Chain, which is formally represented in this way: If A then B If C then D _________________

If A then D

Notice that there is no linkage connecting the two premises here, which is why the argument does not follow. Now, one could repair this chain by inserting a kind of a patch to re-establish the linkage. Can you see what it would be?

5. Universal Categorical Syllogism - The word all is frequently used to make positive universal categorical claims. The logical relationship this type of claim asserts is reflected when some class, category, or group of things is exhaustively characterized as belonging within a larger, more inclusive class, category, or group. The formal pattern of the following universal categorical statement would be symbolized, All A is B:

All players on the Philadelphia Phillies are baseball players. But it isn’t necessary to use the word “all” in making this kind of claim. One can represent the same logical relationship using other words. Here are some examples. These statements would also be symbolized, All A is B:

Everyone who likes parmesan likes cheese.

Anything that is a spider is an arachnid.

Triangles are shapes.

Note that in the last example above, categorical inclusion was suggested without any word or

phrase directly making it clear. In English, simply conjugating the verb “to be” in this manner can be interpreted in the appropriate context as having this meaning. In reasoning from a universal categorical statement, like any of these statements, I might argue in the following manner. For example, if I know,

All players on the Philadelphia Phillies are baseball players,

and, if I also know that,

Ryan Howard is a player on the Philadelphia Phillies,

then, logically, it must follow deductively that,

Ryan Howard is a baseball player.

This gives us the argument that,

All players on the Philadelphia Phillies are baseball players. Ryan Howard is a player on the Philadelphia Phillies. [Ryan Howard is a baseball player.]

The valid deductive pattern Universal Categorical Syllogism works by identifying a member of a group as belonging to the larger category to which its group belongs. In the argument we are looking at, the Minor Premise identifies Ryan Howard as a member of group A, so that we must conclude he is a member of group B: A B X A

All players on the Philadelphia Phillies are baseball players. Ryan Howard is a player on X B the Philadelphia Phillies. [Ryan Howard is a baseball player.]

The formal pattern of this argument is:

All A are B x is A _________________

x is B

The next three examples all have the exact same logical structure:

Ryan Howard is on the Phillies. All Phillies are baseball players. Hence Ryan Howard is a baseball player. Phillies are baseball players, so, Ryan Howard is a baseball player, seeing as he’s a Phillie. Of course Ryan Howard is a baseball player. He’s on the Phillies, and all the players on the Phillies are baseball players.

Undistributed Middle Fallacy

The most important thing to consider in avoiding making mistakes with Universal Categorical Syllogism is to avoid confusing the relationship between the categories or groups involved in the reasoning. In the Minor Premise of a syllogism like the type we are considering, one identifies some individual X as a member of the smaller group, A, which itself belongs to the larger group, B. Because this relationship of membership of A within B is established by the first premise, we can conclude that any X that is in A must also be in B. This logic doesn’t follow in the other direction, since A is a part of B and B may logically have other parts and groups within it. Here is an example of the common deductive fallacy that results from confusing this relationship:

All members of the Phillies are baseball players. Jimmy Rollins is a baseball player. So, Jimmy Rollins is a member of the Phillies. This argument reasons from the Major Premise that tells us that all members of the first group,

(Phillies), are members of the second group, (baseball players). This means that “baseball players” is a larger group than “Phillies,” and contains it. The Minor Premise tells us that Jimmy Rollins is an individual member of the larger category, “baseball players.” This does not mean he must necessarily also belong to the first group, “Phillies.” This is an example of the fallacy of Undistributed Middle. It's called that because in syllogism theory, the term that appears in both premises is called the “middle term.” The middle term either does or does not logically link the other terms in the argument. If it does link them, we say the middle term has been “distributed.” If it fails to link them, we say the middle term is “undistributed.” In the valid argument (Universal Categorical Syllogism) that follows immediately below, the middle term, (“is my friend”), is distributed, held in common by the other two terms:

All my friends are people who like water ice. Emily is my friend. Hence Emily is a person who likes water ice too.

Finally, here below is another example of Undistributed Middle. The middle term is “likes water ice,” because it appears in both premises. But, here, this term is undistributed, since it establishes no logical relationship between the other two terms in the argument resulting in a deductive fallacy:

All my friends are people who like water ice. Wayne Gretzky likes water ice. Thus, Wayne Gretzky is my friend.

Arguments like this one commit the Undistributed Middle fallacy and are represented in this way:

All A are B x is B _________________

x is A.◊

Summary of Deductive Arguments, Chapter 5

I. Major Premise

II. Logic Switch III. Clue Words IV. Valid Patterns V. Common Fallacies

Disjunctive

(exclusive, not inclusive)

Either / Or “either,” “or,” “else,”

“unless,” etc.

1. Disjunctive Syllogism:

A or B A or B A or B A or B ~A __ ~B___ A____ B___ So, B So, A So, ~B So, ~A

False Dilemma:

A or B or C... ~A________ So, B

Hypothetical

(sufficient, not necessary)

If / Then “if,” “whenever,” etc.

2. Modus Ponens:

If A then B A_______ So, B

Affirming the Consequent:

If A then B B________ So, A

3. Modus Tollens:

If A then B ~B______ So, ~A

Denying the Antecedent:

If A then B ~A______ So, ~B

4. Hypothetical Chain:

If A then B If B then C So, if A then C

Broken Chain:

If A then B If C then D So, if A then D

Categorical

(universal, affirmative)

Is / Is Not

“all,” “any,” “everyone,” “everything,” “whenever,” “whoever,”

etc.

5. Universal Categorical Syllogism:

All A are B X is A___ So, X is B

Undistributed Middle:

All A are B X is B___ So, X is A

Note: the symbol ~ stands for the negation of a previously introduced term.

Replacing terms with letters in Hypothetical Chains C A [My sister will shave her head and join the space program, if the skies are clear Tuesday,] because the B A B C aliens will land on the roof, if the skies are clear Tuesday, and if they do, she will shave her head and join the space program. C B My sister will shave her head and join the space program, if the aliens land on her roof. Hence, [she will C A shave her head and join the space program, if the skies are clear Tuesday,] since the aliens will land on B A the roof if the skies are clear Tuesday. C B A My sister will shave her head and join the space program, if aliens land on her roof. If the skies are clear B A C Tuesday, they will. So, [if the skies are clear Tuesday, then my sister will shave her head and join the space program.] In standard form, all three of these arguments follow the valid pattern of Hypothetical Chain:

If A then B If B then C ____________________

So, If A then C

Review Questions & Practice Exercises 5.1 Review Questions – Here are some questions you should be able to answer based on the preceding chapter in a clear and detailed way, in your own words, and in at least about 5 sentences each. 1. Identify and carefully summarize the three steps for recognizing deductive fallacies that are introduced at the start of the chapter. 2. Identify and carefully explain the three types of statements from which the deductive syllogisms in the book are constructed. 3. Carefully explain what “antecedents” and “consequents” are. 4. Explain the difference between the valid deductive pattern known as Universal Categorical Syllogism and its associated fallacy using an original example of this type of argument. 5. Explain the difference between the valid deductive pattern known as Hypothetical Chain and its associated fallacy using an original example of this type of argument.

5.2 Deductive Argument Analysis and Inference Recognition – Instructions: Analyze the deductive syllogisms below and identify the inference in each one using the three steps for Recognizing Deductive Fallacies discussed in Chapter 5. Then write the name of its valid pattern or fallacy in the space below the argument. Use each of the ten patterns and fallacies discussed in Chapter 5. Solutions below.

1. She would know the lyrics to "Red Shoes" if she really were an Elvis Costello fan. But she obviously

doesn't know the lyrics, so she must not really be an Elvis Costello fan.

2. You will see its formal structure clearly if you read this argument carefully. If you understand how

logic works, then you’ll see that this argument does not follow. Therefore, you’ll see that it does not

follow, if you read this argument carefully.

3. Seeing as all mice are rodents, squirrels are mice, because squirrels are rodents.

4. Carolyn passes her exams, if she studies for them. Carolyn did not study for the Final. Thus, she will

not pass it.

5. The new Congress could pressure the President to implement all of the Iraq Study Group's

recommendations. Or else, it could promote only some of them. Besides, we already know there will be

no support in Congress for implementing the full gamut of recommendations. Consequently, the new

Congress will promote only some of the recommendations.

6. You can fail the class because of poor attendance, failure on one of the exams, incomplete homework

assignments, or inadequate lab work. Sydney passed all of her exams. Hence, attendance must have

been the reason she failed the class.

7. Anne bought a ticket, thus, she has a chance to win the Powerball lottery jackpot, since one has a

chance to win the Powerball™ lottery jackpot if she has a ticket.

8. If you understand the basic principles of deductive reasoning, you’ll see that this argument is valid, for

if you understand the basic principles of deductive reasoning, then you’ll know what validity means, and

if you know what validity means, you’ll see this argument is valid.

9. If he studies for exams, Brian passes them. Brian passed the Final Exam. Therefore he must have

studied for it.

10. The Yardbirds were one of the bands Clapton played in. All the bands Clapton played in were

extremely successful and had many big hits. Thus, the Yardbirds were extremely successful and had

many big hits.

5.3 Deductive Inference Recognition – Instructions: Identify the deductive inference in each syllogism using the three steps for Recognizing Deductive Fallacies discussed in Chapter 5. Solutions below.

A. Disjunctive Syllogism C. Modus Tollens E. Universal Categorical

Syllogism G. Broken Chain

I. Denying the Antecedent

B. Modus Ponens D. Hypothetical Chain F. False Dilemma H. Affirming the

Consequent J. Undistributed Middle

1. ___ If the University builds a bridge over Chestnut Street, it will increase students’ safety and

convenience. If students’ safety and convenience is increased, they will feel more comfortable paying

higher tuition. Hence, if the University builds a bridge over Chestnut Street, students will feel more

comfortable paying higher tuition.

2. ___ For all buildings built before 1900, the revised tax code doesn’t apply, so the revised tax code

doesn’t apply to the Norton Building, because it was built in 1873.

3. ___ If he were a good friend, he would give you back the things you lent to him. He hasn’t returned

the Led Zeppelin CD’s you lent him for his party two years ago. Therefore, he is not a good friend.

4. ___ If you are convicted of a felony, you permanently lose your right to vote in many states. This is a

crime for which you would lose your right to vote. So, this crime is a felony.

5. ___ We will have to buy a birthday cake for Jason's party because it's too cold to go out for ice cream.

Mom said we could either bake him a cake, buy him a cake, or take him out for ice cream.

6. ___ If you miss too many classes, you fail Mr. Amato’s class. John failed Mr. Amato’s class.

Consequently, he must have missed too many classes.

7. ___ If Aunt Sophie is still having trouble maintaining her blood pressure, they would have moved her

to the intensive care unit. If she is out of telephone contact, then we won’t be able to speak to her for a

few days. Consequently, if she is still having trouble with her blood pressure, then we won’t be able to

speak to her for a few days.

8. ___ The Morrison Building will be fully occupied by May and because if a building is occupied by May

the new tax rates apply to it, the Morrison Building will be taxed according to the new rates.

9. ___ If your bosses were engaged in shady business practices, then you could be the focus of a criminal

indictment. But your bosses aren’t engaged in any shady business practices. Thus, you will not be the

focus of a criminal indictment.

10. ___ You have to park the car in an expensive commercial garage or else leave it on a meter. But

because you cannot feed the meter while you’re at work, you have no choice but to park it in an

expensive commercial garage.

11 ___ If you don’t paint the back porch, I will not consider having the wedding ceremony there this

summer. You still have not painted the back porch, hence, I am not going to consider having the

wedding ceremony there this summer.

12. ___ All licensed physicians in the US are graduates of medical school. Ralph is a graduate of medical

school. Hence Ralph is a licensed physician in the US.

13. ___ Your grandparents had to arrive at the Port of Philadelphia, if they left Naples in 1921, seeing as

they had to have sailed on a government ship, if they left Naples then, and if they sailed on a

government ship, they had to arrive at the Port of Philadelphia.

14. ___ I think Mr. Hamilton is a candidate for the new experimental treatment. Any patient whose

symptoms include anemia is a candidate for the new experimental treatment, and his symptoms include

anemia.

15. ___ If Orr is sane, he will refuse to fly any more missions. But Orr is not sane, so he will not refuse to

fly any more missions.

16. ___ All wooden things burn. Witches burn. Thus, witches are made of wood.

17. ___ Unless you respond to the shut off notice by the end of the day it is received, we discontinue

service and close your account. You have failed to respond to the shut off notice by the end of the day.

Therefore, we have discontinued your service and closed your account.

18. ___ She doesn’t normally dress like a witch. Hence, she is not a witch, because she would normally

dress like a witch, if she were a witch.

19. ___ It will be easy for you to install this software if you follow the step-by-step instructions. If you

are fully satisfied with this software, you owe us some money for it. So, if you follow the step-by-step

instructions, then you owe us some money for the software.

20. ___ I predict that the Bears will be in the Super Bowl because the Seahawks, Cowboys, Eagles,

Giants, Bears, and Saints are all contenders to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl this year. The Saints

won't make it due to injuries.

5.4 Advanced Deductive Argument Recognition – Instructions: In this scene from Monty Python and the Quest for The Holy Grail, 1976, the illogicality is satirical. Analyze the reasoning to find instances of some of the valid patterns and deductive fallacies we have examined. If you have not seen this movie or this scene, watch this first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g. Solutions below.

FIRST VILLAGER: We have found a witch. May we burn her?

ALL: A witch. Burn her!

BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch?

ALL: She looks like one.

BEDEVERE: Bring her forward. {The villagers bring her forward.}

WITCH: I am not a witch. I am not a witch!

BEDEVERE: But you are dressed as one.

WITCH: They dressed me up like this.

ALL: We didn't, we didn't.

WITCH: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.

BEDEVERE: Well?

FIRST VILLAGER: Well, we did do the nose.

BEDEVERE: The nose?

FIRST VILLAGER: And the hat. But she is a witch.

ALL: A witch, a witch, burn her!

BEDEVERE: Did you dress her up like this?

FIRST VILLAGER: No... No... Yes... Yes, a bit... She has got a wart.

BEDEVERE: What makes you think she is a witch?

SECOND VILLAGER: Well, she turned me into a newt.

BEDEVERE: A newt?

SECOND VILLAGER: {after looking at himself for some time} I got better.

ALL: Burn her anyway! {ARTHUR and his companion ride up and watch what follows with interest.}

BEDEVERE: Quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she's a witch.

ALL: Are there? What are they? Tell us, tell us. Do they hurt?

BEDEVERE: Tell me...what do you do with witches?

ALL: Burn them. Burn them!

BEDEVERE: And what do you burn, apart from witches?

FIRST VILLAGER: More witches.

FOURTH VILLAGER: Wood.

BEDEVERE: So why do witches burn?

SECOND VILLAGER: {pianissimo} Because they're made of wood...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

BEDEVERE: Good….So how do we tell whether she is made of wood?

FIRST VILLAGER: Build a bridge out of her.

BEDEVERE: Ah...but can you not also make bridges out of stone?

FIRST VILLAGER: Oh, yes.

BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?

FOURTH VILLAGER: No, no. It floats.

FIRST VILLAGER: Throw her into the pond!

BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?

FIRST VILLAGER: Bread?

FOURTH VILLAGER: Apples...

SECOND VILLAGER: Very small rocks...

ALL: Cider...gravy...cherries...mud...churches...lead...

ARTHUR: A duck. {They all turn and look at ARTHUR,

BEDEVERE looks up very impressed.}

BEDEVERE: Exactly! So...logically...

FIRST VILLAGER: {picking up the thread} If she...weighs the same as a duck...she's made of wood.

BEDEVERE: And therefore?

ALL: A witch! A duck. A duck. Fetch a duck!

BEDEVERE: We shall use my largest scales….Right. Remove the supports. {The WITCH and duck balance.}

WITCH: It’s a fair cop. {The VILLAGERS drag the WITCH away.}

BEDEVERE: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

ARTHUR: I am Arthur, King of the Britons….

BEDEVERE: My liege!....30

5.2 Solutions, Deductive Argument Analysis and Inference Recognition: 1. Modus Tollens: B A ~B She would know the lyrics to "Red Shoes" if she really were an Elvis Costello fan. But she obviously ~A doesn't know the lyrics, so [she must not really be an Elvis Costello fan.] 2. Broken Chain: B A C You will see its formal structure clearly if you read this argument carefully. If you understand how logic D D works, then you’ll see that this argument does not follow. Therefore, [you’ll see that it does not follow, A if you read this argument carefully.]

3. Undistributed Middle: A B x A x B Seeing as all mice are rodents, [squirrels are mice], because squirrels are rodents. 4. Denying the Antecedent: B A ~A ~B Carolyn passes her exams, if she studies for them. Carolyn did not study for the Final. Thus, [she will not pass it.] 5. Disjunctive Syllogism: (Either) A The new Congress could pressure the President to implement all of the Iraq Study Group's B ~A recommendations. Or else, it could promote only some of them. Besides, we already know there will be no support in Congress for implementing the full gamut of recommendations. Consequently, [the new B Congress will promote only some of the recommendations.] 6. False Dilemma: A (or) B (or) C You can fail the class because of poor attendance, failure on one of the exams, incomplete homework ~B A assignments, or inadequate lab work. Sydney passed all of her exams. Hence, [attendance must have been the reason she failed the class.] 7. Modus Ponens: A B B Anne bought a ticket, thus, [she has a chance to win the Powerball lottery jackpot], since one has a A chance to win the Powerball™ lottery jackpot if she has a ticket. 8. Hypothetical Chain: A C [If you understand the basic principles of deductive reasoning, you’ll see that this argument is valid,] for A B if you understand the basic principles of deductive reasoning, then you’ll know what validity means, and B C if you know what validity means, you’ll see this argument is valid. 9. Affirming the Consequent: A B B A If he studies for exams, Brian passes them. Brian passed the Final Exam. Therefore [he must have studied for it.] 10. Universal Categorical Syllogism:

x A A B The Yardbirds were one of the bands Clapton played in. All the bands Clapton played in were extremely x B successful and had many big hits. Thus, [the Yardbirds were extremely successful and had big hits.]

5.3 Solutions, Deductive Argument Recognition:

1. Hypothetical Chain: A B If the University builds a bridge over Chestnut Street, it will increase students’ safety and convenience. If B C students’ safety and convenience is increased, they will feel more comfortable paying higher tuition. A C Hence, [if the University builds a bridge over Chestnut Street, students will feel more comfortable...] 2. Universal Categorical Syllogism: A B B For all buildings built before 1900, the revised tax code doesn’t apply, so [the revised tax code doesn’t x x A apply to the Norton Building], because it was built in 1873. 3. Modus Tollens: A B ~B If he were a good friend, he would give you back the things you lent to him. He hasn’t returned the Led ~A Zeppelin CD’s you lent him for his party two years ago. Therefore, [he is not a good friend.] 4. Affirming the Consequent: A B If you are convicted of a felony, you permanently lose your right to vote in many states. This is a crime B A for which you would lose your right to vote. So, [this crime is a felony.] 5. False Dilemma: B ~C [We will have to buy a birthday cake for Jason's party] because it's too cold to go out for ice cream. A B C Mom said we could either bake him a cake, buy him a cake, or take him out for ice cream. 6. Affirming the Consequent: A B B If you miss too many classes, you fail Mr. Amato’s class. John failed Mr. Amato’s class. Consequently, A [he must have missed too many classes.] 7. Broken Chain:

A B If Aunt Sophie is still having trouble maintaining her blood pressure, they would have moved her to the C D intensive care unit. If she is out of telephone contact, then we won’t be able to speak to her for a few A D days. Consequently, [if she is still having trouble with her blood pressure, then we won’t be able...] 8. Modus Ponens: A A The Morrison Building will be fully occupied by May and because if a building is occupied by May the B B new tax rates apply to it, [the Morrison Building will be taxed according to the new rates.] 9. Denying the Antecedent: A B If your bosses were engaged in shady business practices, then you could be the focus of a criminal ~A ~B indictment. But your bosses aren’t engaged in any shady business practices. Thus, [you will not be...] 10. Disjunctive Syllogism: A B You have to park the car in an expensive commercial garage or else leave it on a meter. But because you ~B A cannot feed the meter while you’re at work, [you have no choice but to park it...] 11. Modus Ponens: A B If you don’t paint the back porch, I will not consider having the wedding ceremony there this summer. A B You still have not painted the back porch, hence, [I am not going to consider having...] 12. Undistributed Middle: A B x B All licensed physicians in the US are graduates of medical school. Ralph is a graduate of medical school. x A Hence [Ralph is a licensed physician in the US.] 13. Hypothetical Chain: C A [Your grandparents had to arrive at the Port of Philadelphia, if they left Naples in 1921,] seeing as they B A B had to have sailed on a government ship, if they left Naples then, and if they sailed on a government C ship, they had to arrive at the Port of Philadelphia. 14. Universal Categorical Syllogism: x B A

[I think Mr. Hamilton is a candidate for the new experimental treatment.] Any patient whose symptoms B x A include anemia is a candidate for the new experimental treatment, and his symptoms include anemia. 15. Denying the Antecedent: A B ~A ~B If Orr is sane, he will refuse to fly any more missions. But Orr is not sane, so [he will not refuse to fly...] 16. Undistributed Middle: A B x B x A All wooden things burn. Witches burn. Thus, [witches are made of wood.] 17. Disjunctive Syllogism: A (or else) B Unless you respond to the shut off notice by the end of the day it is received, we discontinue service and ~A close your account. You have failed to respond to the shut off notice by the end of the day. Therefore, B [we have discontinued your service and closed your account.] 18. Modus Tollens: ~B ~A She doesn’t normally dress like a witch. Hence [she is not a witch,] because she would B A normally dress like a witch, if she were a witch. 19. Broken Chain: B A It will be easy for you to install this software if you follow the step-by-step instructions. If you are fully C D A satisfied with this software, you owe us some money for it. So, [if you follow the step-by-step D instructions, then you owe us some money for the software.] 20. False Dilemma: E A (or) B (or) C (or) D [I predict that the Bears will be in the Super Bowl] because the Seahawks, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, (or) E (or) F ~F Bears, and Saints are all contenders to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl this year. The Saints won't make it due to injuries. 5.4 Solutions, Advanced Deductive Argument Recognition: 1. If someone looks like a witch, then she is a witch. This woman looks like a witch. So, she is a witch: Modus Ponens. This is a valid but unsound argument, since the Major Premise is probably false. The second one is highly questionable once it becomes clear that “she looks like a witch” only by accident.

2. If I were a witch, then I would normally dress like one. But I do not dress like one. So, I am not a witch: Modus Tollens. This is a valid and sound argument aimed to rebut the first argument by showing that its Major Premise is untrue. The accused argues that it is not the case that everyone who happens to look like a witch really is a witch. The accused has been dressed up like a witch by the villagers and so premise two of this argument is true. Shortly below, a brief counter-rebuttal is offered: The presence of a wart suggests that she looks like a witch even without the dressing up. But this is regarded as insufficient and the line of reasoning is dropped. Science requires that we look deeper for evidence! 3. All persons who have the power to turn others into newts, are witches. She turned me into a newt. Therefore, she is a witch: Universal Categorical Syllogism. This is a valid argument, but the Major Premise is implausible, even if true by definition, and the second isn’t believed by anyone! Unsound. 4. The best way to represent the invalid reasoning in the next section is probably like this: All witches burn. All wood burns. So, all witches are wood. In terms of the formal patterns we have looked at, this translates best as Undistributed Middle: All things that are made of wood are things that burn. Witches are things that burn. So, witches are made of wood. This is a better way to represent the reasoning than saying, All that burns is wood, witches burn, so witches are wood, since this would be a valid Universal Categorical Syllogism, and the reasoning given clearly is not valid. Even still, this latter argument, although valid, would remain unsound because all that burns is not wood. 5. All things that can be used to make bridges are wood. She can be used to make a bridge. So, she is made of wood: Universal Categorical Syllogism. Although valid, it is quickly noted that the Major Premise is false, so the argument is unsound: “BEDEVERE: …can you not also make bridges out of stone?, FIRST VILLAGER: Oh, yes.” 6. If she is a witch, then she is wood. If she is wood, then she will float in the pond. So, if she is a witch, then she will float in the pond: Hypothetical Chain. This is valid but unsound. The practice of “dunking” was variously used to punish or “out” women suspected of being witches or otherwise possessed. Instead of throwing her in the water, they start looking for other things that float in water, and this is where Arthur finally comes in: 7. All things that float weigh the same amount. Ducks and things that are made of wood float. So, ducks and wooden things weigh the same: Universal Categorical Syllogism. This unsound but valid argument isn’t stated, but its conclusion is assumed in the reasoning that follows: 8. If she weighs the same as a duck, then she is made of wood. If she is made of wood, then she is a witch. So, if she weighs the same as a duck, she is a witch: Hypothetical Chain. Unsound. This argument establishes the conditional statement out of which the last argument, which reflects the reasoning involved in the ‘trial,’ is formed... 9. If she weighs the same as a duck, she is a witch. She does weigh the same as a duck. So, she is a witch: Modus Ponens. Unsound.

Chapter 6. The Use & Abuse of Language Language is a very complicated phenomenon. There’s a tremendous understatement! Language is actually many very complicated phenomena at once. It is not only our medium of literature and communication, but also a deeply significant part of human experience with rich physiological, psychological, sociological, cultural, historical, and other dimensions. But little of the complexity of language is obvious to us on the day-to-day level when we are actually using it. Like many of the systems we depend on every day, we tend to take the complexity of language pretty much for granted.

Language, on the most basic level, involves the expression and communication of meaning. In this chapter, we will focus on just a few of the ways spoken or written language imparts meaning that are important for critical reasoning. It is very helpful for us as critical reasoners to identify and think about these features of language and some of the logical problems that emerge as a result of their use and abuse.

In the most general sense, language is fundamentally meaningful. But what does “meaning” mean? This is a huge topic in Philosophy, but in relation to our purposes here, the ability of a word to mean something in language is its capacity to be used as a sign or a symbol that carries significance or sense. Okay, so what do we mean by “significance” and “sense”? Good questions, but there is no way to answer them that is not a little circular. So, here goes: By significance and sense we are talking about what can be grasped in thinking of and about experience. Maybe this will help: If you think about the difference between something being “nonsense” or the opposite of nonsense, it is the opposite of nonsense that we mean by saying something has meaning. An expression is meaningful if it has some sense, and it has some sense if it is significant and not nonsense.

The way words and phrases do this is commonly divided into two kinds of meaning—denotation and connotation. Denotation refers to the way words and phrases act like signs to refer or indicate. Words and phrases point to things, events, states of affairs, persons, and objects we can be aware of or think of. The denotations of a word or phrase are the things, events, states of affairs, or circumstances that the word or phrase identifies. It is what the word “picks out” or indicates. To the extent that a word or phrase picks out any object or thing, whatever it picks out is the denotative meaning of that word or phrase. For example, we all have names because names pick us out from almost all other people in our families and towns. To the extent that your name picks you out, you are its denotation. While there might be many different words one can think of to denote a particular object, it is also true that a single word may have many different denotations, or “senses,” depending on the context in which it is used.

The denotations that a word has are different from its connotations. The connotations of a word or phrase are the images and emotions that are associated with its use. Connotations reflect the emotional and psychological force that results when words or phrases are used. In this sense, a connotation is a kind of negative or positive “charge” that a word or phrase carries from its connection to events in our experience and the experience of one’s culture. For example, it was common until a decade or so ago to refer to residences dedicated to providing various levels of assistance to elderly people as “old people’s homes,” “homes for the elderly,” or “nursing homes.” Today, it is much more common for such facilities to be called “retirement homes,” “assisted-living communities,” and “senior residences.” The effect or “charge” associated with these latter terms is thought to be more positive than that of the earlier ones because the images and emotions brought to mind by the words “old,” “elderly,” and “nursing” are generally thought of as negative compared to those associated with words like “senior,” “retirement,” “community,” and “residence.” The more positive terms stress independence and engagement while the negative ones bring to mind images of illness and institutionalization.

Distinguishing denotations and connotations clearly and being aware of their effects is important. Whenever we select words, we intentionally or unintentionally manipulate the images and emotions in the minds of our listeners because words and phrases have positive and negative connotations. For the sake of clear thinking and writing, a critical reasoner tries to avoid using language in ways that distort or manipulate others in a way that misleads them or keeps them from finding out the truth. Critical reasoning helps us resist the kind of manipulation and confusion that others can sometimes create by purposely or out of carelessness using language in deceptive, distracting, and confusing ways.

Euphemism and Dysphemism Euphemism is the use of less-direct words or phrases which have neutral or positive connotations in place of terms that would be blunt, direct, or possibly harsh ways of denoting something. Most of the time, euphemism occurs inadvertently as an attempt to acknowledge the experiences and feelings of others, but it is often done with the conscious and deliberate intention to side-step, gloss-over, suppress, or deny unpalatable aspects of a situation or an event. Here are some common euphemisms that you might hear in everyday communication or in the news. Notice how the word or phrase in the left hand column, (the euphemism), sounds nicer and less threatening than the blunter, more direct word or phrase in the right hand column:

Euphemism Common Expression “administrative assistant” personal secretary

“sales associate” cashier, salesperson “human resources department” personnel office

“let go” laid off, fired from a job “gaming” gambling

“pre-owned car” used car “processing” (of animals) slaughtering, killing

“intelligence gathering” “espionage” spying “fixer-upper” dilapidated house

“underserved” oppressed “ethnic cleansing” genocide

“liberty” de-regulation, privatization “free enterprise” “entrepreneurship” capitalism

“erectile dysfunction” impotence “bio-solids” toxic sludge

As is clear in these examples, euphemism involves a way of denoting something that indicates, but also hides part of what it indicates. By selecting words with neutral or positive connotations, euphemism allows us to put a happy face on something that might otherwise not be so pleasant. This is usually a matter of respecting the feelings and sensitivities of some listeners or readers. But it is important for critical reasoners to recognize that euphemism can have the effect of distracting us from all or part of what is being denoted, and in this way it can lead us away from the truth. This might be the unintentional effect of speaking euphemistically, or the deliberate and intentional reason for doing so.

Ken Smith accentuates the negative aspects of euphemism as a tool that can be used to distort or evade the truth:

100

Euphemisms are mild words or colorless expressions used to camouflage disagreeable truths…The Nazis, although far from the first government to use pleasant-sounding words to hide unpleasant facts, lowered this cynical art to depths rarely equaled: special treatment was [their euphemism for] hanging, resettlement was forced deportation to concentration camps or sometimes simply mass murder. In framing our own Constitution, men such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington deliberately substituted migration and importation for “the slave trade,” while southern politicians of the nineteenth century used the affable term our peculiar institution to avoid using “slavery”….31

While euphemism tends to make something sound more positive than it may actually be, there

is also a common way speakers and writers can choose their words so as to focus on the negative: Dysphemism is the use of words or phrases selected for their negative connotations in place of terms that would be less threatening, kinder, or more neutral ways of denoting something. Dysphemisms tend to exaggerate the negative, usually making something sound scarier than it would normally seem to be to most people. Here are some examples of dysphemisms:

Dysphemism Common Expression

“death tax” estate tax “death panel” voluntary end-of-life counseling

“socialized medicine” universal national health coverage “coffin nails” “suicide sticks” cigarettes

“political correctness” politeness, kindness “axe to grind” an opinion or point of view “Big Brother” any governmental agency or bureau

“agenda” political perspective, opinion “propagandizing” “indoctrination” expressing a position or stance

“cult” “gang” an association, group, or organization “eggheads” intellectuals or smart students

“jocks” athletes “tree-huggers” environmentalists

“reactionaries” “Neanderthals” conservatives “crippled” disabled

As should be clear from these examples, dysphemisms, just like euphemisms, can be used to

direct attention to just those aspects of a subject matter the speaker cares about. This explains why euphemism and dysphemism both tend to multiply dramatically in the context of conflict and controversy and “delicate subjects.” It has been said that, “truth is the first casualty of war,” since there are advantages to all sides in any conflict to “manage” or manipulate perceptions. It has even become common for those in the government and military to use a euphemism for this very activity of creating euphemisms: side-stepping the acknowledgement of their own propaganda by calling it “strategic communication.”

To illustrate how euphemism and dysphemism can result in vastly different ideas of what an argument is about, what exactly it’s arguing, and whether it’s any good, here is a comparison. First, is a more or less neutral version of an argument:

A group of World Bank economists and officials said in a press release Friday that they were not sure that the plan to cut spending and raise taxes would work to stabilize the

101

Greek economy. And Greek officials and private citizens are moving their assets into foreign banks in case it does not. So, the current problems in the Greek economy should not be considered as resolved by the current plan.

Now compare it with is a version that is slanted toward critics of the Greek austerity plan. Notice how euphemisms and dysphemisms are used in place of clearer and more neutral language:

A multi-national delegation of scientists and dignitaries expressed concern in a joint statement Friday that the pauperization set to be imposed on Greece would fail to repair the total wreck that is the Greek economy. And many of those who hold positions of power and responsibility in that failed state are planning to protect national institutions and keep their own options open when this becomes clear. So, the Greek financial crisis continues to deepen despite the austerity plan.

Finally, here is a version slanted against critics of the Greek austerity plan where euphemisms and dysphemisms are used to make the emotional and psychological “charges” go in the opposite direction:

A clique of international bankers, financial executives and politicians declared Friday that the initiative to get the Greek economy back on track might not be entirely successful in restoring the Greek economy to health. And, panicky politicians and impatient members of the elite are desperately scheming to expatriate the nation’s wealth into tax-havens and secret bank accounts in order to protect their assets and power. So, all parties are not in agreement that Greece’s difficulties will be completely averted by the plan.

While any of these three versions could be leaving out important information, it should be clear that the first version best approximates an argument that is not clearly favoring or advocating one side of the issue regarding the Greek austerity plan. It gives the reader who has not already made up his or her mind the best opportunity to do so without in a way that is independent of the writer’s and editor’s opinions.

Jargon, Circumlocution, Slang

Two uses of language that are similar to euphemism and dysphemism are jargon and circumlocution. Jargon is the use of unnecessarily complex words in order to mystify or confuse an audience, often associated with professional, academic, and technical discourse. Within any technical field, it is necessary to “learn the lingo” used by those who have training, and to understand how to properly use it. But using “the lingo” outside that context is mainly a way to confuse and bamboozle the uninitiated. Sometimes, the point of using jargon in this way is to communicate to the listener that the speaker is trained and “on the ball,” (well, at least he or she thinks so). In fact, however, it is usually a sign of insecurity about one’s knowledge or credentials to use jargon among those who cannot be expected to know what it means. If you are confident about what you know, you don’t need to impress others by using unnecessarily big words.

Circumlocution is associated with “legalese” and ways of speaking that make things sound more official, important, or special than they really are. So, calling the chair you are sitting in a “horizontal above-ground anterior locational and situational stabilization device” might make it seem important. It’s still just a chair. Businesspeople and politicians are more likely to describe themselves as “proactively affirming and engendering synergistic affinities in co-operative co-adaptive policy-determining contexts going forward,” rather than just saying, “we will try to work together.”

People sometimes use jargon or circumlocution to cover up the fact that they haven’t got a lot to say that is interesting or new. They can also be used as methods of stalling for time, “talking around”

102

an issue in a roundabout way, and making it seem like one has something to say when one really doesn’t. Needless to say, teachers do this all the time. We have been known to “terminologically and verbally coordinate and extend dialogical educational applications in a systematically temporally distorting fashion.” (We can sometimes talk too much.)

Slang is closely related to jargon and circumlocution. Slang involves using words and phrases in informal, indirect, and sometimes purposely deceptive ways. Usually, the point of using slang is to signal a kind of casualness and intimacy between the speaker and listener. This can work because the meanings of slang words are thought to be understood by the speaker’s target group and not by the larger society the speaker wishes to separate himself or herself from by using them. So, for example, if I refer to my bosses and the firm’s top executives as “the suits,” or “the white shirts,” this identifies me as someone who doesn’t dress in a suit or wear a shirt with a “white collar” to work, and my using it identifies you (the listener) as someone who I believe is in on this meaning. But these and other slang terms become less slang-y as they are repeated in popular media and become more widely used and accepted in the community at large.

If one is living in a society where political speech and dissent are directly or indirectly punished, one learns quickly to use indirect and ambiguous terms and phrases so as to avoid “getting in hot water,” or “attracting the wrong kind of attention,” from those in power, (those are both euphemisms for “harassment” and “punishment.”) When challenging powerful institutions directly is likely to get one killed or “disappeared,” dissenters and intellectuals tend to resort to indirect uses of language, including euphemism, circumlocution, slang, and related forms of literary deception like satire and allegory, in order to express political and social criticism.

Problems of Ambiguity

One of the most important features of the meanings of words and phrases stems from the fact that the same word can have several denotative meanings or senses. If you look in the dictionary, you will find definitions of words, but you have probably noticed that often, a single word has several different meanings listed in the dictionary entry, some using numbers to keep them separate. Here’s an example:

zip 1 (zip) n.1. a short sharp sound like that of a bullet going through the air. 2. energy, vigor, liveliness. zip v. 1. to open or close with a zipper. 2. to move with the sound of “zip” or at high speed. zip 2 n. (slang) zero, nothing, especially as a score in a sports event. zip 3 v. to put a zip code on.32

Each of the meanings of “zip” indicated by a number or separate entry here is a sense of the word that would be appropriate in some contexts of use and not others. Understanding language involves recognizing which sense of a word is intended by the author or speaker in a given context. Grammar, when used properly, also helps us understand which sense is intended by a speaker who uses a word.

This condition of a word’s having several possible meanings is known as ambiguity. It is an underlying feature of language, not a problem. Words can have different senses as described above. As a result, statements can mean different things depending on whether the words are read one way or the other. Several problems in the use of language are related to ambiguity. The three problems of ambiguity treated in the rest of this chapter are amphiboly, equivocation, and vagueness.

Amphiboly

"I object to all this sex on the television. I mean, I keep falling off."33

103

There’s something funny about the statement above that results from a specific kind of ambiguity: Amphiboly is unclarity that results from ambiguous grammatical structure. This means it isn’t clear in amphibolous expressions how the words are meant to relate to each other, and which of different possible senses is intended. When amphiboly occurs, the reader or listener has to struggle to figure out what exactly is meant. It tends to make arguments fallacies because it renders them incoherent. Here are a couple of examples of arguments in which the grammatical structure is ambiguous and an incoherence results:

The team has been happy playing in the stadium for two decades in the downtown part of the city, and has not expressed any desire to leave it for a new one. So, we don’t see them as anxious to leave it even though its infrastructure is aging and in decay in recent years. It’s clear to me that Tufts should not be considered as good a school as Princeton. Just look at their literature program. In both these examples, it isn’t clear what the arguer is arguing. In the first example, it isn’t clear

if the word “it” that appears in the premise and the conclusion refers to “the downtown part of the city” or “the stadium.” Consequently, we don’t know which one of these is “aging and in decay,” and which the team might be anxious to leave. In the second example, the premise could be referring to either the obvious superiority of Princeton’s or the obvious deficiency of Tufts’ literature program. This unclarity results from the fact that the conclusion uses the word “their” in a way that could be meant to refer either to Princeton or to Tufts. In both examples, the problem that leads to the ambiguity is grammatical imprecision, which is the root of amphiboly.

Sometimes, amphiboly can involve paradox where the words seem to say one thing while suggesting the opposite. A famous example is the statement of the Oracle at Delphi recounted in Plato’s Apology of Socrates: When asked if Socrates was the wisest man in Athens, the Oracle responds, “there is none wiser.” On the face of it, this looks like the Oracle is saying Socrates is not only wise, but is wiser than anyone else in the city. In fact, what Socrates eventually discovers is that the Oracle means something quite different from this: that he is unwise, but that in lacking wisdom, he is like all Athenians, although Socrates is unique in recognizing this. The grammatical ambiguity of the Oracle’s response leaves alternative interpretations open, and so, like any good ancient riddle, the listener is forced to figure out the real answer to the question. Socrates is indeed lacking in wisdom, but he is also at the same time wise, in that he recognizes his lack of wisdom.34

Another oracle-related example is provided by Tom Andrews: [Amphiboly] ...occurs when arguing with premises whose formulas are ambiguous because of their grammatical construction. The meaning of these sentences is awkward because of the loose word construction. "Save soap and waste paper." "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas." An amphiboly may be a true statement on one occasion, yet false at another time. For instance, Croesus consulting the notoriously ambiguous Oracle at Delphi and being told that if he went to war, a great empire would fall, failed to consider that the empire that might fall could be his own.35

But, intentionally paradoxical and oracular uses aside, unclarity stemming from amphiboly can

be a serious obstacle to good reasoning. Most of the time, grammar and context make it clear what a speaker or writer is actually trying to refer to, removing the ambiguity. Strange and funny effects appear when the normally assumed context of an utterance is removed and crucial clues are missing. When grammar fails us by being imprecise, humorous examples of amphiboly can occur, as in these headlines:

104

Lawyers Give Poor Free Legal Advice36

Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant

Killer Sentenced to Die for Second Time in Ten Years

Autos Killing 110 a Day—Let's Resolve to Do Better

Bush: One of the Worst Disasters to Hit the U.S.37

Helicopter Powered by Human Flies38

Amphiboly is very easy to fall into in everyday speech and writing because we often share so

much context with our listeners and readers that the information crucial to deciphering the intended meaning of an expression and to blocking unintended ones, is taken for granted. But such assumptions are often mistaken. An example occurred recently in a memo I received from a Dean. Regarding the grading system one of our Professors uses for his classes, the Dean argued that,

This Professor must make it clear to his students that the grading system he will use for the work done in this class is not identical to the system used for class grades and for generating students’ GPA’s in the College of Arts and Sciences, seeing as there is no D minus.

It could be that the Professor’s system is unique in that it doesn’t use the D minus grade while the College does. In this reading, the premise of the Dean’s argument is meant to express that, “there is no D minus in this Professor’s system but there should be.” But notice that the argument as written could equally well mean the opposite. It could be that “there is no D minus” in the grading system of the College, but the Professor is using the D minus in the system he is using for the class.

A final humorous example of amphiboly was heard on the National Public Radio program, Car Talk: A sign in the window of the optometrist José Kenyoucie reads as follows below.39 See if you can clearly distinguish its two contradictory meanings—one welcoming new customers and the other probably discouraging them!

We offer a full range of licensed optometric services for those who cannot see paying too much for their eye examinations, contact lenses, eyeglass lenses and frames.

Equivocation

Words or phrases are equivocal if used in a way that does not distinguish which of their meanings or senses are intended. Notice in the example of equivocation below that both the words “sanctioned” and “oversight” can have quite different meanings depending on the context. Without the context being clear here, we cannot know which meanings of these words are intended.

A government committee sanctioned the oversight.

There are actually two ways equivocation can undermine an argument. The first is the simple way that equivocal statements, when they appear as premises in an argument, create obstacles to understanding what an arguer is getting at because of ambiguous meanings as in the examples of amphiboly noted above. The second way can also be very damaging to an argument. This happens when the arguer uses a single word or phrase several times in an argument and seems to use different senses

105

of that word or phrase in different places in the same argument. Here are a couple of examples of this second type of equivocation:

The argument about whether Darwinism or Creationism is more scientific is a kind of draw. Here’s why: It is true that virtually all of the biologists in the world recognize that Darwinian principles are well-founded in explanatory science. But it is also true that there are many professors of theological science who reject this idea. Afghani peasants and workers have struggled for decades to form unions and defend their democratic rights. We were invited by their government to defend Afghanistan from anti-democratic forces. Thus, the Soviet Army is not a force of occupation but a force of democratization. Equivocation renders both of these arguments incoherent. In the first one, the meaning of the

word “science” is associated with theoretical systems that are “explanatory” in the first premise, but in the Minor Premise is used broadly to include theology as a kind of “science.” This equivocation between very narrow and very broad senses of what “science” can denote makes the conclusion meaningless. In the second argument, the arguer equivocates on the word “democratic.” In the first premise, it is identified with the struggles of peasants and workers for rights that have been denied over decades, presumably with the collusion of the existing state. But, in the second premise, “anti-democratic” forces are those opposed to the existing state, which has apparently invited forces from outside to defend it, perhaps even against the workers and peasants of Afghanistan. When you see that these senses are contradictory, you are forced to realize that the conclusion the arguer draws here doesn’t follow.

Charles Ess offers a helpful account of equivocation with a great example:40

My favorite example of equivocation comes from my graduate logic professor, Dr. Johnstone, (Penn State):

Hot dogs are better than nothing Nothing is better than steak.

Therefore, hot dogs are better than steak. The oddity of the conclusion should tell us that something has gone seriously awry with the argument—even though both premises are, on first blush, true. What has gone wrong—“nothing” is used in two different senses in the premises. In the first premise, “nothing” means something like “nothing to eat at all,” while in the second premise “nothing” means something like “no possible food choice on the planet.” It is the slippage from the one sense to the second that allows for the peculiar conclusion—but this slippage rests on equivocation in the meaning of “nothing.”

Vagueness

Amphiboly and equivocation happen as the result of failing to clarify which among a number of meanings is intended. In this sense, the words or phrases pick out too many meanings. With vagueness the problem is the opposite one: Vagueness results when the use of a word or phrase is so unclear that it fails to clearly denote anything. A standard example of vagueness is the use of words like “tall.” This kind of term tends to be used in a vague manner because there is no objective sense to be given to it. Whether it applies to human beings or palm trees, the range to which it would apply is indefinite. Let’s say we are talking about human beings: How tall is tall for a human being? The determination will be relative to individual human populations and to the sexes on average. We have to decide upon boundaries for the population we are talking about every time we use a term like "tall." But even when

106

we establish such boundaries, we will always find that there are borderline cases. So, in the group we have carefully delimited, is 5’10” going to count as “tall,” or 5’11”? Why not 5’10.5”? The point is that these will be essentially arbitrary determinations, which suggests that “tall” measures many things in addition to “tallness.” In other words, deciding how tall is tall involves making a host of decisions that reflect the speaker's assumptions, expectations, goals, and purposes. All applications of terms like “tall” are unclear unless the features combining to produce a definite range for their application have been clarified.

Vague usage is usually the result of carelessness and imprecision. But vagueness can be intentionally employed in speaking and writing in order to mislead or distract attention from something an author wishes you not to see. A popular way to do this is the use of words that denote almost nothing yet create an aura of goodness through their positive connotations. As discussed earlier in connection with the fallacy of Red Herring, so-called “glittering generalities” are vague words and phrases that point to nothing specific but make us feel good due to their positive connotations. This is commonly done in politics and advertising. For example, to say that a product is one you should buy because “it helps,” denotes very little. It gives us nothing to evaluate or assess in determining the product’s effectiveness. Similarly, a politician or political party can make all kinds of broad claims about how they support “Progress,” and “Liberty,” and “Democracy,” but then again who doesn’t support these things? In each case, the word or phrase refers to something vaguely good that isn’t direct or detailed enough to make it possible to assess whether or not that thing is really being delivered. Did you ever stop to think about what advertisers really promise from the product they are selling when they “guarantee results”? ◊

Review Questions & Practice Exercises 6.1 Review Questions – Here are some questions you should be able to answer based on the preceding chapter in a clear and detailed way, in your own words, and in at least about 5 sentences each. 1. Carefully define denotation. Then give an example of a word or phrase and identify some of possible denotations of that word or phrase. 2. Carefully define connotation. Then give an example of a word or phrase and identify some of possible connotations of that word or phrase. 3. Fully and carefully define the terms “euphemism” and “dysphemism.” Give an original example of each from your experience or imagination. 4. Explain what “jargon” and “circumlocution” are and how they present obstacles for logic. Describe a context or an example from your experience or imagination in which one of these occurs. 5. Explain what the term “ambiguity” refers to, using an original example. How is the phenomenon of ambiguity related to denotation?

107

6.2 Euphemistically Speaking – Instructions: Below there are two columns. Fill in all of the blanks in both columns so that the left column contains euphemisms, and the right column contains the terms for which these might be replacements or substitutes. Solutions below.

Euphemism Less Positive Word or Phrase

1. “recycling center”

2. “senior ”, “in his golden years”

3. “family planning products”

4. having no money

5. having a lot of money

6. prison

7. taxation

8. feeling sick

10.

6.3 Dysphemistically Speaking — Instructions: Below there are two columns. Fill in all of the blanks in both columns so that the left column contains dysphemisms, and the right column contains the terms for which these might be replacements or substitutes. Solutions below.

Dysphemism More Neutral Word or Phrase

1. “con man”

2. “egghead”

3. “snitch”, “rat”

4. having an opinion

5. married

6. not fully understanding

7. being cooperative

8. looking for work

10.

108

6.4 Problems of Ambiguity — Instructions: Each of the five arguments in this section has an ambiguity that comes from one of the three types discussed in this chapter. Place the appropriate letter in the space before the argument. Use each at least once. Solutions below.

A. Amphiboly B. Equivocation C. Vagueness

1. ___ It is true that our tuition now ranks among the highest in the nation for comparable institutions,

but every penny of that tuition is justified because it is devoted to maintaining our highest commitment

and complete devotion to the success and accomplishment of our outstanding students.

2. ___ I am sure that twill be safe for your friends to walk past the schoolyard where the high school kids

hang out at night. It’s usually well-lit on that street at night, and they aren’t looking for any trouble.

3. ___ The President did use propaganda to persuade the people to accept that a war was necessary.

But there’s nothing wrong with his doing so, seeing as propaganda has always been an invaluable tool in

making it possible to trick or deceive the enemy in a time of war.

4. ___ The new Super-Mighty-Elbow-Flex 6000™ is a significant advance in muscle-tone technology. In

just four weeks of workouts using the new Super-Mighty-Elbow-Flex6000™ and a sensible diet and

exercise program, we guarantee you will get the quality results you desire. So, you should buy one!

5. ___ I don’t think we should tear down the old garage, as the Parks Department Executive Committee

suggested at our last meeting. It may be tired and worn down from age and abuse, but it still has

usefulness and adequate support from the Mayor.

6.5 Advanced Criticism – Instructions: Analyze the main argument in this passage using the Four Step Method of Argument Analysis introduced in Chapter 2. Then assess it by following the three steps for recognizing inductive fallacies from Chapter 4 and the concepts introduced in Chapter 6 to assess the arguer’s use of language. Solutions below.

High Marks for Busy-ness, Not Much Else41

Most people think it’s fine to be “busy as a beaver.” Little do they know. Beavers may work hard, but often they don’t get much done.

Beavers are supposed to be great tree cutters. It is true that a beaver can gnaw through a tree very quickly. (A six-inch birch takes about ten minutes.) But then what? Often the beaver

109

does not make use of the tree. One expert says that beavers waste one out of every five trees they cut.

For one thing, they do not choose their trees wisely. One bunch of beavers cut down a cottonwood tree more than one hundred feet tall. Then they found that they could not move it. In thick woods, a tree sometimes won’t fall down. It gets stuck in the other trees. Of course, [a beaver] doesn’t think to cut down the trees that are in the way. So a good tree goes to waste.

Some people think that beavers can make a tree fall the way they want it to. Not true. (In fact, a beaver sometimes gets pinned under a falling tree.) When beavers cut a tree near a stream, it usually falls into the water. But they do not plan it that way. The fact is that most trees lean toward the water to start with.

Now what about dam building? Most beaver dams are engineering wonders. The best are strongly built of trees, stones, and mud. They are wide at the bottom and narrow at the top.

Beavers think nothing of building a dam more than two hundred feet long. One, in Montana, was more than two thousand. The largest ever seen was in New Hampshire. It stretched four thousand feet. It made a lake large enough to hold forty beaver homes.

So beavers do build good dams. But they don’t always build them in the right places. They just don’t plan. They will build a dam across the widest part of the stream. They don’t try to find a place where the stream is narrow. So a lot of work is wasted.

Beavers should learn that it’s not enough to be busy. You have to know what you’re doing, too. For example, there was one Oregon beaver that really was a worker. It decided to fix a leak in a man-made dam. After five days of work it gave up. The leak it was trying to block was the lock that boats go through.

6.6 Advanced Criticism – Instructions: Analyze the main argument in this passage using the Four Step Method of Argument Analysis introduced in Chapter 2. Then assess it by following the three steps for recognizing inductive fallacies from Chapter 4 and the concepts introduced in Chapter 6 to assess the arguer’s use of language. Solutions below.

Begging for Survival: Where is Homeland Security for LA. and MISS.?42

Hurricane Katrina left in its wake horrific death and destruction in Louisiana and Mississippi. It also left some brutal questions we must answer and possibly a hard lesson we have to absorb.

Among the questions: Why was New Orleans, which had survived the brunt of the hurricane, so vulnerable to the tsunami-like flooding that has engulfed the city?

As Daily News staff writer Will Bunch has pointed out, the levees that had long protected New Orleans from the waters of Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi were still a work in progress. The New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper had reported as late as last year that federal funding for improving and strengthening the levees had been diverted by the Bush administration into funding the Iraq War. Work on the levees had to stop. We are seeing the results.

Are we saying the hurricane is Bush's fault? Of course not. We'll leave that kind of delusional thinking to Repent America, which yesterday decided to kick New Orleans while it's down by blaming the city's famously hedonistic attitude for the catastrophe. "Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," said Repent America director Michael Marcavage, who must have missed the sermons on humility and charity.

What we are saying is that New Orleans and Louisiana had a plan to protect the city from hurricanes like Katrina and couldn't pay for it because the federal government turned away.

110

Another hard question: Why has it taken so long for the government to impose order and bring relief to the refugees of New Orleans, Biloxi, Miss., and other towns ravaged by this storm?

Looting is rampant, families are sleeping by the roadside, rescuers are overwhelmed. It is beyond belief that our sister publication, the Biloxi Sun-Herald, had this to say in an editorial yesterday: "The essentials - ice, gasoline, medicine - simply are not getting here fast enough….We are not calling on the nation and the state to make life more comfortable in South Mississippi, we are calling on the nation and the state to make life here possible."

A newspaper now has to beg for its community's survival. Is this the hard lesson Katrina has left: we're on our own?

6.2 Solutions, Euphemistically Speaking: 1. “recycling center” / junk yard 2. “senior ” / old person 3. “family planning products” / condoms 4. “underserved” / having no money 5. “having means” / having a lot of money 6. “correctional facility”/ prison 7. “revenue enhancement” / taxation 8. “under the weather” / feeling sick 6.3 Solutions, Dysphemistically Speaking: 11. “con man” / salesman 12. “egghead” / intellectual, academic 13. “snitch” or “rat” / person who identifies someone who is guilty 14. “with an axe to grind” / having an opinion 15. “taken” / married 16. “oblivious”, “clueless” / not fully understanding 17. “brown-nosing” / being cooperative 18. “selling myself to the highest bidder” / looking for work 6.4 Solutions, Problems of Ambiguity: 1. B. Equivocation or C. Vagueness: It is true that our tuition now ranks among the highest in the nation for comparable institutions, but [every penny of that tuition is justified] because it is devoted to maintaining our highest commitment and complete devotion to the success and accomplishment of our outstanding students. 2. A. Amphiboly: [I am sure that it will be safe for your friends to walk past the schoolyard where the high school kids hang out at night.] It is usually well-lit on that street at night, and they aren’t looking for any trouble. 3. B. Equivocation: The President did use propaganda to persuade the people to accept that a war was necessary. [But there is nothing wrong with his doing so], seeing as propaganda has always been an invaluable tool in making it possible to trick or deceive the enemy in a time of war.

111

4. C. Vagueness: The new Super-Mighty-Elbow-Flex 6000™ is a significant advance in muscle-tone technology. In just four weeks of workouts using the new Super-Mighty-Elbow-Flex6000™ and a sensible diet and exercise program, we guarantee you will get the quality results you desire. So, [you should buy one!] 5. A. Amphiboly: [I don’t think we should tear down the old garage], as the Parks Department Executive Committee suggested at our last meeting. It may be tired and worn down from age and abuse, but it still has usefulness and adequate support from the Mayor. 6.5 Solutions, Advanced Criticism:

High Marks for Busy-ness, Not Much Else

Most people think it’s fine to be “busy as a beaver.” Little do they know. Beavers may work hard, but often they don’t get much done. Beavers are supposed to be great tree cutters. It is true that a beaver can gnaw through a tree very quickly. (A six-inch birch takes about ten minutes.) But then what? Often the beaver does not make use of the tree. One expert says that beavers waste one out of every five trees they cut. For one thing, they do not choose their trees wisely. One bunch of beavers cut down a cottonwood tree more than one hundred feet tall. Then they found that they could not move it. In thick woods, a tree sometimes won’t fall down. It gets stuck in the other trees. Of course, [a beaver] doesn’t think to cut down the trees that are in the way. So a good tree goes to waste. Some people think that beavers can make a tree fall the way they want it to. Not true. (In fact, a beaver sometimes gets pinned under a falling tree.) When beavers cut a tree near a stream, it usually falls into the water. But they do not plan it that way. The fact is that most trees lean toward the water to start with. Now what about dam building? Most beaver dams are engineering wonders. The best are strongly built of trees, stones, and mud. They are wide at the bottom and narrow at the top. Beavers think nothing of building a dam more than two hundred feet long. One, in Montana, was more than two thousand. The largest ever seen was in New Hampshire. It stretched four thousand feet. It made a lake large enough to hold forty beaver homes. So beavers do build good dams. But they don’t always build them in the right places. They just don’t plan. They will build a dam across the widest part of the stream. They don’t try to find a place where the stream is narrow. So a lot of work is wasted. Beavers should learn that [it’s not enough to be busy. You have to know what you’re doing, too.] For example, there was one Oregon beaver that really was a worker. It decided to fix a leak in a man-made dam. After five days of work it gave up. The leak it was trying to block was the lock that boats go through. Question: Whether hard work like that of the beaver is as important as other aspects of industry, like planning and foresight, which beavers lack. Assumptions: Beaver industry and human industry are similar enough to provide a useful comparison, Beaver dams that are inefficient by human standards are also inefficient by beaver standards, It is always more efficient to build a dam across the narrower parts of a stream, A “good” dam is large, People should always value work that results in efficiency. Assessment: “Hard work without planning is wasteful and bad for beavers, so it will be wasteful and bad among humans too,” is the main argument here. The main premises and assumptions seem plausible, but the implications of the assumption that “There aren’t other values attached to work that override efficiency”, are unreasonable. Efficiency isn’t the overriding standard for animal behavior (as is noted by the arguer) but it isn’t for humans, either. The argument seems to leave out other ways beaver production integrates efficiencies that have resulted from trial and error under the pressure of natural

112

selection. It also ignores ways in which human production and work have to them qualities and values other than pure efficiency, making human and beaver production more similar than different. Fallacies: Apples & Oranges is the fallacy that occurs when an arguer bases a conclusion on a comparison between two things that are not sufficiently alike in relevant ways. This may be true for the comparison that this argument is based on. Since it rests entirely on the belief that humans and beavers are similar enough that what is true for beaver work is also true for human work, if we were to question this analogy the whole argument would be undermined. In addition to basing the argument on one weak analogy, the arguer does not give us any reason to believe his expert has credentials or is independent, so we can consider the argument that “Beaver production is inefficient because one expert says that beavers waste one out of every five trees they cut,” to be Unqualified Expert. Language: The arguer’s conclusion is put euphemistically: “it’s not enough to be busy, you have to know what you’re doing, too.” This uses an indirect form of speaking that makes it less than clear that the real conclusion is that “business without deliberate premeditation and planning are wasteful.” Perhaps if it were more blunt that this is the arguer’s point, it would be more apparent why the analogy that the argument is based on is so weak. Human work and the work of other animals are vastly different for exactly this reason. Beaver work isn’t well understood as a poor approximation of human work, but thinking about it in this way is the only way the argument goes forward. 6.6 Solutions, Advanced Criticism:

Begging for Survival: Where is Homeland Security for LA. and MISS.? Hurricane Katrina left in its wake horrific death and destruction in Louisiana and Mississippi. It also left some brutal questions we must answer and possibly a hard lesson we have to absorb. Among the questions: Why was New Orleans, which had survived the brunt of the hurricane, so vulnerable to the tsunami-like flooding that has engulfed the city? As Daily News staff writer Will Bunch has pointed out, the levees that had long protected New Orleans from the waters of Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi were still a work in progress. The New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper had reported as late as last year that federal funding for improving and strengthening the levees had been diverted by the Bush administration into funding the Iraq War. Work on the levees had to stop. We are seeing the results. Are we saying the hurricane is Bush's fault? Of course not. We'll leave that kind of delusional thinking to Repent America, which yesterday decided to kick New Orleans while it's down by blaming the city's famously hedonistic attitude for the catastrophe. "Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," said Repent America director Michael Marcavage, who must have missed the sermons on humility and charity. What we are saying is that [New Orleans and Louisiana had a plan to protect the city from hurricanes like Katrina and couldn't pay for it because the federal government turned away.] Another hard question: Why has it taken so long for the government to impose order and bring relief to the refugees of New Orleans, Biloxi, Miss., and other towns ravaged by this storm? Looting is rampant, families are sleeping by the roadside, rescuers are overwhelmed. It is beyond belief that our sister publication, the Biloxi Sun-Herald, had this to say in an editorial yesterday: "The essentials—ice, gasoline, medicine—simply are not getting here fast enough….We are not calling on the nation and the state to make life more comfortable in South Mississippi, we are calling on the nation and the state to make life here possible." A newspaper now has to beg for its community's survival. Is this the hard lesson Katrina has left: we're on our own?

113

Question: Why was New Orleans so vulnerable to the flooding after Hurricane Katrina and why has it taken so long for the government to bring order and relief? Assumptions: The federal and state governments had some responsibility to build the levees, The federal and state governments had responsibility for helping maintain order and provide supplies in the wake of the storm, The federal money to build the levees would not have been diverted regardless of the Iraq War, The levees would have been strong enough to protect the city if money had been available, The federal and state governments were not already doing all they could. Assessment: It is open to question whether the sole reason for why the levees were unprepared for the after-effects of the hurricane had directly to do with funding lost to the Iraq War. This claim could be overlooking alternative explanations that might be more plausible or easier to verify. The newspapers mentioned as support for the principal claims are reliable but also local sources which might be likely in the wake of a local disaster to reflect views that were critical of the response to the storm by powerful outside agencies that could have played a more aggressive role in providing aid and support to the cities and towns affected by the storm. There are probably a number of counterexamples that could be identified to mitigate at least the stronger version of the conclusion that “we’re on our own” completely or totally. These would take the form of any aid or support the federal and state governments had provided to the region prior to and since the storm. To ignore these completely would be biased. Fallacies: The last part of the argument involves a Slippery Slope—that the result of the governments’ slow response will inevitably threaten the very survival of the cities affected. To the extent that the arguer is claiming that the vulnerability of the levees was the result of the Bush administration removing funding because the one followed the other, the argument is guilty of Post Hoc reasoning. In fact, if they were not ready at this point, they were also not ready a year prior. In that case, a longer term view would show that the problem is several administrations old. Language: The arguer uses dysphemisms including phrases like “tsunami-like flooding” to characterize the storm’s aftermath and “begging for survival.” The phrase, “we’re on our own,” summons images of abandonment as well as defiance. There is sarcastic reference to disaster relief as “homeland security,” designed to make the federal and state governments seem derelict. To say the levees were “still a work in progress” is circumlocution and vague. A lot of the argument that the levees required “improvement and strengthening” would depend on whether this means they were actually incomplete or not.

114

Recommended Further Study

Thanks for reading this book! Here is a short and terribly incomplete list of resources I recommend to continue developing and strengthening your critical reasoning instincts and abilities. This list is just a start—there are a lot of books, articles, blogs, and websites you will find to fuel your critical curiosity if you look for them! Please let me know if you have suggestions and recommendations you would like me to add to this list:

Books to read: Joel Best, Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists, University of California Press, 2001 Kristina Borjesson editor, Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press, Prometheus, 2004 David Brock, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-conservative, Crown, 2002 Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman, Manufacturing Consent, Vintage, 2006 Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Un-Spun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation, Random House, 2007 Jean Kilbourne and Mary Pipher, Can't Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel, Free Press, 2000 John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy, Hill and Wang, 1988 Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damned Lies and the Public Relations Industry, Constable and Robinson, 2004 ----------------, Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future, Penguin, 2002 ----------------, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq, Tarcher, 2003 Ken Smith, Junk English, Blast Books, 2001

Websites and Organizations on Related Topics: Humboldt State University Argumentation and Critical Thinking interactive tutorial site: “The tutorials consist of a series of tests to help reinforce your knowledge and understanding of some basic concepts associated with making arguments and thinking critically. It specifically focuses on the Classical Logical Structure of Arguments and Informal Argumentative Fallacies.” www.humboldt.edu/act/HTML/index.html

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. www.csicop.org/

FactCheck.org: The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. FactCheck is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, consumer advocate for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics, monitoring the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and

http://www.humboldt.edu/act/HTML/index.html

http://www.csicop.org/

115

news releases. Their goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding. The APPC accepts no funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by an endowment from the Annenberg Foundation. www.factcheck.org/ PolitiFact: (pronounced puh-lit’-eh-fact) “PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly to help you find the truth in the presidential campaign. Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times and CQ will analyze the candidates' speeches, TV ads and interviews and determine whether the claims are accurate. PolitiFact is bolder than previous journalistic fact-checking efforts because we’ll make a call, declaring whether a claim is True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True or False. We even have a special category for the most ridiculous claims that we call “Pants on Fire.” The St. Petersburg Times is Florida’s largest newspaper and the winner of six Pulitzer Prizes. Washington- based Congressional Quarterly is the authoritative news source for coverage of Congress and politics. CQ and the Times are affiliates of the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute, a center for journalism education in St. Petersburg.” www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ Center for Media and Democracy: The Center for Media & Democracy is a nonprofit, public interest organization funded by individuals and nonprofit foundations and dedicated to investigative reporting about the public relations industry. www.prwatch.org/cmd/index.html On The Media: Lively discussion, informative news, and insightful analysis of issues and controversies regarding the media produced by WNYC, New York public radio. Airs on WHYY FM91 in Philly. www.onthemedia.org/ Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: Offers well-documented criticisms of the effects of corporate control on reporting and defends journalists and the First Amendment when they are under attack. www.fair.org The Center for Science in the Public Interest: Confused about the multitude of competing claims made in the name of science? Check CSPIN out. They've been working on these issues for years and they'll help you put it in a reasonable perspective. www.cspinet.org/

Additional Articles and Websites of Interest • Assumptions: Project Implicit’s “Implicit Association Test”: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_Association_Test

• Austhink: Tools for critical thinking, better writing, and decision making through argument mapping:

http://austhink.com/

• Resources related to Stephen Toulmin’s popular method of Argument Analysis:

http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/reading/toulmin/index.cfm

• Michael Shermer’s “Baloney Detection,” article published in Scientific American, 2001:

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html

• Statistical Arguments: Burdett Loomis, “From Hootie to Harry (and Louise): Polling and Interest

Groups”: http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2003/06/summer-elections-loomis

• Statistical Arguments: Russell D. Renka, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Public Opinion Polls”:

http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka/Renka_papers/polls.htm

• Hasty Generalization: Mark Peffley, “Checklist of Potential Problems with Surveys”:

http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/473ProblemsSurveysLectOut%20%28Fall%202005%29.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/index.html

http://www.onthemedia.org/

http://www.fair.org/

http://www.cspinet.org/

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_Association_Test

http://austhink.com/

http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/reading/toulmin/index.cfm

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2003/06/summer-elections-loomis

http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka/Renka_papers/polls.htm

http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/473ProblemsSurveysLectOut%20%28Fall%202005%29.htm

116

• Causal Arguments: Martin Curd, “John Stuart Mill’s Philosophy of Science”:

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~curd/millhd.html

• Astroturfing: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf

• Unqualified Expert: Ian Sample, “Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study”:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

• “Global Warming Deniers Aren't "Experts" At All…” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway:

http://www.alternet.org/story/147668/global_warming_deniers_aren%27t_%22experts%22_at_all%3A

_it%27s_time_for_a_new_view_of_science?page=entire

• Ad Hominem: Thisnation.com, “Do Negative Campaign Ads Work?”:

http://www.thisnation.com/question/031.html

• “The Unlobbyists” Thomas B. Edsall: “A new breed of strategic adviser offers a full service P.R.-

advertising-social media operation, little of which is covered by federal regulation”:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/edsall-the-unlobbyists.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

• George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”: http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

• Lynne Duke, “The Word at War-Propaganda? Nah, Here's the Scoop...”:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500983.html

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~curd/millhd.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

http://www.alternet.org/story/147668/global_warming_deniers_aren%27t_%22experts%22_at_all%3A_it%27s_time_for_a_new_view_of_science?page=entire

http://www.thisnation.com/question/031.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/edsall-the-unlobbyists.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500983.html

117

Notes:

2. Of course a lot of “critics” sometimes do this anyway, in which case they may just be bad critics or may be employed to write columns whose real purpose is amusement and entertainment rather than actual criticism.

3. As we will see below, critical reasoning skills are especially helpful to us in circumstances where the truth is complex and likely to be misinterpreted for us by other interested parties.

4. In this connection it is helpful to recall that the term “con artist” includes an abbreviation of “confidence.”

5. In this book and in the course I usually teach using it, I recognize a range of facile assumptions as being too facile to be helpful for students to identify in learning to do argument analysis. The idea here is that someone who in analyzing the argument that, “Because our children must be protected, we should outlaw aluminum bats in High School baseball,” offers as basic assumptions “Baseball exists,” “The listeners understand English,” or “The world will not end next Thursday,” either is not grasping our intention in generating basic assumptions, or is not trying hard enough to accomplish it. I draw the line between acceptably and unacceptably facile basic assumptions here: A facile basic assumption is acceptable so long as it is reasonably specific to the argument we are analyzing. By contrast, if the belief identified as a basic assumption would be basic for all or most arguments ever made, then it is too facile.

6. www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/earth_energy.html 7. This doesn’t mean that all inferences are good ones or that all inferences correspond with what

their arguers’ intend. 8. Yes, I know you have read this conclusion too. But insisting that no inference occurred because

you read the conclusion would be something like saying that in the last part of this sentence you are not inferring along with reading that “two plus two equals four.”

9. Note that this is a technical meaning of “valid” to be distinguished from the everyday meaning of “valid” as “true.”

10. It follows from what we have said already that the argument must also have basic assumptions that stand up to criticism, an assessment which would be included in a fuller account of the argument’s soundness. Below I implicitly include basic assumptions along with arguments’ (explicit) premises for purposes of assessment and fallacy recognition wherever I have not done so explicitly.

11. Assuming the argument follows at all. This test is actually a test for validity, and only deductive arguments can be valid, but not all of them are. If an argument passes the test, then it is a valid deductive argument. If it fails the test it could be invalid or inductive. So, for example, if one applies the test to the argument that, “All Phillies are baseball players and Ryan Howard is a baseball player, so, Ryan Howard could be a Phillie,” these premises could be true and the conclusion merely possible. To the extent that this conclusion follows at all, it follows inductively. But what if the arguer had intended the argument to follow deductively? In that case, the argument would be a deductive fallacy, although the test would exclude it because it doesn’t follow deductively at all. The argument given below is a deductive fallacy, even though the test would not pick it out as a deductive argument because its premises could be true while its conclusion is false: “All Phillies are baseball players and Ryan Howard is a baseball player, so, Ryan Howard must be a Phillie.” Here, “must be a Phillie” is decisive, because although there is a chance that he “could be a Phillie” under no circumstances can we conclude that he “must be” one. Hence, the test does not distinguish deductive fallacies from inductive arguments, (whether fallacies or not), because deductive fallacies do not follow at all while inductive fallacies may follow a little bit.

12. Of course it is possible for a listener or a reader to make a bad inference from a reasonable argument, but this does not make the argument a fallacy, it makes the listener or reader’s reasoning fallacious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGaoXAwl9kw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZvWt29OG0s

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/earth_energy.html

118

13. Why would someone do that? Well, again, there are infinitely many more ways to err than to succeed. But earlier I said that deductive fallacies often result from a misconstrual of the logical relationship between terms in a statement. In the example under consideration, if one mistakenly interpreted the expression “All A are B” to logically mean that A and B are coextensive, the argument would be valid. But this expression does not mean that A and B are coextensive. Rather, B is the bigger category containing A.

14. There is a rich literature on so-called “cognitive biases,” which overlap with our discussion of inductive fallacies in this book. Our discussion focuses on the deliberate or accidental choices made by arguers, primarily insofar as critical reasoning reflects a commitment to acknowledge and avoid such pitfalls. The psychology approach is concerned with describing tendencies in human behavior related to perception, memory, judgment, and other mental functions. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias, www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/cognitive_biases/.

15. When we reason inductively about the past, we are using established or accepted observations, knowledge, and experience from the temporal past in order to infer to parts of the past that are unknown to us in some way. Obviously, the past about which we are trying to reach conclusions is the part that we are unable to observe, and haven’t sufficient direct knowledge and experience of it to settle our questions. A better way to think about it might be to say that inductive reasoning involves inferences from something some of us believe is known to us, for which the evidence lies in the temporal past, to something unknown to some of us, in the past, present, or future.

16. In Chapter 4 the fallacies Accident, Composition, Division, and Hasty Generalization most directly relate to these kinds of problems. For a very accessible treatment of these and related issues see, Joel Best, Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists, University of California Press, 2001, and More Damned Lies and Statistics: How Numbers Confuse Public Issues, University of California Press, 2004.

17. Although the standards for scientifically-done national surveys and polls are well-known, and followed by reputable polling firms most of the time, the vast majority of surveys and polls you hear about in the media are unscientific surveys with self-selected samples whose results are not an accurate indication of the attitudes or feelings of their targets. Examples of surveys and polls with inadequate and non-randomized samples can be found on the web everyday with very little effort. They are usually designed to establish a relationship between you as a potential consumer and a product, brand, corporation, or candidate. Self-selection is particularly blatant in an on-line survey when it has no controls on how many times you can “vote” or answer questions, and when little or no attempt is made in the survey to find out anything about the answerer. Also any time a gift or reward is offered for participation in a survey or study the result is a non-randomized selection. The phenomenon of setting up a method of choosing survey participants that diverges from randomness because it allows the participants to decide for themselves whether or not to offer themselves as candidates for inclusion is called “self-selection.”

18. See Chapter 1 of this text for a fuller discussion of cherry-picking. A similar phenomenon well- known in the sciences is called “confirmation bias.” It is quite possible to have a mountain of evidence for one’s position and still maintain it in a biased and irrational manner by ignoring, overlooking, dismissing, or denying the existence of other relevant mountains.

19. A commonly used example to illustrate the fallacy of Spurious Relationship, also sometimes called “Spurious Correlation” is helpful here: if we see a sharp increase in ankle accidents at a local park coming each year right after a sudden rise in ice cream sales, we would be unreasonable to conclude just from this evidence that “ice cream causes ankle injuries,” even though we had repeated evidence of a correlation with the one preceding the other. The third criterion—plausibility, should force us back to the drawing board to examine the situation more closely before concluding this because it is very hard to imagine a way that eating ice cream could plausibly be expected to bring about widespread ankle injuries. Careful consideration suggests an alternative hypothesis that is more plausible: a third factor—the warmer weather, is a contributing cause of both the increase in ice cream consumption and in ankle injuries. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship, psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Spurious_relationship.

20. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020116071900.htm 21. In the typical case, the expertise invoked in such arguments belongs to a third party who is either

a person or an organization that is not speaking to us directly. But it is of course common for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/cognitive_biases/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Spurious_relationship

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020116071900.htm

119

arguers to invoke their own expertise directly, as when your doctor or automobile mechanic gives you advice directly. He or she would be arguing based on his or her own expertise in such cases, that even though you wouldn’t typically be able to verify his or her claims on the spot, his or her expertise is to be trusted—so long as it is as credible and independent as we would hope. To keep things simple, I focus on third-party cases in this book, however the same standards apply to first-person expert testimony as to second-person (third-party) testimony.

22. www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/earth_energy.html 23. www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Front_group, http://www.prwatch.org/ 24. www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Jersey_Affordable,_Clean,_Reliable_Energy_Coaliti

on 25. www.unionfacts.com/, www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Union_Facts. 26. www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Humane_Studies 27. As a result of this fact, all instances of Ad Hominem are special cases of the fallacy we’ll see later

called “Red Herring.” 28. An uncontroversial and non-technical definition found here: www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/syllogism. 29. Importantly, this would not be an allowable move if “either A or B” were not an exclusive trade-off.

In that case, we could not conclude the untruth of one of the terms from the truth of the other. As already noted, we are only looking at cases in this text where the formal structure “either A or B” is interpreted exclusively, but we'll come back to this issue when we talk about fallacies related to disjunctive reasoning, below.

30. The script of the film, (of the trailer of the movie...), can be found here, (be sure to read the captions closely): www.youtube.com/watch?v=SII-jhEd-a0 and the whole scene in question can be found at YouTube here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g . These are indeed the funniest four minutes in logic.

31. Ken Smith, Junk English, New York: Blast Books, 2001, 45-6, 141-2. 32. Closely based on Oxford American Dictionary, Heald Colleges Edition. 33. Monty Python's Flying Circus, All The Words: The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus,

Pantheon, 1989. You can find “all the words” online at: www.ibras.dk/montypython/justthewords.htm . The official Monty Python site is: pythonline.com/ .

34. It’s also worth noting that a self-impressed person who already believed himself or herself to be wise would not notice the amphiboly in the original statement by the Oracle at Delphi, and would tend to take it on face value.

35. Croesus took the Oracle to have predicted his victory when in fact it was predicting his loss. Tom Andrews, “Legal Reasoning in Postconviction Brief Writing,” Civil Actions for Postconviction Relief Under Iowa Code Chapter 822, presented at Post Conviction Relief 2007 Conference, Dubuque, Iowa by Tom Andrews Assistant Attorney General, State of Iowa. Accessed at www.iowa- icaa.com/PCR%20Topics/PCR%202007%20Fall%20Conf%20Dubuque.pdf in May, 2010.

36. This and the three that follow it come from Bruce Thompson’s collection, which was online at the following URL in 2008 but is now inaccessible: courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/amphiboly.htm.

37. politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushworstdisaster.htm 38. Thanks to Gary Curtis for this, source: Jay Leno (compiler), More Headlines: Real but Ridiculous

Samplings from America's Newspapers, (Warner Books, 1990), p. 56, www.fallacyfiles.org/amphibol.html.

39. www.cartalk.com 40. www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Equivocation.html, based on A Database of Informal Fallacies,

41. The passage below was found at: www.testprepreview.com/modules/readingmainidea.htm. 42. The Philadelphia Daily News, September 1, 2005.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/earth_energy.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Front_group

http://www.prwatch.org/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Jersey_Affordable,_Clean,_Reliable_Energy_Coalition

http://www.unionfacts.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Union_Facts

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Humane_Studies

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syllogism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SII-jhEd-a0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/justthewords.htm

http://pythonline.com/

http://www.iowa-icaa.com/PCR%20Topics/PCR%202007%20Fall%20Conf%20Dubuque.pdf

http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/amphiboly.htm

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushworstdisaster.htm

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/amphibol.html

http://www.cartalk.com/

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Equivocation.html

http://www.testprepreview.com/modules/readingmainidea.htm

What is Critical Reasoning?
The Four Main Elements of Argument
Logical Indicators
These ten words and phrases are not the only logical indicators you will encounter in the English language, but they represent a handy starting point in coming to recognize how to make effective use of this type of clue to argument structure. It is i...
One way to think about this is in relation to common street signs. In the United States, a standard stop sign is a red octagonal plane with the word “Stop” written across the middle. This kind of sign means the driver should bring his or her car to a...
Complicating things further, words and phrases that clearly are indicators in some contexts do not always have the same meaning when used in others. Consider, for example, the word “since.” This word is a very common premise indicator, and it plays th...
Did you notice the conclusion indicator in the argument above?
Now that we have seen what logical indicators are and basically how they work, we are ready to introduce a method for argument analysis. An argument analysis is an account that identifies the main elements of a particular argument so that we can under...
The Four Step Method of Argument Analysis
Fallacies: When Inferences Go Bad
3. Analogical Reasoning involves arguing that because something is true in one case or circumstance it will also be true in some other since the two cases are literally similar in some way. Whenever we reason from an analogy between two persons, place...
Invited guests at Vito’s reception had to choose between prime rib and swordfish steak.
One can create the valid syllogism called Disjunctive Syllogism by reasoning from a disjunctive statement in the following manner. If I know already that,
Invited guests at Vito’s reception had to choose between either prime rib or swordfish.
Aunt Millie is vegetarian and will not eat prime rib but is willing to eat fish,
Either A or B
~A
B
~B
A
Either A or B
A
~B
Either A or B or C
~A
B
If and only if you clean your room will you be allowed to go to the movies on Friday night.
Persons are eligible for graduation with honors if and only if they have maintained a high grade point average.
If the Red Sox win the pennant, then I will eat my hat.
You will not get a passing grade if you never show up for class.
The deductive pattern Modus Ponens starts with a hypothetical statement as the Major Premise. For example, if I know already that,
If A then B
A
B
If A then B
A
3. Modus Tollens – This deductive pattern starts with a hypothetical statement, just like Modus Ponens. Let’s say you already know that,
I will fail the class, if I miss too many classes.
If I miss too many classes, then I will fail the class.
Now, let’s say I observe further that,
I did not fail the class.
It follows logically from these two premises that,
I must not have missed too many classes.
If I miss too many classes, then I will fail the class. I did not fail the class. [I must not have missed too many classes.]
A B ~B ~A
If I miss too many classes, then I will fail the class. I did not fail the class. [I must not have missed too many classes.]
If A then B
~B
~A
The next three examples all have this exact same logical structure:
If A then B
~B
If A then B
If B then C
If A then C
If A then B
If A then D
Notice that there is no linkage connecting the two premises here, which is why the argument does not follow. Now, one could repair this chain by inserting a kind of a patch to re-establish the linkage. Can you see what it would be?
5. Universal Categorical Syllogism - The word all is frequently used to make positive universal categorical claims. The logical relationship this type of claim asserts is reflected when some class, category, or group of things is exhaustively characte...
All players on the Philadelphia Phillies are baseball players.
Everyone who likes parmesan likes cheese.
Anything that is a spider is an arachnid.
Triangles are shapes.
All players on the Philadelphia Phillies are baseball players,
Ryan Howard is a player on the Philadelphia Phillies,
Ryan Howard is a baseball player.
This gives us the argument that,
All players on the Philadelphia Phillies are baseball players. Ryan Howard is a player on the Philadelphia Phillies. [Ryan Howard is a baseball player.]
The valid deductive pattern Universal Categorical Syllogism works by identifying a member of a group as belonging to the larger category to which its group belongs. In the argument we are looking at, the Minor Premise identifies Ryan Howard as a membe...
A B X A
All players on the Philadelphia Phillies are baseball players. Ryan Howard is a player on
X B
the Philadelphia Phillies. [Ryan Howard is a baseball player.]
The formal pattern of this argument is:
All A are B
x is B
All my friends are people who like water ice. Emily is my friend. Hence Emily is a person who likes water ice too.
All A are B
x is A.◊
If A then B
If B then C
So, If A then C
FIRST VILLAGER: We have found a witch. May we burn her?
Euphemism and Dysphemism
Amphiboly
"I object to all this sex on the television.
I mean, I keep falling off."33
Lawyers Give Poor Free Legal Advice36
Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant
Killer Sentenced to Die for Second Time in Ten Years
Autos Killing 110 a Day—Let's Resolve to Do Better
Bush: One of the Worst Disasters to Hit the U.S.37
Helicopter Powered by Human Flies38
Equivocation
A government committee sanctioned the oversight.
Hot dogs are better than nothing
Vagueness