Critical Thinking
beamck
critical_thinking.docxA few common examples of argumentation tactics are listed below. Most
of them can be used either to advance an argument in an honest, reasonable
way or to deceive or distract from the real issues. It is important for a critical
reader to recognize these tactics in order to rationally evaluate an author’s
ideas.
a. bandwagon—the idea that “everybody” does this or believes this
b. categorical statements—stating something in a way that implies there
can be no argument or disagreement on the issue
c. personal attack—criticizing an opponent personally instead of rationally
debating his or her ideas
d. testimonial—quoting or paraphrasing an authority or celebrity to support
one’s own viewpoint
The following activity helps you sharpen your skills in recognizing deceptive
reasoning. The statements below are derived from the viewpoints in this
chapter. Beside each one, mark the letter of the type of deceptive appeal being
used. More than one type of tactic may be applicable. If you believe the statement
is not any of the listed appeals, write N.
1. The Supreme Court has a greater obligation to protect the rights of victims
than those of criminals.
2. It is clear to every intelligent person that the Eighth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, does
not bar the use of victim impact statements.
3. Victim reforms will destroy the constitutional rights of the accused.
4. The conservative, prejudiced Supreme Court judges are too stupid to recognize
the rights of the accused.
5. Every decent lawyer believes the harm a victim suffered because of a
defendant should be considered when determining punishment.
6. Victims have absolutely no rights at all.
7. Everyone agrees that victim reforms are false promises made by legislators
seeking to please voters worried about crime.
8. The victims’ rights movement developed because victims of crime felt they
had no rights in the criminal justice system.
9. Thurgood Marshall, a pro-criminal, bleeding-heart liberal, considers the
harm a victim suffered irrelevant in a criminal trial.
10. As Justice John Paul Stevens correctly points out, the defendant should
have more rights than the state in a criminal trial.
11. Victim impact statements force juries to base their decisions on emotion
rather than on objective facts.
12. As Deborah Kelly, chair of the American Bar Association’s Victims’ Committee,
accurately concludes, victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice
system depends more on how they were treated than how severely their
assailants were punished.
13. Everyone knows that judges let criminals off too easily.
14. Intelligent people agree that victims’ rights deny the accused the right to a
fair and impartial trial.
15. As the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist,
states, there is no constitutional rule that excludes victim impact statements.
