For Prof.Goodman Only

STEPS IN EVALUATING AN ARGUMENT

The following four steps are an efficient way to apply what you learned in this chapter—in other words, to evaluate your argument and overcome any errors in validity or truth that it may contain:

· 1. State your argument fully, as clearly as you can. Be sure to identify any hidden premises and, if the argument is complex, to express all parts of it.

· 2. Examine each part of your argument for errors affecting truth. (To be sure your examination is not perfunctory, play devil’s advocate and challenge the argument, asking pointed questions about it, taking nothing for granted.) Note any instances of either/or thinking, avoiding the issue, overgeneralizing, oversimplifying, double standard, shifting the burden of proof, or irrational appeal. In addition, check to be sure that the argument reflects the evidence found in your investigation (see  Chapter 8 ) and is relevant to the pro and con arguments and scenarios you produced earlier (see  Chapter 9 ).

· 3. Examine your argument for validity errors; that is, consider the reasoning that links conclusions to premises. Determine whether your conclusion is legitimate or illegitimate.

· 4. If you find one or more errors, revise your argument to eliminate them. The changes you will have to make in your argument will depend on the kinds of errors you find. Sometimes, only minor revision is called for—the adding of a simple qualification, for example, or the substitution of a rational appeal for an irrational one. Occasionally, however, the change required is more dramatic. You may, for example, find your argument so flawed that the only appropriate action is to abandon it altogether and embrace a different argument. On those occasions, you may be tempted to pretend your argument is sound and hope no one will notice the errors. Resist that hope. It is foolish as well as dishonest to invest time in refining a view that you know is unsound.

To illustrate how you would follow these steps, we will now examine two issues.

THE CASE OF PARENTS PROTESTING TV PROGRAMS

You have read a number of articles lately about protests over television commercials and programming. The protesters are mostly parents of school-aged children. They have spoken out either individually or through organizations they belong to, expressing concern that the values taught by school and home are being undermined by television. Specific complaints include the emphasis on sex and violence in television programming, the appeal to self-indulgence and instant gratification in commercials, and the promotion of “if it feels good, do it” in both programs and commercials. The protesters are urging concerned citizens to write to the companies that sponsor programs and threaten to boycott their products unless these offenses are eliminated.

Let’s say you identify the main issue here as “Are parents justified in making such demands on companies?” After considering the matter and producing a number of ideas, you decide that the best answer is “No, they are not justified” and state your argument as follows:

· Only those who pay for television programming and advertisements are entitled to have a say about them. The companies alone pay. Therefore, the companies alone are entitled to have a say.

You examine your argument for validity errors and find that it contains none. Then you examine it for errors of truth or relevance. Playing devil’s advocate, you ask, “Do the companies alone pay?” “How exactly is payment handled?” Not being sure, you ask a professor of business and learn that the sponsorship of television programs and other advertising are part of the overall product budget. You also learn that these costs, along with other costs of raw materials, manufacturing, packaging, warehousing, and delivery are reflected in the price of the product.

“Wait a minute,” you reason. “If programming and other advertising costs are reflected in the price of the product, that means consumers are paying for every television show and every commercial. And if that’s the case, parents (and other consumers) are entitled to have a say, make demands, and threaten boycotts.” And so you revise your argument accordingly:

· Those who pay for television programming and commercials are entitled to have a say about them. Consumers pay. Therefore, consumers are entitled to have a say. *

In elaborating this argument you would, of course, address the important questions that flow from it, including this one: What guidelines does fairness suggest consumers follow in making such requests? Your answers to this and related questions should also be evaluated for reasonableness.