ENGL1133 Essay #1: Critical Response

Appeals to Logic

A successful argument depends upon appeals to logic, which engage the audience’s intellectual

and reasoning capacity.

E.g.

Gay marriage in America has become a fairly emotional issue. But, we should work

wound the emotions involved and investigate the issue of rights and state law. It has

been established that individual states can define marriage. The question, then, lies in the

role of other states: Does every state have to honor a marriage licensed in other states?

This, it seems, is merely a matter of constitutional law.

In this example, the writer directly calls on the reader’s logic, encouraging them to see beyond

their emotion.

Inference

Inference is just a big word that means a conclusion or judgment. If you infer that something has

happened, you do not see, hear, feel, smell, or taste the actual event. But from what you know, it

makes sense to think that it has happened.

Inference is the act or process of deriving a logical conclusion based on premises known to be

true.

E.g.

If a person walks up to a restaurant and the door is locked and the lights are out, he or she

may infer, with confidence, that the restaurant is closed. This inference is probably right,

but it could be wrong. Perhaps the restaurant is very dimly lit and the door handle

occasionally sticks.

Each inference is drawn from premises. Premise is a technical word used for ideas known or

thought to be true. People infer differently because their perspectives are based on different

experiences and ways of thinking.

Line of reasoning

A line of reasoning refers to a series of logical steps that lead the arguer and the audience to a

main claim. In simple words line of reasoning stands for a course of reasoning aimed at

demonstrating the truth or argument.

Types of Reasoning: Deductive, Inductive, and Analogical

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning begins with general claims and leads to a specific claim.

E.g.

The winters in Minnesota can be harsh. (General statement about the weather in

Minnesota)

Heavy snow and cold temperatures are constants. (Another general statement)

We had better pack our wool sweaters if we’re spending Christmas in Minnesota.

(Specific conclusion/claim arrived through general statements)

Syllogism

Syllogism is the simplest sequence of logical premises and conclusions, devised by Aristotle. It

is the line of deductive reasoning that requires three steps. Syllogism can be thought of as a

formula:

Reason A and reason B; therefore, reason C

E.g.

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is human.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

If readers accept the first two premises, they will then accept the conclusion. Although they

include only three parts, syllogisms can become quite complex. They may take several

paragraphs or pages if each premise is illustrated with examples.

Enthymeme

Enthymeme is a shortened syllogism which omits the first premise, allowing the audience to fill

it in.

E.g.

Socrates is mortal because he is a human. This is an enthymeme which leaves out the

premise that all humans are mortal.

Inductive Reasoning

In inductive reasoning, a conclusion or common principle is reached by generalizing from a body

of evidence. The conclusions reached through inductive reasoning are always conditional to

some extent – that is, there is always the possibility that some additional evidence may be

introduced to suggest a different conclusion.

E.g.

If you look out a window and observe that the street and side walk are wet and the sky is

over cast, you will most likely conclude that it had rained recently. You didn’t see the

rain, but you can generalize from past experiences with the same evidence.

Given the available evidence, you were perfectly justified in concluding that it had rained. But

suppose you then turned on the radio and learned that the water main in the street had broken

overnight. Now you should be prepared to revise your original conclusion based upon the new

information.

Inductive reasoning uses the available evidence to construct the most likely conclusion.

Analogical Reasoning

Analogical reasoning depends on comparison. The arguer moves from one particular to another

particular, instead of from general to specific, or specific to general. Analogies shed light on

something by comparing or contrasting it with something familiar. It argues that is two things

are alike in certain respect; it is also alike in other respects.

Logical Fallacies

A logical fallacy is a logical falsehood that makes no sense within a given situation. They are

common errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of anargument.

Non Sequitur (“it does not follow”)

Non sequitur means, just because the first part of a statement is true doesn’t mean the second part

will happen or become true.

E.g. Eddie is smart; therefore he will do well in college.

Appeal to tradition

Is a fallacy that says something should be done a certain way because it has been done that way

in the past.

E.g. Because they are a memorable part of the pledge process, fraternity hazing should not be

banned.

Things change. Something that was good in the past might not be acceptable now.

False Analogy

False analogy is the assumption that because two things are alike in some way, they must be

alike in others.

E.g. The United States lost credibility with other nations during the war in Vietnam, so we

should not get involved in the Middle East, or we will lose credibility again.

False Cause:

False cause, (also known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc, meaning “after this, so because of this”)

is the

assumption that because one event follows another, the first is the cause of the second.

E.g. Cramming for a test really helps because last week I crammed for my psychology test

and I got an A on it

Hasty Generalization

Hasty generalization is a conclusion based on too little evidence or biased evidence.

E.g. Ellen is a poor student because she failed her first history test.

Oversimplification

Oversimplification is a statement or argument that leaves out relevant considerations in order to

imply that there is a single cause or solution for a complex process.

E.g. We can eliminate unwanted pregnancies by teaching birth control and abstinence.

Ethical Fallacies

Ad Hominem: (To the Person)

An ad hominem refers to a personal attack on an opponent that draws attention away from the

issues under consideration.

E.g. She is unfit to be a minister because she is divorced.

Instead of making comments on the opponents reasoning, the writer is making personal remarks

about the opponent itself.

Emotional Fallacies

Appeal to Popularity – Bandwagon Fallacy

Bandwagon is an argument saying, “Everyone’s doing or saying or thinking this, so you should,

too.”

E.g. Everyone drives over the speed limit, so why shouldn’t we raise the limit?

False Dilemma (the either/or fallacy)

False dilemma is a fallacy that makes only two alternatives available, when in fact there are more

than two.

E.g. We must either built more nuclear plants, or we completely depend on foreign oil.

False Authority

False authority is the assumption that an expert in one field can be credible in another.

E.g. We must stop sending military troops into Afghanistan, as Bruce Springsteen has argued.

(Springsteen’s expertise in music does not automatically qualify him as an expert in

foreign policy).

Red Herring (ignoring the question)

Red herring means dodging the real issue by drawing attention to an irrelevant one.

E.g. Why worry about violence in schools when we ought to be worrying about international

terrorism?

Slippery Slope

Slippery slope is an assumption that if one thing is allowed, it will be lead to another, creating

the first step in a downward spiral.

E.g. Handgun control will lead to a police state.