ARGUMENTS:

CONVINCING OTHERS
Objectives

Understand reasoning strategies

Analyse and detect false forms of argument
Understand ways of emphasizing and de-
emphasizing a point in a text
Reasoning strategies
 An argument consists of a conclusion you want to support,
your reasons for that conclusion and the evidence that
supports your reasons.
 How are reasons and evidence tied together?
 Three reasoning strategies: induction, deduction and
analogy.
 Induction: a general claim is supported by specific evidence
(direct observations, stats, scientific studies)
 This is sometimes called a “bottom up” approach. The
researcher begins with specific observations and measures,
begins to then detect patterns and regularities, formulate
some tentative hypotheses to explore, and finally ends up
developing some general conclusions or theories.
 Two independent witnesses claimed John committed
the murder. John's fingerprints are the only ones on the
murder weapon. John confessed to the crime. So, John
committed the murder.
 Today, I left for work at eight o’clock and I arrived on
time. Therefore, every day that I leave the house at
eight o’clock, I will arrive to work on time.
 While inductive reasoning is commonly used in science,
it is not always logically valid because it is not always
accurate to assume that a general principle is correct.
 In the example above, perhaps ‘today’ is a weekend
with less traffic, so if you left the house at eight o’clock
on a Monday, it would take longer and you would be
late for work. It is illogical to assume an entire premise
just because one specific data set seems to suggest it.
Deduction
 Deductive reasoning happens when a researcher works from
the more general information to the more specific.
 Sometimes this is called the “top-down” approach because
the researcher starts at the top with a very broad spectrum of
information and they work their way down to a specific
conclusion.
 For instance, a researcher might begin with a theory about his
or her topic of interest. From there, he or she would narrow
that down into more specific hypotheses that can be tested.
The hypotheses are then narrowed down even further when
observations are collected to test the hypotheses. This
ultimately leads the researcher to be able to test the
hypotheses with specific data, leading to a confirmation (or
not) of the original theory and arriving at a conclusion.
 John is ill. If John is ill, then he won't be able to attend
our meeting today. Therefore, John won't be able to
attend our meeting today.
 Everyday I go to work.
This journey from my home to my office takes me one
hour (premise).
I have to report at eight o' clock in the morning
(premise).
So, if I leave my house at seven o' clock in the morning, I
will reach office in time (conclusion).
 The difference between the two kinds of arguments
does not lie solely in the words used; it comes from
the relationship the author or expositor of the argument
takes there to be between the premises and the
conclusion.
 If the author of the argument believes that the truth of
the premises definitely establishes the truth of the
conclusion (due to definition, logical entailment, logical
structure, or mathematical necessity), then the
argument is deductive.
 If the author of the argument does not think that the
truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the
conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth
provides good reason to believe the conclusion true,
then the argument is inductive.
Analogy

 Comparing two unlike situations or things

 Two items share one or more likenesses, so they are also
alike in other ways.
 For instance, “Success in school predicts success on the
job”
 Because its conclusions about one thing depend on
observations about another thing, it is the weakest form
of argument.
 They never prove anything; but they can be used to
explain and show probability and therefore are quite
persuasive.
False forms of argument (Logical
fallacies)
 An Argument consists of one or more premises and one
conclusion.
 A premise is a statement (may be true or false) which is
offered in support of the claim being made.
 A fallacy is an error in reasoning in which the premises
do not give adequate support for the conclusion.
 It is different from a factual error where the facts
reported are wrong.
1. Ad Hominem
This translates as “to the man” and refers to any attacks on the person
advancing the argument, rather than on the validity of the evidence or
logic. It includes sexist comments, abuses and personal attacks.
e.g. “Don’t take his movies seriously, after all he is a homosexual.”
2. Affirming the Consequent
This is a fairly difficult fallacy to understand or spot. It is categorical in
nature and, essentially, means reversing an argument. Note that in this
fallacy the premises/reasons are actually correct or valid; the error is
found between the premises and conclusion. Usually, the error occurs
because we incorrectly assume that the Premise was a sufficient
condition, when in fact it was only a necessary condition (one
of many conditions) necessary to prove the conclusion.
e.g.
Premise: Ducks are birds.
Premise: Ducks swim in the water.
Premise: Chickens are birds.
False Conclusion: Chickens swim in the water.
(Affirming The Consequent Fallacy: not all birds swim in water;
swimming is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to be a
"bird")
3. Argument From Authority
This is the flip side of the ad hominem; in this case, the argument is
advanced because of those advancing it. Sometimes fallacious
arguments from authority are obvious because they are arguments
from false authorities. Supermodels who push cosmetics or pro athletes
pushing home loans or even sports equipment are likely false
authorities: first, we don’t know whether the supermodel or athlete uses
the product at all (odds are not), and second we can assume that the
supermodel is beautiful without the product and the pro athlete was
successful without the equipment.
Authority can mean either power or knowledge. In the case of
knowledge, we often find we must trust people to help us make sense
of the vast and complex array of knowledge surrounding an issue – for
example, in courtroom trials to consult psychologists and forensic
authorities etc., or to consult with trained meteorologists, geologists,
physicists, chemists etc. when debating global warming etc.
4. Band Wagon
The basic fallacy of democracy: that popular ideas are necessarily
right.
e.g. "C'mon, dude, everybody's doin' it."

5. Circular Reasoning (Begging the question)

This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument is essentially
the same as one of the premises in the argument. This is basically
repeating the claim and never providing support for the premises, or,
in other words, repeating the same argument over and over again.

e.g. Joe and Fred show up at an exclusive club. When asked if they
are members, Joe says "I'll vouch for Fred." When Joe is asked for
evidence that he's a member, Fred says, "I'll vouch for him."

“This book is really great. You should read it”.

How do you know it is great?
It is written in the book, do you see it?”
6. Dogmatism
This refers to the unwillingness to even consider the opponent’s
argument. The assumption that even when many, perhaps millions, of
other people believe otherwise, only you can be correct. This is closely
related to the Either/Or fallacy as it’s based on the usually false
assumption that competing theories or perspectives cannot co-exist
within single systems. This stems from the assumption that those who
disagree with you are “biased”, while you are “objective”.
e.g. Argument that only one particular theory is the best and
everything else is nonsense.
7. Either/Or, Black/White, False Dilemma, or Excluded Middle Fallacy
This fallacy simply paints an issue as one between two extremes with
no possible room for middle ground or nuance or compromise. It is
closely related to the straw man fallacy, which essentially paints one
side, instead of both, as so extreme no can agree with it.
e.g. “You have to support our movement, if you do not you are not
interested in the welfare of the people.”

8. Emotional Appeals
When it comes to determining the validity or factuality of a
claim, any attempt to sway an argument via emotion, rather than the
quality of the logic or evidence, can be considered a fallacy. This
includes in some but not all cases the fallacy argument from adverse
consequences, or “scare tactic”; bad things will happen to us if you do
not agree with my argument.
9. Fallacy of Exclusion
This is related to the Hasty Generalization, and refers to focusing
attention on one group’s behaviour and assuming that behaviour is
unique to that group; yet, in fact, the behaviour is common to many
groups.
e.g. Women can't drive! (If you examine the driving habits of women,
you will observe that women are poor drivers. Yet if you were to
examine the driving habits of both women and men, you’d learn that
men are far more likely to get into accidents).

10. Faulty Analogy

Our language functions through comparisons, and it is common and
useful to argue the validity of one point by comparing it to another;
but often the comparison suggests that two thing are more alike than
they really are.
e.g. "If we legalize gay marriage, next we'll legalize marriage between
people and their pets."
11. Failing Occam's Razor
Occam’s Razor is the scientific principle that the simplest of
any given hypotheses is likely to be the right one. Ignoring
it can lead to a logical fallacy.
e.g. You are thinking of your best friend, Rufus, when the
phone rings and it’s Rufus! You conclude the two of you
are magically connected.
Occam’s Razor: Random Coincidence.
You think of your best friend dozens if not hundreds of times
a day; he calls you a couple times a day. The odds of him
calling you once or twice a day at least once in a
while are pretty good.
12. Hasty Generalization, Misunderstanding Statistics or Non-
Representative Sample
This normally involves mistaking a small incidence for a larger trend.
 Racism is the most obvious example, especially when exposure to
other races or groups is filtered through the media, and so you have
only seen a very small percentage of the actual group and what
you’ve seen has been careful chosen rather than due to random
chance.
13. Non Sequitur
Non sequitur translates as “it does not follow,” meaning that the
conclusion does not follow the premises (usually because of a faulty
Implicit Reason/Assumption/Warrant). In other words the non
sequitur means there is a logical gap between the premises or
evidence and the conclusion. The non sequitur is a broad, categorical
term, and so there are many different types of non sequitur fallacies,
including post hoc, hasty generalization, slippery slope, affirming the
consequent and simply faulty assumption or warrant.
e.g. “If you loved me, you’d buy me this car.”
14. Post Hoc or Faulty Causality, or Correlation vs. Causation
Post hoc is the shortened version of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”,
which translates as “after this, therefore because of this”. In other
words, the fallacy confuses correlation for causation, or mistakenly
claiming that one thing caused another to happen since they happen
in sequence. The flaw in the argument is that often a third cause exists,
which is causing both to occur frequently, or perhaps the flaw is simply
that both things commonly occur regardless of each other.
e.g. Drinkers are more likely than non-drinkers to get lung cancer,
suggesting drinking causes lung cancer. (It turns out there is a strong
correlation between consuming alcohol and developing lung cancer.
The post hoc fallacy would be asserting that alcohol consumption
causes lung cancer; the actual reason is that people who drink more
also tend to smoke, or smoke more, than non drinkers.)
15. Red Herring
This generally refers to changing the subject mid-debate, so that we
start arguing about a tangential topic rather than the real or original
issue.
e.g. We start debating the evidence supporting evolutionary theory,
but you bring up the fact that believing this theory is depressing.
We start debating the evidence supporting global warming, but you
bring up the argument that the rich nations should do more to control
it.

16. Semantics or Equivocation (also, Splitting Hairs, Playing With Words,

or Using Legalisms)
Using the inherent ambiguity of language to distract from the actual
ideas or issues, or deliberately rephrasing the opposing argument
incorrectly, and then addressing that rephrasing.
17. Slippery Slope
Arguing from the perspective that one change inevitably will lead to another.
18. Straw Man
One side of the argument is presented as so extreme that no one will
agree with it. Often this is done by referring to the exception, rather
than the rule, and inferring that the exception is the rule.
e.g. “We either leave right now or we’re never going to get there.”
“All PETA supporters support the bombing or destruction of
laboratories.”

19. Weasel Words or Glittering Generality

This is the use of words so broadly defined – such as “love” or
“freedom” or “rights” or “patriotism” etc. etc. – as to become
essentially meaningless. Technically, their use is probably not a fallacy,
but their use tends to move an argument no where while inciting deep
emotional responses. Thus, they are rhetorically useful and logically
distracting.
Analysing arguments

 The same topic may be presented with multiple viewpoints. It depends on

writer’s background, purpose, ideology, context, etc.
 We need to understand this background before moving to any
conclusions.
Should drugs be banned in sports?

 All of these contribute to the record, just like a good camera was necessary
for Ansel Adams’ unforgettable photos of the American West, or good
marble and sharp chisels for Michelangelo’s sculpture of David. But what
we care about most, what gives that achievement its meaning and value,
is the ineffable combination of remarkable natural talents and
extraordinary dedication.
 Performance-enhancing drugs disguise natural abilities and substitute for
the dedication and focus that we admire. Performance-enhancing drugs
cheapen sport, making winners out of also-rans, and depriving virtuous and
superior athletes of the victories that should be theirs.
 Getting performance-enhancing drugs out of sport will not be easy, and
success is not assured. But the effort is worthwhile as long as we care
enough about fairness, integrity, and the meaning and value of sport.
Emphasising or de-emphasising a point
 Depending on our purpose(s), certain points need to be
emphasized while some others may be de-emphasized.
 This is particularly useful in persuasive writing and
negotiations.
 For instance, you are talking in favour of subsidies in
India. Then you may want to emphasize on its benefits
and at the same time de-emphasize its drawbacks like
burden on the exchequer.
 There are different techniques for emphasizing or de-
emphasizing a point.
 Use charts or graphs
 Information in footnotes
 To emphasize, use bullets, symbols like "�", "�", or ">", that introduce
a paragraph. They pull the eye toward themselves and emphasize
what comes after.
 To emphasize, use the beginning and ends of sentences; to de-
emphasize, use the middle: A sentence has two points of major
impact: the beginning and the end. Of these two positions of
emphasis, the end is the more emphatic. In a good sentence, just
as in a good joke, the more you can push the point to the end, the
more it packs punch. As with most techniques of emphasis,
however, caution is in order. Not everything can be emphasized,
and an unending succession of punch lines can get tiresome.
 Use outlining and proportionality. The structure of an argument (i.e.,
outlining) and the relative lengths of the parts of that structure (i.e.,
proportionality) are both crucial ways to emphasize and de-
emphasize.
 Whereas outlining deals with position, proportionality deals with
length. Generally, matters on which you spend a lot of time seem
important and matters on which you spend only a little time will
seem unimportant. Make this Rule of Proportionality work in your
favour, rather than against you.
 To emphasize or de-emphasize, place at the proper point in your
outline (at all levels): Matters that are hierarchically higher in your
outline seem important; matters that are hierarchically lower in your
outline seem less important. This is true at all levels of the outline: the
major point should be roman numeral I, the major point on the
second argument should be roman numeral II A, and so on through
each section, each sub-section, each sub-sub-section, etc. If your
strongest point is roman numeral III (B) (2) (c), then you are not
giving it proper emphasis. Roman numeral III (B) (2) (c), however,
might the perfect point for something you want de-emphasized to
be buried.
 Proportionality is especially strong when combined with the other
methods of emphasis and de-emphasis. For example, an extensive
description (rather than a sketchy characterization) can be
especially emphatic.
 Sometimes, however, normal operation of the Rule of Proportionality
is reversed, and instead of long being emphasized, short is
emphasized -- especially very short. For this to happen, the Rule of
Proportionality generally has to be operating with one or more of
the other techniques of emphasis. For example, if Roman Numeral I
is a very short argument, especially if it contains another technique
of emphasis like a contrasting sentence or a chart, it can be very
forceful.
 To emphasize and de-emphasize, contrast within a sentence or
paragraph: By contrasting within a sentence or paragraph, you can
emphasize what you want emphasized while simultaneously de-
emphasizing what you want de-emphasized. The physically closer
on the page the contrast is, the stronger the effect. The closest
contrasts and, thus, the strongest effects are those that are side-by-
side in the same sentence, often with one-word arguments like
"although", "nevertheless", and "however":
 To emphasize or de-emphasize, be explicit. Don't be afraid to just
come out and state that something should be emphasized or de-
emphasized. Think about why are you discussing a case or some
facts.
 To emphasize or de-emphasize, reinforce with the typography and
visual layout of the page. Use the typography and the visual layout
of the page to reinforce what you want emphasized or de-
emphasized. Important points should look important; unimportant
ones should look unimportant. The explicit message and the
subliminal message should reinforce each other. If, on the page, a
minor point looks more important than does a major point, then
you've undercut your own emphasis.