Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
When writers affirm the consequent, they take the truth of the then part to infer something about the "if"
part:
"The ground is wet. Therefore, it is raining."
The problem, of course, is that something else could make the ground wet. The sprinkler system could be
on, or someone may have forgotten to turn off the garden hose. Based upon only the fact that the ground is
wet, we do not know that it is raining.
Denying the Antecedent
A related error occurs when one infers that, because the if part of the sentence is false, the then part
must also be false.
Again using the example of rain and wet ground, one would commit this error by concluding that:
"Because it is not raining, the ground is not wet."
These words alone do not guarantee that the ground is dry. This statement indicates an error in reasoning
for the same reason that affirming the consequent is fallacious: there may be other reasons for the ground to
be wet. If the sprinkler system is on, the ground is wet even though it is not raining.
Appealing to Ignorance
This error also involves inferring too much from the known facts. Appealing to ignorance means that one
concludes a statement must be false because it has not been proven true, or vice versa.
Consider the example of North Korean nuclear weapons. One person might say,
North Korea does not have nuclear weapons: no one has proved that they exist!
Another could counter,
But of course North Korea has nuclear weapons: no one has proved that they dont!
In both of these cases, there is insufficient evidence to draw such a sweeping conclusion. In either example,
it is possible for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. Writers could then articulate reasons why it is more
likely or not that North Korea does, in fact, have nuclear weapons.
Hasty Generalization
Making predictions and generalizations is essential in academic writing. Still, writers can all too easily
mistakenly generalize based upon insufficient evidence.
As the name suggests, a hasty generalization occurs when a conclusion is drawn too quickly; that is, before
all relevant information is considered. For example, a student might say,
I did well on that test and didnt even open the book! I dont need to study for the next
test in this class!
This conclusion is drawn too quickly; the material on the second test may be more difficult. The point is that
one cannot look at a single, potentially isolated event and attempt to infer too much information from it.
Often, hasty generalizations arise from not considering pertinent information or using unrepresentative
example.
Reasoning: Errors in Causation
By David Roberts
Often writers argue that there is a causal relationship between two or more things. For example, some might
argue that the high turnout of Evangelical voters in 2004 led to President Bushs victory. Unfortunately, many
writers make unwarranted logical leaps when portraying one event as the cause or effect of another.
Described below are several kinds of common errors when writers discuss causality.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Many scholarly studies use the word correlation to describe two occurrences which happen together. A
correlation, however, does not necessarily mean that the two events are logically connected, much less that
one caused another. There are two specific errors one should keep in mind when discussing correlating
events in academic papers.
1. Alternate Causes. Consider a typical correlation: X correlates with Y. As X increases,
so does Y. It does not necessarily follow that X caused Y because some third variable,
Z, could have caused them both. A classic example of this situation is ice cream sales
and the number of drownings in the summer. The mere fact that ice cream sales
increase as drownings increase does not mean that one caused the other. Rather, a
third factor, such as hot weather, could have caused both.
2. Reverse Causation. In some cases, one event takes place and shortly after, another
takes place. Many times, however, the two events take place at the same time. In this
case, rather than X causing Y, Y could have caused X. Some may argue that poor
economic conditions are the result of high crime: if there is high crime, businesses wont
invest in expensive equipment that would likely be stolen. It could, however, also be the
case that poor economic conditions cause high crime: if there is little employment,
people may turn to crime to acquire goods or to alleviate boredom. Perhaps both causal
relationships are true. The point is, one cannot infer causality with these facts alone due
to the complexity of the relationship.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
This Latin phrase translates to After this, therefore because of this. Sometimes writers assume that
because one event takes place before another, it must be the cause of it. While this situation is necessary
for causation, it alone is not sufficient. Political science professor Dr. Erkulwater provides an example of
what she sometimes sees:
Tax cuts are good for the economy. Shortly after President Reagan cut personal
income taxes in the 1980s, the U.S. economy boomed.
This statement may or may not be true; the point is, one must have more information than simply the time
the two events took place to assert that the former event caused the latter.
Single Cause.
A related problem with establishing causality is that there could be more than one cause of an event. If one
looks at data and finds that:
1) X took place before Y, and
2) X rises as Y rises, one may be tempted to assert a causal relationship between the
two.
This observation, however, neglects the possibility that a third variable, Z, is also necessary for Y to happen.
X alone does not cause Y; rather, X and Z together cause Y. Alone, either X or Z could be insufficient.
For example, sometimes economists use a persons willingness to pay for a good to determine the
demand for the good. Demand, however, is also determined by a persons ability to pay for the good.
Reasoning: Generalization Errors
By David Roberts
Many writers cite statistical data or other research when attempting to support their assertions. While this
tactic is good, many of these writers fall into traps in the course of using research to substantiate their
claims. Below are two common problems when attempting to infer generalizations:
Unrepresentative Sample
Sometimes writers attempt to infer characteristics about an entire population /based upon a sample of it. At
one level, this inference is necessary: it is difficult to imagine opinion polls for the President to poll nearly
300 million people every time a poll is commissioned. There are still dangers associated with such
inferences, however. If the sample poorly resembles the population at large, its results are likely to be
skewed.
One prominent example of skewed results can be found in an election poll in 1936 which predicted that
Franklin Roosevelt would lose to Alf Landon. Roosevelt, of course, went on to win in a landslide. The poll
had an unrepresentative sample: it used names from telephone directories and auto registrations, but during
this time many people did not have the resources for such technology. These people, moreover, voted
overwhelmingly for Roosevelt. Because the poll drew on an unrepresentative sample, its results were wildly
wrong.
In order to avoid this error in papers, writers ought to be familiar with how certain numbers and statistics are
derived. While it may not be feasible to remember every detail, writers will do well to be familiar with the
process that produced the statistic. The key question writers must ask is, "Does this sample possess any
traits likely to make it unrepresentative of the population as a whole?" Asking this question will allow writers
to critique others' claims as well as their own.
Ecological Fallacy
Sometimes, people mistakenly attempt to infer characteristics about a single individual based upon
characteristics of the individuals population. This inference is known as the ecological fallacy. It shows poor
reasoning because the individual may not be representative of the population.
For an example of the ecological fallacy, imagine a person saying:
Harvard is a better school than Washington and Lee; since John goes to Harvard, he is
a better student than Mary, who goes to Washington and Lee.
This conclusion does not follow from the premises. Even if Harvard is better than Washington and Lee, John
could be a complete slacker while Mary could be quite intelligent and hardworking!
Reasoning: Other Fallacies
By David Roberts
There are a number of other common errors that writers make when crafting their arguments. These are
more difficult to categorize than the previous section details, but they are, nonetheless, very important to
remember when writing argumentatively.
False Dilemma
Strawman
Appealing to Authority
Fallacy of the Beard
Slippery Slope
Begging the Question
Equivocation
Questionable Analogy
Ad hominem
False Dilemma
Writers construct false dilemmas when they argue that there are only two options to address an issue, and
since one is undesirable or impossible, we must choose the other. This is fallacious for two reasons. First,
there could be more than two options. It would sound ridiculous for someone to say,
We can either burn the house down and collect the insurance money or we can
continue living in an unsafe house. Since we shouldnt keep living in an unsafe house,
we should burn it down.
In fact, other options exist: selling or repairing the house, for instance.
Constructing false dilemmas is also fallacious because the two options the writer constructs may not be
mutually exclusive; that is, one may be able to do both of them. Consider this argument:
We can either go to the river or eat sandwiches. Were both hungry, so we should eat
sandwiches and not go to the river.
This is a false dilemma because one could likely eat sandwiches and go to the river, or even eat sandwiches
at the river. In your own writing, it thus becomes necessary to check to see that you are not overlooking
alternatives to choices you have listed and that the choices you have listed really are choices and not simply
options, of which more than one can be selected at once.
Strawman
The strawman fallacy takes its name from what else a strawman guarding a field from crows. This fallacy
occurs when writers mischaracterize opponents' positions in order to more easily refute it. Writers might
make opponents' positions more extreme or sound contradictory to accomplish this. This is problematic
because it does not truly address the issue at hand.
It is sometimes difficult to avoid the strawman fallacy. After all, since one is disagreeing with the objection in
question, it can be difficult to give due credit to an opposing point of view. It is essential to do this, however,
for it will bolster the strength of one's argument. In order to avoid this fallacy, one should be careful to:
1. Ensure that one understands the objection in question; and
2. Take deliberate care in articulating that position and its flaws to the papers audience.
Interestingly enough, an argument that makes concessions to opponents or at least carefully examines them
is often more persuasive because it appears more reasonable to the audience.
Appealing to Authority
As the name suggests, appealing to authority occurs when writers argue that a position should be accepted
because some sort of authority believes it should be accepted. There are several difficulties with this
argument, however. Kahane and Cavender (1998) cite two problems. First, some authorities are more
credible than others. Personal biases as well as limited professional experience can undermine a sources
credibility. Second, authorities in one field are not always authorities in others. George Clooney is less
credible than a real cardiologist to speak about the procedures for open heart surgery.
It is also sometimes difficult to determine whether and how to appeal to authorities. After all, academic
writing poses something of a paradox: writers at once are supposed to support their claims with evidence
presumably offered by authorities while simultaneously becoming independent voices themselves. In order
to properly use authorities, writers will do well to focus on evaluating authorities. A few questions may be
helpful in this regard:
How does the authority come to this conclusion?
What makes an authority credible?
Why might a persons status as an authority on the issue give extra credence to accepting that
authoritys conclusion?
Fallacy of the Beard
This faulty reasoning strategy takes its name from a man with a beard. One could conceivably prove that no
one has a beard (or, on the other hand, that everyone has a beard) using this reasoning strategy. The
argument goes like this:
Person A: Does a person with one whisker have a beard?
Person B: No.
Person A: Well, what about a person with two whiskers?
Person B: Nope.
Person A: Three, four, five?
Person B: No, no, no!
Person A: Therefore, no one has a beard!
This reasoning is obviously faulty, though: one sees people with beards all the time. This faulty reasoning
results from the questionable premise that because two things are not different because their exact
numerical difference from one another is not known. Even though a precise number of whiskers does not
separate a beard from a non-beard, there is still a difference between the extremes of being clean-shaven
and having a full beard.
Writers must use caution when discussing vague concepts such as how tall a person must be in order to be
tall and similar issues. These issues could conceivably come up when discussing the legal age to drink or
other public policy questions. It is important, however, not to confuse small differences at the margins with
the large differences between the polar ends of an issue.
Slippery Slope
This fallacy usually involves a writer who takes the audience through a long string of consequences, often
concluding with a very dire consequence, and uses it to argue that some other, comparatively minute action
should be taken. One might claim the following:
If we eat meat, then we disrespect animals. If we disrespect animals, we will disrespect
all forms of life. But if we disrespect all forms of life, we will begin killing other humans.
Eventually, we will kill everyone. Therefore, no one should ever eat meat.
Usually, one of these causal relationships is overstated; there are insufficient grounds to accept that doing
the first action will result in the dire consequences the argument predicts.
When writing, one will likely employ several linked consequences together. This by itself is legitimate, but
one must take care to check that the linkages are indeed legitimate. When writing in this way, it may be
helpful to ask oneself whether doing the first action really causes the last to occur.
Begging the Question
This fallacy, also known as circular reasoning, occurs when writers simply restate what they seek to prove
as their conclusion. For example, one might say,
This test is hard because it is so difficult!
The reason offered, that it is very difficult, would certainly make the test hard, but this statement is circular
because it does not address why the test is hard. In the editing process, writers will likely benefit from
persistently asking themselves, But why is this true? If one looks for support for this answer and merely
find a restatement of it, then the reasoning is circular. At this point, it becomes necessary to either support
the point or to make the point less sweeping and then support it.
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when a single word or phrase is used differently in at least two parts of an argument.
Consider the following:
If one does not weigh much, then one is light. Mark doesnt weigh very much.
Therefore, Mark is light. Thus, Mark cannot have dark skin.
The equivocation occurs in the last statement: before this, light referred to Marks weight, not skin color.
This reasoning is fallacious because Mark may indeed have dark skin and not weigh very much. While this
example is rather obvious, it can sometimes be difficult to detect these shifts in word meanings, especially
over a prolonged argument in a complicated subject. When using buzzwords or words which have multiple
meanings, be sure that to examine them to ensure that you are using it in the same context each time. One
method of doing this is to insert the definition of the word every time you use it in your argument.
Questionable Analogy
One primary form of argument writers rely upon is argument by analogy. If one thing is comparable to
another, a similar action may be appropriate for both. However, not all analogies are appropriate.
Specifically, the relevant characteristics may not be the subject of comparison, but rather a minute trait with
little relevance on the appropriate action. For example,
The speed of light can be reached! We didnt think that anyone could run a four-minute
mile or that the sound barrier could be broken, but we eventually did both. It stands to
reason that the light barrier, which some people dont think can be broken, will
eventually be reached.
Are running a four-minute mile, or reaching the speed of sound, really good analogies for traveling at
186,000 miles per second? The fallacy, of course, is that one may have credible reasons why the speed of
light will not be reached. That some people did not think it was possible to run a four-minute mile or exceed
the speed of sound are not sufficient grounds to conclude that reaching the speed of light will occur.
When writing, it thus becomes important to make sure analogies are well, analogous. In other words, try to
ensure that you are comparing the relevant parts of two different situations.
Ad hominem
Another Latin name, this fallacy translates, To the person. In other words, to make an ad hominem
argument is to attack a person rather than the persons argument. The following is an example of this:
Sally says I should drive a more fuel efficient car, but her car gets even less mileage
than mine; therefore, there is no reason for me to drive a more fuel efficient car.
The conclusion the argument makes is simply too strong: it is not entirely clear that Sally is being
hypocritical (she may not be able to afford a more fuel efficient car, for example); and even if she is
hypocritical, it is not clear why her hypocrisy makes it bad for the author of the argument to drive a more fuel
efficient car.
Writers should bear in mind two specific pieces of advice when critiquing others and their arguments.
1. Personal background is not always irrelevant. It may indeed be questionable to
accept someones view that lying is always wrong if that person consistently lies and
defends his or her dishonesty.
2. Remember the argument and not just the person making it. Often, it is more
appropriate to address a persons arguments and not the persons personal behavior. In
these cases, one should be sure to attack a persons argument rather than the person.
Reasoning: Methods of Argument & Avoiding Fallacies
By David Roberts
When arguing, sometimes one person says to the other, Well, thats just your opinion. Maybe its right for
you. These statements might sometimes be true, but they are used all too often to avoid an honest
evaluation of ideas. Some opinions, after all, are supported more than others. These reminders should help
you to make your arguments well-supported and avoid fallacies in your own writing. As an added benefit,
this will likely help you to detect poorly-supported points in others' writing:
Ways to support an argument
1. Analogy
Making an argument through analogy involves comparing two objects (events, situations, people, and the
like) and arguing that, because they are similar in some way, a similar action should occur in both situations.
For instance, someone might say:
We should keep our books from last semester; giving them back to the bookstore is
just like giving them away anyway, and we shouldnt just give our books away.
The person making this claim begins with the premise that one situation giving books away is wrong,
and argues that a second situation returning them to the bookstore is analogous to the first situation.
These premises are used to justify taking a similar action in both cases.
Analogies are important to ones argument, but it is all too easy to apply one situation improperly to another.
One must determine the similarity between two situations and, once this similarity is found, one must ask if
this similarity is the important and relevant similarity. That is, does this similarity between two situations
justify taking the same action in both? See our page on Other Logical Fallacies for more about faulty
analogies.
2. Example/Detail
In some cases analogies will be less applicable than in others. Instead of using analogies, writers may find it
useful to use examples and details to illustrate some of their assertions. For example, John might say:
This class is really hard. I spent two hours a night studying for the past week and I still
got a C on the last test!
In this case, John uses a single event an example or detail to make a broader claim about the difficulty
of a class. Of course, for it to be an appropriate example, it must be representative. In Johns case, it would
not be a good example if he cited one difficult test in an otherwise extremely easy class. See our section on
Supporting Arguments with Detail for more assistance with this issue.
3. Proof by Absurdity or Contradiction
Proving your position to be correct can also occur by proving that the opposite viewpoint is either
contradictory or ridiculous. This is accomplished by assuming that ones opponents are correct and then
reasoning from that to conclude that this assumption leads to something impossible or absurd. Because it
leads to an impossible or absurd result, this assumption should be rejected. For example, imagine a lawyer
in a courtroom defending a client. The lawyer might say:
Assume my client, John, did commit this crime. But in order to commit this crime, we
can all agree, he must have been at the scene of the crime when it took place.
However, thirty people saw my client at a restaurant two hours away from the crime
scene two minutes before it took place. For John to have committed this crime, he must
have been two places at once. But this is surely impossible! It therefore follows that my
client did not commit this crime.
While proving an argument by contradiction is legitimate, one must be careful of a few things. First, one
must be careful not to commit the False Dilemma fallacy. One cannot conclude that a pen is red simply on
the basis that it is impossible or ridiculous for it to be green. It could also be blue. Hence, it is important to
remember what one does and does not know: if it is impossible or ridiculous for it to be green, all one knows
is that it is not green.
Second, one must be careful that the reason for rejecting an assumption is legitimate. Those who believed
that the Earth was flat succumbed to this fallacy: Assume that the Earth is round. This would mean
everything weve believed for so long is incorrect and we'd have to change our beliefs! Therefore, the Earth
must not be round! One cannot simply decide that results should be rejected because they are an
undesired outcome. In order to reject a premise, its conclusion must be impossible or absurd, not simply
unwanted.
4. Sources of Authority
Writing for academic audiences requires more than simple personal opinion. As we saw earlier, not all
opinions are created equal. One way to bolster an argument is to use the word of an expert. This may be
particularly useful for research papers where an expert conducted empirical research and has unique
findings.
Like the other ways to support your argument, however, one must be careful not to misuse or overuse this
method of support. Academic writing is about more than personal opinion, but it is also about more than
uncritical agreement; simply accepting a statement because an authority says it may not persuade your
audience. If you decide to use sources to support your points, be certain to critically engage your sources
and, when agreeing with them:
1. Base your agreement on more than their position alone, but also their argument.
2. Make sure to address other authorities challenges to this point of view.
See our section on Using Sources Effectively for more resources on this issue.
Avoiding Fallacies
Not reasoning poorly is just as important as reasoning well. A single fallacious argument in a paper may
result in many points - or a letter grade or two - subtracted. As you go through the writing process, the
following three pieces of advice will help you avoid these errors in reasoning.
1. Challenge yourself
Is this really true? Im not sure, but you should ask yourself (and others)! As the author of the paper, you
know the most about the argument youre trying to make. What are its important points? What are its weak
points? Are any of the important points also some of the weak points?
Pretend you are disagreeing with your argument each step of the way. Do your best to think of reasons why
what you say may not be true. It may be easier to do this a few days after writing a draft in order to gain
distance from the argument.
You should also keep in mind that sometimes, you will agree with the objection that you identify and the
original argument will change. Therefore, it is best to go through this self-questioning throughout the writing
process rather than as a brief afterthought when editing the night before a paper is due.
2. Learn from experience
Are there any particular fallacies you are prone to committing? One must know the argument one intends to
make, but one must also know him- or herself. Do you often rely on the status of experts rather than the
substance of what they say or their relevant knowledge about the topic? Or do you sometimes take the lack
of proof against something to be evidence that it is true?
No matter what mistakes you have made in the past, you should keep them in mind in order to prevent them
from happening in the future. You may find it helpful to look through graded papers from previous
assignments in order to find out the errors you commonly make.
3. Outline your arguments
What evidence supports what claims which support what conclusion? After writing your paper, read your
paper for function and structure, writing down on a separate sheet of paper the evidence, claims, and
conclusion. In other words, ask "why?". Investigate the purpose of each sentence in your paper. See our
page on Glossing Your Ideas for more practical advice about how to go through this process.
There are numerous benefits to going through this sometimes tedious and always methodical process. First,
you will be able to identify unwarranted assertions, allowing you to either support them or modify them so
that they are warranted (for example, less categorical or sweeping). There are other benefits as well: one
will also likely prevent major digressions, shifts of scope, and will have a clearly-flowing and well-organized
paper.
and backing would be allotted the most in-depth discussion because these aspects are normally unstated
The Rhetorical Triangle and Three Rhetorical Appeals
and taken for granted in casual arguments.
David Wright, Furman University English Department
3. The Toulmin model provides writers with a way to formulate or test an argument in detail, but:
Aristotle defined rhetoric as "the ability to see or identify in any given circumstance the available means of
persuasion. Analyzing rhetoric focuses on the "how" and "why" of persuasion rather than what specific
The effectiveness of the model depends on how well one thinks critically and creatively about his
things people say or write in order to be persuasive. One way of breaking down the components of a
or her arguments.
rhetorical strategy is to use the Rhetorical Triangle. This model puts into a generalized framework the
interactions among various actors and devices in persuasion. The Three Rhetorical Appeals are the main
The model only acts as a heuristic for constructing an argument, not for writing the paper itself.
strategies used to persuade an audience and are also important devices to understand when constructing or Using
Details to Support a Claim
deconstructing an argument.
by Joe Essid; prepared with the help of Pattie Fagan, School of Continuing Studies
Transcribed notes:
Writing teachers often praise students for using a technique called a "telling detail" to lend support to a claim
1. The Rhetorical Triangle allows you to effectively analyze different texts and arguments for their rhetorical made in an essay. Since most academic writing consists of a series of supported claims, learning to employ
strategies and devices. The model shapes the rhetorical process into manageable and distinct parts through detail can greatly help writers make points effectively.
the Rhetorical Triangle and Three Rhetorical Appeals:
Consider this example, from Pattie's research essay, in which she explores the use of TV cameras in
2. Rhetorical Triangle: made up of three components which are present in any persuasive process:
courtrooms. In this section, Pattie explores how television coverage of trials emphasizes entertainment and
sensationalism:
Author: the person who generates text.
The media is in tune with the public's desire for information and entertainment because
broadcasters are for-profit entities. To meet public demand for entertainment and
Audience: the person/people who receive/s text.
information, "real" courtroom dramas, and legal analysis shows have joined the line-up
of fictional, legal programming. Court TV was created in 1990 by Steven Brill . . . .
Text: the message being conveyed from the author to the audience
After the 1997 buyout of Brill, investigative
3. Rhetorical Appeals: the three main avenues by which people are persuaded.
reports, detective shows and legal dramas,
Logos: Strategy of reason, logic, or facts. Any type of argument which appeals to someones
rational side is appealing to logos.
such as Perry Mason, replaced the nightly,
educationally designed, legal commentary,
Ethos: Strategy of credibility, authority, or character. Appeals to ethos to demonstrate the
authors trustworthiness, expertise and honesty and attempt to put the author in a more positive
while the daytime gavel-to-gavel coverage of
light to the audience.
trials
remained the same. A perceived downside with the
changes in Court TV's broadcasting schedule is that they are now no different from the
Pathos: Strategy of emotions and affect. Pathos appeals to an audiences sense of anger, sorrow,
or excitement.
average entertainment broadcasting station. In Allison Romano's
Aristotle argued that logos was the strongest and most reliable form of persuasion; the most
interview with CEO Henry Schleiff, he openly
effective form of persuasion, however, utilizes all three appeals.
admits that the bottom line, profit, is the
Further Explanation of the Three Appeals:
driving force behind the Court TV changes
Logos: An appeal to logic.
toward entertainment (33).
When a writer today employs logos, s/he might draw upon statistics, credible sources, arguments premised
on reason, and the inherent logic of a situation. Consider this claim in a student paper about heart disease The paragraph begins with a strong claim and a clear topic sentence that presents it. The first text in blue
and pork-rind consumption:
then shows how the writer supports her claim that Court TV has become as entertainment-oriented as other
broadcasters. Next, the second example shows the writer turning to a source, without weakening her
The information about the risks of eating pork rinds comes from no fewer than seven
argument with an unneeded and lengthy direct quotation. Both examples use succinct, hard-to-refute details.
scientific studies published in respected journals. Each study was reviewed by a panel
As a result, the writer's argument and analysis become more convincing.
of readers who did not know the authors. The journals receive no outside funding
except from their subscribers. Based on these factors, one must conclude that unless
In Pattie's next example, note how a small detail hammers home a key point about the subjectivity of TV
other studies come forward, pork-rind consumption poses health risks.
coverage:
Pathos: Appeals to emotion are common in non-academic writing but tend to distort factual evidence.
Admittedly, the unbiased and unedited coverage of trials can be very dry and dull for the
audience but the essence of reality is necessary to the true representation of the
From our pork-rind paper:
courtroom trial. To keep TV viewers satisfied and returning for more is a priority for
When you see someone reaching for the pork rinds in the supermarket, you should slap
broadcasters. Court TV has been accused, authors
it out of their hands and tell them the terrible story of these crunchy death-bags full of
poison. Oh, consider the children who will grown up addicted to these vile things, unless
Marjorie Cohn and David Dow note, of using
we all act now!
close-up shots and choosing angles in the O.J.
Pathos-based appeals can play on fears or other emotions. Advertising has elevated the use of pathos to a
very fine art.
Simpson case that are not flattering in order
Ethos: Can rely on reputation or experiences to prove a point. Credibility is key to winning an audience's
to create a negative impression, which sells
belief and support for one's argument.
better
to the public (33). TV cameras in court trials should be held to
Again, from the same paper:
the intent of providing the public with an unbiased viewpoint, so that the public trial of
Darleen Diggler of Greasy Bottom, VA, was the first to testify at the Congressional
the defendant does not become a trial by the public of the accused.
hearing on pork rinds. Ms. Diggler, who had suffered four heart attacks, needed
Thus Pattie continues to build a case against the way in which Court TV uses television cameras. A weaker
assistance getting into the chair provided her by the Congressmen. As she testified,
writer would bury the professor in strings of long indented quotations and tiresome summaries of every
"see what a pound of rinds a day will do to you! I've been eating them for thirty years!
aspect of Court TV's way of covering trials. Instead, this writer chooses a few good pieces of evidence, each
Now it is too late." She broke down, sobbing, at this point. Ms. Diggler's testimony was
a telling detail, to hammer home her claims.
followed by Dr. I.M. Smarte, an award-winning cardiologist from the Medical College of
Virginia. Dr. Smarte presented evidence from his four decades of practice, and he noted
What is Analysis?
the high levels of saturated fat, trans-fat, and cholesterol found in pork rinds and urged
Have you ever dissected a frog? If you did that just to cut it up, you would be guilty of cruelty. One dissects a
Congress to pass the legislation outlawing the snack.
frog to learn how and why things inside the frog work as they do. Why have two arteries here, not one?
Both Ms. Diggler and Dr. Smarte use ethos to make their claims; Smarte also employs logos (the claims
Generally, all analysis gets beyond mere description and into examination and explanation.
about what the rinds contain). Diggler's plea could be seen as employing pathos to sway the lawmakers.
The same principles apply to essays. Consider these examples, from a hypothetical final exam in the Core
The Toulmin Model of Argumentation
class:
Joe Essid, University of Richmond Writing Center
Example 1: This quotation comes from Freud's Civilization and its Discontents. Here,
David Wright, Furman University English Department
Freud implies that man will only be happy when living according to the pleasure
Athena Hensel, UR Writing Consultant
principle. The pleasure principle leads people to do or desire things that bring them
One method of constructing or analyzing a persuasive argument is the Toulmin model, named for its creator,
pleasure. Freud presents a good point here, and he uses many examples throughout
British rhetorician Stephen Toulmin. The method involves breaking an argument down into six basic parts,
the text to support it.
objectively weighing and supporting points both for and against the argument. Below, Prof. David Furman
Example 2: This quotation contains a central concept of Freud's psychology: humans
has provided a video outlining the uses and parts of the Toulmin model of argumentation.
are driven by the pleasure principle and are most happy when fulfilling its demands. As
Transcribed notes:
Freud notes elsewhere in the text, the ego and superego play the roles of watchdogs,
keeping the demands of the pleasure principle in check through the moderating
1. The Toulmin model breaks an argument down into six main parts:
influences of experience (Freud's reality principle) and morality. For Freud, this battle
Claim: assertion one wishes to prove.
within the personality gets reflected in a society. The society passes laws that limit our
freedom, and therefore our happiness, but encourage order and morality. Freud notes
Evidence: support or rationale for the claim.
that the exchange of happiness for security is, in the end, worthwhile and necessary to
maintaining a civilization.
Warrant: the underlying connection between the claim and evidence, or why the evidence Analysis does
not equal description (but can use description). The second example is clearly stronger, since
supports the claim.
it "gets beneath the surface," going beyond describing ideas to examining the relationship between ideas.
writer is clearly "present" in the second example, showing the reader how Freud makes the leap from
Backing: tells audience why the warrant is a rational one. In scholarly essays, the warrant and The
to society. In the first case, the writer only tells us what Freud says, not how or why Freud drew
backing would be the areas most supported by factual evidence to support the legitimacy of their individual
his conclusions.
assertion. In casual arguments, the warrant and backing are often taken for granted.
Using Analysis
Counterargument/Rebuttal: addresses potential objections to the claim.
There are many sorts of analysis. The ones given "stay within the text." Another possible analysis might
applying Freud's ideas to another text or a current issue. Any analysis will consider the data in
Qualifier: additions to the claim that add nuance and specificity to its assumption, helping to involve
enough depth, and with enough clarity, to convince the reader, even one who disagrees with the writer's
counter rebuttals.
conclusions, that the analysis has been made well.
2. The Toulmin method can be used as a framework to test an argument's validity by identifying the claim,
evidence, warrants, backing, possible rebuttals, and possible qualifiers. In an academic essay, the warrant
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation