Você está na página 1de 62

Contents

Õ Recap!
Õ Causal Argument
Õ Language of Argument
Õ Logical Fallacies
%ecap!
Õ  pes of Argument
• Induction
• Deduction
• Analog
 pes of Argument
Õ Causal Argument ± explain either wh a
particular situation or phenomenon
occurred (or will occur) or what
produced (or will produce) a general
state of affairs.
Causal Argument
Õ ’hat cause A? × Agent

• A person
• A situation
• Another event

COMPLEXI OF CAUSAION
Causal Argument
Õ  pes of Cause

• Remote cause ± conditions & influences


• Proximate cause ± more immediate, much
closer in time to the event or situation
• Precipitating cause ± triggering event
¦cenario
Õ A house fire (’h ?)

• Lit cigarette dropped on a bed (wh ?)


• he man fell asleep (’h ?)
• he man who is old and ill had taken a
sleeping pill to help induce sleep.
¦cenario
Õ Remote causes: man¶s age & illness;
sleeping pill

Õ Proximate cause: man¶s dozing off with


a lighted cigarette

Õ Precipitating cause: cigarette igniting the


combustible mattress
Causal Argument
Õ Isolating precipitating cause is usuall
necessar to prevent events from
recurring.

Õ However, often we need to go further


back to determine remoter causes or
conditions especiall if we¶re interested
in assigning responsibilit for what has
occurred.
¦cenario
Õ Ria¶s rear-end collision with a car in front
of her.

• Precipitating cause: car¶s too closeness to


the car in front or her

• Proximate and remote causes?


A good causal argument«
Õ Is based on a recognition of the
complexit of causation that keeps us
from rushing in to assert onl one cause
for most events or situations.

Õ Distinguishes carefull among t pes of


arguments.
• A alone caused B
• A was one of the several causes
• A was an influence
A good causal argument«
Õ Demonstrates more than just a time
relationship or correlation between A &
B.

• March precedes April.


• Good SA scores and good college grades
¬solating Cause
Õ Finding the common factor to similar
outcomes

Õ Recognizing ke difference

Õ Process of Elimination
Common to similar outcomes
Õ ÿ emplo ees attend a compan
luncheon. Later in the da , 10 report to
the area hospital, another 4 complain
the next da of having experienced
vomiting the night before.
£e Difference
Õ If two situations are alike in ever wa
but one, and the situations result in
different outcomes, then the one the
differ must have caused the different
outcome.

Õ Example: social science experiments


3rocess of Elimination
Õ Examine all possible causes and
eliminate them one b one until we are
satisfied that we have isolated the actual
cause(s).

Õ Ex. Plane crash


9anguage of Argument
Õ Persuasion in argument × not ³an thing
goes´

Õ Ý 

    
  
 on all who
disagree with our views are
unacceptable strategies in good
argument.
9anguage of Argument
Õ Presenting our views in   
   will at least win the
respect of even those who cannot
accept our position.

Õ If ou are crude, mean-spirited, or


manipulative, ou will win few to our
side and lose the respect of most.
9anguage Argument
Õ One technique is to establish a common
ground with people who ma disagree
with ou or who otherwise ma feel
threatened and become  .

Õ Conciliator arguments ± arguments


with opposing view presented in non-
threatening language and expresses
common grounds that opposing sides
share.
9ogical Fallacies
Õ Arguments that do not work ±
arguments that fail to meet standards of
sound logic and good sense.

Õ Causes of Illogic
• Lack of knowledge of the subject
• Ego problems
• Collection of prejudices and biases
• Human need for answers
Causes of ¬llogic
Õ Lack of knowledge of the subject ±
ignorance is no excuse for producing
weak arguments
Causes of ¬llogic
Õ Ego problems × poor self-esteem
persons attach themselves to the ideas
and then feel personall attacked when
someone disagrees with them.

• Defensiveness × great emotion & irrationalit


Causes of ¬llogic
Õ Collection of prejudices and biases that
we carr around, having absorbed them
ages ago from famil and communit .
• Ethnic, religious, or sexist stereot pes
• Political views uncriticall adopted

Distorted lenses × poor judgment of facts and


logic
Causes of ¬llogic
Õ Human need for answers ± an answers
± to the questions that deepl concern
us.

Õ ’e want to control our world because


that makes us feel secure, and having
answers make us feel in control.
Causes of ¬llogic
Õ Can lead us to a twofold classification of
bad arguments.

• Oversimplif ing the issue


• Ignoring the issue b substituting emotion
for reason.
Fallacies %esulting from
Oversimplif ing
Õ Errors in Generalizing
• Oversimplif ing
• Hast or Fault Generalizations
Õ Forced H pothesis
Õ Non Sequitur
Õ Slipper Slope
Õ False Dilemma
Õ False Analog
Õ Post Hoc Fallac
Errors in Generalizing
Õ Includes Overstatement and Hast or
Fault Generalization (error in inductive
pattern of argument)

Õ In each fallac , the inference drawn from


the evidence is unwarranted, either
because    
  was
made or because the
  
      
 .
Overstatement
Õ Overstatement occurs when the
argument¶s assertion is an unqualified
generalization ± that is it refers to all the
members of a categor or class,
although the evidence justifies an
assertion about onl some in the class.

• All, ever , each, alwa s, never


Overstatement
Õ Law ers are onl interested in making
mone .

Õ Philippines is a countr of maids or


domestic helpers.

Õ All men practices infidelit . It¶s innate to


their gender and sexualit .
uast or Fault Generalization
Õ Hast or fault generalizations ma be
qualified assertions, but the still
oversimplif b arguing from insufficient
evidence or from ignoring some relevant
evidence.
uast or Fault Generalization
Õ Political life must lead man to
excessive drinking. In the last 6 months,
the newspaper has written about
members of Congress who have either
confessed to alcoholism or have been
arrested on DUI charges.
Forced u pothesis
Õ he explanation (h pothesis) offered to
account for a particular situation is
³forced´ or illogical because either (1)
sufficient evidence does not exist to
draw an conclusion or (ÿ) the evidence
can be explained more simpl and more
sensibl b a different h pothesis.

Õ Fails to consider other possible


explanations.
Forced u pothesis
Õ Professor Ochoa¶s students received
either A¶s or B¶s last semester. He must
be an excellent teacher.
½on ¦equitur
Õ Means literall ³it does not follow´

Õ Usuall reserved for arguments without


recognizable connections, either
because..
• ’hatever connection the arguer sees is not
made clear to others;
• Evidence or reasons are not relevant to the
conclusion.
½on ¦equitur
Õ Donna will surel get a good grade in
ph sics; she loved her biolog class.
¦lipper ¦lope
Õ Slipper slope argument asserts that we
should not proceed with A because, if
we do, the terrible consequences of X,
, and Z will occur.

• ’ithout evidence usuall b ignoring


historical examples, existing laws, or an
reasonableness in people
¦lipper ¦lope
Õ If Americans allow their government to
register handguns, next it will register
hunting rifles; then it will prohibit all
citizen ownership of guns, thereb
creating a police state or a world in
which onl outlaws have guns.
False Dilemma
Õ False dilemma asserts onl two
alternatives when there are more than
two. he other choice is usuall
unacceptable so the arguer pushes the
preferred choice.
False Dilemma
Õ he Federal Reserve S stem must
lower interest rates, or we will never pull
out of the recession.
False Analog
Õ False analog occurs when a
fundamental difference was not taken
into consideration.
3ost uoc Fallac
Õ From the Latin   
 
 literall means ³after this, therefore
because of it´

Õ Oversimplif ing causation.


3ost uoc Fallac
Õ ’e should throw out the entire cit
council. Since the members have been
elected, the cit has gone into deficit
spending.
Fallacies %esulting from ¬gnoring
the ¬ssue
Õ Begging the Question
Õ Red Herring
Õ Straw Man
Õ Ad Hominem
Õ Common Practice or Bandwagon
Õ Ad Populum
ºegging the Question
Õ Assumes a part of an argument as true
without supporting it.

Õ Seeks to pass off as proof statements


are often introduced b ³the fact is´,
³obviousl ´, ³as we can see´, etc.
ºegging the Question
Õ Clearl lowering grading standards
would be bad for our students, so a
pass-fail s stem should not be adopted.
%ed uerring
Õ In red herring, the debater introduces a
side issue, some point that is not
relevant to the debate.
%ed uerring
Õ he senator is an honest woman; she
loves her children and gives to charities.
¦traw Man
Õ An argument that   
     
   that the do not hold so
that their position can be easil
attacked.
¦traw Man
Õ hose who favor gun control just want to
take all guns from responsible citizens
and put them in the hands of crooks.

Õ he proponents of automated voting just


want to take control and cheat their wa
to electoral posts in the elections.
Ad uominem
Õ Argument ³to the man´

Õ Sometimes the debate turns to an attack


of a supporter of an issue; other times,
the illogic is found in name calling.

• Craz liberals, illiterate farmers, immoral


homosexuals, etc.
Common 3ractice/ºandwagon
Õ o argue that an action should be taken
or a position accepted because
³ever one is doing it´ is illogical.

Õ he majorit is not alwa s right!


ºandwagon
Õ here¶s nothing wrong with cheating;
after all, most if not all people I know
have cheated once in their school life.
Ad 3opulum
Õ Arguments that appeal ³to the people´,
to the  
values and beliefs et do not contribute
to a thoughtful debate.
Ad 3opulum
Õ Good, law-abiding teachers must be sick
of students who cheat their wa to high
grades. But we won¶t tolerate it
an more, expel all students who will be
proven guilt of cheating.
Evaluating the Use of Authorit
and ¦tatistics
Õ ’hen we present the opinions or
research findings of authorities as
support for an assertion, we are sa ing
to the readers that the authorities are
trustworth and the opinions are sound.

Õ But what we are sa ing is actuall an


assumption, part of the glue joining
support to claim, and as such    

.
Evaluating the Use of Authorit
and ¦tatistics
Õ If the source of evidence can be shown
to lack authorit , then the logic of the
argument is invalid.

Õ ’e need to make careful judgments


about the authorit of evidence in an
argument, including our own.
Evaluating the Use of Authorit
and ¦tatistics
Õ Evaluate authorities
• Is the stud current? Is the evidence still
valid?
• If the authorit presents a case stud or
gives examples, is the evidence
representative?
• Is the writer actuall viewed as an authorit ?
• Do authorities agree?
Evaluating the Use of Authorit
and ¦tatistics
Õ ’e should also know that although
statistics don¶t lie, people lie with
statistics.

Õ Numbers (statistics & results of polls)


are facts, but when the are presented
in an argument , the are being used b
a person interested in supporting a
position.
Evaluating the Use of Authorit
and ¦tatistics
Õ hree techniques for distorting
numerical evidence:
• ’riters can     
  .
• ’riters can also   
  
    b
the form of the presentation.
• ’riters can affect our response to statistics
b their     .
Evaluating the Use of Authorit
and ¦tatistics
Õ Statistics
• ’hat relevant information has not been
provided?
• ’ho sponsored the research?
• ’hat is the sample size relative to the
numbers presented? Is it large enough to be
significant?
• How was the sample obtained?
%emember!
Õ ’riters of argument must be able to
justif their authorities and statistics.

Õ Challengers must know how to take a


close look at the uses of authorit and
numbers in an argument.
¬ndividual Activit
Õ Read and evaluate the article b Stanle
S. Scott.
Õ Determine the claim of his argument.
Õ hen consider the logic of his reasons
and the significance of his evidence.
Õ ’rite in essa form.