Inventing Arguments

1. InventingArguments Creating Audience Appeals

2. Appeals • Appeals connect an issue to readers’ logic, character, emotions, need, or value. • Appeals are the most important part of argument, but are also more difficult to detect than examples and evidence.

3. Appeals to Logic • Appeals to logic engage the audience’s intellectual and reasoning capacity. • Appeals to logic may be direct or indirect.

4. Inference • Inferenceis the act or process of deriving a logical conclusion based on premises(things known or thought to be true). • kind of like an “educated guess” • People may infer differently depending on their different experiences and ways of thinking.

5. Line of Reasoning • A line of reasoning refers to a series of logical steps (or premises) that lead the arguer and the audience to a main claim. It is the logical progression that a reader must follow in order to accept the argument’s main point. • For an argument to be successful, the reader must accept each premise in a line of reasoning. • The writer must make sure to clearly and adequately support each step so the audience can accept it and move forward. • Good readers try to follow each step of a line of reasoning and try to see how each point relates to prior points.

6. Types of Reasoning • The three types of logic or reasoning are deductive, inductive, and analogical. • Deductive logic builds a conclusion from accepted premises or general principles. • Inductive logic builds a conclusion from particular observations or examples. • Analogical logic borrows the logic from one situation and applies it to another.

7. Deductive Reasoning • Deductive reasoning builds from accepted or general principles; often, this means relying on classes. • All birds have beaks. (general statement about a class) • Polly the parrot is a bird. (specific statement that puts Polly in this class) • Therefore, Polly has a beak. (conclusion built from the premises)

8. Reductive Reasoning • Deduction may also rely on, or build from, a definitional statement. • Bipeds are animals with two legs. • Ostriches are two-legged animals. • Therefore, ostriches are bipeds.

9. Deductive Reasoning • When using deduction, the arguer can only conclude what the premises allow. • Blue jackets are popular at Sunnyvale High School. • Brandon wears a blue jacket to Sunnyvale High School. • Therefore, Brandon wears a popular color of jacket. • In this case, we cannot reasonably assume that Brandon is popular, just that his jacket color is popular.

10. Deductive Reasoning • Beware! Even if the premises are false or unacceptable, the logic may still be valid—and persuasive. Ergo, an example like this: • Witches do not drown when submerged in water. • Sarah drowned when she was submerged in water. • Therefore, Sarah was not a witch.

11. deductive reasoning: syllogisms • Syllogisms are lines of deductive reasoning that require three steps: reason A and reason B; therefore, reason C. • A and B are often referred to as premises. • All humans are mortal. • Socrates is human. • Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

12. Deductive Reasoning: Enthymemes • Enthymemes are the most basic form of reasoning used in everyday arguments. They differ from syllogisms in these ways: • The premises are not certain in all situations. • They may contain more than three steps or premises. • They often contain a missing or unstated premise. • The dog is scratching at the back door. • Someone should let the dog out. • Remember that unstated premises may often be challenged—good arguers figure out all the premises in their arguments; they then decide which premises are enthymic and which ones will need support. • pp. 50-51

13. Inductive Reasoning • Inductive reasoning builds from specific points and leads to a general conclusion; it is the primary mode of reasoning used in scientific argument and many of the arguments that come from scientific study. • When we use inductive reasoning we draw a conclusion based on a few specifics. • I found a mouse in the toilet last week. • I saw a mouse in the kitchen yesterday. • Mice have found a way into the house! • p. 54

14. Analogical Reasoning • Analogical reasoning depends on comparisons (or analogies). • In analogical reading, the arguer moves from one particular to another particular, instead of from general to specific (deductive) or specific to general (inductive). • Comparisons, metaphors, allegories, parables, and examples all have an analogous quality—they argue that if two things are alike in certain respects, they are also alike in other respects.

15. Logical Fallacies • Logical fallacies (falsehoods) are flaws in the structure of an argument that make a claim invalid. •  There are many types of logical fallacies.

16. Ad Hominem • The ad hominem (to the man) fallacy attacks a person, not an idea. • Common in politics and everyday life; used to draw attention away from policy and focus it on character; focus on character at the expense of the main issue at hand • Ted: “I think we should change the focus of our new health care referendum to include oversight of insurance company premiums.” • Ned: “Well, Ted, I happen to know that you were at Chili’s the other night downing margaritas with a woman who is not your wife. Is that when you came up with this ludicrous idea?”

17. Straw Man • The Straw man fallacy misrepresents a position and then proves it wrong. • Since people from town have been sneaking in to use the pool in our rural housing development, our HOA now requires that all residents have an identification card in order to use the pool. By forcing us to get I.D. cards, it’s clear to see that the HOA wants to track our movements.

18. post hoc, ergo propter hoc • The post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy claims that if one thing happened before another, then the first thing must have caused the second. • If that black cat crosses your path, you’re going to have bad luck. • I wished that we wouldn’t have to go to school and the Metroplex was pelted with freezing rain only hours afterward; I need to make wishes more often!

19. either/or • The either/or fallacy oversimplifies an issue by claiming that only two options exist, when in fact there are more options to choose from. • “America—Love it or leave it.” • If you’re not with me, you’re against me.

20. hasty generalizations • Hasty generalizations draw a conclusion based on too little evidence. • The Houston climate is beautiful; when I was there for a few days last April, it was 70, sunny, and a little breezy. • The North Mesquite football team is terrible; they lost their first game 14-0.

21. non sequitur • The non sequitur (it does not follow) skips or confuses logical steps; the conclusion cannot be arrived at through the premises. • Because Bob is smart, he will get a good job. • Mandy is honest, so she will have a happy life.

22. slippery slope • The slippery slope fallacy claims that a certain way of thinking or acting will necessarily lead to more of the same (taking a certain moderate action will lead to more extreme actions). • If we put limitations on the sale of semiautomatic machine guns, it won’t be long until shotguns are illegal, and then steak knives. • People who use marijuana will become addicted to “hard” drugs.

23. begging the question • Begging the question (petitio principii ; circular reasoning) is a fallacy in which the “support” merely restates, in different words, the claim itself; no real support is given. • Tim would be a good president because he is presidential material. • I should not get a “C” in math because I am an “A” student.

24. red herring • The red herring fallacy consists of changing the subject deliberately in an attempt to avoid discussion or distract the audience • Jim: “This is the third time you’ve been late to work this week.” • Joe: “Hey, has anyone fixed my computer yet?”

25. bandwagon • The bandwagon fallacy (herd mentality) consists of either claiming that the audience should do something because everyone else is doing it, too—or that, because a thing or action is commonplace, that makes it okay to possess or do. • “All my friends have tattoos.” (so it’s okay and I should have one, too) • “All my friends have sports cars.” (everyone else has one—ergo, I should have one) • “All my friends stay out until 2:00 a.m.” (so it’s okay and I should be able to as well) or… • “Everyone’s switching to AT&T U-verse—you should, too.” (everybody’s doing it, so it must be the best choice) • Beware this tactic—we are all influenced by the behavior of others and our own desires to “fit in”—advertisers, politicians, and even our friends use this to their advantage.

26. association • The association fallacy claims that two people or things share a quality just because they are somehow associated, connected, or related. • guilt by association—The arguer claims that one person or thing has the same negative characteristics or qualities as another because the two are somehow associated. • Even though Terry has never been in trouble, we all expect him to someday end up in prison, just like his father. • honor by association is just as fallacious. • Ted Kennedy would be a wonderful president; after all, his brother, John F. Kennedy, was a great man. • reductio ad Hitlerum claims that anything Adolf Hitler or the Nazi party did or thought must be inherently evil • We could make the same claim about anything—Republicans, Democrats, the ACLU, the NRA, etc.

27. Toulminian logic • Introduced by Stephan Toulmin • Components • Claim: a conclusion whose merit must be established (an assertion about something) • Support: appeals, evidence, and examples that help the reader accept the claim • Warranting assumption: a statement (expressed or implied) that connects the claim and support in a logical and acceptable way, allowing the audience to accept the claim • Backing: the evidence that supports a warranting assumption • Modal qualifier: words and phrases that limit the scope of the claim • Rebuttal: a statement that refutes an opposing, or other, claim or charge

28. warranting assumption • The warranting assumption “lurks between the claim and support” and connects the two. • A warranting assumption can seem so obvious to the arguer that he or she doesn’t state it. • When analyzing an arguer’s claim, ask: • What assumption(s) lurks between a particular claim and its support? • Does the assumption make a sound connection between the claim and its support? • Is the assumption logically flawed or simply absent? • On what grounds can the assumption be legitimately challenged, and how does that affect the overall argument?

29. appeals to character • Appeals to character draw attention to the arguer’s personal nature, integrity, experience, wisdom, or personality • Used to establish the arguer’s credibility • Can be used to avoid focusing on issues • Use appeals to character with caution; do not use them to replace a strong logical argument.

30. appeals to emotion • Appeals to emotion make a connection between the argument and our feelings about people, issues, ideas, etc. (They appeal to things like fear, love, happiness, etc.) • We are all highly vulnerable to emotional appeals.

31. appeals to need • Appeals to need make a connection between the subject and a basic human need—food, shelter, belonging, intimacy, self-realization, etc. • When people’s basic needs are not met, they are the most vulnerable to these appeals.

32. appeals to value • Appeals to value make a connection between the topic and a general value (fairness, equality, honor, kindness, selflessness, duty, responsibility, etc.). • People are moved by appeals to what they value. • Many times, appeals to value tend to reinforce the audience’s existing value system. • Appeals to value are probably the most intense and abundant appeals in popular argument. • p. 74