Guide Questions:

1.Why people argue?

How people are able to win

arguments?
WHAT IS AN ARGUMENTS IN YOUR
OWN UNDERSTANDING?
An argument is a series of
sentences, statements or
propositions some of which
are called premises and one
is the conclusion. The
purpose of an argument is to
give reasons for one's
conclusion via justification,
explanation, and/or
persuasion.
 Analysis of an Argument
Argument Parts
 Claim- writer’s position on a problem/issue
 Support- reasons and evidence to help justify claim
 Counterargument- brief argument negating objections
other side will raise
 WHAT IS REASONING?

Reasoning is the process of using existing

knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions,
or construct explanations.
For example, if the statement is everything outside
is wet because it is raining and a person realizes he
left his shoes outside, logical reasoning would
reach the conclusion that his shoes are wet:
His shoes are outside. Everything outside is wet
due to the rain. Therefore his shoes are wet.
Two basic types of reasoning

Deductive reasoning- consist of using

GENERAL PRINCIPLES to infer specific
propositions.

Inductive- consist using SPECIFIC

propositions to infer general principles.
guide words

General principles
All, Always, Never ...

Specific propositions
Some, most,%, usually, often...
What is premise and
conclusion?
Premise: Proposition used as evidence in
an argument.
Conclusion: Logical result of the
relationship between the premises.
Conclusions serve as the thesis of the
argument.
Premise and Conclusion
example
Premise 1: The world is an organized
system.
Premise 2: Every organized system must
have a creator.
Conclusion: The creator of the world is
God.
guide words

premise
Since, because, for, that As,
Seeing that,Given that,
inasmuch...
Conclusion
Therefore, Hence, Thus, So,
Accordingly...
Identifying premise and
conclusion

Tourism will increase in the

USA because travel regulations
have been reduced and
Reduced regulations means
more travelers.
dentifying premise and
conclusion
There are more hate crimes in the
US then there are in Europe.
Accordingly the government
should outlaw hate speech,
Inasmuch as the police are
powerless to stop hate speeh.
 LOGICAL FALLACIES

Common Mistakes in Weak Arguments

Introduction

Ad Hominem
Hasty Generalization
False Dilemma
Begging the Question
Post Hoc
False Analogy
Contrary to fact (time machine)
Introduction

Division
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Ignorance
Appeal to Pity/Emotion
Appeal to the Popular
Appeal to Tradition
Equivocation
Introduction

Loaded Question
Slippery Slope
Equivocation
Tautology/Circular Reasoning
Definition

Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that

lead to faulty, illogical statements. They are
unreasonable argumentative tactics named for
what has gone wrong during the reasoning
process.
Most logical fallacies masquerade as
reasonable statements, but they are in fact
attempts to manipulate readers by reaching
their emotions instead of their intellects.
Ad Hominem

Latin for to the man

Directly attacks someone’s appearance, personal
habits, or character rather than focusing on the
merit of the issue at hand. The implication is that if
something is wrong with this person, whatever
he/she says must be wrong.

How can you say he’s a good musician

when he’s been in and out of rehab for
three years?
Ad Hominem – Making it Personal

Sara is divorced, so whatever relationship advice

she gives you can’t be good.
It is the suggestions, not the person who makes
them that deserve attention. Sara’s marital status
has nothing to do with the quality of her advice.
Isn’t it also possible that Sara could be married and
give awful advice?

If my husband forgot to wash his dish, I

would move out too. You did the right
thing, Carol.
Hasty Generalization

A hasty generalization is a conclusion based on

insufficient or unrepresentative evidence.
Example of a hasty Generalization

The only redheads I know are rude.

Therefore, all redheads must have bad
manners.

If the speaker only knows two redheads, then he

has insufficient evidence to make the general
claim about all people with that hair color.
Either – Or / False Dilemma

A false dilemma asserts that a complex situation

can have only two possible outcomes and that one
of the options is necessary or preferable.
Either go to college or forget about making money.
This falsely implies that a college education is a
pre-requisite for financial success.

Was it her college education that made

Britney tons of money?
 Either/Or:
give only two possible positions in a complex situation

“If you’re not part of the solution, then

you’re part of the problem.”
America: love it or leave it.
Either/Or:
give only two possible positions in a complex situation
Begging the Question

This is a kind of circular argument where the

support only restates the claim.

Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe.

Jogging is fun because it is enjoyable.

Unsafe means the same thing as dangerous and

fun means the same thing as enjoyable. This
makes the reasoning circular.
Post Hoc Fallacy

 Short for post hoc, ergo propter hoc,

which means after this, therefore caused
by this.
This fallacy assumes that just because B
happened after A, it must have been caused
by A.
Politicians love this one.
Post Hoc Example

Since Governor Bush took office, unemployment of

minorities in the state has decreased by seven
percent. Governor Bush should be applauded for
reducing unemployment among minorities.

Before we pat the governor on the back, the speaker

must show that Bush’s policies are responsible for
the decrease in unemployment. It is not enough to
show the decrease came after his election.
False Analogy

An analogy points out

similarities in things that
are otherwise different. A
false analogy claims
comparison when
differences outweigh
similarities. Essentially,
it’s comparing apples and
oranges!
False Analogy Example

If we can put a man on the moon, why

can’t we find the cure for the common
cold?

While both things being compared here are related to

science, there are more differences than similarities
between space and biological advancements.
Contrary to fact (time machine):
assuming a connection between past and present events that
can’t actually be known

 “If he hadn’t been drinking at that party, he’d be

alive today.”

“If I had a better

teacher last trimester,
I’d be doing better
this semester.”
Division:
one, therefore all

◼ Officer Jones is a real jerk. I hate cops.

Inappropriate Appeal to Authority:

• Hi, I’m former heavyweight boxing champ

Mike Tyson. After a tough night in the ring,
my face needs some tender loving care.
Lather-X Sensitive Skin Shaving Gel. You
can’t get a smoother, closer shave.
Why is this an inappropriate
appeal to authority?
– Source is not an authority
on skin care.
 Inappropriate Appeal to Authority:
• After taking LSD and drinking seven beers, Jill
claims she has a conversation with Elvis’ ghost at
the San Jose Bar and Grill. I’ve never known Jill
to lie. So, I think we should believe her.
Why is this an inappropriate appeal to
authority?
– There is reason to doubt the
reliability of the witness’s
observations.
Appeal to Ignorance:

The arguer asserts that a claim must be true

because no one has proven it false, or
conversely
The arguer asserts that a claim must be
false because no one has proven it to be
true.
 Appeal to Ignorance:
• There must be intelligent life on other
planets. No one has proven that there isn’t.
• There isn’t any intelligent life on other planets.
No one has proven that there is.
Why is this an appeal to ignorance?
– Both claims suffer from the basic flaw that they
assume that the lack of evidence for (or against) the
claim is good reason to believe that the claim is false
(or true).
 Loaded Question:

• This fallacy is committed when an arguer asks a

question that contains an unwarranted assumption.
– When did you stop beating your wife?
– Where did you hide the body?
– Why do you always act like a total jerk whenever
you’re around my ex-boyfriend?
– Did you write this immoral trash?
This type of fallacy involves presupposition.
 Slippery Slope:
 An arguer commits this fallacy when they claim, without
sufficient reason, that a seemingly harmless
action will lead to a disastrous outcome.
 Newt Gingrich says we must vigorously oppose any legalization of
same-sex marriage. I agree. Once we allow same sex couples to
marry, next we will be permitting marriages among three or more
people. Next we will allow people to marry their dogs, cats and pet
boa constrictors. Finally, people will want to marry their i-phones,
BMWs and Johnnie Walker Black Label, leading to
rampant materialism and alcohol abuse. Clearly
same sex marriage is a threat to the sanctity of
traditional marriage.

A case of slippery slope? Why?

 Slippery Slope:

 Slippery slope arguments generally follow this

pattern:
 The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless
action, A, is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to
C, and so on to D.
 The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore
should not be permitted.
 In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will
actually lead to D.
Appeal to Pity

 Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer

tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them
feel sorry for someone.

 Example: "I know the exam is graded based on

performance, but you should give me an A. My
cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I've
had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study!"
The conclusion here is "You should give me an A."
But the criteria for getting an A have to do with
learning and applying the material from the course; the
principle the arguer wants us to accept (people who
have a hard week deserve A's) is clearly unacceptable.
 = Equivocation =
 Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more
different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to
the argument.

 Example: "Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So

charities have a right to our money."
The equivocation here is on the word "right": "right" can
mean both something that is correct or good (as in "I got the
right answers on the test") and something to which someone
has a claim (as in "everyone has a right to life").
Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate,
often on words like "freedom," "justice," "rights," and so
forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or
misunderstanding. Either way, it's important that you use the
main terms of your argument consistently.
 tautology/Circular Reasoning
 Tautology, or circular
reasoning, relies on
premises which lack
external proof or support.
 Like a “house of cards”
the premises all depend
upon each other.
 If there is no test capable
of disproving an
argument, if the
argument is false, then
the argument is
tautological.
Appeal to Tradition

the idea is acceptable because it has been

true for along time.

example:
Marriage should be between a man and a
woman. It has been so for a long time in this
country; it shoul remain so today and in the
future.
Summary

Ad Hominem (against the person)

Hasty Generalization
False Dilemma
Begging the Question
Post Hoc (false cause)
False Analogy
Contrary to fact (time machine)
Summary

Division
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Ignorance
Appeal to Pity/Emotion
Appeal to the Popular
Appeal to Tradition
Equivocation
Summary

Loaded Question
Slippery Slope
Equivocation
Tautology/Circular Reasoning