Analyzing Arguments – Part 1Solutions

Ecological Agriculture Program

October 10, 2003

Chad Kruger

Confinement farming• Major P1 Confinement farming increases the

productivity and efficiency of animal production• P2 Confinement farming enables us to capitalize on

the lower-cost feed supplies and produce healthier birds and animals.

• P3 Confinement farms enable us to use less land and less feed to produce the same amount of food.

• P4 Confinement farms enable us to better manage animal wastes.

• P5 Confinement animals are subjected to less stress and put more energy into meat production.

• Conc. Confinement farming is the best way to help poor countries to increase the productivity and efficiency of animal production

Confinement farmingThis is an inductive argument – and a weak one at that.

Each of the premises can be challenged for its “truthfulness”. The key fallacy that Avery commits in several premises is the fallacy of exclusion – he has left out pertinent information. For instance, much of the land used for traditional animal production is not of sufficient quality for the crop production necessary to substitute as animal feed. The lower-cost feeds are only lower cost because much of the “cost” has been externalized. Wastes from confinement farms are frequently more costly, and more ecologically damaging. Etc., etc., etc. There is also a serious “exclusion” fallacy related to the “entitlement” idea we looked at last week. The consolidation of confinement farming reduces the entitlement of the poor in spite of the increased food production.

Confinement farming

This is a difficult argument to improve. I think that you have to eliminate the more objectionable premises and limit the scope of the argument to suggesting that confinement farming may be a beneficial alternative to traditional animal husbandry in some cases.

Irradiation• Major P1 The irradiation of school lunch hamburgers is the

biggest step forward in US food safety since the pasteurization of milk.

• P2 The risks of getting E. coli from meat are much greater than the risks of eating irradiated meat.

• P3 USDA researchers have found the virulent strain of E. coli in every cattle herd it has tested.

• P4 We cannot depend on cooking to eliminate E. coli from meat.

• P5 Irradiation of meat could have saved the lives of the four children who were contaminated by E. coli in 1993.

• P6 Food processors and retailers are now offering irradiated meat

• P7 Hospitals, NASA, WHO, the AMA, the IFT and 37 countries have approved of irradiation of meat.

• Conc. Irradiation of school lunch hamburgers makes our children safer.

Irradiation

This is an inductive argument. I would challenge P3 as an “unrepresentative sample” fallacy and P4 as simply untrue. The USDA is not generally charged with widespread and representative testing of individual cattle herds for E. coli. In fact, the only point in the cattle/beef system that the USDA does inspect is at slaughter – which primarily occurs only after cattle have been in the “feedlot”. In addition, research shows that the incidence of the virulent strain of E. coli is increased in cattle that are grain fed in feedlots. Regarding P4, we know that proper cooking DOES eliminate the threat of E. coli.

Irradiation

• In P6 and P7 Avery is making a challengeable argument (though it is probably sufficiently strong to make his conclusion). The argument he is making is that since all of these entities approve of irradiated meat, then it must be safer to eat irradiated meat than to eat non-irradiated meat.

• To improve this argument, I would drop P3, and replace P4 with a premise that says “irradiation of meat provides a secondary redundancy mechanism for meat safety.”

Precautionary Principle

• Major P1 The Precautionary Principle is an overly burdensome mechanism for evaluating technology.

• P2 Many of the technologies that have already improved the human condition would not have been created if the Precautionary Principle was applied.

• P3 The Precautionary Principle keeps us from developing and using all new technologies (such as biotechnology) that can improve the human condition.

• Conclusion Using the Precautionary Principle would prevent us from creating a better future through research and technology.

Precautionary Principle

• This argument presents an interesting case. The argument is made with the use of several analogies (automobiles, electricity, penicillin, etc.) – which we know means that it is an inductive argument. However, most of the actual argument is not stated (it’s assumed that the reader will detect what the argument really is). I would argue that this is a weak argument because all three of the premises are easily challenged.

Precautionary Principle

• Furthermore, I would argue that Avery commits the fallacy of false analogy. While the Precautionary Principle would be applied to technologies such as the automobile and electricity – the risks and methods of evaluating the risks associated with these technologies are not sufficiently similar to the risks and methods of evaluating risks for biotechnology and the other “new” technologies that Avery champions.

Precautionary Principle

• In order to improve Avery’s argument (without changing the crux of the argument), I would eliminate the analogies that are not similar in nature to the “new” technologies. In addition, I would work on making a better sub argument for the Major Premise, and limit the scope of the conclusion to something like “the Precautionary Principle is not a good mechanism for evaluating technology that could create a better future.”

Wars

• Major P1 Wars have traditionally been conflicts related to the scarcity of food and water.

• P2 WWII was the last “territorial war” – a war fought over the scarcity of productive assets of food and water.

• P3 Increased productivity due to technological innovation has eliminated our need to fight over food producing territory.

• P4 If there are enough resources to go around, then there is no reason for war.

• Conclusion Food security, made possible by high-yield farming, is the peace-maker of the world.

Wars

• This is an inductive argument – and a very weak one at that. The major premise is true – we have historical records that validate this. P2 is simply untrue – consider the war in Iraq this year – it is still a territorial/resource based war. Also, consider the proliferation of other violence in the last 25 years. P4 is challengeable as well.

Wars

• I think this argument also commits the fallacy of exclusion. Much of the reason for reduced “death” and “wars” is the increase in military technology. The nuclear arms race literally “arrested” territorial war because of the threat of holocaust. The increased accuracy of our military technology also enables us to be more strategic – which has protected lives and reduced much of our “desire” for war (consider whether someone is more likely to go to war if they are fighting with swords than if they are fighting with high-powered rifles).

Wars

• To improve this argument, I would suggest that the improvement in food production has been a contributing factor in the reduction of wars and war violence.

WTO• Major P1 Every country in the world benefits from

free trade and is hurt by barriers to free trade• P2 Agricultural subsidies in the developed world have

created a barrier to free trade negotiations in the WTO• P3 The lack of free trade restricts developed country

farmers from lucrative markets• P4 The lack of free trade keeps developing countries

in poverty and hunger• P5 Subsidies are inefficient for farmers and costly for

tax payers• Conclusion The inability of the WTO to end agricultural

subsidies means that everyone in the world is worse off.

WTO• This is a deductive argument. I would challenge the

“truth” of P4, and therefore would argue that this is an invalid argument. Even if you accept the notion of “free trade” (and ultimately accept the other premises) the 4th premise cannot be validated – because there are numerous causes for poverty and hunger in a country, and we can demonstrate historical examples which show that free trade (or the lack thereof) is not the sole link to poverty and hunger in a country.

• We could argue that P4 is a “hasty generalization” – in that one possible or contributing factor of poverty and hunger in a country has been too broadly applied.

WTO

• To improve this argument, I would simply drop P4 from the argument.

• On an alternative note, the argument that the removal of trade barriers “guaranteeing” or “promising” an improved economic future for everyone could also be challenged. Or if it were an inductive argument, we could say that he has committed the fallacy of exclusion by leaving out other pertinent information about what causes poverty and hunger.