Upload
camil-guarina
View
231
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
1/62
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
2/62
Contents
Recap!
Causal Argument
Language of Argument Logical Fallacies
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
3/62
Recap!
Types of Argument
y Induction
y Deduction
yAnalogy
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
4/62
Types of Argument
Causal Argument explain either why a
particular situation or phenomenon
occurred (or will occur) or what
produced (or will produce) a general
state of affairs.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
5/62
Causal Argument
What cause A? Agent
y
A personyA situation
yAnother event
COMPLEXITY OF CAUSATION
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
6/62
Causal Argument
Types of Cause
y
Remote cause conditions & influencesy Proximate cause more immediate, much
closer in time to the event or situation
y Precipitating cause triggering event
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
7/62
Scenario
A house fire (Why?)
y
Lit cigarette dropped on a bed (why?)y The man fell asleep (Why?)
y The man who is old and ill had taken a
sleeping pill to help induce sleep.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
8/62
Scenario
Remote causes: mans age & illness;
sleeping pill
Proximate cause: mans dozing off with
a lighted cigarette
Precipitating cause: cigarette igniting the
combustible mattress
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
9/62
Causal Argument
Isolating precipitating cause is usually
necessary to prevent events from
recurring.
However, often we need to go further
back to determine remoter causes or
conditions especially if were interestedin assigning responsibility for what has
occurred.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
10/62
Scenario
Rias rear-end collision with a car in front
of her.
y Precipitating cause: cars too closeness to
the car in front or her
y Proximate and remote causes?
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
11/62
A good causal argument
Is based on a recognition of thecomplexity of causation that keeps usfrom rushing in to assert only one cause
for most events or situations.
Distinguishes carefully among types ofarguments.
yA alone caused B
yA was one of the several causes
yA was an influence
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
12/62
A good causal argument
Demonstrates more than just a time
relationship or correlation between A &
B.
y March precedes April.
y Good SAT scores and good college grades
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
13/62
Isolating Cause
Finding the common factor to similar
outcomes
Recognizing key difference
Process of Elimination
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
14/62
Common to similar outcomes
25 employees attend a company
luncheon. Later in the day, 10 report to
the area hospital, another 4 complain
the next day of having experienced
vomiting the night before.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
15/62
Key Difference
If two situations are alike in every way
but one, and the situations result in
different outcomes, then the one they
differ must have caused the different
outcome.
Example: social science experiments
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
16/62
Process of Elimination
Examine all possible causes and
eliminate them one by one until we are
satisfied that we have isolated the actual
cause(s).
Ex. Plane crash
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
17/62
Language of Argument
Persuasion in argument not anything
goes
Abusive language, vicious or
condescending attacks on all who
disagree with your views are
unacceptable strategies in goodargument.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
18/62
Language of Argument
Presenting your views in a clear and
honest mannerwill at least win the
respect of even those who cannot
accept your position.
Ifyou are crude, mean-spirited, or
manipulative, you will win few to yourside and lose the respect of most.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
19/62
Language Argument
One technique is to establish a commonground with people who may disagreewith you or who otherwise may feel
threatened and become defensive.
Conciliatory arguments argumentswith opposing view presented in non-
threatening language and expressescommon grounds that opposing sidesshare.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
20/62
Logical Fallacies
Arguments that do not work
arguments that fail to meet standards of
sound logic and good sense.
Causes of Illogic
y Lack of knowledge of the subject
y Ego problems
y Collection of prejudices and biases
y Human need for answers
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
21/62
Causes ofIllogic
Lack of knowledge of the subject
ignorance is no excuse for producing
weak arguments
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
22/62
Causes ofIllogic
Ego problems poor self-esteem
persons attach themselves to the ideas
and then feel personally attacked when
someone disagrees with them.
y Defensiveness great emotion & irrationality
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
23/62
Causes ofIllogic
Collection of prejudices and biases that
we carry around, having absorbed them
ages ago from family and community.
y Ethnic, religious, or sexist stereotypes
y Political views uncritically adopted
Distorted lenses poor judgment of facts andlogic
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
24/62
Causes ofIllogic
Human need for answers any answers
to the questions that deeply concern
us.
We want to control our world because
that makes us feel secure, and having
answers make us feel in control.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
25/62
Causes ofIllogic
Can lead us to a twofold classification of
bad arguments.
y Oversimplifying the issue
y Ignoring the issue by substituting emotion
for reason.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
26/62
Fallacies Resulting from
Oversimplifying
Errors in Generalizingy Oversimplifying
y Hasty or Faulty Generalizations
Forced Hypothesis Non Sequitur
Slippery Slope
False Dilemma False Analogy
Post Hoc Fallacy
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
27/62
Errors in Generalizing
Includes Overstatement and Hasty orFaulty Generalization (error in inductivepattern of argument)
In each fallacy, the inference drawn fromthe evidence is unwarranted, eitherbecause too broad a generalization was
made or because the generalization isdrawn from incomplete or incorrectevidence.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
28/62
Overstatement
Overstatement occurs when the
arguments assertion is an unqualified
generalization that is it refers to all the
members of a category or class,although the evidence justifies an
assertion about only some in the class.
yAll, every, each, always, never
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
29/62
Overstatement
Lawyers are only interested in making
money.
Philippines is a country of maids or
domestic helpers.
All men practices infidelity. Its innate to
their gender and sexuality.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
30/62
Hasty or Faulty Generalization
Hasty or faulty generalizations may be
qualified assertions, but they still
oversimplify by arguing from insufficient
evidence or from ignoring some relevantevidence.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
31/62
Hasty or Faulty Generalization
Political life must lead many to
excessive drinking. In the last 6 months,
the newspaper has written about 5
members of Congress who have eitherconfessed to alcoholism or have been
arrested on DUI charges.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
32/62
Forced Hypothesis
The explanation (hypothesis) offered toaccount for a particular situation isforced or illogical because either (1)
sufficient evidence does not exist todraw any conclusion or (2) the evidencecan be explained more simply and moresensibly by a different hypothesis.
Fails to consider other possibleexplanations.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
33/62
Forced Hypothesis
Professor Ochoas students received
either As or Bs last semester. He must
be an excellent teacher.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
34/62
Non Sequitur
Means literally it does not follow
Usually reserved for arguments withoutrecognizable connections, either
because..
y Whatever connection the arguer sees is not
made clear to others;y Evidence or reasons are not relevant to the
conclusion.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
35/62
Non Sequitur
Donna will surely get a good grade in
physics; she loved her biology class.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
36/62
SlipperySlope
Slippery slope argument asserts that we
should not proceed with A because, if
we do, the terrible consequences of X,
Y, and Z will occur.
y Without evidence usually by ignoring
historical examples, existing laws, or anyreasonableness in people
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
37/62
SlipperySlope
If Americans allow their government to
register handguns, next it will register
hunting rifles; then it will prohibit all
citizen ownership of guns, therebycreating a police state or a world in
which only outlaws have guns.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
38/62
False Dilemma
False dilemma asserts only two
alternatives when there are more than
two. The other choice is usually
unacceptable so the arguer pushes thepreferred choice.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
39/62
False Dilemma
The Federal Reserve System must
lower interest rates, or we will never pull
out of the recession.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
40/62
False Analogy
False analogy occurs when a
fundamental difference was not taken
into consideration.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
41/62
Post Hoc Fallacy
From the Latinpost hoc, ergo propter
hocliterally means after this, therefore
because of it
Oversimplifying causation.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
42/62
Post Hoc Fallacy
We should throw out the entire city
council. Since the members have been
elected, the city has gone into deficit
spending.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
43/62
Fallacies Resulting from Ignoring
the Issue
Begging the Question
Red Herring
Straw ManAd Hominem
Common Practice or Bandwagon
Ad Populum
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
44/62
Begging the Question
Assumes a part of an argument as true
without supporting it.
Seeks to pass off as proof statements
are often introduced by the fact is,
obviously, as we can see, etc.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
45/62
Begging the Question
Clearly lowering grading standards
would be bad for our students, so a
pass-fail system should not be adopted.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
46/62
Red Herring
In red herring, the debater introduces a
side issue, some point that is not
relevant to the debate.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
47/62
Red Herring
The senator is an honest woman; she
loves her children and gives to charities.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
48/62
Straw Man
An argument that attributes to
opponents erroneous and usually
ridiculous views that they do not hold so
that their position can be easilyattacked.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
49/62
Straw Man
Those who favor gun control just want to
take all guns from responsible citizens
and put them in the hands of crooks.
The proponents of automated voting just
want to take control and cheat their way
to electoral posts in the elections.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
50/62
Ad Hominem
Argument to the man
Sometimes the debate turns to an attackof a supporter of an issue; other times,
the illogic is found in name calling.
y Crazy liberals, illiterate farmers, immoralhomosexuals, etc.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
51/62
Common Practice/Bandwagon
To argue that an action should be taken
or a position accepted because
everyone is doing it is illogical.
The majority is not always right!
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
52/62
Bandwagon
Theres nothing wrong with cheating;
after all, most if not all people I know
have cheated once in their school life.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
53/62
Ad Populum
Arguments that appeal to the people,
to the audiences presumed shared
values and beliefs yet do not contribute
to a thoughtful debate.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
54/62
Ad Populum
Good, law-abiding teachers must be sick
of students who cheat their way to high
grades. But we wont tolerate it
anymore, expel all students who will beproven guilty of cheating.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
55/62
Evaluating the Use of Authority
and Statistics
When we present the opinions orresearch findings of authorities assupport for an assertion, we are saying
to the readers that the authorities aretrustworthy and the opinions are sound.
But what we are saying is actually an
assumption, part of the glue joiningsupport to claim, and as such it can bechallenged.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
56/62
Evaluating the Use of Authority
and Statistics
If the source of evidence can be shown
to lack authority, then the logic of the
argument is invalid.
We need to make careful judgments
about the authority of evidence in any
argument, including our own.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
57/62
Evaluating the Use of Authority
and Statistics
Evaluate authorities
y Is the study current? Is the evidence still
valid?
y If the authority presents a case study orgives examples, is the evidence
representative?
y Is the writer actually viewed as an authority?
y Do authorities agree?
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
58/62
Evaluating the Use of Authority
and Statistics
We should also know that although
statistics dont lie, people lie with
statistics.
Numbers (statistics & results of polls)
are facts, but when they are presented
in an argument , they are being used bya person interested in supporting a
position.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
59/62
Evaluating the Use of Authority
and Statistics
Three techniques for distorting
numerical evidence:
y Writers can select only the numbers that
serve their position.y Writers can also alter the readers sense of
how big or how small the numbers are by
the form of the presentation.
y Writers can affect our response to statisticsby theirword choice.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
60/62
Evaluating the Use of Authority
and Statistics
Statistics
y What relevant information has not been
provided?
y Who sponsored the research?
y What is the sample size relative to the
numbers presented? Is it large enough to be
significant?
y How was the sample obtained?
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
61/62
Remember!
Writers of argument must be able to
justify their authorities and statistics.
Challengers must know how to take a
close look at the uses of authority and
numbers in any argument.
8/9/2019 Argumentation 3
62/62
Individual Activity
Read and evaluate the article by Stanley
S. Scott.
Determine the claim of his argument.
Then consider the logic of his reasons
and the significance of his evidence.
Write in essay form.