Art of Critical Decision Making

8/22/2019 Art of Critical Decision Making

1/58

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932

Art of Critical Decision Making

Course No. 5932

Professor Michael A. Roberto

Bryant UniversityD.B.A., Harvard Business School

Watch Preview Choose a Format Which format should I

choose?

Choose DIGITAL to play now online or

download.

Digital Video $214.95

Digital Audio $129.95

Choose DVD or CD to get discs in the mail.

DVD $254.95

CD $179.95
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932


2/58

AVERAGE CUSTOMER RATING:

4.3 out of 5

Read Reviews

Write a Review

69 of 83(83%)reviewers would recommend the course to a friend.

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Whether simple or complex, private or public, decisions are an essential part of your life. Not only do

decisions affect your own life for good or ill, they can also affect the lives of your friends, your family,

and your community. Indeed, the ability to make wise, educated decisions is

...

Show More

LECTURES

24 Lectures

1. 1Making High-Stakes Decisions (cp. Crucial Conversations)

2. 2Cognitive Biases

3. 3Avoiding Decision-Making Traps

4. 4FramingRisk or Opportunity?

5. 5IntuitionRecognizing Patterns

6. 6Reasoning by Analogy

7. 7Making Sense of Ambiguous Situations

8. 8The Wisdom of Crowds?

9. 9GroupthinkThinking or Conforming?

10.10Deciding How to Decide11.11Stimulating Conflict and Debate

12.12Keeping Conflict Constructive

13.13Creativity and Brainstorming

14.14The Curious Inability to Decide

15.15Procedural Justice

16.16Achieving Closure through Small Wins

17.17Normal Accident Theory
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932#BVRRWidgetIDhttp://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932#BVRRWidgetIDhttp://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932#BVRRWidgetID


3/58

18.18Normalizing Deviance

19.19Allison's ModelThree Lenses

20.20Practical Drift

21.21Ambiguous Threats and the Recovery Window

22.22 Connecting the Dots

23.23 Seeking Out Problems

24.24 Asking the Right Questions

ABOUT THE PROFESSOR

View All Courses

Dr. Michael A. Roberto teaches leadership, managerial decision making, and business strategy as

the Trustee Professor of Management at Bryant University in Smithfield, Rhode Island. Hejoined the faculty at Bryant University after teaching at Harvard Business School for sixyears. Previously, Professor Roberto was a Visiting Associate Professor at New York

University's Stern School of Business.

Professor Roberto earned an M.B.A. with High Distinction and a D.B.A. from Harvard

Business School. He brings real-world business skills to the classroom from his years ofconsulting at and teaching in the leadership development programs of a number of firms,

including Apple, Walmart, Morgan Stanley, Coca-Cola, Federal Express, and Johnson &

Johnson.

Recognized for his research, writing, and teaching, Professor Roberto has earned several coveted

teaching awards, including the Outstanding M.B.A. Teaching Award from Bryant University andHarvard University's Allyn A. Young Prize for Teaching in Economics.

Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes for an Answer, his book about cultivating constructive debateto help leaders make better decisions, was named one of the top 10 business books of 2005 by

The Globe and Mail. His most recent book is Know What You Don't Know: How Great Leaders

Prevent Problems Before They Happen.

BUY TOGETHER & SAVE
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/professors/professor_detail.aspx?pid=370http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/professors/professor_detail.aspx?pid=370http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/professors/professor_detail.aspx?pid=370


4/58

Save up to $370 when you buyStrategic Thinking Skillswith Art of

Critical Decision Making

Set Details

Choose a format

DVD $489.90 $119.90

Audio CD $339.90 $84.90

Digital Audio $239.90 $59.90

Digital Video $409.90 $109.90

Customer Ratings & Reviews

Questions and Answers

Customer Ratings & Reviews Summary

AVERAGE CUSTOMER RATING:

4.3 out of 5

Write a Review

69 of 83(83%)reviewers would recommend the course to a friend.

Overall Rating
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5913http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5913http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5913http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932#rr-tabhttp://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932#qa-tabhttp://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932#qa-tabhttp://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5932#rr-tabhttp://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5914http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=5913


5/58

Course Content

Professor Presentation

Course Value

BTdeCA

(read all my reviews)

Location:Foster City, CA

FEATURED REVIEW

Especially aimed at "group" decision making

Date: December 13, 2011

"Although the initial lectures are helpful with individual and personal decision-making, the majority of

the lectures deal with the even more difficult topic of group decision-making; which makes this course

especially useful and especially aimed at "group" decision-making techniques and processes. So, if you

are involved in business, education, volunteerism, nonprofit, religious, governmental or civic groups,

then you will find this course useful. Prof. Roberto' s lecture style is both energetic and enthusiastic.

Well known in business, defense and academia, Prof. Roberto provides you with a framework for what

both works and fails. Using interesting case studies, he provides real life examples. Many of the

concepts here harmonize nicely with other TTC courses such as Prof. Randy Bartlett's "How to Think like

an Economist". I recommend this course for those tasked with making good critical decisions, especially

within the context of the group."

48 out of 60 found this review helpful.
http://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/41C47488-33C7-4645-BBB4-95EBC62CC5DA/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/41C47488-33C7-4645-BBB4-95EBC62CC5DA/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/41C47488-33C7-4645-BBB4-95EBC62CC5DA/profile.htmhttp://reviews.thegreatcourses.com/3456qa-en_us/badgedefinition.htm?badgeName=featured&contentType=reviewhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/41C47488-33C7-4645-BBB4-95EBC62CC5DA/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/41C47488-33C7-4645-BBB4-95EBC62CC5DA/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/41C47488-33C7-4645-BBB4-95EBC62CC5DA/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/41C47488-33C7-4645-BBB4-95EBC62CC5DA/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/41C47488-33C7-4645-BBB4-95EBC62CC5DA/profile.htmhttp://reviews.thegreatcourses.com/3456qa-en_us/badgedefinition.htm?badgeName=featured&contentType=reviewhttp://reviews.thegreatcourses.com/3456qa-en_us/badgedefinition.htm?badgeName=featured&contentType=reviewhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/41C47488-33C7-4645-BBB4-95EBC62CC5DA/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/41C47488-33C7-4645-BBB4-95EBC62CC5DA/profile.htm


6/58

Overall Rating

Course Content


Course Value

PBellwether


Terrific course

Date:May 12, 2013

"I am interested in this topic, but not passionately so. The speaker held my attention, explained things I

have observed but never articulated, and offered a prescription for improvement that can be

implemented at the smallest, most mundane level, or at the top, when making decisions of earth

shaking importance. Terrific course!"

4 out of 6 found this review helpful.

Overall Rating

Course Content


Course Value

Pipercubbie
http://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/CEE8FC46-9386-4778-A8AF-89DB0AF2D5CF/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/CEE8FC46-9386-4778-A8AF-89DB0AF2D5CF/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/BFF952A6-3DC6-42BB-A7E5-A5CC030EBD05/profile.htm


7/58


Read this book; don't listen

Date:May 8, 2013

"I could get through 75% of this, then fled, shrieking in pain. Prof Roberto is knowledgeable and his

lecture(s) are well written but a horror to hear.

1. His voice is metallic-y grating - he does NOT have to project across a crowded room, have him tone it

down...

2. "Nuclear" is NOT "nuke-ya-ler" (did he go to the GWBush school of public speaking?)

3. "Etc" is NOT "eck-sedera"

4. He inserts the word/question "right?" about 5 times per minute - bad, bad habit

These repeated gaffes make this unbearable listening after awhile. I think he's trainable - how come the

editor/producer doesn't coach him on good public speaking/recording techniques?"

8out of 24found this review helpful.

Was this review helpful?816

Post Comment

Overall Rating

Course Content


Course Value

Anonymous

Wonderful course

Date:February 17, 2013

"The Professor start out slowly but builds up all thru out the course. I can see where the company I work

for that make mistakes. Poor management decision. I will tell my company about the problems I have

learn and tell them about it and see their reaction.
http://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/CEE8FC46-9386-4778-A8AF-89DB0AF2D5CF/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/CEE8FC46-9386-4778-A8AF-89DB0AF2D5CF/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/CEE8FC46-9386-4778-A8AF-89DB0AF2D5CF/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/CEE8FC46-9386-4778-A8AF-89DB0AF2D5CF/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/CEE8FC46-9386-4778-A8AF-89DB0AF2D5CF/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/CEE8FC46-9386-4778-A8AF-89DB0AF2D5CF/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/CEE8FC46-9386-4778-A8AF-89DB0AF2D5CF/profile.htmhttp://ugc.thegreatcourses.com/profiles/3456qa-en_us/CEE8FC46-9386-4778-A8AF-89DB0AF2D5CF/profile.htm


8/58

I never thought i would get this much information out of this course. I learn a lot and can use that

thinking to help myself in my own decision making. I would highly recommend the course and anyone

whom doesn't like the course is either in denial or already know the course. Not only does it help in

business but also in life. I found out some good things and things I never knew happen. Such as

President Kennedy backup advisor and that person taught and mentor Kennedy which stunned me . It's

a wonderful course and it really wakes you up."

8out of 10found this review helpful.

Was this review helpful?82

http://www.madwizard.com/lct_analogy.htm

Analogies, and Analogy Arguments (Problems

printing?Click here.)

If you print this page, you can also download and print thepractice/makeup

exercises. (Make sure the document margins are set to 0.5 inches or narrower.)

Analogies are a vitally important and very powerful communication tool, but from a

purely logicalview, they can be an enormous pain in the fundament. Because

analogies are so powerful they can often convince us of things we have absolutely

no rationalreason to believe. So, before we start, I want to make two things

perfectly clear:

1. Analogies are an enormously useful communications tool. If you can work an

appropriate analogy into whatever you're writing, that will really help you get your

point across. Yea! Go for it!

2. Although there are some good analogy arguments out there, most analogies yousee will be horribly misleading. Horribly, horribly misleading. This is because they

have an insidious power to make us believe things that have absolutely no basis in

fact. (Curse them!)

So, don't be fooled!
http://www.madwizard.com/lct_analogy.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/lct_analogy.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/marginset.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/marginset.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/marginset.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ctl_analogy_make.rtfhttp://www.madwizard.com/ctl_analogy_make.rtfhttp://www.madwizard.com/ctl_analogy_make.rtfhttp://www.madwizard.com/ctl_analogy_make.rtfhttp://www.madwizard.com/ctl_analogy_make.rtfhttp://www.madwizard.com/ctl_analogy_make.rtfhttp://www.madwizard.com/marginset.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/lct_analogy.htm


9/58

Analogy Arguments

Imagine you are a scientist living in the middle of the twentieth century. Imagine that

you have just heard that it has been proved that cigarette smoking causes cancer.

You understand that cigarette smoking involves burning tobacco so that the smoke

may be drawn into the smoker's mouth and lungs. You are aware that cigar and pipe

smoking also involves the inhalation of tobacco smoke. From this, you might

conclude that there is a strong possibility that cigar and pipe smoking also cause

cancer, and that this possibility is strong enough that cigar and pipe smokers should

be warned about it, and responsible parties should conduct specific studies to

investigate this possibility. If you argue that cigar and pipe smoking probably causescancer of the basis of the similarity to cigarette smoking, you will be making what is

called an "analogy" argument because your whole argument will be based on the

similarity between cigarette smoking and cigar and pipe smoking.

Many, perhaps most, speakers and writers use analogies merelyas a communication

tool. An analogy allows a speaker to clarify a new idea by invoking some similarity it

has to some idea with which we are already familiar. Sometimes, however, people

offer analogies in attempts to change minds. In such a case, the analogy is offerednot just to explain, but also to persuade. It is thus then an argumentby analogy.

Empirical arguments by analogy work the way that stereotyping works. We see

something that, in all the ways we can see, is very much like something we've seen

before, so we assume that it's like the thing we've seen before in otherways as well.

Stereotyping exists because it's worked very well as a survival tool. A neanderthal

who'd never seen a sabretooth before might just stand there and be eaten. But if he

notices that the sabretooth looks a lot like a weasel (only much bigger) he mightassume that it will behave like a weasel, which is to say it will attack anything smaller

than it is that looks tasty.

The main reason to use an empirical argument by analogy is that we can'tlook at the

conclusion thingy (the thing the conclusion is about) directly. If we could examine the


10/58

conclusion thingy all by itself to see if it had the property or not, or if we had any

other kind of evidence, we wouldn't bother with an argument by analogy. Thus even

the best argument by analogy is fairly weak, and we usually wouldn't use one unless

we have no other kind of argument availible.

Empirical arguments by analogy generally have conclusions of the form "object O has

feature F " or, less formally, "ferrets are cunning," "pineapples are citrus fruits,"

"dolphins have gills" or "bats can't fly."

These arguments are inductive because their main premises are basically reports, or

summaries of reports, of experiences various people have had. They compare one

thing that is known to exist with another thing that is known to exist in an attempt toshow that the one has some property that the other is known to have. They deal

with physical similarities between objects and situations. They don't deal with

imaginary situations. They don't deal with the issue of whether or not some state of

a world is logically possible, and they are never deductively valid. Thus, at their very

best, they can only give their conclusions a probability of being true, which is what

makes them inductive arguments.

Analogy arguments only work when both sides of the analogy are things that areactually known to exist. Imaginary objects, and objects whose existance is in dispute

won't work here. You can't ever make a successful empirical analogy argument

comparing anything to an object that isn't known to exist. For instance, none of the

following arguments could ever work:

A horse is like a hippogriff. Hippogriffs can fly, so horses can fly.

A unicorn is like a horse. Horses have no magical powers, so unicorns haveno magical powers.

If you take the time to examine any goblin, you will find that it is very, very

similar to you average kobold. And, you have to admit, all kobolds are avid

delvers. Kobolds like nothing better than to delve deep into the living rock


11/58

under the great hall of the mountain king, so clearly goblins must delve like

the very devil too!

Vampires are like werewolves. Werewolves don't sparkle, so vampires .

. don't. . bloody . . sparkle!Dammit!

The reason is simple. when you're comparing two real things you're comparing

things that are both subject to the laws of nature, like physics, chemistry, biology and

so on. When a physical analogy argument works, (if any of them ever do), it works

because the natural forces forming one object also formed the other one, and if they

formed in similar circumstances, then they're likely to be similar in a lot of ways. (For

instance, sharks are descended from fish, dolphins are descended from land-living

quadrupeds, but the fact that both live by swimming fast means that both need tohave the same streamlined, hydrodynamic shape.) When we're talking about things,

(like basilisks, mermaids, angels, dragons and so on), whose existance hasn't been

documented by science, and which are only really known as hypothetical entities,

anlogies to existing physical objects aren't much use.

Unlike real entities, whose properties are known by primarily through observation,

the properties of hypothetical entities are specified in their definitions. These

definitions may specify an entity that is physically possible, like a unicorn. They mayspecify an entity that is physically unlikely, like a mermaid, or even an entity that is

physically impossible, like thebasilisk, which can kill you with a single glance. Again,

analogies are not much use in such cases.

Standardizing Analogy Arguments

The basic motor of any analogy argument is a comparison, a claim that one thing

is like another thing. (For convenience, and to serve my own bizarre sense of humor,I will refer to these two things as the "premise thingy" and the "conclusion thingy."

The "conclusion thingy" is my name for the thing that is mentioned in

the conclusion of the argument. The "premise thingy" is the thing that

is notmentioned in the conclusion. I call it the "premise thingy" because it

is onlymentioned in the premises.) The way an analogy argument is supposed to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basiliskhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basiliskhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basiliskhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk


12/58

work is that the two things are supposed to be so much alike that if one of them has

a certain property (call it "the property,") then the other musthave that

same property.

Analogy arguments tend to have the following basic logical form:

1. The Premise Thingy is like The Conclusion Thingy

2. The Premise Thingy has The Property

C. The Conclusion Thingy has The Property

Example 1. The war on drugs is like any war. We will not begin to win until we

begin to shoot drug dealers on sight.

Since this argument is obviously intended to change our minds about the drug war,

the drug war must be the conclusion thingy. The thing it's compared to is a real live

shootin' war, so that's the premise thingy. The property is the thing that is known to

belong to the premise thingy, and which the arguer wants to convince

us also belongs to the conclusion thingy.

Premise Thingy:........Real live warConclusion Thingy....The "war" on drugs

Property ..................Can't be won without shooting at somebody

Why is the drug war the conclusion thingy? Because it's the thingy ... er, thing ... that

the conclusion is about. another way to look at is, if there's two things being

compared, and one of them most definitely has the property in question,

then thatone is the premise thingy. Real wars can only be one by blood, toil, tears ...

I mean shooting. Lots of shooting. With really big guns! Here's how the argumentlooks when it's all put together.

1. The government campaign against illegal drug use is like a literal war with

shooting and bombing and napalm and cool uniforms and so on.

(2. You can't win a real war without shooting at the enemy.)


13/58

C. The government won't win the drug war without a "shoot on sight" order

against drug dealers.

Notice the comparison is clarified in the first premise.

Here are some exercises. Click on the correct premise thingy, conclusion thingy and

property (Or, go to the end of the chapter for the answers.)

1. Dogpatch Community College should not require a freshman writing

course. For god's sake, Harvard doesn't require freshman writing!

Premise Thingy: Dogpatch college....Needs freshman writing....Doesn't need

freshman writing....HarvardConclusion Thingy: Dogpatch college....Needs freshman writing....Doesn't need

freshman writing....Harvard

Property Dogpatch college....Needs freshman writing....Doesn't need

freshman writing....Harvard

2. I cannot believe they teach socialism in the University. It's like teaching

arson in a fireworks factory.

Premise Thingy: Teaching socialism in university....Teaching arson around

fireworks....Good idea....Bad idea

Conclusion Thingy: Teaching socialism in university....Teaching arson around


Property: Teaching socialism in university....Teaching arson around


3. Drug use is a matter of behavior control. It's like overeating or gambling. It

would be ridiculous to declare war on overeating, so it's ridiculous to declare

war on drugs.

Premise Thingy: Drug use....Overeating or gambling....Matter of behavior

control....Ridiculous to declare war on it
http://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htm


14/58

Conclusion Thingy: Drug use....Overeating or gambling....Matter of behavior


Property: Drug use....Overeating or gambling....Matter of behavior


4. Saddam Hussein was a lot like Stalin. Both were vicious dictators with their

hands on weapons of mass destruction. Both were self-important

megalomaniacs. Both were extremely cruel to anyone who comes in their

power. And both had absolutely butt-ugly mustaches! Deterrence kept Stalin

bottled up behind the iron curtain until he died. We have absolutely no reason

to think that deterrence would not have kept Saddam similarly bottled up.

Thus we had no reason to go to war when we did.

Premise Thingy: Hussein....Stalin....Dictator....Had nasty

weapons....Megalomaniac....Ugly Mustache....Controllable by deterrence

Conclusion Thingy: Hussein....Stalin....Dictator....Had nasty


Property: Hussein....Stalin....Dictator....Had nasty


5. Just as the state has the right to decide who may or may not drive a car, ithas the right to decide who may or may not have a baby.

Premise Thingy: Right to drive....Driving a car....Right to have children....Having

children....State has the right to decide

Conclusion Thingy: Right to drive....Driving a car....Right to have children....Having


Property: Right to drive....Driving a car....Right to have children....Having


6. Even though God is omniscient, he doesn't know who will repent and who

will not because, for him, it's just like tossing a coin.

Premise Thingy: God....God predicting repentance....Repentance....Predicting a
http://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htm


15/58

coin toss....Can't be done

Conclusion Thingy: God....God predicting repentance....Repentance....Predicting a


Property: God....God predicting repentance....Repentance....Predicting a


Vivid vs. Apt Analogies

I'd like to make a distinction here between what I'm calling "vivid" analogies, which

have emotional force because they evoke powerful images and ideas in our minds

without necessarily referenceing any established real similarities, and "apt "

analogies that refer to already established real physical or logical similaritiesbetween two objects. (A good rule would be to ask whether a reasonable would

think that the analogy made sense even if she did not already believe in the

conclusion.) apt analogies can make logically compelling arguments, whether or not

they're vivid. But analogies that are merely vivid, without being aptcan never make

logically compelling arguments.

Just so you know, an argument that uses an analogy that is vivid withoutbeing apt

commits the fallacy offalse analogy.

More Exercises

7. Only one of the following statements is true. Which one is it?

A. Analogies are powerful arguments. The most vivid analogies are very

convincing and give good logical reasons to believe the conclusion.

B. The most vivid analogies can also be the most deceptive. An analogy that is

vivid withoutbeing apt is always a bad analogy.

C. From a logical standpoint, an analogy's ability to grip the imagination is the
http://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htm


16/58

most important factor. When we are analyzing an argument

we should be prepared to discount the aptness of an analogy whenever that

analogy fails to evoke any powerful image in the reader's mind.

For the following arguments, try to determine whether the analogy used

is vivid or apt or neither or both. (Answers at end of chapter.)

I would suggest that you start each exercise by thinking about how the image makes

you feel. Then give yourself a couple of seconds for the immediate reaction to fade,

and then set that feeling aside and think about whether a reasonable person who

does notaccept the argument's conclusion would accept that the premise thingy and

the conclusion thingy really arephysicallyor logicallysimilar.

8. Dogpatch community college should not require a freshman writing course.

For god's sake, Harvard doesn't require freshman writing!

9. I cannot believe they teach socialism in the University. It's like teaching

arson in a fireworks factory.

10. Drug use is a matter of behavior control. It's like overeating or gambling. It

would be ridiculous to declare war on overeating, so it's ridiculous to declare

war on drugs.

11. Saddam Hussein was a lot like Stalin. Both were vicious dictators with their

hands on weapons of mass destruction. Both were self-important

megalomaniacs. Both were extremely cruel to anyone who comes in their

power. Deterrence kept Stalin bottled up behind the iron curtain until he died.

We have absolutely no reason to think that deterrence would not have kept

Saddam similarly bottled up. Thus we had no reason to go to war when we

did.

12. Just as the state has the right to decide who may or may not drive a car, it

has the right to decide who may or may not have a baby.

13. Even though God is omniscient, he doesn't know who will repent and who

will not because, for him, it's just like tossing a coin.


17/58

Good and Bad Analogy Arguments

What is special about empirical analogy arguments is that they only work if the

similarity between the two objects being compared is extremely strong in areas that

are relevant to the issue being settled. Irrelevant similarities don't count. Irrelevant

differences don't count either. Relevant similarities make the argument stronger.

Relevant differences make the argument weaker. So the thing to do when evaluating

an analogy argument is to pay attention to relevant similarities and differences, and

ignore irrelevant ones.

Unfortunately, analogies are also a powerful instrument of persuasion, even ininstances where they actually carry no weight. Our beliefs about the premise thingy

are often so strong that merely associating it with the conclusion thingy can be

enough to convince us that the analogy is correct even if the two things actually have

nothing to do with each other.

As I've said before, an argument only succeeds if it is clear to you, as a reasonable

person, that it presents a clear and compelling logicalreason for you to change your

mind and agree with the conclusion. If it doesn't seem clear to you that theargument has presented such a reason, then the argument has failed. Since it is

usually possible for two things to be very similar in a lot of ways and yet be different

in precisely the right way to kill an analogy argument, empirical analogies usually

don't present a logically compelling reason to change one's mind, and thus are often

not very logically compelling arguments.

To my mind, analogies nicely encapsulate the basic problem of cutting through

rhetoric. They often have a powerful effect on our imaginations, but they are alsooften complete rubbish. Usually, but not always. Once in a while, an analogy

argument is actually convincing. So your problem, as a critical thinker, is to ignore

the vividness of the image presented by the analogy, and concentrate on whether

the facts presented actually comprise a logically compelling argument for the arguers

conclusion. Just like critical thinking in general, evaluating analogy arguments


18/58

requires you to ignore the powerful effect that images can have on your emotions

and imagination, and to carefully and impersonally trace out the implications of

whatever facts are actually present.

Before you even get into the analogy part of the argument there's a question you

should ask. (Remember that the premise thingy is the thing that is known to have the

property, and the conclusion thingy is the thing that the arguer

wants you to believe has the property.)

1. Does the premise thingy really have the property? If it doesn't, then no amount of

similarity between the two things can make the conclusion thingy have the

property.

If we're sure that the premise thingy really has the property, then we should next

evaluate the strength of the analogy between the two things. The basic way to assess

the strength of an analogy is to think about how the conclusion thingy is similar to

the premise thingy. If the two things are only similar in a way that has nothing to do

with the property, then the analogy is no good. If the two things are similar in a

relevant way, but also have some important differences that are relevant to the

property, then the analogy is no good. If the two things are relatively similar, and

have no relevant differences, you still have to think about whether they are similarenough to make the analogy work. If they aren't, it doesn't. This kind of reasoning is

basically a series of judgment calls, and the only way to get good at it is to practice.

Criticizing An Analogy Argument

The most obvious response to an anlogy argument is to try to break the analogy. You

succeed in doing so if you can show that the two things compared in the analogy are

not similar enough to make the argument work. Here are some examples in whichthe second arguer offers an anlogy breaker. (Such attempts don't always work, of

course, so I'd like you to think a little bit about whether these counter

arguments succeed in breaking their respective analogies.)

1. You can't say that letting George W. Bush be commander in chief during a


19/58

war is like letting a bum off the street coach a Super Bowl team. The U.S.

commander in chief makes general policy decisions based on the advice of

highly trained and experienced professionals. A Super Bowl coach has to

make split-second tactical decisions based entirely on his own judgment.

2. Mountaineering is not like driving. You don't have to climb mountains to get

to the grocery store.

Notice that these are both counter arguments because both of them attack parts

ofotherarguments. Okay, I haven't given you those other arguments, but these two

above onlymake sense as attacks on otherarguments.

The other way to attack an analogy argument is to argue that the premise thingydoesn't actually have the property, as in this dialog.

A. Tobacco smoking is just like marijuana smoking. Both have heath risks,

both can become habitual, and both impose discomfort and risk on the people

around the smoker. We know that marijuana should be illegal, and because of

this similarity, so should tobacco.

B. But we don't have good reason to think that marijuana should be illegal!

The idea that it should be is at least highly controversial, and many health and

law enforcement professionals strongly advocate the legalization of marijuana.

Later on, we will worry about which argument is weaker. For now, I just want you to

notice that the first argument relies upon the claim that marijuana should be illegal.

If this is uncontroversially true, then his argument works. You should also note that

he does not support this claim, so if it turns out to be controversial, then his

argument will fail. The second arguer is trying to take advantage of this by trying to

provide reasons to think that it is not yet proved that marijuana shouldbe illegal.

Now, it should not surprise you to learn that any time an argument has one of these

flaws, it is a bad argument, or a "fallacy."

Fallacies


20/58

False Analogys

The fallacy offalse analogy occurs when an arguer offers an analogy in which the

model and the analog are only similar in ways that are notrelevant to the property,

or in which the model and the analog are clearly different in a way that is very

relevant to the property.

Here are some examples of False Analogy. (With reasons why they're false

analogies.)

Iraq is a lot like Afghanistan, so the war there will go the same way. (Iraq and

Afganistan both have muslim populations, but that's about it. Terrain, populationdistribution, social structure, form of government and military organization are all

different. Since the course of war depends on things like these rather than religion,

the analogy is terrible.)

The national debt is like a metastasizing cancer that threatens to destroy our

economy from within. (The big difference that I see here is that an economy can

recover from just about any kind of "injury," while a living body can be killed by

relatively small injuries. The deficit may indeed be dangerous to our economy, butour economy is not enough like an animal body to make the comparison

meaningful.)

Just as rain wears down mountains, human problems always yield to

perseverance. (Mountains are made of rocks and minerals that have a strictly

limited ability to resist water erosion, while human problems are made of things like

death, anger, hatred, injury, disease and lots of things that don't get better.)

We should have interventions for coffee drinkers, because they're just like

alcoholics. (Yeah, sure, coffee drinkers go on three week binges and wake up in

stolen cars on the edge of the Vegas strip unable to remember their own names and

the names of the oddly dressed farm animals who are currently singing Christmas

carols in the back seat of the car. Yeah, coffee drinkers are juuuuuuuust like


21/58

alcoholics.)

Exercises.

For each of the following false analogies, see if you can figure out whyit's a false

analogy.

14. The 40 hour week works very well in modern corporations, so we should

use it in farms as well.

15. Just as it is absurd to criminalize the removal of a tumor, it is absurd to

criminalize abortion.

16. There's no point in adult literacy programs because there's no point in

crying over spilled milk.

17. Coffee and cigarettes should not be illegal, so marijuana should not be

illegal.

Begging the Question

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an arguer offers any argument, of

any kind, that relies on a major factual claim that is itself controversial and which is

not presently supported by another argument of its own.

Attempts to make analogy arguments can beg the question also. This happens when

an arguer offers an analogy in which thepremise thingyhas not been proved to have

the property that is being ascribed to the conclusion thingy. If the arguer just

assumes that the premise thingy has the property without good reason to think that

it does, then he certainly begs the question, and therefore fails to even get his

analogy argument started.

Just like a business, government must first, last and always look to the bottom

line. (Nobody has proved that businesses have a moral duty to increase profits above


22/58

all else. All established moral theories agree that there are some things that

businesses shouldn'tdo, no matter whatthe profit, so even if government

was exactlylike business, that analogy wouldn't be enough to prove that

government should look to the bottom line.)

Exercise 18. The following argument begs the question. Can you explain

exactly howit does so?

Marijuana should be illegal, so coffee and cigarettes, which are at least as

unhealthy and addictive, should also be illegal.

Red Herring

The fallacy ofred herring occurs when an arguer offers a reason that is not relevant

to his conclusion. In terms of analogy arguments, trying to criticize an analogy

argument on the basis of an irrelevant difference would be a red herring. In the

following examples, the second, red, argument is always a red herring.:

A. Even though God is omniscient, he doesn't know who will repent and who

will not because, for him, it's just like tossing a coin.B. That doesn't make any sense! Deciding whether or not to repent is a

process that takes place in a human brain, which sits in a container filled with

blood, but coin tosses take place in the open air, with no blood anywhere

about!

A. Just as the state has the right to decide who may or may not drive a car, it

has the right to decide who may or may not have a baby.

B. Dude, cars are made of steel and plastic, while babies are made of drool

and squishy pink stuff. There's no comparison, so your analogy fails!

A. Giving a tax break to the rich is like the government seizing a big stash of

stolen money, and then giving some of it back to the bank robbers.

B. But what about the fact that bank robbers wear thos black-and-white

banded jerseys, berets and domino masks? And rich people always wear top


23/58

hats, frock coats and Prince Albert beards?

Exercises . Each of the following argument groups contains one red herring (either A

or B). Identify the red herring fallacy and explain why it is a red herring.

19. Promoting a Baha'i society is like promoting Communism. It sounds good

until it's achieved, but then it turns into hell on earth.

A. You forget that Baha'i is a doctrine that came out of the middle east,

whereas communism originated in France and Germany, so your

analogy totallyfails!

B. If the only similarity beetween the two is that they both sound good in

theory, might I point out that both Christianity and indoor plumbing also sound

good in theory.

20. Dogpatch community college should not require a freshman writing

course. For god's sake, Harvard doesn't require a freshman writing course!

A. Can you be sure that these two institutions both draw from the same kind of

incoming freshman pool? Isn't it possible that Harvard's incoming freshmen

are much better prepared than Dogpatch's incomung class?

B. It is abundantly clear that this comparison is logically unsound. It is easy to

prove that what goes for Harvard has absolutely no relevance to what goes forDogpatch, beacuse, ans any educated person knows, the walls of Harvard are

covered in the noble and beautiful ivy, while the walls of Dogpatch Community

College are covered in base and unsightly Kudzu, which is a completely

different kind of plant.

Note for Logic Nerds

If you think about it, false analogy is kind of like red herring because it makes an

argument based on irrelevantsimilarities. However, bad analogies are so common

that it's best to have a seperate fallacy name for that kind of failure.

Here's a rule.


24/58

If it's a direct analogy argument based on irrelevant similarities, it's false analogy s

If it's a non-analogy counter argument based on irrelevant differences, it's one way

of committing red herring.

Fallacy Identification Exercises.

sEach of the red arguments in the following dialogs commits a differentfallacy.

Identify each bad argument as false analogy, begging the question or red herring.

21. A. Drug use is a matter of behavior control. It's like overeating or

gambling. It would be ridiculous to declare war on overeating, so it's ridiculousto declare war on drugs.

Don't be an idiot! Drugs enter the body through the mouth, nose and a needle

into a vein. Except for some very rare circumstances, food only enters the

body through the mouth! Don't you realize what a huge difference that is? It's

an enormous differentce, and it means your analogy cannot possibly work!

22. A. Look dude, your dream of forming a hamster precision flying aerobatic

team is just not going to work. I've told you a thousand times, hamsters don't

fly, and that's it!

Don't be a fool, old man. Don't you know that hamsters are almost exactly like

lemmings, and it is well known that the lemming can fly with the agility, grace

and power of a F15 Tomcat jet fighter. Since lemmings can fly, it follows that

tight formations of hamsters can fly well enough to give aerobatic displays of

stunning complexity and precision.

23. A. Is that a Sherman tankyou're driving? I thought you were trying to save

money. That thing must get terrible gas mileage.Oh no, it will get great gas mileage, because I got a blue one. My old Pacer

got great gas mileage, and it was blue too.

Tactics and Analogy Arguments


25/58

Okay, let's say you've got to analyze a set of arguments in which at least one of them

is an analogy argument. How do the opposing arguments stand to that analogy

argument. The rule is simple. If the opposing argument tries to break the analogy,

then it's a counter argument. If it doesn't offer any specific reasons to doubt the

analogy, then it's a direct argument.

Salience

"Salience" is the property of "stick-outness" something is salient if it it really grabs

out attention. Explosions, people who look like movie stars and giant, world-

destroying spaceships are really salient. Cars that happen not to be exploding,

people who look like everybody else, and small, innoffensive pieces of gravelare notsalient. Now, there is a great deal of difference between salience and logical

force. This is very like the difference between vividness and congruence. Salient

features can catch our imaginations and move us to belief without providing even

the beginnings of a logical reason to believe. And salience can, sometimes fatally,

distract us from the purely logical features of an issue. Consider the following dialog:

A. Dolphins and sharks have many similarities. They are both shaped very

much the same, and are optimized for fast swimming. They are also both builtfor manuverability in that they both have strong dorsal, ventral and caudal

fins. Finally, they both live the same way, by chasing down and eating smaller

fish. So the fact that sharks have gills leads inevitably to the conclusion that

dolphins must also have gills..

B. Dude, dolphins are mammals, not fish! Mammals have lungs, not gills!

Before you begin a serious analysis, take a moment to think through your own

reactions to these arguments. Did you laugh? Did something strike you as especially

stupid? Did anything strike you as right on the money? Take a careful inventory of

your initial reactions and ideas about this dialog, and write down as much as you can

of what you thought.

Then look at the second argument, and ask yourself if it is a counterargument. It's


26/58

true that the first argument is ludicrous, but that's not the issue here. The question

here is whether or not the second argument refersexplicitlyto the facts and logic

that thefirstargument uses. The second argument is onlya counter argument if it

actually gets into the nuts and bolts of the first.

Finally, look at the second argument, and ask yourself if it represents good logic.

I'm not asking you if it's true, I'm asking if it's good logic. The way to think about this

kind of issue is to ask youself if a person who did not already believe the

conclusion would rationally have her mind changedby the argument. Here, the issue

is whether dolphins have lungs or gills, so I want you to think about whether

someone who didnotalready think dolphins have lungs would get a rational reason

to change his mind, and believe that dolphins did have lungs, or to at least believe

that the first argument was no good, based on this second argument.

If I've handled this example correctly, you will have been at least mildly surprised by

your own responses to these two questions. Because the conclusion of the first

argument is so absurd, I expect many people will instinctively tend to feel that

the secondargument mustbe either a counter argument or good logic, or both. In

fact neither is the case. The second argument is nota counter argument, because it

does not refer in any way to the analogy between dolphins and sharks. Furthermore,

it is bad logic, committing the fallacy of begging the question. The statements"dolphins are mammals" and "dolphins have lungs, not gills" are pretty much

synonymous in this context. If someone believes that dolphins are mammals, he will

automatically believe they have believe that they have lungs. If someone doesn't

believe that dolphins have lungs, he automatically won't believe that they're

mammals, and so the premise "dolphins are mammals" will notbe uncontroversial as

far as he is conceerned.

Here are some more examples offalse analogy, withopposing direct and counter arguments. The counter arguments give

reasons whythese are false analogies. The opposing direct arguments ignore the

analogies.

Iraq is a lot like Afghanistan, so the war there will be a cakewalk, just like


27/58

Afghanistan.

Direct: The Iraqi resistance is highly motivated and well-funded. They're not

going to allow a cakewalk!

Counter: Iraq and Afganistan both have muslim populations, but that's about it.

Terrain, population distribution, social structure, form of government andmilitary organization are all different. Since the course of war depends on

things like these rather than religion, the analogy is terrible.

We should have interventions for coffee drinkers, because they're just like

alcoholics.

Direct:Are you crazy? Coffee drinkers need that black elixir, that steaming

java, that jittering caffeine high!

Counter: Yeah, sure, coffee drinkers go on three week binges and wake up instolen cars on the edge of the Vegas strip unable to remember their own

names and the names of the oddly dressed farm animals who are currently

singing Christmas carols in the back seat of the car. Yeah, coffee drinkers are

juuuuuuuust like alcoholics.

Just as it is absurd to criminalize the removal of a tumor, it is absurd to

criminalize abortion.

Direct:Abortion allows women to control their own bodies! We can't have that.

Counter: Tumors don't ever turn into people. Well, except for Glenn Beck.

There's no point in adult literacy programs because there's no point in crying

over spilled milk.

Direct:Adult illiteracy is a tragedy for millions of people who would like to read

the articles in playboy, but can't.

Counter: Milk can't be unspilled, but illiterate adults can learn to read.

The national debt is like a metastasizing cancer that threatens to destroy oureconomy from within.

Direct: Rubbish, debt is good for an economy. Debt is what makes this country

great!

Counter:An economy can recover from just about any kind of "injury," while a

living body can be killed by relatively smallinjuries. The deficit may indeed be


28/58

dangerous to our economy, but our economy is not enough like an animal

body to make the comparison meaningful.

If I've done this right, you'll be able to look at the examples above and see that

the counterarguments all point out differences between the two objects beingcompared in the analogy argument, while the direct arguments all ignore the

analogies.

Exercises For each of the following groups of arguments, identify the argument that

is a counter argument to the first argument,

24. I'm tired of those crazy drivers on the 405, so I got myself an old armytank! And I know it will get great gas mileage, because I got a blue one. My

old Pacer got great gas mileage, and it was blue too.

A: Pshaw! As if color has anything to do with gas mileage!

B: Um, tanks are lots heavier than cars, so your tank will get lousy mileage!

25. The 40 hour week works very well in modern corporations, so we should

use it in farms as well.

AThe 40 hour week means weekends off, and crops and animals don't dowell when left alone.

B: Corporations usually deal with non-living things, like papers and widgets.

Farms deal in living things, like plants and animals.

26. Just as rain wears down mountains, human problems always yield to

perseverance.

A: Mountains are made of rocks and minerals that have a strictly limited ability

to resist water erosion, while human problems are made of things like death,

anger, hatred, injury and disease.

B:Actually no, lots of human problems totally fail to get better, no matter how

long and hard people try.

27. Coffee and cigarettes should not be illegal, so marijuana should not be

illegal.


29/58

AMarijuana makes people happy at low cost. Our corporate overlords cannot

profit from that, so it should be illegal.

B: Coffee and cigarettes are way more addictive than marijuana. Neither of

them is a serious intoxicant compared to marijuana, so the analogy doesn't

work..

28. Given what we know about logic, can you figure out a good counter argument to

the "dolphins have gills" argument above?

29. Given what we know about science, can you figure out a good direct argument

for the conclusion that dolphins don'thave gills?

SCAEFOD

"SCAEFOD" stands for "Standardize, Context, Analyze, Evaluate, Fist Of Death!" It

refers to a process in which an effort is made to clarify arguments and the logical

relationships between arguments before any decisions are made about the strength

or weakness of any argument.

Here's example of how to "scaefod" (analyze) an analogy argument.

William Bennett holds up an egg. "This is your brain," he says. He cracks the

egg, dropping the contents into a hot skillet. The egg cooks. "This is your brain

on drugs." Bennett turns to the Emmett, looking very grim. "Any questions?"

He asks.

Emmett.Yes Bill, can I have my brain on drugs with bacon and toast?

William Bennett 1. An egg that is cracked open and dropped into a hot skillet

will become coagulated and tasty.

(2. It is an extremely bad thing, from the egg's point of view, to

become coagulated and tasty.)

(3. The human brain exposed to drugs is like an egg cracked

and dropped in a hot skillet.)

C. All drugs are extremely


30/58

bad. DIRECT

Emmett. No argument, just a sarcastic comment.

William Bennett bears the burden of proof here. Although many people believedrugs are bad, and some recreational drugs have been shown to have some bad

effects under some circumstances, all the evidence so far shows that drugs are not

seriously damaging for the majority of people who take them.

William Bennett Analogy Argument Emmett. No argument

Analog: brain on drugs

Model: egg on skillet

Property: becomes coagulated and tasty, (and is perhaps served withbacon and toast, and maybe coffee.)

William Bennett: Analogy between brain on drugs and egg on skillet

Most relevant similarities. None.

Most relevant differences. There is no known drug experience that is remotely like

hitting oneself in the head with a hard heavy object and then laying one's exposed

brain in a hot skillet.

Fist of Death: Based on the conversation between William and Emmett, drugs are

not seriously dangerous. Emmett gives no argument, but since he defends the null

hypothesis, he doesn't really have to. William gives the analogy between taking

drugs and banging oneself in the head, cracking one's head open and dumping one's

brains into a skillet. There is no known drug that has this effect, so William's analogy

is completely false. Given that we have no anti-drug arguments left here, the

proposition that drugs are not seriously damaging carries the day.

(Again, one's pre-existing beliefs about the level of danger attendant on taking illegal

drugs cannot be relevant here.)

One last example before the exercises.


31/58

Shakira. Marijuana has been proved to cause at least some brain damage, so

I think marijuana should be illegal, at least until we can establish exactly how

dangerous it is.

Jameson. Rubbish, Red Bull and other "energy drinks" are not illegal, so

marijuana should not be illegal.

Shakira. 1. Marijuana causes some brain damage.

2. We're not sure exactly how

much.

C. Marijuana should be illegal, at least for the present.

DIRECT

Jameson. 1. Red Bull and other "energy drinks" are not illegal.

2. Marijuana is similar in its properties to these energy drinks.

C. Marijuana should not be illegal. DIRECT

Shakira makes a direct argument.

Jameson doesn't talk about the logic of Shakira's argument, so his is also a direct

argument.

Shakira is the one arguing that something could be illegal, so she bears the burden of

proof.

Shakira. Explanation argument Jameson. Analogy

argument.

Based on harm caused by marijuana. Analog: marijuana.

Model: "energy drinks"

Property: should be legal

Jameson. Analogy between marijuana and energy drinks.Most relevant similarities: Both marijuana and "energy drinks" contain naturally

occurring psychoactive chemicals.

Most relevant differences: None that I can think of.

Fist of Death: By the reasoning given above, marijuana should be illegal. I don't think


32/58

that Shakira's argument is particularly strong, but it doesn't commit any obvious

fallacies. The analogy between marijuana and Red Bull-type drinks seems very

strong, so ifit is the case that these drinks shouldbe legal, it follows that marijuana

also should be legal. However, the fact that something is legal doesn't mean it should

be legal, so even if marijuana was exactly like these currently legal "energy drinks,"

that analogy wouldn't be enough to prove that marijuana should be legal. Jameson

commits the fallacy of begging the question, because his model, energy drinks,

doesn't have the property he thinks it does. So Shakira's argument is the strongest

out of these two, and if these arguments were all we had to go on, we would be led

to conclude that marijuana should be illegal.

Exercises 30-31. Analyze the following

Arguments

Carli. Drug use is a matter of addiction and behavior control. It's like

overeating or gambling. It would be ridiculous to declare war on overeating, so

it's ridiculous to declare war on drugs.

Syed. The war on drugs is like any war. We will not begin to win until we

begin to shoot drug dealers on sight.

ThesisBased on the discussion between Carli and Syed, it is ridiculous to declare war on

drugs.

Support

As Carli says, drug use is like overeating or gambling. (At least, problem drug use is

like problem overeating or problem gambling.) These three things are especially

similar in terms of addiction, which we can define as the fact that they all involve

cravings and involuntary impulses to indulge in the problem behavior. Thus it makessense that they should be handled in terms of helping individuals gain greater

control over their behavior. It would be ridiculous, or at least very counterproductive

to try to combat overeating by declaring war on food, and so it is ridiculous to try to

combat problem drug use by declaring war on drugs.


33/58

Opposition

Exercise 30. Pick out the best description of Syed's stupid argument.

A. "Syed draws an analogy between the war on drugs and regular wars such as the

War of 1812 and World War II. Such wars can only be won by undertaking offensive

actions against the enemy, which includes shooting at the enemy on sight. Syed

implicitly argues that, since fighting a regular war requires shooting the enemy on

sight, fighting the war on drugs requires shooting drug dealers on sight." (Answer)

B. "Syed draws an analogy between the metaphorical "war" on drugs, and the literal

meaning of the word "war." He claims that the "war" on drugs is exactly the same as

wars such as the War of 1812 and World War II. Syed implicitly assumes that "wars"

in the literal sense can only be won by undertaking offensive actions against theenemy, which obviously includes shooting at them whenever such shooting is to our

advantage. He also implicitly identifies drug dealers as the "enemy" in the "war" on

drugs. Since he says "shoot drug dealers on sight," he is literally advocating that

police or anyone else should open fire as soon as they catch sight of anyone they

believe to be a drug dealer." (Answer)

C. "Syed draws an analogy between the metaphorical "war" on drugs, and the literal

meaning of the word "war." He claims that the "war" on drugs is exactly the same aswars such as the War of 1812 and World War II, at least in terms of how they can be

won. Syed implicitly assumes that "wars" in the literal sense can only be won by

undertaking offensive actions against the enemy, which obviously includes shooting

at them whenever such shooting is to our advantage. He also implicitly identifies

drug dealers as the "enemy" in the "war" on drugs. He is saying that the police

should undertake offensive operations against drug dealers in the same way as a

well-run army undertakes operations against an opposing army. This would

presumably include intelligence efforts to correctly identify and locate genuine drugdealers, and careful consideration of when and how to open fire in order to minimize

the probability that innocent people would be caught in the crossfire." (Answer)

D. "Syed draws an analogy between the metaphorical "war" on drugs, and the literal

meaning of the word "war." He claims that the "war" on drugs is exactly the same as
http://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htm


34/58

wars such as the War of 1812 and World War II, at least in terms of how they can be

won. Syed implicitly assumes that "wars" in the literal sense can only be won by

undertaking offensive actions against the enemy, which obviously includes shooting

at them whenever such shooting is to our advantage. He also implicitly identifies

drug dealers as the "enemy" in the "war" on drugs. Although he says "shoot drug

dealers on sight," we don't need to read him as literally advocating that police or

anyone else should open fire as soon as they catch sight of anyone they believe to be

a drug dealer. Rather we can interpret him as saying that the police should

undertake offensive operations against drug dealers in the same way as a well-run

army undertakes operations against an opposing army. This would presumably

include intelligence efforts to correctly identify and locate genuine drug dealers, and

careful consideration of when and how to open fire in order to minimize the

probability that innocent people would be caught in the crossfire." (Answer)

Possible Clinchers

Exercise 31. Pick out the best critique of Syed's stupid argument.

A. "Syed's argument does not address the analogy offered by Carli. Since Syed fails to

offer a counter argument to Carli's argument, Syed cannot defeat that argument,

and it stands. Since Carli's argument stands uncontested, it carries the day, and Syed

loses the argument." (Answer)

B. "Syed's argument commits two fallacies. First, he commits the fallacy of assuming

that, if the war on drugs really is like a real war, it automatically follows that shooting

the "enemy" would be justified. This is an illegitimate assumption because it is simply

not the case that all wars are justified. Second, he commits the fallacy of false

analogy in that the war on drugs and real warfare are not sufficiently similar to carry

his argument. Enemy soldiers are dedicated to shooting us and blowing up our stuff.

Drug dealers are dedicated to selling their stuff to people who want to buy it. Theyonly shoot or blow up people who threaten them. Otherwise, they leave us alone.

The only justification for shooting at enemy soldiers is that it can prevent them from

shooting at us. When shooting them isn't needed to stop them shooting at us, like

when they surrender, we stop shooting at them, eventually. Since this difference sits

right on the point that Syed needs in order to make his argument work, it kills his
http://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htm


35/58

argument stone dead." (Answer)

C. "The problem with Syed's argument is that it requires literal warfare against drug

dealers. This means attacking them with the most effective weapons in our arsenals.

Can you imagine the carnage if your local corner drug dealer suddenly found himself

attacked by an armored division operating with air support. Sure, a single hit from

the main gun of a modern main battle tank would vaporize the guy, but it would also

bring down every nearby building. Cluster bombs and napalm would only make

things worse. Undertaking modern warfare in an urban environment would cause

untold destruction, so is ridiculous to apply modern warfare to drugs." (Answer)

D. "Syed's argument is a false analogy. There is no way that the war on drugs is

anything like a regular war, so things that apply to a regular war do not necessarilyapply to the war on drugs." (Answer)

An argument cannot be a bad argument merelybecause it fails to address some

other argument. An arguer can fail because he fails to address some other argument,

but that by itself doesn't make his own arguments bad. Taking an uncharitable

interpretation of somebody's argument, and then refuting, or ridiculing, that

uncharitable interpretation, always fails to refute an argument. In order to really

defeat an argument you have to criticize it in its strongest form, and show that evenits strongest form cannot stand. Finally, even if your judgment of an argument is

exactly right, your clincher will still fail if you do not include the details necessary to

allow your readers to understand exactly why the opposition argument fails.

Exercises

Try to analyze all of the arguments found in each of the following dialogs. Especially

figure out which arguments are direct arguments and which are counter arguments.Say which side has the stronger argument(s) and which is weaker. If you can, identify

the key fact that unlocks the issue.

32. Kory. I'm taking a political science class at the university. We just started

studying socialism, and the professor says that socialism has actually worked
http://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/wrong.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/right.htm


36/58

in every country where it's been given a fair chance.

Noelia. I cannot believe they teach socialism in the University. It's like

teaching arson in a fireworks factory. (Answer)

33. Carli. Drug use is a matter of addiction and behavior control. It's likeovereating or gambling. It would be ridiculous to declare war on overeating, so

it's ridiculous to declare war on drugs.

Syed. The war on drugs is like any war. We will not begin to win until we

begin to shoot drug dealers on sight. (Answer)

34. Catalina. I think it must be pretty boring to be God. After all, he's

omniscient, so he already knows how things are going to come out. He can't

even make bets on which sinners are going to repent and which are going to

burn, because he already knows who is and isn't going to repent.

Jaiden. Even though God is omniscient, he doesn't know who will repent and

who will not because, for him, it's just like tossing a coin. (Answer)

35. Clifton. I wish we could stop irresponsible people from having children. It

would prevent an enormous amount of suffering, but control over one's own

body is a basic human right, and that includes reproduction, so the state will

never have the right to control who has children.

Annette. You've got all wrong. Just as the state has the right to decide whomay or may not drive a car, it has the right to decide who may or may not

have a baby. (Answer)

36. Donavan. I think we should give an enormous tax break to the rich. Both

Forbes Magazine and the Wall Street Journal say it will stimulate the

economy, increase employment, raise wages, eliminate the deficit, reduce the

federal debt and bring peace in the Middle East.

Clifford. That's ridiculous! Giving a tax break to the rich is like the government

seizing a big stash of stolen money, and then giving some of it back to the

bank robbers. (Answer)

37. Grady. I just spent the last six months researching the Baha'i faith. The

Baha'i faith preaches kindness, tolerance and nonviolent social action. I

traveled all over the country visiting Baha'i congregations and seeing them in
http://www.madwizard.com/ZZKory.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZKory.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZKory.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZCarli.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZCarli.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZCatalina.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZCatalina.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZCatalina.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZClifton.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZClifton.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZClifton.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZDonavan.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZDonavan.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZDonavan.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZDonavan.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZClifton.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZCatalina.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZCarli.htmhttp://www.madwizard.com/ZZKory.htm


37/58

action. I found them all to be composed of gentle and kind people, all doing

good work in their communities, and all getting along fabulously with anyone

who was willing to get along with them. I think it would be great if we had a

Baha'i society!

Kristine Promoting a Baha'i society is like promoting Communism. It soundsgood until it's achieved, but then it turns into hell on earth. (Answer)

38. Dimitri. Here at Dogpatch community college we get a lot of incoming

freshmen who don't know how to write college-level papers, so we need to

have a freshman writing course, and we have to require incoming freshmen to

take that course.

Maura. Dogpatch community college should not require a freshman writing

course. For god's sake, Harvard doesn't require a freshman writing course!

(Answer)

39. Augustus. I really think that the government should put more money into

discouraging cellphone use. Cellphones produce microwave radiation, so

using a cellphone is literally holding a radiation source right next to your brain.

Radiation causes cancer, so it is insane to routinely expose the most

important organ in your body to a known carcinogen several times a day.

Millions and millions of people use cellphones on a daily basis, so if

cellphones cause cancer these peop

Documents

Art of Critical Decision Making