 |
| Bandwagon |
Reasoning: Methods and Fallacies
To get by in the world, you must be able to understand the reasoning of others and yourself. The better you are at seeing the illogical reasoning in your own decisions, in the arguments of others, and in the advertisements that bombard us every day, the better you will do in all aspects of your life. Once you can identify illogical reasoning, you then want to learn how to form logical arguments of your own to counteract the problematic reasoning entering your daily activities.
Below you will find handouts to assist with writing arguments as well as a chapter modification from our textbook to help you understand the basics for argument in all of our writings.
Below you will find handouts to assist with writing arguments as well as a chapter modification from our textbook to help you understand the basics for argument in all of our writings.
Argument
Reasoning in an Argument
This handout has been created to provide a general overview of the methods of reasoning expected in argument essays. Students are expected to eliminate all illogical reasoning, which includes fallacies. The content within has been adapted from The Well-Crafted Argument: A Guide and Reader, “Chapter 5: Reasoning: Methods and Fallacies” © 2018 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning to let my students know early in the term what is expected as to logical reasoning in their argument papers.
For students of my Freshman Composition course, I suggest you read this handout prior to submitting your first essay. While this chapter of our textbook (Chapter 5) will not be assigned until later in the course, it is assumed that students learned the basics of fallacies and logical reasoning during 11th and/or 12th grade in the school system: public, private, or home. If you have never been exposed to logical reasoning and elimination of fallacies in your writing, I suggest you begin by reading this handout and follow up by reading the full chapter when you get a moment. The content of this chapter, when used properly, will greatly improve the arguments that you will be expected to write in our class.
All of the essay assignments in our class will be in some form of argument (proposal argument, ethical argument, and cause/effect argument), and so the more logically you can craft your claim, and the easier it is for you to find the illogical reasoning and fallacies in the oppositions’ argument, the better your writing will be in our class.
For the full reading in our integrated textbook, go into your Course Content folder in Blackboard and locate the integrated textbook reading for Chapter 5. Chapter 5 will provide guidance in these areas:
5-3a Deduction
5-3b Induction
5-3c Categorization
5-3d Analogy
5-3e Authorization
5-3f Plea
5-4a Errors of Deduction
5-4b Errors of Induction
5-4d Errors of Analogy
5-4f Errors of Pleading
Read through the handout below. If it triggers memories of lessons from years ago about fallacies and logical reasoning, then you are on the right track. If this content seems new to you, then I urge you to read the full chapter immediately. This is only brief snippets from Chapter 5. The full chapter will have definitions and examples of fallacies as well as elaborative content on the strategies of reasoning.
5-2 The Nature of Fallacies
Arguers rarely use fallacies deliberately. Inadvertent lapses in judgment, fallacies usually arise from lack of experience with the subject matter, lack of familiarity with other points of view, undeveloped methods of argumentative reasoning, and hasty or insufficient revision of the argument being drafted. Let us examine each of these problems:
· Lack of experience with the subject matter.
· Lack of familiarity with other points of view.
· Underdeveloped methods of argumentative reasoning.
· Underdeveloped methods of presenting an argument (the Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian methods discussed in Chapters 3 and 4).
· Insufficient revision of the argument being drafted.
5-3a Deduction
When you reason deductively, you break down an assertion into formal statements that are logically connected. A syllogism is one formula used in deductive reasoning, consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.
Major premise:
|
All cats meow.
|
Minor premise:
|
Cordelia is a cat.
|
Conclusion:
|
Therefore, Cordelia meows.
|
Deductive reasoning can be especially powerful when refuting a claim. (If you need to refresh your memory about the process of refutation, review the discussion of Classical argument in Chapter 3.)
To refute a claim, you may need to do a deductive analysis of the author’s reasoning strategies. Here is a five-step method for such analysis:
1. Identify contradictions.
2. Identify inconsistencies.
3. Identify omissions or oversights.
4. Reduce an unsound claim to its logical absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) so as to expose the flawed reasoning more conspicuously.
5. Identify oversimplifications.
5-3b Induction
You engage in inductive reasoning when you strive to make sense of things you experience. Unlike deductive reasoning, you do not begin with a premise assumed to be true and then determine a logical foundation for supporting it. Instead, you build a hypothesis out of your observations of phenomena.
To return to our simple example of whether all cats meow, the inductive writer would examine the evidence—Cat A, Cat B, Cat C, and so on—until observing enough cats to warrant the conclusion, “Yes, all cats meow,” or to reject it (“No, not all cats meow; Siberian tigers are cats, and they growl.”), or to qualify it (“Yes, all cats meow, provided they’re members of the subgenus Felix domesticus.”).
Because in inductive reasoning the strength of the conclusion rests entirely on the sufficiency of the evidence observed, you must use an adequate number of reliable samples.
5-3c Categorization
When people try to categorize human beings neatly according to ethnicity or cultural differences, the danger of stereotyping arises. Superficial differences such as skin color or manner of dress or speech are given more significance than they deserve. Racism, homophobia, and gender-based discrimination are often the ugly results.
Categorizing works best when it serves as an initial gauge for differentiating A from B or A and B from C, and so forth. For example, if you were examining the study habits of college students, you might group your sample students by gender or age or major, just in case a correlation between the category selected and the kind of study habits would show up.
Another facet of categorization is definition, which is necessary for fine-tuning the distinctions between one thing and another within the same category. The very word define means “to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of” (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary). Formal definitions use categorizing techniques themselves. In the definition of the word chaplet, for example—“a wreath or garland for the head” (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary)—the first half of the definition (“a wreath or garland”) establishes the broad category, or genus, and the second half (“for the head”) pinpoints its distinguishing (specific) characteristics.
5-3d Analogy
To make an analogy is to draw a correspondence between two things that are superficially different but not essentially different.
Analogies are used to enhance comprehension. If you are trying to help readers understand the nature of a radio wave, for example, you might use the more familiar analogy of a water wave. A river and an artery are not superficially alike, but they behave in similar enough ways for one to say that water flows in a river the way blood flows in an artery. A more readily perceived phenomenon like a flowing river is easier to understand than the flow of blood through an artery. The author’s goal is to enable ease of understanding over precision of explanation.
However, to say that people are like ants because they swarm in large numbers to sporting events is to generate a distorted (and demeaning) image of fans’ behavior. Using analogy in argumentative writing is a give-and-take situation: You give your readers greater comprehension of the idea, but you take away precision. The rule of thumb, then, is to use analogies carefully.
5-3e Authorization
Writers sometimes need to support an assertion by including the testimony of an expert in the field in question. If you are arguing about the dangers of ultraviolet radiation and urging people to consider sunbathing a risky activity due to the alleged link between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer, you are likely to present empirical evidence from, say, several medical studies. You could also add drama to your claim by quoting a startling statement made by a leading skin cancer expert. In such a situation, you are resorting to the ethos, or the reliable character, of the expert.
Sometimes, finding the appropriate authority to obtain testimony in support of a claim can be tricky, depending on the claim. If you wish to argue that using genetic material from human embryos is unethical, should you include testimony from geneticists or religious leaders, or other kinds of experts? It might be easy to find experts who will agree with you—but are they the right experts? [Consider the writing style you will use and whose viewpoint you are trying to argue before selecting your scholarly sources. An ethical argument with a Christian standard for evaluation should be using testimony from religious leaders, direct content from the Bible, or historical sources to show that Christians have fought for or against an issue based on the Christian standard.]
5-3f Plea
Emotional response is often highly persuasive. In formal argument, therefore, you may try to persuade your audience to accept your views by way of sympathy or compassion as well as by way of logical reasoning.
The plea strategy uses the Aristotelian appeals to emotion or to ethics. Appealing to the audience’s compassion, ethical responsibility, need for security, comfort, and so on reinforces rather than counteracts the logical and analytical; for that reason, such appeals are an important rhetorical tool in the art of persuasion.
5-4 Errors in Reasoning: A Taxonomy
Now that we have examined the methods of reasoning, it is time to look closely at the pitfalls that can occur. To some degree, errors in reasoning are almost unavoidable because reasoning is a complex mental act that requires a concerted effort to perfect. Nonetheless, the more alert you become to the way in which a given line of reasoning violates a principle of logic, of ethics, or of emotional integrity, the less likely it is that your arguments will be criticized for their fallacies.
5-4a Errors of Deduction
In this group of fallacies, the line of reasoning that stems from statements assumed to be true is flawed, or the statements themselves may be flawed. Many errors in deductive reasoning occur because the author fails to connect premises to conclusions logically. Some common types of deductive fallacies follow.
· Fourth Term
· Non Sequitur
· Ad Hominem
· Denying the Antecedent/Affirming the Consequent
o This fallacy occurs in hypothetical (“if–then”) assertions.
5-4b Errors of Induction
In this group of fallacies, the process of drawing conclusions or arriving at reliable generalizations based on observed-particulars is faulty.
· Unsupported Generalization
· Hasty Generalization
· Red Herring
· Poisoning the Well
· Misreading the Evidence
· Slighting the Opposition
· Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
· Begging the Question
o This is an error of both deductive and inductive reasoning.
· Slippery Slope
5-4c Errors of Categorization
In this group of fallacies, arguers tend to see things in terms of black and white instead of color gradations, so to speak—or they confuse one group of objects or ideas with another.
· False Dichotomy (Either/Or)
· Apples and Oranges
5-4d Errors of Analogy
Errors in analogies occur when the analogy distorts, misrepresents, or oversimplifies the reality.
· False or Invalid Analogy
· Faulty Analogy
· Tu Quoque
5-4e Errors of Authorization
In this group of fallacies, authority figures or their testimonials are used vaguely or erroneously.
· Vague Authority
· Suspect Authority
5-4f Errors of Pleading
These fallacies stem from erroneous or improper use of the Aristotelian appeals discussed in Chapter 1.
· Appeal to Fear
· Appeal to the Bandwagon
· Appeal to Ignorance
The content above consists of general overviews of the content from Chapter 5. Definitions for the fallacies have been removed, and the examples, practice, and elaborative paragraphs have been eliminated to preserve as much of the content for Cengage Learning Inc. © 2018. All rights reserved.
No part of this modified work may by reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, or in any other manner - without the written permission of the copyright holder—Cengage Learning Inc. Contact Cengage Learning Inc to request permission for this modified version or the full Chapter 5 text.
Don't forget these in any of your essays...
CONTENT Guidelines
Graphic Organizers (optional)
OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
BODY-PARAGRAPHS
CONCLUSION
TITLE of ESSAY (it IS important)
No comments:
Post a Comment