comm105 exam 2

causes of fallacies and definition

definition - errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that render a conclusion invalid

unchallenged assumptions, ambiguous meaning, emotionally loaded language

burden of proof

Burden of proof is the obligation of the complaining party to show that there is enough evidence to support their call for change ( goes against presumption and public opinion. Must prove your side because it is not the status quo)

ethical standards of argumentation

clarity - easily comprehended

honesty - speaker is well-informed and no hidden motives

efficiency - does not waste times or use shortcuts

relevance - personally relevant to greatest number of people

neutrality rule and how its violated

avoid unnecessary emotionality

descriptive yet does not show your feelings about the word/term

ex. saying the federal government = a group of nearsighted reactionaries more concerned with protecting industry profits than public good

clarity rule and how its violated

definitions should make the meaning of a term more clear, not less, and avoid circularity

ex. saying the federal government = that central government, commonly known as the US government, to which the 50 states have agreed to subordinate certain powers as specified in the US constitution.

should not use the term in the definition

exclusionary rule and how its violated

term definitions exclude that which does not fall appropriately within the scope of the term’s meaning

ex. not so broad as to include things that do not properly fall in the category so saying mass media = communication

preemptive argument

- arguments that respond to a probable objection the opponent will make before they have the chance to raise them

rebuttal and extenuation

two forms: proactive and reactive

a. Refutation of an opponent’s claim

b. Refutation of an opponent’s potential claim, sometimes by conceding a charge and then putting it in a more accurate context or wording

used to oppose arguments of fact: Extenuation is focusing on the circumstances surrounding a fact or the interpretation of it, which leads to a different conclusion than the one drawn

feminist perspective on fallacies

interested in gender inequity’s influence on argument process, critiques argument devaluing, and underscores key role of identity, culture, and relationships in the creation of fallacies]

male generated definitions of argument and reasoning lead to simplistic conclusion

5 types of fallacies

1. hasty generalization

2. straw man

3. ad hominen

4. fallacy of division

5. ad populum

define hasty generalization

Jumping to a conclusion using:

a.) too few instances of the phenomenon or

b.) qualitatively unrepresentative instances (apples and oranges thing)

ex.) “There’s the woman who backed into my car. I swear women don’t know how to drive.”

define ad hominen

Attacking the person over the issues; sexist version is called ad feminam

- “You are just too young to understand.”

- “Would you trust a woman mechanic?”

- “Jamie is pregnant and quite frankly, very

hormonal. John, you take the lead.”

define straw person

Focuses on an argument easy to prop up and knock down:

(a) refuting an argument that was never raised or

(b) responding to a weakened version of a valid argument

Straw feminist: man-hating, anti-sexual, bra burning, and perhaps lesbian caricature out to destroy cherished institutions and values

• Original: "I believe in stricter regulations on gun sales."

• Straw Man: "My opponent wants to take away all guns and leave everyone helpless".

define ad populum

Ad populum (bandwagon) fallacy: appealing to a supposed majority’s feelings and prejudices

Suggests something must be true because many people believe it

ex.) Early 1900’s conventional wisdom about women voting:

-Allowing women to vote would violate their natural place in the home and make them infertile

-Mental exertion of any kind jeopardizes reproductive health

define fallacy of division

faulty claim that what is true of the whole is true of its parts

ex.) ”There are relatively few women in physics. You are a woman going into physics, so you will be one of few in your classes.”

“Japanese women are known to be polite, so I’m sure your new roommate will be too.”

list types of argument from reasoning

cause

sign

parallel case

analogy

authority

dilemma

argument from cause

Pattern of reasoning suggesting a timing-based connection between phenomena in which the first is capable of producing the second

Student doesn’t study for a test. Student received an F.

Not studying caused the student to fail.

argument from sign

Pattern of reasoning suggesting a temporal connection between phenomena in which the first is a symptom or signal used to predict the second (toned down of cause - effect)

Arguments from sign often appear as weak arguments from cause. Example: “When most students get an A in the class, it is a sign of good teaching.”

“when squirrels store extra nuts, it means we are in for a hard winter.”

argument from parallel case

Used when we have all particulars about a given case and reason from it, comparing the known case to a similar unknown case.

Involves reasoning by comparing similar events or cases, such as prices across various forms of popular entertainment.

ex. those who set academic polices and regulations governing graduation may study requirements at other similar schools, reasoning that what is appropriate at college 1, 2, and 3, should be appropriate at our college

argument from analogy

Assume some fundamental sameness of characteristics exists between two otherwise dissimilar cases

figurative and often use rhetorical devices

Some analogies are similes (using words “as” or “like”) and some are metaphors (“he is a diamond in the rough”). Both propose that two unlike things have something in common.

ex.) “Mass media, like swimming pools, can be dangerous to children. To protect children, parents can install locks and erect fences, but our best precaution is teaching them how to swim.”

argument from authority

A form of reasoning relying on the credibility and expertise of the source to warrant the acceptance of a claim.

warrant should show why the claim is credible

ex. My name is Dr. Thomas…. claim, or, I am a professor specializing in restoration forestry.

argument from dilemma

forces a choice between two unappealing alternatives:

Presents dichotomous options: either/or, true/false, good/bad

Grounds presented must identify available options and the choices must be genuinely different

example: Arguments from dilemma are logical only if it is clear the options presented are in fact the only options:

“We only have chocolate and vanilla, sir. We just ran out of mint chip.”

Core American values relevant to value-based arguments

• Acceptance of diversity

• Belief in Hard Work and Productivity

• Community and charity

• Cooperation with Other Countries

• Pragmatism and compromise

• Individualism and Self-Confidence

• Patriotism

• Religious Beliefs

Definition and example of value hierarchy

an ordered arrangement of values providing value judgment criteria

Complex set of core values and attitudes shared by an audience, but which vary from audience to audience

arguer wants the audience to view the value object in terms of the correct hierarchy so that they will understand and accept the criteria she uses to make her evaluations

Pinpoint core values or combos of them that should take preeminence in audience decision-making

Justify value trade-offs: safety from terrorists necessarily involves giving up some personal freedoms

ex. what is the best area for the Elgin Marbles? the facility qualifications, symbolic values, historical accuracy, etc. or an argument about good leadership may suggest it is measured by charisma, credibility, role-model behavior, and empathy

Stock issues for value propositions

In what value hierarchy is the value object of the proposition best evaluated?

by what criteria is the value object to be located in this value hierarchy?

do indicators of effect, extent, and inherency show that the value object meets these criteria?

inherency

Showing that the effects and their significance are the result of something intrinsic to the value object

-the cause; in the case of value propositions, it is usually societal attitudes and beliefs

Differences between value and factual arguments

Factual arguments (descriptive/"is") focus on objective, empirically verifiable information about the world

. Value arguments (normative/"ought") make subjective judgments regarding ethics, beauty, or importance.

While distinct, factual and value arguments are often entangled. A value claim ("It is wrong to allow texting while driving") usually depends on underlying factual claims ("Texting while driving increases accident risks")

The two types of policy situations

Near universal agreement that the problem exists, but the complexity of possible solutions stands in the way of resolution: IMMIGRATION IN THE U.S.

-still can be disagreement on its causes, effects and solutions.

Disagreement that a problem exists (it cannot be discovered or there are varying viewpoints): CLIMATE CHANGE

-most Democrats see it as a huge problem, but most Republican lawmakers say they do not.

Stock issues in policy debates

1. is there are reason for change in a manner generally suggested by the policy proposition?

2. does the policy proposed resolve the reason for change?

3. what are the consequences of the proposed change?

Presentational patterns for policy argumentation and their attributes:

need-plan-advantage

comparative advantage

goals-criteria advocacy

example and definition of need-plan advantage

-used when the reason for change involves resolving a clear and agreed-upon existing problem, and showing the benefits of the proposed policy

-Template for this presentational pattern:

a. Is there a reason for making the recommended change? (NEED)

b. Does the policy proposed resolve the reason for change? (PLAN)

c. What are the relative advantages of the proposed change in terms of outcomes? (ADVANTAGE)

example and definition of comparative advantage

Usually two (or 3) main points and you go back and forth between opposition and negation. Pros and cons.

also used when the seriousness of present problems or good reason for change cannot be found or is not widely accepted

Description of the policy proposal

Advocacy for one or more advantages to be achieved by adopting it

a. explanation of how each advantage is unique and how only the proposed policy, when compared to the existing policy, is capable of achieving those advantages

b. presentation of a quantitative and/or qualitative measure of each advantage’s value to society

example and definition of goals-criteria advocacy

Template for this presentational pattern:

Examination of societal values and the goals set to achieve these values.

Analysis of a proposed policy using selected value criteria said to gauge its ability to obtain the desired goal

-how the proposal meets the established goals

-a proposed oil pipeline is examined in terms of the value of “energy independence” criteria of reduced oil imports, increased domestic production from multiple energy sources, and job growth

definition and example of minor repairs argument

the strategy of policy opposition in which it is suggested that naturally occurring changes in existing institutions will remove any reason for change within the foreseeable future

ex. Case: School Lunches: Affirmative calls for a complete overhaul of the national school lunch program.

• Minor Repair: Negation argues that the existing program is sound, but simply needs a "repair" to its supplier contract and a small budget adjustment for healthier ingredient options, rather than a new law.

definition and purpose of stock issues

stock issues - general questions that can be applied to the proposition to generate the questions that might help generate your case for your proposition

purpose is to meet research responsibility and your responsibility to reason with your audience. used to determine what possible issues exist.