Intro to Arguments

Inductive Argument

An argument that suggests that the conclusion follows from the premises with a degree of probability rather than certainty.

Deductive Argument

An argument that provide full support for the conclusion.

Premise

Statements/evidence given to support the conclusion.

Indicator words: since, because, assuming that…, for, if, inasmuch as…

Conclusion

The central point that you are arguing for.

Indicator words: therefore, thus, hence, so, it follows that…, we may infer that…, we may conclude that…

Good Argument

A good argument must have premises (evidence/reasoning) and conclusion (central point).

Structure of Deductive Argument

Major Premier: A general statement or principle.

Minor Premise: A specific instance of the major premise.

Conclusion: Derived logically from the premises.

EX Structure of Deductive Argument

Major Premise (1): All me are mortal. (General principle)

Minor premise(2): Socrates is a man. (Specific instance)

Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Fallacy

A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning or an unsound argument.

Fallacy: to deceive (Latin)

Good Conditional Argument

Affirming the antecedent (Modus Ponens):

P1: "If A, then B."

P2: "A"

C: "Therefore, B."

ex)

P1: "If it is raining (A), then the street is wet (B)."

P2: "It is raining (A)."

C: "Therefore, the street is wet (B)."

Denying the consequent (Modus Tollens)

P1: “If A, then B.”

P2: “Not (B).”

C: “Therefore, not (A).”

P1: “If the cake is made with sugar (A), then it is sweet (B)”.

P2: “The cake is not sweet (not B)”.

C: “Therefore, the cake is not made with sugar (not A)”.

Appeal to Emotion

Argument relies on manipulation of the audience’s emotions rather than providing valid reasoning or evidence. This tactic aims to persuade by stirring feelings like fear, pity, anger, joy, rather than presenting valid support for the argument.

EX) A charity ad shows images of starving children with emotionally charged music, urging viewers to donate money to help.

Appeal to force

Involves attempting to persuade others by threatening them with negative consequences rather than presenting evidence for one’s position. This tactic aims to use intimidation instead of rational argument.

EX) “Emily, don’t argue with me—remember who assigns your grade at the end of the course,” says Mr. Tim. Here, the threat of a poor grade is used to deter disagreement, rather than providing reasons for the argument.

Straw Man

Involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. This tactic aims to divert the attention from the real issue and attacking the weaker version of the argument.

EX) Mother: “I think we should encourage the children to watch less television and get more physical exercise.” Father: “So you think I’ve let the kids become lazy, unhealthy TV addicts, do you?”

Red Herring

Attempts to divert attention from the real issue by introducing a side issue. The tactic is to shift to an unrelated topic, leading to a conclusion that doesn’t address the original question.

EX) Boss to Jim: “I know you haven’t had a raise in three years, but remember the nice office we gave you last year.” The boss distracts from the issue of Jim’s lack of raise by highlighting a past benefit, avoiding addressing the current concern.

Ad Hominem

Attempt to attack the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. “Ad hominem” means “against the person,” and such fallacies undermine the argument by targeting the individual.

EX) “This theory about a new COVID-19 cure comes from someone who denigrates women in business. We shouldn’t listen to him.” This attack focuses on the person’s negative attributes rather than the validity of their theory.

Argument from Ignorance

A logical fallacy that claims a proposition is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false, or vice versa. This tactic relies on a lack of evidence to support a claim rather than presenting positive evidence for the proposition itself.

EX) “No one has ever proven that ghosts don’t exist, so they must exist.”

Appeal to Inappropriate Authority

The argument is supported by citing an authority who is not qualified or relevant in the specific context. This tactic attempts to invoke an authority whose expertise is unrelated or irrelevant to the topic.

EX) A famous actor endorses a policy on global warming despite lacking expertise in environmental science.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

It assuming that just because one event follows another, the first event must have cause the second. “Post Hoc” means “after this, therefore because of this.” This tactic mistakes correlation for causation.

EX) “I wore my lucky socks to the exam and aced it. My lucky socks must have helped me do well.”

Slippery slope

This suggests that if one action is taken, it will lead to a series of negative events. This tactic argues that allowing one thing will inevitably result in a cascade of undesirable consequences.

EX) “If we allow AI to manage our traffic systems, the next step will be AI controlling all aspects of our lives, leading to a loss of personal freedom.”

Hasty Generalization

This fallacy involves drawing a broad conclusion based on a few specific cases or instances, rather than considering a larger, more representative sample. This tactic leads to inaccuracies and reinforces stereotypes or misconceptions.

EX) “I met two people from Fresno who were rude, so everyone from Fresno must be rude.”