Understanding Logic and Recognizing Common Fallacies Assignment | Get Paper Help

In a fully developed short essay (minimum of eight paragraphs in length), please answer all of the questions below. 1. What role should logic play in modern argument? Which approach to reasoning do you think will be most useful for you in the research argument that you are developing in this course? 2. Using at least three of the common fallacies listed in this learning module, explain which errors in logic you see most frequently in your daily experience with the news, politics, and advertising. Please link to a news story, advertisement, or opinion piece in supporting your view (you should have at least three hyperlinks for this discussion, although you don’t need to include a “Works Cited” list as part of your discussion post). 3. In reflecting on Jones’s essay, Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic, (page 8 of the Learning Unit) how can we, as participants in American culture, foster a healthier environment for productive debate? Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of finding common ground in these important public discussions? Explain your views on finding common ground in the arguments that we engage with as participants in a complex and diverse culture. For the third question you do have to read the Finding the Good Argument or Why Bother With Logic. This essay is placed in Files

Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?
by Rebecca Jones
The word argument often means something negative. In Nina Paley’s cartoon (see Figure
1), the argument is literally a cat fight. Rather than envisioning argument as something
productive and useful, we imagine intractable sides and use descriptors such as “bad,”
“heated,” and “violent.” We rarely say, “Great, argument. Thanks!” Even when we write
an academic “argument paper,” we imagine our own ideas battling others.
Figure 1. This cartoon demonstrates the absurdity of either/or arguments. (© 1997-1998
by Nina Paley. Image available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
license.)
Linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson explain that the controlling metaphor we use
for argument in western culture is war:
It is important to see that we don’t just talk about arguments in terms of
war. We actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing
with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We
gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position
indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the
things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. (4)
If we follow the war metaphor along its path, we come across other notions such as, “all’s
fair in love and war.” If all’s fair, then the rules, principles, or ethics of an argument are
up for grabs. While many warrior metaphors are about honor, the “all’s fair” idea can
lead us to arguments that result in propaganda, spin, and, dirty politics. The war metaphor
offers many limiting assumptions: there are only two sides, someone must win decisively,
and compromise means losing. The metaphor also creates a false opposition where
argument (war) is action and its opposite is peace or inaction. Finding better arguments is
not about finding peace—the opposite of antagonism. Quite frankly, getting mad can be
productive. Ardent peace advocates, such as Jane Addams, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin
Luther King, Jr., offer some of the most compelling arguments of our time through
2
concepts like civil disobedience that are hardly inactive. While “argument is war” may be
the default mode for Americans, it is not the only way to argue. Lakoff and Johnson ask
their readers to imagine something like “argument is dance” rather than “argument is
war” (5). While we can imagine many alternatives to the war metaphor, concepts like
argument as collaboration are more common even if they are not commonly used.
Argument as collaboration would be more closely linked to words such as dialogue and
deliberation, cornerstone concepts in the history of American democracy.
However, argument as collaboration is not the prevailing metaphor for public
argumentation we see/hear in the mainstream media. One can hardly fault the average
American for not being able to imagine argument beyond the war metaphor. Think back
to the coverage of a recent major election cycle in 2008. The opponents on either side
(democrat/republican) dug in their heels and defended every position, even if it was
unpopular or irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The political landscape divided into
two sides with no alternatives. In addition to the entrenched positions, blogs and websites
such as FactCheck.org flooded us with lists of inaccuracies, missteps, and plain old
fallacies that riddled the debates. Unfortunately, the “debates” were more like speeches
given to a camera than actual arguments deliberated before the public. These important
moments that fail to offer good models lower the standards for public argumentation.
On an average news day, there are entire websites and blogs dedicated to noting ethical,
factual, and legal problems with public arguments, especially on the news and radio talk
shows. This is not to say that all public arguments set out to mislead their audiences, but
rather that the discussions they offer masquerading as arguments are often merely
opinions or a spin on a particular topic and not carefully considered, quality arguments.
What is often missing from these discussions is research, consideration of multiple
vantage points, and, quite often, basic logic.
On news shows, we encounter a version of argument that seems more like a circus than a
public discussion. Programs split the screens while pundits attack each other from studios
spread throughout the country.
While all of the major networks use this visual format, with multiple speakers in multiple
windows like The Brady Bunch for the news, it is rarely used to promote ethical
deliberation. These talking heads offer a simulation of an argument. The different
windows and figures pictured in them are meant to represent different views on a topic,
often “liberal” and “conservative.” This is a good start because it sets up the possibility
for thinking through serious issues in need of solutions. Unfortunately, the people in the
windows rarely actually engage in an argument. As we will discuss below, one of the
rules of good argument is that participants in an argument agree on the primary
standpoint and that individuals are willing to concede if a point of view is proven wrong.
If you watch one of these “arguments,” you will see a spectacle where prepared speeches
are hurled across the long distances that separate the participants. Rarely do the talking
heads respond to the actual ideas/arguments given by the person pictured in the box next
to them on the screen unless it is to contradict one statement with another of their own.
3
Even more troubling is the fact that participants do not even seem to agree about the point
of disagreement. For example, one person might be arguing about the congressional vote
on health care while another is discussing the problems with Medicaid. While these are
related, they are different issues with different premises. This is not a good model for
argumentation despite being the predominant model that we encounter.
These shallow public models can influence argumentation in the classroom. One of the
ways we learn about argument is to think in terms of pro and con arguments. This
replicates the liberal/conservative dynamic we often see in the papers or on television (as
if there are only two sides to health care, the economy, war, or the deficit). This either/or
fallacy of public argument is debilitating. You are either for or against gun control, for or
against abortion, for or against the environment, for or against everything. Put this way,
the absurdity is more obvious. For example, we assume that someone who claims to be
an “environmentalist” is pro every part of the green movement. However, it is quite
possible to develop an environmentally sensitive argument that argues against a particular
recycling program. While many pro and con arguments are valid, they can erase nuance,
negate the local and particular, and shut down the very purpose of having an argument:
the possibility that you might change your mind, learn something new, or solve a
problem. This limited view of argument makes argumentation a shallow process. When
all angles are not explored or fallacious or incorrect reasoning is used, we are left with
ethically suspect public discussions that cannot possibly get at the roots of an issue or
work toward solutions.
Rather than an either/or proposition, argument is multiple and complex. An argument can
be logical, rational, emotional, fruitful, useful, and even enjoyable. As a matter of fact,
the idea that argument is necessary (and therefore not always about war or even about
winning) is an important notion in a culture that values democracy and equity. In
America, where nearly everyone you encounter has a different background and/or
political or social view, skill in arguing seems to be paramount, whether you are
inventing an argument or recognizing a good one when you see it.
The remainder of this essay takes up this challenge—inventing and recognizing good
arguments (and bad ones). From classical rhetoric, to Toulmin’s model, to contemporary
pragma-dialectics, this piece presents models of argumentation beyond pro and con.
Paying more attention to the details of an argument can offer a strategy for developing
sound, ethically aware arguments.
What Can We Learn from Models of Argumentation?
So far, I have listed some obstacles to good argument. I would like to discuss one other.
Let’s call it the mystery factor. Many times I read an argument and it seems great on the
surface, but I get a strange feeling that something is a bit off. Before studying
argumentation, I did not have the vocabulary to name that strange feeling. Additionally,
when an argument is solid, fair, and balanced, I could never quite put my finger on what
distinguished it from other similar arguments. The models for argumentation below give
4
us guidance in revealing the mystery factor and naming the qualities of a logical, ethical
argument.
Classical Rhetoric
In James Murphy’s translation of Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria, he explains that
“Education for Quintilian begins in the cradle, and ends only when life itself ends” (xxi).
The result of a life of learning, for Quintilian, is a perfect speech where “the student is
given a statement of a problem and asked to prepare an appropriate speech giving his
solution” (Murphy xxiii). In this version of the world, a good citizen is always a public
participant. This forces the good citizen to know the rigors of public argumentation:
“Rhetoric, or the theory of effective communication, is for Quintilian merely the tool of
the broadly educated citizen who is capable of analysis, reflection, and powerful action in
public affairs” (Murphy xxvii). For Quintilian, learning to argue in public is a lifelong
affair. He believed that the “perfect orator…cannot exist unless he is above all a good
man” (6). Whether we agree with this or not, the hope for ethical behavior has been a part
of public argumentation from the beginning.
The ancient model of rhetoric (or public argumentation) is complex. As a matter of fact,
there is no single model of ancient argumentation. Plato claimed that the Sophists, such
as Gorgias, were spin doctors weaving opinion and untruth for the delight of an audience
and to the detriment of their moral fiber. For Plato, at least in the Phaedrus, public
conversation was only useful if one applied it to the search for truth. In the last decade,
the work of the Sophists has been redeemed. Rather than spin doctors, Sophists like
Isocrates and even Gorgias, to some degree, are viewed as arbiters of democracy because
they believed that many people, and not just male, property-holding, Athenian citizens,
could learn to use rhetoric effectively in public.
Aristotle gives us a slightly more systematic approach. He is very concerned with logic.
For this reason, much of what I discuss below comes from his work. Aristotle explains
that most men participate in public argument in some fashion. It is important to note that
by “men,” Aristotle means citizens of Athens: adult males with the right to vote, not
including women, foreigners, or slaves. Essentially this is a homogenous group by race,
gender, and religious affiliation. We have to keep this in mind when adapting these
strategies to our current heterogeneous culture.
Aristotle explains:
…for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to
maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people
do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both
ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for
it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through
practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that
5
such an inquiry is the function of an art. (Honeycutt, “Aristotle’s
Rhetoric” 1354a I i)
For Aristotle, inquiry into this field was artistic in nature. It required both skill and
practice (some needed more of one than the other). Important here is the notion that
public argument can be systematically learned.
Aristotle did not dwell on the ethics of an argument in Rhetoric (he leaves this to other
texts). He argued that “things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency
to prevail over their opposites” and finally that “…things that are true and things that are
better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in”
(Honeycutt, “Aristotle’s Rhetoric” 1355a I i). As a culture, we are skeptical of this kind
of position, though I think that we do often believe it on a personal level. Aristotle admits
in the next line that there are people who will use their skills at rhetoric for harm. As his
job in this section is to defend the use of rhetoric itself, he claims that everything good
can be used for harm, so rhetoric is no different from other fields. If this is true, there is
even more need to educate the citizenry so that they will not be fooled by unethical and
untruthful arguments.
For many, logic simply means reasoning. To understand a person’s logic, we try to find
the structure of their reasoning. Logic is not synonymous with fact or truth, though facts
are part of evidence in logical argumentation. You can be logical without being truthful.
This is why more logic is not the only answer to better public argument.
Our human brains are compelled to categorize the world as a survival mechanism. This
survival mechanism allows for quicker thought. Two of the most basic logical strategies
include inductive and deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning starts from a premise
that is a generalization about a large class of ideas, people, etc. and moves to a specific
conclusion about a smaller category of ideas or things (All cats hate water; therefore, my
neighbor’s cat will not jump in our pool). While the first premise is the most general, the
second premise is a more particular observation. So the argument is created through
common beliefs/observations that are compared to create an argument. Here is an
example:
People who burn flags are unpatriotic. Major Premise
Sara burned a flag. Minor Premise
Sara is unpatriotic. Conclusion
The above is called a syllogism. As we can see in the example, the major premise offers a
general belief held by some groups and the minor premise is a particular observation. The
conclusion is drawn by comparing the premises and developing a conclusion. If you work
hard enough, you can often take a complex argument and boil it down to a syllogism.
This can reveal a great deal about the argument that is not apparent in the longer more
complex version.
6
Stanley Fish, professor and New York Times columnist, offers the following syllogism in
his July 22, 2007, blog entry titled “Democracy and Education”:
“The syllogism underlying these comments is (1) America is a democracy
(2) Schools and universities are situated within that democracy (3)
Therefore schools and universities should be ordered and administrated
according to democratic principles.”
Fish offered the syllogism as a way to summarize the responses to his argument that
students do not, in fact, have the right to free speech in a university classroom. The
responses to Fish’s standpoint were vehemently opposed to his understanding of free
speech rights and democracy. The responses are varied and complex. However, boiling
them down to a single syllogism helps to summarize the primary rebuttal so that Fish
could then offer his extended version of his standpoint.
Inductive reasoning moves in a different direction than deductive reasoning. Inductive
reasoning starts with a particular or local statement and moves to a more general
conclusion. I think of inductive reasoning as a stacking of evidence. The more particular
examples you give, the more it seems that your conclusion is correct. Inductive reasoning
is a common method for arguing, especially when the conclusion is an obvious
probability. Inductive reasoning is the most common way that we move around in the
world. If we experience something habitually, we reason that it will happen again. For
example, if we walk down a city street and every person smiles, we might reason that this
is a “nice town.” This seems logical. We have taken many similar, particular experiences
(smiles) and used them to make a general conclusion (the people in the town are nice).
Most of the time, this reasoning works. However, we know that it can also lead us in the
wrong direction. Perhaps the people were smiling because we were wearing inappropriate
clothing (country togs in a metropolitan city), or perhaps only the people living on that
particular street are “nice” and the rest of the town is unfriendly. Research papers
sometimes rely too heavily on this logical method. Writers assume that finding ten
versions of the same argument somehow prove that the point is true.
Here is another example. In Ann Coulter’s most recent book, Guilty: Liberal “Victims”
and Their Assault on America, she makes her (in)famous argument that single
motherhood is the cause of many of America’s ills. She creates this argument through a
piling of evidence. She lists statistics by sociologists, she lists all the single moms who
killed their children, she lists stories of single mothers who say outrageous things about
their life, children, or marriage in general, and she ends with a list of celebrity single
moms that most would agree are not good examples of motherhood. Through this list, she
concludes, “Look at almost any societal problem and you will find it is really a problem
of single mothers” (36). While she could argue, from this evidence, that being a single
mother is difficult, the generalization that single motherhood is the root of social ills in
America takes the inductive reasoning too far. Despite this example, we need inductive
reasoning because it is the key to analytical thought. To write an “analysis paper” is to
use inductive reasoning.
7
Most academic arguments in the humanities are inductive to some degree. When you
study humanity, nothing is certain. When observing or making inductive arguments, it is
important to get your evidence from many different areas, to judge it carefully, and
acknowledge the flaws. Inductive arguments must be judged by the quality of the
evidence since the conclusions are drawn directly from a body of compiled work.
The Appeals
“The appeals” offer a lesson in rhetoric that sticks with you long after the class has
ended. Perhaps it is the rhythmic quality of the words (ethos, logos, pathos) or, simply,
the usefulness of the concept. Aristotle imagined logos, ethos, and pathos as three kinds
of artistic proof. Essentially, they highlight three ways to appeal to or persuade an
audience: “(1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in its
various forms, (3) to understand emotions” (Honeycutt, Rhetoric 1356a).
While Aristotle and others did not explicitly dismiss emotional and character appeals,
they found the most value in logic. Contemporary rhetoricians and argumentation
scholars, however, recognize the power of emotions to sway us. Even the most stoic
individuals have some emotional threshold over which no logic can pass. For example,
we can seldom be reasonable when faced with a crime against a loved one, a betrayal, or
the face of an adorable baby.
The easiest way to differentiate the appeals is to imagine selling a product based on them.
Until recently, car commercials offered a prolific source of logical, ethical, and emotional
appeals.
Logos: Using logic as proof for an argument. For many students this takes the form of
numerical evidence. But as we have discussed above, logical reasoning is a kind of
argumentation.
Car Commercial: (Syllogism) Americans love adventure—Ford Escape
allows for off-road adventure— Americans should buy a Ford Escape.
OR
The Ford Escape offers the best financial deal.
Ethos: Calling on particular shared values (patriotism), respected figures of authority
(MLK), or one’s own character as a method for appealing to an audience.
Car Commercial: Eco-conscious Americans drive a Ford Escape.
OR
[Insert favorite movie star] drives a Ford Escape.
Pathos: Using emotionally driven images or language to sway your audience.
8
Car Commercial: Images of a pregnant woman being safely rushed to a
hospital. Flash to two car seats in the back seat. Flash to family hopping
out of their Ford Escape and witnessing the majesty of the Grand Canyon.
OR
After an image of a worried mother watching her sixteen-year-old
daughter drive away: “Ford Escape takes the fear out of driving.”
The appeals are part of everyday conversation, even if we do not use the Greek
terminology. Understanding the appeals helps us to make better rhetorical choices in
designing our arguments. If you think about the appeals as a choice, their value is clear.
Toulmin: Dissecting the Everyday Argument
Philosopher Stephen Toulmin studies the arguments we make in our everyday
lives. He developed his method out of frustration with logicians (philosophers of
argumentation) that studied argument in a vacuum or through mathematical
formulations:
All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, all A are C. (Eemeren, et al. 131)
Instead, Toulmin views argument as it appears in a conversation, in a letter, or some other
context because real arguments are much more complex than the syllogisms that make up
the bulk of Aristotle’s logical program. Toulmin offers the contemporary writer/reader a
way to map an argument. The result is a visualization of the argument process. This map
comes complete with vocabulary for describing the parts of an argument. The vocabulary
allows us to see the contours of the landscape—the winding rivers and gaping caverns.
One way to think about a “good” argument is that it is a discussion that hangs together, a
landscape that is cohesive (we can’t have glaciers in our desert valley). Sometimes we
miss the faults of an argument because it sounds good or appears to have clear
connections between the statement and the evidence, when in truth the only thing holding
the argument together is a lovely sentence or an artistic flourish.
For Toulmin, argumentation is an attempt to justify a statement or a set of statements.
The better the demand is met, the higher the audience’s appreciation. Toulmin’s
vocabulary for the study of argument offers labels for the parts of the argument to help us
create our map.
Claim: The basic standpoint presented by a writer/ speaker.
Data: The evidence which supports the claim.
9
Warrant: The justification for connecting particular data to a particular
claim. The warrant also makes clear the assumptions underlying the
argument.
Backing: Additional information required if the warrant is not clearly
supported.
Rebuttal: Conditions or standpoints that point out flaws in the claim or
alternative positions.
Qualifiers: Terminology that limits a standpoint. Examples include
applying the following terms to any part of an argument: sometimes,
seems, occasionally, none, always, never, etc.
Charting your own arguments and others helps you to visualize the meat of your
discussion. All the flourishes are gone and the bones revealed. Even if you cannot fit an
argument neatly into the boxes, the attempt forces you to ask important questions about
your claim, your warrant, and possible rebuttals. By charting your argument, you are
forced to write your claim in a succinct manner and admit, for example, what you are
using for evidence. Charted, you can see if your evidence is scanty, if it relies too much
on one kind of evidence over another, and if it needs additional support. This charting
might also reveal a disconnect between your claim and your warrant or cause you to
reevaluate your claim altogether.
Pragma-Dialectics: A Fancy Word for a Close Look at Argumentation
The field of rhetoric has always been interdisciplinary and so it has no problem including
argumentation theory. Developed in the Speech Communication Department at the
University of Amsterdam, pragma-dialectics is a study of argumentation that focuses on
the ethics of one’s logical choices in creating an argument. In Fundamentals of
Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary
Developments, Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst describe argumentation,
simply, as “characterized by the use of language for resolving a difference of opinion”
(275). While much of this work quite literally looks at actual speech situations, the work
can easily be applied to the classroom and to broader political situations.
While this version of argumentation deals with everything from ethics to arrangement,
what this field adds to rhetorical studies is a new approach to argument fallacies.
Fallacies are often the cause of the mystery feeling we get when we come across faulty
logic or missteps in an argument.
What follows is an adaptation of Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Francesca
Snoeck Henkemans’ “violations of the rules for critical engagement” from their book
Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (109). Rather than discuss rhetorical
fallacies in a list (ad hominem, straw man, equivocation, etc.), they argue that there
10
should be rules for proper argument to ensure fairness, logic, and a solution to the
problem being addressed. Violating these rules causes a fallacious argument and can
result in a standoff rather than a solution.
While fallacious arguments, if purposeful, pose real ethical problems, most people do not
realize they are committing fallacies when they create an argument. To purposely attack
someone’s character rather than their argument (ad hominem) is not only unethical, but
demonstrates lazy argumentation. However, confusing cause and effect might simply be a
misstep that needs fixing. It is important to admit that many fallacies, though making an
argument somewhat unsound, can be rhetorically savvy. While we know that appeals to
pity (or going overboard on the emotional appeal) can often demonstrate a lack of
knowledge or evidence, they often work. As such, these rules present argumentation as it
would play out in a utopian world where everyone is calm and logical, where everyone
cares about resolving the argument at hand, rather than winning the battle, and where
everyone plays by the rules. Despite the utopian nature of the list, it offers valuable
insight into argument flaws and offers hope for better methods of deliberation.
What follows is an adaptation of the approach to argumentation found in Chapters 7 and
8 of Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (Eemeren, et al. 109-54). The
rule is listed first, followed by an example of how the rule is often violated.
1. The Freedom Rule
“Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on
standpoints” (110).
There are many ways to stop an individual from giving her own argument. This can come
in the form of a physical threat but most often takes the form of a misplaced critique.
Instead of focusing on the argument, the focus is shifted to the character of the writer or
speaker (ad hominem) or to making the argument (or author) seem absurd (straw man)
rather than addressing its actual components. In the previous decades, either “Bush is
stupid” or “Obama is stupid” became common ad hominem attacks that allowed policy to
go unaddressed. To steer clear of the real issues of global warming, someone might claim
“Only a fool would believe global warming is real” or “Trying to suck all of the CO2 out
of the atmosphere with giant greenhouse gas machines is mere science fiction, so we
should look at abandoning all this greenhouse gas nonsense.”
2. The Burden-of-Proof Rule
“A party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so” (113).
This is one of my favorites. It is clear and simple. If you make an argument, you have to
provide evidence to back it up. During the 2008 Presidential debates, Americans watched
as all the candidates fumbled over the following question about healthcare: “How will
this plan actually work?” If you are presenting a written argument, this requirement can
be accommodated through quality, researched evidence applied to your standpoint.
11
3. The Standpoint Rule
“A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been
advanced by the other party” (116).
Your standpoint is simply your claim, your basic argument in a nutshell. If you disagree
with another person’s argument or they disagree with yours, the actual standpoint and not
some related but more easily attacked issue must be addressed. For example, one person
might argue that the rhetoric of global warming has created a multi-million-dollar green
industry benefiting from fears over climate change. This is an argument about the effects
of global warming rhetoric, not global warming itself. It would break the standpoint rule
to argue that the writer/speaker does not believe in global warming. This is not the issue
at hand.
4. The Relevance Rule
“A party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to
that standpoint” (119).
Similar to #3, this rule assures that the evidence you use must actually relate to your
standpoint. Let’s stick with same argument: global warming has created a green industry
benefiting from fears over climate change. Under this rule, your evidence would need to
offer examples of the rhetoric and the resulting businesses that have developed since the
introduction of green industries. It would break the rules to simply offer attacks on
businesses who sell “eco-friendly” products.
5. The Unexpressed Premise Rule
“A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed
by the other party or deny a premise that he or she has left implicit” (121).
This one sounds a bit complex, though it happens nearly every day. If you have been
talking to another person and feel the need to say, “That’s NOT what I meant,” then you
have experienced a violation of the unexpressed premise rule. Overall, the rule attempts
to keep the argument on track and not let it stray into irrelevant territory. The first
violation of the rule, to falsely present what has been left unexpressed, is to rephrase
someone’s standpoint in a way that redirects the argument. One person might argue, “I
love to go to the beach,” and another might respond by saying “So you don’t have any
appreciation for mountain living.” The other aspect of this rule is to camouflage an
unpopular idea and deny that it is part of your argument. For example, you might argue
that “I have nothing against my neighbors. I just think that there should be a noise
ordinance in this part of town to help cut down on crime.” This clearly shows that the
writer does believe her neighbors to be criminals but won’t admit it.
6. The Starting Point Rule
“No party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise
representing an accepted starting point” (128).
12
Part of quality argumentation is to agree on the opening standpoint. According to this
theory, argument is pointless without this kind of agreement. It is well known that
arguing about abortion is nearly pointless as long as one side is arguing about the rights
of the unborn and the other about the rights of women. These are two different starting
points.
7. The Argument Scheme Rule
“A standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended if the defense does not take
place by means of an appropriate argument scheme that is correctly applied” (130).
This rule is about argument strategy. Argument schemes could take up another paper
altogether. Suffice it to say that schemes are ways of approaching an argument, your
primary strategy. For example, you might choose emotional rather than logical appeals to
present your position. This rule highlights the fact that some argument strategies are
simply better than others. For example, if you choose to create an argument based largely
on attacking the character of your opponent rather than the issues at hand, the argument is
moot. Argument by analogy is a popular and well-worn argument strategy (or scheme).
Essentially, you compare your position to a more commonly known one and make your
argument through the comparison.
8. The Validity Rule
“The reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must be capable of being
made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises” (132).
This rule is about traditional logics. Violating this rule means that the parts of your
argument do not match up. For example, your cause and effect might be off: If you swim
in the ocean today you will get stung by a jelly fish and need medical care. Joe went to
the doctor today. He must have been stung by a jelly fish. While this example is obvious
(we do not know that Joe went swimming), many argument problems are caused by
violating this rule.
9. The Closure Rule
“A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the protagonist retracting the standpoint,
and a successful defense of a standpoint must result in the antagonist retracting his or her
doubts” (134).
This seems the most obvious rule, yet it is one that most public arguments ignore. If your
argument does not cut it, admit the faults and move on. If another writer/speaker offers a
rebuttal and you clearly counter it, admit that the original argument is sound. Seems
simple, but it’s not in our public culture. This would mean that George W. Bush would
have to have a press conference and say, “My apologies, I was wrong about the presence
of WMD,” or for someone who argued fervently that Americans want a single-payer
option for healthcare to instead argue something like, “The polls show that American’s
want to change healthcare, but not through the single-payer option. My argument was
13
based on my opinion that single-payer is the best way and not on public opinion.”
Academics are more accustomed to retraction because our arguments are explicitly part
of particular conversations. Rebuttals and renegotiations are the norm. That does not
make them any easier to stomach in an “argument is war” culture.
10. The Usage Rule
“Parties must not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly
ambiguous, and they must interpret the formulations of the other party as carefully and
accurately as possible” (136).
While academics are perhaps the worst violators of this rule, it is an important one to
discuss. Be clear. I notice in both student and professional academic writing that a
confusing concept often means confusing prose, longer sentences, and more letters in a
word. If you cannot say it/write it clearly, the concept might not yet be clear to you. Keep
working. Ethical violations of this rule happen when someone is purposefully ambiguous
so as to confuse the issue. We can see this on all the “law” shows on television or though
deliberate propaganda.
Food for thought: The above rules offer one way to think about shaping an argument
paper. Imagine that the argument for your next paper is a dialogue between those who
disagree about your topic. After doing research, write out the primary standpoint for your
paper. For example: organic farming is a sustainable practice that should be used more
broadly. Next, write out a standpoint that might offer a refutation of the argument. For
example: organic farming cannot supply all of the food needed by the world’s population.
Once you have a sense of your own argument and possible refutations, go through the
rules and imagine how you might ethically and clearly provide arguments that support
your point without ignoring the opposition.
Even though our current media and political climate do not call for good argumentation,
the guidelines for finding and creating it abound. There are many organizations such as
America Speaks (www.americaspeaks.org) that are attempting to revive quality, ethical
deliberation. On the personal level, each writer can be more deliberate in his or her
argumentation by choosing to follow some of these methodical approaches to ensure the
soundness and general quality of the argument. The above models offer the possibility
that we can imagine modes of argumentation other than war. The final model, pragmadialectics,
especially, seems to consider argument as a conversation that requires constant
vigilance and interaction by participants. Argument as conversation, as new metaphor for
public deliberation, has possibilities.
14
Works Cited
Coulter, Ann. Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America. New York:
Crown Forum, 2009. Print.
Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. 4th
ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2009. Print.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory:
A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996. Print.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, and Francesca Snoeck Henkemans.
Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah: Erlbaum, NJ: 2002.
Print.
Fish, Stanley. “Democracy and Education.” New York Times 22 July 2007: n. pag. Web.
5 May 2010.
Honeycutt, Lee. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A Hypertextual Resource Compiled by Lee
Honeycutt.” 21 June 2004. Web. 5 May 2010.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U of Chicago P,
1980. Print.
Murphy, James. Quintilian On the Teaching and Speaking of Writing. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois UP, 1987. Print.
“Plato, The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 1 [387 AD].” Online Library of Liberty, n. d. Web. 5
May 2010.
Attribution
(16) “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With
Logic?” http://writingspaces.org/essays/finding-the-good-argument is by Rebecca Jones licensed
under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.