You will be responsible for demonstrating on the final exam your knowledge of the material below.
It helps to think about these components in terms of destinations and road-maps. Acceptance of the arguer's claim is the end point of argumentation; using evidence and reasoning in support of the claim is the means for arriving at the end point. Keep in mind that a claim is not a fact; rather, it is an opinion which the speaker or writer wants the target audience to accept. Argumentation, therefore, involves persuasion, the conscious intent by the communicator to gain agreement for the claim from his/her listeners or readers. The communicator is not principally concerned with convincing those already inclined to accept his/her claim but with those members of the audience who will provide resistance. In other words, a segment of the audience will not want to arrive at the arguer's final destination. Claims are, therefore, designed to be controversial since the communicator will have to work hard at winning over that segment of the audience which is disinclined to view the claim as valid. The audience may change their minds if the communicator persuades them that the claim is worthy of acceptance because it flows from the evidence and reasoning behind it.
To support a claim, the communicator will need to provide evidence. Evidence needs to be carefully chosen to serve the needs of the claim and to reach the target audience. Evidence which one audience finds persuasive may not be for other audiences. It is useful to split evidence up into primary and secondary. Primary evidence involves material the arguer generates directly including observations, interviews, surveys/questionnaires, experiments, and personal experiences. Here is a brief synopsis of each of these types of evidence.
Observations: Observations are recordings of data drawn from various sources. An arguer's claim can rest on such recorded details or data. Observations need to be precise and detailed in order to constitute persuasive evidence for a claim. For example, Lunsford (2001) reports a study conducted by W. Charisse Goodman based on her observations of women's images in eleven women's magazines. Goodman's claim "that the media render large women invisible" was supported by her observations that only 11 out of 645 pictures contained images of heavy-set women.
Interviews: Interviews can provide credible, expert testimony in support of a claim. Information drawn from interviews may have persuasive appeal if the interviewee is a recognized authority in a particular field or subject matter.
Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys and questionnaires provide the means to accumulate information from a target audience. Such information may be used in support of a claim. For instance, on election night the major news organizations may declare the winner of a contest based on exit polling data (asking voters whom they voted for and keeping a tally of the results).
Experiments: Experimental data is often used in the science fields to back up claims (such as a clinical trial in which a control group is given a placebo while an experimental group is given a drug and the effects are monitored). Informal experiments can also be conducted such as when a person asks his or her friends to take a blind-folded taste test in order to determine which soft drink is diet Pepsi versus regular.
Personal Experience: Lived experience can be persuasive evidence when arguing on behalf of a claim. Writers like James Baldwin, for example, have written persuasive essays on black-white race relations based on their experiences with racial discrimination and segregation. Personal experience may, however, need to be supplemented with other types of evidence in order to broaden the persuasive appeal and power of the argument.
Secondary sources of evidence refer to research compiled by others through sources such as books, articles, movies, the Internet. Secondary sources are easily obtained via the library and online.
An argument, then, is designed to persuade a resistant audience to accept a claim via the presentation of evidence. Evidence alone, however, will not do the job. Reasoning refers to the way evidence is used in support of the claim. An arguer may have a destination point and a road-map for getting there, but unless the signs along the way are clearly marked and in the logical order, the traveller will become lost. Maps, after all, must be read so that the directions make sense.
To make the connections clear between the evidence and the claim, the arguer must consider these elements:
The Audience: Audience analysis is a crucial step. Appeals are created to address an envisioned audience, taking into consideration their biases, attitudes, and beliefs. Lack of knowledge about the audience would be a disasterous strategic error, for the arguer could easily harden existing resistance or alienate those who might otherwise be open to a different point of view. Whatever the audience happens to be, arguers can take steps to maximize their chances of connecting with their intended audience. The following are specific ways in which such a goal may be pursued:
Focus on Being Knowledgeable: Audiences may be inclined to listen to our claim if we project ourselves as knowledgeable and informed. If we fail to back-up our claims with facts, statistics, reasons, etc. our audience has no reason to regard us as credible; our arguments and claims will, therefore, lack weight and we will be dismissed as a crank (or worse).
Focus on Being Empathetic: Despite the differences between the audience members and the arguer, there is common ground which can be appealed to. It is worth considering that common ground by addressing values which both parties subscribe to. An appeal to shared values can create a bond between speaker and listener, writer and reader. Once that bond is built, the audience may be more receptive to claims and arguments which challenge their values or which propose an alternative set of values. Audience empathy and receptivity can also be achieved through a focus on shared experiences. Arguers might also do well to consider appeals which are relevant to the audience in terms of timeliness (up-to-date rather than outmoded appeals) and which are broad-based enough to avoid unpersuasive extremism.
Focus on Tone and Language Use: The words the communicator uses are crucial to establishing a climate in which changed views or acceptance of controversial claims is more likely to take place. Arguers should avoid language which creates a condescending or hostile tone which would convey to their audience a lack of respect. Likewise, the arguer should be aware of the impact of loaded language, of words which convey extreme bias and project an image of the arguer as manipulative, more a demagogue with a coercise agenda than a fair and open-minded individual interested in an examination and exchange of views.
The Amount of Evidence Needed: Quality argumentation depends in part on quantity of evidence. The arguer should expect audiences to not be persuaded by scant evidence or by lack of variety/scope (evidence drawn from only one source as opposed to diverse sources) . On the other hand, too much evidence, particularly when not carefully crafted, may leave the audience overwhelmed and without focus. Evidence and reasoning in support of the claim should reach what Lunsford (2001) calls "critical mass"--evidence which, when stacked up and linked to the claim, achieves a level which makes its acceptance highly likely.
The Organization of Evidence: Arguers need a carefully thought-out arrangement of evidence and reasoning. Reasoning ensures that the evidence proceeds in a logical, structured fashion which promotes clarity, focus, and comprehension by the audience.
Argumentative appeals come in many forms, some relying on logic, others on values, and others on emotion. Effective argumentation may encompass all three. Below is a primer on these types of argumentation, starting with appeals to emotion.
Emotional Appeals: Audiences have emotions, feelings--an undeniable fact. If an arguer can tap into an audience's emotions, he/she may also be able to persuade them to hold certain ideas or follow a particular course of action. Emotional appeals may be particularly effective in moving audiences beyond an acceptance of a claim to acting upon the implications of holding the claim (for instance, an audience watching a "Save the Children" T.V. advertisement may accept the claim that the children need monetary help for medical care, education, etc. However, the emotional appeal of images of children suffering may rouse the feelings necessary for a viewer to get out his/her checkbook and sponsor a child).
Emotional appeals are crucial to forming a bond of trust between the audience and the arguer; an audience who identifies emotionally with the speaker may be more inclined to accept his/her claim. The right emotional tone may also bolster logical arguments by creating an appealing image of the speaker or writer as passionate or legitimately outraged. Consider, for example, an empassioned advocate against drunk driving who bolsters her claim that criminal penalties have to be made more severe with a personal account of how her daughter was murdered by a three time convicted drunk driver whose license was never revoked. Humor may also strike a responsive emotional chord in the audience, thus making them more receptive to accept the viewpoint which the humor conveys. Humor, however, can be good-natured or take the form of barbs, pointed comments which veer into the realm of ridicule (thus, it may backfire when not employed wisely).
Value-Based Appeals: Individuals form groups around fundamental, shared values. These values guide behavior and attitudes by contrasting preferred from disapproved of actions or thoughts. People come to define themselves as individuals according to their group affiliations and allegiances. An arguer must delineate his/her values and the claims which flow from holding them, but he/she must also have a keen sense of how those values reinforce or challenge the ones held by the audience. For example, a protester whose religious value system equates abortion with murder may act upon this value by chaining him/herself to a mailbox in front of a Planned Parenthood Center. The protester may argue that his/her actions are justified on the grounds of an American history rich in civil disobedience. Assuming we share the protester's valuing of civil disobedience but we personally support abortion as legal, we are faced with competing value systems and a comparative process of defining where common ground ends and conflict begins. Values are, therefore, a potent field upon which our claims can be grounded, either rallying support or demarcating battle lines.
Character-Based Appeals: Audiences are always aware of (they size up) who the person is making the claim. They implicitly or explicitly ask whether that person is someone they can trust, someone they have affinity for or hostility toward. Embedded within this relationship is the granting or denial of authority to the speaker from the audience. Authority may be granted when the audience deems the speaker as knowledgeable, as worthy of listening to. Such granting of authority may be based on the compelling personal experience which the speaker clearly demonstrates; likewise, it may rest on the speaker's reputation such as his/her professional business, work, or educational credentials. Arguers may help to establish their authority through the style of their language use, word choice which conveys an assertive, confident tone of conviction. A writer or speaker who sounds authoratative may indeed be viewed that way by his/her audience. In addition to confidence, honesty may play a role in establishing this image of credibility. Such honesty may take the form of vulnerability in which an arguer builds trust with his audience by admitting he/she doesn't have all the answers but is thoughtfully proposing some possible answers which make sense to him/her. Audiences may respond favorably to an arguer who actively presents counterevidence which causes a more critically-minded examination of his/her claim. Recognizing opposition arguments and objections, taking them into account, coming to grips with them, can have the benefit of focusing one's argumentation and therefore making one's claims seem more credible.
Fact/Reason-Based Appeals: While emotional appeals can be persuasive, audiences may also respond favorably to logical appeals. Such appeals rely upon the presentation of facts, evidence, and reasoning. Without reasons, an audience is under no obligation to accept the arguer's claims (or even to understand the basis for them). Factual information can provide an arguer with a persuasive armament designed to sway the audience. Consider, for instance, statistical information (based on documented case data) which establishes the number of people who die or are hospitalized with serious injuries due to cigarette smoking. When we are ill and seek about a diagnosis from a physician, the first thing we want is the facts--if our blood pressure is high, what are our systolic and diastolic numbers? What numbers establish too high a cholesterol level? Arguers are careful to ground their claims in such statistical, fact-based information. A politician, for instance, arguing on behalf of increased funding for battered-women shelters, might cite longitudinal study data (from reputable academic or public policy research groups) which establishes such a need based on a steady rising of cases.
While facts and statistics can be persuasive, they should not be accepted at face-value. Remember to evaluate fact and reason-based appeals within the overall context which the arguer is attempting to establish. In other words, be wary of arguers who may massage numerical data in order to reach conclusion which may not be wholly reliable. Statistics may be appropriated by different arguers to establish different claims. Lunsford (2001) cites an example of statistics which express the U.S. unemployment rate. To say, for instance, the President in a state of the union address might laud a figure which places unemployment at 5 percent (and, therefore, employment at 95 percent). However, when viewed from the perspective of what the 5 percent constitutes in numbers of real people without jobs (14 million people), the figure becomes a sign of failure not success.
Logical or fact-based appeals are also presented through polling and survey information. The same caveat applies; be sure to assess numerical information by asking not only what purpose it is being used to serve (what claim) but in whose interest. For example, you can find copious medical study data at coffee.org which argues for the health benefits of caffeine consumption and seeks to debunk the myths about health detriments. The website is maintained by an industry marketing group which has a vested interest in encouraging coffee sales. The medical study data on the site must therefore be evaluated not solely based on the figures included but on the claim those figures are used to support and the people who are appropriating those figures for a specific argumentative purpose.
Polling and survey results are also subject to scrutiny based upon the wording of the questions. A change in word choice may evoke a changed response from the poll or survey taker.
In addition to numerical, statistical data as forms of logical appeal, arguers also resort to personal sources such as testimonials, first-person reportage, and interviews. In court rooms, for instance, the accounts offered by eye witnesses can be compelling evidence in arguing for the guilt or innocence of the accused. Anecdotes (personal experiences reported in the service of a claim) may also sway audiences. For example, actor Danny Glover persuasively claimed that his race was a probable factor which accounted for multiple cases he experienced in which urban cab drivers refused to pick him up for fear of his being a criminal. When observations are made about a particular group of people over an extended period of time, anecdotes move into ethnographic reporting. Based upon her time spent in Samoa, for example, anthropologist Margaret Mead described the rituals of passage into adulthood for Samoan girls.
Interviews also provide the means through which logical appeals can be made, this time by using the words of others as evidence in support of claims. It is common practice to ground claims in expert testimony derived either though real-time discussion (as when a lawyer cross-examines a witness at a trial) or through delayed reporting (as when a newspaper reporter includes quotes from an interview with a prominent public figure).
It helps to view argumentation as a process of molding discourse for particular purposes and geared toward particular audiences. How one develops an argument depends on the nature of the rhetorical problem which the argument seeks to solve. For instance, many arguments are formed around the need to delineate categories or classifications. In the field of criminal law, a basic differentiation is made between misdemeanors and felonies, but on what grounds? One means of developing argument is through definition. While murder is classified as a felony, failure to pay a traffic ticket falls under the category of misdemeanor. As a result of this diffentiation, a series of consequences flow such as what types of punishment each crime warrants.
Arguments developed through definition are important in establishing differential treatment, and can therefore be contentious. For instance, eligibility requirements set definitions which some may meet and others not, thus precluding benefits from being dispensed to those who don't meet the definition of "eligible".
Definitional argumentation may center around why an item is part of a class (corn, peas, and carrots are defined as vegetables whereas apples and pears are fruits) or how items within the same class differ (how is a viola different from a violin?).
Definitional argumentation can hinge upon whether conditions are present or absent. A rock can be said to be inanimate while a dog is animate because the dog can move, reproduce, experience pain, etc. If a person fails to stop at a red light and is seen by a police officer, the person meets the definition of having committed a traffic violation.
Examples also play a key role in definitional argumentation. A resume, for instance, offers a prospective employer numerous compelling examples of the applicant's successes, achievements, qualifications--all designed to persuade the audience that the person is worthy of being hired. Likewise, job descriptions are often defined by a listing of the representative sample of duties which the employee is expected to perform
Be aware the developing a claim based on definition requires careful thought and presentation of persuasive evidence. The audience will need to understand the criteria used to establish the definition--what it includes and excludes and why. This entails a juggling act of comparison and contrast. Defining a snake as a non-mammal may be relatively easy based on criteria such as warm vs. cold-blooded. However, arguing for a universally agreed upon definition of what a fetus is turns out to be politically explosive.
Evaluative argumentation is related to definitional argumentation in that a set of criteria must be established. Here, the purpose is to argue persuasively that a particular course of action should be taken or a particular judgment should be made. Contentiousness lies in wait here as well, for evaluation is a sensitive topic and misevaluation can create damage. Evaluative argumentation may rely upon values-based as well as logical/fact-based appeals. For example, an engineer may reliably evaluate the necessary structural load a beam must bare by using mathematical formulas, equations, co-efficients, etc. So, it is possible and in many cases necessary to rely on quantitative (numbers, figures, stats) evidence in conducting evaluative argumentation.
A great deal of evaluative argumentation proceeds along values-based grounds, involving qualitative evidence. For instance, a restaurant critic who assigns a five star rating to a particular restaurant may not make this judgment based on quantifiable evidence along. How does one quantify criteria such as the ambiance of the restaurant? or the taste of the food? Articulating the rationale behind evaluative judgments entails an exploration of values and standards. It helps, of course, to not make claims so sweeping or monolithic. To claim that "television is a waste of time" backs the arguer into a position which leaves no room for qualification or moderation. Evaluative claims should also avoid bias or prejudice, as in "The food there can't be any good. Jonathan eats there all the time." This claim says more about the arguer's assumptions about Jonathan's taste (or lack thereof!) than it does the quality of the restaurant's food.
Evaluative argumentation requires extensive evidence and a clear presentation of how that evidence leads one to accept the judgment being made. The criteria or standards for evaluation must be defined in detail, as must the reasons why the standards are met or not.
Another common mode of argumentative development is cause-effect. Each day, the decisions we make and are affected by revolve around cause-effect thinking. (e.g. why did we buy a Honda Accord versus a Chevy Malibu? why did we take this blood pressure medication as opposed to another? why did we vote for a particular political candidate?). Cause-effect analysis may involve charting multiple effects for a particular cause (such as the results of implementing President Bush's proposal to partially privatize the social security system), tracing the causes behind a particular effect (such as when a doctor diagnoses the reasons behind his patient's recent heart attack), or mapping a chain of related causes (such as when a shift in policy by the Arab Oil Emerates results in a reduction in the supply of oil which causes an increase in gas prices which causes domestic discussion of increased funding for alternative fuel sources).
Cause-effect argumentation, like definitional and evaluative, is a complex affair. The relationship between causes and effects may not be simple or clear. Results can be produced from numerous causal factors. The best an arguer can hope for is to establish enough evidence (a preponderance) to make the relationship between cause and effect seem plausible or probable. Examples can be brought to bare effectively in the service of cause-effect argumentation. If you are arguing that the U.S. should shift its economy away from fossile fuels to hydrogen cell technology for use in automobiles, you might cite numerous examples of the positive results (less air pollution, less reliance on foreign oil, higher mileage). Another useful tool is to employ analogies (comparing two events to draw out the similarities); you might argue that automotive manufacturers are already phasing in hybrid automobile technologies which combine electric power with the internal combustion engine. Hydrogen is, therefore, the next step in an evolutionary process which has already begun.
Cause-effect argumentation often involves theory creation--the ability to offer a hypothesis which accounts for most of the data. The extinction of the dinosaurs (an effect) and the origins of the universe (an effect) have been addressed through causal hypotheses. Such theory-creation can also be facilitated through the use of personal experience (as in the famous story of Sir Isaac Newton, gravity, and the apple falling).
First, a few basic definitions. A syllogism is a statement of arguments in which, if the major premise and the minor premise are true, the conclusion will be true as well. Here is an example of a syllogism, a tool of formal logic:
Major Premise: All mammals are warm blooded.
Minor Premise: The elephant is a mammal.
Conclusion: The elephant is warm blooded.
An enthymeme (a term coined by Aristotle) refers to a sentence which makes a claim attached to a reason. Here are two examples of enthymemes:
The Patriots will defeat the Packers in the Super Bowl based upon having the stronger defense.
Security at airports is substantially better because of new federal guidelines and increased training of airport screeners.
To examine in more detail whether an enthymeme can form the basis for sustainable, persuasive argumentation, we turn to philosopher Stephen Toulmin, who introduced a model based on tying claims to reasons to warrants.
The first step is to craft statements which attach reasons to claims. In our sample enthymeme above, "The Patriots will defeat the Packers in the Super Bowl" is the claim and "based upon having the stronger defense is the reason." Before we are willing to accept the truth of the claim, we must examine the warrant, the connection between the claim and the reason. If the warrant is sound, we may nod assent to the claim. The warrant might be expressed this way:
Defense is the key to winning football games
If the warrant can be shown to be true and if the Patriots do indeed have the better defense, the claim might reasonably be accepted.
It is important to examine the warrant behind your enthymeme so that you can see if your argument is reasonable, defensible, and viable (arguable). Take this
enthymeme:
You shouldn't smoke pot because it's illegal
Claim: You shouldn't smoke pot.
Reason: Smoking pot is illegal
Warrant: If something is illegal, you shouldn't do it.
Articulating the warrant makes us consider the complexity of our argumentative task. What cases can you think of in which breaking the law is justifiable and necessary?
Using Toulmin's system can help you ensure that you state your limit your claim appropriately to what the evidence can support, that you analyze the grounds upon which a claim rests, that you examine the assumptions which the arguer and the audience may or may not share in regards to the claim, and that you consider possible counter-evidence or counter-claims which the audience will raise.
Reasoned argumentation can go awry in numerous ways. Faulty logic comes in various forms, all of which are to avoided. The following list lays out how the logic train can become derailed.
Scare Tactics: Emotional appeals based in threats are known as scare tactics. When my brother or I would make a crude face when we were kids, we might expect to hear our mother say in a scolding tone, "Your face will freeze that way!" Scare tactics represent faulty reasoning because they appeal to our fear response, and may be used to rouse irrational suspicion, prejudice, and hostily toward targeted groups. Scare tactics, for instance, played a role in demonizing the Jewish population of post World War I Germany, leading to the rise of Facism and the Holocaust
Either-Or-Thinking: The either-or appeal reduces the audience's options to two rigid choices; polarized thinking is therefore encouraged, with one option being presented as wholly preferrable while the other is wholly abhorrant. In addition, issues presented in either-or appeal deny the complexity inherent in choices, reducing them to simple equations. A claim by a politician that school vouchers must be enacted or we will forever be stuck with ineffective public schools may appeal to the pro-voucher audience but doesn't address the myriad ways in which school reform is taking place aside from the voucher issue. Either-or appeals do not encouraged a hightened level of awareness about issues due to the tendency to oversimplify.
Slippery Slope: The metaphor here is of a snowball which starts down a hill and gathers mass until it forms into a destructive, unstoppable boulder. While it is true that an action in the present does have consequences for the future, the slippery slope appeal distorts the connection, stretching to unreasonable limits the predicted impact of future events. The NRA might fallaciously argue, for instance, that a ban on assault rifles is one step away from negation of the Second Amendment's right-to-bear arms clause. The slippery slope appeal can thus be tied to the strategy of scare tactics, for it is designed to exaggerate beyond reasonable evidence feelings of fear and threatening (but totally unrealistic) consequences.
Hopping on the Band Wagon: This fallacy asserts that what is popular is preferrable or right. In other words, because everyone else is doing it makes it (whatever it is) the right course of action. Teenagers (and adults, too) may be driven toward certain buying decisions based on what is fashionable or trendy. However, the fact that an item is popularly consumed does not inherently argue for its value. The bandwagon effect, when attaining widespread following, has had disasterous consequences, as evidenced by events such as the Salem Witch Trials, the persecution of Americans under McCarthyism, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
False Authority: Fallacious reasoning can be based on the notion that just because a person is an authority (or is asserted to be one), his/her claim is inherently true. The authority of the person is not, in and of itself, grounds for accepting the claim. To say that something is true simply because a person in authority said so is a linkage obviously open to question and challenge. Claims to authority may also be grounded in sacred objects such as texts (e.g. the Bible, the Koran) and through the power of institutions; however, the same principle applies--appeals to authority alone are not sufficient grounds for a claim to be accepted.
Dogmatism: Dogmatism presents claims as doctrinally (inherently) true, not subject to revision or falsification. As such, dogmatic proclamations do not invite argumentation and fail to meet the standard of controversiality. Dogmatism has the effect of enforcing one world view by shutting out an examination of alternatives.
Moral Equivalence: The moral equivalence appeal falsely collapses minor and major wrongdoing into one common category. An office co-worker might argue, for instance, that he/she is not stealing but "borrowing" office supplies like pens and staplers for use at home. Here, the argument is that minor theft is not theft at all when compared,let's say, to a bank robber committing armed robbery. Likewise, a man who is having an affair may argue that he is no different from the millions of other married American men who have cheated on their wives, thus recasting his immoral behavior as acceptable since it falls within a perceived societal norm.
Ad Hominem: An ad hominem appeal (in Latin, meaning "to the man") directs its attack at the person making the claim rather than the claim itself. Ad hominem amounts, therefore, to character assassination, the linkage being that if the reputation of the arguer can be attacked and discredited so, too, will his/her ideas. Reasoned argumentation refrains from stooping to the low, manipulative level of irrelevant personal attacks. Ad Hominem attacks can be seen in abundance in political campaign advertising.
Hasty Generalization: Generalizations are often made without sufficient evidence. On the basis of a limited sample size, a broad-based generalization is made which tries to account for more than it reasonably can. Hasty generalizations are easily seen in inaccurate racial stereotypes such as "Irishmen are all drunks" or "Jews are cheap." Valid, reliable reasoning ensures that any inference made rests upon a sound sampling of representative evidence.
Faulty Causation: The Latin name for this fallacy is "ergo propter hoc", meaning "after this, therefore because of this." Our minds are naturally geared toward cause-effect analysis; however, to avoid this fallacy we must be careful about critically examining the causal linkages to see how well they hold. If, for example, a member of a Native American tribe performs a traditional rain dance and rain begins to fall, can we say that the rain dance produced the effect? Causality is not a simple equation--an effect may have myriad causes, some of which we aren't readily aware of.
Begging the Question: To understand the fallacious reasoning in begging the question, one must uncover how the reasoning offered on behalf of the claim is asserted as if it is an unquestionable fact when the truth is exactly the opposite. Take for example this claim: "You can't arrest me; I'm the president of the United States." The reasoning asserts that the President is not subject to the same laws as any other U.S. citizen--a clearly false reason. Begging the question is an appeal which attempts to divert attention away from the true relationship between the claim and the evidence.
Equivocation: Think of equivocation as a wolf in lamb's clothing, a falsehood dressed up as if it were the truth. A person who says "I didn't lie; I simply didn't tell the truth" may be said to be caught in an equivocation. President Clinton's testimony that he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky was seen as an equivocation by those who regarded oral sex as sex (a definition President Clinton did not subscribe to).
Non Sequitur: Arguments need to follow a logical connection between the evidence, reasoning, and claims. A non sequitur fails to follow this requirement. For example, a husband who says to his wife "If you loved me, you'd go to the 49er's game with me" is engaged in a non sequitur. Tying love for her husband to attendance at a football game does not consitute a logical linkage. The conclusion (you don't love me if you don't do I want you to do) does not follow from the premise.
Faulty Analogy: Analogies can be powerful tools for critical thinking. When Shakespeare compares human beings to players on a stage, the analogy is rich in meaningful implications (each person plays a role, our life is a drama consisting of actions, etc.). However, analogies can be stretched beyond reason, setting up a false equivalence or context. To equate death with sleep, for instance, may work on some levels but clearly not on others (sleepers wake up while the dead do not).
You will find this resource helpful in reinforcing the material on this page. Final exam questions may also be drawn from this resource.
Argumentation Home Page from the University of Washington
Return to the English
2 Homepage