ARGUMENTATION559
558 ARGUMENTATION
The conciusion, because it takes all of the evidence into account, seems
obvious. But if it turned out that the children had been playing volleyball,
not baseball,that one additional piece of evidencewould make the conclusion doubrfut - and the true answer could not be inferred. Even if the conclusion is believable,you cannot necessarilyassume it is true: after all, thc
window could have been broken in some other way. For example, perhaps a
bird flew against it, and perhaps the baseball in the living room had gone
unnoticed all day, making the second piece of "evidence" on the list not
true.
Considering severalpossible conclusions is a good way to avoid reaching an unjustified or false conclusion. In the preceding example, a hypothesislike this one might follow the question:
Hypothesis: One of those children playing baseballbroke the livingroom window.
Many people srop reasoning at this point, without considering the evidence. Bur when the gap between your evidenceand your conclusion is too
great,you may reach a hasry conclusion or one that is not supported by the
facts. This well-named error is called jumping to a conclusion becauseit
amounrs ro a premature inductive leap. In induction, the hypothesis is
merely rhe starting point. The rest of the inductive processcontinues as if
rhe question were still to be answered- as in fact it is until all the evidence
has been taken into accounr.
Becauseinductive arguments tend to be more complicated than the
example on pages 557-58, it is not always easy to move from the evidence
you have collected to a sound conclusion. Of course, the more informacion
you gather, rhe smaller the gap between your evidence and your conclusion. Still, whether large or small, the crucial step from evidenceto conclusion always involves what is called an inductive leap. For this reason, it is
important to remember that inductive conclusions are not facts. Facts are
verifiable statements, but inductive conclusions are inferences and opinions that, at best, are never certain, only highly probable.
U s i n gT o u l m i nL o g i c
Another approach for structuring arguments has been advanced by
philosopher Stephen Toulmin. Known as Toulmin logic, this method is
an efforr to describe how the argumentative strategies a writer uses lead
readers to respond the way they do. Toulmin puts forth a model that
divides arguments into three parts: the claim, the grounds, and the tuarrant.
. The claim is rhe main point of the essay.Usually the claim is stated
directly as the thesis,but in some arguments it may be implied.
. The grounds - the material a writer uses to suPPort the
claim - can be evidence(facts or expert opihion) or appeals to the
emotions or values of the audience.
. The warr.urt is the inference that connects the claim to the
grounds. It can be a belief that is taken for granted or an assumption that underlies the argument.
In its simplest form, an argument following Toulmin logic would look
l rl < ethi s:
Claim:
Carol should be electedclasspresident.
Grounds:
Carol is an honor student.
Warrant:
A person who is an honor student would make a good
classpresident.
Vhen you formulate an argument using Toulmin logic, you can sdll use
rnductive and deductive reasoning. You derive your claim inductively from
l;rcts and examples,and you connect the grounds and warrant to your claim
.leductively. For example, the deducdve argument in the Declaration of Indelrendencethat was summarized on page 556 can be representedthis way:
Claim:
King GeorgeIII deservesno loyalry.
Grounds:
King GeorgeIII is a qrrannical ruler.
Warrant:
Tyrannical rulers deserveno loyalry.
r\s Toulmin points out) the clearer your warrant, the more likely readers
rvill be to agreewith it. Notice that in the two preceding examples,the warrants are very explicit.
R e c o g n i z i nFga l l a c i e s
Fallacies are illogical statements that may sound reasonable or true
but are actually deceptiveand dishonest. When careful readersdetect them,
such statements can turn even a sympathetic audience against your position. Here are some of the more common fallacies that you should avoid.
Begging the Question.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy rhat
assumes in the premise what the arguer should be trying to prove in the
conclusion. This tactic asks readers to agree that certain points are selfevident when in fact they are not.
Unfair and shortsighted legislation that limits free trade is a threat to the
American economy.
Restrictions against free trade may or may not be unfair and shortsighted,
but emotionally loaded language does not constitute proof The statement
begs the question becauseit assumeswhat it should be proving - that legislation chat limits free trade is unfair and shortsighced.
Argument from Analogy.
An analogy is a form of comparison thar
explains something unfamiliar by comparing it to something familiar.
Although analogies can explain abstract or unclear ideas, they do not
560 ARGUMENTATION
constitute proof. An argument based on an analogy frequently ignores
important dissimilarities between the cwo chings being compared. Whcn
this occurs, the argument is fallacious.
ARGUMENTATION561
As a human endeavor)computers are a praiseworthyand evenremarkable
accomplishmenc.But how human can we hope to be if we rely on compurers to make our decisions?
The overcrowdedconditions in some parts of our ciry have forced peoplc
together like rats in a cage.Like rats, they will eventually turn on onc
another, Fighting and killing until a balanceis resrored.It is thereforenecessarythat we vote to appropriate funds to build low-costhousing.
l'lre use of human in the first sentence refers to the entire human race. In
rlre second sentence,humanmeans "merciful" or "civilized." By subtly shiftrrrg this term to refer to qualities characterisricof people as opposed ro
rrrachines,the writer makes the argument seemmore sound than ic is.
No evidenceis offered to establish that people behave like rats under thesc
or any other conditions. Just becausetwo things have some characteristics
in common, you should nor assume they are alike in orher respects.
Red Herring.
This fallacy occurs when the focus of an argumenr is
shifted to divert the audience from rhe actual issue.
Personal Attack (Argument Ad Horninem). This fallacy tries to
divert attention from the facts of an argument by attacking the motives or
character of the person making the argument.
The public should noc take seriously Dr. Mason's plan for improving
counry health services.He is a former alcoholic whose wife recently
divorcedhim.
This attack on Dr. Mason's character saysnothing about the quality of his
plan. Sometimes a connection exists between a person's private and public
lives - for example. in a caseof conflict of interest. However. no evidence
is presenced"
here.
of such
".on.r..aion
Sometimes calledjumpingto a
Hasty or Sweeping Generalization.
conclusion,this f,allacyoccurs when a conclusion is reached on the basis of
too little evidence.
Becauseour son benefited from home schooling, every child should be
educated in this way.
Perhaps other children would benefit from home schooling, and perhaps
not) but no conclusion about children in general can be reached on che
basis ofjust one child's experience.
False Dilemma (Either/Or Fallacy). This fallacy occurs when a
writer suggeststhat only two alternatives exist even though there may be
others.
We must chooseberweenlife and death, berweeninrervention and genocide.No one can be neutral on this issue.
An argument like this oversimplifies an issue and forces people to choose
between extremes insceadof exploring more moderate positions.
This fallacy occurs when the meaning of a key term
Equivocation.
changes at some point in an argument. Equivocation makes it seem as if a
conclusion follows from premises when ir actually does not.
The mayor has proposedbuilding a new sports stadium. How can he even
consider allocating millions of dollars to this schemewhen so many professionalathletesare being paid such high salaries?
fhe focus of this argument should be the merits of rhe sporrs sradium.
Instead, the writer shifts to the irrelevant issue of arhletes' high salaries.
You Also (Tu Quoqwe). This falracy asserts that an opponenr's argurnent has no value because the opponent does nor follow his or her own
advice.
How can that judge favor stronger penalties for convicred drug dealers?
During his confirmation hearings,he admitted smoking marijuana when
he was a student.
Appeal to Doubtful Authority.
often people will arrempr ro
screngthenan argument with referencesto experts or famous people. ih.r.
appeals are valid when the person referred to is an experr in the irea being
discussed.They are not valid, however,when rhe individuals cited have no
expertise on the issue.
According to Diane Sawyer,interest rates will remain low during rhe next
fiscal year.
Although Diane Sawyer is a respectedjournalist, she is nor an experr in
business or finance. Therefore, her pronouncements about interest rates
are no more than a personal opinion or) at best, an educated guess.
Misleading Statistics.
Although statistics are a powerful form of
factual evidence,they can be misrepresented or distorted in an arrempr ro
influence an audience.
Women will never be competent firefighrers; after all, 50 percenr of rhe
women in the ciry's rraining program failed rhe exam.
Here, the writer has neglected to mention that there were only two women
in the Program. Becausethis statistic is not basedon a large enough sample,
it cannot be used as evidenceto support the argument.
562 ARGUMENTATION
ARGUMENTATION 563
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of
This).
This fallacy, known as post hoc reasoning, assumes that because
two events occur close together in time, the first must be the cause of the
second.
Every time a Republican is elected president) a recessionfollows. If we
wanc to avoid another recession,we should electa Democrac.
Even if ir were true that recessions always occur during the tenure of
Republican presidents, no causal connection has been established. (See
pages325-27.)
NonSequitar (ItDoes Not Follow).
This fallacy occurs when a srarement does not logically follow from a previous statement.
Disarmament weakenedthe United States after World War I. Disarmament also weakenedthe Unired Statesafter the Viernam War. For this reason, the ciry's efforts to limit gun saleswill weakenthe United States.
The historical effects of disarmament have nothing to do with current
efforts to control the sale of guns. Therefore, the conclusion is a non
sequitur
U s i n gT r a n s i t i o n s
Transitional words and phrases are extremely importanr in argumentative essays.Without rhesewords and phrases,readerswill find it difficult to follow your logic and could easilylose rrack of your argumenr.
Argumentative essays use transitions to signal a shift in focus. For
example, paragraphs that present the specific points in support of your
argument can signal this purpose with transitions such asfirst, second,third
in addition, and finalfu. In che same way, paragraphs that refure opposing
arguments can signal this purpose with transitions such as still, neuertbeless,
,
us5iu1ineru11llorvs
ioRATcuMirierior.r
..
.;
i
a l li n a l l
in conclusion
:
:
:
:
u r alr es ult
i n o th e rw o rd s
:
finally
in short
i
fi rs t ,s ec ond,t hir d
i n s u m m a ry
,
j
for example
nevertheless
for ins t anc e
o n th e o n e h a n d . . . on the other hand
:
:
,
fot thesereasons
still
:
'
however
therefore
,
,
:
in addition
thus
yet
i n bt ief
: o':::::'ol:l'l':l
:l:::::il:::
:lr:::::rs:43
:
i
:
:
:
i
bgtueueryand jtet. Transitional words and phrases - such as tberefore and,
for
tbesereasons- are also useful when you are presenting your rrgt,-..rt's conclusions.
S T R U C T U R I NA
GN A R G U M E N T A T I VE S S A Y
An argumentative essay,like other kinds of essays,has an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. However, an argumencative essayhas its
own sPecial structure, one that ensures that ideas are presented iogicatly
and convincingly. The Declaration of Independence follows rhe
{rpical
structure of many classicarguments:
Introducrion:
Introduces the issue
Staresrhe thesis
Body:
Inducrion - offers evidence ro support rhe thesis
Deduction - uses syllogisms ro rr'rpporr rhe thesis
Srates the argumenrs against the rhesis and refutes
them
Conclusion:
Restates the thesis in differenr words
Makes a forceful closing srarement
Jefferson begins the Declaration by presenting the issue rhar rhe docuInent addresses:the obligation of the people of the American colonies ro
tell the world why they must separate from Great Brirain. Nexr,
Jefferson
states his thesis that becauseof the tyranny of rhe Brirish king, ih" colonies must replacehis rule with another form of governmenr. tn ihe body of
che Declaration, he offers as evidence rwenry-e1ghtexamples of injustice
endured by the colonies. Following the evidence,jefferson refures counrerarguments by explaining how again and again the colonisrs have appealed
to the British for redress,but without r"t.r"lr. In his concluding parag.aph,
he restatesthe thesis and reinforces ir one final rime. He ends wirh a flourish: speaking for the representativesof the United Srares,he explicirly dissolvesall polirical connections between England and America.
Not all arguments) however, follow this pattern. your material, your
.
thesis,rlur purpose, your audience, the rype of
you are wriiing,
and the limitations of your assignment all help "rg.r-enr
you d,ererminethe srrareg.1es
yo]l use. If your thesis is especiallynovel or conrroversial, for example,
the refutation of opposing arguments may come first. In this insrance,
opposing positions might even be mentioned in the introduction - provided they are discussedmore fully iarer in rhe argumenr.
suppose your journalism instrucror gives you tl-re followirrg
.
assignment:
Selecta controversialtopic that interesrsyou, and write a brief criiror-ial
about it. Direct your editorial to readerswho do not shareyour vicws,apcl
try to convincethem that your position is reasonable.Be sure to ackp6n,ledgethe view your audienceholds and to refure possiblecriricisnrs1lf y6ur
argumenc.