Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
• Undefined Terms
• Generalization
• Black or white
• Abstractions
• Analogy
• Syllogisms
• Circular Argument
• Begging the Question
• Argument of the Beard
• Non Sequiturs
• Fallacies of Relevance
• Catchall Explanation
• Slanted Language
Undefined Terms
The first step toward logical writing is to define your terms. If you are uncertain of the
meaning of the language you are using, you are likely to make false or illogical claims.
Generalization
The basis of virtually all logical errors is the assumption that "some" equals "all."
Do not assume that because you hold an opinion, the same is true of the rest of the world.
If you write, "Nobody thinks smoking is acceptable any more," you will undoubtedly be
assaulted by a mob of irate tobacconists. You must be aware of the circumstance and be
more precise: "Nobody in my class thinks smoking is acceptable."
Politicians are especially adept at assuming that their position is that of the majority. If
there is inconvenient evidence, in the form of election results or polls that contradict
them, they may choose to invent a "silent majority" that actually supports them without
ever saying so.
Deductive reasoning is a way of thinking that draws inferences from general statements
or uses generalizations to apply what is true in one instance to what is true in another
related instance. You must be careful not to assume that what applies to one situation
always applies to another. A hasty generalization will draw a conclusion from an
insufficiently representative source; for example, a survey of an English class might
produce the information that 90had read Beowulf. One could not assume, however, that
ninety percent of all university students had read it.
It was deductive reasoning that led to the ancient practice of letting blood as a "cure" for
various diseases. If the patient is flushed, and her heart is beating fast, it can be deduced
that she has too much blood in her body: pass the leech.
If a generalization does not stand up to the question, "Can you prove it?" think twice
about using it.
Black or White
A black or white, or either/or argument assumes that only two alternatives exist:
A more expansive example would be a paper that claimed that the First World War was
caused either by the Alliance System or by German aggression. Given the extraordinary
and wonderful complexity of the world we live in, the answer is bound to be more
complex than these simple alternatives.
The black and white argument is also used to hold up a shaky thesis. The writer presents
the argument as if it is the only solution to a grave problem: "If teleregistration is
abandoned, chaos will result." The writer is asking the reader to choose between
teleregistration and chaos, rather than to examine the entire situation.
Abstractions
An abstraction is a word which stands for a quality found in a number of different
contexts from which it has been taken away or abstracted. In conversations on "ethics" or
"morality," the process of abstraction is often carried so far that we make the fundamental
error of assuming these abstractions are tangible, definable objects.
Such concepts as "nature," "beauty," or "truth" are not so much indefinable as receptive
to an infinite number of definitions. Never assume that the reader's notions are the same
as yours. A discussion of abstract ideals must maintain its connection to the topic at hand,
and you must be especially careful to define the abstract terms you use.
Analogies
While an analogy is a useful means of explanation, it does not constitute proof.
Argument by analogy tends to evoke a predictable emotional response because it is
usually based on accepted symbolism; for example, during the Gulf War Saddam Hussein
was routinely compared to Hitler, as if doing so automatically provided a justification for
war.
Remember, what is true of one thing in one set of circumstances is not necessarily true of
another thing in another set of circumstances. By drawing analogies, you are
manipulating the reader into thinking about the comparison rather than the original
subject. Use analogy to clarify or enhance your argument but do not deceive yourself into
thinking that you are proving it.
Syllogisms
A syllogism is a means of breaking down an argument into three simple, related terms:
There are three parts to a syllogistic argument. The major premise is the first, general
statement: "All UVic students receive grades." The minor premise is the second, specific
statement: "I am a UVic student." The conclusion is the logical resolution of the two
premises: "I receive grades." To be an effective argument, both premises of the syllogism
must be true, and they must also relate logically one to the other.
Arguments of this kind tend to fail because the general premise is not valid:
The assumption that all students like pizza is invalid (if nearly true).
Improperly used, the syllogism is a handy device for producing charmingly erroneous
conclusions like this one:
While this conclusion may be true in a metaphorical sense, it does not follow logically
from the first two statements because the two premises are not logically connected.
Circular Argument
A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been
assumed in the argument:
"The study of literature is worthwhile because great literature repays close reading."
The argument sounds convincing until you realise that it could be phrased thus:
The statement does not raise an issue or allow for argument. A better argument would be
this:
`Binsey Poplars' is a bad poem because it is most irritating poem Hopkins ever wrote."
The writer of this sentence is begging the question of the irritating nature of the poem. A
better argument would be:
The statement still expresses an opinion, but the more precise and objective language
suggests a way in which the writer can support the claim.
Another way of expressing the fallacy is in the argument that there is no harm in
removing one hair from a beard since it will not stop it being a beard; the argument is
superficially convincing until you realise that eventually the beard will indeed disappear,
even if it is plucked one hair at a time.
Thus the argument of the beard suggests that there is no difference between those things
which occupy opposite ends of a continuum, because there is no definable moment at
which one becomes the other: day and night, or childhood and adulthood, for example.
This fallacy often turns up in essays that discuss such subjects as the appropriate age for
drinking, voting, or driving.
Non Sequiturs
"It does not follow."
In this fallacy, the writer links two ideas or events that are not in fact related. TV
commercials often depend on visual or implied non sequiturs:
A non sequitur of causation (Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, "after this, therefore because of
this") assumes that because one event followed another, it must have been the effect of
the other:
Fallacies Of Relevance
An argument ad hominem attacks the person supporting an opposing view instead of the
viewpoint itself:
"How can you believe this woman; she works for the government!"
The woman's employment may or may not have some bearing on what she is saying, but
you should not assume that she is wrong on that basis.
An argument ad populem does the reverse: it assumes that someone is correct because of
his or her position:
Again, you should not assume that the Premier is telling the truth.
An appeal to force argues that a statement is true because physical harm will come to
those who disagree with it.
The most common fallacy of relevance is the bandwagon argument: "50,000,000 Elvis
Fans Can't Be Wrong!" This argument usually provokes the Bridge Question: "If
everybody jumped off the Johnson St. Bridge, would you do it too?" Remember that the
opinion of the majority is not always the one to accept.
Catchall Explanation
A catchall explanation provides one answer to a question with a variety of possible
answers and presents that answer as if it invalidates all the others:
Some people think the dinosaurs died out because of a meteor striking the earth. Some
people think they died out because of the coming of the Ice Age. And some people think
they died out because evolving mammals competed more successfully for available
resources. But new evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the dinosaurs
became extinct because aliens poisoned their water supply.
The actual answer may be all, some, or none of the above. The writer should not assume
that the new theory renders the others obsolete.
Slanted Language
Most language in one way or another expresses an opinion as well as communicating
fact. If you wish to point out that a person saves money, you may choose a word like
thrifty--which signals approval of the activity--or "miserly"--which signals disapproval.
Either way your discussion will be "slanted" toward one judgment or the other.
That language communicates both fact and feeling is one of its great powers. There
would be no literature if it did not. Language only becomes "slanted" (deviating from the
upright) when it is deceptive or manipulative rather than persuasive. Propaganda--
political or commercial--slants language in an attempt to deceive the audience into
accepting a conclusion without question. But careful writers will be aware of the way
their language presents an opinion, and careful readers will be conscious of the often
deliberate slanting of language in the world around them.