Inventing
Arguments
Chapter 2: Reading Appeals
appeals
Appeals connect an issue to readers’ logic,
character, emotions, need, or value.
Appeals are the most important part of
argument, but are also more difficult to detect
than examples and evidence.
appeals to logic
Appeals to logic engage the audience’s
intellectual and reasoning capacity.
Appeals to logic may be direct or indirect.
inference
Inference is the act or process of deriving a logical
conclusion based on premises (things known or
thought to be true).
kind of like an “educated guess”
People may infer differently depending on their
different experiences and ways of thinking.
line of reasoning
A line of reasoning refers to a series of logical steps (or premises)
that lead the arguer and the audience to a main claim. It is the
logical progression that a reader must follow in order to accept the
argument’s main point.
For an argument to be successful, the reader must accept each
premise in a line of reasoning.
The writer must make sure to clearly and adequately support each
step so the audience can accept it and move forward.
Good readers try to follow each step of a line of reasoning and try
to see how each point relates to prior points.
types of reasoning
The three types of logic or reasoning are deductive,
inductive, and analogical.
Deductive logic builds a conclusion from accepted
premises or general principles.
Inductive logic builds a conclusion from particular
observations or examples.
Analogical logic borrows the logic from one situation
and applies it to another.
deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning builds from accepted or general
principles; often, this means relying on classes.
All birds have beaks. (general statement about a class)
Polly the parrot is a bird. (specific statement that puts
Polly in this class)
Therefore, Polly has a beak. (conclusion built from the
premises)
deductive reasoning
Deduction may also rely on, or build from, a
definitional statement.
Bipeds are animals with two legs.
Ostriches are two-legged animals.
Therefore, ostriches are bipeds.
deductive reasoning
When using deduction, the arguer can only conclude
what the premises allow.
Blue jackets are popular at Sunnyvale High School.
Brandon wears a blue jacket to Sunnyvale High School.
Therefore, Brandon wears a popular color of jacket.
In this case, we cannot reasonably assume that
Brandon is popular, just that his jacket color is
popular.
deductive reasoning
Beware! Even if the premises are false or unacceptable,
the logic may still be valid—and persuasive. Ergo, an
example like this:
Witches do not drown when submerged in water.
Sarah drowned when she was submerged in water.
Therefore, Sarah was not a witch.
deductive reasoning: syllogisms
Syllogisms are lines of deductive reasoning that require
three steps: reason A and reason B; therefore, reason
C.
A and B are often referred to as premises.
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
deductive reasoning: enthymemes
Enthymemes are the most basic form of reasoning used in
everyday arguments. They differ from syllogisms in these ways:
The premises are not certain in all situations.
They may contain more than three steps or premises.
They often contain a missing or unstated premise.
The dog is scratching at the back door.
Someone should let the dog out.
Remember that unstated premises may often be challenged—good
arguers figure out all the premises in their arguments; they then
decide which premises are enthymic and which ones will need
support.
pp. 50-51
inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning builds from specific points and
leads to a general conclusion; it is the primary mode of
reasoning used in scientific argument and many of the
arguments that come from scientific study.
When we use inductive reasoning we draw a
conclusion based on a few specifics.
I found a mouse in the toilet last week.
I saw a mouse in the kitchen yesterday.
Mice have found a way into the house!
p. 54
analogical reasoning
Analogical reasoning depends on comparisons (or
analogies).
In analogical reading, the arguer moves from one
particular to another particular, instead of from general
to specific (deductive) or specific to general (inductive).
Comparisons, metaphors, allegories, parables, and
examples all have an analogous quality—they argue that
if two things are alike in certain respects, they are also
alike in other respects.
logical fallacies
Logical fallacies (falsehoods) are flaws in the structure
of an argument that make a claim invalid.
There are many types of logical fallacies.
ad hominem
The ad hominem (to the man) fallacy attacks a person,
not an idea.
Common in politics and everyday life; used to draw
attention away from policy and focus it on character;
focus on character at the expense of the main issue at
hand
Ted: “I think we should change the focus of our new
health care referendum to include oversight of
insurance company premiums.”
Ned: “Well, Ted, I happen to know that you were at
Chili’s the other night downing margaritas with a
woman who is not your wife. Is that when you came up
with this ludicrous idea?”
straw man
The Straw man fallacy misrepresents a position and
then proves it wrong.
Since people from town have been sneaking in to use
the pool in our rural housing development, our HOA
now requires that all residents have an identification
card in order to use the pool. By forcing us to get I.D.
cards, it’s clear to see that the HOA wants to track our
movements.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc
The post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy claims that if
one thing happened before another, then the first
thing must have caused the second.
If that black cat crosses your path, you’re going to have
bad luck.
I wished that we wouldn’t have to go to school and the
Metroplex was pelted with freezing rain only hours
afterward; I need to make wishes more often!
either/or
The either/or fallacy oversimplifies an issue by
claiming that only two options exist, when in fact there
are more options to choose from.
“America—Love it or leave it.”
If you’re not with me, you’re against me.
hasty generalizations
Hasty generalizations draw a conclusion based on too
little evidence.
The Houston climate is beautiful; when I was there for a
few days last April, it was 70, sunny, and a little breezy.
The North Mesquite football team is terrible; they lost
their first game 14-0.
non sequitur
The non sequitur (it does not follow) skips or confuses
logical steps; the conclusion cannot be arrived at
through the premises.
Because Bob is smart, he will get a good job.
Mandy is honest, so she will have a happy life.
slippery slope
The slippery slope fallacy claims that a certain way of
thinking or acting will necessarily lead to more of the
same (taking a certain moderate action will lead to
more extreme actions).
If we put limitations on the sale of semiautomatic
machine guns, it won’t be long until shotguns are
illegal, and then steak knives.
People who use marijuana will become addicted to
“hard” drugs.
begging the question
Begging the question (petitio principii ; circular
reasoning) is a fallacy in which the “support” merely
restates, in different words, the claim itself; no real
support is given.
Tim would be a good president because he is
presidential material.
I should not get a “C” in math because I am an “A”
student.
red herring
The red herring fallacy consists of changing the subject
deliberately in an attempt to avoid discussion or
distract the audience
Jim: “This is the third time you’ve been late to work this
week.”
Joe: “Hey, has anyone fixed my computer yet?”
bandwagon
The bandwagon fallacy (herd mentality) consists of either claiming that
the audience should do something because everyone else is doing it, too—
or that, because a thing or action is commonplace, that makes it okay to
possess or do.
“All my friends have tattoos.” (so it’s okay and I should have one,
too)
“All my friends have sports cars.” (everyone else has one—ergo, I
should have one)
“All my friends stay out until 2:00 a.m.” (so it’s okay and I should be
able to as well)
or…
“Everyone’s switching to AT&T U-verse—you should, too.”
(everybody’s doing it, so it must be the best choice)
Beware this tactic—we are all influenced by the behavior of others and
our own desires to “fit in”—advertisers, politicians, and even our friends
use this to their advantage.
association
The association fallacy claims that two people or things share a
quality just because they are somehow associated, connected, or
related.
guilt by association—The arguer claims that one person or thing has
the same negative characteristics or qualities as another because the
two are somehow associated.
Even though Terry has never been in trouble, we all expect him to
someday end up in prison, just like his father.
honor by association is just as fallacious.
Ted Kennedy would be a wonderful president; after all, his brother, John
F. Kennedy, was a great man.
reductio ad Hitlerum claims that anything Adolf Hitler or the Nazi
party did or thought must be inherently evil
We could make the same claim about anything—Republicans, Democrats,
the ACLU, the NRA, etc.
Toulminian logic
Introduced by Stephan Toulmin
Components
Claim: a conclusion whose merit must be established (an assertion
about something)
Support: appeals, evidence, and examples that help the reader accept
the claim
Warranting assumption: a statement (expressed or implied) that
connects the claim and support in a logical and acceptable way,
allowing the audience to accept the claim
Backing: the evidence that supports a warranting assumption
Modal qualifier: words and phrases that limit the scope of the claim
Rebuttal: a statement that refutes an opposing, or other, claim or
charge
warranting assumption
The warranting assumption “lurks between the claim and
support” and connects the two.
A warranting assumption can seem so obvious to the arguer that
he or she doesn’t state it.
When analyzing an arguer’s claim, ask:
What assumption(s) lurks between a particular claim and its support?
Does the assumption make a sound connection between the claim
and its support?
Is the assumption logically flawed or simply absent?
On what grounds can the assumption be legitimately challenged, and
how does that affect the overall argument?
appeals to character
Appeals to character draw attention to the arguer’s
personal nature, integrity, experience, wisdom, or
personality
Used to establish the arguer’s credibility
Can be used to avoid focusing on issues
Use appeals to character with caution; do not use them
to replace a strong logical argument.
appeals to emotion
Appeals to emotion make a connection between the
argument and our feelings about people, issues, ideas,
etc. (They appeal to things like fear, love, happiness,
etc.)
We are all highly vulnerable to emotional appeals.
appeals to need
Appeals to need make a connection between the
subject and a basic human need—food, shelter,
belonging, intimacy, self-realization, etc.
When people’s basic needs are not met, they are the
most vulnerable to these appeals.
appeals to value
Appeals to value make a connection between the topic
and a general value (fairness, equality, honor, kindness,
selflessness, duty, responsibility, etc.).
People are moved by appeals to what they value.
Many times, appeals to value tend to reinforce the
audience’s existing value system.
Appeals to value are probably the most intense and
abundant appeals in popular argument.
p. 74