Logical Thinking and Argument

An argument is a chain of reasons that a person uses to support a claim or conclusion. To

use argument well, you need to know both how to draw logical conclusions from sound
evidence and how to recognize and avoid false arguments or logical fallacies.

Here are two methods of arriving at a logical conclusions:

 Inductive reasoning: moving from the particular to the general. This logic
technique means gathering evidence until it points to a highly likely conclusion.
 Deductive Reasoning: moving from the general to the particular. In a deductive
argument, the author's claim is that it is impossible for the premises to be true but
the conclusion false. The conclusion must follow necessarily from the premises. If
this is the case, the argument is called valid. This process has been expressed in a
formula called a syllogism. Here is a good example:

Major premise: All people are mortal.

Minor premise: Bill is a person.
Therefore, Bill is mortal.

The minor premise must deal with something covered by the major premise. If not then
you have a faulty syllogism, where the logic is not clear, such as in the following:

Major premise: All people are mortal.

Minor premise: Monkeys are mortal.
Therefore, monkeys are people. Here you are comparing monkeys to people, like
apples to oranges.

Example of an invalid deductive argument: All teenagers love hip hop. Adam loves hip
hop. Therefore, Adam is a teenager. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the
premises - as Adam might be an adult that happens to like hip hop. The argument is also
unsound, because the generalization that "all teenagers love hip hop" is untrue.

Faults in Reasoning

Dogmatic Statement: argues that a statement is right because the person says it is so.
Dogma is a strongly held belief not based on reason.

Circular thinking - This fallacy consists of assuming, in a definition or argument, the very
point you are trying to prove. It is related to Abegging the question@ where the arguer
assumes that the conclusion is one of the premises: AThis unjust law should be repealed.@
It is the responsibility of the arguer to prove that the law in question is unjust.

Either-or-Thinking B This fallacy consists of reducing a solution to two possible extremes:

AAmerica: Love it or Leave it.@ APut up or shut up.@ This fallacy of thinking eliminates
every possibility in the middle.
Emotion: -- Valid only if the emotion has some direct relationship to the argument.
Emotion cannot be substituted for reason. Look for wishful thinking in arguments.
These are the Aif only@ type of argument.

Appeal to Pity B This fallacy may be heard in courts of law when an attorney begs for
leniency because his client=s mother is ill, his brother is out of work, his cat has a hair ball.
The strong tug on the heartstrings can also be heard in the classroom when the student
says to the teacher, AMay I have an extension on this paper? I worked till my eyeballs fell
out, but it=s still not done.@

Bandwagon B Another way to avoid using logic in an argument is to appeal to everyone=s

sense of wanting to belong or be accepted. By suggesting that everyone else is doing this
or wearing that or going there, you can avoid the real question B AIs this idea or claim a
good one or not?@

Slanted Language B By choosing words that carry strong positive or negative feelings
(connotation), a person can distract the audience, leading them away from valid arguments
being made. The philosopher Bertrand Russell once illustrated the bias involved in slanted
language when he compared three synonyms for the word stubborn: AI am firm. You are
obstinate. He is pigheaded.@

Argumentum ad hominem Aargument directed at man@ B Diverting attention from the real
subject by attacking the character of the opponent; an attempt to demolish the opponent=s
argument by discrediting the person. (Amudslinging or name calling@).

Post-hoc Reasoning - Assuming false cause and effects, which is another kind of
false syllogism. This fallacy assumes that just because one event comes before another
event, the first event must have caused the second.

Soon after we increased Johnny=s allowance, his grade got worse. Obviously,
increasing his allowance has affected Johnny=s performance at school.
Example: The current government is renowned for its sound economic management.
After just two years under their direction, unprecedented economic growth has been
recorded.
When you suspect post-hoc reasoning, ask yourself these questions:
Is there evidence that the effect would have occurred even if the cause did not occur?

Hasty Generalization B Arriving at a generalization on the basis of too little evidence;

jumping to conclusions. hasty generalization (reaching a conclusion on the basis of
insufficient reasons, i.e. " Nissans are terribly unreliable - I once owned a Nissan that
broke down on me!")

Broad Generalization B This kind of generalization takes in everything and everyone at

once, allowing no exceptions. AAll voters spend too little time reading about a
candidate and too much time being swayed by 30-second sound bites.@ It may be true
of some voters, but it is unfair to suggest it is true of all voters.

Fallacious appeals
Fallacious appeals occur whenever an author makes an unjustified appeal in support of
their argument.

 Appeal to questionable authority. For example, we often see celebrities endorse

all kinds of products. However, there is a fine line between using a famous person to
attract attention to a product, and creating the impression that the celebrity is indeed
an expert in the field.

 Appeals to common practices, traditions or beliefs. These are many variations

of the well known "everyone is doing it" fallacy, e.g. "nobody observes the speed
limit anyway", and "this industry has traditionally employed mostly male workers, so
we are just continuing with the tradition".

 Appeals to indirect consequences (also known a domino theory, or slippery

slope). This fallacy occurs when remotely possible but negative effects are
presented as inevitable consequences of a course of action. This is done to
persuade the audience to reject the course of action based on the awfulness of the
possible consequences without regard to the likelihood of them happening. AWe
must invade Iraq or Saddam will use his weapons of mass destruction. We can=t
risk the smoking gun becoming the mushroom cloud.@ (A paraphrase of Bush,
Cheney and Rice, March 2003).

 Appeals to Ignorance B One commits this logical fallacy by claiming that since no
one has ever proved a claim, it must therefore be false. Appeals to ignorance
unfairly shift the burden of proof onto someone else.

Faulty Observation: the use of irrelevant facts, misunderstandings, personal prejudices.

Half-Truths B Statements that contain part of the truth but not the whole truth. They are
especially misleading because they leave out Athe rest of the story.@ They are true and
dishonest at the same time.

Faulty Expression: ambiguity, careless use of diction, irrelevant opinions, absurd or

extreme conclusions.

 Red Herring B This fallacy involves diverting attention from the real subject by
introducing an irrelevant side issue. (A false clue or a false scent.)

 Oversimplification B Beware of phrases like AIt all boils down toY@ or AIt=s a
simple questionsY@ Almost no dispute among reasonably intelligent people is Aa
simple question ofY@