Jim Koobatian

Mt. San Jacinto College

A Short Introduction to Critical Thinking
Spring of Fun 2014
Chapter 1: THE STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENT
1.1 The Basic Pieces
1.2 Indicator Words
1.3 Compound Premises and Compound Conclusions
1.4 Assumed Premises and Implied Conclusions
1.5 Intermediate Conclusions and Main conclusions
1.6 Nonarguments
1.7 Be a Skeptic. Be Rational.
1.8 Three Preconditions for an Argument to Take Place

CHAPTER 2: WORDS, LANGUAGE AND MEANING

2.1 Words, Meaning and Context
2.2 Concepts and Classes
2.3 Broad Terms and Narrow Terms
2.4 Signs and Symbols
2.5 Vagueness and Ambiguity
2.6 Verbal Disputes and Real Disputes
2.7 Exaggeration and Precision in Language
2.8 Implying and Inferring
2.9 Two Semantic Subterfuges
A. “That’s just a theory!”
B. “That’s a hypothetical question!”
2.10 Definitions
A. Reportive
B. Stipulative
C. Technical

CHAPTER 3: CONNECTIONS
3.1 Implications
3.2 Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
3.3 Cause and Effect

CHAPTER 4: ETHICS AND ARGUMENTS

4.1 What is Ethics?
4.2 Is and Ought
4.3 Objective, Subjective, and Ethical Claims
4.4 Getting an Ethical Compass
4.5 Lies and Deception
4.6 Euphemisms and Doublespeak
4.7 Reason and Emotion
4.8 Control Yourself, it’s Only an Argument
4.9 Arguments, Truth and Life
4.10 Never Judge an Argument by its Messenger
CHAPTER 5: DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
5.1 Deductive Arguments
5.2 Deductive Arguments: Valid and Invalid
5.3 Deductive Arguments: Validity, Truth and Soundness
5.4 Four Valid Deductive Forms of Reasoning
5.5 Two Invalid Forms of Deductive Reasoning
5.6 Deductive Argument Forms
5.7 Inductive Arguments
5.8 Inductive Arguments: Strong and Weak
5.9 Inductive Arguments: Strength, Truth and Cogency
5.10 Deductive and Inductive Arguments: Certainty and Probability

CHAPTER 6: INFORMAL FALLACIES

6.1 What is an Informal Fallacy?
6.2 Fallacies of Presumption
1. Either/Or
2. Reasoning in a Circle
3. Causal Fallacies (False Causes)
A. Temporal Succession
B. Oversimplified Cause
B. Slippery Slope
D. Gambler’s Fallacy
4. Complex Question
5. Special Pleading
6. Weak Analogy
7. Hasty Generalization
8. Suppressed Evidence
9. Shifting the Burden of Proof
10. Rationalization
11. Division
12. Composition

6.3 Fallacies of Relevance

13. Appeal to Pity
14. Appeal to Force
15. Appeal to the Mob
16. Genetic Fallacy
17. Fallacies of Authority
A. Appeal to Unqualified Authority
B. Appeal to Tradition
C. Snob Appeal
D. Bandwagon
18. Appeal to Ignorance
19. Appeal to Self-Interest
20. Fallacies of Personal Attack
A. Abusive Personal Attack
B. Circumstantial Personal Attack
C. You-Too Personal Attack
21. Misuse of a Principle
6.4 Fallacies of Diversion
22. Red Herring
23. Trivial Objections
24. Resort to Humor
25. Straw Man
26. Fallacy of the Mean
27. Perfection or Nothing
28. Drawing the Line
29. Is-Ought Fallacy
30. Wishful Thinking

6.5 Fallacy of Denying the Counterevidence

31. Denying the Counterevidence

6.6 Dr. Phil versus Clarence Van Pelt (or, Dr. Phil meets his match)

CHAPTER 7: THE ESSAY

7.1 Outlining Your Argument
7.2 From Outline to Essay
7.3 Irrelevant Claims and Comments
7.4 Using Examples
7.5 Evaluating Arguments – Plot then Evaluate

ANSWERS TO EXERCISES

CHAPTER 1: THE STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENT

1.1 THE BASIC PIECES

Often when we think of arguments we think of confrontation. We imagine people yelling
at each other, shaking their fists, and when it gets really interesting (or dangerous) the
combatants reach the veins-popping-out-of-the-neck stage. But an argument is really
something else entirely. Theatrics aside, then, what is an argument?
An argument is a convincing. It’s when somebody tries to convince you of
something, or you try to convince somebody of something, or when you try to convince
yourself of something. An argument is comprised of premises and a conclusion. A
premise is a statement that supports the conclusion. Think of the premises of an argument
as evidence. Premises are evidence to prove something, the conclusion. Here’s a simple
argument to illustrate how premises support a conclusion.

premise 1. All cartoon characters are not real people.

premise 2. SpongeBob Squarepants is a cartoon character.
conclusion. Therefore, SpongeBob Squarepants is not a real person.

An argument needs at least one premise and a conclusion that is claimed to follow
from that premise (or premises). We call premises and conclusions statements or claims.
(Throughout this book I’ll use the terms statement and claim interchangeably). Each
claim is either true or false. Statements, then, are always sentences, and they are also
sentences that are true or false. All statements are true or false but not all sentences are
statements because not all sentences are true or false. For example, if I say “Clarence,
could you please pass the churros” the sentence would be a request, but it wouldn’t be a
statement because the sentence isn’t true or false. On the other hand if I say “All guys
with pompadours love Elvis”, this would be a statement, because it is either true or false
(and indeed, it’s false because not every single guy with a pompadour loves Elvis).

Here are three more arguments. I have underlined the conclusions. Notice how the
evidence is presented to support the conclusions.

Nodropconnect is the best wireless company around. Nodropconnect has a no drop

guarantee on every call, they’ll match the price any other wireless company on a similar
plan, their contracts are more flexible than other companies and best of all they offer a
patented neon see-through phone that flashes like a 60’s strobe light to baby boomers
born before 1952 if they purchase before the end of the year.

Stanley doesn’t have much money but he wants to buy something for his apartment for
atmosphere. He wants something functional too. He loves neon, especially neon palm
trees. He saw one in a store the other day at a good price and it throws out some light too.
His apartment is small but it would fit conveniently on his desk. He’ll probably buy the
neon palm tree.

The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet
made...have been born of earnest struggle...If there is no struggle there is no progress.
(Frederick Douglass, Narrative of His Life, 1845)
 How many premises should I use to support my conclusion when I make an
argument? Use as many as it takes to make as strong an argument as possible. You may
have an argument with one premise - The guy’s a mass murderer, Therefore, don’t let him
out on parole - or you may have to use a zillion premises to make a convincing argument
(but hopefully you won’t). After you study and practice the art of creating arguments you
will come to know when to fill in the details, what to fill in, and when you are boring
your audience to death with overkill. Always try to sense when you’re wearing out your
welcome with premises by adding too much detail. But when you first begin studying the
art of creating arguments it’s OK to err on the side of completeness. Balance will come
with practice and patience.

EXERCISE 1.1
I. What are the basic pieces of an argument? How do they interact to create an argument?
II. All of the following passages contain arguments. First, underline or write out the
conclusion. Next, identify the premises by listing them in their most logical order.

1. Teachers who educate children deserve more honor than parents, who merely gave
them birth; for the latter provided mere life, while the former ensure a good life.
(Aristotle, quoted in Diogenes Laeritus’s Lives)

2. At the individual level, violence detoxifies. It eliminates the colonial’s inferiority

complex, his meditative or hopeless attitudes. It makes him courageous and rehabilitates
him in his own eyes. (Franz Fanon, Les Damnes de la terre, 1961)

3. Homer is also a habitual liar; he lacks honesty. In “Dufness,” he lied to his family
about his plans for the day, telling them that he was going to work when he was actually
planning to go take the Duff Brewery tour. To catalogue some of Homer’s other fibs: He
lied to Marge about the fact that he never graduated from high school (“The Front”), he
lied to her about his financial losses in investments (“Homer vs. Patty and Selma”), and
he consistently lied to Marge about getting rid of the gun he bought (“The Cartridge
Family”), Homer also involved Apu in a large web of lies to the latter’s mother, telling
her that he was already married to Marge, thus forcing Marge to go along with the
scheme. (“The two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons”). (Raja Halwani, Homer and Aristotle)

4. Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The
ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressman and
government officials, but the voters of this country. (Franklin D. Roosevelt, speech,
Marietta, Ohio, July 8, 1938)

5. It would be useless and almost unjust to insist upon a man’s being virtuous if he cannot
be so without being unhappy. So long as vice makes him happy, he should love vice.
(Baron d’Holbach, Le Systeme de la nature, 1770)

6. It is organized violence on the top which creates individual violence at the bottom. It is
the accumulated indignation against organized wrong, organized crime, organized
injustice, which drives the political offender to act. (Emma Goldman, Address to the jury,
1917)

7. Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by

hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context
of history; therefore, we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be
accomplished alone; therefore, we are saved by love. (Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of
American History, 1952)

8. Astronomy was born of superstition; eloquence of ambition, hatred, falsehood and

flattery; geometry of avarice; physics of an idle curiosity; and even moral philosophy of
human pride. Thus the arts and sciences owe their birth to our vices. (Rousseau, A
Discourse on the Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences, 1750)

9. Speech codes have not stopped hate. Speech codes are used all too frequently to
prosecute and persecute those they would protect. Rather than encourage education, they
have enforced a form of ignorance. They have diverted the dialogue from a focus on a
fair society to a preoccupation with censorship. They have failed to draw a definitive line
between acceptable speech and unacceptable speech. They have trivialized the debate.
(Paul McMasters, Free Speech verses Civil Discourse)

10. The most effective way of attacking vice is to expose it to ridicule. We can stand
rebukes, but not laughter; we don’t mind seeming wicked, but we hate to look silly.
(Moliere, Tartuffe, 1664)

11. We must dare to think “unthinkable” thoughts.... We must learn to welcome and not to
fear the voices of dissent.... Because when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and
action becomes mindless. (J. William Fulbright, speech, US Senate, March 27, 1964)

12. The perfection preached in the Gospels never yet built an empire. Every man of
action has a strong dose of egotism, pride, hardness, and cunning. (Charles de Gaulle,
New York Times Magazine, May 12, 1968)

13. The person who tries to live alone will not succeed as a human being. His heart
withers if it does not answer another heart. His mind shrinks away if he hears only the
echoes of his own thoughts and finds no other inspiration. (Pearl S. Buck, To My
Daughter, With Love, 1967)

14. Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealously,
boastfulness, disregard of all rules, and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. (George
Orwell, Shooting an Elephant, 1959)

15. Nothing is intrinsically valuable; the value of everything is attributed to it, assigned
to it from outside the thing itself, by people. (John Barth, The Floating Opera, 1956)
16. Nothing can have value without being an object of utility. If it be useless, the labor
contained in it is useless, cannot be reckoned as labor, and cannot therefore create value.
(Karl Marx, Capital, 1867)

17. She’s about five nine or ten, blonde, really thin and beautiful, and she’s a real
socialite. He’s only about five-six, or seven, a little chunky, hardly leaves his office, and
he only knows a few people. She’s invited everywhere, goes out with lots of guys,
especially to bars, she doesn’t read much, or like jazz, and she eats hamburgers. He
drinks tea, is a vegetarian and goes to museums. She travels all over the world, first class,
and rides in limos. He drives an old Toyota to the college and takes red rice yeast to lower
his cholesterol. And she’s half his age! Listen, I know he’s crazy about her, but I don’t
think Paris Hilton is right for Professor K. (Overheard in Professor K’s critical thinking
class)

18. There is no evidence that there is any advantage in belonging to a pure race. The
purest races now in existence are the Pygmies, the Hottentots, and the Australian
Aborigines; the Tasmanians, who were probably even purer, are extinct. They were not
the bearers of a brilliant culture. (Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, 1950)

19. If California Highway Patrol officers really wanted to control traffic they would make
themselves highly visible instead of hiding in darkened overpasses and side streets. Their
real motivation is the income stream derived from writing tickets.
(Barbara D. Webber)

20. No theologian could ever be a historian. History is essentially disinterested. The

historian has only one concern: art and truth, which are inseparable...whereas the
theologian has something else at stake - his dogma.
(Ernest Renan, Life of Jesus, 1863)

21. Man is the cruelest animal. At tragedies, bullfights, and crucifixions he has so far felt
best on earth; and when he invented hell for himself, behold, that was his heaven.
(Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, 1892)

22. Too often we hear the complaints of those who have had their hearts hardened to the
plight of illegal aliens. Those lucky enough to be born in this country should understand
why people in countries such as Mexico, with few opportunities, are willing to break the
law and be separated from their families in order to be here. Immigrants from Mexico are
blamed for many of our ills, yet the cheap labor provided by immigrants keeps prices
reasonable for all of us. Illegal aliens deserve our gratitude for making our economy
work. (Harrison Moss)

23. Man is the only creature that knows nothing and can learn nothing without being
taught. He cannot speak nor walk nor eat; in short, he can do nothing at the prompting of
nature - but yell. (Pliny the Elder, Natural History, first century)
24. The article describes large-scale efforts to stop rising tides from flooding Venice. But
the city is not only drowning, it is also crumbling. Numerous irreplaceable facades are
deteriorating because giant cruise ships, which keep their engines running continuously
while docked, constantly belch out corrosive fumes. The ships carry day-tripping tourists
who pour much needed cash into the tourism industry that fuels Venice. But two local
groups have found that noxious fumes from these ships are playing a leading role in the
decay of numerous important buildings. Until the damage from these fumes is addressed,
Venice’s future will remain in jeopardy. (Dr. Mark Bernheim)

25. Bullwinkle always gets upset when he doesn’t pull a rabbit out of his hat. But the fans
love Bullwinkle and his furry little friend, Rocky, even if he doesn’t pull a rabbit out of
his hat. They love Bullwinkle’s good nature, his humor, his innocence and his
persistence. They also love his sense of adventure. Bullwinkle shouldn’t get upset
because he can’t pull a rabbit out of his hat. (Professor K)

1.2 INDICATOR WORDS

The premises and conclusion of an argument should be easily recognizable. Indicator
words let you know that a premise or conclusion is about to appear in an argument. They
are valuable in developing the progression of an argument in a logical fashion, hooking
together premises and conclusion for a smooth transition with familiar key terms. They
help you establish the architecture of your argument. Think of them as the connecting
tissue needed to flow from premise to premise, and then from premise to conclusion.
There are many indicator words you will be familiar with, and some not. A few of each
are listed below.

Premise Indicators Conclusion Indictors

given that.... hence....

since.... therefore...
inasmuch as... thus …
because.... it follows that...
insofar as... consequently...
to the extent that... for these reasons...
moreover… ergo (Latin for consequently,
therefore. Some people still use
this, mostly just to impress people)

Here are a few obvious examples of how they function:

Given that Louis is the oldest of the kids, it follows that he should assume
added responsibility in caring for his four little sisters, Lucille, Louise, Lucinda, and
Lupita.

Inasmuch as Louis is the only male of the siblings, and since he’s the
oldest of the kids, he should, therefore, assume added responsibility in helping his
parents raise his little sisters, Lucille, Louise, Lucinda, and Lupita.
 Arguments often contain indicator words, and often they don’t. It can be
confusing if a writer dispenses with indicator words because it makes identifying
premises and conclusion more difficult. If you’re not sure that a claim in a passage is a
conclusion, mentally insert a conclusion indicator like Therefore before the claim to see if
it functions well as the conclusion. Remember, you always need to isolate the conclusion
of an argument first. Isolate what the person is arguing for and then you can advance to
listing the supportive claims. Indicator words, then, are effective in notifying the reader
or listener when specific claims are on the horizon. They also play a vital role in shaping
the geography of arguments enabling them to flow methodically, logically bringing the
reader or listener to the conclusion.

EXERCISE 1.2
I. Define the following terms: premise; conclusion; argument; indicator words.

II. Which of the following is not a premise indicator: consequently, because, given that,
moreover.

III. Which of the following is not a conclusion indicator: Therefore, in conclusion, ergo,
consequently, it follows that, because, hence.

IV. Which of the following is not a premise or conclusion indicator: therefore,

inasmuch as, since, given that, consequently, everything.

1.3 COMPOUND PREMISES AND COMPOUND CONCLUSIONS

A compound claim is when we combine two or more claims into one sentence. There are
compound premises and compound conclusions. As a general rule, be careful when
constructing arguments with compound premises, and be super careful when constructing
arguments with compound conclusions.
A compound premise is when two or more claims are combined in one sentence to
support a conclusion. “Mary Jo eats apple pie at least twice a week, and she tries to get
her boyfriend, Lawrence, to eat apple pie too” is a compound premise. It is true or false
that Mary Jo loves to eat apple pie, and it is true or false that she tries to get Lawrence to
eat apple pie too. But as a matter of logic a compound claim must be viewed as a single
claim. Two claims, one sentence, and we treat it as one claim. What happens if one claim
is true and one is false? We cannot accept a compound claim as true if one of its claims is
false. Put another way, if one of the claims of a compound claim is false, then the entire
claim is false (even if the other claims in the sentence are true). For example, it might be
true that Mary Jo eats apple pie twice a week, but she may not try to get Lawrence to eat
it too. To avoid the pitfall of a compound claim being both true and false at the same
time, divide compound claims into separate claims in your arguments so they will be
stated and judged independently.
Below is an argument with a compound premise that has three claims, and below
is the argument with the compound premise divided into separate claims
Mary eats apple pie at least two times week, she tries to convince her boyfriend Lawrence
to eat apple pie too, and she loves to send her friends in California frozen apple pies at
Christmas. Apple pie is probably one of her favorite foods.

Mary eats apple pie at least twice a week. She tries to convince her boyfriend Lawrence
to eat apple pie. And she loves to send her friends in California frozen apple pies for
Christmas. Therefore, Apple pie is probably one of her favorite foods.

“But don’t we combine claims all the time when we speak to each other?” Yes we
do, combining claims when we make ordinary conversation is fine. But if you’re trying to
convince someone of something, each claim needs to stand on its own so it can be
assessed on its own merits. Bundling different claims together, sometimes of different
subject matter, gives the impression that they are interdependent or connected to each
other in a way that they are not. This is why compound claims can get so confusing.
So play it safe and do it the simple way by breaking your compound premises into
single claims. If you want to convince someone that apple pie is Mary Jo’s favorite food,
you need to offer supporting evidence. So list and discuss your evidence in single pieces
so you don’t inadvertently force your reader to judge the truthfulness of several claims as
if it were one claim.
Just as compound premises can cause grief, so can arguments with compound
conclusions. An argument that has more than one conclusion means that exactly the same
premises are being used to conclude two separate conclusions, or more. Unless you’re
really skillful in creating your argument with compound conclusions, it’s better to avoid
them because you may confuse your reader and endanger the strength of your argument.
What to do? If you’re attempting to convince the reader of two conclusions, then separate
the argument into two separate arguments. For example:

Cigarette smoke is dangerous to small children whose lungs are not yet fully
developed.
Adults bear a special responsibility to not injure the health of small children with
cigarette carcinogens.
Therefore, the smoking of cigarettes should be prohibited by law in automobiles and
homes where there are children present.

There are similarities between kids being exposed to smoke in an automobile and
in a house, but the differences are significant, and the premises of the argument do not
support both conclusions with equal force. So it’s best to break the argument up into two
arguments.

1.
Cigarette smoke is especially dangerous to small children whose lungs are not yet fully
developed.
Adults bear a special responsibility to not injure the health of small children with
cigarette carcinogens.
Therefore, the smoking of cigarettes should be prohibited by law in automobiles where
minors are present.
2.
Cigarette smoke is especially dangerous to small children whose lungs are not yet fully
developed.
Adults bear a special responsibility to not injure the health of small children with
cigarette carcinogens.
Therefore, the smoking of cigarettes should be prohibited by law in homes where there
are minors present.

Smoking in an automobile virtually assures that the occupants will be exposed to

carcinogens, while it’s possible that a smoker in a house may restrict his habit to a room
where others are not present. So it’s possible that a reader may think the first argument is
strong, but the second argument weak. If the argument has a multiple conclusion and one
of them is weak, the reader may not distinguish between the two and may reject the entire
argument.
Is it possible to create a persuasive argument with multiple conclusions that
makes sense? Yes, but they are rare. Here’s an example of an argument that has no less
than five conclusions, skillfully drawn by a well known philosopher on a familiar subject.

One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows
this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather
confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not
aroused much deliberate concern, nor attracted much sustained inquiry.
In consequence, we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or
what functions is serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us. In
other words, we have no theory. (From On Bullshit, by Harry G. Frankfurt,).

EXERCISE 1.3
I. Create an argument in outline form with two compound claims, and one with three
compound claims as premises. Then divide them up into separate claims for each
argument.
II. Create an argument in outline form with a compound conclusion. Then write the
argument as two arguments with separate conclusions.

1.4 ASSUMED PREMISES AND IMPLIED CONCLUSIONS

An assumed premise is a premise that’s not explicitly stated in an argument but is
assumed by the arguer to support the conclusion. It’s natural to not fill in all the details
when we argue. If we explicitly state all the details that make up our arguments,
communication would be burdensome and we would lose interest. So we use a kind of
argument shorthand and leave it up to the reader to fill in the blanks. But sometimes
important claims go unspoken that should be stated. Here’s a short argument with an
important assumption left out:

Sammy Sosa was caught using a corked bat in a major league baseball game against
Tampa Bay in 2003.
Therefore, Sammy Sosa should have been suspended for the rest of the season.
 The assumed premise is important because it establishes why Sammy should be
suspended. The assumed premise (ap) is Anybody caught using a corked bat in a major
league game should be suspended for the rest of the season. It’s the general principle that
will establish the conclusion. Without this general claim that covers everybody
committing the same transgression as Sammy, there wouldn’t be enough evidence to
support the conclusion with a degree of acceptable strength. So the argument actually
reads like this:

Anybody caught using a corked bat in a major league game should be suspended for the rest of the season.
Sammy Sosa was caught using a corked bat in a major league baseball game in 2003 against Tampa Bay.
Therefore, Sammy Sosa should have been suspended for the rest of the season.

Sometimes assumed premises are more like hidden premises, that is, the arguer is
trying to hide a claim in the hope that the argument will be accepted without identifying
that a suspect claim is supporting the conclusion. The hidden premise might be weak or
untrue and if explicitly stated it might lead the reader to reject the argument or doubt its
strength.
Here’s an argument with an important assumed (hidden) premise.

Arthritis can be painful and debilitating. Leslie is a world renowned skater with a gazillion medals
to her name. When painful arthritis set in, she thought she would never skate again like she used to. Then
she started taking ArthritisZap and the pain went away. Now Leslie can skate again, just like before. And
she owes it all to ArthritisZap. If you suffer the pain of arthritis, you should ask your doctor about
ArthritisZap.

Here’s the argument in outline form with the hidden premise in italics.

Leslie has arthritis which is painful.

Leslie takes ArthritisZap which relieves her arthritis pain.
Leslie can ice-skate again pain-free because she takes ArthritisZap.
All people who suffer arthritis pain can benefit from ArthritisZap, just like Leslie.
Therefore, if you are in pain from arthritis, then you should take ArthritisZap.

There may be good reasons why some people who have arthritis should not take a
prescription drug like ArthritisZap. Further, assuming that ArthritisZap does help Leslie
as the ad claims, that does not necessarily mean it will help everyone at all or to the same
degree. Always be on the lookout for assumed claims. They may signal a defect or
weakness in the argument. Here are a few more arguments with the assumed premises in
italics.

1.
If my neighbor mows his lawn at three in the morning naked again, then I will call the
police.
(My neighbor is mowing his lawn naked at three in the morning!)
I’m calling the police.

2.
All people who order garlic on their pizza never catch a cold.
(Harry always orders garlic on his pizza.)
Therefore, Harry never catches a cold.

3.
(All politicians exaggerate their accomplishments and never mention their failures.)
Nelson is a politician.
Nelson exaggerates his accomplishments and never mentions his failures.

Implied conclusions are conclusions that are left unstated by the arguer, leaving
the reader to draw the conclusion on her own from the stated premises. We do this often
in conversation and less often in writing. The garlic pizza example above is an example
of an argument with an implied conclusion that’s easy to draw. Here are a few more
arguments where you will not have much trouble drawing the implied conclusions. Let’s
designate an implied conclusion with an (ic).

Curious George gets into trouble every time he gets too curious.
George is getting too curious right now.
(ic)_____________________________________________________________________

All men who run around in bat suits fighting crime with expensive toys have too much time on their hands.
Batman runs around in a bat suit fighting crime with expensive toys.
(ic) ____________________________________________________________________

With implied conclusions premises need to clearly, logically lead the reader to a
specific conclusion, otherwise different people will draw different conclusions from the
same premises. Implied conclusions, then, can be a confusing affair. It’s not easy to
always lead your reader to a specific conclusion without specifically stating it. As always,
the context of an argument can help us understand the intent of the argument, this may
help us draw the implied conclusion, but context can only make up for so much. Here is a
familiar type of argument you might come across thumbing through a magazine. The fact
that you found this argument as an ad in a magazine helps you draw an accurate
conclusion.

If you need to replace your carpet, then you may be in for a pleasant surprise. Hardwood floors
don’t need to be cleaned like carpets do. You just sweep, and lightly wipe them down with a dust mop and
wood polish. They don’t wear out or stain like carpets either. Unlike carpet, a hardwood floor lasts a
lifetime. And a beautiful hardwood floor is classier than carpet too.

(ic) Therefore, you should purchase a hardwood floor.

A typical sales pitch. It’s out to convince you to buy a hardwood floor instead of
carpet. Since the passage is an ad, you know what the advertiser wants you to conclude.
But here’s an argument that’s more problematic. Again, the passage offers
evidence, but no conclusion. In this case, however, many different implied conclusions
may reasonably be drawn. I have offered some possible conclusions to illustrate the
dilemma.
 Pit bulls have a natural tendency to attack strangers. They are considered one of the most
aggressive dogs a person could own, and they have a physiological reflex that locks their jaws when they
bite with 1000 pounds of pressure per square inch.
They can be so vicious that people use pit bulls in dogfights for betting and amusement, just like
cockfighting. There are many documented cases where pit bulls have attacked and killed, or maimed
humans. Last, pit bulls are so strong that even their owners cannot stop them if they attack someone.

(ic) Therefore, consumers should not be allowed to keep a pit bull within city limits.
(ic) Therefore, individuals should not be allowed to own a pit bull unless they first attend
a class on pit bull management and behavior.
(ic) Therefore, pit bull owners should be required to purchase 1 million dollars in
homeowners insurance.
(ic) Therefore, consumers should not be allowed to own a pit bull.

Unless the progression of your argument is clear and logical, and it’s obvious
where the argument is headed, the reader may be unsure what conclusion is being
implied. This is why we don’t often use implied conclusions in arguments, preferring
instead to state the conclusion explicitly so there will be no misunderstanding. Last,
below is one of the most famous implied conclusions in philosophy. List the premises one
after the other, in logical argument form, and then draw his implied conclusion. What is
the implied conclusion? How strong is his argument? Is Hume assuming anything
important that is not stated?

Our ideas reach no farther than our experience; we have no experience of divine attributes and
operations; I need not conclude my syllogism; you can draw the inference yourself. (David Hume)

EXERCISE 1.4
Fill in what you think is the most reasonable assumed premise or implied conclusion for
the following arguments. With some of the arguments you will not all have exactly the
same answers.

I.
1.
Robin Hood wears tights in Sherwood Forest.
Robin is in the forest quite a bit.
Robin’s tights are worn out.
If you are running around in the forest, you need a good pair of tights.
(ic) __________________________________________________________________

2.
SpongeBob is the head fry cook at the Krusty Krab.
Plankton wants the secret recipe for Krabby Patties.
(ap) ___________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Plankton will try to steal the secret recipe from SpongeBob.

3.
Spiderman’s spidery senses detect evil when it is near.
Spiderman’s spidery senses are tingling right now!
(ic) ____________________________________________________________________

4.
All lazy male couch potatoes like their women to cook for them.
Sean is a lazy male couch potato.
Sean’s wife, Sandra, hates cooking for her lazy, couch potato husband.
(ap) ____________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Sandra will put poison in Sean's meatloaf.

5.
Luigi, Owner of Luigi’s Mediterranean 72 Flavor Macro Gelato Supremo:
I've been thinking of adding French Vanilla Rum Raisin as my 73rd flavor. What do you
think?
Stanton (Luigi's best friend):
You sell gobs of double fudge chocolate; mountains of vanilla cookie-dough with
caramel swirl; truckloads of brownie superchunck macadamia nut; U-Halls of
French vanilla cherry; and you even sell vanilla apple fritter spice, which is
disgusting but they buy it anyway, I don’t know how you figured out that Baby
Boomers would like it. But most people don't like raisins. And almost all kids
hate raisins. I don't care if you mix them in the creamiest vanilla this side of Ben
and Jerry’s Vermont.
Luigi: I’ll use Madagascar vanilla, Trinidad rum, and raisins from the blazing San
Joaquin Valley, the breadbasket of Mother Earth.
Stanton: Luigi, wake up and smell the coffee.
(ic) ___________________________________________________________________

6.
Black tea and green tea have high concentrations of polyphenols, an
antioxidant that plays an important role in fighting cancer.
Coffee doesn't contain polyphenols.
It's a good idea to try and prevent cancer, especially when it's something as simple as
changing from coffee to tea.
(ic) ___________________________________________________________________

7.
All children love to watch SpongeBob SquarePants.
SpongeBob SquarePants annoys adults who have children.
(ap) __________________________________________________________________
Therefore, my friends are annoyed by SpongeBob SquarePants.

8.
Exotic dancers love high paying customers with wads of cash.
Professor K has wads of cash.
(ap) ___________________________________________________________________
Therefore, (unfortunately) exotic dancers don't love Professor K.
9.
“Sure, Ballentine, you can get through college without taking another philosophy class.
But consider the important things you’ll miss. Philosophy teaches you to appreciate the
views of other people, and to be critical but fair-minded. It helps you to critically think
through problems instead of accepting the views of others without question, and it even
comes in handy at cocktail parties too. Women are attracted to men who study
philosophy. And late in life, when you’re old, arthritic, patching things together with a
diminishing social security check and you’re regretting you didn’t drive to Central
America with that beautiful Guatemalan girl you met when you were in college,
philosophy may even help you accept the inevitability of death.” (Professor K lecturing a
philosophy student in one of his upbeat moments).
(ic) Therefore, ___________________________________________________________

Or it may be easier to draw the conclusion from outline form:

You can get through college without taking a philosophy class.

Philosophy teaches you to appreciate the views of other people.
Philosophy teaches you to be critical but fair-minded.
Philosophy teaches you to critically think through problems instead of accepting the
views of others without question.
Philosophy comes in handy at cocktail parties.
Women are attracted to men who study philosophy.
When you are old… inevitability of death.
(ic) Therefore, __________________________________________________________

10.
Critical thinking makes peoples' heads hurt.
Philosophers do a lot of critical thinking.
(ic) Therefore ___________________________________________________________

11.
Unions engage in collective bargaining for workers to improve working conditions and
pay rates.
(ap) ____________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Wal-Mart employees need a union.

12.
When I wear socks with seams at the toes they rub my skin and are uncomfortable.
(ap) ___________________________________________________________________
Therefore, from now on I will turn my socks inside out.

13.
Pool sharks like to play against people who aren't very good at pool.
Earl is playing ‘Rico’, a pool shark.
(ap) ___________________________________________________________________
Earl will probably lose his money.

14.
Clarence loves churros.
Clarence is passing by a churro stand at 23rd and Glover with his friend, Spencer.
Clarence is broke.
(ap)____________________________________________________________________
Clarence will pay back Spencer in four easy installments.

15.
All fish live in water.
(ap) ____________________________________________________________________
Flounders live in water

16.
If Mr. Potato Head smokes his pipe in his house, then Mrs. Potato Head will turn him in
to the authorities.
There he goes again, he lit up his pipe.
(ic) Therefore ___________________________________________________________

17.
(ip) ____________________________________________________________________
Lorney O’Connell is a member of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame.
Therefore, Wendell eats at the Hard Rock Café.

18.
(ip) __________________________________________________________________
This is a male stuffed animal with a round head.
Therefore, he must be named Alvin.

19.
All students should have a thesaurus and dictionary handy when they study.
(ap) ___________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Libby should have a thesaurus and dictionary on her desk when she studies

20.
All people who watched Captain Kangaroo on the Cartoon Network at three in the
morning and eat popcorn doused with butter and of happier days are Baby Boomers who
need help.
(ap) ___________________________________________________________________
Herman Oloffson needs help.

II. Create four arguments, two with assumed premises, and two with implied conclusions,
all in outline form like above.

1.5 INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSIONS AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS

An intermediate conclusion is a conclusion an arguer establishes on the way to the main
conclusion of the argument. The main conclusion is the final, principal conclusion of the
argument. Sometimes arguments have intermediate conclusions and sometimes they
don’t. It just depends on what the arguer feels he needs to establish on his way to his final
destination. Intermediate conclusions are building blocks, they’re part of the natural
process of arguing. We establish conclusions, and then we use those conclusions to
establish further conclusions until we reach our main conclusion. It sounds a bit odd at
first, but an intermediate conclusion is both a conclusion and a premise. Let’s take a look
at a few examples.

The following argument has one intermediate conclusion designated by an (inc).The

argument is taken from an article about an ingredient found in grape seeds called
resveratrol, which is believed to fight cancer.

1. In laboratory and animal studies, resveratrol from grape seeds has appeared to interfere with cancer cell
growth and division, as well as causing some cancer cells to disintegrate faster than they would ordinarily.
2. Resveratrol may also block enzymes that prolong the survival of several cancer cell types, including skin
cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer.
3. (inc) As a result, tumors may either stop growing or actually shrink because higher than usual numbers
of cancer cells die.
Conclusion: Therefore, resveratrol may have direct anticancer activity.
(Wikipedia, Grape Seed Extract, 2007)

This argument has three intermediate conclusions.

1. If I buy the desk assembled, then I won’t have to put it together at home.
2. I can’t get the assembled desk into my car.
3. I don’t have a friend with a truck to take it home for me.
4. (inc) Therefore, I should buy it unassembled and put it together at home.
5. If I assemble the desk in the living room, then I won’t get it through the door into my bedroom.
6. (inc) Therefore, I better assemble it in my bedroom.
7. It will be easier to paint the desk piece by piece, before it is assembled.
8. If I paint it inside the house the fumes from the paint will make me ill, and I may end up painting more
than the desk.
9. (inc) Therefore, I should paint it in pieces, outside before I assemble it inside.
Therefore, I will take the desk home unassembled, paint it outside, and then assemble it in my bedroom.

Our last argument below has three intermediate conclusions. Cecil has a
challenging job that he used to enjoy, but now he’s is thinking about early retirement.

1. Cecil is in charge of production, quality control and distribution of yo-yos for Santa Claus at the North
Pole.
2. Santa is thrifty (cheap) and does not hire a backup for Cecil when he gets the flu.
3. (inc) Consequently, much of the yo-yo production at the North Pole stops when Cecil gets the flu and
misses work.
4. Yo-yos are in great demand this year and kids all over the world are expecting Santa to come through
with a new ‘plutonium nuclear florescent’ model yo-yo with candy stripe string.
5. Santa wants to substitute a glossy poster of the new nutrition food pyramid and “Keep off Drugs” mouse
pads in place of yo-yos if Cecil gets the flu and they fall short of their 125 million yo-yo goal.
6. (inc) Therefore, it’s likely that there will be many disappointed kids at Christmas if Cecil gets the flu and
misses work.
7. Cecil applied for a transfer to the Christmas tree color wheel manufacturing division.
8. There are many other applicants applying for a transfer too and they have more seniority than Cecil.
9. Good vision and color recognition is a requirement for the job.
10. Cecil is color blind.
11. (inc) He probably won’t get the transfer.
12. There is no other division in the North Pole to transfer to.
13. Santa drinks too much, he will not enter a rehab center and he is belligerent to Cecil and his coworkers.
14. Santa hates kids.
15. Cecil dreams of Santa crashing his sleigh into a glacier with no airbags.
16. Cecil is of retirement age.
Therefore, Cecil is probably considering retiring from his job at the North Pole.

“Sixteen pieces of evidence K? Give me a break!” I know, I know, but remember

I’m trying to convince you that the guy is considering retirement, it’s a big deal, so please
relax. (How would you feel if you had to retire and move from the North Pole to some
God forsaken retirement community like Sun City, Arizona where everybody is burned to
a crisp in the heat? Cecil doesn’t deserve this).
Notice how premise 3 is derived from premises 1 and 2, and how it then assumes
the status of a premise to support the main conclusion of the argument. Premises 4 and 5
support premise 6 which supports the main conclusion. Premises 7 through 10 support
premise 11 which supports the main conclusion. Premises 12 through 16 all support the
main conclusion independently.

EXERCISE 1.5
I. Fill in what you think is the most reasonable intermediate conclusion and implied
conclusion for the following arguments.

1.
Robin Hood wears tights in Sherwood Forest.
Robin is in the forest quite a bit.
Robin’s tights are worn out.
If you run around in the forest, then you need a good pair of tights.
(inc) _________________________________________________________________
Robin steals from the rich.
Robin gives all his money away to the poor as soon as he steals it.
(ic) Therefore __________________________________________________________

2. Most cell phone users don’t know that their phones automatically enhance the volume
of their voice enough to hear clearly.
(inc) ___________________________________________________________________
But cell phones do enhance the volume of voices.
Therefore, cell phone users do not need to yell into their phones.

3. The following argument has one intermediate conclusion and a main conclusion. John
Wisdom is arguing that the thoughts in your head accompany movements in your body.
Plot the argument in outline form in its entirety.

There are many objects which have a very complex structure of a kind which makes them
capable of satisfying desires. Watches and motorcycles are such objects. There is nothing
in the nature of matter which tends to make it take up such complex and orderly patterns.
Still less is there anything in the nature of matter which tends to make it arrange itself so
as to satisfy human desires. Therefore the occurrence of such orderly and desirable
arrangements of matter as we find in the watch demand an explanation. The best
explanation is the usual one, namely that the desires influence through bodily movements
and the arrangement of material things. But, if so, then mental events occasion bodily
events. (From Problems of Mind and Matter, John Wisdom)

II. The argument below is in both essay and argument outline form. First, read the essay.
Next, rewrite the argument outline completing the following four objectives.
a) Clearly identify the implied conclusion and state it.
b) List the premises in their most logical order (I've shuffled them like a deck of
cards).
c) Identify the intermediate conclusions with (inc).
d) Eliminate the one claim that does not lend support for the conclusion.

I noticed at our February City Council meeting here in Anytown that the ACLU
has told our fair city that we have to remove the cross from our city seal. We have had the
cross on our seal dating back to 1949 when Clement L. McBean III, a pharmacist and
part-time peace officer in the Anytown Police Department, designed it while on a wild
boar hunting trip to Utah with his friends, the Carmichaels.
Many influential citizens and religious figures in Anytown have encouraged our
city council and mayor not to cave in to the threats of the ACLU. They don’t want to
“Toss the Cross”. But we should look at what other cities in the same situation have done.
It’s sad but true that every city that has fought the ACLU to keep the cross on their seal
has lost. And in the end, all the cities were left with was a stack of whopping bills from
all their high priced Madison Avenue lawyers!
Now I want to keep the cross as much as everyone else. But let’s be honest. This
is a no win situation. Let’s remove the cross, and get on with issues that are more
important to the well being of our city.

Argument Outline

There are other issues for our city of greater importance that need our immediate
attention.
If the ACLU files a lawsuit, it is unlikely that Anytown will prevail in court.
It is very expensive to fight an ACLU lawsuit in court.
Although several cities have fought similar suits, not one city has won such a suit against
the ACLU in court.
It is quite probable that the mayor and city council will not remove the cross from the
seal.
Many influential citizens and religious figures in our community have spoken out against
removing the cross from our seal – don’t toss the cross.
Clement L. McBean III created the seal in 1949 while on a wild boar hunting trip in
1949.
Last February the ACLU informed our fair city that if we did not remove the cross from
our city seal the city would face a lawsuit.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
(ic)_____________________________________________________________________

Irrelevant claim __________________________________________________________

III. The following 15 claims have been shuffled. First, identify the main conclusion.
Next, put the claims in their most logical order, and identify the intermediate conclusions.

Michelle has her own room.

DJ wants Stephanie and Michelle to share a room.
DJ is twelve years old.
DJ will start attending a different school without Stephanie next month.
Michelle will start attending the same school as Stephanie next month.
DJ wants her own room.
DJ and Stephanie share a room.
Therefore, DJ should have her own room, while Michelle and Stephanie share a room.
Stephanie is eight years old.
DJ is older, so she needs more space for her possessions and her privacy.
Michelle is four years old.
Michele is the same age that Stephanie was when Stephanie started sharing a room
with DJ.
It would be fair for Stephanie and Michelle to share a room.
Since Stephanie and Michelle will be attending the same school, they should share
a room.
Stephanie is the same age that DJ was when DJ started sharing a room with Stephanie.

IV. Create three arguments, the first argument with one intermediate conclusion, the
second with two, and the third with three.

1.6 NONARGUMENTS
We frequently encounter sentences and passages that are not arguments. In fact, most of
our communication during the course of a day has nothing to do with convincing another
person of something. Natural language is infinitely rich in its possible expressions and
our reasons for engaging others in conversation are equally varied. Here’s a brief
sampling of sentences, some of them are claims, but none of them are arguments.
Advice: “Don't go out with him. He's a schmuck.”
Flatter: “Ravishing! You look absolutely ravishing!”
Complain: “It never fails, every time I ask for easy on the cheese, they pile it on."
Command: “God told me this morning to tell you ...sow a seed on the credit card that
you want God to pay off...Get Jesus on that credit card! Make a pledge on that
credit card!” (Televangelist Bishop Clarence McClendon seeking donations).
Apologize: “Madame, my apologies for stepping on your foot while lighting your
cigarette.”
Requests: “Could I please have 6 dark chocolate almond turtles, 3 dark chocolate
raspberry truffles, and a large chocolate chip cookie dough shake with
sprinkles on top, plus a butter pecan sidecar, large scoop.”
Announce: “Hear ye, Hear ye, let it be known, henceforth, each student attending
Everycollege USA will be required to take 5 philosophy courses to graduate!”
Congratulate: “Great job, Mr. Squarepants!"
Curse: “May your life be filled with lawyers.” (Mexican curse)
Suggest: "Maybe we should reconsider the lo-carb diet.” (Clarence)
Insult: Of course America had often been discovered before Columbus, but it had always
been hushed up. (Oscar Wilde).
Reports: “Last night the Board of Trustees at Schmaltz College passed a resolution that
will ban the playing of all Barry Manilow songs on campus. The Board claims
that Manilow’s songs are too schmaltzy even for…”

Of all the different uses of language that are nonarguments there are four types that
deserve special attention because they are used so often and mistaken for arguments.
They are 1. Opinions or Beliefs (we will use the terms interchangeably), 2. Questions, 3.
Explanations and 4. Hypothetical Claims. Let’s take a closer look at them.

A. OPINIONS OR BELIEFS
The authority and general acceptance of an opinion is no assurance of its truth. (Pierre
Bayle, Thoughts on the Comet, 1682)

An Opinion or belief is a claim that is either true or false. (We will use the terms opinion
and belief interchangeably throughout this book). “Porky Pig was on TV before Batman.”
It’s either true or false that Porky was on TV before Batman. Beliefs are often
expressions of the personal views of the speaker; they tell us what the speaker or writer
thinks the world is like. A belief, then, is not meant to convince, rather, it tells us that the
speaker believes the world exists in a certain way. We express beliefs for all sorts of
reasons, to inform, express feelings, clarify our views on subjects and sometimes just to
vent. “George Carlin was the engineer on Thomas the Tank Engine.” and “It is unlikely
they will raise the electricity rates again.” are both beliefs.
“But can’t beliefs be arguments too? Don’t we argue our beliefs all the time?”
Yes, we do argue our beliefs but a belief alone isn’t an argument. You need to support
your belief with evidence and then it will be an argument. So once you support your
belief with evidence, you no longer have just a belief, you have an argument too.
 Put another way, evidence is what turns your belief into an argument for your
belief. And it’s the evidence that does the convincing. The conclusion below is the belief
we examined above. Only now it’s supported by evidence.

They have raised electricity rates three times in the past four years and everyone is upset.
The new hydroelectric dam will begin generating electricity in about three months.
It’s a mild summer and the use of electricity has dropped, so the electric company doesn't have to buy
electricity on the open market at high prices.
Therefore, it is unlikely they will raise the electricity rates again.

Here’s another belief (We’ve seen this guy before).

Sammy Sosa should have been suspended for the rest of the 2003 major league baseball season.

Here’s the opinion again, but this time it’s supported by evidence. Now it’s an
argument too.

Sammy Sosa was caught using a corked bat in a major league baseball game
with Tampa Bay in 2003.
Using a corked bat in a major league baseball game is against the rules.
Therefore, Sammy Sosa should have been suspended for the rest of the 2003 season.

This is a bare bones argument, not much evidence to support the conclusion, so in
real life it’s not going to do any convincing, but it’s an argument nevertheless.
You probably noticed something important about the relationship between beliefs
and arguments. If you have a belief, you should be able to offer reasonable evidence to
support it. Claims like “Sammy should have been suspended” and “We never landed on
the moon” are claims that require evidence if they’re to be more than just wind.
There is one huge lesson to be learned from beliefs and evidence besides the
details about structure we just learned. Never hold a belief unless it has sufficient
evidence to support it. If you have a belief, then you should be able to list the evidence
that convinces you to hold it.

B. QUESTIONS
We don’t usually classify questions as claims; that is, we don’t usually intend questions to
be either true or false: “That’s two veggie burgers, two fries, one chocolate shake, and
one large orange. Anything else?" And questions are not arguments either: “Are we
having pasta tonight?” “Is it really lonely at the top?” "You said the bathroom is on the
26th floor?!" These don’t usually qualify as arguments either.
But there are times when a question is meant to be understood as a claim. Often
rhetorical questions are posed this way, especially when inflections of voice and context
add to the meaning. When this occurs the reader usually needs to draw out the intended
meaning. Here is a letter to the editor with a question, but it’s intended to be a claim too.

Marijuana reduces pain and nausea while stimulating the appetite. This makes it an excellent
medicine for certain types of diseases, a point the author of A Haze of Misinformation Clouds Issue of
Medical Marijuana seems to miss entirely. What kinds of diseases are these? Cancer (especially the
symptoms of chemotherapy) and AIDS are two of the most notable. No one claims that marijuana can
“cure” these diseases. But shouldn’t we allow victims of these maladies to live their final days in comfort?
(Adam Wiggins)

Wiggins uses questions twice in this letter, but for different purposes. The first
question is used as a simple inquiry so he can offer the information that marijuana is used
to comfort cancer and AIDS patients. He goes on to answer his own question in order to
supply the needed information. But the last, rhetorical question is really a claim, and it
plays an important role in his argument. He’s claiming that people who suffer from
serious diseases should be left alone if they choose to use medicinal marijuana. Wiggins’
letter is an argument. Here’s the outline:

Marijuana reduces pain and nausea while stimulating the appetite.

(inc) Marijuana is an excellent medicine for certain diseases like AIDS and cancer patients undergoing
chemotherapy.
Nobody claims that marijuana cures diseases.
(ap) People who experience great suffering from diseases that will eventually take their lives should be
entitled to live their remaining days as free from suffering as possible.
(IC) Therefore, people who suffer from diseases that cause great suffering should be able to use medicinal
marijuana.

As a rule, questions are not claims and they are not arguments. However, in rare
cases there are passages where questions are meant to be claims and they may play a role
as a claim within an argument.

C. EXPLANATIONS
An explanation clarifies or expands upon an idea. It doesn’t try to convince you of the
idea. Explanations help you to better understand a situation, a belief, an idea.

“I found that it’s not good to talk about my problems. Eighty percent of the people who hear them don’t
care, and the other 20 percent are glad I’m having trouble.”
(Tommy Lasorda)

Lasorda isn’t trying to convince you that nobody cares about his problems. He’s
explaining why he doesn’t tell anybody about his problems (Nobody Cares!). He
assumes you will accept his claim that it’s not worth telling anybody about his problems,
so all that’s left to do is fill in the details why. An explanation doesn’t carry the burden of
convincing. They explain why something is the way it is.

Here’s one from Ben and Jerry.

Alcohol depresses the freezing point of ice cream. Therefore, when you add a liqueur to your basic mix, it
will always take longer to freeze and the finished ice cream will always be softer than other ice creams.
(Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Ice Cream & Dessert Book)

Ben and Jerry are explaining why ice-cream with liqueur will take longer to freeze and be
softer than other ice-creams. They’re not trying to convince you that the ice-cream you’re
making will turn out that way. They assume it’s a fact, and you will accept it as such,
even though you may not already know it. It’s nothing to convince you of. It’s something
to explain.
 Here’s one:
Explanations increase awareness of things already accepted but not fully understood.
They help break down complexities.
Consequently, some subjects need explanations.

D. HYPOTHETICAL CLAIMS
A hypothetical claim is an “If ..... then ....” claim. It states that if something occurs, then
something else will occur. “If they charge more for tickets, then I can’t go to the concert”.
The “if” portion of a hypothetical is called the antecedent, and the ‘then’ portion is called
the consequent. Hypotheticals assert a causal relation, meaning something causes
something else to happen. The antecedent causes the consequent to occur.

antecedent
If they have cookie-dough ice-cream,
If you play that accordion,
If they cancel The Flintstones,
If they require anatomy and physiology,
consequent
then I will get three scoops (with sprinkles).
then I'll leave the room.
then I'll cancel my cable subscription.
then I’m out of here!

Hypotheticals are claims, which make them either true or false. “If they take Yogi
Bear and Boo Boo off the air on Saturday mornings, then the baby boomers will riot (true
or false).” We often construct arguments with hypothetical claims as premises and as
conclusions. The following argument is comprised entirely with hypotheticals.

If the Cubs win the pennant, then they will play in the World Series.
If the Cubs play in the World Series, then they will win the World Series.
If the Cubs win the pennant, then they will win the World Series.
(I never said the claims have to be true).

One last thing about hypotheticals. Remember to distinguish the terms then from
than. Then is used in a hypothetical context, like the Cubs above. A occurs before B, and
A causes B. “If they put oregano on my pizza, then I will get indigestion.” “If Rocky and
Bullwinkle are on TV, then consider me present”.
Than is used in a comparative sense, to compare two or more things. “More
people watch the Simpsons than SpongeBob” or “Philosophy sure is lots more fun than
anatomy and physiology.”

If the claim has this form, then it’s a hypothetical.

EXERCISE 1.6
I. Identify which passages are arguments and which are nonarguments. In those that are
arguments, identify the conclusion and the premises supporting the conclusion. For those
passages that are not arguments, identify the type of nonargument the passage most
closely resembles. But remember, not all nonarguments fit conveniently into the
nonargument categories we discussed. So some will not fit at all.

1. The thing I am most aware of is my limits. And this is natural; for I never, or almost
never, occupy the middle of my cage; my whole being surges toward the bars. (Andre
Gide, Journals, August 4, 1930)
2. Avoid extreme makeovers. (Clint Eastwood)

3. California Indian tribes generally do not pay sales tax, business tax, etc. because they
are sovereign nations. However, the tribes are perfectly willing to forgo providing health
insurance for their employees so that they can qualify for the state funded Healthy
Families program. Indian tribes should be required to pay for health insurance for their
workers or pay state income taxes if employees apply for benefits provided by state
programs. It appears that they are “sovereign nations” only when it is economically in
their best interest. (Ann Hayman Young)

4. Literature is my Utopia. Here I am not disenfranchised. No barrier of the senses shuts

me out from the sweet, gracious discourse of my book friends. They talk to me without
embarrassment or awkwardness. (Helen Keller, The Story of My Life, 1902)

5. Every compulsion is put upon writers to become safe, polite, obedient, and sterile. In
protest, I declined election to the National Institute of Arts and Letters some years ago,
and now I must decline the Pulitzer Prize. (Sinclair Lewis, Declining the prize for
Arrowsmith, 1926)

6. Renee Zellweger gained 30 pounds to play Bridget Jones, Nicole Kidman donned a
prosthetic nose to portray Virginia Wolfe and now Charlize Theron has gained weight,
wears false teeth and acquired a skin condition to play the lead in Monster.
Why do these beautiful women also get the roles for films requiring overweight
and/or plain women? Aren’t there any actresses who aren’t thin and beautiful?
The sad truth is that the only way an audience will flock to the theater to see an
unattractive woman in a lead role is when they know that, underneath it all, they are
really watching a babe. (Loren Rose Linett)

7. Diverticula are pea-sized protrusions of the colon lining through the colon’s muscular
wall. They look a little like warts on the skin. They are soft and hollow. Diverticulosis is a
colon with many diverticula. The reason why diverticulosis is so prevalent in our society
is our overly refined diet. The fiber that is removed from grains has a dietary purpose. It
keeps waste material moist in its passage through the colon. To propel dry, rock-hard
waste, the colon has to generate great force, and that force is responsible for the colon
lining’s herniation through the colon wall. Diverticulosis rarely creates problems. (Dr.
Paul Donohue’s column Good Health)

8. Wallace and Gromit: Master. Mind. You be the judge. (Professor K.)

9. What makes Lisa more than a goody-goody kid is the fact that she is an acutely
sensitive person with a great desire for personal happiness. The conflictual nature of
moral duty, with its tendency to require personal sacrifice, is accordingly represented here
in all its poignancy. Hers is all the suffering that a commitment to self-determined
principle creates in a precocious, sensitive child. Her deep love of life and beauty, played
out against a no less profound commitment to truth and goodness, issues in the
frustrations and sorrows that she expresses in the woeful, yearning sounds of the jazz
saxophone. (James Lawyer, The Moral World of the Simpson Family)

10. The pope wants lawmakers around the world to defend the common good of society
by fighting the legalization of gay marriages. I think society would be better served if
lawmakers around the world prosecuted and imprisoned pedophile priests and those in
the Catholic Church who hide and protect them. (Thomas Thies).

11. No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach
and your frequent ailments. (Paul to Timothy 1, 5:23)

12. If your stomach disturbs you, try one cream-filled donut and a cup of tea. If it disturbs
you still, try a maple bar. (Professor K on stomach illness)

13. Nurses are at the top of the admiration quotient in the Gallop Poll. How wonderful for
a profession that is suffering a national shortage of members to hear this good news! I
would like to encourage all men and women who care about people and are willing to
study and work hard to join our ranks in a profession that is satisfying, meaningful and
never boring. I want to set you straight on only one issue. Most of us no longer wear
white. (Jeanie Delaney Karon, RN)

14. Picasso had his pink period and his blue period. I am in my blond period right now. I
think it’s related to those early movies that had such a great influence on me when I was a
kid. (Hugh Hefner)

15. Why should there be any news racks allowed on public sidewalks in Los Angeles?
Why do publishers get the right to hawk their products on public sidewalks when those of
us in the other 99.9% of businesses don’t get the same privileges? If publishers want to
promote and sell their products, let them do what all other businesses do: Sell via various
retailers (like grocery stores or coffee shops) through commissioned salespeople
(newsstands); promote via the internet and/or deliver through the mail. The 1st
amendment doesn’t guarantee them sidewalk space any more than it guarantees me the
right to get my letter published. (Steven Coker)

16. I have a simple suggestion to minimize the defacement of freeway murals by graffiti:
require that the artwork be placed out of reach. For example, the lower border should
start nine or ten feet above ground level. Upper and side borders should be inaccessible as
well. Taggers can’t fly, and most probably don’t want to run around with stepladders.
Obviously, this will impose constraints on the artists, but I think most would happily
comply to better preserve their work. (Greg Douglass)

17. Referring to the purple robe Christ's tormentors wrapped around him before the
crucifixion: John 19 tells us that Jesus wore designer clothes. I mean, you didn't get the
stuff he wore off the rack... No, this was custom stuff. It was the kind of garment that
kings and rich merchants wore. (Televangelist John Avanzini)
18. Learning is nothing without cultivated manners, but when the two are combined in a
woman, you have one of the most exquisite products of civilization. (Andre Maurois,
Ariel, 1924)

19. The habits of litterbugs contribute to the rat epidemic. Just yesterday I saw a woman
nonchalantly toss part of her candy wrapper onto the sidewalk, a common scene. Why
doesn’t the city put up signs everywhere reminding people that carelessness with their
trash will lead to generous menus for our rodent friends?
If we continue to have a rat problem over the next few years, many New Yorkers
will have no one to blame but themselves. (Matthew Clavel)

20. When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most
delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain
in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.
(George Bernard Shaw, Getting Married, 1908)

21. Violence is as American as cherry pie. (H. Rap Brown, Comment, 1966)

22. People who are vigorous and brutal often find war enjoyable, provided it is a
victorious war and that there is not too much interference with rape and plunder. This is a
great help in persuading people that wars are righteous. (Bertrand Russell, Unpopular
Essays, 1950)

23. So what if Clinton had a little fun in the Oval Office? A president is under enormous
stress; he is the most powerful man in the world, and his sex life is really none of our
concern. (Elke Heitmeyer)

24. The one thing the public dislikes is novelty. Any attempt to extend the subject matter
of art is extremely distasteful to the public; and yet the vitality and progress of art
depends in a large measure on the continual extension of subject-matter. The public
dislikes novelty because it...represents to them a mode of Individualism, an assertion on
the part of the artist that he selects his own subject, and treats it as he chooses. (Oscar
Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, 1891)

25. It's time somebody stepped up and debunked the ridiculous notion that there is a
“sanctity” about marriage and that it is ordained to be between a man and a woman. God
did not invent marriage – people did. And the only real reason for institutionalizing the
union between two people is so society can keep track of women, children and property.
If two people of the same sex want to pool their resources and have the same “privileges”
as a traditional married couple, more power to them. And by the way, if marriage is so
holy, how come divorce is so easy? (Joel Rapp).

26. If, in our haste to “progress,” the economics of ecology are disregarded by citizens
and policymakers alike; the result will be an ugly America. (Stewart L. Udall, The Quiet
Crisis, 1963)
27. It's just being real, yourself...A redneck woman doesn't have to have the fad clothing,
she doesn't worry about getting her fingernails done and having pedicures in the top
salon. A redneck woman is hard-working, she's raising a family and holding down a job
at the same time and is proud of who she is, no matter what” (Gretchen Wilson)

28. Why does the Supreme Court think it would deprive adults of their rights to free
speech if it removed porn from the internet? Adults don't watch porn; only sick
adolescents of all ages do, and it's time for them to grow up. (Virginia Benson).

29. There is a very slim chance of selling a home through an open house. They are
popular due to sellers' perceptions rather than practical marketing.
I have been gathering data on sales for 25 years. In our office, which has about 40
real estate agents and 400 to 500 transactions a year, open houses result in only 1% to 2%
of all sales.
An open house is a useless output of energy, with a very low margin of sale.
Using a sign, advertising and marketing through the MLS are more effective. (Heeyoung
Kim)

30. To eliminate plastic bottle disposal problems in a truly environmentally sound way,
clean up the public water supply to make it really safe and appealing for drinking so
people will not have to buy it in plastic bottles. (Margot Eiser)

31. Casino dollars seem to flow back into the general community, as well as to needy
tribes. To whatever extent a “free ride” exists for Native Americans vis-à-vis taxes and
fees, it is very much their due after the white man's initial appropriation of their lands and
years of broken treaties. (Sunny Kreis)

32. If we wish to have our children and grandchildren see elephants in North America, we
need to make sure that we have young, viable animals that are reproductively sound.
(Randy Rieches, Curator of Mammals, Wild Animal Park, near Escondido, CA).

33. Your right to wear a mint-green polyester leisure suit ends where it meets my eyes.
(Fran Leibowitz, Metropolitan Life, 1978)

34. It seems to me that the stronger the social pressure against using marijuana in a
culture, the more likely it will be that those who use it will be troubled, antisocial, or
unusually independent. Hence, any increase in the incidence in the mental problems after
using marijuana could be attributed to an increased likelihood that those prone to having
mental problems would be among those who use it. (Elizabeth Oscanyan)

35. As a graduate of SUNY-Plattsburg (though it could be any college), I found that

reading about the tragic loss of a young life because of hazing was both shocking and
surreal. It seems long overdue that hazing be viewed for what it is: cruel and oppressive
intimidation, appalling and criminal. (Harold Langus)
36. I saw the headline "Woodchipped Chickens Fuel Outrage" out of the corner of my
eye while reading another story. My mind struggled to translate...was it a new way of
preparing poultry? Then it hit me: 30,000 live chickens had been subjected to a wood
chipper. I'm still nauseated by the hideous cruelty. I realize there is horror all over the
paper, and I'm not asking you to filter it. I just want to be on the record as someone who
finds this act, sanctioned by a vet, disgusting, evil and wrong. (Peggy Mulloy)

37. High school is closer to the core of American experience than anything else I can
think of. (Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.)

38. School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole span of human existence.
They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks, new and unpleasant ordinances, brutal
violations of common sense and common decency. (H.L. Menken, The Baltimore
Evening Sun, 1928)

39. They have no lawyers in Utopia, for they consider them as a sort of people whose
profession it is to disguise matters. (Sir Thomas More, Utopia, 1516)

40. I am an apartment dweller in Los Angeles, and a recycling bin is not offered to our
building. I have to go out of my neighborhood to recycle at a store. The earnings can be
used only at that specific store within a limited period of time. My solution? Keep the
bags of bottles in my car trunk and donate them to the next person I find collecting
bottles for the trash bins to pay the rent or to put new shoes on his or her child. I win for
doing a good deed and my lucky “lottery winner” gets a few dollars. (Catherine
Goldschlager)

41. Before the cleaning lady arrives, it is necessary to vacuum the entire house and
straighten up all the rooms, because she works for friends of yours the other six days of
the week, and you don’t want her to tell them how you really live. (P.J. O’Rourke,
Modern Manners, 1983)

42. To make a child in your own image is a capital crime, for your image is not worth
repeating. The child knows this and you know it. Consequently, you hate each other.
(Karl Shapiro, The Bourgeois Poet, 1964)

43. Maybe the only place that is safe from the taggers is in a cave. I watched the battle
Caltrans waged with the taggers regarding Kent Twitchell's "The Runners." The taggers
tagged his mural, and Caltrans discretely tried to cover it up without much success,
finally giving in to the overwhelming destruction of the mural by these taggers.
I drive the 405 freeway every day and between Hughes Parkway and Century
Boulevard look at the walls that border the freeway. The new walls have already been
tagged by the taggers, and Caltrans tries to cover the graffiti, but I fear it is a losing battle.
(Duane Sanchez)

44. Of course God will forgive me; that’s His business. (Heinrich Heine’s dying words,
1856)
45. I’m going to fight it because I’ve never taken steroids or anything like that…I never
take any steroids because I don’t need them. (Alex Sanchez).

46. We can, then, make a qualified judgment to the effect that Homer is not a vicious
person in the sense of being ruled by vice. I say “qualifies” because there is one
exception to this judgment: when it comes to bodily appetites for food and drink, Homer
is vicious. He does not take pleasure in eating and drinking moderately, and this rules out
virtue in this domain. He rarely, if ever, has the belief to the effect that he should refrain
from excessive eating and drinking, and this rules out continence and incontinence. In
addition he does not seem to think there’s anything wrong (other than occasional
immediate health considerations) with indulging in food and drink, even in inappropriate
venues; thus he once said to Marge, “If God didn’t want us to eat in church, He would
have made gluttony a sin” (“King of the Hill”). These considerations should allow us to
safely conclude that Homer exhibits vice in the domain of bodily appetites for food and
drink. (Raja Halwani, Homer and Aristotle).

47. If you feel you have both feet planted on level ground, then the university has failed
you. (Robert Goheen)

48. The discipline of math helps take away the mystery of numbers and makes us much
more comfortable with challenging and analyzing information that uses numbers,
statistics or assumptions. Mathematics is the language of understanding our universe;
once we learn it we become more comfortable in using it to help us in our everyday lives.
(Matt Tarnay)

49. If you do not tell the truth about yourself, you cannot tell it about other people.
(Virginia Woolf, The Moment and Other Essays, 1948)

50. I am shocked that you would continue the rumor that five Commandments were lost
off a papyrus boat. The loss of these commandments was revealed in the late 1970s by
Father Guido Sarducci, who told the whole (true) story on “Saturday Night Live.” Father
Sarducci informed the audience that the third tablet containing the other five
Commandments, also known as the “God Commandments,” was dropped by Moses on
his way down the mountain. However, according to Father Sarducci, these
Commandments were not lost forever. Instead they became instructions from mothers.
Possibly the two best known are “Wait a half hour after you eat to go swimming” and
“Don’t run with scissors.” (John W. Toigo)

51. Now that’s a face that only a mother could love. (Spoken by someone from
Philadelphia)
1.7 BE A SKEPTIC. BE RATIONAL
What does it mean to be a skeptic? A skeptic is a person who does not just accept a claim
on face value. Instead, she asks for evidence to support the claim to confirm its
truthfulness or reasonableness. Does a skeptic doubt every claim being made? How can a
person live that way? A skeptical person doesn’t ask for an explanation or additional
evidence for every claim. It’s not a matter of always asking for more evidence, rather, the
skeptic holds her judgment until the evidence is sufficient and reasonable enough to
warrant belief. This goes for claims that are often accepted by most people without
question in everyday life. The skeptic is patient and methodical in her inquiry. Our
English word skeptic has ancient Greek origins: skeptikos means thoughtful, or reflective;
the verb skeptesthai means to look, to consider. The skeptic looks into claims with an
attitude that says: “prove it”.
Being skeptical is different than being a skeptic in philosophy. A philosophical
skeptic is a person who claims that we cannot ever know anything for sure. The
philosophical school of skepticism goes back to the ancient Greeks. No matter how much
information we have, we can never be sure of anything. Can I be sure I’m at my laptop
typing right now? For the deep philosophical skeptic, I cannot. (I may be dreaming, or
having hallucinations). But the type of skeptic I’m speaking of for critical thinking is
much different than the philosophical skeptic. Being skeptical means that you’re willing
to observe your subject critically and you will ask for evidence, no matter where the
evidence leads, even if everyone else thinks it’s not needed. Do pyramids have special
powers? Does the copper bracelet uncle Morris wears on his wrist really relieve arthritis
pain? Can that fellow on the TV find water underground in your backyard with that tree
branch? Can that lady really tell me my future by examining the palm of my hand? About
2.6 million people on Earth die every day. Do they all have souls that come back as other
beings on Earth or on other planets? Did humans walk the Earth with dinosaurs like some
people claim? The skeptical thinker holds her judgment until the evidence is presented.

A critical thinker doesn’t claim that no knowledge is possible. He claims that

knowledge must be proven with evidence. .

But being a skeptic isn’t all there is to thinking critically. You also need to be a
rationalist. A rationalist is a person who uses reason and experience as their principal
means to gain knowledge. A rationalist is very cautious when an individual employs
feelings, emotions, faith or intuition to gain knowledge. Mathematicians and other
scientists use fundamental principles like axioms (e.g. geometrical theorems) or other
well-grounded theories, like the celestial bodies circling the sun, or the principles of
evolutionary biology on which to build their theories. This gives them a solid foundation
to build their respective bodies of knowledge. The rationalist has a similar approach to
observing everyday life. If I’m gambling in Vegas and I have a feeling I’m going to win a
bundle by putting my paycheck on red at the roulette wheel, the chances are pretty good I
will go home broke. The rationalist knows that the wheel has poor odds of winning, no
matter how lucky a person feels. It’s not enough to be skeptical about the guy who claims
he can find water in your backyard with a tree branch or metal rod shaped like a fork. You
can analyze his claims using reason and conclude if his claims are true or false. What
relationship does a forked-shaped branch or metal rod have to water under the surface of
the earth? Does the human body have a special relationship to fork-shaped tree branches
or metal and the presence of water below the surface? How about the lady who tells me
about my life by gazing into a crystal ball, examining the lines on my hand or by closing
her eyes and concentrating? Is she telling me things that could apply to many other
people as well, or is she telling me specific things nobody could know about me unless
they had an intimate knowledge of my life? How about her claims about my future? How
could we tell if she’s right or wrong about my future actions, after all, the future hasn’t
arrived yet? Are her predictions of the future so vague or generic that she couldn’t
possibly be wrong? “You will meet some lovely people in the next year.” “You will soon
have some difficult financial choices to make.” “You will consider majoring in
philosophy”.
It’s required to be skeptical and rational if you’re going to be an effective critical
thinker. It won’t always win you friends in the room. But at least you’ll be seeking the
truth.

EXRERCISE 1.7
I. What does it mean when we say you should be a skeptic?
What does it mean when we say you should be rational?

1.8 THREE PRECONDITIONS FOR AN ARGUMENT TO TAKE PLACE

Sometimes people think whenever people are disagreeing with each other they’re
arguing. In a sense this is true, but in a more fundamental sense it is not. Just like there
are specific requirements to create an argument – premises supporting a conclusion –
there are specific requirements for an argument between people to take place. The
following requirements establish equity and the proper conditions for an argument to
happen.
To carry on a meaningful argument, arguers need to meet three conditions. Each
person: 1) must be able and willing to reason; 2) must be knowledgeable about what he’s
arguing about; and 3) must be willing to seek the truth about what is being argued about.
You have to have a person who is able to reason well, and be willing to reason
with you. If the ability is not there, obviously an argument isn’t going to happen.
Likewise, if the ability is there but the person is unwilling to reason, then you’re still
nowhere and there’s no argument. You also need to argue with a person who knows what
he is arguing about. If the person has only a passing acquaintance with the subject matter,
that may not be enough to carry on an educated argument. In other words, if you’re going
to ague, you have to know what you are arguing about. How much knowledge is
necessary? There’s no formula for this. In many everyday subjects common sense and a
basic ability to think critically is all that’s needed. For example I may not know much
about football but I do know from reading the papers that football players sustain plenty
of brain damage, and that young people play football and hit their heads pretty hard in
school. Is there potentially a serious problem here? Last, the person must be willing to
seek the truth about what is being argued. If the arguer is coy about his truthfulness in
seeking answers, or he obviously has an overriding interest in how the argument turns
out, then he may not be impartial in seeking answers. Argument is often seen as
combative, each side seeking to win by marshaling data and competing claims. The
competitive flavor of argument can be a healthy ingredient, but to the degree self-interest
detracts from coming closer to the truth it’s to everybody’s disadvantage. Focus on the
truth irrespective of consequences then you have your guide. “Hey Professor K. all that
sounds great in an ideal world, but everybody knows that people argue for what they
want. People don’t really care about the truth – unless the truth happens to be what they
want, of course.” It’s true, some people are like that. But seeking the truth in an argument
is the most resilient and accurate guide you can have. And don’t let anybody overwhelm
you with the cynical view that people are always seeking their self-interest no matter the
cost to others or themselves. It may seem like that sometimes but it’s not true. Let’s put it
this way. Suppose you’re arguing with someone who is only seeking his self interest with
no regard for the truth. Then at least YOU will have a compass! Truthfulness is a virtue in
itself, it brings a variety of satisfaction falsity cannot replicate, and it goes a long way in
cornering an opponent bent on evasion. Truth is liberating, it’s a plan, a map and a
method.

The truth may not always be comfortable, but it sure beats holding a false belief.

What do you do with a person who won’t be reasonable, is stubborn and won’t
engage in objective argument even though he’s capable? There’s an affliction that affects
all people, all ages, sexes, all ethnicities, every race, everybody at one time or another
which I call cerebral ossification. Akin to brain freeze when you drink a Slurpee too fast,
cerebral ossification immobilizes the conceptual flexibility of the brain at the level of
complete self interest. If not treated with a heavy dose of critical thinking, the disease
will gradually overcome the brain and total fossilization will be the result (Medical
insurance policies probably don’t cover this). In other words, there are people who just
don’t get it. We don’t know exactly why they don’t get it, that’s for psychologists to
figure out, but critical thinking can help you identify this condition so you will maintain
your balance and direction. Be patient, methodical and (gently) persistent. In some cases
you may literally be the only rational person around with a compass, quite the custodian,
so try to turn it around. It’s always possible there will be what I call The Great Thaw.

EXERCISE 1.8
I. What are the three preconditions for an argument to take place? Why are each of them
important?

EXERCISE 1.1
I. Premises support the conclusion. Together they make an argument. All arguments try to
convince the reader or listener of something.

II.
1.
Parents merely give birth to their children, providing them with mere life.
Teachers ensure a good life.
Therefore, teachers deserve more honor than parents.

2.
Violence eliminates the colonial’s inferiority complex.
Violence eliminates the colonial's meditative or hopeless attitudes.
Violence makes the colonial courageous and rehabilitates him in his own eyes.
Therefore, at the individual level, violence detoxifies.

3.
In Dufness, Homer lied to his family about his plans for the day, telling them that he
was going to work when he was actually planning to go take the Duff Brewery
tour.
In The Front Homer lied to Marge about the fact that he never graduated from high
school
In Homer vs. Patty and Selma Homer lied to Marge about his financial losses in
investments
In The Cartridge Family Homer consistently lied to Marge about getting rid of the gun
he bought.
In The two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons Homer involved Apu in a large web of lies to
the latter’s mother, telling her that he was already married to Marge, thus forcing
Marge to go along with the scheme.
Therefore, Homer is an habitual liar; he lacks honesty.

4.
The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressman
and government officials, but the voters of this country.
Therefore, government is ourselves and not an alien power over us.

5.
It would be useless and almost unjust to insist upon a man’s being virtuous if he cannot
be so without being unhappy.
Therefore, so long as vice makes him happy, he should love vice.

6.
It is the accumulated indignation against organized wrong, organized crime, organized
injustice, which drives the political offender to act.
Therefore, It is organized violence on the top which creates individual violence at the
bottom.

7.
Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime.
Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of
history.
Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone.
Therefore we must be saved by hope , faith and love.
OR

Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime.

Therefore, we must be saved by hope.

Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of
history.
Therefore, we must be saved by faith.

Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone.

Therefore, we are saved by love.

8.
Astronomy was born of superstition; eloquence of ambition, hatred, falsehood and
flattery; geometry of avarice; physics of an idle curiosity; and even moral
philosophy of human pride.
Therefore, the arts and sciences owe their birth to our vices.

9.
Speech codes are used all too frequently to prosecute and persecute those they would
protect.
Rather than encourage education, they have enforced a form of ignorance.
They have diverted the dialogue from a focus on a fair society to a preoccupation with
censorship.
They have failed to draw a definitive line between acceptable speech and unacceptable
speech.
They have trivialized the debate.
Therefore, speech codes have not stopped hate.

10.
We can stand rebukes, but not laughter.
We don’t mind seeming wicked, but we hate to look silly.
Therefore, the most effective way of attacking vice is to expose it to ridicule.

11.
When things become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless.
Therefore, we must learn to welcome and not to fear the voices of dissent.
Therefore, we must dare to think “unthinkable” thoughts.

12.
Every man of action has a strong dose of egotism, pride, hardness, and cunning.
Therefore, the perfection preached in the Gospels never yet built an empire.
13.
His heart withers if it does not answer another heart.
His mind shrinks away if he hears only the echoes of his own thoughts and finds no other
inspiration.
Therefore, the person who tries to live alone will not succeed as a human being.

14.
Serious sport is bound up with hatred, jealously, boastfulness, disregard of all rules, and
sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence.
Therefore, serious sport has nothing to do with fair play.

15.
The value of everything is attributed to it, assigned to it from outside the thing itself, by
people.
Therefore, nothing is intrinsically valuable.

16.
If it be useless, the labor contained in it is useless, cannot be reckoned as labor, and
cannot therefore create value.
Therefore, nothing can have value without being an object of utility.

17.
She’s too tall……half his age!
Therefore, Paris isn’t right for Professor K (Well, maybe….)

18.
The purest races now in existence are the Pygmies, the Hottentots, and the Australian
Aborigines.
The Tasmanians, who were probably even purer, are extinct.
They were not the bearers of a brilliant culture.
There is no evidence that there is any advantage in belonging to a pure race.

19.
If California Highway Patrol officers really wanted to control traffic they would make
themselves highly visible instead of hiding in darkened overpasses and side
streets.
Therefore, their real motivation is the income stream derived from writing tickets.

20.
History is essentially disinterested.
The historian has only one concern: art and truth, which are inseparable.
The theologian has something else at stake - his dogma.
Therefore, no theologian could ever be a historian.

21.
At tragedies, bullfights, and crucifixions man has so far felt best on earth; and when he
invented hell for himself, behold, that was his heaven.
Therefore, man is the cruelest animal.

22.
Immigrants from Mexico are blamed for many of our ills, yet the cheap labor provided by
immigrants keeps prices reasonable for all of us.
Therefore, illegal aliens deserve our gratitude for making our economy work.

23
Man cannot speak nor walk nor eat; in short, he can do nothing at the prompting of
nature-but yell
Therefore, man is the only creature that knows nothing and can learn nothing without
being taught.

24.
Cruise ships keep their engines running continuously while docked, constantly belch out
corrosive fumes.
Two local groups have found that noxious fumes from these ships are playing a leading
role in the decay of numerous important buildings.
(inc) Venice is not only drowning, it is also crumbling.
Until the damage from these fumes is addressed, Venice’s future will remain in jeopardy.

25.
Bullwinkle thinks that he needs to pull a rabbit out of his hat to please the audience
The fans love Bullwinkle and his furry little friend, Rocky, even if he doesn’t pull a
rabbit out of his hat.
They love Bullwinkle’s good nature, his humor, his innocence and his persistence.
They also love his sense of adventure.
Therefore, Bullwinkle shouldn’t get upset because he can’t pull a rabbit out of his hat.

EXERCISE 1.2
I.
II. consequently.
III. because.
IV. everything.

EXERCISE 1.3
I. Answers will vary.
II. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 1.4

There will be variation on the following.

I.
1. Mr. Hood needs a new pair of tights.
2. Plankton believes SpongeBob has the recipe for Krabby Patties.
3. Evil is near.
4. Women who hate cooking for their lazy couch potato husbands eventually poison
them.
5. Don’t sell French Vanilla Rum Raisin.
6. You should switch from drinking coffee to drinking tea.
7. My friend’s kids watch SBSP.
8. Professor K is not a high paying customer.
9. Therefore, you should take a philosophy class.
10. Therefore, philosophers’ heads hurt.
11. Wal-Mart workers need to influence their pay and working conditions.
12. If I turn my socks inside out the seams will not irritate my skin.
13. Earle is not very good at pool.
14. Clarence borrowed money from Spencer to buy some churros.
15. Flounders are fish.
16. Therefore, She she’s turning him in to the authorities.
17. All members of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame eat at the Hard Rock Café.
18. All male stuffed animals with a round head are named Alvin.
19. Libby is a student.
20. Herman Oloffson watches Captain Kangaroo on the Cartoon Network at three in the
morning, eats popcorn doused with butter, thinks of happier days and is a Baby Boomer.

II. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 1.5
I
1. (inc) Robin needs a new pair of tights.
(ic) Mr. Hood has no money to buy tights. (He’s not good with money?).

2. (inc) Therefore, cell phone users yell into their phones.

3.
There are many objects which have a very complex structure of a kind which makes
them capable of satisfying desires.
Watches and motorcycles are such objects.
There is nothing in the nature of matter which tends to make it take up such complex and
orderly patterns.
Still less is there anything in the nature of matter which tends to make it arrange itself so
as to satisfy human desires.
(ic) Therefore, the occurrence of such orderly and desirable arrangements of matter as we
find in the watch demand an explanation.
The best explanation is the usual one, namely that the desires influence through bodily
movements and the arrangement of material things.
Therefore, mental events occasion bodily events.

II.
Last February the ACLU informed our city that we did not remove the cross from our
city seal the city would face a lawsuit.
Many powerful citizens of Anytown spoke out against removing the cross at our last
council meeting.
(inc) It is quite probable that the mayor and city council will not remove the cross from
the seal.
Although several cities have fought similar suits, not one city has won such a suit against
the ACLU in court.
(inc) If the ACLU files a lawsuit, it is unlikely that Anytown will prevail in court.
It is very expensive to fight an ACLU lawsuit in court.
There are other issues for our city of greater importance that need our immediate
attention.
(ic) Therefore, Anytown should remove the cross from the city seal.
Irrelevant claim: Clement L. McBean III created the seal in 1949 while on a wild boar
hunting trip in 1949.

III. Note: You may have some variation on this problem, which is OK.

DJ and Stephanie share a room.

Michelle has her own room.
DJ wants her own room.
(inc) DJ wants Stephanie and Michelle to share a room.

Michelle will start attending the same school as Stephanie next month.
DJ will start attending a different school without Stephanie next month.
(inc) Since Stephanie and Michelle will be attending the same school, it would be
convenient for them to share a room.

DJ is twelve years old.

Stephanie is eight years old.
Michelle is four years old.
Stephanie is the same age that DJ was when DJ started sharing a room with Stephanie
Michele is the same age that Stephanie was when Stephanie started sharing a room
with DJ.
DJ is older, so she needs more space for her possessions and her privacy.
(inc) It would be fair for Stephanie and Michelle to share a room.

Therefore, DJ should have her own room, while Michelle and Stephanie share a room.

IV. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 1.6
1. Explanation.
2. Advice or opinion.
3. Argument.
California Indian tribes generally do not pay sales tax, business tax, etc. because they are
sovereign nations.
Tribes are perfectly willing to forgo providing health insurance for their employees so
that they can qualify for the state funded Healthy Families program.
(inc) Therefore, it appears that they are “sovereign nations” only when it is economically
in their best interest.
Therefore, Indian tribes should be required to pay for health insurance for their workers
or pay state income taxes if employees apply for benefits provided by state programs.
4. Explanation.
5. Explanation. (Lewis is explaining why he is declining the prize, he is not trying to
convince the reader or listener that he should decline the prize).
6. Argument.
Renee Zellweger gained 30 pounds to play Bridget Jones.
Nicole Kidman donned a prosthetic nose to portray Virginia Wolfe.
Charlize Theron gained weight, wore false teeth and acquired a skin condition to play the
lead in Monster.
(ap) Rene, Nicole and Charlize are beautiful babes.
Therefore, the sad truth is that the only way an audience will flock to the theater to see an
unattractive woman in a lead role is when they know that, underneath it all, they are
really watching a babe.
7. Explanation.
8. Opinion.
9. Argument.
Lisa is an acutely sensitive person.
Lisa has a great desire for personal happiness.
Hers is all the suffering that a commitment to self-determined principle creates in a
precocious, sensitive child.
Her deep love of life and beauty, played out against a no less profound commitment to
truth and goodness, issues in the frustrations and sorrows that she expresses in the
woeful, yearning sounds of the jazz saxophone.
(inc) The conflictual nature of moral duty, with its tendency to require personal sacrifice,
is accordingly represented here in all its poignancy.
Therefore, Lisa is more than a goody-goody kid.
10. Opinion/Argument? If it is an argument, it would look like this:
The pope wants lawmakers around the world to defend the common good of society by
fighting the legalization of gay marriages.
Pedophile priests pose a greater danger to society than gay marriage.
Therefore, Society would be better served if lawmakers around the world prosecuted and
imprisoned pedophile priests and those in the Catholic Church who hide and protect
them.
11. Advice.
12. Advice.
13. Argument.
There is a shortage of nurses
Nurses are at the top of the admiration quotient in the Gallop Poll.
I would like to encourage all men and women who care about people and are willing to
study and work hard to join our ranks in a profession that is:
a) satisfying
b) meaningful and
c) never boring
Therefore, nursing is a great profession to go into.
14. Explanation
15. Argument.
Publishers get the right to hawk their products on public sidewalks when 99% of other
businesses don’t get the same privileges.
(ic) Publishers should promote and sell their products like all other businesses do: Sell via
various retailers (like grocery stores or coffee shops) through commissioned
salespeople (newsstands); promote via the Internet and/or deliver through the
mail.
The 1st amendment doesn’t guarantee them sidewalk space any more than it guarantees
me the right to get my letter published.
(ic) Therefore, news racks on public sidewalks in Los Angeles should not be allowed.
16. Suggestion? Argument? If it’s an argument, it would like this:.
The lower border of public murals should start nine or ten feet above ground level, out of
the reach of taggers.
Upper and side borders should be inaccessible as well.
Taggers can’t fly
Taggers don’t want to run around with stepladders.
Placing murals out of reach will impose constraints on artists, but they would happily
comply.
Therefore, we could preserve our murals if they are painted out of the reach of taggers.
17. Opinion.
18. Opinion.
19. Argument.
Yesterday I saw a woman nonchalantly toss part of her candy wrapper onto the
sidewalk, a common scene.
The city should put up signs everywhere reminding people that carelessness with their
trash will lead to generous menus for our rodent friends.
The habits of litterbugs contribute to the rat epidemic.
Therefore, if we continue to have a rat problem over the next few years, many New
Yorkers will have no one to blame but themselves.
20. Opinion.
21. Opinion.
22. Not an argument, but it qualifies as wisdom.
23. Argument.
A president is under enormous stress.
He is the most powerful man in the world.
The President's sex life is none of our concern.
Therefore, it is acceptable that President Clinton had a little fun in the Oval Office.
24.Argument.
Any attempt to extend the subject matter of art is extremely distasteful to the public.
The vitality and progress of art depends in a large measure on the continual extension of
subject-matter.
The public dislikes novelty because it...represents to them a mode of Individualism, an
assertion on the part of the artist that he selects his own subject, and treats it as he
chooses.
Therefore, the one thing the public dislikes is novelty.
25. Argument
God did not invent marriage – people did.
The only real reason for institutionalizing t he union between two people is so society can
keep track of women, children and property.
If there were such a thing as the sanctity of marriage, divorce would not be so easy.
Therefore, there is no such thing as the sanctity of marriage, and that it is ordained to
be between a man and a woman.
(ic) Therefore, If two people of the same sex want to pool their resources and have the
same “privileges” as a traditional married couple, more power to them.
26. Hypothetical.
27. Explanation.
28. Argument.
Adults don't watch porn.
Only sick adolescents of all ages watch porn.
It's time for sick adolescents of all ages who watch porn to grow up.
Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot deprive adults of their free speech rights if it
removes porn from the Internet.
(Note: By redefining an adult to be an adolescent, the argument actually begs the
question. By the new definition you could not deprive anybody of their free speech rights.
After all, anybody who watches porn is an adolescent, and it is not illegal to restrict
access to porn for adolescents.)
29. Argument.
Open houses are popular due to sellers' perceptions rather than practical marketing.
In my which has 400 to 500 transactions a year, open houses result in only 1% to 2% of
all sales.
(inc) There is a very slim chance of selling a home through an open house.
Therefore, using a sign, advertising and marketing through the MLS are more
ineffectively.
30. Opinion or suggestion.
31. Argument.
Casino dollars flow back into the general community, as well as to needy tribes.
The white man appropriated Native American’s land and broke treaties for many years.
Therefore, to whatever extent a free ride exists for Native Americans vis-à-vis taxes and
fees, it is very much their due.
32. Hypothetical.
33. Opinion.
34. Argument.
The stronger the social pressure against using marijuana in a culture, the more likely it
will be that those who use it will be troubled, antisocial, or unusually independent.
Therefore, any increase in the incidence in the mental problems after using marijuana
could be attributed to an increased likelihood that those prone to having mental problems
would be among those who use it.
35. Opinion.
36. Opinion.
37. Opinion.
38. Argument.
School days are full of dull, unintelligible tasks, new and unpleasant ordinances, brutal
violations of common sense and common decency.
Therefore, school days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole span of human
existence.
39. Explanation.
40. Suggestion?
41. Suggestion.
42. Argument.
Your image is not worth repeating.
The child knows this and you know it.
(inc) Consequently you hate each other.
Therefore, to make a child in your own image is a capital crime.
43. Opinion.
44. Explanation/Opinion?
45. Argument.
I do not need to take steroids
(inc) I have never taken steroids
Therefore, I’m going to fight it.
(And if he felt he needed steroids?)
46. Argument.
He does not take pleasure in eating and drinking moderately, and this rule out virtue in
this domain.
He rarely, if ever, has the belief to the effect that he should refrain from excessive eating
and drinking, and this rules out continence and incontinence.
He does not seem to think there’s anything wrong (other than occasional immediate
health considerations) with indulging in food and drink, even in inappropriate
venues.
Therefore, Homer exhibits vice in the domain of bodily appetites for food and drink.
47. Hypothetical.
48. Argument.
Mathematics helps take away the mystery of numbers and makes us much more
comfortable with challenging and analyzing information that uses numbers,
statistics or assumptions.
Mathematics is the language of understanding our universe
Therefore, once we learn it we become more comfortable in using it to help us in our
everyday lives.
49. Hypothetical.
50. Explanation.
51. Opinion (True opinion, if you saw the face).

EXERCISE 1.7
I. It means questioning claims for strength, to confirm, to hold the door open to accept
new evidence, but to not be so skeptical that you don’t accept evidence when it’s
justified.

EXERCISE 1.8
I. 1) must be able and willing to reason; 2) must be knowledgeable about what he is
arguing about; and 3) must be willing to seek the truth about what is being argued about.

CHAPTER 2: WORDS, LANGUAGE AND MEANING

2.1 WORDS, MEANING AND CONTEXT
Words are like data; they’re the data of language. Data have only limited meaning
without a context and it’s the same with words. We just have definitions with single
words. But when we arrange words in sentences and give them a context, they come to
life with meaning. Without a context words and sentences give us very little meaning. If I
say “Hey, that’s great” or, “Didn’t you think he was out?” the sentences could mean many
things. Maybe a 16 year old has just passed his driving test and he yells “That’s great!” or
maybe grandpa thinks chocolate chip pancakes are great. “Didn’t you think he was out?”
might mean you thought the runner was tagged out at third base, or maybe Bugsy was
released from prison. “Jim, if you watch Rocky and Bullwinkle again and miss taking the
kids to school, then I’ll leave you and move the kids to New York”. This is clearly a
threat, but is she serious? Without a context, it’s hard to tell (but I’m following the
situation closely). The context clarifies the intention. It helps us clarify the meaning of
our terms, our ideas. Otherwise it’s just words without clear intent.

Words take on added meaning when expressed in sentences in a clearly stated context.
This is what it means to use language clearly.

EXERCISE 2.1
I. Why do we need a context for words and meaning?

2.2 CONCEPTS (IDEAS) AND CLASSES

A concept is an idea that you have, any idea. Here are a few obvious concepts: chair,
warm hug, automobile, tree, ocean, pain in my tooth, bright light in my eyes. Spruce the
concepts (ideas) up a bit with movement and add a cast of characters and you get, well,
you get life: Chester proposing marriage to Blanche on TV; Blanche turning Chester
down for another guy; Milton complaining about his medical insurance again; a five
year old kid getting his first double scoop of ice cream instead of one of those chintzy
kids’ scoops. We use concepts to express our experiences, how we feel, what we’re
thinking. The thinking going on in our heads are our concepts. We use language, words to
pull off this remarkable feat of thinking and communication. The thinking and
communication – to others and to ourselves - are so closely intertwined that we can’t
separate them. Sometimes we use gestures and sounds and other modes of
communication too. We can even use smoke signals to communicate our concepts. But
we’re still doing the thinking in our heads and the thinking is in our language. We need to
have the clearest concepts possible so we can represent reality, how we perceive the
world, as clearly and accurately as possible. A muddled concept is just a muddled
thought. A muddled thought is just a muddled concept. They’re the same thing. Either
way you look at it it’s a fuzzy experience, and that’s not a good thing. Lack of clarity in
your thoughts and language means you’re at a disadvantage in getting through life,
dealing with problems and when encountering arguments. So keep your concepts clear –
keep your language clear - and precise. Let’s talk a little more about some special types
of concepts.
If I say “There are twenty ants in my pants” I’m sure you’ll know exactly what I
mean. Exactly twenty – count them – of those little guys are crawling around in my
trousers, itching, gnawing at my calves, sneaking into my underwear. I’ve used a specific
number, a concept we all understand, twenty, and I’ve combined it with several other
concepts, like pants, and my meaning is clear. When we hook together concepts in a
grammatically correct structure, and all the concepts are clear, we understand what is
meant. But the use of some concepts can be tricky. If you misapply a concept to a
situation or if you use a concept without a clear meaning, you can end up confounding
yourself and others into believing things that aren’t true.
I was introducing my daughter, Alex, to the characters in the Peanuts comic strip
the other day. “Here’s Lucy, this is Charlie Brown, this is Snoopy, and here’s Linus and
Schroeder, and…” And then Alex interrupted me. “But daddy, which character is the
comic strip?” “These are all characters in the comic strip” I said, “The comic strip isn’t a
character like Linus or Snoopy. Linus and Snoopy and all their friends are characters in
the comic strip.” She thought it over for a while. “Are you sure Peanuts isn’t there too?”
she said. Then I hit upon a way to explain. “If you take Lucy, Charlie Brown, Snoopy,
Linus, Franklin, Sally – the whole gang – and put them together in the newspaper, that’s
what we call a comic strip. And we have a name for that comic strip, we call it Peanuts.
Peanuts is the name we have for all the kids when their together in the newspaper as a
comic strip.” She mulled it over. “You mean nobody is Peanuts?” “Right, Alex, Peanuts
isn’t a person, it’s all the kids together, talking and playing in the newspaper, that’s what
we call Peanuts”. She thought it over for a moment, and then she asked if we could have
some ice cream, and I thought it was a good idea.
Gilbert Ryle, an influential philosopher in the 20th century, recognized how
important analyzing our concepts can be. He used a now famous example of two fellows
walking through a university. They walk by the Library building, the Arts and Sciences
building, then they see the Administration building and the Art and Architecture building.
After they walk by all the buildings, one of the fellows turns to the other and asks “But
where is the University?” This is similar to Alex asking which cartoon character is
Peanuts. Ryle called this misapplication of concepts a category mistake. When a person
mistakenly applies a concept to a situation, he is confusing categories of concepts.
Ryle was a pretty ambitious guy. He wanted us to learn how to identify and get rid of
confusing concepts that lead us to misunderstand who we are and what we believe. He
analyzed some of the most important concepts that we take for granted, but his primary
interest was the concept of mind. So what is it about the concept of mind that intrigued
him? Can we learn anything about being critical thinkers by analyzing a concept like
mind? Yes, because analyzing this important concept illustrates just how important it is to
analyze other concepts in our everyday lives. It illustrates how we need to be relentless in
how we use concepts and how we need to be vigilant in clarifying them so we don’t end
up adopting mistaken beliefs. Let’s take a look.
We usually refer to the concept mind as a thing that has no material substance.
Our thoughts, many people believe, are immaterial things, but our brains are material
things housed in our heads. If I refer to my mind, I’m referring to my thoughts, but I may
also point to my head as the location of my thoughts. Does the brain create thoughts, does
it create my mind? It seems so, but then again, the brain is a material thing in my head,
and my mind, my thoughts, don’t appear to be material, so there’s definitely a problem
with location, at the very least! If I point to my head, my brain, but I really mean my
mind, I’m referring to the place that creates my mind, I’m not physically referring to my
mind, but I mean my mind. But if my mind doesn’t have a location, if it’s more
transparent than air, how can be doing my thinking? We’re back to the paradox of mind
and body: how can my brain, a mass of tissue and electrical synapses, create something
nonmaterial like my mind or thoughts? And where are they?
The situation is complicated even more when some people claim that a mind can
think on its own, as if it has no relation to the brain at all. The mind, the argument goes,
being nonmaterial and having its own volition and personality, can think what it wants to,
so it’s not really attached to the brain at all. Sure, there are synapses and all that while I’m
alive, but in the end, my thoughts can occur without my brain when I die too. But this
doesn’t explain the relation between the mind and the brain at all. If a mind doesn’t rely
entirely on the brain to do its thinking, then how does each mind know which body to
attach itself to? Wait a minute - how can a nonmaterial thing attach itself to anything?
When I think of the color blue, is the thought – blue - a material thing? It seems odd to
say the concept blue is a material thing, like a physical chair, or a physical baseball. The
concept, blue, may refer to something material in the world, like a blue chair, but it seems
odd to speak of the thought itself as if it’s blue. How can I even speak of something
nonmaterial as if it exists?
But wait a minute, maybe my mind and my thoughts are two different things.
Maybe I’ve confused the concept mind with the concept thought. It’s my mind that
creates my thoughts, not my brain. That’s it! It’s not my brain that’s responsible for my
thoughts, it’s my mind! But wait a minute, if my mind creates my thoughts, what creates
my mind? My brain? Wow, I guess this one won’t fly either.
This problem doesn’t go away. At least it hasn’t for over two thousand years. We
have a good definition for the concept of brain – that mass of tangled tissue in the noggin
- but when it comes to the concept of mind, we come up short. If you claim a mind
doesn’t need the brain to create its own thoughts, then you might also claim you don’t
need the brain to survive death. After all, if you didn’t need the brain to think anything in
the first place, you sure won’t need it after you die. But that doesn’t square with the
evidence of brain activity and thoughts. It seems that every time we have a thought, there
is a brain around to create it. And when we get old and our brain doesn’t work too well,
unfortunately our thoughts seem to follow. Plus we don’t have any confirmed instances of
thoughts occurring without a brain around, so this seems to put the kibosh on the theory
that the mind can exist without a brain, while I’m alive or dead.
So where are we with all this mind/brain talk? Let’s try to summarize our claims
about the mind, but we need to be cautious and not claim too much.

1. We have a good familiarity and definition with what a brain is as a physical thing.
2. We feel certain that we need a brain to create our minds and our thoughts.
3. There is no evidence that there are minds without brains, but there is evidence that
there are brains without minds or mind activity (as in people in a vegetative state).
4. We can’t, as yet, come up with a satisfactory definition for mind.
5. It’s not likely there are thoughts or mind after the brain dies, seeing that we need the
brain to create them when we are alive and we have no confirmed instances of a mind
occurring without a brain.
 Where are we here with respect to the concept of mind? The concept of mind is
not a clear concept. We use it to refer to a type of phenomenon but we don’t know exactly
what the nature of that phenomenon is. Owing to the vagueness of the concept we need to
be cautious but specific as possible when using the term because we don’t want to claim
we know more than we know.

Always subject the most important concepts to the most rigorous analysis

A class is a group of anything that shares important distinguishing characteristics.

The great apes are a class. We call them a family in zoology, not a class, but the idea is
the same. If you disagree on including certain members in family (class) of great apes,
then you have a disagreement on how broad or narrow the class concept should be
applied. For instance, some evolutionary biologists argue that Homo sapiens should be
included with the great apes as the fifth great ape. In the natural sciences we establish
classes that are members of other classes, or sub groups, and then we do it again and
again and again. The most frequently recognized classes are genus and the sub group
species. There are many sub species of animals designating common characteristics
among specific animals. In the natural sciences our classifications tend to be rigid with a
minimum of flexibility for new discoveries and genetic variations. So if you discover a
new butterfly, then you already have a classification system of butterflies waiting on a
chart to fit it in. You just need to find his closest relatives and send him packing! But if he
differs in a significant way from all the classes of butterflies on the chart, then you need
to create a new class and put him in. Can our new butterfly be the only member of his
class? Yes, there aren’t too many instances of this but it’s possible.
You can be flexible with creating classes because classes don’t need to be as
restrictive as the classifications we find in the sciences with families and species and so
on. In fact, you can create just about any kind of classes you want, as long as you’re
consistent with how you construct them and establish their respective subgroups. For
example, let’s take the class of hats. Now let’s create a subclass of pink hats. Now let’s
create a subclass large pink hats. Now let’s create a subclass of large round pink hats.
Now let’s create a subclass of large round pink hats worn by men. Now let’s create the
subclass of large pink hats worn by men from New Zealand. Now let’s create the subclass
of large round pink hats worn by men from New Zealand who play Skee Ball. Let’s put
our classes in hierarchical order, just like we do in the natural sciences.

Hats
Pink hats
Large pink hats
Large round pink hats
Large round pink hats worn by men
Large round pink hats worn by men from New Zealand
Large round pink hats worn by men from New Zealand who play Skee Ball (a small class indeed)

EXERCISE 2.2
I. Define the word concept.
II. In hierarchical order, from the most general on top to the most specific on the bottom,
create ten classes and subclasses. List them one on top of the other like the example in the
book.
III. Define the concept mind.
IV. The concept of mind has given philosophers grief for over two thousand years. Can
you think of any important concepts that we use in everyday life that could use some
clarity?

2.3 BROAD TERMS AND NARROW TERMS

A term is too broad if it includes referents not intended to be included in the definition. A
term is too narrow if it’s not broad enough to include the intended referents in the
definition. Broad definitions throw out too wide a net, and narrow terms throw out too
narrow a net. Terms that are too broad lead to overly broad definitions. Overly narrow
terms lead to definitions that are too narrow. If I use the term bees, but I mean to include
only honeybees, then I have used too broad a term and I have included many classes of
bees I did not intend to include. If I use the term honeybees but I mean to include all bees,
then the term is too narrow and I have excluded several classes of bees I had intended to
include. Interestingly, a term can be both too broad and too narrow. Honeybee is too
narrow a term if I want to include all bees, and it’s too broad if I want to include only
Africanized Honeybees.
Using the term with just the right scope is important for political and social
policy, personal relations, in fact for all of our communications in everyday life. If the
local school is launching a school lunch program for needy children then we need to
designate specifically which children are “needy”. Too broad a definition will include
children who do not need the lunch, and too narrow a definition will exclude children the
program is intended to help. Regulating firearms can be a challenge. Too broad a
definition might allow people to own all sorts of weapons not intended to be included.
Too narrow a definition would exclude some of the weapons the law intended to include.
Further, with a subject like gun control, a subject where we have definitions that change
as technology and society changes, there’s a need to revisit the definition to see if it
serves the function originally intended. Over the years new types of weapons are
developed, so the law that once had the proper definition to regulate weapons may turn
out to be too narrow and exclude weapons that should be regulated.
It’s all about precision. If a term is too broad, then we will designate the term with
a ‘BT’. If the term is too narrow, then it’s designated with an ‘NT’. Let’s look at a few
more examples to illustrate.

CHILD ABUSE:
BT Child Welfare
Family Violence

NT Battered Children Syndrome

Child Molesting
Psychological Child Abuse

CHAIRS:
BT Furniture
Seating
NT Lawn Chairs
Stools
Airplane Seats
Rocking Chair

Now let’s take Furniture and use it as the lead term:

FURNITURE:
BT House Furnishings
Decorative Arts

NT Bedroom Furniture
Cupboards
Children’s Furniture

BEES:
BT Insect Societies
Nectarivores
Hymenoptera

NT Bumblebees
Honeybees
Stingless Bees
Carpenter Bees

Now let’s take Honeybee as the lead term

HONEYBEES:
BT Bees
Insects

NT Africanized Honeybees

Now let’s take exotic dancers as the lead term.

EXOTIC DANCERS
BT Entertainers

Speaking of exotic dancers, this brings up an interesting point. We used to use the
term stripteaser, but over the years the term has changed to exotic dancer. Language is
always in a state of change. Are the terms stripteasers and exotic dancers the same in
meaning? It seems they are, it’s just that the latter is current in use. Maybe like clothes in
fashion, like narrow ties or wide ties, the term stripteasers will return, but for now it’s
exotic dancers. Does the term exotic dancer carry with it any additional meaning that the
former term, stripteaser didn’t? Well, some exotic dancers are also lap dancers, but
maybe some stripteasers were lap dancers too, but it’s hard to tell since we didn’t talk
much about lap dancing back then. But wait, some exotic dancers are also lap dancers.
And are all lap dancers exotic dancers? Lap dancers do seem to be exotic, yes, so let’s
assume they’re also exotic dancers. So, what have we learned from this? First, we use the
prevailing term, exotic dancers, so we have familiarity and consensus on the meaning of
this term to start. Next, some exotic dancers are also lap dancers, and all lap dancers are
exotic dancers, because if any dancer is exotic, a lap dancer sure is (even though they
may not fly around poles). So we end up with the following.

EXOTIC DANCERS:
BT Entertainers
Dancers
NT Lap Dancers

LAP DANCERS:
BT Entertainers
Dancers
Exotic Dancers

EXERCISE 2.3
I. Create three examples of Broad Terms and Narrow Terms like you see in the text.

2.4 SIGNS AND SYMBOLS

A Sign is anything that might suggest the presence of something else. If I have a stabbing
pain in my back that cuts off my breathing, making it impossible to move without
excruciating pain, making me wish I were dead, it may be a sign that I have pleurisy, an
inflammation of the lining of the lungs. (Or maybe an old student I flunked a couple of
semesters ago has gone completely haywire). If the cost of gas goes up, then it may be a
sign that OPEC is exporting less oil. Smoke suggests that fire may be present, successive
bursts of sound tells me that the 4th of July fireworks have begun, a gesture may be a
sign of love or disdain, the look on the face of the guy at the one hour photo tells me that
I still don’t know how to use my camera and he will hand me a stack of blank prints.
“Thumbs up” is a physical gesture that tells me that all is well. Physical signs are the
most obvious and unmistakable types of signs because they’re so literal and visual. For
example a deer pictured on a sign placed on the side of the highway tells you that the
animals may cross where you’re driving.

Here are a few more examples of signs:

The smell of something burning in the kitchen is a sign that Clarence is preparing another batch of churros.

If a person is turning blue, then it may be a sign he isn't getting enough oxygen

A crop circle suddenly appearing in your cornfield is a sign that the philosophy club at the university is
initiating its new members.

Symbols stand in for something else, they are surrogates, they represent ideas,
feelings, attitudes, beliefs. We understand what symbols stand for because they’re
associated in some way, culturally, with the things they represent. A flag can represent a
country or a group of people. Religions have objects, figures and designs that act as
symbols of their beliefs. Gifts are often symbols: “Please accept this roasted pig with an
apple in its mouth as a symbol of my love”. Several years ago the beverage company
Snapple was sold for over a billion dollars. It turned out to be a bad business deal for the
purchaser. The deal became a symbol for what not to do in business. The deal gave rise to
the expression in business circles, “Don't pull a Snapple". Sometimes symbols can mean
different things to different people. Individuals can be symbols too. Barry Bonds
symbolizes natural athletic ability rarely found in a baseball player. But for others Bonds
symbolizes cheating and breaking records set by players who never used performance
enhancing drugs.
Can something be both a sign and a symbol? Yes, but there are not as many
instances as the two separately. A wedding band is a sign that a person is married, and it
is also a symbol of fidelity, devotion and love.

Here are a few more examples of symbols:

The R.M.S. Titanic symbolizes a huge disaster.

Rosa Parks is a symbol of courage and dignity in the fight to end discrimination in the U.S.
The U.S. Constitution symbolizes the freedom of the people of the U.S.
The MP3 player is a symbol in the music industry of piracy and lost revenue.
A dove with an olive branch is a symbol of peace.

EXERCISE 2.4
I. Give three examples of signs.
II. Give three examples of symbols.

2.5 VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY

He looked around him at the various shapes that were at last becoming proper
shapes instead of vague and wobbling shapeless shapes. (Zaphod Bebblelebrox gathering
his senses in Douglas Adams' The Restaurant at the End of the Universe from The
Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy).

What is good for physical sight is good for the language we use as well. We need
our language to be as clear and precise as possible. No fuzzy concepts.
A word or sentence is vague when its meaning is not clear, when a word or
sentence is so imprecise that you’re unable to fix a specific concept in your mind. If I say
“Clarence just ate a huge stack of churros” we don’t know how big a huge stack is. Or
“Bill Gates is very wealthy”. How much money must a person have to be very wealthy?
For that matter, what do we mean by wealthy? If “attendance has increased” at the
baseball stadium, what does increased mean? Has it increased five, twenty percent?
Here’s a familiar situation: “My son Hector has been illegally downloading quite a few
songs off the internet lately, I'm afraid the FBI is going to pay us a visit.” Has he been
downloading 24/7 for months on end, or has he copied a few songs from five or ten
albums over two or three months? Somewhere in the middle? Many words have become
so overused in our language that they have become vague and practically meaningless.
Words like love, hate, large, hero, loud, most, heavy, deep, good, and terrorist, pose
considerable challenges of clarity. We speak of loving a car, and we speak of loving a
friend; “Margaret hates the taste of fish”, and “Morris hates Mozart”; the house next door
has a large backyard. Adding a context helps us clarify our vague terms. Adding context
is essential to eliminate vagueness. The yard is large compared to the other yards in our
neighborhood.
Commenting on the credit crisis in the banking industry with respect to the housing
market Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson gave a vague answer when giving his
audience a timeline on how long the crisis would last. The financial difficulties “will take
some time to work its way out.” It will take some time? Say what?
Here's another example of vagueness. Marge has Homer's number.

Marge: This is from the National Fatherhood Institute. It evaluates your knowledge of your son and rates
you as a father:
Homer: Ohhh Marge.
Marge: Name one of your child's friends.
Homer: Ahhh, let's see, Bart's friends. Well, there's the fat kid with the thing. The little
wiener who's always got his hands in his pockets.
Marge: They want a name, Homer, not a vague description.
(The Simpsons, Saturdays of Thunder)

Can we eliminate vagueness completely? No, it’s part of natural language

and the way we express ourselves. In fact it’s not desirable to eliminate all vagueness in
our language. We rely on vague terms all the time and they often serve us well. But
sometimes we get sloppy and we sacrifice too much precision. What we intend to say,
what we mean, becomes a mystery with vagueness. Poetry and literature draw much of
their magic from the skillful use of vagueness. Without the literary license of novelists
and poets literature and poetry would be vacuous, it would lack inspiration. Ironically, on
this account we owe a huge debt to vagueness and its literary practitioners. Here are a
few more examples of vague sentences that would cause even novelists to break out in
hives.

My ex-boyfriend had a huge drinking problem.

She plays basketball all the time.
Cartoons aren’t as good as they used to be.
I can’t believe she applied to so many schools!
He’s a great neighbor.

A few closing observations about vagueness. A sentence that’s too vague can’t be
true or false because it can’t qualify as a claim. Why? Because it’s unclear what the
sentence means. If I say “He’s very tall”, unless we have a context, or some reference
point to evaluate tallness, the sentence would not have enough meaning to judge whether
it is true or false. The same would apply to “He brought too much food to the table”.
Again, without a context, some reference points, the sentence is too vague to qualify as a
claim. Vague sentences are acceptable then only if we know what is meant when the
words are used within a proper context. Otherwise we get confusion.
The lack of precision inherent in vagueness can give us unusual circumstances
with truth and falsity. If I say “There is more than one ice cream cone left,” could be true
or false but it’s also vague in that we don’t know how many cones there are. The
following situation is common in the workplace. A supervisor says to an employee,
“Skippy you did a great job with helping that customer. Keep up the good work.” The
result of this is that although Skippy feels good about himself, he doesn’t know
specifically what it is that he did well so he can continue to do it again.
We say a sentence is Ambiguous if it can be understood to have more than one
meaning. The root of the problem with ambiguity is the inappropriate use of a term or
expression.

The Twin Towers in downtown Los Angeles is the largest psychiatric facility in the U.S. (Largest in size, or
in population?)

Dad: Did little Melvin eat his dinner like I asked him?
Daughter: He ate the whole plate, dad (Get him to a doctor!)

When Leroy returned from his trip, she gave him the boot. (Look out Leroy!)

In the hands of an artisan, ambiguity can be exploited for literary effect or humor.

Cecily: I’m afraid I disapprove of servants.

Carr: You are quite right to do so. Most of them are without scruples.
(Tom Stoppard, Travesties)

The best buns in town (Puritan Bakery)

Or to be critical, even mean.

The only thing you did was yesterday. (John Lennon’s play on words on Paul McCartney’s song Yesterday,
plus his opinion of McCartney’s talent).

Unless it’s an intentional use as in a play, literature, in art or figurative speech,

ambiguity is the result of inattention to the details of meaning in language. Can an
ambiguous sentence be true or false? No, because to evaluate the truth or falsity of a
sentence there needs to be a clear meaning of what is being claimed. With an ambiguous
sentence an individual understands the sentence to mean at least two different things, and
since it’s unclear what is being claimed, it’s impossible to evaluate its truth or falsity.

EXERCISE 2.5
I. Can we eliminate all vagueness from our language? Explain.
II. Is it desirable to eliminate all ambiguity from our language? Explain.
III. True or False:
1) A vague word has more than one meaning.
2) If a sentence is ambiguous, its meaning is fuzzy, unclear, or imprecise.
3) “He ate a lot” is a vague sentence.
4) “They have the largest bank in town” is an ambiguous sentence.
5) “Larry threw the book at Milo” is an ambiguous sentence.
6) “While I was shopping I stumbled upon an old friend” is an ambiguous sentence.
7) “Alvin, it’s time to take your bath!” is a vague sentence.
8) “Dad cooked up the refrigerator” is a vague sentence.
9) “Buying a car will put you into a whole lot of debt” is an ambiguous sentence.
10) Even if a sentence is vague, it can still be true or false.
11) Even if a sentence is ambiguous, it can still be true or false.
12) “Attacker with bat is guilty of hate crimes” is a vague sentence.
13) “She was paid peanuts for her work” is a vague sentence.
14) “Let’s see what Lester has cooked up this time” is an ambiguous sentence.

IV. Create three sentences that are too vague, and three that are too ambiguous to be
claims.

2.6 VERBAL DISPUTES AND REAL DISPUTES

A verbal dispute occurs when people disagree over the truth of a claim but they don't
realize they understand the claim to mean two different things. The confusion usually
centers on the meaning of an important term or expression in the claim. They continue
“arguing” but no progress can be made because they keep talking past each other, never
finding common ground. They lack common definitions for key terms. They see the same
statement, but they argue about different things because they think the statement means
different things.
Lou and Stu are “arguing” about whether sending someone to prison for
25 years to life for stealing a video from Kmart is cruel and unusual punishment. The
verbal dispute centers on the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment.

Lou: Putting a guy away for 25 years to life for stealing a video from Kmart is cruel and unusual
punishment.
Stu: It was his third strike, the guy's a career thief and druggie, he got what he deserved. It's not cruel and
unusual punishment. It's called keeping society safe.
Lou: He's a criminal, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. If you commit a crime in America you’re
supposed to pay with a punishment that fits the crime. Stealing a Disney movie shouldn't get you 25
years to life. It wasn’t even a violent offence.
Stu: He took more than one movie, and it was his third offense. He struck out. He knew the rules. The game
is over.

Lou and Stu are getting no place fast because they don’t agree on a definition for
“cruel and unusual punishment”. Let's continue the discussion with a likely scenario.

Lou: Let me get this straight. Don't you think 25 years to life is pretty stiff for stealing videos from Kmart?
Stu: No.
Lou: Then what would be cruel and unusual punishment for you?
Stu: Just serving a long prison sentence doesn't qualify. In fact, a long prison sentence is
needed to protect society from criminals like the Kmart thief. If we tortured him, that
would be cruel and unusual. If we put him in solitary for no reason but to be mean,
that would qualify. If we did medical experiments on him against his will, that would
qualify. But just a long sentence? No way. You think a long sentence can be cruel and unusual
punishment and I don’t.

Stu is taking the position (the US Supreme Court's decision) that a very long
prison sentence, even if the third offense (strike) is a non violent one like stealing a few
videos, is not cruel and unusual punishment. For Stu, you would have to physically or
psychologically abuse a person to qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. The duration
of the sentence is irrelevant. On the other hand for Lou if the duration of the sentence
does not fit the crime then a long sentence is cruel and unusual punishment.
Lou and Stu have made progress, not in changing each others' minds, but in
identifying where their disagreement lies. Where do they go from here with the
argument? If neither gives ground on the definition of cruel and unusual punishment, they
are pretty much at a stalemate.
Sometimes we find ourselves in verbal disputes “arguing” back and forth, going
in circles, arguing past each other like ships in the night when it’s really a problem of
definition that’s impeding progress. Abortion is a classic example. Many people call
abortion murder, and many do not. With two sides dug in on definitions that are
incompatible, it's no wonder little progress is made on agreeing whether abortion should
be permissible. Or a police officer pulls a fellow over for speeding. The driver was going
with the flow of traffic. He tells the officer he was not speeding, just going with the
traffic, even slower than some. The officer tells him he was eight miles over the limit. As
the driver signs the ticket, he changes his definition of “speeding”.

They come to a different conclusion because they’re using different definitions. If they
could agree on the definitions, then they might agree on a conclusion.

EXERCISE 2.6
I. List three subjects where verbal disputes can occur, and explain through dialog the
nature of the disagreements surrounding the words or expressions in question. Here is one
more dialog to use as an example:

Verbal Dispute: Child Abuse

Mr. O’Grady (Social Worker): We are concerned that you are mistreating little Milton Jr.

Josiah H. Moore, Sr.: I don't know what you are all worked up about, Mr. O'Grady. I keep
telling you I don't hurt little Josiah, I would never hurt him, he's my son! But I do believe in corporal
punishment, just like his Mother and his grandparents, and his great-grandparents before them. Is that what
you’re talking about?

Mr. O'Grady: You’ve been hitting your child very hard, Mr. Moore. He has red welts all over his rump.
It hurts when he sits down.

Josiah H. Moore, Sr.: Just on the rump, and only when he misbehaves. He's got to have respect for his
elders, and for telling the truth. I caught him lying.

Mr. O'Grady: According to the law, Mr. Moore, that's child abuse.

Josiah H. Moore, Sr.: According to me, Mr. O'Grady, that's corporal punishment, and corporal punishment
isn't illegal.

2.7 EXAGGERATION AND PRECISION IN LANGUAGE

Exaggeration works to good effect when used with economy to emphasize a point in
select situations. Too often, though, exaggeration serves a counterproductive role in
argument by offering unrealistic or false claims. “There were a million people at the mall.
I couldn’t even move.” “He’s the hardest professor on Earth.” We emphasize for effect,
but exaggeration soon wears thin. Further, exaggeration is almost always too vague, so
we don’t have an accurate idea of what the speaker is claiming. We can’t assess the
claim’s truth or falsity. After all, exaggerate means to make something bigger, to
intentionally claim that something is out of proportion. In other words, we intentionally
make something vague.
So where are we with exaggeration? There is little room for exaggeration
in constructing argument. It’s complexion is too close to untruth for the purpose of
convincing. Exaggeration is sometimes effective when employed in everyday
communication, say, to emphasize strong feelings, or as a literary device to convey the
same, but not to make an argument. When it comes to argument exaggeration should be
used with economy, as it quickly diminishes in force and clarity as it increases in use.

EXERCISE 2.7
I. OK, I’ll bet you exaggerate just a bit (I’m not exaggerating here). When do you do it
and who do you drive crazy?

2.8 IMPLYING AND INFERRING

Lou: Another energy drink?
Stu: What of it?
Lou: Just asking.
Stu: You always ask.
Lou: You’ve had a bunch of them lately.
Stu: Not as many as that vitamin fortified I’m gonna be Arnold fruit juice concentrates for eight dollars a
swallow. Look at that huge milky green bottle in your hand.
Lou: Relax, I was only asking what it was.
Stu: I know what you’re really saying, Lou. You’re saying I should give up my only happiness in life and
join the health club fanatics you hang out with, flexing muscles in front of mirrors, ripple up, ripple down,
really creepy, all of you drinking cloudy green stuff that looks like sewage, taurine fortified, vitamins a, b,
c, and k fortified, beta carotene fortified, mescaline fortified…
Lou: Wait, wait, wait, not mescaline, you’re thinking of dad, that’s L-carnitine, good for bone mass…not…
Stu: It’s all the same!
Lou: I just wanted a sip, that’s all.
Stu: A sip of my Mega Sugar Caffeinated Frappe Fruppo? Cool. Here.
Lou: Thanks, Stu.
Stu: Lou?
Lou: Sure, but just one sip. It’s expensive.

If you don’t state explicitly what you want to be concluded then we say that you’re
implying something. What the listener thinks you are implying is what he has inferred.
You want to be sure that what he infers is what you implied. We sometimes leave our
thoughts unstated for the reader to draw out an implication from evidence or
circumstances we have just recited. But what is implied by the speaker is not always what
is heard by the reader or listener. Put another way, if it’s not explicitly stated, the reader
will draw the conclusion that he thinks the speaker is trying to convey. When you’re
making an argument you want to be sure that what is inferred is exactly what you
implied. Besides the obvious fact that we need to be as clear in our language as possible,
clearly stating our evidence and conclusions, there’s another technique that can help
eliminate confusion as well. When conducting an argument it’s a good policy for arguers
to check in with each other and confirm the progress of the argument along the way. “Are
you saying this…” or “It seems you are claiming that…” or “As of now it looks like we
have concluded that…” Don’t let anybody tell you that you’re splitting hairs, wasting
time, when you just want to be clear about what’s being argued.
If somebody says it, then it needs to be clear enough to be inferred accurately.

EXERCISE 2.8
I. Create two imaginary conversations where two people imply and infer incorrectly.

2.9 TWO SEMANTIC SUBTERFUGES

Subterfuge #1: “That’s Just a Theory”

(I hear your mom is asking about evolution and, you know, it’s a theory that’s out there,
and it’s got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our
public schools”, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, running for President of he U.S.)

What is a theory? My dictionary tells me that a theory is “a proposed explanation or

hypothesis designed to account for any phenomena.” In other words, it’s the offering of
evidence to explain why something happens or has happened. For example I have a
theory (a hypothesis) that Jack the Ripper was a pharmacist who lived in London at the
time of the murders, I have a theory that polar bears will become extinct in the Arctic by
the year 2050 because of global warming, I have a theory that frying pans coated with
Teflon cause cancer in human beings, I have a theory that Vice President Lyndon Johnson
was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. But remember, a theory is only
as strong as the evidence to support it. There is no evidence to prove that Jack the Ripper
was a London pharmacist. Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence to support the
hypothesis that if global warming continues at the current rate that polar bears may
become extinct in the Arctic by the year 2050. Though there have been claims for many
years that Teflon is dangerous to the health of humans, there is not enough evidence to
prove that Teflon coated pans cause cancer in human. Last, there are still conspiracy buffs
who claim that Lyndon Johnson was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy,
but there’s no evidence that this is the case. We develop theories to explain why our world
works the way it does, or why something will be the way it will be. Some theories are
strong, some are weak, and some we just don’t have enough evidence to say either way.
As the evidence accumulates, we tip the scales one way or the other.
We take the most important theories that govern our lives for granted. Most of the
time we don’t even think about them. Sir Isaac Newton devised a theory of gravitation
that explains why physical bodies affect each other like they do. While I can imagine the
baseball that I’m throwing right now will reach a speed of a hundred and twenty miles an
hour, my aged body is more likely to achieve around forty (if I can catch the wind). My
body is subject to the laws of gravity Newton spoke about. Copernicus had a theory that
the celestial bodies circle the sun, that Earth isn’t the center of the universe. His theory
relied on Galileo’s theories on the motion and velocity of bodies. Turns out they had it
down pretty accurately. The strongest theory is still a theory, a hypothesis. The
accumulated evidence of science tells me that the sun will rise tomorrow but I can’t be
one hundred percent sure. Does this small lack of certainty mean that I will reasonably
believe the sun may not rise tomorrow? No, because the evidence is strong that the theory
will hold up and the sun will appear tomorrow. I have a theory that if Clarence continues
eating twelve to fourteen churros a day he will end up with heart disease, diabetes, a
stroke, morbid obesity, all sorts of awful things. Why? Because doctors have developed a
reliable theory that if you ingest that much junk then you will eventually end up needing
bypass surgery or you will just plain check out early. (No matter what Clarence thinks).
Some people cherry pick the strong theories they want to believe and downplay
the strength of others that they don’t want to acknowledge. This form of downplay fits a
familiar pattern. The maneuver goes like this: “But that’s just a theory. It isn’t proven…”
The arguer proceeds to claim that no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary, a
theory is still just a theory, so the theory, like all theories, must be in doubt. But no theory
is one hundred percent certain (not even Newton’s law of gravitation), so to imply that a
particular theory is deficient because it falls short of certainty is misleading. This
objection is often employed by creationists who want to dismiss evidence that Earth is 3
billion years old, or that Charles Darwin’s theory of natural election explains the origin of
species, both of which are theories as certain as Newton’s law of gravitation. When a
theory has plenty of supportive evidence it’s incumbent on the dissenter to offer
compelling evidence otherwise. There is overwhelming evidence that Earth is 3 billion
years old, and there is overwhelming evidence to support Darwin’s theory of natural
selection. Claiming that these theories are just theories, then, proves nothing.
OK, so what do you do when a person argues, contrary to all geological evidence,
that Earth is not 3 billion years old, but a meager 6, 000 years old? You may want to
adopt the method of Lewis Black, the comedian. He carries a fossil in his pocket, and
when he encounters a creationist who refuses to acknowledge the obvious, he holds it up
in front of the individual and yells “FOSSILL!” If this does not do the trick, Black throws
the fossil at the individual. Is this an argument? No. But I guarantee it will make you feel
better, at least for the moment. So go ahead. Get yourself a pocket sized fossil. Just in
case.

Subterfuge #2: Avoiding the Hypothetical

It has become fashionable for arguers, especially politicians, to avoid answering difficult
hypothetical questions. For example, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, an advocate
for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, was asked what he would do if Iraq plunged
into greater violence if American troops were to withdraw from the country. His reply
was classic evasion: “That’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into that”. The
implication is that a hypothetical question is somehow unfair or unanswerable, that a
question posing an imaginary situation is not worthy of an answer. Politicians routinely
diminish the importance of hypothetical questions by dismissing them as unimportant or
unfair. The evasion is dishonest and it’s amazing that they have the nerve to do it. It’s
even sadder that journalists cave and offer no aggressive response. So don’t fall for it.
The hypothetical is a valuable argumentative tool. Hypotheticals enable us to test
imaginary yet realistic social, political, moral, even philosophical and religious dilemmas.
They play a crucial role of inquiry in everyday life and they help us explore the complex
causal relations in the sciences. If you ship radioactive waste across the US in railroad
cars, then you might want an emergency backup plan if terrorists try to blow it up in
transit. If you eat all hat ice cream that you just bought, then what will you do if you find
it around your waist later in the week?
Mom and dad always told you that it’s OK to pursue Plan A, but you also need
Plan B. They were right. If you don’t make it to the NFL, then what will you do? That’s
not just a fair question. It’s a wise one. It says we can be rational about how plan and live
our lives. The hypothetical is an integral part of our rationality.

EXECISE 2.9
I. Can you think of instances where arguers have used the two subterfuges? What are
they?

2.10 DEFINITIONS

DEFINITIONS
A definition explains the meaning of a word or an expression. Other things besides words
can express meanings, of course, like gestures, noises, clothes, even buildings like the
Eiffel Tower, or the local baseball field, depending on the context. But we’re concerned
only with the meaning of words here and the types of definitions we commonly attribute
to them. We have three types of definitions that predominate in the use of language. They
are Reportive, Stipulative and Technical definitions.

A. A Reportive definition is the commonly used definition of a word that we use in

everyday life. The standard dictionary definition of a word, then, is a reportive definition.
The dictionary is the court of last resort to check if a term is being used correctly. The use
of a reportive definition, then, is either true or false, meaning, a word is either being used
correctly or incorrectly. If I say “The cartoons are on TV!” the use of the terms cartoons
and TV are agreed upon, we can look up their meanings in standard dictionaries. You
might say they have been reported and recorded.
In the past many standard dictionaries gave prescriptive definitions. That is, the
reportive definitions that dictionaries gave would give you the definition of the word but
it did so by prescribing how the word should be used. They set the standards for the use
of the words. But linguists had fierce debates over whether they should be prescribing
how words should be used as opposed to giving definitions that describe how they are
used. They argued that natural language is in a dynamic process of evolution, it’s always
changing. New words come into being, old ones drop out of use, and the words that stay
in use often take on new meanings reflecting changes in the cultures where they are used.
If language and meaning are dynamic, should a dictionary prescribe how a word should
be used as if the meanings of words never change? It’s as if a prescriptive dictionary
would be turning back the clock on the meanings of words, it wouldn’t be in touch with
the current meanings of the terms the dictionary is supposed to define. So the
descriptivists eventually won the argument. The dictionary you pick up will almost
always describe or explain how a word is currently being used, not prescribe how it
should be used. And the very best dictionaries will also give examples of how the word is
used in everyday language, from literature or other sources to illustrate the use of the
word in practice. Put another way, the dictionary will report how the word is used.
B. A Stipulative definition defines a word that’s already in use in a way that gives the
word a special meaning. Further, if a person feels he can’t use a word already in use to
express the meaning he’s reaching for, he may create a new word to do the job. In both
cases the author stipulates that a word is to be understood in a certain way that deviates
from convention. This is why stipulative definitions are not true or false. Because they
are special cases, the use of a word in specific circumstances, stipulative definitions are
fleeting compared to reportive definitions that rely on documentation for assessment for
proper use. For example I might combine the term “consumer” with the word
“promiscuous” to get “consumiscuous” and I stipulate that means “a person who is a
voracious consumer without much discretion”. In other words, he buys pretty much
anything. In 1994 the Quaker Oats Company acquired Snapple the beverage company for
$1.7 Billion. The textbook case of a bad business decision, the word Snapple became
synonymous with financial catastrophe: “It was a Snapple of a deal if I ever saw one”,
“Don’t do a Snapple, Morris, do your homework”, “If I’m about to commit a Snapple,
Herb, shake me to my senses”. (Quaker Oats sold Snapple in less than three years for
$300 million). J.K. Rowling created a new vocabulary for her Harry Potter books, the
entire vocabulary is stipulative. She even created a whole vocabulary for an imaginary
sport called Quidditch. Quidditch is comprised of players flying around on brooms
(they’re called brooms, pretty conventional I would say). The balls the players shuffle or
hit are called quaffles, the players who chase the balls are chasers, which is pretty
understandable since they often chase the ball, and a bludger hits the ball, apparently a
play on the term bludgeon, which the Quidditch players do a fair amount of during the
game.
When a stipulative definition finds its way into the common vocabulary we
eventually find it’s no longer a stipulative definition. Sometimes the meaning of a
stipulative word becomes so familiar that it migrates from a stipulative definition to a
reportive definition. Exactly when this happens to the meaning of a word, or if it ever will
happen to a word, we can’t say. But typically people eventually recognize the word and
associate the new meaning with its use so often we just say it has become reportive and
no longer stipulative. For example, Quidditch is an imaginary game, but it’s more
recognizable by a generation of youthful readers and movie goers that many established
sports dating back hundreds of years, say, like lacrosse. Because of this familiarity
Quidditch’s standing as a stipulative definition may have already passed or be close to it.
If I’m right in this, then a reportive dictionary would not only define Quidditch, it would
also define snitch, the fourth ball used in the game of Quidditch, and include it with the
traditional reportive definition of the word snitch. As all reportive definitions, the
definitions for Quidditch together with the several terms that define the components and
activities of the game would be either true or false according to how accurately they are
defined.
As a last example, a person may speak about religion but stipulate that he means
to refer to only those religions that have a god. This would eliminate Buddhism, which
has no god. Further, he may stipulate that he means to refer to religions that have one
god, which would eliminate Hinduism and other polytheistic religions. And again, he
may restrict his use of the terms religion and god to religions that are the most populous
religions with one god, and this would restrict the discussion to Judaism, Christianity and
Islam. At this point the presenter is free to refer to “religion” and the audience will be
clear which religions and gods he’s referring to.

C. A Technical definition narrows the definition of a word to eliminate vagueness to

focus the word for a specialized use. Technical definitions occur frequently in specialized
fields such as the humanities and social sciences, sciences, law and public policy,
wherever there’s a need to use a word in a specialized way. The term “poverty” has a
specialized definition in the U.S. which is $22,350 annual income for a family of four.
We often use the term “poverty” in non technical settings, which is fine, but if we’re
conversing about poverty in the U.S. it’s a good idea to have the official definition used
by the government as a reference. Here, the specific denomination of U.S. dollars (and
the country, of course) helps us establish a context too so we can move the technical
definition and compare how poverty exits in other countries. The technical definition here
has its virtues, but the transference between cultures and quality of living becomes
problematic, so it’s a bit tricky. Still, we need some place to start, we need something to
use as a standard, so the technical definition is a beginning. Recently the President of
Brazil declared that Brazil will try to eliminate “extreme poverty” in the country.
“Extreme poverty”, sometimes known as “absolute poverty”, is defined by the World
Bank as an individual surviving on $1.50 a day or less. Extreme poverty is where an
individual cannot secure basic life necessities like clothes, food, health care or shelter.
There are 16 million people in Brazil living on $44.00 a month or less, 8.5 percent of the
population.
The definition of a technical term may change over time depending on its
function, the context and how well we believe the definition is doing its job. So like a
reportive definition, a technical definition can also be true or false depending on whether
you can have the correct or incorrect definition of the word. But a technical definition of
a word can also be changed on consent of a body, a group, a political party, whoever is in
charge of establishing the definition. So tracking its truth or falsity can be more
problematic than just picking up a standard dictionary like you can with reportive
definitions.
While many technical definitions are serviceable and don’t promote disagreement,
like the technical definition of a “dependent” (your basset hound, Basil, isn’t a dependant,
so no deduction), many technical definitions can create disagreement with far reaching
implications. Proctor and Gamble has had a disagreement with the UK over classifying
Pringles as a food. At first the UK said Pringles are closer to being a cake or bread. But
the UK reconsidered and reclassified it as a potato snack. P&G has contested the
classification based on the fact that Pringles contains only 42% potato flour. But the UK
disagrees and that means Pringles is now subject to a value added tax placed on potato
snacks. Many California wineries label a red wine they produce “Burgundy” when
Burgundy is really a region in France known for centuries to produce a prized red wine
from grapes acclimated to that specific region. The French call the wine Burgundy after
the region. You don’t need three guesses to figure out why the Californians call their wine
Burgundy. In fact, the Californians do the same with Bordeaux, Champagne, and even
Cognac. Without a special body or tradition with the influence to create technical terms
that regulate the labeling of wines created from French varieties of grapes grown in
specific regions of France, California vintners will continue to intentionally confuse wine
grown in France with the wine made from French grapes grown in California to increase
their sales. At least if you buy a Cuban cigar grown in the U.S. the label will tell you it’s
from “Cuban seed”, implying that it wasn’t grown in Cuba after all.

EXERCISE 2.10
I. Close your book and write a definition for each of the three kinds of definitions studied:
Reportive, Stipulative and Technical.
II. Can you think of any examples of stipulative definitions being used in your classes in
college or in the newspapers or daily life? Can you think of any examples of Technical
definitions being used?

EXERCISE 2.1
I. Without a specific context or situation it is not clear what is meant in language.

EXERCISE 2.2
I. Answers will vary.
II. Answers will vary.
III. Answers will vary.
IV. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 2.3
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 2.4
I. Answers will vary.
II. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 2.5
I. No. Some vagueness is necessary and a good thing.
II. Yes, unless it is intentional.
III.
1. F
2. F
3. T
4. T
5. T
6. T
7. F
8. F
9. F
10. T
11. F
12. F
13. F
14. T
IV. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 2.6
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 2.7
I. Answers will vary (Boy, will they vary).

EXERCISE 2.8
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 2. 9
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 2.10
I. Answers will vary.
II. Answers will vary.

CHAPTER 3: CONNECTIONS
3.1 IMPLICATIONS
Implications are consequences that follow from a claim or argument. The better you
understand the implications of an argument, the greater your ability to assess its strength.
Ask yourself, “What will result from the position being advocated?”
What are the implications if I eat a pint of super premium chocolate cookie dough
ice-cream every few days? First, there is little doubt that I will be a very happy camper.
But most likely there will also be a gain in weight, probably a rise in my cholesterol
level, and it would probably hasten other health problems, like diabetes. Implications of
purchasing a SUV? Most SUVs use plenty of gas, so it will be costly, and the insurance
for an expensive auto is high too. SUVs are tough on the environment too. Buy a hybrid
instead? They get good gas mileage. Now the vacation is a possibility where the SUV
wasn’t. If the government ships nuclear waste across the country in boxcars and puts it in
a landfill near your home, can you think of any implications? Can it ever be safe to
transport in boxcars over two thousand miles and bury it close to your home?
Let’s take a look at an example from a real life situation. In 2003 an 86 year old
man lost control of his automobile and plowed through a Farmers’ Market in Santa
Monica, CA. For three blocks his car plowed down dozens of people and concessions,
killing 10 and injuring many others. A debate ensued in the papers about the (perceived)
dangers of seniors driving and what could be done to avert future tragedies. Many people
wrote letters to newspapers stating that seniors should be tested before they are allowed
to drive, many said they could not understand how anyone who is 86 years old could be
driving a car. Others claimed seniors are safer drivers than teenagers, and it would be
discriminatory to treat them differently than anyone else. Here is a typical letter to the
editor.

How can anyone apply a rule of a definite age at which to deprive seniors of their driver’s license?
It’s obvious the person suggesting 65 is very young!
It’s amazing how much younger 65 seems the closer you approach that age. No two
people are alike. Some seniors at 85 are far more alert, agile and competent than others are at 60! And
seniors are usually more sober and careful than young drivers.
There are tests and examinations that can determine skills and abilities. These could be
administered by primary physicians. (Virginia Denney-Fox)

Denney-Fox argues many things, but one of her claims is that physicians
could administer examinations to determine if seniors are fit to drive. What are the
implications of taking such a position?

Here is one implication from another letter to the editor:

No doctor in his right mind would give written approval to drive. If there was an
accident, can you imagine the lawsuits against the doctor that would follow?
(Don Gliden)

Can you think of any other implications? Would physicians want to

administer such examinations? Physicians make fine salaries. Who would pay them to
administer such tests? Would physicians be required to give tests? Would seniors have to
pay? Would this be discriminatory toward the elderly or the poor? Would doctors
examine every senior? What age would qualify as being senior?
 Let’s leave driving and look at one last argument. The following quote expresses a
kind of attitude that has far reaching implications.

If my heart really, honestly desires a Cadillac…would there be something terribly wrong with me
saying, ‘Lord, it is the desire of my heart to have a nice car…and I’ll use it for your glory?’ I think I could
do that, and in time, as I walked in obedience with God, I believe I’d have it. (Televangelist, Paul Crouch
seeking donations)

Crouch isn’t trying to convince you that God will give him a Cadillac. He’s trying
to convince you that he can have a Cadillac and be a Christian too. He wants to reconcile
his materialism with his being a Christian. What implications does such attachment to
material things have for the Christian Crouch and for Christianity? If Christianity is
supposed to be a friend of the poor and dispossessed, then how is it possible to be a rich
Christian, rolling around in a Cadillac?
But remember it’s not only arguments that have implications. Suggestions,
opinions, theories, and peoples’ actions can have implications too. They have
implications because they express preferences and views that affect us and our
environment. This is why we don’t limit ourselves to formal written or spoken arguments
when we think critically about the implications of our behavior.

EXERCISE 3.1
I. Below are three arguments, each with serious implications if the authors are right.
Underline the conclusion, and list the premises in their most logical order. Then draw out
the implications for each of them by listing the implications as clearly as you can.

1) There is no such thing as free will. The mind is induced to wish this or that by some
cause, and that cause is determined by another cause, and so on back to infinity. (Spinoza,
Ethics, 1677)

2) Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and
the soul of the soul-less conditions. It is the opium of the people. (Karl Marx,
Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1884)

3) The men of the technostructure are the new and universal priesthood. Their religion is
business success; their test of virtue is growth and profit. Their bible is the computer
printout; their communion bench is the committee room. (John K. Galbraith, The Age of
Uncertainty)

3.2 NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS

Necessary and sufficient conditions are two basic types of requirements, conditions that
must be met for something to occur. If I want to drive a car in California, then it’s
necessary that I be at least 15 and a half years old. Is being fifteen and a half sufficient for
me to drive a car? No. But If I’m not fifteen and a half, then I’m not going to drive
because it’s a necessary condition for me to drive. On the other hand, I had a root canal
last year and believe me a root canal is sufficient to give me a headache. Is it necessary
for me to have a root canal for me to get a headache? No. Plenty of things give me
headaches, and like these other things, a root canal is sufficient. Let’s take a closer look at
how these two conditions function.
A necessary condition is something that must be present, A, for something else,
B, to occur. If A occurs, it doesn’t guarantee that B will occur. It just means that A has to
occur if B is going to occur. If I want to make ice-cream, a necessary ingredient to make
it is milk. Even if I have all the other ingredients - chocolate, sugar, cookie dough,
Madagascar vanilla - along with my new $600 Italian make-it-in-only-one-hour ice-
cream maker, it’s still necessary to have milk if I’m going to make ice-cream. Does
having milk guarantee I will make ice-cream? No. There is plenty more to making ice-
cream than just having milk. But it’s necessary to have milk to make ice cream.

To make ice-cream, it’s necessary to have milk

For X to occur, Y must also occur

If you don’t have milk, then you can’t make ice-cream

If Y does not occur, then X will not occur

With the above in mind, we have the following:

The presence of Y (milk) does not guarantee that X (ice-cream) will occur.
(Your $600 Italian ice-cream maker may break down).

The absence of Y (milk) guarantees that X (ice-cream) will not occur.

(Without milk it just can’t happen)

Here are a few more:

If I’m going to turn 50 years old, then I will (necessarily) have to turn 49 first.
(But turning 49 doesn’t guarantee I will turn 50).

If I want to reach the moon, then I will necessarily have to leave the atmosphere.
(Though leaving the atmosphere doesn’t guarantee I will get to the moon).

To make lasagna I will necessarily need lasagna noodles.

(But even with the noodles, I may not make lasagna)

A sufficient condition is met when A occurs and it alone is responsible to bring

about B. A is sufficient to bring about B. But just because A brings about B that does not
mean that other causes cannot bring about B too. In fact, there may be many things that
will cause B to occur. There are many ways for me to get to the ball game tonight, I can
drive, take a cab, a friend might pick me up, or I can take the metro or a bus. Each way is
sufficient to get me there.
When going to a ball game Clarence always looks to see if they’re selling churros.
If they sell churros at the ballgame then that’s sufficient to make Clarence happy. If they
don’t sell churros at the ballgame, that doesn’t mean he won’t be happy.

For Clarence to be happy, it’s sufficient for them to sell churros at the ballgame
For X to occur, then it is sufficient for Y to occur

If they don’t sell churros at the ball game, that does not guarantee that Clarence won’t be happy
If Y does not occur, then it does not guarantee that X will not occur

With the above in mind, we have the following:

The presence Y (selling churros at the game) guarantees X (Clarence will be happy)
(It happens every time, just look at his face)

The absence of Y (selling churros at the ball game) does not guarantee that X will not occur (That Clarence
will not be happy)
(Chicharrones make him happy too. And they sell them at the game too!)

Here are a few more:

Finding out that my HMO family physician has taken another 1000 patients is
sufficient to drive me to despair (Though other things can drive me to despair too)

Having $200 to spend is sufficient to get me a ticket to a Dave Mathews concert.

($100 might also be sufficient)

Finding out that Yogi Bear has stolen another picnic basket is sufficient to anger the Park Ranger
(Other things get the Park Ranger angry too)

Necessary and sufficient conditions can also be combined. To get a strikeout in

baseball it’s necessary for the pitcher to get three strikes. That is, the pitcher can’t get a
strikeout without getting three strikes, it’s necessary. It’s also the case that if you get
three strikes you do get a strikeout. Put another way, it’s necessary to get three strikes to
get a strikeout, and that’s all you need. But it’s also sufficient to get three strikes to get a
strikeout in baseball too. All you need is three strikes. It’s sufficient. So it’s both
necessary and sufficient to have three strikes to strike out a batter in baseball.
Let’s combine the two concepts with this example:
It’s necessary and sufficient for me to come in first to win the Boston Marathon.

Necessary: A necessary condition, X, must be met for Y to occur. The only way I can win the Boston
Marathon is if I come in first. And in this case coming in first does guarantee that I will win.

Sufficient: A sufficient condition, X, guarantees, that Y will occur.

Coming in first is sufficient for me to win the Boston Marathon. In this case coming in first is
sufficient to win, so nothing else is needed.

Here are a few more examples:

It is necessary and sufficient to have HIV to get AIDS.
It is necessary and sufficient to use a silver bullet to kill a werewolf.
It is necessary and sufficient for water to be at least 32 degrees Fahrenheit for it to freeze.
It is necessary and sufficient to circle all four bases on a hit inside the park to have an inside the park home
run in baseball.

I thought we were ready for some exercises but it looks like the guys are still
working out some details. Let’s see what they’re doing.
Lou: He makes it sound so easy, and that’s what’s so frustrating. Sometimes I can’t tell if it’s necessary or
sufficient, let alone both. Let’s go to Chapter Five. K will never know.
Stu: It’s easy, really. All you have to do is ask yourself: What would the consequences be if the relation
were Necessary? What would the consequences be if the relation were Sufficient? Then you have it.
Lou: I want to move to Chapter 5. Life is short…
Stu: You need to be really smart to be a physicist at NASA, right?
Lou: Right.
Stu: So, it’s necessary. It’s a necessary condition to be smart to be a physicist at NASA. So far so good?
Lou: Right.
Stu: But is it sufficient? No, because if being smart were a sufficient condition to be a physicist at NASA,
that would mean everybody who is smart would be a physicist at NASA, and we know that can’t be.
Remember, if it’s sufficient, that’s all that’s needed for it to happen. NASA would be a pretty crowded place
if being smart were a sufficient condition for being a physicist.

Lou: I think I get it. For example, all the students in Professor K’s philosophy class are smart, and being
smart is a necessary condition for being a physicist at NASA. So all of K’s students meet that necessary
condition for being a physicist at NASA. But meeting that one condition alone won’t make them physicists
at NASA. It just means that his students have met that one condition for being a physicist at NASA. Being
smart isn’t a sufficient condition for being a physicist at NASA. Otherwise all of K’s students would be
physicists at NASA! So there must be some other conditions to meet to be a physicist at NASA! At NASA!
Stu: Please, relax. This is philosophy. Act like the British.
Lou: Hot damn! I think I have it. Can we do a few more before we do the exercise? I hate K’s exercises.
Stu: Cut the commentary. Let’s do one more.

Lou: Passing your drivers’ test and getting your license.

Stu: That’s easy. It’s necessary to pass a drivers’ test to get a license. And it’s sufficient too because passing
the test is all that’s required for you to get your license.
Lou: Piece of cake.

Stu: I have one more.

Lou: Shoot.
Stu: Is it necessary, sufficient or both to have good coordination to be a sign twirler?
Lou: Well, it’s definitely necessary because if you don’t have good coordination you won’t be able to twirl
a sign, so that’s for certain. But is it sufficient? No, because if it were sufficient that would mean everybody
who has good coordination would be a good sign twirler, and we know that you need more than good
coordination to be a good twirler. So it’s just necessary but not sufficient.
Stu: You got it, brother.

Lou: Good, let’s do the exercises.

Stu: No! I have one more!
Lou: Make it snappy. The book is called A Short Introduction to Critical Thinking.
Stu: OK, here goes. Is it necessary, sufficient or both for Donald Trump to have a rug on his head to go out
in public?
Lou: It’s definitely necessary. Nobody has ever seen him without a mop on top. He would never go out
without it.
Stu: You’re on a roll, brother, but is it sufficient?
Lou: No. At least I hope it’s not sufficient! If putting a rug on his head were sufficient for him to go out into
public, he would be out every time he has the rug on. He probably wears that thing when he sleeps. That
would mean he would be out when he’s asleep, or when he’s in the shower. The public would rebel. I’m
sure he needs other things besides a rug on his head to go out in public. For example, he has to be in a nasty
mood, and he needs to …

Stu: Let’s do the exercise.

Lou: Hey, one more thing. I don’t think it’s a rug, I think it’s the real thing, it just looks like a rug.
Stu: You mean?
Lou: Yes, K may have to change this example to Rand Paul.

EXERCISE 3.2
I. In the following exercise decide if the answer is necessary, sufficient, or necessary and
sufficient.

1. It is ___________________to have a ticket to get into a Artic Monkeys concert.

2. A six year old playing the violin is _________________________ to evacuate a room.
3. The presence of high concentrations of salt in the soil is _______________________
to stunt the growth of fruit trees.
4. The presence of high concentrations of asbestos in the workplace is
________________________for workers to contract lung cancer.
5. It is _____________________ to cut the chest open to access the heart for open heart
surgery.
6. It is ____________________to have checkmate to win a match in chess.
7. It is _____________________to use kryptonite to kill superman.
8. It is ________________to wear no clothes to be called naked.
9. It is ___________________to have oranges if you are to make orange juice.
10. It is __________________ for Dorothy to follow the yellow brick road if she is
going to make it to the Land of Oz.
11. If Charlie Brown is going to kick the football, then it is ________________ for Lucy
to hold the ball still and not pull it away.
12. Dying is _____________________for K’s wife to collect his life insurance policy
(and move to Maui with the gardener).
13. It is ____________________ to have the most votes in the Electoral College to
become President of the United States.
14. Winning the Pennant is____________________ for a major league baseball team to
play in the World Series.
II. Create three necessary conditions statements, three sufficient conditions statements,
and three necessary and sufficient conditions statements.

3.3 CAUSE AND EFFECT

If I put chili pepper on my pizza and I get heartburn an hour later, I assume the
matchstick feeling in my stomach was caused by the pepper. I’m riding my bicycle and I
suddenly get a flat tire. I look down and I notice a nail has punctured the tire. I assume
the nail caused the tire to go flat. Cause and effect, it’s the glue that connects events and
gives us a world we can identify in sequence, one event after another. Helium in the
balloon causes it to rise, dark chocolate passing the lips causes that euphoric feeling
inside, exercising on the treadmill causes me break into a sweat.
Try to imagine what the world would be like without the type of cause and effect
relations we’re accustomed to. It’s hard to imagine. In the 18th century the Scottish
philosopher David Hume claimed that there is no necessary connection between events in
the world. If I put helium in a balloon, the balloon may sink, the next time I eat chocolate
it may taste like garlic and when I work out on the treadmill icicles may drop from my
brow. Hume used the example of billiards. When I hit a billiard ball another ball may
jump right off the table! How could this be? Hume claimed there is nothing in the world
that requires past causal relations to be repeated in the future. Just because one event has
preceded another in the past – I hit billiard ball A and it hits ball B into the corner pocket
- that doesn’t mean these same types of events will occur in similar fashion in the future.
This is a pretty radical view. But even though we can’t disprove Hume’s theory, even
with all our science, we still assume that events in our everyday lives will repeat
themselves in the future as they have in the past given the similarity of events. We
assume that one event actually causes another and that this is how the world works.
What’s the problem then? Sometimes it’s hard to figure out which event (or events) has
actually caused another event.
One thing we can be sure of is the cause always comes before the effect. My
indigestion comes after I eat chili, not before. Put another way, I don’t get indigestion and
then have a desire to put more chili on my pizza. This seems simple enough but even this
observation isn’t always clear at first. For instance I may buy a fast Corvette and the next
thing you see is I’m racing around town piling up speeding tickets. But then you realize
it’s not the Corvette after all. I had more speeding tickets when I had my old 1970
Volkswagen Bug that I traded in for the Corvette. Or I’ve been smoking for several years
and find out I have cancer. I think to myself “Wow! I never knew that cancer could make
a person want a cigarette”.
The distance in time between the cause and effect can make it difficult to see that
two events are connected. Farmers sprayed DDT on their crops for many years before we
realized that it got into the food chain and made the eggs of birds so brittle that they
would break before they could hatch. Likewise, it was some time before we figured out
that burning fossil fuels causes the greenhouse effect that’s warming our planet. When I
was a kid we thought getting a tan at the beach was good for you, but now we know it’s
harmful. Jets have been leaving contrails in the sky for decades, but it’s only recently that
scientists have discovered that contrails have doing harm to the environment.
And sometimes we think events are causes when they may not be causes at all.
For many years doctors thought that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. When two
doctors advanced the theory that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium, Helicobacter
pylori, they were not taken seriously, even ridiculed. But they were eventually proven
correct.
Superstition and lack of knowledge have played a role in mistakenly
explaining causal relations too. Before we understood that earthquakes are caused by
geological formations below the surface of Earth people thought that spirits or gods made
our planet shake. The same goes for lightning and thunder. There are still some people
who don’t have an adequate scientific understanding of nature who believe natural
phenomena, such as rainfall, are caused by spirits or gods. In fact, many people still think
they can cause rain to fall if they petition a god with a rain dance. But there has never
been a controlled study to prove that prayer or dancing or any kind of petition to a god
can have a causal effect on physical events in the world.

Overcoming ignorance to rationally explain the causal relations of events

means we’re willing to build on scientific foundations laid by Copernicus, Newton,
Darwin and other heavy hitters who unraveled puzzles on a scale unimagined by most. In
theory, Hume was right, we can’t be sure that tomorrow will bring causal relations as we
experience them today. But to improve our daily lives, eradicate superstition and
ignorance, we have a great GPS if we chum around with the likes of guys just mentioned.
Even Hume would agree.

EXERCISE 3.3
I. Give three examples where the distance between cause and effect is great and it took us
time to identify the causal relations.
II. Give an example where we were mistaken about the causal relations between two
events. For example, for a long time we thought stomach ulcers were caused by stress,
but we now we know that ulcers are caused by a virus.
III. Give an example of an event where we do not know the cause but would like to know
the cause.
IV. Here’s an example of causal reasoning. What is it that Dr. Novella claims to know,
and how? Has he left anything out that causal relations have not revealed?

If you change the brain, you change the mind. If you damage the brain, you damage the mind. If you turn
off the brain, you turn off the mind…And now with more sophisticated tools, when we're looking at brain
function with functional MRI, for example, we can see that brain activity precedes mental activities — and
that makes sense, because causes come before their effects. (Steven Novella, a neurologist, Yale
University).

EXERCISE 3.1
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 3.2
I.
1. Necessary
2. Sufficient
3. Sufficient
4. Sufficient
5. Necessary
6. Necessary and Sufficient
7. Sufficient
8. Necessary and Sufficient
9. Necessary and Sufficient
10. Necessary
11. Necessary
12. Necessary and Sufficient
13. Necessary and Sufficient
14. Necessary and Sufficient

II. Answers will vary

EXERCISE 3.3
I. Answers will vary
II. Answers will vary
III. Answers will vary
IV. Answers will vary
CHAPTER 4: ETHICS AND ARGUMENTS
4.1 WHAT IS ETHICS?
The discipline of ethics is devoted to the study of how we should behave. How
we should behave is important to us and others, so it’s crucial that we think critically
about the reasons why we behave the way we do. We want clearly thought out,
compelling reasons to justify our behavior.
The language we use to evaluate behavior has distinguishing characteristics that
enable us to separate it from nonethical language. Once we distinguish between the
features of ethical and nonethical language we can move freely between these two types
of discourse with confidence. This way we can be sure when we’re doing ethics and
when we’re not doing ethics. First let’s take a look at our language, and then we’ll look at
some ethical theories and how they might apply to our daily lives.

EXERCISE 4.1
I. What is ethics and what is its purpose?

4.2 IS AND OUGHT

If I say “Clarence is eating a churro” I’m describing a state of affairs in the world that we
can see, we can verify his actions by looking. (There he is, he’s at it again). If I say
“Clarence ought not to be eating a churro” then I’m evaluating his behavior. I’m claiming
that he should not be eating a churro. In a nutshell this is what ethical language is all
about. It’s about clearly determining the boundaries between what is the case, a
descriptive claim about behavior, and what ought to be the case, a prescriptive claim
about behavior. Sometimes people feel so strongly about how we should behave that
they get the is and the ought mixed up. They don’t see that prescribing behavior requires
good reasons as a justification. Clarence needs good reasons to put down his churro.
Otherwise let the fellow enjoy his moment. Order him some coffee too.

EXERCISE 4.2
I. What is the difference between an is claim and an ought claim?

4.3 OBJECTIVE, SUBJECTIVE AND ETHICAL CLAIMS

An objective claim is a claim we can confirm as true or false in the world by verifiable
standards such as empirical observation – looking, touching,, hearing, etc. - or scientific
experimentation. An objective claim is a claim about a state of affairs in the world, that
something is or is not the case. If I claim Huckleberry Hound is on the TV we can test the
truth of the claim by checking the TV to see if he’s there. If I claim that Sylvester
Stallone is making another Rocky movie we can test the truth of the claim by reading the
newspapers, or even calling his agent. Some objective claims you can verify as true: Mel
Blanc did the voices for Porky Pig and Sylvester the Cat (T). Some objective claims you
can verify as false: Sharon Stone starred in the movie Catwoman (F). Some you cannot
tell because of the circumstances, but may know in the future if you get more
information: Barbara Walters had an affair with Fidel Castro (?). Some claims you will
never know for sure: Galileo tossed a jar of pesto sauce off the Leaning Tower of Pisa
while doing research on heliocentrism in 1590 (?). We need eyewitness accounts, reliable
newspaper accounts, scientific experiments, pictures, public and private records and
history books, the most reliable tools available to evaluate an objective claim. And of
course these days it always helps to have forensic evidence.
 Objective claims assume there are standards or criteria that we agree on for the
claims to be assessed. We can put Clarence on a scale and all of us agree that scales
gauge weight, so we know for sure if he touches 300 pounds (as claimed). If we follow
Leroy into the mountains we will know if he sneezes because of allergies (as claimed).
Bill Gates either had the London Bridge moved to San Jose, or he didn’t - check it out in
the newspapers or call Microsoft. Morris’ doctor has tests he relies on to calculate
cholesterol levels. We agree on the tests.
“But don’t people use different criteria to determine the truth or falsity of
objective claims? Don’t people see things or interpret things differently, even when things
appear to be clear to almost everyone else? Can you really say that anything is
completely objective?” Yes, there is disagreement. There will always be someone
claiming that Earth is flat, that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon, the fossil
record is a hoax or that Clarence doesn’t eat churros. But the more we stress agreement
on establishing common criteria that we can verify with science and reason, the less
problems we will have agreeing on the truth or falsity of objective claims. We can set
reasonable standards to evaluate objective claims.

An objective claim can be thought of as an is claim:

SpongeBob has two front teeth (T or F).

(It is true or false that SpongeBob has two front teeth).

Oscar Wilde wrote The Importance of Being Earnest (T or F).

(It is true or false that Oscar Wilde wrote The Importance of Being Earnest).

There is a chair in the department store window (T or F).

(It is true or false that there is a chair in the department store window).

an objective claim = is claim

Here are a few more examples of objective claims:

Megan Fox starred in a movie Transformers

Teak trees grow in El Salvador.
Mozart died of food poisoning after eating bad pork chops while on vacation in France.
Brooklyn was the original home for the Dodgers baseball team.

While objective claims are about objective states of affairs we can confirm as true
or false, subjective claims focus on the inner feelings or beliefs we experience inside us.
A subjective claim is a claim that refers to the private feelings or personal
preferences we hold. If I say, "I have a pain in my upper right molar," or “Shaq should
lose a little weight. He looks a bit pudgy lately,” the claims are subjective because they
refer to personal experiences or preferences. There are no external standards available to
confirm or deny subjective claims like we have for objective claims. My personal
experience of pain and my view that Shaq should lose weight are both personal feelings
that I experience or possess. They are unlike claiming a chair is in front of me. When
people make subjective claims we usually accept them as accurately representing the
feelings or views of the speaker. If my neighbor tells me he enjoyed the movie, I assume
the claim is true, so I regard his claim about his movie experience as a true subjective
claim (He enjoyed the movie). Likewise, if my neighbor claims Norway is as beautiful as
Scotland I assume that he actually believes what he says, so his claim that Norway is as
beautiful as Scotland would be a true subjective claim for him. (That this is actually what
he believes). We don’t have a yardstick anywhere to tell us that he really liked the movie,
or that Norway is as beautiful as Scotland. To imagine a false subjective claim, then, is
rather easy. If I claim I love to watch old westerns on TV but I really dread them, I would
be making a false subjective claim. In other words, I wouldn’t be telling the truth.
“But wait a minute,” you say “What do we do with subjective claims that
everybody agrees on, like “Shaq is a really big guy,” or “Some Harleys are really loud.”
Aren’t these types of claims really objective? After all, everybody agrees that Shaq is a
big guy, and Harley’s are loud”. Not quite. The fact that everybody agrees that a
subjective claim is true or false does not make it an objective claim. If we had specific
criteria to establish ‘bigness’ we could use it as a measuring stick to determine if Shaq is
a big guy. And if we had specific criteria to establish ‘loudness’ for Harleys that everyone
agreed on we could apply it to see if they’re loud. But we need to be careful here. We’re
really only setting criteria for subjective experiences to be treated as if they are objective
for a special purpose. We may need to write tickets to guys with loud Harley’s because
the neighbors are complaining. So we set a decibel level and start writing tickets. We’re
not really changing a subjective experience into an objective experience.
Here are a few more subjective claims.

It’s ok to eat risotto with pasta.

My underwear is too tight.
It’s not worth the trouble. Don’t take anatomy and physiology.
The Lord of the Rings was boring.
As life’s pleasures go, food is second only to sex. Except for salami and eggs. Now that’s better than sex,
but only if the salami is thickly sliced. (Alan King)

Subjective claims are neither right or wrong, good or bad. If I say I like the green
roof on my house, that is true for me, and if you hate green roofs, hating them would be
just as true for you. What is subjectively true and false for me, is true and false for me,
and what is subjectively true and false for you, is true and false for you.
One last thing about subjective claims. Sometimes people think that subjective
claims are somehow inferior to, or are not as important as objective claims. This is not so.
Subjective claims express our inner world to the outer world. Considering the world we
live in, our private worlds are important worlds to express. And considering the structure
of our world, it’s impossible to conceive of a world without the intimate interplay of the
objective and subjective.
It’s interesting to note that whether we make a subjective claim about our feelings
or an objective claim about the world around us, all our claims originate from a private
experience within us, a personal private experience that we might also call subjective. If I
claim “There is a chair in front of me” (an objective claim) I’m only able to make the
claim in the first place because I’m having a private subjective experience. Likewise, if I
claim “I like the color blue” (a subjective claim) I’m only able to make the claim because
I’m having a private subjective experience. Both types of claims, then, have the essential
nature of being subjective and private in origin, though our contact with the world results
in us making two fundamentally different varieties of claims.
Ethical claims express judgments about behavior. Such judgments are not
objective because there are no universal evaluative criteria for everyone to measure the
rightness or wrongness of actions. “Clarence, you shouldn’t eat so many churros,” or
“Earl never should have turned his brother Merle in for turning back odometers” are
ethical claims. They express preferences in behavior but there are no objective criteria we
can pull out like a ruler to evaluate the worthiness of the claims. Ethical claims gain their
approval or disapproval from the complex mixture of cultural influences and individual
dispositions of individuals making the judgments. Ethical claims are balanced by an inner
calculus of value we subscribe to individually within ourselves. Merle may not have
thought much about turning back odometers, but his brother did.
Ethical claims are often couched in the phraseology of should or ought. They’re
judgmental in character. “I told you that you should not have taken Kyle to the Spearmint
Aardvark Gentlemen’s Club for his 21st birthday. Now all he thinks about are naked
women spinning around fire poles!” “Muggeridge ought to stop eating so much, and he
should trim his beard. He’s almost 400 pounds”.

an ethical claim = should claim, or ought claim

If ethical claims express the inner feelings or preferences about behavior, are they
subjective claims too? Yes. Ethical claims are indeed subjective claims, but with one
important feature mentioned before. Ethical claims express subjective judgments about
behavior. “I like to work out at the gym instead of at home” is a subjective claim. It
expresses a personal preference or feeling about where I like to exercise. But it doesn’t
claim that I should or ought to like working out at the gym which is ethical or
judgmental. All ethical claims, then, are subjective claims, but not all subjective claims
are ethical claims. Let’s contrast a few to illustrate the difference.

“I want to wear my hat to the Buffalos game” is a subjective claim.

“You ought to wear your hat to the Buffalos game” is an ethical claim.

“I like green roofs on houses” is a subjective claim.

“All houses should have green roofs” is an ethical claim.

“I like pizza with anchovies” is a subjective claim.

“It should be a crime to put anchovies on pizza” is an ethical claim.

To qualify as an ethical claim, then, the claim must make a judgment about
behavior with an expression such as should, or ought.
Because ethical claims are subjective, some people mistakenly think that all
ethical claims are of equal value, sort of like one person liking green roofs and another
person liking blue roofs. “You have your opinion, and I have my opinion, and mine is as
right as yours, and yours is as right as mine.” This may work fine for subjective claims,
like my preferring Picasso to Rembrandt, but it doesn’t apply to ethical claims. Yes, every
person is entitled to their own opinion of what is right and wrong, but that does not
necessarily mean that all ethical claims are equally acceptable. A person may argue that
slavery is fine, but I think it’s wrong and I think there are good reasons to make my case.
Likewise, a person may think strangling cats is acceptable, but I claim it’s inhumane and
should be punishable by law, no matter how many people in town think it’s a great new
sport. But how do we argue subjective ethical positions like slavery or strangling cats, or
for that matter any ethical claim at all? If all ethical claims are subjective, then how do
we evaluate the claims? This is a difficult dilemma, but it’s not insurmountable. We
confront this issue in our next section, Getting an Ethical Compass. But for the time
being:

Don’t confuse the right to have your own ethical opinion with the claim that all
ethical opinions are of equal value.

Here are a few more ethical claims.

We should have put in a third bathroom when we built the house.

I don’t think they should be having Sunday barbeques on Saturdays.
The U.S. should sign the International War Crimes Convention.
The tax code should be rewritten.
Professor K should stop emailing Angelina Jolie

EXERCISE 4.3
I. Define the three types of claims we have studied: objective claims, subjective claims,
and ethical claims.
II. Create three objective, three subjective, and three ethical claims.

III. Which of the following are objective claims, subjective claims, and ethical claims?
1. He hit he ball too hard! (Hint: remember, context gives meaning).
2. It costs $76 to buy a ticket in the nosebleed section at the Dave Mathews concert next
Tuesday.
3. Cameron Diaz starred in the first remake of the movie Batman.
4. Plato was a very short man.
5. The movie The Lord of the Rings is boring.
6. More people buy Ben and Jerry’s cookie dough ice-cream than any other B&J flavor.
7. Boxing may cause brain damage.
8. He’s the best Governor New York ever had. Even though he’s gluten intolerant.
9. Some people like to participate in pentathlons.
10. Some people eat chocolate chip pancakes.
11. Wallace and Gromit are the best!
12. Gromit can knit up a storm.
13. Louis has four sisters, Lucille, Lucinda, Louise, and Lupita.
14. “My country, right or wrong” is a thing no patriot would think of saying except in a
desperate case. It is like saying “My mother, drunk or sober”. (G.K. Chesterton,
The Defendant)
15. Bright pink is the perfect color for a cell phone case. You can find the phone so
easily.
16. Pro football is like nuclear warfare. There are no winners, only survivors. (Frank
Gifford).
4.4 GETTING AN ETHICAL COMPASS
It’s good to be aware of the main ethical theories to understand what they argue for, how
they set their priorities and do their convincing. The following is a brief survey that only
skims the surface, but it will help you get a picture of how diverse doing ethics can be
and how thinkers have tackled the problem of bridging the divide between theory and
practice. Ethics is no different than many other areas in life in this one important respect:
when we work things out in theory, it makes perfect sense, but when we apply the theory
to practice in our everyday lives we run into problems. Still, we have made progress.
Understanding where we have been gives us a clearer view of how to approach our
ethical dilemmas tomorrow. The following five theories are foundational. They have had
a huge influence on the evolution of ethical theory. They offer guideposts for both the
novice and experienced traveler over difficult terrain. I’ve entered the names of some of
the more prominent thinkers identified with each of the theories.

A. KANTIAN ETHICS (Immanuel Kant, 1724–1804). Immanuel Kant argued for what
he called the Categorical Imperative, the moral law to guide the actions of each
individual in all circumstances. In its simplest form the Categorical Imperative boils
down to this: if you are going to perform a moral action, then first you must ask yourself
if you could will that everybody would act the same as you. If you’re tempted to lie about
your qualifications for a job, then you have to ask yourself if it would be acceptable for
everybody to do the same. If you borrow money on the promise that you will pay it back,
but you plan to leave town and don’t intend on paying the money back, can you will that
everybody act the same? Cheat on your taxes? Ditto. Kant even argued that we have an
obligation to develop our skills instead of relaxing and taking it easy (given the
opportunity). What would the world be like if everybody took every day off and just hung
out at the beach? Sounds great, but if everybody hung out would we ever have developed
medicine, literature, mathematics or …hip hop?
Motive is everything with Kant. Acting according to the dictates of the
Categorical Imperative isn’t enough, the action must be performed because the individual
recognizes it’s his duty to act this way. If I don’t lie on my job application because I think
they will find out, not because I shouldn’t, then my action isn’t a moral action. If the only
reason I don’t short change my customers at the local Kwik-E-Mart is because I’m afraid
I’ll get caught, then I’m not acting morally. It’s the reason for the action that’s important
for Kant, not the consequences of the action. Kant created an ethics that is completely
rational and mechanical and motive oriented. He has a litmus test. Subject your ethical
dilemma to the test – the Categorical Imperative - and you have the answer how you
should act. (He didn’t call it the Categorical Imperative for nothing). Kant’s ethics is
designed to sidestep the emotions or “inclinations” as he called them. What you want to
do and what you should do are two completely different things. I don’t have to tell you
again what he expects you to do.
It’s not easy being a Kantian. The virtue of the theory is what also causes grief.
For instance discrimination in all forms would be a nonstarter. (What if everybody
discriminated against any group they please?) But the rigidity of the theory can also act
like an ethical straightjacket to bring about unhappy results when a more desirable
outcome could be imagined. Victor Hugo had Kantian ethics in mind when he wrote how
a young boy (Jean Valjean) was driven to break the Kantian prohibition on stealing to
feed his starving family in his monumental novel Le Miserables. Numerous examples
could be given of the need to lie to save the life of a child or individuals who find
themselves performing questionable duties at a job to support a family in need. Is an
employee required to report his employer to authorities if he’s breaking the law no matter
the danger to himself? If I’m a waitress and I use my tips to get through college and
support my child, do I really have to report the income and pay taxes? Even if I won’t
have enough money to go to college? Even if nobody else reports their tips? If I refuse to
be drafted into the service to fight a war am I breaking the Categorical Imperative? I am
after all breaking the law.
To his credit Kant acknowledged that acting morally is not easy and that it may
result in unhappiness. The person who acts morally is deserving of happiness but he may
not receive happiness as reward for his actions. At least he has the satisfaction that he is a
moral person. In one of his most moving passages Kant says that if an individual acts
morally all the time but nothing ever comes of it in the world, if there are no
consequences you can point to where his actions have brought happiness or mitigated
pain, he actions will still shine like a jewel. Consequences mean nothing for Kant when it
comes to assessing moral actions. Whether this satisfies the critics of Kantian ethics is
another matter. But one thing is for sure, Kant has had an enormous influence over the
field of ethical theory. Since Kant, any theory that claims to offer a foundation for
behavior has had to reckon with this fellow who rarely ventured from where he was born
in German speaking Königsberg, East Prussia, what is now Kaliningrad, Russia.

B. UTILITARIANISM (John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873). Where Kantianism emphasizes

motives in behavior, utilitarianism focuses on results, or consequences. Mill advocated
what he called the Greatest Happiness Principle: “actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness.”
What did Mill mean by happiness? He argues for actions that promote pleasure and
actions that mitigate pain. Mill claims that pleasure results in happiness and happiness is
the only thing that man strives for that is good in itself. Man will perform actions with
other ends in mind, like exercise to bring health or go to school to get a job, but we never
seek happiness as a means to another end because it is an end in itself.
You are free to pursue your own happiness as long as it does not interfere with the
pursuit of happiness of others, because in this latter case you would be causing pain. Mill
argued that the ‘higher’ pleasures are preferable to the pleasures of the senses. The latter
he didn’t disown, but he pointed out that once a person cultivates the pleasures of the
mind he only reluctantly gives them up and would miss them if taken away. Further, the
pleasures of the mind are delicate and need to be nurtured, which again is an indication of
how valuable they are. “Better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” he
famously said. The pig isn’t capable of enjoying mathematics or literature or philosophy.
We can even be dissatisfied with our higher pleasures (as we are so often with
philosophy) but we still have something special with these pleasures that the other
animals do not have.
Mill claims that it’s in your interest to bring happiness to others because it
brings happiness to you too. I might give a friend a ride to work or work with an
organization to build a house for somebody who lost their home in a storm. Such actions
bring happiness either from the individuals in reciprocal actions or in a pleasurable
feeling that I have done something that brought happiness and mitigated pain. Mill isn’t
an altruist. He doesn’t claim that you should routinely bring happiness to others at your
own expense. But there are times when you are obligated to set aside your own happiness
for the greater happiness of others. I may not have a personal interest in giving taxes to
build schools or vaccinate children or offer medical care to those who don’t have
insurance, but happiness for others should take precedence over personal happiness when
happiness on a larger scale is a reasonable expectation. The utilitarian, then, walks a fine
line between seeking happiness for oneself and the obligation to secure happiness for
others.
But what if I don’t want to bring happiness to anybody else but myself, suppose I
don’t see the happiness of others as a priority? Many people feel this way. Mill would say
that as a practical matter it’s not in your interest to seek happiness only for yourself, that
your happiness is increased as you increase the happiness of others. So on this account
you would be mistaken. Further, some of us are capable of things that others are not, for
example some experience the pleasures of playing the piano or studying astronomy and
some not, and this pertains to experiencing the diversities of happiness as well. For some
people bringing happiness to others is in itself a pleasurable reward, so there is no further
confirmation needed. The act of bringing happiness to someone else is enough to make
them happy and want to repeat the experience. For those people who are capable of
experiencing this variety of happiness, they are lucky but for those who lack this
dimension, they (unfortunately) miss out on this special form of happiness.

C. CULTURAL RELATIVISM (Ruth Benedict 1887-1948). Cultural relativism claims

that what is right or wrong depends on the culture you are in at the time. Cultures are
very different in their moral practices, so different in fact that there is no objective norm
for all cultures to appeal to as a standard. This is what we mean when we say that there is
no objective morality: there is no absolute right or wrong, each culture decides what right
and wrong is at any give time. Right and wrong, then, is more like a moving target than a
codified list of behaviors every culture can reference in a book. With cultural relativism
morality changes from culture to culture, not from individual to individual. If an
individual fits well into the cultural norms of his society then he’s lucky because he could
have the same likes or dislikes, the same disposition or behaviors in another culture and
he might find life unendurable. If you live in a country where they tax and spend
generous amounts of money on education, fire control and hospitals, or have generous
maternity leave, this may be to your liking, but if you’re not interested in these social
benefits then you’re out of luck. Military service may be a requirement, women may not
be allowed to vote or to drive, attending church or temple may be mandatory and there
may be strict requirements that may exclude most from attending school. If this is the
norm, this is what is moral. With cultural relativism what is habitual is what is moral.
Behaviors that do not conform to the prevailing behaviors are abnormal, or wrong. When
the habitual behavior of society changes, morality changes.
The American philosopher James Rachels argued that moral progress is
impossible with cultural relativism. With cultural relativism habitual behaviors – morality
- can shift back and forth, forever going round with no reference point for advancement.
But the cultural relativists would argue that this criticism misses the point. If a person
travels and examines tribes and peoples in far away places he will immediately notice
that there are very different moral codes among different peoples and that it’s
unreasonable to require one culture to adhere to the moral codes of another culture. It’s
not a matter of charting moral progress for a culture on an objective scale, rather, it’s a
matter of accepting the reality that cultures differ and morality is a dynamic process
within each culture reflecting those differences.
For those who want a moral yardstick that applies to all cultures at all times, this
is a difficult theory to accept. Its lineage goes as far back as Socrates. Indeed, we have an
account by his star student, Plato, in one of his most important dialogues where he gives
us a first hand account of how his teacher grappled with this view.

D. EGOISM (Ayn Rand, 1905–1982). Egoists claim that there is no obligation higher
than the obligation one has to oneself. For the egoist selfishness and self reliance are the
primary virtues. If you let others claim your time, your efforts or your money by making
you feel you are obligated to help them, then you are letting them steal your life. Many
people try to take from others and they will keep taking once they realize they can get
away with it. Society encourages people to help people when they are not obligated to do
so. In this sense, society is doing a disservice to everyone. It encourages people to give
their lives away and it encourages others that it is acceptable to be takers instead of
looking out for themselves.
There is no need to do anything for another person if it does not enhance your self
interest. Sure, there is much misery in the world and that is sad, but you didn’t create it
and it’s irrational to be on a one man mission to eradicate misery. If you help someone
stay alive by helping with medical care, that is fine as long as it brings you pleasure, if
that’s what you want, but there is no obligation. If there is an emergency situation and
you’re nearby, like an earthquake or a fire and you can help, then it makes sense that you
would lend a helping hand but only under these extraordinary circumstances as a
temporary sacrifice. Egoists place a high priority on ‘dignity’. Watching out for yourself
and not taking from others is living a dignified life. Preserving your dignity means you
won’t let others take from you what is rightfully yours. Society pressures people to give
to others, but this requires people to live for others, which is irrational. The classic egoist
would be opposed to most social welfare programs like social security, most forms of
taxation or bureaucracies like the Federal Drug Administration, the Department of
Education, the Department of Energy and entitlement programs like Medicare, Social
Security, Medicaid, and employment benefits like unemployment insurance.
Critics of egoism claim that the philosophy assumes a degree of independence on
the part of the individual that doesn’t exist. People live in societies and they have
communal responsibilities even if they are averse to acknowledging it. If you want to
make your living in forestry you need to restrict how many trees you cut down or all of
them will disappear and the effects will be dire for the environment and other people. If
everybody were an egoist and didn’t pay taxes for a public school system, then there may
not be any schools for kids at all. This may sound acceptable at the moment but what will
happen when all the kids begin milling around, too young to work but no school available
for learning how to read and write? Let the parents pay for it? Are there really any
models available out there to prove that a system of individual payment for education
would actually work? Restrictions on pollution, noise, zoning and safety restrictions for
building houses and high rise buildings and earthquake building standards are just a few
examples of laws created to protect us from natural and man made disasters and insure
that commerce between peoples be open where it might otherwise be untrustworthy. The
egoist however is not deterred by examples of laws that claim to protect. For the egoist
it’s a matter of personal freedom. Personal freedom does not come without dangers. But
it’s a better bargain than handing your freedom over to others who will more often take
than do it themselves.

EXERCISE 4.4
I. Take any two of the ethical theories and compare and contrast them in a 150-200 word
essay. Be sure to point out their weak points and strong points and explain why you think
one theory is stronger than the other.

4.5 LIES, DECEPTION…AND BULLSHIT

Deception: When you have been lead to believe something that is not the case, but
outright lying has not been employed to get you to believe it. The husband who showers
his wife with gifts while having an affair with the next door neighbor has deceived his
mate into believing he is faithful. When his wife suspects something is amiss and she
confronts him, he says: “No, I’m not having an affair with Ginger next door! How dare
you accuse me!” Well, he tells the truth once again with a look of greater sincerity and his
wife again feels reassured. But Julius is a devious fellow indeed because he’s having an
affair with Rocky, Ginger’s husband.
Deception is often found in advertising and labeling of foods. For example, since
there is no official standard to quantify what a typical “serving” is for foods and drinks,
it’s difficult to quantify nutrition content (or lack of it). Coca-Cola advertises Fruitopia as
a “real fruit beverage” but it contains only 5 to 10 percent fruit juice. One serving of
Fruitopia is 110 calories, but an entire 20 ounce bottle is 275 calories. Fruitopia lists a
serving as 8 ounces, more than 2 servings per bottle. Each bottle has between 17 and 19
teaspoons of sugar. Jolly Time Popcorn advertises their microwave popcorn as having “0
Grams of Trans Fat”. But a careful examination of the nutrition content on the back of the
box shows that trans fats are indeed in the popcorn, the amount just doesn’t total a full
gram. People deceive themselves or others into thinking all sorts of things. They buy
insurance policies they don’t need, or they don’t buy them when they should buy them.
They’re deceived into buying supplements that don’t make them healthy, they buy
expensive software for their kids because they think it will teach their kids how to do
math better, when all they need to do is buy a few math books and go through the
problems. Kobe Bryant deceived me three times the other day with one shot of the
basketball. I thought he was going to run in one direction and he didn’t, I thought he was
going to pass the ball, and he didn’t, and I thought he was going to shoot from about
twenty feet, and he didn’t. Actually, he deceived me four times. After deceiving me three
time I quickly came to the conclusion that he couldn’t make a basket after running around
like that, but he did. There was a guy who was deceived about studying philosophy. He
thought studying philosophy would make him attractive to the opposite sex. The cover of
the philosophy brochure at the university had a picture of a group of girls talking to a guy,
looking really interested. (But I never changed my major).
 Nature is filled with examples of deception. You’re walking in your backyard
rustling the leaves beneath your feet and you think you see something move from the
corner of your eye. You focus but you don’t see anything clear. Then you notice a frog is
moving slowly away from you. He’s moving so slowly that you can’t believe he avoids
predators. Then you realize that you can’t see him anymore. A snake is on a branch next
to you, it blends in with the tree, then it moves and it scares the daylights out of you.
There’s quite a bit of deception built into the structure of nature from evolutionary
biology.
Chimps will act like they don’t have a banana to be sure another chimp won’t try
to take it away. The guy will look up turning his head from side to side, roundabout like
he’s enjoying the blue sky – but he’s hiding his banana. And it gets more complicated.
One chimp will act like he doesn’t have a banana, while a second chimp will act like he
doesn’t know the first chimp has one. And when the first chimp lets his guard down – you
guessed it – the second chimp steals it. (I guess you could say the second chimp is really
the Top Banana).
Lies, on the other hand, are claims that directly contradict reality. The distinctive
nature of a lie is falsity. Herman claims he didn’t hold up the Kwik-E-Mart, but the
closed circuit camera and eye witness accounts tell otherwise. Olga says she was at Times
Square on New Years’ Eve, 2004, but she was really in a small café in Needles, CA,
sipping lattes. The liar has to know the truth, or believe he knows the truth, to tell a lie. It
takes precision to lie. A lie is guided by the truth. The liar must calculate exactly where he
is going to drop a falsehood into the mix where people expect the truth. We don’t know
that the liar believes the claim he professes to be true is in fact false. If the liar believes he
is telling a falsehood but isn’t, can we say he’s telling a lie? Yes, at least in the sense that
he intends to tell a falsehood. In the sense that he doesn’t actually tell a falsehood but
may actually be telling the truth, or something else, he is not. If may tell you that I’m
going to Maui for my vacation when in fact I’m going to Fresno, and you believe it, then
I’m telling you a simple lie. I may tell you I’m going to Maui and I thought I was going
to Fresno but I’m really going to Maui, the intent of my claim was to mislead you but by
accident I ended up in Maui like I claimed (Great mistake!). I may tell you I’m going to
Maui, because I expect that you think I’m going to lie to you and I think this is what you
expect me to say when I’m lying. But of course I’m really going to, that Renaissance
City, Fresno. Whatever the combination, the simplest equation for testing a lie remains he
same: I say something that I believe to be false for the express purpose to deceive you
into thinking something false. Simply put, then a lie purposely misrepresents the truth.
Bullshit doesn’t concern itself with truth. Where the liar is careful how he
misrepresents reality the bullshiter has great liberty because he doesn’t have to be
concerned with truth or falsity. In fact he may not even know the truth. He’s just
concerned with convincing you that he speaks the truth. His success, like the liar, is to
convince that he knows the truth. But where the liar has respect for the truth, insofar as he
calculates to misrepresent it, the bullshiter’s relationship to the truth is fundamentally
different. The bullshiter just says things to suit his purpose, but always with the claim that
what he says is true. This guy has all sorts of leeway, lots of freedom to apply his art.
Bullshit is like a bluff. Like a bluff, the essential nature of bullshit is that it is
phony. Whereas a lie is directly concerned with misrepresenting a fact as being other than
it is, bullshit and the bluff fall into the category of fakery more that they do explicit
falsehood. Like our prior discussions of deception and lies above, bullshit is a variety of
deception, it’s a misrepresentation.
Of the three categories discussed, I can honestly say, no lie, I have experienced
more bullshit than deception or lies. Philosophy can help identify when you’re
experiencing bullshit or lies or deception but it’s really up to psychology to tell us what
motivates people to inflict these on others, or themselves for that matter. From my
personal experience, unscientific as it is, that for some reason Americans seem especially
well suited to bullshit. It fits many of them well, so to speak. But exactly why this is the
case I will have to take a pass.

EXERCISE 4.5
I. Distinguish between lies, deception and bullshit and give an example how you
encounter them in everyday life.

4.6 EUPHEMISMS AND DOUBLESPEAK

Euphemisms are words or phrases used to sit in for more clearly descriptive words that
the speaker wants to avoid using. Euphemisms paper over unpleasant circumstances or
events so the reality of a situation becomes shrouded in more figurative language. In their
positive function euphemisms cushion us from terrible realities as when we say someone
has “passed away”. People “put down” their horses when they suffer from severe illness
or injury or “put to sleep” their pet dogs or cats. The civilities of everyday euphemisms
like these betray that we show compassion and empathize with others and that we respect
their feelings.
But often euphemisms are employed to evade or misrepresent reality too. The
word doublespeak was created by the journalist-novelist George Orwell in his book 1984
by combining the concepts “newspeak” and “doublethink”. Doublespeak occurs when a
person uses intentionally deceptive, euphemistic, evasive, or misleading language to fool
or manipulate his audience into believing something that isn’t true. The essence of
doublespeak is deception and dishonesty, though it passes itself off as earnest and
truthful. Orwell saw that doublespeak is at its most pernicious in the fields of politics and
public policy. In service to the powerful, doublespeak deceives people into denying their
legitimate self interests, and to repress. A critical examination of the newspapers, radio
and TV news yields an abundance of doublespeak flowing from politicians, educators,
medical professionals, public servants, lawyers, religious figures and others. The media
often repeat the doublespeak, giving it legitimacy, instead of unmasking it. Worse, the
media often engage in propagating doublespeak themselves, adding to the confusion and
suspicion of tangled thought and intentions. Doublespeak has become so ingrained in our
everyday communications that many people unquestioningly accept it. Orwell defined it
thus: “…to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of
solidity to pure wind”. (George Orwell, Politics and the English Language). A few
examples will help illustrate how ingrained doublespeak has become in politics.
In Argentina in the 1970s the military dictatorship killed thousands of people who
opposed the government. Many were kidnapped and murdered, some of them shot and
thrown out of airplanes over the ocean. The dictators of Argentina referred to the
murdered people as desaparecidos, “disappeared persons.” In their lexicon Chupado
meant “sucked up” or kidnapped. Translador meant to “transfer,” or more precisely, to be
kidnapped. When G.W. Bush had people kidnapped and sent to foreign countries to be
interrogated on foreign soil so they could be tortured, the kidnapping was called
rendition. The torture carried out by the Bush Administration was called enhanced
interrogation.
When the U.S. conducted air strikes in Iraq in 2003, killing and injuring
thousands of civilians, the U.S. government referred to the deaths and injuries as
“collateral damage.” U.S. government officials referred to the killing of large numbers of
Iraqi soldiers in the war, much of it from planes dropping bombs, as attrition, and
degradation. Roadside bombs planted in cars by Iraqis to kill American soldiers and other
Iraqis are called improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. And in a deft turning of the
tables, the Iraqis who plant the bombs to kill the people who invaded their country are
called insurgents, as if they are the ones who came from outside the country. When
pressed that Saddam Hussein had not been developing a nuclear weapons program as he
had claimed, Vice-President Dick Cheney stated, "Yea, I did misspeak. We never had any
evidence that Hussein had acquired a nuclear weapon". Is there is difference between
"misspeaking" and lying? But equating an outright lie with a slip of the tongue is not
limited to any individual political party. Not to be outdone, when Hillary Clinton was
campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President, several times she told a story
how she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire during the Clinton Administration.

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony
at the airport but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base… But it
was a moment of great pride for me.

But the television footage didn’t have her rushing to anything except perhaps to
dinner. When confronted with news footage of her gingerly getting off the plane at the
airport in Bosnia, Clinton replied: “I did misspeak the other day. You know this has been
a very long campaign so occasionally I am a human being like everybody else.”
Occasionally you lie like everybody else?
G. W. Bush claimed there were “stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD)” in Iraq and used this as his main justification for waging a preemptive war. He
ordered the invasion of Iraq to seize and destroy the weapons, but extensive searches
throughout Iraq found no weapons. The President then changed his claim stating that
“dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities” had been discovered.
Translation - no weapons found.
Don’t be taken in by linguistic subterfuges calculated to deceive you. Confront
euphemisms and doublespeak by insisting that reality not be falsified. Whatever the
subject, insist that the object, incident, or policy be referred to by its proper name or term.
If you live in substandard housing or a blighted neighborhood, you live in a ghetto,
energy documents are still electric bills no matter what you call them, the Interior
Department wants to call it a tanker accident, but it’s really an oil spill, a price
realignment or price enhancement (the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) is a price increase, a
substance abuser is either a drug addict or an alcoholic, outsourcing is firing employees
and sending their jobs overseas so the company can avoid paying a fair wage for labor, if
you eat white steak in Israel, it’s still pork, which is really a dead pig, in California
administrative segregation, looks a lot like solitary confinement, and a tall coffee at
Starbucks is, you guessed it, a small, no matter how you view the cup.
EXERCISE 4.6
I. Hone your skills on the euphemisms and doublespeak below by matching the
commonly used term with its alleged linguistic equivalent.
1. _______ acid rain
2. _______ decapitation
3. _______ trailer park
4. _______ prostitute
5. _______ Mafia
6. _______ invasion
7. _______ commercial
8. _______ cab driver
9. _______ sex slaves
10. ______ poor people
11. ______ to drop a bomb(s)
12. ______ lie detector test
13. ______ earthquake
14. ______ fire (employees)
15. ______ job training
16. ______ Jeep
17. ______ lobbyist
18. ______ propaganda
19. ______ unemployment
20. ______ wiretap
21. ______ to die
22. ______ riot
23. ______ recession
24. ______ nudism
25. ______ congressional pay raise
26. ______ killing
27. ______ elevator operators
28. ______ employee theft
29. ______ root canal
30. ______ crash dummy
31. ______ road sign
32. ______ impaired physicians
33. ______ fire in a nuclear power plant
34. ______ failure
35. ______ to lie
36. ______ torture
37. ______ stockbroker
38. ______ talk (to someone)
39. ______ illegal alien
40. ______ pedophilia
41. ______ bathroom scale
1. period of negative economic growth
2. manufactured home facility
3. clothing optional recreation
4. comfort women
5. interface
6. inventory shrinkage
7. urban transportation specialist
8. ground-mounted confirmatory route marker
9. unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of life
10. doctors addicted to drugs
11. pay equalization concept
12. aggressive defense
13. endodontic therapy
14. government affairs specialist
15. instrumented anthropomorphic device
16. intergenerational intimacy
17. incendiary event
18. enhanced interrogation techniques
19. surgical isolation of the head
20. incomplete success
21 . undocumented worker
22. estate tax
23. members of a career-offender cartel
24. visit the site
25. fiscal underachievers
26. lifetime learning occupational development
27. high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle
28. negative patient care outcome
29. poorly buffered precipitation (EPA)
30. strategic misrepresentation
31. conduct electronic surveillance
32. seismic event
33. Health O Meter
34. civil disorder
35. casual female companion
36. overseas publicity
37. opportunity
38. portfolio manager
39. important message
40. forensic psychological detection of deception test
41. negative employment growth
42. ______window of opportunity 42. downsize
43. ______death tax 43. Vertical Transportation Corps

II. Scan the newspapers, magazines and listen to some of the news programs on TV and
radio to pick up on doublespeak. Find ten instances of doublespeak and put them into the
form in question #1 above to share with your fellow students.

4.7 REASON AND EMOTION

What role if any should emotion play in evaluating moral behavior? Can our emotions
tell us something about how we should behave? Philosophers caution that we should be
careful not to employ emotions as a guide to moral behavior. Reason should take the lead
because emotions can claim practically anything. So it’s best to build a firewall between
emotions and reason, leaving the latter to bear the burden of justification for behavior.
Still, it’s not always easy to dismiss emotion when arguing how we should behave. Cold
rationality may be the ideal, but emotion can find its way into the logic of argument,
guiding, influencing in ways we’re not always aware of. Ancient Greek philosophy prized
the ideal of rationality in man and since then we have used this ideal as the model for
assessing behavior. But Bertrand Russell observed that we’re often not rational in our
behaviors, though we do puff ourselves up a bit about our rational abilities and goals. I
think Russell was correct in his critical assessment. Yes, we do have remarkable rational
abilities, we have created literature, mathematics, astronomy, all of it, but on a more
global scale our track record isn’t very impressive. Tally up our opportunities lost, our
‘rationality’ wouldn’t win many awards. In fact we’ve made a mess of things.
Slopping reasoning isn’t always a result of emotions winning the day, but
emotions are responsible for a fair amount of cloudiness in our thinking and behavior. If
we could distance our arguments from our emotions a bit more, we might make some
progress on plenty of issues, war being a good place to start. But checking your emotions
isn’t easy, and that’s maybe part of why we’ve made such a mess of things in the first
place.
We can divide the meaning of our communications into two general categories:
Intellectual meaning and emotional meaning. Intellectual meaning is the purely logical,
rational content in an argument, and the emotional meaning is the degree of feelings
expressed in an argument. Ideally we strive to eliminate as much of the emotive meaning
as possible and focus on the intellectual meaning.
Think of meaning in language as a long, continuous spectrum with emotion at one
end and pure rational thought at the other. We move from one end of the spectrum to the
other, from throwing pots and pans at each other to cold, impersonal logic, like doing
calculus. Sometimes we have trouble disentangling the emotion from the reason
somewhere in the middle.

Intellectual Meaning-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emotional Meaning

Ex: mathematics much argument occurs by mixing elements Ex: appeals to
between the two poles vanity, pity

Sometimes we’re moved by our feelings on controversial issues, especially ones

that affect our personal lives, but if we don’t keep our feelings in check our emotions can
carry our reasoning away. Arguments that appeal to our emotions prompt us to act
impulsively. When we make decisions based on our emotions, we often regret it later.
Looking back we wish we had been more disciplined. Decisions based on emotions are
blind to the implications of our actions. There is an old adage that when reason sleeps,
ignorance awakens. We might also add that when reason sleeps, the emotions awaken. In
either case, it means we’re in big trouble.
But don’t we hear emotional arguments all the time? Yes, we do. And isn’t life
emotional? Yes, it often is. So why can’t arguments be emotional too? What is wrong
with appealing to emotions when emotions play such a vital part of our lives? Because
you can’t trust your emotions. Emotions can’t sort themselves out on their own, let alone
frame a logical argument. Emotions can’t recommend why you should act or how you
should act. “Don’t think. Feel.” “Judge from your gut.” “Be intuitive.” Leave all this
romanticizing that you hear in movies and in daily life behind, it will only cause you
grief. If you are going to act, you need to have a good reason. Your stomach doesn’t think
it digests food. It has enough responsibilities as it is. It’s your brain that thinks and it
needs to be trained to think well, like your lungs or eyes need to be fit to breathe or see
clearly.
“But wait” you say, “Many ethical arguments are about emotional subjects. Am I
supposed to act like my emotions don’t exist? Am I supposed to turn myself into Spock?”
No, arguing rationally doesn’t mean you banish your emotions, it just means you learn to
control them so they don’t direct the intellectual traffic. Sometimes people say that the
heart has reasons the mind cannot understand. While this expression may have a certain
allure to it, a more accurate expression might be: an emotion without a reason is an
emotion in search of a justification. Remember, you may feel strongly about something
terrible like genocide for example, and you may be the only one in the room who has a
personal acquaintance with it, but it’s only your reason that will convince the others how
bad it is. The emotions you have are private. Your challenge is to translate the private
experience into reason and words to do the convincing. Will they ever have that same
feeling you have from just hearing your words? No, but this is the case with any
emotional subject that is ethical, not just the big ticket items. The key is learning how to
give good reasons to justify belief.

4.8 CONTROL YOURSELF, IT’S ONLY AN ARGUMENT

When people argue sometimes they get impatient and cannot wait for another person to
yield the floor. A student of mine put the difficulty this way:

Often when I argue, I will begin speaking and while going into the details of my argument I watch them
and notice they can barely wait to speak. Their eyes are large, and at every slight pause in my speech they
attempt to jump in with the same comment they originally sought to make. Rather than evaluate
and assimilate my argument, they just wait for their chance to speak. The trouble is at that point it's not
even an argument anymore; it's just an opportunity to espouse their ideals without even responding or
listening to what I say. My question is how do I get people to engage themselves in argument and
evaluation when they’re so emotionally involved?

There need to be ground rules. If the other guy won’t adopt similar ground rules
then see if you can impose them, albeit gently. The following are a few tips on how to
approach an argument from a senior citizen who has seen many good arguments gone bad
for lack of self discipline.
 1. The Three Preconditions for an Argument to Take Place (3.5) set fair, definable
boundaries. Unfortunately sometimes they leave some people out of argument altogether.
Put simply, it may be that the person does not meet the basic criteria to carry on an
argument and he is unwilling to change. Don’t give up, try again later, but don’t hold
your breath. It’s not fashionable to say this in critical thinking texts, but some people are
simply incorrigible, they refuse or are unable to be reasonable, so you just need to accept
it and do the best you can with the situation without becoming unreasonable too.
2. Relax. Many people want to speak, let the fellow offer his argument. Be
patient, someone has to go first! And when it’s your turn to respond, if they interrupt
when you speak, gently remind them that you let them make their case prior without
interruption. Don’t be confrontational. Let them know you’re not out to win a prize. You
simply want to find the best solution (or truth) for the problem you’re arguing about.
3. Track the argument carefully, every detail in your head. Use your memory to
reference specific claims, bring them back for the arguer to reexamine with your insight,
and offer reasons why you disagree or agree with his claims. If you make a special effort
to memorize the salient points in an argument while it’s presented, you will be gratified
how your memory will aid you in assessing the argument later, for yourself and for the
presenter.
4. Never let an arguer wander from the subject and never let him change the
subject without the approval of both of you. When you state your case, especially if you
are criticizing the views of another arguer, be sure to always summarize first (for
approval) the view that you are criticizing.
5. Many arguments revolve around ethical issues. You need an ethical compass. If
you reject either of the two ethical rules in the book (Chapter 3), that’s fine, but
remember that you will need to be consistent in the ethical rules you argue for. The basic
ethical principles that hold up ethical argument you make need to be made clear at the
outset of the argument
6. Last, never lose your temper, never raise your voice or threaten your opponent
or his children.

EXERCISE 4.8
I. Can you think of any other techniques to add to the six pointers in 4.8?

4.9 ARGUMENT, TRUTH AND LIFE

Argument is well-suited for interactive, cooperative effort in the pursuit of truth. It
is not necessary, and it is often counterproductive, to approach argument from the
perspective of competing interests. Though spirited competition can foster discovery, a
healthy dose of collegiality can go a long way in breaking down defenses that prevent us
from reaching our goals sooner. The enterprise of argument should be based on the
premise that the truth, whatever it is, is beneficial for all to know, and that its denial or
absence is equally detrimental for all. The free expression of ideas is essential to the
pursuit and discovery of truth. Truth, or its closest approximation, is the ultimate prize.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) claimed that it would be as great an evil for one man to be
silenced by all of mankind for his views as it would for one man, if he had the power, to
silence all of mankind of its views.
 According to Mill the open exchange of ideas brings us closer to the truth. You
can test the strength of your arguments when you have other arguments to compare to
yours. The free exchange of ideas enables us to test the strength of our beliefs, to estimate
how close they are to the truth. For Mill, truth is never fully complete, never absolutely
certain. We can achieve greater degrees of truth or certainty, but never complete truth or
certainty. Theories need to be tested again and again, and from the resulting encounter a
more complete understanding of the truth occurs. There will always be people who will
belong to the Flat Earth Society, there will be Holocaust deniers, there will be anti
evolutionists and there will always be a fellow who insists we didn’t land on the moon.
Yes, some people will believe the most absurd arguments. But there was a time when
most of those arguments did serve some constructive purpose in clarifying the truth.
“That sounds great in the abstract, Professor K, but you know as well as I that
people want their truths to work for them. People argue for what makes them happy, or
what fills their pocketbooks. They aren’t concerned about the truth, they’re concerned
about themselves”. Yes, you definitely have a point there. But getting what you want may
not be the best thing in the end, considering what you could have had in its place. Put
simply, you don’t want to have a false belief, no matter what it is, even if it looks like on
appearance it serves you well. You want to believe things that are true. False beliefs are
no better than believing lies. Truth needs no other justification. It is an end in itself.
Arguers have nothing to be ashamed of when they openly insist on truthfulness and
objectivity. On the contrary, it is cynical and defeatist to argue that people are incapable
or will refuse to seek truth in argument, and it diminishes us to imply that we are not
worthy to try.

EXERCISE 4.9
I. So, what’s the relationship between arguments, truth and life?

4.10 NEVER JUDGE AN ARGUMENT BY ITS MESSENGER

If it’s a strong argument, it will be strong no matter who delivers it. Ditto for bad
arguments. Think of arguments as having an independent existence. Think of it this way.
You read an article in the newspaper and you think the author has a strong argument.
Then you see the next day the newspaper notifies its readers that the author's name was
incorrect, it’s some other guy who really wrote the article. Would the argument become
stronger or weaker now that the name of the author has changed? Or imagine the
newspaper adopts a policy that all its editorials will carry the name of the newspaper, but
not the author who wrote the editorial. Would the arguments be weaker or stronger
because you don’t have a name to attach to the articles? There shouldn’t be any
difference.
Sometimes it’s difficult to separate the arguer from the argument, but it’s
necessary to separate them to objectively examine what is being argued. We all
experience situations where it’s difficult to divorce the argument from the arguer. There’s
the politician who argues how to spend your tax dollars, the Catholic Priest who argues
he didn’t know what was happening to the boys in the Chapel, the college president who
argues that his wife is the best qualified applicant for a high paying job at the college
where he works. True, people are often driven by power and self interest, but they may
also have a good argument. In short, arguments should be evaluated as if they have no
owner.
There is one exception to the rule of always separating the argument from the
arguer. If you suspect the arguer may not be telling the truth, then you must somehow
account for this in your appraisal as best you can. Yes, many politicians and priests and
college presidents are dishonest, so at the very least your suspicions of the arguer should
take the form of increased caution. Ask for corroborative evidence from others to confirm
his or her claims. If a person has a history of being untruthful, then they lack credibility.
If the college president is known to have lied about issues before, you would have no way
to judge if he is telling the truth about his wife being the most qualified applicant, unless
you could produce some independent evidence and do the assessment yourself.

EXERCISE 4.10
I. Why isn’t it a good idea to judge an argument by its messenger?

ANSWERS TO EXERCISES

EXERCISE 4.1
I. Ethics is devoted to the study of human behavior, and how we should behave.

EXERCISE 4.2
I. Is refers to something that is the case, e.g. the cup is on the table. Ought refers to how
things ought to be regarding behavior, how we should act.

EXERCISE 4.3
I. Answers will vary
II. Answers will vary
III.
1. ethical
2. objective
3. objective
4. subjective
5. subjective
6. objective
7. objective
8. ethical
9. objective
10. objective
11. subjective
12. ethical
13. objective
14. ethical
15. objective
16. subjective
EXERCISE 4.4
I. Answers will vary.
II. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 4.5
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 4.6
I.
1. 29. 2. 19. 3. 2. 4. 35. 5. 23. 6. 12. 7. 39. 8. 7 9. 4 10. 25.
11. 24. 12. 40. 13. 32. 14. 42. 15. 26. 16. 27. 17. 14. 18. 36. 19. 41. 20. 31.
21. 28. 22. 34. 23. 1. 24. 3. 25. 11. 26. 9. 27. 43. 28. 6. 29. 13. 30. 15.
31. 8. 32. 10. 33. 17. 34. 20. 35. 30. 36. 18. 37. 38. 38. 5. 39. 21. 40. 16.
41. 33. 42.37 43.22

II Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 4.7
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 4.8
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 4.9
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 4.10
I. Because the guy may actually have something to say!

CHAPTER 5: DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

We conveniently divide arguments into two basic types: deductive arguments, and
inductive arguments. Since deductive and inductive arguments are vastly different from
each other, it is important to understand how each functions.
5.1 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Deductive arguments claim that the premises of an argument support the conclusion
with absolute necessity. That is, if we assume the premises as they are, then we must draw
the conclusion as claimed, the conclusion will necessarily follow. Deductive arguments
claim that the conclusion could not be otherwise, the conclusion is absolutely certain. We
don’t often encounter deductive arguments in everyday life. They are used mostly in
mathematics and computer science, and to a lesser degree in the social sciences,
humanities, and everyday communications. Here are a few examples to illustrate how
they function.

Fred Flintstone lives in either Bedrock or Los Angeles.

Fred does not live in Los Angeles.
Therefore, Fred lives in Bedrock.

Bono skydives in Edinburgh every Christmas morning at 6:00 am.

It is 6:00 am Christmas morning in Edinburgh right now.
Therefore, Bono is skydiving in Edinburgh right now.

In our first argument if we reason correctly from premises to conclusion, we must

conclude that Fred lives in Bedrock. In our second argument, reasoned logically from
premises to conclusion, we must conclude that Bono is skydiving in Edinburgh. Notice
with a deductive argument the conclusion is ‘found’, so to speak, in the premises. That is,
the conclusion of a deductive argument never states more than you can discover in the
information stated in the premises. Put another way, the conclusion never goes beyond
the claims of the premises.
This brings us to something crucial in understanding the dynamics of a deductive
argument. It is the relationship between the premises and conclusion that determines
whether an argument is deductive, not whether the premises or conclusion are true or
false. If the argument claims that you must come to a specific conclusion from the stated
premises, then it is a deductive argument irrespective of whether the claims are true or
false. In the first example both the premises and the conclusion are true, plus the
conclusion is logically drawn from the premises. In the second argument all the premises
and the conclusion are false, plus the conclusion is logically drawn from the premises.
But in both cases since the premises support their conclusions with absolute certainty,
they are both classed as deductive arguments. Again, the determination of a deductive
argument is not based on the truth or falsity of the claims. A deductive argument is
distinguished exclusively by the relationship between the premises and conclusion,
whether the premises claim to support the conclusion with absolute necessity. Here’s one
last deductive argument to illustrate.

If Huckleberry Hound was on TV in 1932, then all the kids in America were watching him every Saturday
morning.
Huckleberry was on TV in 1932.
Therefore, all the kids in America were watching him every Saturday morning in 1932
 Plenty of kids grew up watching Huckleberry Hound but there was no TV in 1932
(and there was no Huckleberry either!) so all the claims in the argument are false. But it’s
still a deductive argument because it is reasoned logically from premises to conclusion.
Taking the premises as they are, we must conclude that all the kids in America were
watching Huckleberry on Saturdays.
Often deductive arguments use the terms all, none and some. The practice of
using these ‘connectors’ goes back to Aristotle and it continues today. These arguments
are often easy to identify as being deductive because they clearly imply that the
conclusion is meant to be drawn from the premises with certainty. Below are two
deductive arguments using all, none and some.

All people in France drink red wine.

Some people in France drink white wine.
Therefore, some people in France drink both red and white wine.

Some philosophy students listen to Bad Religion in the shower.

No philosophy students listen to Bad Company in the shower.
Therefore, no philosophy students listen to both Bad Religion and Bad Company in the shower.
.
Both arguments are clearly deductive since it’s obvious that the conclusions are
meant to be drawn from their premises with certainty. But not all deductive arguments are
created equal. The first argument is valid – the conclusion does in fact follow from the
premises as the argument claims. But the second argument is invalid – the conclusion
does not follow from the premises as the argument claims. The first argument displays
good reasoning from premises to conclusion. The second displays faulty reasoning from
premises to conclusion. In our next section we will examine how these two types of
arguments, valid and invalid deductive arguments differ.

EXERCISE 5.1
I. Write a definition of a deductive argument.
II. Create three examples of deductive arguments using the examples in the text as a
guide.

5.2 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS: VALID AND INVALID

Deductive arguments are either valid or invalid. A valid deductive argument is when the
conclusion is drawn logically from the premises as the argument claims. This means that
the conclusion drawn could not be otherwise. An invalid deductive argument is when
the progression from premises to conclusion is illogical or faulty, when the conclusion
cannot be drawn from the premises logically as the argument claims.
The key to creating a valid deductive argument is in, a) reasoning logically from
premises to conclusion, and b) the consistency in the use of the terms. Let’s contrast two
valid deductive arguments that display logical reasoning with a two invalid ones that
displays faulty reasoning:

If Morton steals the Artic Monkeys album then he will go to jail

Morton is stealing the Arctic Monkeys album
Therefore, Morton is going to jail
Logical reasoning, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises = Valid
If Morton steals the Arctic Monkeys album then he will go to jail
Morton is going to jail
Therefore, Morton stole the Arctic Monkeys album
Faulty reasoning, just because he’s going to jail, that doesn’t mean he stole the album, so
the conclusion does not follow from the premises = Invalid.

If I eat pizza then I will get heartburn

I didn’t get heartburn.
Therefore I didn’t eat pizza.
Logical reasoning, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises = Valid

If I eat pizza then I will get heartburn

I didn’t eat pizza.
Therefore I didn’t get heartburn.
Faulty reasoning, I can get heartburn from something else.

Again, the key to creating a valid deductive argument is to reason logically from
premises to conclusion and to employ your terms with consistency.

We have one last category of deductive arguments to examine. We need to

distinguish between: A) valid deductive arguments that have all true premises and true
conclusion from, B) deductive arguments that have false claims and, C) deductive
arguments that are not reasoned logically. Deductive arguments that are reasoned
logically and have all true premises and a true conclusion are called sound arguments. All
other deductive arguments are called unsound deductive arguments. You can accept only
sound arguments.

EXERCISE 5.2
I. Explain the difference between a valid and an invalid deductive argument.
II. Create three valid and three invalid deductive arguments.

5.3 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS: VALIDITY, TRUTH, AND SOUNDNESS

A sound deductive argument is valid (reasoned logically), and has all true premises and a
true conclusion. If a deductive argument is valid and has all true premises, its conclusion
must be true. Put another way, you cannot reason logically from all true premises to
falsity (a false conclusion). An unsound deductive argument has at least one false claim,
is not reasoned logically from premises to conclusion, or both. Again, you only want to
accept arguments that are both valid (reasoned logically) that have true premises and a
true conclusions.
Is it possible to tell if a deductive argument is valid or invalid but not know if it’s
sound or unsound? Yes. This occurs when the argument is reasoned logically, but you are
unfamiliar with the meanings of the terms, so you cannot tell if the claims are true or
false. In the example below, if you are not familiar with our good-natured friend who
lives beneath the sea, you would not know the argument is sound because you would not
know if the claims are true or false. But you can tell that it’s a valid argument.
SpongeBob Squarepants lives either in Nepal or in a pineapple under the sea.
SpongeBob Squarepants does not live in Nepal.
Therefore, SpongeBob Squarepants lives in a pineapple under the sea.
Reasoned logically, true premises, true conclusion = Valid, Sound

EXERCISE 5.3
I. Explain the difference between a sound and an unsound deductive argument.
II. Create three sound and three unsound deductive arguments.

5.4 FOUR VALID DEDUCTIVE FORMS OF REASONING

There are four important deductive argument forms that you will recognize because you
employ them in everyday life. They illustrate the rules or laws our thought processes
employ when we reason correctly in different, yet specific ways. They were first plotted
by Aristotle over 2,000 years ago (though he used Socrates instead of SpongeBob in his
examples).

Direct Form (of reasoning)

If A, then B If you watch SpongeBob Squarepants, then I’m leaving the room.
A You are watching SpongeBob Squarepants.
Therefore, B Therefore, I’m leaving the room.

Indirect Form (of reasoning)

If A, then B If you watch SpongeBob Squarepants, then I’m leaving the room.
Not B I am not leaving the room.
Therefore, not A You are not watching SpongeBob Squarepants.

Either/Or Form (of reasoning)

A or B We will watch either SpongeBob Squarepants or we will watch The Simpson
Not A We will not watch SpongeBob Squarepants.
Therefore B Therefore, we will watch The Simpsons.

or

A or B We will watch SpongeBob Squarepants, or we will watch The Simpsons.

Not B We will not watch The Simpsons.
Therefore, A Therefore, we will watch SpongeBob Squarepants.

Linked Form (of reasoning)

If A, then B If you watch SpongeBob Squarepants again, then I’ll leave
If B, then C you and take the kids.
If A, then C If I leave you and take the kids, then you will be left all alone with the TV set.
If you watch SpongeBob Squarepants again, then you will be left all alone with the
TV set.

EXERCISE 5.4
I. Create two examples for each of the four valid forms of deductive reasoning.

5.5 TWO INVALID FORMS OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING

There are two invalid argument forms that closely resemble two of the valid forms of
argument immediately above. Let’s examine them so you don’t accidentally mistake the
impostors for the real things. (Yes, Aristotle discovered these too, and no he didn’t use
Rocky and Bullwinkle either).

Impostor #1: Affirming the Consequent.

This invalid form occurs when the wrong term is affirmed in the direct way of reasoning.

If the network moves Rocky and Bullwinkle to Tuesday If A, then B

nights, then the Baby Boomers will riot. B
The Baby Boomers are rioting. Therefore, A
Therefore, the network moved Rocky and Bullwinkle to Tuesdays.

We know the old timers will riot if the network moves the guys to Tuesday nights,
and we know the old timers are rioting, but we don’t know if Rocky and Bullwinkle were
actually moved to Tuesday nights. The old timers are a pretty irritable group sometimes.
You never know what they’re going to riot about next. Just because we know for sure
they’re rioting, that doesn’t mean the best friends were moved.

Impostor #2: Denying the Antecedent

If it’s Wednesday, then Rocky and Bullwinkle are on TV. If A, then B

It’s not Wednesday. Not A
Therefore, Rocky and Bullwinkle are not on TV Therefore, not B

Again, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises as the
argument claims. The first premise only claims that the guys will be on the tube if it’s
Wednesday. Maybe the network renewed their contract and moved them to Tuesday or
Saturday. Or the network CEO had a change of heart and decided to put the guys on
prime time, Friday evening. Since the premises do not logically support the conclusion, it
is invalid.

Here are the valid and invalid (imposters) arguments side by side.

VALID INVALID
Direct Form (of reasoning) Impostor #1: Affirming the Consequent
If A then B If A, then B
A B
Therefore, B Therefore, A

Indirect Form (of reasoning) Impostor #2: Denying the Antecedent

If A, then B If A, then B
Not B Not A
Therefore, not A Therefore, not B

EXERCISE 5.5
I. Create two examples for each of the two invalid forms of deductive reasoning.

5.6 A NOTE ON DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT FORMS

Often deductive arguments come in the four valid forms and two invalid forms we just
discussed but they also come in other arrangements as well. Remember, a deductive
argument claims the conclusion follows with necessity from the premises. This is the
only criterion to qualify as a deductive argument. The argument can have one premise or
it can have a zillion, it can fit one of the six forms above, or it can have any form the
arguer chooses. As long as the argument claims that the conclusion has to follow from the
premises, then the argument is deductive. Then why do we focus so much attention on the
four valid forms and two invalid forms above when a deductive argument can have any
form? Because we use the six forms studied above so frequently that we need to
distinguish between them to be sure we’re not falling off the wagon. The six forms above,
then, are just representative of how deductive arguments function, they don’t exhaust the
possibilities.
Here’s one more valid deductive argument, but it doesn’t share any of the forms
studied above. Notice that I slipped in a conclusion that has a compound conclusion.

All trees in Disneyland are six feet tall.

Some of the trees in Universal Studios are less than five feet tall.
Some of the trees in Knott’s Berry Farm are five feet tall, and some are seven feet tall.
Therefore, at least some of the trees in Knott’s Berry Farm are taller than some of the trees in Universal
Studios, and some trees in Knott’s Berry Farm are taller than all the trees in Disneyland.

Below is a diagram illustrating how deductive arguments are valid, invalid, sound and
unsound.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

VALID INVALID
Argument reasoned logically Argument not reasoned logically
from premises to conclusion. Conclusion from premises to conclusion.
follows from premises with necessity.
.
 SOUND UNSOUND UNSOUND
All premises and conclusion are At least one premise is All invalid arguments are
true. Argument is reasoned logically false and/or the conclusion unsound.
from premises to conclusion. is false

EXERCISE 5.6

I. Which of the following deductive arguments are valid and which are invalid, and which
are sound or unsound (if you can tell)?

1.
If life gives me lemons, then I will make lemonade.
Life is giving me lemons.
Therefore, I'm making lemonade.

2.
If Mozart ate pork chops while on vacation in Prague then he got trichinosis and died.
Mozart ate pork chops while on vacation in Prague.
Therefore, Mozart died of trichinosis.

3.
Some Haitians eat Italian food in July.
All Haitians never eat Italian food in Haiti.
Therefore, some Haitians eat Italian food outside Haiti in July.

4.
The rock stars that make it into the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame are talented and
passionate about rock n roll.
Mick Jagger is talented and passionate about rock n roll.
Therefore, Mick Jagger is in the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame.

5.
People who drink red wine, drink it after a hard day's work.
I have had a hard day's work.
Therefore, I will drink red wine tonight after work.

6.
All people who drink red wine drink it only after a hard day's work.
I drink red wine.
I have had a hard day's work.
Therefore, I will drink red wine tonight after work.

7.
All birds have wings.
Pigeons are birds.
Therefore, have wings.

8.
All men who are couch potatoes are lazy, fat, eat chips, drink lite beer, and watch TV.
All wives eventually divorce their husbands if they are couch potatoes.
Juliet is married to Marcel who is a couch potato.
Therefore, Juliet will eventually divorce Marcel.

9.
Louis has four little sisters named Louise, Lucille, Lucinda, and Lupita.
Louise, Lucille, and Lucinda all attend grammar school.
Lupita is too young to attend school.
Every child that attends school must have a hepatitis B vaccination.
Therefore, Lupita does not have a hepatitis B vaccination.

10.
Only people who remember Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale are creatures of the past.
Nobody remembers Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale anymore.
Therefore, nobody is a creature of the past

11.
If Barbara Walters interviewed Fidel Castro, then she had an affair with him.
Barbara Walters interviewed Fidel Castro.
Barbara Walters had an affair with Fidel Castro.

12.
All great apes are endangered species.
Chimps are great apes.
Therefore, chimps are an endangered species.

13.
I can learn to play the piano in 1 minute and 30 seconds.
It takes 2 minutes and 30 seconds to microwave my popcorn.
Therefore, I can learn to play the piano in a shorter time than it takes to microwave my
popcorn.

14.
The Roadrunner says Beep Beep only if he is crossing the street with a friend.
The Roadrunner crosses the street with a friend only on Friday nights.
Therefore, the Roadrunner says Beep Beep only on Friday nights.

15.
If the new Harry Potter movie is playing in the local theater tonight, then the kid playing
 Harry Potter must be at least thirty five years old.
The movie isn’t playing in the local theater tonight.
Therefore, the kid playing Harry Potter is on Medicare.

16.
It only rains when there are clouds in the sky.
There are clouds in the sky.
It must be raining.

17.
I can learn to play the piano in 1 minute and 30 seconds.
It takes 2 minutes and 30 seconds to microwave my popcorn.
Therefore, I can learn to play the piano while I am popping my popcorn.

18.
If there’s a fire burning, then there is oxygen present.
There is a fire burning.
Therefore, oxygen is present.

19.
All married couples want to have children.
Clarence loves churros more than he loves children.
Therefore, Clarence and Maria will not have children.

20.
All pigeons ride the subway in Philadelphia.
No pigeon ever rides the subway in New York.
Therefore, the subway in Philadelphia is safer than the subway in New York.

21.
All married couples want to have children.
Clarence and Maria are married.
Clarence loves churros more than he loves children.
Therefore, Clarence and Maria will not have children.

22.
If Spongiforma squarepantsii is a new mushroom species found in Borneo that looks like
a fungus from the ocean, then it was named after SpongeBob Squarepants.
Spongiforma squarepantsii is a new mushroom species found in Borneo that looks like a
fungus from the ocean.
Therefore, Spongiforma squarepantsii was named after SpongeBob Squarepants.

5.7 INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS.

Inductive arguments have premises that support conclusions from a lesser to greater
degree of probability. While deductive arguments claim the conclusion must be drawn
from their premises, inductive arguments claim the conclusion follows from the premises
with a degree of probability. Inductive arguments are used in all disciplines and in
everyday life with great frequency, like offering reasons for buying a car, what college
Hector should attend, why Margaret should go to the prom with Willie instead of Jules, or
how it’s possible a guy like Jay Leno could still be on TV.

With inductive arguments it’s all about the degree of probability. Here are a few
examples.

1.
The fingerprints left on the gun that the robber dropped as he ran out the liquor store match Smitty’s
fingerprints.
The picture on the surveillance camera matches Smitty as the man holding a gun on the man behind the
counter at the liquor store demanding money.
The number plate on the get away car matched a car registered to Smitty.
A customer in the cheesy girlie magazine isle got a good look at the robber and
he claims it’s Smitty (though at this time he is reluctant to give his full identity).
The gun is in fact an accurate water pistol reproduction of a vintage Smith and Wesson #427 Wyoming
Blue Mountain Ranger six shooter sold and registered to Smitty through a now defunct mail order
specialty gun and toy company registered in the Marshall Islands.
Therefore, it was probably Smitty that held up the liquor store.

2.
Jasper ate pepperoni pizza at Howie’s Specialty Pizza 27 times last year.
23 times last year Jasper got indigestion immediately after eating Howie’s pepperoni pizza.
Therefore, if Jasper eats Howie’s pepperoni pizza again, he will probably get indigestion.

The strength of the first argument rests on the cumulative evidence that points to
Smitty being the robber of the liquor store. The second argument establishes a
meaningful statistical correlation between Jasper eating a particular type of pizza at
Howie’s and getting indigestion. Could we claim that Jasper would get indigestion if he
ate pepperoni pizza somewhere else? We need to be careful here. It looks like something
at Howie’s has his number, and it looks like it’s the pepperoni pizza, but we don’t know
anything about the ingredients at other pizza parlors, so we need to restrict our claim to
pepperoni pizza at Howie’s. “Hey! Give me a break, K! Pepperoni pizza is pepperoni
pizza and indigestion is indigestion! It doesn’t matter where you get it! Jasper is going to
get stomach acid from ANYBODY”S pepperoni pizza! Alright already! How skeptical do
you want to get!” Yes, I Jasper should take along some antacid if he orders a pepperoni
pizza somewhere else. But again, we don’t know anything about the pepperoni itself, the
spices and all the other ingredients, how they compare from one place to another. Maybe
Jasper can’t handle the tomato sauce? Where would he be then? So the word is caution
here. If Jasper eats pepperoni pizza at other places and then he reaches for the coolants,
we can make the more general claim about pepperoni pizza, no matter where he gets it.
As long as we only have Howie’s to go on we’re restricted to conclusions about Howie’s.
Last, note that in both our arguments the premises support the conclusion with a high
degree of probability. That’s why we say these are inductive arguments. It’s all about a
degree of probability. “But what if Jasper got indigestion every time he ate at Howie’s,
twenty-seven out of twenty-seven times, couldn’t we conclude with certainty that Jasper
will get indigestion the next time?” Back to Jasper? Good question. The answer is no.
Even if it happened every time in the past, it doesn’t mean that it will happen in the
future. Again, it’s a matter of probability. Be sure that you don’t mistake a high degree of
probability with certainty.

EXERCISE 5.7
I. Write a definition of an inductive argument.
II. Create two examples of inductive arguments that have at least three premises each,
one concluding with a high degree of probability, and one with a low degree of
probability.

5.8 INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS: STRONG AND WEAK

The Fifty Percent Rule of Induction: When the premises of an inductive argument
support the conclusion with a degree of probability that exceeds 50 percent, the argument
is strong. If it’s under 50 percent the argument is weak.

Unlike deductive arguments that are either valid or invalid, inductive arguments
are from a greater to lesser degree, strong to weak. The distance from very strong to very
weak is great, and at each end of the spectrum you will find little disagreement. But the
closer you get to fifty percent the more difficult it is to reach consensus. Here are two
arguments, strong and weak.

1.
Clarence loves churros so much that he could eat them every day.
Clarence just bought a Deluxe Cancun Churro Six Changer Deep Fryer that fries churros in 3 minutes.
His wife, Maria insists that he can eat churros only on holidays, the only days when she will allow him to
use the deep fryer.
Clarence and Maria do not always agree on what qualifies as a holiday.
Therefore, sometimes Clarence will feel he can use his fryer and eat Churros when Maria says no.

And here’s a weak argument.

2.
Duncan is shopping to buy a car.
Therefore, Duncan will probably buy a hybrid car.

Clarence is pretty focused on his passion so it’s probably better than 50% that
there’s going to be some disagreement on when he can indulge, so the argument is strong.
Duncan is in the market to buy a car but there’s no evidence that he will buy a hybrid. So
as a matter of probability the conclusion is less than 50 percent, and the argument is
weak.
Here are two more arguments, the first strong, the second weak. I’ve put them
both in narrative form, then in argument outline form. Notice as we move from the
narrative to the outline, only the claims that support the conclusion are included in the
outlines.

1.
Every time I turn my computer on it causes me grief. It eats my CD’s, loses my files, disconnects me from
the net, the volume fades in and out, the speed is slow and the monitor is always out of focus. The
manufacturer won’t take it back, and I can’t sell it to anyone. How come other people don’t have trouble
with their computers like I do? This one was supposed to be a really good one too! I have term papers to
write for school. I’ve had it. It’s time to shop for a new computer.

Every time I turn on my computer it malfunctions.

It eats my CD’s, the volume fades in and out, the speed is slow, and it loses my files, and disconnects me
from the net.
Nobody will buy it.
The manufacturer won’t take it back.
I need a computer for my schoolwork.
Therefore, I better shop for a new computer.

2.
I turn on my computer, and zap, the monitor flashes, I hear a pop, and the next thing I know there’s nothing.
I shake it, flick all the switches, plead with it, threaten it, but no sign of life. I would kill it but it’s already
gone, and you can’t get any goner than gone. If I had used a surge protector, I bet that would have saved it.

My monitor zapped, flashed, popped, and then died.

I shook it and flicked all the switches, but no sign of life.
Therefore, if I had used a surge protector, it might have saved it.

In the first argument there are good reasons to support the claim that it’s time to buy a
new computer. But the second argument offers no reason to believe that a surge protector
would have saved the computer. There could have been a short in the monitor, or
something else in the electrical system went wrong).

EXERCISE 5.8
I. Explain the difference between a strong and a weak inductive argument.
II. Create three strong and three weak inductive arguments.

5.9 INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS: STRENGTH, TRUTH AND COGENCY

An inductive argument is cogent if the argument is strong and if the premises and
conclusion are all probably true. If an inductive argument is strong and has all probably
true premises, then its conclusion must be probably true. Put another way, with an
inductive argument you cannot reason logically from all probably true premises to a
probably false conclusion. An uncogent inductive argument is either weak, has at least
one probably false claim, or both. You can only accept an inductive argument if it is
strong, has all probably true premises and a probably true conclusion.
Is it possible to tell if an inductive argument is strong or weak but not know if it is
cogent or uncogent? Yes. This occurs when you know you have a strong argument, the
premises support the conclusion with over 50% probability, but you are unfamiliar with
the meanings of the terms, so you cannot tell if the claims are probably true or false. In
the example below, if you do not know who Sandy Koufax is but you know a little bit
about baseball, then you could tell that the argument below is probably strong, but you
would not be able to tell that it’s cogent.

Sandy Koufax was a left hander in the major leagues who was on seven all star teams,
won the Cy Young Award three times, was the World Series MVP three times, pitched
four no hitters including a perfect game, was the MVP in the National League in 1963
and was the youngest person to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Therefore, Koufax was probably one of the greatest left handers in major league baseball.

Below is a diagram illustrating how inductive arguments are strong, weak, cogent and
uncogent.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

STRONG WEAK
The premises support the conclusion The premises support the
With over 50 percent probability. conclusion with less than 50
percent probability.

COGENT UNCOGENT UNCOGENT

The premises are probably At least one of the premises and/or All weak arguments are uncogent
true, and the conclusion the conclusion is probably false
is probably true
EXERCISE 5.9
I. Explain the difference between a cogent and an uncogent inductive argument.
II. Create three cogent and three uncogent inductive arguments.
III. Decide which of the following claims are true or false.
1. All strong arguments have probably true conclusions.
2. All arguments with probably false premises are weak.
3. An argument that has probably true premises and a probably false conclusion will
always be weak.
4. An argument that has probably false premises and a probably true conclusion will
always be strong.
5. A weak argument can have probably false premises and a probably false conclusion. 6.
A strong argument with all probably true premises must have a probably true
conclusion.
7. A strong argument with probably false premises can be cogent.
8. A strong argument must always be cogent.
9. A weak argument must always be uncogent.
10. A strong argument can be uncogent.
11. Weakness has nothing to do with cogency.

5.10 DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS: CERTAINITY AND

PROBABILITY
People sometimes mistake a very strong inductive argument for a deductive argument.
Ask yourself, is the argument claiming the conclusion follows from the premises with
absolute necessity, or is it claiming that the conclusion follows from the premises with a
degree of probability? Let’s look at a few more examples. Both arguments are inductive
that might be mistaken for deductive.

Every time Yogi Bear has snatched a picnic basket in the past, the Ranger gets upset.
Yogi has been snatching picnic baskets for quite a few years.
Yogi is snatching a picnic basket right now.
Therefore, if the Ranger finds out, he will get upset.

Yogi Berra (no relation) played his entire major league baseball career as a New York Yankee.
Therefore, when Yogi was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, he was inducted as a New York Yankee.

In the first argument, given the premises, we can’t conclude with certainty that the
Ranger will get upset. If we claim it’s a deductive argument, then, it will be an invalid
deductive argument because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the
premises. As an inductive argument, however, it’s strong. In the second argument the
premise claims that Yogi Berra played his entire career as a Yankee, and that is all. So
again, we cannot conclude with certainty that he was inducted as a Yankee. “Hey! K!
Give me a break! You think Yogi was inducted as a Dodger? Ha! Ha!” Well, maybe not a
Dodger, but if you examine the premise closely, you will notice that there is no evidence
offered that requires us conclude that he was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a Yankee,
we just know that he played his entire career as a Yankee. So again, as a deductive
argument, it’s invalid, but as an inductive argument it’s strong. If we want to turn our
Yogi Berra argument into a deductive argument, then we need to add a premise. I have
put the critical premise in italics.

Yogi Berra played his entire major league baseball career as a New York Yankee.
If a player is inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame and has played his entire career for
one team, then he must be inducted as a player of that team.
Therefore, when Yogi Berra was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, he was
inducted as a New York Yankee.

Now, given the premises, we can conclude with certainty that Yogi was inducted
into the Hall of Fame as a Yankee. It’s a valid argument. Is it sound? To be honest with
you, I haven’t a clue. Looks like Lou and Stu are sorting it out. Be patient with them.

Lou: Lots of evidence, I must say.

Stu: They have a video of a bear that looks exactly like him snatching a basket when a
group of campers are away. His paw prints were found on the empty picnic basket near the picnic tables
where the basket was snatched. He was seen strolling through the park with jelly on his face a half hour
after the picnic basket was snatched. And he has a history of stealing unattended picnic baskets. It’s a slam
dunk. It was Yogi who stole the picnic basket. Without a doubt.
Lou: You talking about Yogi Berra?
Stu: NO!!!! Yogi Bear! What would an old time baseball player be doing stealing picnic baskets!?
Lou: I get it. But are you saying it had to be Yogi, or do you mean it was probably Yogi?
Stu: Are we splitting hairs again? Are we doing philosophy again?
Lou: You don’t have to get indignant. Are you concluding from the premises that it was definitely, without
a doubt, Yogi?
Stu: Let’s be real, brother, it was Yogi. You know it. And I know it. I mean, the Ranger was fed up with
Yogi, in every episode the Ranger would be upset because Yogi would steal a picnic basket.
Lou: Stick to the claims, the premises, Stu. The stuff about the Ranger is really just a claim that Yogi has a
history of stealing picnic baskets, and you already stated that.
Stu: Ok, Ok. So if I say it was Yogi, with certainty, absolutely, without a doubt, then it would be invalid. I
can’t be 100% certain with my premises. So I need to say it’s a strong inductive argument. Right?
Lou: You got it. K will give you an A in Critical Thinking. I’m sure of it. Well, I mean, it’s highly probable.

This last example illustrates this point well.

The sun has risen every day in recorded history for the last four thousand years.
Therefore the sun will rise tomorrow.

No matter how sure you feel the sun will rise tomorrow, the premise does not give
us reason to conclude with certainty that it will. The premise only gives us good reason to
believe there is a high probability that it will rise tomorrow. Invoking the laws of physics
will make it stronger, but it won’t clinch the deal for a deductive argument. So if we
claimed that our sun rising argument is a deductive argument, then we would have to say
the argument is invalid. As an inductive argument, though, it’s very strong.

EXERCISE 5.10

I. All of the following are inductive arguments. Decide if they are strong or weak and,
when possible, cogent or uncogent.
1.
Eyes Filosofize is a Hip Hop Rapper who clutches his crotch to hit the high notes.
Eyes Filosofize performs often, and he hits quite a few high notes.
Scientists have confirmed that most Hip Hop Rappers who clutch their crotches when
they perform like Eyes Filosofize eventually go sterile.
Therefore, if Eyes Filosofize continues to sing and clutch his crotch to hit the high notes,
then he will probably go sterile.

2.
Beethoven had severe constipation, stomach pain, and gradual hearing loss until he went
deaf. He was also irritable and a pretty argumentative fellow. We have a lock of his hair,
and it has a high concentration of lead. These are all symptoms of lead poisoning.
Beethoven probably suffered and died from lead poisoning.

3.
Last week I saw a Starbucks inside the local supermarket, there is one in the local
hardware store, one in the local post office, one at the YMCA near the pool, one in the
Women’s restroom at Macy’s downtown next to the changing table, and there are 6 drive
throughs in our town too. Our town has a population of 10,000 people. With so many
locations, the quality of the coffee must be going down.

4.
Little Morris has a stuffed animal named Alvin who has a round shaped head. Harry is
nine years old and he has had Alvin for eight years. Harry takes Alvin with him
everywhere, and he sleeps with him at night. Harry is going to camp this summer for the
first time. Morris will probably want to take Alvin with him to camp.

5.
I’m going to the store tomorrow to buy a new mattress. All they sell at the store are
mattresses and box springs. In fact, they call the place Best’s Best Mattresses and Box
Springs of Bakersfield. I think they will try to sell me a box spring too.

6.
I read an interview with Martha Stewart the other day. She was complaining about the
ankle bracelet she wore as part of her probation for her conviction for perjury. She said it
irritated her ankle. If it irritated her ankle, then those things must irritate the ankles of all
criminals who wear them.

7.
When I was a kid there was a pizza shop that delivered pizza all over town. They kept the
pizza warm by putting it on top of the engine, under the hood of the delivery truck. But
there are health department rules now, and you probably can’t do that stuff anymore. If
they are still in business, they probably use those insulated pizza containers to get the
pizzas across town.
8.
Telemarketers call me at all hours of the day and night, even on weekends. Practically
every one of them is a bank or mortgage company trying to sell me a loan for my house.
The rates for refinancing my home must be a pretty good deal.

9.
I always buy Apple computers. Apple only has 4 percent of total pc sales. But smaller
companies work harder than the bigger companies, and as a result they make better
products. That’s why Apple is the one to buy.

10.
Beethoven had severe constipation, stomach pain, and gradual hearing loss until he went
completely deaf. He was also irritable, and a pretty argumentative fellow. We have a lock
of his hair and it has a high concentration of lead. These are all symptoms of lead
poisoning. Beethoven probably suffered and died from lead poisoning. Beethoven’s
housekeeper, Jean-Francois, disliked him because he had to cook and do all the chores
while Beethoven sat and composed at the piano and took in the applause (and women).
He had a motive to kill him. It was probably Jean-Francois who gradually killed
Beethoven by putting small amounts of lead in his food until it finally took his life.

11.
Until recently NASCAR racing was primarily a sport for lower middle class white men
from the Midwest and southern states. But in the past 35 to 40 years the movies and TV
have glorified car chases, starting with Steve McQueen in Bullitt. Now, people from all
backgrounds like to watch cars do all sorts of impossible things on the silver screen and
even ion advertisements on TV. That’s probably why so many people of all backgrounds
love to go to NASCAR races now.

12.
They use springs in my box spring for my bed, they use springs in my sofa, they use
springs in my dining room chairs, and they use springs in my recliner in the family room.
Since it’s all furniture, the springs must be all the same.

13.
Beethoven had severe constipation, stomach pain, and gradual hearing loss until he went
completely deaf. He was also irritable, and a pretty argumentative fellow. We have a lock
of his hair and it has a high concentration of lead. These are all symptoms of lead
poisoning. Beethoven probably suffered and died from lead poisoning. We know
Beethoven drank quite a bit of wine, and he always had a glass of his favorite grape on
his piano when he composed. In Beethoven’s wine glasses were made with high
concentrations of lead crystal. He was probably poisoned from the lead in his wine
glasses.

14.
Scientists have done IQ studies on soccer players who “head” the ball and they have
concluded that they have lower IQs from the impact of hitting the ball with their heads. I
heard the popular soccer player Enrique Gutierrez Miranda Lopez of the Rio Toucans
Gazpachos of Venezuela the other day on the radio. He says he wants to open a chain of
bagel shops in the South Caucasus when he retires. I think he lost a few too many brain
cells from heading the ball.

II. Decide which of the following arguments are deductive or inductive, valid or invalid,
strong or weak. When possible, decide if they are sound or unsound, cogent or uncogent.

1.
Either Clarence will get help for his "churro problem" or his wife will leave him
and take the kids.
Clarence will not get help for his churro problem.
Therefore, Clarence's wife will leave him and take the kids.

2.
Some people get Tom and Jerry mixed up with Ben and Jerry's.
No people get the Three Stooges mixed up with Tom and Jerry.
Therefore, some people get the Three Stooges mixed up with Ben and Jerry's.

3.
Curt Cobain died when he was 27, just like Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and
Amy Winehouse. The best rockers hardly ever make it to 30.

4.
I went to a class on food preparation the other day, and the teacher told us to wash our
hands frequently to prevent the spread of disease. He said we need to wash our hands as
long as it takes to sing Row, Row, Row Your Boat, twice. But I’m not much for rowing
boats, so I wash my hands as long as it takes to recite all 27 countries in the European
Union backwards and forwards twice. I think I hum long enough to get my hands clean.

5.
Either Elvis Presley got pissed when Elvis Costello stole his name, or he was proud when
Elvis Costello stole his name.
Elvis was not proud when Elvis Costello stole his name.
Therefore, Elvis Presley was pissed when Elvis Costello stole his name.

6.
Most ice-cream parlors don’t sell rum raisin ice-cream. Since businesses try to sell what
the public wants so they can make money, it’s reasonable to assume that not enough
people want buy rum raisin ice-cream to make any money.

7.
Most lonely male philosophy professors watch reruns of Desperate Housewives on
television and dream of a faster life.
Terrance watches Desperate Housewives on television.
Therefore, Terence is a lonely male philosophy professor.

8.
If Barry Bonds knew he was taking steroids, then he knew he was turning into Sasquatch.
Barry didn’t know he was taking steroids.
Therefore, he didn’t know he was turning into Sasquatch.

9.
Some people who use cell phones while they drive believe they drive as safe as a sober
driver who is not using a cell phone. There are a higher number of accidents caused by
drivers who use cell phones than drunk drivers, and drunk drivers cause more accidents
than drivers who are not drunk. Therefore, the people who think they can use cell phones
and drive as safely as sober drivers who don’t use cell phones are wrong.

10.
Critical thinking classes are taught in colleges and universities, and many of the students
who take them are new to the subject. But we need to think critically in everything we do,
for all of our lives. In fact, when kids think critically, they learn faster and better in their
studies at school and at home. If kids studied how to think critically in grammar school
through high school, then they would benefit even more than they do now when they
study it in college.

11.
All uncooked eggs contain salmonella. Rocky Balboa eats uncooked eggs.
Therefore, Rocky Balboa has salmonella.

12.
The fingerprints left on the gun that the robber dropped as he ran out the liquor store match Smitty’s
fingerprints.
The picture on the surveillance camera matches Smitty as the man holding a gun on the man behind the
counter at the liquor store and demanding money.
The get away car number plate matched a car registered to Smitty.
A customer in the cheesy girlie magazine isle got a good look at the robber and
he claims it’s Smitty (though at this time he is reluctant to give his full identity).
The gun is in fact an accurate water pistol reproduction of a vintage Smith and Wesson #427 Wyoming
Blue Mountain Ranger six shooter sold and registered to Smitty through a now defunct mail order
specialty gun and toy company registered in the Marshall Islands.
The robber yelled “My name is Smitty and I just held up this liquor store” as he ran out of the store.
Therefore, we can conclude without any doubt that it was Smitty who held up the liquor store.

13.
If you take Linus’ blanket away from him, then he will get upset. Nobody is taking Linus’
blanket away from him. Therefore, he will not get upset.

14.
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect!

15.
Napoleon Bonaparte died in exile at the age of 52 on the South Atlantic island of St.
Helena, where he was banished after his defeat at Waterloo. The autopsy report of his
death said he had a four inch tumor in his stomach, and that it was cancer. The official
cause of death was stomach cancer. He probably died of stomach cancer.

16.
Napoleon Bonaparte was always on some kind of military campaign somewhere. (You
have to travel a lot when you want to take over the world). When he was out of town he
probably had a diet high in salted meats and low in fresh vegetables. People who have
such a diet are susceptible to being infected with the Helicobacter pylori bacterium, the
bacterium that causes stomach ulcers. Stomach ulcers can cause stomach cancer. The
official autopsy on Napoleon said he died of stomach cancer. It’s likely that his diet
during his military campaigns caused or contributed to the stomach cancer that ultimately
caused his death.

17.
If Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale send for Rocky and Bullwinkle then it will be a trap
and Rocket J Squirrel (Rocky) will have to get smart fast.
Boris and Natasha are not sending for R & B.
Therefore, Rocky won’t have to think smart fast.

18. If Don Van Vliet was Captain Beefheart and if Captain Beefheart died of
complications of multiple sclerosis, then Don Van Vliet died of complications of multiple
sclerosis.

EXERCISE 5.1
I. A deductive argument claims that its conclusion is drawn necessarily from its premises.
Put another way, a deductive argument claims that, given the premises, the conclusion
must be the case.
II. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 5.2
I. A valid argument has logical reasoning from premises to conclusion.
An invalid argument does not have logical reasoning from premises to conclusion. Put
another way, an invalid argument’s conclusion is not drawn logically (it does not follow
logically) from its premises.
II. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 5.3
I. A sound deductive argument has all true premises, a true conclusion, and logical
reasoning from premises to conclusion.
II. Answers will vary.
EXERCISE 5.4
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 5.5
I. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 5.6
I.
1. Deductive/Valid
2. Deductive/Valid/Unsound
3. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
4. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
5. Deductive/Valid/Sound?
6. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
7. Deductive/Valid/Sound
8. Deductive/Valid
9. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
10. Deductive/Valid/Unsound
11. Deductive/Valid/Sound?
12. Deductive/Valid/Sound
13. Deductive/Valid/Unsound
14. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
15. Deductive/Valid/Unsound
16. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
17. Deductive/Invalid/ Unsound
18. Deductive/Valid/Sound
19. Deductive/Valid/ Unsound
20. Deductive/Invalid/ Unsound
21. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
22. Deductive/Valid/ Sound

EXERCISE 5.7
I. Inductive arguments have premises that support conclusions from a lesser to greater
degree of probability.
II. Answers will vary

EXERCISE 5.8
I. A strong inductive argument has premises that support the conclusion with over a 50%.
degree of certainty. A weak inductive argument has premises that support the conclusion
with a degree of certainty less than 50%.
II. Answers will vary.

EXERCISE 5.9
I. A cogent argument is an inductive argument that has all probably true premises, is
strong, and has a probably true conclusion. All other inductive arguments are uncogent.
II. Answers will vary.
III.
1. F
2. F
3. T
4. F
5. T
6. T
7. F
8. F
9. T
10. T
11. F

EXERCISE 5.10
I.
1. Inductive/Strong (former student of Professor K)
2. Inductive/Weak/Uncogent
3. Inductive/Weak/Uncogent
4. Inductive/Strong
5. Inductive/Strong
6. Inductive/Weak/Uncogent
7. Inductive/Strong/Cogent (K’s hometown)
8. Inductive/Weak/Uncogent
9. Inductive/Weak/Uncogent
10. Inductive/Weak/Uncogent (The plot thickens)
11. Inductive/Strong/Cogent
12. Inductive/Weak/Uncogent
13. Inductive/Weak/Uncogent
14. Inductive/Weak/Uncogent

II.
1. Deductive/Valid
2. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
3. Inductive/Weak
4. Inductive/Strong
5. Deductive/Valid/Sound (He should have been pissed)
6. Inductive/Strong/Cogent
7. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
8. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
9. Deductive/Valid/Sound
10. Inductive/Strong/Cogent
11. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
12. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
13. Deductive/Invalid/Unsound
14. Deductive/Confusion rests on the ambiguity of the term ‘nobody’.
15. Inductive/Strong
16. Inductive/Strong
17. Deductive/Invalid/Uncogent
18. Deductive/Valid/Sound

CHAPTER 6: INFORMAL FALLACIES

6.1 WHAT IS AN INFORMAL FALLACY?

A fallacy is a defect in reasoning. An informal fallacy is a defect in reasoning because of
the misuse of language (intentional or unintentional), or some other form of weak
reasoning from premise to conclusion. We call these fallacies informal fallacies because
the weakness in reasoning is not found in the formal structure of the arguments
themselves (like the two imposters in Chapter 6). There are many ways arguers commit
informal fallacies. Some arguers assume claims they should not assume (Fallacies of
Presumption), some introduce irrelevant claims into their arguments that allow them to
draw unwarranted conclusions (Fallacies of Relevance), some divert the attention of their
opponent to other subjects (Fallacies of Diversion), and some just simply deny that there
is evidence to be reckoned with (Denying the Counterevidence). Mastering how informal
fallacies function gives an arguer considerable strength and control in creating strong
arguments and in identifying weak ones. But before we examine informal fallacies, let’s
contrast formal fallacies with informal fallacies to get a clearer idea of how they differ.
 In chapter 6 we studied how the following argument form always embodies
logical, valid reasoning as long as we use our terms consistently.

If A then B If Taz is spinning, then he will bring down the house

A Taz is spinning
Therefore B Therefore, Taz is bringing down the house

And we also studied how a similar but different argument form was always
invalid reasoning. Here’s an example of Imposter #2: Affirming the Consequent.

If A then B If Taz is spinning, then he will bring down the house

B The house is coming down
Therefore A Therefore, Taz is spinning

We call this type of argument analysis, formal logic because the principle focus of
study is on the formal structure of the argument, not the meanings of the terms we use.
We can talk about cartoon characters or nuclear weapons, it doesn’t matter, if the
argument has the form of Imposter #2 (Affirming the Consequent) then it’s a bad
argument. In fact, in formal logic we often dispense with terms altogether so entire
arguments can be represented by sequences of letters or symbols. Consistency in the use
of terms is a hallmark of formal logic. The use of letters or symbols to represent concepts
insures that there will be consistency in the arguments and no confusion over the
meanings of words. But with informal logic we shift our concern from the structure of
arguments to the meaning and use of words. The study of informal fallacies, then, is
characterized by the analysis of the terms we use in everyday language and how we
manipulate them to draw conclusions.
We will be discussing 31 informal fallacies divided into four groups. The
members of each group share with each other distinguishing features that exemplify a
specific type of faulty reasoning (except for our last group, which isn’t really a group at
all because it contains only one fallacy). The four groups are the Fallacies of
Presumption, Fallacies of Relevance, Fallacies of Diversion, and the Fallacy of Denying
the Counterevidence.

EXERCISE 6.1
I. Explain the difference between a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy.

6.2 FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION

Fallacies of Presumption assume (or presume) a questionable crucial claim in an
argument but leave it unstated in the hope that it will be accepted unquestioned. The
hidden presumption leads the arguer to draw a conclusion that she might not otherwise
have made had the presumption been stated.

1. EITHER/OR: When an arguer claims there are only two alternatives in an argument,
with one of them being unacceptable, when there are actually more alternatives to choose
from.
The either/or fallacy is calculated to box in the opponent by cutting off viable options,
pressuring the respondent to choose from two options, one of them being conveniently
unacceptable. So there are really no options to choose from at all.
Increased options are crucial to resolving disputes, coming closer to truth or to
reach a fair compromise. When an arguer arbitrarily narrows the alternatives without
prior approval, be it through lack of imagination or self interest, the possibility of
establishing meaningful consensus between parties is diminished. The greater the number
of creative, reasonable options, the greater the possibility a lasting agreement will be
achieved.

Are you going to stay in college, or are you going to scrape around forever looking for a good job?

Either we maintain executive pay as it is and bring in the best talent to run our businesses, or we drive the
talent into other fields and we recruit executives with fewer skills.

Eat your vegetables. You don't want to suffer from malnourishment do you?

Plenty of people do fine without going to college. In fact, many people hate
college, so why not respect the kid’s wishes and try some creative options outside
college? Isn’t it strange how so many people do great work in so many different,
demanding occupations, but those executives just have to have millions in salaries to do
their jobs? I’m sure most of you have heard a version of the vegetable/malnourishment
argument.
Are there situations where we really have only two alternatives to choose from?
Yes, this is often the case so there is no fallacy in reasoning if only two options do exist.
There may be only two models of refrigerators that will fit in the opening in your kitchen,
there may only be two schools to choose from in your neighborhood to attend and
moving to another city for a better school district may not be an option, you may not want
to take the plane to New York, but let’s face it, the train takes six days and that will mean
you will lose half of your vacation traveling to get to your destination. Be careful that you
don’t confuse a genuine lack of options with the illegitimate narrowing of options by an
arguer reaching for an advantage.

2. REASONING IN A CIRCLE: When an arguer “proves” a conclusion but in reality

the conclusion has already been assumed as a premise and has been moved to become
the conclusion.
It’s easy to ‘prove’ a conclusion if the conclusion already exists as a premise. Just put
different clothes on the premise and sneak it downstairs. Presto! Now it’s a conclusion!
The key to moving it from upstairs to downstairs is changing the language of the premise,
but not the meaning. This way nobody will suspect that it’s really the same claim in two
places.

Time is eternal, therefore it goes on forever .

Brit Hume: What if there isn’t any unity at the Republican convention?
George W. Bush: I am confident there will be. I’m confident people are coming together. And the reason I
believe this is because our party is united.
(Fox Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox TV July 19, 2000)
Philosophy is the most important subject you can study. Why? Because it’s the Queen of the sciences, that’s
why. And why is it the Queen of the sciences? There is no disputing it, because it’s the most important
subject you can study. (Professor K)

Time being eternal is the same as time going forever, so there is nothing being
proved here, the premise is simply being repeated as a conclusion in different language.
Is there any difference between “people coming together” and a party that is united?
Apparently GWB thinks one can support the other as an argument, but this is really just
the same claim on the move from upstairs to downstairs. He hasn’t given a reason for the
unity at the convention. Last, philosophy is indeed the Queen of the Sciences, but
claiming it’s the most important subject you can study to support its status as the Queen
won’t do. I’ll have to look at this one again. If you’re not on your guard you won’t notice
that each argument has a premise that is the same in meaning as the conclusion. The only
difference is that the conclusion uses different terms, making the migration from premise
to conclusion difficult to detect. That’s why we say this fallacy is reasoning that goes in a
circle. It’s a case of the premise supporting itself. Or rather it’s the conclusion supporting
itself. I’m sure you get the idea.
Another form of reasoning in a circle is when an arguer repeats a claim instead of
offering evidence to support the claim. At first it sounds like the arguer has given a reason
(evidence) to justify the claim (conclusion), but he’s really just repeating the claim and
offering no support for the claim at all. Have you ever heard a person repeat a claim over
and over again as if repeating it is a substitute for proving it? All he needs to do is offer
some evidence to prove the truth of the claim, but instead he just repeats the claim like a
broken record.
Here’s an amusing exchange from one of E.M. Forster’s novels. Miss Bartlett
would like a hotel room with a view, but doesn’t want to change rooms with a friendly
stranger and his son who offer to change rooms with her and her niece, Lucy. Miss
Bartlett and her niece, the stranger and his son are sitting at separate tables in the hotel
restaurant.

“A view? Oh a view! How delightful a view is!” “This is my son,” said the old man; “his name’s George.
He has a view too.”
“Ah”, said Miss Bartlett, repressing Lucy, who was about to speak.
“What I mean”, he continued, “is that you can have our rooms, and we’ll have yours. We’ll change.…….”
Miss Bartlett, in reply opened her mouth as little as possible, and said:
“Thank you very much indeed; that is out of the question.”
“Why?” said the old man, with both fists on the table.
“Because it is quite out of the question, thank you.”
(E.M. Forster, A Room With a View)

3. CAUSAL FALACIES
Causal Fallacies focus on how events are mistakenly believed to be related in various
types of causal relationships. If you get indigestion you might assume it was the chili that
you had at lunch, but it’s possible that it’s the new medication you started taking a few
days ago. Eating chili is closer in time to your heartburn, you take your medication at
night before you go to bed, so you believe the chili is the culprit. But then you notice that
the information with the drug says it can cause heartburn. So now you think it was both
the chili and medicine that caused the heartburn? Well, it may be both, but then it may
not. If a doctor doesn’t know that in rare cases penicillin can cause an allergic reaction up
to ten days after taking the drug, he may misdiagnose the reaction and not identify the
cause. Psychological or behavioral causal relations can be just as tricky to figure out as
physical causal relations. Some parents don’t understand that their love for their kids may
drive them away instead of bring them closer together if their caring is too overbearing or
invasive. And what causes some parents to continue to be overbearing even when they
are told they should stop? This is why we have psychologists (and why this fellow stayed
in philosophy). We will be examining four varieties of the false cause fallacy.

A. TEMPORAL SUCCESSION: When an arguer draws an illegitimate connection

between two events based on the fact that the two events follow one after the other in
time.
Just because two events occur one after the other in time that does not necessarily mean
that they are casually related. Look around you, all sorts of events occur before and after
other events. The light bulb on my desk just went on and I heard my neighbor start his car
a moment later. But I don’t believe my light bulb caused my neighbor to start his car. So
how is it that we identify causal connections between events? We often associate two or
more events when they’re physically and temporally close together. When my neighbor
revs his Harley and my ears explode, I connect the noise (he calls it a “hum”) with him
starting his cycle. We also connect events when the same (or similar) events repeat
themselves. Even though I don’t know anything about physics, mass and velocity, I
expect the billiard balls on my pool table will behave the same way every time I hit them,
as long as I hit them with my cue the same way. On the other hand, if I get indigestion
often but I can’t associate it with a particular event before hand, then I’m in a quandary
and I need to search harder. But wait, I think I can make some headway here. My
indigestion comes after I eat and if I don’t eat, it comes when I file my taxes and when I
don’t file my taxes, it comes when the waiter forgets my table and doesn’t forget my
table, so for the time being those options may or may not be the cause of my indigestion.
But I always get indigestion when I go to a faculty meeting. Memo: “Dear Professor K,
there will be a faulty meeting at 3:00pm Friday in conference room 246. Your presence
will be appreciated”. Heartburn city. Case closed.
But we need to be careful about this thing we call a causal connection. Let’s get
back to that burning sensation in my stomach. Most of the time when I put hot pepper on
my pizza I get indigestion, and every time I go to a faculty meeting I get indigestion, so
we can safely say that both are sufficient (individually) to make me reach for a coolant. If
I could actually see the indigestion in the pepper or in the memo or the faculty meeting
then I could identify right away why I feel terrible, but causal connections aren’t that
way. When I look at the billiard balls on my pool table I don’t actually see in the balls
how they will roll around on the table a moment later after I hit them with my cue. I can
look at the balls for hours but there’s no clue on the direction they will take judging from
their physical forms alone. In other words, you cannot actually see a causal connection.
Then how can I be sure that the billiard balls will roll in the same direction as before?
Well, I have a lot of prior experience, and there is plenty of science to predict the future
when it comes to billiard balls. The same with my prior experiences of indigestion, chili
pepper and pizza and all those dreaded faculty meetings too. When I’m at a meeting I
don’t actually see indigestion, but…
 The fallacy of temporal succession is a simple fallacy that occurs often because
it’s based on our habit of associating events that occur in succession in our everyday
lives. If we didn’t connect the dots between events we wouldn’t have a world as we know
it. But sometimes we establish connections between events that aren’t really there.

When I was playing blackjack, I slipped my feet out of my shoes, played barefoot, and won a pile of money.
So if you want to win at blackjack, take off your shoes!

He always wears the same flashy suit because he says the juries like him that way and it gives him an edge.
It might be working. He gets most of his clients off.

Last Friday night the guys in the philosophy club at the university dared me to drink a bottle of habanero
hot sauce. Well, it was tough, but I did it. And guess what. A couple of days later, every zit disappeared
from my face. So if you have a zit problem, chug a bottle of hot sauce.

The connection between taking off your shoes and winning at cards has never
been proven (really). Some attorneys do wear only certain types of clothes when arguing
before a jury because they believe it causes the jury to decide in their favor. And there are
‘experts’ who specialize in this field of psychology, but until some statistical evidence
can establish a significant correlation between clothes and jury decisions, it may be that
wearing certain clothes just makes the attorney feel more confident (sort of like taking off
your shoes when gambling?) But would this be a causal connection? We have to be
careful here. You always want your attorney to look and feel confident when he’s arguing
so if he feels better in a blazer then by all means get him a blazer! But remember, it’s not
the blazer itself that got the jury to decide “not guilty”. Last, philosophy clubs do all sorts
of imaginative things but habanero sauce has no relation to facial complexion problems.
The further two related events are separated in time, the more distant the
connection may appear and the more difficult it may be to establish a conclusive
connection. That’s one of the reasons it’s difficult for scientists to figure out how we
develop disease. We take it for granted that smoking causes cancer and heart disease, but
it took plenty of time to establish the connection, especially when so many people smoke
and don’t get cancer. Then there are those that smoke and quit and get cancer many years
later, and then there are those who get cancer and have never smoked at all. And then
there are people who have never smoked, they get cancer, and then they begin smoking.
Did the cancer cause them to begin smoking? Last, causal relations are prone to being
mixed up, especially if they are close together in time. Last summer when grandpa fell
and broke his hip, most people thought it was just that, he fell and then he broke his hip.
But it was really the other way around. His hip was so brittle that first it broke and then
he fell. Then did walking cause his hip to break? Yes, but it was bound to break under the
slightest pressure in any number of circumstances because his hip was so brittle in the
first place.
Figuring out exactly what causes what can be as puzzling as it is nerve wracking,
especially when behavior and public policy issues are involved. For example Finland has
about the highest quality of living in the world, but the suicide rate in Finland is high.
Some people claim it’s the darkness in Finland that makes people depressed and drives
them to suicide, but there are other parts of the world where there is darkness for long
stretches and lower rates of suicides, so this theory may be suspect. Another theory is that
Finland is such a great place to live, if you’re unhappy it can be a tough place to live (sort
of like being unhappy and being put in Disneyland). So instead of increasing happiness
for some unhappy people living in Finland can lead to greater unhappiness and tragedy.
So must we conclude that Finland, because it’s such a great place to live, can cause a
person to be happy or unhappy? Sounds strange at first, but isn’t this like so many other
places you’ve been? But maybe it’s just harder being unhappy in Finland than other
places since it’s a happier place than most places? This sounds like a plausible causal
relation but, again, we would need some more evidence to support the theory.
But wait. Is it possible that the darkness in Finland and being unhappy in a happy
place can both contribute to Finland’s suicide rate, a sort of double whammy? Yes, this is
possible, but now we’re claiming there are two causes to bring about a single event. If
only causes and effects were always so direct, like billiard balls hitting each other on a
pool table, things would be so simple. But it’s not always as simple as it seems. Indeed,
causal connections are often a collection of events bringing about other single or multiple
events. Or put another way, a lot of stuff causing a lot of other stuff. Sounds like life,
doesn’t it? To use a familiar expression, it’s complicated. This brings us to our next
fallacy, the oversimplified cause.

B. OVERSIMPLIFIED CAUSE: When an arguer mistakenly believes that a single event,

A, is responsible for causing another event, B, when there is more than one cause to
bring about event B.
The fallacy of oversimplified cause mistakenly minimizes the number of causes that
bring about another event. Here are a few examples of the oversimplified cause.

If it wasn’t for the social security and Medicare programs we wouldn’t have such a huge deficit.

Only 82 percent of high school kids graduate from high school in our city. The teachers are just not doing
their job.

There are so many illegals without health insurance receiving emergency health care that our hospital
emergency wards are going broke.

The social security and Medicare programs do cost plenty but there are many
other government programs that consume money that contribute to the problem of the
national deficit too, like the military budget, so all the expenses in the US need to be
examined collectively to appreciate just how we ended up with such a huge deficit.
Teachers do contribute to poor graduation rates but they are not all that’s in the mix.
Parents can play an important role in a child’s successful education, seeing to it that they
do their homework, focusing on the essential skills that will allow them to succeed in the
basics of math, English and critical thinking, not to mention the need for increased
administrative support. And last, illegals do run up bills at hospitals but American citizens
who refuse to buy medical insurance, the high cost of doctors’ salaries, high hospital,
insurance and prescription drug fees also contribute to the financial breakdown of the
emergency public hospital system.
The oversimplified cause gives the impression that a problem is simpler than it
really is. Politicians love to use the oversimplified cause because it can offer a simple
solution to a complex social problem. Over 30 years ago Richard Nixon characterized the
availability of drugs as the cause of the drug problem in America. The “war on drugs”
was supposed to solve our drug problem, but over 30 years and billions of dollars later
the availability of illegal drugs are greater and the problem of drug abuse has gotten
worse. Jailing drug lords, pushers, hundreds of thousands of users and the defoliation of
drug crops hasn’t brought drug abuse under control. It’s obvious that law enforcement
alone won’t solve the problem of drug abuse. There are many social causes at the root of
our drug abuse problem. Availability of drugs is just one of them.

C. SLIPPERY SLOPE: When an arguer mistakenly argues that a specific event will set
off an unalterable chain of events that will eventually lead to an undesirable conclusion.
We say it’s a slippery slope argument because you slip and slide, like on a slope, and end
up where you had not intended. The slippery slope argument has a linked form of
reasoning. Like the oversimplified cause, it’s often employed in public policy and
international affairs arguments to sway public opinion.

If we let cancer and glaucoma patients use medicinal marijuana, then they will abuse their prescriptions
and seek out stronger drugs to support their habit. Once they get hooked on harder drugs then we’ll have
an even greater drug problem than the one we have now. It’s not a good idea to legalize medicinal
marijuana.

If we let them register our handguns, then next they will register and restrict our hunting rifles. Then they
will take away our assault rifles, they will be after our bazookas too, and then they will force us to register
our Kalashnikov’s and Uzi’s! When we need to protect our families we won’t have anything but sticks and
stones!

Kids start out using the internet to do their schoolwork, but it isn’t long before they start trolling for all that
sex stuff, then they start using chat rooms where perverts hang out, then they start meeting scumbags at
malls and they end up pregnant or dead. I don’t let my kids use the internet.

Cancer and glaucoma patients are just that, they are patients who need medical
care. It’s quite a stretch to move from cancer patients desperate to relieve their pain, or
glaucoma patients trying to relieve pressure in the eye to prevent pain and blindness to
people abusing their prescriptions and becoming a burden on society. Gun control is often
characterized as an evil that stops at nothing but the complete confiscation of weapons,
leaving people unable to defend themselves. It’s possible to restrict the possession of
weapons that pose great potential harm to society and allow the possession of weapons
that offer less threat and safer recreational benefits as well. Kids often use the internet to
do their homework and some end up using it to contact dangerous people, but teaching
kids the responsible use of the internet can go a long way to deterring the dangers and
increasing the benefits the internet has to offer.
Part of the persuasive power of the slippery slope comes from the fact that it does
not convince you of its conclusion straight away. It fudges a little here, a little there,
exaggerating each claim as if it were a certainty and then presto, you have that inevitable
conclusion. Whenever an arguer claims that an event will inevitably have certain,
exaggerated consequences, examine the list of claims to see if the progression of the
argument crosses the line of reasonableness at any given moment. In other words, find
the unwarranted assumption or assumptions that start you on the slope downhill. With the
slippery slope you can often stop the progression down the slope early on, before it picks
up momentum. After all, the arguer has to get the guy sliding down the slope, and to get
him down the slope, he has to create at least one exaggerated or false claim to begin the
trip. As soon as you find the first one, the entire argument is disarmed.
D. GAMBLER’S FALLACY: When an arguer mistakenly claims that since a random event
has occurred in a specific sequence in the past that its sequence is due to change in the
future.
We usually think of this fallacy in the short term of things, like probability
involved in gambling at a casino. If I’m at the tables in Vegas and I’ve been dealt
miserable hands the last 36 times, the next hand I am dealt is not affected by the quality
of my past hands. If the roulette wheel I’m at has come up red for the last 10 spins, the
probability of it turning up black or red stays the same on the next spin. If I flip a coin 10
times and each time it lands heads, the next time I flip the coin there’s a fifty-fifty chance
it will turn up heads. Every year Clarence buys one raffle ticket out of 1,000 sold at the
‘Churro Tent’ at the International Churros Festival in Needles, California, and each year
he’s disappointed he’s not the big winner of a years’ supply of frozen boxed low fat
cinnamon topped churros from Hector’s Famosa Churros. But he figures since he has not
won for the past ten years that his day will come soon. But he’s mistaken because
Clarence believes he can predict the future of a random event. It’s no more logical for
Clarence to predict that he will win the random drawing next year because he has been
losing, than he will lose the random drawing because he has been losing.
The gambler’s fallacy has a kind of natural psychological bias to it that draws us
in, but it really boils down to understanding the simple odds of random selection and not
getting emotionally involved. If an event is a chance event, it’s not possible to predict the
outcome of that same event based on its past occurrences. Have you ever known a family
that has all boys or girls and you wondered how so many siblings could be the same sex?
“We have five girls, so we figured it’s got to be a boy next time So we just had to try
again!”
Don’t confuse the gambler’s fallacy with legitimate predictions of the future. An
expert on volcanoes may do well in predicting an earthquake in Los Angeles based on
prior earthquakes in the region. But his prediction will be based on past events correlated
with seismic readings of Earth. His prediction is based on scientific analyses of causal
relations that are quantifiable, so it’s not a situation where it’s entirely random.

4. COMPLEX QUESTION: When an arguer illegitimately poses a question that assumes

a prior, unproven claim.
The complex question is calculated to force the respondent into answering a question that
assumes a premise that has not been proven. “Professor Morgenstern, do you still date
your students?” To answer ‘yes’ to the question implies that Morgenstern had already
agreed that he dates his students, and to answer ‘no’ would imply that the prior
assumption had already been established as well. The complex question is not usually an
innocent oversight. It’s more often a calculated trick to get an individual to respond to a
question without first establishing a critical assumption.

Ms. Jordan, have you stopped snorting mounds of cocaine?

Hey, Harry, are you still filing your tax returns late?

OK, Smitty, when did you decide to hold up the liquor store?
 If Ms. Jordon answers yes, then it means she has agreed to the claim that she has
been a heavy cocaine user, and if she answers no, then it implies that she was, but is no
longer a heavy user. In either case, the assumption is that she was a heavy user, an
assumption that needs to be established prior to asking if she has stopped. If Harry
answers yes or no it will either affirm that he has been filing his returns late or has been
in the past. And with Smitty, he better watch out for the Madison Avenue lawyer asking
this unfair question. If it’s been established that Smitty held up the liquor store, then it’s a
fair question, but without establishing that he did it, any answer Smitty gives will put him
in a bad light. Surprisingly, many judges don’t catch or stop lawyers from this well
known slight of hand. Good judges respond to lawyers who ask complex questions with
“Counselor! Divide the question!” Meaning, first establish that Smitty did it. Then you
can ask him when he planned it. The best judges will pull the lawyer aside and tell him
they won’t tolerate any more questions that prejudge the answers.
But many questions that assume prior assumptions are part of routine
conversation and are completely acceptable, even though the assumption has not been
formally established.

Dexter, did you enroll in the French cooking class?

Clarence, did you join Churros Anonymous?

If you knew Dexter was interested in leaning French cooking and if you had being
discussing Clarence’s “churro problem” with him earlier then it’s unnecessary to establish
the assumptions buried in these questions.
How do you handle a complex question? Don’t answer a complex question with a
yes or no. Complex questions need to be broken into two questions. Insist that the person
first ask about the hidden assumption. If it is answered in the affirmative, then the second
question can be asked. If not, then the second question cannot be asked.

5. SPECIAL PLAEADING: When an arguer claims that he should not be held to the
common standard required of others.
This is where we get the expression double standard. Implicit in the expression double
standard is the assumption that rules should apply to everyone equally, and that
individuals should not be allowed to claim special status and be exempted. But with
special pleading the arguer claims just that, he claims he’s different in a way that entitles
him to special treatment.

I stretched the truth a bit, that’s all. He lied.

Men’s boxing requires agility, courage, stamina, and strenuous training. Women’s boxing is basically just a
catfight.

We’re on the phone all the time, our secretaries are constantly taking notes, and the voting is hectic. We get
more work done when we don’t have to worry about filling up with gas and driving through traffic. I know
it sounds like an expensive luxury but it’s not. Having a driver and car supplied by the taxpayers to drive
in the Capitol saves the taxpayers tons of money.

Stretching the truth is lying, so it’s not a question of being different, it’s a question
whether one person is entitled to lie and others not. Women boxing and men boxing, it’s
all the same, it’s one person beating up on another person inflicting brain damage and
other assorted injuries according to essentially the same rules. And last, financial perks
and privileges for politicians are often justified by claiming it’s better for the other guy to
pay for them and that everybody would be worse off if the other guy didn’t incur the
expense. It’s interesting how public servants who benefit from this kind of theft rarely ask
for permission from the other guy writing the check.
There is an ethical standard going back to Aristotle that barring any significant
differences, similar situations should be treated the same. If rules are meant to apply
equally to everyone, then the language used in applying them should be unambiguous,
clear, impartial, and the arguer need to be firm. Invoking social status, wealth or
popularity is not enough to get to the head of the line. “Hey K! If all we have to do is
argue for equality in similar situations, then why do so many people engage in special
pleading and get away with it? Look around you, it’s everywhere”. It is everywhere.
From tax breaks for oil companies to the guy buying a yacht whose avoiding taxes by
keeping it in Mexican waters for a month, it’s all around us. But like any area in critical
thinking, it takes diligence to track it down and make it an issue.
There are two fundamental problems we face in eliminating special pleading. The
first is identifying it. Special pleading is so pervasive and it has infected our culture so
thoroughly in its many forms that many people don’t see it and have grown accustomed
to accepting it without question. The second problem is in the reluctance to confront it
when it’s identified. Peer pressure and the threat of retaliation (especially in the
workplace) are effective deterrents to constructive debate when it comes to preferential
treatment. It’s hard enough just to find out that the local councilmen in your city are
getting premium PPO medical benefits at no charge when they are working part time and
the full time city employees at the daily grind are getting a flimsy HMO at an exorbitant
cost. It’s another thing altogether to risk bringing it up as an issue and argue for the
practice to be stopped. Last, don’t mistake a justified request for different treatment as a
case of special pleading. If a person is in a wheelchair his request to sit in a convenient
place in the restaurant is justified. But if he wants to get to the head of the line at the
restaurant just because he’s in a wheelchair, like President Nixon did at a restaurant in
California just because he was President, then he should have to get in line like
everybody else. (The restaurant refused Nixon’s request and delivered food to him in his
limo).

6. WEAK ANALOGY: When an arguer claims that two things or events are more similar
in important respects than dissimilar when in fact they are more dissimilar in important
respects than they are similar.
Analogies are comparisons of things or events – let’s call them situations - that are meant
to convince based on the importance of their similarities. Analogies compare familiar
things with things that are not as well known, intending to prove that both share such
strong similarities that they should be understood in a similar light. On close
examination, however, it becomes clear that the two situations compared are dissimilar in
important respects, not similar. This means that the analogy fails to convince because
strong similarities in important respects are the key to convincing with an analogy.

If I have to wear a helmet while riding my motorcycle, then you should have to wear a helmet
driving your car. (A guy who should be wearing his helmet)
Employees are like nails. They need to be hit on the head to make them work.

How can you say it’s risky to bet my kid’s lunch money on the horse races? You risk something
far greater each time you sit behind the wheel of your car. You risk your life!

Riding in an automobile is very different than riding a motorcycle. Motorcycle

riders wear helmets because there’s no protection between their heads and the asphalt or
dirt if they fall. The potential for brain injury and death is great for a motorcyclist
compared to riders in automobiles. There are similarities between these two situations.
Motorcycles and automobiles are motorized vehicles, both ride the roads, both require
driver’s licenses, and both activities are inherently dangerous. But the dissimilarities
between the two are more profound than the similarities, so we say the analogy is weak.
Employees are not like nails. Employees have feelings and aspirations like anybody else
and they don’t want to be pushed and intimidated. It’s disrespectful and inhumane to
compare people to tools as if they can be treated like inanimate objects to get a job done.
The type of risk taken in gambling your child’s lunch money is very different than the
risk taken while driving. It’s irresponsible to take money intended to buy food for a child
and run the risk of losing the money, and the child’s lunch, in the process.
Distinguishing a strong analogy from a weak one can require plenty of critical
analysis. We encounter analogies often and they often appeal to our emotions. Further,
analogies often appear to compare attributes that have no relation to each other. If the
elements have no apparent relation, especially if physical features and behavioral issues
are invoked, it makes assessment more difficult. Below are three strong analogies that at
first glance you might think are weak. But they make their points convincingly owing to
the imagination of their writers. They compare diverse elements creatively with an
internal balance to convince you of things you may not have appreciated prior. In the
hands of a skillful, thoughtful writer, the analogy can be an effective vehicle to convince.

The various religions are like different roads converging on the same point. What difference does it make if
we follow different routes, provided we arrive at the same destination? (Mahatma Gandhi, Autobiography,
1924)

The art of living is more like wrestling than dancing. (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, (circa 50 B.C.)

“My country right or wrong” is a thing no patriot would think of saying except
in a desperate case. It is like saying “My mother, drunk or sober”. (G.K. Chesterton)

Gandhi is illustrating how different religions share a common goal, a same basic
belief system, though they may have different cultural practices and rituals. He argues
that the differences between religions are minor compared to the importance of the
common goals all of them share. Can we read too much into an analogy like this? Of
course, but ask yourself why he might argue for such a claim? We know that different
religions have their origins in different parts of the world and that each religion reflects
the culture where it began. But Gandhi is claiming that all the roads lead to the same
goal, that all of the religions have a common destination no matter the differences in
culture. As far as the art of living, Marcus Aurelius is offering great insight into how hard
it is to live a good life. A life well lived life is challenging like an art and it is a struggle
too, a difficult combination to reconcile. If you go through life not taking notice, just
coasting, that’s one thing, but life should be lived thoughtfully as if it were an art. But it’s
not easy. The good life resembles more a struggle than a graceful dance. Last, Chesterton
is making the case that nations do make mistakes and it is as unwise as it is unpatriotic to
refuse to acknowledge when they do. When we raise children we tell them it’s a sign of
maturity to acknowledge their mistakes and it shouldn’t be any different for a country.
President George Bush Sr. famously said that he would never apologize for the United
States of America. If Chesterton were alive he probably would have hung his head in
disbelief.

7. HASTY GENERALIZATION: When an arguer uses one instance or an unrepresentative

sample to make an unwarranted generalization about an entire group.
The hasty generalization moves from a judgment about a particular instance or an
unrepresentative sample to a generalized claim about the entire group. When we speak
about a group or class of something we’re referring to a group or class of pretty much
anything, we might be speaking of baseballs, computers, houses, stuffed animals,
Republicans or Democrats.
The last Republican got us into a war. Don’t vote for Congressman Fribble, the Republican candidate. He’s
bound to get us into another war.

I knew a bunch of Italians back home and they were in the mozzarella business. If you meet an Italian,
then he’s probably in the mozzarella business.

I took a philosophy class last semester and I can’t tell you how boring it was. Perkins, you’re a friend. I
don’t recommend it.

One Republican started a war but that doesn’t mean all Republicans will start a
war. There may be some Italians in the mozzarella business, but that is not evidence to
generalize that all Italians are in the mozzarella business. And yes, there may be some
boring philosophy classes, but not all of them are boring (really). Much discrimination
can be traced to the hasty generalization. Claims about ethnic or racial groups for
instance need to be substantiated by representative samples of those groups, not
conclusions drawn from single instances or unrepresentative samples of those groups.
When are generalizations justified? When the sampling used to support the
general claim is carefully selected to be representative of the group as a whole. In
complex situations such as testing medicines, or political polling, it’s necessary to
scientifically select a small sample that will be representative of the group as a whole.
This is why experts are enlisted to create medical testing procedures on populations and
analyze the data. They want to know if the sample taking the medicine will be
representative of the population a whole. It’s the same with political polls. Experts
develop representative profiles of the population by examining distinguishing
characteristics that can be generalized, they ask specific questions of a carefully selected
sample and then they make generalizations about how the population as a whole will vote
based on the answers to those questions. Just because you found that many people liked
bluegrass music when you visited friends in Arkansas, that doesn’t mean that everybody
or even a majority of people in the state like bluegrass.
Based on what happened to me here, I don't think there is one thing wrong with the American healthcare
system. It is working just fine. (Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh on his treatment at a
hospital for a heart condition).

You think he could have conducted a more impartial survey before he came to his
general conclusion?

8. SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE: When an arguer omits relevant evidence that would have
negatively affected the strength of his argument had it been included.
Never hide important evidence and never let anybody else hide important
evidence. When you make an argument be sure to include all the important relevant
evidence, pro and con, and consider their strongest and weakest points. Always let your
listener know that you’re aware of important objections to your arguments and let him
know that you expect that he would include all relevant evidence in his arguments too.
There is a special difficulty in detecting this fallacy. When somebody is suppressing
evidence the other arguer may not be aware that he is actually withholding evidence
because he may not be aware of its existence. After all, suppressed means it’s hidden, and
if it’s hidden it may not come to light without some inclination that it’s around in the first
place. So how do you know it’s being hidden? You have to connect the dots. Ask yourself
if something isn’t adding up, what it might be that the arguer might have conveniently
left out. Don’t accuse him of anything. Just be skeptical.

I think Harry should retire at the end of the year. He has worked for 32 years at the plant and he loves
being away from work. His retirement isn’t what his pay is, but it will be pretty good. His health is good, he
can go fishing whenever he wants to and he can take up all those hobbies he has talked about for all these
years.

Realtor: It’s a great neighborhood, and it’s situated near the bus transit, schools, a beautiful park and a
great new supermarket. And it’s at a great price. It’s just right for you, Mrs. Lometzel.

The ad for Getyourphilosophydegreeonline.com says I can get a Ph. D. degree by working on it part time.
Prestige, great pay and attraction to the opposite sex. It’s everything I’m looking for. All I need is an
internet connection and a computer and I’m on my way. Wow! I’m enrolling tomorrow!

Looks like a few details were left out. Harry had cheated on his income taxes for
the last 18 years and the IRS caught up with him last April 15th. He has to pay the IRS
$46,000 in back taxes. He’s working overtime and making payments. Harry is due to pay
off the penalty in 6 years. As for Mrs. Lometzel, unfortunately she will be moving again
soon after she buys that house. The state is buying the houses in the neighborhood to
build a freeway. Last, it may be possible to get a philosophy degree online, but it’s
probably more difficult to fit in enough study time than the ad lets on, not to mention it
may not be as easy as it looks.
Here’s another example with potentially serious implications. In 2004 the drug
company Merck pulled the prescription drug Vioxx from the market because it could
cause heart attacks. The first trial ended with the jury awarding $253 million to the family
of a man who died after taking the drug. The drug was used by millions of people and the
potential liability for Merck has been estimated at $50 billion. Merck conducted a study
on Vioxx and reported 17 heart attacks. In an “Expression of Concern” the Editors of The
New England Journal of Medicine published an article accusing Merck of suppressing
data on three heart attacks associated with the drug which would have boosted the
number of attacks to 20. Merck claimed the three heart attacks occurred “after the pre-
specified cutoff date” for analysis of the study results. But the journal’s Executive Editor
replied that “It would have been their responsibility to provide us with an update after the
cutoff time” because the attacks occurred shortly after the study ended. The data on the
three heart attacks, he claimed, could have easily been included in their article, but
nothing about the three heart attacks was in the report. Is it possible people would have
come to different conclusions about the use of Vioxx if Merck had included the three
heart attacks in its report?
If a person’s intention is to keep you from hearing the evidence, then he may
know both how to suppress it and how much to suppress. There is only so much you can
do in a situation like this. You need to be inquisitive and probe for material you think may
exist. You always need to ask questions.
Here’s one last example.

We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase [homes] anywhere in
Jerusalem. I can only imagine what would happen if someone would propose that Jews could not live in
certain neighborhoods of New York, London, Paris or Rome. There would certainly be a major
international outcry. We cannot accept such a decree in Jerusalem. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu).

Of course we do not want to discriminate, so on the face of it it looks like the

Prime Minister has a good point. But once you are aware of the history of the area he
speaks of, the argument becomes much weaker. He’s speaking of East Jerusalem, an area
that was taken from the Palestinians and annexed by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war.
No nation recognizes East Jerusalem as being a part of Israel. According to international
law this area is considered Palestinian land, and the Palestinians would not have it for
sale had it not been occupied and forced upon them by the Israelis. Indeed, the Israelis do
not have West Jerusalem for sale in the same way the Prime Minister claims East
Jerusalem should be for sale.
But there is another fallacy operating here as well. Netanyahu is also arguing a
weak analogy. London, Paris, Rome and New York are very different cities than the
Middle East city of Jerusalem, which was divided into two sections, Palestinian and
Israeli at the outbreak of the 1967 war. The locations, population numbers, culture,
history, ethnic, racial and religious populations in Jerusalem are very different than
London, Paris, Rome or New York. To argue that Jerusalem is similar to these cities in
important respects for the purpose of making a point about land ownership is to deny, and
suppress, the great fundamental differences between these cities.

9. SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF: When an arguer assumes that his argument
has already been proven with sufficient evidence and shifts the burden to his opponent to
prove his argument is weak.
With shifting the burden of proof the arguer moves his argument to his opponent on the
assumption that evidence is needed to disprove his argument. The opponent finds himself
in a difficult position because, typically, no amount of evidence will be enough to
disprove something so certain. Arguments are created by offering evidence to support a
conclusion. But with shifting the burden of proof the opponent is challenged to offer
evidence to disprove a conclusion that is simply assumed or is assumed with the flimsiest
evidence.
We need to fix social security.

With so many minors consuming energy drinks we need to restrict their sales.

If you cut taxes for the rich then those people will put that money to work and the economy will grow.

We often hear how social security is broken but we practically never get a detailed
breakdown of what amount of money comes into the fund, how much money goes out
and how the money is attended to along the way. “It’s broken” is the refrain, and the
burden is shifted to the respondent to show how it can be fixed. But what exactly does
‘broken’ mean anyway? Energy drinks are popular drinks and the prevalence of them
may lend this claim a sense of authenticity. But it’s not at all clear why restricting sales is
the answer. Last, the frequent claim that cutting taxes for the rich will grow the economy
is a persistent fiction we encounter in political debates. It’s recited as fact, the burden
shifted and the respondent finds himself again in the quandary of trying to refute a
dubious claim masquerading as fact. In fact, there is no necessary connection between
cutting taxes for the wealthy and growing the economy. It’s equally reasonable – more
reasonable in fact - to argue that the cash will find its way into Swiss bank accounts and
Moroccan casinos than be invested to grow the economy and create jobs.
How do you respond when an arguer shifts the burden of proof? Insist that the
arguer establish the truth of the claim that he assumes and is about to shift. Ask him for
reliable evidence to support the truth of the conclusion and force him to argue the details.
If you allow him to shift the burden then you will be put in an untenable situation because
no amount of evidence will disprove his claim. In short, force him to prove his case as if
it were any other argument. .
Last, shifting the burden of proof is related to denying the counterevidence, our
last informal fallacy. But don’t confuse the two. When an arguer claims that you need to
disprove something that is the case, without first proving it, he’s not likely to accept any
evidence as worthy of changing his mind. This bears a resemblance to simply denying
any evidence is there at all.

10. RATIONALIZATION: When an arguer offers less than plausible evidence to support
his conclusion while more questionable evidence to support his conclusion is kept
hidden.
People offer rationalizations when they want to conclude something but they
don’t want others to know exactly why. They offer dubious reasons to support their
conclusion and hope the argument will pass without objection. The person who
rationalizes does his arguing in reverse. He has his conclusion first, and then he reaches
for his premises.

I bought Wilma a set of classic mag wheels for our anniversary. She loves mag wheels. (Wilma’s husband,
Chester).

It’s best that Cheryl attends the university here on the West Coast so she can be close to the beach and
surfing too. And of course it will be great to have her close by too. Those Ivy League universities on the
east coast are so stuffy, and the weather is so cold. She would never adjust to living there. (Cheryl’s mother,
Blanche).

I didn’t have the time to study. I could have done better if I had more time. (One of K’s critical thinking
students).

Chester likes expensive, shiny new wheels for the family car so he buys them for
his wife for their anniversary. He says she likes them, so what better gift for the wife than
a set of expensive wheels? Well, she does like them, but a pair of earrings or a special
dinner would have been a more sincere gesture (unless she’s a NASCAR fanatic).
Keeping your kid near home is what many parents want to do so some will find flimsy
reasons to keep them near when they would be better off somewhere else getting a better
education and growing up without mom and dad breathing down their neck. Last, it’s
possible our student didn’t have much time to study, but it’s more likely he didn’t
manage his time well – after all he knew the test was coming some time ago. Still, he
manages to convince himself, and he tries to convince others, that it was the time factor
and not his personal initiative that was to blame.
Rationalizations are really poor excuses and not a little dishonest. A person who
avoids going to a graduation party might say he was busy and that he couldn’t make it,
but it’s often the case that he didn’t want to buy a gift, get in his car and drive to the
gathering. Seeing the relatives again at the party was not a bright prospect either. So he
claims he was too busy. A dad who promised he would take his daughter to the boardwalk
claims his week was so hectic that he’s exhausted. He hates the boardwalk, the noise, the
crowds, even though his daughter love it, and he can’t stand cotton candy either. But now
he’s dead tired. The professor needs to bring his lectures up to date. But there have been
so many administrative responsibilities and so much acrimony at the college over pay
cuts that focusing on the lectures was just out of the question. Professor Moore just
couldn’t concentrate. He was soooo distracted. I realized just the other day that I have
been using a rationalization for several years now. I quit eating white rice because it’s
practically all starch and not good for my health and I switched to red and brown and
black rice. But now I’m eating twice as much. After all, it’s healthier, isn’t it? I hate it
when I discover my own rationalizations.
Exposing the fallacy of rationalization is almost always embarrassing for the
person who does the rationalizing when he’s exposed. But the aim when encountering a
rationalization is not to embarrass, the goal is to find the most reasonable evidence for a
stated conclusion. If it offends the person offering the rationalization, then so be it.
Last, procrastination is a form of rationalization. "The paper isn’t due until next
week so I can write it later”. The student who says this most likely wants to put off
writing his paper no matter how much time he has. With a due date of next week, the
reason is there for the taking. He only needs to find a premise to support it, no matter how
flimsy.

11. DIVISION: When an arguer illegitimately transfers a quality from a physical whole
to each of its parts, or a quality of a group to each of its members.
The fallacy of division claims a specific characteristic of the whole can be divided among
its parts. In effect, the arguer divides the attribute and then distributes it among all the
parts. What is found in the whole, then, is also found in all its parts. But what is true of
the whole is not necessarily true of its parts.

The brain is composed of neurons and the brain is capable of consciousness. Therefore each neuron in the
brain must also be capable of consciousness.

Enron was a crooked company. Therefore all of its employees were crooked too.

This book is longer than War and Peace. Therefore, each chapter is longer than War and Peace.

The brain is capable of consciousness and, yes, the brain is made up of neurons
which play a major role in creating consciousness, but the neurons themselves are not
capable of consciousness. Enron ranks pretty high on the corporate corruption scale, but
just because the company was corrupt, that doesn’t necessarily mean we can divide the
feature of corruption and distribute it to all the employees. And last, even though a novel
may be longer than War and Peace, that doesn’t necessarily mean that each chapter will
be longer than War and Peace (Thanks goodness!).
While the whole is made of its parts, the whole is also something different than its
individual parts. The whole has its own unique characteristics apart from the
characteristics of its individual parts. Put another way, the whole owes its unique
characteristics to the unique grouping of its parts. If my computer breaks down, that does
not mean that each part in my computer will break down. Likewise, if my computer is
running fast, all the parts inside my computer are not necessarily running fast. There is a
ceramic mosaic of a flower on the wall in my patio, but each piece of ceramic on the wall
is not shaped like a flower. The fallacy of division can be clearly illustrated with
examples in sports. The baseball team may be the best in the league, but that does not
mean that each player on the team is the best in the league.
But remember, transferring a quality from the whole to its parts may
sometimes be legitimate. There are instances where the transference is justified.

My teddy bear, Alvin, is made completely of polyester. Therefore, each piece of Alvin is polyester.

The roof on my house is all ceramic. Therefore, each piece of tile on my roof is made complexly of ceramic.

12. COMPOSITION: When an arguer illegitimately transfers a quality from the physical
parts of the whole to the whole, or a quality of each of the members of a group to the
group.
The fallacy of composition is the opposite of the fallacy of division. It claims that what is
true of each of the parts of the whole must also be true of the whole. It "composes" the
whole from its parts. But what is true of the parts may not be true of the whole.
Atoms are colorless. Volkswagens are made of atoms. Therefore, Volkswagens must be colorless.

I like broccoli, vanilla ice-cream, and salmon. Therefore, I will like them all mixed together.

McFarlane’s cornfield is filled with tall corn stocks. Therefore, McFarlane’s cornfield is also
shaped like a tall corn stock.

Atoms are colorless, at least as far as we can tell they’re colorless, but it doesn’t
follow that objects like automobiles will be colorless because they are comprised of
atoms. Separately people like all sorts of things to eat, but putting them together because
you like each one of them is not always appetizing. And last, McFarlane’s cornfield is
indeed made up of tall cornstalks, but that does not imply that his field will look like a
tall cornstalk.
The parts of a whole have their own unique characteristics apart from the
characteristics of the whole. The Egyptians used large stone blocks to build the pyramids,
but that does not mean that the pyramids are shaped like the individual blocks. During
rush week at the university the students in the Philosophy Club used a thousand
rectangular pizzas to create a design in McFarlane’s cornfield. The design was a “corn
circle”, not a rectangle.
Like the fallacy of division, the fallacy of composition is easily understood by
relating it to sports. If you have a baseball team that has the best players in the league for
each position, then that does not necessarily mean it’s the best team in the league. And
how about that ant farm you had when you were a kid? Every ant moving, zipping
around, but does the farm move too?
But like the fallacy of division, sometimes transferring a quality from the parts to
the whole can be legitimate.

Every piece of this pie is filled with chocolate. Therefore, the entire pie is filled with
chocolate.
Every dog in this group of dogs is barking loud. Therefore, the group of dogs is
really barking LOUD!!!

To sum up, let’s reverse a few more examples of division and composition.

This heavy butcher block is made of 24 pieces of wood. Therefore, all 24 pieces of wood must be heavy
(division).

Each of the 24 pieces of wood used to make this butcher block are light. Therefore, the butcher block must
also be light (composition).

This fruit cake tastes great, therefore, each ingredient in this fruitcake must taste great (division).
Each ingredient in this fruit cake tastes great, therefore, this fruit cake must taste great (composition)
(Personally, I draw the line at fruit cake).

Last, the link below will send you to a YouTube clip of Friends that illustrates the fallacy
of composition with humor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCCHwN0pUx4

EXERCISE 6.2
I. Create two examples of each fallacy of Presumption.

II. Select the best answer for each multiple choice question.
1. That Bullwinkle! Can you believe him? That moose can‘t pull a rabbit out of his hat! I
bet no moose can pull a rabbit out of a hat!
a. weak analogy
b. false cause – temporal succession
c. special pleading
d. hasty generalization
e. complex question

2. You say you want to get your ears pierced, just one more time. But you’ll be back
asking me if you can add two more. Next it will be your belly button. And then it will be
your tongue! Then you’ll start on tattoos! Then you’ll start listening to OPERA! I mean
HIP HOP! Or RAP! Or…
a. reasoning in a circle
b. either/or
c. special pleading
d. false cause – oversimplified cause
e. false cause - slippery slope

3. Hey Sam, you still telling your customers you’re putting in new alternators in their cars
when you really put in reconditioned ones?
a. complex question
b. weak analogy
c. hasty generalization
d. false cause - oversimplified cause
e. special pleading

4. Compact discs work better than tapes because tapes are just not as effective as discs.
a. false cause – temporal succession
b. special pleading
c. no fallacy
d. reasoning in a circle
e. suppressed evidence

5. All of us can look forward to a longer life span than our parents and much longer than
our grandparents. The doctors today are so much better than they were in those days.
a. hasty generalization
b. slippery slope
c. false cause – oversimplified cause
d. no fallacy
e. weak analogy

6. We can’t allow singing in church. First there will be singing, and then there will be
musical instruments and dancing. Then the congregation will be dancing in the isles and
the hallways, and then people will be speaking in tongues and handling venomous
snakes. No way, we can’t allow singing in church.
a. false cause – slippery slope
b. rationalization
c. false cause – oversimplified cause
d. no fallacy
e. composition
7. My teacher said I should study the 60s and 70s in my history books. He said President
Richard Nixon opened the door to China, he ended the war in Vietnam and he started the
“war on cancer”. Sounds like a cool guy. I’ll start reading about him tomorrow.
a. reasoning in a circle
b. suppressed evidence
c. hasty generalization
d. false cause - temporal succession
e. no fallacy

8. Kids love SpongeBob because he is so good natured and happy all the time. Every kid
likes him because he’s always so happy go lucky, has spring in his step, and he’s always
smiling. That lovable, irritating character is a sure bet because he’s never depressed, at
least not for any more than a minute or two.
a. hasty generalization
b. false cause - temporal succession
c. no fallacy
d. reasoning in a circle
e. composition

9. The reason so many kids can’t read when they get out of high school is simple, the
teachers are not doing their jobs.
a. hasty generalization
b. false cause - gambler’s fallacy
c. false cause – temporal succession
d. false cause – oversimplified cause
e. no fallacy

10.
Father: Both you will major in philosophy and bring prestige, notoriety and wealth to our
family, or you will major in something like lawn and sprinkler maintenance for golf
courses, or go to chefs’ school and stand on your feet all day poking holes in tenderloins.
Son: Philosophy? Golf? Chefs’ School?
Father: That’s right. It’s philosophy, the Queen of the Sciences, or riding around all day in
a golf cart chasing squirrels off greens or standing behind a hot stove braising salmon
with varicose veins popping out of your calves. It’s your choice, son.
a. division
b. hasty generalization
c. either/or
d. complex question
e. special pleading

11. I stretched the truth a little bit, that’s all. He lied.

a. special pleading
b. hasty generalization
c. shifting the burden of proof
d. no fallacy
e. either/or

12. Every member of the faculty has an advanced degree. Therefore, the faculty has an
advanced degree.
a. composition
b. division
c. rationalization
d. weak analogy
e. suppressed evidence

13. Critical thinking is the most important subject a person can study. If you don't believe
it, then I would like to hear what you have to say. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.
a. either/or
b. hasty generalization
c. false cause – slippery slope
d. shifting the burden of proof
e. slippery slope

14. Yes, I do take longer breaks than the staff, but I’m management.
a. special pleading
b. weak analogy
c. no fallacy
d. complex question
e. slippery slope

15.
Lou: I was on the freeway on empty, man, fumes, dude, and then I saw this IN –N -OUT
Burger. I hadn’t seen one for maybe, ya know maybe, like, 250 miles, dude, and you
know what?
Stu: What?
Lou: A gas station across the street.
Stu: Cool.
Lou: I know. Blew me away, dude. So when I’m looking for gas, I hope I see an IN-N-
OUT.
a. no fallacy
b. slippery slope
c. false cause – temporal succession
d. false cause – oversimplified cause
e. special pleading

16. Just being a Negro doesn’t qualify you to understand the race situation any more than
being sick makes you an expert on medicine. (Dick Gregory)
a. special pleading
b. no fallacy
c. slippery slope
d. weak analogy
e. hasty generalization

17.
Lou: What’s all that floss? You must have 200 packages.
Stu: Enough for four years. See this article in the New York Times? People who floss live
on average four years longer than people who don’t floss. You’re looking at my extra
years. You floss?
Lou: No.
Stu: Looks like I have exactly four years on you, hermano. Hey, will you leave me your
guitar? I mean, all you’ll need is a harp, nothing electric.
a. false cause – oversimplified cause
b. no fallacy
c. slippery slope
d. false cause - gambler’s fallacy
e. hasty generalization

18. You like to knit, and the plane flight is 10 hours. I don’t think the person sitting next
to me will mind if I bring my knitting needles and knitting books and yarn. Everyone
understands passengers get bored when they travel on planes.
a. false cause – oversimplified cause
b. no fallacy
c. either/or
d. slippery slope
e. rationalization

19. My vacuum cleaner is really loud. Therefore, every part of my vacuum is very loud.
a. no fallacy
b. shifting the burden of proof
c. composition
d. division
e. suppressed evidence

20. In theory one is aware that the earth revolves, but in practice one does not perceive it,
the ground upon which one treads seems not to move, and one can live undisturbed. So it
is with Time in one’s life. (Proust, The Past Recaptured, 1927)
a. hasty generalization
b. rationalization
c. false cause – temporal succession
d. no fallacy
e. either/or

21. If you think baseball players who used steroids should be inducted into the Baseball
Hall of Fame, then you shouldn’t complain about women who compete in beauty
pageants who have had plastic surgery.
a. hasty generalization
b. false cause – gambler’s fallacy
c. weak analogy
d. no fallacy
e. either/or

22. Giving Viagra to a convicted sex offender is like giving a gun to a bank robber. It’s
irresponsible and puts innocent people in danger. (California Assemblyman, George A
Plescia).
a. no fallacy
b. composition
c. weak analogy
d. hasty generalization
e. complex question

23.
She has “unique issues and needs”. (Attorney Howard Weitzman on Paris Hilton’s drunk
driving arrest and jail sentence).
a. either/or
b. no fallacy
c. either/or
d. false cause - slippery slope
e. special pleading

24. The librarian has been up on the over dues for a few years now and I always returned
the philosophy books soon after I got the notices in the mail. Nobody can be that
efficient. He won’t catch the last couple of volumes of Schopenhauer I checked out. He’s
bound to mess up some time soon. I won’t return them. (Professor K working out his
library “issues”).
a. false cause – gambler’s fallacy
b. rationalization
c. special pleading
d. shifting the burden of proof
e. false cause – oversimplified cause

25.
Earle: You’re 24 years old. It looks weird, creepy.
Merle: Kids get on planes with their stuffed animals all the time. And I take Alvin with
me everywhere.
a. shifting the burden of proof
b. no fallacy
c. complex question
d. either/or
e. weak analogy

EXERCISE 6.1
I. Formal fallacies can be identified by the structure of the arguments. Informal fallacies
are identified by the misuse or the manipulation of language, not the formal structure of
the argument.

EXERCISE 6.2
I. Answers will vary.

II.
1. d
2. e
3. a
4. d
5. c
6. a
7. b
8. d
9. d
10. c
11. a
12. a
13. d
14. a
15. c
16. b
17. a
18. e
19. d
20. d
21. c
22. a
23. e
24. a
25. e

6.3 Fallacies of Relevance offer premises that lack relevance to the conclusions they
claim to support. Frequently arguments that appeal to emotions support conclusions that
lack relevance. But fallacies of relevance are not exclusively emotional. Some fallacies of
relevance simply offer irrelevant premises to support their conclusions with no emotion at
all. So, if you encounter with premises that lack relevance to the conclusion they claim to
support, then that’s a fallacy of relevance.
13. APPEAL TO PITY: When an arguer appeals to the emotion of pity as evidence to
support a conclusion.
When the heartstrings are manipulated we sometimes lose sight of our better judgment
and throw reason to the wind. Of all the emotions that intertwine themselves into
arguments, pity, with the possible exception of anger which seems to convince people of
almost anything, is the most manipulative and untrustworthy.

Please your Honor, it's completely out of character for me to speed in a school zone with kids present. I'm
50 years old and I've never gotten a ticket like this. My insurance will go up and I’m barely paying the
premiums as it is. The landlord raised my rent last week. Without rent control, he raises it every year. And
I'm overwhelmed with bills because the kids are in private school and one is going off to college. Can you
please dismiss the ticket or at least allow me to attend a driving seminar to have the ticket wiped off my
record?

Professor Marco if I don’t get a C in Critical Thinking I won’t get that scholarship to the Online University
of Athletics of North America to play football. Football is my life! My parents are counting on me to go pro
and get them out of poverty. We don’t have money to buy my little brother shoes, no medical insurance,
barely enough food, and most of the time it’s beans. You have no idea how hard it is and how my parents
are counting on me.

This is little Johnny, he was born with MS and this is how he struggles every day at home. He can’t play
with other kids his age and he doesn’t attend school like other kids his age. He can’t even tie his own shoes.
Tell Johnny that you won’t forget him. Give whatever you can now. The 800 number is on the screen and
there are volunteers waiting to take your call. And God bless you.

The first example plays on the emotions in an effort to dodge a ticket for speeding
in a school zone, a pretty serious violation considering the potential consequences. The
speeder's driving history, kids and personal finances have nothing to do with the driving
violation in question, but the driver is reaching to get the violation tossed anyway. The
second example attempts to tie various unfortunate circumstances at home with the
student's poor performance in class. The student claims that if the professor gives the
grade that he earned then the professor will cause great suffering. In reality the student
gave himself the grade by his performance on his tests and if there are any negative
repercussions in the student's home-life, it’s his personal responsibility, not the
professor's. The last example illustrates how emotional appeals can raise disturbing
ethical dilemmas for many people, but on closer examination the criteria used to assess
how to respond is not much different than the examples already examined. Donating
money to a cause like eradicating a terrible disease is very different than letting a guy off
the hook for speeding in a school zone or giving a grade to a student that he didn’t earn.
So what’s the problem? The problem is that an appeal to pity, no matter if it’s to eradicate
disease or to let a guy off the hook for speeding, is just that, it’s still an appeal to pity. It’s
not an appeal to reason. We may be inclined to donate money to eradicate disease after
we see an appeal to pity, we may come up with good reasons for donating, but it doesn’t
obviate the fact that it was an appeal to pity that got the ball rolling. “Sure, K, and how
much money can you raise if you never show how bad a disease is? Yes, multiple
sclerosis is bad news and we need lots of money to beat it. You want to ask for money
and not show what the disease does to people? Get real!” Point well taken. But my main
point remains. There is a fundamental difference between an appeal to pity and an appeal
to reason. If seeing how a disease ravages the health of a child can help a person
understand the need to eradicate a disease, that’s fine. But only good reasons should
justify writing a check. Pity shouldn’t write the check. Good reasons should write the
check.

14. APPEAL TO FORCE: When an arguer uses physical or psychological violence to

vanquish his opponent’s argument.
There is physical force and there is psychological force. All force is contrary to reason.
Physical force has no connection to argument and it does not even pretend to be an
argument. But there are many types of psychological force.
It's time to send Senator Blescoe a message: Either vote pro life on the Sneezel Bill now in congress, or we
will send you packing at election time!

The Boss (not Bruce): You gave that customer an Iced Frapachocholate Triple -Shot Espresso Caffeine
Mega Jolt with our new Muscular Mocha Latte ice cream side-car, but he ordered decaf.
The Worker: I’m sorry Mr. Noodleman. That was the guy who changed his order four times and I got the
Frapachocholate Mega Soft mixed up with the Frapachocholate Mega Jolt. It won’t happen again, sir.
The Boss: It better not. Every day someone comes into The Friendly Grind and applies for a job.

If you have been healed or saved or blessed through TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) and have not
contributed...you are robbing God and will lose your reward in heaven. (Televangelist, Paul Crouch)

We often hear threats like this in politics. It’s good to see participatory government
functioning but with the constant threats in American politics like this one we sometimes
forget that it’s possible to hold meaningful conversations and reach compromises without
threatening people. It always helps to work in a non hostile environment but sometimes it
just doesn’t add up with some employers. And last, there is nothing like a religious
fanatic putting the fear of a loving god into a person if he doesn’t open his checkbook.

Here’s one last classic American scare tactic. Here’s President George W. Bush
scaring Americans into voting for him in 2004. (Notice how he’s combining two fallacies
here. What’s the other fallacy besides the fallacy of force?)

Voters have a very clear choice between an America that leads the world with strength and
confidence or an America that is uncertain in the face of danger. (George W. Bush).

15. APPEAL TO THE MOB: When an arguer sways a group of people, en masse, with
emotional, often rhetorical, inflammatory language.
Some of the worst of tragedies n history have had their origins in the group actions of
uncritical citizens who were swayed by inflammatory speeches and false claims of
immanent danger. Germany and Japan in WWII, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Ku
Klux Klan in the U.S, apartheid in South Africa, genocide in the Balkans, Darfur and the
Ottoman Empire and modern day Turkey with the Armenians are just a few of the more
recent examples. On a smaller scale we see mob psychology at work in politics and
public policy, in foreign policy and even local government. There’s a fair amount of it in
the workplace too. Have you observed the behavior of delegates at national political
conventions, cheering and chanting, getting all worked up with patriotic slogans and
partisan attacks? Open dialogue and dissent are not high on the list in these venues. A
national convention isn’t a prime teaching moment for kids in participatory government,
watching their national leaders on TV. And then there are those American western
celluloids where the townspeople raise their fists and yell “string him up!”
Often appeals to the mob play on the emotions of fear to instill a sense of
paranoia. Individuals will do some very irrational and scary things when they feel
threatened. As a group they find a sense of security in action. The anonymity of the mob
absolves individuals of responsibility. The mob is everybody and nobody. Appeals to the
mob often have the unfortunate consequences of going on the offensive.

Secular humanists have taken over the schools, and have kicked God out. We all want God back in our
schools. But He won’t be back in school until this group of atheists is thrown out.

Those who cherish tyranny and hate democracy will fail in the face of freedom and liberty! Don’t let them
succeed!

Killing babies is their business. But we value life, and we will support every effort to instill in all our
children a culture of life that respects every individual, including the unborn!

A popular theme of mob psychology in the U.S. is the public schools. There is
often little discussion about the details of the schools and why they are “failing”.
Educated discussions about the nuts and bolts of how schools function and their financial
needs are practically nonexistent. The contrast of freedom and tyranny is emotionally
well suited to inciting a mob. After all, who doesn’t want to be free, and if those other
guys are for tyranny, it would be unacceptable if we didn’t get together and do what
needs to be done right away (whatever that is). Last, the abortion debate often lends itself
to mob psychology. Appeals to the mob that focus on abortion often include terms like
“killing” and “murder”, coupled with an urgent appeal to protect the unborn.
The linguistic derivation of the term mob is the Latin mobile vulgus - the
excitable populace. By definition mobs are incapable of rational thought. And that’s why
mobs are dangerous. With mob appeal it's the way the buy-in takes place that's the
problem. The group unquestioningly buys the emotional argument, en masse, without
hesitation. It’s hard to reverse the process after it begins because the phase of critical
examination has been bypassed and a strong sense of conviction to act has set in. It’s
impossible to reason with a True Believer. It’s impossible to reason with a mob.

16. GENETIC FALLACY: When an arguer proves a conclusion false by discrediting its
alleged origins.
This fallacy is called the genetic fallacy because the arguer claims the origins of an
argument are discredited and then proceeds to use the alleged lack of credibility to
dismiss the conclusion of the argument. But the merit of a conclusion is not based on its
genetic heritage. The merit of a conclusion is based solely on the strength of the evidence
used to support it.

Don’t take any of that talk about god seriously. Belief in god originated in ancient superstition when we
didn’t have a scientific understanding of the world. We know better now.

Violence in America is as American as cherry pie. Just look at how out country was founded.

I wouldn’t take the donation to renewable energy seriously. Let’s be real, it was an oil company that gave
the money!
 Belief in religion may have started with superstitious practices, but that doesn’t
necessarily mean that we should dismiss religious beliefs as mistaken. Put another way,
fundamental religious beliefs might be mistaken, but superstitious origins to religious
belief are at not a good reason to dismiss religious those beliefs. The beliefs may be true
for other reasons. The founding of our country was violent but that doesn’t mean it has to
be violent now and the reasons for violence now in America cannot be attributed to
violent activities over two hundred years ago in such different circumstances. Last, it may
look suspicious that an oil company is donating money to renewable energy, but to
dismiss the donation as somehow phony based solely on the fact that an oil company
gave the donation is unfair. Maybe oil companies are now investing in renewable energy.
So now a donation looks like a good financial strategy.
In 1994 Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein published a controversial book
entitled The Bell Curve. The book argues for differences in IQ based on race. Some
people criticized the conclusions of the book claiming that the authors’ research was
funded by a biased organization that had racist leanings. It may or may not be true that
Murray and Herrnstein were (partially) funded by an organization with questionable
racial leanings, but the integrity of their work has nothing to do with the funding of the
work. The strengths or weakness of their arguments are found in the evidence they use to
support their conclusions, not in the origins of their funding. The philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche was engaged in some intriguing, controversial work just before he slipped into
mental illness that overcame him for the last ten years of his life. Some people claim that
since he was mentally ill at the time he composed his last works that the arguments
contained in the works are flawed. Whether his mental illness affected his work is not the
issue when it comes to evaluating the integrity of his work. The issue is whether his work
has something important to say, if the arguments he offers are good arguments. And if he
was crazy at the time he wrote it? It’s not that the relationship between his works and his
mental state isn’t important, it’s that his mental state has nothing to do with the efficacy
of the arguments themselves.

17. FALLACIES OF AUTHORITY

Fallacies of Authority rely on illegitimate claims that individuals or groups possess
specific types of expertise or knowledge. At times people claim to be authorities, and
people appeal to others as if others are authorities, but they are not. All fallacies of
authority share the common characteristic that a claim of authority is made, but a claim
does not an authority make.

A. APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY: When an arguer claims he or another

person is knowledgeable in a subject to be considered an authority but in fact is not.
We often see this fallacy in advertisements where actors or athletes endorse
products, or we hear somebody claim that he has a specific type of knowledge but does
not possess the knowledge he claims. This fallacy violates one of the basic requirements
needed to engage in argument, namely that an individual needs to be knowledgeable in a
subject if he is going to argue the subject. Just having a passing acquaintance with the
subject will not do if a claim o expertise is made.
Astrologer Bonnie May Wong says that Earth is likely to experience a significant downturn in weather
temperature in the coming two decades.

My geography teacher, Mr. Mueller, says that if it were not for Aristotle’s aversion to homosexuality, he
would not have left Athens and spent the remaining days of his life in exile.

I bought this new super-green energy supplement from the ‘nutrition advisor’ at the supermarket. He says
that if I take it every day I won’t get colds in the winter, and it may even fight off cancer. Oh yes, one more
thing, it’s supposed to prevent cataracts too.

There is no evidence that astrologers can foretell the future weather patterns
decades in advance. As for Mr. Mueller the geography teacher, unless he has done some
careful studying of Ancient Greek culture and, specifically, Aristotle’s views of
homosexuality and the circumstances of his exile, it’s unlikely that he would have an
educated argument concerning the reasons for Aristotle’s change of address. Last, many
people without proper medical backgrounds make suspicious claims about nutrition and
the prevention of disease. Unless the nutrition advisor has some formal training and
evidence to justify such claims, it’s likely a case of passing on anecdotal information.
In court cases expert witnesses testify in their specialized areas of expertise. Their
degrees, publications, work history, memberships in respected organizations and respect
from professional colleagues are evidence that they are qualified to render judgments in
their specific fields. This is why we call them to testify in areas where others are
unfamiliar, why we trust their judgments and refer to them expert witnesses. Often we
don’t need this level of expertise in the subjects we argue in everyday life, but generally
we need to have more than a passing acquaintance with a subject if we claim to argue it
intelligently.
Qualifications as an authority should be judged on an individual basis. In the U.S.
we often elect individuals to public office who come from families that have a history of
serving in public office. But just because dad or granddad was president or mayor doesn’t
mean that the next generation will be skillful on the job. Being related to another public
official or being popular is not reason enough to assume a position of responsibility that
requires a degree of specialized knowledge and skills.
Still, we need to be cautious when assessing competence and not jump to
conclusions. Your auto mechanic may listen to classical music and be familiar with
Mozart, or your next door neighbor who owns a landscaping business may have a black
belt in Kung Fu, or your geography teacher (always have to be careful) may have read
quite a bit of Aristotle. In an extraordinary example of achievement, Linus Pauling was
awarded the Noble Prize for chemistry, and he was again awarded the Nobel Prize, the
next time for Peace. As a chemist Pauling did important work that helped pave the way
for Watson and Crick’s work when they discovered the structure of DNA. As a chemist
and humanist Pauling understood the dangers of nuclear war, and he was active in
promoting nuclear disarmament. His stature as an authority in these two areas was quite
high.

B. APPEAL TO TRADITION: When an arguer claims that a tradition must be kept

simply because it’s a tradition, without offering sufficient reasons to keep it.
A tradition is the passing down of a specific activity or belief from one generation to
another with no other justification that it has been done before. Tradition relies on
unquestioning habit to maintain its inertia, be it cultural, economic, familial, religious,
political or superstitious. Tradition does not offer argument for its continued existence, it
relies on authority and power and the willingness of subjects who acquiesce to pressure.
Tradition assumes that if adequate justification was given for a belief in the past, no
further justification is needed for its continued existence in the future. The fact that an
activity or belief is passed from generation to generation in no way confirms its truth or
correctness, and cannot act as a justification for its continued existence. Times change,
and the purpose for establishing a tradition may no longer serve a worthwhile purpose.
Further, there is the possibility that the original justification for a belief or practice may
have been wrong in the first place.

Agave? I heard of it. Here’s the sugar. Mom said the family used this brand before they moved to California
during the Depression. It’s the best brand.

Your father was a Marine, and your grandfather was a Marine. I’m not pressuring you, but you can go to
college too, after the service.

I think electing Ki Lu-Meng is a good idea. After all, we’ve had a Lu-Meng in office for sixty years.

Breaking food traditions can be difficult, but breaking them might also improve
your health. There’s a strong tradition in some families to continue military service. But
serving in the military should be a personal decision. Last, politics often relies on
tradition in electing officials and in the practices they continue while serving as elected
officials.
It can be difficult to break with tradition. Eating turkey on Thanksgiving Day may
be a family tradition, but if you are a vegetarian, it may be difficult for family and friends
to adjust. The two-party system in the U.S. has been a tradition for many generations, but
many question whether it has served us well, especially considering how other countries
fare with the diversity multi-party systems offer. For many years it was traditional to
segregate the sexes into professions. Women rarely studied mathematics, engineering or
medicine, and men rarely became teachers in primary schools, nurses, or took care of the
kids while the wife earned a paycheck. Eating barbequed food and consuming large
quantities of alcohol, especially cheap beer while sitting on the tailgate of a truck is a
beloved tradition in the U.S. for many sport enthusiasts. In fact, many people who don’t
attend sporting events or know anything about sports enjoy putting down their gate to
enjoy a toast whenever they drive by a stadium. It’s problematic if this tradition is a
healthy one, but it looks like this one has a long half life.
Considering the significant role tradition plays in dictating personal behavior and
its potential for mischief in perpetuating misdirected public policy it’s surprising how
infrequent people question traditions’ sacred status. Put simply, a tradition should be
subjected to scrutiny as any other belief or practice. Anything less is holding a belief
without justification. So should there even be tradition? Not really. Why? Because every
important or moral action should have good reasons. And tradition doesn’t offer good
reasons for actions, it only offers a history of action as a reason.

Just because a particular action was performed in the past, or something was believed to
be true in the past, does not in itself justify its continued acceptance in the future. It’s
possible that a view handed down from one generation to another may be false. (Pierre
Bayle, Thoughts on the Comet, 1682)

C. SNOB APPEAL: When an arguer appeals to a person’s perceived sense of superiority

or privilege over others to draw a conclusion.
When the announcer says you’re entitled to a luxurious automobile because of your
refined aesthetic sensibilities, because you have more money than the average guy (and
you worked for it, of course), you’re a member of a small, privileged group. You deserve
something others can’t appreciate or afford. You’re a snob. But that’s OK. You’re entitled.

Take a vacation where the stars go to get away. The ship is lean and luxurious. The food and lodging is five
stars. And there’s a biologist on board to explain the wonders of the sea. There are only 75 cabins each
spring, all with spectacular views. Elite Lines. You deserve it.

The condominium at the top. There’s only one Penthouse at the Stratford. Views, roof access, valet parking,
chef’s kitchen and a great room larger than your last house. Incomparable.

Zap Zap Computers, Inc. offers the fastest, most reliable, ergonometrically designed workstations in the
business. You need speed and reliability to be the best. They’re also the most expensive. Sometimes you
have to pay to be the leader.

Whether it’s a cruise, a home or a workstation the appeal to snobbery functions

the same, it uses vanity and a sense of superiority to divide the individual from everybody
else. The snob doesn’t have to live like everybody else. Snob appeal thrives on the
superficiality of thinking that one is superior to others often on account of nothing more
than the accidents of wealth and power.

D. BANDWAGON: When an arguer appeals to people to join in what everybody else is

doing, to not be left behind.
If everybody else is doing it, then it must be good. So why aren’t you doing it too? Better
get on the bandwagon before it leaves and you’re left standing there alone.

Mcfat’s hamburgers, billions sold. You should be eating them too.

Have you seen the latest George Lucas movie? The lines at the theater are a block long!

The new Macro Deep Tissue Shiatsu Kung Fu Multi-Asian Therapeutic Massage Chair. Now everyone can
have a chair more rewarding than a king’s throne. At an everyday price. Get yours now while supplies last.

Whether it’s a hamburger, a movie, a chair or a politician, the bandwagon’s appeal

is the opposite of snob appeal. Snob appeal employs emotions but the bandwagon says
that everybody is doing it and you need to move fast so you’re not left behind. There’s no
going it alone here, the bandwagon is all about the comfort of the group and the aversion
some people have to being alone.
The bandwagon is the opposite of thinking for yourself. But there’s no need to
feel inadequate just because you don’t act or believe as others do. Actions and beliefs of
crowds alone are not reasons to act or to believe. Actions and beliefs need reasons to
support them.
18. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: When an arguer claims something has been proven from
the absence of evidence rather than the presence of evidence.
If you claim to know something then you need the evidence to prove it. Evidence is the
stuff from which beliefs are made. Curiously this fallacy says you can prove something
based exclusively on the lack of evidence. When you see the fallacy in action it’s not hard
to identify it.

Nobody has ever proved that god doesn’t exist. Therefore, He must exist.

Nobody has proved other forms of life don’t exist in the universe. Therefore, other forms of life must exist
somewhere in the universe.

Nobody has proved Father Michaels did not molest children. Therefore, he must have molested those
children.

There have been attempts to prove the existence of god for thousands of years but
to my knowledge this one is the only attempt to prove his existence without evidence.
(Usually the debate surrounds the legitimacy of the evidence). But the negative approach
isn’t convincing. If you are going to claim god exists, there needs to be evidence he’s
there (Or here... Or somewhere!). People who are fascinated with outer space, space
travel and such sometimes try to prove life exists by claiming it hasn’t been proven life
out there doesn’t exist. But again, we need evidence to prove there is something there, not
that something is there because nobody has proven that it isn’t there. Last, no matter how
bad a rep Catholic Priests have, an accusation needs to be backed up by evidence. It’s not
up to Father Michaels to prove he didn’t molest the kids. It’s up to the person accusing
him to offer evidence that he did.

You can take any fallacy of ignorance, turn it around, and it will be equally convincing,
excuse me, unconvincing.
Nobody has ever proved God exists. Therefore, he must not exist.

Nobody has ever proved other forms of life exist in the universe. Therefore, other forms of life must not
exist in the universe.

Nobody has ever proved Father Michaels molested those children. Therefore, he must not have molested
those children.

And here’s a delicate situation.

Nobody has proven Clarence has been sneaking churros in his jacket pocket. Therefore, he must not be
sneaking churros in his jacket pocket.

Nobody has proven Clarence has not been sneaking churros in his jacket pocket. Therefore, Clarence must
be sneaking churros in his jacket pocket.

To prove Clarence is not sneaking churros, we need evidence that he has not been
putting them in his jacket. We can’t accept the claim that nobody has proven that he has
been sneaking them as the evidence that he has not. And to prove Clarence is sneaking
churros, we need evidence that he is putting them in his jacket pocket. We can’t accept
the claim that nobody has proven that he has not been sneaking them as evidence to prove
that he has. (Personally, I think he has, but I can’t prove it).

19. APPEAL TO SELF-INTEREST: When an arguer appeals solely to the self-interest of

an individual when the interests of other individuals should be taken into account as well.
Many decisions we make in everyday life concern our personal well being. Should I
change jobs? Should I change doctors? Should I go to college? It would be great learning
how to sky dive, wouldn’t it? But many decisions also have to do with the well being of
others. In situations where the well being of others is also a concern, self-interest should
not be the sole consideration driving the individual’s decision making process. It’s not
that personal concerns should be disregarded, but there are times when the well being of
the community should play a role in the decision making process too.

I know paying a little more in taxes will help the kids in the schools. But all my kids have graduated and we
don’t use the schools anymore. I’m voting against raising the school tax.

I haven’t had a vacation with the rest of the guys in two years. I need to get away for a little R&R. I can let
the payments on the house slip a bit. The wife knows I always catch up on these things.

They need somebody to introduce the new members at the Philosophy Singles 50s Retro Bowling Club next
week. Since I’m the oldest member, they want me to do it. I would really like to go fishing instead. I’ll tell
them I can’t make it.

Paying taxes for a community service that you don’t use may sound like heresy
these days in our anti tax U.S., but imagine if everybody held the view that you should
pay for schools only when you personally use them. A society that functions on such a
basis would likely be with few schools and ones worse than we have now. Not to mention
that there are no models anywhere that we can point to where such an approach to paying
for schools has ever worked. The wife may tolerate a late payment on the house but she
deserves better and this guy needs some sensitivity training even if he does catch up on
the payments. Or maybe she just needs to give him the boot. Last, going fishing may
sound like a good idea for this old timer but he has an obligation to keep the club going,
to see the club into the future. He enjoyed the benefits of the club. It’s time to give
something back.
There are people who object to the fallacy of self-interest claiming it’s not a
fallacy at all. In fact, there is a popular philosophy that claims self interest is an
obligation to oneself, that it’s a virtue. But this position taken to the extreme fails to
acknowledge how intertwined our lives are through the normal avenues of commerce and
culture. If I’m a fisherman I can’t just take from the ocean what I want because there
needs to be some communal planning and rules specifying what and how fish can be
taken, or the fish will be gone in no time. If my neighbor doesn’t want to pay for a fire
department then he runs the risk of losing his house and mine too because the fire
department won’t first put out his fire. If I don’t want to pay for roads for automobiles,
then should I hand in my driver’s license? At some point self-interest is self contradictory.
If you seek it too much you find you are rejecting things you take.
Last, extreme self-interest doesn’t appreciate something rare that we are capable
of and sometimes lose sight of. There is another kind of self-interest. It’s the self-interest
that does something for another person while personal self-interest comes second.
Seeking the interests of others and putting yourself second can bring you happiness. So
it’s really in your interest to seek two kinds of self-interest: your own self-interest and the
interests of others. It’s in your interest to find the balance between the two.

20. FALLACIES OF PERSONAL ATTACK

The three fallacies of Personal Attack all share a common characteristic. They abuse the
individual advancing the argument instead of addressing the argument itself. We
frequently call this form of fallacy an ad hominem argument. Ad hominem in Latin means
to the man, or, against the man. Personal attacks detract discourse by focusing on
individuals and personal behaviors instead of arguments. Judgments or claims about
persons advancing arguments are irrelevant to the strength of the arguments they
advance. Argument should stand or fall on the strength of their premises alone, not on
what people believe or hear about the person advancing the argument. Cicero said “When
you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff”. He understood well how the
fallacy of personal attack functions.

A. ABUSIVE PERSONAL ATTACK: When the respondent to an argument attacks the

arguer verbally.
The abusive personal attack can take many forms. The respondent can attack his
opponent’s personal history, relationships, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, political
orientation, religion, anything will do as long as it moves the attention to the arguer’s
character and away from his argument. It may be difficult to separate an arguer from his
argument, especially if the arguer is an unsavory type. But in reality the personal
character of the arguer has nothing to do with the strength of the argument he advances.

I don’t think Devonshire can come up with any solutions to the financial problems of our city. His Bagels to
Go business had to close last year for lack of customers and all of us know that he claimed bankruptcy five
years ago after his wife divorced him. And his daughter. Wow! He only has visitation rights on weekends
because he was late on alimony payments! I’ll listen, but I’m not expecting much from him.

I heard he used to be a hippie. Need I say more?

Masterson was arrested twenty years ago for mowing his lawn naked at three in the morning. If his
argument is about lawn mowers then I’ll listen. But the presidential election? Count me out.

Devonshire may have a lackluster record in his personal life but that doesn’t mean
he can’t have a good argument about the finances of his city. Since when is being a hippie
a disqualifying fact for any argument? Masterson has an unusual background when it
comes to his nocturnal activities, but mowing the lawn naked in the early morning should
not disqualify you from offering an argument about the next presidential election. have
nothing to do with argumentation, so it’s best to listen to what the fellow has to say (and
ask him about his lawn mower later).
The abusive personal attack is a diversion technique. Keep your eye on the prize,
the argument, and don’t get distracted. Personal attacks are an invitation to respond in
like. If you take the bait he will have succeeded in drawing you away from the argument.
Always return to the argument. If you have to, let your opponent know that you will not
tolerate personal attacks or commit them yourself, and that he cannot run from the
consequences of the argument. Be patient. Count to ten. Last, it’s sad but some people
will not respond positively to rational requests and you may have to abandon the effort.
This is the reality we have to live with. (Just hope he doesn’t go into management).

B. CIRCUMSTANTIAL PERSONAL ATTACK: When an arguer claims that enriching

personal circumstances is the real reason for his opponent advancing his argument.
Arguments stand or fall on their own, so even if an arguer stands to personally gain from
an argument, that does not mean the argument is fallacious.

Bill Gates says that every school should be connected to the internet. But he’s the richest man in the world,
and all his money has come from selling the same stuff that he wants to sell all our schools. More profits
for Billy. Let’s spend money on the schools to improve the kids’ education, not to make Gates richer.

Jordan K. Quackenbush owns three apartment complexes in the city limits of our city. It stands to reason
that he would want to repeal rent control. His proposal to rescind rent control is just a front for his
business interests. I think we should reject his argument.

Isn’t it curious that Lester is the only person in the Marionette Children’s Theater who performs with finger
puppets and he’s the only person who wants to increase finger puppet performances from five each year to
ten?

Yes, Bill Gates can have a good argument that might make him richer. Just
because he’s the richest guy in the world and he makes gobs of money selling software,
that doesn’t mean that his arguments should be dismissed as purely self-interest with no
merit. No doubt many people who argue against rent control have a personal interest in
stopping it, but they may have good arguments too. So are we to ignore a good argument
about housing because the fellow making the argument will benefit from it? Last, moving
five performances from large puppets to finger puppets may be important because it
impacts finances, the people who work with both large puppets, the kids who attend the
events, it’s a big deal. Is there self-interest involved? Maybe, but that’s not the point,
again, the fellow may have a good argument.
We often see personal circumstances intertwined in arguments, but we need to
remind ourselves that arguments should be judged on their merits alone, not whether
someone has a personal stake in the outcome of the argument. That said it’s prudent to
point out the obvious here. People do argue for their personal interests, so if it’s a city
council meeting, the Defense Department, a citizen trying to stop a freeway from being
built or a woman arguing against deforestation, whatever it is, divide the argument from
the person. And if somebody objects, ask them if they would feel any different if a
stranger walked into the room and made the same argument. Or ask how they would
respond if they made an argument only to have it dismissed because somebody claimed a
perceived personal interest should trump the quality of the argument.

C. YOU-TOO PERSONAL ATTACK: When an arguer dismisses an argument by claiming

his opponent does not personally do what he is arguing for.
Sometimes arguers do not practice what they preach, but that does not mean that their
arguments are fallacious. Sometimes arguers are hypocrites, like the fellow who argues
that you should contribute to Habitat for Humanity, but doesn’t contribute himself, or the
guy who says you should quit smoking between drags on a Camel. An arguer may argue
for something but he is unable to do as he argues. For example a person might argue for
jogging as a way to improve health but not be able to jog because of a heart condition. Or
he may not care enough to do as he preaches (like quit smoking). In any case, not acting
as you argue has no affect on the strength of the argument.

Gorman says I should buy a Schmaltz computer because it’s the best. But Gorman uses a Klemper
computer at home. He doesn’t even own a Schmaltz. If Schmaltz is so good, how come he doesn’t have one?
No Schmaltz for me.

Get this, my doctor is sitting there telling me to lose weight because I’ll get all sorts of god awful diseases
and the guy is a tub of lard twice as big as me! Let’s get the keys. I want to get a date shake at the Aloha
Shake Shack.

Martinez puts down tile for a living but he says it’s not a good idea to tile the second floor of our house
because the tile will crack. He says the flooring has to be more stable like on the ground floor. His three
story house is all tile. Every square inch of his floors are covered with beautiful Spanish tile. I’m ordering
some Spanish tile tomorrow.

There may be good reasons to buy a Schmaltz computer whether Gorman owns
one or not, so it’s a good idea to listen to Gorman make his case. More to the point,
Gorman not owning a Schmaltz is not germane to his argument. Doctors often
recommend what they don’t do themselves. It’s not a good example to set but, think about
it, aren’t these guys supposed to be the ones who know these things? If the fellow puts
down tile for a living and he looks like he does a good job then maybe his advice is
valuable.
The you-too personal attack has considerable versatility and is used to justify all
sorts of things depending on the respondent’s persuasion. Sometimes an arguer will claim
that the other side does it too, or did it first, and he feels this gives him license to continue
the same type of behavior from his side. Here’s a letter to the editor advocating torturing
prisoners because the other side does it.

I am appalled again that so many people – including those in our government – are so upset over treatment
of the Iraqis. How about the treatment that our people have endured while over there?
What about the contractors who were burned, dragged through the streets and hung over a
bridge? Then, the Iraqis and our government excused this by saying that this treatment is only done by a
few insurgents. Were they punished? No. They are still walking the streets!
I suppose for some people that is acceptable and expected behavior, as they do not live in a
civilized nation. Now our people want to give them back a bit of their own medicine, and suddenly
everyone is outraged.
I say an eye for an eye and get real. (Shelly Zagars)

The you-too personal attack plays on our natural inclination to hold people
personally responsible for what they argue for. That an arguer is unwilling to practice
what he preaches may tell us something about the person. But it tells us nothing about the
strength of his argument.

21. MISUSE OF A PRINCIPLE: When an arguer applies a principle to all situations,

even those situations where there should be an exception to the principle.
Misuse of a Principle fails to recognize that while there are principles we live by that are
beneficial, there are also times when we should not apply a principle to a situation
because of its unique circumstances. In spite of evidence to the contrary, the arguer
doesn’t suspend the principle. But life sometimes requires exceptions.

Children should be taught to be independent so I have my four year-old daughter walk five blocks to play
at the park by herself every weekend.

Yes, Mitchell, it’s a good idea to lift weights. It helps build muscle mass, strength and endurance. Yes, yes, I
know you have a heart condition.

I know he stole the bread to feed his hungry family. But let’s be real. He stole the bread, didn’t he?

We encourage young people to become responsible, but having a four year old
walk to the park five blocks away isn’t safe. If Mitchell has a heart condition it may not
be a good idea to be lifting weights. And last, the classic example from Victor Hugo’s Le
Miserable, where he illustrates the dangers of sticking to inflexible principles. If a boy is
trying to provide for his hungry family, he may steal some bread. Should this really be a
surprise?
You have a principle that is a good one. For example, don't over eat. But you’re in
a situation where you will not have food for some time. Will you over eat? Yes, because
the extra food in your stomach will get you through. This is reasonable. But if an arguer
is committing the fallacy of Misuse of a Principle, he would insist that the principle must
be obeyed – you shouldn’t eat those extra morsels. Never eating trans-fats is a good
principle to live by because they clog the arteries. But you’re hungry and there’s no food
around. Go ahead and eat the candy bar. You need it to get through. Like over eating, this
is a special case too.
The fallacy isn’t difficult to detect in cases like the above, but it can be difficult in
some situations. For example, sometimes we misplace a principle when a person seeks
asylum in the U.S. A guy overstays his visa or sneaks into the country illegally. Since we
live by the principle that we will not let an individual stay in the U.S. without going
through proper immigration procedures, we prepare to send him back to his country. But
he claims, with good reasons, that he will be persecuted or killed if he’s sent back.
Because we blindly obey the principle, we send him back.
Another example is cutting the budget when the state is running a deficit. The
governor states that since the state is in the red, it’s only fair that everybody share in some
kind of sacrifice to help pull the state through tough financial times. The principle of all
citizens sharing the burden is a good one, but if you cut the benefits to the elderly and
disabled with the same gusto that you cut from people who are well off, you hurt people
who are vulnerable. If you’re a millionaire or billionaire you won’t even know you’ve
been taxed a little more to get the state by, but if you’re blind and living in a rest home
with a shared room of four and your dental benefits have been taken away that’s a pretty
serious contribution to the states’ fiscal kitty.
It’s easy to apply a principle without thought to every situation. People do this all
the time in their jobs. The true test is to know when to suspend the principle. This takes
thought, judgment and often courage.

EXERCISE 6.3
I. Create two examples of each fallacy of Relevance.
II. Select the best answer for each multiple choice question.
1. I don’t think so, Malloy. You keep telling me that getting a cell phone for the family
would be cheaper than a land line but you don’t have any phones!, I’m not getting a cell
phone.
a. no fallacy
b. appeal to unqualified authority
c. appeal to tradition
d. you-too fallacy
e. snob appeal

2. Just think of it. Prestige, money, travel, the finest cuisine and imported liqueurs,
influential people from all walks of life. And this is just the average work week. Only for
the few who are able. When you major in philosophy.
a. appeal to tradition
b. snob appeal
c. bandwagon
d. appeal to the mob
e. no fallacy

3.
Little Milton: Mommy, I hate putting Tabasco Sauce on my ice cream. Why can't I just
eat my rum raisin ice cream like all the other kids?
Mommy Dearest: Now Little Milton, I have told you this at least a hundred times before.
Your great-grandfather created this sumptuous after dinner dessert for digestion. And we
have been delighting in it ever since.
a. straw man fallacy
b. no fallacy
c. appeal to tradition
d. appeal to ignorance
e. appeal to force

4. The environmentalists are not preservationists or even ecologists. They’re radical

ecoterrorists who want to take away our right to enjoy our land. They want to confiscate
as much land as possible and put it behind a fence where nobody can see it or enjoy it.
This is America, the land of the free, and we’re not going to let any group of socialist-
leaning extremists take away our right to enjoy the beautiful natural resources that God
gave us to enjoy. Vote against the initiative!
a. appeal to unqualified authority
b. no fallacy
c. abusive personal attack
d. appeal to the mob
e. genetic fallacy

5. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client has a wife and three children, all of whom
relay on him for vital financial support and love. My client’ wife has a chronic kidney
ailment which requires her to miss work, and he has little dog, Boris, who is arthritic and
barely able to walk. Two of the defendant’s children have low grades in school and need
their father, who is good at math and figures, to help them with their homework. His third
child, little Morris Jr., ran away from home because of the embarrassment of his father
being arrested for embezzlement at the bank where he is employed as a vice-president.
Ladies and gentlemen, think of the lives you will be affecting when you render your
verdict. Temper justice with the love of your heart. You are all respected members of the
community and your peers look to you for guidance and vision. Send a message that
justice has already been served and now it is time for compassion. And further...and, and,
and, aahhh (At this point defendant Hector Garabedian's attorney, Hung Lee de Jesus,
breaks down sobbing uncontrollably and is escorted to Parkview Regional Medical
Center for observation by the bailiff. Garabedian’s associate attorney, Lumen Seinhauser
opens a box a Kleenex and passes out tissues to the jury as Judge Josiah Stevenson
adjourns for the day).
a. appeal to the mob
b. no fallacy
c. appeal to pity
d. abusive personal attack
e. appeal to ignorance

6. Mrs. Carbuncle-Abersold, I've been working hard in the office for two years now.
You've given me greater responsibility, including managing five new employees in my
department, not to mention the last one you hired that has insufferably bad breath. Do you
think you could manage a modest raise in my pay, nothing large of course, just enough to
let me know you appreciate the work I'm doing? If you don't think you can manage the
raise, you do know I see your husband, 'Iron' Clem, at the gym every Saturday where he
presses 300 pounds to warm up before he works out. Next time I see him I might
accidentally mention you've been seeing a lot of that young, athletic fellow you hired as
your secretary.
a. appeal to self-interest
b. appeal to pity
c. no fallacy
d. appeal to ignorance
e. appeal to force

7. Hello, Mrs. Lometzel, this is Joey with SuperBandwidthUltraDownoad.com with a

great offer you won't want to turn down. You get a Super 10 million nano-tera-zip feed to
your home, two no-roam charge cell phones inside North America, including
Newfoundland, Panama and the 500863 zip in Caracas, Venezuela, three
aluminum Christmas trees with electric color wheels, and your choice of a full boxed set
of the Moody Blues' Greatest Hits, or the newly discovered remastered extra long version
of Inagodadavida by the incomparable Iron Butterfly, for only $39.99 per month, that's
right, just $39.99 per month. Mrs. Lometzel, not one person has turned me down on this
offer today. It's such a great deal! What do you say?
a. snob appeal
b. circumstantial personal attack
c. appeal to the mob
d. no fallacy
e. bandwagon

8. Ok, here's the situation. We know for sure only three people knew where the safe was
and only those people had the combination to the safe: Moses Marlborough Yates,
Florence Chesterton, and Marvin Shelly. On the day the safe was broken into, Yates was
in Philadelphia, Chesterton was in New York, and Shelly was in Los Angeles. The safe is
in Los Angeles. Shelly is probably our man. He's probably the person who broke into the
safe and stole the recipe for Krabby Patties.
a. abusive personal attack
b. genetic fallacy
c. appeal to ignorance
d. appeal to unqualified authority
e. no fallacy

9. He owns the movie theater. And he wants to relax the zoning laws to build a restaurant
two blocks away. Do I have to say any more?
a. appeal to unwarranted authority
b. genetic fallacy
c. misuse of a principle
d. no fallacy
e. circumstantial personal attack

10.
Little Milton: Mommy, I hate having to put Tabasco Sauce on my ice cream. Why can't I
just eat my rum raisin ice cream like all the other kids?

Mommy Dearest: Now Little Milton, I have told you this at least a hundred times before.
Your great-grandfather created this sumptuous after dinner dessert for digestion. And we
have been delighting in it ever since.

Little Milton: Mommy, please just this once?

Mommy Dearest: Your great-grandfather would be disappointed in you.

a. genetic fallacy
b. no fallacy
c. appeal to tradition
d. appeal to self-interest
e. appeal to force

11. Nobody has proven Sandra Bullock has not answered Professor K’s emails.
Therefore, Sandra must have answered his emails.
a. no fallacy
b. appeal to unqualified authority
c. appeal to force
d. appeal to ignorance
e. circumstantial personal attack

12. The study by the American Association of Family Physicians says that when children
are vaccinated for influenza, senior citizens are protected better than if they were
vaccinated themselves. So to help everyone stay healthy, we should switch things around:
we should encourage parents to vaccinate their kids for influenza this winter rather than
encourage seniors to get vaccinated.
a. no fallacy
b. appeal to unqualified authority
c. genetic fallacy
d. appeal to ignorance
e. mob appeal

13. Nobody has discovered skeletal remains from Bigfoot. I guess the big guy just
doesn’t exist.
a. appeal to ignorance
b. abusive personal attack
c. genetic fallacy
d. no fallacy
e. appeal to the mob

14. Hi, I'm Clyde "Touchdown Hornsby". You've seen me on your favorite sports channel
dodging those big guys on the field and making it into the end zone. But now I want to
tell you how to dodge the biggest threat of all: Financial Insecurity. Refinance your bills
now with Getyourselfoutofdebtonline.com. They know how to handle your finances and
make your money manageable again. Take it from me.
a. genetic fallacy
b. abusive personal attack
c. appeal to pity
d. no fallacy
e. appeal to unqualified authority

15. I would like to say that Miguel Doolittle has the answer to the scheduling problem, he
sounds sincere, but I can’t imagine his proposal would solve anything. He’s still in
treatment for anger issues, his wife is still after him for alimony and child support and he
is being audited by the IRS. So let’s just leave it alone.
a. appeal to the mob
b. circumstantial personal attack
c. abusive personal attack
d. snob appeal
e. no fallacy

16. If you don't root for the Dodgers, you may not get into heaven (Tommy Lasorda,
former Dodger Manager)
a. mob appeal
b. appeal to ignorance
c. appeal to force
d. no fallacy
e. appeal to self-interest

17. "I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office. When you're rich,
you want a Republican in office." (Jenna Jameson endorsing Mitt Romney for President)
a. appeal to self-interest
b. snob appeal
c. no fallacy
d. appeal to unqualified authority
e. circumstantial personal attack

18. Originally, many scholars believe, the midwinter festival had its roots in a pagan
observance of the winter solstice. Over time the holiday became a celebration of the birth
of Jesus Christ. And for centuries it was a calendrical focal point —predictable and
profound — for much of Western civilization. That shifted in the early 20th century. The
season took on secular meaning as a time of family-gathering and gift-giving. Merchants
promoted — and profited from — the widespread largess. The centerpiece of
nonreligious Christmas became Santa Claus — a jolly bearded fellow in a red suit —
who was used to selling Coca-Colas in the 1930s and everything else since then. I don’t
think it’s a good idea to celebrate Christmas. It has pagan origins.
a. appeal to ignorance
b. genetic fallacy
c. appeal to self-interest
d. circumstantial personal attack
e. no fallacy

19.
The Gate Keeper: I told you. I’m sorry but you can’t register for classes.
Student: Can’t register? But classes haven’t started.
The Gate Keeper: Registration closed last Friday. You’re two days late.
Students: The classes aren’t filled and I couldn’t get to school earlier. Hurricane Katrina
wiped out my whole house, all our possessions, we have no place to live, we lost our dog,
I even lost my favorite stuffed animal, Alvin, I had him since I was two years old. We
barely got out alive. Please let me register.
The gate Keeper: I’m sorry. Maybe when you get older you’ll understand what rules
mean.
Student: What Do You Mean When I GET OLD…
The Gate Keeper: Security! Security!
a. genetic fallacy
b. appeal to unqualified authority
c. appeal to tradition
d. misuse of a principle
e. no fallacy
20. It’s a bit rich for a man who got famously stonkered at a lap-dancing club in New
York five years ago to be lecturing the rest of us on binge drinking (Sydney Morning
Herald columnist, Miranda Divine on Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s $34.7
million campaign against binge drinking).
a. no fallacy
b. appeal to unqualified authority
c. appeal to ignorance
d. you-too personal attack
e. genetic fallacy

21. I haven’t seen anything to convince me that Obama’s not a Muslim.

a. no fallacy
b. appeal to force
c. appeal to ignorance
d. you-too personal attack
e. abusive personal attack

22.
Lou: I think you should vote for Norton.
Stu: Why?
Lou: Because he’s against raising taxes for medical care for the poor. You have medical
insurance. Paying more taxes for their medical care won’t get you anything.
Stu: But just because their poor doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have medical care.
Lou: How fat is your wallet, my friend?
a. no fallacy
b. appeal to unqualified authority
c. wishful thinking
d. appeal to self-interest
e. genetic fallacy

23. Little Milton: Mommy, I hate having to put Tabasco Sauce on my ice cream. Why
can't I just eat my rum raisin ice cream like all the other kids?

Mommy Dearest: Now Little Milton, I have told you this at least a hundred times before.
Your great-grandfather created this sumptuous after dinner dessert for digestion. And we
have been delighting in it ever since.

Little Milton: Mommy, please just this once?

Mommy Dearest: If you do not pick up your spoon and start eating your Tabasco sauce
and ice cream right now you will never play Little League Baseball again. Kapeesh?
a. appeal to force
b. no fallacy
c. appeal to unqualified authority
d. appeal to self-interest
e. genetic fallacy
EXRCISE 6.3
I. Answers will vary.
II.
1. d
2. b
3. c
4. d
5. c
6. e
7. e
8. e
9. e
10. e
11. d
12. a
13. a
14. e
15. c
16. c
17. a
18. b
19. d
20. d
21. c
22. d
23. a

6.4 FALLACIES OF DIVERSION

The Fallacies of Diversion detract arguers to focus on issues not germane to the
argument at hand or they persuade arguers to focus on issues completely irrelevant to the
argument at hand. They are encountered very frequently in arguments.

22. RED HERRING: When an arguer attempts to draw attention away from the merits of
an argument to a side issue.
The purpose of the red herring is to lead the arguer off track. Often the side issue used as
a distraction is related to the argument being discussed but it’s not germane to the heart of
the argument itself. We get the name of this fallacy from the practice of training dogs to
follow a scent. A herring fish is cooked until its scent is strong. Then the hunting dogs are
taken into the woods to learn how to follow a scent by trailing the herring along a path
through the woods. The ultimate test for the hounds is when the trainers drag the herring
across a fox trail. The best dogs will not be fooled into following the scent of the herring.
They will stay on the trail of the fox. If you find it more convenient to call this fallacy
changing the subject, that’s fine too because that’s what it really boils down to.
 Some people are really good at changing the subject so you need to be attentive.
Or before you know it you will be arguing about something else!

Junior: Hey dad, I was comparing our big corporate bank to the credit union down the street and I found
we might save some money by moving to the credit union. What do you think?
Leroy, Sr. The big banks were in big trouble but they’re fine now. Yes, we bailed them out but we’re not
giving them a free ride anymore and they can pay their bills like anybody else. They’re the backbone of
financial America, Junior.

Philosophy student: Hey Professor, don’t you think reading Spinoza, Kant, Hegel and Antonio Banderas is
a bit much for two weeks?
Anonymous Professor: I’m still deciding how to schedule my class tests, if I should break the readings
down into smaller units with more tests, one test a week, or keep it at two weeks for each test.

Lou: I really think you should stop. Taking a stuffed animal with you to public places looks weird. You’re
23 years old.
Stu: You remember Mel Habbercorn, the guy who had the local shoe shop down the street from where we
grew up? He had three kids and every one of them loved to play cards, no matter the time of day.
Sometimes they missed school and old Habbercorn would get so pissed. You never know what kind of
habits people will have, Stu. It’s just human nature.

Junior is asking his dad if it’s OK to use the credit union instead of using the bank
because it will save the family money, but dad just talks about bailing out the banks and
how financially sound they are now (really?). The student is wondering why there are so
many readings for the test, but the professor doesn’t address the question, he talks about
breaking up the tests into smaller units. But the request was about the amount of readings
the students are responsible for, not how many tests there are. Last, Lou’s concerned that
his brother is carrying around a stuffed animal at twenty three years old. Stu changes the
subject by talking about the habits of some neighbors and habits in general. In this last
example Stu comes close to addressing the problem directly but he still dodges it enough
to accomplish his end – that is if Lou takes the bait and starts talking about habits and
drops the issue of Stu and his stuffed animal (it’s Alvin). Again, the issue is the stuffed
animal, Stu’s age, and if he should be so attached to it in public. It’s not about habits in
general.
Sometimes the red herring has the flavor of denying the counterevidence, but
when you look closely at how the two fallacies function, you’ll see that they function
differently. The red herring avoids the subject by introducing another subject. Denying
the counterevidence is when a person refuses to acknowledge evidence has been
presented or minimizes the evidence so as to ignore it.

23. TRIVIAL OBJECTIONS: When an arguer focuses attention on a minor point in an

argument making it appear as if it’s the fundamental point of the argument.
It’s fine for an arguer to raise minor objections to an argument, but to treat a minor point
as if it’s the essential point of the argument is misleading. Trivial objections are minor
concerns, side issues. Even when the trivial concerns are justified, they pale in contrast to
the principal concerns of the argument. When an arguer resorts to trivial objections it’s
usually because he can’t argue against the heart of the argument.
Lou: The medical bills citizens pay for uninsured and underinsured motorcycle riders is high. If motorcycle
riders wear helmets, then the death rate and head injury rates will go down. And that means that medical
bills will go down too. It’s a good idea to have a helmet law.
Stu: You can’t move your head around as well with a helmet on. Your field of vision is restricted with a
helmet. If you restrict vision, that’s dangerous. Plus, you can’t get the full feeling of the open road with a
helmet on. Riding a bike is all about the wind in your hair, seeing the scenery and appealing to the opposite
sex (or same sex). I don’t think such a law is a good idea.

Lou: There you go. Roomy. Comfortable. Easy to put on. Good protection from injury. Even the girls love
them. You’ve already had two beautiful women ask you where you got them! Shastas. The perfect shoes
while you’re recovering from foot surgery.
Stu: Lou, you know I like to jog. I can’t jog in these shoes.

Earle: I think we should rename the main boulevard in our town after Martin Luther King. The City
council meets there, the mayor’s office is there and the entire city government is there. The street is named
Haskins Boulevard and nobody even knows how it got that name! It’s embarrassing!
Merle: I don’t think it’s a good idea. It would make all our maps outdated, and all the stationary for all the
businesses on the street would be outdated too.

Stu has a point with his observations about restrictive movement and field of
vision. Point well taken about the opposite sex too. And same sex, I suppose. But the
argument is about death rates, head injuries and medical bills being paid by citizens who
are not riding motorcycles. If Stu wants to argue against a helmet law, then he needs to
address these three main issues Lou raises.
Lou gave his brother several good reasons why his new pair of shoes are a good
fit. But Stu focuses on an issue not germane to Lou’s argument. Yes, he does like to jog,
and you can’t jog in a pair of Shastas, but jogging isn’t the main reason for getting the
shoes. Stu had foot surgery and he needs a good pair of shoes to get him through recovery
(and he can meet some girls too!). Last, renaming a street always has some implications
for business, and some of them will be negative, but outdated stationary and maps
shouldn’t be on top of the list. These costs can be mitigated with planning too.

24. RESORT TO HUMOR: When an arguer elicits a laugh thereby dodging the
obligation to respond to the argument or question presented.
The arguer responds to an argument or question with a humorous comment, a story, a
funny story, a witty one liner, and he avoids addressing the argument or question head-on.
Everybody laughs, the person who posed the argument or question is disarmed by the
laughter and he can’t bring back the argument in a serious context. It’s as if the argument
has been stolen. Politicians have this one down to a science. When in a jam, see if you
can make funny.
I heard that my opponent keeps saying that I don’t use a computer. Well, I was thinking about this the other
day and I want to issue a challenge. I’ll get a computer if he agrees to drive my ’56 Chevy. And it’s a stick
shift!

Student: Professor Schmaltz, You said the test would have six questions on ethics and four on logic, but
there were four on ethics and six on logic. I studies for six on ethics and four on logic. How come you
changed the test?
Professor Schmaltz: Six to four, four to six! Creeping ageism! At least I got the total of ten correct!

Horatio, the University Librarian: You have forty six books overdue, some going back four years. We have
sent you many notices. We need you to return them Professor.
Unnamed Professor: Looks like you keep pretty good records, Horatio. Well, it’s a good thing all of them
are philosophy books. I mean nobody will be looking for them anyway!

Customer: I ordered a Frapa-Frupa Mega Carmeletto with a single shot of organic lime concentrate but I
got a Maltese Carmeletto Latte Iced. And it’s decaf! It’s not even close. And you’re closing so you can’t
make another.
Barista: Well, at least I got the Carmeletto right!

Professor Schmaltz may get a guarded laugh with his self deprecating humor, but
it’s not a substitute for answering a legitimate question about him changing the test on his
students. Our Unnamed Professor needs to face the music on the overdues, not make light
of his behavior and hope the approach fools his colleague. Last, humoring a disappointed
customer doesn’t cut it when he has a legitimate complaint like this one. After all, the guy
just wanted a Frappu-Luppa, or whatever the heck it is. The Barista might extend his
customer a sincere apology and offer him a few IOUs for a couple of free, well, a few
free coffees.
What do you do when somebody has stolen the argument with humor? First of all,
let everybody have their good laugh. You can’t stop it, and you may even have a chuckle
too. You may even compliment him on his wit. Then after the lightheartedness has died
down, let him know that you have to get serious again and refocus back on the question.
Set the tone. You can appreciate a good laugh like everybody. But everybody has to
understand that humor is no substitute for argument.

25. STRAW MAN: When an arguer distorts his opponent’s argument by intentionally
weakening it and then 'refutes' it by attacking the new, weakened argument.
With the straw man fallacy the respondent weakens the argument he wants to refute in
order to knock it down – just like a straw man. How much does he change the argument?
The arguer who sets up a straw man is interested in vanquishing an imposter, so it’s best
to work on the assumption that he will do what he thinks necessary to get the job done.
So it might range from a wild misrepresentation to a slight shift of meaning in the
argument, just enough to weaken it to make it vulnerable.

Senator Koobdooga:
Many of our grade schools don’t have libraries and most schools that do have libraries are inadequate. We
don’t have accredited librarians in the libraries and all of them are under funded. Many school children in
our state don’t have reading resources at home and their schools are the only library resource they have. We
owe it to the kids in our state to establish quality libraries in all our grade schools.

Senator Marvel:
Yes, we should have a library in every school in the state, but I'm not ready to raise taxes like Senator
Koobdooga would do to get them. These new libraries he speaks of have computers, internet, online books
and reference works, printers, and all the books, magazines and newspapers too. Add a full staff of
librarians and support personnel and you have one huge tax increase. I’m against raising taxes to create
high tech, state of the art libraries in every school. The difference between Senator Koobdooga and me is
this: he will raise taxes to finance libraries and I won’t.

Maria: Clarence, you’ve had four churros and it’s before breakfast. There’s twenty three grams of saturated
fat in each churro. You eat about sixteen a day. Your arteries can’t handle that kind of muck. Don’t you
think you should cut down a bit?
Clarence: You know how I feel about my churros, honey. Every time I eat a churro I think of the first
churro I had on our honeymoon in beautiful Mazatlan at Hector’s (The ‘H’ is silent) Grande Churros on the
corner of Buena Vista and Poncho Villa Boulevard. Blue skies, crashing waves, no worries and a churro. I
can’t give up my churros. It would be like tossing all our wedding pictures.

Grigsby: Professor K: Don’t you think your proposal that all students at the college take six philosophy
classes to graduate is too many classes? Under your proposal even physical education majors have to take a
Medieval Jewish philosophy class and write a ten page paper on the Kabbalah. Don’t you think that’s a bit
much?

Professor K: Yes, Grigsby, not all of your graduation requirements seen to apply to your career goals right
now, but trust me, we can’t just eliminate philosophy in the curriculum. Sometimes it seems like working
toward a degree is a sacrifice, and introducing easier graduation requirements would be quicker and easier,
but we would be shortchanging you if we eliminated the six philosophy classes from your graduation
requirements.

Senator Koobdooga didn’t propose raising taxes, but he did say each school
should have a quality library. His opponent turned his proposal into a referendum on
taxes to support high tech libraries, implying that Senator Koobdooga endorses high taxes
to achieve the goal. In the second example Maria is proposing that Clarence cut down on
his churro intake, but Clarence is claiming she wants him to give up churros altogether,
something he rejects outright. Last, Grigsby is proposing that the philosophy
requirements be scaled back, but K is portraying his proposal as an attempt to eliminate
philosophy altogether and water down the quality of the curriculum required to graduate.
It’s a good policy for a respondent to carefully repeat the details of the argument
he’s addressing, to lay out the framework of the argument as he understands it, before he
makes his case for or against. This way there is a consensus that the argument he is about
to discuss is being addressed fairly. “I understand you to be arguing …” “And I am
replying…” This method of repeating the pertinent details of the argument before you
respond can be a bit tedious but it has great virtues. This method allows you to track the
development of the argument, holding each aspect open for examination, revision,
acceptance or rejection. As important, revisiting the details of the argument as it evolves
insures that all participants are speaking about the genuine article, and not a straw man.

26. FALACY OF THE MEAN: When an arguer claims that the middle path in an
argument is the best path because it represents a compromise between two extremes.
Many arguers view the middle path between extremes as a fair conclusion to a
disagreement simply because it’s in the middle. But just because the position is in the
middle of the two opposing sides, that does not mean it’s the most equitable solution.
Let’s say Clarence is out to buy a bag of churros. He finds a churro vendor,
Miguel Gonzales Vasquez Murrillo, and he offers him ten dollars for a Churro Supremo
Extreme Bag (CSEB) of 20 churros. But Miguel says he has to charge fourteen dollars
because he won’t make enough of a profit to stay in business. Clarence offers to ‘split the
difference’ as a compromise and offers Miguel twelve dollars. But offering to settle for
the middle path as a compromise to close the deal won’t bring about the most equitable
solution. You see, Miguel’s costs really are so high that he needs fourteen dollars for a
CSEB. Miguel said no and Clarence gave him the fourteen dollars. (Then he asked
Miguel for a punch card so after he buys ten boxes he can have the eleventh for free.
Miguel gave him a card with a hole punched through the number ‘1’).
Clarence was trying the Fallacy of the Mean the other day on his wife, Maria, but
she wasn’t buying it.

Maria: You need to cut down. You’re consuming a CSEB every week!
Clarence: You’re picking on me. I think we both need counseling.
Maria: I’ve had it! That’s twenty churros a week! Are you nuts?!!!
Clarence: I can’t stand arguing any more. Let’s divide the total in half. Ten churros a week, down by fifty
percent. That’s a real sacrifice on my part, but I’ll do it.
Maria: One churro a week. Period.
Clarence: I think we need counseling.
Maria: No compromise. If you go through withdrawal, I’ll call a doctor.

Compromise isn’t in itself a standard for resolving disputes because one of the
positions held by one of the competing individuals may be the most equitable solution to
a disagreement. If a builder wants to build an apartment complex in with a hundred units
in a neighborhood that’s already impacted with people and cars, then fifty units may be
too many, let alone one hundred.
So should we reject compromise? No, sometimes we may need to embrace the
middle path because there’s no other option to resolve a dispute. This doesn’t mean that
it’s the most equitable decision, though, it just means it’s the only option available under
the circumstances. If the Japanese are killing whales for ‘scientific purposes’ and all you
can get them to do is compromise slightly on the number of kills because you have so
little leverage, then it’s preferable to reduce by whatever you can instead of giving them
all the kills they want. If you’re negotiating with an auto company about raising the mpg
efficiency of their cars, they don’t want to improve the mileage and you have little
leverage to ‘encourage’ them, then it may be better to compromise than walk away. In
short, ‘compromise isn’t necessarily a good thing because it doesn’t mean it’s an
equitable solution, but under certain circumstances compromise may be the best option
available.

27. PERFECTION OR NOTHING: when an arguer claims that a state of affairs is

unacceptable because it does not achieve perfection.
We can always imagine doing something better, whatever it is. You may become a record
breaking ball player, a popular model, a great drummer or physician, but it’s always
possible to set your sights higher. The fallacy of Perfection or Nothing makes an
illegitimate appeal that sets the bar so high that the arguer claims it’s useless to try. It’s
just too hard to reach a level where it’s perfect.

I gave money to feed those kids who need food, but we’re never going to eradicate hunger. I’m not going to
give anymore.

No matter how many gun laws we enact there will always be people using guns to commit crimes.
Therefore, it’s ludicrous to spend more time and money to pass more gun control laws.

I’ll never be able to read all those good books, there are so many. Just look at all of them staring at me
from the shelves. I’m not even going to start on this one.
 Giving money to feed hungry kids does make a difference. Just ask a kid who gets
a meal. People may continue to use guns to commit crimes, but that does not mean that
passing gun control laws are a mistake. In fact, gun control laws have been very effective.
Just consider how few times restricted guns turn up in illegal situations and ask yourself
how often do you think those guns would turn up if they weren’t illegal? Put another way,
the fact that people use guns to commit crimes doesn’t’ mean restrictive laws are
ineffective, it just means they may have found another gun to commit the crime. Last,
better to read a few good books than no books at all. It’s easy to prove this. Just read one,
put it down and ask yourself: was this worth it?
Setting unrealistic standards can be an excuse to do nothing. And doing nothing
can be devastating for friendships, family relations, solving social problems, not to
mention improving ones’ quality of life. Acknowledging limitations and being realistic
about objectives is key to defeating the fallacy of Perfection or Nothing. If you don’t vote
because your vote won’t eliminate the problems of society, or you don’t take guitar
lessons because you won’t play like Eric Clapton, then you probably won’t ever know the
pleasures of realistic achievements. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-
moon, put it this way: “Often it seems as though everybody wants the U.N. to do
everything. We cannot deliver everything, of course…But that cannot be an excuse for
doing nothing”.

28. DRAWING THE LINE: When an arguer claims if you cannot draw a line to illustrate
a difference between two things, then there is essentially no difference between the two
things.
If I draw the color light gray and gradually darken it to jet black, it’s not possible to say
exactly where it became black. But when I see the dark black portion I know for sure it’s
black, and when I see the light gray portion I know it’s light grey. The Drawing the Line
fallacy claims, illegitimately, that if you can’t say exactly when the color turned from
grey to black then there really isn’t any difference between the light grey at the one end
and the jet black at the other. The arguer is looking for a specific line, a moment when it
turns from grey to black. But it’s not possible to identify a moment when that occurs
because it’s a gradual change that’s occurring. The fallacy is applied in different
situations in different ways, not just with gradations of colors.

Stu is committing the fallacy of Drawing the Line.

Lou: I’m sick and tired of doing calculus homework in Wiederbaum’s class. He acts like everyone is a math
major.
Stu: How much homework does he give you?
Lou: Three to four hours a night, five to six days a week. It never ends!
Stu: So tell me, exactly how much is too much homework?
Lou: Exactly? Well, I don’t know.
Stu: If you can’t tell me how much is too much, then it sounds to me like you don’t have too much, Stu.

Lou and Stu are at it again. And again, Stu is committing the fallacy.

Lou: Don’t you think you could turn down your stereo a bit?
Stu: Down to what?
Lou: I don’t know, just turn it down. It hurts my ears, it’s too loud.
Stu: If you can’t tell me exactly where to turn it down to, then it’s not too loud.

In the first exchange Stu is looking for a specific point Lou can identify where he
has too much homework. Since Lou can’t say exactly where it is that Wiederbaum has
crossed the line and given too much homework, then he doesn’t have too much
homework. Likewise, in the second example Stu is claiming that if Lou can’t identify
exactly what point the music becomes too loud, then it must not be too loud. In both
cases Stu is blurring the distinction between the two extremes and he insists on
identifying a dividing line between the two. But Lou knows for sure that Wiederbaum is
giving too much homework. He may not be able to say exactly when it became too much
homework, but he is sure he’s getting too much homework. And Lou also knows the
music is too loud. He can’t say exactly at what point it’s too loud, but he knows for sure
it’s too loud. Is it incumbent upon Lou to demonstrate exactly where he began getting too
much homework or when the music got too loud as Stu insists? No. This is an
unreasonable demand and this is where the fallacy is committed. It’s not incumbent on
Lou to identify exactly where the homework went from reasonable to unreasonable, or
where the music went from being bearable to unbearable. Then how can Lou prove it? He
needs to appeal to common sense, personal history, a sense of reasonableness. If his
opponent is resistant to everyday common sense, then he will have to pile on example
after example of how these situations are not reasonable by analogy as well. Tons of
homework that keeps you up at night and interferes with daily life is too much
homework. Music that keeps you up at night and makes it so you can’t concentrate is too
loud.
We can illustrate how this fallacy works with a variation on a paradox
from Ancient Greek philosophers called the paradox of the heap. Imagine there’s a large
flatbed truck filled with sand in your driveway and the driver dumps it right there in front
of you. Let’s call the mound of sand a heap. You need to move the heap of sand to your
backyard, but you don’t have a shovel handy. So you patiently take one grain of sand at a
time into your backyard. Toward the end of your moving project the heap eventually
becomes a small pile in your driveway. Here’s the paradox: At what point did the heap in
your driveway become a pile?
An arguer committing the fallacy of Drawing the Line would claim that if there is
not a definite moment when the heap changed to a pile, then there is no difference
between a heap and a pile. But common sense tells us there is a difference between a
heap and a pile. There is a difference in size. Convention, common sense and a sense of
reasonableness tells us when we are at that point. Will all people agree on when we arrive
at that point? No. But rational arguers should agree easily on the extremes, and as we
travel farther from the extremes toward the middle where it becomes less clear there will
be agreement. This is why it was disingenuous for the G. W. Bush administration to claim
they did not torture prisoners. What they did was obviously torture. Their problem was
that they could not openly advocate torture because they had signed international
conventions that would open them up to prosecution. So they said what they were doing
was “enhanced interrogation” in the hope that they could dodge responsibility.
Do people really argue like this? Yes, but it’s usually not with heaps and piles of
sand and torture (thanks goodness).
I heard Lou and Stu arguing the other day. In both cases Lou knows how to
respond to Stu’s fallacious reasoning.
Lou: I saw it in the papers. It was Mrs. Spencer. They took her cats away. She lives on Bloomsbury Street.
She had twelve cats. Way too many.
Stu: She likes cats. I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Lou: How can a person take care of twelve cats?
Stu: Some people have twelve kids.
Lou: They aren’t the same thing.
Stu: Yea, cats are easier to take care of.
Lou: Cats tear things up, chew, pee and you know what all over the floor. You have to feed them all the
time. They need room to run. You have to clean hairballs out of their ears and give them shots and
constantly watch them.
Stu: And kids are different?
Lou: You don’t get it.
Stu: Exactly how many cats are too many?
Lou: I don’t know exactly.
Stu: If you don’t know, then don’t tell me she has too many.
Lou: I don’t know how many should be the limit, but I do know twelve is too many.

Stu claims that if Lou can’t draw a line and say X number of cats are too many,
then he can’t claim that twelve are too many. But Lou has his number, so to speak. He
doesn’t have to prove Mrs. Spencer crossed the line at a specific number of cats to claim
that twelve cats are too many in one house. He gives plenty of evidence to support his
claim. Are we relying on common sense here? Yes, but as they say, the devil is in the
details.
Look out. Lou and Stu are at it again. Looks like Stu is going through a
body piercing phase.

Lou: Don’t you think you have enough body piercings? You look like a pin cushion.
Stu: I think I look good. Try it yourself, or lay off.
Lou: You might be getting a little carried away, that’s all, and you may regret it later. You could get an
infection.
Stu: I saw a guy at the New Iron Man Press Two Ton Mercury Body Piercing Exhibition who had…
Lou: Ok, Ok, Ok. I just thought you might consider slowing down a bit.
Stu: So how many piercings is too many? If you can’t tell me exactly where I should stop, then it really
makes no difference.
Lou: I don’t know exactly where you should have stopped, Stu, but that’s not the point. What I do know is
that you should have stopped sometime before you put that safety pin through your nose and covered your
back with the Lincoln Memorial.

Arguers who employ drawing the line often argue for states of affairs that run
contrary to common sense or acceptable norms. But just because an arguer will accept an
extreme state of affairs as if it’s normal, that doesn’t mean he’s right.

29. IS-OUGHT FALLACY: When an arguer claims that since something is the case that it
also ought to be the case.
The is-ought fallacy often occurs as an illegitimate ethical claim. Just because something
is the case, say, just because women cannot vote, that does not mean that women ought
not to vote. Just because women are not allowed to drive automobiles in Saudi Arabia
that does not mean that they ought not to drive in Saudi Arabia. Just because we have
always burned coal for heat, that does not mean we ought to continue burning coal and
not switch to a cleaner form of energy.
Jenny: I’ve been filling out these mileage forms for our drivers and I noticed that there are several places
where they ask for the same information. Could we create another form and combine some of the questions
to make the form shorter and less redundant?

Office Manager: They were using that form when I came to work here at Insurance Rip-off International
twelve years ago. We’ve done well with it over the years.

Critical Thinking Student: Professor K, we have twelve tests this semester, four on logic, two on ethics, two
on epistemology, two on the theory of beauty and two on metaphysics. It’s hard taking so many tests,
especially when we have other classes. Can you please trim the number of tests to six or eight?

Professor K: I know it’s a challenge, Critical Thinking Student, but I’ve given twelve tests to all my classes
since I joined the distinguished faculty at Moreknowledgeforlessonline.com. It’s policy, you know.

Management policy is notorious for being inflexible. Cite the policy and this is an
excuse to continue? This is a common refrain, in business, politics, families do it to
themselves, and professors do it like our second example above. Just because there is a
department policy to give loads of tests, that doesn’t mean the department can’t revise the
policy.
The is-ought fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of Tradition. But unlike the
fallacy of Tradition, it doesn’t employ history, prior generations, patriotism and such as
evidence for continuance. “Your great grandpa was an Admiral in the Air Force, and
every generation of Leibowitz’ after him joined the Force hoping to match the old man.
The Leibowitz family has high standards, Morris. You don’t want to be the first
Leibowitz to quit, do you?” (It always helps to throw in a little guilt, too). With the
fallacy of tradition, breaking the generational link becomes a serious offense. With the is-
ought fallacy we have an appeal to current practice as a necessary norm that must be
maintained. It’s simply done that way now. And that’s good enough. There’s no other
justification for continuing the practice except that it is the practice.

30. WISHFUL THINKING: When a person wants to and does believe something in spite
of the fact that there is no evidence to support the belief.
When it comes to Charlie Brown and the little red haired girl, Charlie has a bad case of
wishful thinking. Charlie Brown has no evidence that the little red haired girl will realize
that he finds her so charming. She hardly notices him. Even the most rational of us are
susceptible to this type of reasoning at one time or another. I don’t have an aptitude to do
nuclear physics, I can barely balance my checkbook and I used to get the Periodic Table
mixed up with the Nutrition Pyramid, but I enroll in a nuclear physics course anyway. I
keep running the garbage disposal even though the plumber told me it’s broken and it will
cause the food and water to back up in the pipes. I drive to the mountains without chains
in the car, even though the weatherman said it’s likely to snow. I go to Vegas to gamble,
even though I know the odds are against me. I go to Vegas to get married, even though
the odds are, well, you know how things are sometimes.
Like most of us who are susceptible to wishful thinking, Charlie Brown is in
denial, just like the countless people at the tables in Vegas – it’s a matter of being blind to
the facts. Why we behave this way is a perplexing thing. The discipline of psychology can
help us understand why we are motivated like this. It may be that there is something in
the unconscious that motivates us to believe things in our conscious lives, though the
evidence is obviously not there to justify the belief. If you have ever observed someone in
denial about anything, then you have probably witnessed a case of wishful thinking. The
last time Clarence ate a bag of churros and wished his cholesterol would not rise, the last
time a politician ran for president thinking he could win on a third party ticket, the last
time Stu went to get a bagel and just couldn’t accept that there was a major cream cheese
shortage reported in the papers.

Lou: Accept it, you got the bagel, but they’re out of cream cheese.
Stu: They always have cream cheese.
Lou: The sign on the door says they ran out of cream cheese. All the news reports said you couldn’t find
cream cheese even if you were in the Fairfax District in LA.
Stu: But I figured they still had cream cheese. What’s a bagel shop without cream cheese?
Lou: I can’t stand it.

You let your guard down, you’re in denial, you don’t want to accept the facts, it
adds up to the same thing: wishful thinking. “But wait” you say. “Your comment about
Charlie Brown. Maybe Charlie’s in love, that’s all. It’s love that keeps him believing the
little red haired girl will notice him. That’s how love works, you know.” Yes, perhaps this
is so. Love and denial. But this is beyond the scope of this book.
How does wishful thinking differ from Denying the Evidence, our next fallacy?
With Denying the Evidence there is evidence presented to rebut an argument, but with
Wishful Thinking, though there may be evidence presented to the contrary, the person
persists to believe something is the case or that something will happen. If I deny evidence
that Smitty held up the liquor store, it’s not that I am wishing that something will happen
or that I’m wishing that he didn’t hold it up, I’m just denying that there is evidence that
he held it up. If I read in the papers that there’s a shortage of cream cheese and none can
be found in the stores and I have a love for cream cheese, my wishful thinking may drive
me to the local bagelry in the hope that it just isn’t so. I’m not denying the evidence in the
same way. I’m hoping that the evidence will prove to be wrong.

7.5 FALLACY OF DENYING THE COUNTEREVIDENCE

31. DENYING THE COUNTEREVIDENCE: When an arguer refuses to acknowledge
evidence presented against his argument or the arguer dramatically minimizes the
significance of the counterevidence.
The scope of this fallacy is wide, ranging from minimizing the evidence presented against
a position to the outright denial that any counterevidence has been presented. When the
arguer minimizes the counterevidence he gives the impression he has considered the
counterevidence by acknowledging it, but he isn’t sincere in his appraisal of the evidence.

Lou: I know you want to buy the car, but it doesn’t have good marks. It has a miserable repair record, it’s
unstable on the road, uncomfortable to sit in, and it’s a deathtrap in an accident. Even the steering wheel is
positioned wrong. You have to hold the steering wheel in an awkward way just to drive the thing. Get real!
Stu: It has had some problems but I don’t think they’re as bad as they claim and they get good gas mileage.
Also, girls like the car. They think it’s a collector car. The Yugo is really cool.
I don’t believe your old bastard theory of evolution....I believe it’s pure jackass nonsense....If a Minster
believes and teaches evolution, he is a skunk, a hypocrite, and a liar. (Billy Sunday, Revival Meeting,
1912).

Merle: Don’t you think we need to raise some taxes, at least on multi millionaires and billionaires? I mean,
they’re so rich, and it’s so easy for them to make more money, they won’t even know they’ve been taxed.
Earle: I don’t think it’s a good idea to raise taxes on anybody. If we cut taxes, we’ll get out of debt

Stu isn’t much interested in examining the evidence Lou offers. He acknowledges
it but he also minimizes it so he can end up with the conclusion he prefers. As for Billy
Sunday, a revivalist preacher from the early 20th century, he’s not about to even consider
the evidence. Sunday is illustrative of how intractable this fallacy can be. The theory of
evolution is as certain as Copernicus’ theory of the celestial bodies circling the sun, or
Newton’s theory of gravitation. But there are still people who resist the evidence. So what
do you do when an arguer denies the counterevidence? It’s a good policy to bring back
the evidence and focus on it as directly and calmly as possible. But even with
overwhelming evidence and an adversary in denial mode you can only do so much. At
this point you don’t have a person to argue with. You have a person in denial.

EXERCISE 6.4 – 6.5.

I. Create two examples of each fallacy of Diversion and Counterevidence.

II. Select the best answer for each multiple choice question.

1.
Disneyland season passes are great investments for people who visit the park multiple
times throughout the year. The price of one season pass is cheaper than buying three
separate single day tickets. The passes are good for a whole year and allow unrestricted
admission to both Disneyland parks in California and Florida. If you're a Disneyland fan
who plans on making multiple visits, then it's a great buy.
a. trivial objections
b. red herring
c. resort to humor
d. no fallacy
e. denying the counterevidence

2.
Lou: I saw it myself. The old guy was in a wheelchair. He tried to stand, but he couldn’t.
Then the minister started yelling, speaking in a strange language I never heard before.
Then the guy in the wheelchair started shaking and everybody in the church began
shaking and sharing Reese’s Butter Cups, and then it happened. The guy in the
wheelchair fell to the ground, rolled around four or five times, the women in the back of
the church started screaming, then everybody in the church started clapping and
screaming and singing, and moving around and then the guy stood up and brushed
himself off. He said he felt like a new man and walked across the stage like he was fifteen
years old. I couldn’t believe what I saw. I think it was a miracle.
Stu: You don’t even know the guy in the wheelchair’s name? Do you have any x rays of
his legs or back, or a medical report that said he was sick or disabled? How long did the
guy claim he had a disability and couldn’t walk? Do you have any copies of medical
records before and after his visit to the church?

Lou: I know medical records might be interesting to see. The guy was like a young man
by the time he left the church. That’s pretty remarkable. I think you should come with me
to the next revival.
a. denying the counterevidence
b. resort to humor
c. red herring
d. no fallacy
e. trivial objections

3.
Lou: I think it’s about time the city had a tax so the school kids can go to the museum
every year. We have a nice museum in town but practically none of the kids ever go to
see what’s there. If everybody in the city chipped in a few bucks every year, every kid
could go to the museum every year for free. I bet that would boost interest in the museum
with the kids as they grow older too. Lots of cities on the east coast do it that way.

Stu: We used to go to the museum all the time when we were kids. But it’s not as easy as
it used to be to get to the museum. You need to have busses and get permission slips
signed for every student. And then there’s the problem of insurance. You need extra
insurance to cover the transpiration. I don’t think it’s a good idea.
a. resort to humor
b. denying the counterevidence
c. red herring
d. no fallacy
e. trivial objections

4. My little pint sized Fluffy? Growled, barked and threatened you? Tore up your
vegetables? Boy, that’s no way to treat a neighbor. I bet I could really learn something
from that feisty little thing about handling telemarketers!
a. trivial objections
b. no fallacy
c. red herring
d. resort to humor
e. denying the counterevidence

5.
Lou: Don’t you think it’s about time that the Israelis and Palestinians stopped shooting at
each other and figured out how to live next door to each other? I think they should lock
themselves in a room and figure out something once and for all. They need to sign some
kind of peace treaty. But I think the Israelis should go first to get the ball rolling because
they’re the stronger party. Don’t you think the Israelis should make the first move?
Stu: Some conflicts are that way. Look at the Irish and the British. Really terrible, I never
thought they would sign a deal to end hostilities. But look at how bad it is in Africa,
especially in Sudan with all the fighting and famine. I think the UN should move on
solving the problems in Sudan right away.
a. trivial objections
b. no fallacy
c. red herring
d. denying the counterevidence
e. resort to humor

6.
Wife: I think we should send her to modeling school. She really wants to do it. She’s
perfect for the part.
Husband: I agree, honey, she’s a strong candidate, but let’s face it. She’s not gonna be
Brooke Shields. I really think she should set her sights on college, maybe a degree in
accounting.
a. straw man
b. denying the counterevidence
c. fallacy of the mean
d. no fallacy
e. perfection or nothing

7. The honorable Senator Elton Jules Galway has proposed that we cut the Defense
budget to pay down the national debt. I appreciate Senator Galway’s concern regarding
our national debt but cutting our national security as he proposes will only encourage
terrorists to be bolder than they are. We can’t pay off the entire national debt this way and
not endanger the security of our nation. I oppose Senator Galway’s proposal.
a. resort to humor
b. straw man
c. fallacy of the mean
d. no fallacy
e. denying the counterevidence

8.
Lou: There were lots of complaints and the newspaper ran a story about how customers
were cheated. Then the state Attorney General sent ten cars to his shop to be repaired and
they found he charged for stuff he didn’t do for every car. Ten cars and ten fraudulent
charges.

Stu: I’ve taken my car to him for six years, and there was never a problem. I don’t see a
problem with the guy.
a. trivial objections
b. no fallacy
c. red herring
d. denying the counterevidence
e. resort to humor

9.
Lou: There isn’t enough room for the elephant to roam or run and there aren’t any
companions for the elephant either. Elephants are social animals. They need a large group
with plenty of distractions like in the wild. They also need an environment where they
can find their own food and not have it shuffled to them through steel bars like their in
prison. They should close the zoo and send the elephants to a reserve where they will be
treated humanely and they can be left alone.

Stu: That’s true. They need more room and more friends. But many animals live longer
lives in zoos than they do in their natural habitats. For example, many birds live on
average three years longer in aviaries than they do in the wild.
a. trivial objections
b. no fallacy
c. red herring
d. straw man
e. resort to humor

10. I like the idea of putting vending machines on trains. But how would the passengers
get coins for them?
a. red herring
b. no fallacy
c. trivial objections
d. denying the counterevidence
e. resort to humor

11. On July 23rd, At 10:00 pm closing time at Woolworth’s at 43rd and Chester Avenue the
staff discovered several missing chocolate bunnies in the candy section. Two eye
witnesses claim that they saw Leon H. Glabosnick running from the Woolworth’s store at
43rd and Chester Avenue at 6:00 pm with a large paper bag under his arm. The bag was
full. Earlier that same evening a video camera inside Woolworth’s taped an individual
that looked like Mr. Glabosnick stuffing large quantities of waxy, fake chocolate Easter
bunnies into a bag and then racing toward the exit. This person was also taped breaking
open two bunny packages, offering one bunny to a patron, and the other he ate on the
premises. It’s not known if the other patron took the bunny or returned it to the suspect.
Woolworth’s security wants to question Mr. Glabosnick about the missing bunnies. They
think there’s a good chance that he’s the individual responsible for the vacant (fake)
chocolate bunny section in the store on the evening of July 23rd.
a. resort to humor
b. denying the counterevidence
c. red herring
d. no fallacy
e. trivial objections
12. I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead. (Paris Hilton on running
for President of the United States)
a. resort to humor
b. wishful thinking
c. straw man
d. no fallacy
e. is-ought

13.
Librarian: Professor, you have twenty five overdues, and most are from last year.
Professor: Me? Twenty five overdue philosophy books? From last year? Well, I guess
we're lucky they're only philosophy books. Ha! Ha! Ha!
Librarian: I’ll have them attach your wages.
a. straw man
b. no fallacy
c. trivial objections
d. wishful thinking
e. resort to humor

14.
Lou: How come a person has to be in the U.S. Senate a zillion years before he can get an
important committee assignment?
Stu: Seniority, kid. You have to be around paying your dues. After you're in about twenty
years, you can get a good assignment.
Lou: But many capable people never get on the important committees.
Stu: That's the way the system is. Works fine to me.
a. resort to humor
b. is-ought
c. red herring
d. no fallacy
e. drawing the line

15.
Librarian: You have an overdue bill for six hundred and sixty dollars. You had some of
the books for over a year and a half and we had dozens of students ask for them.
Professor: Well, aahhh, let me see. Since I returned all the books and they're in good
condition and since I teach the Queen of the Sciences, I thought you might waive the fine.
How about we split the difference. I'll make it three hundred and thirty dollars? I'm
willing to meet you in the middle. Hey, let's be real. They’re just philosophy books.
a. resort to humor
b. denying the counterevidence
c. fallacy of the mean
d. no fallacy
e. trivial objections

16.
Lou: I saw he got a two million dollar bonus and his salary is a million a year and his
benefits are several million a year with include stock options that are rigged so he can’t
lose on the deal not to mention all the free lunches and the car and car insurance and…
Stu: What’s your point?
Lou: It’s too much. The federal minimum wage is $7.25. Corporate executives are ripping
us off. Those salaries are absorbed by the products we buy. We pay their salaries because
they drive up costs.
Stu: These guys are under a lot of pressure and the work is very challenging. Taking away
part of their salaries is pretty bold, don’t you think? So how much of their salaries do you
want to take away?
Lou: I don’t know exactly how much every guy should make.
Stu: If you don’t know how much money is too much money, then maybe you should
leave their money alone.
a. drawing the line
b. denying the counterevidence
c. fallacy of the mean
d. no fallacy
e. perfection or nothing

EXRCISE 6.4
I. Answers will vary.
II.
1. d
2. a
3. e
4. d
5. c
6. e
7. b
8. d
9. a
10. c
11. d
12. b
13. e
14. b
15. c
16. a
DR. PHIL VERSUS CLARENCE VAN PELT (or, Dr. Phil meets his match)

Dr. Phil: You know why we’re here today, don’t you, Clarence?
Clarence: Yes, doctor.
Dr. Phil: Good, I want to thank you for coming this afternoon. I think it’s a good sign that
you want to make progress. Let me begin by asking you why you haven’t taken the
advice of your psychologist, Dr. Shelby? Why have you continued to eat so many churros
even though it’s dangerous to your health and to your marriage? Your wife, Maria, has
divorce papers ready. This session is your last chance at saving your marriage and maybe
your health too.
Clarence: I don’t see a problem here. I should be able to eat what I want. You’re
overweight yourself, a little pudgy around the…
Dr. Phil: I see. But let’s focus on the reason you’re here. Your wife says you go out in the
evening to buy churros like a nicotine addict runs out and buys cigarettes in the rain. It’s
damaging your relationship with your wife.
Clarence: When I was a kid my dad used to buy them at a corner market near our house.
When I got older he taught me how to find different varieties in different places, a little
more spice here, a little more lard there, you just have to know what to look for. My
granddad always had some on a plate at home for visitors, so every time I went to his
house I had a few. It’s sort of in our blood, Dr. Phil. I’m looking forward to showing
Clarence Jr. how it’s done when he gets older.
Dr. Phil: I think you need to ask yourself if you want to save your marriage.
Clarence: I can’t give up all the things I love, Dude. After I give up my churros, what will
you take away from me next? My Ben and Jerry’s? My Abba Zabas? You want to turn
me into a vegetarian, don’t you?
Dr. Phil: Clarence?
Clarence: Yes.
Dr. Phil: Don’t call me dude.
Clarence: I’m sorry Dr. Phil.
Dr. Phil: It’s not a matter of giving up everything you love. It’s a matter of saving your
marriage and your health.
Clarence: I was reading about this kind of thing in National Geographic the other day
while waiting to see my dentist. It said that humans evolved to like high fat foods because
we need to store fat and burn calories while we run around fending off predators, like
lawyers. It’s evolutionary biology, Dr. Phil, it’s natural. We need to have a few sweets
every day. Nothing personal, Dr. Phil, but are you even qualified to be a shrink? Some
people think you don’t even have a...
Dr. Phil: How many churros do you have each day?
Clarence: I have a few. Sort of like eating nuts or berries, you lose count. Then when
you’re full, you stop.
Dr. Phil: You’re not cooperating, Clarence. How many do you eat each day?
Clarence: Maria didn’t tell me this would be an inquisition.
Dr. Phil: How many churros do you eat each day, Clarence?
Clarence: So when did you decide to become the Grand Inquisitor?
Dr. Phil: How many do you eat?

Clarence: People tell me all the time, “Hey Clarence! What’s a Van Pelt doing eating
churros!? You need a sombrero, not a pair of clogs! You’re Dutch! You’re wife’s the
Mexican!”
Dr. Phil: Clarence?
Clarence: Just a little harmless racial humor. I thought you might appreciate…
Dr. Phil: Clarence?
Clarence: One, maybe two. Sometimes a bit more. I don’t keep track.
Dr. Phil: Maria says you have six, maybe eight a day. You need to control yourself.
Clarence: So how many is too many? One a day? Two a day? If I exercise an hour a day,
can I have four or five a day?
Dr. Phil: It’s not that I have a magic number, Clarence. It’s not like that.
Clarence: Well, if you can’t tell me how many are too many then maybe I’m doing just
fine! Listen, Dr. Phil, I didn’t have much when I was a kid. We were dirt poor, not even
money for a pair of clogs. My dad couldn’t hold a job, my mom was always running
around with athletes and my dad sat the bench, if you know what I mean, but I really
looked up to him no matter the poverty and discrimination converting from Dutch
Catholicism to Judaism and living in a Polish neighborhood and my mom running
around…
Dr. Phil: If you eat them in moderation and lose weight your wife won’t divorce you. One
a day, max. Get with the program, Clarence.
Clarence: Maybe if we balance it with a few chicharrones, we can make a deal…
Maria: Clarence!!
Clarence: Yes?
Maria: Don’t go there!!
Clarence: Honest, Dr. Phil, I’ve been working at it, I don’t go to Churros Anonymous
anymore, that’s true, but you can only strike out so often then things have to turn around,
so I’ll try again. If I moderate my behavior just a little, the math is on my side.
Dr. Phil: One a day plus a strict weight regimen that includes exercise and returning to
CA meetings with Maria. No other sweets on days you have one.
Clarence. Six a day, that’s about a twenty percent reduction. The weight thing will take
care of itself because of cutting down.
Dr. Phil: One a day is a good number for a high fat high calorie high lard sugar
cholesterol laden food that clogs arteries just by looking at them.
Clarence: Four a day, that’s about in the middle, a good compromise.
Dr. Phil: You have to be reasonable and come to your senses. There’s a lot at stake here,
Clarence.
Clarence: Doesn’t my happiness mean anything? You want me to be unhappy, don’t you,
you want me to just chuck it all, work out, eat cauliflower and soybeans all day and
become Arnold. Well, I’m not gonna be Arnold, I’m gonna be Clarence. I heard you own
one of those weight loss supplement chugging rehab businesses don’t you? Dr. Phil’s Fat
Farm, come and watch celebrity rehab with Charlie Sheen and Clarence Van Pelt, and
you can make a few bucks off…
Dr. Phil: Maria?
Maria: Yes.
Dr. Phil: I don’t remember the last time I had a root canal. We have to bring out the
Howitzers.
Maria: You don’t mean?
Dr. Phil: Yes. Here’s an unlisted number. It goes to Oprah. Good luck and God bless.
Clarence: Three a day. No exercise. That’s my last offer, Dude, I mean Dr. Phil, still, I’m
open minded and…

CHAPTER 7: THE ESSAY

7.1 OUTLINING ARGUMENTS

Whenever you write an essay to convince someone of something, always remember to
outline your argument first. What is an argument outline? It’s just what the name implies,
it’s an argument in outline form - not every little detail - but an outline of all the
important claims you want to establish in greater detail in your essay. You need to create
an outline of your argument before you write your essay.
“Isn’t it just a waste of time to outline my argument when I can just start writing?
After all, I know what I want to say.” There’s always the temptation to begin writing
without an outline, but there are benefits to outlining your argument first. Outlining your
argument allows you to easily isolate and clarify your thoughts. It also allows you to
develop a logical progression of claims leading to your conclusion. It helps you identify
missing pieces in your argument, like places where you need to offer more evidence, or
assumed premises. Outlining your argument is the first, most important step in getting to
your goal of a completed essay. You wouldn’t drive to an unfamiliar destination without a
map, would you? Then why would you try to write an essay without first creating an
outline - a map - to guide your writing to where you want to go? Let me illustrate it this
way. I just wrote this paragraph you’ve been reading from the following outline:

Temptation to begin writing without an outline but resist it.

Big benefits to outlining your argument first.
Allows you to easily isolate and clarify your thoughts.
Allows you to easily develop a logical progression of claims leading to your conclusion.
Helps you fill in important pieces of evidence or assumed premises.
No outline is like driving without a map
Therefore, outlining your argument is the most important step in getting to your goal of a completed essay.

The argument outline form below is simple, effective and easy to master. I
guarantee it will serve you well. Use it for outlining all your arguments, even those really
short ones. Arguments should be broken up into four distinct categories: Issue,
Definitions, Premises, and Conclusion.

ARGUMENT OUTLINE FORM

ISSUE: Identify the issue of the argument. Summarize it so you can argue either for or
against it.

DEFINITIONS: Identify and clarify important definitions of words or expressions in the

argument so the reader knows exactly what is meant when the terms are used.
Only define terms that are unfamiliar or used in a specialized way. Always put
the defined terms in italics.

PREMISES: Identify the premises of the argument. List the premises, each as a
declarative statement, sentences that are either true or false, in their most logical
order.
 CONCLUSION: Identify the conclusion of the argument and state it in declarative
statement (true or false) form.

Once you have all the premises in order just the way you want them, and you
have your conclusion clearly stated, then you’re ready to write your essay Let’s take
some outlines and essays from some of my students so we can see how they progressed
from outline to essay. I won’t vouch for the subject matter, but I will say they know how
to offer evidence in a logical sequence to support their conclusions.

7.2 FROM OUTLINE TO ESSAY

Here’s Michelle’s argument for ‘vegging out.’

ISSUE: Everyone needs to be a couch potato at one time or another

DEFINITIONS:
Couch Potato means one who sits on the couch and does nothing but eat and watch
television (maybe go the bathroom, but only when absolutely necessary).
Vegging means to lie like a vegetable; be immobile.
Zone out means to stare off into space or at the television, often while thinking about
something unimportant or nothing at all.

PREMISES:
Some people think it is unhealthy to be a couch potato, and this has given them a bad
reputation.
The only things you need to be a couch potato are a TV, a couch, some chips, and a little
time
You can be a couch potato, even if only for an hour. The important thing is to completely
disconnect from reality for the hour.
(inc) Anyone can be a couch potato, even those with fast-paced lives
Almost everyone has stress in their lives that they need to eliminate or reduce.
The TV does not judge an individual, which often makes it a perfect companion
It’s not just important, it’s necessary for a person to relax and unwind from time to time.
Being a couch potato allows one to relax, unwind, and contemplate difficulties one may
be experiencing

CONCLUSION: Therefore, couch potatoes have a bad reputation, but are justified in
their undertakings.

Michelle Black
Critical Thinking
Professor K
 Everyone Needs to be a Couch Potato Once in a While

Have you ever been at work, hustling to complete the never ending number of
tasks that must be done, trying desperately to get to the end of one pile of paperwork,
only to discover you have ten more to go? Or perhaps you have been coerced into
attending a Christmas gala where you are forced to mingle with people you do not care to
know? Maybe you have thought to yourself “Why can’t I just be at home in front of the
television with chips in one hand, and a Twinkie in the other?” Here’s the solution: Do
it!
There is nothing wrong with “vegging out in front of the tube” once in a while.
Couch potatoes are given a bad reputation for being disgusting, lazy slobs, but that isn’t
the case. Everyone can be a couch potato. Even those with high-paying corporate jobs
who can’t live without their cell phones and day planners. The trick is the quality, not the
quantity. You don’t have to spend days in front of the television to qualify as a couch
potato. You must simply utilize the time you have. The key is relaxation.
When a person is lounging on the couch in front of the TV they are completely
comfortable. Diet coke in one hand, chips in the other, the potato can sink into an
environment that asks anything nor does it judge. In fact, it encourages the potato to keep
watching. It does not take much time to “zone out” in front of a program, and let your
mind drift. For many, being a couch potato once in a while is therapeutic. It offers them
some time to think through problems they may be experiencing, but most importantly it
allows them an opportunity to unwind. If everyone took the time to waste on the couch
from time to time, they might soon find themselves being a little more content and a little
happier in their lives.

Michelle first establishes the intermediate conclusion, that everyone can be a

couch potato at some time. She then argues that it is necessary for people to veg-out
every once in a while, that it’s healthy, and that people are justified in doing so.

Now let’s take a look at Dianna’s argument for fruitcake. (Yes, fruitcake).

ISSUE: Should you give fruitcake to your host during the Holidays?

DEFINITIONS:
1. Fruitcake means a much maligned but largely misunderstood American cake typically
made from a small selection of basic ingredients, frequently aged with sufficient
quantities of bourbon, including fruit, the shape and color of which are sometimes
mistaken for radioactive Gummy Bears.
2. Potluck designates a custom where each individual attending a gathering brings a food
to be shared by all the other people attending the gathering. (Believed to have originated
in Southern California on account of its transitory nature and close proximity to fast
food).
 PREMISES:
1. Much maligned, but misunderstood.
2. Making fruitcake is a labor of love.
3. Fruitcake is nutritious.
4. Fruitcake is colorful and festive - positive accent for the holidays.
5. Fruitcake has many uses besides being a food.
a) use as a doorstop.
b) use as a weapon.
c) recyclable – you can give it away as a gift.
d) perfect paperweight (better than a can of Spam).
6. Fruitcake seals the bond among friends and family.
7. Respect for tradition.

Objections 8. Not light and fluffy like a birthday cake and cannot put candles on fruitcake.
9. Some people claim fruitcake tastes like Tums, that only seniors like fruitcake, and
that it must be served with rum raisin ice-cream.
10. U.S. Senate made it a crime to transport fruitcake across state lines.

11. Making delicious fruitcake takes much perseverance and skill.

Reply to 12. When made properly, fruitcake is enjoyed by all ages, with coffee for
Objections adults and vanilla ice cream for kids.
13. President Millard Fillmore, a champion of “American Cake” vetoed the law;
legislators don’t have sophisticated palates.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, fruitcake is the best gift anyone can give during the Holidays.

Dianna Millhouse
Critical Thinking
Professor K

The Virtues of Fruitcake

Fruitcake is the best gift anyone can give during the holidays. For starters,
fruitcake is made out of wholesome ingredients like fruit, wheat, eggs and milk. My
grandma always used whole wheat flour to give it extra nutrition, only honey, never
sugar, and she always added just a pinch of bourbon. (Well, maybe more than a pinch).
Fruitcake is also colorful and festive, which makes it particularly well suited to
holiday parties. Even if you wrap it in a clear wrap, the festive colors show through. It’s
like having a bouquet and a cake at the same time!
And America’s most beloved cake is also an incredibly useful item. For example
you can use the standard brick size fruitcake as a doorstop (it beats McDonalds’ apple
pies hands down), and it can also be used as a weapon when those rampaging
neighborhood carolers come to your door and rudely interrupt your holiday festivities.
Fruitcake works great as a paperweight too.
I once had four of my best friends give me cakes in one holiday season, but I was
still sharing my cakes from the previous three years with my friends. What to do with all
the cakes? I put them under my son Merlin’s bedposts. It raised his bed just high enough
to slide all his toys underneath!
Giving America’s original cake during the holidays shows you have respect for
America’s most treasured traditions. It’s like giving away a piece of American history –
literally. The cake is uniquely American, nothing imported, just Yankee ingenuity. Indeed,
most connoisseurs prefer their cake aged in Jack Daniels. And last, if you have an extra
cake on hand, if all the beds in the house have been raised, you can give your extra cakes
away to your best friends. There is no expiration date. It’s the perfect recyclable gift.
Some people claim that fruitcake tastes like Tums, that only seniors like fruitcake,
and that it has to be served with rum raisin ice cream. I assure you this is just a malicious
rumor propagated by money hungry corporations pushing those frozen, trans-fat laden
cheesecakes, trucked in from New York. Making delicious fruitcake is a skill that takes
much perseverance and skill. Many recipes are handed down for generations. When made
properly, fruitcake is enjoyed by all ages, with coffee for adults, and vanilla ice cream for
kids. Last, I am aware that the U.S. Congress once passed a bill making it a crime to
transport fruitcake across state lines. All I can say to this is that the law was vetoed by
President Harding, that lover of “Our Great American Cake”. And besides, how many
legislators have been known to have refined palates?
Fruit cakes lead to happiness and a general feeling of well-being when presented,
either up on a tray (hacksaws are useful), exposing the bejeweled interior, or presented
attractively wrapped as a gift. Take it from me, Dianna Millhouse. Everyone at the party
will love you if you bring fruitcake.

Notice how Dianna created her argument outline in detail and how the
progression of her essay closely tracks the progression of her outline. She offers her
evidence in a clear, methodical fashion in a logical sequence. Also, Dianna offers
objections that might be raised to her argument. This is a feature Michelle left out of her
essay. When you argue for a position, always bring up the strongest opposing evidence,
present it in its strongest form, and then do your best to refute it. If you leave out
opposing viewpoints, then it appears as if you are unaware of criticisms to your argument
or, worse, it appears that you may be suppressing evidence that you do not want to come
to light (Chapter 5). In either case, this means that your argument is incomplete. Last, as a
general rule it’s best to entertain critical objections to your argument at the end of your
article, but this does not hold true for all cases. Sometimes the flow of the argument is
better suited for considering objections along the way, as you offer each piece of evidence
to support your conclusion.

The next argument is a familiar one about TV. You’ve heard this before, but you
may not have seen it in outline and essay form. SO, here are the thoughts you have
already thought, but as a formal argument.
 Issue: Kill Your TV

Definitions: None needed

Premises:
TV is an omnipresent occupying time and attention
Intrusion – impedes communication
Number of TVs and commercialization
Parents and babysitting and TV addiction
Commercials
a. adults
b. kids and corporate lies
c. kids and consumerism
Programming:
a. Lack of intellectual stimulation.
b. Most programs are silly, even insulting to the intelligence.
c. Many perpetuate destructive stereotypes

Unhealthy eating habits/obesity, no exercise, etc.

Unhealthy lifetime eating habit

objections Work hard, relax for awhile, and entitled to entertainment

and reply to Personal rights, paternalism
objections a. Evidence shows people watch more than they will admit
b. Just a waste of time – not paternalism
Parents monitor their children
a. Kids watch more than parents will admit
b. Kids should be doing other things
Education channels, movie channel, PBS, cooking can be fun and informative
a. Return on programming is small
b. Did other more valuable things before TV

Addictive like gambling. Disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

People found countless ways to relax without TV before it was invented.
Played cards, read, went for walks, visited friends and neighbors, got to know
their neighbors
Walk by houses in the evening and look into the front windows – TV is on
Interferes with family life.

Conclusion: Get rid of it

Leroy Marcuse Castellanos O’Farrell

Professor K
Critical Thinking
 Get Rid of Your TV

It seems that the TV has morphed into an uncontrollable force in many peoples’
lives. In the 80’s and 90’s we had additional channels and cable, and then we had more
and more cable channels, but now we don’t just have TV, we have an “entertainment
unit”. The TV gives us Netflix, streaming, sports, cooking, literally hundreds of channels.
But the attraction and dangers of are not much different from when we had only
three channels to choose from when TV was in its infancy. The TV does more damage
than good, always has, and it’s a wise person who tosses his TV in the trash.
Being anywhere near a tube is like being is like being in the orbit of a strong
gravitational field. The TV has the ability to commandeer attention from anybody in its
vicinity, no matter the age. Children stop talking and begin watching, adults gawk,
seniors check in and check out. It’s like a general anesthesia for family and friends. If two
people are sitting in their living room talking and a TV is turned on, the TV has priority.
If a golf game is on and somebody hits a hole in one, conversation stops and everybody
in the room hangs on every detail - the ball was hit by a man with a stick, and it sailed
250 feet, landed and rolled into the hole, the golfer jumped up and down pumping his
arm, the audience claps - and now we are allowed to continue our interrupted
conversation. The TV either demands your undivided attention or it guarantees you will
not focus your attention on something else that deserves priority.
I’m amazed at the sheer number of TVs in homes, in restaurants, in department
stores, there’s even a TV in my doctor’s office spewing advice on health and the good
life. Between the drug commercials, of course. “…And Here’s Sanjay Gupta! Selling You
DRUGS!” Is it really all about commercials? Pretty much. As long as they can get you to
watch anything long enough, it doesn’t matter how idiotic or embarrassing (K’s crazy
about the woman on What Not to Wear), the commercials are there to sell you stuff you
don’t need, to turn you into consumers, and to turn your kids into consumers.
Parents watch TV when they should be with their kids, and kids watch TV when
they should be with each other learning how to establish friendly, mature relations. Many
parents use the TV as a babysitter. When they should be raising their kids, teaching them
about life, they claim that their kids can learn from the TV. What the kids really get is an
addiction to watch senseless programs and commercials that turn them into voracious
consumers. Starting at an early age, a constant reliance on the TV gets kids thinking they
actually need a TV. Watch TV when you’re a kid. Watch as an adult. It’s accepted.
Anybody entering the house has to accept it as a priority member of the family.
The commercials on TV are especially troublesome, both for adults and children.
Adults assume that much of what they hear on commercials are lies or exaggerations, a
pretty sad state of affairs. It may be the general state of the society we live in, namely,
that advertising is mostly untruthful, but that does not mean we should invite a stream of
lies and exaggeration into our homes. At least adults can differentiate somewhat between
the lies but for kids it’s different. A corporation will say just about anything to make a
dollar, and most kids are too young to sort out the hype and lies. Worse, the commercials
turn kids into unquestioning consumers. They grow up believing they have to buy all
sorts of unnecessary stuff. Commercials create kids with value systems that focus on
fashion, popularity and the obsession to get more money to buy more stuff.
 Let’s face it, practically all programming on TV is intellectually worthless, even
embarrassing. Silly sitcoms, reality TV, talk shows, crime programs and soap operas
made to look like hospital/medical stories are endlessly recycled and appeal to the lowest
common denominator. The TV also perpetuates stereotypes. Racial, economic, ethnic
stereotypes abound on the TV, especially with sitcoms. The fact that there are a few
things of value to watch doesn’t justify the TVs’ omnipresence in the house. If you went
to the movies and had as low a rate of return you would stop going to the movies, if you
had a class in college and had as low a rate of return you would drop the class (if you
could to graduate), if you found food for dinner at the market as frequently as you find a
good program on TV you would stop going to that market. So why do people keep the
TV?
What do you do when you watch TV? You eat. We all know how easy it is to eat
while watching TV. Has TV contributed to obesity in the U.S? This seems to be a
reasonable assumption. Sitting in front of the tube leads to eating, and sitting means no
exercise, and no exercise means adding weight, and adding weight means Obamacare.
It’s not only how much you eat in front of the TV, it’s what you eat. Most TV addicts
don’t feast on alfalfa sprouts. The sedentary life is not a healthy life. Biologically and
physiologically we were made to be ambulatory, to burn calories, to bend, stretch, walk.
That’s why people who have desk jobs have such a difficult time maintaining their health.
But many people really have two desk jobs. There is work, and there is TV. Check in with
your typical TV watcher on intervals of a year for ten years and what do you see? The
same behavior, more hours of TV, and more eating.
There are many defenders of TV. People claim that they work hard all day and
they’re entitled to a few minutes of the tube when they get home. Watching TV is
relaxing. The boss is an abusive ignoramus, a beer and a few programs after work isn’t
much to ask for. Nobody said the TV is as informative as the Encyclopedia Britannica,
but it sure relieves the stress from a hard day earning the bacon. Are the programs
worthwhile? Most don’t offer a lot, but that’s not the point, K, so stuff it!*. If you need to
relax and the TV does the trick, then go for it. We do plenty of things that aren’t
educational that bring us happiness, we go to baseball games, we go to movies, we go to
the lake or the ocean, we stroll through the mall. It’s called recreation. Isn’t that what life
is about? If I want to watch What Not to Wear, is it really your business? Defenders of
TV claim that critics are just being paternalistic. “Get out of my house!” they say.
To this I say that the evidence is in watching how much people watch. It’s not a
program or two, it’s usually several, and it’s a habit, a numbing sedative. There is more
watching and wasting time than most people will admit. Also, there are many other ways
to relax, taking a walk, visiting your neighbor, reading, doing new things with the kids –
all the stuff people did before the TV took up residence.
Many people claim they don’t let their kids watch programs that are not
worthwhile. But again, the proof is in the watching. The more families you check, the
more you find kids in front of the tube. They miss homework, they miss reading books,
visiting friends, physical exercise. Kids don’t belong sitting in front of a tube, they
belong outside playing, engaging with friends, making music and working with their
hobbies.
Last, many people claim there is quality programming on TV if look for it. If you
are interested in sports, it’s there, cooking, you got it, news, ditto, it’s all there. The
number of channels is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing. You can watch Anderson Cooper
flex in t-shirts he buys from the Children’s Department at Macy’s, you can watch Erin
Burnett (K’s favorite) bat her eyelashes and be absolutely amazed at every news item she
reads, or you can watch the guys and gals at PBS drone on and on and on and on….You
still get the news either way, so what’s the problem, K?** There is drama on HBO (as
good as it gets) and there is Netflix to get all sorts of great TV and movie viewing. And
don’t forget the Hitler Channel – excuse me, the History Channel. Better than many
history teachers!
While there are some programs on TV that are worthwhile, the return is small and
the downside is huge. Indeed, this is the essential point. The return is practically zero, and
the addiction is … forever and it is pervasive. Just take a walk at night in your
neighborhood and glance into the windows of the houses you pass. How many TVs are
on? Think about it, what did these people do before the TV invaded their homes? Was it
better before or was it worse? Did they bake in the kitchen, visit or call a friend, occupy
themselves with hobbies, read a newspaper or novel, exercise, play a board game or
cards…
The TV is the perfect thief. It steals the valuable things in life and leaves
something you imagine is better, but you are really much worse off than before. Get rid of
it and get your life back.

* Please avoid personal attacks if at all possible.

** Please avoid personal attacks if at all possible.

Our last argument is an extended argument that’s much more serious. It’s an
argument for organ sales, but a more radical version usually encountered. We begin with
the argument outline, then the argument.
 ISSUE: The government should allow an individual to sacrifice his life to sell his organs
for the benefit of loved ones.

DEFINITIONS: Assisted suicide means to willingly end one’s own life with full
understanding and knowledge of the consequences of his or her actions.

PREMISES:
To be in control of one’s own life is the most sacred right a person can possess.
No government should have the right to prevent a person from doing with his life what he
chooses, as long as he does not harm others.
There are people who wish to help loved ones but do not have the means to do so.
We are taught to admire people who give their lives for others in emergency situations
and in war, or who enter life threatening occupations for the benefit of others.
Giving your life for loved ones is the greatest act of love one can offer.
To better the lives of loved ones is for some the greatest happiness they can imagine,

whether they are dead or alive.

Multiple organ sales would fetch a considerable amount of money to help pay education,
medical, and other important expenses for loved ones.
In addition to benefiting the lives of loved ones the transplanted organs would give sight
and save the lives of several people who might otherwise die.
Organized organ giving maximizes the transplant success rate.
Thorough medical exams and psychiatric exams would clear only physically and
psychologically fit individuals.
Government would regulate and insurance companies would make payments to
medical personnel and beneficiaries.
(IC) Since there would be government control it would deter the black market.

Objections Allowing a person to kill himself for the gain of others cheapens life and turns life into a
commodity.
Doctors take an oath to not harm. Participating in such a practice would
be committing murder.
People would be coerced into killing themselves to pay debts and for other reasons that
have nothing to do with providing for loved ones.

Giving you life for loved ones is not cheapening life.

Reply to Physicians would not be murderers. They would be participating in assisted suicide.
Objections A government agency would thoroughly screen each person who wishes to die to insure

they are of sound mind and that the money would be well spent.
We should be increasing options of people who find themselves in unfortunate
circumstances, not limiting them.
Even if the healthy are the ones who choose to die.

CONCLUSION: Assisted suicide should be allowed for the sale of organs if it is the will
of the donor and benefits the lives of the donor’s loved ones.

Barry Limelighter
Critical Thinking
Professor K

Each year 40,000 individuals in need of organ transplants die in the U. S. while
waiting for an organ. Many who are lucky to get a transplant see their health dangerously
deteriorate while waiting for an organ. The long wait often compromises the recovery of
the recipient and can negatively affect the long term quality and survival of the recipient
as well. For over four decades efforts to encourage individuals to donate their organs
have met with minimal success. Periodically there have been proposals to allow the
regulated selling of organs, mostly kidneys, but these proposals have met with resistance
too. With the need for organs steadily growing and with transplantation surgery becoming
commonplace, there is a need to face the organ availability issue with renewed conviction
and creativity. We need to create a bold new policy that will satisfy both organ
availability and pressing issues faced by individuals who want to provide for loved ones
but who are without means. What I am proposing is that individuals be allowed to legally
sell their organs, all organs that can be healthily transplanted, for a sum of money in
exchange for his or her life. Such a transaction – or sacrifice if you will - would give life
and sight to many, and it would give sustenance to loved ones who would otherwise go
without.
To be in control of one’s own life is the most sacred right a person can possess.
Allowing a person to give his life for loved ones by donating (selling) his organs would
acknowledge that we respect that right. Every individual should be entitled to do
whatever he chooses with his life, as long as he does not injure another. This freedom is
fundamental to meeting obligations to loved ones and, just as important, in meeting
obligations one has to oneself. If a person chooses to give up his life to help loved ones
with their education, to secure safe housing, to secure food or even to pay medical bills,
we should not deter him from achieving these ends that mean most to him. It is not our
business to interfere with his wishes, to deter him from his dreams. We are taught to
admire people who give their lives for family members, people who risk their lives
during war and who give their lives to rescue strangers in emergency situations. This
proposal is not much different.
When people donate organs, the insurance companies, physicians, health care
workers and the organ recipients are all rewarded for the generosity of the donor, either
by receiving money or the organ, but the donor receives nothing. This form of organ
donation would insure that the donor making the sacrifice would be rewarded for his
generosity.
Planned organ giving has many practical advantages that would mean much for
organ recipients, the donor, and the donor’s recipients. Currently we rely mostly on
cadaver organs for transplants. The organs are often compromised both by the illness of
the donors and the delay in preserving and rushing them to surgery for transplantation.
Scheduling multiple transplant surgeries ahead of time in several operating rooms allows
for optimum transplant conditions, increasing the quality of life for recipients and
increasing life spans. In addition the number of organs transplanted would greatly
increase, all but eliminating the need for recipients to wait for organs. A single donor
could contribute as many as six or eight organs. Waiting lists for surgeries would shrink;
many lives would be saved and the wishes of the donor would be respected.
The program would be approved and regulated by the government and insurance
companies. Payments would be coordinated through the government and insurance
companies at set prices, there would be no possibility for a black market in organs, nor
would there be a possibility for people to bargain for organs by offering higher sums of
money. There is no evidence that a black market in organs currently exists in the U.S. The
problem of the black market in organs exists in third world countries where hospitals and
doctors can perform operations without government or law enforcement interfering. In
short, there has never been a black market in organs in the U.S., and this proposal would
not allow one either. The mistaken assumption on black market activity in organs in the
U.S. is largely due to people not appreciating how difficult it is do a transplant operation
out of view of authorities. In India, this is possible, but in the U.S. where hospitals,
surgeons, hospital workers, insurance companies and the government are all involved,
this is not possible.
Some people will no doubt object to this proposal claiming that such donations
would cheapen life and treat it like a commodity. But the sacrifice I speak of is not much
different from many other types of sacrifices individuals make on a daily basis. Taking a
risky job or a job with limited life expectancy, fighting in war, individuals often give their
lives in times of emergency for loved ones, people even give their lives for people they
do not know. They make the ultimate sacrifice because they feel it is the right thing to do.
The reward they receive is the knowledge that their actions are acknowledged and
appreciated, and they rest confidently that their actions make a difference. Being pro
active for family and loved ones by selling your organs is to be admired, not criticized.
Sacrificing yourself as a donor for a just cause is an act of courage and love.
Others will object that physicians take an oath not to harm their patients and that
taking an active role in killing an individual for the sale of his organs would be murder.
This is not the case. Assisting in such operations would be assisted suicide, an act that is
calculated to give life at the request of the donor. These critics lose sight of the fact that
the donor is in full control of his actions. Physicians would only be assisting in order to
mitigate suffering and give life, not to take life against the will of another.
Last, people often claim that donors would be coerced into giving up their lives
for reasons such as gambling or other debts that could be addressed in ways that would
not require the taking of life. But this only means that we must regulate against abuses in
the donation process, not that the practice should be banned altogether. Nobody should be
pressured to give his life; this would be repugnant and criminal, but conversely nobody
should be prevented from giving his life for the benefit of his loved ones if this is what he
chooses. Precautions could be set into place by professionals to screen out the infirm of
mind and situations where family or friends may take advantage of another person.
Careful psychological screening will be available. Additionally, social services could be
put into place that would oversee the administration of the funds to insure the funds are
dispersed according to the wishes of the donor and not wasted.
People who choose to end their lives in this fashion will be people who admittedly
have few options. But restricted options are just a form of misfortune humanity is filled
with, no matter the time or place in history. We cannot change unfortunate circumstances
for everybody, but we can help them by not restricting their options even further. True, it
will be the healthy who give their lives in this program; an unhealthy donor is a
contradiction in terms. But this is just another of the unfortunate consequences of
respecting each individuals’ personal rights. Social policy should encourage freedom and
increase options, not restrict them, even if it means the healthy might choose to die. By
denying the option of donation we aggravate the circumstances of potential donors
instead of assisting in finding a solution. Such a donation is a private matter between the
donor and his loved ones. It is presumptuous for the state to impose its morality in the
sphere of family and friends where people look for options that would not negatively
affect the social fabric.
It is time we established a well regulated system of voluntary euthanasia to
facilitate payments to loved ones on behalf of donors who wish to donate their organs.

Limelighter begins by establishing his case with death statistics, he proceeds to

offer additional evidence that organs are in need, he offers additional evidence supporting
his case from the perspective of the donor, he considers objections to his case, he answers
the objections, then he wind up his argument. A strong argument? I’ll let you decide. The
structure of his argument, how he presents his evidence and rebuttals, however, is fine.

EXERCISE 7.2
Create three short argument outlines and their arguments. They should only be between
four to eight sentences. Write each one as if you were writing a letter to the editor at a
newspaper or posting it on a website.

7.3 IRRELEVANT CLAIMS AND COMMENTS

Keep your attention focused on the argument and don’t get distracted with irrelevant
claims that don’t support your conclusion. Let’s take a look a Clarence and his “churro
problem”. I have slipped in an irrelevant claim as a premise.

Clarence has eaten at least 4churros each day for the past year.
Each churro has approximately 320 calories and 12 grams of saturated fat.
Clarence has shown no inclination to cut back on eating churros.
Clarence is still eating three square meals day, just like always.
Clarence has promised he will attend meetings at Churros Anonymous very soon.
Clarence does not exercise.
Therefore, it’s likely Clarence has put on weight this past year.

Though we’re glad Clarence has promised to attend meetings at Churros

Anonymous, premise five is irrelevant to establishing the strength of the conclusion.
Remember, the argument is trying to convince you that it’s likely that Clarence put on
weight this past year. The fact that he will be seeking help in the future does not support
the conclusion that he put on weight in the past.

Here’s another argument with two irrelevant premises. First we have the outline,
then the essay.

SpongeBob SquarePants is a sponge cartoon character who lives in a pineapple in Bikini Beach, at the
bottom of the sea.
SpongeBob works at the Krusty Krab where he cooks Krabby Patties.
Almost every day you can spot SpongeBob at ‘The Corner Pocket’, the local billiards hall, not far from the
Krusty Krab.
Last Tuesday, on his day off, I saw him at the hall receiving nice chunks of bills from three other sponges.
The sponges were all leaning on their pool cues, and they didn’t look too happy.
Then SpongeBob took his pool cue and placed it in a custom jeweled leather carrying case, bearing the
initials ‘SB’, and left the hall after the other sponges.
Therefore, SpongeBob is probably working the hall as a shark after work and on his days off.

SpongeBob SquarePants is a sponge cartoon character who lives in a pineapple in Bikini Beach,
at the bottom of the sea. He works at a diner called the Krusty Krab where he cooks Krabby Patties. Almost
every day you can spot SpongeBob at ‘The Corner Pocket’, the local billiards hall, not far from the Krusty
Krab.
Last Tuesday, on his day off, I saw him at the hall receiving nice chunks of bills from three other
sponges. The sponges were all leaning on their pool cues, and they didn’t look too happy. Then SpongeBob
took his pool cue and placed it in a custom jeweled leather carrying case, bearing etched gold initials
reading ‘SB’, and left the hall.
I think SpongeBob may be working the hall as a shark after work and on his days off.

The first two premises are claims and they are fine for background material to
explain who it is we’re speaking about. This adds context which can help clarify meaning
with the claims that bear the burden of supporting the conclusion. But the claims
themselves do not support the conclusion that SpongeBob is a shark (at billiards, that is).
So when assessing the strength of the argument, the conclusion relies only on the
remaining 4 premises.

EXERCISE 7.3
1. Create an argument with at least five premises, but like the SpongeBob example above,
make one of the premises related in subject matter, but irrelevant in supporting the
conclusion. Put the irrelevant premise in italics.

7.4 USING EXAMPLES

What would this book be like without examples? Maddening, that’s what. Why? Because
you would not have any situations you can relate to when I explain a new concept.
Examples bridge the gap between theory and practice. They apply the theory. Examples
of everyday situations, believable situations, make an argument relevant and
understandable. If you can’t think of a realistic, believable example to illustrate your
point, the idea you are conveying may not be clear enough or well thought out. Creating
scenarios or stories are important tools in testing your argument. Got an argument? Then
“Tell me a story”.
Here’s a scene that’s been played out thousands of times. Mom has the right
example.

Mom: Marvin, you can get hurt really bad if you keep skateboarding without a helmet.
Marvin: Don’t worry mom, I know what I’m doing, I can do a 900 double Ollie Backswitch double axel
Canseco better than anyone at school. Everyone else is a klutz next to me, real hackers.
Mom: Hospital emergency wards see skateboarding kids with broken bones all the time. No pads, no
helmet equals no brains.
Marvin: Relax, I have it under control. Besides, all that “protection” throws off my timing.
Mom: Broken and bruised bodies, triage nurses, hematomas on the thighs and butt, dislocated shoulders,
torn ligaments and cartridge, and brain damage.
Marvin: Quit worrying. I’ve got it under control. Leave me alone.
Mom: Wasn’t Mr. Hawk wearing a helmet on TV at that charity event we watched?
Marvin: I’ll stop off at the board shop from school.

Practical arguments call for realistic, practical examples. “Getting hurt” may not
be enough to convince Marvin. Examples of how you might get hurt may be more
successful, and if that doesn’t work, maybe an example of a better skateboarder taking
precautions will do the convincing. Be sure to employ examples that are relevant to the
subject being argued.
If you are presented with an argument that seems too abstract or theoretical, ask
for an example to illustrate what is meant. For example, if you hear an argument for “life
after death”, you might ask for an example of what “life after death” is like. After all, it
will be you living it. So, examples please: Will I have a body in my life after death? If I
won't have a body, how will I be able to think about anything without my brain? Will I
have thoughts but I won’t have a brain? Will there be things like ice-cream and baseball
in the afterlife? Will there be SpongeBob? Will there be sleep in life after death?
Here’s one last example (if you will). It’s an announcer on a comedy website
speaking about Senator John McCain’s age. He gives examples to illustrate how old
“celebrity” McCain is. “…the oldest celebrity in the world, like super-old; old enough to
remember when dancing was a sin and beer was served in a bucket".

EXERCISE 7.4

7.5 FIVE FAILSAFE RULES FOR OUTLING ARGUMENTS

There are times when you need to outline arguments in newspapers, periodicals, research
papers, even memos at work. You do this so you can get a handle on what is being
argued, what exactly it is that the author is trying to convince you of. You want to be sure
you know what the evidence is that supports the conclusion. Outlining the other guys’
argument can make studying his argument much easier. Once you see the claims in
logical order and the conclusion they support clearly stated, then you’re in the clear. You
no longer have to wander through the essay, back and forth, searching or claims,
evaluating her, evaluating there. Here’s the best method I have in my toolbox for
breaking down the other guys’ argument. I guarantee it will serve you well.
1. Isolate the main conclusion of the argument. What is the writer arguing for? This tells
you where the argument is headed. You now know that the purpose of all the evidence in
the essay is to support this claim.
2. Use highlighters or underline all the claims in the argument. Write them down on a
separate sheet of paper with the conclusion at the bottom.
3. Number the claims placing them in their most logical order, establishing any
intermediate conclusions (inc) as the author intended.
4. Delete all irrelevant claims and comments. If a claim is irrelevant and does not support
the conclusion, delete it.
5. Examine the progression of the premises, moving from one claim to another, searching
for major assumed premises. Is the author assuming anything important? If so, insert the
assumptions where they logically fit best within the sequence of premises. Designate all
assumed premises with an ‘(ap).’

EXERCISE 7.4

7.5 EVALUATING ARGUMENTS – PLOT THEN EVALUIATE

Never evaluate specific claims of an essay until you have listed all the claims of the
argument in their most logical sequence with the conclusion at the bottom. Once you
know what the conclusion is and what the evidence is, then you can examine each claim
to assess its strength. A fair evaluation of an argument first assumes that it has been
understood. Objectivity and accuracy is all about proper set up. Plot the argument, and
then evaluate it. Evaluate the argument as if you work in a lab with no personal interest in
how strong or weak the argument turns out. Think of yourself as an analyst. Your tools
are critical thinking tools.

EXERCISE 7.5
I. None