1 Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic b.docx

1
Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?
by Rebecca Jones
The word argument often means something negative. In Nina
Paley’s cartoon (see Figure
1), the argument is literally a cat fight. Rather than envisioning
argument as something
productive and useful, we imagine intractable sides and use
descriptors such as “bad,”
“heated,” and “violent.” We rarely say, “Great, argument.
Thanks!” Even when we write
an academic “argument paper,” we imagine our own ideas
battling others.
Figure 1. This cartoon demonstrates the absurdity of either/or
arguments. (© 1997-1998
by Nina Paley. Image available under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike
license.)
Linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson explain that the
controlling metaphor we use
for argument in western culture is war:
It is important to see that we don’t just talk about arguments in
terms of
war. We actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we
are arguing

with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our
own. We
gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a
position
indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack.
Many of the
things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept
of war. (4)
If we follow the war metaphor along its path, we come across
other notions such as, “all’s
fair in love and war.” If all’s fair, then the rules, principles, or
ethics of an argument are
up for grabs. While many warrior metaphors are about honor,
the “all’s fair” idea can
lead us to arguments that result in propaganda, spin, and, dirty
politics. The war metaphor
offers many limiting assumptions: there are only two sides,
someone must win decisively,
and compromise means losing. The metaphor also creates a false
opposition where
argument (war) is action and its opposite is peace or inaction.
Finding better arguments is
not about finding peace—the opposite of antagonism. Quite
frankly, getting mad can be
productive. Ardent peace advocates, such as Jane Addams,
Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin
Luther King, Jr., offer some of the most compelling arguments
of our time through
2
concepts like civil disobedience that are hardly inactive. While
“argument is war” may be

the default mode for Americans, it is not the only way to argue.
Lakoff and Johnson ask
their readers to imagine something like “argument is dance”
rather than “argument is
war” (5). While we can imagine many alternatives to the war
metaphor, concepts like
argument as collaboration are more common even if they are not
commonly used.
Argument as collaboration would be more closely linked to
words such as dialogue and
deliberation, cornerstone concepts in the history of American
democracy.
However, argument as collaboration is not the prevailing
metaphor for public
argumentation we see/hear in the mainstream media. One can
hardly fault the average
American for not being able to imagine argument beyond the
war metaphor. Think back
to the coverage of a recent major election cycle in 2008. The
opponents on either side
(democrat/republican) dug in their heels and defended every
position, even if it was
unpopular or irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The
political landscape divided into
two sides with no alternatives. In addition to the entrenched
positions, blogs and websites
such as FactCheck.org flooded us with lists of inaccuracies,
missteps, and plain old
fallacies that riddled the debates. Unfortunately, the “debates”
were more like speeches
given to a camera than actual arguments deliberated before the
public. These important
moments that fail to offer good models lower the standards for
public argumentation.

On an average news day, there are entire websites and blogs
dedicated to noting ethical,
factual, and legal problems with public arguments, especially on
the news and radio talk
shows. This is not to say that all public arguments set out to
mislead their audiences, but
rather that the discussions they offer masquerading as
arguments are often merely
opinions or a spin on a particular topic and not carefully
considered, quality arguments.
What is often missing from these discussions is research,
consideration of multiple
vantage points, and, quite often, basic logic.
On news shows, we encounter a version of argument that seems
more like a circus than a
public discussion. Programs split the screens while pundits
attack each other from studios
spread throughout the country.
While all of the major networks use this visual format, with
multiple speakers in multiple
windows like The Brady Bunch for the news, it is rarely used to
promote ethical
deliberation. These talking heads offer a simulation of an
argument. The different
windows and figures pictured in them are meant to represent
different views on a topic,
often “liberal” and “conservative.” This is a good start because
it sets up the possibility
for thinking through serious issues in need of solutions.
Unfortunately, the people in the
windows rarely actually engage in an argument. As we will
discuss below, one of the
rules of good argument is that participants in an argument agree
on the primary

standpoint and that individuals are willing to concede if a point
of view is proven wrong.
If you watch one of these “arguments,” you will see a spectacle
where prepared speeches
are hurled across the long distances that separate the
participants. Rarely do the talking
heads respond to the actual ideas/arguments given by the person
pictured in the box next
to them on the screen unless it is to contradict one statement
with another of their own.
3
Even more troubling is the fact that participants do not even
seem to agree about the point
of disagreement. For example, one person might be arguing
about the congressional vote
on health care while another is discussing the problems with
Medicaid. While these are
related, they are different issues with different premises. This is
not a good model for
argumentation despite being the predominant model that we
encounter.
These shallow public models can influence argumentation in the
classroom. One of the
ways we learn about argument is to think in terms of pro and
con arguments. This
replicates the liberal/conservative dynamic we often see in the
papers or on television (as
if there are only two sides to health care, the economy, war, or
the deficit). This either/or
fallacy of public argument is debilitating. You are either for or
against gun control, for or

against abortion, for or against the environment, for or against
everything. Put this way,
the absurdity is more obvious. For example, we assume that
someone who claims to be
an “environmentalist” is pro every part of the green movement.
However, it is quite
possible to develop an environmentally sensitive argument that
argues against a particular
recycling program. While many pro and con arguments are
valid, they can erase nuance,
negate the local and particular, and shut down the very purpose
of having an argument:
the possibility that you might change your mind, learn
something new, or solve a
problem. This limited view of argument makes argumentation a
shallow process. When
all angles are not explored or fallacious or incorrect reasoning
is used, we are left with
ethically suspect public discussions that cannot possibly get at
the roots of an issue or
work toward solutions.
Rather than an either/or proposition, argument is multiple and
complex. An argument can
be logical, rational, emotional, fruitful, useful, and even
enjoyable. As a matter of fact,
the idea that argument is necessary (and therefore not always
about war or even about
winning) is an important notion in a culture that values
democracy and equity. In
America, where nearly everyone you encounter has a different
background and/or
political or social view, skill in arguing seems to be paramount,
whether you are
inventing an argument or recognizing a good one when you see
it.

The remainder of this essay takes up this challenge—inventing
and recognizing good
arguments (and bad ones). From classical rhetoric, to Toulmin’s
model, to contemporary
pragma-dialectics, this piece presents models of argumentation
beyond pro and con.
Paying more attention to the details of an argument can offer a
strategy for developing
sound, ethically aware arguments.
What Can We Learn from Models of Argumentation?
So far, I have listed some obstacles to good argument. I would
like to discuss one other.
Let’s call it the mystery factor. Many times I read an argument
and it seems great on the
surface, but I get a strange feeling that something is a bit off.
Before studying
argumentation, I did not have the vocabulary to name that
strange feeling. Additionally,
when an argument is solid, fair, and balanced, I could never
quite put my finger on what
distinguished it from other similar arguments. The models for
argumentation below give
4
us guidance in revealing the mystery factor and naming the
qualities of a logical, ethical
argument.
Classical Rhetoric

In James Murphy’s translation of Quintilian’s Institutio
Oratoria, he explains that
“Education for Quintilian begins in the cradle, and ends only
when life itself ends” (xxi).
The result of a life of learning, for Quintilian, is a perfect
speech where “the student is
given a statement of a problem and asked to prepare an
appropriate speech giving his
solution” (Murphy xxiii). In this version of the world, a good
citizen is always a public
participant. This forces the good citizen to know the rigors of
public argumentation:
“Rhetoric, or the theory of effective communication, is for
Quintilian merely the tool of
the broadly educated citizen who is capable of analysis,
reflection, and powerful action in
public affairs” (Murphy xxvii). For Quintilian, learning to argue
in public is a lifelong
affair. He believed that the “perfect orator…cannot exist unless
he is above all a good
man” (6). Whether we agree with this or not, the hope for
ethical behavior has been a part
of public argumentation from the beginning.
The ancient model of rhetoric (or public argumentation) is
complex. As a matter of fact,
there is no single model of ancient argumentation. Plato claimed
that the Sophists, such
as Gorgias, were spin doctors weaving opinion and untruth for
the delight of an audience
and to the detriment of their moral fiber. For Plato, at least in
the Phaedrus, public
conversation was only useful if one applied it to the search for
truth. In the last decade,
the work of the Sophists has been redeemed. Rather than spin
doctors, Sophists like

Isocrates and even Gorgias, to some degree, are viewed as
arbiters of democracy because
they believed that many people, and not just male, property-
holding, Athenian citizens,
could learn to use rhetoric effectively in public.
Aristotle gives us a slightly more systematic approach. He is
very concerned with logic.
For this reason, much of what I discuss below comes from his
work. Aristotle explains
that most men participate in public argument in some fashion. It
is important to note that
by “men,” Aristotle means citizens of Athens: adult males with
the right to vote, not
including women, foreigners, or slaves. Essentially this is a
homogenous group by race,
gender, and religious affiliation. We have to keep this in mind
when adapting these
strategies to our current heterogeneous culture.
Aristotle explains:
…for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements
and to
maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others.
Ordinary people
do this either at random or through practice and from acquired
habit. Both
ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled
systematically, for
it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed
through
practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once
agree that

5
such an inquiry is the function of an art. (Honeycutt,
“Aristotle’s
Rhetoric” 1354a I i)
For Aristotle, inquiry into this field was artistic in nature. It
required both skill and
practice (some needed more of one than the other). Important
here is the notion that
public argument can be systematically learned.
Aristotle did not dwell on the ethics of an argument in Rhetoric
(he leaves this to other
texts). He argued that “things that are true and things that are
just have a natural tendency
to prevail over their opposites” and finally that “…things that
are true and things that are
better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove
and easier to believe in”
(Honeycutt, “Aristotle’s Rhetoric” 1355a I i). As a culture, we
are skeptical of this kind
of position, though I think that we do often believe it on a
personal level. Aristotle admits
in the next line that there are people who will use their skills at
rhetoric for harm. As his
job in this section is to defend the use of rhetoric itself, he
claims that everything good
can be used for harm, so rhetoric is no different from other
fields. If this is true, there is
even more need to educate the citizenry so that they will not be
fooled by unethical and
untruthful arguments.
For many, logic simply means reasoning. To understand a

person’s logic, we try to find
the structure of their reasoning. Logic is not synonymous with
fact or truth, though facts
are part of evidence in logical argumentation. You can be
logical without being truthful.
This is why more logic is not the only answer to better public
argument.
Our human brains are compelled to categorize the world as a
survival mechanism. This
survival mechanism allows for quicker thought. Two of the most
basic logical strategies
include inductive and deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning
starts from a premise
that is a generalization about a large class of ideas, people, etc.
and moves to a specific
conclusion about a smaller category of ideas or things (All cats
hate water; therefore, my
neighbor’s cat will not jump in our pool). While the first
premise is the most general, the
second premise is a more particular observation. So the
argument is created through
common beliefs/observations that are compared to create an
argument. Here is an
example:
People who burn flags are unpatriotic. Major Premise
Sara burned a flag. Minor Premise
Sara is unpatriotic. Conclusion
The above is called a syllogism. As we can see in the example,
the major premise offers a
general belief held by some groups and the minor premise is a
particular observation. The

conclusion is drawn by comparing the premises and developing
a conclusion. If you work
hard enough, you can often take a complex argument and boil it
down to a syllogism.
This can reveal a great deal about the argument that is not
apparent in the longer more
complex version.
6
Stanley Fish, professor and New York Times columnist, offers
the following syllogism in
his July 22, 2007, blog entry titled “Democracy and Education”:
“The syllogism underlying these comments is (1) America is a
democracy
(2) Schools and universities are situated within that democracy
(3)
Therefore schools and universities should be ordered and
administrated
according to democratic principles.”
Fish offered the syllogism as a way to summarize the responses
to his argument that
students do not, in fact, have the right to free speech in a
university classroom. The
responses to Fish’s standpoint were vehemently opposed to his
understanding of free
speech rights and democracy. The responses are varied and
complex. However, boiling
them down to a single syllogism helps to summarize the primary
rebuttal so that Fish
could then offer his extended version of his standpoint.

Inductive reasoning moves in a different direction than
deductive reasoning. Inductive
reasoning starts with a particular or local statement and moves
to a more general
conclusion. I think of inductive reasoning as a stacking of
evidence. The more particular
examples you give, the more it seems that your conclusion is
correct. Inductive reasoning
is a common method for arguing, especially when the
conclusion is an obvious
probability. Inductive reasoning is the most common way that
we move around in the
world. If we experience something habitually, we reason that it
will happen again. For
example, if we walk down a city street and every person smiles,
we might reason that this
is a “nice town.” This seems logical. We have taken many
similar, particular experiences
(smiles) and used them to make a general conclusion (the people
in the town are nice).
Most of the time, this reasoning works. However, we know that
it can also lead us in the
wrong direction. Perhaps the people were smiling because we
were wearing inappropriate
clothing (country togs in a metropolitan city), or perhaps only
the people living on that
particular street are “nice” and the rest of the town is
unfriendly. Research papers
sometimes rely too heavily on this logical method. Writers
assume that finding ten
versions of the same argument somehow prove that the point is
true.
Here is another example. In Ann Coulter’s most recent book,
Guilty: Liberal “Victims”
and Their Assault on America, she makes her (in)famous

argument that single
motherhood is the cause of many of America’s ills. She creates
this argument through a
piling of evidence. She lists statistics by sociologists, she lists
all the single moms who
killed their children, she lists stories of single mothers who say
outrageous things about
their life, children, or marriage in general, and she ends with a
list of celebrity single
moms that most would agree are not good examples of
motherhood. Through this list, she
concludes, “Look at almost any societal problem and you will
find it is really a problem
of single mothers” (36). While she could argue, from this
evidence, that being a single
mother is difficult, the generalization that single motherhood is
the root of social ills in
America takes the inductive reasoning too far. Despite this
example, we need inductive
reasoning because it is the key to analytical thought. To write
an “analysis paper” is to
use inductive reasoning.
7
Most academic arguments in the humanities are inductive to
some degree. When you
study humanity, nothing is certain. When observing or making
inductive arguments, it is
important to get your evidence from many different areas, to
judge it carefully, and
acknowledge the flaws. Inductive arguments must be judged by
the quality of the
evidence since the conclusions are drawn directly from a body

of compiled work.
The Appeals
“The appeals” offer a lesson in rhetoric that sticks with you
long after the class has
ended. Perhaps it is the rhythmic quality of the words (ethos,
logos, pathos) or, simply,
the usefulness of the concept. Aristotle imagined logos, ethos,
and pathos as three kinds
of artistic proof. Essentially, they highlight three ways to
appeal to or persuade an
audience: “(1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human
character and goodness in its
various forms, (3) to understand emotions” (Honeycutt,
Rhetoric 1356a).
While Aristotle and others did not explicitly dismiss emotional
and character appeals,
they found the most value in logic. Contemporary rhetoricians
and argumentation
scholars, however, recognize the power of emotions to sway us.
Even the most stoic
individuals have some emotional threshold over which no logic
can pass. For example,
we can seldom be reasonable when faced with a crime against a
loved one, a betrayal, or
the face of an adorable baby.
The easiest way to differentiate the appeals is to imagine selling
a product based on them.
Until recently, car commercials offered a prolific source of
logical, ethical, and emotional
appeals.

Logos: Using logic as proof for an argument. For many students
this takes the form of
numerical evidence. But as we have discussed above, logical
reasoning is a kind of
argumentation.
Car Commercial: (Syllogism) Americans love adventure—Ford
Escape
allows for off-road adventure— Americans should buy a Ford
Escape.
OR
The Ford Escape offers the best financial deal.
Ethos: Calling on particular shared values (patriotism),
respected figures of authority
(MLK), or one’s own character as a method for appealing to an
audience.
Car Commercial: Eco-conscious Americans drive a Ford Escape.
OR
[Insert favorite movie star] drives a Ford Escape.
Pathos: Using emotionally driven images or language to sway
your audience.
8
Car Commercial: Images of a pregnant woman being safely
rushed to a
hospital. Flash to two car seats in the back seat. Flash to family

hopping
out of their Ford Escape and witnessing the majesty of the
Grand Canyon.
OR
After an image of a worried mother watching her sixteen-year-
old
daughter drive away: “Ford Escape takes the fear out of
driving.”
The appeals are part of everyday conversation, even if we do
not use the Greek
terminology. Understanding the appeals helps us to make better
rhetorical choices in
designing our arguments. If you think about the appeals as a
choice, their value is clear.
Toulmin: Dissecting the Everyday Argument
Philosopher Stephen Toulmin studies the arguments we make in
our everyday
lives. He developed his method out of frustration with logicians
(philosophers of
argumentation) that studied argument in a vacuum or through
mathematical
formulations:
All A are B.
All B are C.
Therefore, all A are C. (Eemeren, et al. 131)
Instead, Toulmin views argument as it appears in a

conversation, in a letter, or some other
context because real arguments are much more complex than the
syllogisms that make up
the bulk of Aristotle’s logical program. Toulmin offers the
contemporary writer/reader a
way to map an argument. The result is a visualization of the
argument process. This map
comes complete with vocabulary for describing the parts of an
argument. The vocabulary
allows us to see the contours of the landscape—the winding
rivers and gaping caverns.
One way to think about a “good” argument is that it is a
discussion that hangs together, a
landscape that is cohesive (we can’t have glaciers in our desert
valley). Sometimes we
miss the faults of an argument because it sounds good or
appears to have clear
connections between the statement and the evidence, when in
truth the only thing holding
the argument together is a lovely sentence or an artistic
flourish.
For Toulmin, argumentation is an attempt to justify a statement
or a set of statements.
The better the demand is met, the higher the audience’s
appreciation. Toulmin’s
vocabulary for the study of argument offers labels for the parts
of the argument to help us
create our map.
Claim: The basic standpoint presented by a writer/ speaker.
Data: The evidence which supports the claim.

9
Warrant: The justification for connecting particular data to a
particular
claim. The warrant also makes clear the assumptions underlying
the
argument.
Backing: Additional information required if the warrant is not
clearly
supported.
Rebuttal: Conditions or standpoints that point out flaws in the
claim or
alternative positions.
Qualifiers: Terminology that limits a standpoint. Examples
include
applying the following terms to any part of an argument:
sometimes,
seems, occasionally, none, always, never, etc.
Charting your own arguments and others helps you to visualize
the meat of your
discussion. All the flourishes are gone and the bones revealed.
Even if you cannot fit an
argument neatly into the boxes, the attempt forces you to ask
important questions about
your claim, your warrant, and possible rebuttals. By charting
your argument, you are
forced to write your claim in a succinct manner and admit, for
example, what you are
using for evidence. Charted, you can see if your evidence is
scanty, if it relies too much
on one kind of evidence over another, and if it needs additional
support. This charting

might also reveal a disconnect between your claim and your
warrant or cause you to
reevaluate your claim altogether.
Pragma-Dialectics: A Fancy Word for a Close Look at
Argumentation
The field of rhetoric has always been interdisciplinary and so it
has no problem including
argumentation theory. Developed in the Speech Communication
Department at the
University of Amsterdam, pragma-dialectics is a study of
argumentation that focuses on
the ethics of one’s logical choices in creating an argument. In
Fundamentals of
Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds
and Contemporary
Developments, Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst
describe argumentation,
simply, as “characterized by the use of language for resolving a
difference of opinion”
(275). While much of this work quite literally looks at actual
speech situations, the work
can easily be applied to the classroom and to broader political
situations.
While this version of argumentation deals with everything from
ethics to arrangement,
what this field adds to rhetorical studies is a new approach to
argument fallacies.
Fallacies are often the cause of the mystery feeling we get when
we come across faulty
logic or missteps in an argument.
What follows is an adaptation of Frans van Eemeren, Rob

Grootendorst, and Francesca
Snoeck Henkemans’ “violations of the rules for critical
engagement” from their book
Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (109).
Rather than discuss rhetorical
fallacies in a list (ad hominem, straw man, equivocation, etc.),
they argue that there
10
should be rules for proper argument to ensure fairness, logic,
and a solution to the
problem being addressed. Violating these rules causes a
fallacious argument and can
result in a standoff rather than a solution.
While fallacious arguments, if purposeful, pose real ethical
problems, most people do not
realize they are committing fallacies when they create an
argument. To purposely attack
someone’s character rather than their argument (ad hominem) is
not only unethical, but
demonstrates lazy argumentation. However, confusing cause and
effect might simply be a
misstep that needs fixing. It is important to admit that many
fallacies, though making an
argument somewhat unsound, can be rhetorically savvy. While
we know that appeals to
pity (or going overboard on the emotional appeal) can often
demonstrate a lack of
knowledge or evidence, they often work. As such, these rules
present argumentation as it
would play out in a utopian world where everyone is calm and
logical, where everyone

cares about resolving the argument at hand, rather than winning
the battle, and where
everyone plays by the rules. Despite the utopian nature of the
list, it offers valuable
insight into argument flaws and offers hope for better methods
of deliberation.
What follows is an adaptation of the approach to argumentation
found in Chapters 7 and
8 of Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation
(Eemeren, et al. 109-54). The
rule is listed first, followed by an example of how the rule is
often violated.
1. The Freedom Rule
“Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward
standpoints or casting doubt on
standpoints” (110).
There are many ways to stop an individual from giving her own
argument. This can come
in the form of a physical threat but most often takes the form of
a misplaced critique.
Instead of focusing on the argument, the focus is shifted to the
character of the writer or
speaker (ad hominem) or to making the argument (or author)
seem absurd (straw man)
rather than addressing its actual components. In the previous
decades, either “Bush is
stupid” or “Obama is stupid” became common ad hominem
attacks that allowed policy to
go unaddressed. To steer clear of the real issues of global
warming, someone might claim
“Only a fool would believe global warming is real” or “Trying

to suck all of the CO2 out
of the atmosphere with giant greenhouse gas machines is mere
science fiction, so we
should look at abandoning all this greenhouse gas nonsense.”
2. The Burden-of-Proof Rule
“A party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if
asked to do so” (113).
This is one of my favorites. It is clear and simple. If you make
an argument, you have to
provide evidence to back it up. During the 2008 Presidential
debates, Americans watched
as all the candidates fumbled over the following question about
healthcare: “How will
this plan actually work?” If you are presenting a written
argument, this requirement can
be accommodated through quality, researched evidence applied
to your standpoint.
11
3. The Standpoint Rule
“A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint
that has indeed been
advanced by the other party” (116).
Your standpoint is simply your claim, your basic argument in a
nutshell. If you disagree
with another person’s argument or they disagree with yours, the
actual standpoint and not
some related but more easily attacked issue must be addressed.

For example, one person
might argue that the rhetoric of global warming has created a
multi-million-dollar green
industry benefiting from fears over climate change. This is an
argument about the effects
of global warming rhetoric, not global warming itself. It would
break the standpoint rule
to argue that the writer/speaker does not believe in global
warming. This is not the issue
at hand.
4. The Relevance Rule
“A party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing
argumentation related to
that standpoint” (119).
Similar to #3, this rule assures that the evidence you use must
actually relate to your
standpoint. Let’s stick with same argument: global warming has
created a green industry
benefiting from fears over climate change. Under this rule, your
evidence would need to
offer examples of the rhetoric and the resulting businesses that
have developed since the
introduction of green industries. It would break the rules to
simply offer attacks on
businesses who sell “eco-friendly” products.
5. The Unexpressed Premise Rule
“A party may not falsely present something as a premise that
has been left unexpressed
by the other party or deny a premise that he or she has left
implicit” (121).

This one sounds a bit complex, though it happens nearly every
day. If you have been
talking to another person and feel the need to say, “That’s NOT
what I meant,” then you
have experienced a violation of the unexpressed premise rule.
Overall, the rule attempts
to keep the argument on track and not let it stray into irrelevant
territory. The first
violation of the rule, to falsely present what has been left
unexpressed, is to rephrase
someone’s standpoint in a way that redirects the argument. One
person might argue, “I
love to go to the beach,” and another might respond by saying
“So you don’t have any
appreciation for mountain living.” The other aspect of this rule
is to camouflage an
unpopular idea and deny that it is part of your argument. For
example, you might argue
that “I have nothing against my neighbors. I just think that there
should be a noise
ordinance in this part of town to help cut down on crime.” This
clearly shows that the
writer does believe her neighbors to be criminals but won’t
admit it.
6. The Starting Point Rule
“No party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting
point, or deny a premise
representing an accepted starting point” (128).
12
Part of quality argumentation is to agree on the opening

standpoint. According to this
theory, argument is pointless without this kind of agreement. It
is well known that
arguing about abortion is nearly pointless as long as one side is
arguing about the rights
of the unborn and the other about the rights of women. These
are two different starting
points.
7. The Argument Scheme Rule
“A standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended if
the defense does not take
place by means of an appropriate argument scheme that is
correctly applied” (130).
This rule is about argument strategy. Argument schemes could
take up another paper
altogether. Suffice it to say that schemes are ways of
approaching an argument, your
primary strategy. For example, you might choose emotional
rather than logical appeals to
present your position. This rule highlights the fact that some
argument strategies are
simply better than others. For example, if you choose to create
an argument based largely
on attacking the character of your opponent rather than the
issues at hand, the argument is
moot. Argument by analogy is a popular and well-worn
argument strategy (or scheme).
Essentially, you compare your position to a more commonly
known one and make your
argument through the comparison.
8. The Validity Rule

“The reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or
must be capable of being
made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed
premises” (132).
This rule is about traditional logics. Violating this rule means
that the parts of your
argument do not match up. For example, your cause and effect
might be off: If you swim
in the ocean today you will get stung by a jelly fish and need
medical care. Joe went to
the doctor today. He must have been stung by a jelly fish. While
this example is obvious
(we do not know that Joe went swimming), many argument
problems are caused by
violating this rule.
9. The Closure Rule
“A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the protagonist
retracting the standpoint,
and a successful defense of a standpoint must result in the
antagonist retracting his or her
doubts” (134).
This seems the most obvious rule, yet it is one that most public
arguments ignore. If your
argument does not cut it, admit the faults and move on. If
another writer/speaker offers a
rebuttal and you clearly counter it, admit that the original
argument is sound. Seems
simple, but it’s not in our public culture. This would mean that
George W. Bush would
have to have a press conference and say, “My apologies, I was
wrong about the presence
of WMD,” or for someone who argued fervently that Americans

want a single-payer
option for healthcare to instead argue something like, “The
polls show that American’s
want to change healthcare, but not through the single-payer
option. My argument was
13
based on my opinion that single-payer is the best way and not
on public opinion.”
Academics are more accustomed to retraction because our
arguments are explicitly part
of particular conversations. Rebuttals and renegotiations are the
norm. That does not
make them any easier to stomach in an “argument is war”
culture.
10. The Usage Rule
“Parties must not use any formulations that are insufficiently
clear or confusingly
ambiguous, and they must interpret the formulations of the
other party as carefully and
accurately as possible” (136).
While academics are perhaps the worst violators of this rule, it
is an important one to
discuss. Be clear. I notice in both student and professional
academic writing that a
confusing concept often means confusing prose, longer
sentences, and more letters in a
word. If you cannot say it/write it clearly, the concept might not
yet be clear to you. Keep
working. Ethical violations of this rule happen when someone is

purposefully ambiguous
so as to confuse the issue. We can see this on all the “law”
shows on television or though
deliberate propaganda.
Food for thought: The above rules offer one way to think about
shaping an argument
paper. Imagine that the argument for your next paper is a
dialogue between those who
disagree about your topic. After doing research, write out the
primary standpoint for your
paper. For example: organic farming is a sustainable practice
that should be used more
broadly. Next, write out a standpoint that might offer a
refutation of the argument. For
example: organic farming cannot supply all of the food needed
by the world’s population.
Once you have a sense of your own argument and possible
refutations, go through the
rules and imagine how you might ethically and clearly provide
arguments that support
your point without ignoring the opposition.
Even though our current media and political climate do not call
for good argumentation,
the guidelines for finding and creating it abound. There are
many organizations such as
America Speaks (www.americaspeaks.org) that are attempting
to revive quality, ethical
deliberation. On the personal level, each writer can be more
deliberate in his or her
argumentation by choosing to follow some of these methodical
approaches to ensure the
soundness and general quality of the argument. The above
models offer the possibility
that we can imagine modes of argumentation other than war.

The final model, pragma-
dialectics, especially, seems to consider argument as a
conversation that requires constant
vigilance and interaction by participants. Argument as
conversation, as new metaphor for
public deliberation, has possibilities.
14
Works Cited
Coulter, Ann. Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on
America. New York:
Crown Forum, 2009. Print.
Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for
Contemporary Students. 4th
ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2009. Print.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. Fundamentals of
Argumentation Theory:
A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary
Developments.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996. Print.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, and Francesca
Snoeck Henkemans.
Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah:
Erlbaum, NJ: 2002.

Print.
Fish, Stanley. “Democracy and Education.” New York Times 22
July 2007: n. pag. Web.
5 May 2010.
Honeycutt, Lee. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A Hypertextual Resource
Compiled by Lee
Honeycutt.” 21 June 2004. Web. 5 May 2010.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By.
Chicago: U of Chicago P,
1980. Print.
Murphy, James. Quintilian On the Teaching and Speaking of
Writing. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois UP, 1987. Print.
“Plato, The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 1 [387 AD].” Online
Library of Liberty, n. d. Web. 5
May 2010.
Attribution
(16) “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With
Logic?” http://writingspaces.org/essays/finding-the-good-
argument is by Rebecca Jones licensed
under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.
1 Basic Logic
The two most common forms of basic logic that we apply in our
daily lives and our written arguments are induction and
deduction. Of these two forms of reasoning, we far more

frequently use induction in supporting our views. (1)
Directions: Select each header to reveal information on each
topic.
Inductive Reasoning
With inductive reasoning, our aim is to arrive at conclusions
about our subject based on the observations of specific
supporting instances. These conclusions are often based on
generalizations concerning a set of data.
As an example, consider the inductive reasoning approach one
might take in recognizing which of the three local television
weather forecasters was most accurate in predicting the daily
high temperatures. If you studied their forecasts every day for
two weeks and then compared their predictions with the official
high temperatures reported by the local weather service, you
could begin to arrive at a conclusion on which forecaster was
the most accurate. This is inductive reasoning in a nutshell, as
the observer moves from specific observations—the comparison
of the daily predictions with the actual daily temperatures—to
generalizations. In this case, the final conclusion might be that
one of the three forecasters was better at predicting the daily
high temperature. Simple, right?
This example, however, brings other questions into the
discussion.
· Is two weeks of data enough to form a valid conclusion?
· Were the forecasters predicting the weather for similar
geographic areas?
· Did the news agencies provide each of the forecasters with
sufficiently sensitive equipment?
The reliability of an arguer’s conclusion depends on the quality
and quantity of the observations, and those factors are what
sometimes makes some inductive leaps logically faulty. If the
sample size is too small, for instance, an arguer could be guilty
of committing the common logical fallacy of “hasty
generalization,” or drawing a conclusion from an incomplete or
inadequate body of data.
It is important to note that induction is a reasoning process, and

not necessarily a strategy for developing an essay. It is used to
arrive at generalizations that suggest probabilities—not
certainties. If, for instance, I go hunting for a new house in a
planned subdivision here in Florida and I observe that most of
the homes follow one of three basic floorplans, then it stands to
reason that I will probably live in a home that follows one of
those plans should I choose to buy there. That doesn’t mean,
however, that there might not also be some homes which were
built independently and which follow a different floorplan.
Logic merely suggests that I would find myself in one of the
more common models. (13)
To avoid making hasty generalizations, writers should be
thorough in their research and careful in their organization and
their positioning of supporting materials.
Deductive Reasoning
Deductive arguments seek a greater degree of certainty than
their inductive counterparts. They often begin with a general
statement that can be applied to a number of specific situations.
Typically, deductive arguments take the form of the simple
syllogism, which looks like this:
Major Premise: Truth about a large group.
Minor Premise: Truth about a specific member of that group.
Conclusion: Considered valid if the connections and conditions
between the major and minor premises are true.
Here is an example of the simple syllogism:
Major Premise: Students scoring above a 3.0 GPA in their
English classes at FSCJ need not take the CLAST exam to enter
one of Florida’s public universities.
Minor Premise: Derek has a 3.5 GPA in his English classes at
FSCJ.
Conclusion: Derek need not take the CLAST exam to enter a
Florida public university.
Deductive arguments are only as strong as their premises,
however, and while an argument may be logical, it can also be
faulty. For instance, if the premises listed above are not true

(Derek might have a 2.8 GPA, for instance), then the argument
lacks validity. Or, perhaps Florida’s newest public university,
Florida Polytechnic, has decided to independently create higher
admissions standards than its state-wide counterparts. Once
again, we can see that the quality of the observations is critical
in determining the validity of the deductive argument.
Creating logical, reasonable arguments is often predicated on
finding a sufficient body of specific, credible, and relevant
supporting materials upon which to base your views. In the next
pages of this learning module, we can further explore the
components of basic logic and identify the many types of
logical fallacies that we encounter on a daily basis. (13)
2 The Principles of Logic
So what are these principles of reasoning that are part of logic?
There are many such principles, but the main (not the only)
thing that we study in logic are principles governing the validity
of arguments—whether certain conclusions follow from some
given assumptions.
For example, consider the following three arguments:
If Tom is a philosopher, then Tom is poor.
Tom is a philosopher.
Therefore, Tom is poor.
If K>10, then K>2.
K>10.
Therefore, K>2.
If Tarragona is in Europe, then Tarragona is not in China.
Tarragona is in Europe.
Therefore, Tarragona is not in China.
These three arguments here are obviously good arguments in the
sense that their conclusions follow from the assumptions. If the
assumptions of the argument are true, then the conclusion of the
argument must also be true. A logician will tell us that they are
all cases of a particular form of argument known as "modus
ponens":
If P, then Q.

P.
Therefore, Q.
We shall discuss validity again later on. It should be pointed out
that logic is not just concerned with the validity of arguments.
Logic also studies consistency, and logical truths, and
properties of logical systems such as completeness and
soundness. But we shall see that these other concepts are also
very much related to the concept of validity. (13)
3 Formal and Informal Logic
Sometimes a distinction is made between informal logic and
formal logic. The term "informal logic" is often used to mean
the same thing as critical thinking. Sometimes it is used to refer
to the study of reasoning and fallacies in the context of
everyday life. "Formal logic" is mainly concerned with formal
systems of logic. These are specially constructed systems for
carrying out proofs, where the languages and rules of reasoning
are precisely and carefully defined. Sentential logic (also known
as "Propositional logic") and Predicate Logic are both examples
of formal systems of logic.
There are many reasons for studying formal logic. One is that
formal logic helps us identify patterns of good reasoning and
patterns of bad reasoning, so we know which to follow and
which to avoid. This is why studying basic formal logic can
help improve critical thinking. Formal systems of logic are also
used by linguists to study natural languages. Computer
scientists also employ formal systems of logic in research
relating to artificial intelligence. Finally, many philosophers
also like to use formal logic when dealing with complicated
philosophical problems, in order to make their reasoning more
explicit and precise. (13)
4 What is a Fallacy?
Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making
mistakes that are of a factual nature. If I counted twenty people
in the room when there were in fact twenty-one, then I made a

factual mistake. On the other hand, if I believe that there are
round squares, I am believing something that is inconsistent.
This is a mistake of reasoning, and a fallacy, since I should not
have believed something inconsistent if my reasoning is sound.
In some discussions, a fallacy is taken to be an undesirable kind
of argument or inference. For example, a certain textbook
explains "fallacy" as "an unreliable inference.” In our view, this
definition of fallacy is rather narrow, since we might want to
count certain mistakes of reasoning as fallacious even though
they are not presented as arguments. For example, making a
contradictory claim seems to be a case of fallacy, but a single
claim is not an argument. Similarly, putting forward a question
with an inappropriate presupposition might also be regarded as
a fallacy, but a question is also not an argument. In both of
these situations, though, the person is making a mistake of
reasoning since he is doing something that goes against one or
more principles of correct reasoning. This is why we would like
to define fallacies more broadly as violations of the principles
of critical thinking, whether or not the mistakes take the form of
an argument.
The study of fallacies is an application of the principles of
critical thinking. Being familiar with typical fallacies can help
us avoid them. We would also be in a position to explain other
people's mistakes. There are different ways of classifying
fallacies. Broadly speaking, we might divide fallacies into four
kinds.
· Fallacies of inconsistency: cases where something inconsistent
or self-defeating has been proposed or accepted.
· Fallacies of inappropriate presumption: cases where we have
an assumption or a question presupposing something that is not
reasonable to accept in the conversational context.
· Fallacies of relevance: cases where irrelevant reasons are
being invoked or relevant reasons are being ignored.
· Fallacies of insufficiency: cases where the evidence
supporting a conclusion is insufficient or weak. (14

5 Types of Fallacies: Fallacies of Insufficiency
Limited Sampling
· Momofuku Ando, the inventor of instant noodles, died at the
age of 96. He said he ate instant noodles every day. So instant
noodles cannot be bad for your health.
· A black cat crossed my path this morning, and I got into a
traffic accident this afternoon. Black cats are really unlucky.
In both cases, the observations are relevant to the conclusion,
but a lot more data is needed to support the conclusion. These
are hasty generalizations, based on small sample sizes of data.
Appeal to Ignorance
· We have no evidence showing that he is innocent. So he must
be guilty.
If someone is guilty, it would indeed be hard to find evidence
showing that he is innocent. But perhaps there is no evidence to
point definitively in either direction, so the lack of evidence is
not enough to prove guilt.
Naturalistic Fallacy
· Many children enjoy playing video games, so we should not
stop them from playing.
Many naturalistic fallacies are examples of fallacy of
insufficiency. Empirical facts by themselves are not sufficient
for normative conclusions, even if they are relevant. (15)
6 Other Common Types of Fallacies
Directions: Select each topic below to reveal information on
each one.
ad hominem
(Latin phrase for “against the man”)
A theory is discarded not because of any evidence against it or
lack of evidence for it, but because of the person who argues for
it.
This often takes the form of attacks against someone’s physical
appearance.
Example:
A: The Government should enact minimum-wage legislation so

that workers are not exploited.
B: Nonsense. You say that only because you cannot find a good
job.
ad ignorantiam
(appeal to ignorance)
The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of lack of
evidence against it. A simple obvious example of such fallacy is
to argue that unicorns exist because there is no evidence against
such a claim.
At first sight, it seems that many theories that we describe as
scientific involve such a fallacy. For instance, the first law of
thermodynamics holds because so far there has not been any
negative instance that would serve as evidence against it. But
notice, as in cases like this, there is evidence for the law in the
form of many positive instances, which therefore prove its
existence.
ad populum
(appeal to popularity)
The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of its
popularity and familiarity. This is the fallacy committed by
many commercials. Surely you have heard of commercials
implying that we should buy a certain product because it has
made to the top of a sales rank, or because the brand is the
city's "favorite.” In the middle of the twentieth century, tobacco
manufacturers featured ads touting the number of doctors that
approved of their cigarettes.
These appeals can be viewed as bandwagon appeals (everybody
is doing it). Sometimes, they take the form of patriotic slogans
(Levi’s—America’s jeans).
Begging the question
question (petito principii)
In arguing for a claim, the claim itself is already assumed in the
premise. Example: "God exists because this is what the Bible

says, and the Bible is reliable because it is the word of God."
Complex question or loaded question
A question can be fallacious if it is posed in such a way that a
person, no matter what answer he or she gives, will inevitably
commit him/herself to some other claim, which should not be
presupposed in the context in question.
A common tactic is to ask a yes-no question that tricks people
into agreeing to something they never intended to say. For
example, if you are asked "Are you still as self-centered as you
used to be?" then no matter whether you answer "yes" or "no,”
you are bound to admit that you were self-centered in the past.
Of course, the same question would not count as a fallacy if the
presupposition of the question is indeed accepted in the
conversational context.
False dilemma
Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others
that are worth considering in the context. Example: "Every
person is either my enemy or my friend. If he/she is my enemy,
I should hate him/her. If he/she is my friend, I should love
him/her. So I should either love him/her or hate him/her."
Obviously, the conclusion is too extreme because most people
are neither your enemy nor your friend.
Non sequitur
A conclusion is drawn which does not follow from the premise.
This is not a specific fallacy but a very general term for a poor
or incomplete argument. Many of the examples in this section
illustrate qualities of the non sequitur. The term roughly
translates to “it does not follow,” and it can be considered a
fallacy of irrelevancy if not fully defended with reasonable
premises.
Example: John has a safer car than mine because it cost $10,000
more when he bought it.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
(literally, "after this, therefore because of this")
Inferring that X must be the cause of Y just because X is
followed by Y.
For example, having visited a graveyard, I fell ill and infer that
graveyards are spooky places that cause illnesses. Of course,
this inference is not warranted since this might just be a
coincidence. However, a lot of superstitious beliefs commit this
fallacy. Just because two events happen close to each other in
terms of their timing, that doesn’t necessarily prove any causal
relationship.
Red herring
Within an argument, some irrelevant issue is raised which
diverts attention from the main subject. The function of the red
herring is sometimes to help express a strong, biased opinion.
The red herring (the irrelevant issue) serves to increase the
force of the argument in a very misleading manner.
For example, in a debate as to whether God exists, someone
might argue that believing in God gives peace and meaning to
many people's lives. This would be an example of a red herring
since whether religions can have a positive effect on people is
irrelevant to the question of the existence of God. The good
psychological effect of a belief is not a reason for thinking that
the belief is true.
Slippery slope
Arguing that if an opponent were to accept some claim C1, then
he or she has to accept some other closely related claim C2,
which in turn commits the opponent to a still further claim C3,
eventually leading to the conclusion that the opponent is
committed to something absurd or obviously unacceptable.
This style of argumentation constitutes a fallacy only when it is
inappropriate to think if one were to accept the initial claim,
one must accept all the other claims.
An example: "The government should not prohibit drugs.

Otherwise the government should also ban alcohol or cigarettes.
And then fatty food and junk food would have to be regulated
too. The next thing you know, the government would force us to
brush our teeth and do exercises every day."
Straw man
Attacking an opponent by attributing to him/her an implausible
position that is easily defeated when this is not actually the
opponent's position. This often takes the form of a fallacy of
diversion, as a speaker might abandon his or her central
argument and develop a secondary argument that might seem
more “winnable.” For instance, a parent might ask his or her
daughter to mow the lawn. That child might argue that she has
already cleaned her room, so she should be exempt from taking
care of the lawn work. The point of contention in this example
is the lawn work, so the other finished chores are immaterial to
the argument at hand.
Example: When many people argue for more democracy in Hong
Kong, a typical reply is to say that this is not warranted because
it is wrong to think that democracy is the solution to all of
Hong Kong's problems, or to say that one should not blindly
accept democracy. But those who support democracy never
suggest that democracy can solve all problems (e.g. pollution),
and they might also agree that blindly accepting something is
rarely correct, whether it is democracy or not. Those criticisms
attack implausible "strawman" positions and do not address the
real arguments for democracy. (15)
7 Conclusion
We are all guilty of brushing off these fallacies from time to
time in our own discussions and arguments. In most cases, they
are harmless tools in working through minor disagreements.
Developing a stronger understanding of inductive and deductive
reasoning and a clearer grasp of the logical fallacies will assist
you in navigating these discussions and creating stronger, more
convincing arguments of your own. It will also assist you with

writing, researching, and developing stronger arguments in your
college coursework and professional life. For more information
on identifying, avoiding, and refuting flawed logic, please read
the next section of this learning module, which features an
essay by Dr. Rebecca Jones on various strategies for responding
to arguments. (1)

1 Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic b.docx

More Related Content

Similar to 1 Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic b.docx (20)

More from aryan532920 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

1 Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic b.docx