Chapter 4 Rhetorical Devices and Informal FallaciesNot su.docx
- 1. Chapter 4: Rhetorical Devices and Informal Fallacies Not surprisingly, people who wish to convince others to adopt their positions do not always rely solely on attempts to establish sound and cogent arguments. People are often more interested in convincing rather than seeking the truth of the matter. Advertisers, advocates, politicians, political pundits, etc. (the list truly goes on and on) have developed quite an arsenal for levelling arguments or colouring the language of argumentation in such a way as to make the rea- sons for accepting their point of view seem to be much more compelling than they actually are. This need not be intentional; that is, a person’s intent need not be deception to make use of these highly persuasive tactics. Certainly there are many cases in which a devious type will deliberately set out to deceive, but there also many instances in which people in good faith unwittingly make use of them as well. Those who have an interest in identifying attempts at deception as well as those who are interested in compellingly arguing their points in a reason- able manner should take note of what follows. 4.1 Rhetorical Devices
- 2. A rhetorical device, in general, is a use of language that makes a position seem to be more compelling than it would otherwise be by generating an emotional response. This sort of tactic is especially insidious as it often much easier to manipulate emotions than it is to appeal to reason. Heightened emotions cloud the thinking and often have the effect of masking the fact that emotions have been manipulated in the first place. It is crucial to insightful and critical thought that such manipulation be identified and that a position be dispassionately con- sidered on its merits rather than on emotional responses that have been gener- ated by its proponents or opponents. The following is a brief overview of some rhetorical devices. This list is by no means exhaustive. Co py ri gh t @ 20 07 . Hu ma ni ti es -E bo
- 5. li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w. EBSCO : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 10/12/2018 7:46 PM via FAYETTEVILLE TECH COMM CLG AN: 373337 ; Crews-Anderson, Timothy A..; Critical Thinking and Informal Logic Account: s5824366.main.eds Critical Thinking 47 Euphemisms and dysphemisms A person’s emotional attitude towards something can often and easily be influ- enced by the term that is used to refer to it. A euphemism is a replacement term that is introduced in order to make something seem less offensive or negative than it would otherwise be. The paradigmatic example of a euphemism is the replacement of the term “civilian casualties” with “collateral damage.” By con- trast, a dysphemism is a replacement term that is introduced to make something
- 6. seem more offensive or negative then it would otherwise be. By way of exam- ple, consider the difference between “causing civilian casualties” and “killing babies.” Prejudicial rhetoric (comparison, definition and explanation) In general, prejudicial rhetoric is a use of language that creates a preconcep- tion in the audience. Such rhetoric often comes in the form of comparisons. Consider the difference between these two examples. John: Padma is like a bull in a china shop. She doesn’t let the opinions or feelings of others affect her. Tom: Padma is as resolute and steady as a rock. She doesn’t let the opinions or feelings of others affect her. Both Tom and John could be speaking about the same woman, but while Tom’s language reveals a level of respect for her, John is likely expressing a negative attitude. Another common place to find prejudicial rhetoric is in definitions. Social welfare programs are a safety net for people who are down on their luck. Social welfare programs are an institutionalized racket whereby those who work for a living are forced to support those who refuse to take care of themselves.
- 7. One’s attitude could be greatly affected by the emotional tone of these defini- tions. Explanations are fertile ground for such uses of language as well. He is a conservative because he cares more about profits than he does about people. Co py ri gh t @ 20 07 . Hu ma ni ti es -E bo ok s. Al l ri gh ts r es er
- 9. sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.
- 10. EBSCO : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 10/12/2018 7:46 PM via FAYETTEVILLE TECH COMM CLG AN: 373337 ; Crews-Anderson, Timothy A..; Critical Thinking and Informal Logic Account: s5824366.main.eds Critical Thinking 48 The reason for her lack of faith is a deep-seated depravity and lack of a moral compass. Derision and hyperbole Another common rhetorical device is the use of derision, which is to set up an opposing position to ridicule without offering a countering argument. This can often be accomplished with nothing more than a sneer or a dismissive joke. Ha! You believe that we should vote for him!? Well, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Note that no reason has been given as to why it might not be a good idea to vote for him. The implication, of course, is that the listener must be gullible even to consider it. The use of hyperbole, an overly excessive or demonstrative exag- geration, may also be used to colour a particular position in an emotional tone that is either positive or negative.
- 11. Her election to Parliament would be the best thing ever to happen to this country! Her election to Parliament would be the worst thing ever to happen to this country! While it may, in fact, be significant that a particular person be elected to the leg- islative body, it is very unlikely that it would be the best (or worst) thing to have ever happened. These are clear instances of exaggeration. Complex questions The complex question, also known as a loaded question, is a question that is formulated so as to make a presumption that is unproven or unjustified. Any direct answer to such a question tacitly accepts the presumption. Consider the classic example of a complex question. Has Tom stopped beating his wife? Note that since this is formulated as a yes-or-no question, any possible direct answer to it necessarily accepts the assumption that Tom beats (or has beaten) his wife. There is no response if Tom has never beaten his wife. Here are some more examples. Co py ri gh
- 14. mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w. EBSCO : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 10/12/2018 7:46 PM via FAYETTEVILLE TECH COMM CLG AN: 373337 ; Crews-Anderson, Timothy A..; Critical Thinking and Informal Logic Account: s5824366.main.eds