WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT?
A STRONG ARGUMENT ATTEMPTS TO PERSUADE THE READER TO ACCEPT A POINT OF
VIEW. AS SUCH, IT CONSISTS OF A PROPOSITION, A DECLARATIVE STATEMENT WHICH
IS CAPABLE OF BEING ARGUED, AND A PROOF, A REASON OR GROUND WHICH IS
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE, IN TURN, IS COMPOSED OF RELEVANT
FACTS, OPINIONS BASED ON FACTS AND CAREFUL REASONING. IF YOU ARE ANALYZING
AN ARGUMENT, YOU SHOULD LOOK FOR BOTH OF THESE: A PROPOSITION AND THE
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE PROPOSITION.
IN THE SAME WAY THAT AN ANALYSIS OF ISSUE ESSAY MUST START WITH A THESIS,
SO ALSO AN ESSAY THAT ANALYZES AN ARGUMENT MUST START WITH A TOPIC SENTENCE
WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF A PROPOSITION. EVERY ARGUMENT SHOULD
HAVE A PROPOSITION, AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THIS PROPOSITION IS CRUCIAL
TO THE WRITING OF AN ANALYSIS OF AN ARGUMENT. FOR INSTANCE, THE FOLLOWING
COULD APPEAR IN THE ANALYTICAL WRITING SECTION OF THE GMAT:
THE TWO CLAUSES BEGINNING WITH SINCE PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE
PROPOSITION. IN TURN, THE PROPOSITION ITSELF IS FRAMED BY THE SECOND
SENTENCE.
SINCE THE WORLD POPULATION WILL DOUBLE TO 11 BILLION PEOPLE BY THE MIDDLE
OF THE 21ST CENTURY AND SINCE FOOD PRODUCTION WILL NOT SHOW A CORRESPONDING
INCREASE, EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO LIMIT POPULATION GROWTH. GOVERNMENTS
MUST INSTITUTE POPULATION CONTROL POLICIES TO INSURE AN ADEQUATE FOOD
SUPPLY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
ONE ASPECT OF ARGUMENTATION THAT NEEDS SPECIAL ATTENTION IS THE USE OF
TERMS. IN AN ARGUMENT, ALL OF THE TERMS SHOULD BE CLEAR AND WELL-DEFINED.
IF THE TERMS ARE UNCLEAR, PROOF IS LIKELY TO BE IMPOSSIBLE, CREATING A WEAK
ARGUMENT. ONE TYPE OF WEAK TERM IS THE EMOTIONALLY LOADED TERM. TERMS SUCH
AS "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" EVOKE EMOTIONAL RESPONSES AND, THUS, OBSCURE THE
ARGUMENT. THUS, ANYONE WHO WRITES AN ANALYSIS OF AN ARGUMENT SHOULD EXAMINE
THE TERMS USED AND BE SURE THAT THE WRITER AVOIDS EMOTIVE, SUBJECTIVE
TERMS. TO THE EXTENT OF YOUR ABILITY, MAKE SURE THAT THE WRITER DEFINES
TERMS CLEARLY AND OBJECTIVELY.
IN ADDITION, THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE AND GRADE THE ANALYSIS OF AN ARGUMENT
SECTION FOR THE GMAT EXPECT THE FOLLOWING:
I) THEY WANT AN ESSAY THAT ANALYZES THE SEVERAL ASPECTS OF THE ARGUMENT
WITH CRITICAL INSIGHT.
II) THEY WANT A COGENTLY DEVELOPED ESSAY THAT IS LOGICAL.
III) THEY WANT A COHERENT ESSAY WITH WELL-CHOSEN TRANSITIONAL DEVICES.
IV) THEY ALSO EXPECT AN ESSAY THAT USES VARIED SENTENCE STRUCTURE AND
VOCABULARY.
V) THEY EXPECT AN ESSAY THAT IS FREE OF MECHANICAL ERRORS IN SPELLING,
PUNCTUATION, CAPITALIZATION, GRAMMAR AND ERRORS IN THE USE OF STANDARD
WRITTEN ENGLISH.
AS IN THE CASE OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE, THE TOPIC SENTENCE MUST
CONTAIN THE GERM OF THE IDEA THAT PERMEATES THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. EACH
EXAMPLE OR ILLUSTRATION MUST BE CONNECTED TO THAT IDEA WITH TRANSITIONAL
MARKERS SUCH AS FOR EXAMPLE, FURTHERMORE, THEREFORE, THUS OR MOREOVER.
3A. DISSECT ARGUMENTS
ASSUMPTION HUNT: ON ANALYSIS OF ISSUE QUESTIONS YOU TRY TO ANSWER GRAND
ISSUES SUCH AS "SHOULD CHINA BE IN THE WTO", OR "SHOULD PARENTS HAVE
VOUCHERS TO SEND CHILDREN TO THE SCHOOL OF THEIR CHOICE". THE QUESTIONS ARE
DIFFERENT THAN ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT, WHERE YOU LOOK FOR BADLY FLAWED
REASONING. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANALYSIS OF ISSUE AND ANALYSIS OF
ARGUMENT IS THAT REASONABLE PEOPLE COULD DIFFER ON ANALYSIS OF ISSUE, BUT
NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT SOMETHING IN AN ANALYSIS OF
ARGUMENT QUESTION. WHEN YOU ARE DOING ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT QUESTIONS, LOOK
FOR REASONING FALLACIES.
THE STIMULUS
IN THE FIRST PART OF THE ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT TOPIC, THE WRITER TRIES TO
PERSUADE YOU OF THEIR CONCLUSION BY REFERRING TO EVIDENCE. WHEN YOU READ
THE "ARGUMENTS" IN THESE QUESTIONS, BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR ASSUMPTIONS AND
POOR LOGICAL REASONING USED TO MAKE A CONCLUSION.
THE QUESTION STEM
QUESTION STEMS WILL ASK YOU TO DECIDE HOW CONVINCING YOU FIND THE ARGUMENT.
YOU WILL BE ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY AN ARGUMENT IS NOT CONVINCING, AND DISCUSS
WHAT MIGHT IMPROVE THE ARGUMENT. FOR THIS TASK, YOU'LL NEED TO: FIRST,
ANALYZE THE ARGUMENT ITSELF AND EVALUATE ITS USE OF EVIDENCE; SECOND,
EXPLAIN HOW A DIFFERENT APPROACH OR MORE INFORMATION WOULD MAKE THE
ARGUMENT ITSELF BETTER (OR POSSIBLY WORSE).
A QUESTION STEM MIGHT LOOK LIKE THIS:
IN MANY COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE USA, THE POSTAL SERVICE IS A QUASI-
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION WHOSE PRIMARY MISSION IS TO DELIVER MAIL TO
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE COUNTRY. SINCE, IT IS ARGUED, MAIL
DELIVERY TO RURAL ADDRESSES WHERE THE POPULATION IS SPARSE CANNOT BE DONE
ECONOMICALLY UNDER ANY ACCEPTABLE CIRCUMSTANCE; THE POSTAL SERVICE IS GIVEN
A MONOPOLY ON MAIL DELIVERY. ACTUALLY, HOWEVER, MAIL DELIVERY COULD BE DONE
ECONOMICALLY BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AS LONG AS EACH CORPORATION WERE GIVEN
A MONOPOLY TO SERVICE ANY GIVEN AREA WHERE SPARSELY POPULATED AREAS WERE
BALANCED AGAINST DENSELY POPULATED AREAS.
HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THIS ARGUMENT?
1) EXPLAIN HOW LOGICALLY PERSUASIVE YOU FIND THIS ARGUMENT... ANALYZE THE
ARGUMENT'S LINE OF REASONING AND USE OF EVIDENCE.
TRANSLATION: YOU SHOULD CRITIQUE THE ARGUMENT. DISCUSS WHETHER YOU THINK
IT'S CONVINCING OR NOT AND EXPLAIN WHY.
2) EXPLAIN WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT MORE VALID AND
CONVINCING OR HELP YOU TO BETTER EVALUATE ITS CONCLUSION.
TRANSLATION: SPOT WEAK LINKS IN THE ARGUMENT AND OFFER CHANGES THAT WOULD
STRENGTHEN THEM.
ATTACK THE ARGUMENT
EACH ARGUMENT'S STIMULUS HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY "LOADED" WITH FLAWS
(FALLACIES) THAT YOU SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE AND DISCUSS. IF YOU FAIL TO SEE THE
MORE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE ARGUMENT, YOU WILL NOT GET A HIGH SCORE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE ESSAY IS FOR YOU TO CRITIQUE THE REASONING IN THE
ARGUMENT (THE STIMULUS WILL TELL YOU TO MAKE THIS EVALUATION). YOUR
PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT. YOUR ESSAY NEEDS TO FOCUS ON FLAWS IN
THE ARGUMENT. WHILE IN THE ANALYSIS OF ISSUE YOU WRITE YOUR OPINION ON A
SUBJECT, IN THE ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT YOU WRITE A LOGICAL CRITIQUE OF A
FLAWED ARGUMENT. THUS, THE APPROACHES TO THE TWO ESSAYS SHOULD BE DIFFERENT.
EVALUATE THE ARGUMENT
PICK OUT FLAWS IN THE ARGUMENT BY IDENTIFYING ITS WEAKNESSES:
WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT'S CONCLUSION?
WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE AUTHOR'S CONCLUSION?
DO YOU FIND THE ARGUMENT PERSUASIVE? WHAT MAKES IT PERSUASIVE OR NOT
PERSUASIVE?
WHAT COULD BE DONE TO STRENGTHEN THE ARGUMENT?
WHAT ASSUMPTIONS DOES THE ARGUMENT RELY UPON? (THERE SHOULD BE SEVERAL)
SAMPLE ARGUMENT
FOR EXAMPLE, THE GMAT TEST MAY PRESENT A STATEMENT SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING
FOR THE ANALYSIS OF AN ISSUE:
IN MANY COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE USA, THE POSTAL SERVICE IS A QUASI-
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION WHOSE PRIMARY MISSION IS TO DELIVER MAIL TO
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE COUNTRY. SINCE, IT IS ARGUED, MAIL
DELIVERY TO RURAL ADDRESSES WHERE THE POPULATION IS SPARSE CANNOT BE DONE
ECONOMICALLY UNDER ANY ACCEPTABLE CIRCUMSTANCE; THE POSTAL SERVICE IS GIVEN
A MONOPOLY ON MAIL DELIVERY. ACTUALLY, HOWEVER, MAIL DELIVERY COULD BE DONE
ECONOMICALLY BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AS LONG AS EACH CORPORATION WERE GIVEN
A MONOPOLY TO SERVICE ANY GIVEN AREA WHERE SPARSELY POPULATED AREAS WERE
BALANCED AGAINST DENSELY POPULATED AREAS.
HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THIS ARGUMENT?
IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT FOR ANALYSIS, THE PROPOSITION IS CONTAINED IN THE
LAST SENTENCE OF THE STIMULUS AND SO THE ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT MUST
FOCUS ON THIS SENTENCE. THEY ARE TRYING TO ARGUE FOR THE PRIVATIZATION OF
THE POSTAL SYSTEM.
I. THE PROPOSITION REGARDING THE PRIVATIZATION OF THE POST OFFICE IS BASED
ON TWO QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS AND IS MOST LIKELY NOT TRUE:
A. POPULATION IN THE USA IS DISTRIBUTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT POSTAL MARKET
AREAS CAN BE DIVIDED AND COSTLY MARKET AREAS CAN BE BALANCED AGAINST
LUCRATIVE MARKET AREAS.
B. PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ARE MORE COST EFFECTIVE THAN QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS.
II. POSTAL MARKETS CANNOT BE DISTRIBUTED SO THAT SERVICE TO ANY GIVEN
MARKET IS ECONOMICAL:
A. REASON FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION
B. EFFECT OF THAT DISTRIBUTION ON GEOGRAPHICALLY CONTIGUOUS AREAS
C. EFFECT OF THAT DISTRIBUTION ON GEOGRAPHICALLY NON-CONTIGUOUS AREAS
III. PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ARE NOT NECESSARILY MORE COST EFFICIENT THAN
QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATIONS.
A. CASE OF DEFENSE CONTRACTORS
B. CASE OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS
IV. THE CASE FOR THE PRIVATIZATION OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT IS BASED
ON QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
THE IDEA THAT THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CAN BE PRIVATIZED IS BASED ON TWO
QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS: IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT
POPULATION IN THE USA IS NOT DISTRIBUTED SO THAT POSTAL MARKET AREAS CAN BE
DIVIDED WITH THE RESULT THAT COSTLY MARKET AREAS ARE BALANCED AGAINST
LUCRATIVE MARKET AREAS. IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT PRIVATE
CORPORATIONS ARE NOT NECESSARILY MORE COST EFFECTIVE THAN QUASI-
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. IT IS, THEREFORE, MOST LIKELY THAT
PRIVATIZATION OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED.
IN THE FIRST PLACE, DUE TO MECHANIZATION, ONE WORKER ON THE FARM CAN
SUPPORT AT LEAST THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE LIVING IN THE CITY. LARGE COMBINES
WITH RELATIVELY SMALL CREWS CAN ROLL ACROSS THE PRAIRIES HARVESTING 500 TON
OF WHEAT IN A DAY, ENOUGH TO FEED HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE FOR A YEAR. AS A
RESULT, THERE HAS BEEN LESS AND LESS EMPLOYMENT IN RURAL AREAS AND, AS A
FURTHER RESULT, PEOPLE HAVE LEFT THE RURAL AREAS FOR LIFE IN THE CITY,
CREATING THE CONTEMPORARY DILEMMA FOR POSTAL PLANNERS. IT IS EASY TO
DISTRIBUTE TONS OF MAIL TO BIG CITY DWELLERS IN HIGH RISE BUILDINGS AT A
REASONABLE COST. BUT WHO IS GOING TO FIND A COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DELIVER A
SINGLE FIRST CLASS LETTER TWENTY MILES DOWN A COUNTRY ROAD IN A SNOWSTORM
IN JANUARY? THEREFORE, POSTAL MARKETS CANNOT BE DISTRIBUTED SO THAT SERVICE
TO ANY GIVEN MARKET IS ECONOMICAL USING CONTIGUOUS GEOGRAPHICAL MARKETS.
PERHAPS THE ANSWER LIES IN DISTRIBUTING THE COST OF MAIL DELIVERY BY
BALANCING A COST INTENSIVE MARKET AREA SUCH AS RURAL UP-STATE NEW YORK WITH
A LUCRATIVE MARKET AREA SUCH AS NEW YORK CITY. ON EXAMINATION, HOWEVER,
THIS TURNS OUT TO BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY BECAUSE POPULATION SIMPLY IS NOT
DISTRIBUTED IN NEATLY BALANCED AREAS FOR REASONS NOTED IN THE PRECEDING
PARAGRAPH. ALBANY, NEW YORK, PROBABLY HAS A GREATER POPULATION THAN THE
ENTIRE STATE OF WYOMING. IS A SINGLE COMPANY GOING TO BE GIVEN WYOMING AND
ALBANY AS A SINGLE MARKET AREA? IF SO, THAT COMPANY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
SERVICE THE AREA ECONOMICALLY BECAUSE THE COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS OVER SUCH
A LONG DISTANCE ARE EXTREMELY HIGH. THE CURRENT POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, IN
EFFECT, ALREADY DOES THIS AND IT HAS FOUND IT TO BE NOT ECONOMICAL.
CLEARLY, IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT POSTAL MARKETS CANNOT BE DISTRIBUTED USING
NONCONTIGUOUS GEOGRAPHICAL MARKETS, SO THAT SERVICE TO ANY GIVEN MARKET IS
ECONOMICAL.
FURTHERMORE, NOT ALL PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ARE ECONOMICAL. THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS ALWAYS SUBSIDIZED DEFENSE CONTRACTORS REWARDING THEM FOR
THEIR INEFFICIENCIES WITH HUGE COST OVER-RUNS. BESIDES THIS, ANY NUMBER OF
LARGE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS HAVE GONE BANKRUPT INCLUDING CONTINENTAL
AIRLINES AND PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS. WOULD ANY SOCIAL PLANNERS WANT POSTAL
DELIVERY DISCONTINUED TO ANY AREA BECAUSE A LARGE, PRIVATIZED POSTAL
COMPANY DECLARED BANKRUPTCY?
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CAN BE PRIVATIZED IS BASED ON
TWO QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. IT IS THEREFORE MOST LIKELY THAT THIS
ARGUMENT IS INVALID (1) BECAUSE POPULATIONS ARE NOT DISTRIBUTED IN SUCH A
WAY THAT LARGE, REGIONAL POST OFFICES COULD BE RUN ECONOMICALLY, AND (2)
BECAUSE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ARE NOT NECESSARILY COST EFFICIENT AND
ECONOMICAL.
NOTICE THAT THIS ESSAY STATES TWO ASSUMPTIONS AND THEN SPENDS THREE
PARAGRAPHS ELABORATING ON THE TWO MAIN ASSUMPTIONS. THE OVERALL STRUCTURE
IS TIGHT (PERHAPS A FEW SENTENCES COULD HAVE BEEN EDITED AND PARAGRAPHS 2
AND 3 CONDENSED INTO ONE PARAGRAPH). EITHER WAY, THIS IS A 5 OR 6 ESSAY.
ONE ELEMENT HERE IS THAT PROBLEMS WITH THE STIMULUS IS STRICTLY
ASSUMPTIONS: ABOUT THE ECONOMICS OF RUNNING A POST OFFICE AND THE
ASSUMPTION OF PRIVATE SECTOR SUPERIORITY OVER PUBLIC SECTOR. IN MOST OF THE
ESSAYS THERE ARE GLARING LOGICAL FLAWS. WE IDENTIFY THESE COMMON ERRORS IN
THE NEXT CHAPTER.
3B. ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT: FINDING ERRORS
THE USUAL SUSPECTS: COMMON LOGICAL FALLACIES
WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SEVEN LOGICAL ERRORS THAT APPEAR COMMONLY IN THE ESSAY
QUESTIONS. WHEN WRITING YOUR ESSAY ARGUMENT YOU SHOULD EXPLICITLY IDENTIFY
THE LOGICAL FLAW. THESE FLAWS ALSO TEND TO OCCUR IN THE CRITICAL REASONING
SECTION OF THE VERBAL GMAT, SO YOUR PREPARATION HERE WILL BENEFIT YOU WHEN
TAKING THE VERBAL SECTION.
THE E-RATER WILL LOOK FOR HOW WELL YOU EXPRESS THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THE
LOGICAL REASONING FLAWS. WHEN YOU FIND AN ERROR, SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY IT
IN THE ESSAY "THIS IS A BIASED-SAMPLE FALLACY." THE E-RATER WILL DETECT
THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THE ARGUMENT'S FLAW AND WILL FAVOR YOUR ESSAY.
1. CIRCULAR REASONING
HERE, AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION IS USED TO JUSTIFY ANOTHER
UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION, WHICH IS, OR AT LEAST COULD BE, USED TO JUSTIFY
THE FIRST STATEMENT. FOR INSTANCE, JOE AND FRED SHOW UP AT AN EXCLUSIVE
CLUB. WHEN ASKED IF THEY ARE MEMBERS, JOE SAYS "I'LL VOUCH FOR FRED." WHEN
JOE IS ASKED FOR EVIDENCE THAT HE'S A MEMBER, FRED SAYS, "I'LL VOUCH FOR
HIM."
2. THE BIASED-SAMPLE FALLACY
THE FALLACY OF THE BIASED SAMPLE IS COMMITTED WHENEVER THE DATA FOR A
STATISTICAL INFERENCE ARE DRAWN FROM A SAMPLE THAT IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE POPULATION UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DATA DRAWN AND USED TO MAKE A
GENERALIZATION IS DRAWN FROM A GROUP THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE WHOLE.
HERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT COMMITS THE FALLACY OF THE BIASED SAMPLE:
LN A RECENT SURVEY CONDUCTED BY WALL STREET WEEKLY, 80% OF THE RESPONDENTS
INDICATED THEIR STRONG DISAPPROVAL OF INCREASED CAPITAL GAINS TAXES. THIS
SURVEY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT INCREASED CAPITAL GAINS TAXES WILL MEET WITH
STRONG OPPOSITION FROM THE ELECTORATE.
THE DATA FOR THE INFERENCE IN THIS ARGUMENT ARE DRAWN FROM A SAMPLE THAT IS
NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE ELECTORATE. SINCE THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED
OF PEOPLE WHO INVEST, NOT ALL MEMBERS OF THE ELECTORATE HAVE AN EQUAL
CHANCE OF BEING INCLUDED IN THE SAMPLE. MOREOVER, PERSONS WHO READ ABOUT
INVESTING ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE AN OPINION ON THE TOPIC OF TAXES ON
INVESTMENT DIFFERENT FROM THE POPULATION AT LARGE.
3. THE INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE FALLACY
THE FALLACY OF THE INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE IS COMMITTED WHENEVER AN INADEQUATE
SAMPLE IS USED TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION DRAWN.
HERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT COMMITS THE FALLACY OF THE INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE:
I HAVE WORKED WITH 3 PEOPLE FROM NEW YORK CITY AND FOUND THEM TO BE
OBNOXIOUS, PUSHY AND RUDE. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT PEOPLE FROM NEW YORK CITY
HAVE A BAD ATTITUDE.
THE DATA FOR THE INFERENCE IN THIS ARGUMENT ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE
CONCLUSION. THREE OBSERVATIONS OF PEOPLE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A
CONCLUSION ABOUT 10 MILLION.
4. AD HOMINEN
ONE OF THE MOST OFTEN-EMPLOYED FALLACIES, AD HOMINEN MEANS "TO THE MAN" AND
INDICATES AN ATTACK THAT IS MADE UPON A PERSON RATHER THAN UPON THE
STATEMENTS THAT PERSON HAS MADE. AN EXAMPLE IS: "DON'T LISTEN TO MY
OPPONENT, HE'S A HOMOSEXUAL."
5. THE FALLACY OF FAULTY ANALOGY
REASONING BY ANALOGY FUNCTIONS BY COMPARING TWO SIMILAR THINGS. BECAUSE
THEY ARE ALIKE IN VARIOUS WAYS, THE FALLACY IS THAT IT IS LIKELY THEY WILL
SHARE ANOTHER TRAIT AS WELL. FAULTY ANALOGY ARGUMENTS DRAW SIMILARITIES
BETWEEN THE THINGS COMPARED THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE CHARACTERISTIC
BEING INFERRED IN THE CONCLUSION.
HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF A FAULTY ANALOGY FALLACY:
TED AND JIM EXCEL AT BOTH FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL. SINCE TED IS ALSO A
TRACK STAR, IT IS LIKELY THAT JIM ALSO EXCELS AT TRACK.
IN THIS EXAMPLE, NUMEROUS SIMILARITIES BETWEEN TED AND JIM ARE TAKEN AS THE
BASIS FOR THE INFERENCE THAT THEY SHARE ADDITIONAL TRAITS.
6. STRAW MAN
HERE THE SPEAKER ATTRIBUTES AN ARGUMENT TO AN OPPONENT THAT DOES NOT
REPRESENT THE OPPONENT'S TRUE POSITION. FOR INSTANCE, A POLITICAL CANDIDATE
MIGHT CHARGE THAT HIS OPPONENT "WANTS TO LET ALL PRISONERS GO FREE," WHEN
IN FACT HIS OPPONENT SIMPLY FAVORS A HIGHLY LIMITED FURLOUGH SYSTEM. THE
PERSON IS PORTRAYED AS SOMEONE THAT THEY ARE NOT.
7. THE "AFTER THIS, THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF THIS" FALLACY (POST HOC ERGO
PROPTER HOC)
THIS IS A "FALSE CAUSE" FALLACY IN WHICH SOMETHING IS ASSOCIATED WITH
SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE OF MERE PROXIMITY OF TIME. ONE OFTEN ENCOUNTERS - IN
NEWS STORIES- PEOPLE ASSUMING THAT BECAUSE ONE THING HAPPENED AFTER
ANOTHER, THE FIRST CAUSED IT, AS WITH "I TOUCHED A TOAD, I HAVE A WART, THE
TOAD CAUSED THE WART." THE ERROR IN ARGUMENTS THAT COMMIT THIS FALLACY IS
THAT THEIR CONCLUSIONS ARE CAUSAL CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
SUBSTANTIATED BY THE EVIDENCE.
HERE ARE TWO EXAMPLES OF THE AFTER THIS, THEREFORE BECAUSE OF THIS FALLACY:
TEN MINUTES AFTER WALKING INTO THE AUDITORIUM, I BEGAN TO FEEL SICK TO
MY STOMACH. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOMETHING IN THE AIR IN THAT BUILDING THAT
CAUSED MY NAUSEA.
THE STOCK MARKET DECLINED SHORTLY AFTER THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT,
THUS INDICATING THE LACK OF CONFIDENCE THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS IN THE
NEW ADMINISTRATION.
IN THE FIRST EXAMPLE, A CAUSAL CONNECTION IS POSITED BETWEEN TWO EVENTS
SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF ONE OCCURRING BEFORE THE OTHER. WITHOUT FURTHER
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, THE CAUSAL CLAIM BASED ON THE CORRELATION IS
PREMATURE.
THE SECOND EXAMPLE IS TYPICAL OF MODERN NEWS REPORTING. THE ONLY EVIDENCE
OFFERED IN THIS ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT THE IMPLICIT CAUSAL CLAIM THAT THE
DECLINE IN THE STOCK MARKET WAS CAUSED BY THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT IS
THE FACT THAT ELECTION PRECEDED THE DECLINE. WHILE THIS MAY HAVE BEEN A
CAUSAL FACTOR IN THE DECLINE OF THE STOCK MARKET, TO ARGUE THAT IT IS THE
CAUSE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND AUXILIARY HYPOTHESES THAT MAKE A
CAUSAL CONNECTION PLAUSIBLE IS TO COMMIT THE AFTER THIS, THEREFORE, BECAUSE
OF THIS FALLACY.
