ENGL1133 Essay #1: Critical Response

Appeals to Logic A successful argument depends upon appeals to logic, which engage the audience’s intellectual and reasoning capacity. E.g. Gay marriage in America has become a fairly emotional issue. But, we should work wound the emotions involved and investigate the issue of rights and state law. It has been established that individual states can define marriage. The question, then, lies in the role of other states: Does every state have to honor a marriage licensed in other states?

This, it seems, is merely a matter of constitutional law. In this example, the writer directly calls on the reader’s logic, encouraging them to see beyond the ir emotion. Inference Inference is just a big word that means a conclusion or judgment. If you infer that something has happened, you do not see, hear, feel, smell, or taste the actual event. But from what you know, it makes sense to think that it has hap pened. Inference is the act or process of deriving a logical conclusion based on premises known to be true. E.g. If a person walks up to a restaurant and the door is locked and the lights are out, he or she may infer, with confidence, that the restaurant is closed. This inference is probably right, but it could be wrong. Perhaps the restaurant is very dimly lit and the door handle occasionally sticks. Each inference is drawn from premises. Premise is a technical word used for ideas known or thought t o be true. People infer differently because their perspectives are based on different experiences and ways of thinking. Line of reasoning A line of reasoning refers to a series of logical steps that lead the arguer and the audience to a main claim. In simple words line of reasoning stands for a course of rea soning aimed at demonstrating the truth or argument. Types of Reasoning: Deductive, Inductive, and Analogical Deductive Reasoning Deductive reasoning begins with general claims and leads to a specifi c claim. E.g. The winters in Minnesota can be harsh. (General statement about the weather in Minnesota) Heavy snow and cold temperatures are constants. (Another general statement) We had better pack our wool sweaters if we’re spending Christmas in Minnesota. (Specific conclusion/claim arrived through general statements) Syllogism Syllogism is the simplest sequence of logical premises and conclusions, devised by Aristotle. It is the line of deductive reasoning that requires three steps. Syllogism can be thought of as a formula: Reason A and reason B; therefore, reason C E.g. All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. If readers accept the first two premises, they will then accept the conclusion. Although they include only three parts, syllogisms can become quite complex. They may take several paragraphs or pages if each premise is illustrated with examples. Enthymeme Enthymeme is a sh ortened syllogism which omits the first premise, allowing the audience to fill it in. E.g. Socrates is mortal because he is a human. This is an enthymeme which leaves out the premise that a ll humans are mort al. Inductive Reasoning In inductive reasoning, a conclusion or common principle is reached by generalizing from a body of evidence. The conclusions reached through inductive reasoning are always conditional to some extent – that is, there is always the possibility that some additional evidence may be introduced to suggest a different conclusion. E.g. If you look out a window and observe that the street and side walk are wet and the sky is over cast, you will most likely conclude that it had rained recently. You didn’t see the rain, but you can genera lize from past experiences with the same evidence. Given the available evidence, you were perfectly justified in concluding that it had rained. But suppose you then turned on the radio and learned that the water main in the street had broken overnight. No w you should be prepared to revise your original conclusion based upon the new information. Inductive reasoning uses the available evidence to construct the most likely conclusion. Analogical Reasoning Analogical reasoning depends on comparison. The argue r moves from one particular to another particular, instead of from general to specific, or specific to general. Analogies shed light on something by comparing or contrasting it with something familiar. It argues that is two things are alike in certain re spect; it is also alike in other respects. Logical Fallacies A logical fallacy is a logical falsehood that makes no sense within a given situation. They are common errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. Non Sequitur (“it does not follow”) Non sequitur means, just because the first part of a statement is true doesn’t mean the second part will happen or become true. E.g. Eddie is smart; therefore he will do well in college. Appeal to tradition Is a fallacy that says so mething should be done a certain way because it has been done that way in the past. E.g. Because they are a memorable part of the pledge process, fraternity hazing should not be banned. Things change. Something that was good in the past might not be acceptable now. False Analogy False analogy is the assumption that because two things are alike in some way, they must be alike in others. E.g. The United States lost credibility with other nations during the war in Vietnam, so we should not get involved i n the Middle East, or we will lose credibility again. False Cause: False cause, (also known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc, meaning “after this, so because of this”) is the assumption that because one event follows another, the first is the cause of the s econd. E.g. Cramming for a test really helps because last week I crammed for my psychology test and I got an A on it Hasty Generalization Hasty generalization is a conclusion based on too little evidence or biased evidence. E.g. Ellen is a poor student bec ause she failed her first history test. Oversimplification Oversimplification is a statement or argument that leaves out relevant considerations in order to imply that there is a single cause or solution for a complex process. E.g. We can eliminate unwante d pregnancies by teaching birth control and abstinence. Ethical Fallacies Ad Hominem: (To the Person) An ad hominem refers to a personal attack on an opponent that draws attention away from the issues under consideration. E.g. She is unfit to be a ministe r because she is divorced. Instead of making comments on the opponents reasoning, the writer is making personal remarks about the opponent itself. Emotional Fallacies Appeal to Popularity – Bandwagon Fallacy Bandwagon is an argument saying, “Everyone’s do ing or saying or thinking this, so you should, too.” E.g. Everyone drives over the speed limit, so why shouldn’t we raise the limit? False Dilemma (the either/or fallacy) False dilemma is a fallacy that makes only two alternatives available, when in fact there are more than two. E.g. We must either built more nuclear plants, or we completely depend on foreign oil. False Authority False authority is the assumption that an expert in one field can be credible in another. E.g. We must stop sending military troops into Afghanistan, as Bruce Springsteen has argued. (Springsteen’s expertise in music does not automatically qualify him as an expert in foreign policy). Red Herring (ignoring the question) Red herring means dodging the real issue by drawing attentio n to an irrelevant one. E.g. Why worry about violence in schools when we ought to be worrying about international terrorism? Slippery Slope Slippery slope is an assumption that if one thing is allowed, it will be lead to another, creating the first step i n a downward spiral. E.g. Handgun control will lead to a police state.