Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [131]
TWO WAYS TO IMPROVE AN ARGUMENT: CHECK FOR UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS AND QUALIFY CLAIMS
Many of the arguments we encounter in daily life succumb to overly rigid and unqualified categorical thinking. Of course, putting things into categories is not unto itself a bad practice. In order to generalize from particular experiences, we try to put those experiences into meaningful categories. Analytical thought is quite unthinkable without categories. But these can mislead us into oversimplification when the categories are too broad or too simply connected.
This is especially the case with the either/or choices to which categorical thinking is prone: approve/disapprove, real/unreal, accurate/inaccurate, believable/unbelievable. The writer who evaluates leadership in terms of its selflessness/selfishness, for example, needs to pause to consider why we should evaluate leadership in these terms in the first place.
We will refer to the following two examples to illustrate how (1) qualifying your claims and (2) checking for the unstated assumptions upon which your claims depend can remedy the two primary problems created by categorical thinking: unqualified claims and overstated positions. (For more on methods of uncovering unstated assumptions and reformulating binaries, see Chapter 4, Toolkit of Analytical Methods II.)
Example I: I think that there are many things shown on TV that are damaging for people to see. But there is no need for censorship. No network is going to show violence without the approval of the public, obviously for financial reasons. What must be remembered is that the public majority will see what it wants to see in our mass society.
Example II: Some members of our society feel that [the televised cartoon series] The Simpsons promotes wrong morals and values for our society. Other members find it funny and entertaining. I feel that The Simpsons has a more positive effect than a negative one. In relation to a real-life marriage, Marge and Homer’s marriage is pretty accurate. The problems they deal with are not very large or intense. As for the family relationships, the Simpsons are very close and love each other.
The main problem with Example I is the writer’s failure to qualify his ideas, a problem that causes him to generalize to the point of oversimplification. Note the writer’s habit of stating his claims absolutely (we have italicized the words that make these claims unqualified):
“there is no need for censorship”
“no network is going to show violence without”
“obviously for financial reasons”
“what must be remembered”
“the majority will see”
Such broad, pronouncement-like claims cannot be supported. The solution is to more carefully limit the claims, especially the key premise about public approval. The assertion that a commercial television industry will, for financial reasons, give the public “what it wants” is true to an extent (our key phrase for reformulating either/ ors)—but it is not true as globally as the writer wishes us to believe.
Couldn’t it also be argued, for example, that given the power of television to shape people’s tastes and opinions, the public sees not just what it wants but what it has been taught to want? This complication of the writer’s argument about public approval undermines the credibility of his global assertion that “there is no need for censorship.”
Example II would appear to be more qualified than Example I because it acknowledges the existence of more than one point of view. Rather than broadly asserting that the show is positive and accurate, she tempers these claims (as italics show): “I feel that The Simpsons has a more positive effect than a negative one”; “Marge and Homer’s marriage is pretty accurate.” These qualifications, however, are superficial.
Before she could convince us to approve of The Simpsons for its accuracy in depicting marriage, she would have to convince us that accuracy is a reasonable criterion for evaluating TV shows (especially cartoons) rather than assuming the unquestioned value of accuracy. Would