Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [137]
8. Hasty generalization. A conclusion derived from only one or two examples produces the fallacy known as hasty generalization. It is also known as an unwarranted inductive leap because the conclusion lacks sufficient evidence. When a child concludes that all orange food tastes bad because he dislikes carrots, he has run afoul of this fallacy. Give him an orange popsicle.
9. Non sequitur. Latin for “it does not follow,” non sequiturs skip logical steps in arriving at a conclusion. For example: “If we mandate a new tax on people who work downtown but do not live there, businesses will all leave the city.” Really?
10. Oversimplification/overgeneralization is an inadequately qualified claim. It may be true that some heavy drinkers are alcoholics, but it would not be fair to claim that all heavy drinking is or leads to alcoholism. As a rule, be wary of “totalizing” or global pronouncements; the bigger the generalization, the more likely it will admit of exceptions.
11. Poisoning the well. This fallacy occurs when a person uses loaded language to trivialize or dismiss an argument before even mentioning it. For example: “No reasonable person would swallow that left-wing, tax-and-spend position.”
12. Red herring. The name comes from the practice of using herring, a smelly fish, to distract dogs from the scent they are supposed to be tracking. A red herring diverts the attention of the audience from the matter at hand, often by provoking them with some loaded or controversial topic not really related to the matter at hand. For example, if you are talking about the quality of different kinds of computers, the issue of whether or not they were made in America would be a red herring.
13. Slippery slope. This error is based on the fear that once a move is made in one direction, we will necessarily continue to “slide” in that direction. So, for example, if the U.S. approves medicinal uses of marijuana, soon there will be no control of what is now illicit drug use across the nation. A classic case is offered by the Vietnam War: if a single country was allowed to fall under communist rule, soon all the other countries in the region would follow.
14. Straw man. This move involves oversimplifying and even caricaturing another person’s argument or position in order to make it easier to refute. For example, opponents of health care reform treat it as a straw man when they claim that such reform would deny benefits to the elderly and perhaps even result in so-called “death panels”—groups who would choose which people will live and which will die.
15. Weasel word. A specialized form of equivocation results in what are sometimes called weasel words. As we note earlier, a weasel word is one that has been used so much and so loosely that it ceases to have much meaning (the term derives from the weasel’s reputed practice of sucking the contents from an egg without destroying the shell). The word “natural,” for example, can mean good, pure, and unsullied, but it can also refer to the ways of nature (flora and fauna). Such terms (“love,” “reality,” and “experience” are others) invite equivocation because they mean so many different things to different people.
GUIDELINES FOR ANALYZING ARGUMENTS
Make unstated premises (assumptions) explicit.
Look for the general principle or reason (warrant) that connects your data (“what have I got to go on?”) with your claim.
Remember that argument need not be mortal combat: “mutual inquiry or exploration” (as Wayne Booth puts it) is a constructive goal.
Be able to state another’s position to his or her satisfaction before you agree or disagree with it, as Carl Rogers counsels.
Beware of excessively categorical thinking, which produces overstated claims. To remedy, make sure to