Logical Rigor in

Argumentation
SS

Prof. Rahul K Shukla

E: [email protected]
 Assuring

We offer assurances when we think that something might

doubt or challenge what we say. They ways are:
• Doctors agree…
• Experts believe..
• Recent studies have shown…
• It has been established…
 Assuring

Another way to give assurances is to comment on the

strength of our own belief:

• I’m certain that…

• I’m sure that…
• I can assure you that…
• I’m not kidding…
• Over the years, I have become more and more convinced
that…
 Guarding

Strategy for protecting your premise from attack. Here we

reduce our claim to something less strong.
1. Weakening the extent of what has been said: retreating from
“all” to “most” to “a few” to “some”, and so on.
2. Introducing probability phrases such as “It is virtually certain
that…,” “ It is likely that…,” “it might happen that…, ” and so
on.
3. Reducing ore level of commitment moving from “I know
that…,” to “I believe that…,” to “I suspect that…,” and so on.
 Discounting
The general pattern of discounting is to cite a possible criticism
in order to reject it or counter it.
• The ring is beautiful, but expensive.
• The ring is expensive, but beautiful.

“Although versus But”

• Although the ring is beautiful, it is expensive.
• Although the ring is expensive, it is beautiful.
 Discounting

The clearest cases of discounting occur when we are dealing

with facts that point in different directions. We discount the facts
that go against the position we wish to take. Examples:

• Jones is an aggressive player, but he is not dirty.

• The situation is difficult, but not hopeless.
• A truce has been declared, but who knows for how long?
A Partial List of Discounting Terms
Chinese symbol for listening
 Critical Reading & Listening

• Argumentation: Separate claims from reasons and

evidence
• Assumptions in Argumentation : Try to understand a
connection between the claims and the evidence used by the
speaker
• Analysis: Inferences drawn from the shared facts
• Assumptions in Inferences: Try to understand a connection
between the evidence shared and inferences drawn by the
speaker.
• Persuasive Techniques such as Pathos and Logos

• Question the Assumptions not the claims or inferences!

 Inferences and Assumptions

Situation/Premises

Assumptions
Conscious Level of Thinking

Inferences
 Inferences Versus Assumptions

• Inferences are conclusion based off of certain facts.

Solely based on these facts, different conclusions can be
drawn, depending on a personal point of view.

• Assumption is an essential step that connect the premise

to the conclusion. In many cases the conclusion cannot be
reached without this step.
Why the assumptions are different?

Person One Person Two

• Situation: A man is • Situation: A man is
lying in the gutter. lying in the gutter.

• Inference: That • Inference: That man

man’s is a drunkard. is in need of help.

• Assumption: Only • Assumption: Anyone

drunkards lie in lying in the gutter is in
gutters. need of help.

13
• Assumptions reflect the point of view the person
is developing.
 Don’t Act Like One

• The Mind-reader

• The Hurdler

• The Filterer

• The Comparer

• The Dreamer

• The Derailer
Availability bias
Psychological barriers to listening

Cognitive biases
 Control the following biases

Anchoring Bias
Bandwagon effect
Blind-spot bias
Choice-supportive bias
Recency Bias
Finally, Self-serving bias
24
 What is Logical Rigour ?

• Making a claim must be backed up by relevant evidence

• The defensibility of the link you make between the claim

and the supporting evidence or data determines the logical
rigour of your paragraph

25
 DON’T ASSUME THAT YOUR LOGIC
WILL BE FOLLOWED
• lay out each premise clearly

• draw a clear connection to the conclusion

26
Logical Fallacies

27
28
 Example 1

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the

environment eventually the government will ban all cars,
so we should not ban Hummers.

Problem:

29
 Example 1

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the

environment eventually the government will ban all cars,
so we should not ban Hummers.
Problem: In this example, the author is equating banning
Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same
thing.
Slippery Slope: A slippery slope argument states that a
relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events
culminating in some significant effect.

30
31
 Example 2

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a
boring course.
Problem:

32
 Example 2

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a
boring course.
Problem: In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of
the entire course on only the first day, which is notoriously
boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses.
Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient
or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a
conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.

33
34
 Example 3

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have
made me sick.
Problem:

35
 Example 3

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have
made me sick.
Problem: In this example, the author assumes that if one event
chronologically follows another the first event must have
caused the second.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (After this, therefore because of
this): This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after
'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.

36
37
 Example 4

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally

designed by Hitler's army.
Problem:

38
 Example 4

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally

designed by Hitler's army.
Problem: In this example the author is equating the character of
a car with the character of the people who built the car.
However, the two are not inherently related.
Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that
the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its
character, nature, or worth.

39
40
 Example 5

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Problem:

41
 Example 5

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Problem: Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should
be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should
be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning
its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as
"filthy and polluting.“
Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove
is validated within the claim.

42
43
 Example 6

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks

effectively.
Problem:

44
 Example 6
George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks
effectively.
Problem: In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good
communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks
effectively" are basically the same idea.
Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than
actually proving it.

45
46
 Example 7

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

Problem:

47
 Example 7

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

Problem: In this example, the two choices are presented as
the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices
in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-
sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better
community planning to discourage daily driving.
Either/or (false dichotomy): This is a conclusion that
oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two
sides or choices.

48
49
 Example 8

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are

all dirty, lazy hippies.
Problem:

50
 Example 8

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are

all dirty, lazy hippies.
Problem: In this example, the author doesn't even name
particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much
less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the
author attacks the characters of the individuals in the
group.
Ad hominem(argument to the Man): This is an attack on
the character of a person rather than his or her opinions
or arguments.

51
52
 Example 9

If you were a true American you would support the rights

of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.
Problem:

53
 Example 9

If you were a true American you would support the rights

of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.
Problem: In this example, the author equates being a "true
American," a concept that people want to be associated
with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to
buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent
connection between the two.
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people): This is an
emotional appeal that concludes that a proposition is true
because many or most people believe it.

54
55
 Example 10

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what

will fishers do to support their families?
Problem:

56
 Example 10

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what

will fishers do to support their families?
Problem: In this example, the author switches the
discussion away from the safety of the food and talks
instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those
catching fish.
Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the
key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather
than addressing them.

57
 Example 11

People who don't support the proposed state minimum

wage increase hate the poor.
Problem:

59
 Example 11

People who don't support the proposed state minimum

wage increase hate the poor.
Problem: In this example, the author attributes the worst
possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality,
however, the opposition probably has more complex and
sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not
addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the
opposition with respect or refuting their position.
Straw Man: This fallacy is based on false representation of
an opponent's argument

60
61
 Example 12

John says, “This man is wrong because he has no integrity;

just ask him why he was fired from his last job,” to which
Jack replies, “How about we talk about the fat bonus you
took home last year despite half your company being
downsized.”
Problem

62
 Example 12
• John says, “This man is wrong because he has no integrity; just
ask him why he was fired from his last job,” to which Jack
replies, “How about we talk about the fat bonus you took
home last year despite half your company being downsized.”
• Problem: Here, instead of addressing or defending John’s
charge, Jack himself accuses John.
• Tu quoque (meaning you too): the fallacy involves countering
a charge with a charge, rather than addressing the issue being
raised, with the intention of diverting attention away from
the original argument.

63
64
 Example 13

Wearing uniforms to school is like being in a prison of

clothing. Students didn’t do anything wrong, so why are
they being punished?
Problem:

65
 Example 13

Wearing uniforms to school is like being in a prison of

clothing. Students didn’t do anything wrong, so why are
they being punished?
Problem: The writer is comparing the restriction of wearing
uniforms to the restriction of being imprisoned. Since
prison involves punishment, the writer calls wearing
uniforms a punishment. However, there is no relationship
between prison and school.
Weak Analogy: This fallacy compares two things that aren’t
really alike in relevant aspects.

66
 FALLACIES

• Slippery Slope
• Hasty Generalization
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc (After this, therefore because of this)
• Genetic Fallacy
• Circular Argument
• Either/or (false dichotomy)
• Red Herring
• Straw Man
• Tu quoque
• Weak Analogy
• Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people)
• Ad Hominen
 Reference

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

68