Logical â??OOPSâ?â??Reading for English 1001The following
Logical â??OOPSâ?â??Reading for English 1001The following
Logical “OOPSâ€â€”Reading for English 1001The following is a selection from a chapter in Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing,Volume 1, a peer-reviewed open textbook series for the writingclassroom, and is published through Parlor Press.The full volume and individual chapter downloads are available forfree from the following sites:• Writing Spaces: http://writingspaces.org/essays• Parlor Press: http://parlorpress.com/writingspaces• WAC Clearinghouse: .colostate.edu/books/”>http://wac.colostate.edu/books/Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic? by Rebecca Jones What follows is an adaptation of Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst,and Francesca Snoeck Henkemans†“violations of the rules forcritical engagement†from their book Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation,Presentation(109). Rather than discuss rhetorical fallacies in alist (ad hominem, straw man, equivocation, etc.), they argue that thereshould be rules for proper argument to ensure fairness, logic, and asolution to the problem being addressed. Violating these rules causes afallacious argument and can result in a standoff rather than a solution. While fallacious arguments, if purposeful, pose real ethical problems,most people do not realize they are committing fallacies whenthey create an argument. To purposely attack someoneâ€s characterrather than their argument (ad hominem) is not only unethical, butdemonstrates lazy argumentation. However, confusing cause and effectmight simply be a misstep that needs fixing. It is important toadmit that many fallacies, though making an argument somewhat unsound,can be rhetorically savvy. While we know that appeals to pity(or going overboard on the emotional appeal) can often demonstratea lack of knowledge or evidence, they often work. As such, these rulespresent argumentation as it would play out in a utopian world whereeveryone is calm and logical, where everyone cares about resolving theargument at hand, rather than winning the battle, and where everyoneplays by the rules. Despite the utopian nature of the list, it offers valuableinsight into argument flaws and offers hope for better methods ofdeliberation. What follows is an adaptation of the approach to argumentationfound in Chapters 7 and 8 of Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation(Eemeren, et al. 109-54). The rule is listed first, followed by an example of howthe rule is often violated.1. The Freedom Rule“Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpointsor casting doubt on standpoints†(110).There are many ways to stop an individual from giving her ownargument. This can come in the form of a physical threat but mostoften takes the form of a misplaced critique. Instead of focusing onthe argument, the focus is shifted to the character of the writer orspeaker (ad hominem) or to making the argument (or author) seem absurd(straw man) rather than addressing its actual components. In thepast decade, “Bush is stupid†became a common ad hominem attackthat allowed policy to go unaddressed. To steer clear of the real issuesof global warming, someone might claim “Only a fool would believeglobal warming is real†or “Trying to suck all of the CO2 out of the atmospherewith giant greenhouse gas machines is mere science fiction,so we should look at abandoning all this green house gas nonsense.â€2. The Burden-of-Proof Rule“A party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if askedto do so†(113).This is one of my favorites. It is clear and simple. If you make anargument, you have to provide evidence to back it up. During the2008 Presidential debates, Americans watched as all the candidatesfumbled over the following question about healthcare: “How will thisplan actually work?†If you are presenting a written argument, thisrequirement can be accommodated through quality, researched evidenceapplied to your standpoint.3. The Standpoint Rule“A partyâ€s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that hasindeed been advanced by the other party†(116).Your standpoint is simply your claim, your basic argument in a nutshell.If you disagree with another personâ€s argument or they disagreewith yours, the actual standpoint and not some related but more easilyattacked issue must be addressed. For example, one person mightargue that the rhetoric of global warming has created a multi-milliondollar green industry benefiting from fears over climate change. Thisis an argument about the effects of global warming rhetoric, not globalwarming itself. It would break the standpoint rule to argue that thewriter/speaker does not believe in global warming. This is not the issueat hand.4. The Relevance Rule“A party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentationrelated to that standpoint†(119).Similar to #3, this rule assures that the evidence you use must actuallyrelate to your standpoint. Letâ€s stick with same argument: globalwarming has created a green industry benefiting from fears over climatechange. Under this rule, your evidence would need to offer examplesof the rhetoric and the resulting businesses that have developedsince the introduction of green industries. It would break the rules tosimply offer attacks on businesses who sell “eco-friendly†products.5. The Unexpressed Premise Rule“A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has beenleft unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he or she hasleft implicit†(121).This one sounds a bit complex, though it happens nearly every day.If you have been talking to another person and feel the need to say,“Thatâ€s NOT what I meant,†then you have experienced a violation ofthe unexpressed premise rule. Overall, the rule attempts to keep theargument on track and not let it stray into irrelevant territory. Thefirst violation of the rule, to falsely present what has been left unexpressed,is to rephrase someoneâ€s standpoint in a way that redirects theargument. One person might argue, “I love to go to the beach,†andanother might respond by saying “So you donâ€t have any appreciationfor mountain living.†The other aspect of this rule is to camouflagean unpopular idea and deny that it is part of your argument. For example,you might argue that “I have nothing against my neighbors. Ijust think that there should be a noise ordinance in this part of townto help cut down on crime.†This clearly shows that the writer doesbelieve her neighbors to be criminals but wonâ€t admit it.6. The Starting Point Rule“No party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point,or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point†(128).Part of quality argumentation is to agree on the opening standpoint.According to this theory, argument is pointless without thiskind of agreement. It is well known that arguing about abortion isnearly pointless as long as one side is arguing about the rights of theunborn and the other about the rights of women. These are two differentstarting points.7. The Argument Scheme Rule“A standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended if the defensedoes not take place by means of an appropriate argument schemethat is correctly applied†(130).This rule is about argument strategy. Argument schemes could takeup another paper altogether. Suffice it to say that schemes are ways ofapproaching an argument, your primary strategy. For example, youmight choose emotional rather than logical appeals to present yourposition. This rule highlights the fact that some argument strategiesare simply better than others. For example, if you choose to create anargument based largely on attacking the character of your opponentrather than the issues at hand, the argument is moot.Argument by analogy is a popular and well worn argument strategy(or scheme). Essentially, you compare your position to a morecommonly known one and make your argument through the comparison.For example, in the “Trust No One†argument above, theauthor equates the Watergate and Monica Lewinsky scandals. Since itis common knowledge that Watergate was a serious scandal, includingMonica Lewinsky in the list offers a strong argument by analogy: theLewinsky scandal did as much damage as Watergate. To break thisrule, you might make an analogy that does not hold up, such ascomparing a minor scandal involving a local school board to Watergate.This would be an exaggeration, in most cases.8. The Validity Rule“The reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or mustbe capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressedpremises†(132).This rule is about traditional logics. Violating this rule means thatthe parts of your argument do not match up. For example, your causeand effect might be off: If you swim in the ocean today you will getstung by a jelly fish and need medical care. Joe went to the doctortoday. He must have been stung by a jelly fish. While this example isobvious (we do not know that Joe went swimming), many argumentproblems are caused by violating this rule.9. The Closure Rule“A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the protagonist retractingthe standpoint, and a successful defense of a standpoint must resultin the antagonist retracting his or her doubts†(134).This seems the most obvious rule, yet it is one that most publicarguments ignore. If your argument does not cut it, admit the faultsand move on. If another writer/speaker offers a rebuttal and you clearlycounter it, admit that the original argument is sound. Seems simple,but itâ€s not in our public culture. This would mean that George W.Bush would have to have a press conference and say, “My apologies, Iwas wrong about WMD,†or for someone who argued fervently thatAmericans want a single payer option for healthcare to instead arguesomething like, “The polls show that Americanâ€s want to changehealthcare, but not through the single payer option. My argument wasbased on my opinion that single payer is the best way and not on publicopinion.†Academics are more accustomed to retraction becauseour arguments are explicitly part of particular conversations. Rebuttalsand renegotiations are the norm. That does not make them any easierto stomach in an “argument is war†culture.10. The Usage Rule“Parties must not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear orconfusingly ambiguous, and they must interpret the formulations ofthe other party as carefully and accurately as possible†(136).While academics are perhaps the worst violators of this rule, it isan important one to discuss. Be clear. I notice in both student andprofessional academic writing that a confusing concept often meansconfusing prose, longer sentences, and more letters in a word. If youcannot say it/write it clearly, the concept might not yet be clear to you.Keep working. Ethical violations of this rule happen when someoneis purposefully ambiguous so as to confuse the issue. We can see thison all the “law†shows on television or though deliberate propaganda.Activity: 1. Find examples that violate three (3) of the rules above. Present the example, either by copying it, if it is something written, or by describing it, if it is verbal from TV, radio, movie, music, etc.. 2. Explain WHY it violates the rule. 3. Suggest a way to correct the flaw in the logic of each example.
"You need a similar assignment done from scratch? Our qualified writers will help you with a guaranteed AI-free & plagiarism-free A+ quality paper, Confidentiality, Timely delivery & Livechat/phone Support.
Discount Code: CIPD30
Click ORDER NOW..
