How to Win Every Argument ( PDFDrive )

Trivial objections demolishing the case which is mitted because they are not u assigned, not because they are We cannot countenance any inv of what it might do to the suppl (Integrity, honour and glory so but long-life milk...) Associate membership of th known as the European Econo rejected by a British prime min Trivial objections tend to ap the argument is difficult to opp appearance as practical difficul proposal. Although banning cars from the own store, I would still go along do not have a single sign-write necessary road signs. It is often difficult to oppose appearing to be undemocratic permits a combination of rea hostility to any practical prop because of the paperwork inv principle, can be opposed on g Of course we, as teachers, wou this; but there just isn't a hall b (A meeting of teachers who meanwhile be held in the store

163 is presented. The fallacy is com- up to the task to which they are e erroneous. volvement in a land war in Europe. Think ly of long-life milk from the continent. ometimes seem pretty trivial reasons - he European Union, when it was omic Community, was, however, nister as 'beneath our dignity'. ppear when the central thrust of pose. Very often they make their lties put in the way of a popular e High Street will severely hit trade at my with the majority but for one thing. We er in the area who could make up the e the democratic process without c. The fallacy of trivial objections adiness to accept the idea with posal. Elections can be opposed volved. Referenda, while good in grounds of cost. uld like the parents to have the final say on big enough for such a meeting. really favoured the proposal could e-cupboard.)

164 When you are searching for triv down ideas which are difficult always drag up objections from situations. Yes, vicar, I would like to com house caught fire one Sunday (Why, it would then become ano If you dwell on your objections each one is valid, your audience w weight of numbers than by their / too like the idea of extendin trains, but there are eight ob manage to get the right coins (Very good, so long as you never m that they would enable people to vice. Stick to the trivia; it's safer g Tu quoque Tu quoque means 'you also', and undermined by the claim that its what he talks of. It is a change of proponent to one made against h my position, but you're the one propping up the rails at the loca With a little more subtlety, t undermine an accusation by disc

How to Win Every Argument vial objections with which to do to oppose head-on, you can m highly unlikely hypothetical me to church more regularly. But suppose th y morning while I was away? other flaming excuse, like this one.) s, listing them and showing how will be impressed more by their r lack of substance. ng choice by having vending machines in bjections. First, how would passengers s for them? Second... mention the real objection, which is o bypass failures in the existing ser- ground.) d is committed when a case is s proponent is himself guilty of subject from a claim made by a him. ('You accuse me of abusing e whose company car is seen al race-course!') the tu quoque can be used to crediting the accuser.

Tu quoque And now I turn to Mrs Green's society over my personal interes that this charge comes from the when her son-in-law benefited Hardly a source entitled to mak (I reckon he did it.) The fallacy of the tu quoq attempt to deal with the subjec is introduced, namely the recor or falsehood of an assertion h ground of the person who mak assertion is not altered by deta one who is putting it forward. Another version of the tu qu being said by showing it to b views of its proposer. Why should we listen to Brown' last year he opposed the whole (For one thing, if the argumen worth listening to. For another, Because someone once opp their arguments in favour from the fallacy is supported by a consistent whenever we can. T argue with sincerity this yea limousine which he opposed s The UK's parliamentary que quoque. Indeed, skill at handl exclusively in terms of the

165 s charge that I deliberately misled this st in the firm concerned. May I remind you e same Mrs Green who kept very quiet from our decision over the surplus land. ke such charges, you must agree. que occurs because it makes no ct under discussion. A new subject rd of someone involved. The truth has nothing to do with the back- kes it. Evidence for or against that ails of the previous actions of the uoque seeks to undermine what is be inconsistent with the previous 's support for the new carpark when only e idea? nts changed his mind they might be , there might be more cars around.) posed an idea it does not preclude m being good ones. Despite this, strong tendency in us to appear The new mayor finds it difficult to ar in favour of the same official so vociferously for his predecessor. estion-time is the home of the tu ling questions is often measured performer's dexterity with this

166 particular fallacy. This is why an present or the future invariably b May I remind my honourable colle (He is, of course, reminding thos longer, deeper, louder and worse can be rejected.) A parliamentary question is alway There is a good case to be made them called a 'TQ'. The tu quoque is easy to use b some of the time, and few people argue that anyone who has ch proved that they must be wrong that this occasion could well be find nothing at all to your oppone be used in an attempt to underm of us have weaknesses, why doe As for the charges that I may just o difficulty to a small extent, all I c Holier-than-thou. (And he is probably quite a lot ho Unaccepted enthyrnemes An enthymeme is an argument w rather than stated. This is all righ the tacit assumption. When the ted, we move into the territory o

How to Win Every Argument nswers to questions about the begin with the phrase: eagues... se opposite that they did it sooner, e. This is why their specious charges ys known in the House as a 'PQ'. e for having the reply to one of because everyone is inconsistent e have a blameless past. You can hanged their mind has thereby g at least some of the time, and one of those times. If you can ent's discredit, even this fact can mine what he is saying. The rest esn't he? occasionally have helped myself out of can say is look at Mr High-and-mighty olier than thou.) with one of its stages understood ht as long as both parties accept unstated element is not accep- of the fallacy.

Unaccepted enthymemes Bill must be stupid. You ha (While the average listener mig be somewhat put out if he late driving test. The argument onl In this case a fallacy is committ of the argument is omitted assumption, then it is present tener makes the assumption, more support that it really do stages because they are gene recognize that there can be d entitled to assume. / hope to repay the bank so leave a reward to everyone (The bank manager, surprised be even more surprised when neglected your aunt.) It is because we use enthy iously filling in the details that The earnest caller who wishes be satisfied if told 'I'm a Budd the implicit fact that Buddhi however, you were to reply ins Bible', your caller might still assumption that you were a B you have a very good answer him in church next Sunday.) Unaccepted enthymemes excuses. The listener will ge

167 ave to be stupid to fail a driving-test. ght nod sagely at this point, he would er discovered that Bill hadn't failed his ly works if that is assumed.) ted because an important element d. If both parties agree on the although unstated. If only the lis- he may think the argument has oes. We often leave out important erally understood, but we have to disagreements about what we are oon, Mr Smith. My late aunt said she would who had looked after her. by the non-payment of the debt, will n you tell him how you had always ymemes routinely to avoid labor- opportunities for the fallacy arise. s to discuss the Bible with you will dhist', because both parties accept ists do not discuss the Bible. If, stead: 'Buddhists don't discuss the be satisfied, making the obvious Buddhist. (Make sure though that ready should you happen to meet form ready crutches for lame enerously clothe them with the

168 unstated part necessary to comp leaving them to blush naked. Darling, I'm sorry. Busy people (This is fine until your colleagues m for two months except the Teleg The fallacy is easy to use, and wi variety of situations. The proced statement as the answer to an indi will automatically assume the mis situation applies to this particular in certain circumstances is only rele if it is assumed that you were inde unaccepted enthymeme will slide Yes, I am rather late. One simp more. (True, but you walked from just ar You can equally well make gen sion about someone in particular. Y and determination to believe the unaccepted enthymeme to mingle I'm not happy with the choice o those who prey on rich widow (Or on unjustified implications.) The undistributed middle Classic among schoolboy fallacies all horses have four legs and all do

How to Win Every Argument plete the argument, instead of e tend to forget such things as anniversaries mention that you've done nothing graph crossword.) will get you off the hook in a wide dure is simple. Give a general ividual situation. Your audience ssing premise: that the general case. What people normally do evant to the charges against you eed in those circumstances. The in as smoothly as vintage port. ply cannot depend on buses and trains any around the corner.) neral assertions during a discus- Your audience's delight at gossip worst in everyone will help the e with the invited guests. of Smith. One can never be happy with ws. s is the argument that because ogs have four legs, so all horses

The undistributed middle are dogs. This is the simplest v the undistributed middle. Both legged, but neither of them o four-legged beings. This leaves dogs to be different from eac which might also without any o The 'middle' which careless is the term which appears in argument, but which disappea three-liner requires that this m of its class at least once. If not, All men are mammals. Some are rabbits. (Even though the first two lines mals' never once refers to all undistributed and the deductio Common sense shows why the The standard three-liner (called one thing to another by means with a third. Only if at least on all the third thing do we know other relationship. We cannot say that bureauc bureaucrats are meddlesome a It is quite possible that gin-sod but that does not mean that bu (Life might be more interesting monly appears in the form of ' The worst oppressors of the landlord, so Jones is one of

169 version of the notorious fallacy of h horses and dogs are indeed four- occupies the whole of the class of s convenient room for horses and ch other, and from other beings overlap be in the four-legged class. sly omitted to get itself distributed the first two lines of a three-line ars in the conclusion. The classic middle term must cover the whole , it is undistributed. e mammals are rabbits, therefore some m s are correct, the middle term 'mam- l mammals. The middle term is thus on invalid.) undistributed middle is fallacious. d a 'syllogism') works by relating s of a relationship they both have ne of those relationships applies to w that it is certain to include the crats are petty tyrants just because and petty tyrants are meddlesome. dden drunks are meddlesome too, ureaucrats are gin-sodden drunks. ng if they were.) This fallacy com- 'tarring with the same brush.' e working class are landlords. Jones is a the worst oppressors of the working classe

170 (Exit Jones, hurriedly, before it oppressors of the working clas human...) The great thing about undistrib undistribute new ones as further previously undistributed ones. working class wear shoes; Jones w The expert user will take the t are distributed or undistributed. 'Universals have distributed subje predicates.' Universals are statem none of a class, and negatives te this technical information, the e audience such monstrosities as: All nurses are really great peop people are not properly rewa rewarded. (It may be true, but has he give term 'really great people' is neithe predicate of a negative, it is not di a very complex fallacy of the und Leaving aside these technical form will give hours of pleasura atically. You should use it to gain pointing out how it shares quali admired. Similarly, opposing idea ing what qualities they share wit The union closed shop is the w will of the majority. The union (Where do I sign? [You did.])

How to Win Every Argument t is pointed out that the worst sses are human. Since Jones is buted middles is that you can r 'evidence' in support of your (The worst oppressors of the wears shoes...) trouble to find out which terms He will learn the simple rule: ects, negatives have distributed ments which tell us about all or ell us what isn't so. Armed with expert is able to inflict upon his ple, but it happens that some really great arded. So some nurses are not properly en an argument? Since the middle er the subject of a universal, nor the distributed. We have here, therefore, distributed middle.) l uses, the fallacy in its simple able success if applied system- approval for what you favour by ities with something universally as can be discredited by show- th universally detested things. will of the majority; and democracy is the n closed shop is only democratic.

Unobtainable perfection Elitism is something only a few be a few benefit from, so tennis is c (Fault!) Unobtainable perfection When the arguments for and ag sed, it is important to remember from the available alternatives. A their imperfections, as might th options is perfect, the imperfecti grounds for rejection. The fallac committed when lack of perfecti ion, even though none of the alt We should ban the generation o made completely safe. (Also coal, oil and hydro-electric, production and use. The questio would be better or worse than th If none of the alternatives, includ perfect, then imperfection is not them. To the matter of that c criticize only one option, it unfa choice because it could be appl I'm against going to the Greek isl would enjoy ourselves there. (When you do find a place for wh

171 enefit from, and tennis is something only clearly elitist. gainst courses of action are asses- r that the choice has to be made All of them might be criticized for he status quo. Unless one of the ions of the others are insufficient cy of unobtainable perfection is ion is urged as a basis for reject- lternatives is perfect either. of nuclear power because it can never be , all of which kill people every year in on should be whether nuclear power hey are.) ding making no change at all, is t grounds for a decision between choice it is irrelevant. If used to fairly loads the case against that lied to all of them. lands because we cannot guarantee we hich this is guaranteed, let me know.)

172 The fallacy is very often used quo, even though the status quo We must ban the new heart d associated with neurological d (This looks all right, but what if th dying each year of heart disease drug? Neither is the status quo pe Television documentaries and p excellent source material for the u Any new proposal of governme subjected to detailed analysis of and struggling mothers will rel which will be caused, and the uneasy feeling that the governm the same treatment could be giv The fallacy haunts the polishe On every committee is one p member, whose mission in life is t and destruction which change r new proposal with its own imper / don't think banning cars from hurt. There will still be childre shopping trolleys and baby ca (The question is not 'is it perfect?' posal will cut down accidents as th While you can use the gen undermine any proposals you d you if you take the time and trou very clever versions of it. The firs

How to Win Every Argument to reject changes to the status o itself might not be perfect. drug because it has been occasionally disorders. there are presently 15,000 patients e who could be saved by the new erfect.) public affairs programmes are unobtainable perfection fallacy. ent, any government, will be its imperfections. Frail widows late to cameras the hardships audience will be left with the ment is being too hasty. Exactly ven to the present situation. ed halls of committee meetings. person, usually a long-serving to hold back the tide of anarchy represents. He castigates every rfections. m Park Street will prevent old people being en on roller-blades and bicycles, and arriages. ?' The issue is whether the new pro- he status quo cuts down old people.) neral version of this fallacy to disapprove of, it will also repay uble to learn two specialist and st of these calls for a particular

Verecundiam, argumentum ad suggestion to be opposed bec You show its imperfections, an drastic is needed. This idea, the / approve in principle of the lot, rather than by my person areas of patronage and influ wider measure is needed, l propose that we refer this s (It was never seen again.) The second variant you can u totally beyond the powers of thus sets something they canno they can. It's all very well to suggest st that will not eradicate the pr these boys and girls, to effec (The original proposal now exits Verecundiam, argument This is the appeal to false autho to cite as a supporting witnes knowledge of the field concern an expert in one field can lend s special expertise, he is a false a Hundreds of leading scientist (Close examination shows few, tionary biology.)

173 cause it does not go far enough. nd suggest that something more erefore, should be rejected. proposal to have the benefits allocated by nal decision, but this will still leave many uence untouched. I suggest that a much looking at the whole field, and therefore suggestion back... use has you calling for something those making the decision, and ot do in opposition to something tiffer penalties for cheating, Headmaster, b roblem. What we need instead is to win ov ct a change in their hearts and minds... s amid a crescendo of violins.) tum ad ority. While it is perfectly in order ss someone who has specialized ned, it is a fallacy to suppose that support in another. Unless he has authority. ts reject evolution. , if any, whose expertise is in evolu-

174 Knowledge is specialized, and authorities to some extent. The challenge the view of someone fied than ordinary people. When on account of the opinion of som qualified but is not, the fallacy of committed. The fallacy lies in the introdu bearing on the matter under dis suppose that the opinion of a qua than our own. The attempt to before such spurious authority position and achievement, and argument and evidence. The cologne of the stars. (Since few of us are lucky enoug heroines, their opinions on this s than those of ordinary people clo The argumentum ad verecun advertising. Those who are thou esteem because of their achievem level to give advice on more hu excellence is in acting are only t vast experience of instant coffee an Oscar for excellence in motio as a qualification to speak on suc American foreign policy. One can admit the current yo tennis rackets after a Wimbledon is surprised to find that he sha famous faces eating yoghurt or b

How to Win Every Argument d we have to accept the view of ere is a general reluctance to who appears much more quali- n support for a position is urged meone who appears to be more f argumentum ad verecundiam is uction of material that has no scussion. We have no reason to alified person is worth any more make our own opinions yield is trading on our respect for d trying to use this instead of gh actually to smell our heroes and subject are probably less interesting oser at hand.) ndiam dominates the world of ught worthy of admiration and ments frequently descend to our umdrum matters. Those whose too ready to share with us their and dog-food. The winning of on pictures is widely recognized ch matters as world poverty and oung hopeful some authority on success; but razor blades? (One aves.) In a similar way we see buying life assurance. Those who

Verecundiam, argumentum ad have proved their worth as p programmes readily share with enzyme-action washing powde which is high in polyunsaturate A variant of the argumentum unidentified authorities, albeit world we are confronted by the 'top dog-breeders' and 'choosy who they are, all we can do is they have. We never hear fro average-to-poor dog-breeders o There is also the visual ad ver team wearing the sponsor's n nected with the sport. Winning the world slalom cham why... (And the logic is as frothy as the Your own use of the ad ve desire of many eminent people nate people with wide-ranging the cause, you will always be tinguished names to act as hon they have achieved eminence a will in no ways diminish their a campaign. In demanding a ban on Spanish am joined by distinguished inte leading figures from the worlds o (They should know. After all, th and windmills.)

175 presenters of radio or television h us their detailed expertise on ers or the virtues of a margarine es. m ad verecundiam has the appeal to those in the right field. In this he opinions of 'leading scientists', y mums'. Since we do not know to accept the apparent authority om the mediocre scientists, the or the indifferent mothers. recundiam, instanced by the sports name or slogan, even if uncon- mpionships gives me a real thirst. That's e stuff he's selling.) erecundiam is made easier by the e to be thought of as compassio- concerns. No matter how dotty able to assemble a panel of dis- norary patrons to it. The fact that as actors, writers and singing stars authority to lend weight to your imports until bullfighting is outlawed, I ernational scientists, top scholars and of communication and the arts. hey are also experts on wars, whales

176 Wishful thinking While many of us engage quite elevate it to the status of a falla argument. If we accept a content be true, rather than because of th support it, we move into fallacy. fallacy of wishful thinking if we r we do not wish it to be true. Going to work in this awful weath think I'll take the day off and stay (Everyone must have felt the forc Unfortunately, while there may be work, not wanting to is one w everyone except ourselves.) Our wishes rarely bear directly thing is true or false. We commit a discussion of the pros and cons. we would want it to be is good s Of course the environment talks w kind is on the way out. (The fact that we want them to su It could be that mankind is on the just as well be packing as hoping Wishful thinking often appear outcomes we are unable to influe He can't die. We couldn't manage (He did. They could.)

How to Win Every Argument happily in wishful thinking, we acy when we use it in place of tion because we would like it to he arguments or evidence which . Similarly, we also commit the reject something solely because her would do no good for anyone. I in bed. ce of this argument at some time. e reasons for and against going into which lacks persuasive force over y on the question of whether a a fallacy by intruding them into . To suppose that the world is as solipsism but bad logic. will succeed. Otherwise it means man- ucceed does not mean that they will. e way out; in which case you might g.) rs to colour our judgement of ence. e without him.

Wishful thinking Death, in fact, is a subject wishful thinking. Its abrupt and by the fallacy into something although our wishes hardly aff sition. Boswell, on a visit to th sopher about a possible afterlif Would it not be agreeable t (He mentioned three recently latter firmly rejected the fallacy Boswell reported, 'but added absurd a notion.') Time, like death, is a field ability to influence. It can't be Friday already! I'v exam! (Wrong about the day; right ab The problem about all wishful thing and the laws of the un conflict of interests which is n favour. This being true, you m out how to deal with the ou something else would happen. The bank will extend our ov (Bank managers are not interes only two things: making money of the poor.)

177 especially prone to the fallacy of d inconsiderate nature is softened we would find more acceptable, ford valid grounds for our suppo- he dying Hume, asked the philo- fe: to have hopes of seeing our friends again? y deceased friends of Hume, but the y. 'He owned it would be agreeable', d that none of them entertained so in which our wishes replace our ve not done nearly enough work to pass th bout the exam.) l thinking is that if you want one niverse dictate another there is a not going to be resolved in your might as well spend time working utcome, instead of wishing that . verdraft; otherwise we just cannot survive. sted in your survival. They care about ey for the bank and grinding the faces

178 Most of us are already fairly wishful thinking to persuade our vince others, bear in mind that than your own, which are appea The business will succeed. You'll ge (This is more effective than 'The b life!')

How to Win Every Argument adept at using the fallacy of rselves. When using it to con- it must be their wishes, rather aled to. et a huge return on your investment. business will succeed. I'll be rich for

Classification of fallacies There are five broad categories important division is between t mal ones, although there are im various types of informal fallacy Formal fallacies have some e Although they often resemble staircase only takes us from A t steps. In brief, the fallacy occur itself is defective. Informal fallacies, on the othe on terms which are not of suff ment. They can be linguistic, a to admit error; or they can be something needed to sustain factors to weigh on the conclu sumptions to alter the conclusi The five categories of fallacy 1 . formal 2. informal (linguistic) 3. informal (relevance - omis 4. informal (relevance - intru 5. informal (relevance - pres

s into which fallacies fall. The most the formal fallacies and the infor- mportant distinctions between the y. error in the structure of the logic. e valid forms of argument, the to B by way of cracked or missing rs because the chain of reasoning er hand, often use valid reasoning ficient quality to merit such treat- allowing ambiguities of language e fallacies of relevance which omit the argument, permit irrelevant usion, or allow unwarranted pre- ion reached. y are: ssion) usion) sumption)

180 The formal fallacies Affirming the consequent Conclusion which denies premise Contradictory premises Denying the antecedent Exclusive premises Existential fallacy False conversion Illicit process (minor) Illicit process (major) Positive conclusion/negative prem Quaternio terminorum Undistributed middle The informal linguistic fal Accent Amphiboly Composition Division Equivocation Reification The informal fallacies of r Bogus dilemma Concealed quantification Damning the alternatives Definitional retreat Extensional pruning Hedging

How to Win Every Argument es mises llacies relevance (omission)

Classification of fallacies Ignorantiam, argumentum ad Lapidem, argumentum ad Nauseam, argumentum ad One-sided assessment Refuting the example Shifting ground Shifting the burden of proof Special pleading Straw man The exception that proves the Trivial objections Unaccepted enthymemes Unobtainable perfection The informal fallacies of Blinding with science Crumenam, argumentum ad Emotional appeals (argumentum ad invidiam) (argumentum ad metum) (argumentum ad modum) (argumentum ad odium) (argumentum ad superbiam) (argumentum ad superstition (sentimens superior) Every schoolboy knows Genetic fallacy Hominem (abusive) argumentu Hominem (circumstantial) argu Ignoratio elenchi Irrelevant humour Lazarum, argumentum ad

181 rule f relevance (intrusion) ) nem) um ad umentum ad

182 Loaded words Misericordiam, argumentum ad Poisoning the well Populum, argumentum ad The red herring The runaway train The slippery slope Tu quoque Verecundiam, argumentum ad Wishful thinking The informal fallacies of Abusive analogy Accident Analogical fallacy Antiquitam, argumentum ad Apriorism Bifurcation Circulus in probando Complex questions Cum hoc ergo propter hoc Dicto simpliciter Ex-post-facto statistics The gambler's fallacy Non-anticipation Novitam, argumentum ad Petitio principii Post hoc ergo propter hoc Secundum quid Temperantiam, argumentum ad Thatcher's blame

How to Win Every Argument d relevance (presumption) d