modes of reasoning

MODULE 1 HOMEWORK 4
NEUTRALIZING A FALLACY

In each of the following, identify and neutralize the fallacy using the 6-step process for neutralizing a fallacy taught in class.

Exercise 1:

Senator Biddle has argued that we should outlaw violent pornography. The senator obviously favours complete governmental censorship of books, magazines and films. I am shocked that such a view should be expressed on the floor of the Senate. It runs counter to everything that this nation stands for.

1. Identify the conclusion or main point in a fallacy. (1 Mark)

Senator Biddle has argued that we should outlaw violent pornography.

2. Identify the reason being given for that main point. (1 Mark)

The senator obviously favours complete governmental censorship of books, magazines and films.

3. Name of the Fallacy. (1 Mark)

Strawperson

4. Identify the criteria for the fallacy. (1 Mark) Step 2 of the process of analyzing fallacies consists of defining the fallacy = explaining the conditions under which the fallacy occurs

Consists of misrepresenting an opponent’s position or argument, usually for the purpose of making it easier to attack.

4. Show how this particular fallacy fits the criteria. (2 Marks)

The fallacy reports back an incorrect, exaggerated version of what Senator Biddle said. Senator Biddle said that we should outlaw only violent pornography. The arguer reports back an irrelevant thesis that the Senator is in favour of complete governmental censorship of books, magazines and films.

6. Challenge the fallacy. (4 Marks) Explain what is wrong with using this pattern of reasoning with reference to any violations of the 3 criteria for a good argument . State which criteria for a good argument the fallacy violates.
Explain what it means to violate that criteria for a good argument (relevancy, sufficiency, acceptability) in any argument.

Violates the relevancy criterion for a good argument.
Argument violates relevancy criterion when it gives reasons that do not effect the truth or falsity of the conclusion, do not bear upon it.
Opponent’s reasoning is faulty because it argues against a non-existent, irrelevant thesis that is not the position of the arguer.
Creates the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position.
Violates the listening principle of argumentation which means that the opponent is not effectively engaging in argumentation.
The listening principle states that people have an obligation to listen fairly to the arguments and claims or argument partners and to represent their positions and arguments fairly.

Exercise 2:

You have to show me that pornography is not harmful. Otherwise, I contend that we have a clear obligation to ban it.

1. Identify the conclusion or main point in a fallacy. (1 Mark)

We have a clear obligation to ban pornography.

2. Identify the reason being given for that main point. (1 Mark)

You have not shown that pornography is not harmful.

3. Name of the Fallacy. (1 Mark)

Appeal to Ignorance

4. Identify the criteria for the fallacy. (1 Mark) Step 2 of the process of analyzing fallacies consists of defining the fallacy = explaining the conditions under which the fallacy occurs

Emphasizing not the evidence for a thesis but the lack of evidence against it.
Statement not-p is unproved.
Statement p is true.

4. Show how this particular fallacy fits the criteria. (2 Marks)

This argument is based on lack of evidence proving that pornography is not harmful. Argument states that since it has not been shown that pornography is not harmful, that there is no evidence that pornography causes harm, then it must cause harm.

6. Challenge the fallacy. (4 Marks) Explain what is wrong with using this pattern of reasoning with reference to any violations of the 3 criteria for a good argument . State which criteria for a good argument the fallacy violates.
Explain what it means to violate that criteria for a good argument (relevancy, sufficiency, acceptability) in any argument.

Violates the sufficiency criterion for a good argument.
One violates the sufficiency criterion when one does not give enough reasons in number, weight or kind in support of a conclusion.
What is objectionable about this kind of reasoning is that it does not provide any reasons or independent evidence for the conclusion.
When good reasons are lacking, the rational conclusion to draw is that we just don’t know.
Ignorance about the harms of pornography proves nothing, except, of course, that we are ignorant.
Violates the burden of proof principle.
Burden of proof principle states that the burden of proof – providing evidence or support for a claim or position – rests on the person defending a position.
Refusing to provide support for the harms of pornography or insisting that one’s argument partner disprove the harmfulness of pornography rather than offering proof violates this principle and the aim of argumentaion.