ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2

Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

Learning Objectives:

By the end of the tutorial, you should be able to:

 evaluate the reliability of evidence or authorities;
 identify common logical fallacies in arguments and label them conventionally, where
possible;
 use the terms ‘ethos’, ‘pathos’ and ‘logos’ appropriately in the analysis of written or
spoken arguments.

Sources:

The following sources are additional readings that will help you further understand the concepts
taught in this tutorial.

1. Critical Evaluation of Information Sources

Bell, C. (2014). Critical Information of Information Sources. University of Oregon
Libraries. Retrieved from http://library.uoregon.edu/guides/findarticles/credibility.html

2. Evaluating Web Pages

University of California Berkeley Library. (2012). Evaluating Web Pages:
Techniques to Apply & Questions to Ask. Retrieved from
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html

3. Logical Fallacies
Wheeler, L. K. (2014). Logical Fallacies Handlist: Arguments To Avoid When Writing.
Retrieved from https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Logic_Fallacies_List.pdf

4. Ethos, Pathos and Logos (explanation and examples)

Henning, M. L. (1998). Friendly Persuasion: Classical Rhetoric--Now! Draft
Manuscript. Retrieved from http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html

In the previous two tutorials, you have been introduced to the fundamental structure of an
argument, including the basic reasoning patterns of deduction and induction, and critical reading.
In this tutorial, you will learn about flaws in the logic of an argument, and ways to assess the
kinds of evidence that support an argument.

What are fallacies?

Fallacies, also known as ‘logical fallacies’ are unsound or invalid arguments. At first sight, they
may appear to be logical, but in fact, there is something fundamentally wrong with them. An
example would be the fallacy that because it is observed that one event (x) typically follows
another (y), y must be the cause of x.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 1

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

Here is an example: It is conceivable that early humans heard the cock (rooster) crow very early
each morning and then saw the sun rise over the horizon.
Erroneous conclusion: the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise.

In the next section, we are going to familiarize ourselves with the most common fallacies. Falla-
cious reasoning may be intentional, as is sometimes the case with unscrupulous merchandisers
and politicians, or it may be an innocent mistake resulting from fuzzy thinking or unexamined
bias. In any case, if we are familiar with fallacies we can avoid them in our own thinking and
writing. We can also spot them in the arguments of others, a skill that makes us wiser consumers
and citizens.

There are many fallacies, a number of which tend to overlap. Here is a list of the more common
fallacies presented in alphabetical order for easy reference.

Appeal to Authority

The opinion of an authority can support an argument only when it reflects his special area of
expertise; the authority must be an expert on the subject being argued, as is the case in the
following example:

The Surgeon General warns that smoking is injurious to health.

But, if the appeal is to an authority who is not appropriate, the appeal is fallacious, as is the case
in the following example:

Abortion to save the life of a mother is an irrelevant issue because a former

surgeon general, a well-known paediatric surgeon, claimed that in all his years of
surgical practice he had never seen a case in which such a dilemma had arisen.

The problem here is that a paediatric surgeon is not an appropriate authority on an issue
involving obstetrics, a different medical specialty.

Keep in mind that fallacious appeals to authority should not cause us to doubt all authorities but
rather should encourage us to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources.

Equivocation

Equivocation is the shifting of the meaning of a given term within a single argument. This
fallacy stems from the often ambiguous nature of language. A term may be ambiguous because it
has more than one meaning; for instance, the word "affair" may mean a party, a controversial
incident, or an extramarital relationship. Look at this example:

We are told by the government that to discriminate against a person in employment or

housing is wrong and punishable by law. But we must discriminate when we hire an

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 2

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

individual (Does he have the necessary experience?) or rent an apartment (Does he have
sufficient income?). Discrimination is a necessary part of making such decisions.

The word “discriminate” is the culprit. In the first sentence, “discriminate” refers to prejudice, to
denying an individual employment or housing because of his or her race, sex, or religion. In the
second sentence, "discriminate" refers to making careful distinctions between applicants on the
basis of relevant issues.

False Analogy

One creative way to mount an argument can be through analogy. An argument by analogy
compares two or more things, alike in certain respects, and suggests that since they share certain
characteristics, they probably share other characteristics as well.

But in a false analogy, one compares two things in which the key features are different. A
mountain climber offers this analogy to minimize the danger of his sport:

I don't want to die falling off a rock.... But you can kill yourself falling in the bathtub, too.
-John Bachar, American rock climber -

He is comparing two extremely dissimilar acts: climbing a mountain and taking a bath, one a
sport, the other a daily routine. And while it is possible to kill oneself slipping in the bathtub, if
we were to compare the number of deaths in proportion to the number of bathers and the number
of mountain climbers, we would surely find a higher incidence of deaths in mountain climbing
than in bathing. To construct a more convincing analogy, the mountain climber should compare
the risk in mountain climbing with that in another high-risk sport such as race-car driving.

False Cause

The fallacy of false cause assumes a cause-effect relationship between two events because one
precedes another. It claims a causal relationship solely on the basis of a chronological
relationship. Look at the following example:

Governor Robinson took office in 1998.

In 1999, the state suffered a severe recession.
Therefore, Governor Robinson should not be re-elected.
(Hidden assumption: The governor caused the recession.)

Elected officials are often credited with the success or blamed for the failure of the economy. But
in fact, anything as complex as the economy is affected by numerous factors such as inflation,
environmental changes, the laws of supply and demand, just to name a few. Elected officials may
indeed affect the economy but are unlikely to be the sole cause of its success or failure.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 3

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

False Dilemma

A false dilemma presents two and only two alternatives for consideration when other
possibilities exist. For this reason, a false dilemma is often referred to as either/or reasoning.

Either you are in favor of recalling the mayor, or you are a supporter of his political platform.
We are presented with only two positions when in fact we may hold neither. We may want the
mayor to continue in office because we believe him to be a strong administrator, but we may
object to his proposal to encourage big business by lowering the business tax.
Narrowing to two choices is a strategy designed to forestall clear thinking and force a quick
decision. This kind of reasoning can be seductive because it reduces the often difficult decisions
and judgments we must make by narrowing complex problems and issues to two simple options.

Hasty Generalization

A hasty generalization is a conclusion based on a sample that is too small or in some other way
unrepresentative of the larger population.

Students in Professor Hall's eight o'clock freshman composition class are often late. There's
no doubt that people are right when they claim today's college students are irresponsible and
unreliable.

In this case the sample is both unrepresentative and too small; unrepresentative because we
would expect an eight o'clock class to have more late students than classes offered later in the
day, and too small because one section can't represent an entire freshman class.

It is impossible to avoid making generalizations, nor should we try to. But we must examine the
basis for our generalizations to determine their reliability.

Straw Man

In a straw man argument, a person creates and then attacks a distorted version of the opposition's
argument.

The democratic candidate wants the federal government to house everyone, feed everyone,
care for everyone's children, and provide medical care for everyone. And he's going to take
50 percent of every dime you make to do it.

This argument overlooks the candidate's proposal to reduce defence spending to meet his goals.
Hence, this is an unfair presentation of the opposing view, but one that could be extremely
effective in discouraging votes for the democratic candidate. And this is the purpose of a straw
man argument: to frighten supporters away from the opponent's camp and into one’s own.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 4

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments
More faulty arguments…
No need to memorize the terms; just read and learn.
Term Description
Fallacious Persuasive but does not
argument logically support its
conclusion.
Snob appeal Appeals to people’s desire
for prestige and exclusivity.
Appeal to fear Implicitly threatens the
audience.
Appeal to pity Attempts to win sympathy.
Begging the 1. Offers no actual support;
question may restate as a premise the
conclusion in different
words.
Loaded 2. Asks a question that
question contains an assumption that
must be proven.
Question- 3. Uses a single word to
begging epithet assert a claim that must be
proven.
Personal 1. Attacks the person
attack representing the argument
rather than the argument
itself.
Tu quoque 2. Discredits an argument
because the behavior of the
person proposing it does not
conform to the position he’s
supporting.
Poisoning the Makes an assertion which
well will intimidate the audience
and therefore discourage an
open discussion.
Slippery slope Claims that an action should
be avoided because it will
lead to a series of extremely
undesirable consequences.
Special Judges and labels the same
pleading act differently depending on
the person or group who
performs the act.
@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS
AY2014-15 Semester 2
Example
Senator Smith was expelled from college for cheating
on an exam. His wife divorced him because of his
numerous affairs. Therefore, he is a man without honor,
a politician who cannot be trusted, and we should not
support his National Health Bill.
Pamilla’s not for everyone. The best never is.
Will there be a job waiting when you leave college?
Professor Hall, I must get an A in your course. If you
don’t give me an A, I won’t be able to go to law school.
Students like rock music because it is the most
enjoyable music around.
Have you started to pay your fair share of taxes yet?
Reactionary, negligent, warmonger, deadbeat.
Because she is extremely wealthy, our mayor cannot
properly represent this city.
A teenager to his father: Don’t tell me not to drink. You
drink all the time.
Every patriotic American supports legislation
condemning the desecration of the flag.
What seems like reasonable restrictions on guns with no
legitimate civilian purpose will lead inevitably to total
prohibition of gun ownership that ends in virtual slavery
at the hands of a totalitarian regime.
The supplying of weapons to Central America by the
Russians was an act of aggression. Our military aid to
the region, however, helped the Freedom Fighters in
their quest for peace.
Page 5
ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

A word of caution: German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) pointed out that “It would
be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate name, so that
when a man used this or that particular trick, he could at once be reproved for it.” Quite often we can
use a particular term (‘hasty generalization’, say, or ‘false analogy’) to help us in showing that a
particular argument is weak. However, many failures in argumentation cannot be explained by the use
of a convenient label. Instead, we may need to show that the conclusion (or main claim) does not
logically follow from the reasoning or evidence (or that there is insufficient reasoning or evidence)
simply by explaining what the flaws are. However, being critical does not mean always being negative,
always pointing out flaws – because sometimes there aren’t any. If we examine an argument carefully
and find it to be sound, then we should say so. Don’t try to find fallacies where none exist!

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states (in part): “Everyone charged with a penal
offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty…”

Activity A: Identifying Fallacies

Identify the type of fallacy in each of the following items. You can check your answers on p.20.

1. Three students turned up late to a nine o’clock class on Wednesday. The tutor concluded that
they had been up late partying the previous evening.

2. Either students love ES1531 and pass with flying colours, or else they hate it and fail dismally.

3. Students who fail ES1531 should not be at all concerned. Lots of people fail the driving test
(often more than once), but they pass in the end.

4. If you fail ES1531 you will find that no-one wants to speak to you, prospective employers will
laugh in your face, and you will spend the rest of your life sleeping in the street and raking
through rubbish bins for discarded scraps of food.

5. ES1531 is a module suitable only for elite students. Only those of high calibre should enroll.

6. Since ES1531 was introduced, no engineers have been sent to prison for negligence. Hence,
ES1531 acts as a safeguard for the reputation of the engineering profession.

7. Students like ES1531 because it is a hugely enjoyable module.

8. Please treat ES1531 tutors with compassion, as many of them work very long hours, have
heavy family responsibilities, and are on the verge of nervous exhaustion because of the
demands of the job.

9. Last semester one student wrote in his feedback that ES1531 is a waste of time. However, this
student thinks that several hours playing Plants Versus Zombies on his phone is time well spent,
so we can disregard his criticism.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 6

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

10. If ES1531 became an elective rather than a core module, more engineers would graduate
with under-developed thinking skills, and more structures, such as bridges, would collapse as a
result.

If you search on the Internet, you will find various lists of fallacies. Can you identify the fallacies
that may come under inductive and deductive reasoning? Sometimes the terminology may differ
from the terms we use in this module, and sometimes you will find far more types of fallacy than
are dealt with here. However, it is important to remember that not all types of logical weakness
have a convenient label.

Critical thinkers may proceed in a rather different way, always presuming that writers and
speakers are fallible (they can make mistakes) and that the arguments they present may therefore
be faulty. However, some arguments seem (after careful examination) to be generally acceptable.
In such cases, critical thinkers should affirm this and not tie themselves in knots by trying to
demonstrate non-existent flaws.

Evaluating evidence

So far, we have established that everyone can make a claim (conclusion) and provide reasons for
that claim to make an argument. Some individuals can construct very convincing and persuasive
arguments, but the critical thinker is one who is able to evaluate the quality and credibility of the
supporting reasons/evidence before making or accepting a conclusion. While a deductive
argument relies on the form and truth of the reasons used to support the conclusion, the strength
of an inductive argument derives from the quality of the evidence which is used to establish a
strong, if not absolutely certain conclusion.

In the next exercise, you will be reading an article about superstition and its benefits.

Before you start reading, consider the following questions:

1. What is the first thing that comes to your mind when the word ‘superstition’ is
mentioned?
2. What is superstition? (You may search for some definitions of the word.)
3. Are superstitious beliefs harmful or beneficial? Why? Think about your own experiences
or things you have heard about superstitions.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 7

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

In Defense of Superstition1
by Matthew Hutson2

Superstition is typically a pejorative term. Belief in things like magic and miracles is thought to
be irrational and scientifically retrograde. However, as studies have repeatedly shown, some
level of belief in the supernatural, often a subtle and unconscious belief appears to be
unavoidable, even among skeptics. One study found that a group of seemingly rational Princeton
students nonetheless believed that they had influenced the Super Bowl just by watching it on TV.
We are all mystics, to a degree.

The good news is that superstitious thought, or “magical thinking,” even as it misrepresents
reality, has its advantages. It offers psychological benefits that logic and science cannot always
provide: namely, a sense of control and a sense of meaning.

Consider one “law of magic” that people tend to put stock in: the idea that “luck is in your
hands,” that you can affect your fate via superstitious rituals like knocking on wood or carrying a
lucky charm. We often rely on such rituals when we are anxious or want to perform well, and
though they may not directly have their intended magical effects, these rituals produce an
illusion of control and enhance self-confidence, which in turn can improve our performance and
thus indirectly affect our fate.

For instance, in one study led by the psychologist Lysann Damisch 3 of the University of
Cologne, subjects were handed a golf ball, and half of them were told that the ball had been
lucky so far. Those subjects with a “lucky” ball drained 35 percent more golf putts than those
with a “regular” ball. In another scenario, subjects performed better on memory and word games
when armed with a lucky charm. In a more real-world example of this effect, the anthropologist
Richard Sosis 4 of the University of Connecticut found that in Israel during the second intifada in
the early 2000s, 36 percent of secular women in the town of Tzfat recited Psalms in response to
the violence. Compared with those who did not recite Psalms, he found, those women benefited

1
This article is adapted from Hutson, M. (2012, April 6). In defense of superstition. The New York Times Sunday
Review: The Opinion Pages. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/opinion/sunday/in-defense-of-
superstition.html
2
Matthew Hutson is the author of the book “The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking: How Irrational Beliefs Keep Us
Happy, Healthy, and Sane”.
3
Damisch et al (2010). Keep Your Fingers Crossed! How Superstition Improves Performance, Psychological Science,
doi:10.1177/0956797610372631
4
Sosis, R. (2007). Psalms for Safety: Magico-Religious Responses to Threats of Terror. Current Anthropology 48,
pp. 903-911.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 8

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

from reduced anxiety. They felt more comfortable entering crowds, going shopping and riding
buses — a result, he concluded, of their increased sense of control.

Another law of magic is “everything happens for a reason”; there is no such thing as randomness
or happenstance. This is so-called teleological reasoning, which assumes intentions and goals
behind even evidently purposeless entities like hurricanes. As social creatures, we may be
biologically tuned to seek evidence of intentionality in the world, so that we can combat or
collaborate with whoever did what has been done. When lacking a visible author, we end up
crediting an invisible one which is God, karma, destiny, or a supernatural being.

This illusion, too, turns out to be psychologically useful. In research led by the psychologist
Laura Kray5 of the University of California, Berkeley, subjects reflected on a turning point in
their lives. The more they felt the turning point to have been fated, the more they believed, “It
made me who I am today” and, “It gave meaning to my life.” Belief in destiny helps render one’s
life a coherent narrative, which infuses one’s goals with a greater sense of purpose. This works
even when those turning points are harmful. A study led by the psychologist Kenneth
Pargament6 of Bowling Green State University discovered that students who saw a negative
event as “part of God’s plan” showed more growth in its aftermath. They became more open to
new perspectives, more intimate in their relationships and more persistent in overcoming
challenges.

There are similar laws that govern other popular superstitions, including the belief that objects
can carry the “essences” of previous owners (which explains why one might want to own a pen
once used by a favorite writer); the belief that symbolic objects can summon what they represent
(which explains why one is scared to cut up a photograph of one’s mother); and the attribution of
consciousness to inanimate objects (which explains why one yells at the laptop that deleted one’s
files). In various ways they all emerge from basic habits of mind, and they all add structure and
meaning to a chaotic and absurd universe.

This is not to say magical thinking has no downside. At its worst, it can lead to obsession,
fatalism or psychosis. Nonetheless, without it, the existential angst of realizing we are just
impermanent clusters of molecules with no ultimate purpose would overwhelm us. So to believe
in magic, as, on some deep level, we all do, does not make one stupid, ignorant or crazy. It
makes one human.

5
"From What Might Have Been to What Must Have Been: Counterfactual Thinking Creates Meaning," with Linda G.
George et al. (2010) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98 (1), pp. 106-118.
6
Kenneth Pargament’s details can be found at http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/page33121.html

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 9

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

Activity B: Discuss the following questions in groups and be prepared to share your answers
with the class.

1. What is Hutson’s main claim/conclusion about superstition? What kind of claim is this?
2. What are the assumptions that Hutson holds about superstition?
3. What are the premises or reasons that he provides in support of his argument?
4. What kinds of evidence does Hutson use to support his reasons? Identify the instances in
the article where he attempts to provide evidence for his argument.
5. In your opinion, is the evidence provided strong enough to support his conclusion? Give
reasons for your answer.

Activity C: Evaluating evidence/sources

1. Read Paragraph A which identifies the strengths in Hutson’s argument and answer the
questions that follow.

Paragraph A

Hutson argues for a clear causal link between the adoption of superstition and its resulting
impact on our psyche. Since psychoanalysis falls under the purview of social science, the truth
of Hutson’s arguments, no matter how valid, would ultimately hinge upon the support from
empirical evidence (Sanderson, 2003), which Hutson duly provides. He avoids making vacuous
claims by making appropriate appeals to authority, citing research of the likes of Damisch and
Sosis, both of whom study the impact of superstitious ritualization on mental behaviour. Their
research is congruent with Hutson’s position that superstitious rituals can provide an
impression of a sense of control. This view is also gaining traction with other social
psychologists such as Thall, a biostatistics professor who investigated gambling behaviour and
came to the same conclusion that superstitious rituals give people the “illusion that they have
some degree of control over future events in their lives” (Bates, 2010, para 18). Hutson’s
second argument about how superstition can provide a source of meaning for people is also
well-documented to be largely true. People who profess faith in a religion tend to feel
optimistic about the future (Peterson, 2012). Hence, since the various research studies cited
by Hutson are consistent with parallel studies done in the field, Hutson’s arguments about the
benefits of superstition are empirically sound.

References
Bates, D. (2010, April 30). New research proves that lucky charms DO actually work. The Daily
Mail. Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
1270093/New-research-shows-lucky-charms-DO-work.html

Peterson, D. (2012, March 8). Defending the Faith: Religious people are happier, studies
show. Deseret News. Retrieved, February 17, 2013, from
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765557545/Religious-people-are-happier-
studies-show.html?pg=all

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 10

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

Sanderson, W. C. (2003). Why Empirically Supported Psychological Treatment Are Important.

Retrieved February 17, 2013, from
https://www.uwf.edu/smathews/documents/empiricallysupportedtrtmts.pdf

a) Has the writer of Paragraph A provided a strong defense for his

argument? Provide reasons for your answer by considering the criteria
for a good argument.

b) Comment on the quality of the sources which the writer has selected to
support his argument.

2. Read Paragraph B below which identifies a weakness in Hutson’s argument and answer
the questions that follow.

Paragraph B
Hutson asserts that superstition increases people's sense of control over themselves, thus it
helps in reducing anxiety and gives them a peace of mind. This argument seems to be true in
some instances, but he fails to acknowledge that there are cases like Friday the 13th, whereby
superstition is the root cause of anxiety. Friday the 13th is thought of as the most unlucky day
of the year. Some people develop an irrational fear called Paraskevidekatriaphobia, thus they
avoid eating outside, working and marrying on that day. Particularly in United States, over 21
million people are affected by this (Megaessays, 2001). People take these superstitious beliefs
so seriously that they experience a sense of fear and worry rather than peace, thus creating
more anxiety. Therefore, Hutson should not just assume superstition reduces anxiety, because
it also causes anxiety.

References
Megaessays (2001). Effects of Superstition. Retrieved from
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/45944.html

a) Has the writer of Paragraph B provided a strong defense for his

argument? Provide reasons for your answer by considering the criteria
for a good argument.
b) Comment on the evidence which the writer has selected to support his
argument.

3. Search for and read any of the references provided by Hutson to support his claims and
determine the quality of this piece of evidence or source.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 11

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

Inductive Arguments and Statistical Evidence

Hutson’s article is an example of an inductive argument in which he draws his conclusion based
on expert testimony and statistical evidence. He cites findings from studies by psychologists and
an anthropologist who have conducted experiments in real life, but does that make his argument
strong?

We reason inductively on a daily basis by generalizing from observations we make about our
own circumstances and experiences. Angelina Jolie, for example, decided to have a double
mastectomy based on her family history and experiences helping others battle cancer. She will
never know if she might have avoided the disease by not taking this preventative measure, but
she has obviously reasoned that in her case, the probability of developing breast cancer was high
enough and the consequences grave enough to justify the action. As a society, we make decisions
about public policies and our future direction based on more formal research methods which
provide us information on various issues such as literacy rates, satisfaction with public policies
and economic disparity. The data collected by polling and research studies are known as
statistical evidence.

Statistical evidence is used in various mediums to support an argument— think of advertisements,

policy papers, health reports and census data. It has been said that statistics can be used to argue
about anything but how do we determine the quality of statistical evidence? How do we know if
a study is accurate and reliable? As you think about these questions, consider the following
claims:

a) Singaporeans are very hard-working. All the Singaporeans in my office only leave the
office at 8 PM every evening.
b) Singaporeans are the least positive people based on a Gallup report. Only 46% of the
Singaporean adults interviewed answered "yes" to the five questions on emotions.
c) Coffee is good for male smokers. A 2008 study of more than 26,000 male smokers in
Finland found that the men who drank eight or more cups of coffee a day had a 23%
lower risk of stroke than the men who drank little or no coffee.
d) People should eat breakfast to keep their hearts in good condition, according to
researchers in the US. Their study of 27,000 men, in the journal Circulation, showed
those skipping breakfast were at a greater risk of heart problems.

Earlier on, we have said that inductive strength is based on good evidence from which we can
draw useful generalizations. Which of these claims are you mostly likely to trust or agree with?
Why? We can get important information from statistical research, but what must we look for in a
study to ensure that it is ‘good evidence’? Think about this and discuss these questions with your
classmates in a group of 3 or 4 members.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 12

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

The following questions from Diestler (1998) form a helpful checklist when you need to
critically evaluate reports of statistical studies.

1. What is the sample size? For national public opinion polls, it is a general principle that at
least 1,000 randomly selected individuals who are representative of the target population
will give reliable results. When a research study involves carefully supervised testing
and training of subjects or expensive materials, a much smaller sample might be
necessary. For example, it is unreasonable and undesirable to have hundreds of subjects
test an experimental drug that may be helpful in treating a particular disease but may also
have significant side effects.
2. Is the sample representative both in all characteristics and in the proportion of those
characteristics? For example, if 10 percent of a state’s voters are 65 or older, are 10
percent of the sample voters in this age range? If the sample is not representative, then
the study can be considered biased.
3. Have all significant characteristics been considered? Sometimes it is hard to know
exactly which factors about the target population are significant. Does the sex and age of
the target matter? What about race and educational level?
4. If the study is a poll, are the questions biased? In other words, are they contrived to bring
about a particular response? For example, consider the following loaded questions:
a) Do you believe that the government has a right to invade private lives by taking a
census?
b) Do you approve of preventing thousands of senior citizens from enjoying a safe,
affordable, and lovely retirement home in order to protect a moth?
Because these questions are biased towards the obviously “correct” answer, the
information gathered from them is unreliable.
5. What is the credibility of the polling organization or research institute? In most cases, we
read about a study in a magazine, or textbook. Since we get an abridged version of
research from these sources, it is worthwhile to note whether polls were conducted by
credible organizations like Gallup, Harris and Roper and whether research studies were
conducted under the auspices of universities or reliable “think tanks.”

Logos, pathos, ethos

Aristotle argued that effective speakers and writers seek to influence or persuade their audiences
in three ways: via ethos, pathos and logos. This insight is still useful today. But what did he
mean?

Ethos

This relates to the standing or credibility of the speaker or writer. Notice how speakers at a
conference are often introduced by a second person, who reads out brief and impressive-
sounding biographical details. Similarly, details of the achievements of authors (including the
titles of previous works, and what has been said about them) are often given on the cover of a
book, or on its first few pages. This is to establish ethos.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 13

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

Rightly or wrongly we are more likely to accept the arguments of someone who has first shown
evidence of credibility. Why do speakers tend to wear formal clothes when delivering a
conference paper? The logic of their arguments would not change if they wore torn jeans and a
dirty T-shirt. Speakers tend to dress formally because they know the value of ethos.

Pathos

The classical Greek word pathos is at the root of English words like ‘sympathy’, ‘empathy’ and,
indeed, ‘pathos’. It refers to ways in which speakers and writers may try to persuade us through
emotion rather than logic. One example is Richard Nixon’s 1952 speech on American television
after he had been accused of accepting improper financial gifts. Nixon was at the time the
Republican Party’s candidate for Vice President. Towards the end of the speech he gave an
example of one gift that he and his family had accepted from a political supporter: a black and
white cocker spaniel dog intended for his two daughters (aged six and four). He told his audience
that the girls had named the dog Checkers and, he went on, “regardless of what they say about it,
we're going to keep it.”

It was alleged that Nixon had received illegal financial gifts, but he managed to sway the
emotions of some of his audience by referring to the love his young daughters had for the little
dog.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luz3zrjhgeE from 6.09 onwards.

In general, a speaker or writer who creates a good mood among his/her audience or readership
may help in persuading some of them to accept his/her position, even though the logic behind it
may be flimsy. A well-judged joke or anecdote can sometimes create the impression that the
speaker or writer is a likeable person, which in turn may dispose listeners or readers to accept
arguments which might otherwise seem flawed.

Be wary!

When analyzing an argument, look out for cases where the speaker or writer appears to be
relying too heavily on pathos or ethos. Good arguments are those which are logical above all
else!

Logos

The Greek word ‘logos’ forms the basis for the English word ‘logic’. We said earlier that an
argument consists of evidence or reasons leading to a conclusion, but perhaps a tighter definition
would be that an argument (or at least a longer argument) is generally made up of a series of
interconnected statements intended to establish a definite proposition. Critical thinkers should
look for the conclusion (or main claim) in an argument and then identify the steps which purport
to lead to it. Does the conclusion follow logically from the evidence/reasoning? (Of course,
although the main claim in an argument often appears at the end of a text, it may also be stated at
the outset).

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 14

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

Critical thinkers may not always use the terms pathos, logos and ethos, but it is helpful to
remember the concepts behind them when looking carefully at the way people seek to be
persuasive.

The use of language in arguments

Words are powerful tools used in the framing of arguments, but a critical thinker is one who
analyzes and evaluates the language and how it can be used or misused in an argument. Words
are powerful because they act as symbols to us. Two important key terms to help you understand
this concept are denotation and connotation.

Denotation is associated to the specific objects, actions or proper nouns the word points to, such
as “mouse,” “bus,” “dance,” and “Diane.” Connotation, on the other hand, refers to the images —
positive, negative, or neutral — that are associated with any given denotation, or any emotional
meanings, which may be different for different individuals. For example, the Oxford Advanced
Dictionary Online has two definitions for ‘Aunty’ (informal for ‘aunt’): 1) the sister of one’s
father or mother or the wife of one’s uncle and 2) an unrelated adult female friend, especially of
a child (informal), but we all know that in the Singaporean context, an aunty can be used to
describe a young person who doesn’t dress fashionably — “ Eh, today you dress very Auntie leh!”
(www.aussiepete.com, 2008).

Misunderstandings often occur when we assume that the other person using the word or
expression has the same concept reality of the word as we do. For instance, the word ‘love’
might represent different things to different individuals.

Activity D: Read the excerpt below and discuss with a partner Darlene’s interpretation of
‘love.’

Darlene: Paul, I really love you, and I think it would be good for our relationship if we
started seeing other people.
Paul: What are you saying? Do you want to break our engagement?
Darlene: No, nothing like that. I just think it would be healthy for us to date other
people.
Paul: Are you interested in seeing someone else?
Darlene: No, not at all. I think we’d both just grow more if we were able to experience a
variety of relationships.
Paul: What does that mean?
Darlene: Well, it means I still love you but I just think it would be great if we saw other
people too.
Source: Diestler (1998, p.281)

As critical thinkers, we need to be aware of the power of words to both clarify and obscure
issues. To help us analyze the use of language in arguments, we will examine these four
common problems with language, identified by Diestler: vagueness, ambiguity, doublespeak,
and weasel words.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 15

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

Vagueness

When the use of a word or phrase is unclear (such as Darlene’s use of the expression “I love
you”), then it is considered vague. Politicians and advertisers often use vague, abstract terms that
may generally have positive connotations but fail to define what they mean. For example,
politicians may claim that they have a ‘comprehensive’ plan to deal with a certain problem but
does not give clear details of the ‘comprehensive’ plan. An advertisement such as the one below
can be misleading.

Activity E: Can you identify the

instances when vague language is
used?
Dying is so dead. Drink to life with POM Wonderful
Pomegranate Juice. It has more antioxidants than any
other drink and can help to prevent premature aging,
heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s, even cancer. Eight
ounces a day is all you need. The sooner you drink it, the
longer you will enjoy it.

Ambiguity

A concept, term, or phrase is ambiguous if it has more than one meaning. A good example is the
use of the word ‘cool’. We may hear a person described as ‘cool’, but what exactly does it
mean? Does it mean ‘interesting’, ‘easy-going’, ‘calm’, ‘kind’, or ‘fashionable’? We may not
really know the exact meaning of the speaker’s use of ‘cool’ unless we ask “What do you
mean?” There are also many advertisements that use vague wording. The famous tag for Nike 
Just do it! —, for example, fails to tell us what exactly we are supposed to do. Coca Cola in a
1972 commercial tells us it’s the ‘real thing’, but what exactly does that mean? Some examples
of ambiguous wording can be humorous like the ones showed by Jay Leno on The Tonight Show.

 Need Plain Clothes Security. Must have shoplifting experience.

 Family Catches Fire Just in Time, Chief Says
 The United Way is Sponsoring a Child Choking Training Program
 Searchers Find Big Ugly Child (The child was from Big Ugly, West Virginia.)

Here is also a collection from Church Bulletins.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 16
ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

 Mrs. Johnson will come up after the Children's Easter Program and lay an egg on the
altar.
 Thursday, at 4 p.m., there will be a meeting of the Little Mothers Club. All wishing to
become little mothers, please see the Pastor in his study.
 Next Sunday, a special offering will be taken to defray the cost of the new carpet. All
those wishing to do something on the new carpet will come forward and get a piece of
paper.
 For those of you who have children but don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs.
 Reverend Timmons spoke briefly, much to the delight of the congregation.
 The eight graders will be presenting Shakespeare's Hamlet in the church basement on
Friday at 7 p.m. The congregation is invited to attend this tragedy.
 On a church bulletin board during the minister's illness: "God is good. Pastor Hargreaves
is better."

Source: McGhee (2000)

Doublespeak

The Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines ‘doublespeak’ as “language used to deceive

usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth”.

Here is another explanation from yourdictionary.com  Doublespeak, often called "double

talk," is the distortion, changing or switching of words to make an unpleasant, tricky or
otherwise negative situation not sound as awful. For example, many times people say that
someone has "passed on" as opposed to saying that the individual has died. Instead of
focusing on the negative aspect that the person has left this world, the speaker places
emphasis on the fact that the person has gone on into the next one.

Euphemism, which is considered to be ‘politically-correct language’, is included as doublespeak.

Here are some examples of the common phrases or words considered in this category.

 “Downsizing” instead of firing people

 “Reducing costs” as opposed to cutting peoples' salaries or the amount of supplies going
into work
 “Pre-owned” as opposed to used and secondhand
 “Senior citizen” in place of an old person
 “Experienced” or “well experienced” in place of old
 “Not doing so well” instead of very sick or injured
 “Person of interest” instead of a suspect in a crime
 “Capital punishment" instead of the death penalty
 “Unique” instead of weird
 “Restructuring” instead of a reorganization
 “Gone to greener pastures” instead of leaving

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 17

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

 “Being held back” instead of failing or not performing well

Can you think of other examples not mentioned here?

Activity F: Try an exercise called “Conjugating Irregular Verbs” that was created by the British
philosopher Bertrand Russell. Choose a personal characteristic or action, and express it
favorably, neutrally and unfavorably, like the examples provided:

I’m slender. You’re thin. She’s skinny.

I’m plump. You’re big. She’s fat.
Source: Diestler (1998, p.289)

Weasel Words

Another common language strategy used in making claims is weasel words. The Webster’s
College Dictionary (2010) defines a weasel word as “a word used to avoid stating something
forthrightly or directly; a word that makes one's views misleading or confusing.”

Read the following excerpt on the origin of the word from the website www.phrases.org.uk.
______________________________________________________________________________

Meaning: Ambiguous or quibbling speech

Origin: It has long been a widespread belief that

weasels suck the yolks from bird's eggs, leaving only
the empty shell. This belief is the basis of the term
'weasel words', used to describe statements that have
had the life sucked out of them. The expression refers
to words that are added to make a statement sound
more legitimate and impressive but which are in fact
unsubstantiated and meaningless. Examples of weasel
words are 'people say that...', 'studies show that...', 'up
to 50% or more...'.

______________________________________________________________________________

Weasel words are widely used by advertisers and their presences are often subtle. Carl Wrighter,
an advertising copywriter and the author of the book ‘I can sell you anything’ identified help or
helps as the most commonly used weasel word (Wrighter, 1972 as cited in Diestler, 1998).
Wrighter cited examples of advertisements that say “This cream will help prevent acne,” or
“This mouthwash helps stop the germs”, and explained that these advertisements did not claim to
stop germs or prevent acne — they only promise to help to do those things.

Other weasel words cited by Wrighter include the following:

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 18
ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

 Virtual or virtually: This word means “almost, but not in fact.”

“Virtually foolproof,” “Virtually never needs service,” “Virtually trouble-free”
 Acts or works: This is another form of helps and is often used with the word help.
“Works like magic,” “Acts against…,” “Works to help prevent”
 Up to: Up to implies a range from zero to the figure that is given. Consumers tend to
hear only the largest number.
“Sales up to 70%,” “X deodorant gives you protection for up to 12 hours”

Activity G: Identify the weasel words in the following sample ads and explain why you
think the writer of the message used that weasel.

1. Is your smile an average dull white in an average dull world? Make the change and
brighten your outlook. For an all-day smile, your teeth deserve the best. Flash toothpaste
with ZX-19 can help whiten and protect your teeth for up to 8 hours. Stand out from the
crowd and join the Flash generation, and change your dull world into a Flash world.
2. Vote for Vincent Tan for school board. He knows about the latest classroom technology
and can help make our school district the most progressive in Singapore. As a parent
himself, Vincent cares about excellence in education and he shares your concerns.
Having Vincent Tan on the board is like having a friend attending the meetings for you.

Source: Diestler (1998, p.296)

Reflection

Reflect on what you have learned in this tutorial. Use the space below to write your reflection.

 What are 3 important things or ideas that you have learned?

 How can you apply them in your studies or your life?

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 19

ES1531/GEK1549 Critical Thinking and Writing AY2014-15 Semester 2
Week 4 Tutorial 5: Deconstructing Arguments

Possible Answers to Exercise A

1. Hasty generalization.
2. False dilemma.
3. False analogy.
4. Appeal to fear.
5. Snob appeal.
6. False cause.
7. Begging the question (circular argument).
8. Appeal to pity.
9. Ad hominem argument / personal attack.
10. Slippery slope/ Appeal to fear/ False cause

References

aunt. (n.d) In Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary Online, Retrieved from

http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/aunt

AussiePete. (2008). SINGLISH - A Language Guide for Foreigners. [Web blog post]. Retrieved
from http://www.aussiepete.com/2008/05/singlish-language-guide-for-foreigners.html

Diestler, S. (1998). Becoming A Critical Thinker: A User Friendly Manual. New Jersey:
Prentice- Hall.

Dobson, B. and Feak, C. (2001). A cognitive modeling approach to teaching critique writing to
nonnative speakers. In D. Belcher and A. Hirvela (eds.) Linking literacies: Perspectives
on L2 reading-writing connections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

doublespeak. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam

webster.com/dictionary/doublespeak

McGhee, P.E. (2000). Humor your tumor. Retrieved from

http://www.laughterremedy.com/humor2.dir/humor6_00.html

weasel words. (n.d.) In The Phrase Finder. Retrieved from

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/weasel-words.html.

@ES1531/GEK1549, CELC, NUS Page 20