USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
|
Objective |
3.1 Analyze the validity, credibility, and reliability of data. |
|||
|
Reading |
Read Ch. 4 of Critical Thinking. |
|||
|
Read Ch. 5 of Critical Thinking. |
||||
|
Read Ch. 6 of Critical Thinking. |
||||
|
Read Ch. 7 of Critical Thinking. |
||||
|
Participation |
Participate in class discussion. |
|||
|
Nongraded Activities and Preparation Debate Paper Preparation |
Select a topic to be used for a debate. The topic should be controversial and phrased to allow a yes or no answer. Examples include “Should guns be outlawed?” or “Should the U.S. military leave Afghanistan?”
Submit your topic to your facilitator for approval in Week Three.
Read the Debate Paper assignment requirements located in Week Nine. |
|||
|
CheckPoint Validity, Credibility, and Reliability |
Write a 350-word response answering the following question:
· What are some reasons you might consider data or information to lack validity, credibility, or reliability? Explain your answer by using examples.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines. |
100 words each
DQ 1. Chapters 5 & 6 of Critical Thinking cover fallacies and rhetoric. According to the text, what are two examples of persuasion that are not valid arguments? Why are these invalid arguments?
DQ 2. What are some methods you might use to determine the reliability of data you gather? Why is it important to analyze your data to determine if it is reliable?
R aymond James Merrill was the brother of an acquain-tance of one of your authors. In his mid-fi fties, Merrill still cut a striking fi gure—tall and lean, with chiseled
features, a bushy mustache, and a mane of blond hair. But
he had been in a funk. He had broken up with his girlfriend,
and he did not want to be alone. Then a website that fea-
tured “Latin singles” led him to Regina Rachid, an attrac-
tive woman with a seductive smile who lived in San Jose
dos Campos, a city in southern Brazil, and suddenly Mer-
rill was in love. Desperately so, it seems. He believed every-
thing Rachid told him and was credulous enough to make
three trips to Brazil to be with her, to give her thousands
of dollars in cash, and to buy her a $20,000 automobile.
He even refused to blame her when thousands of dollars in
unexplained charges turned up on his credit card account.
Sadly, Rachid was more interested in Merrill’s money than
in his affection, and when he went to Brazil the third time,
to get married and, he believed, begin a new life, he disap-
peared. The story ended tragically: Merrill’s strangled and
burned body was found in an isolated spot several miles
out of town. Rachid and two accomplices are now in jail
for the crime, and two accessories are under investigation
Students will learn to . . .
1. Evaluate degrees of credibility
2. Assess whether a source is an inter-
ested versus a disinterested party
3. Assess claims in relation to their
own observations, experiences, or
background information
4. Evaluate a source based on verac-
ity, objectivity, and accuracy
5. Evaluate a source based on knowl-
edge or expertise
6. Understand the influences and
biases behind the news
7. Become better (and perhaps more
skeptical) evaluators of media
messages
8. Limit the influence of advertising
on their consumer behavior
4 Credibility
104
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 104 12/9/10 2:52 PM
as we write this. * The moral of the story: It can be a horrible mistake to let our
needs and desires overwhelm our critical abilities when we are not sure with
whom or with what we’re dealing. Our focus in this chapter is on how to deter-
mine when a claim or a source of a claim is credible enough to warrant belief.
A second story, less dramatic but much more common, is about a friend
of ours named Dave, who not long ago received an email from Citibank. It
notifi ed him that there might be a problem with his credit card account and
asked him to visit the bank’s website to straighten things out. (These notices
often include a threat that if you fail to respond, your account may be closed.)
A link was provided to the website. When he visited the site, he was asked to
confi rm details of his personal information, including account numbers, Social
Security number, and his mother’s maiden name. The website looked exactly
like the Citibank website he had visited before, with the bank’s logo and other
authentic-appearing details. But very shortly after this episode, he discovered
that his card had paid for a plasma television, a home theater set, and a couple
of expensive car stereos, none of which he had ordered or received.
Dave was a victim of “phishing,” a ploy to identify victims for identity
theft and credit card fraud. As this edition goes to press, the number of phishing
* The whole story can be found at www.justice4raymond.org.
Real Life
The Nigerian Advance Fee 4-1-9 Fraud:
The Internet’s Longest-Running Scam
Is Still Running Strong
If you have an email account, chances are you’ve received an offer from someone in Nigeria,
probably claiming to be a Nigerian civil servant, who is looking for someone just like you who
has a bank account to which several millions of dollars can be sent—money that results from
“overinvoicing” or “double invoicing” oil purchases or otherwise needs laundering outside the
country. You will receive a generous percentage of the money for your assistance, but you will
have to help a bit at the outset by sending some amount of money to facilitate the transac-
tions, or to show your good faith!
This scam, sometimes called “4-1-9 Fraud,” after the relevant section of Nigeria’s criminal
code, is now celebrating more than a quarter century of existence. (It operated by telephone
and FAX before the web was up and running.) Its variations are creative and numerous. Criti-
cal thinkers immediately recognize the failure of credibility such offers have, but thousands of
people have not, and from a lack of critical thinking skills or from simple greed, hundreds of
millions of dollars have been lost to the perpetrators of this fraud.
To read more about this scam, check out these websites:
CREDIBILITY 105
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 105 12/9/10 2:52 PM
106 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
scams continues to rise, with millions of people receiving phony emails alleg-
ing to be from eBay, PayPal, and other Internet companies as well as an assort-
ment of banks and credit card companies. Some of these phishing expeditions
threaten to suspend or close the individual’s account if no response is made.
Needless to say, a person should give no credibility to an email that purports
to be from a bank or other company and asks for personal identifying informa-
tion via email or a website.
There are two grounds for suspicion in cases where credibility is the
issue. The fi rst ground is the claim itself. Dave should have asked himself
just how likely it is that Citibank would notify him of a problem with his
account by email and would ask him for his personal, identifying information.
(Hint: No bank will approach its customers for such information by email or
telephone.) The second ground for suspicion is the source of the claim. In this
case, Dave believed the source was legitimate. But here’s the point, one that
critical thinkers are well aware of these days: On the Internet, whether by
website or email, the average person has no idea where the stuff on the com-
puter screen comes from. Computer experts have methods that can sometimes
identify the source of an email, but most of us are very easy to mislead.
Dave is no dummy; being fooled by such scams is not a sign of a lack of
intelligence. His concern that his account might be suspended caused him to
overlook the ominous possibility that the original request might be a fake.
In other cases, such as the one described in the “4-1-9 Fraud” box, it may be
wishful thinking or a touch of simple greed that causes a person to lower his
or her credibility guard.
Every time we revise and update this book, we feel obliged to make our
warnings about Internet fraud more severe. And every year we seem to be
borne out by events. The level of theft, fraud, duplicity, and plain old vandal-
ism seems to rise like a constant tide. We’ll have some suggestions for keeping
yourself, your records, and your money safe later in the chapter. For now, just
remember that you need your critical thinking lights on whenever you open
your browser.
THE CLAIM AND ITS SOURCE
As indicated in the phishing story, there are two arenas in which we assess
credibility: the fi rst is that of claims themselves; the second is the claims’
sources. If we’re told that ducks can communicate by quacking in Morse code,
we dismiss the claim immediately. Such claims lack credibility no matter
where they come from. (They have no initial plausibility, a notion that will be
explained later.) But the claim that ducks mate for life is not at all outrageous;
it might be true: it’s a credible claim. Whether we should believe it depends on
its source; if we read it in a bird book or hear it from a bird expert, we are much
more likely to believe it than if we hear it from our editor, for example.
There are degrees of credibility and incredibility; they are not all-or-
nothing kinds of things, whether we’re talking about claims or sources. Con-
sider the claim that the president of the United States has been hypnotized and
is acting completely under the spell of wizards who are hiding in warehouses in
suburban Washington, D.C. This truly requires a stretch of the imagination; it
is very unlikely. But, however unlikely, it is still more credible than the claim
that the president is not human at all but a robot constructed and controlled
by aliens from another galaxy. Sources (i.e., people) vary in their credibility
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 106 12/9/10 2:52 PM
THE CLAIM AND ITS SOURCE 107
just as do the claims they offer. If the next-door neighbor you’ve always liked
is arrested for bank robbery, his denials will probably seem credible to you. But
he loses credibility if it turns out he owns a silencer and a .45 automatic with
the serial numbers removed. Similarly, a knowledgeable friend who tells us
about an investment opportunity has a bit more credibility if we learn he has
invested his own money in the idea. (At least we could be assured he believed
the information himself.) On the other hand, he has less credibility if we learn
he will make a substantial commission from our investment in it.
So, there are always two questions to be asked about a claim with which
we’re presented. First, when does a claim itself lack credibility—that is, when
does its content present a credibility problem? Second, when does the source
of a claim lack credibility?
We’ll turn next to the fi rst of these questions, which deals with what a
claim actually says. The general answer is
A claim lacks inherent credibility to the extent that it confl icts with
what we have observed or what we think we know—our background
information—or with other credible claims.
In the Media
Guaranteeing an Interested Party,
or the Fox Audits the Henhouse
In 2005, an audit program was established by the federal government to root out fraud and
waste in the Medicare program. An Atlanta-based auditing firm, PRG-Schultz, was given the job
of reviewing Medicare records and searching for mistakes and overcharges in three states. So
far, so good.
But the way the program was set up, the auditors were paid only when they found such
mistakes and overcharges—they kept a commission of 25 to 30 cents for every dollar deter-
mined to be in error. Naturally, this makes the firm a very interested party, since the more fraud
and waste it finds, the more money it makes.
As a critical thinker might expect, PRG-Schultz found lots of fraud and waste; they had
rejected more than $105 million in Medicare claims by September 2006 and millions more by
the time the program came under review by an administrative law judge. As a critical thinker
might expect, many of the rejected charges were reversed on appeal; they were found to be
legitimate after all.
Remember, putting an interested party in charge of making decisions is an invitation to
error—or worse. That’s why the expression “Don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse” is an
important warning.
P.S. Because of the way the law was originally implemented, PRG-Schultz will be allowed
to keep the money it received in commissions even though its decisions in many cases were
reversed. The fox got away with this one.
Seattle Times online (seattletimes.nwsource.com), May 19, 2007, and the Sacramento Bee, September 16, 2007.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 107 12/9/10 2:52 PM
108 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
Just what this answer means will be explained in the section that follows.
After that, we’ll turn our attention to the second question we asked earlier,
about the credibility of sources.
ASSESSING THE CONTENT OF THE CLAIM
So, some claims stand up on their own; they tend to be acceptable regardless
of from whom we hear them. But when they fail on their own, as we’ve said,
it’s because they come into confl ict either with our own observations or with
what we call our “background knowledge.” We’ll discuss each of these in turn.
Does the Claim Conflict with Our Personal Observations?
Our own observations provide our most reliable source of information about
the world. It is therefore only reasonable to be suspicious of any claim that
comes into confl ict with what we’ve observed. Imagine that Moore has just
come from the home of Mr. Marquis, a mutual friend of his and Parker’s, and
has seen his new red Mini Cooper automobile. He meets Parker, who tells
him, “I heard that Marquis has bought a new Mini Cooper, a bright blue one.”
Moore does not need critical thinking training to reject Parker’s claim about
the color of the car, because of the obvious confl ict with his earlier observation.
In the Media
Incredible Claims!
We’ve had a lot of fun with lunatic headlines from supermarket tabloids in past editions. Here
is this edition of “Run for Your Life” headlines:
Demons Made Jessee Cheat on Sandra!
“Possibly the same ones that got hold of Tiger Woods,” says seer.
How to Tell if You’ve Been Abducted by Aliens
Memory loss, other symptoms can tell for sure, according to Dr. Brad Steiger.
Elvis Alive and Working in Vegas as Elvis Impersonator
He’s better at it than most of them, reviews say.
Beer Can Prevent Prostate Cancer
Very few career drinkers die of it, say medicos.
Nebraska Doesn’t Exist, Says Author
Admission process was botched, according to historian.
We don’t have to make these up.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 108 12/9/10 2:52 PM
ASSESSING THE CONTENT OF THE CLAIM 109
But observations and short-term memory are far from infallible, or pro-
fessional dancer Douglas Hall would not have been awarded $450,000 in
damages by a New York jury in January 2005. * It seems Dr. Vincent Feld-
man, twenty minutes after having placed a large “X” on the dancer’s right
knee, where the latter had complained of pain, sliced open the patient’s left
knee, which had been perfectly healthy up until that moment, and effectively
ended his dancing career in the process. Although he had just seen where he
was to operate and had marked the spot, he nonetheless managed to confuse
the location and the result may have put a serious wrinkle in his own career
as well as that of the dancer.
* New York Post, January 29, 2005 .
Real Life
When Personal Observation Fails . . .
According to the Innocence Project, a group in New York that investigates wrongful convictions,
eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of conviction of innocent persons. Of
all the convictions overturned by DNA analysis, witness misidentification played a role in over
75 percent. Of the first 239 DNA exonerations, 62 percent of the defendants were misidenti-
fied by one witness; in 25 percent of the cases, the defendant was misidentified by two wit-
nesses; and in 13 percent of the cases the same innocent defendant was misidentified by three
or more separate eyewitnesses. Even though eyewitness testimony can be persuasive before a
judge and jury, it is much more unreliable than we generally give it credit for being.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 109 12/9/10 2:52 PM
110 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
All kinds of factors infl uence our observations and our recollections of
them, and Dr. Feldman may have been affected by one or more of them: tired-
ness, distraction, worry about an unrelated matter, or emotional upset could
easily account for such mistakes. There are also physical conditions that often
affect our observations: bad lighting, lots of noise, the speed of events, and
more. We are also sometimes prey to measuring instruments that are inexact,
temperamental, or inaccurate. Parker once blew out a tire at high speed as a
result of a faulty tire-pressure gauge .
It’s also important to remember that people are not all created equal
when it comes to making observations. We hate to say it, dear reader, but there
are lots of people who see better, hear better, and remember better than you.
Of course, that goes for us as well.
Our beliefs, hopes, fears, and expectations affect our observations. Tell
someone that a house is infested with rats, and he is likely to believe he
sees evidence of rats. Inform someone who believes in ghosts that a house
is haunted, and she may well believe she sees evidence of ghosts. At séances
staged by the Society for Psychical Research to test the observational powers
of people under séance conditions, some observers insist that they see numer-
ous phenomena that simply do not exist. Teachers who are told that the stu-
dents in a particular class are brighter than usual are very likely to believe that
the work those students produce is better than average, even when it is not.
In Chapter 6, we cover a fallacy (a fallacy is a mistake in reasoning) called
wishful thinking, which occurs when we allow hopes and desires to infl u-
ence our judgment and color our beliefs. Most of the people who fall for the
4-1-9 Fraud Internet scam (see box, p. 105) are almost surely victims of wishful
thinking. It is very unlikely that somebody, somewhere, wants to send you
millions of dollars just because you have a bank account and that the money
they ask for really is just to facilitate the transaction. The most gullible vic-
tim, with no stake in the matter, would probably realize this. But the idea of
getting one’s hands on a great pile of money can blind a person to even the
most obvious facts.
Our personal interests and biases affect our perceptions and the judg-
ments we base on them. We overlook many of the mean and selfi sh actions of
the people we like or love—and when we are infatuated with someone, every-
thing that person does seems wonderful. By contrast, people we detest can
hardly do anything that we don’t perceive as mean and selfi sh. If we desper-
ately wish for the success of a project, we are apt to see more evidence for that
success than is actually present. On the other hand, if we wish for a project
to fail, we are apt to exaggerate fl aws that we see in it or imagine fl aws that
are not there at all. If a job, chore, or decision is one that we wish to avoid, we
tend to draw worst-case implications from it and thus come up with reasons
for not doing it. However, if we are predisposed to want to do the job or make
the decision, we are more likely to focus on whatever positive consequences
it might have.
Finally, as we hinted above, the reliability of our observations is no bet-
ter than the reliability of our memories, except in those cases where we have
the means at our disposal to record our observations. And memory, as most of
us know, can be deceptive. Critical thinkers are always alert to the possibility
that what they remember having observed may not be what they did observe.
But even though fi rsthand observations are not infallible, they are still
the best source of information we have. Any report that confl icts with our
own direct observations is subject to serious doubt.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 110 12/9/10 2:52 PM
ASSESSING THE CONTENT OF THE CLAIM 111
Does the Claim Conflict with Our Background Information?
Reports must always be evaluated against our background information —that
immense body of justifi ed beliefs that consists of facts we learn from our own
direct observations and facts we learn from others. Such information is “back-
ground” because we may not be able to specify where we learned it, unlike
something we know because we witnessed it this morning. Much of our back-
ground information is well confi rmed by a variety of sources. Reports that con-
fl ict with this store of information are usually quite properly dismissed, even
if we cannot disprove them through direct observation. We immediately reject
the claim “Palm trees grow in abundance near the North Pole,” even though we
are not in a position to confi rm or disprove the statement by direct observation.
Indeed, this is an example of how we usually treat claims when we fi rst
encounter them: We begin by assigning them a certain initial plausibility,
a rough assessment of how credible a claim seems to us. This assessment
depends on how consistent the claim is with our background information—
how well it “fi ts” with that information. If it fi ts very well, we give the claim
some reasonable degree of initial plausibility—there is a reasonable expecta-
tion of its being true. If, however, the claim confl icts with our background
information, we give it low initial plausibility and lean toward rejecting it
unless very strong evidence can be produced on its behalf. The claim “More
guitars were sold in the United States last year than saxophones” fi ts very
well with the background information most of us share, and we would hardly
require detailed evidence before accepting it. However, the claim “Char-
lie’s eighty-seven-year-old grandmother swam across Lake Michigan in the
There are three types of men
in the world. One type learns
from books. One type learns
from observation. And one
type just has to urinate on the
electric fence.
—D R. L AURA S CHLESSINGER
(reported by Larry Englemann)
The authority of experience.
In Depth
Incredible but True
Believe it or not, these two tables are identical in both size and shape. You’ll probably have to check
with a ruler or other straight edge to believe this; we did. The illusion was designed by Roger Shepard
(1990). (Reproduced with permission of W. H. Freeman and Company.) This illusion shows how easily our
observations can be mistaken—in this case, simply because of perspective. As indicated in the text, many
other factors can influence what we think we see.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 111 12/9/10 2:52 PM
112 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
middle of winter” cannot command much initial plau-
sibility because of the obvious way it confl icts with our
background information about eighty-seven-year-old peo-
ple, about Lake Michigan, about swimming in cold water,
and so on. In fact, short of observing the swim ourselves,
it isn’t clear just what could persuade us to accept such a
claim. And even then, we should consider the likelihood
that we’re being tricked or fooled by an illusion.
Obviously, not every oddball claim is as outrageous
as the one about Charlie’s grandmother. Recently, we read
a report about a house being stolen in Lindale, Texas—a
brick house. This certainly is implausible—how could
anyone steal a home? Yet there is credible documentation
that it happened, * and even stranger things occasionally
turn out to be true. That, of course, means that it can be worthwhile to check
out implausible claims if their being true might be of benefi t to you.
Unfortunately, there are no neat formulas that can resolve confl icts
between what you already believe and new information. Your job as a critical
thinker is to trust your background information when considering claims that
confl ict with that information—that is, claims with low initial plausibility—
* Associated Press report, March 25, 2005 .
From where comes
this “hole”?
The partitions
are exactly the
same as those
used above.
Below, the
four parts are
moved around.
f
■ This optical illusion has
made the rounds on
the web. It takes a very
close look to identify
how the illusion works,
although it’s certain
that something sneaky
is going on here.
The problem is
solved back in the
Answer Section.
Real Life
Do Your Ears Stick Straight Out?
According to Bill Cordingley, an
expert in psychographicology—
that’s face-reading, in case you
didn’t know (and we certainly
didn’t)—a person’s facial fea-
tures reveal “the whole rainbow
collection” of a person’s needs
and abilities. Mr. Cordingley (In
Your Face: What Facial Features
Reveal About People You Know
and Love) doesn’t mean merely
that you can infer moods from
smiles and frowns. No, he means
that your basic personality traits
are readable from facial structures you were born with.
Do your ears stick out? That means you have a need to perform in public. The more they
stick out, the greater the need. Other features are said to reliably predict features of your
personality. It appears that President Obama is fortunate in that he (and his ears) have lots of
opportunities to appear in public.
Is there any reason to believe facial features can tell us such things about people? We
think not. The fact that Cordingley was once mayor of San Anselmo, California, adds no cred-
ibility to the claim.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 112 12/9/10 2:52 PM
ASSESSING THE CONTENT OF THE CLAIM 113
but at the same time to keep an open mind and realize that further information
may cause you to give up a claim you had thought was true. It’s a difficult bal-
ance, but it’s worth getting right. For example, let’s say you’ve been suffering
from headaches and have tried all the usual methods of relief: aspirin, anti-
histamines, whatever your physician has recommended, and so on. Finally, a
friend tells you that she had headaches that were very similar to yours, and
nothing worked for her, either, until she had an aromatherapy treatment. Then,
just a few minutes into her aromatherapy session, her headaches went away.
Now, we (Moore and Parker) are not much inclined to believe that smelling
oils will make your headache disappear, but we think there is little to lose and
at least a small possibility of something substantial to be gained by giving the
treatment a try. It may be, for example, that the treatment relaxes a person and
relieves tension, which can cause headaches. We wouldn’t go into it with great
expectations, however.
The point is that there is a scale of initial plausibility ranging from quite
plausible to only slightly so. Our aromatherapy example would fall some-
where between the plausible (and in fact true) claim that Parker went to high
school with Bill Clinton and the rather implausible claim that Paris Hilton has
a Ph.D. in physics.
As mentioned, background information is essential to adequately assess
a claim. It is pretty difficult to evaluate a report if you have no background
information relating to the topic. This means the broader your background
information, the more likely you are to be able to evaluate any given report
effectively. You’d have to know a little economics to evaluate assertions about
the dangers of a large federal defi cit, and knowing how Social Security works
can help you know what’s misleading about calling it a savings account. Read
widely, converse freely, and develop an inquiring attitude; there’s no substi-
tute for broad, general knowledge.
Real Life
Fib Wizards
In The Sleeping Doll, novelist Jeffery Deaver invents a character who is incredibly adept at read-
ing what people are thinking from watching and listening to them. This is fiction, but there
seems to be at least a bit of substance to the claim that such talents exist.
After testing 13,000 people for their ability to detect deception, Professor Maureen
O’Sullivan of the University of San Francisco identified 31 who have an unusual ability to
tell when someone is lying to them. These “wizards,” as she calls them, are especially sensi-
tive to body language, facial expressions, hesitations in speech, slips of the tongue, and
similar clues that a person may not be telling the truth. The wizards are much better than
the average person at noticing these clues and inferring the presence of a fib from them.
Professor O’Sullivan presented her findings to the American Medical Association’s 23rd
Annual Science Reporters Conference.
Maybe a few people can reliably tell when someone is lying. But we’d bet there are many
more who merely think they can do this—these are the ones we want to play poker with.
From an Associated Press report.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 113 12/9/10 2:52 PM
114 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
1. The text points out that physical conditions around us can affect our
observations. List at least four such conditions.
2. Our own mental state can affect our observations as well. Describe at
least three of the ways this can happen, as mentioned in the text.
3. According to the text, there are two ways credibility should enter into
our evaluation of a claim. What are they?
4. A claim lacks inherent credibility, according to the text, when it confl icts
with what?
5. Our most reliable source of information about the world is _________.
6. The reliability of our observations is not better than the reliability of
_________.
In your judgment, are any of these claims less credible than others? Discuss
your opinions with others in the class to see if any interesting differences in
background information emerge.
1. They’ve taught crows how to play poker.
2. The center of Earth consists of water.
3. Ray Charles was just faking his blindness.
4. The car manufacturers already can build cars that get more than 100
miles per gallon; they just won’t do it because they’re in cahoots with the
oil industry.
5. If you force yourself to go for fi ve days and nights without any sleep,
you’ll be able to get by on less than fi ve hours of sleep a night for the rest
of your life.
6. It is possible to read other people’s minds through mental telepathy.
7. A diet of mushrooms and pecans supplies all necessary nutrients and will
help you lose weight. Scientists don’t understand why.
8. Somewhere on the planet is a person who looks exactly like you.
9. The combined wealth of the world’s 225 richest people equals the total
annual income of the poorest 2.5 billion people, which is nearly half the
world’s total population.
10. George W. Bush arranged to have the World Trade Center attacked so
he could invade Afghanistan. He wanted to build an oil pipeline across
Afghanistan.
11. Daddy longlegs are the world’s most poisonous spider, but their mouths
are too small to bite.
12. Static electricity from your body can cause your gas tank to explode if
you slide across your seat while fueling and then touch the gas nozzle.
13. Japanese scientists have created a device that measures the tone of a dog’s
bark to determine what the dog’s mood is.
14. Barack Obama (a) is a socialist, (b) is a Muslim, (c) was not born in the
United States.
Exercise 4-1
Exercise 4-2
▲
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 114 12/9/10 2:52 PM
THE CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES 115
THE CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES
We turn now from the credibility of claims themselves to the credibility of the
sources from which we get them. We are automatically suspicious of certain
sources of information. (If you were getting a divorce, you wouldn’t ordinar-
ily turn to your spouse’s attorney for advice.) We’ll look at several factors that
should infl uence how much credence we give to a source.
Interested Parties
We’ll begin with a very important general rule for deciding whom to trust.
Our rule makes use of two correlative concepts, interested parties and disin-
terested parties:
A person who stands to gain from our belief in a claim is known as
an interested party, and interested parties must be viewed with much
more suspicion than disinterested parties, who have no stake in our
belief one way or another.
Real Life
Not All That Glitters
Since the U.S. dollar began to decline seriously in about 2004, quite a few financial “experts”
have claimed that gold is one of the few ways to protect one’s wealth and provide a hedge
against inflation. Some of the arguments they make contain some good sense, but it’s worth
pointing out that many of the people advocating the purchase of gold turn out to be brokers of
precious metals themselves, or are hired by such brokers to sell their product. As we emphasize
in the text: Always beware of interested parties!
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 115 12/9/10 2:52 PM
116 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
It would be hard to overestimate the importance of this rule—in fact, if you
were to learn only one thing from this book, this might be the best candidate.
Of course, not all interested parties are out to hoodwink us, and certainly not
all disinterested parties have good information. But, all things considered, the
rule of trusting the latter before the former is a crucially important weapon in
the critical thinking armory.
We’ll return to this topic later, both in the text and in some exercises.
Physical and Other Characteristics
The feature of being an interested or disinterested party is highly relevant to
whether he, she, it, or they should be trusted. Unfortunately, we often base our
judgments on irrelevant considerations. Physical characteristics, for example,
tell us little about a person’s credibility or its lack. Does a person look you in
the eye? Does he perspire a lot? Does he have a nervous laugh? Despite being
generally worthless in this regard, such characteristics are widely used in siz-
Real Life
Whom Do You Trust?
As mentioned in the text, we often make too much of outward appearances when it comes to
believing what someone tells us. Would you be more inclined to believe one of these individu-
als than the other? As a matter of fact, we can think of at least as many reasons for the man on
the left telling us something that isn’t true as for the man on the right.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 116 12/9/10 2:52 PM
THE CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES 117
ing up a person’s credibility. Simply being taller, louder, and more assertive
can enhance a person’s credibility, according to a recent study. * A practiced
con artist can imitate a confi dent teller of the truth, just as an experienced
hacker can cobble up a genuine-appearing website. (“Con,” after all, is short for
“confi dence.”)
Other irrelevant features we sometimes use to judge a person’s credibility
include gender, age, ethnicity, accent, and mannerisms. People also make cred-
ibility judgments on the basis of the clothes a person wears. A friend told one
of us that one’s sunglasses “make a statement”; maybe so, but that statement
doesn’t say much about credibility. A person’s occupation certainly bears a
relationship to his or her knowledge or abilities, but as a guide to moral char-
acter or truthfulness, it is less reliable.
Which considerations are relevant to judging someone’s credibility? We
shall get to these in a moment, but appearance isn’t one of them. You may
have the idea that you can size up a person just by looking into his or her eyes.
This is a mistake. Just by looking at someone, we cannot ascertain that per-
son’s truthfulness, knowledge, or character. (Although this is generally true,
there are exceptions. See the “Fib Wizards” box on page 113.)
Of course, we sometimes get in trouble even when we accept credible
claims from credible sources. Many of us rely, for example, on credible advice
from qualifi ed and honest professionals in preparing our tax returns. But quali-
fi ed and honest professionals can make honest mistakes, and we can suffer
the consequences. In general, however, trouble is much more likely if we
accept either doubtful claims from credible sources or credible claims from
doubtful sources (not to mention doubtful claims from doubtful sources). If
a mechanic says we need a new transmission, the claim itself may not be
suspicious—maybe the car we drive has many miles on it; maybe we neglected
routine maintenance; maybe it isn’t shifting smoothly. But remember that the
mechanic is an interested party; if there’s any reason to suspect he would exag-
gerate the problem to get work for himself, we’d get a second opinion about
our transmission.
One of your authors currently has an automobile that the local dealer-
ship once diagnosed as having an oil leak. Because of the complexity of the
repair, the cost was almost a thousand dollars. Because he’d not seen any oil
on his garage fl oor, your cautious author decided to wait and see how serious
the problem was. Well, a year after the “problem” was diagnosed, there was
still no oil on the garage fl oor, and the car used less than half a quart of oil,
about what one would have expected to add during the course of a year. What
to conclude? The service department at the dealership is an interested party.
If they convince your author that the oil leak is serious, they make almost
a thousand dollars. This makes it worth a second opinion, or, in this case,
one’s own investigation. We now believe his car will never need this thousand-
dollar repair.
Remember: Interested parties are less credible than other sources of
claims.
* The study, conducted by Professor Lara Tiedens of the Stanford University Graduate School of Business, was reported
in USA Today, July 18, 2007.
I looked the man in the eye.
I found him to be very straight-
forward and trustworthy.
We had a very good dialogue.
I was able to sense his soul.
—G EORGE W. B USH , commenting
on his first meeting with Rus-
sian president Vladimir Putin
By the end of 2007, Bush
had changed his mind about
Putin, seeing him as a threat
to democracy. So much for
the “blink” method of judging
credibility.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 117 12/9/10 2:52 PM
118 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
Expertise
Much of our information comes from people about whom we have no rea-
son to suspect prejudice, bias, or any of the other features that make inter-
ested parties such bad sources. However, we might still doubt a source’s actual
knowledge of an issue in question. The state of a person’s knowledge depends
on a number of factors, especially that person’s level of expertise and experi-
ence, either direct (through personal observation) or indirect (through study),
with the subject at hand.
Just as you generally cannot tell merely by looking at someone whether
he or she is speaking truthfully, objectively, and accurately, you can’t judge his
or her knowledge or expertise by looking at surface features. A British- sounding
scientist may appear more knowledgeable than a scientist who speaks, say,
with a Texas drawl, but his or her accent, height, gender, ethnicity, or clothing
doesn’t have much to do with a person’s knowledge. In the municipal park in
our town, it can be difficult to distinguish the people who teach at the univer-
sity from the people who live in the park, based on physical appearance.
So, then, how do you judge a person’s expertise? Education and experi-
ence are often the most important factors, followed by accomplishments, rep-
utation, and position, in no particular order. It is not always easy to evaluate
the credentials of an expert, and credentials vary considerably from one fi eld
to another. Still, there are some useful guidelines worth mentioning.
Education includes, but is not strictly limited to, formal education—the
possession of degrees from established institutions of learning. (Some “doc-
tors” of this and that received their diplomas from mail-order houses that
advertise on matchbook covers. The title “doctor” is not automatically a
qualifi cation.)
Experience—both the kind and the amount—is an important factor in
expertise. Experience is important if it is relevant to the issue at hand, but the
mere fact that someone has been on the job for a long time does not automati-
cally make him or her good at it.
Real Life
War-Making Policies and Interested Parties
In the 1960s, the secretary of defense supplied carefully selected information to President
Lyndon Johnson and to the Congress. Would the Congress have passed the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution, which authorized the beginning of the Vietnam War, if its members had known that
the secretary of defense was determined to begin hostilities there? We don’t know, but certainly
they and the president should have been more suspicious if they had known this fact. Would
President Bush and his administration have been so anxious to make war on Iraq if they had
known that Ahmad Chalabi, one of their main sources of information about that country and
its ruler, Saddam Hussein, was a very interested party? (He hoped to be the next ruler of Iraq if
Hussein were overthrown, and much of his information turned out to be false or exaggerated.)
We don’t know that either, of course. But it’s possible that more suspicion of interested parties
may have slowed our commencement of two costly wars.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 118 12/9/10 2:52 PM
THE CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES 119
Accomplishments are an important indicator of someone’s expertise but,
once again, only when those accomplishments are directly related to the ques-
tion at hand. A Nobel Prize winner in physics is not necessarily qualifi ed to
speak publicly about toy safety, public school education (even in science), or
nuclear proliferation. The last issue may involve physics, it’s true, but the
political issues are the crucial ones, and they are not taught in physics labs.
A person’s reputation is obviously very important as a criterion of his or
her expertise. But reputations must be seen in a context; how much impor-
tance we should attach to somebody’s reputation depends on the people among
whom the person has that reputation. You may have a strong reputation as a
pool player among the denizens of your local pool hall, but that doesn’t neces-
sarily put you in the same league with Allison Fisher. Among a group of people
who know nothing about investments, someone who knows the difference
between a 401(k) plan and a Roth IRA may seem like quite an expert. But you
certainly wouldn’t want to take investment advice from somebody simply on
that basis.
Most of us have met people who were recommended as experts in some
fi eld but who turned out to know little more about that fi eld than we ourselves
knew. (Presumably, in such cases those doing the recommending knew even
less about the subject, or they would not have been so quickly impressed.)
By and large, the kind of reputation that counts most is the one a person has
among other experts in his or her fi eld of endeavor.
The positions people hold provide an indication of how well somebody
thinks of them. The director of an important scientifi c laboratory, the head of
an academic department at Harvard, the author of a work consulted by other
experts—in each case the position itself is substantial evidence that the indi-
vidual’s opinion on a relevant subject warrants serious attention.
But expertise can be bought. Our earlier discussion of interested parties
applies to people who possess real expertise on a topic as well as to the rest of
us. Sometimes a person’s position is an indication of what his or her opinion,
expert or not, is likely to be. The opinion of a lawyer retained by the National
Rifl e Association, offered at a hearing on fi rearms and urban violence, should
be scrutinized much more carefully (or at least viewed with more skepticism)
than that of a witness from an independent fi rm or agency that has no stake in
the outcome of the hearings. The former can be assumed to be an interested
party, the latter not. It is too easy to lose objectivity where one’s interests and
concerns are at stake, even if one is trying to be objective.
Experts sometimes disagree, especially when the issue is complicated and
many different interests are at stake. In these cases, a critical thinker is obliged
to suspend judgment about which expert to endorse, unless one expert clearly
represents a majority viewpoint among experts in the fi eld or unless one expert
can be established as more authoritative or less biased than the others.
Of course, majority opinions sometimes turn out to be incorrect, and
even the most authoritative experts occasionally make mistakes. For example,
various economics experts predicted good times ahead just before the Great
Depression. The same was true for many advisors right up until the 2008 fi nan-
cial meltdown. Jim Denny, the manager of the Grand Ole Opry, fi red Elvis
Presley after one performance, stating that Presley wasn’t going anywhere and
ought to go back to driving a truck. A claim you accept because it represents
the majority viewpoint or comes from the most authoritative expert may turn
out to be thoroughly wrong. Nevertheless, take heart: At the time, you were
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 119 12/9/10 2:52 PM
120 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
rationally justifi ed in accepting the majority viewpoint as the most authori-
tative claim. The reasonable position is the one that agrees with the most
authoritative opinion but allows for enough open-mindedness to change if the
evidence changes.
Finally, we sometimes make the mistake of thinking that whatever quali-
fi es someone as an expert in one fi eld automatically qualifi es that person in
other areas. Being a top-notch programmer, for example, surely would not be
an indication of top-notch management skills. Indeed, many programmers get
good at what they do by shying away from dealing with other people—or so
Real Life
Smoking and Not Paying Attention
Can Be Deadly
David Pawlik called the fire department in Cleburne, Texas, in July to ask if the “blue
flames” he and his wife were seeing every time she lit a cigarette were dangerous, and
an inspector said he would be right over and for Mrs. Pawlik not to light another ciga-
rette. However, anxious about the imminent inspection, she lit up and was killed in the
subsequent explosion. (The home was all electric, but there had been a natural gas leak
underneath the yard.)
—Fort Worth Star Telegram, July 11, 2007
News of the Weird
Sometimes it is crucial that you take the word of an expert.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 120 12/9/10 2:52 PM
THE CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES 121
the stereotype runs. Being a good campaigner does not always translate into
being a good office-holder, as anyone who observes politics knows. Even if the
intelligence and skill required to become an expert in one fi eld could enable
someone to become an expert in any fi eld—which is doubtful—having the abil-
ity to become an expert is not the same as actually being an expert. Claims put
forth by experts about subjects outside their fi elds are not automatically more
acceptable than claims put forth by nonexperts.
List as many irrelevant factors as you can think of that people often mistake
for signs of a person’s truthfulness (for example, the fi rmness of a handshake).
List as many irrelevant factors as you can think of that people often mistake
for signs of expertise on the part of an individual (for example, appearing
self-confi dent).
Expertise doesn’t transfer automatically from one fi eld to another: Being an
expert in one area does not automatically qualify a person as an expert (or even
as competent) in other areas. Is it the same with dishonesty? Many people
think dishonesty does transfer, that being dishonest in one area automatically
discredits that person in all areas. For example, when Bill Clinton lied about
having sexual encounters with his intern, some said he couldn’t be trusted
about anything.
If someone is known to have been dishonest about one thing, should
we automatically be suspicious of his or her honesty regarding other things?
Discuss.
1. In a sentence, describe the crucial difference between an interested party
and a disinterested party.
2. Which of the two parties mentioned in item 1 should generally be consid-
ered more trustworthy? Why?
Suppose you’re in the market for a new television set, and you’re looking for
advice as to what to buy. Identify which of the following persons/subjects is
likely to be an interested party and which is not.
1. a fl yer from a local store that sells televisions
2. the Consumer Reports website
3. a salesman at a local electronics store
4. the Sony website
5. an article in a major newspaper about television sets, including some
rankings of brands
Now let’s say you’ve narrowed your search to two brands: LG and Panasonic.
Which of the following are more likely interested parties?
6. a friend who owns an LG set
Exercise 4-3
Exercise 4-4
Exercise 4-5
Exercise 4-6
▲ Exercise 4-7
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 121 12/9/10 2:52 PM
7. a friend who used to own a Panasonic and now owns an LG
8. a salesperson at a store that sells both Panasonic and LG
CREDIBILITY AND THE NEWS MEDIA
You may have heard that newspapers and the print media in general have fallen
on hard times in recent years. It’s true: many newspapers are in bankruptcy,
with advertising revenue falling 23 percent between 2006 and 2009 and one
out of fi ve newspaper journalists losing their jobs between 2001 and 2009.*
Much of the losses in both the print media and in broadcast television have
been the result of more and more people turning to the Internet for their news
and information. During 2008, consumption of news on the Internet increased
by some 19 percent, and it has no doubt expanded hugely since. Strangely
enough, though, as more and more people turn to the web for news, they give
it very low marks for credibility. On the other hand, according to the Pew
Project report for 2009, leading newspapers and television news operations had
stable credibility ratings during the past presidential election year. However,
the ratings held stable at a level that was already pretty low. When evaluating
seven print media sources, an average of only 19 percent of those polled said
they “believe all or most” of what they read. CNN, which topped the list in
believability among television sources, came in at only 30 percent. Why is the
level of confi dence in our media so low? Let’s look at some likely factors.
Consolidation of Media Ownership
Although it is not well known to most citizens, one reason the quality of news
available has decreased is that the media have become controlled by fewer and
fewer corporations, the result of many mergers and buyouts over the past three
or so decades. Since 2001, when the Federal Communications Commission
loosened the regulations regarding ownership of newspapers, radio stations,
and television stations, the concentration of media in fewer and fewer hands
has been accelerating. From thousands of independent media outlets in the
mid-twentieth century, media ownership dropped to only fi fty companies by
1983. By late 2004, approximately 90 percent of all media companies in the
United States were controlled by just fi ve companies: Time Warner (Warner
Bros., Time, Inc., HBO, CNN, etc.), Disney (ABC, ESPN, Miramax Films, etc.),
News Corp. (Fox Television, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, etc.), Gen-
eral Electric (NBC, Universal Studios, A & E Television, etc.), and Viacom
(Paramount Pictures, MTV, Comedy Central, etc.). The subsidiaries listed in
parentheses are only a tiny portion of these companies’ holdings. No matter
what you see on television, the great likelihood is that one or more of these
companies had a hand in producing it or getting it onto your screen. The fewer
hands that control the media, the easier it is for the news we get to be “man-
aged”—either by the owners themselves or by their commercial advertisers or
even, as we’ll next see, by the government.
*The State of the News Media, the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2009, a biennial report, from which we
draw heavily in this section.
122 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 122 12/9/10 2:52 PM
CREDIBILITY AND THE NEWS MEDIA 123
Government Management of the News
For a while there, our only known source of fake news was Jon Stewart on
The Daily Show. But the federal government got into the fake news business
as well. In recent years, a number of fake news reports, paid for by the govern-
ment, have appeared on television touting the virtues of government schemes
from the prescription drug program to airport safety to education programs. No
criticism of the programs was included, and no mention was made that these
were not legitimate independent news reports but rather were produced by the
very same governmental departments that produced the policies in question.
These practices provide material for stations that cannot afford to produce
a full plate of news themselves, which includes many, many stations across
the country. Unfortunately, many viewers accept as news what is essentially
official propaganda.
Leaving aside news reporting, problems also crop up on the op-ed page.
Opinion and editorial pages and television commentaries are usually presumed
to present the opinions of the writers or speakers who write or speak in them.
But, as it turned out, some of those are bought and paid for as well. Our favorite
example turned up in 2005: Syndicated columnist Michael McManus was paid
$10,000 by the Department of Health and Human Services for writing posi-
tively about one of its programs. Ironically enough, his column is entitled “Eth-
ics and Religion.”
The military has its own methods for managing the media, from not
allowing photographs to be taken of the coffins of slain American soldiers
when they are sent home from Iraq to the more elaborately produced example
seen in the box on p. 125, “Saving Private Lynch.” Sometimes management
takes the form of simple suppression of news, as when it took a whistle-blower
to fi nally make public the video of a 2007 helicopter attack that killed a news
photographer, his driver, and several others.
© The New Yorker Collection 1991 Dana Fradon from cartoonbank.com. All rights reserved.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 123 12/9/10 2:52 PM
124 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
Bias Within the Media
It is commonly said that the media is biased politically. Conservatives are
convinced that it has a liberal bias and liberals are convinced the bias favors
conservatives.
The usual basis for the conservative assessment is that, generally speak-
ing, reporters and editors are more liberal than the general population. Indeed,
several polls have indicated that this is the case. On the other hand, the pub-
lishers and owners of media outlets tend to be conservative—not surpris-
ingly, since they have an orientation that places a higher value on the bottom
line: They are in business to make a profi t. A book by Eric Alterman * argues
* What Liberal Bias? (New York: Basic Books, 2003) .
In the Media
Jumping to Conclusions in the News
On March 29, 2010, Fox Nation, the Fox News website, put up a story about a tragedy in
Antarctica:
Famed global warming activist James Schneider and a journalist friend were both found
frozen to death on Saturday, about 90 miles from the South Pole Station, by the pilot of a
ski plane practicing emergency evacuation procedures.
Well, Fox Nation was a bit too quick to jump on a story that fairly dripped with irony—a frozen
global warming activist, indeed. However, the joke turned out to be on Fox: they had gotten the
story from ecoEnquirer.com, a satirical website featuring spoof articles—James Schneider was
a made-up name, not a real person. (Other headlines at the site: “Court Orders Fisherman to
Apologize to Eagle,” “Penguins Fed Up with Media Attention.”)
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 124 12/9/10 2:52 PM
CREDIBILITY AND THE NEWS MEDIA 125
that the “liberal media” has always been a myth and that, at least in private,
well-known conservatives like Patrick Buchanan and William Kristol are will-
ing to admit it. On the other hand, Bernard Goldberg, formerly of CBS, argues
that the liberal bias of the press is a fact. *
Making an assessment on this score is several miles beyond our scope
here. But it is important to be aware that a reporter or a columnist or a
broadcaster who draws conclusions without presenting sufficient evidence
* Bias, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2001) .
In the Media
Saving Private Lynch
Just after midnight on April 2, 2003, a battle group of Marine Rangers and Navy SEALs
descended in helicopters on the Iraqi town of Nasiriyah. With shouts of “Go, go, go!” and rifle
fire, they charged the hospital where Private Jessica Lynch was being held. The 19-year-old sup-
ply clerk was put on a stretcher and carried from the hospital to the choppers, and the unit was
up and away as quickly as it had come. The entire scene was captured by military cameramen
using night – vision cameras.
Eight days earlier, when Private Lynch’s unit had taken a wrong turn and become separated
from its convoy, it was apparently attacked by Iraqi fighters. According to the story in the Wash-
ington Post, Lynch put up a defiant stand against the attackers and “sustained multiple gunshot
wounds” and was stabbed while she “fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers . . . firing
her weapon until she ran out of ammunition.” The paper cited a U.S. military official as saying
“she was fighting to the death.” This story was picked up by news outlets all over the world.
The ambush and the rescue sound like something out of Black Hawk Down or maybe a
Bruce Willis movie. It also came at a time when the military was looking for some good press
out of the Iraq invasion. Like many stories that seem too good to be true, this one was too good
to be true.
At the hospital in Germany to which Private Lynch was flown, a doctor said her injuries
included a head wound, a spinal injury, fractures in both legs and one arm, and an ankle injury.
Apparently, none of her injuries were caused by bullets or shrapnel, according to the medical
reports. A doctor at the Nasiriyah hospital where she was initially treated said Lynch suffered
injuries consistent with an automobile wreck.
The rescue itself may have been rather seriously overdone. Quoted in the BBC News World
Edition, Dr. Anmar Uday, who worked at the hospital, said, “We were surprised. Why do this?
There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital. It was like a Hollywood film. They
made a show for the American attack on the hospital—action movies like Sylvester Stallone or
Jackie Chan.”
The BBC referred to the “Saving Private Lynch” story as “one of the most stunning pieces of
news management ever conceived.” We shall probably never know the truth of the details, but
it seems clear that the episode was stage-managed to some extent: It isn’t likely an accident
that the Special Forces just “happened to have” an American flag to drape over Ms. Lynch as
she was carried to the helicopter on her stretcher.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 125 12/9/10 2:52 PM
126 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
is no more to be believed than some guy from down the street, even if the
conclusions happen to correspond nicely to your own bias—indeed, especially
if they correspond to your own bias!
What is important to remember is that there are many forces at work
in the preparation of news besides a desire to publish or broadcast the whole
truth. That said, our view is that the major network news organizations are
generally credible, exceptions like those noted above notwithstanding. ABC,
CBS, and NBC do a generally credible job, as does CNN, and the Public Broad-
casting System and National Public Radio are generally excellent. Also in
our view, the printed media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the
Los Angeles Times, and other major newspapers are generally credible, even
though mistakes are sometimes made here as well. News magazines fall in the
same category: usually credible but with occasional fl aws.
The rise of the cable news networks has been an infl uence on what gets
broadcast as news. CNN (which stands, unsurprisingly, for “Cable News Net-
work”) began the trend in 1980 as the fi rst twenty-four-hours-a-day news
broadcaster. Fox News and MSNBC now also compete for viewers’ attention
both day and night. While spreading across the hours of the day, these networks
have also spread across the political spectrum. You can now fi nd “news” that
satisfi es nearly any political bias. What’s more, with the need to fi ll screens
for so many hours, the notion of what actually counts as news has had to
be expanded. The result has affected not just the cable networks but tradi-
tional news programs as well: “Feature stories” from prison life to restaurant
kitchen tours take up more and more space that used to be devoted to so-called
hard news. One of our northern California newspapers, the Sacramento Bee,
recently did a story on how “silly news” was taking up more and more space in
local news programs. Ben Bagdikian, author and former dean of the Graduate
School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, has pointed out
that a commercial for Pepsi Cola seems to connect better after a fl uff piece or
a sitcom than after a serious piece on, say, massacres in Rwanda or an ambush
in Afghanistan.
It would be difficult to boil down our advice regarding accepting claims
from the news media, but it would certainly include keeping the following
points in mind:
1. Like the rest of us, people in the news media sometimes make mistakes;
they sometimes accept claims with insufficient evidence or without con-
fi rming the credibility of a source.
2. The media are subject to pressure and sometimes to manipulation from
government and other news sources.
3. The media, with few exceptions, are driven in part by the necessity to
make a profi t, and this can bring pressure from advertisers, owners, and
managers.
Finally, we might remember that the news media are to a great extent
a refl ection of the society at large. If we the public are willing to get by with
superfi cial, sensationalist, or manipulated news, then we can rest assured that,
eventually, that’s all the news we’ll get.
Bias in the universities?
According to CNN news
anchor Lou Dobbs, citing a
Washington Post survey, 72
percent of collegiate faculty
across the country say they
are liberal; 15 percent say
they are conservative. At elite
universities, 87 percent say
they are liberal, and 3 percent
say they are conservative.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 126 12/9/10 2:52 PM
CREDIBILITY AND THE NEWS MEDIA 127
Talk Radio
On the surface, talk radio seems to offer a wealth of information not available
in news reports from conventional sources. And many talk radio hosts scour
traditional legitimate news sources for information relevant to their political
agenda, and to the extent that they document the source, which they often do,
they provide listeners with many interesting and important facts. But radio
hosts from all sides are given to distortion, misplaced emphasis, and bias with
regard to selection of which facts to report. And, really, the shouting gives us
a headache.
Advocacy Television
We mentioned earlier that some cable networks have moved left while others
have moved right on the political spectrum, so the news you can expect from
them comes with a predictable slant. This is good insofar as it exposes people
to opinions different from their own; it is not so good insofar as it simply
reinforces what the viewer already believes, especially if there is no evidence
offered in support of the opinions.
The Comedy Central channel features The Daily Show with Jon Stew-
art, which generally approaches the news from a leftish (and completely zany)
viewpoint, and The Colbert Report, in which Steve Colbert, in reality a lib-
eral, plays the part of a right-wing host. (Before the show, Colbert reminds his
guests that “My on-air character is an idiot.”) It is ironic, because he appears
on the Comedy Central channel, but when Jon Stewart isn’t going for the
laughs, we think he may be the best, and the toughest, interviewer currently
on television. He’s doubtless tougher on guests from the right than the left,
but he takes no guff from either.
MSNBC offers The Ed Show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and
The Rachel Maddow Show, all of which offer a liberal perspective on the news
of the day, and all of which editorialize from that perspective.
Fox News features Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, who rep-
resent various conservative constituencies and do something similar from the
other side.
We could write an entire chapter on this subject, and maybe, given the
infl uence the media have on American public opinion these days, we should.
We could discuss other channels and other organizations (e.g., Accuracy in
Media on the right and MoveOn.org on the left, to name just two of a thou-
sand), but we think you get the idea: We remind you to always listen with a
skeptical ear (and maybe a jaundiced eye) to political news and commentary.
We know it’s difficult, but it’s important to be especially careful about accept-
ing claims (without good evidence), and in particular, those with which you
sympathize.
The Internet, Generally
It is getting to be difficult to overestimate the importance of the Internet—
that amalgamation of electronic lines and connections that allows nearly any-
one with a computer and a modem to link up with nearly any other similarly
equipped person on the planet. Although the Internet offers great benefi ts,
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 127 12/9/10 2:52 PM
128 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
the information it provides must be evaluated with even more caution than
information from the print media, radio, or television. We presented two sto-
ries at the beginning of the chapter that show just how wrong things can go.
There are basically two kinds of information sources on the Internet. The
fi rst consists of commercial and institutional sources; the second, of individ-
ual and group sites on the World Wide Web. In the fi rst category, we include
sources like the Lexis-Nexis facility, as well as the online services provided by
newsmagazines, large electronic news organizations, and government institu-
tions. The second category includes everything else you’ll fi nd on the web—
an amazing assortment of good information, entertainment of widely varying
quality, hot tips, advertisements, come-ons, fraudulent offers, and outright lies.
Just as the fact that a claim appears in print or on television doesn’t
make it true, so it is for claims you run across online. Keep in mind that
the information you get from a source is only as good as that source. The Lexis-
Nexis information collection is an excellent asset for medium-depth investi-
gation of a topic; it includes information gathered from a wide range of print
sources, especially newspapers and magazines, with special collections in
areas like the law. But the editorials you turn up there are no more likely to be
accurate, fair-minded, or objective than the ones you read in the newspapers—
which is where they fi rst appeared anyhow.
In the Media
Evaluating Website Credibility: A Tip
from the Professionals
In a study done a few years ago,* it was determined that when it comes to evaluating the cred-
ibility of a website, experts in a field go about it much differently than do ordinary consumers.
Since, as we’ve indicated, credibility varies hugely on the web, we must do the best job we can
in assessing this feature of any website we consider important. Unfortunately, as was shown in
the study just mentioned, most ordinary visitors do a much less effective job of evaluating cred-
ibility than do people knowledgeable about the field. In particular, while professionals attend
most carefully to the information given at a website, most of the rest of us pay more attention
to its visual appeal. Layout, typography, color schemes, and animation affect the general pub-
lic’s estimate of a site’s credibility—54 percent of comments are about these features—whereas
the professionals’ interest is more in the quality of the site’s references, the credentials of indi-
viduals mentioned, and so on. Only 16 percent of professional evaluators’ comments had to do
with a website’s visual design.
What should we take from this? A general rule: Don’t be taken in by how visually attractive
a website might be. A flashy design with attractive colors and design features is no substitute
for information that is backed up by references and put forward by people with appropriate
credentials.
*Experts vs. Online Consumers, a Consumer Reports WebWatch research report, October, 2009.
(www.consumerwebwatch.org).
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 128 12/9/10 2:52 PM
CREDIBILITY AND THE NEWS MEDIA 129
Possibly the fastest-growing source of information in terms of both its size
and its infl uence is the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. “Wiki” refers to a
collaborative voluntary association (although the word seems to have been
coined by a programmer named Ward Cunningham from the Hawaiian term
“wiki-wiki”—“quick-quick”). Begun in 2001 by Larry Sanger and Jimmy
Wales, the encyclopedia’s content and structure are determined by its users.
This accounts for its major strengths as well as its major weaknesses. Because
there are many thousands of contributors, the coverage is immense. There are
well over three million articles in English alone, and more than two hundred
other languages and dialects are also employed. Because access is available to
virtually everybody who has a computer and modem, coverage is often very
fast; articles often appear within hours of breaking events.
But also because of this wide access, the quality of the articles varies
tremendously. You should be especially wary of recent articles; they are more
likely to contain uncorrected errors that will eventually disappear as knowl-
edgeable people visit the page and put right whatever mistakes are present.
Not just factual errors, but bias and omission can affect the quality of material
found on Wikipedia’s pages. Occasionally, a writer will do a thorough job of
reporting the side of an issue that he favors (or knows more about, or both),
and the other side will go underreported or even unmentioned. Over time,
these types of errors tend to get corrected after visits by individuals who favor
the other side of the issue. But at any given moment, in any given
Wikipedia
entry, there is the possibility of mistakes, omissions, citation errors, and plain
old vandalism.
Our advice: We think Wikipedia is an excellent starting point in a search
for knowledge about a topic. We use it frequently. But you should always
check the sources provided in what you fi nd there; it should never be your
sole source of information if the topic is important to you or is to become part
of an assignment to be turned in for a class. That said, we add that articles
dealing with technical or scientifi c subjects tend to be more reliable (although
errors are often more difficult to spot), with an error rate about the same as
that found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. * Such articles and, as mentioned,
articles that have been around for a while can be extremely helpful in what-
ever project you are engaged in.
Now we come to blogs. Blogs are simply journals, the vast majority of them
put up by individuals, that are left open to the public on an Internet site. Origi-
nally more like public diaries dealing with personal matters, they now encom-
pass specialties of almost every imaginable sort. Up to three million blogs
were believed to be up and running by the end of 2004, with a new one added
every 5.8 seconds (ClickZ.com, “The Blogosphere by the Numbers”). Nobody
knows how many there are now.
Y ou can fi nd blogs that specialize in satire, parody, and outright fabrica-
tion. They represent all sides of the political spectrum, including some sides
that we wouldn’t have thought existed at all. The Drudge Report is a standard
on the right; the Huffington Post is equally well known on the left. On a blog
site, like any other website that isn’t run by a responsible organization such as
* “Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head,” by Jim Giles, Nature, December 12, 2005 .
Wikipedia
Blogs
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 129 12/9/10 2:52 PM
130 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
most of those previously indicated, you can fi nd anything that a person wants
to put there, including all kinds of bad information. You can take advantage
of these sources, but you should always exercise caution, and if you’re looking
for information, always consult another source, but be especially careful about
any that are linked to your fi rst source!
Before we leave the topic of web worthiness, we want to pass along a
warning that comes from Barbara Mikkelson, co-founder of Snopes.com. She
reminds us that rumors often give people a great sense of comfort; people
are quick to reject nuance and facts that are contrary to their own point of
view, but quickly accept them when they are agreeable to the hearer. “When
you’re looking at truth versus gossip,” Mikkelson says, “truth doesn’t stand a
chance.” We hope she’s being unduly pessimistic.
So r emember, when you take keyboard and mouse in hand, be on guard.
You have about as much reason to believe the claims you fi nd on most sites
In the Media
Webcheckers
Along with other sites we’ve already mentioned, here are some other places where you can go
to get to the bottom of an issue you’ve seen brought up on the web. We believe these to be
among the most reliable sources currently available; we use them all ourselves.
Snopes.com. The original, and still the best site, for checking out rumors, stories, urban
legends, and any other type of strange claim that turns up on the web. Run by Daniel
and Barbara Mikkelson since 1996, it classifies as true or false a host of claims that circu-
late on the Internet. Analysis of the history and nature of the claims under investigation
is usually provided.
TruthorFiction.com. A general fact-finding, debunking site. Generally up-to-date findings
by owner Rich Buhler. Analyses tend to be less thorough than those found on Snopes, but
a generally trustworthy site.
Factcheck.org. Run by Brooks Jackson, a former CNN and Wall Street Journal reporter
out of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center. Completely neu-
tral politically, the site attacks anybody who stretches the truth concerning any topic in
politics.
PolitiFact.com. Operated by the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times newspaper. Reporters and
editors fact-check claims made by politicians, lobbyists, and interest groups. The website
won a Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for its work during the presidential election of 2008.
Consumerreports.com. Evaluates consumer issues (including health care and financial
planning) and products. Not to be confused with other organizations with similar names,
this site, like the magazine of the same name that sponsors it, accepts no advertising and
bends over backwards to avoid bias. Careful evaluation and analysis can be expected.
The organization buys products to be evaluated from stores, just like we do, rather than
being given them by manufacturers.
For the general evaluation of websites, several checklists are available. You will find Cornell
University’s and the University of Maryland’s checklists at www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/
ref/research/skill26.htm and www.lib.umd.edu/guides/evaluate.html.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 130 12/9/10 2:52 PM
ADVERTISING 131
as you would if they came from any other stranger, except you can’t look this
one in the eye.
See who in the class can fi nd the strangest news report from a credible source.
Send it to us at McGraw-Hill. If your entry is selected for printing in our next
edition, Moore might send you $100. (In the next chapter you’ll see why we
call the word “might” a weaseler in this context.)
Identify at least three factors that can cause inaccuracies or a distortion of
reports in the news media.
ADVERTISING
Advertising [is] the science of arresting the human intelligence long
enough to get money from it.
— Stephen Leacock
If there is anything in modern society besides politics that truly puts our
sense of what is credible to the test, it’s advertising. As we hope you’ll agree
after reading this section, skepticism is always the best policy when consider-
ing any kind of advertising or promotion.
Ads are used to sell many products other than toasters, television sets,
and toilet tissue. They can encourage us to vote for a candidate, agree with a
political proposal, take a tour, give up a bad habit, or join a Tea Party or the
army. They can also be used to make announcements (for instance, about job
openings, lectures, concerts, or the recall of defective automobiles) or to create
favorable climates of opinion (for example, toward labor unions or offshore oil
drilling).
Advertising fi rms understand our fears and desires at least as well as
we understand them ourselves, and they have at their disposal the exper-
tise to exploit them.* Such fi rms employ trained psychologists and some of
the world’s most creative artists and use the most sophisticated and well-
researched theories about the motivation of human behavior. Maybe most
important, they can afford to spend whatever is necessary to get each detail
of an advertisement exactly right. (On a per-minute basis, television ads are
the most expensively produced pieces that appear on your tube.) A good ad is
a work of art, a masterful blend of word and image often composed in accor-
dance with the exacting standards of artistic and scientifi c genius (other ads,
of course, are just plain silly). Can untrained laypeople even hope to evaluate
such psychological and artistic masterpieces intelligently?
Fortunately, it is not necessary to understand the deep psychology of an
advertisement to evaluate it in the way that’s most important to us. When
confronted with an ad, we should ask simply: Does this ad give us a good rea-
son to buy this product? And the answer, in general terms, can be simply put:
* For an excellent treatment of this and related subjects, we recommend Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and
Abuse of Persuasion, rev. ed., by Anthony R. Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998).
Exercise 4-8
Exercise 4-9
According to zFacts.com,
$412 billion dollars were
spent on advertising in
America during 2008.
Somebody really wants to
sell us something!
People watching a sexual pro-
gram are thinking about sex,
not soda pop. Violence and sex
elicit very strong emotions and
can interfere with memory for
other things.
—BRAD BUSHMAN of Iowa State
University, whose research
indicated that people tend to
forget the names of sponsors
of violent or sexual TV shows
(reported by Ellen Goodman)
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 131 12/9/10 2:52 PM
132 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
Because the only good reason to buy anything in the fi rst place is to improve
our lives, the ad justifi es a purchase only if it establishes that we’d be better off
with the product than without it (or that we’d be better off with the product
than with the money we would trade for it).
However, do we always know when we’ll be better off with a product than
without it? Do we really want, or need, a bagel splitter or an exercise bike? Do
people even recognize “better taste” in a cigarette? Do we need Viagra or are
we just curious? Advertisers spend vast sums creating within us new desires
and fears—and hence a need to improve our lives by satisfying those desires or
eliminating those fears through the purchase of advertised products. They are
often successful, and we fi nd ourselves needing something we might not have
known existed before. That others can instill in us, through word and image,
a desire for something we did not previously desire may be a lamentable fact,
but it is clearly a fact. Still, we decide what would make us better off, and we
decide to part with our money. So, it is only with reference to what in our view
would make life better for us that we properly evaluate advertisements.
There are basically two kinds of ads: those that offer reasons and those
that do not. Those that offer reasons for buying the advertised product always
promise that certain hopes will be satisfi ed, certain needs met, or certain fears
eliminated. (You’ll be more accepted, have a better image, be a better parent,
and so on.)
Those ads that do not rely on reasons fall mainly into three cat-
egories: (1) those that bring out feelings in us (e.g., through humor, pretty
images, scary images, beautiful music, heartwarming scenes); (2) those
that depict the product being used or endorsed by people we admire or
think of ourselves as being like (sometimes these people are depicted
by actors, sometimes not); and (3) those that depict the product being
used in situations in which we would like to fi nd ourselves. Of course,
some ads go all out and incorporate elements from all three categories—
and for good measure also state a reason or two why we should buy the adver-
tised product.
Buying a product (which includes joining a group, deciding how to vote,
and so forth) on the basis of reasonless ads is, with one minor exception that
we’ll explain shortly, never justifi ed. Such ads tell you only that the prod-
uct exists and what it looks like (and sometimes where it is available and
how much it costs); if an ad tells you much more than this, then it begins
to qualify as an ad that gives reasons for buying the product. Reasonless ads
do tell us what the advertisers think of our values and sense of humor (not
always a pleasant thing to notice, given that they have us pegged so well), but
“Doctor recommended.”
This ambiguous ad slogan
creates an illusion that many
doctors, or doctors in general,
recommend the product. How-
ever, a recommendation from
a single doctor is all it takes
to make the statement true.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 132 12/9/10 2:52 PM
ADVERTISING 133
this information is irrelevant to the question of whether we should buy the
product.
Ads that submit reasons for buying the product, or “promise ads,” as they
have been called, usually tell us more than that a certain product exists—but
not much more. The promise, with rare exception, comes with no guaran-
tees and is usually extremely vague (Gilbey’s gin promises “more gin taste,”
Kleenex is “softer”). In other words, the reasons given are almost never good
reasons.
Such ads are a source of information about what the sellers of the product
are willing to claim about what the product will do, how well it will do it, how
it works, what it contains, how well it compares with similar products, and
how much more wonderful your life will be once you’ve got one. However, to
make an informed decision on a purchase, you almost always need to know
more than the seller is willing to claim, particularly because no sellers will
tell you what’s wrong with their products or what’s right with those of their
competitors. Remember that they are perfect examples of interested parties.
Further, the claims of advertisers are notorious not only for being
vague but also for being ambiguous, misleading, exaggerated, and sometimes
just plain false. Even if a product existed that was so good that an honest,
We are professional grade.
Meaningless but catchy
slogan for GMC trucks. (We
are professional grade, too.)
Real Life
When Is an Ad Not
an Ad? When It’s a
Product Placement!
When Katharine Hepburn threw all of Hum-
phrey Bogart’s Gordon’s gin overboard in
The African Queen, it was an early example
of product placement, since the makers of
Gordon’s paid to have their product tossed
in the drink, as it were. Readers of a certain
age may remember the 1960s television
show Route 66, which starred not just Mar-
tin Milner and George Maharis but also a
new Chevrolet Corvette and probably con-
tributed to more than a few Corvette sales.
Reese’s Pieces were centrally placed in the
movie E.T. and the sales of Red Stripe beer
jumped 50 percent after it appeared promi-
nently in the movie The Firm.
These days, the paid placement of prod-
ucts in both movies and television (and pos-
sibly even in novels) is a serious alternative
to traditional commercials, and it has the advantage of overcoming the Tivo effect: the viewer
records programs and watches them while skipping over the commercials.
■ We suspect the Coke can is there because
Pepsi wouldn’t pay enough.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 133 12/9/10 2:52 PM
134 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
unexaggerated, and fair description of it would justify our buying it without
considering competing items (or other reports on the same item), and even if an
advertisement for this product consisted of just such a description, we would
still not be justifi ed in purchasing the product on the basis of that advertise-
ment alone. For we would be unable to tell, simply by looking at the advertise-
ment, that it was uninfl ated, honest, fair, and not misleading. Our suspicions
about advertising in general should undercut our willingness to believe in the
honesty of any particular advertisement.
Thus, even advertisements that present reasons for buying an item do
not by themselves justify our purchase of the item. This is worth repeating,
in stronger language: An advertisement never justifies purchasing something.
Advertisements are written to sell something; they are not designed to be
informative except insofar as it will help with the sales job. Sometimes, of
course, an advertisement can provide you with information that can clinch
your decision to make a purchase. Sometimes the mere existence, availability,
or affordability of a product—all information that an ad can convey—is all you
need to make a decision to buy. But if the purchase is justifi able, you must
have some reasons, apart from those offered in the ad, for making it. If, for
some reason, you already know that you want or need and can afford a car with
an electric motor, then an ad that informs you that a fi rm has begun market-
ing such a thing would supply you with the information you need to buy one.
If you can already justify purchasing a particular brand of microwave oven but
cannot fi nd one anywhere in town, then an advertisement informing you that
the local department store stocks them can clinch your decision to make the
purchase.
For people on whom good fortune has smiled, those who don’t care what
kind of whatsit they buy, or those to whom mistaken purchases simply don’t
matter, all that is important is knowing that a product is available. Most of us,
however, need more information than ads provide to make reasoned purchas-
ing decisions. Of course, we all occasionally make purchases solely on the
basis of advertisements, and sometimes we don’t come to regret them. In such
cases, though, the happy result is due as much to good luck as to the ad.
On Language
WAY Too Good to Be True!
Since the country fell into a serious recession in 2008, many people have found themselves
unable to meet their mortgage payments, and many find themselves saddled with more credit
card debt than they can manage. Easy debt-relief schemers to the rescue! Some cable TV and
radio ads promise to help get your mortgage paid off, make your credit card debt shrink or
disappear altogether, or make you rich by teaching you to make quick killings in real estate.
According to a Consumer Reports Money Adviser article (April 2010), these schemes tend
more toward guaranteeing fees for the operators than for debt relief or riches, quick or other-
wise, for the client. Many clients wind up worse off than they started after signing up for these
plans. Remember: advertising is always designed to help the folks who pay for the ads. If it
looks too good to be true, you can bet it is.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 134 12/9/10 2:52 PM
RECAP 135
A fi nal suggestion on this subject. We know of only one source that main-
tains a fi erce independence and still does a good job of testing and reporting
on products. That’s Consumers Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports, a
magazine (mentioned in the box on p. 130) that accepts no advertising and that
buys all the objects it tests and reports on (rather than accepting them for free
from the manufacturers, as do several other “consumer” magazines). For reli-
able information and fair-mindedness, we recommend them. They’re also on
the web at
This list summarizes the topics covered in this chapter.
■ Claims lack credibility to the extent they confl ict with our observations,
experience, or background information, or come from sources that lack
credibility.
■ The less initial plausibility a claim has, the more extraordinary it seems;
and the less it fi ts with our background information, the more suspicious
we should be.
■ Interested parties should always be viewed with more suspicion than dis-
interested parties.
■ Doubts about sources generally fall into two categories: doubts about the
source’s knowledge or expertise and doubts about the source’s veracity,
objectivity, and accuracy.
■ We can form reasonably reliable judgments about a person’s knowledge by
considering his or her education, experience, accomplishments, reputa-
tion, and position.
■ Claims made by experts, those with special knowledge in a subject, are
the most reliable, but the claims must pertain to the area of expertise and
must not confl ict with claims made by other experts in the same area.
■ Major metropolitan newspapers, national newsmagazines, and network
news shows are generally credible sources of news, but it is necessary to
keep an open mind about what we learn from them.
■ Governments have been known to infl uence and even to manipulate the
news.
■ Sources like Wikipedia, institutional websites, and news organizations
can be helpful, but skepticism is the order of the day when we obtain
information from unknown Internet sources or talk radio.
■ Advertising assaults us at every turn, attempting to sell us goods, ser-
vices, beliefs, and attitudes. Because substantial talent and resources are
employed in this effort, we need to ask ourselves constantly whether the
products in question will really make the differences in our lives that
their advertising claims or hints they will make. Advertisers are always
more concerned with selling you something than with improving your
life. They are concerned with improving their own lives.
■ What goes for talk radio, above, also goes for advocacy television.
Recap
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 135 12/9/10 2:52 PM
136 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
Exercise 4-10
In groups, decide which is the best answer to each question. Compare your
answers with those of other groups and your instructor.
1. “SPACE ALIEN GRAVEYARD FOUND! Scientists who found an extra-
terrestrial cemetery in central Africa say the graveyard is at least 500
years old! ‘There must be 200 bodies buried there and not a single one of
them is human,’ Dr. Hugo Schild, the Swiss anthropologist, told report-
ers.” What is the appropriate reaction to this report in the Weekly World
News?
a. It’s probably true.
b. It almost certainly is true.
c. We really need more information to form any judgment at all.
d. None of these.
2. Is Elvis really dead? Howie thinks not. Reason: He knows three people
who claim to have seen Elvis recently. They are certain that it is not a
mere Elvis look-alike they have seen. Howie reasons that, since he has
absolutely no reason to think the three would lie to him, they must be
telling the truth. Elvis must really be alive, he concludes!
Is Howie’s reasoning sound? Explain.
3. voice on telephone: Mr. Roberts, this is SBC calling. Have you recently
placed several long-distance calls to Lisbon, Portugal?
mr. roberts: Why, no . . .
voice: This is what we expected. Mr. Roberts, I’m sorry to report that
apparently someone has been using your calling card number. However,
we are prepared to give you a new number, effective immediately, at no
charge to you.
mr. roberts: Well, fi ne, I guess . . .
voice: Again let me emphasize that there will be no charge for this ser-
vice. Now, for authorization, just to make sure that we are calling Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Roberts, please state the last four digits of your calling card
number, and your PIN number, please.
Question: What should Mr. Roberts, as a critical thinker, do?
4. On Thanksgiving Day 1990, an image said by some to resemble the
Virgin Mary was observed in a stained glass window of St. Dominic’s
Church in Colfax, California. A physicist asked to investigate said the
image was caused by sunlight shining through the window and refl ecting
from a newly installed hanging light fi xture. Others said the image was a
miracle. Whose explanation is more likely true?
a. The physicist’s
b. The others’
c. More information is needed before we can decide which explanation is
more likely.
5. It is late at night around the campfi re when the campers hear awful
grunting noises in the woods around them. They run for their lives! Two
Additional
Exercises
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 136 12/9/10 2:52 PM
EXERCISES 137
campers, after returning the next day, tell others they found huge foot-
prints around the campfi re. They are convinced they were attacked by
Bigfoot. Which explanation is more likely true?
a. The campers heard Bigfoot.
b. The campers heard some animal and are pushing the Bigfoot explana-
tion to avoid being thought of as chickens, or are just making the story
up for unknown reasons.
c. Given this information, we can’t tell which explanation is more likely.
6. Megan’s aunt says she saw a fl ying saucer. “I don’t tell people about
this,” Auntie says, “because they’ll think I’m making it up. But this
really happened. I saw this strange light, and this, well, it wasn’t a saucer,
exactly, but it was round and big, and it came down and hovered just over
my back fence, and my two dogs began whimpering. And then it just,
whoosh! It just vanished.”
Megan knows her aunt, and Megan knows she doesn’t make up
stories.
a. She should believe her aunt saw a fl ying saucer.
b. She should believe her aunt was making the story up.
c. She should believe that her aunt may well have had some unusual expe-
rience, but it was probably not a visitation by extraterrestrial beings.
7. According to Dr. Edith Fiore, author of The Unquiet Dead, many of your
personal problems are really the miseries of a dead soul who has pos-
sessed you sometime during your life. “Many people are possessed by
earthbound spirits. These are people who have lived and died, but did
not go into the afterworld at death. Instead they stayed on Earth and
remained just like they were before death, with the fears, pains, weak-
nesses and other problems that they had when they were alive.” She esti-
mates that about 80 percent of her more than 1,000 patients are suffering
from the problems brought on by being possessed by spirits of the dead.
To tell if you are among the possessed, she advises that you look for such
telltale symptoms as low energy levels, character shifts or mood swings,
memory problems, poor concentration, weight gain with no obvious
cause, and bouts of depression (especially after hospitalization). Which of
these reactions is best?
a. Wow! I bet I’m possessed!
b. Well, if a doctor says it’s so, it must be so.
c. If these are signs of being possessed, how come she thinks that only
80 percent of her patients are?
d. Too bad there isn’t more information available, so we could form a rea-
sonable judgment.
8. EOC—Engine Overhaul in a Can
Developed by skilled automotive scientists after years of research and
laboratory and road tests! Simply pour one can of EOC into the oil in
your crankcase. EOC contains long-chain molecules and special thermo-
active metallic alloys that bond with worn engine parts. NO tools
needed! NO need to disassemble engine.
Question: Reading this ad, what should you believe?
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 137 12/9/10 2:52 PM
138 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
9. ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP)—Roped to her twin sons for safety, Joni
Phelps inched her way to the top of Mount McKinley. The National Park
Service says Phelps, 54, apparently is the fi rst blind woman to scale the
20,300-foot peak.
This report is
a. Probably true
b. Probably false
c. Too sketchy; more information is needed before we can judge
Exercise 4-11
Within each group of observers, are some especially credible or especially
not so?
1. Judging the relative performances of the fi ghters in a heavyweight boxing
match
a. the father of one of the fi ghters
b. a sportswriter for Sports Illustrated magazine
c. the coach of the American Olympic boxing team
d. the referee of the fi ght
e. a professor of physical education
2. You (or your family or your class) are trying to decide whether you should
buy an Apple Macintosh computer or a Windows model. You might
consult
a. a friend who owns either a Macintosh or a Windows machine
b. a friend who now owns one of the machines but used to own the other
c. a dealer for either Macintosh or Windows computers
d. a computer column in a big-city newspaper
e. reviews in computer magazines
3. The Surgical Practices Committee of Grantville Hospital has docu-
mented an unusually high number of problems in connection with ton-
sillectomies performed by a Dr. Choker. The committee is reviewing her
surgical practices. Those present during a tonsillectomy are
a. Dr. Choker
b. the surgical proctor from the Surgical Practices Committee
c. an anesthesiologist
d. a nurse
e. a technician
4. The mechanical condition of the used car you are thinking of buying
a. the used-car salesperson
b. the former owner (who we assume is different from the salesperson)
c. the former owner’s mechanic
d. you
e. a mechanic from an independent garage
5. A demonstration of psychokinesis (the ability to move objects at a dis-
tance by nonphysical means)
a. a newspaper reporter
b. a psychologist
▲
▲
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 138 12/9/10 2:52 PM
EXERCISES 139
c. a police detective
d. another psychic
e. a physicist
f. a customs agent
g. a magician
Exercise 4-12
For each of the items below, discuss the credibility and authority of each
source relative to the issue in question. Whom would you trust as most reli-
able on the subject?
1. Issue: Is Crixivan an effective HIV/AIDS medication?
a. Consumer Reports
b. Stadtlander Drug Company (the company that makes Crixivan)
c. the owner of your local health food store
d. the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
e. your local pharmacist
2. Issue: Should possession of handguns be outlawed?
a. a police chief
b. a representative of the National Rifl e Association
c. a U.S. senator
d. the father of a murder victim
3. Issue: What was the original intent of the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and does it include permission for every citizen to possess
handguns?
a. a representative of the National Rifl e Association
b. a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
c. a Constitutional historian
d. a U.S. senator
e. the president of the United States
4. Issue: Is decreasing your intake of dietary fat and cholesterol likely to
reduce the level of cholesterol in your blood?
a. Time magazine
b. Runner’s World magazine
c. your physician
d. the National Institutes of Health
e. the New England Journal of Medicine
5. Issue: When does a human life begin?
a. a lawyer
b. a physician
c. a philosopher
d. a minister
e. you
Exercise 4-13
Each of these items consists of a brief biography of a real or imagined person,
followed by a list of topics. On the basis of the information in the biography,
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 139 12/9/10 2:52 PM
140 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
discuss the credibility and authority of the person described on each of the
topics listed.
1. Anne St. Germain teaches sociology at the University of Illinois and is
the director of its Population Studies Center. She is a graduate of Harvard
College, where she received a B.A. in 1975, and of Harvard University,
which granted her a Ph.D. in economics in 1978. She taught courses
in demography as an assistant professor at UCLA until 1982; then she
moved to the sociology department of the University of Nebraska, where
she was associate professor and then professor. From 1987 through 1989,
she served as acting chief of the Population Trends and Structure Section
of the United Nations Population Division. She joined the faculty at the
University of Illinois in 1989. She has written books on patterns of world
urbanization, the effects of cigarette smoking on international mortality,
and demographic trends in India. She is president of the Population Asso-
ciation of America.
Topics
a. The effects of acid rain on humans
b. The possible benefi cial effects of requiring sociology courses for all stu-
dents at the University of Illinois
c. The possible effects of nuclear war on global climate patterns
d. The incidence of poverty among various ethnic groups in the United
States
e. The effects of the melting of glaciers on global sea levels
f. The change in death rate for various age groups in all Third World coun-
tries between 1970 and 1990
g. The feasibility of a laser-based nuclear defense system
h. Voter participation among religious sects in India
i. Whether the winters are worse in Illinois than in Nebraska
2. Tom Pierce graduated cum laude from Cornell University with a B.S.
in biology in 1973. After two years in the Peace Corps, during which
he worked on public health projects in Venezuela, he joined Jeffrey Rid-
enour, a mechanical engineer, and the pair developed a water pump and
purifi cation system that is now used in many parts of the world for both
regular water supplies and emergency use in disaster-struck areas. Pierce
and Ridenour formed a company to manufacture the water systems, and
it prospered as they developed smaller versions of the system for private
use on boats and motor homes. In 1981, Pierce bought out his partner
and expanded research and development in hydraulic systems for forc-
ing oil out of old wells. Under contract with the federal government and
several oil fi rms, Pierce’s company was a principal designer and contrac-
tor for the Alaskan oil pipeline. He is now a consultant in numerous
developing countries as well as chief executive officer and chairman of
the board of his own company, and he sits on the boards of directors of
several other companies.
Topics
a. The image of the United States in Latin America
b. The long-range effects of the Cuban revolution on South America
c. Fixing a leaky faucet
▲
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 140 12/9/10 2:52 PM
EXERCISES 141
d. Technology in Third World countries
e. The ecological effects of the Alaskan pipeline
f. Negotiating a contract with the federal government
g. Careers in biology
Exercise 4-14
According to certain pollsters, quite a number of people vote for candidates
for president not because they especially like those candidates’ policies and
programs or their idea of where the country should be going, but because
they like the candidates personally. Discuss what features a candidate from
the recent past (e.g., George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John
McCain, Sarah Palin) may have that might cause such people to vote for him
or her. Which of these features, if any, might be relevant to how good a job the
candidate would do as president?
Exercise 4-15
From what you know about the nature of each of the following claims and its
source, and given your general knowledge, assess whether the claim is one you
should accept, reject, or suspend judgment on due to ambiguity, insufficient
documentation, vagueness, or subjectivity (e.g., “Tom Cruise is cute”). Com-
pare your judgment with that of your instructor.
1. “Campbell Soup is hot—and some are getting burned. Just one day after
the behemoth of broth reported record profi ts, Campbell said it would
lay off 650 U.S. workers, including 175—or 11% of the workforce—at its
headquarters in Camden, New Jersey.”
—Time
2. [The claim to evaluate is the fi rst one in this passage.] Jackie Haskew
taught paganism and devil worship in her fourth-grade classroom in
Grand Saline, Texas, at least until she was pressured into resigning by
parents of her students. (According to syndicated columnist Nat Hentoff,
“At the town meeting on her case, a parent said fi rmly that she did not
want her daughter to read anything that dealt with ‘death, abuse, divorce,
religion, or any other issue.’ ”)
3. “By 1893 there were only between 300 and 1,000 buffaloes remaining
in the entire country. A few years later, President Theodore Roosevelt
persuaded Congress to establish a number of wildlife preserves in which
the remaining buffaloes could live without danger. The numbers have
increased since, nearly doubling over the past 10 years to 130,000.”
—Clifford May, in the New York Times Magazine
4. Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, was responsible for the death of Presi-
dent John F. Kennedy.
—Conclusion of the Warren Commission on the assassination
of President Kennedy
5. “[N]ewly released documents, including the transcripts of telephone con-
versations recorded by President Lyndon B. Johnson in November and
December 1963, provide for the fi rst time a detailed . . . look at why and
▲
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 141 12/9/10 2:52 PM
142 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
how the seven-member Warren [Commission] was put together. Those doc-
uments, along with a review of previously released material . . . describe a
process designed more to control information than to elicit and expose it.”
—“The Truth Was Secondary,” Washington Post National Weekly Edition
6. “Short-sighted developers are determined to transform Choco [a large
region of northwestern Colombia] from an undisturbed natural treasure to
a polluted, industrialized growth center.”
—Solicitation letter from the World Wildlife Fund
7. “Frantic parents tell shocked TV audience: space aliens stole our son.”
— Weekly World News
8. “The manufacturer of Sudafed 12-hour capsules issued a nationwide recall
of the product Sunday after two people in the state of Washington who
had taken the medication died of cyanide poisoning and a third became
seriously ill.”
— Los Angeles Times
9. “In Canada, smoking in public places, trains, planes or even automobiles
is now prohibited by law or by convention. The federal government has
banned smoking in all its buildings.”
—Reuters
10. “The list of vanishing commodities in Moscow now includes not only
sausage and vodka, long rationed, but also potatoes, eggs, bread, and
cigarettes.”
— National Geographic
11. “Maps, fi les and compasses were hidden in Monopoly sets and smuggled
into World War II German prison camps by MI-5, Britain’s counter-
intelligence agency, to help British prisoners escape, according to the Brit-
ish manufacturer of the game.”
—Associated Press
12. “Cats that live indoors and use a litter box can live four to fi ve years
longer.”
—From an advertisement for Jonny Cat litter
13. “A case reported by Borderland Sciences Research Foundation, Vista,
California, tells of a man who had attended many of the meetings where
a great variety of ‘dead’ people came and spoke through the body mecha-
nism of Mark Probert to the group of interested persons on a great variety
of subjects with questions and answers from ‘both sides.’ Then this man
who had attended meetings while he was in a body, did what is called
‘die.’ Presumably he had learned ‘while in the body’ what he might expect
at the change of awareness called death, about which organized religion
seems to know little or nothing.”
—George Robinson, Exploring the Riddle of Reincarnation,
undated, no publisher cited
14. “Because of cartilage that begins to accumulate after age thirty, by the
time . . . [a] man is seventy his nose has grown a half inch wider and
▲
▲
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 142 12/9/10 2:52 PM
EXERCISES 143
another half inch longer, his earlobes have fattened, and his ears them-
selves have grown a quarter inch longer. Overall, his head’s circumference
increases a quarter inch every decade, and not because of his brain, which
is shrinking. His head is fatter apparently because, unlike most other
bones in the body, the skull seems to thicken with age.”
—John Tierney (a staff writer for Esquire)
15. “Gardenias . . . need ample warmth, ample water, and steady feeding.
Though hardy to 20° F or even lower, plants fail to grow and bloom well
without summer heat.”
— The Sunset New Western Garden Book
(a best-selling gardening reference in the West)
16. “Exercise will make you feel fi tter, but there’s no good evidence that it
will make you live longer.”
—Dr. Jordan Tobin, National Institute on Aging
17. “Your bones are still growing until you’re 35.”
—From a national milk ad by the National Fluid Milk
Processor Promotion Board
18. “ E. coli 0157:H7 has become common enough to be the current major
cause of acute kidney failure in children.” [ E. coli is a food-borne toxin
originally found in the intestines of cows.]
—Robin Cook, a physician-turned-novelist. This claim was made by
a fictional expert on food-borne illnesses in the novel Toxin.
19. “A woman employed as a Santa Claus at a Walmart in Kentucky was
fi red by Walmart when a child pinched her breast and complained to
his mother that Santa was a woman. The woman complained to store
managers.”
—Associated Press
20. Paris Hilton requested a trademark for the phrase “That’s hot” from the
U.S. Office of Trademarks and Patents.
—Defamer blog
Exercise 4-16
The following appeared in a local newspaper, criticizing the position on global
warming taken by local television weatherman and political activist Anthony
Watts. Read it carefully and decide whether anything the author says should
affect the credibility of Watts or the project he endorsed. Compare your judg-
ment with those of your classmates.
“[Anthony] Watts endorsed the ‘Petition Project,’ which refutes man-
made global warming. Besides many fi ctitious names submitted, only about
one percent of the petition signers had done any climate research.
“The petition was prepared by Frederick Seitz, a scientist who, from 1975
to 1989, was paid $585,000 by the tobacco industry to direct a $45 million
scientifi c effort to hide the health impact of smoking. Does Watts agree that
cigarettes are not harmful, as Seitz’s studies showed?”
— Chico News & Review
▲
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 143 12/9/10 2:52 PM
144 CHAPTER 4: CREDIBILITY
Exercise 4-17
Find fi ve advertisements that give no reasons for purchasing the products they
are selling. Explain how each ad attempts to make the product seem attractive.
Exercise 4-18
Find fi ve advertisements that give reasons for purchasing the products they
are selling. Which of the reasons are promises to the purchaser? Exactly what
is being promised? What is the likelihood that the product will fulfi ll that
promise?
Exercise 4-19
Watch Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN news programs on the same day. Com-
pare the three on the basis of (1) the news stories covered, (2) the amount of
air time given to two or three of the major stories, and (3) any difference in the
slant of the presentations of a controversial story. Make notes. Be prepared to
discuss in class the differences in coverage on the basis of the three criteria
just mentioned.
Writing Exercises
1. Although millions of people have seen professional magicians like David
Copperfi eld and Siegfried and Roy perform in person or on television, it’s
probably a safe assumption that almost nobody believes they accomplish
their feats by means of real magical or supernatural powers—that is, that
they somehow “defy” the laws of nature. But even though they’ve never
had a personal demonstration, a signifi cant portion of the population
believes that certain psychics are able to accomplish apparent miracles
by exactly such means. How might you explain this difference in belief?
2. In the text, you were asked to consider the claim “Charlie’s eighty-
seven-year-old grandmother swam across Lake Michigan in the middle of
winter.” Because of the implausibility of such a claim—that is, because it
confl icts with our background information—it is reasonable to reject it.
Suppose, however, that instead of just telling us about his grandmother,
Charlie brings us a photocopy of a page of a Chicago newspaper with a
photograph of a person in a wet suit walking up onto a beach. The cap-
tion underneath reads, “Eighty-Seven-Year-Old Grandmother Swims
Lake Michigan in January!” Based on this piece of evidence, should a
critical thinker decide that the original claim is signifi cantly more likely
to be true than if it were backed up only by Charlie’s word? Defend
your answer.
3. Turn to the “Essays for Analysis” in Appendix 1, and assess the credibil-
ity of an author in a selection identifi ed by your instructor. Based on the
blurb about the author, say what you can about the author’s likely exper-
tise and susceptibility to bias on the subject of the essay.
4. Are our schools doing a bad job educating our kids? Do research in the
library or on the Internet to answer this question. Make a list (no more
than one page long) of facts that support the claim that our schools are
not doing as good a job as they should. Then list facts that support the
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 144 12/9/10 2:52 PM
EXERCISES 145
opposite view (or that rebut the claims of those who say our schools aren’t
doing a good job). Again, limit yourself to one page. Cite your sources.
Now, think critically about your sources. Are any stronger or weaker
than the others? Explain why on a single sheet of paper. Come prepared
to read your explanation, along with your list of facts and sources, to the
class.
5. Jackson says you should be skeptical of the opinion of someone who
stands to profi t from your accepting that opinion. Smith disagrees, point-
ing out that salespeople are apt to know a lot more about products of the
type they sell than do most people.
“Most salespeople are honest, and you can trust them,” Smith argues.
“Those who aren’t don’t stay in business long.”
Take about fi fteen minutes to defend either Smith or Jackson in a
short essay. When everyone is fi nished, your instructor will collect the
essays and read three or more to the class to stimulate a brief discussion.
After discussion, can the class come to any agreement about who is cor-
rect, Jackson or Smith?
6. Your instructor will survey the class to see how many agree with this
claim: The media are biased. Then he or she will ask you to list your
reasons for thinking that this claim is true. (If you do not think it is true,
list reasons people might have for believing it.) After ten minutes, your
instructor will collect the lists of reasons and read from several of the
lists. Then he or she will give you twenty minutes to defend one of these
claims:
a. The media are biased.
b. Some of the reasons people have for believing that the media are biased
are not very good reasons.
c. It is difficult to say whether the media are biased.
At the end of the period, your instructor may survey the class again to
see if anyone’s mind has changed and why.
moo38286_ch04_104-145.indd 145 12/9/10 2:52 PM
146
W hen the military uses the phrase “self-injurious behavior incidents” regarding detainees at Guantá-namo Bay, it means what most of us call “attempted
suicides.” In fact, when the word “detainees” is used, it
means what most of us call “prisoners.” “Waterboarding”
sounds at fi rst like something you’d expect to see young
people doing on a California beach, not a torture technique
that involves forced simulated drowning. Less remarkable,
perhaps, but possibly more relevant for most of us, we’ve
heard the term “downsized” used when someone is fi red or
laid off. “Ethnic cleansing” covers everything from deporta-
tion to genocide.
What we have to say may be important, but the words
we choose to say it with can be equally important. The
examples just given are cases of a certain type of linguis-
tic coercion—an attempt to get us to adopt a particular atti-
tude toward a subject that, if described differently, would
seem less attractive to us. Words have tremendous persua-
sive power, or what we have called their rhetorical force or
emotive meaning —their power to express and elicit images,
feelings, and emotional associations. In the next few chap-
ters, we examine some of the most common rhetorical
techniques used to affect people’s attitudes, opinions, and
behavior.
Students will learn to . . .
1. Define the difference between
rhetoric and argument
2. Detect rhetorical devices and their
persuasive impact
3. Recognize prejudicial and nonprej-
udicial uses of rhetorical devices
4. Identify and critique the use
of euphemisms, dysphemisms,
weaslers, and downplayers
5. Identify and critique the use of
stereotypes, innuendo, and loaded
questions
6. Identify and critique the use of
ridicule, sarcasm, and hyperbole
7. Identify and critique the use of
rhetorical definitions, explana-
tions, analogies, and misleading
comparisons
8. Identify and critique the use of
proof surrogates and repetition
9. Identify and critique the persuasive
aspects of visual images
Persuasion Through Rhetoric
Common Devices and Techniques 5
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 146 12/9/10 2:54 PM
RHETORICAL DEVICES I 147
Rhetoric refers to the study of persuasive writing. As we use the term, it
denotes a broad category of linguistic techniques people use when their pri-
mary objective is to infl uence beliefs and attitudes and behavior. Is Hezbollah,
the Shia paramilitary organization based in Lebanon, a resistance movement
of freedom fi ghters or a dangerous terrorist organization? The different impres-
sions these two descriptions create is largely due to their differing rhetori-
cal meaning. Does Juanita “still owe over $1,000 on her
credit card”? Or does Juanita “owe only a little over
$1,000 on her credit card”? There’s no factual difference
between the two questions—only a difference in their
rhetorical force. The thing to remember through these
next few chapters is that rhetorical force may be psycho-
logically effective, but by itself it establishes nothing. If
we allow our attitudes and beliefs to be affected by sheer
rhetoric, we fall short as critical thinkers.
Now, before we get in trouble with your English
teacher, let’s make it clear that there is nothing wrong
with trying to make your case as persuasive as possible
by using well-chosen, rhetorically effective words and
phrases. Good writers always do this. But we, as critical
thinkers, must be able to distinguish the argument (if any)
contained in what someone says or writes from the rheto-
ric; we must be able to distinguish the logical force of a set
of remarks from their psychological force.
One of the things you will become aware of—as
you read these pages, do the exercises, apply what you
have learned to what you read and write—is that rheto-
ric is often mixed right in with argument. The message
isn’t that you should deduct points from an argument if
it is presented in rhetorically charged language, and it
isn’t that you should try to take all the rhetoric out of your own writing. The
message is simply that you shouldn’t add points for rhetoric. You don’t make
an argument stronger by screaming it at the top of your lungs. Likewise, you
don’t make it stronger by adding rhetorical devices.
Many of these rhetorical bells and whistles have names because they are
so common and so well understood. Because they are used primarily to give a
statement a positive or negative slant regarding a subject, they are sometimes
called slanters. We’ll describe some of the more widely used specimens.
RHETORICAL DEVICES I
Our fi rst group of slanters consists of what are usually single words or short
phrases designed to accomplish one of four specifi c rhetorical tasks.
Euphemisms and Dysphemisms
Language usually offers us a choice of words when we want to say something.
Until recently, the term “used car” referred to an automobile that wasn’t new,
but the trend nowadays is to refer to such a car as “pre-owned.” The people
who sell such cars, of course, hope that the different terminology will keep
Political language is designed
to make lies sound truthful . . .
and to give the appearance of
solidity to pure wind.
—G EORGE O RWELL
Euphemisms are unpleasant
truths wearing diplomatic
cologne.
—Q UENTIN C RISP, Manners from
Heaven
■ Such images as this add
to the negative impact
of the “death tax,”
described in the box
on the next page.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 147 12/9/10 2:54 PM
148 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
potential buyers from thinking about how “used” the car might be—maybe it’s
used up! The car dealer’s replacement term, “pre-owned,” is a euphemism —a
neutral or positive expression instead of one that carries negative associations.
Euphemisms play an important role in affecting our attitudes. People may be
less likely to disapprove of an assassination attempt on a foreign leader, for
example, if it is referred to as “neutralization.” People fi ghting against the
government of a country can be referred to neutrally as “rebels” or “guerril-
las,” but a person who wants to build support for them may refer to them
by the euphemism “freedom fi ghters.” A government is likely to pay a price
for initiating a “revenue enhancement,” but voters will be even quicker to
respond negatively to a “tax hike.” The U.S. Department of Defense performs
the same function it did when it was called the Department of War, but the
current name makes for much better public relations.
The opposite of a euphemism is a dysphemism. Dysphemisms are used
to produce a negative effect on a listener’s or reader’s attitude toward some-
thing or to tone down the positive associations it may have. Whereas “freedom
fi ghter” is a euphemism for “guerrilla” or “rebel,” “terrorist” is a dysphemism.
Euphemisms and dysphemisms are often used in deceptive ways or ways
that at least hint at deception. All the examples in the preceding paragraphs are
examples of such uses. But euphemisms can at times be helpful and construc-
tive. By allowing us to approach a sensitive subject indirectly—or by skirting
it entirely—euphemisms can sometimes prevent hostility from bringing ratio-
nal discussion to a halt. They can also be a matter of good manners: “Passed
on” may be much more appropriate than “dead” if the person to whom you’re
speaking is recently widowed. Hence, our purpose for using euphemisms and
dysphemisms determines whether or not those uses are legitimate.
It bears mentioning that some facts just are repellent, and for that reason
even neutral reports of them sound horrible. “Lizzie killed her father with an
ax” reports a horrible fact about Lizzie, but it does so using neutral language.
Neutral reports of unpleasant, evil, or repellent facts do not automatically
count as dysphemistic rhetoric.
“Wardrobe malfunction”
Justin Timberlake’s phrase for
his tearing of Janet Jackson’s
costume during the half-time
performance at Super Bowl
XXXVIII.
Real Life
The Death Tax
Here is Grover Norquist, who is the head of Americans for Tax Reform in Washington, D.C., in a
press release from that organization:
Over seventy percent of Americans oppose the Death Tax, and with good reason. It is
the worst form of double-taxation, where, after taxing you all your life, the government
decides to take even more when you die.
“Death Tax” is a dysphemism, of course. The estate tax is a tax not on death but on inherited
wealth, imposed on the occasion of a person’s death. And the person paying the tax is not the
deceased, but the inheritors, who have never paid tax on the money.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 148 12/9/10 2:54 PM
RHETORICAL DEVICES I 149
Weaselers
Weaselers are linguistic methods of hedging a bet. When inserted into a claim,
they help protect it from criticism by watering it down somewhat, weakening
it, and giving the claim’s author a way out in case the claim is challenged. So,
what a claim asserts, a weaseler either minimizes or takes away entirely.
Without doubt you’ve heard the words “up to” used as a weaseler a thou-
sand times, especially in advertising. “Up to fi ve more miles per gallon.” “Up
to twenty more yards off the tee.” “Lose up to ten pounds a week.” None of
these guarantee anything. Sure, you might lose ten pounds, but you might lose
nothing. The statement still stands, thanks to “up to.”
Let’s make up a statistic. Let’s say that 98 percent of American doctors
believe that aspirin is a contributing cause of Reye’s syndrome in children, and
that the other 2 percent are unconvinced. If we then claim that “some doc-
tors are unconvinced that aspirin is related to Reye’s syndrome,” we cannot
be held accountable for having said something false, even though our claim
might be misleading to someone who did not know the complete story. The
word “some” has allowed us to weasel the point.
Words that sometimes weasel—such as “perhaps,” “possibly,” “maybe,”
and “may be,” among others—can be used to produce innuendo, to plant a
suggestion without actually making a claim that a person can be held to. We
can suggest that Berriault is a liar without actually saying so (and thus without
making a claim that might be hard to defend) by saying that Berriault may be
a liar. Or we can say it is possible that Berriault is a liar (which is true of all
of us, after all). “ Perhaps Berriault is a liar” works nicely, too. All of these are
examples of weaselers used to create innuendo (to be explained below).
Not every use of words and phrases like these is a weaseling one, of
course. Words that can weasel can also bring very important qualifi cations to
bear on a claim. The very same word that weasels in one context may not
weasel at all in another. For example, a detective who is considering all the
Great Western pays up to
12 percent more interest on
checking accounts.
—Radio advertisement
Even aside from the “up to”
weaseler, this ad can be
deceptive about what interest
rate it’s promising. Unless
you listen carefully, you might
think Great Western is pay-
ing 12 percent on checking
accounts. The presence of the
word “more” changes all that,
of course. If you’re getting
3 percent now, and Great
Western gives you “up to
12 percent more” than that,
they’ll be giving you about
31⁄3 percent—hardly the
fortune the ad seems to
promise.
In the Media
Innuendo with Statistics
Taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 could expect on average to pay about $99,000 in
taxes under [the proposed] plan.
—Wall Street Journal
Wow! Pity the poor taxpayer who makes over $200,000! Apparently, he or she will pay almost
half of that amount in taxes.
But think again: In the words of the New Republic (February 3, 2003), “The Journal’s sta-
tistic is about as meaningful as asserting that males over the age of six have had an average
of three sexual partners.” Bill Gates and many billionaires like him are among those who make
over $200,000.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 149 12/9/10 2:54 PM
150 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
possible angles on a crime and who has just heard Smith’s account of events
may say to an associate, “Of course, it is possible that Smith is lying.” This
need not be a case of weaseling. The detective may simply be exercising due
care. Other words and phrases that are sometimes used to weasel can also be
used legitimately. Qualifying phrases such as “it is arguable that,” “it may
well be that,” and so on have at least as many appropriate uses as weasel-
ing ones. Others, such as “some would say that,” are likely to be weaseling
more often than not, but even they can serve an honest purpose in the right
context. Our warning, then, is to be watchful when qualifying phrases turn
up. Is the speaker or writer adding a reasonable qualifi cation, insinuating a
bit of innuendo, or preparing a way out? We can only warn; you need to assess
the speaker, the context, and the subject to establish the grounds for the right
judgment.
Downplayers
Downplaying is an attempt to make someone or something look less impor-
tant or less signifi cant. Stereotypes, rhetorical comparisons, rhetorical
explanations, and innuendo (all discussed later) can all be used to downplay
something. Consider this statement, for example: “Don’t mind what Mr.
Pierce says in class; he’s a liberal.” This attempt to downplay Mr. Pierce and
whatever views he expresses in class makes use of a stereotype. We can also
downplay by careful insertion of certain words or other devices. Let’s amend
the preceding example like this: “Don’t mind what Mr. Pierce says in class;
he’s just another liberal.” Notice how the phrase “just another” denigrates
Mr. Pierce’s status still further. Words and other devices that serve this func-
tion are known as downplayers.
Perhaps the words most often used as downplayers are “mere” and
“merely.” If Kim tells you that she has a yellow belt in the Tibetan martial
art of Pujo and that her sister has a mere green belt, you would quite natu-
rally make the assumption that a yellow belt ranks higher than a green belt.
We’d probably say that Kim’s use of the word “mere” gives you the right to
make that assumption. Kim has used the word to downplay the signifi cance
of her sister’s accomplishment. But notice this: It could still be that Kim’s
sister’s belt signifi es the higher rank. If called on the matter, Kim might
claim that she said “mere” simply because her sister has been practicing the
art for much longer and is, after all, not that far ahead. Whether Kim has
such an out or not, she has used a downplayer to try to diminish her sister’s
accomplishment.
The term “so-called” is another standard downplayer. We might say,
for example, that the woman who made the diagnosis is a “so-called doctor,”
which downplays her credentials as a physician. Quotation marks can be used
to accomplish the same thing:
She got her “degree” from a correspondence school.
Use of quotation marks as a downplayer is somewhat different from their use
to indicate irony, as in this remark:
John “borrowed” Hank’s umbrella, and Hank hasn’t seen it since.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 150 12/9/10 2:54 PM
RHETORICAL DEVICES I 151
The idea in the latter example isn’t to downplay John’s borrowing the umbrella;
it’s to indicate that it wasn’t really a case of borrowing at all. But the use of
quotation marks around the word “degree” and the use of “so-called” in the
earlier examples are designed to play down the importance of their subjects.
And, like “mere” and “merely,” they do it in a fairly unsubtle way.
Many conjunctions—such as “nevertheless,” “however,” “still,” and
“but”—can be used to downplay claims that precede them. Such uses are more
subtle than the fi rst group of downplayers. Compare the following two ver-
sions of what is essentially the same pair of claims:
(1) The leak at the plant was a terrible tragedy, all right; however, we
must remember that such pesticide plants are an integral part of the
“green revolution” that has helped to feed millions of people.
(2) Although it’s true that pesticide plants are an integral part of the
“green revolution” that has helped to feed millions of people, it was
just such a plant that developed a leak and produced a terrible tragedy.
The differences may not be as obvious as those in the cases of “mere” and
“so-called,” but the two versions give an indication of where their authors’
sympathies lie.
The context of a claim can determine whether it downplays or not.
Consider the remark “Chavez won by only six votes.” The word “only” may
or may not downplay Chavez’s victory, depending on how thin a six-vote
margin is. If ten thousand people voted and Chavez won by six, then the
word “only” seems perfectly appropriate: Chavez won by just the skin of his
teeth. But if the vote was in a committee of, say, twenty, then six is quite a
substantial margin (it would be thirteen votes to seven, if everybody voted—
almost two to one), and applying the word “only” to the result is clearly a
slanting device designed to give Chavez’s margin of victory less importance
than it deserves.
As mentioned earlier, slanters really can’t—and shouldn’t—be avoided
altogether. They can give our writing fl air and interest. What can be avoided
is being unduly swayed by slanters. Learn to appreciate the effects that subtle
and not-so-subtle manipulations of language can have on you. By being aware,
you decrease your chances of being taken in unwittingly by a clever writer or
speaker.
Identify any of the rhetorical devices you fi nd in the following from the previ-
ous section of the text (euphemisms, dysphemisms, weaselers, downplayers).
Not every example may contain such a device.
1. You say you are in love with Oscar, but are you sure he’s right for you?
Isn’t he a little too . . . uh, mature for you?
2. He was at the bar for two hours, officer, but I know he had only four
drinks during that time.
3. “The key principle is ‘responsible energy exploration.’ And remember,
it’s NOT drilling for oil. It’s responsible energy exploration.”
—Republican pollster Frank Luntz
Exercise 5-1
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 151 12/9/10 2:54 PM
152 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
4. Of course, it may be that Roethlisberger didn’t even commit the assaults
he was accused of.
5. Try the Neutron Diet for just four weeks, and you can lose as many as
twenty pounds!
6. Republicans stand on principle against the irresponsible plans put forth
by environmental extremists to wreck the economy.
7. “Despite what many politicians continue to say, the success of the surge
strategy put in place by Generals Petraeus and Odierno is undeniable.”
—House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)
8. Obama and his Democrat-Communist party have bloated the already
bloated federal bureaucracy by 25% in ONE YEAR.
9. Charles, be sure to tinkle before we leave!
10. Him? Oh, that’s just my brother.
RHETORICAL DEVICES II
These next three slanting devices rely, in one way or another, on unwarranted
assumptions. We have to depend on unstated assumptions all the time, but as
you’ll see, we can get into trouble when those assumptions are not trustworthy.
Stereotypes
You often hear references to “the liberals,” “the right-wingers,” “the Jews,”
“the Catholics,” “the Evangelicals,” and, lately, “the Tea Partiers.” These
terms are almost always used when the speaker or writer is making use of
a stereotype. A stereotype is a generalization or an assumption about all the
members of a group that is based on an image of those in the group. Ameri-
cans are often stereotyped as being friendly and generous, but also as being
impatient and domineering. Asians are often stereotyped as being reserved but
clever. Some stereotypes are negative and even vicious: women are emotional,
men are insensitive, lesbians hate men, southerners are bigots, gay men are
effeminate, and so on. Of course, a moment’s thought tells us that none of
these characteristics could reasonably be applied to all the members of the
group in question.
Some of the slanters we’ve already talked about can involve stereotypes.
For example, if we use the dysphemism “right-wing extremist” to defame a
political candidate, we are utilizing a negative stereotype. Commonly, if we
link a candidate with a stereotype we like or venerate, we can create a favor-
able impression of the individual. “Senator McCain addressed his opponent
with all the civility of a gentleman” employs a favorable stereotype, that of a
gentleman, in a rhetorical comparison.
Our stereotypes come from a great many sources, many from popular lit-
erature, and are often supported by a variety of prejudices and group interests.
The Native American tribes of the Great Plains were considered noble people
▲
Mention the strict regulations—
not protocols or rules—
governing nuclear power
plants.
—R epublican p ollster F RANK
L UNTZ, in “An Energy Policy
for the 21st Century,” advis-
ing Republicans how to sell
nuclear energy
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 152 12/9/10 2:54 PM
RHETORICAL DEVICES II 153
In the Media
We Get Dumber in Company of Blondes
LONDON—From Marilyn Monroe to Paris
Hilton, “blonde” has long been code for a
woman who’s long on looks and light on brains.
Now French researchers have found that
the stereotype can actually affect mental
performance.
A recent study showed that otherwise intel-
ligent men performed below par on general
knowledge tests after viewing photos of blonde
women.
The real surprise? Women’s performance also
dipped in the tests.
The study, published in the Journal of Exper-
imental Social Psychology, examined people’s
ability to answer Trivial Pursuit game questions
after viewing photos of women with different
hair colors.
Exposure to blondes resulted in the lowest
scores.
Thierry Meyer, joint author of the study and
professor of social psychology at the University
of Paris X-Nanterre, said that the study proves a
general phenomenon.
“There’s a decrease in performance after an
unobtrusive exposure to a stereotype about
people who have the reputation to be cogni-
tively impaired,” he said.
In plainer language, blondes might make
people act in a less intelligent manner because
the people believe—whether they want to
admit it or not—that they are in the presence of
someone who’s not very smart.
Previous studies also have shown how infor-
mation from a person’s social context can influ-
ence their behavior.
For example, when people are exposed to
elderly people, they tend to walk and talk more
slowly. When people sit beside someone who is
fidgeting, they tend to fidget as well.
“The mere knowledge of a stereotype can
influence our behavior,” said Clementine Bry,
another author of the study.
It’s not clear how the stereotype of the dumb
blonde came about, although some researchers
point to the 1950s movie Gentlemen Prefer
Blondes starring Marilyn Monroe. But through
the years a wide range of blonde actresses—
from Mae West to Suzanne Somers to Goldie
Hawn—have perpetuated the stereotype.
Bry was quick to point out that there is
“absolutely no scientific evidence” to support
the stereotype of the dumb blonde.
“Stereotypes are cultural beliefs about social
groups, and are not truthful pictures of who
people are,” she said.
—Shelley Emling, Cox News Service
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 153 12/9/10 2:54 PM
154 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
by most whites until just before the mid-nineteenth century. But as white
people grew more interested in moving them off their lands and as confl icts
between the two escalated, popular literature increasingly described Native
Americans as subhuman creatures. This stereotype supported the group inter-
ests of whites. Confl icts in general, but especially confl icts between nations,
produce derogatory stereotypes of the opposition; it is easier to destroy ene-
mies without pangs of conscience if we think of them as less “human” than
ourselves. Stereotyping becomes even easier when there are racial differences
to exploit.
Nicholas Kristof notes that it isn’t just the ignorant and uneducated
whose thinking runs to stereotypes:
In times of stress, even smart and sophisticated people tend to be swept
up in prejudice. Teddy Roosevelt said in 1886: “I don’t go so far as to
think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out
of ten are, and I shouldn’t inquire too closely in the case of the tenth.
The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average
Indian.” *
The fact that nothing could have been further from the truth seems to be irrel-
evant once the blood pressure gets up. (It’s also helpful to remember that the
stereotypical cowboy of the movies was hardly realistic. After all, it was not
the pillars of society who moved West and became cowboys during the nine-
teenth century.)
Innuendo
The next batch of slanting devices doesn’t depend as much on emotional asso-
ciations as on the manipulation of other features of language. When we com-
municate with one another, we automatically have certain expectations and
make certain assumptions. (For example, when your instructor says, “Every-
body passed the exam,” she doesn’t mean that everybody in the world passed
the exam. We assume that the scope of the pronoun extends to include only
those who took the exam.) These expectations and assumptions help fi ll in the
gaps in our conversations so that we don’t have to explain everything we say
in minute detail. Because providing such details would be a tedious and prob-
ably impossible chore, these underlying conversational factors are crucial to
the success of communication.
Consider this statement:
Ladies and gentlemen, I am proof that there is at least one candidate in
this race who does not have a drinking problem.
Notice that this remark does not say that any opponent of the speaker does
have a drinking problem. In fact, the speaker is even allowing for the fact
that other candidates may have no such problem by using the words “at least
one candidate.” But because we assume there would be no need to make this
remark unless there were a candidate who had a drinking problem, the speaker
*Nicholas D. Kristof, “Bigotry in Islam—and Here,” New York Times, < www.nytimes.com >, op-ed section.
The city voluntarily assumed
the costs of cleaning up the
landfill to make it safe for
developers.
—Opponents of a local
housing development
The opponents neglected to
mention that the law required
the city to assume the costs.
This bit of innuendo on the
part of the opponents sug-
gested, of course, that the
city was in bed with the
developers.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 154 12/9/10 2:54 PM
RHETORICAL DEVICES II 1
55
■ As discussed later in
the text, the power
of photographs and
other images to convey
emotions is somewhat
analogous to the
rhetorical force of
language. For example,
what emotion is elicited
by this image?
casts suspicion on his opponent.
This is sometimes referred to as
signifi cant mention or paralipsis.
It is one form of innuendo, which
includes many ways of getting
a point across without explic-
itly committing oneself to it.
Another example, maybe
our all-time favorite, is this
remark:
I didn’t say the meat was
tough. I said I didn’t see the
horse that is usually outside.
— W. C. Fields
As you can see, the use of innu-
endo enables us to insinuate
something deprecatory about
something or someone without
actually saying it. For example,
if someone asks you whether Ralph is telling the truth, you may reply, “Yes,
this time,” which would suggest that maybe Ralph doesn’t usually tell the
truth. Or you might say of someone, “She is competent—in many regards,”
which would insinuate that in some ways she is not competent.
Sometimes we condemn somebody with faint praise—that is, by prais-
ing a person a small amount when grander praise might be expected, we hint
that praise may not really be due at all. This is a kind of innuendo. Imagine,
for example, reading a letter of recommendation that says, “Ms. Flotsam has
done good work for us, I suppose.” Such a letter does not inspire one to want
to hire Ms. Flotsam on the spot. Likewise, “She’s proved to be useful so far”
and “Surprisingly, she seems very astute” manage to speak more evil than
good of Ms. Flotsam. Notice, though, that the literal information contained in
these remarks is not negative in the least. Innuendo lies between the lines, so
to speak.
Loaded Questions
Another form of innuendo, one distinctive enough to warrant its own heading,
is the loaded question. If you overheard someone ask, “Have you always loved
to gamble?” you would naturally assume that the person being questioned did
in fact love to gamble. This assumption is independent of whether the person
answered yes or no, for it underlies the question itself. Every question rests
on assumptions. Even an innocent question like “What time is it?” depends
on the assumptions that the hearer speaks English and has some means of
fi nding out the time, for instance. A loaded question is less innocent, however.
It rests on one or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions. The world’s
oldest example, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” rests on the assump-
tion that the person asked has in the past beaten his wife. If there is no reason
to think that this assumption is true, then the question is a loaded one.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 155 12/9/10 2:54 PM
156 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
Identify any rhetorical devices you fi nd in these passages that were described
in the previous three sections of the text (stereotypes, innuendo, loaded ques-
tions). Not every example may contain such a device.
1. An attorney questioning a witness: “So, if you were awake when you
crossed the bridge, just when did you go to sleep at the wheel?”
2. No, I’m sure you’ll enjoy playing tennis with Jerome. He gets around
pretty well for a guy his age.
3. Frankly, I believe that fl ash memory will make any kind of moving-part
memory, such as hard drives, completely obsolete.
4. Larry Kudlow, on CNBC (in an American Spectator interview): “[Former
Treasury secretary] Bob Rubin’s a smart guy, a nice man, but he hates
tax cuts. To listen to Rubin on domestic issues, you could just die. He’s a
free-spending left-winger.”
5. Has Harry been a faithful husband? Well, he’s not been through a Tiger
Woods phase.
6. Why is it, do you suppose, that pit bulls are all mean and vicious?
7. I wouldn’t worry about the train being late. This is Germany, you know.
8. Why did Obama fail to act swiftly to end the BP oil spill?
9. It goes without saying that kid will do well in school. His kind always do.
10. The Pope does not molest children.
RHETORICAL DEVICES III
Humor and a bit of exaggeration are part of our everyday speech. But they can
also be used to sway opinions if the listener is not being careful.
Ridicule/Sarcasm
Also known as the horse laugh, this device includes ridicule and vicious humor
of all kinds. Ridicule is a powerful rhetorical tool—most of us really hate being
laughed at. So it’s important to remember that somebody who simply gets a
laugh at the expense of another person’s position has not raised any objection
to that position.
One may simply laugh outright at a claim (“Send aid to Russia? Har,
har, har!”), laugh at another claim that reminds us of the fi rst (“Support the
Equal Rights Amendment? Sure, when the ladies start buying the drinks! Ho,
ho, ho!”), tell an unrelated joke, use sarcastic language, or simply laugh at the
person who is trying to make the point.
The next time you watch a debate, remember that the person who has
the funniest lines and who gets the most laughs may be the person who seems
to win the debate, but critical thinkers should be able to see the difference
between argumentation on one hand and entertainment on the other.
Notice that we are not saying there’s anything wrong with entertain-
ment, nor with making a valid point in a humorous way. Jon Stewart makes
Exercise 5-2
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 156 12/9/10 2:54 PM
RHETORICAL DEVICES III 1
57
his living ridiculing others (as
well as himself). But often there
is a serious critical point along-
side or underneath the humor-
ous presentation.
Hyperbole
Hyperbole is extravagant over-
statement. A claim that exag-
gerates for effect is on its way to
becoming hyperbole, depending
on the strength of its language
and the point being made. To
describe a hangnail as a serious
injury is hyperbole; so is using
the word “fascist” to describe
parents who insist that their
teenager be home by midnight. Not all strong or colorful language is hyper-
bole, of course. “Oscar Peterson is an unbelievably inventive pianist” is a
strong claim, but it is not hyperbolic—it isn’t really extravagant. However,
“Oscar Peterson is the most inventive musician who ever lived” goes beyond
emphasis and crosses over the line into hyperbole. (How could one know that
Oscar Peterson is more inventive than, say, Mozart?) The test for hyperbole
is basically a test for any kind of initial plausibility (see Chapter 4, p. 111). A
hyperbolic claim will typically have little or none.
Dysphemisms often involve hyperbole. So do rhetorical comparisons.
When we use the dysphemisms “traitorous” or “extremist” to describe the
views of a member of an opposing political party, we are indulging in hyper-
bole. If we say that the secretary of state is less well informed than a beet,
that’s hyperbole in a rhetorical comparison. In similar ways, rhetorical expla-
nations and defi nitions (see next two pages) can utilize hyperbole.
Hyperbole is also frequently used in ridicule. If it involves exaggeration,
a piece of ridicule counts as hyperbole. The foregoing example, saying that the
secretary of state is less well informed than a beet, is hyperbole in a rhetorical
comparison used to ridicule that official.
A claim can be hyperbolic without containing excessively emotive words
or phrases. Neither the hangnail nor the Oscar Peterson example contains
such language; in fact, the word “unbelievably” is probably the most emotive
word in the two claims about Peterson, and it occurs in the nonhyperbolic
claim. But a claim can also be hyperbole as a result of the use of such lan-
guage. “Parents who are strict about a curfew are fascists” is an example. If the
word “mean” were substituted for “fascists,” we might fi nd the claim strong
or somewhat exaggerated, but we would not call it hyperbole. It’s when the
colorfulness of language becomes excessive —a matter of judgment—that the
claim is likely to turn into hyperbole.
Hyperbole is an obvious slanting device, but it can also have more
subtle—perhaps unconscious—effects. Even if you reject the exaggeration,
you may be moved in the direction of the basic claim. For example, you
may reject the claim that Oscar Peterson is the most inventive musician
who ever lived, but you may now believe that Oscar Peterson must certainly
A feminazi is a woman to
whom the most important
thing in life is seeing to it that
as many abortions as possible
are performed.
—R USH L IMBAUGH
A rhetorical definition with
hyperbole. (A straw man, too,
but that’s for a later chapter.)
■ Much sarcastic
comment resulted from
Sarah Palin’s use of
notes penned on her
palm. She even got in
on the act herself in a
later speech.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 157 12/9/10 2:54 PM
158 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
be an extraordinary musician—otherwise, why would someone make that
exaggerated claim about him? Or suppose someone says, “Charlotte Church
has the most fabulous voice of any singer around today.” Even if you reject
the “fabulous” part of the claim, you may still end up thinking Charlotte
Church must have a pretty good voice. But be careful: Without support,
you have no more reason to accept the milder claims than the wilder ones.
Hyperbole can add a persuasive edge to a claim that it doesn’t deserve. A
hyperbolic claim is pure persuasion.
RHETORICAL DEVICES IV
Defi nitions, explanations, analogies, and comparisons are all used in straight-
forward ways most of the time. But, as we’ll see, they can also be used in rhe-
torical fashion to slant a point one way or another.
Rhetorical Definitions and Rhetorical Explanations
We encountered rhetorical (or persuasive) defi nitions in Chapter 3. “Real”
defi nitions are primarily used to clarify meaning; rhetorical defi nitions use
On Language
Legislative Misnomers
Several polls have reported that voters sometimes indicate approval of a measure when they
hear its title but indicate disapproval after they’ve heard an explanation of what the measure
actually proposes. This isn’t surprising, given the misleading proposal titles assigned by mem-
bers of Congress and state legislatures, and by authors of ballot measures. Here are a few exam-
ples of recent laws, initiatives, and so on, the names of which don’t exactly tell the whole story:
Healthy Forests Initiative (federal)—Reduces public involvement in decision making
regarding logging, reduces environmental protection requirements, and provides
timber companies greater access to national forests
Clear Skies Act (federal)—Loosens regulation of mercury, nitrous oxide, and sulphur diox-
ide, and puts off required reductions of these substances for several years beyond the lim-
its of the current Clean Air Act; allows companies to trade off “pollution credits” so that
some communities would get cleaner air and others dirtier air
Limitations on Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws (California)—Makes it
impossible for consumer groups of all types to sue corporations and businesses to prevent
fraud, false advertising, and other deceptions before they take place
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona)—Requires law
enforcement officers to determine immigration status of individuals whom they reason-
ably suspect to be illegal aliens
Right to Work (many states)—Prevents unions from collecting fees from nonmembers of
bargaining units
Prohibition of Discrimination and Preferential Treatment (California)—Weakens or elimi-
nates affirmative action programs
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 158 12/9/10 2:54 PM
RHETORICAL DEVICES IV 1
59
emotively charged language to express or elicit an attitude about something.
Defi ning abortion as “the murder of an unborn child” does this—and stacks the
deck against those who think abortion is morally defensible. Likewise, “human
being” could be restricted in its meaning to an organism to which a human
gives birth. Under this defi nition, abortion could not be classifi ed as homicide.
In Chapter 3, we explained three forms defi nitions typically take. It’s
worth noting here that even defi nitions by example can slant a discussion if
the examples are prejudicially chosen. Defi ning “conservative” by pointing to
a white supremacist would be a case in point. Bill Maher once defi ned a con-
servative as one who thinks all problems can be solved by either more guns or
more Jesus. If one wants to see all sides of an issue, one must avoid defi nitions
and examples that slant a discussion.
Rhetorical explanations are the same kind of slanting device, this time
clothed as explanations. “He lost the fi ght because he’s lost his nerve.” Is
this different from saying that he lost because he was too cautious? Maybe,
but maybe not. What isn’t in doubt is that the explanation is certainly more
unfl attering when it’s put the former way.
We recently saw a good example of a rhetorical explanation in a letter to
an editor:
I am a traditional liberal who keeps asking himself, why has there been
such a seismic shift in affirmative action? It used to be affirmative
action stood for equal opportunity; now it means preferences and quo-
tas. Why the change? It’s because the people behind affirmative action
aren’t for equal rights anymore; they’re for handouts.
This isn’t a dispassionate scholarly explanation but a way of expressing an
opinion on, and trying to evoke anger at, affirmative action policies.
Rhetorical Analogies and Misleading Comparisons
A while back, Robert Kittle, the editorial page editor of the San Diego Union-
Tribune, referred to the Social Security system as a Ponzi scheme. (Ponzi schemes,
named for Carlo Ponzi, who was responsible for some famous examples, are
pyramid schemes designed to bilk money from people who fall for them; Ber-
nie Madoff, who made off with $65 billion of other people’s money, is the most
famous recent practitioner.) To compare the Social Security system to such a
scheme is to make a rhetorical analogy —a comparison of two things or a likening
of one thing to another in order to make one of them appear better or worse
■ Stereotypes.
(DOONESBURY © G. B.
Trudeau. Reprinted with
permission of Universal
Press Syndicate. All rights
reserved.)
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 159 12/9/10 2:54 PM
160 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
than it might be. Now, people use analogies for various explanatory purposes; if
a friend knows nothing of rugby, for instance, you might help him understand
something about it by comparing it to football. In the foregoing case, how-
ever, editor Kittle’s comparison was designed not to enlighten but to persuade.
“Ponzi scheme” has a strong negative connotation, and calling something a
Ponzi scheme portrays it in a bad light.
Rhetorical analogies are often used as a substitute for arguments, and it is
easy to see why. Facts are required to show that Social Security is fi nancially
unsustainable; it’s less work and possibly just as effective to call it a Ponzi
scheme. This kind of persuasion often works very well, producing conviction
in the listener without the necessity of proof.
Rhetorical analogies include both metaphors and similes. “Hillary’s eyes
bulge just a little, like a Chihuahua’s” is a simile; “Jenna is a loose cannon” is
a metaphor.
Rhetorical analogies also include comparisons. “You have a better
chance of being struck by lightning than of winning the lottery.” Or Dave
Barry’s description of parenthood: “Having kids is like having a bowling alley
installed in your brain.” These are colorful ways of making a point, but of
course they do not constitute reasons for accepting that point.
Some comparisons can be problematic, leading us into error if we’re
not careful. Advertising slogans often use comparisons that can mislead us
because of their vagueness. “Now 25 percent larger,” “New and improved for-
mula,” or “Quietest by far.” We learned what problems vagueness can cause
in the previous chapter; it returns to haunt these comparative claims. Larger
than what? Improved how? Unless the terms of the comparison are spelled out
and the manner of comparing made clear, such claims are worth very little. As
we also saw in the previous chapter, claims made in advertising are not our
most reliable sources of information, and that includes comparative claims.
Following are some questions that you would be wise to keep in mind
when considering comparisons. They include reference to omissions and dis-
tortions, which can be among the more subtle forms of rhetorical devices.
1. Is important information missing? It is nice to hear that the unemploy-
ment rate has gone down, but not if you learn the reason is that a larger
percent of the workforce has given up looking for work. Or, suppose
someone says that 90 percent of heroin addicts once smoked marijuana.
Without other information, the comparison is meaningless, since 90
percent of heroin addicts no doubt listened to the Beatles, too. Our local
U.S. congressional representative Wally Herger recently warned his con-
stituents that Social Security is in dire straits. At one time, he said, there
were 42 workers to support a single retiree, and now there are only 3. This
does indeed sound ominous, except Representative Herger didn’t mention
that the 42-to-1 ratio was at the startup of Social Security before many
had retired; he also failed to mention that the 3-to-1 ratio has been around
for the past 25 years, during which period Social Security accumulated a
surplus.*
2. Is the same standard of comparison used? Are the same reporting and
recording practices being used? A change in the jobless rate doesn’t mean
much if the government changes the way it calculates joblessness, as
* Statistics from our colleague, Professor (of American history) Carl Peterson.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 160 12/9/10 2:54 PM
RHETORICAL DEVICES IV 1
61
In the Media
A Misleading Mathematical Visual
Sometimes a straightforward mathematical comparison can become misleading by the way it’s presented. The bar
graph below, from a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, compares Democrats, Republicans, and Independents with respect
to their agreement with a court’s judgment that the feeding tube should be removed from Terri Schiavo, a case dis-
cussed in the text, page 166. From a casual look at the bar graph, it might seem that Democrats are much more in
favor of removing the tube than Republicans or Independents.
But look at the numbers rather than the bars themselves, and we get a different story. The first graph shows us only
the parts of the bars, from 53 percent to 63 percent. If we display the entire bars, from 0 to 100 percent, the graph
looks like this:
In this case, the Democrats look (correctly) to be only somewhat more in favor of removing the tube. The lesson here is
to avoid drawing conclusions until you’ve had a close look at the data, including the manner in which it is displayed.
Comparison originally made by truthout.org.
63
55
57
59
61
54
53
56
58
60
62
Democrats
Question 2: Based on what
you have heard or read about
the case, do you agree with
the court’s decision to have
the feeding tube removed?
Republicans Independentsemocrats publicans ependent
62
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll
Results by party
54 54
Sampling error: 1/27%
AgreeA
100
20
40
60
80
10
30
50
70
90
Democrats
Question 2: Based on what you have heard or
read about the case, do you agree with the court’s
decision to have the feeding tube removed?
Republicans IndependentsDe c ts epublicans dependents
62
54 54
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
w
ho
a
gr
ee
RESULTS BY PARTY:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll
Margin of error: 1/27%
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 161 12/9/10 2:54 PM
162 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
sometimes happens. In 1993, the number of people in the United States
with AIDS suddenly increased dramatically. Had a new form of the AIDS
virus appeared? No; the federal government had expanded the defi nition
of AIDS to include several new indicator conditions. As a result, overnight
50,000 people were considered to have AIDS who had not been so consid-
ered the day before.
3. Are the items comparable? It is hard to compare baseball sluggers Barry
Bonds and Willie Mays if one but not the other used steroids, or if one
had the benefi t of improved equipment. It’s hard to derive a conclusion
from the fact that this April’s retail business activity is way down as com-
pared with last April’s, if Easter came early this year and the weather was
especially cold. That more male than female drivers are involved in traf-
fi c fatalities doesn’t mean much by itself, since male drivers collectively
drive more miles than do female drivers. Comparing share values of two
mutual funds over the past ten years won’t be useful to an investor if the
comparison doesn’t take into account a difference in fees.
4. Is the comparison expressed as an average? The average rainfall in Seattle
is about the same as that in Kansas City. But you’ll spend more time in
the rain in Seattle because it rains there twice as often as in Kansas City.
If Central Valley Components, Inc. (CVC), reports that average salaries
of a majority of its employees have more than doubled over the past ten
years, it sounds good, but CVC still may not be a great place to work.
Perhaps the increases were due to converting the majority of employees,
who worked half-time, to full-time and fi ring the rest. Comparisons that
involve averages omit details that can be important, simply because they
involve averages.
Averages are measures of central tendency, and there are different
kinds of measures or averages. Consider, for instance, the average cost of
a new house in your area, which may be $210,000. If that is the mean, it
is the total of the sales prices divided by the number of houses sold, and
it may be quite different from the median, which is an average that is the
halfway fi gure (half the houses cost more and half cost less). The mode,
the most common sales price, may be different yet. If there are likely to be
large or dramatic variations in what is measured, one must be cautious of
fi gures that represent an unspecifi c “average.”
Never try to wade a river just
because it has an average
depth of four feet.
—M ARTIN F RIEDMAN
The wrong average can put
you under.
In 2003, the administration
proposed a tax cut that, it was
said,would give the average
taxpayer $1,083.
The “average” here is the
mean average. However, most
taxpayers, according to the
Urban Institute–Brookings
Institution Tax Policy Center,
would have received less than
$100 under the administra-
tion’s proposal.
Misleading averages
Real Life
Cause for Alarm?
According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, cocaine use among Americans
twelve to seventeen years of age increased by a whopping 166 percent between 1992 and
1995. Wow, right?
Except that the increase in absolute terms was a little less spectacular: In 1992,
0.3 percent of Americans aged twelve to seventeen had used cocaine; in 1995, the percentage
was 0.8 percent of that population.
Be wary of comparisons expressed as percentage changes.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 162 12/9/10 2:54 PM
RHETORICAL DEVICES IV 163
Explain how rhetorical defi nitions, rhetorical comparisons, and rhetorical
explanations differ. Find an example of each in a newspaper, magazine, or
other source.
Critique these comparisons, using the questions about comparisons discussed
in the text as guides.
Example
You get much better service on Air Atlantic.
Answer
Better than on what? (One term of the comparison is not clear.)
In what way better? (The claim is much too vague to be of
much use.)
1. New improved Morning Muffins! Now with 20 percent more real dairy
butter!
2. The average concert musician makes less than a plumber.
3. Major-league ballplayers are much better than they were thirty years ago.
4. What an arid place to live. Why, they had less rain here than in the desert.
Exercise 5-3
Exercise 5-4
▲
▲
In Depth
Visual Hyperbole, Ridicule, or Just Beefcake?
Former Governor Schwarzenegger of California was the
point of all manner of jokes, both verbal and visual.
Most good satire and parody contain more than a kernel
of truth. Schwarzenegger’s fame as a bodybuilder and
later as the star of such action movies as the Termina-
tor series helped him get elected and also have been
the source of most of the humor about him. Here, he
appears in his Conan the Barbarian gear, overseeing the
settling of California by whites in the nineteenth cen-
tury. We think the main point here is simply to show the
governor without a shirt.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 163 12/9/10 2:54 PM
164 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
5. On the whole, the mood of the country is more conservative than it was
in the nineties.
6. Which is better for a person, coffee or tea?
7. The average GPA of graduating seniors at Georgia State is 3.25, as com-
pared with 2.75 twenty years ago.
8. Women can tolerate more pain than men.
9. Try Duraglow with new sunscreening polymers. Reduces the harmful
effect of sun on your car’s fi nish by up to 50 percent.
10. What a brilliant season! Attendance was up 25 percent over last year.
PROOF SURROGATES AND REPETITION
These last two devices stand more or less alone; they don’t fi t comfortably into
any of the other groups, so we’ve made a group of just the two of them.
Proof Surrogates
An expression used to suggest that there is evidence or authority for a claim
without actually citing such evidence or authority is a proof surrogate. Some-
times we can’t prove the claim we’re asserting, but we can hint that there
is proof available, or at least evidence or authority for the claim, without
committing ourselves to what that proof, evidence, or authority is. Using
“informed sources say” is a favorite way of making a claim seem more author-
itative. Who are the sources? How do we know they’re informed? How does
the person making the claim know they’re informed? “It’s obvious that”
sometimes precedes a claim that isn’t obvious at all. But we may keep our
objections to ourselves in the belief that it’s obvious to everybody but us, and
we don’t want to appear denser than the next guy.
Proof surrogates are sometimes used as part of a more general scheme
of insinuating one’s way into another’s confi dence. Most good salespersons
know that if they can establish some common personal ground with a client,
they are more likely to make a sale, and the same is true in general for trying
to persuade one’s listeners that some claim is true. One way of making a per-
sonal connection is by establishing, or insinuating, that one is part of the same
group as one’s listeners. It’s “just us” instead of “us and them.” We generally
feel more favorably toward members of groups to which we belong, and this
“in-group” bias can help bring one’s listeners over to one’s side. It’s simply
true that we tend to hold our comrades—members of our own group—to a
lower standard of proof than we do outsiders.
Many proof surrogates play on this presumed in-group status. When
someone says, “As we know . . . ,” to disagree is tantamount to admitting you
are not among the in-group. Similarly, “As everybody knows . . . ,” threatens
to put one who disagrees among the uninformed outsiders.
The preceding considerations are fairly subtle but often more effective
than we might like to admit. Other proof surrogates are rather more blunt:
“Studies show” crops up a lot in advertising. Note that this phrase tells us
nothing about how many studies are involved, how good they are, who did
them, or any other important information. Here’s a good example of a proof
surrogate from the Wall Street Journal:
▲
▲
There is no other country in the
Middle East except Israel that
can be considered to have a
stable government. . . . Is Saudi
Arabia more stable? Egypt?
Jordan? Kuwait? Judge for
yourself!
—“Facts and Logic About the
Middle East”
Proof surrogates often take
the form of questions. This
strategy can also be analyzed
as switching the burden of
proof (see Chapter 7).
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 164 12/9/10 2:54 PM
PROOF SURROGATES AND REPETITION 165
We hope politicians on this side of the border are paying close attention
to Canada’s referendum on Quebec. . . .
Canadians turned out en masse to reject the referendum. There’s
every reason to believe that voters in the U.S. are just as fed up with
the social engineering that lumps people together as groups rather than
treating them as individuals.
There may be “every reason to believe” that U.S. voters are fed up, but
nobody has yet told us what any of those reasons are. Until we hear more
evidence, our best bet is to fi gure that the quotation mainly refl ects what the
writer at the Journal thinks is the proper attitude for U.S. voters. Without a
context, such assertions are meaningless.
Remember: Proof surrogates are just that—surrogates. They are not real
proof or evidence. Such proof or evidence may exist, but until it has been pre-
sented, the claim at issue remains unsupported. At best, proof surrogates sug-
gest sloppy research; at worst, they suggest propaganda.
Repetition
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless
one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly—it must confi ne
itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” (Joseph Goebbles,
Nazi Minister of Propaganda)
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” (Vladimir Lenin, Rus-
sian revolutionary)
We don’t want to set Goebbles and Lenin up as models for critical think-
ing, but we are forced to admit that both had huge success at convincing large
numbers of people to believe what they wanted them to believe. And the
technique of repetition, simply making the same point over and over at every
opportunity, was a main tool in their various campaigns. Similarly, in adver-
tising and in politics today the constant repetition of a theme seems eventu-
ally to have a dulling effect on our critical faculties, and we can become lulled
into believing something simply because we’ve become used to hearing it. A
critical thinker needs to remember: it takes evidence and argument to provide
believability; if a claim is not likely to be true on the fi rst hearing, simple rep-
etition does not make it more likely on the hundredth.
Identify any rhetorical devices you fi nd in these passages that were described
in the previous four sections of the text (ridicule/sarcasm, hyperbole, proof
surrogates). Not every example may contain such a device.
1. Medical school, huh? Right. You and your fancy 2.9 grade point are going
to get into a fi ne medical school all right.
2. Laboratory tests have shown that Cloyon produces a sweeter taste than
any other artifi cial sweetener.
3. I’ll tell you, there’s never been anybody in the entire state of Florida as
blitzed as Tom and I were last night.
4. Anybody who understands how alcohol works can tell you that three
drinks is enough to make that guy seriously impaired.
Exercise 5-5
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 165 12/9/10 2:54 PM
166 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
5. According to the Department of Motor Vehicles chart, it takes only three
drinks to impair somebody his size.
6. “Cable news has gone round the bend: The only thing you hear on Fox
News is right-wing rants, and the only thing you hear on MSNBC are
left-wing rants.”
7. That the president is a Marxist simply cannot be denied by any serious
observer of contemporary politics.
8. In the 1988 U.S. presidential election, campaigners for Democrat
Michael Dukakis took a photograph of Dukakis in an M1 Abrams Tank.
The photo was supposed to shore up Dukakis’s credentials as strong
on defense. Unfortunately, Dukakis had a silly grin and was wearing a
helmet too large for his head, and the effect of the photograph was to
make him appear diminutive and goofy. The photo was widely shown
in the months preceding the election—but not by the Dukakis people.
Instead, it was picked up and shown by his opponent, George H. W. Bush.
After looking at the photo at the following link, state which technique
was being used by the Bush campaign:
9. If you want to work your way up from being a hostess to being a server at
The Cheesecake Factory, plan on it taking about a thousand years.
10. The proposal isn’t bad when you consider it comes from a group of
knuckle-dragging morons.
PERSUASION USING VISUAL IMAGES
Before the digital age, it was much easier to take photographic evi-
dence at face value. Even then, however, all kinds of things could be done
to manipulate an image and a viewer’s perception of what was taking
place. But some photos and videos do not need any manipulation at all to
produce a mistaken impression in the viewer. You might recall that, in 2005,
a Florida woman named Terri Schiavo became the center of a controversy
regarding whether she was in a “persistent vegetative state” (PVS) and could
ever be expected to regain consciousness, never mind recover. Videotape
made by family members sometimes appeared to show her responding to
the presence of her mother. Bill Frist, himself a heart surgeon and at that
time majority leader of the U.S. Senate, saw the tape and claimed that Ms.
Schiavo seemed to be responding to visual stimuli. Other doctors, including
her own, said that the facial expressions some took as conscious response
were often exhibited by those in a PVS and were not signs of awareness. After
her death, an autopsy showed that Ms. Schiavo’s brain had shrunk to half its
normal size, and what was left was severely damaged, including her visual
cortex—she had been blind for some time before her death. The likelihood of
her having anything like consciousness near the end was virtually a medical
impossibility.
We describe this story to illustrate how a piece of videotape can be
ambiguous—that is, it can be open to more than one interpretation. What
app eared to be the case to some viewers turned out to be a mistaken impression—
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 166 12/9/10 2:54 PM
PERSUASION USING VISUAL IMAGES 167
leading them to make claims that turned out to be false. (Photos, videos, and
other imagery technically cannot be true or false; but claims based on such
imagery are true or false.)
As we said earlier, though, some people are not willing to let well enough
alone. They perform image manipulations of various sorts to try to create
mistaken impressions. Following is a list of tricks from the website
FAKES AND MISLEADING IMAGES CAN BE THE
RESULT OF . . .
* Deliberately manipulating an image (e.g., adding, deleting,
combining)
* Using unaltered images but with misleading captions
* Deliberately selected camera angles that distort information
* Lack of authority (i.e., author name, credentials);
inconsistency when compared to official images
* Stills taken from movies: out of context, they are given false
descriptions
* Stills taken of models purported to be the real thing
* Stills that are genuine and unadulterated but “staged”
* 100% digital fabrications
In the Media
Now You See Him—Now You Don’t
Hu Jintao greets Deng Xiaoping in versions of the photo, from above clockwise, featuring a blurred audience, a dark
background and with Jiang Zemin.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 167 12/9/10 2:54 PM
168 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
In the Media
The Daschle Salute
This looks like a big-time “Oops!” moment for Tom Daschle, former majority leader in the U.S.
Senate. In fact, as explained in the text, it is a clever attempt to influence opinion against Das-
chle through photo manipulation.
The photos in the box “Now You See Him—Now You Don’t” on the
previous page are from Hong Kong’s newspaper, The Standard, from Septem-
ber 2, 2004. The original photo (lower right) showed China’s then paramount
leader Deng Xiaoping (in the gray jacket on the right) shaking hands with Hu
Jintao (wearing the tie), who has been China’s president since 2003. The per-
son between them in the original photo is former President Jiang Zemin. We
don’t know what might have become of Jiang’s reputation (he continued in
high office for some years after the photo was made), but his image suffered
a disappearing act.
In the next box, “The Daschle Salute,” it looks as though Tom Daschle
(the majority leader in the Senate at the time) doesn’t know how to salute the
fl ag or doesn’t know his right hand from his left. In reality, he did it correctly,
but someone reversed his image, fl ipping it right-to-left so that he appeared
to be saluting with his left hand rather than his right. There are two clues
to the doctoring that went on in this photo. It would take not just a critical
thinker but a sharp eye to spot them. The fi rst is that Daschle is married and
wears a wedding ring. If this were really his left hand, one would see his ring.
The second clue is more convincing. It’s that his coat is buttoned backwards:
Men’s clothing always has buttons on the right side of the garment, so it’s the
left side that closes over the right. In the photo, the right side of Daschle’s
jacket closes over the left, indicating that it isn’t just his hand that is on the
wrong side, his clothing would have to be reversed, too!
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 168 12/9/10 2:54 PM
RECAP 169
In Depth
Don’t Get Carried Away!
Once you’re familiar with the ways slanting devices are used to try to influence us, you may
be tempted to dismiss a claim or argument just because it contains strongly slanted language.
But true claims as well as false ones, good reasoning as well as bad, can be couched in such
language. Remember that the slanting itself gives us no reason to accept a position on an issue;
that doesn’t mean that there are no such reasons. Consider this example, written by someone
opposed to using animals for laboratory research:
It’s morally wrong for a person to inflict awful pain on another sensitive creature, one that
has done the first no harm. Therefore, the so-called scientists who perform their hideous
and sadistic experiments on innocent animals are moral criminals just as were Hitler and
his Nazi torturers.
Before we dismiss this passage as shrill or hysterical, it behooves us as critical thinkers to notice
that it contains a piece of reasoning that may shed light on the issue.
We would not expect your typical newspaper reader or web surfer to
be able to identify manipulated photos wherever they appear. We certainly
couldn’t do it, and some images are so carefully done nobody could spot the
problem with them.* So, what is a critically thinking person to do? It’s the
same answer you’ve heard before in these pages: Be careful. Be aware that
even though most people mean to be helpful and tell you what they actually
believe, a substantial number of them are out to fool you.
*What appears to be a wonderful paint-job illusion on the truck pictured above is actually a Photoshopped
illustration. You can see other examples of illustrations on the same truck at www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/
optical-illusion-of-the-day-truck-art/.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 169 12/9/10 2:54 PM
170 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
Things to remember from this chapter:
■ Persuasion is the attempt to win someone to one’s own point of view.
■ Rhetoric seeks to persuade through the use of the emotive power of
language.
■ Although it can exert a profound psychological infl uence, rhetoric has no
logical force; only an argument has logical force—i.e., can prove or support
a claim.
■ There are a multitude of rhetorical devices in common use; they include
the following:
— Euphemisms: seek to mute the disagreeable aspects of something or to
emphasize its agreeable aspects
— Dysphemisms: seek to emphasize the disagreeable aspects of something
— Weaselers: words and phrases that protect a claim by weakening it
— Downplayers: techniques for toning down the importance of something
— Stereotypes: unwarranted and oversimplifi ed generalizations about the
members of a group or class
— Innuendo: using words with neutral or positive associations to insinuate
something deprecatory
— Loaded questions: questions that depend on unwarranted assumptions
— Ridicule and sarcasm: widely used to put something in a bad light
— Hyperbole: overdone exaggeration
— Rhetorical defi nitions and explanations: used to create favorable or
unfavorable attitudes about something
— Rhetorical analogies and misleading comparisons: these devices per-
suade by making inappropriate connections between terms.
— Proof surrogates suggest there is evidence or authority for a claim
without actually saying what the evidence or authority is
— Repetition: hearing or reading a claim over and over can sometimes
mistakenly encourage the belief that it is true
■ These devices can affect our thinking in subtle ways, even when we
believe we are being objective.
■ Some of these devices, especially euphemisms and weaselers, have valu-
able, nonprejudicial uses as well as a slanting one. Only if we are speak-
ing, writing, listening, and reading carefully can we distinguish prejudicial
uses of these devices.
■ Although photographs and other images are not claims or arguments, they
can enter into critical thinking by offering evidence of the truth or falsity
of claims. They can also affect us psychologically in a manner analogous
to that by which the emotive meaning of language affects us, and often
even more powerfully.
Recap
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 170 12/9/10 2:54 PM
EXERCISES 171
Exercise 5-6
You will want to recognize when someone is using rhetorical slanting devices
to infl uence your attitudes and beliefs. Let’s see if you can identify some of the
more common devices. Select the best answer.
1. “Making a former corporate CEO the head of the Securities and Exchange
Commission is like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse.” This is best
seen as an example of
a. rhetorical analogy
b. rhetorical explanation
c. innuendo
d. dysphemism
e. not a slanter
2. “Right. George Bush ‘won’ the election in 2000, didn’t he?” The use of
quotation marks around “won” has the effect of a
a. weaseler
b. dysphemism
c. downplayer
d. rhetorical explanation
e. not a slanter
3. “The obvious truth is that bilingual education has been a failure.” In this
statement, “the obvious truth” might best be viewed as
a. a proof surrogate
b. a weaseler
c. innuendo
d. a dysphemism
e. not a slanter
4. After George W. Bush announced he wanted to turn a substantial portion
of the federal government operation over to private companies, Bobby L.
Harnage Sr., president of the American Federation of Government
Employees, said Bush had “declared all-out war on federal employees.”
Would you say that the quoted passage is
a. a rhetorical explanation
b. a euphemism
c. a weaseler
d. hyperbole/a rhetorical analogy
e. not a slanter
5. “Harry and his daughter had a little discussion about her outfi t . . . one
that left her in tears.”
a. a loaded question
b. a euphemism
c. both a and b
d. neither a nor b
6. “Before any more of my tax dollars go to the military, I’d like answers to
some questions, such as why are we spending billions of dollars on weap-
ons programs that don’t work?” This statement contains an example of
Additional
Exercises
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 171 12/9/10 2:54 PM
172 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
a. a downplayer
b. a dysphemism
c. a proof surrogate
d. a loaded question
e. hyperbole and a loaded question
7. “Can Governor Evans be believed when he says he will fi ght for the
death penalty? You be the judge.” This statement contains
a. a dysphemism
b. a proof surrogate
c. innuendo
d. hyperbole
e. no slanters
8. President Obama promised change, but he has continued to turn govern-
ment operations over to private companies, especially in Iraq and Afghan-
istan, just like his predecessor did.
a. hyperbole
b. a dysphemism
c. a loaded question
d. a proof surrogate
e. no slanter
9. “Studies confi rm what everyone knows: smaller classes make kids better
learners.”
—Bill Clinton
This statement contains:
a. a proof surrogate
b. a weaseler
c. hyperbole
d. an innuendo
e. no slanter
10. man selling his car: “True, it has a few dents, but that’s just normal
wear and tear.” This statement contains what might best be called
a. a loaded question
b. innuendo
c. a dysphemism
d. a euphemism
Exercise 5-7
Determine which of the numbered, italicized words and phrases are used as
rhetorical devices in the following passage. If the item fi ts one of the text’s
categories of rhetorical devices, identify it as such.
The National Rifl e Association’s campaign to arm every man, woman,
and child in America (1) received a setback when the president signed the
Brady Bill. But the gun-pushers (2) know that the bill was only a small
skirmish in a big war (3) over guns in America. They can give up some
of their more fanatical (4) positions on such things as assault weapons (5)
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 172 12/9/10 2:54 PM
EXERCISES 173
and cop-killer bullets (6) and still win on the one that counts: regulation
of manufacture and sale of handguns.
Exercise 5-8
Follow the directions for Exercise 5-7.
The big money guys (1) who have smuggled (2) the Rancho Vecino develop-
ment onto the November ballot will stop at nothing to have this town
run just exactly as they want. (3) It is possible (4) that Rancho Vecino will
cause traffic congestion on the east side of town, and it’s perfectly clear
that (5) the number of houses that will be built will overload the sewer
system. But (6) a small number of individuals have taken up the fi ght.
Can the developers be stopped in their desire to wreck our town? (7)
Exercise 5-9
Follow the directions for Exercise 5-7.
The U.S. Congress has cut off funds for the superconducting super-
collider that the scientific establishment (1) wanted to build in Texas.
The alleged (2) virtues of the supercollider proved no match for the huge (3)
cost overruns (4) that had piled up like a mountain alongside a sea of red
ink. (5) Despite original estimates of fi ve to six billion dollars, the latest
fi gure was over eleven billion and growing faster than weeds. (6)
Exercise 5-10
Read the passage below and answer the questions that follow it. Your instruc-
tor may have further directions.
Another quality that makes [Texas Republican Tom] DeLay an un-
Texas pol is that he’s mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set
of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well intentioned. As Carl
Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of
the [legislature], it would not be a representative body any longer. The
old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior—punish-
ing pols for partisan reasons—was simply not done. But those are Tom
DeLay’s specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely
feared in Washington, he is, I’m sorry to say, hated.
—Excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram
1. What issue is the author addressing?
2. What position does the author take on that issue?
3. If the author supports this position with an argument, state that argument
in your own words.
4. Does the author use rhetorical devices discussed in this chapter? If so,
classify any that fall into the categories described in this chapter.
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 173 12/9/10 2:54 PM
174 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
Exercise 5-11
Follow the directions for Exercise 5-10, using the same list of questions.
Schools are not a microcosm of society, any more than an eye is a micro-
cosm of the body. The eye is a specialized organ which does something
that no other part of the body does. That is its whole signifi cance. You
don’t use your eyes to lift packages or steer automobiles. Specialized
organs have important things to do in their own specialties. So schools,
which need to stick to their special work as well, should not become
social or political gadfl ies.
—Thomas Sowell
Exercise 5-12
Follow the directions for Exercise 5-10, using the same list of questions.
Here is what I believe: The country has just witnessed an interlude of
religious hysteria, encouraged and exploited by political quackery. The
political cynicism of Republicans shocked the nation. But even more
alarming is the enthusiasm of self-described “pro-life” forces for using
the power of the state to impose their obtuse moral distinctions on
the rest of us. The Catholic Church and many Protestant evangelicals
are acting as partisan political players in a very dangerous manner. Once
they have mobilized zealots to their moral causes, they can expect oth-
ers to fi ght back in the same blind, intolerant manner.
—William Greider, “Pro-Death Politics,” the Nation, April 2, 2005
Exercise 5-13
Follow the directions for Exercise 5-10, using the same list of questions.
Asked whether he would be resigning, [U.N. Secretary General Kofi ]
Annan replied, “Hell, no. I’ve got lots of work to do, and I’m going to
go ahead and do it.” That’s doubtful. His term is up at the end of 2006,
and few—after the mess he’s caused—take him seriously. He may have
a lot of “work” he’d like to do, but he won’t be permitted to do it.
All around Annan is the wreckage of the U.N.’s spirit of high-level
cronyism.
—Editorial in the National Review Online, April 1, 2005
Exercise 5-14
Follow the directions for Exercise 5-10, using the same list of questions.
“It is not the job of the state, and it is certainly not the job of the school,
to tell parents when to put their children to bed,” declared David Hart
of the National Association of Head Teachers, responding to David
Blunkett’s idea that parents and teachers should draw up “contracts”
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 174 12/9/10 2:54 PM
EXERCISES 175
(which you could be fi ned for breaching) about their children’s behav-
ior, time-keeping, homework and bedtime. Teachers are apparently
concerned that their fi ve-to-eight-year-old charges are staying up too
late and becoming listless truants the next day.
While I sympathize with Mr. Hart’s concern about this neo-Stalinist
nannying, I wonder whether it goes far enough. Is it not high time that
such concepts as Bathtime, Storytime and Drinks of Water were subject
to regulation as well? I for one would value some governmental guid-
ance as to the number of humorous swimming toys (especially Hungry
Hippo) allowable per gallon of water. Adopting silly voices while read-
ing Spot’s Birthday or Little Rabbit Foo-Foo aloud is something cry-
ing out for regulatory guidelines, while the right of children to demand
and receive wholly unnecessary glasses of liquid after lights-out needs a
Statutory Minimum Allowance.
—John Walsh, the Independent
Exercise 5-15
Choose which answer is best from among the alternatives provided.
1. “Yes, there may be instances of abuse connected with the new immigra-
tion law. But on the whole it will help Arizona deal with a serious prob-
lem.” This contains:
a. a downplayer
b. a proof surrogate
c. hyperbole
2. “Liberals need to understand the global health argument for abortion is
deeply offensive. It is like fi ghting disease by killing everyone who has a
disease.” This contains:
a. a euphemism
b. a dysphemism
c. a rhetorical defi nition
d. none of the above
3. “Why does Senator Schmidt collect child pornography? Only the Senator
can answer that.” This contains:
a. a loaded question
b. a euphemism
c. a dysphemism
d. none of the above
4. “Does Senator Schmidt collect child pornography? Only the Senator can
answer that.” This contains:
a. innuendo
b. a downplayer
c. a euphemism
d. a stereotype
5. “Better lock up your whisky before Patrick gets here. Didn’t you know he
is Irish?” This contains:
a. a loaded question
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 175 12/9/10 2:54 PM
176 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
b. a rhetorical defi nition
c. a stereotype
d. a euphemism.
e. none of the above
6. “Ecology? I will tell you what ecology is. Ecology is the Marxist ‘science’
that tries to shove bogus facts about global warming down everyone’s
throat.” This contains:
a. a rhetorical defi nition
b. a rhetorical explanation
c. a rhetorical analogy
7. “Ecology? I will tell you what ecology is. Ecology is the Marxist ‘science’
that tries to shove bogus facts about global warming down everyone’s
throat.” The quotation marks around “science” are
a. hyperbole
b. a proof surrogate
c. a downplayer
d. a stereotype
8. “Ecology? I will tell you what ecology is. Ecology is the Marxist ‘science’
that tries to shove bogus facts about global warming down everyone’s
throat.” “Marxist” and “bogus” are
a. proof surrogates
b. euphemisms
c. hyperbole
d. rhetorical comparisons
e. none of these
9. “The reason Republicans oppose health care is they don’t care about
anyone except their friends in the insurance industry.” “Don’t care about
anyone except” is
a. a rhetorical defi nition
b. a rhetorical explanation
c. a rhetorical analogy
d. none of these
10. “Rush Limbaugh doesn’t make things up? C’mon, you know as well as I
do he makes things up.” This contains:
a. a stereotype
b. hyperbole
c. ridicule
d. a proof surrogate
Exercise 5-16
Identify any rhetorical devices you fi nd in the following selections, and clas-
sify those that fi t the categories described in the text. For each, explain its
function in the passage.
1. I trust you have seen Janet’s fi le and have noticed the “university” she
graduated from.
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 176 12/9/10 2:54 PM
EXERCISES 177
2. The original goal of the Milosevic government in Belgrade was ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo.
3. Obamacare: The compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the post
office, all at Pentagon prices.
4. Although it has always had a bad name in the United States, socialism is
nothing more or less than democracy in the realm of economics.
5. We’ll have to work harder to get Representative Burger reelected because
of his little run-in with the law.
6. It’s fair to say that, compared with most people his age, Mr. Beechler is
pretty much bald.
7. During World War II, the U.S. government resettled many people of
Japanese ancestry in internment camps.
8. “Overall, I think the gaming industry would be a good thing for our state.”
—From a letter to the editor, Plains Weekly Record
9. Capitalism, after all, is nothing more or less than freedom in the realm of
economics.
10. I’ll tell you what capitalism is: Capitalism is Charlie Manson sitting in
Folsom Prison for all those murders and still making a bunch of bucks off
T-shirts.
11. Clearly, Antonin Scalia is the most corrupt Supreme Court justice in the
history of the country.
12. If MaxiMotors gave you a good price on that car, you can bet there’s only
one reason they did it: It’s a piece of serious junk.
13. It may well be that many faculty members deserve some sort of pay
increase. Nevertheless, it is clearly true that others are already amply
compensated.
14. “The only people without [cable or satellite TV] are Luddites and people
too old to appreciate it.”
—Todd Mitchell, industry analyst
15. I love some of the bulleting and indenting features of Microsoft Word.
I think it would have been a nice feature, however, if they had made it
easy to turn some of them off when you don’t need them.
Exercise 5-17
Identify any rhetorical devices you fi nd in the following passage, and classify
any that fi t into the categories described in this chapter.
On March 11, the U.S. Senate passed the bankruptcy bill that will fi ll
the coffers of the credit card companies while bleeding consumers dry.
The bill passed by a whopping 74 to 25 margin, with eighteen Demo-
cratic Senators going over to the dark side.
Here are the spineless 18: [There follows a list of senators.]
“This is not where we as Democrats ought to be, for crying out
loud,” as Senator Tom Harkin noted. “We are making a terrible mistake
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 177 12/9/10 2:54 PM
178 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
by thinking that we can have it both ways. We have to remember where
our base is.”
This bill is a fantasy come true for credit card companies, which
have been pushing it for years. But it’s not as though they’re suffering.
The made $30 billion in profi ts last year.
The bill severely limits the ability of consumers to wipe away some
of their debts and get a fresh start.
Half the people who fi le for bankruptcy do so because of sky-high
medical bills, and another 40 percent do so because of disability, job
loss, family death, or divorce, according to the National Consumer Law
Center. If you make more than the median income in your state, no
matter how high your bills are, you can’t wipe the debts clean.
As a result, debtors will be at much greater risk of losing their cars
or their homes.
And even if your debts are the consequence of identity theft, of
someone stealing your credit card and running up charges, you still are
on the hook for them, as the Senate amazingly voted down an amend-
ment to shelter victims of identity theft.
—Matthew Rothschild, “Democratic Senators Cave on Bankruptcy Bill,”
The Progressive, March 12, 2005
Exercise 5-18
Identify any rhetorical devices you fi nd in the following passages, and explain
their purposes. Note: Some items may contain no rhetorical devices.
1. “If the United States is to meet the technological challenge posed by
Japan, Inc., we must rethink the way we do everything from design to
manufacture to education to employee relations.”
— Harper’s
2. According to UNICEF reports, several thousand Iraqi children died each
month because of the U.N. sanctions.
3. Maybe Professor Daguerre’s research hasn’t appeared in the fi rst-class
journals as recently as that of some of the other professors in his depart-
ment; that doesn’t necessarily mean his work is going downhill. He’s still
a terrifi c teacher, if the students I’ve talked to are to be believed.
4. “Let’s put it this way: People who make contributions to my campaign
fund get access. But there’s nothing wrong with constituents having
access to their representatives, is there?”
— Loosely paraphrased from an interview with a California state senator
5. In the 2000 presidential debates, Al Gore consistently referred to his own
tax proposal as a “tax plan” and to George W. Bush’s tax proposal as a
“tax scheme.”
6. [ Note: Dr. Jack Kevorkian was instrumental in assisting a number of ter-
minally ill people in committing suicide during the 1990s.] “We’re open-
ing the door to Pandora’s Box if we claim that doctors can decide if it’s
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 178 12/9/10 2:54 PM
EXERCISES 179
proper for someone to die. We can’t have Kevorkians running wild, deal-
ing death to people.”
—Larry Bunting, assistant prosecutor, Oakland County, Michigan
7. “LOS ANGELES—Marriott Corp. struck out with patriotic food work-
ers at Dodger Stadium when the concession-holder ordered them to keep
working instead of standing respectfully during the National Anthem. . . .
Concession stand manager Nick Kavadas . . . immediately objected to a
Marriott representative.
“Marriott subsequently issued a second memo on the policy. It read:
‘Stop all activities while the National Anthem is being played.’
“Mel Clemens, Marriott’s general manager at the stadium, said the
second memo clarifi ed the fi rst memo.”
—Associated Press
8. These so-called forfeiture laws are a serious abridgment of a person’s
constitutional rights. In some states, district attorneys’ offices have only
to claim that a person has committed a drug-related crime to seize the
person’s assets. So fat-cat DAs can get rich without ever getting around to
proving that anybody is guilty of a crime.
9. “A few years ago, the defi cit got so horrendous that even Congress was
embarrassed. Faced with this problem, the lawmakers did what they do
best. They passed another law.”
—Abe Mellinkoff, in the San Francisco Chronicle
10. “[U]mpires are baseball’s designated grown-ups and, like air-traffic con-
trollers, are paid to handle pressure.”
—George Will
11. “Last season should have made it clear to the moguls of baseball that
something still isn’t right with the game—something that transcends
residual fan anger from the players’ strike. Abundant evidence suggests
that baseball still has a long way to go.”
—Stedman Graham, Inside Sports
12. “As you know, resolutions [in the California State Assembly] are about as
meaningful as getting a Publishers’ Clearinghouse letter saying you’re a
winner.”
—Greg Lucas, in the San Francisco Chronicle
13. The entire gain in the stock market in the fi rst four months of the year
was due to a mere fi fty stocks.
14. Thinkers who entertain the possibility that there are lots of universes
have invented a new term for the entire ensemble: “the multiverse.”
Why believe in the multiverse? The “pro” camp has essentially two
kinds of arguments.
—Jim Holt, Slate online magazine
15. “[Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia’s ideology is a bald and naked
concept called ‘Majoritarianism.’ Only the rights of the majority are
protected.”
—Letter to the editor of the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 179 12/9/10 2:54 PM
180 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
16. “Mimi Rumpp stopped praying for a winning lottery ticket years
ago. . . . But after a doctor told her sister Miki last year that she needed
a kidney transplant, the family began praying for a donor. . . . Less than
a year later, Miki has a new kidney, courtesy of a bank teller in Napa,
Calif., to whom she had told her story. The teller was the donor; she was
so moved by Miki’s plight she had herself tested and discovered she was a
perfect match. Coincidence? Luck? Divine intervention? Rumpp is sure:
‘It was a miracle.’ ”
—Newsweek
17. “We are about to witness an orgy of self-congratulation as the self-
appointed environmental experts come out of their yurts, teepees, and
grant-maintained academic groves to lecture us over the impending doom
of the planet and agree with each other about how it is evil humanity and
greedy ‘big business’ that is responsible for it all.”
—Tim Worstall, in New Times
18. “In the 1980s, Central America was awash in violence. Tens of thousands of
people fl ed El Salvador and Guatemala as authoritarian governments seeking
to stamp out leftist rebels turned to widespread arrests and death squads.”
—USA Today
Exercise 5-19
Discuss the following stereotypes in class. Do they invoke the same kind of
images for everyone? Which are negative and which are positive? How do you
think they came to be stereotypes? Is there any “truth” behind them?
1. soccer mom 9. computer nerd
2. Religious Right 10. Tea Partier
3. dumb blonde 11. interior decorator
4. tax-and-spend liberal 12. Washington insider
5. homosexual agenda 13. Earth mother
6. redneck 14. frat rat
7. radical feminist 15. Deadhead
8. contented housewife 16. trailer trash
Exercise 5-20
Your instructor will give you three minutes to write down as many positive
and negative stereotypes as you can. Are there more positive stereotypes on
your list or more negative ones? Why do you suppose that is?
Exercise 5-21
Write two brief paragraphs describing the same person, event, or situation—
that is, both paragraphs should have the same informative content. The fi rst
paragraph should be written in a purely informative way, using language that
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 180 12/9/10 2:54 PM
EXERCISES 181
is as neutral as possible; the second paragraph should be slanted as much as
possible either positively or negatively (your choice).
Exercise 5-22
Explain the difference between a weaseler and a downplayer. Find a clear
example of each in a newspaper, magazine, or other source. Next fi nd an exam-
ple of a phrase that is sometimes used as a weaseler or downplayer but that is
used appropriately or neutrally in the context of your example.
Exercise 5-23
Critique these comparisons, using the questions discussed in the text as guides.
1. You’ve got to be kidding. Paltrow is much superior to Blanchett as an
actor.
2. Blondes have more fun.
3. The average chimp is smarter than the average monkey.
4. The average grade given by Professor Smith is a C. So is the average grade
given by Professor Algers.
5. Crime is on the increase. It’s up by 160 percent over last year.
6. Classical musicians, on the average, are far more talented than rock
musicians.
7. Long-distance swimming requires much more endurance than long-
distance running.
8. “During the monitoring period, the amount of profanity on the networks
increased by 45–47 percent over a comparable period from the preceding
year. A clear trend toward hard profanity is evident.”
—Don Wildmon, founder of the National Federation for Decency
9. “Organizations such as EMILY’s List and the Women’s Campaign Fund
encourage thousands of small contributors to participate, helping to
offset the economic power of the special interests. The political system
works better when individuals are encouraged to give to campaigns.”
—Adapted from the Los Angeles Times
10. Which is more popular, the movie Gone With the Wind or Bing Crosby’s
version of the song “White Christmas”?
Exercise 5-24
In groups, or individually if your instructor prefers, critique these compari-
sons, using the questions discussed in the text as guides.
1. If you worry about the stock market, you have reason. The average stock
now has a price-to-earnings ratio of around 25:1.
2. Students are much less motivated than they were when I fi rst began
teaching at this university.
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 181 12/9/10 2:54 PM
182 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC
3. Offhand, I would say the country is considerably more religious than it
was twenty years ago.
4. In addition, for the fi rst time since 1960, a majority of Americans now
attend church regularly.
5. You really should switch to a high-fi ber diet.
6. Hire Ricardo. He’s more knowledgeable than Annette.
7. Why did I give you a lower grade than your roommate? Her paper con-
tained more insights than yours, that’s why.
8. Golf is a considerably more demanding sport than tennis.
9. Yes, our prices are higher than they were last year, but you get more
value for your dollar.
10. So, tell me, which do you like more, fried chicken or Volkswagens?
Exercise 5-25
Individually or in a group effort, fi nd a YouTube commentary that makes use
of a selection of rhetorical devices. Identify as many as you can and compare
your analysis with those of your classmates.
Exercise 5-26
Look through an issue of Time, Newsweek, or another newsmagazine, and
fi nd a photograph that portrays its subject in an especially good or bad light—
that is, one that does a nonverbal job of creating slant regarding the subject.
Exercise 5-27
In groups, write captions that seem to fi t the photo on page 155. Discussion
should be about which caption fi ts best and why.
Exercise 5-28
After removing the slanting devices, diagram the argument in the box on
page 169.
Writing Exercises
1. The illustration on the next page is for an article on banks and bankers
in Rolling Stone Magazine online. After seeing the illustration but before
reading the article, how sympathetic to bankers would you expect it to
be? Try to come up with a couple of sentences that you think the image
illustrates—you’ll probably need some forceful language.
2. Your instructor will select an essay from those in Appendix 1 and ask you
to identify as many rhetorical devices as you can fi nd. (Your instructor
may narrow the scope of the assignment to just certain paragraphs.)
3. Over the past decade, reportedly more than 2,000 illegal immigrants
have died trying to cross the border into the southwestern United States.
Many deaths have resulted from dehydration in the desert heat and from
freezing to death on cold winter nights. A San Diego–based nonprofi t
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 182 12/9/10 2:54 PM
EXERCISES 183
humanitarian organization now leaves blankets, clothes, and water at
stations throughout the desert and mountain regions for the immigrants.
Should the organization do this? Its members say they are providing sim-
ple humanitarian aid, but critics accuse them of encouraging illegal activ-
ity. Take a stand on the issue and defend your position in writing. Then
identify each rhetorical device you used.
4. Until recently, tiny Stratton, Ohio, had an ordinance requiring all door-
to-door “canvassers” to obtain a permit from the mayor. Presumably,
the ordinance was intended to protect the many senior citizens of the
town from harm by criminals who might try to gain entry by claiming
to be conducting a survey. The ordinance was attacked by the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, who thought it violated their First Amendment right to free
speech. The Supreme Court agreed and struck down the law in 2002.
Should it have? Defend your position in a brief essay without using rheto-
ric. Alternatively, defend your position and use rhetorical devices, but
identify each device you use.
moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 183 12/9/10 2:54 PM
R ecently, we’ve watched the country’s leaders and lawmakers slog through some pretty heavy rhetoric as they dealt with health care reform, reform of the
fi nancial system, and the midterm elections of federal and
state officials. We’ve also heard some pretty good arguments
and seen some pretty good evidence—mainly in the form
of studies we believe were done in a professional manner
by trustworthy people—that such reforms are needed. But
determining which information is “good”—something we,
of course, must do to participate successfully in a democ-
racy—can be difficult amidst the clatter and bang of warring
political parties, adversarial media personalities, rantings
(and sometimes unreliable information) from the blogo-
sphere, and shouting in the streets. In fact, the emotional
tone of public discussion and debate has lately reached lev-
els we haven’t seen since the 1960s, and the rhetoric often
seems more gratuitously misleading now than it did in those
days. (It may be that your authors were simply too young to
recognize it back then, of course. Ahem.)
As it becomes more difficult to fi nd serious discussions
of important issues, it gets easier and easier to fi nd examples
of rhetorical devices designed to provoke emotional, knee-
jerk reactions. Unfortunately (for us as individuals as well
as for public policy), it can be altogether too easy to allow
Students will learn to . . .
1. Recognize and name fallacies that
appeal directly to emotion
2. Recognize and name fallacies that
appeal to psychological elements
other than emotion
6 More Rhetorical Devices Psychological and Related Fallacies
184
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 184 12/9/10 1:34 PM
FALLACIES THAT INVOLVE APPEALS TO EMOTION 185
emotional responses to take the place of sound judgment and careful think-
ing. In this chapter, we’ll target some specifi c devices designed to prompt ill-
considered reactions rather than sound judgment—devices that go beyond the
rhetorical coloration we talked about in the last chapter. The stratagems we’ll
discuss sometimes masquerade as arguments, complete with premises and
conclusions and language that would suggest argumentation. But while they
may be made to look or sound like arguments, they don’t provide legitimate
grounds for accepting a conclusion. In place of good reasons for a conclusion,
most of the schemes we’ll look at in this chapter offer us considerations that
are emotionally or psychologically linked to the issue in question. The support
they may appear to offer is only pretended support; you might think of them as
pieces of pretend reasoning, or pseudoreasoning.
The devices in this chapter thus all count as fallacies (a fallacy is a mis-
take in reasoning). The rhetorical devices we discussed in the last chapter—
euphemisms, innuendo, and so forth—aren’t fallacies. Of course, we commit a
fallacy if we think a claim has been supported when the “support” is nothing
more than rhetorically persuasive language.
People constantly accept fallacies as legitimate arguments; but the
reverse mistake can also happen. We must be careful not to dismiss legitimate
arguments as fallacies just because they remind us of a fallacy. Often, begin-
ning students in logic have this problem. They read about fallacies like the
ones we cover here and then think they see them everywhere. These fallacies
are common, but they are not everywhere; and you sometimes must consider
a specimen carefully before accepting or rejecting it. The exercises we’ll sup-
ply will help you learn to do this, because they contain a few reasonable argu-
ments mixed in with the fallacies.
All the fallacies in this chapter have in common the fact that what pre-
tends to be a premise is actually irrelevant to the conclusion. That is, even if
the premise is true, it does not provide any reason for believing that the con-
clusion is true.
FALLACIES THAT INVOLVE APPEALS TO EMOTION
One can arrange fallacies into groups in a number of ways: fallacies of rel-
evance, of ambiguity, of presumption, of distraction, and so on. We’ve chosen
in this chapter to talk fi rst about fallacies that involve appeals to emotion, fol-
lowed by fallacies that depend in part on psychological impact but that do not
appeal directly to one emotion or another. Incidentally, we don’t want to give
the idea that all appeals to emotion are fallacious, misleading, or bad in some
other way. Often we accomplish our greatest good works as a result of such
appeals. One burden of the next section is to help you distinguish between
relevant and irrelevant calls on our emotions.
The Argument from Outrage
A while back, an article in the Washington Post by Ceci Connolly summa-
rized a New England Journal of Medicine report that gave credit to new med-
ical technology for lowered battlefi eld death rates in the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Many fewer casualties were dying than had ever been the case
in wartime before. The most widely heard radio talk show host in America,
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 185 12/9/10 1:34 PM
186 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
Rush Limbaugh, made use of this report to express his outrage at
liberal critics of the war.
They’re just livid—the press, the leftists in this country—are
just upset there are not enough deaths to get people outraged and
protesting in the streets against the war. They’re mad these doc-
tors are saving lives. They want deaths!
H is voice was tense with disbelief and indignation that “the Left”
wanted more soldiers to die. * This technique of expressing out-
rage—anybody who doesn’t see this point must be a fool or a trai-
tor!—is one we’ve identifi ed with Limbaugh because he was one
of the early masters of the method; we’ve even considered refer-
ring to the use of outrage to persuade people as “the Limbaugh
fallacy.” But the technique is not unique to Limbaugh, of course;
it’s typical of today’s hard-line talk show people. And apparently
it works, if the people who call in to the programs are any indi-
cation, since they tend to be as outraged at the goings-on as the
hosts of the programs. That’s the idea, of course. If a person gets
angry enough about something, if one is in the throes of righteous
indignation, then it’s all too easy to throw reason and good sense out the win-
dow and accept whatever alternative is being offered by the speaker just from
indignation alone.
Now, does this mean that we never have a right to be angry? Of course
not. Anger is not a fallacy, and there are times when it’s entirely appropriate.
However, when we are angry—and the angrier or more outraged we are, the
more true this becomes—it’s easy to become illogical, and it can happen in
two ways. First, we may think we have been given a reason for being angry
when in fact we have not. It is a mistake to think that something is wrong
just because it makes somebody angry, even if it’s us whom it seems to anger.
It’s easy to mistake a feeling of outrage for evidence of something, but it isn’t
evidence of anything, really, except our anger.
Second, we may let the anger we feel as the result of one thing influence
our evaluations of an unrelated thing. If we’re angry over what we take to be
the motives of somebody’s detractors, we must remember that their motives
are a separate matter from whether their criticisms are accurate; they might
still be right. Similarly, if a person does something that makes us mad, that
doesn’t provide us a reason for downgrading him on some other matter, nor
would it be a reason for upgrading our opinion of someone else.
The argument from outrage,** then, consists of infl ammatory words (or
thoughts) followed by a “conclusion” of some sort. It substitutes anger for
reason and judgment in considering an issue. It is a favorite strategy of dema-
* We should say that our own investigation could not turn up anyone, from the Left or anywhere else, who wanted
more Americans to die. We did find, however, that one result of the new technology was a much higher number
of soldiers who were returning alive but seriously wounded, including great numbers of amputees. (The 6 percent
amputee rate for wounded soldiers is about double that of previous wars, due primarily to the widespread use of
roadside bombs.)
** Although we use the phrase “argument from outrage” here, we should make it clear that evoking a person’s sense
of outrage does not count as making an argument, although as indicated, this emotional appeal is very often a
substitute for an argument.
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 186 12/9/10 1:34 PM
FALLACIES THAT INVOLVE APPEALS TO EMOTION 187
gogues. In fact, it is the favorite strategy of demagogues. Let’s say the issue is
whether gay marriages should be legal. Left-of-center demagogues may wax
indignantly about “narrow-minded fundamentalist bigots dictating what peo-
ple can do in their bedrooms”—talk calculated to get us steamed although it
really has nothing to do with the issue. On the other side, conservative dema-
gogues may allude to gays’ demanding “special rights.” Nobody wants some-
one else to get special rights, and when we hear about somebody “demanding”
them, our blood pressure goes up. But wanting a right other people have is not
wanting a special right; it’s wanting an equal right.
A particularly dangerous type of “argument” from outrage is known as
scapegoating —blaming a certain group of people, or even a single person (like
George W. Bush or Barack Obama), for all of life’s troubles. George Wallace, the
former governor of Alabama who ran for president in 1968 on a “states’ rights
platform” (which then was a code word for white supremacy) said he could get
good old Southern boys to do anything by “whupping” them into a frenzy over
Northern civil rights workers.
“Arguments” based on outrage are so common that the fallacy ranks high
on our list of the top ten fallacies of all time, which can be found inside the front
cover. It’s unfortunate they are so common—history demonstrates constantly
that anger is a poor lens through which to view the world. Policies adopted in
The idea behind [talk radio] is
to keep the base riled up.
—Republican political advisor
BRENT LAUDER, explaining what
talk radio is for.
In the Media
Wishful Thinking
Fashion magazines are chock full of ads that
are designed to associate a product with
beautiful images (as discussed in Chapter
4). But even if using a product might make
you smell like the guy in the photo, it isn’t
likely to change anything else—to believe
otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking,
discussed later in this chapter.
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 187 12/9/10 1:34 PM
188 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
anger are seldom wise, as any parent will tell you who has laid down the law in a
fi t of anger.
Scare Tactics
George Wallace didn’t just try to anger the crowds when he told them what
Northern civil rights workers were up to; he tried to scare them. When people
become angry or afraid, they don’t think clearly. They follow blindly. Dema-
gogues like Wallace like to dangle scary scenarios in front of people.
Trying to scare people into doing something or accepting a position is
using scare tactics. One way this might be done is the George Wallace method—
dangling a frightening picture in front of someone. A simpler method might
be to threaten the person, a special case of scare tactics known as argument by
force. Either way, if the idea is to get people to substitute fear for reason and
judgment when taking a position on an issue, it is a fallacy. Likewise, it is a
fallacy to succumb to such techniques when others use them on us. (This does
not mean you shouldn’t give up your wallet to the guy with the gun aimed at
your head. See the box “Prudential Grounds Versus Rational Grounds,” above.)
Real Life
Prudential Grounds Versus Rational Grounds
A scary or threatening situation can provide us with a prudential reason for acting on a claim,
even though, outside the immediate circumstances, we would not accept it. For example, a
person or organization might agree to pay a settlement to a person who claims his back was
injured on their property, even though they believe, with good reason, that he is faking the
injury. The fear of losing an even bigger sum in court provides prudential grounds for paying,
even though they would never accept the claim that they should pay except for the threatening
circumstances.
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 188 12/9/10 1:34 PM
FALLACIES THAT INVOLVE APPEALS TO EMOTION 189
Fear can befuddle us as easily as can anger, and the mistakes that happen
are similar in both instances. Wallace’s listeners may not have noticed (or may
not have cared) that Wallace didn’t actually give them evidence that civil rights
workers were doing whatever it was he portrayed them as doing; the portrayal
was its own evidence, you might say. When we are befuddled with fear, we may
not notice we lack evidence that the scary scenario is real. Imagine someone
talking about global warming: The speaker may paint a picture so alarming
we don’t notice that he or she doesn’t provide evidence that global warming
is actually happening. Or take gay marriages again. Someone might warn us
of presumably dire consequences if gay people are allowed to marry—we’ll be
opening “Pandora’s box”; marriage will become meaningless; homosexuality
will become rampant; society will collapse—but he or she may issue these
warnings without providing details as to why (or how) the consequences might
actually come about. The consequences are so frightening they apparently don’t
need proof.
Fear of one thing, X, may also affect evaluation of an unrelated thing,
Y. You have your eye on a nice house and are considering buying it, and then
the real estate agent frightens you by telling you the seller has received other
offers and will sell soon. Some people in this situation might overestimate
what they really can afford to pay.
To avoid translating fear of one thing into an evaluation of some un related
thing, we need to be clear on what issues our fears are relevant to. Legitimate
warnings do not involve irrelevancies and do not qualify as scare tactics. “You
should be careful of that snake—it’s deadly poisonous” might be a scary thing
to say to someone, but we don’t make a mistake in reasoning when we say it,
and neither does the other person if he or she turns and runs into the house.
Suppose, however, that the Michelin tire people show an ad featuring a sweet
(and vulnerable) baby in a ring of automobile tires. Showing pictures of car
tires around infants will produce disquieting associations in any observer, and
it wouldn’t be unreasonable to check our tires when we see this ad. But the
issue raised by the Michelin people is whether to buy Michelin tires, and the
fear of injuring or killing a child by driving on unsafe tires does not bear on
the question of which tires to buy. The Michelin ad isn’t a legitimate warn-
ing; it’s scare tactics.
Other Fallacies Based on Emotions
Other emotions work much like anger and fear as sources of mistakes in rea-
soning. Compassion, for example, is a fi ne thing to have. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with feeling sorry for someone. But when feeling sorry for
someone drives us to a position on an unrelated matter, the result is the fal-
lacy known as argument from pity. We have a job that needs doing; Helen
can barely support her starving children and needs work desperately. But does
Helen have the skills we need? We may not care if she does; and if we don’t,
nobody can fault us for hiring her out of compassion. But feeling sorry for
Helen may lead us to misjudge her skills or overestimate her abilities, and that
is a mistake in reasoning. Her skills are what they are, regardless of her need.
Or, suppose you need a better grade in this course to get into law school or to
avoid academic disqualifi cation or whatever. If you think you deserve or have
earned a better grade because you need a better grade, or you try to get your
instructor to think you deserve a better grade by trying to make him or her
feel sorry for you, that’s the argument from pity. Or, if you think someone else
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 189 12/9/10 1:34 PM
190 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
deserves a better grade because of the hardships he or she (or his or her parents)
suffered, that’s also the “argument” from pity.
Envy and jealousy can also confuse our thinking. Compassion, a desir-
able emotion, may tempt us to emphasize a person’s good points; envy and
jealousy tempt us to exaggerate someone’s bad points. When we fi nd fault
with a person because of envy, we are guilty of the fallacy known as argument
from envy. “Well, he may have a lot of money, but he certainly has bad man-
ners” would be an example of this if it is envy that prompts us to criticize him.
Pride, on the other hand, can lead us to exaggerate our own accomplish-
ments and abilities and can lead to our making other irrelevant judgments as
well. It especially makes us vulnerable to apple polishing , by which we mean
old-fashioned fl attery. Moore recently sat on a jury in a criminal case involv-
ing alleged prostitution and pandering at a strip club; the defendant’s attorney
told the members of the jury it would take “an unusually discerning jury” to
see that the law, despite its wording, wasn’t really intended to apply to some-
one like his client. Ultimately, the jury members did fi nd with the defense,
but let us hope it wasn’t because the attorney fl attered their ability to discern
things. Allowing praise of oneself to substitute for judgment about the truth
Real Life
Knee Operation Judged Useless
Fake Surgery Worked Just as Well in Cases of Osteoarthritis.
Here we are doing all this surgery on people and it’s
all a sham.
—DR. BARUCH BRODY, Baylor College of Medicine
Wishful thinking—allowing our desires and hopes to
color our beliefs and influence our judgment—is com-
mon indeed. A powerful illustration of wishful thinking
is the placebo effect, where subjects perceive improve-
ment in a medical condition when they receive what
they think is a medication but in fact is an inactive
substance. Even surgical procedures, apparently, are
subject to a placebo effect, judging from a study of
a popular and expensive knee operation for arthritis.
People who have had this procedure swear by it as sig-
nificantly reducing pain. But researchers at the Hous-
ton Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College
of Medicine discovered that subjects who underwent
placebo (fake) surgery said exactly the same thing. Fur-
thermore, when they tested knee functions two years
after the surgery, the researchers discovered that the
operation doesn’t improve knee functions at all.
Source: Sacramento Bee, from New York Times News Service.
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 190 12/9/10 1:34 PM
FALLACIES THAT INVOLVE APPEALS TO EMOTION 191
of a claim, or trying to get others to do this, as the lawyer did, is the apple-
polishing fallacy.
Feelings of guilt work similarly. “How could you not invite Jennifer to
your wedding? She would never do that to you, and you know she must be
very hurt.” The remark is intended to make someone feel sorry for Jennifer,
but even more fundamentally, it is supposed to induce a sense of guilt. Elicit-
ing feelings of guilt to get others to do or not to do something, or to accept the
view that they should or should not do it, is popularly known as putting a guilt
trip on someone, which is to commit a fallacy. Parents sometimes use this
tactic with children when they (the parents) won’t (or can’t) offer a clear expla-
nation of why something should or shouldn’t be done. Certainly, if the child
knowingly does something wrong, he or she should feel guilty; but whatever
has been done isn’t wrong because he or she feels guilty.
Hopes, desires, and aversions can also lead us astray logically. The fal-
lacy known as wishful thinking happens when we accept or urge acceptance
(or rejection) of a claim simply because it would be pleasant (or unpleasant)
if it were true. Some people, for example, may believe in God simply on the
basis of wishful thinking or desire for an afterlife. A smoker may refuse to
acknowledge the health hazards of smoking. We’ve had students who are in
Real Life
Patriotic Passion
The 2010 health proposals brought fierce emotional responses from opponents.
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 191 12/9/10 1:34 PM
192 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
denial about the consequences of cutting classes. The
wishful-thinking fallacy also underlies much of the
empty rhetoric of “positive thinking”—rhetoric that
claims “you are what you want to be” and other such
slogans. As obvious (and as obviously fallacious) as
it may appear when you read about it here, wishful
thinking can be a powerful infl uence and can some-
times defeat all but our most committed efforts to do
the rational thing.
Most people desire to be liked or accepted by
some circle of other people and are averse to having
the acceptance withdrawn. A desire for acceptance
can motivate us to accept a claim not because of its
merits but because we will gain someone’s approval
(or will avoid having approval withdrawn). When we
do this or try to get someone else to do it, the fallacy
is the peer pressure “argument.” Now, obviously nobody ever said anything
quite so blatant as “Ralph, this claim is true because we won’t like you any-
more if you don’t accept it.” Peer pressure is often disguised or unstated, but
anyone going through an American high school, where you can lose social
standing merely by being seen with someone who isn’t “in,” knows it is a real
force. Kids who feel ostracized sometimes take guns to school.
It doesn’t have to be one’s associates who exert peer pressure, either. In
scientifi c experiments, people will actually revise what they say they saw if a
group of strangers in the same room deny having seen the same thing.
One very common fallacy that is closely related to the peer pressure
“argument” involves one’s sense of group identification, which people experi-
ence when they are part of a group—a team, a club, a school, a gang, a state,
a nation, the Elks, the Tea Party movement, the U.S.A., Mauritius, you name
it. Let’s defi ne the groupthink fallacy as substituting pride of membership in
a group for reason and deliberation in arriving at a position on an issue; and
let’s include the fallacy in our list of the top ten fallacies of all time, because
it is exceedingly common. One obvious form of this fallacy involves national
pride, or nationalism —a powerful and fi erce emotion that can lead to blind
endorsement of a country’s policies and practices. (“My country right or
wrong” explicitly discourages critical thinking and encourages blind patrio-
tism.) Nationalism is also invoked to reject, condemn, or silence criticism of
one’s country as unpatriotic or treasonable (and may or may not involve an
element of peer pressure). If a letter writer expresses a criticism of America on
the opinion page of your local newspaper on Monday, you can bet that by the
end of the week there will be a response dismissing the criticism with the
“argument” that if so-and-so doesn’t like it here, he or she ought to move to
Russia (or Cuba or Iraq or Iran).
Groupthink does not play cultural or political favorites, either. On the
opposite side of the political spectrum are what some people call the “blame
America fi rst” folks. The groupthink ethic of this club includes, most impor-
tantly, automatically assuming that whatever is wrong in the world is the result
of some U.S. policy. The club has no formal meetings or rules for membership,
but fl ying an American fl ag would be grounds for derision and instant dismissal.
Groupthink “reasoning” is certainly not limited to political groups, either.
It occurs whenever one’s affiliations are of utmost psychological importance.
Patriotism is the last refuge of
a scoundrel.
—S AMUEL J OHNSON, 1775
Boswell, Johnson’s biog-
rapher, does not indicate
what the context is here, but
he does say that it is false
patriotism to which Johnson
referred.
■ This “Patriotism Bear”
is all decked out with
flags, medals, and
patches. He sells for
$119.99 from Dollsville
on the Web. Whether
motivated by patriotism
or profits, there are
plenty of people ready
to cash in on the
patriotism bandwagon.
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 192 12/9/10 1:34 PM
FALLACIES THAT INVOLVE APPEALS TO EMOTION 193
Remember, these various emotional fallacies, from the “argument” from
outrage to the groupthink fallacy, all share certain properties. They often
(though not always) contain assertions you might call “premises” and other
assertions that you might call a “conclusion.” But the “premises” don’t actu-
ally support the “conclusion”; rather, they evoke emotions that make us want
to accept the conclusion without support. So, although they can wear the cloth-
ing of arguments, they are really pieces of persuasion (Chapter 5). Whenever
language is used to arouse emotions, it is wise to consider carefully whether
any “conclusions” that come to mind have been supported by evidence.
In the passages that follow identify any fallacies that were discussed in the pre-
vious section of the text. There may be examples in which no fallacy occurs—
don’t fi nd them where they don’t exist!
1. The tax system in this country is unfair and ridiculous! Just ask anyone!
2. Overheard:
“Hmmmm. Nice day. Think I’ll go catch some rays.”
“Says here in this magazine that doing that sort of thing is guaranteed to
get you a case of skin cancer.”
“Yeah, I’ve heard that, too. I think it’s a bunch of baloney, personally. If
that were true, you wouldn’t be able to do anything—no tubing, skiing,
nothing. You wouldn’t even be able to just plain lie out in the sun. Ugh!”
3. I’ve come before you to ask that you rehire Professor Johnson. I realize
that Mr. Johnson does not have a Ph.D., and I am aware that he has yet to
publish his fi rst article. But Mr. Johnson is over forty now, and he has a
wife and two high-school-aged children to support. It will be very difficult
for him to fi nd another teaching job at his age, I’m sure you will agree.
4. juan: But, Dad, I like Horace. Why shouldn’t I room with him, anyway?
juan’s dad: Because I’ll cut off your allowance,
that’s why!
5. That snake has markings like a coral snake. Coral snakes are deadly
poisonous, so you’d better leave it alone!
6. he: Tell you what. Let’s get some ice cream for a change. Sunrise
Creamery has the best—let’s go there.
she: Not that old dump! What makes you think their ice cream is so
good, anyway?
he: Because it is. Besides, that old guy who owns it never gets any busi-
ness anymore. Every time I go by the place, I see him in there all alone,
just staring out the window, waiting for a customer. He can’t help it that
he’s in such an awful location. I’m sure he couldn’t afford to move.
7. What do you mean you’ll vote for our wonderful Senator? Don’t you real-
ize he voted for the blasted health care reform act? Don’t tell me you
really want to see a government takeover of health care! Don’t tell me
you want to see us taxed to death to pay for a whole new government
bureaucracy!
8. “Jim, I’m very disappointed you felt it necessary to talk to the media
about the problems here in the department. When you join the FBI, you
join a family, and you shouldn’t want to embarrass your family.”
Exercise 6-1
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 193 12/9/10 1:34 PM
194 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
9. “Listen, Steve lives in a huge house, drives an expensive car, and makes
twice the money you do. You’re never going to live like he does unless
you cut some corners.”
10. A fi ctitious western governor: “Yes, I have indeed accepted $550,000 in
campaign contributions from power companies. But as I stand here before
you, I can guarantee you that not one dime of that money has affected
any decision I’ve made. I make decisions based on data, not on donors.”
SOME NON-EMOTION–BASED FALLACIES
The next three fallacy families—(1) red herrings, (2) appeals to popularity and
tradition and such, and (3) rationalizing—all have psychological elements, but
they do not make the same kind of direct emotional appeal that we fi nd in the
preceding fallacies.
Red Herring/Smoke Screen
When a person brings a topic into a conversation that distracts from the origi-
nal point, especially if the new topic is introduced in order to distract, the
person is said to have introduced a red herring. (It is so called because dragging
a herring across a trail will cause a dog to leave the original trail and follow
▲
In Depth
The “True For . . .” Cop-Out
Sometimes, especially when a controversial subject is under discussion, you’ll hear someone
say, “Well, that may be true for you, but it isn’t true for me.”
If you stop to think about it, this is a peculiar thing to say. Certainly if the issue is about
an objective fact—whether there is water on the moon, for example—then if it’s “true for” any-
body, it’s true for everybody. As somebody recently said, you can choose your own opinions,
but you can’t choose your own facts; the facts are just what they are, and they’re the same for
everybody.
Of course, one person can believe something is true while another believes it isn’t true, but
that’s a different matter entirely. If that is what the speaker means, he should simply say so
clearly instead of using the paradoxical version we’re calling a cop-out.
When we say the expression is a cop-out, we mean it’s simply a way of saying “I don’t want
to talk about this anymore.” It’s a discussion ender. And it certainly does not do anything to
resolve whatever the original issue was. We see this expression used most often, perhaps, in
matters of religion, where many people hold strong beliefs, but for one reason or another, they
do not want to engage in discussions about them.
The only place where our “true for . . . ” expression is not a cop-out is when the claim in
question is subjective. For example, “Zinfandel tastes better than merlot.” This remark really can
be true for one person and false for another, because they may really have two different tastes.
Remember, whenever you hear the “true for…” expression about an objective factual matter, it’s
just a way of saying “I’m done talking.”
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 194 12/9/10 1:34 PM
SOME NON-EMOTION–BASED FALLACIES 195
the path of the herring.) In the strip-joint jury trial we mentioned earlier, the
defendant was charged with pandering; but the prosecuting attorney intro-
duced evidence that the defendant had also sold liquor to minors. That was a
red herring that had nothing to do with pandering.
The difference between red herrings and their close relatives, smoke
screens, is subtle (and really not a matter of crucial importance). Generally
speaking, red herrings distract by pulling one’s attention away from one topic
and toward another; smoke screens tend to pile issues on or to make them
extremely complicated until the original is lost in the (verbal) “smoke.” Some-
times, the red herring or smoke screen involves an appeal to emotion, but
often it does not. When Bill Clinton had missiles fi red at terrorists in Sudan,
he was accused of creating a red herring to defl ect public scrutiny from the
Monica Lewinsky business. When George W. Bush talked about Iraq having
missiles capable of threatening the United States, about that country’s poten-
tial of having a nuclear weapon “within six months,” and about similar pos-
sible Iraqi threats, he was accused of putting up a smoke screen to hide his real
reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, which were said to be oil interests and his
own personal desire to complete his father’s unfi nished business.
Let’s take another example, this one made up but typical of what often
happens. Suppose that Felipe Calderón, the president of Mexico, holds a press
conference, and a reporter asks him whether his use of federal troops in Juárez
has made the city any safer from drug-related murders. Mr. Calderón answers,
“I can guarantee you that everything the federal government can do to pacify
the situation in Juárez is now being done.”
Calderón has avoided the reporter’s original question, possibly because
he is not interested in admitting that the city is not any safer. He has changed
the issue to one of what kind of effort the government is making. In so doing,
he has dragged a red herring across the trail, so to speak. The government may
or may not be doing all it can to keep the peace in Juárez, but in either case
We admit that this measure is
popular. But we also urge you
to note that there are so many
bond issues on this ballot that
the whole concept is getting
ridiculous.
—A generic red herring (unclas-
sifiable irrelevance) from a
California ballot pamphlet
In the Media
A Red Herring in a Letter to Time
Time’s coverage of the medical marijuana controversy was thoughtful and scrupulously
researched. But what argues most persuasively for a ban on marijuana is the extraordinary
threat the drug poses for adolescents. Marijuana impairs short – term memory, depletes
energy and impedes acquisition of psychosocial skills. Perhaps the most chilling effect is
that it retards maturation for young people. A significant number of kids who use lots of
pot simply don’t grow up. So it is hardly surprising that marijuana is the primary drug for
more than half the youngsters in the long-term residential substance-abuse programs that
Phoenix House operates throughout the country.
—MITCHELL S. ROSENTHAL, M.D. , president, Phoenix House, New York City
The issue is legalization of marijuana for adults; the question of what it would do to children,
who presumably would be prohibited from its use, is a red herring.
Source: Time, November 28, 2002.
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 195 12/9/10 1:34 PM
196 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
that is a separate matter from whether citizens are safer in Juárez since federal
troops arrived.*
Let’s imagine that the conversation continues like this:
reporter: “Mr. Calderón, polls say that most of the
country believes that the government has failed
to make the situation safer. How do you answer
your critics?”
felipe calderón: We are making progress toward reassuring
people, but quite frankly our efforts have been
hampered by the tendency of the press to
concentrate on the negative side of the issue.”
Once again (in our fi ctional news conference), Calderón brings in a red
herring to sidestep the issue raised by the reporter.
Whether a distraction or an obfuscation is a plain red herring or a smoke
screen is often difficult to tell in real life, and it’s better to spend your energy
getting a discussion back on track rather than worrying which type you have
before you.
Many of the other fallacies we have been discussing in this chapter (and
will be discussing in the next chapter) qualify, in some version or other, as
red herrings/smoke screens. For example, a defense attorney might talk about
a defendant’s miserable upbringing to steer a jury’s attention away from the
charges against the person; doing this would qualify as an appeal to pity as well
as a smoke screen/red herring. Likewise, a prosecuting attorney may try to get
a jury so angry about a crime it doesn’t notice the weakness of the evidence
pointing to the defendant. This would be an argument from outrage—and a red
herring.
To simplify things, your instructor may reserve the red herring/smoke
screen categories for irrelevancies that don’t qualify as one of the other falla-
cies mentioned in this or the next chapter. In other words, he or she may tell
you that if something qualifi es as, say, an argument from outrage, you should
call it that rather than a red herring or a smoke screen.
Everyone Knows . . .
In Chapter 5, we examined such proof surrogates as “Everyone knows . . .”
and “It’s only common sense that . . .”. Phrases like this are often used when a
speaker or writer doesn’t really have an argument.
Such phrases often appear in peer pressure “arguments” (“Pardner, in
these parts everyone thinks . . .”). They also are used in the groupthink fal-
lacy (“As any red-blooded American patriot knows, . . .). There is, however,
a third way these phrases can be used. An example would be when Robert
Novak said on CNN’s Crossfire, “Liberals are fi nally admitting what everyone
knows, that airline safety demands compromise.” Novak wasn’t applying or
evoking peer pressure or groupthink; he was offering “proof” that airline safety
demands compromise. His proof is the fact that everyone knows it.
*Unfortunately, the number of homicides in Ciudad Juárez went from 317 in 2007 to 1,623 in 2008 and to 2,754 in
2009, according to government reports. That would make it the most dangerous city in the world during the latter
two years.
Could somebody please show
me one hospital built by a dol-
phin? Could somebody show
me one highway built by a
dolphin? Could someone show
me one automobile invented
by a dolphin?
—RUSH LIMBAUGH, responding
to the New York Times’ claim
that dolphins’ “behavior and
enormous brains suggest an
intelligence approaching that
of human beings”
Good point. Anyone know of
a hospital or highway built by
Rush Limbaugh or an automo-
bile invented by him?
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 196 12/9/10 1:34 PM
SOME NON-EMOTION–BASED FALLACIES 197
When we do this, when we urge someone to accept a claim (or fall prey to
someone’s doing it to us) simply on the grounds that all or most or some sub-
stantial number of people (other than authorities or experts, of course) believe
it, we commit the fallacy known as the appeal to popularity.
That most people believe something is a fact is not evidence that it is
a fact—most people believe in God, for example, but that isn’t evidence that
God exists. Likewise, if most people didn’t believe in God, that wouldn’t be
evidence that God didn’t exist.
Most people seem to assume that bus driving and similar jobs are some-
how less desirable than white-collar jobs. The widespread acceptance of this
assumption creates its own momentum—that is, we tend to accept it because
everybody else does, and we don’t stop to think about whether it actually has
Real Life
Is It Still a Lie If Everybody Does It?
“Shell [Oil Company] was charged with mislead-
ing advertising in its Platformate advertisements.
A Shell spokesman said: ‘The same comment
could be made about most good advertising of
most products.’ ”
—SAMM S. BAKER, The Permissible Lie
A perfect example of the common-practice fallacy.
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 197 12/9/10 1:34 PM
198 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
anything to recommend it. For a lot of people, a job driving a bus might make
for a much happier life than a job as a manager.
In some instances, we should point out, what people think actually deter-
mines what is true. The meanings of most words, for example, are determined
by popular usage. In addition, it would not be fallacious to conclude that the
word “ain’t” is out of place in formal speech because most speakers of English
believe that it is out of place in formal speech.
There are other cases where what people think is an indication of what is
true, even if it cannot determine truth. If several Bostonians of your acquain-
tance think that it is illegal to drink beer in their public parks, then you have
some reason for thinking that it’s true. And if you are told by several Europe-
ans that it is not gauche to eat with your fork in your left hand in Europe, then
it is not fallacious to conclude that European manners allow eating with your
fork in your left hand. The situation here is one of credibility, which we dis-
cussed in Chapter 4. Natives of Boston in the fi rst case and Europeans in the
second case can be expected to know more about the two claims in question,
respectively, than others know. In a watered-down sense, they are “experts”
on the subjects, at least in ways that many of us are not. In general, when the
“everyone” who thinks that X is true includes experts about X, then what they
think is indeed a good reason to accept X.
Thus, it would be incorrect to automatically label as a fallacy any instance
in which a person cites people’s beliefs to establish a point. (No “argument”
fi tting a pattern in this chapter should be dismissed unthinkingly. ) But it is
important to view such references to people’s beliefs as red alerts. These are
cautionary signals that warn you to look closely for genuine reasons in support
of the claim asserted.
Two variations of the appeal to popularity deserve mention: Appeal to
common practice consists in trying to justify or defend an action or practice
(as distinguished from an assertion or claim) on the grounds that it is common.
“I shouldn’t get a speeding ticket because everyone drives over the limit” is
an example. “Everyone cheats on their taxes, so I don’t see why I shouldn’t”
is another. Now, there is something to watch out for here: When a person
defends an action by saying that other people do the same thing, he or she
might just be requesting fair play. He or she might be saying, in effect, “Okay,
okay, I know it’s wrong, but nobody else gets punished, and it would be unfair
to single me out.” That person isn’t trying to justify the action; he or she is
asking for equal treatment.
The other variant of the popularity fallacy is the appeal to tradition, a
name that is self-explanatory. People do things because that’s the way things
have always been done, and they believe things because that’s what people
have always believed. But, logically speaking, you don’t prove a claim or prove
a practice is legitimate on the basis of tradition; when you try to do so, you
are guilty of the appeal to tradition fallacy. The fact that it’s a tradition among
most American children to believe in Santa Claus, for instance, doesn’t prove
Santa Claus exists; and the fact that it’s also a tradition for most American
parents to deceive their kids about Santa Claus doesn’t necessarily mean it
is okay for them to do so. Where we teach, there has been a long tradition of
fraternity hazing, and over the years several unfortunate hazing incidents have
happened. We have yet to hear a defense of hazing that amounted to anything
other than an appeal to tradition, which is equivalent to saying we haven’t
heard a defense at all.
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 198 12/9/10 1:34 PM
SOME NON-EMOTION–BASED FALLACIES 199
Rationalizing
Let’s say Mr. Smith decides to do something really nice for his wife on her
birthday and buys her a new table saw. “This saw wasn’t cheap,” he tells her.
“But you’re going to be glad we have it, because it will keep me out in the
garage and out of your way when you’re working here in the house.”
The fallacy in the reasoning in this made-up example is pretty obvious.
Mr. Smith is confusing his wife’s desires with his own.
When we do this, when we use a false pretext to satisfy our own desires
or interests, we’re guilty of rationalizing, a very common fallacy. It almost
made our list of the top ten fallacies of all time.
Now, there is nothing wrong with satisfying one’s desires, at least if they
don’t harm someone or aren’t illegal. But in this book, we’re talking logic,
not morals. Rationalizing involves a confusion in thinking, and to the extent
we wish to avoid being confused in our thinking, we should try to avoid
rationalizing.
“But,” you may be saying, “it is good to do nice things for other people. If
you do something that helps them, or that they like, or that benefi ts the world,
what difference does motivation make? If, for whatever reason, the table saw
makes Mr. Smith’s wife happy, that’s what counts.”
Now, there is something to be said for this argument, because it is good
to make people happy. But whether Mr. Smith’s wife is happy or not, there has
been a confusion in his thinking, a fallacy. And it is a common fallacy indeed.
Obviously, most instances of rationalizing are not as blatant as Mr. Smith’s,
but people frequently deceive themselves as to their true motives.
Rationalizing need not be selfi sh, either. Let’s say a former oilman is
elected governor of a state that produces oil. He may act in what at some level
he thinks are the best interests of his state—when in fact he is motivated by
a desire to help the oil industry. (Incidentally, you can’t just assume he would
do this.) To the extent that he is deceiving himself about his true motivation,
he is rationalizing. But this isn’t selfish rationalizing; his actions don’t benefi t
him personally.
Rationalizing, then, involves an element of self-deception, but otherwise
it isn’t necessarily devious. However, some people encourage others to ratio-
nalize because they themselves stand to benefi t in some way. “Hey, Smith,”
his buddy Jones says to him. “That’s a fi ne idea! Really creative. Your wife will
really like a saw. Maybe you could build a boat for her, and you and I could go
fi shing.” Jones may or may not say this innocently: If he does, he, too, is guilty
of rationalizing; if he doesn’t, he’s just cynical.
In the following passages, identify any fallacies discussed in the preceding sec-
tion of the text (red herring/smoke screen; appeals to popularity, tradition, com-
mon practice; rationalizing). There may be passages that contain no fallacy.
1. democrat: What do you think of your party’s new plan for Social
Security?
republican: I think it is pretty good, as a matter of fact.
democrat: Oh? And why is that?
republican: Because you Democrats haven’t even offered a plan,
that’s why!
Exercise 6-2
▲
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 199 12/9/10 1:34 PM
200 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
2. fred: I think we should just buy the new truck and call it a business
expense so we can write it off on our taxes.
ethel: I don’t know, Fred. That sounds like cheating to me. We wouldn’t
really use the truck very much in the business, you know.
fred: Oh, don’t worry about it. This kind of thing is done all the time.
3. A fi ctitious western governor: “Yes, I have indeed accepted $550,000 in
campaign contributions from power companies. But as I stand here before
you, I can guarantee you that not one dime of that money has affected
any decision I’ve made. I make decisions based on data, not on donors.”
4. They fi nally passed the immigration law. Did you see the latest poll?
It says that over two-thirds of Americans believe it’s going to solve the
immigration problem once and for all. It’s about time they did the right
thing in Congress.
5. reporter cokie roberts: Mr. Cheney, aside from the legal issues that
stem from the various United Nations resolutions, isn’t there an overrid-
ing moral dimension to the suffering of so many Kurdish people in Iraq?
dick cheney: Well, we recognize that’s a tragic situation, Cokie, but
there are tragic situations occurring all over the world.
—Adapted from an interview on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition
6. I’m going to use the textbook that’s on reserve in the library. I’ll have to
spend more time on the campus, but it’s sure better than shelling out
over a hundred bucks for one book.
7. The animal rights people shouldn’t pick on rodeos about animal treat-
ment. If they’d come out and see the clowns put smiles on kids’ faces and
see horses buck off the cowboys and hear the crowd go “ooh” and “ahh”
at the bull riding, why, then, they’d change their minds.
8. You know, Selina, I’ve been thinking lately that we’ve been putting away
money for our retirement for quite a while now, and since the economy
seems to be recovering from the recession, I think we’re going to be in
pretty good shape when we’re ready to retire—we’ll at least have enough
to get by. Meanwhile, I’ve been looking at these new Ford trucks, and
they really come with everything these days, even GPS and satellite
radio. And if we put a portion of our income toward purchase of a new
truck, it would be a sort of investment in the future itself, you know?
9. What’s wrong with socialism? I’ll tell you what’s wrong with socialism.
Americans don’t like it, is what’s wrong with socialism.
10. Should I spend time doing more of these logic exercises when I could be
outside playing golf? Well, one thing is for sure. Doing one or two more
exercises won’t make a difference to my grade, but playing golf will make
a difference to my health.
TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT
Let’s say you get tired of the people upstairs stomping around late at night, and
so, to retaliate, you rent a tow truck and deposit their car in the river. From
an emotional standpoint, you’re getting even. From a reasoning standpoint,
you’re committing the fallacy known as “two wrongs make a right.” It’s a fal-
▲
▲
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 200 12/9/10 1:34 PM
TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT 201
lacy because wrongful behavior on someone else’s part doesn’t convert wrong-
ful behavior on your part into rightful behavior any more than illegal behavior
on someone else’s part converts your illegal activity into legal activity. If an
act is wrong, it is wrong. Wrong acts don’t cross-pollinate such that one comes
out shorn of wrongfulness.
However, there is a well-known and somewhat widely held theory
known as retributivism, according to which it is acceptable to harm some-
one in return for a harm he or she has done to you. But we must distinguish
legitimate punishment from illegitimate retaliation. A fallacy clearly occurs
when we consider a wrong to be justifi cation for any retaliatory action, as
would be the case if you destroyed your neighbors’ car because they made too
much noise at night. It is also a fallacy when the second wrong is directed at
someone who didn’t do the wrong in the fi rst place—a brother or a child of the
wrongdoer, for example. And it is a fallacy to defend doing harm to another on
the grounds that that individual would or might do the same to us. This would
happen, for example, if we didn’t return excess change to a salesclerk on the
grounds that “if the situation were reversed,” the clerk wouldn’t have given us
back the money.
On the other hand, it isn’t a fallacy to defend an action on the grounds that
it was necessary to prevent harm from befalling oneself; bopping a mugger to
prevent him from hurting you would be an instance. To take another example,
near the end of World War II, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on
Japanese cities, killing tens of thousands of civilians. Politicians, historians,
and others have argued that the bombing was justifi ed because it helped end
the war and thus prevented more casualties from the fi ghting, including the
deaths of more Americans. People have long disagreed on whether the argu-
ment provides sufficient justifi cation for the bombings, but there is no dis-
agreement about its being a real argument and not empty rhetoric.
Argument Diagram
(1) The people upstairs keep making noise late at night and (2) it bothers
me so (3) I have the right to rent a tow truck and deposit their car in the
river.
(1) The people upstairs keep making noise late at night.
(2) It bothers me.
(3) Therefore I have the right to rent a tow truck and deposit
their car in the river.
Fallacies run the gamut from attempts to stir up emotion to attempts to dis-
tract us from a subject entirely. In this chapter we’ve covered a selection of fal-
lacies that are based on appeals to our emotions as well as several others that,
while they have a psychological aspect, are less emotion-based.
Fallacies that appeal to emotion:
Recap
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 201 12/9/10 1:34 PM
202 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
■ Argument from outrage
■ Scare tactics
■ Argument by force
■ Argument from pity
■ Argument from envy
■ Apple polishing
■ Guilt trip
■ Wishful thinking
■ Peer pressure “argument”
■ Groupthink fallacy
■ Nationalism
Other fallacies discussed in this chapter don’t invoke emotions directly
but are closely related to emotional appeals. These include
■ Red herring/smoke screen
■ Appeal to popularity
■ Appeal to common practice
■ Appeal to tradition
■ Rationalization
■ Two wrongs make a right
In all these specimens, there is something one might call a “premise”
and something one might call a “conclusion,” but the “premise” either fails
to support the conclusion or “supports” some tangential claim. In any case, a
mistake in reasoning has been made; a fallacy has been committed.
In the exercises that follow, we ask you to name fallacies, and your instructor
may do the same on an exam. (At the end of Chapter 7, there are more exercises
that refer back to the fallacies in this chapter.)
Exercise 6-3
Working in groups, invent a simple, original, and clear illustration of each type
of fallacy covered in this chapter. Then, in the class as a whole, select the illus-
trations that are clearest and most straightforward. Go over these illustrations
before doing the remaining exercises in this chapter, and review them before
you take a test on this material.
Exercise 6-4
Answer the following questions and explain your answers.
1. A brand of toothpaste is advertised as best selling. How relevant is that to
whether to buy the brand?
Additional
Exercises
▲
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 202 12/9/10 1:34 PM
EXERCISES 203
2. A brand of toothpaste is best selling. How relevant is that to whether to
buy that brand?
3. An automobile is a best-seller in its class. How relevant is that to
whether to buy that kind of automobile?
4. A movie is a smash hit. Would that infl uence your opinion of it? Should it?
5. Your friends are all Republicans. Would that infl uence your decision
about which party to register with? Should it?
6. Your friends are all Democrats. Would that infl uence what you say about
Democrats to them? Should it?
7. Your friend’s father wrote a novel. How relevant is that to whether you
should say nice things about the book to your friend?
8. Your friend’s mother is running for office. How relevant is that to
whether you should vote for her?
9. Your own mother is running for office. How relevant is that to whether
she will do a good job? To whether you should vote for her?
10. Movie critic Roger Ebert gives a movie a “thumbs-up” and calls it one of
the best of the year. How relevant is this to whether you should go see
the movie?
Exercise 6-5
Which of the following do you believe? Which of the following do you really
have evidence for? Which of the following do you believe on an “everyone
knows” basis? Discuss your answers with other members of your class.
1. Small dogs tend to live longer than large dogs.
2. Coffee has a dehydrating effect.
3. Most people should drink at least eight glasses of water a day.
4. If you are thirsty, it means you are already dehydrated.
5. Rape is not about sex; it’s about aggression.
6. Marijuana use leads to addiction to harder drugs.
7. The news media are biased.
8. You get just as much ultraviolet radiation on a cloudy day as on a
sunny day.
9. If you don’t let yourself get angry every now and then, your anger will
build up to the exploding point.
10. Carrots make you see better.
11. Reading in poor light is bad for your eyes.
12. Sitting too close to the TV is bad for your eyes.
13. Warm milk makes you sleepy.
14. Covering your head is the most effective way of staying warm in cold
weather.
15. Smoking a cigarette takes seven minutes off your life.
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 203 12/9/10 1:34 PM
204 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
16. Government-run health care management is more (or less—choose one)
expensive than private-run health care management.
Exercise 6-6
For each of the passages that follow, determine whether fallacies are present
and, if so, whether they fi t the categories described in this chapter.
1. Boss to employee: “I’ll be happy to tell you why this report needs to be
fi nished by Friday. If it isn’t ready by then, you’ll be looking for another
job. How’s that for a reason?”
2. Mother: “I think he has earned an increase in his allowance. He doesn’t
have any spending money at all, and he’s always having to make
excuses about not being able to go out with the rest of his friends because
of that.”
3. Mother to father: “You know, I really believe that our third grader’s
friend Joe comes from an impoverished family. He looks to me as though
he doesn’t get enough to eat. I think I’m going to start inviting him to
have dinner at our house once or twice a week.”
4. Statistics show that fl ying is much safer than driving. So why put your
family at risk? This summer, travel the safe way: Fly Fracaso Airlines!
5. One political newcomer to another: “I tell you, Sam, you’d better change
those liberal views of yours. The general slant toward conservatism is obvi-
ous. You’ll be left behind unless you change your mind about some things.”
6. If you ask me, I think breaking up with Anton is a big mistake. Have you
forgotten how he stuck by you last year when you really needed somebody?
Is this how you repay that kind of devotion?
7. one fan: The fi eld goal has become too big a part of the game. I think it
would be more reasonable to change it from a 3-point play to a 2-point
play. That would make advancing the ball more important, which is as it
should be.
another fan: Oh, come on. Field goals have always been three points; it’s
just silly to think of changing a part of the game that’s been around for so
long.
8. Student speaker: “Why, student fees have jumped by more than 300 per-
cent in just two years! This is outrageous! The governor is working for a
balanced budget, but it’ll be on the backs of us students, the people who
have the very least to spend! It seems pretty clear that these increased
student fees are undermining higher education in this state. Anybody who
isn’t mad about this just doesn’t understand the situation.”
9. “What? You aren’t a Cornhuskers fan? Listen, around here everybody is for
the Huskers! This is Nebraska!”
10. They need to understand that it’s okay for the good guys to have nuclear
weapons and it’s not okay for the bad guys to have them. And the U.S.A. is
one of the good guys, you see. The U.S. is always going to do the right thing
by these weapons, and we can’t trust most of the rest of the world to do
that. There’s your nuclear arms policy in a nutshell.
▲
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 204 12/9/10 1:34 PM
EXERCISES 205
Exercise 6-7
For each of the following, determine whether one of the lettered rhetorical
devices or fallacies covered in Chapters 5 and 6 occurs in the passage. There
may be items that do not contain such devices or fallacies, so be careful!
1. Letter to the editor: “Your food section frequently features recipes with
veal, and your ads say veal is a wholesome, nutritious food. Well, I have a
different opinion of veal. Do you know how it comes to be on your plate?
At birth, a newborn calf is separated from its mother, placed in a dark
enclosure, and chained by its neck so it cannot move freely. This limits
muscular development so that the animal is tender. It is kept in the dark
pen until the day it is cruelly slaughtered.”
a. scare tactics d. wishful thinking
b. argument from pity e. no device or fallacy
c. common practice
2. Listen, Bob. I’ve met with the rest of our neighbors on the block, and we
all agree that your yard really looks terrible. It’s embarrassing to all of us.
Our conclusion is that you ought to do something about it.
a. common practice d. rationalizing
b. use of euphemism e. no device or fallacy
c. use of dysphemism
3 . Former presidential chief of staff John Sununu was charged with using
Air Force executive jets for frequent trips to vacation spots. In a letter to
a newsmagazine, a writer observed, “What’s all the fuss about? If every-
body is doing it, why get excited about Sununu?”
a. loaded question d. common practice
b. stereotyping e. no device or fallacy
c. argument from outrage
4. I was thinking: Our newspaper boy has not missed a day all year, and
he always throws our paper right up here near the front door. I think
I’m going to leave him an extra-large tip this Christmas. I know people
who do that kind of work don’t make a lot of money, and I’m sure he
can use it.
a. downplayer d. argument from pity
b. stereotyping e. no device or fallacy
c. innuendo
5. Hey, watch what you say about my car. You won’t see many that old
around anymore; it’s a real classic.
a. rhetorical explanation d. use of euphemism
b. hyperbole e. no device or fallacy
c. argument from pity
6. Despite all the fancy technology that went into Sam’s new car, it still
gets a mere 29 miles per gallon.
a. use of dysphemism d. downplayer
b. weaseler e. no device or fallacy
c. rationalizing
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 205 12/9/10 1:34 PM
206 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
7. Text messaging teaches people to misspell and adopt the crudest style of
writing possible. It’s like an advanced degree in Bonehead English.
a. rationalizing d. argument from outrage
b. rhetorical analogy e. no device or fallacy
c. rhetorical explanation
8. Imagine yourself alone beside your broken-down car at the side of a coun-
try road in the middle of the night. Few pass by, and no one stops to help.
Don’t get caught like that. You need a No-Tel cellular telephone!
Which of the following best characterizes this passage?
a. The passage gives someone no reason for buying anything at all.
b. The passage gives someone no reason for buying a cell phone.
c. The passage gives someone no reason for buying a No-Tel cell phone.
d. The passage gives someone a reason for buying a sawed-off shotgun for
the car.
Exercise 6-8
For each of the passages that follow, determine whether fallacies are present
and, if so, whether they fi t the categories described in this chapter.
1. “Grocers are concerned about sanitation problems from beverage residue
that Proposition 11 could create. Filthy returned cans and bottles— over
11 billion a year —don’t belong in grocery stores, where our food is stored
and sold. . . . Sanitation problems in other states with similar laws have
caused increased use of chemical sprays in grocery stores to combat
rodents and insects. Vote no on 11.”
—Argument against Proposition 11, California ballot pamphlet
2. C’mon, George, the river’s waiting and everyone’s going to be there. You
want me to tell ’em you’re gonna worry on Saturday about a test you
don’t take ’til Tuesday? What’re people going to think?
3. attendant: I’m sorry, sir, but we don’t allow people to top off their gas
tanks here in Kansas. There’s a state law against it, you know.
richard: What? You’ve got to be kidding! I’ve never heard of a place that
stopped people from doing that!
4. One roommate to another: “I’m telling you, Ahmed, you shouldn’t take
Highway 50 this weekend. In this weather, it’s going to be icy and danger-
ous. Somebody slides off that road and gets killed nearly every winter.
And you don’t even have any chains for your car!”
5. That, in sum, is my proposal, ladies and gentlemen. You know that I
trust and value your judgment, and I am aware I could not fi nd a more
astute panel of experts to evaluate my suggestion. Thank you.
6. jared: In Sweden, atheists and agnostics outnumber believers 2 to 1, and
in Germany, less than half the population believes in God. Here in the
United States, though, over 80 percent believe in God. I wonder what
makes the United States so different.
alice: You’ve answered your own question. If I didn’t believe in God, I’d
feel like I stuck out like a sore thumb.
▲
▲
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 206 12/9/10 1:34 PM
EXERCISES 207
7. One local to another: “I tell you, it’s disgusting. These idiot college stu-
dents come up here and live for four years—and ruin the town—and then
vote on issues that affect us long after they’ve gone. This has got to stop!
I say, let only those who have a real stake in the future of this town vote
here! Transient kids shouldn’t determine what’s going to happen to local
residents. Most of these kids come from Philadelphia . . . let them vote
there.”
8. Chair, Department of Rhetoric (to department faculty): “If you think
about it, I’m certain you’ll agree with me that Mary Smith is the best
candidate for department secretary. I urge you to join with me in recom-
mending her to the administration. Concerning another matter, I’m now
setting up next semester’s schedule, and I hope that I’ll be able to give
you all the classes you have requested.”
9. nellie: I really don’t see anything special about Sunquist grapefruit. They
taste the same as any other grapefruit to me.
nellie’s mom: Hardly! Don’t forget that your Uncle Henry owns Sun-
quist. If everyone buys his fruit, you may inherit a lot of money some
day!
10. “Don’t risk letting a fatal accident rob your family of the home they
love—on the average, more than 250 Americans die each day because of
accidents. What would happen to your family’s home if you were one of
them?
“ Your home is so much more than just a place to live. It’s a commu-
nity you’ve chosen carefully . . . a neighborhood . . . a school district . . .
the way of life you and your family have come to know. And you’d want
your family to continue sharing its familiar comforts, even if suddenly
you were no longer there. . . . Now, as a Great Western mortgage cus-
tomer, you can protect the home you love. . . . Just complete the Enroll-
ment Form enclosed for you.”
—Insurance company brochure
11. “You’ve made your mark and your scotch says it all.”
—Glen Haven Reserve
12. Dear Senator Jenkins,
I am writing to urge your support for higher salaries for state
correctional facility guards. I am a clerical worker at Kingsford Prison,
and I know whereof I speak. Guards work long hours, often giving up
weekends, at a dangerous job. They cannot afford expensive houses or
even nice clothes. Things that other state employees take for granted,
like orthodontia for their children and a second car, are not possibilities
on their salaries, which, incidentally, have not been raised in fi ve years.
Their dedication deserves better.
Very truly yours, . . .
13. her: Listen, honey, we’ve been dating for how long now? Years! I think
it’s time we thought seriously about getting married.
him: Right, ummm, you know what? I think it’s time we went shopping
for a new car! What do you say to that?
14. There are very good reasons for the death penalty. First, it serves as a
deterrent to those who would commit capital offenses. Second, it is just
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 207 12/9/10 1:34 PM
208 CHAPTER 6: MORE RHETORICAL DEVICES
and fair punishment for the crime committed. Third, reliable opinion
polls show that over 70 percent of all Americans favor it. If so many peo-
ple favor it, it has to be right.
15. first idahoan: I’ll tell you, I think Senator Creighton has done a fi ne job
of representing our state. He’s brought a lot of federal money here, and
he’s on the right side of most of the social issues we care about here.
second idahoan: Aw, come on, man. They caught the guy trying to pick
up another man in an airport restroom. Throw him out on the street
where he belongs!
16. Frankly, I think the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, and the Wildlife Fund
will put my money to better use than my niece Alison and her husband
would. They’ve wasted most of the money I’ve given them. So I think I’m
going to leave a substantial portion of my estate to those organizations
instead of leaving it all to my spendthrift relatives.
17. “The president’s prosecution of the War on Terror is being handled
exactly right. He wasn’t elected to do nothing!”
18. Student to teacher: “I’ve had to miss several classes and some quizzes
because of some personal matters back home. I know you have a no-
make-up policy, but there was really no way I could avoid having to be
out of town; it really was not my fault.”
19. bud: So, here’s the deal. I’ll arrange to have your car “stolen,” and we’ll
split the proceeds from selling it to a disposer. Then you fi le a claim with
your insurance company and collect from it.
lou: Gee, this sounds seriously illegal and dangerous.
bud: Illegal, yeah, but do you think this is the fi rst time an insurance
company ever had this happen? Why, they actually expect it—they even
budget money for exactly this sort of thing.
20. Kibitzer, discussing the job Lamar Alexander did as secretary of education:
“It was absolutely clear to me that Alexander was not going to do any
good for American education. He was way too involved in money-making
schemes to give any attention to the job we were paying him for. Do you
know that back before he was appointed, he and his wife invested fi ve
thousand dollars in some stock deal, and four years later that stock was
worth over eight hundred thousand dollars? Tell me there’s nothing fi shy
about a deal like that!”
21. My opponent, the evolutionist, offers you a different history and a dif-
ferent self-image from the one I suggest. While I believe that you and I
are made in the image of God and are only one step out of the Garden of
Eden, he believes that you are made in the image of a monkey and are
only one step out of the zoo.
22. Recently, two Colorado lawmakers got into a shouting match when one
of them marched into a news conference the other was holding in opposi-
tion to same-sex marriage. Rep. Jim Welker had called the news confer-
ence to solicit support for a constitutional amendment to bar gays and
lesbians from marrying. Rep. Angie Paccione objected, saying, “We have
over 700,000 Coloradans without health care; how could we possibly say
gay marriage is more important than health care?”
Welker then responded, “Gay marriage will open a Pandora’s box.
Where do you draw the line? A year and a half ago a lady in India married
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 208 12/9/10 1:34 PM
EXERCISES 209
her dog!” Welker was referring to the marriage of a 9-year-old girl to a
stray dog as part of a ritual to ward off an evil spell.
“Oh, for heaven’s sake,” Paccione said. “Come on, Jim.”
“That is true. That’s a fact,” Welker said.
Paccione replied, “It’s not the same to have somebody marry a dog as
it is to have two loving people get married. Come on.”
23. What makes you think I should put a note on this guy’s car? Do you
think for a minute he’d have left a note on mine if he’d put a dent in it?
Writing Exercises
1. Find an example of a fallacy in a newspaper editorial or opinion magazine
(substitute an example from an advertisement or a letter to the editor
only as a last resort and only if your instructor permits it). Identify the
issue and what side of the issue the writer supports. Explain why the pas-
sage you’ve chosen does not really support that position—that is, why it
involves a fallacy. If the writer’s claims do support some other position
(possibly on a different, related issue), describe what position they do
support.
2. In 1998, the police in Harris County, Texas, responded to a false report
about an armed man who was going crazy. They did not fi nd such an indi-
vidual; but when they entered the home of John Geddes Lawrence, they
found him and another man, Tyron Garner, having sex. Both men were
arrested and found guilty of violating a Texas law that criminalizes homo-
sexual sex acts. The men challenged their conviction, and the case went
to the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2003. A district attorney from the
county argued, “Texas has the right to set moral standards of its people.”
Do you agree or disagree with the district attorney’s statement?
Defend your answer in a one-page essay written in class. Your instructor
will have other members of the class read your essay to see if they can
fi nd your basic argument in the midst of any rhetoric you may have used.
They also will note any fallacies that you may have employed.
3. Should there be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting
desecration of the U.S. fl ag? In a one-page essay, defend a “yes” or “no”
answer to the question. Your instructor will have other members of the
class read your essay, following the instructions in Writing Exercise 2.
4. Listen to a talk radio program and make a note of any fallacies discussed
in this chapter that you notice. Try to write down the exact words
used in the program as well as the name of the fallacy you think was
employed.
moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 209 12/9/10 1:34 PM
W hat is the most common (and most seductive) error in reasoning on the planet? You are about to fi nd out. In this chapter, we examine the infamous argu-
mentum ad hominem, as well as other common fallacies.
To remind you of the overall picture, in Chapter 5 we
explored ways the rhetorical content of words and phrases
can be used to affect belief and attitude. In Chapter 6, we
considered emotional appeals and related fallacies. The
fallacies we turn to now, like the devices in the preceding
chapters, can tempt us to believe something without giving
us a legitimate reason for doing so.
THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY
The ad hominem fallacy ( argumentum ad hominem ) is the
most common of all mistakes in reasoning. The fallacy rests
on a confusion between the qualities of the person making
a claim and the qualities of the claim itself. (“Claim” is to
be understood broadly here, as including beliefs, opinions,
positions, arguments, proposals and so forth.)
Parker is an ingenious fellow. It follows that Parker’s
opinion on some subject, whatever it is, is the opinion of
an ingenious person. But it does not follow that Parker’s
opinion itself is ingenious. To think that it is would be to
Students will learn to . . .
1. Recognize several types of fallacies
that confuse the qualities of a
person making a claim with the
qualities of the claim
2. Recognize the fallacy involved in
thinking that a claim is refuted
because of its origin
3. Recognize fallacies that misrepre-
sent an opponent’s position
4. Recognize fallacies that errone-
ously limit considerations to only
two options
5. Recognize fallacious claims that
one action or event will inevitabil-
ity lead to another
6. Recognize arguments that place the
burden of proof on the wrong party
7. Recognize the problem in argu-
ments that rely on a claim that is
itself at issue
7 More Fallacies
210
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 210 12/9/10 2:59 PM
THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY 211
confuse the content of Parker’s claim with Parker himself. Or let’s suppose
you are listening to somebody, your teacher perhaps, whom you regard as a bit
strange or maybe even weird. Would it follow that the car your teacher drives
is strange or weird? Obviously not. Likewise, it would not follow that some
specifi c proposal that the teacher has put forth is strange or weird. A proposal
made by an oddball is an oddball’s proposal, but it does not follow that it is an
oddball proposal. We must not confuse the qualities of the person making a
claim with the qualities of the claim itself.
We commit the ad hominem fallacy when we think that considerations
about a person “refute” his or her assertions. Ad hominem is Latin for “to the
man,” indicating that it is not really the subject matter that’s being addressed,
but the person. The most common varieties of the ad hominem fallacy are as
follows.
The Personal Attack Ad Hominem
“Johnson has such-and-such a negative feature; therefore, his claim (belief,
opinion, theory, proposal, etc.) stands refuted.” This is the formula for the
personal attack ad hominem fallacy. The name “personal attack” is self-
explanatory, because attributing a negative feature to Johnson is attacking him
personally.
Now, there are many negative features that we might attribute to a per-
son: Perhaps Johnson is said to be ignorant or stupid. Maybe he is charged with
being self-serving or feathering his own nest. Perhaps he is accused of being a
racist or a sexist or a fascist or a cheat or of being cruel or uncaring or soft on
communism or taking pleasure in strangling songbirds. The point to remem-
ber is that shortcomings in a person are not equivalent to shortcomings in
that person’s ideas, proposals, theories, opinions, claims, or arguments. This
is not inconsistent with what was said about credibility. Indeed, facts about
the source of a claim can correctly make us skeptical about the claim. But we
should not ordinarily conclude that it is false on this account.
Now, it is true that there are exceptional circumstances we can imagine
in which some feature of a person might logically imply that what that person
says is false; but these circumstances tend to be far-fetched. “Johnson’s claim
is false because he has been paid to lie about the matter” might qualify as
an example. “Johnson’s claim is false because he has been given a drug that
makes him say only false things” would qualify, too. But such situations are
rare. True, when we have doubts about the credibility of a source, we must be
careful before we accept a claim from that source. But the doubts are rarely
sufficient grounds for outright rejection of the claim. No matter what claim
Johnson might make and no matter what his faults might be, we are rarely jus-
tifi ed in rejecting the claim as false simply because he has those faults.
The Inconsistency Ad Hominem
“Moore’s claim is inconsistent with something else Moore has said or done;
therefore, his claim (belief, opinion, theory, proposal, etc.) stands refuted.”
This is the formula for the inconsistency ad hominem, and you encounter
versions of this fallacy all the time. An example: In 2008 Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama were both vying for the Democratic nomination for the presi-
dency. After Obama was quoted as saying he had “no intention of taking away
They believe the Boy Scouts’
position on homosexuality was
objectionable, but they gave
no heed to people’s objections
about using state money to
fund displays about sodomy in
the people’s Capitol.
—California assemblyman BILL
LEONARD (R-San Bernardino),
criticizing the legislature for
funding a gay pride display in
the state’s Capitol
Man! As if sodomy in the
people’s Capitol isn’t bad
enough, they have to go and
fund displays about it!
Leonard’s remark is an
example of an inconsistency
ad hominem. (It also contains
a wild syntactical ambiguity,
as noted above.)
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 211 12/9/10 2:59 PM
212 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
folks’ guns,” the Clinton campaign pointed out that on a 1996 questionnaire
Obama had said he “supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession
of handguns,” and that this showed that his new claim about not intending to
“take away folks’ guns” was not really true. Again, the fact that one opinion
was expressed in 1996 and a different one in 2008 is not grounds for rejecting
the latter as false. Although accusations of doing a “fl ip-fl op” are standard in
political campaigns, it’s important to look beneath the surface to see how dif-
ferent the two positions really are and whether there might be a good reason
for changing one’s mind. The fact that people change their minds has no bear-
ing on the truth of what they say either before or after.
In Depth
Ad Hominem
The idea behind the ad hominem fallacy is to point to the person making a claim and accuse
him or her of some flaw, evil deed, or other negative feature. By indicting the person behind the
claim, the accuser hopes to refute the claim. But while some fact about the author of a claim
may affect his or her credibility, it cannot by itself demonstrate that the claim is false.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 212 12/9/10 2:59 PM
THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY 213
Sometimes a person’s claim seems inconsistent, not with previous state-
ments but with that person’s behavior. For example, Johnson might tell us
to be more generous, when we know Johnson himself is as stingy as can be.
Well, Johnson may well be a hypocrite, but we would be guilty of the incon-
sistency ad hominem fallacy if we regarded Johnson’s stinginess or hypocrisy
as grounds for rejecting what he says. This type of reasoning, where we reject
what somebody says because what he or she says seems inconsistent with
what he or she does, even has a Latin name: tu quoque, meaning “you, too.”
This version of the inconsistency ad hominem often boils down to nothing
more than saying “You, too” or “You do it, too!” If a smoker urges another
smoker to give up the habit, the second smoker commits the inconsistency ad
hominem if she says, “Well, you do it, too!”
The Circumstantial Ad Hominem
“Parker’s circumstances are such and such; therefore, his claim (belief, opin-
ion, theory, proposal, etc.) stands refuted.” This is the formula for the circum-
stantial ad hominem. An example would be “Well, you can forget about what
Father Hennesy says about the dangers of abortion, because Father Hennesy’s a
priest, and priests are required to hold such views.” The speaker in this exam-
ple is citing Father Hennesy’s circumstances (being a priest) to “refute” Father
Hennesy’s opinion. This example isn’t a personal attack ad hominem because
the speaker may think very highly of priests in general and of Father Hennesy
in particular. Clearly, though, a person could intend to issue a personal attack
by mentioning circumstances that (in the opinion of the speaker) constituted
a defect on the part of the person attacked. For example, consider “You can
forget about what Father Hennesy says about the dangers of abortion because
he is a priest and priests all have sexual hang-ups.” That would qualify as both
a circumstantial ad hominem (he’s a priest) and a personal attack ad hominem
(priests have sexual hang-ups).
Poisoning the Well
Poisoning the well can be thought of as an ad hominem in advance. If someone
dumps poison down your well, you don’t drink from it. Similarly, when A poi-
sons your mind about B by relating unfavorable information about B, you may
be inclined to reject what B says to you.
Well-poisoning is easier to arrange than you might think. You might sup-
pose that to poison someone’s thinking about Mrs. Jones, you would have to
say or at least insinuate something deprecatory or derogatory about her. In fact,
recent psycholinguistic research suggests you can poison someone’s thinking
about Mrs. Jones by doing just the opposite! If we don’t know Mrs. Jones, even
a sentence that expresses an outright denial of a connection between her and
something unsavory is apt to make us form an unfavorable impression of her.
Psychological studies indicate that people are more apt to form an unfavorable
impression of Mrs. Jones from a sentence like “Mrs. Jones is not an ax mur-
derer” than from a sentence like “Mrs. Jones has a sister.”
Moral: Because it might be easy for others to arrange for us to have a
negative impression of someone, we must be extra careful not to reject what a
person says just because we have an unfavorable impression of the individual.
I get calls from nutso environ-
mentalists who are filled with
compassion for every snail
darter that is threatened by
some dam somewhere. Yet,
they have no interest in the
1.5 million fetuses that are
aborted every year in the
United States. I love to argue
with them and challenge their
double standard.
—RUSH LIMBAUGH
Often an inconsistency
ad hominem will accuse
someone of having a double
standard. Notice how this
example is combined with
ridicule (See Chapter 5).
Hey, maybe you have no better
sense, but I personally would
not accept anything as news
coming from that fat drug-
addicted loudmouth.
-—Comment on a media blog
An ad hominem used against
Limbaugh.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 213 12/9/10 2:59 PM
214 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
“Positive Ad Hominem Fallacies”
An ad hominem fallacy, then, is committed if we rebut a person on the basis
of considerations that, logically, apply to the person rather than to his or her
claims. Strictly speaking, if we automatically transfer the positive or favorable
attributes of a person to what he or she says, that’s a mistake in reasoning, as
well. The fact that you think Moore is clever does not logically entitle you to
conclude that any specifi c opinion of Moore’s is clever. The fact that, in your
view, the NRA represents all that is good and proper does not enable you to
infer that any specifi c proposal from the NRA is good and proper. Logicians did
not always limit the ad hominem fallacy to cases of rebuttal, but that seems
to be the usage now, and we shall follow that policy in this book. You should
just remember that a parallel mistake in reasoning happens if you confuse the
favorable qualities of a person with the qualities of his or her assertion.
THE GENETIC FALLACY
The genetic fallacy occurs when we try to “refute” a claim (or urge others to
do so) on the basis of its origin or its history. If this sounds like what we’ve
been talking about in the ad hominem section, it’s no surprise. The genetic fal-
lacy is often considered to be a blanket category for all fallacies that mistake
an attack on a source for an attack on the claim in question. Taken this way,
all versions of ad hominem, poisoning the well, and so forth, are also examples
of the genetic fallacy.
In our treatment, we reserve the use of the term “genetic fallacy” for
cases where it isn’t a person that is disparaged as the source of a claim but
some other kind of entity—a club, a political party, an industrial group, or
even an entire epoch. An example of the latter would be attempting to refute
a belief in God because that belief fi rst rose in superstitious times when we
had few natural explanations for events like storms, earthquakes, and so on.
We have heard people declare the U.S. Constitution “invalid” because it was
(allegedly) drafted to protect the interests of property owners. This is another
example of the genetic fallacy.
If we “refute” a proposal (or urge someone else to reject it) on the grounds
that it was part of the Republican (or Democratic) party platform, we commit
the genetic fallacy. If we “refute” a policy (or try to get others to reject it) on
the grounds that a slave-holding state in the nineteenth century originated the
policy, that qualifi es. If we “rebut” (or urge others to reject) a ballot initiative
on the grounds that the insurance industry or the association of trial law-
yers or the American Civil Liberties Union or “Big Tobacco” or “Big Oil”
or multinational corporations or the National Education Association or the
National Rifl e Association or the National Organization for Women proposed
it or back it, we commit the fallacy. Knowing that the NRA or the NEA or
NOW proposed or backs or endorses a piece of legislation may give one reason
(depending on one’s politics) to be suspicious of it or to have a careful look at
it; but a perceived lack of merit on the part of the organization that proposed
or backs or endorses a proposal is not equivalent to a lack of merit in the pro-
posal itself. Knowing the NRA is behind a particular ballot initiative is not
the same as knowing about a specifi c defect in the initiative itself, even if you
detest the NRA.
Whom are they kidding? Where
are NOW’s constitutional objec-
tions to the billions of dollars
(including about $1 million
to NOW itself) that women’s
groups receive under the Vio-
lence Against Women Act?
—ARMIN BROTT, issuing an ad
hominem response to opposi-
tion by the National Organiza-
tion for Women to a proposal
to provide poor fathers with
parenting and marital-skills
training and classes on money
management
Gender – based inconsistency
ad hominem
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 214 12/9/10 2:59 PM
THE GENETIC FALLACY 215
Classify each of the following cases of ad hominem as personal attack ad homi-
nem, circumstantial ad hominem, inconsistency ad hominem, poisoning the
well, or genetic fallacy. Identify the cases, if any, in which it might be difficult
or futile to assign the item to any single one of these categories, as well as those
cases, if any, where the item doesn’t fi t comfortably into any of these categories
at all.
1. The proponents of this spend-now–pay-later boondoggle would like you
to believe that this measure will cost you only one billion dollars. That’s
NOT TRUE. In the last general election, some of these very same people
argued against unneeded rail projects because they would cost taxpayers
millions more in interest payments. Now they have changed their minds
and are willing to encourage irresponsible borrowing. Connecticut is
already awash in red ink. Vote NO.
2. Rush Limbaugh argues that the establishment clause of the First Amend-
ment should not be stretched beyond its intended dimensions by pre-
cluding voluntary prayer in public schools. This is a peculiar argument,
when you consider that Limbaugh is quite willing to stretch the Second
Amendment to include the right to own assault rifl es and Saturday night
specials.
3. I think you can safely assume that Justice Scalia’s opinions on the cases
before the Supreme Court this term will be every bit as fl aky as his past
opinions.
4. Harvard now takes the position that its investment in urban redevel-
opment projects will be limited to projects that are environmentally
friendly. Before you conclude that that is such a swell idea, stop and
think. For a long time, Harvard was one of the biggest slumlords in the
country.
5. Capital punishment was invented during barbaric times. No civilized
society ought to tolerate it.
6. Dear Editor—
I read with amusement the letter by Leslie Burr titled “It’s time to get
tough.” Did anyone else notice a little problem in her views? It seems a
little odd that somebody who claims that she “loathes violence” could
also say that “criminals should pay with their life.” I guess consistency
isn’t Ms. Burr’s greatest concern.
7. you: Look at this. It says here that white males still earn a lot more than
minorities and women for doing the same job.
your friend: Yeah, right. Written by some woman, no doubt.
8. “Steve Thompson of the California Medical Association said document-
checking might even take place in emergency rooms. That’s because,
while undocumented immigrants would be given emergency care, not all
cases that come into emergency rooms fall under the federal defi nition of
an emergency.
“To all those arguments initiative proponents say hogwash.
They say the education and health groups opposing the initiative are
Exercise 7-1
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 215 12/9/10 2:59 PM
216 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
interested in protecting funding they receive for providing services to the
undocumented.”
—Article in Sacramento Bee
9. Ugh. Fred Smith. FedEx Founder and CEO. Presented as an “American
Leader.” Hard for me to get past what an ineffective father he is. [Smith is
the father of Richard Wallace Smith, who pled guilty to assault and bat-
tery charges after he and two accomplices beat up a freshman student on
the University of Virginia campus.]
— Jason Linkins, The Huffington Post, December 2, 2007
10. Are Moore and Parker guilty of the ad hominem fallacy or poisoning the
well in their discussion of Rush Limbaugh on page 180?
11. “Creationism cannot possibly be true. People who believe in a literal
interpretation of the Bible just never outgrew the need to believe in Santa
Claus.”
—Melinda Zerkle
12. “Americans spend between $28 billion and $61 billion a year in medical
costs for treatment of hypertension, heart disease, cancer and other ill-
nesses attributed to consumption of meat, says a report out today from a
pro-vegetarian doctor’s group.
“Dr. Neal D. Barnard, lead author of the report in the Journal of Pre-
ventive Medicine, and colleagues looked at studies comparing the health
of vegetarians and meat eaters, then fi gured the cost of treating illnesses
suffered by meat eaters in excess of those suffered by vegetarians. Only
studies that controlled for the health effects of smoking, exercise and alco-
hol consumption were considered.
“The American Medical Association, in a statement from Dr. M. Roy
Schwarz, charged that Barnard’s group is an ‘animal rights front organiza-
tion’ whose agenda ‘defi nitely taints whatever unsubstantiated fi ndings it
may claim.’ ”
—USA Today
STRAW MAN
A man made of straw is easier to knock over than a real one. And that’s the
reason this fallacy has its name. We get a straw man fallacy when a speaker or
writer distorts, exaggerates, or otherwise misrepresents an opponent’s position.
In such a case, the position attributed to the opponent isn’t a real one; it’s a
position made of straw and thus more easily criticized and rejected. Here’s a
simple example: Imagine that our editor’s wife says to him, “Mark, it’s time
you got busy and cleaned out the garage.” He protests, “What? Again? Do I
have to clean out the garage every blasted day?” In saying this, he is attribut-
ing to his wife a much less defensible position than her real one, since nobody
would agree that he should have to clean out the garage every day.
Here’s a real-life example from a newspaper column by George Will:
[Senator Lindsey] Graham believes that some borrowing is appro-
priate to make stakeholders of future generations, which will be the
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 216 12/9/10 2:59 PM
STRAW MAN 217
biggest benefi ciaries of personal accounts. But substantially reducing
the borrowing would deny Democrats the ability to disguise as fi s-
cal responsibility their opposition to personal accounts, which really
is rooted in reluctance to enable people to become less dependent on
government.
It’s the fi nal portion, which we’ve put in italics, that’s the straw man, and a won-
derful example it is. Will describes the Democrats’ position as being reluctant
to enable people to become less dependent on government. We’re pretty sure
you could question every Democrat in Washington, D.C., and maybe every
Democrat in the United States, and you could not fi nd even one who is reluc-
tant “to enable people to become less dependent on government.” To be in
favor of government programs to help people who need them is a far cry from
being in favor of keeping people on those programs as long as possible.
A second point regarding this example, and one that is often a part of a
straw man fallacy, is that the writer is presuming to read the minds of an entire
group of people—how could he possibly know the “real” reason Democrats
In the Media
Sieg Heil? . . . or Shut Up?
In November 2006, Andrés Manuel López Obrador was a candidate for the presidency of
Mexico after a bitterly contested national election. He is shown here before a speech in Mexico
City. It certainly appears that López Obrador is giving a facist salute in this photo (it may be
that his party makes use of such a gesture; we are not sufficiently informed to say), but we’ve
also been told that he was just trying to quiet the crowd at the moment the shot was taken. In
any case, it’s another example of a photo that can be used to mislead, whichever interpretation
you choose.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 217 12/9/10 2:59 PM
218 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
oppose personal accounts if they’re claiming something entirely different?
(This is sometimes called “reliance on an unknown fact.”)
The straw man fallacy is so common that it ranks next to the top on our
list of the top ten fallacies of all time (see inside front cover). One person will
say he wants to eliminate the words “under God” from the Pledge of Alle-
giance, and his opponent will act as if he wants to eliminate the entire pledge.
A conservative will oppose tightening emission standards for sulfur dioxide,
and a liberal will accuse him of wanting to relax the standards. A Democratic
congresswoman will say she opposes cutting taxes, and her Republican oppo-
nent will accuse her of wanting to raise taxes.
The ad hominem fallacy attempts to “refute” a claim on the basis of con-
siderations that logically apply to its source. The straw man fallacy attempts to
“refute” a claim by altering it so that it seems patently false or even ridiculous.
FALSE DILEMMA
Suppose our editor’s wife, in the example earlier, says to him, “Look, Mark,
either we clean out the garage, or all this junk will run us out of house and
home. Would you prefer that?” Now she is offering him a “choice”: either clean
out the garage or let the junk run them out of house and home. But the choice
she offers is limited to just two alternatives, and there are alternatives that
deserve consideration, such as doing it later or not acquiring additional junk.
The false dilemma fallacy occurs when you limit considerations to only
two alternatives although other alternatives may be available. Like the straw
man fallacy, it is encountered all the time. You say you don’t want to drill for
oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve? Would you prefer letting the Ira-
nians dictate the price of oil?
Or take a look at this example:
congressman Guess we’re going to have to cut back expenditures
claghorn: on social programs again this year.
you: Why’s that?
claghorn: Well, we either do that or live with this high
defi cit, and that’s something we can’t allow.
I’m a very controversial figure
to the animal rights move-
ment. They no doubt view me
with some measure of hostility
because I am constantly chal-
lenging their fundamental
premise that animals are supe-
rior to human beings.
—RUSH LIMBAUGH, setting up a
straw man for the kill
In the Media
Straw Man in the Elder Competition
In 2005, the political group USA NEXT ran an ad attacking the AARP, a nationwide organiza-
tion of retired persons. The ad made it appear that the AARP stood for gay marriage when in
fact the organization had never taken a stand on the subject. Charlie Jarvis, chairman of USA
Next, defended the ad by saying that an AARP affiliate in Ohio had come out against a same-
sex marriage ban in that state. To claim that this is the same as saying the AARP endorses gay
marriage is a good example of a straw man fallacy.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 218 12/9/10 2:59 PM
FALSE DILEMMA 219
Here, Claghorn maintains that either we live with the high defi cit, or we cut
social programs, and that therefore, because we can’t live with the high defi –
cit, we have to cut social programs. But this reasoning works only if cutting
social programs is the only alternative to a high defi cit. Of course, that is not
the case (taxes might be raised or military spending cut, for example). Another
example:
daniel: Theresa and I both endorse this idea of allowing
prayer in public schools, don’t we, Theresa?
theresa: I never said any such thing!
daniel: Hey, I didn’t know you were an atheist!
Here, Daniel’s “argument” amounts to this: Either you endorse prayer in pub-
lic schools, or you are an atheist; therefore, because you do not endorse school
prayer, you must be an atheist. But a person does not have to be an atheist
in order to feel unfavorable toward prayer in public schools. The alternatives
Daniel presents, in other words, could both be false. Theresa might not be an
atheist and still might not endorse school prayer.
The example Daniel provides shows how this type of fallacy and the pre-
ceding one can work together: A straw man is often used as part of a false
dilemma. A person who wants us to accept X may not only ignore other alter-
natives besides Y but also exaggerate or distort Y. In other words, this person
leaves only one “reasonable” alternative because the only other one provided is
really a straw man. You can also think of a false dilemma as a false dichotomy.
Here’s an example of a false dilemma by President Obama from an inter-
view on March 17, 2010, with Bret Baier of Fox News:
obama: “What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken
in the House will be a vote for health care reform.
And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes,
that is going to be a vote for health care reform.”
[Baier breaks in for a moment.]
obama: Bret, let me fi nish. If they don’t, if they vote
against, then they’re going to be voting against
health care reform and they’re going to be voting
in favor of the status quo.
Reduced to bare bones, Obama is saying that either the House will vote
for the health care bill before it or they’ll be voting for the status quo. In fact,
many members of the House were unsatisfi ed with the status quo but did not
like the bill in question either; those members would rather have been voting
against the status quo but for a different health care bill.
One might defend the president’s remark by saying that, in fact, no other
health care bill was going to be available to vote on; therefore, members of the
House really had only two alternatives: this health care bill or no health care
bill. However, without this being made clear, the remark is a false dilemma as
it stands.
It might help in understanding false dilemmas to look quickly at a real
dilemma. Consider: You know that the Smiths must heat their house in the
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 219 12/9/10 2:59 PM
220 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
winter. You also know that the only heating options available in their loca-
tion are gas and electricity. Under these circumstances, if you fi nd out that
they do not have electric heat, it must indeed be true that they must use gas
heat because that’s the only alternative remaining. False dilemma occurs only
when reasonable alternatives are ignored. In such cases, both X and Y may be
false, and some other alternative may be true.
Therefore, before you accept X because some alternative, Y, is false, make
certain that X and Y cannot both be false. Look especially for some third alter-
native, some way of rejecting Y without having to accept X. Example:
moore: Look, Parker, you’ve been worrying about whether
you could afford that bigger house on the corner
for over a year. You need to grit your teeth and
buy it or just get used to staying where you are
and doing without the extra space.
Parker could reject both of Moore’s alternatives (buying the house on the
corner or staying where he is) because of some obvious but unmentioned alter-
natives. Parker might fi nd another house to buy, bigger than his present one
but less expensive than the one on the corner; or he might remodel his current
house, making it bigger at less expense than buying the corner house.
Before moving on, we should point out that there is more than one
way to present a pair of alternatives. Aside from the obvious “either X or
Y” version we’ve described so far, we can use the form “if not X, then Y.”
Real Life
Which Is It Going to Be, Springfield?
This was the message on a flyer urging a “no” vote on a proposed zoning law change in a west-
ern city. Since the photos depict only two (fairly extreme) alternatives, and given that there are
surely many other reasonable ones, the flyer presents an excellent example of a false dilemma.
This or THIS!
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 220 12/9/10 2:59 PM
FALSE DILEMMA 221
For instance, in the example at the beginning of the section, Congressman
Claghorn can say, “Either we cut back on expenditures, or we’ll have a big
defi cit,” but he can accomplish the same thing by saying, “If we don’t cut
back on expenditures, then we’ll have a big defi cit.” These two ways of stat-
ing the dilemma are equivalent. Claghorn gets the same result: After denying
that we can tolerate the high defi cit, he concludes that we’ll have to cut back
expenditures. Again, it’s the artifi cial narrowness of the alternatives—the fal-
sity of the claim that says “if not one, then surely the other”—that makes
this a fallacy.
The Perfectionist Fallacy
A particular subspecies of false dilemma and common rhetorical ploy is some-
thing we call the perfectionist fallacy. It comes up when a plan or policy is
under consideration, and it goes like this:
If policy X will not meet our goals as well as we’d like them met
(i.e., “perfectly”), then policy X should be rejected.
This principle downgrades policy X simply because it isn’t perfection. It’s a
version of false dilemma because it says, in effect, “Either the policy is perfect,
or else we must reject it.”
An excellent example of the perfectionist fallacy comes from the Nat-
ional Football League’s experience with the instant replay rule, which allows
an off-fi eld official to review video recordings of a play to determine whether
the on-fi eld official’s ruling was correct. To help the replay official, recordings
from several angles can be viewed, and the play runs in slow motion.
When it was fi rst proposed, the argument most frequently heard against
the replay policy went like this: “It’s a mistake to use replays to make calls
because no matter how many cameras you have following the action on the
fi eld, you’re still going to miss some calls. There’s no way to see everything
that’s going on.”
According to this type of reasoning, we should not have police unless
they can prevent every crime or apprehend every criminal. You can probably
think of other examples that show perfectionist reasoning to be very unreli-
able indeed.
The Line-Drawing Fallacy
Another version of the false dilemma is called the line-drawing fallacy. An
example comes from the much-publicized Rodney King case, in which four
Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of charges of using excessive force
when they beat King during his arrest. After the trial, one of the jurors indi-
cated that an argument like the following fi nally convinced her and at least
one other juror to vote “not guilty”:
Everybody agrees that the fi rst time one of the officers struck King with
a nightstick it did not constitute excessive force. Therefore, if we are to
conclude that excessive force was indeed used, then sometime during
the course of the beating (during which King was hit about fi fty times)
there must have been a moment—a particular blow—at which the force
became excessive. Since there is no point at which we can determine
that the use of force changed from warranted to excessive, we are forced
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 221 12/9/10 2:59 PM
222 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
to conclude that it did not become excessive at any time during the
beating; and so the officers did not use excessive force.
These jurors accepted the line-drawing fallacy, the fallacy of insisting that a
line must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that
such a precise line be drawn.
To see how this works, consider another example: Clearly, it is impos-
sible for a person who is not rich to become rich by our giving her one dollar.
But, equally clearly, if we give our lucky person fi fty million dollars, one at a
time (very quickly, obviously—maybe we have a machine to deal them out),
she will be rich. According to the line-drawing argument, however, if we can-
not point to the precise dollar that makes her rich, then she can never get rich,
no matter how much money she is given.
The problem, of course, is that the concepts referred to by “rich” and
“excessive force” (and many others) are vague concepts. (Remember our dis-
cussion in Chapter 3.) We can fi nd cases where the concepts clearly apply and
cases where they clearly do not apply. But it is not at all clear exactly where
the borderlines are.
Many logicians interpret line drawing as a variety of slippery slope (dis-
cussed next). The King case might be seen this way: If the fi rst blow struck
against King did not amount to excessive violence, then there’s nothing in the
series of blows to change that fact. So there’s no excessive violence at the end
of the series, either.
Our own preference is to see the line-drawing fallacy as a version of false
dilemma. It presents the following alternatives: Either there is a precise place
where we draw the line, or else there is no line to be drawn (no difference)
between one end of the scale and the other. Either there is a certain blow at
which the force used against King became excessive, or else the force never
became excessive.
Again, remember that our categories of fallacy sometimes overlap. When
that happens, it doesn’t matter as much which way we classify a case as that
we see that an error is being made.
SLIPPERY SLOPE
We’ve all heard people make claims of this sort: “If we let X happen, the fi rst
thing you know, Y will be happening.” This is one form of the slippery slope.
Such claims are fallacious when in fact there is no reason to think that X will
lead to Y. Sometimes X and Y can be the same kind of thing or can bear some
kind of similarity to one another, but that doesn’t mean that one will inevita-
bly lead to the other.
Opponents of handgun control sometimes use a slippery slope argument,
saying that if laws to register handguns are passed, this will eventually lead
to making ownership of any kind of gun illegal. This is fallacious if there is
no reason to think that the fi rst kind of law will lead eventually to the second
kind. It’s up to the person who offers the slippery slope claim to show why the
fi rst action will lead to the second.
It is also argued that one should not experiment with certain drugs
because experimentation is apt to lead to serious addiction or dependence. In
the case of drugs that are known to be addictive, there is no fallacy present—
the likelihood of the progression is clear.
[People] who are voyeurs, if
they are not irredeemably sick,
. . . feel ashamed at what they
are witnessing.
—IRVING KRISTOL, “Pornography,
Obscenity, and the Case for
Censorship”
False dilemma
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 222 12/9/10 2:59 PM
MISPLACING THE BURDEN OF PROOF 223
The other version of slippery slope occurs when someone claims we must
continue a certain course of action simply because we have already begun that
course. It was said during the Vietnam War that, because the United States had
already sent troops to Vietnam, it was necessary to send more troops to sup-
port the fi rst ones. Unless there is some reason supplied to show that the fi rst
step must lead to the others, this is a fallacy. (Notice that it’s easy to make a
false dilemma out of this case as well; do you see how to do it?) Although there
are other factors that make the Iraq War somewhat different, many believe the
fallacy applies there as well.
Sometimes we take the fi rst step in a series, and then we realize that it
was a mistake. To insist on taking the remainder when we could admit our
mistake and retreat is to fall prey to the slippery slope fallacy. This is illus-
trated by the example from Senator Murkowski in the box above. (If you’re the
sort who insists on following one bad move with another one, we’d like to tell
you about our friendly Thursday night poker game.)
The slippery slope fallacy has considerable force because psychologically
one item does often lead to another, even though logically it does no such
thing. When we think of X, say, we may be led immediately to think of Y. But
this certainly does not mean that X itself is necessarily followed by Y. Once
again, to think that Y has to follow X is to engage in slippery slope thinking; to
do so when there is no particular reason to think Y must follow X is to commit
a slippery slope fallacy.
We should note in conclusion that the slope is sometimes a longer one: If
we do X, it will lead to Y, and Y will lead to Z, and Z will lead to . . . eventually
to some disaster. To avoid the fallacy, it must be shown that each step is likely
to follow from the preceding step.
MISPLACING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Moore asks Parker, “Say, did you know that, if you rub red wine on your head,
your gray hair will turn dark again?”
Parker, of course, will say, “Baloney.”
Let’s suppose Moore then says, “Baloney? Hey, how do you know it won’t
work?”
Real Life
$8 Billion Down the Tube!
Eight billion dollars in utility ratepayers’ money and 20 years of effort will be squandered
if this resolution is defeated.
—SENATOR FRANK MURKOWSKI, R-Alaska, using a slippery slope fallacy
to argue for going forward with government plans to bury
radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada
The fact that we’ve spent money on it already doesn’t make it a good idea.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 223 12/9/10 2:59 PM
224 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
Moore’s question is odd, because the burden of proof rests on him, not
on Parker. Moore has misplaced the burden of proof on Parker, and this is a
mistake, a fallacy.
Misplacing the burden of proof occurs when the burden of proof is placed
on the wrong side of an issue. This is a common rhetorical technique, and
sometimes you have to be on your toes to spot it. People are frequently tricked
into thinking that they have to prove their opponent’s claim wrong, when
in fact the opponent should be proving that the claim is right. For example,
back in 2003 you often heard people trying their darnedest to prove that we
shouldn’t go to war with Iraq, in a context in which the burden of proof rests
on those who think we should go to war.
What reasonable grounds would make us place the burden of proof more on
one side of an issue than the other? There are a variety of such grounds, but they
fall mainly into three categories. We can express them as a set of general rules:
1. Initial plausibility. In Chapter 4, we said that the more a claim coin-
cides with our background information, the greater its initial plausibility. The
general rule that most often governs the placement of the burden of proof is
simply this: The less initial plausibility a claim has, the greater the burden
of proof we place on someone who asserts that claim. This is just good sense,
of course. We are quite naturally less skeptical about the claim that Charlie’s
now-famous eighty-seven-year-old grandmother drove a boat across Lake
Michigan than we are about the claim that she swam across Lake Michigan.
Unfortunately, this rule is a general rule, not a rule that can be applied pre-
cisely. We are unable to assess the specifi c degree of a claim’s plausibility and
then determine with precision just exactly how much evidence its advocates
In the Media
A Double Slippery Slope
Next time it will be easier. It always is. The tolerance of early-term abortion made it pos-
sible to tolerate partial-birth abortion, and to give advanced thinkers a hearing when they
advocate outright infanticide. Letting the courts decide such life-and-death issues made
it possible for us to let them decide others, made it seem somehow wrong for anyone to
stand in their way. Now they are helping to snuff out the minimally conscious. Who’s next?
—Editorial, National Review Online, March 31, 2005
There are actually two slippery slope arguments built into this passage. One says that one
type of abortion (early – term) led to another (partial-birth); the second says that letting the
courts decide some issues led to allowing them to decide more issues. Both cases are fallacious
because in neither is there any evidence advanced for the slipperiness of the slope. Was it
tolerance of early – term abortion that led to partial-birth abortion? In fact, the slope seems not
to have been slippery, since a ban on partial-birth abortion became federal law in 2003. And
many issues, including many life-and-death issues, are properly within the purview of the courts
from the outset; there is no reason to think that some became matters for the judiciary simply
because others were.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 224 12/9/10 2:59 PM
MISPLACING THE BURDEN OF PROOF 225
need to produce to make us willing to accept the claim. But, as a general rule,
the initial-plausibility rule can keep us from setting the requirements unrea-
sonably high for some claims and allowing others to slide by unchallenged
when they don’t deserve to.
2. Affirmative/negative. Other things being equal, the burden of proof
falls automatically on those supporting the affirmative side of an issue rather
than on those supporting the negative side. In other words, we generally want
to hear reasons why something is the case before we require reasons why it is
not the case. Consider this conversation:
moore: The car won’t start.
parker: Yeah, I know. It’s a problem with the ignition.
moore: What makes you think that?
parker: What makes you think it isn’t?
Parker’s last remark seems strange because we generally require the affirma-
tive side to assume the burden of proof; it is Parker’s job to give reasons for
thinking that the problem is in the ignition.
This rule applies to cases of existence versus nonexistence, too. Most
often, the burden of proof should fall on those who claim something exists
rather than on those who claim it doesn’t. There are people who believe in
ghosts, not because of any evidence that there are ghosts, but because nobody
has shown there are no such things. (When someone claims that we should
believe in such-and-such because nobody has proved that it isn’t so, we
have a version of burden of proof known as appeal to ignorance. ) This is a
burden-of-proof fallacy because it mistakenly places the requirement of prov-
ing their position on those who do not believe in ghosts. (Of course, the fi rst
rule applies here, too, because ghosts are not part of background knowledge
for most of us.)
■ Paleological misplacement of the burden of proof!
(© Dan Piraro. Reprinted with special permission of King Features Syndicate.)
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 225 12/9/10 2:59 PM
226 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
In Depth
Innocent Until Proved Guilty
We must point out that sometimes there are
specific reasons why the burden of proof is
placed entirely on one side. The obvious case
in point is in criminal court, where it is the
prosecution’s job to prove guilt. The defense is
not required to prove innocence; it must only
try to keep the prosecution from succeeding in
its attempt to prove guilt. We are, as we say,
“innocent until proved guilty.” As a matter of
fact, it’s possible that more trials might come
to a correct conclusion (i.e., the guilty get
convicted and the innocent acquitted) if the
burden of proof were equally shared between
prosecution and defense. But we have wisely
decided that if we are to make a mistake, we
would rather it be one of letting a guilty per-
son go free than one of convicting an innocent
person. Rather than being a fallacy, then, this
lopsided placement of the burden of proof is
how we guarantee a fundamental right: the
presumption of innocence.
In general, the affirmative side gets the burden of proof because it tends
to be much more difficult—or at least much more inconvenient—to prove the
negative side of an issue. Imagine a student who walks up to the ticket win-
dow at a football game and asks for a discounted student ticket. “Can you
prove you’re a student?” he is asked. “No,” the student replies, “Can you
prove I’m not?” Well, it may be possible to prove he’s not a student, but it’s no
easy chore, and it would be unreasonable to require it.
Incidentally, some people say it’s impossible to “prove a negative.” But
difficult is not the same as impossible. And some “negatives” are even easy to
prove. For example, “There are no elephants in this classroom.”
3. Special circumstances. Sometimes getting at the truth is not the only
thing we want to accomplish, and on such occasions we may purposely place
the burden of proof on a particular side. Courts of law provide us with the
most obvious example. (See the box “Innocent Until Proved Guilty.”) Specifi c
agreements can also move the burden of proof from where it would ordinarily
fall. A contract might specify, “It will be presumed that you receive the infor-
mation by the tenth of each month unless you show otherwise.” In such cases,
the rule governing the special circumstances should be clear and acceptable to
all parties involved.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 226 12/9/10 2:59 PM
BEGGING THE QUESTION 227
One important variety of special circumstances occurs when the stakes
are especially high. For example, if you’re thinking of investing your life sav-
ings in a company, you’ll want to put a heavy burden of proof on the person
who advocates making the investment. However, if the investment is small,
one you can afford to lose, you might be willing to lay out the money even
though it has not been thoroughly proved that the investment is safe. In short,
it is reasonable to place a higher burden of proof on someone who advocates a
policy that could be dangerous or costly if he or she is mistaken.
These three rules cover most of the ground in placing the burden of proof
properly. Be careful about situations where people put the burden of proof on
the side other than where our rules indicate it should fall. Take this example:
parker: I think we should invest more money in
expanding the interstate highway system.
moore: I think that would be a big mistake.
parker: How could anybody object to more highways?
With his last remark, Parker has attempted to put the burden of proof on Moore.
Such tactics can put one’s opponent in a defensive position; if he takes the
bait, Moore now has to show why we should not spend more on roads rather
than Parker having to show why we should spend more. This is an inappropri-
ate burden of proof.
You should always be suspicious when someone tells you that your
inability to disprove his claim shows that his claim is true. Take note of where
the burden of proof falls in such situations; your speaker may be trying to erro-
neously place that burden on you. We should also point out that if repeated
attempts to prove something end in failure, that may be a reason for doubting
it. Psychics’ repeated failure to prove that ESP exists is a reason to be skeptical
of ESP.
BEGGING THE QUESTION
Here’s a version of a simple example of begging the question, a fairly silly one
but one that makes the point clearly (we’ll return to it later):
Two gold miners roll a boulder away from its resting place and fi nd
three huge gold nuggets underneath. One says to the other, “Great!
In the Media
So Much for Presumed Innocence . . .
I would rather have an innocent man executed than a guilty murderer go free.
—Caller on Talk Back Live (CNN)
This not uncommon thought is a bizarre false dilemma, since if the innocent man is executed,
the guilty murderer does go free.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 227 12/9/10 2:59 PM
228 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
That’s one nugget for you and two for me,” handing one nugget to his
associate.
“Wait a minute!” says the second miner. “Why do you get two and I
get just one?”
“Because I’m the leader of this operation,” says the fi rst.
“What makes you the leader?” asks miner number two.
“I’ve got twice the gold you do,” answers miner number one.
This next example is as famous as the fi rst one was silly: Some people
say they can prove God exists. When asked how, they reply, “Well, the Scrip-
tures say very clearly that God must exist.” Then, when asked why we should
believe the Scriptures, they answer, “The Scriptures are divinely inspired by
God himself, so they must be true.”
The problem with such reasoning is that the claim at issue—whether
God exists—turns out to be one of the very assumptions the argument is based
on. If we can’t trust the Scriptures, then the argument isn’t any good, but the
reason given for trusting the Scriptures requires the existence of God, the very
thing we were questioning in the fi rst place! Examples like this are sometimes
called circular reasoning or arguing in a circle because they start from much
the same place as they end up.
Gay marriages should not be
legal because if there wasn’t
anything wrong with them they
would already be legal, which
they aren’t.
—From a student essay
If you examine this “reason-
ing” closely, it says that gay
marriages shouldn’t be legal
because they aren’t legal.
This is not quite “X is true
just because X is true,” but
it’s close. The issue is whether
the law should be changed.
So, giving the existence of
the law as a “reason” for its
not being changed can carry
no weight, logically.
Real Life
Getting Really Worked Up over Ideas
Not long ago, the editor of Freethought Today magazine won a court case upholding the con-
stitutional separation of church and state. Following are a few samples of the mail she received
as a result (there was much more), as they were printed in the magazine. We pre sent them to
remind you of how worked up people can get over ideas.
Satan worshipping scum . . .
If you don’t like this country and what it was founded on & for get the f— out of it and go
straight to hell.
F— you, you communist wh–.
If you think that mathematical precision that governs the universe was established by
random events then you truly are that class of IDIOT that cannot be aptly defined.
These remarks illustrate extreme versions of more than one rhetorical device mentioned in this
part of the book. They serve as a reminder that some people become defensive and emotional
when it comes to their religion. (As Richard Dawkins, professor of Public Understanding of Sci-
ence at Oxford University, was prompted to remark, “A philosophical opinion about the nature
of the universe, which is held by the great majority of America’s top scientists and probably the
elite intelligentsia generally, is so abhorrent to the American electorate that no candidate for
popular election dare affirm it in public.”)
Adapted from Free Inquiry, Summer 2002.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 228 12/9/10 2:59 PM
BEGGING THE QUESTION 229
Rhetorical defi nitions can beg questions. Consider an example from an
earlier chapter: If we defi ne abortion as “the murder of innocent children,”
then it’s obvious that abortion is morally wrong. But, of course, anyone who
doubts that abortion is morally wrong is certainly not going to accept this defi –
nition. That person will most likely refuse to recognize an embryo or early-
stage fetus as a “child” at all and will certainly not accept the word “murder”
in the defi nition.
And this brings us to the real problem in cases of question begging: a mis-
understanding of what premises (and defi nitions) it is reasonable for one’s audi-
ence to accept. We are guilty of begging the question when we ask our audience
to accept premises that are as controversial as the conclusion we’re arguing for
and that are controversial on the same grounds. The sort of grounds on which
people would disagree about the morality of abortion are much the same as
those on which they would disagree about the defi nition of abortion above. The
person making the argument has not “gone back far enough,” as it were, to fi nd
common ground with the audience whom he or she wishes to convince.
Let’s return to our feuding gold miners to illustrate what we’re talking
about. Clearly, the two disagree about who gets the gold, and, given what being
the leader of the operation means, they’re going to disagree just as much about
that. But what if the fi rst miner says, “Look, I picked this spot, didn’t I? And we
wouldn’t have found anything if we’d worked where you wanted to work.” If
the second miner agrees, they’ll have found a bit of common ground. Maybe—
maybe —the fi rst miner can then convince the second that this point, on which
they agree, is worth considering when it comes to splitting the gold. At least
there’s a chance of moving the discussion forward when they proceed this way.
In fact, if you are ever to hope for any measure of success in trying to
convince somebody of a claim, you should always try to argue for it based on
whatever common ground you can fi nd between the two of you. Indeed, the
attempt to fi nd common ground from which to start is what underlies the
entire enterprise of rational debate.
On Language
Begging . . . or Begging For?
We should point out that the phrase “beg the question” is frequently used incorrectly these
days, presumably by people who do not know its actual meaning (after reading this book and
taking your class, this does not include you). Here’s an example:
Brett Favre has now started in 250 consecutive games. That begs the question, “Can
any other quarterback ever hope to approach that record?”
No, it doesn’t beg the question; it begs for the question, or it calls for the question, or it brings
up the question about other quarterbacks approaching Favre’s record.
One of your authors first saw this misuse of the phrase in a television ad for Volvo auto-
mobiles in about 2001. Since then, it has begun to turn up everywhere. It may be that common
usage will eventually sanction this new usage; in the meantime, we recommend that you not
use it. You can also feel a bit smug about knowing better when you hear it or see it in print.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 229 12/9/10 2:59 PM
230 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
The fallacies in this chapter, like those in Chapter 6, may resemble legitimate
arguments, but none gives a reason for accepting (or rejecting) a claim. The
discussions in this part of the book should help make you sensitive to the dif-
ference between relevant considerations and emotional appeals, factual irrel-
evancies, and other dubious argumentative tactics.
In this chapter, we examined:
■ Personal attack ad hominem—thinking a person’s defects refute his or her
beliefs
■ Inconsistency ad hominem—thinking a person’s inconsistencies refute his
or her beliefs
■ Circumstantial ad hominem—thinking a person’s circumstances refute
his or her beliefs
■ Poisoning the well—encouraging others to dismiss what someone will say,
by citing the speaker’s defects, inconsistencies, circumstances, or other
personal attributes
■ Genetic fallacy—thinking that the origin or history of a belief refutes it
■ Straw man—”rebutting” a position held or presumed to be held by others
by offering a distorted or exaggerated version of that position
■ False dilemma—an erroneous narrowing down of the range of alternatives;
saying we have to accept X or Y (and omitting that we might accept Z)
■ Perfectionist fallacy—arguing that if a solution does not solve a problem
completely and perfectly, it should not be adopted at all
■ Line-drawing fallacy—requiring that a precise line be drawn someplace
on a scale or continuum when no such precise line can be drawn; usually
occurs when a vague concept is treated like a precise one
■ Slippery slope—refusing to take the fi rst step in a progression on unwar-
ranted grounds that doing so will make taking the remaining steps inevi-
table, or insisting erroneously on taking the remainder of the steps simply
because the fi rst one was taken
■ Misplacing the burden of proof—requiring the wrong side of an issue to
make its case
■ Begging the question—assuming as true the claim that is at issue and
doing this as if you were giving an argument
Exercise 7-2
Working in groups, invent a simple, original, and clear example of each fallacy
covered in this chapter. Then, in the class as a whole, select the illustrations
that are clearest and most straightforward. Go over these illustrations before
doing the remaining exercises in this chapter, and review them before you take
a test on this material.
Recap
Additional
Exercises
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 230 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 231
Exercise 7-3
Identify any examples of fallacies in the following passages. Tell why you
think they are present, and identify which category they belong in, if they fi t
any category we’ve described.
1. Of course, Chinese green tea is good for your health. If it weren’t, how
could it be so benefi cial to drink it?
2. Overheard: “No, I’m against this health plan business. None of the pro-
posals are gonna fi x everything, you can bet on that.”
3. You have a choice: Either you let ’em out to murder and rape again and
again, or you put up with a little prison overcrowding. I know what I’d
choose.
4. “The legalization of drugs will not promote their use. The notion of a
widespread hysteria sweeping across the nation as every man, woman,
and child instantaneously becomes addicted to drugs upon their legaliza-
tion is, in short, ridiculous.”
—From a student essay
5. Way I fi gure is, giving up smoking isn’t gonna make me live forever, so
why bother?
6. “I tell you, Mitt Romney would have to favor the Mormons if he were to
become president. After all Mormons are supposed to believe that theirs
is the one true religion.”
—From a newspaper call-in column
7. Aid to Russia? Gimme a break! Why should we care more about the
Russians than about our own people?
8. Well, most of the recent Treasury secretaries have been officers of Gold-
man Sachs at one time or another. It’s no wonder their claims about the
economy always favor the company.
9. I believe Tim is telling the truth about his brother, because he just would
not lie about that sort of thing.
10. I think I was treated unfairly. I got a ticket out on McCrae Road. I was
doing about sixty miles an hour, and the cop charged me with “traveling
at an unsafe speed.” I asked him just exactly what would have been a safe
speed on that particular occasion—fi fty? forty-fi ve?—and he couldn’t tell
me. Neither could the judge. I tell you, if you don’t know what speeds are
unsafe, you shouldn’t give tickets for “unsafe speeds.”
Exercise 7-4
Identify any fallacies in the following passages. Tell why you think they are pres-
ent, and identify which category they belong in, if they fi t any of those we’ve
described. Instances of fallacies are all from the types found in Chapter 7.
1. Suspicious: “I would forget about whatever Moore and Parker have to say
about pay for college teachers. After all, they’re both professors them-
selves; what would you expect them to say?”
2. It’s obvious to me that abortion is wrong—after all, everybody deserves a
chance to be born.
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 231 12/9/10 2:59 PM
232 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
3. Overheard: Well, I think that’s too much to tip her. It’s more than 15 per-
cent. Next time it will be 20 percent, then 25 percent—where will it stop?
4. carlos: Four a.m.? Do we really have to start that early? Couldn’t we
leave a little later and get more sleep?
jeanne: C’mon, don’t hand me that! I know you! If you want to stay in
bed until noon and then drag in there in the middle of the night, then go
by yourself! If we want to get there at a reasonable hour, then we have to
get going early and not spend the whole day sleeping.
5. I know a lot of people don’t fi nd anything wrong with voluntary eutha-
nasia, where a patient is allowed to make a decision to die and that wish
is carried out by a doctor or someone else. What will happen, though, is
that if we allow voluntary euthanasia, before you know it we’ll have the
patient’s relatives or the doctors making the decision that the patient
should be “put out of his misery.”
6. “Rudy Giuliani’s position on terrorism has to be the best [of the candi-
dates in 2008]. After all, when 9/11 happened, he was there. ”
7. Whenever legislators have the power to raise taxes, they will always fi nd
problems that seem to require for their solution doing exactly that. This
is an axiom, the proof of which is that the power to tax always generates
the perception on the part of those who have that power that there exist
various ills the remedy for which can only lie in increased governmental
spending and hence higher taxes.
8. Don’t tell me I should wear my seat belt, for heaven’s sake. I’ve seen you
ride a motorcycle without a helmet!
9. I’ll tell you what the Congress passed. They call it health care reform,
but what it really is is communism, pure and simple. It’s designed to tax
everybody who works so people who don’t work can still have an easy life.
10. When it comes to the issue of race relations, either you’re part of the
solution, or you’re part of the problem.
11. What! So now you’re telling me we should get a new car? I don’t buy that
at all. Didn’t you claim just last month that there was nothing wrong
with the Plymouth?
12. Letter to the editor: “The Supreme Court decision outlawing a moment of
silence for prayer in public schools is scandalous. Evidently the American
Civil Liberties Union and the other radical groups will not be satisfi ed until
every last man, woman and child in the country is an atheist. I’m fed up.”
—Tri-County Observer
13. We should impeach the attorney general. Despite the fact that there have
been many allegations of unethical conduct on his part, he has not done
anything to demonstrate his innocence.
14. Amnesty International only defends criminals. This is obvious because
the people they help are already in jail, and that shows they’re guilty of
something.
15. Overheard: “Hunting immoral? Why should I believe that, coming from
you? You fi sh, don’t you?”
16. “Will we have an expanding government, or will we balance the budget,
cut government waste and eliminate unneeded programs?”
—Newt Gingrich, in a Republican National Committee solicitation
▲
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 232 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 233
17. When Bill O’Reilly appeared on The David Letterman Show, the conver-
sation was spirited and widely reported. At one point, O’Reilly presented
Letterman with the following question: “Do you want the United States
to win in Iraq?” This is a fairly clever example of one of our fallacies and
a standard debating ploy. Identify the fallacy and describe the problem it
presents for Letterman.
Exercise 7-5
Identify any fallacies in the following passages. Tell why you think they are
present, and identify which category they belong in, if they fi t in any of those
we’ve described.
1. Despite all the studies and the public outcry, it’s still true that nobody
has ever actually seen cigarette smoking cause a cancer. All the anti-
smoking people can do is talk about statistics; as long as there isn’t real
proof, I’m not believing it.
2. “Clinton should have been thrown in jail for immoral behavior. Just look
at all the women he has had affairs with since he left the presidency.”
“Hey, wait a minute. How do you know he has had affairs since he
was president?”
“Because if he didn’t, then why would he be trying to cover up the
fact that he did?”
3. On The Colbert Report, Steven Colbert regularly asked his guests:
“George W. Bush: a great president? or the greatest president?”
4. In 1996, a University of Chicago study gave evidence that letting people
carry concealed guns appears to sharply reduce murders, rapes, and other
violent crimes. Gun-control backer Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy
Center commented: “Anyone who argues that these laws reduce crime
either doesn’t understand the nature of crime or has a preset agenda.”
5. Letter to the editor: “I strongly object to the proposed sale of alcoholic
beverages at County Golf Course. The idea of allowing people to drink
wherever and whenever they please is positively disgraceful and can only
lead to more alcoholism and all the problems it produces—drunk driving,
perverted parties, and who knows what else. I’m sure General Stuart, if
he were alive today to see what has become of the land he deeded to the
county, would disapprove strenuously.”
—Tehama County Tribune
6. Letter to the editor: “I’m not against immigrants or immigration, but
something has to be done soon. We’ve got more people already than we
can provide necessary services for, and, at the current rate, we’ll have
people standing on top of one another by the end of the century. Either
we control these immigration policies or there won’t be room for any of
us to sit down.”
—Lake County Recorder
7. Letter to the editor: “So now we fi nd our local crusader-for-all-that-is-
right, and I am referring to Councilman Benjamin Bostell, taking up arms
against the local adult bookstore. Is this the same Mr. Bostell who owns
the biggest liquor store in Chilton County? Well, maybe booze isn’t the
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 233 12/9/10 2:59 PM
234 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
same as pornography, but they’re the same sort of thing. C’mon,
Mr. Bostell, aren’t you a little like the pot calling the kettle black?”
—Chilton County Register
8. Letter to the editor: “Once again the Courier displays its taste for slanted
journalism. Why do your editors present only one point of view?
“I am referring specifi cally to the editorial of May 27, regarding the
death penalty. So capital punishment makes you squirm a little. What
else is new? Would you prefer to have murderers and assassins wandering
around scot-free? How about quoting someone who has a different point of
view from your own, for a change?”
—Athens Courier
9. There is only one way to save this country from the domination by the
illegal drug establishment to which Colombia has been subjected, and
that’s to increase tenfold the funds we spend on drug enforcement and
interdiction.
10. It’s practically a certainty that the government is violating the law in
the arms deals with Saudi Arabians. When a reporter asked officials to
describe how they were complying with the law, he was told that details
about the arms sales were classifi ed.
Exercise 7-6
Identify any examples of fallacies in the following passages. Tell why you
think these are fallacies, and identify which category they belong in, if they fi t
any category we’ve described.
1. Letter to the editor: “I would like to express my feelings on the recent
confl ict between county supervisor Blanche Wilder and Murdock County
Sheriff Al Peters over the county budget.
“I have listened to sheriffs’ radio broadcasts. Many times there have
been dangerous and life-threatening situations when the sheriff’s depu-
ties’ quickest possible arrival time is 20 to 30 minutes. This is to me very
frightening.
“Now supervisor Wilder wants to cut two officers from the Sheriff’s
Department. This proposal I fi nd ridiculous. Does she really think that
Sheriff Peters can run his department with no officers? How anyone can
think that a county as large as Murdock can get by with no police is
beyond me. I feel this proposal would be very detrimental to the safety
and protection of this county’s residents.”
2. Letter to the editor: “Andrea Keene’s selective morality is once again
showing through in her July 15 letter. This time she expresses her abhor-
rence of abortion. But how we see only what we choose to see! I won-
der if any of the anti-abortionists have considered the widespread use
of fertility drugs as the moral equivalent of abortion, and, if they have,
why they haven’t come out against them, too. The use of these drugs fre-
quently results in multiple births, which leads to the death of one of the
infants, often after an agonizing struggle for survival. According to the
rules of the pro-lifers, isn’t this murder?”
—North-State Record
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 234 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 235
3. In one of her columns, Abigail Van Buren printed the letter of “I’d rather
be a widow.” The letter writer, a divorcée, complained about widows
who said they had a hard time coping. Far better, she wrote, to be a
widow than to be a divorcée, who are all “rejects” who have been “pub-
licly dumped” and are avoided “like they have leprosy.” Abby recognized
the fallacy for what it was, though she did not call it by our name. What
is our name for it?
4. Overheard: “Should school kids say the Pledge of Allegiance before class?
Certainly. Why shouldn’t they?”
5. Letter to the editor: “Once again the Park Commission is considering
closing North Park Drive for the sake of a few joggers and bicyclists.
These so-called fi tness enthusiasts would evidently have us give up to
them for their own private use every last square inch of Walnut Grove.
Then anytime anyone wanted a picnic, he would have to park at the
edge of the park and carry everything in—ice chests, chairs, maybe even
grandma. I certainly hope the Commission keeps the entire park open for
everyone to use.”
6. “Some Christian—and other—groups are protesting against the placing,
on federal property near the White House, of a set of plastic fi gurines rep-
resenting a devout Jewish family in ancient Judaea. The protestors would
of course deny that they are driven by any anti-Semitic motivation. Still,
we wonder: Would they raise the same objections (of unconstitutionality,
etc.) if the scene depicted a modern, secularized Gentile family?”
—National Review
7. “It’s stupid to keep on talking about rich people not paying their fair
share of taxes while the budget is so far out of balance. Why, if we raised
the tax rates on the wealthy all the way back to where they were in 1980,
it would not balance the federal budget.”
—Radio commentary by Howard Miller
8. From a letter to the editor: “The counties of Michigan clearly need
the ability to raise additional sources of revenue, not only to meet the
demands of growth but also to maintain existing levels of service. For
without these sources those demands will not be met, and it will be
impossible to maintain services even at present levels.”
9. In February 1992, a representative of the Catholic Church in Puerto Rico
gave a radio interview (broadcast on National Public Radio) in which he
said that the Church was against the use of condoms. Even though the
rate of AIDS infection in Puerto Rico is much higher than on the U.S.
mainland, the spokesman said that the Church could not support the
use of condoms because they are not absolutely reliable in preventing
the spread of the disease. “If you could prove that condoms were abso-
lutely dependable in preventing a person from contracting AIDS, then the
Church could support their use.”
10. [California] Assemblyman Doug La Malfa said AB 45 [which bans hand-
held cell phone use while driving] is one more example of a “nanny gov-
ernment.” “I’m sick and tired of being told what to do on these trivial
things,” he said. “Helmet laws, seat-belt laws—what’s next?”
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 235 12/9/10 2:59 PM
236 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
Exercise 7-7
Identify any examples of fallacies in the following passages. Tell why you
think they are present, and identify which category they belong in, if they fi t
any category we’ve described.
1. The U.S. Congress considered a resolution criticizing the treatment of eth-
nic minorities in a Near Eastern country. When the minister of the interior
was asked for his opinion of the resolution, he replied, “This is purely an
internal affair in my country, and politicians in the U.S. should stay out of
such affairs. If the truth be known, they should be more concerned with
the plight of minority peoples in their own country. Thousands of black
and Latino youngsters suffer from malnutrition in the United States. They
can criticize us after they’ve got their own house in order.”
2. It doesn’t make any sense to speak of tracing an individual human life
back past the moment of conception. After all, that’s the beginning, and
you can’t go back past the beginning.
3. moe: The death penalty is an excellent deterrent for murder.
joe: What makes you think so?
moe: Well, for one thing, there’s no evidence that it’s not a deterrent.
joe: Well, states with capital punishment have murder rates just as high
as states that don’t have it.
moe: Yes, but that’s only because there are so many legal technicalities
standing in the way of executions that convicted people hardly ever get
executed. Remove those technicalities, and the rate would be lower in
those states.
4. Overheard: “The new sculpture in front of the municipal building by
John Murrah is atrocious and unseemly, which is clear to anyone who
hasn’t forgotten Murrah’s mouth in Vietnam right there along with
Hayden and Fonda calling for the defeat of America. I say: Drill holes in
it so it’ll sink and throw it in Walnut Pond.”
5. Overheard: “Once we let these uptight guardians of morality have their
way and start censoring Playboy and Penthouse, the next thing you know
they’ll be dictating everything we can read. We’ll be in fi ne shape when
they decide that Webster’s should be pulled from the shelves.”
6. It seems the biggest problem the nuclear industry has to deal with is
not a poor safety record but a lack of education of the public on nuclear
power. Thousands of people die each year from pollution generated by
coal-fi red plants. Yet, to date there has been no death directly caused by
radiation at a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States. We
have a clear choice: an old, death-dealing source of energy or a safe, clean
one. Proven through the test of time, nuclear power is clearly the safest
form of energy and the least detrimental to the environment. Yet it is
perceived as unsafe and an environmental hazard.
7. A high school teacher once told my class that, if a police state ever arose in
America, it would happen because we freely handed away our civil rights
in exchange for what we perceived would be security from the government.
We are looking at just that in connection with the current drug crisis.
For almost thirty years, we’ve seen increasing tolerance, legally and
socially, of drug use. Now we are faced with the very end of America as
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 236 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 237
we know it, if not from the drug problem, then from the proposed solu-
tions to it.
First, it was urine tests. Officials said that the innocent have nothing to
fear. Using that logic, why not allow unannounced police searches of our
homes for stolen goods? After all, the innocent would have nothing to fear.
Now we’re looking at the seizure of boats and other property when
even traces of drugs are found. You’d better hope some drug-using guest
doesn’t drop the wrong thing in your home, car, or boat.
The only alternative to declaring real war on the real enemies—the
Asian and South American drug families—is to wait for that knock on
the door in the middle of the night.
8. The mayor’s argument is that, because the developers’ fee would reduce
the number of building starts, ultimately the city would lose more
money than it would gain through the fee. But I can’t go along with that.
Mayor Tower is a member of the Board of Realtors, and you know what
they think of the fee.
9. Letter to the editor: “Next week the philosopher Tom Regan will be in
town again, peddling his animal rights theory. In case you’ve forgotten,
Regan was here about three years ago arguing against using animals in
scientifi c experimentation. As far as I could see then and can see now,
neither Regan nor anyone else has managed to come up with a good rea-
son why animals should not be experimented on. Emotional appeals and
horror stories no doubt infl uence many, but they shouldn’t. I’ve always
wondered what Regan would say if his children needed medical treat-
ment that was based on animal experiments.”
10. Not long before Ronald and Nancy Reagan moved out of the White
House, former chief of staff Don Regan wrote a book in which he depicted
a number of revealing inside stories about First Family goings-on. Among
them was the disclosure that Nancy Reagan regularly sought the advice
of a San Francisco astrologer. In response to the story, the White House
spokesman at the time, Marlin Fitzwater, said, “Vindictiveness and
revenge are not admirable qualities and are not worthy of comment.”
Exercise 7-8
▲
Elegant Country Estate
■ Stunning Federal-style brick home with
exquisite appointments throughout
■ 20 picturesque acres with lake, pasture,
and woodland
■ 5 bedrooms, 4.5 baths
■ 5,800 sq. ft. living space, 2,400 sq. ft.
basement
■ Formal living room; banquet dining with
butler’s pantry; luxurious foyer, gourmet
kitchen, morning room
■ 3 fi replaces, 12 chandeliers
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 237 12/9/10 2:59 PM
238 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
Maude and Clyde are discussing whether to buy this nice little cottage. Iden-
tify as many fallacies and rhetorical devices as you can in their conversation.
Many are from this chapter, but you may see something from Chapters 5 and
6 as well.
clyde: Maude, look at this place! This is the house for us! Let’s
make an offer right now. We can afford it!
maude: Oh, Clyde, be serious. That house is way beyond our means.
clyde: Well, I think we can afford it.
maude: Honey, if we can afford it, pigs can fl y.
clyde: Look, do you want to live in a shack? Besides, I called the
real estate agent. She says it’s a real steal.
maude: Well, what do you expect her to say? She’s looking for a
commission.
clyde: Sometimes I don’t understand you. Last week you were
pushing for a really upscale place.
maude: Clyde, we can’t make the payments on a place like that.
We couldn’t even afford to heat it! And what on earth are
we going to do with a lake?
clyde: Honey, the payments would only be around $5,000 a
month. How much do you think we could spend?
maude: I’d say $1,800.
clyde: Okay, how about $2,050?
maude: Oh, for heaven’s sake! Yes, we could do $2,050!
clyde: Well, how about $3,100?
maude: Oh, Clyde, what is your point?
clyde: So $3,100 is okay? How about $3,200? Stop me when I get
to exactly where we can’t afford it.
maude: Clyde, I can’t say exactly where it gets to be too expensive,
but $5,000 a month is too much.
clyde: Well, I think we can afford it.
maude: Why?
clyde: Because it’s within our means!
maude: Clyde, you’re the one who’s always saying we have to cut
back on our spending!
clyde: Yes, but this’ll be a great investment!
maude: And what makes you say that?
clyde: Because we’re bound to make money on it.
maude: Clyde, honey, you are going around in circles.
clyde: Well, can you prove we can’t afford it?
maude: Once we start spending money like drunken sailors, where
will it end? Next we’ll have to get a riding mower, then a
boat for that lake, a butler for the butler’s pantry—we’ll
owe everybody in the state!
clyde: Well, we don’t have to make up our minds right now. I’ll
call the agent and tell her we’re sleeping on it.
maude: Asleep and dreaming.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 238 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 239
Exercise 7-9
In groups, vote on which option best depicts the fallacy found in each pas-
sage; then compare results with other groups in the class. Note: The fallacies
include those found in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
1. The health editor for USA Today certainly seems to know what she is
talking about when she recommends we take vitamins, but I happen
to know she works for Tishcon, Inc., a large manufacturer of vitamin
supplements.
a. smoke screen/red herring
b. subjectivism
c. appeal to popularity
d. circumstantial ad hominem
e. no fallacy
2. The president is right. People who are against fi ghting in Afghanistan are
unwilling to face up to the threat of terrorism.
a. common practice
b. peer pressure
c. false dilemma
d. straw man
e. begging the question
3. Well, I, for one, think the position taken by our union is correct, and I’d
like to remind you before you make up your mind on the matter that
around here we employees have a big say in who gets rehired.
a. wishful thinking
b. circumstantial ad hominem
c. scare tactics (argument from force)
d. apple polishing
e. begging the question
4. On the whole, I think global warming is a farce. After all, most people
think winters are getting colder, if anything. How could that many peo-
ple be wrong?
a. argument from outrage
b. appeal to popularity
c. straw man
d. no fallacy
5. marco: I think global warming is a farce.
claudia: Oh, gad. How can you say such a thing, when there is so much
evidence behind the theory?
marco: Because. Look. If it isn’t a farce, then how come the world is
colder now than it used to be?
a. begging the question
b. appeal to popularity
c. red herring
d. circumstantial ad hominem
e. no fallacy
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 239 12/9/10 2:59 PM
240 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
6. Of course you should buy a life insurance policy! Why shouldn’t you?
a. smoke screen/red herring
b. wishful thinking
c. scare tactics
d. peer pressure argument
e. misplacing the burden of proof
7. My opponent, Mr. London, has charged me with having cheated on my
income tax. My response is, When are we going to get this campaign out
of the gutter? Isn’t it time we stood up and made it clear that vilifi cation
has no place in politics?
a. smoke screen/red herring
b. wishful thinking
c. appeal to common practice
d. appeal to popularity
e. circumstantial ad hominem
8. Look, even if Bush did lie about the WMD threat, what’s the surprise?
Clinton lied about having sex with that intern, and Bush’s own father
lied about raising taxes.
a. smoke screen/red herring
b. straw man
c. false dilemma
d. inconsistency ad hominem
e. common practice
9. If cigarettes aren’t bad for you, then how come it’s so hard on your health
to smoke?
a. circumstantial ad hominem
b. genetic fallacy
c. slippery slope
d. begging the question
10. Garry: I think the people who lost their livelihood because of the Gulf
oil spill ought to be paid their losses in full.
Harry: But there are disasters all over the place. You can’t compensate
everybody.
a. perfectionist fallacy
b. straw man
c. appeal to tradition
d. appeal to common practice
Exercise 7-10
In groups, vote on which option best depicts the fallacy found in each passage,
and compare results with other groups. (It is all right with us if you ask anyone
who is not participating in the discussions in your group to leave.) Note: The
fallacies include those found in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
1. So what if the senator accepted a little kickback money—most politi-
cians are corrupt, after all.
a. argument from envy
b. argument from tradition
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 240 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 241
c. common practice
d. subjectivism
e. no fallacy
2. Me? I’m going to vote with the company on this one. After all, I’ve been
with them for fi fteen years.
a. genetic fallacy
b. groupthink fallacy
c. slippery slope
d. no fallacy
3. Public opinion polls? They’re rigged. Just ask anyone.
a. appeal to common practice
b. guilt trip
c. begging the question
d. appeal to popularity
e. no fallacy
4. Hey! It can’t be time for the bars to close. I’m having too much fun.
a. false dilemma
b. misplacing the burden of proof
c. wishful thinking
d. appeal to tradition
e. no fallacy
5. A mural for the municipal building? Excuse me, but why should public
money, our tax dollars, be used for a totally unnecessary thing like art?
There are potholes that need fi xing. Traffic signals that need to be put
up. There are a million things that are more important. It is an outrage,
spending taxpayers’ money on unnecessary frills like art. Give me a break!
a. inconsistency ad hominem
b. argument from outrage
c. slippery slope
d. perfectionist fallacy
e. no fallacy
6. Mathematics is more difficult than sociology, and I really need an
easier term this fall. So I’m going to take a sociology class instead of a
math class.
a. circumstantial ad hominem
b. argument from pity
c. false dilemma
d. begging the question
e. no fallacy
7. Parker says Macs are better than PCs, but what would you expect him to
say? He’s owned Macs for years.
a. personal attack ad hominem
b. circumstantial ad hominem
c. inconsistency ad hominem
d. perfectionist fallacy
e. no fallacy
8. The congressman thought the president’s behavior was an impeachable
offense. But that’s nonsense, coming from the congressman. He had an
adulterous affair himself, after all.
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 241 12/9/10 2:59 PM
242 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
a. inconsistency ad hominem
b. poisoning the well
c. personal attack ad hominem
d. genetic fallacy
e. no fallacy
9. Your professor wants you to read Moore and Parker? Forget it. Their book
is so far to the right it’s falling off the shelf.
a. poisoning the well
b. inconsistency ad hominem
c. misplacing the burden of proof
d. appeal to tradition
e. no fallacy
10. How do I know God exists? Hey, how do you know he doesn’t?
a. perfectionist fallacy
b. inconsistency ad hominem
c. misplacing the burden of proof
d. slippery slope
e. begging the question
Exercise 7-11
In groups, vote on which option best depicts the fallacy found in each pas-
sage, and compare results with other groups. Note: The fallacies include those
found in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
1. Laws against teenagers drinking?—They are a total waste of time,
frankly. No matter how many laws we pass, there are always going to be
some teens who drink.
a. misplacing the burden of proof
b. perfectionist fallacy
c. line-drawing fallacy
d. no fallacy
2. Even though Sidney was old enough to buy a drink at the bar, he had no
identifi cation with him, and the bartender would not serve him.
a. perfectionist fallacy
b. inconsistency ad hominem
c. misplacing the burden of proof
d. slippery slope
e. no fallacy
3. Just how much sex has to be in a movie before you call it pornographic?
Seems to me the whole concept makes no sense.
a. perfectionist fallacy
b. line-drawing fallacy
c. straw man
d. slippery slope
e. no fallacy
4. Studies confi rm what everyone already knows: Smaller classes make
students better learners.
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 242 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 243
a. appeal to common practice
b. begging the question
c. misplacing the burden of proof
d. appeal to popularity
e. no fallacy
5. The trouble with impeaching the president is this: Going after every per-
son who occupies the presidency will take up everyone’s time, and the
government will never get anything else done.
a. inconsistency ad hominem
b. straw man
c. groupthink
d. argument from envy
e. red herring
6. The trouble with impeaching the president is this. If we start going after
him, next we’ll be going after senators, representatives, governors. Pretty
soon, no elected official will be safe from partisan attack.
a. inconsistency ad hominem
b. slippery slope
c. straw man
d. false dilemma
e. misplacing the burden of proof
7. mr. imhoff: That does it. I’m cutting down on your peanut butter cook-
ies. Those things blimp me up.
mrs. imhoff: Oh, Imhoff, get real. What about all the ice cream you eat?
a. circumstantial ad hominem
b. subjectivism
c. straw man
d. slippery slope
e. inconsistency ad hominem
8. ken: I think I’ll vote for Andrews. She’s the best candidate.
robert: Why do you say she’s best?
ken: Because she’s my sister-in-law. Didn’t you know that?
a. apple polishing
b. argument from pity
c. scare tactics
d. peer pressure argument
e. none of the above
9. moe: You going to class tomorrow?
joe: I s’pose. Why?
moe: Say, don’t you get tired of being a Goody Two-shoes? You must
have the most perfect attendance record of anyone who ever went to this
school—certainly better than the rest of us; right, guys?
a. poisoning the well
b. argument from pity
c. scare tactics
d. no fallacy
e. none of the above
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 243 12/9/10 2:59 PM
244 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
10. Morgan, you’re down-to-earth and I trust your judgment. That’s
why I know I can count on you to back me up at the meeting this
afternoon.
a. apple polishing
b. argument from pity
c. scare tactics
d. guilt trip
e. no fallacy
11. “Do you want to sign this petition to the governor?”
“What’s it about?”
“We want him to veto that handgun registration bill that’s come out
of the legislature.”
“Oh. No, I don’t think I want to sign that.”
“Oh, really? So are you telling me you want to get rid of the Second
Amendment?”
a. false dilemma
b. personal attack ad hominem
c. genetic fallacy
d. misplacing the burden of proof
e. no fallacy
12. Outlaw gambling? Man, that’s a strange idea coming from you. Aren’t
you the one who plays the lottery all the time?
a. inconsistency ad hominem
b. circumstantial ad hominem
c. genetic fallacy
d. scare tactics
e. no fallacy
Exercise 7-12
Most of the following passages contain fallacies from Chapter 6 or Chapter 7.
Identify them where they occur and try to place them in one of the categories
we have described.
1. “People in Hegins, Pennsylvania, hold an annual pigeon shoot in order to
control the pigeon population and to raise money for the town. This year,
the pigeon shoot was disrupted by animal rights activists who tried to
release the pigeons from their cages. I can’t help but think these animal
rights activists are the same people who believe in controlling the human
population through the use of abortion. Yet, they recoil at a similar
means of controlling pigeons. What rank hypocrisy.”
—Rush Limbaugh
2. Dear Mr. Swanson: I realize I’m not up for a salary increase yet, but I
thought it might make my review a bit more timely if I pointed out to
you that I have a copy of all the recent e-mail messages between you and
Ms. Flood in the purchasing department.
3. I don’t care if Nike has signed up Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and
even Santa Claus to endorse their shoes. They’re a crummy company
that makes a crummy product. The proof is the fact that they pay poor
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 244 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 245
women a dollar sixty for a long day’s work in their Vietnamese shoe fac-
tories. That’s not even enough to buy a day’s worth of decent meals!
4. I don’t care if Nike has signed up Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and even
Santa Claus to endorse their shoes. They’re a crummy company, and I
wouldn’t buy their shoes no matter what the circumstance. You don’t
need any reason beyond the fact that they pay poor women a dollar sixty
for a long day’s work in their Vietnamese shoe factories. That’s not even
enough to buy a day’s worth of decent meals!
5. Nike is a crummy company that makes crummy shoes. Look: they still
sponsor Tiger Woods even after all the bad stuff that came to light about him.
6. powell fan: Colin Powell says that diplomatic efforts to avoid war with
Iraq were serious and genuine, and his word is good enough for me.
skeptic: And what makes you so sure he’s telling it like it is?
fan: Because he’s the one guy in the administration you can trust.
7. I know the repair guy in the service center screwed up my computer; he’s
the only one who’s touched it since it was working fi ne last Monday.
8. If you give the cat your leftover asparagus, next thing you know you’ll be
feeding him your potatoes, maybe even your roast beef. Where will it all
end? Pretty soon that wretched animal will be sitting up here on the table
for dinner. He’ll be eating us out of house and home.
9. Look, either we refrain from feeding the cat table scraps, or he’ll be up
here on the table with us. So don’t go giving him your asparagus.
10. We have a simple choice. Saving Social Security is sure as hell a lot more
important than giving people a tax cut. So write your representative now,
and let him or her know how you feel.
11. Let gays join the military? Give me a break. God created Adam and Eve,
not Adam and Steve.
12. So my professor told me if he gave me an A for getting an 89.9 on the
test, next he’d have to give people an A for getting an 89.8 on the test,
and pretty soon he’d have to give everyone in the class an A. How could I
argue with that?
13. Those blasted Democrats! They want to increase government spending
on education again. This is the same outfi t that gave us $10,000 toilets
and government regulations up the wazoo.
14. The way I see it, either the senator resigns, or he sends a message that no
one should admit to his misdeeds.
15. Lauren did a better job than anyone else at the audition, so even though
she has no experience, we’ve decided to give her the part in the play.
16. terry: I failed my test, but I gave my prof this nifty argument. I said,
“Look, suppose somebody did 0.0001 percent better than I, would that be
a big enough difference to give him a higher grade?” And he had to say
“no,” so then I said, “And if someone did 0.0001 percent better than that
second person, would that be a big enough difference?” And he had to say
“no” to that, too, so I just kept it up, and he never could point to the place
where the difference was big enough to give the other person a higher
grade. He fi nally saw he couldn’t justify giving anyone a better grade.
harry: Well? What happened?
terry: He had to fail the whole class.
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 245 12/9/10 2:59 PM
246 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
17. “Many, but not all, on the other side of the aisle lack the will to win,”
said Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia. “The American people
need to know precisely who they are.” He said, “It is time to stand up
and vote. Is it Al Qaeda, or is it America?”
— New York Times, June 15, 2006
18. Look, maybe you think it’s okay to legalize tribal casinos, but I don’t.
Letting every last group of people in the country open a casino is a ridicu-
lous idea, bound to cause trouble.
19. What, you of all people complaining about violence on TV? You, with all
the pro football you watch?
20. You have three Fs and a D on your exams, and your quizzes are on the
borderline between passing and failing. I’m afraid you don’t deserve to
pass the course.
Exercise 7-13
Where we (Moore and Parker) teach, the city council recently debated relaxing
the local noise ordinance. One student (who favored relaxation) appeared before
the council and stated: “If 250 people are having fun, one person shouldn’t be
able to stop them.”
We asked our students to state whether they agreed or disagreed with
that student and to support their position with an argument. Here are some of
the responses.
Divide into groups, and then identify any instances of fallacious reason-
ing you fi nd in any answers, drawing from the materials in the last two chap-
ters. Compare your results with those of other students, and see what your
instructor thinks.
1. I support what the person is saying. If 250 people are having fun, one
person shouldn’t be able to stop them. Having parties and having a good
time are a way of life for Chico State students. The areas around campus
have always been this way.
2. A lot of people attend Chico State because of the social aspects. If rules
are too tight, the school could lose its appeal. Without the students, local
businesses would go under. Students keep the town fl oating. It’s not just
bars and liquor stores, but gas stations and grocery stores and apartment
houses. This town would be like Orland.
3. If students aren’t allowed to party, the college will go out of business.
4. We work hard all week long studying and going to classes. We deserve to
let off steam after a hard week.
5. Noise is a fact of life around most college campuses. People should know
what they are getting into before they move there. If they don’t like it,
they should just get earplugs or leave.
6. I agree with what the person is saying. If 250 people want to have fun,
what gives one person the right to stop them?
7. I am sure many of the people who complain are the same people who
used to be stumbling down Ivy Street twenty years ago doing the same
thing that the current students are doing.
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 246 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 247
8. Two weeks ago, I was at a party, and it was only about 9:00 p.m. There
were only a few people there, and it was quiet. And then the police came
and told us we had to break it up because a neighbor complained. Well,
that neighbor is an elderly lady who would complain if you fl ushed the
toilet. I think it’s totally unreasonable.
9. Sometimes the noise level gets a little out of control, but there are other
ways to go about addressing this problem. For example, if you are a neigh-
bor, and you are having a problem with the noise level, why don’t you
call the “party house” and let them know, instead of going way too far
and calling the police?
10. I’m sure that these “narcs” have nothing else better to do than to harass
the “party people.”
11. You can’t get rid of all the noise around a college campus no matter what
you do.
12. The Chico noise ordinance was put there by the duly elected officials of
the city and is the law. People do not have the right to break a law that
was put in place under proper legal procedures.
13. The country runs according to majority rule. If the overwhelming major-
ity want to party and make noise, under our form of government they
should be given the freedom to do so.
14. Students make a contribution to the community, and in return they
should be allowed to make noise if they want.
15. Your freedom ends at my property line.
Exercise 7-14
Go back to Exercise 4-16 and determine whether the author of the article com-
mits a fallacy in his criticism of Anthony Watts. Compare your decision with
those of your classmates.
Exercise 7-15
Listen to a talk-radio program (e.g., Air America, Rush Limbaugh, Michael
Reagan, Michael Savage), and see how many minutes (or seconds) go by before
you hear one of the following: ad hominem, straw man, ridicule, argument
from outrage, or scare tactics. Report your fi ndings to the class, and describe
the fi rst item from the above list that you heard.
Exercise 7-16
Watch one of the news/public affairs programs on television ( NewsHour with
Jim Lehrer, Nightline, Face the Nation, and so on), and make a note of any
examples of fallacies that occur. Explain in writing why you think the exam-
ples contain fallacious reasoning.
Alternatively, watch Real Time with Bill Maher. It usually doesn’t take
long to fi nd a fallacy there, either.
Exercise 7-17
The following passages contain fallacies from both this chapter and the pre-
ceding one. Identify the category in which each item belongs.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 247 12/9/10 2:59 PM
248 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
1. “I can safely say that no law, no matter how stiff the consequence is, will
completely stop illegal drug use. Outlawing drugs is a waste of time.”
—From a student essay
2. “If we expand the commuter bus program, where is it going to end? Will
we want to have a trolley system? Then a light rail system? Then expand
Metrolink to our area? A city this size hardly needs and certainly cannot
afford all these amenities.”
—From a newspaper call-in column
3. y aeko: The character Dana Scully on The X-Files really provides a good
role model for young women. She’s a medical doctor and an FBI agent,
and she’s intelligent, professional, and devoted to her work.
michael: Those shows about paranormal activities are so unrealistic.
Alien abductions, government conspiracies—it’s all ridiculous.
4. Overheard: “The reason I don’t accept evolution is that ever since Darwin,
scientists have been trying to prove that we evolved from some apelike
primate ancestor. Well, they still haven’t succeeded. Case closed.”
5. Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, I endorsed council member Morris-
sey’s bid for reelection based on his outstanding record during his fi rst
term. Because you are the movers and shakers in this community, other
people place the same high value on your opinions that I do. Jim and I
would feel privileged to have your support.
6. It’s totally ridiculous to suppose that creationism is true. If creationism
were true, then half of what we know through science would be false,
which is complete nonsense.
7. kirsti: I counted my CDs this weekend, and out of twenty-seven, ten of
them were by U2. They are such a good band! I haven’t heard anything by
Bono for a long time. He has such a terrifi c voice!
ben: Is he bisexual?
8. Was Gerhard a good committee chair? Well, I for one think you have to
say he was excellent, especially when you consider all the abuse he put
up with. Right from the start, people went after him—they didn’t even
give him a chance to show what he could do. It was really vicious—
people making fun of him right to his face. Yes, under the circumstances
he has been quite effective.
9. Medical research that involves animals is completely unnecessary and a
waste of money. Just think of the poor creatures! We burn and blind and
torture them, and then we kill them. They don’t know what is going to
happen to them, but they know something is going to happen. They are
scared to death. It’s really an outrage.
10. Dear Editor—
If Christians do not participate in government, only sinners will.
—From a letter to the Chico Enterprise Record
11. The HMO people claim that the proposal will raise the cost of doing
business in the state to such a degree that insurers will be forced to leave
the state and do business elsewhere. What nonsense. Just look at what
we get from these HMOs. I know people who were denied decent treat-
ment for cancer because their HMO wouldn’t approve it. There are doc-
tors who won’t recommend a procedure for their patients because they
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 248 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 249
are afraid the HMO will cancel their contract. And when an HMO does
cancel some doctor’s contract, the patients have to fi nd a new doctor
themselves— if they can. Everybody has a horror story. Enough is enough.
12. From an interview by Gwen Ifi ll (PBS News Hour ) with Senator Kit Bond,
ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee:
ifill: Do you think that waterboarding, as I have described it, constitutes
torture?
bond: There are different ways of doing it; it’s like swimming: freestyle,
backstroke. Waterboarding could be used, almost, to defi ne some of the
techniques that our trainees are put through. But that’s beside the point.
It’s not being used. There are some who say that, in extreme circum-
stances, if there is a threat of an imminent major attack on the United
States, it might be used.
—From the video at < talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060899.php>
13. The opposing party is going to give its reply to the president’s speech in
just a few minutes. Prepare yourself for the usual misstatements of fact,
exaggerated criticism, and attempts to distract from the real issues.
14. The proposal to reduce spending for the arts just doesn’t make any sense.
We spend a paltry $620 million for the NEA [National Endowment for
the Arts], while the defi cit is closing in on $200 billion. Cutting support
for the arts isn’t going to eliminate the defi cit; that’s obvious.
15. Year-round schools? I’m opposed. Once we let them do that, the next
thing you know they’ll be cutting into our vacation time and asking us to
teach in the evenings and on the weekends, and who knows where it will
end. We teachers have to stand up for our rights.
16. Romney was for abortion rights before he began running for president.
Now he’s anti-abortion. I think he should be ignored completely on the
subject since you can’t depend on what he says.
17. Even if we outlaw guns, we’re still going to have crime and murder. So I
really don’t see much point in it.
—From a student essay
18. Do you think affirmative action programs are still necessary in the
country? Answers:
a. Yes, of course. I don’t see how you, a woman, can ask that question.
It’s obvious we have a very long way to go still.
b. No. Because of affirmative action, my brother lost his job to a minor-
ity who had a lot less experience than he did.
c. Yes. The people who want to end affirmative action are all white
males who just want to go back to the good-old-boy system. It’s always
the same: Look out for number one.
d. No. The people who want it to continue know a good deal when they
see one. You think I’d want to end it if I were a minority?
Exercise 7-18
Explain in a sentence or two how each of the following passages involves a
type of fallacy mentioned in either this chapter or the preceding one. Many of
these examples are difficult and should serve to illustrate how fallacies some-
times conform only loosely to the standard patterns.
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 249 12/9/10 2:59 PM
250 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
1. I believe that the companies that produce passenger airliners should be
more strictly supervised by the FAA. I mean, good grief, everybody knows
that you can make more money by cutting corners here and there than
by spending extra time and effort getting things just right, and you know
there have got to be airlines that are doing exactly that.
2. From a letter to a college newspaper editor: “I really appreciated the fact
that your editorial writer supports the hike in the student activity fee
that has been proposed. Since the writer is a senior and won’t even be
here next year, he will escape having to pay the fee himself, so of course
there’s no downside to it as far as he’s concerned. I’m against the fee, and
I’ll be one of those who pay it if it passes. Mine is an opinion that should
count.”
3. “‘There’s a certain sameness to the news on the Big Three [ABC, NBC,
and CBS] and CNN,’ says Moody, . . . who is in charge of Fox News’s day-
to-day editorial decisions. That’s the message, Moody says, that ‘America
is bad, corporations are bad, animal species should be protected, and
every cop is a racist killer. That’s where “fair and balanced” [Fox’s slogan]
comes in. We don’t think all corporations are bad, every forest should
be saved, every government spending program is good. We’re going to be
more inquisitive.’ ”
—From an interview with John Moody, vice president for news
editorial at Fox News Network, in Brill’s Content magazine
4. During the Reagan and G. H. W. Bush administrations, Democratic
members of Congress pointed to the two presidents’ economic policies as
causing huge defi cits that could ultimately ruin the country’s economy.
President Bush dismissed such charges as “the politics of doom and
gloom.” “These people will fi nd a dark cloud everywhere,” he has said.
Was this response fallacious reasoning?
5. “Louis Harris, one of the nation’s most infl uential pollsters, readily
admits he is in the polling business to ‘have some impact with the mov-
ers and shakers of the world.’ So poll questions are often worded to obtain
answers that help legitimize the liberal Establishment’s viewpoints.”
—Conservative Digest
6. “At a White House meeting in February of 1983 with Washington, D.C.,
anchormen, Ronald Reagan was asked to comment on ‘an apparent
continuing perception among a number of black leaders that the White
House continues to be, if not hostile, at least not welcome to black view-
points.’ President Reagan replied as follows: ‘I’m aware of all that, and it’s
very disturbing to me, because anyone who knows my life story knows
that long before there was a thing called the civil-rights movement, I was
busy on that side. As a sports announcer, I didn’t have any Willie Mayses
or Reggie Jacksons to talk about when I was broadcasting major league
baseball. The opening line of the Spalding Baseball Guide said, “Baseball
is a game for Caucasian gentlemen.” And as a sports announcer I was one
of a very small fraternity that used that job to editorialize against that
ridiculous blocking of so many fi ne athletes and so many fi ne Americans
from participating in what was called the great American game.’ Reagan
then went on to mention that his father refused to allow him to see Birth
of a Nation because it was based on the Ku Klux Klan and once slept in a
▲
▲
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 250 12/9/10 2:59 PM
EXERCISES 251
car during a blizzard rather than stay at a hotel that barred Jews. Reagan’s
‘closest teammate and buddy’ was a black, he said.”
—James Nathan Miller, The Atlantic
7. From a letter to the editor of the Atlantic Monthly: “In all my reading
and experience so far, I have found nothing presented by science and
technology that precludes there being a spiritual element to the human
being. . . . The bottom line is this: Maybe there are no angels, afterlife,
UFOs, or even a God. Certainly their existence has not yet been scientifi –
cally proved. But just as certainly, their nonexistence remains unproved.
Any reasonable person would therefore have to reserve judgment.”
8. Stop blaming the developers for the fact that our town is growing! If you
want someone to blame, blame the university. It brings the new people
here, not the developers. Kids come here from God knows where, and lots
of them like what they fi nd and stick around. All the developers do is put
roofs over those former students’ heads.
9. Two favorite scientists of the Council for Tobacco Research were Carl
Seltzer and Theodore Sterling. Seltzer, a biological anthropologist,
believes smoking has no role in heart disease and has alleged in print that
data in the huge 45-year, 10,000-person Framingham Heart Study—which
found otherwise—have been distorted by anti-tobacco researchers. Fram-
ingham Director William Castelli scoffs at Seltzer’s critique but says it
“has had some impact in keeping the debate alive.”
Sterling, a statistician, disputes the validity of population studies
linking smoking to illness, arguing that their narrow focus on smoking
obscures the more likely cause—occupational exposure to toxic fumes.
For both men, defying conventional wisdom has been rewarding.
Seltzer says he has received “well over $1 million” from the Council for
research. Sterling got $1.1 million for his Special Projects work in
1977–82, court records show.
—From “How Tobacco Firms Keep Health Questions ‘Open’ Year After Year,”
Alix Freedman and Laurie Cohen. The article originally appeared in the
Wall Street Journal and was reprinted in the Sacramento Bee.
10. We have had economic sanctions in effect against China ever since the
Tienanmen Square massacre. Clearly, they haven’t turned the Chinese
leadership in Beijing into a bunch of good guys. All they’ve done, in fact, is
cost American business a lot of money. We should get rid of the sanctions
and fi nd some other way to make them improve their human rights record.
Writing Exercises
1. Your instructor will assign one or more of the Essays for Analysis in
Appendix 1 for you to scan for fallacies and rhetorical devices.
2. In the spring of 2010, the Texas State Board of Education voted to “put
a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, questioning
the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and
presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.”
The majority of the board, a 10-vote bloc (of 15 total), “question Darwin’s
theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by
▲
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 251 12/9/10 2:59 PM
252 CHAPTER 7: MORE FALLACIES
Christian principles.” On the other side are “a handful of Democrats and
moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Dar-
winism and the separation of church and state.”
Which side do you think has the better case? Should Texas schools
teach Darwin’s theory of evolution? Should they teach that the United
States was consciously founded on Christian principles? Write a two-page
essay in which you describe and defend your position. When the class has
fi nished, read the essays in groups, looking for fallacies and other rhetori-
cal devices. (Your instructor may have further or alternative instructions.)
3. A Schedule I drug, as defi ned by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970,
is one that (a) has a high potential for abuse, (b) has no currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States, and (c) has a lack of
accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision. Should mar-
ijuana be classifi ed as a Schedule I drug? Defend a position on the issue
following the same instructions as for Writing Exercise 2.
4. Choose two of the examples in Exercise 7-17 and diagram them according
to the procedure described in Chapter 2.
moo38286_ch07_210-252.indd 252 12/9/10 2:59 PM
