Critical Approach Session 2 PDF

member of Critical Approach Session 2: Analyzing the quality of arguments Dr. Juliane Felder HS2024 www.fhnw.ch/business  member of Lesson overview (afternoon clas...

member of Critical Approach Session 2: Analyzing the quality of arguments Dr. Juliane Felder HS2024 www.fhnw.ch/business  member of Lesson overview (afternoon classes) Lesson 1: Revision of terminology/content from session 1 The quality of arguments + practice Lesson 2: The quality of arguments: fallacies The quality of arguments: logic, deductive reasoning, and validity + practice Lesson 3: Defining and understanding research Lesson 4: Practice exercises (optional) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 2  member of Lesson goals – session 2 By the end of today’s session, you will be able to: assess the structure and quality of an argument identify additional features of arguments recognize and define key terms related to arguments and fallacies explain terms and concepts related to deductive and inductive reasoning and research and validity explain relevant aspects of and terms and concepts related to research explain how to evaluate useful and relevant sources for your own research HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 4  member of Revision www.fhnw.ch/business 5  member of Revision – arguments: some (!) key terms Match the following terms and their definitions. 1. overall argument a. end point of reasoning; normally closely related to author’s position/point of view (“bottom line”) KEY: 1-d 2. contributing arguments b. a point of view, supported by reasoning 2-f 3. conclusion c. statement presented as argument/reason 3-a and believed to be true (premise); may turn out 4-g to be false (false premise) 5-b 4. line of reasoning d. presents the author’s position, composed of 6-c contributing arguments or reasons (line of  See Cottrell, glossary, p. xiii reasoning) (“full package”) 5. position g. (logical) order in which reasons and evidence are presented 6. proposition f. individual reasons HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 6  member of Revision – typical features of an argument 1. Author’s position/point of view (usually reflected in the conclusion; based on personal assumptions) 2. Premises = propositions = statements believed to be true and presented as arguments/reasons = contributing arguments; the statements that give your reasons are your premises overall argument 3. A line of reasoning (in logical order) 4. Conclusion (usually reflects the author’s point of view/position) 5. Attempt to persuade (usually found in the conclusion)  (Use of indicator and signal words (e.g., therefore, accordingly, …)) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 7  member of Revision exercise: a proper argument? With your peer(s), discuss if the following is a proper argument in terms of its structure. People are less politically aware now than they have been at any time in the past. For hundreds of years, people took great personal risks to fight for causes that would benefit other people more than themselves. This rarely happens today. As late as the 1980s, there were frequent rallies with people in one country demonstrating to show solidarity with people elsewhere. Now, rallies are more likely to be for personal gain such as better salaries or student grants rather than for political issues of wider application. Even low risk activities such as voting in elections attract low turn-outs. Remember: Even if you do not agree with an argument, it can still be a proper one in terms of structure. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 8  member of Arguments: explicit/implicit, denoted/connoted www.fhnw.ch/business 9  member of Explicit vs. implicit arguments  Explicit (obvious) argument: follows a recognizable structure  Implicit (hidden) argument  lacks: an obvious line of reasoning a stated conclusion all there, but hidden the appearance of attempting to persuade Huge cash prizes of over a million pounds! Your number has been selected out of over 3.4 million entries to win one of our cash prizes! Ring now on this number to find out more. (Cottrell, 2011, p. 93) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 10  member of Denoted and connoted meaning (Cottrell, 2011, p. 95) 'Today! £100 reductions on all computers!' Denoted meaning Connoted Meaning (= literal meaning) (= implied, additional meaning) If you buy any 1. These computers are computer at the bargains. place where the 2. If you don't buy the computer message appears, today, you are unlikely to get the price will be the £100 reduction, so it is reduced by £100. best to buy quickly. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 11  member of Logical fallacies and fallacious arguments HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 12  member of Fallacies  “Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.  Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim.  Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.” (Purdue OWL) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 13  member of Fallacies - errors in reasoning Fallacies are false arguments or unsound  Non Sequitur arguments  False dichotomy / false dilemma Fallacies mean that the next logical step in an  False/Weak Analogy argument is not followed  Castle of cards – unwarranted leaps Fallacies can also be when words with ambiguous  Slippery Slope meanings are used and misuse leads to an unsound  Attacking the Person – emotive language reasoning  Generalizations An idea which (many) people (might) think is true but  Misrepresentation or trivialization is actually false  Red Herring (Cottrell 2011)  Straw Person  Common Opinion/Ad Populum  Appeals to Questionable Authority  False premise HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 14  member of Non-sequitur Presenting sequences that do not logically follow on from each other Sources: pondissodeep.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/the-use-and-misuse- of-logical-fallacies-part-1 and everythingfunny.org HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 15  member of False dichotomy / false dilemma (“either or”)  Presenting arguments as black and white, with a limited number of choices.  Examples: «You are either my friend or my enemy.» HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 16  member of False/weak analogy Often an argument is based on drawing parallels between two similar situations/cases. However, the comparison has to be justified and have merited similarities.  Are these examples valid analogies? What is the analogy?  “The earth‘s atmosphere is like a blanket around the earth. It is only a thin layer, but it helps to maintain the temperature of the earth, keeping us warm. It also offers a layer of protection from the intensity of the sun.  There was no way the defendant was able to help himself. He had been under excessive strain for some time and his emotions had been building up like steam under pressure. The witness had been goading the defendant, knowing he was likely to get angry. The defendant was like a pressure cooker, just waiting to explode. Eventually he just reached boiling point and an explosion was inevitable.” (Cottrell, 2011, p. 113.) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 17  member of Castle of cards – unwarranted leaps An argument built on a shaky foundation that would collapse if one element was removed. Find the flaws: More people should travel by public transport, as this would improve traffic flows in the city. If there were tolls for using roads, people would use public transport. Polls indicate that most people want the traffic flow to be improved. This shows that people would be willing to support the introduction of tolls. Therefore, the council should introduce heavy tolls. (Cottrell, 2011, pp. 115-116) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 18  member of Slippery slope An argument based on the assumption that if scenario A were to happen, scenario Z would eventually happen, by way of scenarios B, C, D, …. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 19  member of Ad hominem Attacking the person instead of the argument – using emotive language. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 20  member of (Hasty) Generalizations Explanation: Jumping to conclusions based on meager evidence, taking a few examples and then judging the entire group/segment/population on this. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 21  member of Red herring Intentionally distracting/diverting from and avoiding the key issue(s) to draw attention away from the argument. You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent against crime -- but what about the victims of crime? How do you think surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay for their son's murderer to be fed and housed? (Cottrell, 2011, p. 118) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 22  member of Straw person/ Straw man Exaggerating/misrepresenting an opponent‘s argument and then shooting it down. Attacking the straw person (not the real opponent) and the straw (exaggerated) argument. Examples: Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets: A: Taking a shower is great! Jill: "We should clean out the closets. B: But hot water is bad for your skin! They are getting a bit messy." Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?" Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want to keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous.” (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html. Viewed August 2008) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 23  member of Common opinion/ad populum (bandwagon appeal, appeal to the masses) If everybody thinks X is great, then X must be great. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 24  member of Appeals to questionable authority Presenting an “expert” or “authority” where the credentials are not established, or where the “expert” has no qualifications in that particular field. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 25  member of Critical reading practice exercise www.fhnw.ch/business 26  member of Critical reading practice exercise Go to this week’s Moodle folder  in-class documents section In teams, read and analyze texts A and B  highlight relevant bits/take notes Discuss the quality of the presented arguments within your team (any fallacies?) "Dieses Foto" von Unbekannter Autor ist lizenziert gemäß CC BY HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 27  member of Interim/intermediate conclusions www.fhnw.ch/business 28  member of Structure of a well-constructed longer argument similar reasons are grouped into a set of (1) premise reasons (2) premise set of reasons ---------------------------- interim conclusion conclusion = (1) premise each set supports an (2) premise intermediate conclusion ---------------------------- interim conclusion conclusion = (1) premise (2) premise all intermediate ---------------------------- conclusions support the main line of overall conclusion conclusion reasoning HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 30  member of Interim/intermediate conclusions Example: It is a legal offence to assault other people. Hitting and slapping people are forms of assault and cause psychological, if not physical, damage. They should always be considered as examples of legal assault. Although this rule is applied to adults, it is often not recognized in the case of children. Slapping is defended as a useful and necessary form of discipline. It is also argued that children are not independent beings. This is not a valid argument. Children may be dependent on adults, but they are still people. Therefore, slapping a child should also count as legal assault. (Cottrell, p. 285, passage 5.22)  Can you identify sets of reasons?  Where do you see interim conclusions and the overall conclusion? HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 31  member of Intermediate conclusions Therefore, … Example: It is a legal offence to assault other people. Hitting and slapping people are forms of assault and cause psychological, if not physical, damage. They should always be IC1 considered as examples of legal assault. Although this rule is applied to adults, it is often not recognized in the case of children. Slapping is defended as a useful and necessary form of discipline. It is also argued that children are not independent IC2 beings. This is not a valid argument. Children may be dependent on adults, but they OC are still people. Therefore, slapping a child should also count as legal assault. (Cottrell, p. 285, passage 5.22) 1. Slapping should always count as legal assault. 2. Children should count as people. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 32  member of Research: Inductive and deductive reasoning & research Validity and soundness www.fhnw.ch/business 33  member of Terms and concepts – types of research (Walliman 2010) Desk Research (= gathering literature) Empirical Research: Observation Mostly secondary data or experimentation First step while thesis/objective is Qualitative or quantitative developed Data is recorded and analyzed Qualitative – a central process as part of the scientific method Requires skill: critical approach, skimming and scanning skills, note- taking, weighing pros and cons, similarities and differences HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 36  member of Terms and concepts – types of research (Walliman 2010) Qualitative (Why) Quantitative (Who, What) – Historical – Correlation – Comparative – Experimental – Descriptive often inductive often deductive  theory-generating  theory-testing  Most research = qualitative + quantitative HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 37  member of Terms and concepts – types of research (from: https://libguides.uta.edu/quantitative_and_qualitative_research/differences) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 38  member of Inductive and deductive reasoning and research Theory Theory Deductive reasoning starts with general information, which is used to reach conclusions about specific cases Hypothesis Hypothesis P1: All mammals are warm blooded; P2: Monkeys are mammals.  ----------------------------------- Pattern Observation C: Monkeys are warm blooded. Confirmation / Rejection + Observation Revision Further information: Inductive Reasoning Deductive Reasoning https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/de specific  general general  specific ductive-reasoning/ HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 39  member of Deductive reasoning & validity Deductive arguments  the conclusion should P1: Mary has one child who is follow from the premises. pregnant. A deductive argument is supposed to be valid. o An argument is VALID if and only if it is not P2: Only daughters can become pregnant. possible that all of its premises are true and its ------------------------------------- conclusion is false. C: Mary has at least one daughter. o To be valid, if both premises are true, the sound conclusion must be true. If both of these premises are true, the  validity: focus on true/false conclusion cannot be false (that is validity) !!! validity ≠ good (Sinnott-Armstrong & Neta) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 40  member of Deductive reasoning & validity Deductive arguments  the conclusion should follow P1: All Fords have four tires. from the premises. A deductive argument is supposed to be valid. P2: Henry’s car has four tires. o An argument is VALID if and only if it is not ------------------------------------- possible that all of its premises are true and its conclusion is false. C: Henry’s car is a Ford. o To be valid, if both premises are true, the conclusion must be true. (Sinnott-Armstrong & Neta) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 41  member of Deductive reasoning & validity Deductive arguments  the conclusion should follow P1: The president of the US must from the premises. have been born in the US. A deductive argument is supposed to be valid. False o An argument is VALID if and only if it is not P2: Roger Federer is the premise president of the US. possible that all of its premises are true and its ------------------------------------- conclusion is false. C: Roger Federer was born in the o To be valid, if both premises are true, the US. conclusion must be true. unsound !!! validity ≠ good (Sinnott-Armstrong & Neta) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 42  member of Validity and soundness  VALIDITY = the line of argumentation makes sense, regardless of whether the arguments are true  SOUNDNESS = well-founded, i.e., the line of argumentation works AND the arguments are true HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 43  member of Deductive reasoning & soundness – key things to remember  If valid arguments can have false premises, then what's the point?  Validity is necessary, but not enough to make an argument good.  But it's important to know that if all the premises are true, then it is not possible for the conclusion to be false.  In a sound argument, the conclusion must be true (the premises are true and valid).  If the argument is invalid, it is irrelevant whether the premises are true or not, so you can rule them out before having to check into them. Because if the argument is not valid, it is not sound. (Sinnott-Armstrong & Neta) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 44  member of Further information: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/ind uctive-reasoning/ Inductive and deductive reasoning and research Theory Theory Inductive reasoning starts with an observation of something specific. P1: Mark leaves for his office every day at 8:00 a.m., Hypothesis Hypothesis P2: and he is always on time; -------------------------------------------- C: therefore, Mark always will be on Pattern Observation time if he leaves at 8:00 a.m.  theory Confirmation / Rejection + Observation Inductive arguments do not aim for Revision validity; they are defeasible and range Inductive Reasoning Deductive Reasoning in strength. specific  general general  specific (Sinnott-Armstrong & Neta) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 45  member of Inductive reasoning Inductive arguments ask whether an argument is strong or weak An argument is stronger when it gives more and better reasons for its conclusion(s) Strength comes in degrees, so it is necessary to ask if the argument is strong enough, and that depends on the context and the values at stake They are also defeasible, i.e., other/new evidence may change the strength or the conclusion (Sinnott-Armstrong & Neta) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 46  member of Inductive reasoning: purpose & strength Copyright. Bill Waterstone Sample  generalization  prediction Questions to ask about generalizations: Are the premises false, e.g., was the data /sample actually taken and accurately How were polls taken, social media, phones represented, or unjustified, e.g., the researcher (landline or cell)? made mistakes Was the sample big enough? - fallacy of hasty Were the questions slanted in some way? - leading more likely to one answer through generalization - the stakes are also necessary in wording or limited options deciding the necessary sample size Participant manipulation? - biased samples that Statistics are presented as facts are not representative of the whole (perhaps by knowing what the researcher was looking for) (Sinnott-Armstrong & Neta) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 47  member of Were the conditions “realistic” or “valid”?  Merck tested the painkiller Vioxx on mice, rats, and African green monkeys and found it very effective. It launched the product and sales went well.  In 2004 the drug was suddenly pulled off the market: it was increasing risk of heart attacks. (Monkeys do not suffer from heart attacks or cardiovascular problems.)  It is estimated that about 100,000 people worldwide suffered heart attacks due to this medication. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 48  member of Practice exercise  Consumer research aimed to establish the popularity of a do-it-yourself (DIY) supermarket.  872 Households in 27 towns within 30 km vicinity of supermarket were telephoned on Tuesday, 5 June 2015 between 9.15 am and 5.30 pm: there were a total of 531 responses to questions on budgets, activities, awareness of the retailer, products, proximity.  How were polls taken?  Day, time of day?  Who’s likely to answer the phone? HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 49  member of Critically evaluating source material Consider: Is the evidence authentic (origin of evidence)? Can you find similar findings in other places? Were the conditions “realistic”, “valid”? Could the research have been distorted? Are there biases or distortions in the survey, questionnaire, ratings, measurements? HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 50  member of Evaluating source material  Is it relevant?  Read abstract  Read Table of Contents/Index/key words  Is it authoritative?  Identify publisher/authors  Is it recent (current)?  Check publishing date  Is it reliable?  Check sample sizes, author credentials, bibliography  Are findings replicable?  Was publication peer reviewed? Do other authors cite it? HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 52  member of CRAAP worksheet HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 53  member of Guided Self-Study Practice materials on Moodle Continue reading and working through Cottrell, chapters 3, 5-7, 8 (+ select practice exercises) Outlook Session 3: Revision Arguments and reasoning Preparing for a debate + debate practice  !!! do research on your pro/con topics  bring results, prepare arguments !!! HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 55  member of Practice session www.fhnw.ch/business 56  member of How to spot fake news https://blogs.ifla.org/lpa/files/2017/01/How-to-Spot-Fake-News.pdf HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 57  member of Real or fake news? 1. Discuss in groups why you think this is real or fake news. 2. Then go and check here:  https://x.com/snopes/status/183005139642032 5712  Or here: HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 58  member of Fallacies and faulty arguments – practice exercises This is an example of which fallacy? HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 59  member of Fallacies and faulty arguments – practice exercises This is an example of which fallacy?  Appeal to (questionable) authority fallacy HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 60  member of What’s wrong here? (Cottrell, 2011, pp. 88, 92) Analyze and discuss the quality of these arguments in groups. KEY on next slide.  The number of people in prisons continues to rise each year and is much higher than it was over a hundred years ago. Many prisons are now overcrowded. Rehabilitation of criminals would be a much better option.  Most new restaurants struggle to survive. In order to break even... we need to earn £2500 a week. To make this, we need to fill every table every night. Other local restaurants fill about half their tables during the week. We have a good menu, so we are likely to get a full restaurant each night. This means we will break even. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 61  member of What’s wrong here? (Cottrell, 2011, pp. 88, 92) Analyze and discuss the quality of these arguments in groups. KEY on next slide.  The number of people in prisons continues to rise each year and is much higher than it was over a hundred years ago. Many prisons are now Non-sequitur overcrowded. Rehabilitation of criminals would be a much better option.  Most new restaurants struggle to survive. In order to break even... we need to earn £2500 a week. To make this, we need to fill every table every night. Other local restaurants fill about half their tables during the week. We have a good menu, so we are likely to get a full restaurant each night. False premise This means we will break even. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 62  member of Fallacies The following is an example of which fallacy? Personal identity cards don't present any real dangers to human rights. They add to our security, by making it easier for the police to track and catch criminals. Opponents of identity cards are wishy-washy liberals who live in leafy areas and haven't a clue what it is like to live in run-down areas where crime is rife. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 63  member of Fallacies The following is an example of which fallacy? Ad hominem This passage attacks everyone who opposes the introduction of identity cards on personal terms. It also makes unsubstantiated assumptions about the backgrounds and economic circumstances of opponents, in order to undermine their credibility. As the passage relies on these unacceptable methods rather than reasons and evidence, it demonstrates flawed reasoning. The passage also encourages complicity in the audience (see page 114). By abusing opponents, the author encourages a division between in-groups and out-groups, or 'people like them' and 'people like us'. Furthermore, the passage draws on emotive subjects, referring to crime and security to win over the audience. HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 64  member of Fallacies: misrepresentation or trivialization Read the following information. Then analyze the argument on the next slide. Ignoring the main opposing reasons Focusing on minor points to make the opposing argument seem weak Presenting restricted options False dichotomy – making the other option seem very weak Misrepresenting a person or facts Focusing on characteristics irrelevant to the argument HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 65  member of Fallacies: misrepresentation or trivialization – an example Analyze the following argument. Then compare your analysis with the analysis on the next slide. Curfews Juvenile crime has risen sharply in cities. Young people are out of control. There are only two options in a situation like this. Either we agree to put up with savage assaults on our persons and property, or we place a curfew on all young people after 10 o'clock. (Cottrell, 2011, p. 118) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 66  member of Fallacies: misrepresentation or trivialization – KEY Analyze the following argument. Then compare your analysis with the analysis on the next slide. Curfews The argument is flawed in several ways. The main flaw is that it offers only two options, curfew or assaults. Other options, such as improved policing or changes in lighting, are not considered. 'Out of control' and 'savage' are strong statements using emotive language, but no definitions or explanations are given to substantiate these. It also assumes the crime occurs mostly after 10 o'clock. (Cottrell, 2011, p. 118) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 67  member of Fallacies quiz  Go to Moodle, session 2, section: Revision quiz  Open the “Fallacies quiz” document  Answer questions 1-6  Check the “Fallacies quiz KEY” document for correct answers HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 68  member of Exercise 3: Analyze the structure and quality of the following argument. (Letters a-e added for your convenience.) Write your answer in complete sentences, using academic language. “a) Some people advocate that prisoners should be treated more harshly. b) They say that prisons should have none of the comforts of modern life, such as television and radio. c) If there were such harsh conditions, they argue, then fewer people would commit crimes. d) But these are just the sort of people who think nothing of avoiding paying income tax or of driving their car after an expenses-paid alcoholic lunch. e) We should therefore ensure that prisons are not places of harsh punishment.” (van den Brink-Budgen, p. 65) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 69  member of Exercise 3: sample answer Analyze the structure and quality of the following argument. (Letters a-e added for your convenience.) Write your answer in complete sentences, using academic language. “a) Some people advocate that prisoners should be treated more harshly. b) They say that prisons should have none of the comforts of modern life, such as television and radio. c) If there were such harsh conditions, they argue, then fewer people would commit crimes. d) But these are just the sort of people who think nothing of avoiding paying income tax or of driving their car after an expenses-paid alcoholic lunch. e) We should therefore ensure that prisons are not places of harsh punishment.” (van den Brink-Budgen, p. 65) Sample answer: This is a flawed argument: The conclusion e) (introduced by the signal word therefore) is based on no more than sentence d). However, sentence d) contains an ad hominem fallacy: Those who are in favor of greater harshness in prisons are attacked. This attack is then used in sentence e) to reject their argument; their argument is in fact not touched.The author provides no relevant reasons why it should be concluded that prisons should not be places of harsh punishment. (Cf. van den Brink-Budgen, p. 65f.) HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 70  member of Manipulated images: what to do If in doubt (e.g., if image evokes strong emotional reaction or is politically biased), try a reverse image search: 1. Download image to your device 2. Upload it to search engine (e.g., Goole images) 3. Check list of websites that previously used image Source: https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/ho w-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/ HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 71  member of Manipulated celebrity voices HS2024 IM Critical Approach Dr. Juliane Felder ([email protected]) www.fhnw.ch/business 72