Counterarguments Direct Ways of Refuting an Argument 1.Show that at least of the premises is false. 2.Show that an argument is not valid or strong 3.Show that the conclusion is false

Reducing to the Absurd

This is a way to refute a claim or an argument by showing that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively the are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them. If the conclusion is absurd, then premises are not what you want.

Fallacies If an individual has made a fallacy within their argument it needs to be repaired. You should, however, be careful when refuting, and forming, arguments by avoiding fallacies.

Fallacy Basics Definitions and Examples

Working Definition of Fallacy An argument in which the reasons advanced for a claim fail to warrant acceptance of that claim In other words, a fallacy is an attempt at an argument that is not adequate to meet expectations. An argument that is classed as a fallacy for some purposes may be good enough ( in terms of acceptable risk) for others. This is especially true of some deductive fallacies that can work as inductions.

Fallacy of Composition To think that what holds true of a group of things taken individually necessarily holds true of the same things taken collectively Communities of Muslims are cohesive and orderly. Communities of Jews are cohesive and orderly. So, a community composed of Muslims and Jews will be cohesive and orderly. (Will a pluralistic society always have to deal with unintended consequences?)

Fallacy of Division To think that what holds true of a group of things taken collectively necessarily holds true of the same things taken individually America is known for its historical commitment to freedom. So every American who plays a role in American history can be expected to have a commitment to freedom.

Ad Hominem Fallacies About persons instead of premises

 Personal attack/favoritism

Ad Hominem Fallacies About persons instead of premises  Personal attack/favoritism  Inconsistency (incl. double standard)

Ad Hominem Fallacies About persons instead of premises  Personal attack/favoritism  Inconsistency (incl. double standard)  Circumstantial (positive or negative)

Ad Hominem Fallacies About persons instead of premises  Personal attack/favoritism  Inconsistency (incl. double standard)  Circumstantial (positive or negative)  Poisoning the well

Ad Hominem Fallacies About persons instead of premises  Personal attack/favoritism  Inconsistency (incl. double standard)  Circumstantial (positive or negative)  Poisoning the well Characteristics of the person are not irrelevant when credibility of the source is an important factor in determining whether a claim will be expected.

Ad Hominem Fallacies About persons instead of premises  Personal attack/favoritism  Inconsistency (incl. double standard)  Circumstantial (positive or negative)  Poisoning the well Characteristics of the person are not irrelevant when credibility of the source is an important factor in determining whether a claim will be expected. Genetic Fallacy About origins of ideas instead of premises

Straw Man Substituting a weak invention for reality

 A strategy of refutation

Straw Man Substituting a weak invention for reality  A strategy of refutation  Reworks some part of a case to make it less viable

Straw Man Substituting a weak invention for reality  A strategy of refutation  Reworks some part of a case to make it less viable  Uses exaggeration or oversimplification to distort original position

Straw Man Substituting a weak invention for reality  A strategy of refutation  Reworks some part of a case to make it less viable  Uses exaggeration or oversimplification to distort original position  The altered version of the original is easier to refute than the original

Slippery Slope Misrepresenting probability and necessity

 One version asserts in the manner of inductive argument that some action will inevitably (or almost certainly) lead to some improbable consequence

Slippery Slope Misrepresenting probability and necessity  One version asserts in the manner of inductive argument that some action will inevitably (or almost certainly) lead to some improbable consequence  Second version asserts in the manner of a justification or statement of principle that once committed to a course of action, it must be followed to its conclusion

Misplacing Burden of Proof Appeal to Ignorance An attempt to evade responsibility

 Burden of proof: the requirement to supply support for a claim

Misplacing Burden of Proof Appeal to Ignorance An attempt to evade responsibility  Burden of proof: the requirement to supply support for a claim  Burden of proof shifts, depending on conditions (lower initial plausibility, affirmative more than negative, special circumstances such as judicial “innocent until proven guilty”)

Misplacing Burden of Proof Appeal to Ignorance An attempt to evade responsibility  Burden of proof: the requirement to supply support for a claim  Burden of proof shifts, depending on conditions (lower initial plausibility, affirmative more than negative, special circumstances such as judicial “innocent until proven guilty”)  Problem may occur unexpectedly in debate

Begging the Question Skipping over an important issue

 May occur as a conclusion that restates a premise

Begging the Question Skipping over an important issue  May occur as a conclusion that restates a premise  May occur as a premise controversial on the same grounds as the conclusion

Begging the Question Skipping over an important issue  May occur as a conclusion that restates a premise  May occur as a premise controversial on the same grounds as the conclusion  May occur as a premise that presupposes the conclusion Example: We need to widen this road because there aren’t enough lanes to handle the traffic. (Begs the question of whether all that traffic should or must be on that road. Does not beg the question of how many lanes are needed.)