Critical Inquiry Part Two

Chapter 5 objectives Students will learn to: Define the difference between rhetoric and argument Detect rhetorical devices and their persuasive impact Recognize prejudicial and nonprejudicial uses of rhetorical devices Identify and critique the use of euphemisms, dysphemisms, weaslers, and downplayers Identify and critique the use of stereotypes, innuendo, and loaded questions Identify and critique the use of ridicule, sarcasm, and hyperbole Identify and critique the use of rhetorical definitions, explanations, analogies, and misleading comparisons Identify and critique the use of proof surrogates and repetition Identify and critique the persuasive aspects of visual images

Chapter 5 Introduction Rhetorical Devices I Euphemisms & Dsyphemisms Influencing Others Rhetoric Logical Force vs. Rhetorical Force Rhetorical Devices Rhetorical Devices I Euphemisms & Dsyphemisms Euphemism Examples Dysphemism Appropriate Use

Chapter 5 Weaslers Downplayers Examples Weasel Words Qualifying Defined Common Downplayers Downplaying with conjunctions Context & Downplaying

Chapter 5 Rhetorical Devices II Stereotypes Innuendo Loaded Questions Examples Uses Innuendo Condemning With Faint Praise Loaded Questions Loaded Question

Chapter 5 Rhetorical Devices III Horse Laugh/Ridicule/Sarcasm Methods & Examples Hyperbole Examples Considerations Varieties Effects

Chapter 5 Rhetorical Devices IV Rhetorical Definitions & Rhetorical Explanations Rhetorical Definitions Rhetorical Explanations

Chapter 5 Rhetorical Analogies & Misleading Comparisons Question 1: Is Important information missing? Question 2: Is the same standard of comparison being used? Are the same reporting and recording practices being used? Question 3: Are the items comparable? Question 4: Is the comparison expressed as an average? Mean Median Mode

Chapter 5 Proof Surrogates & Repetition Proof Surrogate Repetition Defined Examples Repetition Introduction Method Critical Thinking

Chapter 5 Persuasion Using Visual Images Introduction Images Images & Claims Images & Emotions Fake & Misleading Images Deliberately manipulating the image. Using unaltered images with misleading captions. Deliberately selecting a camera angle that distorts information. Lack of authority (author name, credentials) Stills taken out of movies Stills taken of models Stills that are staged Complete fabrications.

Persuasion is the attempt to win someone to one's own point of view. Chapter 5 recap 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 influence, rhetoric has no logical force; only an argument has logical force—i.e., can prove or support a claim.

Chapter 5 recap 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 oversimplified 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 definitions and explanations: used to create favorable or unfavorable attitudes about something Rhetorical analogies and misleading comparisons: these devices persuade 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

Chapter 5 recap 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 valuable, nonprejudicial uses as well as a slanting one. Only if we are speaking, 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.

Chapter 6 objectives Students will learn to: Recognize and name fallacies that appeal directly to emotion Recognize and name fallacies that appeal to psychological elements other than emotion

Chapter 6 Introduction Fallacies that Involve Emotions Pseudoreasoning Things to Keep in Mind Fallacies that Involve Emotions The “Argument” from Outrage (Appeal to Anger) We may think we have been given a reason to be angry when we have not. We may let the anger we feel as the result of one thing influence our evaluations of an unrelated thing The “Argument” from Outrage Scapegoating Examples

Chapter 6 Scare Tactics Other Fallacies Based on Emotions Examples Scare Tactics & Warnings Other Fallacies Based on Emotions “Argument” from Pity (Appeal to Pity) Defined Pity & Reasons “Argument” from Envy

Chapter 6 Apple Polishing Guilt Trip Wishful Thinking Defined Examples Praise/Being Polite Guilt Trip Appropriate Guilt Wishful Thinking Positive Thinking The Placebo Effect Attitude

Chapter 6 Peer Pressure Group Think Fallacy Nationalism Defined Examples Bandwagon Group Think Fallacy Introduction Nationalism Use Emotional Fallacies

Chapter 6 Some Non-Emotion Based Fallacies Smokescreen/Red Herring Examples Everyone Knows “Argument” from Popularity (Appeal to Popularity, Ad Populum, Appeal to Belief) Defined Differences from peer pressure & groupthink When What People Believe Determines What is True. When What People Believe Indicates What is True. Another Technique

Chapter 6 Rationalizing “Argument” from Common Practice Defined Different from the “Argument” from Popularity Examples Request for Fair Play “Argument” from Tradition Test of Time Rationalizing Non-Selfish Encouraging Others

Chapter 6 Two Wrongs Make a Right Examples Other Considerations Retributivism Punishment/Retaliation Prevention/Self Defense

Chapter 6 Recap Fallacies that appeal to emotion: 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

Chapter 6 Recap 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

Chapter 7 Objectives Students will learn to: Recognize several types of fallacies that confuse the qualities of a person making a claim with the qualities of the claim Recognize fallacies that refute a claim on the basis of its origins Recognize fallacies that misrepresent an opponent’s position Recognize fallacies that erroneously limit considerations to only two options Recognize fallacious claims that one action or event will inevitability lead to another Recognize arguments that place the burden of proof on the wrong party Recognize the problem in arguments that rely on a claim that is itself at issue

Chapter 7 The Ad Hominem (“to the man”) Introduction Personal Attack Defined Examples The Inconsistency Ad Homimen (ad homimem tu quoque) General Form Version 1: Action inconsistent with claim. Version 2: Past claim not consistent with current claim. Circumstantial Ad Homimen Form Poisoning the Well Example Version: denial

Chapter 7 Genetic Fallacy Positive Ad Hominem Fallacies Straw Man Examples Difference between ad hominem & genetic fallacy Positive Ad Hominem Fallacies Positive Ad Hominem Straw Man Defined Unknown Fact

Chapter 7 False Dilemma Perfectionist Fallacy Line Drawing Fallacy Defined Examples Combined with Straw Man Real Dilemmas Perfectionist Fallacy Legitimate Standards Line Drawing Fallacy Vague Terms

Chapter 7 Slippery Slope Misplacing the Burden of Proof Examples Version 1: Inevitable Version 2: Continue on a course (“Vietnam Fallacy”) Non-fallacious cases that look like Slippery Slope Examples Misplacing the Burden of Proof Burden of Proof Placing the Burden of Proof Initial Plausibility Affirmative/Negative Special Circumstances Appeal to Ignorance Defined

Chapter 7 Begging the Question Examples Rhetorical Definitions Defined Misuse Examples Rhetorical Definitions

Chapter 7 recap 1. Personal attack ad hominem: Thinking a person’s defects refute his or her beliefs. 2. Circumstantial ad hominem: thinking a person’s circumstances refute his or her beliefs. 3. Inconsistency ad hominem: thinking a person’s inconsistencies refute his or her beliefs. 4. Poisoning the Well: encouraging others to dismiss what someone will say, by citing the speaker’s defects, inconsistencies, circumstances, or other personal attributes. 5. Genetic Fallacy: thinking that the origin or history of a belief refutes it. 6. Straw Man: “rebutting” a claim by offering a distorted or exaggerated version of it. 7. False Dilemma: an erroneous narrowing down of the range of alternatives; saying that we have to accept X or Y (and omitting that we might do Z). 8. Perfectionist Fallacy: arguing that we either do something completely or not at all. 9. 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.

Chapter 7 recap 10. Slippery slope: refusing to take the first step in a progression on the unwarranted grounds that doing so will make taking the remaining steps inevitable or insisting erroneously on taking the remainder of the steps simply because the first one was taken., 11. Misplacing burden of proof: requiring the wrong side of an issue to make its case. 12. Begging the question: assuming as true the claim that is at issue and doing this as if you were giving an argument.