Chapter 2: How to Detect and Counter Flawed Arguments

Last Updated on 1 day by Liam Lopez

Welcome to the continuation of “Welcome to the World of Critical Thinking.” Today, we will examine flawed arguments and learn how to uphold intellectual standards in argumentation. It heavily dwells on the third reference.

Section 1 – What do we Consider an argument?

The first standard of behavior is procedural, outlining principles that promote effective resolution of contentious issues. It formalizes rational engagement with controversial topics, fostering intellectual behavior that helps resolve disputes and reassess beliefs.

The second standard of behavior is ethical. While it may appear unconventional to categorize a failure to engage in discussions according to established principles as unethical, it is nonetheless reasonable to anticipate fair arguments. A commitment to fair-mindedness necessitates that all participants adhere to fundamental intellectual standards.

A discussion is a statement exchange between two or more participants; it can include self-talk and finding the strongest possible argument to resolve a situation.

There are numerous principles to having a successful intellectual discussion:

1. Fallibility Principle: Acknowledge your fallibility; your initial view may not be the strongest.
2. Truth-Seeking Principle: Commit to seeking the truth and exploring alternative viewpoints.
3. Clarity Principle: Articulate positions clearly, avoiding ambiguity and keeping arguments distinct.
4. Burden-of-Proof Principle: The proponent of a position must justify the request.
5. Principle of Charity: Reformulate the opponent’s arguments in their most potent form, giving them the benefit of the doubt.
6. Structural Principle: Ensure arguments are well-structured, avoiding contradictions and invalid inferences.
7. Relevance Principle: Provide reasons to be accepted by reasonable individuals.
8. Acceptability Principle: Provide reasons likely to be accepted by reasonable individuals.
9. Sufficiency Principle: Offer sufficient and weighty reasons to justify your conclusion.
10. Rebuttal Principle: Address significant criticisms and respond to opposing views.
11. Suspension-of-judgment Principle: Suspend judgment when strong arguments are lacking or positions are equally supported.
12. Resolution Principle: A position is resolved if it is sound, relevant, acceptable, and robust against serious criticisms; when flaws are identified, they must be re-examined.

Section 2 – documenting the argument

An argument consists of statements (premises) that support a conclusion, aiming to demonstrate the truth or falsity of a claim through evidence. Without premises, a claim is just an opinion. Key terms like “therefore” signal conclusions, while “since” or “because” indicate premises. Arguments can be complex, with multiple statements functioning as premises and conclusions. Reasoning is the concept that underlines arguments, an order of arguments and statements to support your thinking or truth of a matter.

A belief is a conclusion formed through rational reflection, while an argument provides supporting evidence. Assess critiques by focusing on the quality of the argument rather than simply dismissing opinions. In the face of conflicting views, it’s crucial to critically evaluate the underlying arguments to determine which stance may be valid.

The first step in evaluating an argument is to reconstruct it into standard form. This involves extracting the argument from its original context to display its logical structure, formatted clearly:

Since (premise), which is substantiated by (sub premise), and (premise), and (premise) [and (implicit premise)] and (rebuttal premise), Therefore, (conclusion).

Arguments can vary in the number of premises and may include subpremises. Implicit premises and conclusions should be made explicit. While rebuttal premises are uncommon, they strengthen arguments. Irrelevant material can be omitted, but relevant details must remain. Effective reconstruction should present the original premises and conclusion, condensing complex arguments. An argument with more than four or five premises may indicate misunderstanding. Each premise must support the conclusion; otherwise, it may be a sub-premise or unrelated claim. The structure should be clear and logically organized.

Evaluating arguments involves distinguishing between inductive and deductive formats. Deductive arguments lead to a necessarily true conclusion when the premises are true, making them strong for moral reasoning. Inductive arguments provide support but do not guarantee conclusions, as true premises might not imply the conclusion. A well-structured deductive argument’s conclusion logically follows its premises, while a strong inductive argument offers substantial support. Deductive or value arguments may require relevant value premises based on moral, legal, or aesthetic criteria.

In contentious arguments, solid sub-arguments are essential to support the main premise. For example, to argue that studying from an unauthorized exam copy is wrong, one might start with “cheating is wrong.” This leads to a structured argument:

If cheating is wrong (moral premise) and studying from an unauthorized source is a form of cheating (connection premise), then it follows that such a study is wrong (moral judgment).

This logical format complicates contesting conclusions if the premises are accepted. Many moral arguments lack clear premises; applying the principle of charity can help clarify these issues and fuel discussions about exceptions and conflicts among moral considerations. For example, questioning whether the principle of minimizing accidental deaths applies equally to cars, swimming pools, and firearms is essential for evaluating moral arguments.

Moral premises in arguments function similarly to legal standards in legal reasoning. Just as moral disputes rely on overarching principles, legal disputes depend on laws or precedents. Both require precise identification of relevant rules. Effective lawyers construct solid arguments to persuade judges and juries, and strong legal arguments must be well-structured to avoid negative assessments.

Aesthetic arguments also seek to persuade regarding beauty or artistic value and often reflect societal judgments. A successful aesthetic argument must follow accepted criteria and a deductive format. Mastering moral, legal, and aesthetic arguments is crucial for influencing discourse and making sound judgments.

Section 3 – how do we make a good argument?

A claim supported by at least one accompanying claim constitutes an argument, but its quality may be lacking. A well-structured argument must meet five essential criteria: it should have a coherent structure, include relevant and acceptable premises, provide sufficient grounds for the conclusion’s validity, and address potential criticisms.

An argument that meets these standards can be considered strong, and its conclusion is accepted, while one that does not may be seen as insufficiently substantiated. Evaluating argument quality often involves subjective judgment, as the criteria can vary in different contexts. However, specific guidelines can help in assessing an argument’s quality.

There are standards of premise acceptability for a premise to be accepted by a mature, rational person if it expresses any of the following:

1. A claim that is a matter of undisputed common knowledge.
2. A claim that is confirmed by one’s personal experience or observation.
3. A claim is adequately defended in the context of the argument or can be adequately defended in some other accessible source.
4. An uncontroverted eyewitness testimony.
5. An uncontroverted claim from a relevant authority.
6. The conclusion of another good argument.
7. There is a relatively minor claim that seems to be a reasonable assumption in the context of the argument.

A claim is accepted by the informed community when a rational individual finds it credible. For example, while there is consensus on aspirin reducing fever, the health implications of coffee are debated, making only the former widely acceptable.

Common knowledge claims are not just based on popularity; they can be supported by personal experience or authoritative sources. Eyewitness accounts should be approached with skepticism but not dismissed outright if uncontradicted.

Undisputed claims from relevant authorities are typically acceptable unless challenged by valid reasons. Sound arguments and their conclusions should guide future reasoning. Minor premises can be accepted as reasonable assumptions, helping advance discussion even if they lack definitive evidence.

There are standards of premise unacceptability where a mature, rational person should not accept its premise if it expresses any of the following:

1. A claim that contradicts credible evidence, a well-established claim, or a legitimate authority.
2. A claim that is inconsistent with one’s own experience or observations.
3. A questionable claim that is not adequately defended in the context of the argument or not capable of being adequately defended by evidence in some other accessible source.
4. A claim that is self-contradictory or linguistically confusing.
5. This claim is based on another unstated but highly questionable assumption.
6. A premise inconsistent with credible evidence established claims or personal experience might be unacceptable.

Claims lacking adequate evidence should not be accepted. Self-contradictory or unclear premises are also unacceptable. Arguments based on unwarranted assumptions are problematic.

According to the acceptability principle, premises must meet at least one standard of acceptability and avoid unacceptable conditions. Questions to consider include: Is the premise rational and transparent? Does it rely on unstated assumptions? A well-structured argument must meet five criteria. However, flawed arguments can be improved, and different audiences may accept various premises, affecting their persuasiveness and scrutiny. To enhance argument strength, consider the following strategies aligned with the five criteria:

1. Structural Criterion: Convert inductive arguments into more apparent deductive forms and clarify implicit elements. Present premises and conclusions succinctly.
2. Relevance Criterion: Ensure all relevant content and remove distracting details that could weaken the argument.
3. Acceptability Criterion: Use less controversial premises and soften absolute claims. Clarify vague language.
4. Sufficiency Criterion: Add premises to provide adequate support for the conclusion, especially for controversial ones.
5. Rebuttal Criterion: Address counterarguments thoroughly, tailored to the audience. Engaging with criticism shows a commitment to truth.

Some arguments may be fundamentally weak and resist significant improvement. In such cases, it focuses only on enhancing what is possible, which is essential, especially in contexts like legal defense where stronger arguments are necessary.

Section 4 – understanding there are flawed arguments and perspectives

A fallacy is a flawed argument that contains one or more of the following:

1. A structural flaw in the argument.
2. A premise that is irrelevant to the conclusion.
3. A premise that fails to meet the standard of acceptability.
4. A set of premises that together are insufficient to establish the argument’s conclusion.
5. A failure to give an effective rebuttal to the anticipated criticisms of the argument.

Arguments that fail to persuade often violate one or more of the five criteria for good arguments, and these violations can be categorized into named fallacies.

A comprehensive theory of fallacy is important for developing strong arguments. It identifies flawed reasoning and clarifies the traits of good arguments. Both argument creators and audiences are responsible for recognizing and questioning unsound arguments to avoid perpetuating flawed reasoning.

Recognizing specific patterns of faulty reasoning is crucial for practical evaluation. Labeling an argument as “illogical” is unhelpful, much like a vague medical diagnosis. Accurately identifying flaws leads to better understanding, and familiarity with various fallacies enhances argument evaluation.

To attack an argument to locate a fallacy, we use these two techniques:

1. Self-Destructive Argument Method: The first is allowing the argument to self-destruct. Sometimes, the easiest way to attack an argument is to reconstruct it into standard form and then let the argument destroy itself by exposing its flaws clearly for all to see. Even someone unfamiliar with argument analysis can often recognize faulty reasoning.
2. Absurd Counterexample Method: Highlights faulty reasoning without using technical terms. To illustrate an opponent’s flaws, create a similar argument that results in a false or absurd conclusion. Since sound arguments should not lead to such findings, this helps the opponent realize their argument’s flaws by showing that the reasoning patterns are the same. If the proponent’s counterexample is flawed, it indicates that the opponent’s argument is also flawed.

To maintain positive relationships with verbal opponents and achieve objectives with minimal conflict, consider these guidelines:

1. Avoid fallacy-mongering. Focusing too much on identifying fallacies in others’ arguments can alienate and hinder informal discussions.
2. Address fallacies only if they impact the opponent’s conclusion or if you want to explain your rejection of their argument. Focusing on minor flaws can distract from the main issue.
3. Acknowledge any fallacies in your reasoning and adjust accordingly. Denying mistakes is unproductive. Focus on identifying faulty reasoning patterns without embarrassment. The aim is to enhance critical thinking skills, not just expose errors.

Section 4.1 – Heuristics and cognitive biases that provide “quick answers”

Heuristics are mental shortcuts that the brain provides for quick and responsive answers. However, this leads to simplifications in our judgment, letting fallacies and flawed assumptions give rise. Cognitive biases are disruptions and corruptions of our rationalities’, often seen as favoriting one assumption or argument when there are clear exceptions. These quick answers and narrow thinking can be captured using the same techniques to find fallacies and false arguments.

The final section – understanding fabricated yet sound arguments

Though the arguments and reasoning may be sound, some fabrication, manipulation, and errors undermine the main discussion. Here is a general list for identifying “perfect arguments” and “fabrications.”

Final Section part One – lying techniques

• Impersonation: The technique of masquerading as another person or organization.
• Cover-up: Often the combination of two techniques where someone attempts to reduce or remove the amount of information, exposure, and potential whistleblowers from an event with the intent to keep the event or persona secret or put up a fake story that would attempt to explain the events and individuals intention and purpose logically.
• Hypocritical: Someone argues they are doing something wrong and should be punished or rehabilitated when secretly doing the same discouraged behavior and action.
• Half-truths: Statements that often deliver the truth or facts of an event or person but mix misinformation, disinformation, or other lies.
• Diversion: The technique of attempting to change the subject when someone is honing on them to delay or prevent a discussion of the subject.
• Minimization: Downgrade the severity and significance of a person, event, or invention.
• Exaggeration: To exaggerate a person or event more than what occurred, often for hype or to increase its significance and severity.
• Gaslighting: The technique where someone attempts to make the other person question a sequence of events or themselves to point the victim as an unreliable source.
• Apparent Lying: The technique where someone states evidence, information, and arguments lies when analyzing the people involved, inventions, events, and environment involved.

final section part two – misinformation and disinformation

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information. Meanwhile, disinformation is deliberate misinformation and malicious information that spreads fear, paranoia, or a specific perspective that does not capture the bigger picture of an event, often employing biases, flawed quick-thinking, and fallacies.

• Fabricated Content: Completely false information.
• Manipulated Content: Information (mediums from textbooks, videos, audio files, and such) that were manipulated to promote a different message or context.
• Imposter Content: The impersonation of genuine sources.
• Misleading Content: Misleading information that gives the premise of a different message or data, such as comments seen as facts or taking words such as ‘may’ as is.
• False Context: Factual information combined with false contextual information, for example, videos with titles that do not reflect the content of the video or conclusions that do not match the information of an essay.
• Satire and Parody: Humourism and mocking in conjunction with information intended to be passed as factual or reliable.
• False Connections: Where media and mediums do not support the main content that it is marketing as such.
• Sponsored Content: Where content that is being marketed is attempted to be passed as editorial content.
• Propaganda: Where misinformation and fabrication are used to deliver a biased viewpoint of an event to trick people without providing the complete story, for example, pointing out crimes of a nation, making them appear as the bad guy when the accuser has also committed similar crimes.
• Error: An often malicious or accidental publication of information that does not reflect the rest of the content or conclusion supported.

This concludes the second chapter on learning the essentials of a critical thinker. I look forward to the final chapter!

REFERENCES

1. Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life. 2nd ed., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Pearson Education.
2. Ostrander, Sheila, et al. Superlearning. New York: Delacorte Press, c1979, 1980 printing., 1979.
3. Damer, T. Edward. Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. 6th ed., 2009.
4. Bennett, Bo. Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition). Sudbury, Ma, Ebookit.com, 2014.
5. Benson, Buster. “Cognitive Bias Cheat Sheet. An Organized List of Cognitive Biases Because Thinking Is Hard. | by Buster Benson | Medium.” Medium, Sept. 2016, buster.medium.com/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18.
6. Toroidal Propeller. 21 Nov. 2022.