Ambiguity.
The author is clouding the issue by using circular reasoning (begging the question), arguing against a position that no one is defending (straw man), or presenting the reader with an unreasonable choice of options (either/or).
Logical fallacies do not prove that someone is wrong about a topic. They simply mean that the person is using weak or improper reasoning to reach his or her conclusions. In some cases, especially in advertising, logical fallacies are used deliberately. The advertiser wants to slip a sales pitch past the audience. Savvy arguers can also use logical fallacies to trip up their opponents. When you learn to recognize these fallacies, you can counter them when necessary.
Rebuttals and Refutations
Because we arguewithothers in an effort to gain their understanding and cooperation, you need to understand opposing viewpoints fully. You also need to anticipate how your readers will feel about your claims and your support. You need to imagine their possible objections or misunderstandings. After all, something that sounds like a good reason to you may not seem as convincing to your reader.
Summarize Your Opponents’ Position Objectively
If you’re discussing something “arguable,” then there must be at least one other side to the issue. Show your readers that you understand those other sides before you offer a rebuttal or counter it. If you ignore the opposing viewpoints, your readers will think you are either unfairly overlooking potential objections or you just don’t understand the other side of the argument. You can show readers that you understand other viewpoints by summarizing them objectively early in your argument. Try to frame their argument in a way that makes your readers say, “Yes, that’s a fair and complete description of the opposing position.”
Summarizing opposing viewpoints does three things for your argument. First, it lays out the specific points that you can refute or concede when you explain your own position. Second, it takes away some of your opponents’ momentum, because your readers will slow down and consider both sides of the issue carefully. Third, it will make you look more reasonable and well-informed about the issue.
Recognize When the Opposing Position May Be Valid
The opposing viewpoint probably isn’t completely wrong. There are likely to be situations, both real and hypothetical, where the other views may be valid. For example, let’s say you are arguing that the U.S. automobile industry needs to convert completely to manufacturing electric cars within twenty years. Your opponents might argue that this kind of dramatic conversion is not technically or economically feasible.
To show that you are well informed and reasonable, you could name a few situations in which they are correct.
· Converting fully to electric vehicles within twenty years may not be possible in some circumstances. For example, it is unlikely that large trucks, like semitrailers, will be able to run on electricity two decades from now because batteries will not be strong enough to provide the amount of energy required to move their weight for long distances. Furthermore, even if we stopped manufacturing gasoline-powered vehicles immediately, they would still be on the road for decades, requiring gas stations and mechanical repair. We cannot, after all, ask all drivers to immediately switch over to electric vehicles, especially if they cannot afford it.
By identifying situations in which the opposing position may be valid, you give some ground to the opposing side while limiting the effectiveness of their major points.
Concede Some of the Opposing Points
When you concede a point, you are acknowledging that some aspects of the opposing viewpoints or objections are valid in a limited way. It’s true that you will be highlighting potential weaknesses in your own position but you will strengthen your argument by candidly acknowledging these limitations and addressing them fairly.
For instance, if you were arguing that the federal government should use taxpayer money to help the auto industry develop electric cars, you could anticipate two objections to your argument:
· •As X points out, production of electric cars cannot be ramped up quickly because appropriate batteries are not being manufactured in sufficient numbers.
· •It is of course true that the United States’ electric grid could not handle millions of new electric cars being charged every day.
These objections are important, but they do not undermine your whole argument. Simply concede that they are problems while demonstrating that they are problems that can be fixed or that do not matter in the long run.
· It is true that the availability of car batteries and the inadequacy of the United States’ electricity grid are concerns. As Stephen Becker, a well-respected consultant to the auto industry, points out, “car manufacturers are already experiencing a shortage of batteries,” and there are no plans to build more battery factories in the future (109). Meanwhile, as Lauren King argues, the United States’ electric grid “is already fragile, as the blackouts a few years ago showed. And there has been very little done to upgrade our electric-delivery infrastructure.” King states that the extra power “required to charge 20 million cars would bring the grid to a grinding halt” (213).
· However, there are good reasons to believe that these problems, too, can be dealt with if the right measures are put in place. First, if investors had more confidence that there would be a steady demand for electric cars, and if thegovernment guaranteed loans for new factories, the growing demand for batteries would encourage manufacturers to bring them to market (Vantz, 12). Second, experts have been arguing for years that the United States needs to invest in anationalizedelectricity grid that will meet our increasing needs for electricity. King’s argument that the grid is “too fragile” misses the point. We already need to build a better grid, because the current gridistoo fragile, even for today’s needs. Moreover, it will take years to build a fleet of 20 million cars. During those years, the electric grid can be rebuilt.
By conceding some points, you weaken their effectiveness. By anticipating your readers’ doubts or the other side’s arguments, you can minimize the damage to your own argument.
Refute or Absorb Your Opponents’ Major Points
In some situations, your opponents will have one or two major points that cannot be conceded without completely undermining your argument. In these situations, you should study each major point to understand why it challenges your own argument. Is there a chance your opponents have a good point? Could your argument be flawed in some fundamental way? Do you need to rethink or modify your claims?
If you still believe your side of the argument is stronger, you have a couple of choices at this point. First, you can refute your opponents’ major point by challenging its factual correctness. It helps to look for a “smoking gun” moment in which the opposing side makes a mistake or overstates a claim.
· Critics of electric cars argue that the free market should determine whether electric cars and the infrastructure to support them should be built. They argue that the government should not determine which automotive technologies survive and thrive. However, this kind of argument goes against the historical record. The US government has always been involved in building roads, railways, and airports. For decades, it has given tax breaks to support the manufacturing of gasoline vehicles. We are simply asking for these supports to be shifted in ways that will meet future needs, not the needs of the past.
In other situations, you can absorb your opponents’ arguments by suggesting that your position is necessary or is better for the majority.
· The skeptics are correct that the conversion from gasoline cars to electric cars will not be easy and may even be economically painful. At this point, though, we have little choice. Our dependence on foreign oil, which is something we all agree is a problem, is a threat to our economic and political freedom. Moreover, our planet is already experiencing the negative effects of global climate change, which could severely damage the fragile ecosystems on which we depend for food, air, and water. We aren’t talking about lifestyle choices at this point. We are talking about survival.
When absorbing your opposing points, you should show that you are aware that they are correct but that the benefits of your position outweigh the costs.
Qualify Your Claims
You might be tempted to state your claims in the strongest language possible, perhaps even overstating them.
· Overstatement.The government must use its full power to force the auto industry to develop and build affordable electric cars for the American consumer. The payoff in monetary and environmental benefits will more than pay for the investment.
· Qualified Statement.Although many significant challenges must be dealt with, the government should begin taking steps to encourage the auto industry to develop and build affordable electric cars for the American consumer. The payoff in monetary and environmental impact could very well pay for the effort and might even pay dividends.
When qualifying your claims and other points, you are softening your position a little. This softening gives readers the sense that they are being asked to make up their own minds. Few people want to be told that they “must” do something or “cannot” do something else. If possible, you want to avoid pushing your readers into making an either/or, yes/no kind of decision, because they may reject your position altogether.
Instead, remember that all arguments have gray areas. No one side is absolutely right or wrong. Qualifying your claims allows you to show your readers that your position has some flexibility. You can use the following words and phrases to qualify your claims:
unless / would / in all probabilityexcept / perhaps / usually
if / maybe / frequently
even though / reasonably / probably
not including / plausibly / possibly
aside from / in most circumstances / conceivably
in some cases / almost certainly / often
although / most likely / may
could / if possible / might
should
You can also soften your claims by acknowledging that you are aware of the difficulties and limitations of your position. Your goal is to argue reasonably while strongly advocating for your side of the argument.