WRTG 3020, 3030, 3040, 1150, 1250 (Wilkerson)

ANALYZING AND REFUTING ARGUMENTS:

PART ONE: Sympathy and Skepticism
One of the first challenges youll confront in the next assignment is not an intellectual one, but an
emotional one. You need to break the largely emotional habit of agreeing with arguments just because
you share the authors political agenda, or you know that his argument is intellectually chic, or you find
him particularly witty, or you are moved by his emotional appeals. Citing any of these as grounds for
agreement is, finally, a form of intellectual laziness.
You need, instead, to cultivate the habits of the sympathetic skeptic. The skeptic only agrees with
those arguments that are logically convincing. That said, the skeptic is sympathetic to any serious
attempt at argument -- but only in the sense that he is willing to make a thorough effort to understand the
basic facts and claims of a given argument before he judges the validity of that argument. Sympathy, in
this context, is not a vague sense of emotional agreement. It is a necessary starting point, an attitude of
openness that allows the skeptic to evaluate an argument on its merits.
If the skeptic doesnt find the argument logically compelling and wishes to express his skepticism,
he must engage in the formal activity of refutation. Refutation is not a matter of sniping at the other
author, ridiculing him, or dismissing him by labeling him as a p.c. liberal, an earth raping capitalist, or
whatever else might be the trendy insult of the day. Nor is it a matter of quibbling over minor factual
errors or inflating secondary logical problems into cause for dismissing the authors primary case.
Refutation is the process of striking and defending a stance of opposition with the aim of edifying and
convincing the skeptical reader and the opposing author. Serious people dont refute arguments in order
to denigrate their opponents or demonstrate their own rhetorical brilliance; they do it to it in order to make
a purposeful, good faith contribution to what the historian Christopher Lasch calls the conversation of our
culture.
You will find, more often than not, that the person whose case you are refuting actually shares
your general political ideology. In that instance, refutation cant be a self-promoting exercise in defending
the faith against the heathen liberals or conservatives; it is instead, an exercise in refining and developing
your shared argument.
In order to do this, you must first closely analyze the other authors case -- not with a mind toward
finding flaws, but with the aim of understanding the overall structure of the case. You must be sure that
you understand all of the basic facts, claims and unstated assumptions in his argument, and you must be
sure that your understanding is as thorough and impartial as is it can possibly be.
The most simple and direct generic refutational thesis is he is wrong. There is no more clear or
more comprehensive way to strike a stance of opposition than to state this thesis. But you can also
refute an argument from a stance of agreement by using this generic thesis: I agree, but he fails to prove
his case. When you use this thesis, you are stating that you agree with the authors general point but are
unconvinced by his specific case. You are then obligated to explain why his specific case is unconvincing
before you present a better case.
The important thing to remember is that the skeptic opposes the quality or validity of the
argument, and not the author, or the authors ideology as it is manifested in the argument. You cannot do
this unless you understand the basic facts, claims and forms of the other authors argument; and you
cant achieve this understanding unless you first sympathize with the other writers case. Just remember
that when we speak of sympathy in this class, we are referring to an attitude of openness -- a willingness
to learn and to be convinced.
PART TWO: Analyzing Arguments
All arguments are made up of three basic ingredients:
1.) facts
2.) claims (logically defensible opinions about the facts)
3.) assumptions (the usually unstated ideas and logical premises upon which the validity of a
claim, in part, rests).
As skeptical readers, we should only be convinced by arguments in which the basic facts are
accurate and relevant, and the claims and unstated assumptions about the facts are logically defensible

and logically related. Further, we should only be convinced by arguments in which the author clearly
discusses the logical connections between the facts that he cites and the claims that he makes.
Below is a list of general strategies that you can use in analyzing and refuting an argument. Any
one of them can be used to construct a preliminary case (i.e., the reasons you outline in the projected
organization part of your introductory paragraph) for a generic thesis along these lines: His case is
unconvincing for several reasons. Be aware that these are just a way to get started. You dont
literally have to phrase your reasons in the manner I indicate below. Instead, use the following
formulas as a first step in stating ideas that will engage the other writers claims directly.
1.) He misrepresents the relevant facts.
a.) His representation of the facts is distorted by his personal opinions or emotions.
b.) He presents only those facts that support his argument and omits those that seem to refute it.
c.) He omits the relevant facts through ignorance or lack of expertise. (Be careful that this does
not become an ad hominem attack. You can find a description of this fallacy and several others at the
following web sites:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy and http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
2.) His entire case or a specific supporting claim is based upon a false assumption or a false inference.
a.) One of his reasons contains an unproven or false analytical assumption; in other words, he
assumes that an arguable point is a fact and bases his argument in part or in whole on that false
assumption.
b) He falsely assumes that all reasonable readers do or should share his moral/religious/
philosophical/political values.
c.) The entire essay is merely an attempt to rationalize a questionable ideological assumption or
dogma.
d.) All or part of his case is based upon a personal or restrictive definition of a general term (e.g.
the only valid democracy is direct, non-representational democracy; or, the American Dream is purely a
matter of self-reliance). In other words, the author falsely assumes that there is a simple and universal
definition for an ambiguous or complex term.
3.) His claim seems plausible and defensible, but he doesnt cite any evidence in defense of it; in other
words, his is a blind assertion or an assertion without proof. NOTE: You need to do more than point out
that his is a blind assertion. Thats only the first step. When you make this kind of criticism, there is an
assumption that you will either present the evidence that will make or refute his point.
4.) His claims seem plausible, but the evidence he cites in support of them actually contradicts them or
can be reinterpreted to contradict them.
5.) He relies upon emotionally compelling rhetoric when he should be citing and discussing hard, relevant
evidence.
6.) His claims appear to have some merit, but they are ultimately specious because they fail to engage
the most obvious and convincing counter thesis. Cf., the fallacies of the straw man, hasty generalization,
the false dilemma, the forced hypothesis.
7.) His claims are defensible and his evidence is interesting, but there is no logical connection between
them; or, to put it another way, he has failed, in his discussion of the evidence, to make the connection
between claim and evidence clear and explicit. (Cf., the fallacies of the non sequitur and the red herring.)
Look especially for subjective impressions presented in the form of cost-benefit analyses or other
ostensibly objective forms.

8.) He quotes only those authorities who support his opinion and ignores those credible authorities who
contradict it. He does this in order to create the impression that everyone who is an expert on the subject
at hand shares his opinion. (This is closely related to 1b above.)
9.) All or part of his case is based upon a false analogy (e.g., The American tax system is simply and
updated version of Medieval feudalism: the Federal government is the King; the state governments and
corporations are the lords; and we, the hard-working tax payers, are the serfs. This argument ignores
our ability to change the King by means of the popular vote.)
10.) His argument is well-constructed and well-argued, but it is also unconvincing because he hasnt
addressed the relevant issue. (Consider Boulders angels in the open space dispute. Several years
ago, certain local members of the ACLU argued that the city violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st
Amendment when it allowed people to put religious symbols on trees on public land. Others countered
that the 1st Amendment argument was irrelevant because this was simply a matter of littering, and the
religious or intellectual content of the litter didnt matter. In short, the ACLU was wrong because the issue
wasnt about free speech; it was about protection of public lands.)
11.) His argument is valid and convincing, but he draws a false conclusion from it or makes a call for
action that does not proceed logically from it.
12.) The author attempts to place a current issue in a broader social context, but makes historical
references that are either irrelevant or presented in a biased, incomplete, or unconvincing manner.
Consider the promiscuous quotation of Thomas Jefferson or Alexis deTocqueville that is so popular in our
political discourse these days. Consider the one-size-fits-all Hitler/Stalin analogy. What does it mean,
exactly, when someone likens the local school board president to a genocidal totalitarian ruler? You
might review the related concept of reductio ad hitlerum at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum .
13.) He doesnt make a formal, logical case and instead relies upon emotional pleas and personal attacks
(cf., every fallacy on the list, but especially ad hominem attacks, straw man, ad populum).
14.) The author compares an English speaking opponent to the French. I am joking, but only slightly.
Americans love to accuse each other of being too much like the French. Consider this tactic a specific
version of guilt by association, in this case a false association. (Did any of you have freedom toast for
breakfast? Would you like freedom fries with your hamburger?) This tactic has a long tradition in
American culture, but it has undergone a renaissance (pardon my French) with the fall of the Soviet
empire and the decline of communism in general. Red baiting has been replaced by rouge baiting.
Caveats:
1.) Dont use the above as a means of quibbling. In other words, dont just point out minor flaws in the
argument. Make one of the above a particular point of emphasis only if it demonstrates how the other
authors mistake has invalidated his thesis or a reason for his thesis.
2.) Dont feel obligated to use the generic analytical language in this reading in your thesis and projected
organization. Make your claims specific to the other authors case. Use the above examples as a
preliminary step in phrasing your theses and reasons.
3.) Dont speak to the issue in general. In other words, dont use another writers argument for
therapeutic cloning to advance a general case against therapeutic cloning. Respond to the other
authors specific claims; then advance your counter argument. This is almost a matter of
courtesy. He has taken time to make a specific case. You owe it to him to respond to that specific
case before you advance your own.