Flaws in an argument
Because two things are found together doesn’t mean there is a link.
Example: “The entire family was ill last night. They all ate fish at the restaurant yesterday. Therefore, the fish must have been contaminated.”
Assuming a link where there is none is a flawed argument (false correlation)
Example: In summer sales of ice cream and sandals are increased. This is a correlation but does one cause the other?
Check:
- Are patterns and trends coincidental or are you sure there is a direct link?
- Are they linked by a third cause?
Reasons or evidence are necessary to support an argument. If not present, the argument is flawed. All necessary conditions must be present
Example: A Lottery winner must have valid ticket – but what else is necessary?
Must be necessary AND sufficient
Example: Birds have wings. The item has wings. Therefore, it is a bird.
Argument should take counter-arguments into consideration, critically analyse the line of reasoning, not the person. Sometimes authors use emotive/strong language or subjects to persuade and affect your judgement.
Example: Identity Cards
“Personal identity cards don’t present any real dangers to human rights. They add to our security, by making it easier for the police to track and catch criminals.
Opponents of identity cards are wishy-washy liberals who live in leafy areas and haven’t a clue what it is like to live in run-down areas where crime is rife.”
Presenting options in an unfair way and focusing on minor points in an opposing argument and ignoring main reasons. Can be deliberate to mislead, or author may not realise
Restricted options: presenting an argument to look as if there are only 2 possible conclusions, selecting one weak to make the other look preferable.
Example of a flawed argument
Juvenile crime has risen sharply in cities. Young people are out of control. There are only two options in a situation like this. Either we agree to put up with savage assaults on our persons and property, or we place a curfew on all young people after 10 o’clock.
Flawed argument
Here the writer is presenting two options: put a curfew in place or put up with ‘savage assaults’. The second option is obviously one which people will not want, so they are really being forced into choosing the curfew option.
In reality, there are more than only these two options. We could suggest things such as improved street lighting, more policing, or CCTV cameras. In giving the reader limited options, the writer isn’t considering any other alternatives.
The writer has also used strong, emotive language to provoke a reaction, for example ‘savage’. There is no evidence that it is young people committing the crimes, or that crime is occurring after 10pm. These are therefore not valid arguments.
Be aware!
When refuting someone’s argument, this on its own is not enough. You must present a valid argument with evidence yourself.