Common errors to avoid in reasoning
By Debbie Harris, Contributor

HAPPY NEW year!

I trust you had a blessed, peaceful and holy Christmas. I know you are ready for all that this year will bring - examinations! As I promised you, here are some errors in reasoning that you must avoid when you are evaluating the contents of the various information you have gathered for the orals in the Expository Section. You do this evaluation to determine whether they are valid and reliable. Within the most innocent looking statement from some sources may lurk biases and fallacies in reasoning that may affect the soundness and logic of the information. Careful scrutiny is required to identify the following errors in reasoning and in accounting for their impact on the information received.

1. HASTY GENERALISATION

The writer/speaker bases the argument/conclusion on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence. For example, 'I have met many Jamaicans and I am convinced that the average Jamaican does not wish to be told what to do.'

2. NON SEQUITUR (IT DOES NOT FOLLOW)

The writer's/speaker's conclusion is not necessarily a logical result of the facts presented. For example, 'Affirmative action programmes have been established to provide access to educational and professional opportunities that have been denied to certain groups in the past. Since black Rastafarian males have often been at a disadvantage during the last twenty years or so, I feel that I, as a member of this group, deserve special consideration under affirmative action guidelines.'

3. BEGGING THE QUESTION:

The writer/speaker presents as truth (or as a fact already proven) a statement(s) that is yet to be proven by the argument presented. For example, 'Do you think that the recent escalation of violence was politically motivated?'

4. RED HERRING

The writer/speaker introduces an irrelevant point to divert the reader's/listener's attention from the main or relevant issue. For example, 'Government funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) should be discontinued. Taxpayers do not want and should not be expected to pay for so-called 'art' such as Brown's sexual perversions and Smith's sacrilegious trash. It is inexcusable that such things have been supported by tax money through the NEA, which because of such irresponsible decisions should itself be eliminated.'

5. POST HOC (AFTER THIS, THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF THIS)

The assumption of a causal relationship between two things simply because one event follows another in time. The second event is being thought to be caused by the first which preceded it. For example, 'The belief that a teacher's absence from a class will result in a fight among students in his/her classroom.'

6. ARGUMENT AD HOMINEM (TO THE MAN)

The writer/speaker attacks the opponent's character rather than the opponent's argument. For example, 'I don't know if it is the minute size of his head which makes him think we are too small to lead.'

7. ARGUMENT AD POPULUM (TO THE PEOPLE)

The writer/speaker evades an issue by appealing to the reader's/listener's emotional reaction to certain words/subjects. For example, using the term 'bloated-capitalist' for 'wealthy business man'.

8. EITHER/OR SYNDROME

An attempt to convince the reader/listener that there are only two ways of viewing or understanding an issue ­ one right, one wrong. For example, 'Were you drunk and not responsible for your actions? I want a straightforward 'yes' or 'no'!'

9. BANDWAGON APPEAL

The writer/speaker attempts to validate a point by suggesting or giving the impression that everyone else believes in it; the idea is acceptable and sound because it enjoys widespread currency. For example, 'It is common belief that the politicians are self-serving.'

10. STRAW MAN

The writer/speaker selects the opposition's weakest or most insignificant point to argue against, in order to divert attention from the real issues. For example, 'Dr. Parchment favours drug legalisation, but this is a view held by very few Jamaicans. Indeed, no responsible citizen wants to encourage drug addiction or the crime associated with the use of illicit drugs.'

11. FAULTY ANALOGY

The writer/speaker uses an extended (often irrelevant) comparison as proof of a point. Analogy might suggest similarities but by itself it cannot prove anything. For example, one might refer to a battle as if it were a game and perhaps a game of chess may be like a battle in several respects, but the comparisons cannot be pressed far.

12. ARGUING IN A CIRCLE

In the course of a discussion the writer/speaker uses the actual statement in question to prove either that the statement is true or that another statement is true. For example, 'A maintains that Christians lead better lives than others. B then mentions some Christians who lead disreputable lives. Whereupon A denies that these are Christians.'

13. VAGUENESS

A writer/speaker uses terms that have not been defined in such a way as to give the impression that they have universally acceptable meanings. For example, 'Education, romance, rich wealth, crowd.'

14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

The reference to expert knowledge to support an argument without sufficient acknowledgement that an authority on one subject may be unreliable on another and that a man that is usually unreliable may occasionally be right.

15. TABLOID THINKING

A form of generalisation by which the writer/speaker tends to over-simplify complex issues by labelling and putting things into convenient categories for easy solutions. For example, 'Communists want to make everybody the same.'

Study these and try to apply them to some of the information you have gleaned in your research.

Next week you will be given some exercises to practise your reasoning-ability skills. Until then, walk good!