Location: 154 It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else.
Page: 2 When you are using arguments as a means of inquiry, you sometimes may start with no more than the conclusion you wish to defend. State it clearly, first of all.
Page: 3 Put the conclusion first, followed by your reasons, or set out your premises first and draw the conclusion at the end.
Page: 3 The evils of the world are due to moral defects quite as much as to lack of intelligence. But the human race has not hitherto discovered any method of eradicating moral defects.… Intelligence, on the contrary, is easily improved by methods known to every competent educator. Therefore, until some method of teaching virtue has been discovered, progress will have to be sought by improvement of intelligence rather than of morals.
Page: 4 Expect to rearrange your argument several times to find the most natural order.
Page: 4 No matter how well you argue from premises to conclusion, your conclusion will be weak if your premises are weak.
Page: 6 Short arguments normally have a single theme or thread. They carry one idea through several steps. Therefore, couch that idea in clear and carefully chosen terms, and mark each new step by using those very same terms again.
Page: 8 The logic depends on clear connections between premises and between premises and conclusion. It remains essential to use a consistent term for each idea.
Page: 11 In a generalization about a small set of things, the strongest argument should consider all, or at least many, of the examples.
Page: 15 If kids keep watching more TV at current rates, by 2025 they’ll have no time left to sleep!
Page: 15 Extrapolation in such cases is perfectly possible mathematically, but after a certain point it tells you nothing.
Page: 16 If you can think of counterexamples to a generalization that you want to defend, then you need to adjust your generalization.
Page: 20 When an argument stresses the likeness between two cases, it is very probably an argument from analogy.
Page: 26 We notice, remember, and pass on information that supports our point {27} of view, but we may not be quite so motivated when the evidence points the other way.
Page: 28 Good arguments cite their sources (Rule 13); look them up.
Page: 37 That is, a (properly formed) deductive argument is an argument of such a form that if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true too.
Page: 38 Still, when strong premises can be found, deductive forms are very useful. And even when the premises are uncertain, deductive forms offer an effective way to organize arguments.
Page: 38 If [sentence p] then [sentence q]. [Sentence p]. Therefore, [sentence q].
Page: 39 If p then q. Not-q. Therefore, not-p.
Page: 40 If p then q. If q then r. Therefore, if p then r.
Page: 40 q (called the “consequent”)
Page: 40 p (the “antecedent”)
Page: 41 p or q. Not-p. Therefore, q.
Page: 42 p or q. If p then r. If q then s. Therefore, r or s.
Page: 43 reductio ad absurdum, that is, a “reduction to absurdity.”
Page: 54 So always ask: What are the best arguments against the conclusion you are working on?
Page: 55 You must also show that it is better than other plausible ways of solving that same problem.
Page: 59 “If you want to get to Dublin, don’t start here.”
Page: 67 I appreciate the chance to speak to you today. In this talk, I want to put forward a new idea on the subject of student exchange programs. It’s {68} a proposal I find exciting and inspiring, and I’m hoping that, by the end, you will too.
Page: 68 Patience is helpful too—and again, show it.
Page: 68 You do not need to apologize for taking their time. Just thank them for listening, and use the time well.
Page: 69 you can establish a much more engaged feeling in the room by visibly engaging with your audience yourself.
Page: 69 On the whole, oral arguments need to offer more “signposting” and repetition than written arguments.
Page: 69 “Here is my basic argument.”
Page: 69 “We come now to the second [third, fourth, etc.] basic premise of my argument.…” Summarize again at the end. Pause to mark important transitions and to give people time to think.
Page: 70 to literally repeat my key claims word for word—
Page: 70 make sure that most of your hearers are ready to move with you.
Page: 71 All arguments—not just oral arguments—should try to offer something positive.
Page: 72 Come to a rousing end. End in style, with flair or a flourish.
Page: 73 Actually, though, to call something a fallacy is usually just another way of saying that it violates one of the rules for good arguments.
Page: 73 The fallacy of “false cause,”
Page: 73 ad hominem (literally, “to the man”):
Page: 73 ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance): arguing that a claim is true just because it has not been shown to be false.
Page: 73 ad misericordiam (appeal to pity): appealing to pity as an argument for special treatment.
Page: 73 ad populum: appealing to the emotions of a crowd; also, appealing to a person to go along with the crowd (“Everyone’s doing it!”).
Page: 73 affirming the consequent:
Page: 73 This argument overlooks alternatives.
Page: 73 begging the question: implicitly using your conclusion as a premise.
Page: 73 circular argument: same as begging the question.
Page: 73 complex question:
Page: 73 A simple example: “Are you still as selfcentered as you used to be?”
Page: 73 denying the antecedent:
Page: 73 This argument overlooks alternatives.
Page: 73 equivocation: sliding from one meaning of a term to another in the middle of an argument.
Page: 73 false cause: generic term for any questionable conclusion about cause and effect.
Page: 73 false dilemma: reducing the options you consider to just two, often diametrically opposed to each other and unfair to the people against whom the dilemma is posed.
Page: 73 This argument overlooks alternatives.
Page: 73 Try to increase the number of options you consider, not narrow them!
Page: 73 loaded language: language that primarily plays on the emotions.
Page: 73 non sequitur: drawing a conclusion that “does not follow,” that is, a conclusion that is not a reasonable inference from, or even related to, the evidence.
Page: 73 overgeneralizing: generalizing from too few examples.
Page: 73 You can’t even generalize from a large sample unless it is demonstrably representative.
Page: 73 overlooking alternatives: forgetting that things may happen for a variety of reasons, not just one.
Page: 73 persuasive definition: defining a term in a way that may seem to be straightforward but in fact is loaded.
Page: 73 poisoning the well: using loaded language to disparage an argument before even mentioning it
Page: 73 post hoc, ergo propter hoc (literally, “after this, therefore because of this”; sometimes just called the post hoc fallacy):
Page: 73 red herring: introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention from the main subject.
Page: 73 straw man: a caricature of an opposing view, exaggerated from what anyone is likely to hold, so that it is easy to refute.