Chapter 48 Summary

When writing an argumentative academic paper, you need to evaluate all of your arguments. You want to make sure that your arguments are reasonable and not fallacies. There are several different types of fallacies. Fallacies are false or mistaken ideas. Generalizations are a very common type of fallacy that writers use. There are two major types of generalizations. One is a hasty generalization. A hasty generalization is "a conclusion based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence". The other major type of generalization is stereotyping. Stereotyping is a hasty generalization that is made about a group.  Another type of fallacy is drawing a false analogy. A false analogy is when someone has "assumed that because two things are alike in one respect, they must be alike in others."

Cause and effect is a complex process, so a lot of writers will over simplify it. A lot of writers will "assume that because one event follows another, the first is the cause of the second." This fallacy is known as post hoc, which means "after this, therefore because of this. Another fallacy is the either or fallacy. This is when writers set up a false choice between their preferred option and and one that is clearly unsatisfactory. When writers use this fallacy they suggest that there is only two options when there is in fact more. It is unfair to the readers. Another fallocy is making assumptions. "An assumption is a claim that is taken to be true - without the need of proof." The main problem with assumptions is when there is an argument with a missing claim.

Another thing that you need to do when you are writing an argumentative paper is distinguish between legitimate and unfair emotional appeals. Emotional appeals can be very effective, but you need to make sure that you are being fair. A lot of unfair emotional appeals use biased language. "Attacking the persons who hold a belief rather than refuting their argument is called an ad hominem." Bandwagon appeal is when you claim that an idea should be accepted because a lot of people are in favor. One way to build credibility is to address opposing arguments fairly. A lot of writers will do a lot to win an argument including ignoring opposing views altogether or misrepresenting such views and attacking their proponents.

One thing that a lot of writers do to win an argument is deliberately misrepresent the view of their opponents. One way they do this is by setting up a "straw man", which is a character that is so weak that they are easily knocked down. "The straw man fallacy consists of an oversimplification or outright distortion of opposing views." A lot of writers will quote the words and views of others that hold opposing views. This can be a good idea because it can assure some level of fairness and accuracy, but the fairness and accuracy can be an illusion. This happens when a source is misrepresented because it is quoted out of context. A fair writer would explain the context to their readers. "Sometimes writers deliberately distort a source through the device of ellipsis dots. Ellipsis dots tell readers that words have been omitted from the original source. When those words are crucial to an author's meaning, omitting them is obviously unfair."

When I write an argumentative paper, I will try my best to make it fair. I will try my best to avoid the use of these fallacies. I know that it is human nature to use fallacies, but I will try my hardest to write the fairest argumentative paper. I will make sure that I do not misrepresent opposing views.