2. It considers all relevant information.

Good arguments also consider all information

likely to be relevant. This consideration includes addressing counter-arguments and
objections to both the premises and the conclusion.
3. It is logically valid. Validity, defined very loosely, means that the premises do, in fact,
by Leo Sun
give readers reason to accept the conclusion the writer puts forth.
Needs analysis is defined as a formal process focus on how a product addresses the needs of a A Good Argument and a Bad Argument
human. It is not an official business development tool, but is considered a valuable analytical Consider the following two arguments. The first argument displays good reasoning and the second
technique to better gauge the marketability of a product or a service to a human consumer. It is demonstrates fallacious reasoning.
often used across many industries, such as software development, automobiles, consumer
1. If it is raining, then the ground is wet.
products and banking services. Needs analysis was originally used for software developers, who
2. It is raining.
used the system in tandem with requirements analysis a study of the elements represented
3. Therefore, the ground is wet.
within a system. In short, if these two systems were applied to Apple Inc., requirements analysis The first premise specifies a conditional relationship. This relationship is denoted by the if/then structure of
would be involved with all the internal guts of the computers, the ugly complicated bits of the sentence. If A happens, then B happens too. This structure is called the major premise of the argument.
hardware and firmware that are hidden from the end user; while needs analysis would be The second, minor premise of the argument tells us that the if part of the first premise takes place. The
focused on the slick software operating system interface as well as its peripherals such as the third statement, the conclusion, then asserts that the then part of the first statement takes place as well.
keyboard and mouse that are directly used by the end user and as such, affect the end This argument form is known as modus ponens.
users final perception of the product.
Now, consider a second argument.
1. If it is raining, then the ground is wet.
6 Principles of Needs Analysis
2. The ground is wet.
3. Therefore, it is raining.
The
opinion of end users is essential to unify a diverse, opinionated design team, and their opinion
should transcend the desires of your design team.
At first glance, one may be tempted to believe that this argument shows good reasoning as well. Since we
have already established the truth-value of the first premise, and since we will assume that somewhere the
Market
research is essential to unify end user opinions, and to use quantitative and qualitative research ground is, in fact, wet, let us consider the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. This
to find the best direction for product or service designs.
argument is invalid: the truth of the premises does not give us grounds to accept the conclusion as true.
are reasons other than rain that the ground could be wet: the sprinkler system could be on, for
Appeal
to the lowest common denominator in end user needs. Marketing to the lowest skill levels results There
instance.
in the largest potential market. In other words, follow the KISS principle keep it simple, stupid.
Falsely inferring that it is raining because the ground is wet is known as affirming the consequent. This
and others are discussed in greater detail in our logical flaw sections: general inferential errors, errors
Do
comprehensive beta tests of your products over a long period of time to allow adequate adjustments fallacy
in causality, errors in generalization, and other fallacies.
before freezing your product for the final manufacturing stage.
The First Characteristic: True Premises
Continue
to monitor user feedback after the product launch, and address defects quickly and keep an
first condition for a cogent argument is the one likely to involve the most research. An important
accurate record to apply to future releases, if they cannot be addressed immediately in the current This
decision writers must make in their papers is when to take a premise as accepted or whether it needs
product.
support from outside research. Judgment in this regard is often formed with experience writing and
familiarity
with the topic. In any case, many premises will have to be supported in some fashion. See our
Elegant
designs are the end product of successful needs analysis, and will put your product head and page on strategies
for reasoning and avoiding fallacies for more advice on this topic.
shoulders above industry peers.
It
is
also
important
to your audience that a statement is a premise of your argument. A conclusion
Gap analysis, which is used to compare actual business performance with ideal performance, is often takes the formtoofidentify
a topic sentence; thus, your reasons to accept this conclusion may fall under the
often used in conjunction with needs analysis to maximize a business growth potential. Gap umbrella of your topic sentence.
may find it useful to set off your premises with certain phrasings. In
analysis insures that a company is allocating its resources for maximum production. Gap your topic sentence, for instance,You
could say something as simple as, X is true for three reasons. For
analysis is considered a benchmarking tool for efficiency and is used for outlining a clearer road more information, see our page onyou
writing effective paragaphs.
map for future growth, and can be used at both the strategic and operational levels of an The Second Characteristic: All Relevant Information Included
organization. In short, it tries to fill the gap between where a company is, and where it aims to Kahane and Cavender (1998) distinguish between including relevant information and establishing the truth
be. In addition, some organizations referred to gap as an acronym separating the good, of premises. This distinction is not altogether accurate: including relevant information is surely a part of
average and poor aspects of a business.
establishing the truth of an arguments premises. Still, writers will likely find this distinction useful.
Specifically, including all relevant information necessitates considering objections to the reasoning of the
5 Areas to Apply Gap Analysis
writer. Including this relevant information thus avoids the problem of one-sided arguments.
Workforce organization
Despite the importance of doing so, some may find it difficult to immediately think of possible objections to
The overall efficiency of your company must be examined, from top to bottom. Redundant their arguments. The writing center at the University of North Carolina has three suggestions:
1. Research the topic. Different sources will have different perspectives on the issue.
positions should be cut or combined, and poorly performing business segments should be
2. Talk with someone else about your argument. Meeting with your professor or
eliminated or merged into existing ones. If you company has shifted in direction from one
talking to people in your class is a great way to find out possible objections to your
industry to another for example, from personal computers to cloud computing then your
argument.
workforce must be restructured to reflect this, and to shed the extra weight.
3. Imagine a hypothetical person who denies all of your premises and conclusion.
Arguing with this person will enable you to defend your argument against objections.
Business direction
it could also enable you to adapt your stance to accomodate such critics.
Everyone must be on the same page in the pursuit of your companys goals. A poorly timed Although itAlternatively,
is important to address counterarguments in your paper, one must be careful to accurately
chang in business direction can alienate your existing customers and make it difficult to gain portray an opponents
arguments. Failing to do so is a logical fallacy known as constructing a "strawman."
new ones. If your companys industry is becoming crowded, then a change in direction may be Addressing counterarguments
and objections often takes one of the following forms when writing. At the
inevitable but you have to make sure that your employees, shareholders, stakeholders and most basic level, addressing these
concerns means offering reasons to prefer your own argument to other
debtholders are all in agreement.
ones. Addressing objections can involve different types of responses. One could claim that, despite the truth
of an objection, one's own argument should still be preferred. Alternatively, one can specifically argue
Production capabilities
against
the
cogency
(truth
or
validity)
of a counterargument.
If your company is still relying on domestic production plants, then you may have to consider The Third Characteristic: Logical Validity
outsourcing your labor to close the gap with larger competitors. Keeping all your production
argument is valid only if it is not possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. In
plants within the United States could cripple your margins and affect your ability to price An
the above example of a good argument, it is not possible for both of the premises (that if it is raining, the
products competitively.
ground is wet; and that it is raining) to be true and the conclusion (the ground is wet) to be false. This
Customer base
situation is an example of a deductively valid argument. Deductive arguments move from general, broad
(if it is raining, the ground is wet) to the specific (the ground is wet).
Has your company reached the full breadth of its potential customer base, or is it dwindling in a statements
valid arguments are the opposite. Rather than going from the general to the specific, they work
corner, marginalized by larger companies? If there are still a large number of unreached Inductively
specific cases and generalize to larger patterns. The truth of such inductively valid arguments is thus
potential customers, it may be time to invest in expensive advertising and PR campaigns to from
much less certain, but it also allows one to reason to genuinely new knowledge. Examples of these
thrust your product into the public eye.
arguments often involve experience: we know, or at least believe, the sun will rise tomorrow because it has
in the past.
Market Potential
must often use specific words and phrases to identify conclusions they reach in their papers. Words
Is the current market saturated? If its too saturated, then you should only produce products that Writers
as therefore, hence, thus, or informally, so, often denote a writers arrival at a conclusion in his or
have fewer competitors but broader appeal. A vigorous needs analysis can help you craft better such
her argument. These methods of setting off your conclusion help the reader identify the parts of your
products that appeal to more consumers.
argument and trace your reasoning.
A well crafted combination of thoughtful, repeated needs analysis and expansive gap analysis Reasoning: General Inferential Errors
can transform your company and its products for the better. By using both, you can toss out the By David Roberts
old and renew your company, allowing you to see avenues of growth that were previously The process of inference reasoning to conclusions based upon evidence is an essential element in
obscured by daily habits, routines and mediocre expectations.
academic writing. Unfortunately, writers often err in the inferences they make. In addition to more specific
inferential errors (see our pages on errors in causation, errors in generalization, and other logical fallacies),
Reasoning: Arguing Cogently
writers often make one or more of four general errors when attempting to infer conclusions. These errors are
By David Roberts
similar in that they reason to conclusions that are too strong. In other words, based upon the given
Academic writing requires writers to make claims and support them using evidence of one kind or another. all
evidence, the conclusion they draw could still be wrong.
When writers employ good reasoning, it is called "cogent." As you will see, cogency refers to very specific
Affirming the Consequent
traits of arguments. Discussed in detail below are the three specific characteristics of good arguments.
Affirming the consequent occurs when writers are discussing if-then relationships and infer too much from
Three Characteristics of Good Arguments
the knowledge they have available to them.
A cogent argument has three characteristics, according to Kahane and Cavender (1998):
An if-then relationship involves two parts: the antecedent and the consequent. In:
1. All its premises are true. The premise(s), the reasons for accepting the conclusion(s),
If it is raining, the ground is wet,
must be true or, at least, believable in order for the argument to be cogent.
the if part of the sentence is the antecedent and the then part is the consequent.

6 Principles of Needs Analysis

When writers affirm the consequent, they take the truth of the then part to infer something about the "if"
part:
"The ground is wet. Therefore, it is raining."
The problem, of course, is that something else could make the ground wet. The sprinkler system could be
on, or someone may have forgotten to turn off the garden hose. Based upon only the fact that the ground is
wet, we do not know that it is raining.
Denying the Antecedent
A related error occurs when one infers that, because the if part of the sentence is false, the then part
must also be false.
Again using the example of rain and wet ground, one would commit this error by concluding that:
"Because it is not raining, the ground is not wet."
These words alone do not guarantee that the ground is dry. This statement indicates an error in reasoning
for the same reason that affirming the consequent is fallacious: there may be other reasons for the ground to
be wet. If the sprinkler system is on, the ground is wet even though it is not raining.
Appealing to Ignorance
This error also involves inferring too much from the known facts. Appealing to ignorance means that one
concludes a statement must be false because it has not been proven true, or vice versa.
Consider the example of North Korean nuclear weapons. One person might say,
North Korea does not have nuclear weapons: no one has proved that they exist!
Another could counter,
But of course North Korea has nuclear weapons: no one has proved that they dont!
In both of these cases, there is insufficient evidence to draw such a sweeping conclusion. In either example,
it is possible for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. Writers could then articulate reasons why it is more
likely or not that North Korea does, in fact, have nuclear weapons.
Hasty Generalization
Making predictions and generalizations is essential in academic writing. Still, writers can all too easily
mistakenly generalize based upon insufficient evidence.
As the name suggests, a hasty generalization occurs when a conclusion is drawn too quickly; that is, before
all relevant information is considered. For example, a student might say,
I did well on that test and didnt even open the book! I dont need to study for the next
test in this class!
This conclusion is drawn too quickly; the material on the second test may be more difficult. The point is that
one cannot look at a single, potentially isolated event and attempt to infer too much information from it.
Often, hasty generalizations arise from not considering pertinent information or using unrepresentative
example.
Reasoning: Errors in Causation
By David Roberts
Often writers argue that there is a causal relationship between two or more things. For example, some might
argue that the high turnout of Evangelical voters in 2004 led to President Bushs victory. Unfortunately, many
writers make unwarranted logical leaps when portraying one event as the cause or effect of another.
Described below are several kinds of common errors when writers discuss causality.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Many scholarly studies use the word correlation to describe two occurrences which happen together. A
correlation, however, does not necessarily mean that the two events are logically connected, much less that
one caused another. There are two specific errors one should keep in mind when discussing correlating
events in academic papers.
1. Alternate Causes. Consider a typical correlation: X correlates with Y. As X increases,
so does Y. It does not necessarily follow that X caused Y because some third variable,
Z, could have caused them both. A classic example of this situation is ice cream sales
and the number of drownings in the summer. The mere fact that ice cream sales
increase as drownings increase does not mean that one caused the other. Rather, a
third factor, such as hot weather, could have caused both.
2. Reverse Causation. In some cases, one event takes place and shortly after, another
takes place. Many times, however, the two events take place at the same time. In this
case, rather than X causing Y, Y could have caused X. Some may argue that poor
economic conditions are the result of high crime: if there is high crime, businesses wont
invest in expensive equipment that would likely be stolen. It could, however, also be the
case that poor economic conditions cause high crime: if there is little employment,
people may turn to crime to acquire goods or to alleviate boredom. Perhaps both causal
relationships are true. The point is, one cannot infer causality with these facts alone due
to the complexity of the relationship.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
This Latin phrase translates to After this, therefore because of this. Sometimes writers assume that
because one event takes place before another, it must be the cause of it. While this situation is necessary
for causation, it alone is not sufficient. Political science professor Dr. Erkulwater provides an example of
what she sometimes sees:
Tax cuts are good for the economy. Shortly after President Reagan cut personal
income taxes in the 1980s, the U.S. economy boomed.
This statement may or may not be true; the point is, one must have more information than simply the time
the two events took place to assert that the former event caused the latter.
Single Cause.
A related problem with establishing causality is that there could be more than one cause of an event. If one
looks at data and finds that:
1) X took place before Y, and
2) X rises as Y rises, one may be tempted to assert a causal relationship between the
two.
This observation, however, neglects the possibility that a third variable, Z, is also necessary for Y to happen.
X alone does not cause Y; rather, X and Z together cause Y. Alone, either X or Z could be insufficient.
For example, sometimes economists use a persons willingness to pay for a good to determine the
demand for the good. Demand, however, is also determined by a persons ability to pay for the good.
Reasoning: Generalization Errors
By David Roberts
Many writers cite statistical data or other research when attempting to support their assertions. While this
tactic is good, many of these writers fall into traps in the course of using research to substantiate their
claims. Below are two common problems when attempting to infer generalizations:
Unrepresentative Sample
Sometimes writers attempt to infer characteristics about an entire population /based upon a sample of it. At
one level, this inference is necessary: it is difficult to imagine opinion polls for the President to poll nearly
300 million people every time a poll is commissioned. There are still dangers associated with such

inferences, however. If the sample poorly resembles the population at large, its results are likely to be
skewed.
One prominent example of skewed results can be found in an election poll in 1936 which predicted that
Franklin Roosevelt would lose to Alf Landon. Roosevelt, of course, went on to win in a landslide. The poll
had an unrepresentative sample: it used names from telephone directories and auto registrations, but during
this time many people did not have the resources for such technology. These people, moreover, voted
overwhelmingly for Roosevelt. Because the poll drew on an unrepresentative sample, its results were wildly
wrong.
In order to avoid this error in papers, writers ought to be familiar with how certain numbers and statistics are
derived. While it may not be feasible to remember every detail, writers will do well to be familiar with the
process that produced the statistic. The key question writers must ask is, "Does this sample possess any
traits likely to make it unrepresentative of the population as a whole?" Asking this question will allow writers
to critique others' claims as well as their own.
Ecological Fallacy
Sometimes, people mistakenly attempt to infer characteristics about a single individual based upon
characteristics of the individuals population. This inference is known as the ecological fallacy. It shows poor
reasoning because the individual may not be representative of the population.
For an example of the ecological fallacy, imagine a person saying:
Harvard is a better school than Washington and Lee; since John goes to Harvard, he is
a better student than Mary, who goes to Washington and Lee.
This conclusion does not follow from the premises. Even if Harvard is better than Washington and Lee, John
could be a complete slacker while Mary could be quite intelligent and hardworking!
Reasoning: Other Fallacies
By David Roberts
There are a number of other common errors that writers make when crafting their arguments. These are
more difficult to categorize than the previous section details, but they are, nonetheless, very important to
remember when writing argumentatively.
False Dilemma
Strawman
Appealing to Authority
Fallacy of the Beard
Slippery Slope
Begging the Question
Equivocation
Questionable Analogy
Ad hominem
False Dilemma
Writers construct false dilemmas when they argue that there are only two options to address an issue, and
since one is undesirable or impossible, we must choose the other. This is fallacious for two reasons. First,
there could be more than two options. It would sound ridiculous for someone to say,
We can either burn the house down and collect the insurance money or we can
continue living in an unsafe house. Since we shouldnt keep living in an unsafe house,
we should burn it down.
In fact, other options exist: selling or repairing the house, for instance.
Constructing false dilemmas is also fallacious because the two options the writer constructs may not be
mutually exclusive; that is, one may be able to do both of them. Consider this argument:
We can either go to the river or eat sandwiches. Were both hungry, so we should eat
sandwiches and not go to the river.
This is a false dilemma because one could likely eat sandwiches and go to the river, or even eat sandwiches
at the river. In your own writing, it thus becomes necessary to check to see that you are not overlooking
alternatives to choices you have listed and that the choices you have listed really are choices and not simply
options, of which more than one can be selected at once.
Strawman
The strawman fallacy takes its name from what else a strawman guarding a field from crows. This fallacy
occurs when writers mischaracterize opponents' positions in order to more easily refute it. Writers might
make opponents' positions more extreme or sound contradictory to accomplish this. This is problematic
because it does not truly address the issue at hand.
It is sometimes difficult to avoid the strawman fallacy. After all, since one is disagreeing with the objection in
question, it can be difficult to give due credit to an opposing point of view. It is essential to do this, however,
for it will bolster the strength of one's argument. In order to avoid this fallacy, one should be careful to:
1. Ensure that one understands the objection in question; and
2. Take deliberate care in articulating that position and its flaws to the papers audience.
Interestingly enough, an argument that makes concessions to opponents or at least carefully examines them
is often more persuasive because it appears more reasonable to the audience.
Appealing to Authority
As the name suggests, appealing to authority occurs when writers argue that a position should be accepted
because some sort of authority believes it should be accepted. There are several difficulties with this
argument, however. Kahane and Cavender (1998) cite two problems. First, some authorities are more
credible than others. Personal biases as well as limited professional experience can undermine a sources
credibility. Second, authorities in one field are not always authorities in others. George Clooney is less
credible than a real cardiologist to speak about the procedures for open heart surgery.
It is also sometimes difficult to determine whether and how to appeal to authorities. After all, academic
writing poses something of a paradox: writers at once are supposed to support their claims with evidence
presumably offered by authorities while simultaneously becoming independent voices themselves. In order
to properly use authorities, writers will do well to focus on evaluating authorities. A few questions may be
helpful in this regard:
How does the authority come to this conclusion?
What makes an authority credible?
Why might a persons status as an authority on the issue give extra credence to accepting that
authoritys conclusion?
Fallacy of the Beard

This faulty reasoning strategy takes its name from a man with a beard. One could conceivably prove that no
one has a beard (or, on the other hand, that everyone has a beard) using this reasoning strategy. The
argument goes like this:
Person A: Does a person with one whisker have a beard?
Person B: No.
Person A: Well, what about a person with two whiskers?
Person B: Nope.
Person A: Three, four, five?
Person B: No, no, no!
Person A: Therefore, no one has a beard!
This reasoning is obviously faulty, though: one sees people with beards all the time. This faulty reasoning
results from the questionable premise that because two things are not different because their exact
numerical difference from one another is not known. Even though a precise number of whiskers does not
separate a beard from a non-beard, there is still a difference between the extremes of being clean-shaven
and having a full beard.
Writers must use caution when discussing vague concepts such as how tall a person must be in order to be
tall and similar issues. These issues could conceivably come up when discussing the legal age to drink or
other public policy questions. It is important, however, not to confuse small differences at the margins with
the large differences between the polar ends of an issue.
Slippery Slope
This fallacy usually involves a writer who takes the audience through a long string of consequences, often
concluding with a very dire consequence, and uses it to argue that some other, comparatively minute action
should be taken. One might claim the following:
If we eat meat, then we disrespect animals. If we disrespect animals, we will disrespect
all forms of life. But if we disrespect all forms of life, we will begin killing other humans.
Eventually, we will kill everyone. Therefore, no one should ever eat meat.
Usually, one of these causal relationships is overstated; there are insufficient grounds to accept that doing
the first action will result in the dire consequences the argument predicts.
When writing, one will likely employ several linked consequences together. This by itself is legitimate, but
one must take care to check that the linkages are indeed legitimate. When writing in this way, it may be
helpful to ask oneself whether doing the first action really causes the last to occur.
Begging the Question
This fallacy, also known as circular reasoning, occurs when writers simply restate what they seek to prove
as their conclusion. For example, one might say,
This test is hard because it is so difficult!
The reason offered, that it is very difficult, would certainly make the test hard, but this statement is circular
because it does not address why the test is hard. In the editing process, writers will likely benefit from
persistently asking themselves, But why is this true? If one looks for support for this answer and merely
find a restatement of it, then the reasoning is circular. At this point, it becomes necessary to either support
the point or to make the point less sweeping and then support it.
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when a single word or phrase is used differently in at least two parts of an argument.
Consider the following:
If one does not weigh much, then one is light. Mark doesnt weigh very much.
Therefore, Mark is light. Thus, Mark cannot have dark skin.
The equivocation occurs in the last statement: before this, light referred to Marks weight, not skin color.
This reasoning is fallacious because Mark may indeed have dark skin and not weigh very much. While this
example is rather obvious, it can sometimes be difficult to detect these shifts in word meanings, especially
over a prolonged argument in a complicated subject. When using buzzwords or words which have multiple
meanings, be sure that to examine them to ensure that you are using it in the same context each time. One
method of doing this is to insert the definition of the word every time you use it in your argument.
Questionable Analogy
One primary form of argument writers rely upon is argument by analogy. If one thing is comparable to
another, a similar action may be appropriate for both. However, not all analogies are appropriate.
Specifically, the relevant characteristics may not be the subject of comparison, but rather a minute trait with
little relevance on the appropriate action. For example,
The speed of light can be reached! We didnt think that anyone could run a four-minute
mile or that the sound barrier could be broken, but we eventually did both. It stands to
reason that the light barrier, which some people dont think can be broken, will
eventually be reached.
Are running a four-minute mile, or reaching the speed of sound, really good analogies for traveling at
186,000 miles per second? The fallacy, of course, is that one may have credible reasons why the speed of
light will not be reached. That some people did not think it was possible to run a four-minute mile or exceed
the speed of sound are not sufficient grounds to conclude that reaching the speed of light will occur.
When writing, it thus becomes important to make sure analogies are well, analogous. In other words, try to
ensure that you are comparing the relevant parts of two different situations.
Ad hominem
Another Latin name, this fallacy translates, To the person. In other words, to make an ad hominem
argument is to attack a person rather than the persons argument. The following is an example of this:
Sally says I should drive a more fuel efficient car, but her car gets even less mileage
than mine; therefore, there is no reason for me to drive a more fuel efficient car.
The conclusion the argument makes is simply too strong: it is not entirely clear that Sally is being
hypocritical (she may not be able to afford a more fuel efficient car, for example); and even if she is
hypocritical, it is not clear why her hypocrisy makes it bad for the author of the argument to drive a more fuel
efficient car.
Writers should bear in mind two specific pieces of advice when critiquing others and their arguments.
1. Personal background is not always irrelevant. It may indeed be questionable to
accept someones view that lying is always wrong if that person consistently lies and
defends his or her dishonesty.
2. Remember the argument and not just the person making it. Often, it is more
appropriate to address a persons arguments and not the persons personal behavior. In
these cases, one should be sure to attack a persons argument rather than the person.
Reasoning: Methods of Argument & Avoiding Fallacies
By David Roberts
When arguing, sometimes one person says to the other, Well, thats just your opinion. Maybe its right for
you. These statements might sometimes be true, but they are used all too often to avoid an honest
evaluation of ideas. Some opinions, after all, are supported more than others. These reminders should help
you to make your arguments well-supported and avoid fallacies in your own writing. As an added benefit,
this will likely help you to detect poorly-supported points in others' writing:
Ways to support an argument
1. Analogy

Making an argument through analogy involves comparing two objects (events, situations, people, and the
like) and arguing that, because they are similar in some way, a similar action should occur in both situations.
For instance, someone might say:
We should keep our books from last semester; giving them back to the bookstore is
just like giving them away anyway, and we shouldnt just give our books away.
The person making this claim begins with the premise that one situation giving books away is wrong,
and argues that a second situation returning them to the bookstore is analogous to the first situation.
These premises are used to justify taking a similar action in both cases.
Analogies are important to ones argument, but it is all too easy to apply one situation improperly to another.
One must determine the similarity between two situations and, once this similarity is found, one must ask if
this similarity is the important and relevant similarity. That is, does this similarity between two situations
justify taking the same action in both? See our page on Other Logical Fallacies for more about faulty
analogies.
2. Example/Detail
In some cases analogies will be less applicable than in others. Instead of using analogies, writers may find it
useful to use examples and details to illustrate some of their assertions. For example, John might say:
This class is really hard. I spent two hours a night studying for the past week and I still
got a C on the last test!
In this case, John uses a single event an example or detail to make a broader claim about the difficulty
of a class. Of course, for it to be an appropriate example, it must be representative. In Johns case, it would
not be a good example if he cited one difficult test in an otherwise extremely easy class. See our section on
Supporting Arguments with Detail for more assistance with this issue.
3. Proof by Absurdity or Contradiction
Proving your position to be correct can also occur by proving that the opposite viewpoint is either
contradictory or ridiculous. This is accomplished by assuming that ones opponents are correct and then
reasoning from that to conclude that this assumption leads to something impossible or absurd. Because it
leads to an impossible or absurd result, this assumption should be rejected. For example, imagine a lawyer
in a courtroom defending a client. The lawyer might say:
Assume my client, John, did commit this crime. But in order to commit this crime, we
can all agree, he must have been at the scene of the crime when it took place.
However, thirty people saw my client at a restaurant two hours away from the crime
scene two minutes before it took place. For John to have committed this crime, he must
have been two places at once. But this is surely impossible! It therefore follows that my
client did not commit this crime.
While proving an argument by contradiction is legitimate, one must be careful of a few things. First, one
must be careful not to commit the False Dilemma fallacy. One cannot conclude that a pen is red simply on
the basis that it is impossible or ridiculous for it to be green. It could also be blue. Hence, it is important to
remember what one does and does not know: if it is impossible or ridiculous for it to be green, all one knows
is that it is not green.
Second, one must be careful that the reason for rejecting an assumption is legitimate. Those who believed
that the Earth was flat succumbed to this fallacy: Assume that the Earth is round. This would mean
everything weve believed for so long is incorrect and we'd have to change our beliefs! Therefore, the Earth
must not be round! One cannot simply decide that results should be rejected because they are an
undesired outcome. In order to reject a premise, its conclusion must be impossible or absurd, not simply
unwanted.
4. Sources of Authority
Writing for academic audiences requires more than simple personal opinion. As we saw earlier, not all
opinions are created equal. One way to bolster an argument is to use the word of an expert. This may be
particularly useful for research papers where an expert conducted empirical research and has unique
findings.
Like the other ways to support your argument, however, one must be careful not to misuse or overuse this
method of support. Academic writing is about more than personal opinion, but it is also about more than
uncritical agreement; simply accepting a statement because an authority says it may not persuade your
audience. If you decide to use sources to support your points, be certain to critically engage your sources
and, when agreeing with them:
1. Base your agreement on more than their position alone, but also their argument.
2. Make sure to address other authorities challenges to this point of view.
See our section on Using Sources Effectively for more resources on this issue.
Avoiding Fallacies
Not reasoning poorly is just as important as reasoning well. A single fallacious argument in a paper may
result in many points - or a letter grade or two - subtracted. As you go through the writing process, the
following three pieces of advice will help you avoid these errors in reasoning.
1. Challenge yourself
Is this really true? Im not sure, but you should ask yourself (and others)! As the author of the paper, you
know the most about the argument youre trying to make. What are its important points? What are its weak
points? Are any of the important points also some of the weak points?
Pretend you are disagreeing with your argument each step of the way. Do your best to think of reasons why
what you say may not be true. It may be easier to do this a few days after writing a draft in order to gain
distance from the argument.
You should also keep in mind that sometimes, you will agree with the objection that you identify and the
original argument will change. Therefore, it is best to go through this self-questioning throughout the writing
process rather than as a brief afterthought when editing the night before a paper is due.
2. Learn from experience
Are there any particular fallacies you are prone to committing? One must know the argument one intends to
make, but one must also know him- or herself. Do you often rely on the status of experts rather than the
substance of what they say or their relevant knowledge about the topic? Or do you sometimes take the lack
of proof against something to be evidence that it is true?
No matter what mistakes you have made in the past, you should keep them in mind in order to prevent them
from happening in the future. You may find it helpful to look through graded papers from previous
assignments in order to find out the errors you commonly make.
3. Outline your arguments
What evidence supports what claims which support what conclusion? After writing your paper, read your
paper for function and structure, writing down on a separate sheet of paper the evidence, claims, and
conclusion. In other words, ask "why?". Investigate the purpose of each sentence in your paper. See our
page on Glossing Your Ideas for more practical advice about how to go through this process.
There are numerous benefits to going through this sometimes tedious and always methodical process. First,
you will be able to identify unwarranted assertions, allowing you to either support them or modify them so
that they are warranted (for example, less categorical or sweeping). There are other benefits as well: one
will also likely prevent major digressions, shifts of scope, and will have a clearly-flowing and well-organized
paper.

and backing would be allotted the most in-depth discussion because these aspects are normally unstated
The Rhetorical Triangle and Three Rhetorical Appeals
and taken for granted in casual arguments.
David Wright, Furman University English Department
3. The Toulmin model provides writers with a way to formulate or test an argument in detail, but:
Aristotle defined rhetoric as "the ability to see or identify in any given circumstance the available means of
persuasion. Analyzing rhetoric focuses on the "how" and "why" of persuasion rather than what specific
The effectiveness of the model depends on how well one thinks critically and creatively about his
things people say or write in order to be persuasive. One way of breaking down the components of a
or her arguments.
rhetorical strategy is to use the Rhetorical Triangle. This model puts into a generalized framework the
interactions among various actors and devices in persuasion. The Three Rhetorical Appeals are the main
The model only acts as a heuristic for constructing an argument, not for writing the paper itself.
strategies used to persuade an audience and are also important devices to understand when constructing or Using
Details to Support a Claim
deconstructing an argument.
by Joe Essid; prepared with the help of Pattie Fagan, School of Continuing Studies
Transcribed notes:
Writing teachers often praise students for using a technique called a "telling detail" to lend support to a claim
1. The Rhetorical Triangle allows you to effectively analyze different texts and arguments for their rhetorical made in an essay. Since most academic writing consists of a series of supported claims, learning to employ
strategies and devices. The model shapes the rhetorical process into manageable and distinct parts through detail can greatly help writers make points effectively.
the Rhetorical Triangle and Three Rhetorical Appeals:
Consider this example, from Pattie's research essay, in which she explores the use of TV cameras in
2. Rhetorical Triangle: made up of three components which are present in any persuasive process:
courtrooms. In this section, Pattie explores how television coverage of trials emphasizes entertainment and
sensationalism:
Author: the person who generates text.
The media is in tune with the public's desire for information and entertainment because
broadcasters are for-profit entities. To meet public demand for entertainment and
Audience: the person/people who receive/s text.
information, "real" courtroom dramas, and legal analysis shows have joined the line-up
of fictional, legal programming. Court TV was created in 1990 by Steven Brill . . . .
Text: the message being conveyed from the author to the audience
After the 1997 buyout of Brill, investigative
3. Rhetorical Appeals: the three main avenues by which people are persuaded.
reports, detective shows and legal dramas,
Logos: Strategy of reason, logic, or facts. Any type of argument which appeals to someones
rational side is appealing to logos.
such as Perry Mason, replaced the nightly,
educationally designed, legal commentary,
Ethos: Strategy of credibility, authority, or character. Appeals to ethos to demonstrate the
authors trustworthiness, expertise and honesty and attempt to put the author in a more positive
while the daytime gavel-to-gavel coverage of
light to the audience.
trials
remained the same. A perceived downside with the
changes in Court TV's broadcasting schedule is that they are now no different from the
Pathos: Strategy of emotions and affect. Pathos appeals to an audiences sense of anger, sorrow,
or excitement.
average entertainment broadcasting station. In Allison Romano's
Aristotle argued that logos was the strongest and most reliable form of persuasion; the most
interview with CEO Henry Schleiff, he openly
effective form of persuasion, however, utilizes all three appeals.
admits that the bottom line, profit, is the
Further Explanation of the Three Appeals:
driving force behind the Court TV changes
Logos: An appeal to logic.
toward entertainment (33).
When a writer today employs logos, s/he might draw upon statistics, credible sources, arguments premised
on reason, and the inherent logic of a situation. Consider this claim in a student paper about heart disease The paragraph begins with a strong claim and a clear topic sentence that presents it. The first text in blue
and pork-rind consumption:
then shows how the writer supports her claim that Court TV has become as entertainment-oriented as other
broadcasters. Next, the second example shows the writer turning to a source, without weakening her
The information about the risks of eating pork rinds comes from no fewer than seven
argument with an unneeded and lengthy direct quotation. Both examples use succinct, hard-to-refute details.
scientific studies published in respected journals. Each study was reviewed by a panel
As a result, the writer's argument and analysis become more convincing.
of readers who did not know the authors. The journals receive no outside funding
except from their subscribers. Based on these factors, one must conclude that unless
In Pattie's next example, note how a small detail hammers home a key point about the subjectivity of TV
other studies come forward, pork-rind consumption poses health risks.
coverage:
Pathos: Appeals to emotion are common in non-academic writing but tend to distort factual evidence.
Admittedly, the unbiased and unedited coverage of trials can be very dry and dull for the
audience but the essence of reality is necessary to the true representation of the
From our pork-rind paper:
courtroom trial. To keep TV viewers satisfied and returning for more is a priority for
When you see someone reaching for the pork rinds in the supermarket, you should slap
broadcasters. Court TV has been accused, authors
it out of their hands and tell them the terrible story of these crunchy death-bags full of
poison. Oh, consider the children who will grown up addicted to these vile things, unless
Marjorie Cohn and David Dow note, of using
we all act now!
close-up shots and choosing angles in the O.J.
Pathos-based appeals can play on fears or other emotions. Advertising has elevated the use of pathos to a
very fine art.
Simpson case that are not flattering in order
Ethos: Can rely on reputation or experiences to prove a point. Credibility is key to winning an audience's
to create a negative impression, which sells
belief and support for one's argument.
better
to the public (33). TV cameras in court trials should be held to
Again, from the same paper:
the intent of providing the public with an unbiased viewpoint, so that the public trial of
Darleen Diggler of Greasy Bottom, VA, was the first to testify at the Congressional
the defendant does not become a trial by the public of the accused.
hearing on pork rinds. Ms. Diggler, who had suffered four heart attacks, needed
Thus Pattie continues to build a case against the way in which Court TV uses television cameras. A weaker
assistance getting into the chair provided her by the Congressmen. As she testified,
writer would bury the professor in strings of long indented quotations and tiresome summaries of every
"see what a pound of rinds a day will do to you! I've been eating them for thirty years!
aspect of Court TV's way of covering trials. Instead, this writer chooses a few good pieces of evidence, each
Now it is too late." She broke down, sobbing, at this point. Ms. Diggler's testimony was
a telling detail, to hammer home her claims.
followed by Dr. I.M. Smarte, an award-winning cardiologist from the Medical College of
Virginia. Dr. Smarte presented evidence from his four decades of practice, and he noted
What is Analysis?
the high levels of saturated fat, trans-fat, and cholesterol found in pork rinds and urged
Have you ever dissected a frog? If you did that just to cut it up, you would be guilty of cruelty. One dissects a
Congress to pass the legislation outlawing the snack.
frog to learn how and why things inside the frog work as they do. Why have two arteries here, not one?
Both Ms. Diggler and Dr. Smarte use ethos to make their claims; Smarte also employs logos (the claims
Generally, all analysis gets beyond mere description and into examination and explanation.
about what the rinds contain). Diggler's plea could be seen as employing pathos to sway the lawmakers.
The same principles apply to essays. Consider these examples, from a hypothetical final exam in the Core
The Toulmin Model of Argumentation
class:
Joe Essid, University of Richmond Writing Center
Example 1: This quotation comes from Freud's Civilization and its Discontents. Here,
David Wright, Furman University English Department
Freud implies that man will only be happy when living according to the pleasure
Athena Hensel, UR Writing Consultant
principle. The pleasure principle leads people to do or desire things that bring them
One method of constructing or analyzing a persuasive argument is the Toulmin model, named for its creator,
pleasure. Freud presents a good point here, and he uses many examples throughout
British rhetorician Stephen Toulmin. The method involves breaking an argument down into six basic parts,
the text to support it.
objectively weighing and supporting points both for and against the argument. Below, Prof. David Furman
Example 2: This quotation contains a central concept of Freud's psychology: humans
has provided a video outlining the uses and parts of the Toulmin model of argumentation.
are driven by the pleasure principle and are most happy when fulfilling its demands. As
Transcribed notes:
Freud notes elsewhere in the text, the ego and superego play the roles of watchdogs,
keeping the demands of the pleasure principle in check through the moderating
1. The Toulmin model breaks an argument down into six main parts:
influences of experience (Freud's reality principle) and morality. For Freud, this battle
Claim: assertion one wishes to prove.
within the personality gets reflected in a society. The society passes laws that limit our
freedom, and therefore our happiness, but encourage order and morality. Freud notes
Evidence: support or rationale for the claim.
that the exchange of happiness for security is, in the end, worthwhile and necessary to
maintaining a civilization.
Warrant: the underlying connection between the claim and evidence, or why the evidence Analysis does
not equal description (but can use description). The second example is clearly stronger, since
supports the claim.
it "gets beneath the surface," going beyond describing ideas to examining the relationship between ideas.
writer is clearly "present" in the second example, showing the reader how Freud makes the leap from
Backing: tells audience why the warrant is a rational one. In scholarly essays, the warrant and The
to society. In the first case, the writer only tells us what Freud says, not how or why Freud drew
backing would be the areas most supported by factual evidence to support the legitimacy of their individual
his conclusions.
assertion. In casual arguments, the warrant and backing are often taken for granted.
Using Analysis
Counterargument/Rebuttal: addresses potential objections to the claim.
There are many sorts of analysis. The ones given "stay within the text." Another possible analysis might
applying Freud's ideas to another text or a current issue. Any analysis will consider the data in
Qualifier: additions to the claim that add nuance and specificity to its assumption, helping to involve
enough depth, and with enough clarity, to convince the reader, even one who disagrees with the writer's
counter rebuttals.
conclusions, that the analysis has been made well.
2. The Toulmin method can be used as a framework to test an argument's validity by identifying the claim,
evidence, warrants, backing, possible rebuttals, and possible qualifiers. In an academic essay, the warrant

Writing Critically: Bloom's Taxonomy

Special thanks to the staff of the Writing Center at Kennesaw State University for granting permission to use
the chart on this page!
Generally, writers should not deliberately state "my main task here is to do XYZ," and this situation can lead
to trouble if the writer fails to meet the expectations of a professor, supervisor, or other groups of readers.
Luckily, we have a powerful tool to help us think about what we need to do in particular writing
situations."Bloom's Taxonomy," showing the development of writing proficiency and intellectual engagement,
has been with teachers since the 1950s, yet it still offers a shorthand method for distinguishing the everincreasing intellectual difficulty of certain writing tasks.
Apply the scheme below to assess your own or others' work. For students, try to discern which category
best describes the task(s) set forth in your assignment. Then ask yourself whether what you are writing falls
within it. For Consultants, look for the same thing and help writers deepen their analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation. These are the most demanding categories of college writing, but they are often quite common!
Category
Expressed by writer as. . .
To shift the thinking. . .
(simplest first)

Knowledge

Lists, reliance on long quotations;

trouble paraphrasing; no distinction
in relative importance of ideas

Tell in your own words how you could explain to

someone else.

Comprehension

More use of own words; still trouble

understanding relative importance of
ideas and sources; interesting but
not directly useful information is
tossed in

Tell in your own words how you could explain to

someone else.

Application

Connects ideas/evidence clearly to

the topic; still relies on analysis of
others; magazine info. considered
equal to original research

How does the information apply to the topic; can

you give an example; how does this idea/
statement/ evidence support the thesis?

Analysis

Doesn't rely only on other authors'

conclusions; themes and ideas of
other writers are identified, but not
linked across sources

What ideas do these sources (or paragraphs)

have in common; can we outline the information
by idea instead of by article?

Synthesis

Text organized by themes and ideas

rather than by source; still problems
reconciling conflicting information

What else might be important about the topic;

what else would you like to know; is the evidence
given by the source convincing?

Evaluation

Shows understanding of relative

value of different sources and ideas
(and shades of gray)

Which information is most convincing; why; how

can we decide/support/choose one side of the
argument over the other; who said this; can you
use this information to say something new?