MDIA2002: Views Journalism Notes 3

Question and analysis tasks are to be found inserted at several points in the following notes.

Again, this work is compulsory and must be submitted to Moodle at least 24 hours in advance of your tutorial. When providing answers, ensure that you use full, grammatical and well-expressed sentences. Ensure you bring along a copy of your answers with you to the tutorial.

The final task in this week’s work may be quite time consuming, and possibly quite challenging. Rest assured that the tute preparation load will be significantly lighter once we get to tutorial 5 (or soon after that if you are in a smaller tutorial group) and the tutorial presentations. Until then it’s necessary to do a bit of front loading, so to speak, to get you up and running with the text analysis methodologies which will stand you in good stead later in the semester. Once you have mastered these methodologies there will be significantly less theory and much more of an emphasis on actual journalistic coverage of events, people, issues and trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A guide to analysing views journalism

Part 1 – characterising arguments by reference to the how they are justified and supported

In the first section of these notes we are going to look in a bit more detail at how supporting argumentation (justifications) works to justify primary claims. This material was dealt with in previous tutes and lectures but now we go into more depth – specifically extending the discussion to consider the nature of the warrants which are typically associated with the different types of justification. By attending to warrants in this way it becomes possible to provide telling insights into the author’s persuasive style and into the value system or worldview which is taken for granted and thereby projected onto the reader/viewer. (This is potentially a key issue for your own the textual analyses.) In this way the text constructs for itself a particular imagined or “ideal” reader/viewer – i.e. one who is assumed to subscribe to a particular set of values and beliefs (again a crucial point of interest for your own work).

We’ll now briefly review the material on types of justifications, while offering more on the nature of the warrants with which justifications are typically associated.

Appeals to ethical and other social norms
Primary claims which are evaluations or recommendations may be supported by reference to what are assumed to be widely held values and beliefs about what is good or bad, right or wrong, praiseworthy or blameworthy, helpful or harmful, normal or abnormal, attractive or ugly, and so on. For example:

[primary claim] Torture should not be used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects
[justificatory support] because it is barbaric.

Note, of course, that the justificatory support does, of itself, involve an evaluative claim. In this it operates with a taken-for-granted view of the “barbarity” of torture – i.e. it reflects a worldview that torture is necessarily wrong and in so doing indicates an assumption that the reader will share this view.

If this view of torture hadn’t been taken for granted, the supporting claim might itself have been argued for, thereby indicating that the author anticipates at least some readers may not share this view. For example: “It’s barbaric because modern societies which respect human rights outlaw any practices which knowingly cause suffering and pain to people not convicted of any crimes.”

In doing this, the text would be explicitly articulating the “warrant” by which the supporting claim was able to justify the primary claim.

Appeals to emotion
Evaluations and recommendation may be supported by claims that the issue, entity or proposed change is having, or will have, a positive or negative emotional impact on people.

[primary claim] The local council shouldn’t demolish the old church building
[justificatory support] because it’s so much loved by the community and those who have worshipped there for many years would be distraught if it were to go.

Such an argument, of course, operates with the assumption (i.e. a “warrant”) that people’s emotions are significant and should be given some sort of priority in issues relating to town planning and/or urban development

Appeals to precedent, customary practice
Evaluations and recommendations may be supported by reference to claims or assumptions about the way things have been done in the past or how they are normally done.

[primary claim] Torture should not be used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects
[justificatory support] because this is not how we have ever operated in the past. Australia has a long military tradition of resisting the temptation to use such methods.

Such an argument operates with the assumption (i.e. a “warrant”) that what we have done in the past should necessarily guide us in what we do now, that previous practice is necessarily the right practice. Such arguments, of course, operate with what might be termed a “conservative” world view in that it gives a special status to past behaviour. In operating with this assumption, such arguments project onto the reader/viewer a similar mindset – i.e. one by which past practice is seen as necessarily right.

Appeals to popular opinion
Evaluations and recommendations may be justified by assertions that these are the views of a significant proportion (a majority?) of the population.

[primary claim] It is appropriate for the government to intercept phone calls and to have access to private emails and other internet communications
[justificatory support] because a majority of Australians surveyed indicated they favour such actions as a measure to uncover terrorist threats.

The unstated “warrant” here is the belief that the views and desires of the majority (as, for example, determined by an opinion poll) should necessarily prevail. It thus operates with, and projects onto the intended audience, a value system by which the notion of “democracy” is taken very seriously – i.e. one in which if the majority of people hold a particular view then this view should be regarded as necessarily right and as a necessary trigger for action.

Appeals to authority
Not only evaluations and recommendations, but also factual arguments and causal arguments may be supported by reference to the pronouncements of those held to be authoritative with respect to the matters under consideration. This “authority” may be on account of standing in the community (e.g. the pronouncements of respected political, religious, cultural leaders), on account of perceived expertise (e.g. the pronouncements of academic experts), on account of the pronouncement being based on a systematic process of research (e.g. scientific studies, surveys etc.), on account of the pronouncement being made by someone who was an eye-witness, and hence presumably supplied with reliable knowledge, on account of the pronouncement having its basis in law or a religious text, and so on.

[primary claim] Sleep deprivation should be regarded as a form of torture
[justificatory support] because this is the view of World War II Australian prisoners of war who experienced this type of treatment while imprisoned by the Japanese.

[primary claim] For too long many evolutionary biologists have fallen for the fable that “men are driven to spread their seed and women, by comparison, are more driven to find one good provider”. But now this foolish, pseudo-science has been entirely debunked.
[justificatory support] In a much much-lauded new book What Do Women Want? leading science journalist Daniel Bergner demonstrates that this is “flimsy, circular science” which just doesn’t hold up.

Such appeals to authority rely, of course, on the reader/viewer regarding the “authoritative” source as well-informed, credible, disinterested and honest. Thus they always involve a “warrant” along the lines of “Experts/scientific studies/surveys eye-witnesses/leaders/etc. are reliable sources and should be believed.”

Some instances of appeal to authority involve reference to a religious text (holy scriptures) or similar religious works.

[primary claim] Same-sex marriage is wrong
[justificatory support] because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Such arguments rely, of course, on the reader/viewer subscribing to the particular religion being referenced and/or holding that its principles and teaching should necessarily apply in the current circumstances. They thus operate with, and project onto the reader/viewer, a value system under which the prescriptions of a particular religion should necessarily hold sway. The unstated “warrant”, of course, is something along the lines of “The teachings and instructions of this holy text/religion are necessarily to be believed and followed.”

Appeals to comparison, analogy
Evaluative arguments and recommendations may be supported by means of comparison or analogy with what is presented as a similar case.

[primary claim] Using sleep deprivation during interrogations is wrong
[justificatory support] because it’s similar to techniques used by the Japanese on Australian prisoners of war during World War II.

Here the argumentation relies on (a) the reader/viewer accepting that the comparison or analogy does in fact hold (they see a significant similarity) and (b) holding a particular view of the compared case – i.e. as necessarily bad or good. Thus the unstated “warrant” here is something along the lines of “It was wrong of the Japanese to use particular interrogation techniques on captured Australian soldiers and sleep deprivation is essentially the same as these.” The argumentation thus operates with, and projects on to the reader/viewer, a worldview in which the actions of the Japanese in World War II were necessarily wrong

Appeals to consequences (good or bad)
Evaluations and recommendations may be supported by reference to supposed/proposed consequences, either good or bad.

1. [primary claim] Torture should not be used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects [justificatory support] because it very often produces unreliable and even false information.

2. [primary claim] Torture should be used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects [justificatory support] because the information thereby gained can enable us to save innocent lives.

Appeals to good or bad consequences are quite complicated in terms of their persuasive workings, the values they take for granted and in terms to the assumptions they make about the reader/viewer’s own knowledge and beliefs.

For a start, the consequences provided by way of motivation for the primary claim are often of a “factual” nature in the sense that they are assertions which are, at least, in principle, verifiable. Thus in instance 1 just above, the argument is only going to have persuasive potential if the reader is satisfied of the factuality of “torture often produces unreliable and even false information”. It can be analytically useful to determine whether or not this supporting factual claim is itself further supported in some way. Thus, for example, we might encounter:

[primary claim] Torture should not be used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects
[justificatory support] because it very often produces unreliable and even false information.
[support for the justification] This has been demonstrated by a number of studies by the International Red Cross and Amnesty International.

Here, of course, the argument finally comes to rest on an “appeal to authority”. The reader will be convinced of the “factuality” of the claim about torture and false information as long as they hold the Red Cross and Amnesty to be competent, reliable and honest in the research they conduct.

If, in contrast, no such further support is supplied for the factual claim of consequence, then presumably the author assumes that the “fact” asserted (i.e. that torture produces false information) is so widely known and agreed up that it can be taken for granted. In the above case, this would presumably be unlikely.

Similar issues would arise for example 2 above. There it would be significant if the author assumes that no further support is required for the claim that “torture can provide information which enables us to save innocent lives.” If no further support for this claim were provided, this would allow us to conclude that this is being treated as a “given” fact – as something which is so “obvious” and “well known” that it doesn’t need to be proved or argued for. This would thus be indicative of a particular world view (perhaps one shaped by too many Hollywood espionage block busters) where it is taken for granted that torture produces reliable and useful information which can permit terrorist attacks to be thwarted.

In some cases there is currently no immediate prospect of the “factuality” of the asserted consequence being tested or verified. This occurs when the argument involves a predicted consequence.

[primary claim] A “turn-back-the-boats” policy should be adopted
[justificatory support] because it will reduce the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat.

In such cases it will be revealing of the text’s underlying mindset to explore whether or not anything by way of further support is provided. This, of course, may take various forms – for example, an appeal to authority.

[primary claim] A “turn-back-the-boats” policy should be adopted
[justificatory support] because, as the head of the navy stated on Four Corners last week, it will reduce the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat.

Or it might take the form of an appeal to comparison or analogy

primary claim] A “turn-back-the-boats” policy should be adopted
[justificatory support ] because it will reduce the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat.
[support for the justification] We know this to be case based on past experience: a similar policy when implemented by the former government resulted in boat arrivals virtually ceasing.

In some cases such predictive appeals to consequences will simply rely on the reader/viewer regarding the predicted effect as plausible and highly likely.

[primary claim] Providing prayer rooms for Muslims at AFL grounds is stupid
[justificatory support] because it will result in traditional supporters feeling alienated and possibly deserting Australian Rules Football for rival codes.

Unless further support for the supporting claim were derived from, for example, a survey of “traditional supporters” it is unlikely that further supporting argumentation could be provided. In which case, the text would be assuming a worldview (and projecting this on to the reader) in which such a reaction by football fans is seen as natural, logical and inevitable.

Beyond the issue of the “factuality” of the asserted consequence, there is the issue of the values needed for a claimed consequence to logically act as justification for the primary claim. Here we have returned to the question of the argument’s underlying “warrant”. Consider again the following.

Torture should not be used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects because it very often produces unreliable and even false information.

This is only “logical” to the extent that the possibility of producing unreliable information is seen as necessarily sufficient to rule out the use of torture. The warrant is something like: “An interrogation technique which may produce unreliable information should not be used.”

The value position underlying this argument is one which gives preference to reliability of information, and is not moved by the possibility that at least sometimes torture will produce accurate information. Also of interest is the fact that this worldview is a very practical or pragmatic one. The argument is not in terms of the morality or legality of torture but solely on the basis of its effectiveness. The argument would no longer hold if, by some mechanism, torture could be organised so that it never produced unreliable information.

We can consider instance 2 above along similar lines with a view to uncovering the underlying value position upon which it relies.

[primary claim] Torture should be used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects
[justificatory support] because the information thereby gained can enable us to save innocent lives.

Here there is an unstated “warrant” in play which either assumes that is generally OK to inflict suffering on people who are “suspected” of being involved in terrorism (“suspects” have lost significant human rights) or, alternatively, holds that that the possibility of perhaps preventing a terrorist attack outweighs the rights of anyone suspected of planning such attacks. Thus we uncover a worldview which is entirely unsympathetic to anyone “suspected” of terrorist activities (we have no compunction in having pain inflicted on them) or, alternatively, which holds that protecting the community at large takes precedence over the rights of individuals.

Supporting arguments by appeals to the “facts”
As we have seen above, some arguments are supported by appeals to what are asserted to the “facts” of the matter – e.g. the asserted “factuality” of a claim that “torture can produce false information”.

As already discussed, factual claims, whether primary or supporting, will often be justified by appeals to authority. Sources held to be credible providers of information will be brought in to provide evidence in support of the factual claim currently being argued for. Thus the “authoritative” source acts to supply the “facts” which support other facts (the primary claim.) For example:

[primary claim] It has long been held that women generally have superior verbal abilities to men and that this results from differences in genetically-determined brain structure. This view must now be dismissed as based on entirely unsound science
[justificatory support]. By way of evidence we need only turn to the recent work of Deborah Cameron, an Oxford professor of language and communication. She has shown that, rather than being determined by brain structure, verbal facility is linked to “activity type”, specifically to the types of activity one is encouraged or required to undertake. Her studies show that, in our society, young girls are typically encouraged to be more “verbal” than boys. They are often required to engage more in conversation and in complex interpersonal interactions than boys. Any “superior verbal ability” follows from these social circumstances, not from any genetic disposition.
[based on http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/women-men-differences-science-stereotypes]

Accordingly, the argument stands or falls on the extent to which the reader/viewer regards the source as credible and the “facts” which they assert as plausible and convincing.

Often factual arguments will involve generalisations (as discussed in previous notes.) As we have seen, such generalisations involve a process of “induction” by which general statements as to trends or states-of-affairs are inferred from the observation of a certain number of individual cases. For example:

[primary claim] Despite some of the claims being made by university administrators, the fact of the matter is that Arts graduates are experiencing serious problems finding employment.
[justificatory support] This is unambiguously shown by recently released Federal Government jobs placement figures which indicate that more than 40 per cent were still looking for work a year after graduation.

Here, of course, the “facts” which support the primary claim are conveyed via a secondary source. Accordingly an appeal to authority is also involved here. As well we see the inductive interpretation process in play by which an assembled set of individual observations (the individual cases of each student included in the government’s survey) provides the basis for the generalisation of the primary claim.

The persuasive workings of causal claims and arguments
We turn now to consider causal arguments which constitute a somewhat special case in that they involve claims which are always in some way theoretical or speculative. Consider the following causal claim.

Support for the government has fallen as a result of its recently announced plan to change tertiary education funding.

As it stands, this is just an assertion, not an argument as such, since it simply involves a claim about the cause of the current political state of affairs. For this to be an argument, in the terms outlined in these notes, some justification for identifying this as the cause would need to be provided. For example:

[primary claim] Support for the government has fallen (as indicated by a drop in its popularity in the opinion polls) as a result of its planned changes to tertiary education.
[justificatory support] We know this because those surveyed who said they had shifted their allegiance from the government to the opposition gave its recently announced plans for tertiary education as their main reason.

Accordingly, in analysing causal claims we are equally interested in the nature of any supporting argumentation provided and in the causal claims themselves because, as theories about possible causes and effects, these causal claims can be highly revealing of the author’s underlying value system. Consider the following two contrasting causal claims.

Causal claim 1. The divorce rate rose dramatically from the 1960s onwards as a result of the decline in religious belief and church attendance which occurred over the same period.

Causal claim 2. The divorce rate rose dramatically from the 1960s onwards as a result of the dramatic rise in two-career families and the number of women in paid employment which occurred over the same period.

To understand what is at stake here, we need to consider the basis on which proposals as to cause-and-effect are typically formulated. Typically this is on the basis of coincidence or sequence in time. Thus the “government announcing plans to change tertiary education funding” would be proposed as the cause of a decline in the government’s popularity as a result of an observed temporal succession - the government ratings in the opinion polls presumable was relatively stable until its plans to change tertiary education funding and almost immediately its approval rating fell. However, such proposals as to causes can typically never be certain and must always have the status of theory or guess-work, at least when we are considering the causes of human reactions, behaviour and attitudes. This is because (1) there is the possibility that there is only the appearance of causality and there is actually no causal connection between the antecedent event and the subsequent event, or because (2) there will so often be other potential causes which might equally explain the effect under consideration.

The first possibility can be illustrated by the continuing controversy over the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccination and whether it causes autism. The fact that a number of children were observed to develop autism soon after receiving their MMR shots led a number of parents, on the basis of this temporal sequence, to conclude that the MMR vaccination was the cause of their child’s autism. Subsequent medical research has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the vast majority of medical experts that there is no actual causal connection – the MMR vaccination does not cause autisms and the fact that the children developed the condition after having their shots was entirely coincidental.

The second possibility is illustrated by the two contrasting causal claims set out above, with each claim choosing to make a different selection from the social trends which were concurrent with the increase in the divorce rate. The basis for preferring one or other of the proposed causes (the decline in religious allegiance versus the increase in women in paid employment) is likely to be ideological – i.e. to reflect the author’s underlying value system. Thus an author who believes religion has an important influence on behaviour is likely to settle for the first cause, while an author who sees economic circumstances as maximally influential will settle for the second. In each case a different theory of causes and of human motivation is in play. In the case of the first claim, the causal mechanism is assumed to be the influence that religious belief will have on conditioning married couples to stay together. Since religion holds marriage to be a holy state, the more religious a society the more likely it is that people will avoid divorce, even when their marriage is dysfunctional. Conversely, the less religious the society, the more likely that couples will choose divorce when their marriage breaks down, since the religious imperative no longer applies. In the case of the second claim, the causal mechanism is seen to be that of women’s economic circumstances and their potential to provide for themselves outside of marriage. Thus in societies where married women do not work and are dependent economically on their husbands, divorce is usually not going to be an option for them, whatever the condition of their marriage. Conversely, in societies where women are economically independent and able to support themselves, they will be substantially less likely to remain in marriages which have broken.

At issue, then, in the analysis of causal claims and arguments is the “theory” about the cause which is being advanced and whether or not supporting argumentation is supplied for this. In examining the causal claim itself we are interested in the worldview which motivates it – for example one which gives preference to religion or to economic circumstances. In considering whether or not supporting argumentation is supplied for the claim we are interested in the following. Is the causal mechanism taken for granted and hence not explained or argued for. If so, the author assumes the reader/viewer will find it obvious, self-evident and hence entirely plausible? Alternatively, is the causal mechanism in play overtly stated and argued for. If so, it suggests an assumption by the author that the reader will potentially find it questionable and hence not self-evident. In the latter case, we are likely to find argumentation along the following lines.

[causal claim] The divorce rate has risen significantly since the 1960s and the principle cause of this is the very substantial increase over that period in the number of two-career families.
[supporting justification] This is because women who work gain financial independence and security and are more likely to leave an unhappy marriage than women who are financially dependent on their spouses.

Counterargument – mechanisms for refuting opposing positions

As discussed in previous notes, another key aspect of argumentative texts is the challenging and refutation of contrary viewpoints. This refutation can involve a range of persuasive strategies, with the specific mechanism dependent upon the nature of the claim or argument which is being refuted. Thus an evaluative argument or a recommendation which employs an appeal to consequences will be refuted by an argument that the alleged consequence, in fact, does not apply or that no evidence is forthcoming of the consequence actually arising.

[argument] He argues that the use of torture during the interrogation of terrorism suspects should in some circumstances be sanctioned because it can produce information which may save innocent lives.
[counter argument – challenge to the appeal to consequences] However, he is not able to offer any actual cases where life-saving information of this type was produced through the torturing of suspects. A significant doubt must remain as to whether torture is ever capable of producing such information. In fact, there is significant evidence in a recently released report by Amnesty International that coercive practices in the interrogation of suspects produces unreliable and often false information.

Equally, a counter argument may employ the strategy of exposing the unstated warrant which underlies an argument and challenging that.

[argument] She argues that a bridge should be built over the River Murray at Goolwa because it will foster economic developing in the area.
[counter argument – challenge to the unstated warrant ] Accordingly she seems to be assuming that economic development should have priority over all other considerations. I believe this is a dangerous and short-sighted notion since policies of economic growth at all cost have had disastrous consequences in numerous sites around the country. We need, instead, to consider the serious damage the bridge would do to the River Murray’s already fragile eco-systems.

In some cases refutation takes the form of simply a questioning of the qualifications, credibility or honesty of the person whose argument is being challenged. This isn’t genuine argumentation but rather an “ad hominem” attack of the type discussed in an earlier set of notes.

These different types of argumentative support typically operate with a particular underlying “warrant”(the belief or value needed if the appeal is to logically motivate the claim it is intended to support).

As discussed previously, by uncovering the warrants which the text relies on we can reach conclusions as to the value position or worldview which motivates the text and discover what beliefs and values the author takes for granted and projects on to the intended reader/viewer.

Counter-arguments developed by way of refutation of challenged viewpoints will involve claims which will typically have their own supporting argumentation. Thus counter-arguments can be analysed in the same way as arguments.

By tracking the types of supporting argumentation used in an article or broadcast item it may be possible to determine whether it favours one of these options (for example perhaps appeals to authority, or appeals to precedent) and thereby characterise the particular persuasive “style” of that article or item.

Informal fallacies

We can take the analysis of the argumentative workings and structures of views journalism texts further by turning our attention to what are argumentative or logical “fallacies. These fallacies usually involve a faulty relationship between an argument's claim and its justificatory support. If you can demonstrate that a text employs such a fallacy, then you can justifiably argue that its argumentation is flawed and possibly unfair or dishonest. Since an inclusive list of these fallacies is a very long one, we include here only those which occur with some regularity. We indicate the category or categories of argument in which it is most likely to occur.

Ad Hominem Argument
An ad hominem argument is against the arguer (Latin ad hominem means "to the man") rather than against the argument: "Smith's argument against increasing taxes on the rich is worthless because he himself is rich." This fallacy, which substitutes irrelevant judgments of an individual for reasonable evaluations of an issue, is most likely to occur in evaluative arguments.

Ad Populum Argument
Ad populum is Latin for "to the people." One commits the ad populum fallacy when seeking to argue in support of a claim simply by asserting that the claim is a view or belief which is very widely held (i.e. held by “people” in general.) A teenager trying to convince her parents to remove her curfew because "everybody else's parents have done it" is attempting to convince her parents through an appeal to popular behaviour rather than to reason. This fallacy is a corruption of the legitimate tactic of appealing to established authorities to strengthen a claim.

Circular Argument
A circular argument (also known as begging the question) is one in which the claim is already contained in the support: "John did not succeed on the track team [the claim] because he did not do well in track events [the justificatory support]." In this example, "did not do well in track events" really only restates "did not succeed on the track team"; it adds no new information about why John didn't succeed. Another common version of circular argument, or begging the question, assumes what has to be proven, as in the statement "This film should be banned because it contains immoral scenes." This claim requires a definition of immoral and evidence that the film meets this definition. Lacking such material, the claim begs the question (i.e. avoids addressing the question) of the immorality of the film. (Note that here “to beg a question” means to avoid addressing a necessary question and not to desperately request that someone asks the question.) Evaluative, interpretive, and causal arguments seem to be particularly subject to this fallacy. One giveaway that an argument is circular is that the supporting statements repeat a key term of the claim.

Distraction
Distraction is bringing in irrelevant points to distract attention from the issue being argued: "Murdoch’s companies may have exploited all available tax avoidance possibilities but they haven’t broken any tax evasion laws.” It is also known as the red herring, from the practice of dragging a dead herring across a trail to distract hunting dogs from the scent of their prey. Distraction is frequently used to deflect unfavorable evaluations.

Either-Or Argument
The either-or argument is setting up two extreme positions as the only alternatives and denying any possible middle ground: "The reason people disliked Julia Gillard was either because they were sexist and couldn’t accept a women prime minister or, alternatively, because they didn’t like the fact that she had ousted a sitting prime minister to get the job.” The reason could be somewhere in between, or a combination of the two, or the result of both. Also known as bifurcation or the fallacy of the excluded middle, this fallacy can occur in any category of argument, though it is probably most frequent in evaluations or in recommendations, where extreme solutions are sometimes seen as the only options: "Either we build a new computer facility or we give up on using computers at this school."

Evaluative presumption
The fallacy of evaluative presumption involves making a case through the use of value-laden language which assumes that a particular positive or negative attitude can be taken for granted or assumed necessarily to apply, and hence doesn’t need to be justified or argued for – for example "Smelling blood, the media will attack and destroy any candidate with a newsworthy weak spot." This claim, in its implicit identification of the media with carnivorous beasts, presumes a value judgment about the media that the claim does not justify. We will be discussing attitudinal and evaluative language and how it is used in views journalism at much greater length in subsequent notes and lectures. Attitudinal or slanted language can be used in any kind of argument, but it is most common in evaluative arguments.

False Analogy
This involves the use of an appeal to comparison/analogy, as considered previously in the discussion of justification types. The issue at stake is whether or not the analogy (an assumption or claim of similarity) is held to be valid. If it’s not, then you have case of what is termed “false analogy” – support offered to a primary claim by comparing its subject to something not essentially similar – for example: "Offering courses in gay and lesbian theory is no more defensible than teaching pedophilia or necrophilia." While both sides of the comparison refer to minority sexual preferences, this is an extremely minor point of similarity which, with great prejudice, ignores the vast differences between these categories. Such a comparison obviously doesn’t amount to valid argumentation but rather attempts to exploit homophobic attitudes in the community.

Analogies can be useful in generating and illuminating arguments, but they can never prove a point. Just as legitimate comparison can be used to support any kind of argument, analogies can be misused in all of the four classes of argument. If you are able to discover such false analogies in a text you are analysing then you may have grounds to characterise it not only as incoherent but also as prejudiced and dishonest. However, you always need to bear in mind that whether an analogy or comparison is “valid” or “false” will typically be a matter of subjective judgement. In making such a case you will need to minutely pull apart the proposed analogy to demonstrate that the proposed points of similarity do not hold, or are insignificant or irrelevant. Thus you yourself will need to mount a plausible argument, against the argument you hold to be fallacious – you can’t simply assert this to be the case.

Hasty Generalization / Over Generalization
Basically a misuse of the inductive method, hasty/over generalization consists of a general claim based on an insufficient sample: "Young professional people tend to be self-centred and materialistic. My friends Eric and Melanie certainly are." This fallacy typically occurs in factual arguments and in the supposedly factual support for evaluative statements about entire groups of people: "Women are sentimental"; "Asian-Australian students are good in mathematics." Note, however, that again subjective assessments may be involved in decisions as to how many instances are required to support the reaching of the general position. If you are to accuse an author of employing hasty/over generalization then you must ensure you present a clear case as to why the inductive reasoning involved is unsound (why there aren’t enough individual instances to justify the general statement.)

Non Sequitur
A non sequitur claims a logical relationship between a claim and its support where none exists: "Henry should make a good governor because he is tall and handsome." Non sequitur in Latin means "it does not follow"; non sequitur reasoning is behind almost all fallacies. The term is really a generic one that has been specifically applied to cases where the relationship between a premise (the support) and a conclusion (the claim) is seriously askew. The term is also used to cover some fallacies in causal analysis: "I performed poorly on that speech because I wore my green tie rather than my red one." This is an example of our next fallacy-post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Non sequitur reasoning can occur in any category of argument.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc – “Because B occurred after A, then B must have been caused by A” (temporal sequence treated as causal)
Post hoc, ergo proper hoc is Latin, meaning "after this, therefore because of this." It means claiming that because one event preceded another, it must have caused the subsequent event to occur: "I performed poorly on that speech because I wore my green tie rather than my red one." This fallacy is at the root of much superstition, as in the case of a cricketer who carries a red handkerchief with him whenever he bats because he had one with him the day he scored his first century.

Slippery Slope or Domino Theory
This is a particular case of arguing by appeal to anticipated negative consequences. The classification of “slippery slope” is applied when the alleged negative consequence is many steps removed from the proposed cause and when a great deal of speculation is involved in positing the negative consequence as a likely or certain outcome. Some examples of potential slippery slope fallacies would be “If we permit same-sex marriage we will end up authorising people to marry their pets” and "We must join the US in sending troops to fight in Vietnam otherwise the whole of South East Asia will fall to communism. In these examples, the speaker creates what he/she believes to be a worst-case scenario based on a series of events that has not yet occurred and may never occur. Of course, whether or not the argument is faulty on account of being overly speculative or completely unlikely (and hence merits the negative label of “slippery slope”) will again be a matter for subjective judgement and must be carefully argued for. This fallacy appears most commonly in arguments of effect, usually when the writer wishes to argue that the consequences of a particular action are likely to be negative.

Strawperson Argument
A strawperson argument involves attacking a view similar to but not identical with that of an opponent: "How long will America tolerate softheaded opponents of gun control who want only criminals to have guns?" Advocates of gun control vary in their views, but they do not want only criminals to have guns. The adjective softheaded is an example of evaluative preumption; in this sentence, it is designed to arouse a particular emotional response. Negatively loaded terms are frequent in strawperson arguments. This fallacy is a common tactic of evaluative arguments. If you can demonstrate that a text you are analysing has misrepresented an opposing argument in this way, then you are in a position to argue that it is unfair and dishonest.

---------- copy and paste from here once you have supplied your answers ----------
Discussion Point 1

Identify the informal fallacies committed in the sentences that follow. Select from the following list. Insert the appropriate choice in the right-hand column of the following table: 1. ad hominem argument 2. ad populum argument 3. false analogy 4. hasty/over generalization 5. circular argument 6. distraction 7. non sequitur 8. post hoc, ergo propter hoc (temporal sequence treated a causal) 9. either-or argument 10. slippery slope 11. evaluative presumption 12. strawperson argument

| |Type of fallacy |
|Legalized abortion puts us only a step away from legalizing murders of anyone we deem | |
|undesirable or inconvenient. | |
|If you can't beat them, join them. | |
|You shouldn’t vote for the Greens because parties who are only concerned about | |
|environmental issues are two narrow in their policy agenda. | |
|Those traitorous, draft-dodging youths who preferred deserting their country to serving| |
|it in the military should never have been granted amnesty. | |
|Discrimination should be fought on every front—whether it's practiced against members | |
|of a certain race, a certain sex, or those who bear arms. | |
|I spent two weeks at a military academy and realized that private school is just not | |
|for me. | |
|It is unfair to penalize Eastman Kodak for harming the environment when it has been | |
|such a strong supporter of the local economy. | |
|Supercop had the highest ratings of any television movie. Clearly it was a superior | |
|film. | |
|Tom Hanks is a brilliant comedian; he should leave heavy drama alone. | |
|People who oppose multiculturalism want a return to the pre-War days of Anglo-Celtic | |
|monoculturalism when Australia was all “meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars”.. | |

----------------- end of copy and paste --------------------------------------

Activity 2

The purpose of this task is to develop an analysis of the argumentation employed in another article concerned with the AFL’s proposals re prayer rooms – specifically an item which adopts a position in opposition to that of Tim Blair. Questions to be addressed are set out below.

Cornes: Put faith in good sense
Graham Cornes April 20, 2012 11:00PM (NewsNow, Adelaide)
[pic]
Richmond's Bachar Houli, with prayer mat and Sherrin, at Etihad Stadium. Picture: Alex Coppel
THE most emotive topic this week was the AFL's having prayer-rooms at its venues, writes Graham Cornes.
---------------------------------
FORGET the Malthouse/McGuire stoush or Kurt Tippett's goalkicking frustrations. By far the most emotive topic this week was the suggestion the AFL will insist there are prayer-rooms at all its venues.
This is on the recommendation of Bachar Houli, the Richmond footballer of the Islam faith, who, in his advisory role to the AFL, says this facility may just attract a few more people to football.
Well, there has been no shortage of rednecks stirring up the emotions on this issue. "How dare they raise this issue just before Anzac Day?" one outraged soul said. "They wouldn't provide a bar for me if I went to a soccer match in Dubai," said another.
Others were more humorous in their comments. "It might help when big Kurt is kicking for goal," was one amusing aside. "I'm a Port supporter, I wouldn't mind a prayer room at Footy Park," a Power man said light-heartedly.
Unfortunately, the jokes are few and far between as the debate threatens to turn ugly. The ugly Australian masquerading as a dinki-di patriot never is far from the surface when issues of religion and race are discussed.
As Australian footballers, we pride ourselves in our willingness to accept anyone, from any faith or background into our football community and there is no doubt the AFL has led the national agenda for inclusiveness and tolerance, when it comes to race and religion.
In the old days, however, opponents who were a little different, either because of their heritage, religion or appearance expected to be abused unmercifully. Not everyone did it, and many cringed when they heard their team-mates indulge in it, but it did happen. The victims endured it because they thought that was what they had to do to be accepted.
We're better than that now. But as sport acquires and espouses new levels of racial respect and tolerance, so society and public opinion, inflamed by opportunist politicians and radio shock-jocks, seems to be defying that example and increasingly moves to the right. It's sickening, really.
The basis of all this racial intolerance is always fear and ignorance. We fear those things we don't understand and consequently are easy prey for the firebrands who preach disaster and loss of our liberty.
Would anyone really notice if there was a prayer room at Football Park, which incidentally might be used by all faiths? Is it really any of our business if a Muslim man or woman wants to pray five times a day? Of course, we should be vigilant to all forms of extremism but prayer rooms at Football Park, Adelaide Oval or Subiaco are hardly going to be hotbeds of terror and insurrection.
I was in an army unit once with a brilliant young national serviceman, an Orthodox Jew, who religiously practised his faith. Unfortunately, the army wasn't equipped to handle his dietary disciplines and his observance of the Sabbath and he was virtually run out of the unit.
What a waste, and what bigotry, of which I'm sure, having been swept along by the mob mentality, I was guilty. He was "different" and we didn't know how to relate to him. Prayer rooms at footy grounds? Is it really worth going to war over?
CORNESY can be heard with Stephen Rowe on 1395, FIVEaa, 4pm-7pm weekdays.

Note that the author of this piece, Graham Cornes, was previously a leading AFL player and coach who now is prominent as a football commentator on radio and television in South Australia.

--------- copy and paste from here once you have supplied your answers ----------
1. Obviously Cornes writes in favour of the prayer rooms and by way of negative criticism of some of those who have opposed them. We can say that the text has a primary position which consists of two related claims: (position 1) “The prayer rooms are a good idea which should be supported and (position 2) “Those who have spoken out against them are wrong”.

Is this primary position overtly stated or is it left implicit? Briefly discuss (a sentence or two).

2. To what extent does Cornes offer “opinion” as opposed to genuine “argumentation”? In a sentence discuss this feature of the text.

4. Identify the various supporting arguments/claims which are provided by way of justification for this position. Summarise each of these justifications (one sentence per support) and then list these below in the order in which they occur in the article.

[Primary position] The prayer room idea should be supported and those that oppose it are wrong because….
[Justification 1]

[Justification 2]

Any further justifications….

5. Consider the warrants upon which these various justifications rely (the belief, value or expectation by which the justification entails or leads logically to the texts primary position that the prayer rooms are a good idea and/or those that oppose them are wrong). Are any of these warrants explicitly stated? If so, briefly discuss in a sentence or two.

6. Considering all the warrants in operation in the text (either left understood or explicitly stated) , in a few sentences briefly discuss the worldview/value system they reflect.

7. Identify any instances in Cornes’ article of any of the “informal fallacies” identified in the notes – i.e. any instances of one of the following 1. ad hominem argument 2. ad populum argument 3. false analogy 4. hasty/over generalization 5. circular argument 6. distraction 7. non sequitur 8. post hoc, ergo propter hoc (temporal sequence treated a causal) 9. either-or argument 10. slippery slope 11. evaluative presumption 12. strawperson argument

------------------------ end of copy and paste ---------------------------------