FLAWED

ARGUMENTS
 Types
of
Support

Reasons Expert Research

Examples
Opinion Results
Possible Possible
Errors Errors Possible Possible
Errors Errors

Irrelevant Circular Hasty Unident- Inapprop- Unidenti-

Gener- Dated
Reasons Reasoning -ified -riate -fied
-alizations Research
Experts Experts Resaerch
 REASONS (SUPPORT)

A- CIRCULAR REASONING (FLAW)

• It should be against the law for women to

drive as they should not be driving.
 CIRCULAR REASONING
 Is the repetition of the same main idea or
claim instead of providing reasons to support
that claim.
 In their efforts to prove a claim they are so
much convinced of, authors sometimes forget
about giving reasons to support and explain
their arguments;
 Instead they keep repeating their arguments.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

• Health care workers, from hospital technicians to doctors,

should be forced to undergo AIDS testing, and the results
should be published. Although there has been much talk
about this subject, too little has been done, and the public
has suffered because of it. We need to institute a program
of mandatory testing as soon as possible.

P. 501 in ‘’Reading for Thinking’’, by Flemming, 2006.

 REASONS (SUPPORT)

B- IRRELEVANT REASONS (FLAW)

• Women shouldn’t drive because they cook

well .

• are ones that are not directly and truly

related to the author’s main claim.

• are sometimes included by authors in their

haste to prove a certain point.
 ANOTHER EXAMPLE:
• The 1996 tragedy on Mount Everest in which eight
people died in a single day is proof enough that amateurs
should not be scaling the world’s highest mountain.
Even with the most skillful and reliable guides, amateurs
with little or no experience cannot possibly know how to
respond to the sudden storms that strike the mountain
without warning. Besides, rich people - the climb can
cost anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000 - shouldn’t be
encouraged to think that money buys everything.

P. 501 in ‘’Reading for Thinking’’, by Flemming, 2006.

 EXAMPLES (SUPPORT)

HASTY GENERALIZATION (FLAW)

• “Marwa doesn’t look at the mirrors while

driving. All women do this”.
• are used to express a wide variety
of individual events or
experiences.
• The broader the range of
generalizations, the more
examples writers need to include
in order to be convincing.
• Authors who generalize based on
one or two examples ONLY, for
sure weaken their arguments.
 ANOTHER EXAMPLE:
• HMOs are not giving consumers adequate health care.
Instead, budgeting considerations are consistently
allowed to outweigh the patients’ need for treatment. In
one case, a child with a horribly deformed cleft palate
(facial birth defect) was denied adequate cosmetic
surgery because the child’s HMO considered the
surgery unnecessary, yet the child had trouble eating
and drinking.

• P. 502 in ‘’Reading for Thinking’’, by Flemming, 2006.

 EXPERT OPINION (SUPPORT)

A- UNIDENTIFIED EXPERT (FLAW)

• “John Smith stated that women’s driving

skills are poor as they lack the needed
• Use of unidentified experts’
concentration”. opinions also weakens the
argument.
• Authors have to provide some
knowledge of the credentials of
the cited experts.
• It would also be helpful if
readers could know more about
the cited experts’ personal
background and biases.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

• Despite the doom-and-gloom sayers who constantly worry

about the state of the environment, the Earth is actually in pretty
good shape. As Dr. Paul Benjamin recently pointed out,
‘’Nature is perfectly capable of taking care of herself; she’s
been doing it for hundreds of years.’’

• P. 502 in ‘’Reading for Thinking’’, by Flemming, 2006.

 EXPERT OPINION (SUPPORT)

B- INAPPROPRIATE EXPERT (FLAW)

• Michael Jackson, a male singer, stated that

women’s driving skills are poor as they lack
the needed concentration.
• is another weakness that
authors fall into when
attempting to support an
argument .
• sometimes authors cite a
famous person who does
not qualify as an expert in
the area under discussion.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

• We should abolish NATO and foreign aid. After all, didn’t

Michael Jordan tell us to avoid entangling ourselves in the
affairs of other nations? Even today, we should let his wisdom
be our guide and steer clear of foreign involvements that drain
our energy and our resources.

• P. 503 in ‘’Reading for Thinking’’, by Flemming, 2006.

 RESEARCH RESULTS (SUPPORT)

A- UNIDENTIFIED RESEARCH (FLAW)

• Research has found that 85% of accidents are

caused by female drivers.
• References to unnamed
studies should arouse doubts
in critical readers.
• Authors should identify the
source of the research cited
in their arguments.
• Authors should provide
enough information for
readers to check the source
of the supposed evidence.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

• Researches have proven that out of every

five Americans, three suffer from
psychological problems.
 RESEARCH RESULTS (SUPPORT)

B- DATED RESEARCH (FLAW)

• A research that was conducted in 1950 has

found that 85% of accidents are caused by
female drivers. • Authors who use out-of-
date studies risk losing
readers’ confidence.

• To be considered
effective evidence for an
opinion, scientific
research should be more
up- to -date.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

• The threat of radon gas is not as serious as we have been led to believe.
In 1954, a team of government researchers studying the effects of
radon in the home found no relationship between high levels of the gas
in private dwellings and the incidence of lung cancer.

• P. 504 in ‘’Reading for Thinking’’, by Flemming, 2006.

 A.S. BOOK EX.8
• Who Really Benefits from the Lottery?
In a recent editorial published in this newspaper, an argument was put forth in
favor of a state-run lottery. According to the author of the editorial, there are many
benefits to a state-run lottery' and apparently no drawbacks.
Now, the writer may honestly believe that a lottery would be a boon to everyone
in the state, but I would argue that legalized gambling is a disaster waiting to happen.
Knowingly or unknowingly— and it doesn't matter which— state governments
encourage addictive gambling when they promote lotteries. According to the
American Psychiatric Association, addictive, or problem, gambling is a mental
illness. Although treatable, it's still an illness, and it can lead to a host of social
problems such as bankruptcy, theft, domestic violence, and job loss. Needless to say,
these social problems can, in the end, prove costly to states hoping to benefit from
lottery revenues, in promoting lotteries, the state, in essence, collects money from
gambling with one hand and pays out double that amount in social services with the
other. Advocates of state-run lotteries should consider that fact when they justify the
lotteries by claiming they are a source of revenue for social programs. That logic may
seem sound, but it doesn't add up on paper when the costs of addictive gambling are
taken into account.
 For example, a 1995 study by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute estimated that each
problem gambler cost the state around $9,500 per year in social services and business losses. The total
loss lo die scale was about $307 million per year." Another study indicates that around one in four
problem gamblers has a history of substance abuse. This is yet another reason why state governments
should not encourage gambling.
As Benjamin Martino has pointed out, legalized gambling blurs an important moral distinction:
the distinction between honestly earned money and "ill-gotten" gains. Money from gambling is ill-
gotten because it is not connected with any honest labor that benefits society. When we sanction*
legalized gambling, we approve of bestowing wealth on people who have not worked for it. Given the
number of ways in which legalized gambling hurts a society, how can any state government see fit to
pro mote it?
1. What is the author's point?
2. Identify the four reasons used to support that point.
3. In addition to these four reasons, which of the following does the author offer in support of his
conclusions?
a) specific illustration
b) results of research
c) expect opinion

4. Which error or errors in reasoning can you detect in paragraphs 3 and 4?

a) irrelevant reason
b) circular reasoning
c) hasty generalization
d) unidentified or inappropriate expert
e) unidentified or dated research
Thank You 