4.7 Introducing longer arguments 173
restricted the options. Like her, you may feel
that there really are only two possible outcomes
of the policy because there is no way of partly
observing the rules: either you do or you don’t.
And if you do, you have to let thieves escape,
which makes it pointless, and if you don’t, you
put the public at risk. By saying that an
argument rests on an assumption that there are
only two options, you are not necessarily saying
that it is unsound. If you consider the
assumption to be a fair one, then you can still
accept the argument and the conclusion.
So in the end there is still room for
agreement or disagreement, and scope for
further argument. It is a piece of further
argument that we turn to in the next question.
Note: when only two options are involved,
the above fallacy is sometimes called ‘false
dilemma’ or ‘false dichotomy’. (A dichotomy
is a division into two.)Here is a point someone might raise on
reading ‘Thrill of the chase’:
‘Some of those who steal cars are
attempting to escape after committing
other serious crimes.’Does this statement, if true, strengthen or
weaken the argument (or neither)? Give your
reasons.Activity
Commentary
If someone said this in response to the
argument it would be natural to think it was
meant as an objection. It would be hard to
interpret it as supporting the argument, or
even as a neutral remark. Almost certainly it is
picking up on the author’s claim that: ‘saving
lives is more important than preventing thefts
of cars, and the police would be more
profitably employed trying to catch serious
criminals rather than bored, disadvantaged
young men who steal cars for excitement’.‘Restricting the options’
What we have exposed in the above discussion
is a very common reasoning error: one to add
to your catalogue. It is sometimes called
‘restricting the options’, because it consists in
claiming or implying that there are fewer
possibilities to consider than there really are.
This is easier to understand by seeing an
example of an argument from a different
source that commits this error:
[1] When you go into business either you
can adopt ethical practices or you can
make a profit. Herbco has declared itself
to be an ethical company, so if you want
to see good returns, you really need to
invest your money somewhere else.On the face of it this looks like sound advice,
given the two premises. If it really is true that
you must choose between ethics and profit –
and it often is – then surely it is not a good
plan to invest money in an ethical company if
your aim is just to get a good return.
But, like the author of ‘Thrill of the chase’,
the speaker here is restricting the options to
just two, and assuming that there are no
others. Yes, you can choose between ethics and
making a profit, as the first premise says. But
you don’t have to choose between them unless
they are the only choices. By drawing the
conclusion that it does, argument [1] clearly
makes the assumption that it is a straight
choice between ethics and profit with no other
options. But it is not a straight choice: Herbco
could operate ethically and make a profit – for
example, if it became very fashionable to buy
goods produced by ethical companies.
The same sort of restriction is imposed in
considering the police driver’s options. The
driver can either obey the rules and let the
thief escape, or drive dangerously and capture
him. The possibility of obeying the rules and
catching the thief is not openly or fairly
considered.
Of course, you may happen to agree with the
author, even after recognising that she has