The Language of Argument

3 2 4

C H A P T E R 1 6 ■ F a l l a c i e s o f V a c u i t y

Unfortunately, people usually do not make it so easy to tell when they

reason in a circle. Often, circular reasoning is disguised by restating the

conclusion in different words. Someone might argue that terrorists can’t be

stopped without torture, because, if you do not use torture, there is no other

way to stop terrorists. This premise means the same as the conclusion, so

this reasoning is still circular.

Another way to hide circularity is by suppressing the premise that repeats

the conclusion. (See Chapter 5 on suppressed premises.) Suppose someone

argues that terrorists cannot be stopped without torture, because they are so

callous that their goal is to kill and maim innocent civilians. This argument

depends on the suppressed premise that anyone whose goal is to kill and

maim innocent civilians cannot be stopped without torture. If terrorists are

then defined as people whose goal is to kill and maim innocent civilians,

then this suppressed premise reduces to the conclusion that terrorists cannot

be stopped without torture. So this argument is also circular.

Yet another trick is to put forward a statement first as a conclusion to be

proved, and then only much later—after several subarguments or tangents—

use the same statement as a premise on its own behalf. Consider this simple

argument:

The only way to prevent terrorists from committing their horrible crimes is to

inflict enough pain on them either to scare them off or to force them to reveal

information that enables the police to head off terrorist attacks. Because these are

the only methods that work, we cannot reason with them or talk them into giving

up. We cannot make friends or sign a treaty with them. We cannot buy them off

or satisfy their demands. Therefore, terrorists cannot be stopped without torture.

If the first sentence is supposed to provide a reason for the next three sen-

tences, then those three sentences cannot later be used as a reason for the last

sentence without the whole argument becoming circular, because the last

sentence, “Terrorists can’t be stopped without torture,” means pretty much

the same as the first sentence, “The only way to prevent terrorists... is to

inflict enough pain on them... .” Although this trick is often harder to detect

in a long and complex argument, such reasoning is still indirectly circular if

any premise in a chain of arguments repeats or restates the eventual conclu-

sion. Thus, we have circular reasoning if and only if one of the premises that

is used directly or indirectly to support a conclusion is equivalent to the con-

clusion itself.

Begging the Question

Reasoning in a circle is normally bad reasoning, but it is not easy to say ex-

actly what is bad about it. The problem with circular reasoning becomes

clearer when we notice that the same basic defect is shared by arguments

that are not strictly circular. Instead of arguing, “Terrorists can’t be stopped

97364_ch16_ptg01_323-332.indd 324 15/11/13 11:07 AM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.