4.7 Introducing longer arguments 175
when a gun is fired by a police officer it is with
the intent to kill or wound someone, whereas
generally the driver of a pursuit vehicle kills by
accident. Of course, this doesn’t make an
accidental death arising from a police car
chase any less painful for the bereaved
relatives. But it does explain the attitude to
which the author is objecting: the attitude
that ‘if (the weapon) is a car, that seems to be
accepted as an unavoidable accident’.
Does the analogy successfully support the
argument? Not entirely. Although the
similarities seem quite striking, they are
undermined by significant differences. A gun
is primarily a weapon; a car is primarily a
transport vehicle, and becomes a weapon only
if it is misused. Also, if you place too much
weight on this analogy, where do you draw
the line? Do you want to say that any police
action that results in tragic accidents should
be banned, whatever the instrument – batons,
riot shields, water hoses, tear gas.. .? If we
completely disarm the police of all ‘potentially
lethal weapons’, how can we ask them to
protect the public from criminals who could
harm them? It is a genuine dilemma, and it
cannot be solved by judging all actions by
their sometimes-tragic consequences.• ‘Thrill of the chase’ is not a bad argument.
It tackles a difficult and controversial
subject and draws a conclusion that many
people will have sympathy with. But it does
not have all the answers. In this unit we
have looked at the strengths and some of
the weak points in the reasoning, so that
an informed and considered judgement
can be made as to whether its conclusions
are acceptable. Or you may decide that
there is more to be investigated and more
argument to be had.Summary
similar in certain respects to that of a parent.
If, on the other hand, the argument was that a
good ruler has to treat every citizen like his or
her own child, that would be taking the
analogy too far. In other words the fairness of
an analogy depends upon the use it is put to
in a particular argument.
An analogy is used in the first paragraph of
‘Thrill of the chase’. Identify the two things
that are being compared; and assess how
successful the analogy is in the context of
the argument.Activity
Commentary
The comparison is between deaths resulting
from the police action of chasing stolen cars
and deaths resulting from police action
involving a gun. In order to give support to the
argument, the analogy has to compare things
that really are similar in ways that are relevant.
It also has to be true that there should be an
outcry if police action resulted in deaths from
firing a gun. The author clearly assumes that
there should by using the word ‘rightly’ when
drawing the analogy.
The similarities are fairly obvious. Guns
and car chases both kill. And if things go
wrong, both of them kill innocent bystanders
as well as criminals and suspects. It is often
said that a car is potentially a lethal weapon
and this is very much what the analogy is
saying here. Is it a fair comparison? As far as
the consequences go, yes, it seems very fair.
Why should we disapprove of a shooting
accident, but shrug our shoulders at a driving
accident, just because the ‘weapons’ used are
different?
But there are dissimilarities, too, and they
cannot all be brushed aside. A gun is designed
to be a weapon, whereas a car is not. Also,