Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

186 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

seen, the argument is not necessarily as sound

or as conclusive as it may at first seem: there

are a number of hidden assumptions and even

flaws in the reasoning, when you come to

consider it critically.

Part of the persuasiveness of this argument

comes from the language the author uses to

press his case. Look at two of the phrases used

in paragraph 2: ‘glitzy new careers’ and

‘crooked past’. Both help to build up a picture

of something both cheap and nasty. In the

next paragraph we are told that a ‘notorious

gangster needs no talent’, reinforcing the

negative impression that is being created of

the convict-turned-celebrity.

We call this expressive ingredient of the

text rhetoric, to distinguish it from the plain

reasoning, the underlying argument. Authors

use rhetorical devices of various kinds to

embellish their arguments, to make them

more forceful. There is nothing wrong with

this: it is not a misuse, or some kind of

cheating, to express an argument in a forceful

way, provided there is an argument to

embellish. When rhetoric is misused is when

there is nothing else but strong words, and

there are no substantial grounds underlying

it. Don’t make the mistake of picking out a

colourful phrase and labelling it as a flaw just

because it is highly rhetorical. Do, however, be

on guard against authors who employ empty

rhetoric: colourful language to camouflage

weak or non-existent argument. (Journalists,

politicians, and some lawyers are among the

worst offenders!)

Of course, the impression that the author’s

language creates might be the right

impression, or at least one that you can

sympathise with. Many of the celebrities that

the author has in mind may well be

thoroughly unpleasant, untalented people;

and the celebrity they gain may be shallow,

‘glitzy’, and the rewards undeserved. But that

should not blind you to the fact that well-

chosen language can heavily influence the

outlawed in this way they may have second

thoughts about turning to crime at all.

As you did with the earlier steps in the

argument, critically evaluate the reasoning in

the last paragraph.

Activity

Commentary

This is possibly the strongest part of the

argument. It places the responsibility for

becoming a criminal firmly on the individual,

and suggests, reasonably enough, that if that

individual then faces having his wealth

restricted, he has no one to blame but himself.

Opponents of the argument cannot say that

the criminal has not been warned. The

argument is strengthened further by the claim

that this may also deter people from crime,

which is probably the best argument there is

for punishment of any sort.

But here, too, there are certain questionable

assumptions. One is that young people

tempted by crime would even think about

becoming legally rich and famous, far into the

future. And if they did, would they care that

they would be prevented from doing so?

Probably not. Another is the assumption that

people do all freely choose their lives; that

none is ever drawn into bad ways by their

upbringing, or the influence of others, or

through knowing no better. Without the

assumption that there is truly free choice, it

would be harsh to say no one should ever be

given a second chance.

Power of persuasion: rhetoric

If you read the ‘Time to get tough’ text

casually, and uncritically, it is easy to be

impressed by the argument. Your first reaction

might be: yes, many criminals do profit from

the fact that they have done wrong and

become well known because of it. And this

does not seem right or fair. But, as we have