4.9 Critical evaluation 187
argument, you must decide. You will have the
chance to do so in the end-of-chapter
assignments.
Be careful, however, that in making this
decision you are not just saying whether you
agree or disagree with the author’s opinion or
his conclusions. You could quite reasonably
think that the conclusion is right but that the
argument is poor. Alternatively, you might
think it is a strong and compelling argument,
but, for reasons of your own, disagree with its
conclusion. This is the most difficult position
for a critical thinker to be in. If you really find
the argument compelling, and you do not
dispute its premises, then rationally you
should accept its conclusion, even if this
means changing a previously held view. If you
still reject the conclusion, you need to be able
to say where the argument fails – and that can
be quite hard to do if it is a persuasive
argument.B: Say no to cheats
We turn now to the argument you analysed for
the assignment at the end of Chapter 4.8: ‘Say
no to cheats’. It contains a very common line
of argument that occupies the first two
paragraphs. It takes the following form:
‘Such-and-such is harmful, or could be
harmful. Therefore it should be prohibited.’
This line of reasoning is often referred to as the
argument from harm, and is an important
ethical argument.Reread paragraphs 1 and 2 of the passage
on page 182, and remind yourself of the
reasons given there to support the main
conclusion. In arguing for the main
conclusion, what underlying assumption is
also made? Do you think it is a warranted
assumption?Activity
way you respond to an argument; that there
is always a danger that the reasoning can take
second place to emotions or sympathies. And
if that happens you are not responding in a
fully critical way.
We also saw, in paragraph 4, how potential
opponents of the argument are dismissed as
‘woolly-minded’. According to the author they
are ‘endlessly ready to defend the rights of
thugs and murderers without a thought for
their victims’. And we are presented with the
image of these same thugs and murderers
‘strutting about enjoying... a mega-buck
income’. The language leaves us in no doubt
which side the author is on. But more than
that, the author wants to manoeuvre us into a
kind of trap, where the choice seems to be
between defending the bad guys or supporting
their innocent victims.
A critical approach reveals that this
argument is strongly biased when it comes to
describing the different groups of people
involved. There is no concession that there
may be some ex-convicts who have
genuinely turned their backs on crime, who
have real talent as actors or writers, and who
do what they can to put right the harm they
have caused. Does the author include such
people in the same category as those whom
he describes as ‘strutting about’ in their
‘glitzy new careers’? The fact is we don’t
know, because he has conveniently – and no
doubt deliberately – left them out of the
picture.
Decision time
So, do we rate this as a good argument or a
poor one, overall? That final verdict is left to
you. You will probably agree that it is quite a
persuasive argument, but that it has
weaknesses as well as strengths; and that it
makes some claims and assumptions that are,
at the very least, questionable. Whether or not
these are enough to make you reject the