The Language of Argument

2 8 6

cHaP Te r 1 3 ■ F a l l a c i e s o f V a g u e n e s s

Opponents can respond in several ways. One response is to deny that the

supposedly horrible effects really are so horrible. One might argue, for exam-

ple, that additional office space and new buildings would be useful. This re-

sponse is often foreclosed by describing the effects in especially horrible terms.

A second possible response would be to deny that increasing the clerk

hire allowance really would have the horrible effects that are claimed in the

first premise. One might argue, for example, that the old offices already have

adequate room for additional clerks.

Often the best response is a combination of these. One can admit that certain

claimed effects would be horrible, but deny that these horrible effects really are

likely. Then one can acknowledge that some more minor problems will ensue,

but argue that these costs are outweighed by the benefits of the program.

To determine which, if any, of these responses is adequate, one must look

closely at each particular argument and ask the following questions:

Are any of the claimed effects really very bad?

Are any of these effects really very likely?

Do these dangers outweigh all the benefits of what is being criticized?

If the answers to all these questions are “Yes,” then the causal slippery-slope

argument is strong. But if any of these questions receives a negative answer,

then the causal slippery-slope argument is questionable on that basis.

Classify each of the following arguments as either (H) an argument from the

heap, (C) a conceptual slippery-slope argument, (F) a fairness slippery-slope

argument, or (S) a causal slippery-slope argument. Explain why you classify

each example as you do.

1. We have to take a stand against sex education in junior high schools. If
   we allow sex education in the eighth grade, then the seventh graders will
   want it, and then the sixth graders, and pretty soon we will be teaching
   sex education to our little kindergartners.


2. People are found not guilty by reason of insanity when they cannot avoid
   breaking the law. But people who are brought up in certain deprived
   social circumstances are not much more able than the insane to avoid
   breaking the law. So it would be unjust to find them guilty.


3. People are called mentally ill when they do very strange things, but many
   so-called eccentrics do things that are just as strange. So there is no real
   difference between insanity and eccentricity.


4. If you try to smoke one cigarette a day, you will end up smoking two and
   then three and four and five, and so on, until you smoke two packs every
   day. So don’t try even one.

exercise IV

(continued)

97364_ch13_ptg01_273-290.indd 286 15/11/13 11:01 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.