6 7A n E x t e n d e d E x a m p l eIf (2) the measure is inexpensive, then, because that shows there is no
general need, reject it.
The opposite argument:
If (1) the measure is inexpensive, then accept it.
If (2) the measure is expensive, then, because that demonstrates a general
need, accept it.
When the arguments are spread out in this fashion, it should be clear that
they have equal strength. Both are no good. The question that must be set-
tled is this: Does a genuine need exist that can be met in an economically
sound manner? If there is no need for the measure, then it should be re-
jected, however inexpensive. Again, if there is a need, then some expense is
worth paying. The real problem is to balance need against expense and then
decide on this basis whether the measure as a whole is worth adopting.
Kyl’s argument is a sophistry, because it has no tendency to answer the
real question at hand. A sophistry is a clever but fallacious argument intended
to establish a point through trickery. Incidentally, it is one of the marks of a
sophistical argument that, though it may baffle, it almost never convinces.
We think that few readers will have found this argument persuasive even if
they cannot say exactly what is wrong with it. The appearance of a sophisti-
cal argument (or even a complex and tangled argument) is a sign that the
argument is weak. Remember, when a case is strong, people usually argue in
a straightforward way.
e. “Furthermore, some Members will use these additional funds to raise
salaries. Competition will force all salaries upward in all offices and then on
committee staffs, and so on.” The word “furthermore” signals that further
reasons are forthcoming. Here Kyl returns to the argument that the measure
is more expensive than it might appear at first sight. Although Kyl’s first
sentence is guarded by the term “some,” he quickly drops his guard and
speaks in an unqualified way about all salaries in all offices. Yet the critic is
bound to ask whether Kyl has any right to make these projections. Beyond
this, Kyl here projects a parade of horrors. (See Chapter 13.) He pictures this
measure leading by gradual steps to quite disastrous consequences. Here the
little phrase “and so on” carries a great burden in the argument. Once more,
we must simply ask ourselves whether these projections seem reasonable.
f. “We may even find ourselves in a position of paying more money for
fewer clerks and in a tighter bind on per person workload.” Once more, the
use of a strong guarding expression takes back most of the force of the argu-
ment. Notice that if Kyl could have said straight out that the measure will put
us in a position of paying more money for fewer clerks and in a tighter bind
on per-person workload, that would have counted as a very strong objection.
You can hardly do better in criticizing a position than showing that it will have
just the opposite result from what is intended. In fact, however, Kyl has not es-
tablished this; he has only said that this is something that we “may even find.”97364_ch04_ptg01_059-078.indd 67 15/11/13 9:50 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.