8 0cH A Pt eR 5 ■ D e e p A n a l y s i sthe Holocaust, a person who has spoken about genocide, is seeking the means
to carry it out. And it is unacceptable to this country to allow that individual
to have control of launching a nuclear weapon. And so we will take the action
necessary to keep that from happening.^1
Romney’s criticisms of the United Nations and Columbia are not really part
of his argument, because they do not support his conclusion that the United
States needs to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Ahmadinejad.
Such tangents can be completely irrelevant or unnecessary, and they often
make it hard to follow the argument. Some people even go off on tangents
on purpose to confuse their opponents and hide gaping holes in their ar-
guments. The irrelevant diversion is sometimes called a red herring (report-
edly after a man who, when pursued by hounds, threw them off his scent
by dragging a red herring across his trail). More generally, this maneuver
might be called the trick of excess verbiage. It violates the conversational rules
of Quantity, Relevance, or Manner, which were discussed in Chapter 2.
To focus on the argument itself, we need to look carefully at each par-
ticular sentence to determine whether it affects the validity or strength of
the argument or the truth of its premises. If we decide that a sentence is
not necessary for the argument, then we should not add it when we list the
premises and conclusion in standard form. Of course, we have to be careful
not to omit anything that would improve the argument, but we also do not
want to include too much, because irrelevant material simply makes it more
difficult to analyze and evaluate the argument.
Another source of extra material is repetition. Consider Senator John
Edwards’s response to a question about the Defense of Marriage Act in the
Democratic presidential candidates’ debate on January 22, 2004:
These are issues that should be left [to the states]. Massachusetts, for example,
has just made a decision—the Supreme Court at least has made a decision—that
embraces the notion of gay marriage. I think these are decisions the states should
have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act, as I understand it—
you’re right, I wasn’t there when it was passed—but as I understand it, would
have taken away that power. And I think that’s wrong—that power should not
be taken away from the states.^2
Now compare:
These are issues that should be left to the states.
These are decisions that states should have the power to make.
That power should not be taken away from the states.
All three of these sentences say pretty much the same thing, so we do not
need them all.
Why do people repeat themselves like this? Sometimes they just forget that
they already made the point before, but often repetition accomplishes a goal.
Good speakers regularly repeat their main points to remind their audience of
what was said earlier. Repetition is subtler when it is used to explain something.97364_ch05_ptg01_079-110.indd 80 15/11/13 9:53 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.