University of Languages and International Studies Vietnam National University, Hanoi

GROUP TOPIC

Refuting an Argument
INDIVIDUAL TOPIC

Strategies for Refutation

ng Th Linh 09E17

Hanoi, May 24, 2012

Refuting an Argument 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS I- Introduction...2 II- Strategies for argument refutation .2 1. Provide an argument that one or more of the premises is false ...2 2. Show that the argument is not valid or not strong........................................4 3. Show that the conclusion is false..6 4. Indirectly Refuting an Argument: Reducing to the Absurd.7 5. Showing that an argument has committed an informal fallacy .8 III- Some general dos and donts to help you win arguments...8 1. Dos8 2.Donts..10 IV- Conclusion.........10 V- Reference..11

Refuting an Argument 2012

Strategies For Argument Refutation

I-

Introduction:

It is important to keep in mind that there is no single formula that always works in refuting an argument. Every argument is different argument, and so different strategies will be effective for different arguments. Some strategies lend themselves better to certain arguments. For example, some arguments have controversial premises. In this case, it is probably best to argue against one of the premises. Other arguments however, will have premises that seem very plausible. In this situation, it may be better to think about whether the conclusion really follows from the premises (even if they are true), or perhaps you might try to refute the argument indirectly. Below are some strategies that may help you effectively refute an argument.

II-

Strategies for refuting an argument:

1. Provide an argument that one or more of the premises is false (Premise attack) This strategy is to argue that a premise is false or insufficiently supported. Lets call this premise attack. Lets see an example: Remember one of Hardins arguments:
1. Rich countries are analogous to lifeboats. 2. Poor countries are analogous to people drowning in the water. 3. People in life boats do not have an obligation to help those drowning in the

water, because if they did, everyone would die.

Refuting an Argument 2012

4. Therefore, Rich countries have no obligation to help poor countries

Hardin assumes that rich countries are analogous to poor countries, but this seems dubious. The people on lifeboats have scarce resources such that if they give any of their resources to the people drowning in the water, there is a very good chance everyone will die. But rich countries have an overabundance of resources. Rich countries such as the U.S., however, produce more food than people can eat. Farmers often produce so much grain that it ends up rotting in grain silos before anyone can consume it. So, no U.S. lives would be seriously threatened if we gave away some of our resources to poor countries. In this way, rich countries are not analogous to lifeboats. Therefore, Hardins first premise is false. Tips:

When you argue that a premise is false, make sure you make explicit: a) what premise of the argument you are objecting to, and b) why the author (or position) needs that premise to be true in order for their argument to succeed. Make sure that the premise you are attributing to the author is one they in fact rely on in the argument. Also, be sure that when you use this strategy, you provide an argument that the premise is false. Dont just stamp your foot and declare it to be false you have to give reasons for why reasonable people should find the premise dubious. If you just say it is false without saying why, you risk begging the question against the author.

2. Show that the argument is not valid or not strong.

This is a difficult strategy to use if the argument is a very complicated one. That is, if you are examining a complicated argument, it may be more difficult to tell whether the conclusion follows from the premises. But, if the premises of the argument do not seem to lend support for the conclusion, then this sort of strategy can be extremely effective,

Refuting an Argument 2012

because you do not have to debate the plausibility of the premises. Heres an example of an argument and an objection that employs this strategy:
1. Human beings, in virtue of their biology, have a natural tendency to survive. 2. Euthanasia acts contrary to this natural tendency. 3. Therefore, euthanasia is morally wrong.

Let us suppose that the premises of this argument are true. Nonetheless, the conclusion does not follow. We have several natural tendencies that are the result of our biology, but that doesnt make acting against these tendencies morally wrong. For example, we might have, in virtue of our biology, a natural tendency to be selfish. Of course, we do not think that performing self-less actions for the good of others is morally wrong. So, just because we have a natural tendency against something, it does not follow that it is wrong. Therefore, the above argument is weak. Tips:

You can show that an argument is invalid or weak by offering a counter-example to the argument. In the above objection, the author attempts to give a counter example to the argument that because something is unnatural, it is wrong. That is, the author attempts to show that the argument is weak by giving another instance when something is unnatural, but we do not think it is wrong. This helps to show that somethings being unnatural is not good evidence for its being morally wrong. What is good about the authors counterexample here is that it consists of a plausible premise: We have a natural tendency to be selfish and a conclusion that is clearly false: Acting for the good of others is morally wrong. This makes it clear that the premises, even if true, dont provide good evidence for the conclusion. One way that it is easy to go wrong with this strategy is by misrepresenting the argument you are objecting to. If you think an argument is invalid, make sure that you are using the Principle of Rational Discussion in interpreting the argument. Remember - some arguments will need to be repaired. It is only after you have judged the argument to be unrepairable that you should use this strategy.

Refuting an Argument 2012

3. Show that the conclusion is false.

This is perhaps the most difficult strategy to use effectively. The reason is that you do not want to beg the question against your opponent. Imagine a debate between a Pro-Life and a Pro-Choice advocate:

Pro-Lifer: We all agree that it is wrong to inflict pain on living creatures. That is
why we think animal cruelty is wrong. Well, fetuses develop pain receptors by the 10th week of pregnancy. Abortions after the 9th week, then, will inflict pain on a living creature. Therefore, abortion is wrong. How can the Pro-Choice advocate respond? She cannot effectively respond by simply saying:

Pro-Choicer: Yeah, but it is false that abortion is wrong, so your argument is

mistaken. She cannot effectively respond this way, because this response begs the very questions at stake. That is, it just asserts that abortion is wrong, which was the proposition we were arguing about! If you are going to show that the conclusion of an argument is false, you have to give some independent argument for why we should think it is false. This can be a good strategy to use for either a) arguments that seem valid and the premises are difficult to verify, or b) strong arguments with plausible premises. For example:

1. The pilot on the plane reported having trouble with the jets tail. 2. Therefore, it is likely that a malfunction in the tail caused the crash. This argument may initially seem plausible, but scientists working on the wreckage for months have found no problem with the tail. They now believe that the tail would have been working properly at the time of the crash. This suggests that something else

Refuting an Argument 2012

caused the jet to crash. In this case, the refutation works, because it shows that there is reason, despite the argument, for thinking that the conclusion is false. Notice that this refutation does not just try to reject the original argument, rather, the refutation tries to show that there are better reasons for thinking that the conclusion is false. Tips:

Attacking an argument in this way may be enough to simply question whether its conclusion is true, but if a given argument that is being attacked has a certain degree of strength, merely questioning its conclusion may not be sufficient. What the attacker needs to do in such a case is to put forward a second argument that is stronger than the original argument and that provides evidence for rejecting the conclusion of the original argument. Such an attack is sufficient to defeat the original argument, unless its proponent can give further reasons to support it.

4. Indirectly Refuting an Argument: Reducing to the Absurd.

This strategy involves refuting an argument by showing that the conclusion or the premises of the argument lead to either a) a contradiction, or b) absurd, or highly counterintuitive consequences. We basically saw this sort of strategy in the article about John Rocker that we read. The Seattle Times had argued: 1. John Rocker said racist things about New Yorkers. 2. It is wrong to say things that upset people. 3. Therefore, he ought to be punished. The Times is claiming that it is wrong to say things that upset people. But, we have the right to free speech in this country. So, the Times must be claiming that speech that upsets people ought not to be protected by the First Amendment. But, if this were the case, then the Times itself would not be protected by the First Amendment, as it often

Refuting an Argument 2012

prints things that upset people. Of course, it is absurd to think that the Times ought not to be protected by the First Amendment. Thus, the Times was wrong to argue that Rocker ought to be punished for saying things that upset people. Tips:

When using this strategy, be careful not to commit the slippery slope fallacy by accident. Again, be sure that you are correct in the claims you attribute to an author.

5. Showing that an argument has committed an informal fallacy.

This is really just a variation on strategy 2. The more familiar you are with informal fallacies (a type of fallacy in which the content of the argument is relevant to its fallaciousness), the easier it will be to spot those fallacies in arguments. In general, when you claim that an argument commits an informal fallacy, the same tips that applied to strategy 2 will also apply here. Also remember that in giving a refutation to an argument, it is just as important for you to avoid committing a fallacy, such as Strawman, Slippery Slope, or Begging the Question.

III-

Some general dos and donts to help you win arguments

1. Dos:
Stay calm. Even if you get passionate about your point you must stay cool and in command of your emotions. If you lose your temper you lose. Use facts as evidence for your position. Facts are hard to refute so gather some pertinent data before the argument starts. Surveys, statistics, quotes from relevant people and results are useful arguments to deploy in support of your case.

Refuting an Argument 2012

Ask questions. If you can ask the right questions you can stay in control of the discussion and make your opponent scramble for answers. You can ask questions that challenge his point, What evidence do you have for that claim? You can ask hypothetical questions that extrapolate a trend and give your opponent a difficulty, What would happen if every nation did that? Another useful type of question is one that calmly provokes your foe, What is about this that makes you so angry? Use logic. Show how one idea follows another. Build your case and use logic to undermine your opponent. Appeal to higher values. As well as logic you can use a little emotion by appealing to worthy motives that are hard to disagree with, Shouldnt we all be working to make the world better and safer for our children? Listen carefully. Many people are so focused on what they are going to say that they ignore their opponent and assume his arguments. It is better to listen carefully. You will observe weaknesses and flaws in his position and sometimes you will hear something new and informative! Be prepared to concede a good point. Dont argue every point for the sake of it. If your adversary makes a valid point then agree but outweigh it with a different argument. This makes you looked reasonable. I agree with you that prison does not reform prisoners. That is generally true but prison still acts effectively as a deterrent and a punishment. Study your opponent. Know their strengths, weaknesses, beliefs and values. You can appeal to their higher values. You can exploit their weaknesses by turning their arguments back on them. Look for a win-win. Be open-minded to a compromise position that accommodates your main points and some of your opponents. You cannot both win in a boxing match but you can both win in a negotiation.

2. Donts

Refuting an Argument 2012

Get personal. Direct attacks on your opponents lifestyle, integrity or honesty should be avoided. Attack the issue not the person. If the other party attacks you then you can take the high ground e.g. I am surprised at you making personal attacks like that. I think it would be better if we stuck to the main issue here rather than maligning people. Get distracted. Your opponent may try to throw you off the scent by introducing new and extraneous themes. You must be firm. That is an entirely different issue which I am happy to discuss later. For the moment lets deal with the major issue at hand. Water down your strong arguments with weak ones. If you have three strong points and two weaker ones then it is probably best to just focus on the strong. Make your points convincingly and ask for agreement. If you carry on and use the weaker arguments then your opponent can rebut them and make your overall case look weaker.

IV-

Conclusion

Refutation is necessary for a quality debate because it promotes direct clash between arguments, therefore to dispute an argument effectively you not only must master the skills of refutation but also need understand deeply the refutation strategies in order to apply them flexibly in any situation, particularly when a debate occurs. There still have a lot of other strategies that can help you succeed in refuting an argument; however a noticeable thing is that each of them has its strengths and weaknesses so before using a strategy let think about it carefully and never forget the most important rule: To refute an argument, you must argue against it. Asking questions is not enough. You must present good reasons why its conclusions or reasons are wrong

10

Refuting an Argument 2012 VReference

http://www.speechmastery.com/refutation.html http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-to-win-arguments-dos-dontsand-sneaky-tactics.html http://faculty.mdc.edu/dmcguirk/ENC2106/refutation.htm

https://sites.google.com/site/anintroductiontodebate/lectures/2-more-advancedmaterial/1-refutation-strategies

11