1705137245
1705137246
So, problematic premises are about evidence. Two variants on problematic premises are discussed below.
1705137247
1705137248
21.2.1.1 Begging the Question Begging the question is a fallacy that occurs in an argument when the evidence is essentially the same as the claim. Because the evidence and the claim are the same, the argument essentially contains no evidence at all.
1705137249
1705137250
1705137251
1705137252
1705137253
Consider, for instance, the argument that “Programs to provide greater access to health care are good because everyone should have access to medical care.” Nothing is substantively different between the statements that “Everyone should have access to medical care” and “Programs to provide greater access to health care are good.” Since the statements are generally the same, one cannot be taken as evidence for the other. If anyone believes one of the statements, they automatically believe the other. As Johnson and Blair (2006: 80) note, “If the conclusion is acceptable, then no argument is needed to support it”.
1705137254
1705137255
21.2.1.2 The Fallacy of Incompatibility The fallacy of incompatibility also is a kind of problematic premise and, as such, is related to the standard of acceptability. Audiences rightfully expect a certain degree of consistency in evidence presented. Incompatibility occurs when evidence lacks, for any reason, that degree of consistency. When one piece of evidence is incompatible with another, the result is that the audience may consider neither piece of evidence as credible, and the claim will probably be unsuccessful.
1705137256
1705137257
1705137258
1705137259
1705137260
For example, when a debater offers a statement as evidence that is at odds with another statement offered by that debater at a different place or time, or when a debater’s argument is incompatible with some action that the debater performed or recommended elsewhere, the argument may be seen as including the fallacy of incompatibility.
1705137261
1705137262
Consider, for instance, the case of a person who maintains that certain government programs are good, but in a different province, asserts that those programs have damaged the nation’s economy. Audiences are unlikely to find either statement acceptable as evidence because the statements are not incompatible with one another.
1705137263
1705137264
Debaters who fail to meet the standard of acceptability may have committed a fallacy that is called a problematic premise. Begging the question and the fallacy of incompatibility are two specific kinds of problematic premises. Now, attention will shift from acceptability to fallacies related to the standards of relevance and sufficiency.
1705137265
1705137266
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132537]
1705137267
21.2.2 Irrelevant Reasons
1705137268
1705137269
This category of fallacies sometimes is called by its Latin name, non sequitor, meaning “It does not follow.” An irrelevant reason is one that, in combination with all other evidence offered, fails to minimally satisfy the criteria of relevance.
1705137270
1705137271
1705137272
1705137273
1705137274
Only on rare occasions do debaters present evidence that is clearly irrelevant to their claims. As a result, clear-cut examples of this fallacy are uncommon. However, an example of such a fallacy occurred when an applicant for an engineering position in a job interview was asked to explain his job qualifications. The applicant replied that his parents were elderly, he had two children, he was recently divorced, and had lost his job. Clearly, the evidence that the applicant provided is an example of the fallacy of irrelevant reason. The evidence might have been relevant to a different claim such as “Why do you need this job?” but not to the question of “Why are you qualified for this job?”
1705137275
1705137276
Johnson and Blair present an example of that fallacy in their text:
1705137277
1705137278
A Member of Parliament in Canada once charged, in the House of Commons, that the Federal Department of Health and Welfare had been cooperating with the Kellogg Company in permitting the sale of a cereal (Kellogg’s Corn Flakes) that had “little or no nutritional value.” Marc Lalonde, then the Minister of Health seeking to rebut that charge stated: “As for the nutritional value of Corn Flakes, the milk you have with your Corn Flakes has great nutritional value”.
1705137279
1705137280
Lalonde’s claim (implicit rather than explicit) is that corn flakes have nutritional value. His evidence that milk has great nutritional value is clearly not relevant to the nutritional value of corn flakes. Thus, he has presented a fallacious argument because his evidence provides no support for his claim.
1705137281
1705137282
Even though clear-cut cases of irrelevant reason may be relatively rare, several variants on that fallacy are more common. The three examples of fallacies that follow show instances where an argument is directed toward some issue other than the claim the debater is making. As a result, those fallacies can be classified as irrelevant reasons.
1705137283
1705137284
21.2.2.1 Argument Ad Hominem Argument ad hominem means that an argument involves an irrelevant attack on the arguer’s character or background that is not relevant to the argument being made.
1705137285
1705137286
1705137287
1705137288
1705137289
Of course, not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious—only those where the attack is not relevant to the arguer’s claim. Whether an attack is relevant or not is often a matter of debate. For instance, an arguer might claim that pollution in China is getting worse. Then, someone might respond: “But of course you would think that. You are from Beijing.” Is this response an irrelevant ad hominem argument, or not? The answer is that it depends first on whether being “from Beijing” is considered a personal attack, and second, on whether the fact that a person is from Beijing is relevant to the original claim. If the statement, “You are from Beijing,” is considered a personal attack, the argument is ad hominem. But if being from Beijing is relevant to whether or not a person believes that “Pollution is getting worse,” even though the argument is ad hominem, it is not irrelevant and, thus, is not an irrelevant ad hominem fallacy.
1705137290
1705137291
Some ad hominem attacks are not fallacies. Suppose, hypothetically, that someone presents highly credible evidence accusing a candidate for Minister of Health and Welfare of cheating on her medical exams. Such an attack is unquestionably an attack on the candidate, but is clearly relevant to her potential role as head of the ministry. Thus, the argument is not a fallacious ad hominem argument.
1705137292
1705137293
21.2.2.2 An Argument of Straw An argument of straw is another kind of fallacy that fails to meet the criterion of relevance. It fails to meet that criterion by intentionally misinterpreting an opponent’s argument. The fallacy occurs when a debater construes the argument of another to be other than what it is, then, attacks the misconstrued argument rather than the actual argument. Following the metaphor of “argument of straw,” the debater reconstructs the original argument into a weaker argument of straw, then attacks that argument rather than the original one.
1705137294