1705137197
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132533]
1705137198
21.1.2 The Standard of Relevance
1705137199
1705137200
The standard of relevance is related to the link between evidence and claim. It asks whether the link successfully connects the evidence to the claim. The goal of an argument is to transfer the acceptability of evidence to the claim. The link is what determines success or failure in achieving that goal. The relevance of the link is actually a minimal standard. The standard is met if the evidence has anything at all to do with the claim. In other words, the standard of relevance asks whether or not the link, even minimally, succeeds in transferring the acceptability of the evidence to the claim.
1705137201
1705137202
The previous section provided three criteria of acceptability. However, those criteria do not exist for the standard of relevance. The standard of relevance is met if the acceptability of evidence has anything at all to do with the acceptability of the claim. The standard is such a minimal one that failure to meet it is quite rare. Usually, the evidence is not totally irrelevant to the claim.
1705137203
1705137204
However, one way that evidence in a cause and effect claim can be irrelevant is when the cause comes after the effect. One example of such an argument that fails to meet the standard of relevance is the causal claim that the Warsaw Ghetto uprising caused Kristallnacht, a series of violent anti-Jewish attacks led by Nazi Party officials and Nazi storm troopers. The argument attempts to link the Warsaw Ghetto uprising with Kristallnacht. That link is completely irrelevant because Kristallnacht occurred in November 1938 and the Warsaw Ghetto uprisings did not occur until 1943. The link between cause and effect is not at all relevant because the purported cause happened after the effect.
1705137205
1705137206
Another example involves the claim that the death sentence imposed on Yao Jiaxin was justified because he was a member of the fu er dai, or the “rich second generation.” Whether or not he was rich is not related to whether or not he deserved the death sentence. Thus, the link between the appropriateness of the death penalty and his wealth does not meet the standard of relevance.
1705137207
1705137208
When constructing or evaluating arguments, debaters and judges alike need to pay attention to the question of relevance. Is the evidence related to the claim? That test is a minimal one. A debater’s evidence may be related to the claim but may still be insufficient to support it.
1705137209
1705137210
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132534]
1705137211
21.1.3 The Standard of Sufficiency
1705137212
1705137213
The standards of relevance and sufficiency both relate to the link between the evidence and claim. The standard of relevance asks if there is any link at all between evidence and claim, whereas, the standard of sufficiency asks if that link is good enough to convince an audience of the claim. In other words, does the link fully transfer the acceptability of the evidence to that of the claim? For instance, a debater might claim that genetically engineered foods are dangerous to human health on the basis of evidence of five examples. The five examples of genetically engineered foods certainly are relevant to the claim, but they may not be sufficient to support it fully. An opposing debater might respond that, of the hundreds of examples of genetically engineered foods, the selection of five examples is not enough to prove the claim that genetically engineered foods are generally harmful. Thus, the link between the evidence (five examples) and claim (harm to human health) is relevant, but not sufficient.
1705137214
1705137215
The question of sufficiency varies according to the specific situation. Claims argued in legal contexts vary from those argued in social science or in debates about public policy. The standard of sufficiency frequently involves how much certainty is required to accept a claim. In legal contexts, the amount of certainty is different in criminal and civil cases. In a criminal case, courts of some nations require that a claim that a party is guilty of a crime be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt,” whereas, in civil cases, the standard is a “preponderance of evidence.” The “reasonable doubt” criterion is more difficult to meet than the “preponderance of evidence” criterion because a preponderance of evidence might suggest that the party is guilty even though a reasonable doubt remains. Thus, one criterion is more rigorous than the other.
1705137216
1705137217
Another example involves the case of an argument in social sciences. By social science convention, the standard of evidence is set between 95% and 99% for repeatability of results. That standard is called the “level of significance.” Unless the social scientist is able to show that the results are likely to be repeatable 95% or 99% of the time, the social science community is not likely to accept his or her claims, and the scientist’s results would not be considered statistically significant and, thus, not sufficient.
1705137218
1705137219
So, standards of sufficiency vary from field to field and from context to context. One reason that the standards vary so widely has to do with the pragmatic risk of believing a claim to be true versus the pragmatic risks of believing that claim to be false. For instance, a higher standard is set in a criminal case where a person’s freedom or life is at risk than in a civil case where the person’s money but not life or freedom is at risk.
1705137220
1705137221
So, acceptability of evidence and relevance and sufficiency of the link between evidence and claim constitute the standards for assessing the quality of an argument. Those standards do not suggest that the argument is either perfect or completely disqualified. The standards place the argument along a continuum somewhere between very good and very poor.
1705137222
1705137223
Those standards for the quality of argument are useful for assessing whether an argument is relatively good or relatively poor. A specific application of the standards has to do with a concept called “fallacy.” A fallacy is an error in reasoning and has a negative effect on the assessment of an argument’s quality. In the next section, fallacies will be identified that are directly related to the standards of quality presented herein.
1705137224
1705137225
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132535]
1705137226
21.2 Three Basic Fallacies
1705137227
1705137228
The presence or absence of fallacies is a good general method for placing arguments along the continuum of very good to very poor. The absence of fallacies does not guarantee that the argument is a good one, nor does the presence of a fallacy automatically disqualify an argument from consideration. Fallacies invite, perhaps require, the arguer to improve the argument in order to make it more persuasive. In other words, the presence or absence of fallacies does not automatically mean people should or should not give consideration to the argument. The presence of one or more fallacies does, however, direct a listener to give more critical attention to the claim.
1705137229
1705137230
The system used in this text, abstracted from the Johnson and Blair Model of Argument Cogency, includes three basic fallacies, one corresponding to each of Johnson and Blair’s three criteria for a logically adequate argument. The basic fallacies include the problematic premise, the irrelevant reason, and the hasty conclusion. Problematic premises are problems with the acceptability of evidence. Irrelevant reasons involve a lack of relationship between evidence and claim, and hasty conclusions indicate that the relationship between evidence and claim is insufficient.
1705137231
1705137232
Although each fallacy has been placed in a particular category, some of the fallacies can logically fall into more than one category. That system of categorization is intended only to illustrate the basic categories of fallacies. No claim to a broader theory including a master taxonomy is made.
1705137233
1705137234
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132536]
1705137235
21.2.1 Problematic Premises
1705137236
1705137237
A problematic premise refers to an argument that, for some reason, fails to fulfill the acceptability requirement. In that case, unacceptable evidence usually results in a claim that is unsuccessful at gaining the support of the audience or the judge.
1705137238
1705137239
1705137240
1705137241
1705137242
A premise is not problematic if it meets any one of the three acceptability requirements discussed earlier. Evidence can be problematic when a debater needs to, but does not, provide further support for the evidence.
1705137243
1705137244
For instance, a debater might argue against the use of airbags and seatbelts by using the evidence that when those devices were introduced in the United States, they had no positive effect on the number of automobile accidents or on the number of deaths associated with those accidents. Such evidence might not be accepted because it is not common knowledge and was not supported by a cogent sub argument or a respectable source or authority.
1705137245
1705137246
So, problematic premises are about evidence. Two variants on problematic premises are discussed below.