The language people implement when making arguments must be accurate and comprehensible, in order to communicate their thoughts clearly and avoid misunderstandings as well. If words are too general or undefined, they are likely to be interpreted in different ways. With this in mind, vagueness and ambiguity must be taken into account not to affect the clarity of the message. The first one happens when an expression or statement is too general to get a conclusion. For instance, “She is successful”. It is not giving enough information to know if it refers to an economic, health or educational context. On the other hand, ambiguity appears when a word or sentence has more than one meaning, which leads to misinterpretations. For example, “She saw the man with the telescope”. This could mean that she used a telescope to see him or that he had a telescope. To summarize, these types of unclear language do not allow the arguments to be solid and logical, which is a disadvantage when trying to convince someone.
Another key point is emotive language, which uses words that cause feelings such as sadness, excitement, anger or fear. This does not let people think carefully and logically about an argument. Even though emotions are part of communication, when analyzing arguments, emotive language can be used to manipulate or distract the receivers. For instance, a student may complain about their teacher by saying “He gave us a lot of homework”. However, they make seem the situation worse by expressing “The cruel teacher tortured us with endless assignments!”. This could provoke a sense of anger or sadness instead of remaining mindful to give a rational response. For this reason, emotive language should not be used excessively since they can make an argument partial and unfair. It is better to implement neutral language to help people think seriously about an idea.
Moreover, it is important to beware of logical fallacies, which are mistakes in reasoning that make arguments weak and dishonest. Fallacies of relevance include the ad hominem, where someone attacks the person rather than their arguments. For example, “Don’t believe David’s argument about climate change. He failed science in school”. This proves nothing since it is only insulting him. Another fallacy of relevance is the slippery slope, when someone says an idea as a small action that will lead to a terrible scenario, but this has no proof. For instance, “If we allow students to skip one homework, they will stop studying completely.” This is extreme and unsupported by facts. On the other hand, there are fallacies of insufficient evidence like hasty generalization, which generates a big conclusion based on poor information. To illustrate, “I saw three bad drivers in Quito, so people from Quito do not know how to drive”. It is unfair and illogical to judge all drivers because of a few cases. Finally, the appeal to ignorance is another fallacy, when someone expresses something as true only because it has not been proven to be false. For example, “Aliens must exist because no one has proven they do not”. In sum, these arguments might seem convincing at first, but they do not provide solid evidence. They must be based on facts, not assumptions.
Another key point is emotive language, which uses words that cause feelings such as sadness, excitement, anger or fear. This does not let people think carefully and logically about an argument. Even though emotions are part of communication, when analyzing arguments, emotive language can be used to manipulate or distract the receivers. For instance, a student may complain about their teacher by saying “He gave us a lot of homework”. However, they make seem the situation worse by expressing “The cruel teacher tortured us with endless assignments!”. This could provoke a sense of anger or sadness instead of remaining mindful to give a rational response. For this reason, emotive language should not be used excessively since they can make an argument partial and unfair. It is better to implement neutral language to help people think seriously about an idea.
Moreover, it is important to beware of logical fallacies, which are mistakes in reasoning that make arguments weak and dishonest. Fallacies of relevance include the ad hominem, where someone attacks the person rather than their arguments. For example, “Don’t believe David’s argument about climate change. He failed science in school”. This proves nothing since it is only insulting him. Another fallacy of relevance is the slippery slope, when someone says an idea as a small action that will lead to a terrible scenario, but this has no proof. For instance, “If we allow students to skip one homework, they will stop studying completely.” This is extreme and unsupported by facts. On the other hand, there are fallacies of insufficient evidence like hasty generalization, which generates a big conclusion based on poor information. To illustrate, “I saw three bad drivers in Quito, so people from Quito do not know how to drive”. It is unfair and illogical to judge all drivers because of a few cases. Finally, the appeal to ignorance is another fallacy, when someone expresses something as true only because it has not been proven to be false. For example, “Aliens must exist because no one has proven they do not”. In sum, these arguments might seem convincing at first, but they do not provide solid evidence. They must be based on facts, not assumptions.
To finish, diagramming is a useful technique to help recipients see how a person’s reasoning works. This strategy separates the premises, which are the reasons, from the conclusion, the main idea. When an argument is decomposed into these parts, it can be shown if the logic makes sense. Furthermore, diagramming also identifies when the argument contains weak evidence or hidden fallacies. This functions as a tool to organize, analyze, understand and criticize or enhance the argument.
Premise 1: Actions that help the environment should be encouraged.
Premise 2: Recycling helps the environment.
Conclusion: Therefore, recycling should be encouraged.
Premise 2: Recycling helps the environment.
Conclusion: Therefore, recycling should be encouraged.