Rhetorical Devices I – Single Word or Short Phrase Devices (usually) that give a positive or negative slant to a

sentence
1. Euphemism - neutral or positive expression used in place of one that carries negative associations
(EXAMPLES: prisoner  detainee; fired from job  career enhancement opportunity; “I’m sorry you
killed your dog.”  “I’m sorry you had to put your dog down) [EUPHORIA – feeling good]
2. Dysphemism – a word or phrase used to 1) produce a negative effect on someone’s attitude about
something; OR 2) tone down the positive associations something may have.
(EXAMPLES: cigarettes  cancer sticks; very wealthy  obscenely rich)
3. Weaslers - words or phrases that help protect it from criticism by watering it down, weakening it, and
given the claim’s author a way out in case the claim is challenged.
(EXAMPLES: “up to” i.e. “Up to 50% off”; “some” i.e. “Some doctors have recommended this
product.” [it could be 2 out of 100 doctors]; other words used to weasel: “perhaps”; “possibly”;
“maybe”; “may be”; “seems”; etc.
4. Downplayers - words or phrases that attempt to make someone or something look less important or less
significant
(EXAMPLES: Don’t mind what Mr. Pierce says; he thinks he is a teacher. [downplaying his role as a
teacher; Words like “just” or “mere” and “merely” and “only” and other words; use of quotes; certain
conjunctions - Although the nuclear power plant polluted the waters, it did provide power to millions of
people. vs. Although the nuclear power plant provided power to millions of people, it polluted water.)
Rhetorical Devices II - Slanting devices that rely on unwarranted assumptions in some way
1. Stereotypes - A cultural belief or idea about a social group’s attributes, usually simplified or
exaggerated, positive or negative. Presents an image of someone or something based on an
oversimplified generalization that lacks good evidence.
(EXAMPLES: Blonde; Southern Redneck; a person who “tells it like it is”; etc.)
2. Innuendo - Subtle suggestions or insinuations to slant one towards a certain judgement on a matter;
Often uses words with neutral or positive or negative associations to insinuate something derogatory or
even positive.
(EXAMPLES: At least I am not a rapist.; Ladies and Gentlemen, I am proof that at least one candidate
in this race doesn’t take bribes.; “Is he telling the truth?” “Yes, this time.”)
3. Loaded Questions - A question that rests on one ore most unwarranted or unjustified assumptions; the
question assumes something so that, when the question is answered in any way, the assumption is
affirmed.
(EXAMPLES: Why does the president hate rich people? Have you stopped beating your wife?)
Rhetorical Devices III - The technique of using humor and extreme exaggeration to cast a negative light on a
claim so as to sway and influence people towards rejecting the claim.
1. Ridicule/Sarcasm - This is to ridicule or scoff at a claim, or to react to a claim in a sarcastic tone, in
order to influence people into thinking that the claim is false. Strategy: by scoffing or ridiculing a claim,
people will want to distance themselves from the claim, thinking it is stupid or preposterous, and
thinking that believing the claim will make them the object of ridicule. [passive aggressive]
(EXAMPLES: Someone says a claim; another person responds with “HA! Whatever!” or with a
sarcastic “Pffft, yeah right”; people listening are influenced into thinking that the claim is false.)
2. Hyperbole - This is extravagant overstatement, or exaggeration. Exaggeration can be done to express
the strength of our feelings on a matter (EXAMPLE: I’m so hungry I can eat a horse). Exaggeration can
also be used to influence others’ beliefs and actions (EXAMPLE: if you text while driving, you’re going
to kill or main half the driving population of Los Angeles).
Rhetorical Devices IV - Putting a positive or negative slant to definitions, explanations, analogies, or
comparisons in order to persuade someone.
1. Rhetorical Definitions - Definition is aimed at proving the meaning of a word for proper usage.
Rhetorical definitions provide a meaning that contains also emotion meaning so that what the meaning
of the word (and what it stands for) has a positive or negative slant.
(EXAMPLES: “You want to know what _____ mean? I’ll tell you what _____ means.”; Asked what
“conservative” means, a person points to white-power neo-nazi skinhead and says “That right there is
what ‘conservative’ means.”;
2. Rhetorical Explanations - Explanations aim at describing some concept, relation, system, event, or
process so that a deeper understanding can be achieved. Rhetorical explanations are ones that are laced
with rhetorical devices so that the concept, relation, system, event, or process being explained takes on a
positive or negative slant.
3. Rhetorical Analogies - Analogies are often used to help in explaining something by likening it to
something else, usually something that is familiar. Rhetorical analogies will liken one thing to something
else that evokes positive or negative feelings, thereby putting the first thing in a positive or negative
light. (EXAMPLES: You know, you’re very much like Hitler. Just like you, he was a vegetarian and
was always faithful to his lover and wife, Eva Braun.)
4. Misleading Comparisons - These work by providing you with a comparison that aims at leading you to
believe something. Unlike rhetorical analogies, they do not say that one thing is like another thing, but
rather compare two things in a way that presents one as better than the other, leading you to form a
belief that is not substantiated by the comparison. Strategy of misleading comparisons: they make vague
comparisons; leave out important information; apply different standards in the comparison, and compare
things that really can’t be compared.
(EXAMPLES: “Smoking ‘light’ cigarettes is better for you than smoking regular cigarettes.”; “Drinking
fruit juice is better for you than drinking gasoline.”)
Other Rhetorical Devices
1. Proof Surrogates - A suggestion of evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such
evidence or authority. These are surrogates, or proxies, for actual proofs/arguments. They allude to a
proof, reasons, or argument, but don’t actually provide one.
(EXAMPLES: “informed sources”; “a case study”; “it’s obvious that…”; “everyone knows that…”; “it’s
clear that anyone who thought about this matter…”; “as we all know…”; “studies show…”; “every
reason to believe…”)
2. Repetition - Making the same point over and over at every opportunity. Strategy: Constant repetition
has a dulling effect, and can even dull critical faculties. Exploits the Availability Heuristic:
Unconsciously assigning a probability to a type of event on the basis of how often one thinks of events
of that type.
3. Persuasion through Visual Imagery - Using images to arouse emotions and thereby persuade people
into believing or doing something. Accompanied by music or some audio soundtrack to heighten
emotions. Pictures can serve as the basis of evidence for a claim, but it is in virtue of the information it
contains, NOT in virtue of the emotions it generates.
4. Extreme Rhetoric of Demagoguery - A demagogue is someone who does the following in order to
gain popularity and garner support from people: 1) Exploits the ignorance, prejudices and anger of a
people. 2) Attempts to stir the emotions, especially the anger, of the people by using incendiary
language that feed into other people’s prejudices and anger, thereby contributing to the growth of fanatic
zeal. 3)Focused on one thing and disregards everything else. 4) Disregarding and even dismissing
 rational discourse, opting instead for extreme rhetoric in order to propagate false ideas and establish
fringe theories
a. Otherizing - The dividing of people into two groups, us and them. Portrays them as suspicious,
dangerous, repulsive, etc. They are then blamed for our problems.
b. Demonizing - The act of trying to induce loathing of someone or something by portraying the
person or thing as evil.
c. Fostering Xenophobia - Xenophobia: fear or dislike of what is foreign or strange. Fostering
Xenophobia: instilling such fear and dislike in people and doing and saying things to encourage
its growth. Often helps to further otherize and demonize.
d. Fear & Hate Mongering - The act of stimulating fear, resentment and hatred, and encouraging
their growth.
Relevance Fallacies
1. Argument Ad Hominem (Personal Attack; Inconsistency; Circumstantial) - Dismissing someone’s
position/claim as false by dismissing the person making the claim. Occurs when someone: 1) Attacks the
personal character of the speaker; 2) Charges the speaker with inconsistency (‘flip-flopping’)
[Inconsistency between current claim and previous claim. Inconsistency between claim and action.]; 3)
Makes a reference to the speaker’s circumstances in order to dismiss her/his claim.
a. Poisoning the Well - A pre-emptive adhominem - getting people to reject or dismiss what a
speaker is going to say before she/he even says it.
(FORM: The character, consistency, or circumstances of future speaker S is attacked. Later
claims made by speaker S are dismissed)
b. Guilt by Association - Occurs when a speaker for writer tries to persuade us to dismiss a
belief/claim by telling us that someone we don’t like has that belief.
(FORM: Claim P is made. Claim P is associated with someone we don’t like. Therefore, claim P
is dismissed as false.
c. Genetic Fallacy - Occurs when a speaker or writer argues that the origin of a contention in and
of itself automatically renders the contention false.
(FORM: Speaker says P. O is then explained as having an origin O. P is dismissed as false.
2. Strawman - Occurs when a speaker or writer attempts to dismiss a contention by distorting or
misrepresenting it.
(FORM: A: I believe that P is true. B: Q is false [where Q is a distorted version of P, or a weaker look-
alike of P] because of reason R. B: Therefore, P is false.)
3. False Dilemma - Occurs when someone tries to establish a conclusion by offering it as the only
alternative to something we will find unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible. Assumes that there are
only two options when in fact there are more; or assumes that the two options are mutually exclusive
when in fact they are not. (FORM: A: Either P or Q; (where Q is bad, and there are other options besides
P and Q) A: Therefore, P.)
a. Perfectionist Fallacy - When a speaker or writer ignores options between “perfection” and
“nothing.” (EXAMPLE: A single English course won’t make anyone a great writer, so I don’t
see why we have to take one. (Assumed false dilemma: Either a single English course makes us a
great writer or we don’t have any reason to take a single English course.)
b. Line-Drawing Fallacy - Occurs when a speaker or writer assumes that either a crystal-clear line
can be drawn between two things, or there is no difference between them.
(EXAMPLE: Poverty isn’t a problem in this country; after all, when is a person really poor? You
can’t say exactly. Assumed false dilemma: Either you can say exactly when a person is or isn’t
really poor, or poverty is not a problem in this country.
4. Misplacing Burden of Proof - Occurs when a speaker or writer tries to support or prove their position
by misplacing the burden of proof. They place the proof on the other side, and when no (adequate) proof
is given, this is taken as support for their side. (EXAMPLE: Obviously, the president’s birth certificate
is a forgery. Can you prove it isn’t?)
a. Appeal to Ignorance - To hold that P is true because there is not known argument showing that
P is false. (EXAMPLE: Nobody has proved that ghosts don’t exist. Therefore, they do (or it’s
rational to believe that they do.)
5. Begging the Question - to support or prove a claim by offering as evidence the claim itself or a
repackaging of the claim. The reason for your claim cannot be the claim itself. Circular reasoning.
(EXAMPLE: If you say “Bloody Mary” three times in the mirror, then Bloody Mary will appear in the
reflection. Therefore, saying “Bloody Mary” three times will conjure up Bloody Mary in the mirror.)
6. Appeal to Emotion - Occurs when a speaker or writer “supports” or “argues” for a claim by playing on
our emotions rather than by producing reasons that support or prove the claim’s truth.
a. Argument from Outrage - Attempts to convince us by making us angry rather than by giving us
a relevant argument. (FORM: <statements to incite anger in you>. Therefore, P.)
(EXAMPLE: He disrespected your mother! He thinks you’re a chump! Therefore, you should
beat him up
b. Scare Tactics - Occurs when a speaker or writer tries to scare us into accepting an irrelevant
conclusion. To bully you into doing or accepting something through inciting fear.
(FORM: <statements or actions inciting fear, sometimes surrounding some issue P>. Therefore,
Q (where Q may or may not be the same as P).
(EXAMPLE: You really should get a Prudential life insurance policy. What would happen to
your spouse and children if you die? Remember, you are their main source of income. Would
they be forced to move?
i. Peer Pressure - Similar to scare tactics: to be pressured into doing or accepting
something based on pressure to belong to a group.
(EXAMPLE: You better jump off that bridge tonight. Otherwise, don’t expect to be
hanging out with us anymore or having us as friends.
c. Appeal to Pity - Occurs when a speaker or writer tries to convince us of something by arousing
our pity rather than by giving a relevant argument.
(FORM: <story or statement evoking pity about something or someone> Therefore, P.)
(EXAMPLE: Jane is the best qualified candidate because she is out of work and desperately
needs a job.
d. Apple Polishing (Appeal to Flattery) - pumping up someone’s ego in order to get them to
accept something.
(EXAMPLE: “It takes a very reasonable person with a sharp intellect to examine the issue and
see that Jane’s position is wrong. The people in this audience are certainly way beyond average
in intelligence, and I wouldn’t be surprised if many here are at the genius level. In any case,
because of the stellar audience we have here today, there probably is no need for me to tell you
that Jane’s position on this issue is wrong.
e. Guilt Tripping - Occurs when a speaker or writer tries to make you accept or do something by
making you feel guilty.
(EXAMPLE: “You were very hard on her throughout the semester, even mean at times. She has
been feeling very bad because of how hard you have been on her. You should pass her.”)
 7. Irrelevant Conclusion - Arguments where the reasons given is irrelevant to the conclusion, and is not
one of the other fallacies. These fallacies are generally non sequiturs: the conclusion does not follow
from other claims offered as reasons.
(EXAMPLE: I don’t think I missed too many classes to pass. My attendance has been much better
lately. I shouldn’t tell them that they undercharged me. They wouldn’t say something if they
overcharged me.
a. 2 wrongs make a right - Occurs when someone thinks that it is okay to do X to another person
if the other person already did X to him/her. That someone would or did do something wrong to
us is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong for us to do it to them.
b. Wishful thinking - Occurs when we accept or reject, or urge acceptance or rejection, of a claim
simply because it would be pleasant or unpleasant if it were true. That we want something to be
true or want it to be not true is irrelevant to whether it is true or false.
c. Denial - Occurs when we forget that wanting something to be true or false is irrelevant to
whether or not it is true or false. You deny claims or evidence to the contrary, and believe that is
claim is true (or false) simply on the basis of your hope.
d. Common Irrelevance Fallacy - Rather than giving an argument for my position, I present an
argument against my position and then attack that argument.
(FORM: I claim P. I present an argument against P, and then attack that argument. Therefore, P
Induction Fallacies
1. Generalizations
a. Hasty Generalization (Fallacy of Lonely Fact) - Arriving at a general statement or rule by
citing too few supporting cases.
(EXAMPLE: “The Food in L.A. is lousy, judging from this meal.”
i. Argument from Anecdote - a version of hasty generalization when a speaker or writer
tries to support a general claim by offering a story.
(EXAMPLE: “People who live in Cincinnati have no idea where Akron is. I didn’t, when
I lived in Cincinnati.
ii. Fallacy of Small Sample - a version of hasty generalization when someone tries to
derive a statement about all or most members of a population from a statement about a
tiny sample of the population.
(EXAMPLE: “They say the health care is excellent in Canada? Well, it isn’t. My new
neighbor just moved here from Toronto, and she says the health care up there is terrible.
She says everyone in Canada comes to the United States for any serious medical
condition.”)
b. Generalizing from Exceptional Cases - Arriving at a general statement or rule by citing an
atypical supporting case.
i. Fallacy from Biased Sample - incautiously basing a generalization about a large
population. (EXAMPLE: Animals will live longer if they are on a calorie-restricted diet.
This has been shown in experiments with rats)
ii. Self-Selection Fallacy - generalization incautiously from a self-selected sample. Self-
selected sample: a sample whose members are included by their own decision.
c. Accident Fallacy - assuming that a general statement automatically applies to a specific case
that is (or could well be) exceptional.
 (EXAMPLES: In this country we have a right to free speech. Therefore, if I want to threaten the
mayor, that is my right.; If you knife someone to death, you will be charged with murder.
Therefore, if a surgeon kills someone, he should be charged with murder.
d. Weak Analogy (False Analogy) - arguing based on debatable or unimportant similarities
between two or more things.
(EXAMPLES: My mom is just like Adolf Hitler. I doubt she will let me go out with you guys.;
The federal government is just like a private household. If it doesn’t balance its budget, it will go
bankrupt.)
2. Fallacious Appeal to Authority - Supporting a claim by offering as evidence the opinion of non-
authoritative source. (EXAMPLES: My doctor thinks my car has leaking valves. Therefore, my car has
leaking valves.; Famous scientists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking believe that there is no
God. Therefore, there is not God.)
3. Fallacious Appeal to Popularity/Common Belief - Treating an issue that cannot be settled by public
opinion as if it can.
a. Common Practice (Tradition) - justifying a practice on the grounds that the practice is
traditional or is commonly practiced.
(EXAMPLE: Let’s dogpile Joe. It’s tradition!)
b. Bandwagon Fallacy - to use “everyone thinks” or other such phrases as a psychological ploy to
get others to do or accept a claim.
(EXAMPLES: You shouldn’t shop at Walmart. None of us does that.; Let’s get a spa, they’re
very popular these days.)
4. Fallacies of Cause & Effect - Causal Reasoning: reasoning from correlation of two variables to the
conclusion that there is a causal relationship between the two variables. Correlation ≠ causation.
a. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc - “After this, therefore because of this”. Assuming that the fact
that one event came after another establishes that it was caused by the other.
(FORM: A occurs. Then B occurs afterward. Inference is made: A is the cause of B.)
(EXAMPLES: After I took Zicam, my cold went away fast. Therefore, taking Zicam caused my
cold to go away fast. (Cold could of gone away regardless); Every day the sun comes up right
after the rooster crows; therefore, the rooster causes the sun to come up.; After you drove my car
it was hard to start. Therefore, it was something you did that made my car hard to start.)
b. Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc - With this, therefore because of this.” Assuming that the fact that
two events happen at about the same time establishes that one caused the other.
(FORM: B happens while A (same time). It is then inferred that A caused B.)
(EXAMPLES: John had a heart attack while he was saying a prayer. Therefore, the prayer
caused the heart attack.; Children with long hair are better spellers than children with short hair.
Therefore, having long hair makes a child a better speller.
5. Slippery Slope - arguing on the bias of an unsupported warning that is controversial or tendentious, to
the effect that something will progress by degrees to an undesirable outcome. Tendentious assertion: one
that is slanted toward a particular point of view.
(EXAMPLE: We should not require gun owners to carry liability insurance, because if we do that,
before long they will repeal the Second Amendment.)
6. Untestable Explanation - offering an explanation that could not be tested even in principle.
(EXAMPLES: He has heart issues because of sins done in a previous life.; Hooray! The kings are
winning again. That’s because they are gaining momentum.; The crime rate has gone up because of
general moral decay.)
Chapter 4 RECAP
 Interested parties should always be viewed with more suspicion that disinterested parties.
 Doubts about sources generally fall into two categories:
 Doubts about the source’s knowledge or expertise
 Doubts about the source’s veracity, objectivity, and accuracy.
 We can form reasonable reliable judgements about a person’s knowledge by considering his/her education,
experience, accomplishments, reputation, and position.
 Claims made my experts, those with special knowledge in a subject, are the most reliable, but claims must
pertain to the area of expertise and must not conflict with claims made by other experts in the same area.
 Major metropolitan newspapers, national newsmagazines, and network news shows are generally credible
sources for news, but it’s necessary to keep an open mind about what we learn from them.
 Governments have been known to influence and even to manipulate the news.
 Sources like Wikipedia, institutional websites, and new organizations can be helpful, but skeptics is the
order of the day when we obtain information from unknown Internet sources of advocacy TV.
 Advertising assaults us at every turn, attempting to sell us goods, services, beliefs, and attitudes. Because
substantial talent and resources are employed in this effort, we need to ask ourselves constantly whether the
products in question will really made the differences in our lives that their advertising claims or hints they
will make. Advertisers are always more concerned with selling you something that with improving your life.
They are concerned with improving their own lives.
Chapter 5 RECAP
 Rhetoric – The Art of Persuasive Writing and Speaking
 Logic (rationality) vs. Rhetoric (persuasion)
 Most people:
 Persuaded by poor logic and unpersuaded by good logic
 Rhetorical Force
 Meaning of words:
 Lexical meaning – dictionary meaning
 Emotive meaning: also known as rhetorical force:
 A meaning that has the power to elicit various psychological and emotional responses
 “that’s mistaken” vs. “that’s horseshit”
 Persuasion attempts to win someone to one’s own point of view
 Rhetoric seeks to persuade through the rhetorical force of language and other devices
 Although it an exert a profound psychological influence, rhetoric has no logical force or probative value.
 These devices can affect our thinking in subtle ways, even when we believe we are being objective.
 Although photographs and other images are not claims or arguments, they can enter into critical thinking by
offering information bearing on an issue. They can also affect us psychologically in the same way that
emotional language affects us, and often even more powerfully.
 There a multitude of rhetorical devices in common use; they include:
 Euphemisms: seek to mute the disagreeable aspects of something or to emphasize its agreeable aspects
 Dysphemisms: seek to emphasize the disagreeable aspects of something
 Weaslers: seeks to protect a claim by weakening it
 Downplayers: seek to tone down the importance of something
 Stereotypes: a cultural belief about a social group’s attributes, usually simplified or exaggerated
 Innuendo: using the power of suggestion to disparage someone or something
 Loaded questions: questions that depend on unwarranted assumptions
 Ridicule and sarcasm: widely used to put something in a bad light
 Hyperbole: overdone exaggeration
 Rhetorical definitions and explanations: definitions and explanations used to express or influence
attitudes or affect behavior by invoking images with emotional associations.
 Rhetorical analogies: analogies used to express or influence attitudes or affect behavior by invoking
images with emotion associations.
 Proof surrogates: suggest there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually saying what the
evidence or authority is
 Repetition: hearing or reading a claim over and over can sometimes mistakenly encourage the belief that
it is true.
 Demogogues use extreme rhetoric to spread false ideas and to gain power over people. 4 rhetorical
techniques persistently used by demagogues are otherzing, demonizing, fostering xenophobia, and fear and
hate mongering. One of the most important tasks of critical thinking is to recognize these techniques for
what they are.
Chapter 6 RECAP
 Fallacies
 A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning
 It is an argument that does not support or prove its conclusion
 It may at best appear to support or prove the conclusion, but it actually does not.
 A relevance fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that occurs when a premise is not relevant to the issue in
question
 Seems relevant, and has psychological resonance, but really not relevant at all
 Example:
 You tell me it’s dangerous to text when I’m driving, but I have seen you doing it too. [tu quoque]
  Conclusion (unstated): it is not dangerous to text when I’m driving
 Premise: you say that it’s dangerous to text when driving and you text when driving.
 Issue: whether or not it’s dangerous to text when driving
 What the premise is about: what you say and what you do
 Argumentum ad hominem – attempting to dismiss a source’s position by discussing the source rather than
the position.
 Strawman – attempting to dismiss a source’s position by misrepresenting it.
 False dilemma – attempting to establish a point by pretending it is the only alternative to something we will
find unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible.
 Misplacing burden of proof – attempting to place the burden of proof on the wrong side of an issue.
 Begging the question – attempting to “support” a contention by offering as “evidence” what amounts to a
repackaging of the very contention in question.
 Appeal to emotion – attempting to “support” a contention by playing on our emotions rather than by
producing a real argument.
 Irrelevant conclusion – relevance fallacies that do not fit into the previous categories.
Chapter 7 RECAP
 Fallacies of Induction
 Arguments that are supposed to raise the probability of their conclusions, but are so weak as to fail
almost entirely to do so.
 Hasty Generalization – generalizing from two few cases or from samples that are too small
 Generalizing from exceptional cases – generalizing from cases that are exceptional or from samples that are
biased (skewed)
 Accident – applying a general statement to an exceptional case
 Offering an argument based on debatable similarities between two or more things
 Fallacious appeal to authority – attempting to support a claim by citing a source that is not really an
authority
 Fallacious appeal to popularity – treating an issue that cannot be settled by public opinion as if it could
 Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – thinking that a temporal succession between two variables, in and of itself,
establishes a cause-and-effect connect between them.
 Post Hoc Special Cases
 Overlooking the Possibility of Coincidence: could be the sequential events were coincidental
 Overlooking a Possible Common Cause: could be the sequential events were both the result of a
common cause
  Overlooking the Possibility of Random Variation: ignoring the fact that values of variables
fluctuate randomly.
 Overlooking the Possibility of Regression: to over this fact:
 If the average value of a variable is atypical on one measurement, it is likely to be less
atypical on a subsequent measurement.
 Examples of Post Hoc Special Cases
 After Susan threw out the chain letter, she was in an automobile accident. Therefore, throwing
out the chain letter caused her to get in an automobile accident.
 I left the lights on when I went to bed. Next morning, I woke up with a headache. Therefore,
leaving the lights on caused the headache.
 Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc – thinking that simultaneity between two variables, in and of itself, establishes a
cause-and effect connection between them
 Cum Hoc Special Cases
 Overlooking the Possibility of Coincidence
 I got cancer when I lived under a high-voltage power line. Therefore, the high-voltage power line
caused my cancer.
 Overlooking a Possible Common Cause
 Chimney fires and long underwear purchases increase in frequency at the very same time.
Therefore, chimney fires cause people to buy long underwear.
 Overlooking the Possibility of Reversed Causation: assuming that one thing causes another when it’s
possible the reverse causal relation is true.
 People who walk long distances enjoy good health. Therefore, walking long distances will make
you healthy.
 Successful businesspeople often drive expensive cars. Therefore, driving an expensive car will
help make you a successful businessperson.
 Argument by Anecdote (Causal Variety): trying to support (or disprove) a cause-and-effect claim by
telling a story.
 I’ve heard doctors say eating red meat daily increases your risk of heart disease, but I don’t
believe it. My uncle was a rancher and he lived to be 100. His entire life, he ate red meat three
times a day. He didn’t die of a heart attack, either. He died when he fell down a well.
 Slippery slope – offering an argument resting on an unsupported warning that something will progress by
degrees to an undesirable outcome
 Untestable explanation – an argument based on an untestable explanation.
5-3 Identify any stereotypes, innuendo, or loaded questions you find in the following text.
1. Devon is a total jock. Don’t go making him your study partner. Stereotype
2. Went to my philosophy class today. The professor showed up sober. Innuendo
3. At least his wife isn’t rude. Innuendo
4. Don’t you have anything better to wear than that? Loaded Question
5. Give the work to Brockston. He’s a real man. He’ll get it done. Stereotype
6. You’re going to go see what?? That’s such a chick flick! Stereotype
7. Who do like better, me or Sydney? Loaded Question
8. For some reason, President Obama has never shown his birth certificate. Innuendo
9. An attorney questioning a witness: “So, if you were awake when you crossed the bridge, just when did you
go to sleep at the wheel?” Loaded Question
10. No, I’m sure you’ll enjoy playing tennis with Jerome. He gets around pretty well for a guy his age.
Innuendo
11. Frankly, I believe that flash memory will make any kind of moving-part memory, such as hard drives,
completely obsolete. No Rhetorical Device
12. Larry Kudlow, on CNBC (in an American Spectator interview): “[Former Treasury secretary] Bob Rubin’s
a smart guy, a nice man, but he hates tax cuts. To listen to Rubin on domestic issues, you could just die. He’s a
freespending left-winger.” Stereotype
13. Has Harry been a faithful husband? Well, he’s not been through a Tiger Woods phase. Innuendo
14. Why is it, do you suppose, that pit bulls are all mean and vicious? Loaded Question
15. I wouldn’t worry about the train being late. This is Germany, you know. Stereotype
16. Why did Obama fail to act swiftly to end the BP oil spill? Loaded Question; Book says Stereotype
17. It goes without saying that his kid will do well in school. His kind always do. Stereotype
18. There is no proof the president deals drugs. On the other hand, there’s no proof he doesn’t, either. Innuendo

5-4 Identify each of the following as either a rhetorical explanation, rhetorical analogy, or rhetorical definition.
1. “The New York Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the
question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control.” analogy
2. “Listening to him is like trying to read Playboy magazine with your wife turning the pages.” analogy
3. A Democrat is a person who likes to take your money and give it to lazy people. definition
4. Three people are dividing a pie. The Conservative is someone who takes all but one and then asks the other
two, “Why is that guy trying to take your piece of pie?” analogy
5. “Good Conservatives always pay their bills. And on time. Not like the Socialists, who run up other people’s
bills.” analogy
6. “Yeah, I’m obnoxious, yeah, I cut people off, yeah, I’m rude. You know why? Because you’re busy.”
Explanation
7. “Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.” analogy
8. “Liberals would rather see a child aborted than a tree chopped down.” analogy
9. Philosophers love to argue because they don’t have anything better to do with their time. explanation
10. “Liberal soccer moms are precisely as likely to receive anthrax in the mail as to develop a capacity for linear
thinking.” analogy
11. “A liberal interprets the Constitution. A conservative quotes it.” analogy
12. “New Rule: Gay marriage won’t lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species
coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn’t lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the Equal
Protection Clause to salmon.” analogy
5-9 Identify these passages as ridicule/sarcasm, hyperbole, or proof surrogates.
1. Medical school, huh? Right. You and your fancy 2.9 grade point are going to get into a fine medical school
all right. Riducle/Sarcasm
2. Laboratory tests have shown that Cloyon produces a sweeter taste than any other artificial sweetener. Proof
surrogates
3. I’ll tell you, there’s never been anybody in the entire state of Florida as blitzed as Tom and I were last night.
Hyperbole
4. Anybody who understands how alcohol works can tell you that three drinks is enough to make that guy
seriously impaired. Proof Surrogates
5. Rachet and Clank just has to be the funniest movie ever made. Go see it. You won’t stop laughing ever.
Hyperbole
6. Cable news has gone round the bend: The only thing you hear on Fox News is right-wing rants, and the only
thing you hear on MSNBC are left-wing rants. Hyperbole
7. That the president is a Marxist simply cannot be denied by any serious observer of contemporary politics.
Proof Surrogate
8. In the 1988 U.S. presidential election, campaigners for Democrat Michael Dukakis took a photograph of
Dukakis in an M1 Abrams Tank. The photo was supposed to shore up Dukakis’s credentials as strong on
defense. Unfortunately, Dukakis had a silly grin and was wearing a helmet too large for his head, and the effect
of the photograph was to make him appear diminutive and goofy. The photo was widely shown in the months
preceding the election—but not by the Dukakis people. Instead, it was picked up and shown by his opponent,
George H. W. Bush. After looking at the photo at the following link, state which technique was being used by
the Bush campaign: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Dukakis_in_tank.jpg . ridicule
9. If you want to work your way up from being a host to being a server at The Cheesecake Factory, plan on it
taking about a thousand years. Hyperbole
10. The proposal isn’t bad when you consider it comes from a group of knuckledragging morons.
Ridicule/sarcasm