VOCABULARY Sept. 29-Oct. 3

BANDWAGON APPEAL – The belief that something should be done because the majority of people do it (or wish to do it). Ad populum is the original Latin term, meaning “to the people,” suggesting that a person yields his opinion to the will of the public majority rather than to logic. Bandwagon appeals are arguments that urge people to follow the same paths that others do. In old-time political campaigns, politicians used to travel literally on horse-drawn bandwagons, urging citizens to “jump on the bandwagon” — or join the crowd — to vote for them.
-- Peer pressure is a type of bandwagon appeal – you may do something that others are doing simply because others are doing it. “Because everyone else does it” is a favorite reason cited by young teens who are looking for reasons to do something more grown up. Exanmple: TV Ad: “Four out of five dentists surveyed preferred Crest toothpaste.”
BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY: Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle. Example of Begging the Question:
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: Cognitive Dissonance Theory argues that the experience of dissonance (or incompatible beliefs and actions) is adversive and people are highly motivated to avoid it. In their efforts to avoid feelings of dissonance, people will avoid hearing views that oppose their own, change their beliefs to match their actions, and seek reassurance after making a difficult decision. Example: "severe initiation leads to liking." (ibid., at p. 43) Research has shown that people exhibit greater liking of an organization that subjects them to severe initiation than to one that subjects them only to a mild initiation. This result can be explained by cognitive dissonance theory. There is conflict between the negative affect that the person experiences in response to the initiation, since the person has chosen to go through the initiation to gain entrance to the organization. This conflict produces discomfort and tension. The person can resolve this tension by justifying the initiation as "worth it" because of the positive things he or she will gain from the benefits of membership. The more effort put into the justification process, the more attachment the person has to the organization. The more difficult the initiation, the greater the need for justification. Thus the stronger the commitment to the organization.
POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC: The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim. Example: The picture on Jim's old TV set goes out of focus. Jim goes over and strikes the TV soundly on the side and the picture goes back into focus. Jim tells his friend that hitting the TV fixed it.
ROGERIAN ARGUMENTATION: It focuses on building bridges between writer and audience, and places considerable weight on the values, beliefs, and opinions the two share, a Rogerian argument doesn’t emphasize an "I win–you lose" outcome as much as classical or Toulmin arguments do. Rather it emphasizes a "You win and I win too" solution, one where negotiation and mutual respect are valued. Thus, it is particularly useful in psychological and emotional arguments, where pathos and ethos rather than logos and strict logic predominate.
SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY: The metaphor here is of a snowball which starts down a hill and gathers mass until it forms into a destructive, unstoppable boulder. While it is true that an action in the present does have consequences for the future, the slippery slope appeal distorts the connection, stretching to unreasonable limits the predicted impact of future events. The NRA might fallaciously argue, for instance, that a ban on assault rifles is one step away from negation of the Second Amendment's right-to-bear arms clause. The slippery slope appeal can thus be tied to the strategy of scare tactics, for it is designed to exaggerate beyond reasonable evidence feelings of fear and threatening (but totally unrealistic) consequences.
TOULMIN SCHEMA: Stephan Toulmin developed a method of argumentation that requires the writer to use logical structure, not in an attempt to prove any point, but in the hopes of convincing one’s readers of the validity of the points used in the argument. Using claim, because clause, grounds, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifiers, the writer hopes to convince the reader to accept the claim of the argument.
REBUTTAL: (n) the act of refuting by offering a contrary contention or argument.
WARRANT: The assumptions, the general principles, the conventions of specific disciplines, widely held values, commonly accepted beliefs, or appeals to human motives that are an important part of any argument.
VOCAB WORD: ENERVATE (v.) to weaken or destroy the strength or vitality of: "The heatenervated everyone." (adj: enervating)