Page 64 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 64
four critical essays on argumentation
it is constructed, and that it is a fallacy at all (i.e. fallacious argument).
Otherwise everything (every single utterance, not just a combination of an
argument and a conclusion) could be judged a fallacy.
Here is another analysis, this time from the chapter One day in a life
of an MEP. Hans, an Austrian MEP, is meeting a Slovenian delegation (at
that time Slovenia was an accession country) and Wodak gives the follow-
ing analysis of the conversation:
Once again, Hans emphasizes his contrary in a very explicit fac-
tual statement: ‘enlargement costs a lot of money!’ This time the
audience for his argument is actually a delegation from an ac-
cession country, to whom he conveys in no uncertain terms the
dominant—and in his view erroneous—beliefs about enlarge-
ment held by many politicians inside the EU. This topos of the ac-
tual costs of enlargement, and the corresponding representation
of the EU as harbouring misguided beliefs on the subject (Hans
even characterizes the Eurocrats as ‘empty heads’ (Hohlköpfe), in
a colloquialism indicating the informal context and by employing
the fallacy of hasty generalization again) might also serve as a le-
gitimation strategy later on, should enlargement not go according
to plan. (Wodak ibid.: 141–142)
And here is the conversation the above analysis refers to:
31 S1: in other words do you mean that one can now
32 that one can assume that the basic decision
33 that one will begin discussion with six countries
34 that any fundamental obstacles could still be in the way?
35 H: uh I would not make any strong predictions uh today
36 S1: yes
37 H: even if the monetary union is over
38 its side effects are not finished yet
39 politics can develop its own dynamics
40 politics develops its own dynamics when money is the issue
41 uh this is not unjustified
42 but the only thing that makes sense to the hollow European
skulls (Hohlköpfe)
64
it is constructed, and that it is a fallacy at all (i.e. fallacious argument).
Otherwise everything (every single utterance, not just a combination of an
argument and a conclusion) could be judged a fallacy.
Here is another analysis, this time from the chapter One day in a life
of an MEP. Hans, an Austrian MEP, is meeting a Slovenian delegation (at
that time Slovenia was an accession country) and Wodak gives the follow-
ing analysis of the conversation:
Once again, Hans emphasizes his contrary in a very explicit fac-
tual statement: ‘enlargement costs a lot of money!’ This time the
audience for his argument is actually a delegation from an ac-
cession country, to whom he conveys in no uncertain terms the
dominant—and in his view erroneous—beliefs about enlarge-
ment held by many politicians inside the EU. This topos of the ac-
tual costs of enlargement, and the corresponding representation
of the EU as harbouring misguided beliefs on the subject (Hans
even characterizes the Eurocrats as ‘empty heads’ (Hohlköpfe), in
a colloquialism indicating the informal context and by employing
the fallacy of hasty generalization again) might also serve as a le-
gitimation strategy later on, should enlargement not go according
to plan. (Wodak ibid.: 141–142)
And here is the conversation the above analysis refers to:
31 S1: in other words do you mean that one can now
32 that one can assume that the basic decision
33 that one will begin discussion with six countries
34 that any fundamental obstacles could still be in the way?
35 H: uh I would not make any strong predictions uh today
36 S1: yes
37 H: even if the monetary union is over
38 its side effects are not finished yet
39 politics can develop its own dynamics
40 politics develops its own dynamics when money is the issue
41 uh this is not unjustified
42 but the only thing that makes sense to the hollow European
skulls (Hohlköpfe)
64
