Page 62 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 62
four critical essays on argumentation
giving the appearance that every upholder of that position
(and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
(2.4) Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs,
which are then criticized, implying that the person represents
a group of whom the speaker is critical.
(2.5) Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then at-
tacking this oversimplified version.
(3) Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/
flawed.
How are we to understand and interpret this? That every time we don’t
take in consideration all the facts, or all the data available on a certain top-
ic, everything a person we are talking about has said (and we hardly ever
can, because not only human capabilities are limited, so is the time we
have at our disposal), we can be accused of committing a Straw-man fal-
lacy? Quoting an opponent’s words out of context is a ubiquitous exam-
ple we can hardly avoid we simply can’t repeat everything that person has
said. When writing reviews, for example, concentrating on what seemed
important from our point of view, and pointing to possible weak points,
is easily (and rather often) described (by the author under review) as mis-
representing author’s views, oversimplifying or even inventing a fictitious
persona. Accusations that somebody has committed a Straw-man fallacy
are therefore (or at least can be) a handy rhetorical technique when we don’t
like someone’s arguments (or don’t agree with them). And there is always
something that we leave out (that, for different reasons, we have to leave
out), and we can never include everything a particular author has said or
written.
Let us turn to more detailed analysis now. This is how Wodak continues:
In lines 1–3 she casts the typical politician as preferring to meet
with citizens indirectly, through the media. Alternatively, the
typical politician might ‘drop in’ on his constituency only brief-
ly, in a condescending, patronizing […] and elitist […] manner.
[9 lines of summing up the interview dropped]
Several topoi, strategies and fallacies are employed here: the to-
pos of history, which refers to her experience as evidence for a
more general claim, combined with the fallacy of hasty generali-
zation; the topos of urgency, which stereotypically characterizes
62
giving the appearance that every upholder of that position
(and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
(2.4) Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs,
which are then criticized, implying that the person represents
a group of whom the speaker is critical.
(2.5) Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then at-
tacking this oversimplified version.
(3) Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/
flawed.
How are we to understand and interpret this? That every time we don’t
take in consideration all the facts, or all the data available on a certain top-
ic, everything a person we are talking about has said (and we hardly ever
can, because not only human capabilities are limited, so is the time we
have at our disposal), we can be accused of committing a Straw-man fal-
lacy? Quoting an opponent’s words out of context is a ubiquitous exam-
ple we can hardly avoid we simply can’t repeat everything that person has
said. When writing reviews, for example, concentrating on what seemed
important from our point of view, and pointing to possible weak points,
is easily (and rather often) described (by the author under review) as mis-
representing author’s views, oversimplifying or even inventing a fictitious
persona. Accusations that somebody has committed a Straw-man fallacy
are therefore (or at least can be) a handy rhetorical technique when we don’t
like someone’s arguments (or don’t agree with them). And there is always
something that we leave out (that, for different reasons, we have to leave
out), and we can never include everything a particular author has said or
written.
Let us turn to more detailed analysis now. This is how Wodak continues:
In lines 1–3 she casts the typical politician as preferring to meet
with citizens indirectly, through the media. Alternatively, the
typical politician might ‘drop in’ on his constituency only brief-
ly, in a condescending, patronizing […] and elitist […] manner.
[9 lines of summing up the interview dropped]
Several topoi, strategies and fallacies are employed here: the to-
pos of history, which refers to her experience as evidence for a
more general claim, combined with the fallacy of hasty generali-
zation; the topos of urgency, which stereotypically characterizes
62
