These positive benefits, proponents might suggest, should outweigh the negative consequence—having to pay higher fees.

Those who oppose the idea of using student fees to pay for a new fitness center could use the same set of questions to generate arguments for opposing the project—the problem does not affect that many students, other solutions can be found, the hardship caused by the additional fees would outweigh any benefits, etc.

Presenting and defending your position. Most arguments involve four parts— claim, evidence, reasons, and summary. Begin by stating what you want others to accept—the conclusion or claim of your argument. Provide evidence in the form of statistics, examples, or testimonials from others and supply reasons or logic for taking your position. Common patterns of logic include:

1. inductive (generalizing from one or a few cases to many), 2. deductive (moving from a larger category to a smaller one), 3. causal (one event causes another), and 4. analogical (argument based on similarities).

All four types of reasoning could be used in the fitness center argument. If you supported this idea, you could argue that the frustration experienced by some students is typical of the student body at large (inductive), that most colleges have developed new fitness facilities in the past 10 years (deductive), that building a new fitness center will improve student retention (causal), or that billing students for a new fitness center worked well for a similar college in the next town (analogical). End your presentation with a summary that shows what you’ve established. Be prepared to supplement your position with fur- ther evidence and reason once it comes under attack.

Attacking other positions. This argumentative skill is based on identifying weaknesses in the evidence and reasoning of the other party. Questions to ask when attacking evidence include: Is the evidence recent enough? Was enough evidence presented, and was it from reliable sources? Is the evidence consis- tent with known facts? Can it be interpreted in other ways, and is it relevant to the claim of the argument? Look for these common fallacies or errors when evaluating reasoning.35

• False analogy. The differences in the two items being compared outweigh their similarities.

• Hasty generalization. Drawing conclusions based on a sample that is (a) too small or (b) isn’t typical of the group as a whole.

• False cause. Assuming that one event caused another just because it hap- pened first, or using only one cause to explain a complex problem like illegal immigration or international terrorism.

• Slippery slope. Assuming that an event (outlawing the use of torture on suspected terrorists) is the first in a series of steps that will inevitably lead to a bad outcome (more terrorist attacks). No proof is offered for the claim that the subsequent events will actually take place.

• Begging the question (circular reasoning). Using the premise of the argument to support the claim instead of bringing in outside evidence. (For exam- ple: “Tom Cruise is popular because he is a movie star.”)

Hackman-Johnson 6E.book Page 180 Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:54 PM

Leadership and Influence 181