DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSUASION AND PROPAGANDA, LANGUAGE USE, AND FA.docx

DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSUASION AND PROPAGANDA,
LANGUAGE USE, AND FALLACIES
This essay is based partly on the video we have watched for
class in the last unit: chapters 4 – 5 of “The Persuaders” ( the
link of the vedio is :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html
?s=frol02p74&continuous=1)
and the reading assignment “Metaphors We Live By”, by
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, the link is
:http://pages.vassar.edu/theories-of-the-
novel/files/2013/04/Metaphors-We-Live-By.pdf This essay is
also partly based on the assigned readings on loaded language
and propaganda, in your text on pp. 458 - 469; on fallacies in
chapter 7 of your text;
LENGTH OF ESSAY AND POLICY ON PLAGIARISM: After
watching the above video and doing the assigned readings, you
should type an approximately 3 page double-spaced essay (of
font size 10 or 11) which interweaves the answers to the main
questions (in capital letters) below, with details from the
assigned video and readings to support your answers. You
need not summarize the video for this essay, and you need not
discuss everything in the video, but you must include specific
examples to support your points and you must show evidence of
having watched the video, as well as having done the assigned
readings.
I will not accept essays that are shorter than 2 double-
spaced pages (44 lines of text of 10 or 11 size font). Your
essay may be longer than 3 pages, but should not exceed 5
pages. You are not expected to use any outside sources in your
discussion (that is, you are expected to only use assigned
readings and videos for the course, as stated above), but, if you

do use outside sources, you must include citations. Failure to
cite outside sources will be counted as plagiarism, for which
there are penalties (see the syllabus).
Keep a copy of your final essay in print or saved electronically
just in case I claim that I never received it. This is for your
own protection.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSUASION AND PROPAGANDA,
LANGUAGE USE, AND FALLACIES
Chapters 4 – 6 of “The Persuaders” discusses different ways in
which marketers and political consultants and political
campaigners use various techniques to “persuade” the public to
either buy certain goods or to support certain political positions
or candidates and it never explicitly connects this “persuasion”
to propaganda, while the article by George Lakoff discusses the
different ways that metaphors inform the way we think
generally and also politically.
Interweave into one essay a discussion of the following
questions (#1, #2 & #3): The main themes are in CAPITAL
LETTERS, and the questions beneath the main themes are
guidelines and reminders of what we have, or will, discuss in
class.
1) MAIN QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED: Given Lakoff’s
metaphor that “argument is war” (as found in the assigned
article), and given Rapaille’s approach to marketing and Frank
Luntz’s approach to politics and language in the video, “The
Persuaders”, do these undermine the traditional approach to
argument, and aims, in critical reasoning, as discussed in the
first week and last weeks of this course (see also the description
of the course in the syllabus)? In answering this question, you
should address what critical reasoning is, by reference to the
description on the syllabus, to any class discussions throughout
the term on critical reasoning, recognizing assumptions,
identifying types of evidence, identifying and evaluating
arguments, etc. Do such techniques found in these videos
undermine critical reasoning, and how or how not?

2) WHAT TO ADDRESS IN ANSWERING THE MAIN
QUESTION ABOVE: In answering the main question above,
you should explain how the metaphor “argument is war”
influences our expectations of what a good argument is and
compare and contrast it to what we learn in a critical reasoning
class AND discuss one or more of the following: Rapaille (on
marketing) AND/OR Luntz (on use of language in politics, etc)
as they are presented in the video “The Persuaders” (chapters 4
– 6). You may also discuss other metaphors that Lakoff
mentions that might inform how we view and act upon
arguments, ideas, theories, etc. In other words, you should feel
free to draw upon the entire article by Lakoff and Johnson.
In other words, what does the use of marketing techniques, and
political consulting and campaigning techniques and/or
metaphors, imply for critical reasoning, as we have discussed
the latter in this class?
In your discussion, use specific examples to illustrate your
points. You should discuss what role appeal to emotions and/or
appeal to unconscious desires and/or appeal to assumptions
(either conscious or unconscious) play in each of these
approaches (whichever ones you choose to discuss) and whether
or not these are necessary to argumentation (see also the
questions below). Although you are expected to consider our
class discussions in answering these questions, you need not
agree with everything discussed in class, and you need not
confine yourself to examples discussed in class.
3) IN YOUR DISCUSSION OF THE ROLE OF EMOTIONS IN
#2 ABOVE, ADDRESS BRIEFLY PROPAGANDA AND/OR
FALLACIES: Under what circumstances might appeal to
emotions become “propaganda”? Using pp. 458 – 462 in your
text as a reference, discuss in what ways that marketing, public
relations AND/OR political consultants, may or may not use a
variety of propaganda techniques that are mentioned in the text.
Do any of the techniques that are mentioned in the video – and

be specific (details are important) – involve the propaganda
techniques (that is, the fallacies, such as glittering generalities,
identification, association, testimonials) mentioned in the text,
or any manipulation and deception (through language, or
through emotional appeals, or otherwise)? Although we might
not have time to discuss every one of the propaganda techniques
(or fallacies) in class, you should consider a few of them in
light of the marketing and political consulting techniques found
in “The Persuaders”. In what ways do these various
propaganda techniques (or fallacies) appeal to emotions or try
to deceive or manipulate us or attempt to distort the evidence?
(In addition, you may discuss some of the fallacies in chapter 7,
such as appeal to the people, or appeal to pity, or appeal to
force, in answering this question on the appeal to emotions.
Notice that chapter 7 does not include a separate fallacy called
“appeal to the emotions”.) Where would you place marketing,
and political consulting, as they are presented in the
“Persuaders” on the continuum presented on p. 459 of your
text? You need not confine yourself to what we discuss in
class, but justify your answer.
Other means of persuasion, propaganda, & fallacies
What conception of the mind underlies critical reasoning? How
do other means of persuasion rely on a different conception of
the mind/self?
What conception of mind underlies critical reasoning?
Review slides 1 – 7 & 10 in Week 1’s power point: “What is
critical reasoning anyhow?” & slides 2 & 5 in Week 3’s (Week
4 for the in-class section) power point: “What is an argument in
logic?” (This is very important to doing your final essay. You
may also want to review the description of the course on the
syllabus).

Underlying this conception of critical reasoning is a conception
of the mind that has varied somewhat in the history of Western
philosophy, but tends to treat the mind as separate from the
body [Descartes] and/or from the emotions [Kant], or if the
emotions are taken into consideration, they are treated as
subservient to the intellect [Socrates/Plato]. An exception to
this “rule” is the philosopher Hume, who stated that reason is
the slave of the emotions. Nietzsche can be interpreted as
following in Hume’s footsteps.
Therefore, in critical reasoning, our capacity for logical
thinking takes precedent over our desires, and logical non-
contradiction takes precedence over efficient means to
achieving our desires; appeals to “good reasons” to support our
claims take precedent over appeals to emotions or to authority
or to tradition.
In other words, evidence is supposed to replace even an
expert’s judgment or the judgment of a tradition. This becomes
tricky when an expert or authority is basing their judgment upon
evidence that the rest of the public may not understand, or if
any field of study has traditional ways of doing research, etc.
What does this conception of mind entail?
This conception of mind might underlie what Kant calls
“enlightenment”, and it might also be part of the foundations of
democratic thinking, insofar as the American and French
revolutions were partly based on the idea that every individual
citizen was capable of logical thought and had rational
capacities, so deserved the vote.
Those who were still denied the vote, such as women or slaves,
were often considered suspect in their ability to reason or think
rationally.
Therefore, our conception of freedom was partly tied to the
ability to think rationally, rather than to our capacity to feel
pain or pleasure or to pursue our own desires.
This also involved the notion that our thinking is conscious.

Do we still believe in this same conception of mind?
Can we separate the emotions from rationality or thinking?
This has been questioned by both recent neuroscientists, such as
D’Amasio (who wrote a book, “Descartes’ Error”), and recent
philosophers.
Should we want to separate the emotions from rationality? In
what ways might emotions distort or undermine our rationality
or our search for evidence, and in what ways might emotions
contribute to our rationality and our search for evidence?
For instance, do we need emotions to arouse our attention in the
first place (that is, to care enough to do the research), and to
continue to pay attention to our research? Do emotions help us
set priorities – what counts as dangerous, etc? Do emotions
such as anxiety play a role whenever we doubt an explanation or
the results of our research – the philosopher, mathematician,
and logician, Charles Peirce thought that this is what drives
inquiry in the first place – we want to overcome this anxiety.
On the other hand, do we blind and double-blind our random
controlled experiments, in part, to control for possible biases
that occur from emotional involvement by participants or
researchers?
Does “Metaphors We Live By” challenge this conception of
mind?
Lakoff in this article brings together the intellect (that is,
rational capacities), imagination, & emotions, so that “the
concepts that govern our thought are not just matters of the
intellect.”[124]
“Primarily on the basis of linguistic evidence, we have found
that most of our ordinary conceptual system is metaphorical in
nature. And we have found a way to begin to identify in detail

just what the metaphors are that structure how we perceive, how
we think, and what we do.” [124]
Notice that Lakoff does not confine metaphors or concepts to
the realm of beliefs (or assumptions), but includes our actions,
and even how we observe the world. Thus, metaphors will also
play a role in both observation and inference, and ultimately
will “filter” reality for us.
“The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing
one kind of thing in terms of another.” [125] This is a broader
notion of metaphor than that found in an English class – this is
not simply a matter of language that makes a comparison
without the words “as” or “like”;
We cannot think and we cannot even have experiences without
comparisons that actually start with our embodiment. Why do
we think in terms of “up” is good and “down” as the opposite
[which are metaphors]; and s how we experience “more is
better”[128] or “bigger is better”? This is related to our
experience in space. Why do we associate people as either
“warm” or “cold” in their personalities [which is also a
metaphor]? This could be related to how we held by our
mothers when we are babies, where we experience the mother’s
body as “warm”.
Conventional metaphors are those that structure the “ordinary
conceptual systems” and, thereby, the experience of a particular
culture. “The most fundamental values in a culture will be
coherent with the metaphorical structure of the most
fundamental concepts in the culture.” [128]
By introducing new metaphors we can introduce new meanings,
and influence what actions people take. [128ff] The example
Lakoff examines is “Love is a collaborative art”. [129]
More on Lakoff’s conception of mind
“But our conceptual system is not something we are normally
aware of. In most of the little things we do every day, we
simply think and act more or less automatically along certain

lines. Just what these lines are is by no means obvious. One
way to find out is by looking at language….” [124]
Our thinking, therefore, may often be unconscious. We dealt
with this possibility when we examined implicit assumptions –
some of which may be hidden because we are trying to deceive
other people, but some of which may be hidden from ourselves.
Traditionally, critical reasoning relies on the possibility that our
thinking can be made conscious, and that we can consciously
correct its errors.
Metaphors for argument, theories & ideas
Lakoff claims that our concept of “argument” is shaped by the
metaphor “argument is war”, which is conventional in our
culture. “This metaphor is reflected in our everyday language
by a wide variety of expressions:” [see the expressions on p.
124, which include use of language such as “defending” our
own claims and “attacking” the claims of our “opponents” and
“winning” or “losing” arguments.]
“Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by
the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there a
verbal battle, and the structure of argument – attack, defense,
counterattack, etc. – reflects this.” [124]
How does this compare or contrast to how we define “argument”
in logic and what we do when we build and evaluate arguments
in critical reasoning?
It is this notion of “argument as war” that Socrates criticizes
(does he attack it? Or does he question it?) in many of Plato’s
dialogues, where Socrates denies that he is a rhetorician
(speech-maker), who tries to win debates by making the weaker
argument look stronger. Rather, Socrates claims that he is a
philosopher – or “lover of wisdom” – and through his face-to-
face question-and-answer dialogue with those around him, he
will seek the “truth” or “essence” of concepts, such as “justice”,
“holiness”, “beauty”, etc. [See later slides on Lakoff’s view on
“truth”]

What if another culture relied on the metaphor “argument is
dance”? Would how we “do” arguing and evaluate arguments
change? [see p. 125]
“Our conventional ways of talking about arguments presuppose
a metaphor we are hardly ever conscious of.” [125]: Do you
agree that we are not conscious of this metaphor? Are we
conscious that it is a metaphor?
More metaphors for argument, theories & ideas
“THEORIES (and ARGUMENTS) ARE BUILDINGS”: Is that
the foundation for your theory? The theory needs more support.
The argument is shaky. We need some more facts or the
argument will fall apart. We need to construct a strong
argument for that….” [125]
How does this metaphor compare or contrast with our definition
of “argument” in logic and how we build and evaluate
arguments in critical reasoning? Do you think that this
metaphor actually fits together well with the previous metaphor,
“argument is war” and how or how not? Is there a problem in
moving from metaphor to metaphor? Do we consciously choose
our metaphors?
See also the wide variety of metaphors for ideas on pp. 125 –
126.
Metaphor, Truth, and Action
“The idea that metaphor is just a matter of language and can at
best only describe reality stems from the view that what is real
is wholly external to, and independent of, how human beings
conceptualize the world – as if the study of reality were just the
study of the physical world. [Lakoff will reject this view.]
Such a view of reality – so-called objective reality – leaves out
human aspects of reality, in particular the real perceptions,
conceptualizations, motivations, and actions that constitute

most of what we experience. But the human aspects of reality
are most of what matters to us, and these vary from culture to
culture….Cultures exist within physical environments, some of
them radically different – jungles, deserts, islands, tundra,
mountains, cities, etc…..The conceptual systems of various
cultures partly depend on the physical environments they have
developed in.” [132]
However, “the social reality defined by a culture affects its
conception of physical reality….Since much of our social
reality is understood in metaphorical terms, and since our
conception of the physical world is partly metaphorical,
metaphor plays a very significant role in determining what is
real for us….”
In this way, it might be difficult to draw the distinction between
reality and value assumptions that we do at the beginning of this
course.
In this way, “a metaphor may… be a guide for future action”,
and actions will reinforce our metaphors, sometimes like “self-
fulfilling prophecies”.
Metaphor, Truth, and Action (continued)
“Though questions of truth do arise for new metaphors, the
more important questions are those appropriate to action. In
most cases, what is at issue is not the truth or falsity of a
metaphor but the perceptions and inferences that follow from it
and the actions that are sanctioned by it.” [133]
This has implications for all aspects of life, including politics.
See Lakoff’s examples of metaphors that have influenced
politics on pp. 132 – 133.
“We do not believe that there is such a thing as objective
(absolute and unconditional) truth….We do believe there are
truths but think that the idea of truth need not be tied to the
objectivist view….As we have seen, truth is always relative to a
conceptual system that is defined in large part by metaphor.”

[134]: Lakoff is not confining this values.
Metaphor as Imaginative Rationality
Subjectivity and objectivity are not our only choices. (Lakoff
would consider this the fallacy of bifurcation or false
dichotomy. See later slides).
Metaphor unites reason and imagination.
“Reason…involves categorization, entailment, and inference.
Imagination…involves seeing one kind of thing in terms of
another kind of thing – what we have called metaphorical
thought. Metaphor is thus imaginative rationality….ordinary
rationality is therefore imaginative by its very nature.” [134]
“Metaphor is one of our most important tools for trying to
comprehend partially what cannot be comprehended totally: our
feelings, aesthetic [artistic] experiences, moral practices, and
spiritual awareness.” [134]
Does “The Persuaders” challenge the conception of mind found
in critical reasoning?
After watching chapters 4 & 5 in “The Persuaders”, try to figure
out what conception of mind might underlie the means of
persuasion used by Clotaire Rapaille (the marketer) and Frank
Luntz (the political consultant).
How are their means of persuasion different from that of critical
reasoning?
Which means of persuasion do you think actually “work”? Are
any of these means of persuasion “propaganda”[see later
slides]? Do they respect our ability to reason, or do you think
that is unimportant? Are any of these means of persuasion
“dangerous”, and how or how not? Do they undermine what we
learn in critical reasoning or do they reinforce it?
It is recommended that you also watch chapter 6 of this movie,
which ends with the suggestion that ultimately “we persuade
ourselves”. What might this mean, especially given the slide

#20 below on “Other considerations in propaganda and
persuasion”.
Chapter 6, which addresses “narrowcasting” also raises
questions as to whether political campaigns “divide and
conquer” by appealing to different segments of the population
with different messages that address their specific self-interests
rather than broader policy considerations. Does this detract
from what arguments are supposed to accomplish in critical
reasoning? Does it keep people within their own “filter
bubbles”? [see slide #20]
Clotaire Rapaille & marketing – chapter 4 of “The Persuaders”
Does Rapaille think that we know what we are talking about
when we give reasons for our actions and decisions or does he
think our motivations are unconscious?
What does Rapaille mean by “codes”? Thus, what is the code
for buying a Hummer, according to Rapaille? Are those who
buy a Hummer necessarily aware of this code or do they give
alternative reasons for buying Hummers? Why does Rapaille
reject the reasons that consumers themselves give?
How does Rapaille’s conception of the mind rest on “reptilian
hot buttons”, what does he seem to mean by this, and how is it
connected to “codes”? “Reptilian hot buttons” refers to the idea
that different parts of the human brain evolved differently –
there is the part of the brain that we inherit from lizard
ancestry, and share with the lizards or reptiles; the part of the
brain that we inherit from mammals, and share with other
mammals; and the part of the brain [the cortex] that is a an
evolutionary development of primates.
Do “reptilian hot buttons” prevent a role for cultural influences?
Compare the code for cheese in the United States to the code for
cheese in France.
How does Rapaille go about trying to discover the “code” for
“luxury”?

Rapaille, continued
Daniel Rushkoff, the narrator of “The Persuaders” asks Rapaille
whether or not environmental activists should be appealing to
the “cortex” [where our logical capacities lie] of consumers, so
that we will be more willing to buy environmentally friendlier
small cars. Rapaille claims that small cars are “off code”, so
that strategy will backfire. Do you agree?
If you were trying to sell small cars how would you appeal to
consumers? Would you make small cars a new “status symbol”
– that is, would you try to influence the “code”? Or would you
emphasize that small cars are better on mileage, and thereby,
have a lesser carbon “footprint” than hummers – appeal to logic
and evidence? Some other way?
Do you think that the only reason that consumers buy hummers
is the “code” that Rapaille offers, and how or how not?
Do you think that this is a bifurcation? [see slides on fallacies]
In other words, are these the only choices – hummers and small
cars? What happens if you are an environmentalist who wants
to encourage use of public transportation or use of bicycles?
Would this be a losing battle? If so, due to “reptilian hot
buttons” and “codes” or due to our culture?
Frank Luntz and political consulting – chapter 5 of “The
Persuaders”
Does Luntz think that we are primarily rational or primarily act
on emotions and feelings?
Does he think that Americans care about policies or care more
about entertainment, pop culture, sports, etc.? Do you agree
with him? Do you think that it is possible to change this? Do
you think that Americans should care about governmental and
social policies?
Luntz is criticized for caring more about the language around

issues, rather than the issues themselves (although he is admired
for his ability to recognize which language will change the
actions of voters). [See the next slide for examples.]
Frank Luntz (continued)
Consider Luntz’s use of “focus group” of Republicans and
Democrats listening to a speech by a utility executive, in which
they clicked in response to the different portions of the speech
on how much they liked or disliked what we they heard. Why
was Luntz doing this, what language did Luntz think the utility
should use in order to draw the most support for its own
position, and does this approach sidestep the question as to
whether or not the utility’s own position (on how it is regulated
by the government) is in the public interest in the first place?
In other words, does it sidestep the issue as to what, if any,
regulations should be in place for utilities? Is Luntz simply
promoting the agenda of his client? Is his focus group aware of
that?
Luntz is well known for replacing the language of “estate tax”
with “death tax”, by which he succeeded in shifting public
opinion to being indifferent or for the estate tax to being against
the death tax. Google “estate tax” – what is it? Does it apply
to everybody in the United States when they die? Or does it
only apply to certain people upon the occasion of death? Is it
actually a tax on death itself? Does “death tax” clarify the
underlying issues, as Luntz claims, or does is obscure them?
On the other hand, is “estate tax” itself unclear? Are there
other options than the two offered here? Do you think that
Luntz himself wants to promote the elimination of this tax, and,
if so, which part of the American population would this favor?
Luntz is also well known for replacing the language of “global
warming” with “climate change”. Google both of these phrases
– they both have scientific uses, but are they the same thing?
How are they different from each other? Does one sound more

threatening than the other? Do you think that both have their
uses in discussion of public policy? Why might Luntz [and the
Republican party for whom he consults] prefer “climate
change”.
Luntz does consult for the Republican Party. However, Lakoff
is a self-proclaimed “progressive”, and Democrats also use
“narrowcasting” which is discussed in Chapter 6 of “The
Persuaders”.
What is propaganda? (pp. 459 – 462 of your text)
“Propaganda uses words to shape public consciousness and
manipulate people to think, vote, and act as the propaganda
machine suggests. Propaganda can come from all directions –
left, right, and center.” [459]
Key words are manipulation, deception and appeals to emotion,
which are the basis of many fallacies (errors in reasoning – see
later slides).
“Propaganda serves important ideological functions. It attempts
to influence the opinions or actions of others by appealing to
their emotions or prejudices or by distorting facts. The goal
itself may be bad (e.g., genocide) or good (e.g., peace). What
marks propaganda is the manipulation, not the desired end.”
[460]
Does marketing or political consulting as depicted in “The
Persuaders” ever make use of propaganda or its tricks (see later
slide), and how or how not?
Do you think that propaganda is ever necessary? Can it be
dangerous?
An entire term could be devoted to this topic. The view given
here is not complete.
What is propaganda? Continued
Education-advertising-propaganda-indoctrination- thought
reform

The above is a continuum from what cult specialist, Margaret
Thaler Singer, sees as an increasing degree of manipulation
from left to right.[459]
“Singer says that propaganda centers on the political persuasion
of a mass of people, whereas thought reform centers on
changing people without their knowledge so they can be
manipulated and controlled. Propaganda has a manipulative,
controlling element as well, but it involves persuasion. Thought
reform involves no full awareness on the part of the subject and
usually has a hidden agenda.” [459]
Propaganda tricks (and corresponding fallacies) – pp. 460 –
462 of your text
Name-calling: [fallacies of ad hominem abusive or
circumstantial, or question-begging epithets - dyslogisms: See
later slides]: see examples on p. 460 in text.
Glittering Generalities: [fallacy of question-begging epithets –
eulogisms: See later slides]: Example: Development means
progress. [What do we mean by “progress”? How does
development contribute to it?] [See also examples on p. 460 in
text.]
Tabloid Thinking [fallacy of hasty generalization: see later
slides]: Notice that the examples in the text are similar to the
reality assumptions that we examined at the beginning of this
course: “You can’t change human nature”. “Every person has a
price.” However, here the emphasis is on how the
generalization isn’t based on an actual study. Perhaps the
reality assumption is unwarranted.
Testimonials: [Fallacy of ad verecundiam, or appeal to improper
authority]: The examples used on p. 460 of the text address
the improper use of public or political “authorities”. ]
Bifurcation (this is the name of a fallacy but it is also called the
fallacy of “false dichotomy”] [See examples on p. 461 in text.]
Association [fallacies of weak or false analogies and possibly
ad populum] [See examples on p. 461 of text]

Identification [a version of ad populum or appeal to the people]
[See examples on p. 461 in text]
Band Wagon: [ a version of ad populum] [See examples on p.
461 of text]
Card Stacking: This uses loaded language in such a way to
combine many of the previous propaganda tricks, and fallacies.
“The use of distortion, exaggeration, forgery, deception,a nd
misinformation to sell an idea.” [p. 462: The example given
here could also involve the fallacy of suppressed evidence – see
later slide.]
Loaded Language – p. 458 of your text; see also p. 309 of your
text
“Loaded language is language that is value laden, heavy with
connotation (positive or negative). It can create bias, just as
neutralized terms can defuse a controversy by making things
appear innocuous or acceptable.” [458]
Such language can be used in propaganda tricks, such as name-
calling [negative connotations], glittering generalities [positive
connotations], and card stacking. [see later slides, and pp.460 –
462 of your text] Such language heavily appeals to the
emotions, and may obscure the other evidence.
Examples: Jews were called “vermin” by the Nazis to
encourage anti-semitism. Tutsis in Rwanda were called
“cockroaches” during the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus.
Some language, as suggested above, is used to falsely neutralize
a situation. This language is often called “euphemisms.”
Examples: Putting Japanese Americans into “relocation
camps”, as they simply were moving. Calling the slaughter of 6
million Jews during World War II “the final solution”, without
indicating what “final” means and what is being solved.
“Question-begging epithets” [p. 309] is a related fallacy which
“occurs when language is biased so that it stacks the deck in
either a positive or negative direction.”[459] Eulogisms include
bloated claims of praise, while dyslogisms are a type of name-

calling.
Other considerations in propaganda and persuasion: Do
arguments work?
Confirmation Bias is the tendency to favor evidence, or
interpret evidence in light of, the beliefs that you already hold,
and to overlook evidence that would contradict or not support
the beliefs that you already hold.
Cognitive dissonance: the experience of discomfort when a
person has inconsistent or contradictory beliefs or values, or is
presented with information that conflicts with their beliefs or
values. People tend to try to reduce this discomfort by any
number of psychological defense mechanisms, such as avoiding
situations in which their beliefs and values are challenged, or
denying their own inconsistencies or ignoring new information,
rather than examining the logic and support for their beliefs or
new information.
Preaching to the choir: to argue or to present a position to
those who already accept it.
The “filter bubble” occurs when search engines, such as Google,
use algorithms to “give us what we want”, according to our own
search histories. This means that two different people who
search for the same term or phrase might have different results
for their searches, depending upon their own past search
histories. The result is that we are protected from receiving
new information that might contradict our previous interests,
beliefs, etc.
All of the above draw into question whether or not argument, as
we define it in critical reasoning, actually can effectively
change people’s views. Lakoff would argue that only
introducing new metaphors can change people’s views and
actions.

What is a fallacy?
Fallacies are flaws in reasoning:
“Logicians disagree on the exact definition of a `fallacy’ of
reasoning and whether to call fallacies `invalid’ or `unsound’.
Some fallacious arguments do appear to be failed deductive
reasoning, because the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion.
They are, thus, invalid and unsound by definition. Others, such
as those involving statistical studies, appear to be failed
inductive reasoning and better considered `poor’ or `faulty’ than
invalid. What logicians do agree upon is that all fallacies are
forms of incorrect reasoning that can be highly persuasive.
Nevertheless, any argument containing a fallacy is fatally
flawed in its reasoning and must be rejected.” [p. 283 text]
In the following fallacies, and the previous propaganda tricks,
notice how what may be persuasive – authorities, force,
emotion, attacks on the person, etc. – are not considered
convincing good reasons in critical reasoning. Thus, look back
at the first power point presentations for Week 1 in order to see
how we defined critical reasoning, as well as the earlier slides
in this presentation.
Some fallacies from chapter 7 of text & from the link in Weeks
9 - 10
You are expected to read chapter 7 & the link in Weeks 9 – 10
to another list of fallacies from a text by Hurley. These two
lists overlap with each other, but are not identical. The most
important difference lies in the inclusion of the fallacy of
“suppressed evidence” in Hurley’s list, and the inclusion of
more detailed ways of “begging the question” in Hurley’s list.
The following slides will give some examples of some of the
most important fallacies. These examples are drawn from
Hurley’s text, our text for this course, or they are my own
examples.

Examples of suppressed evidence
If an inductive argument ignores relevant evidence that would
entail a very different conclusion then the fallacy of suppressed
evidence has been committed.
P1. The sand on the beaches in Cape Cod is clean
P2. The surf on the beaches in Cape Cod is great.
C: You should go to the beaches on Cape Cod.
What premise has been omitted: P3: There are sharks at the
beaches on Cape Cod. There is the possibility that this third
premise might change the conclusion of the argument.
Examples of Appeal to Pity
“The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to
support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or
listener.” [p. 122 in Hurley, “Logic”, 7th edition]
See examples on p. 293 of your text.
“…some arguments that attempt to evoke sympathetic feelings
from the reader or listener are not fallacious. We might call
them arguments from compassion. Such arguments differ from
the fallacious appeal to pity in that, in addition to evoking
compassion on behalf of some person, they supply information
about why that person is genuinely deserving of help or special
consideration.” [Hurley, 123]. Does this mean that there is a
legitimate role for appeal to emotions in argument, as long as it
accompanies evidence of another sort?
There are certain arenas in which there is a controversy as to
whether there is a fallacious appeal to pity or a legitimate
appeal to compassion. Examples: Is it fallacious or legitimate
to consider the pain and suffering of animals in order to prevent
factory farming or their use in circuses? Is it fallacious or
legitimate to consider the suffering of those who resorted to
illegal abortions in arguing for the legalization of, or right to,
abortion? Is it fallacious or legitimate to consider the pain that

a “fetus” or “unborn baby” might feel in arguing against
abortion? If you think there is a legitimate appeal to
compassion, then what other information would you provide to
support your argument?
Examples of Appeal to Force
“The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer poses
a conclusion to another person and tells that person either
implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her
if he or she does not accept the conclusion.” [Hurley, p. 121].
Notice that this appeals to the emotion of fear
See the examples on p. 202 of your text.
Do nations resort to this fallacy when they threaten other
nations with boycotts, or sanctions, or war, if those other
nations do not agree to certain diplomatic treaties, such as has
been the case with Iran over whether it should be able to
develop nuclear power capacity that could be used to produce
nuclear weapons?
Examples of Ad Populum (Appeal to the People or to
patriotism)
Direct appeal to a crowd through a “demagogue” (political
figure making a speech of this sort): Example: Hitler’s
speeches to the German people through use of glittering
generalities about the German fatherland, and the greatness of
the German people (“Volk”), as well as name-calling of the
Jews as “vermin”, etc. Find you tubes of “Triumph of the
Will.”
Indirect appeal to people, often as consumers through marketing
techniques, by appealing to emotions, such as the need for
security, love, or respect; these include bandwagon, appeal to
vanity and appeal to snobbery, among others.
Example of bandwagon: “Be cool! Smoke cigars! All the cool
people do!” [290, text]

Example of appeal to vanity [that is, one’s self-image]: “The
Few, the Proud, the Marines”. [124. Hurley];
Appeal to snobbery [also related to one’s self-image]
Examples of Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem or “argument against the person” “always involves
two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or
implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by
directing his or her attention [or criticism] not to the first
person’s argument but to the first person himself.” [Hurley, p.
125]
Ad hominem Abusive: this is similar to name-calling in that
“the second person responds to the first person’s argument by
verbally abusing the first person.” [125]
Example: “Before he died, poet Allen Ginsberg argued in favor
of legalizing pornography. But Ginsberg’s arguments are
nothing but trash. Ginsberg was a marijuana-smoking
homosexual and a thoroughgoing advocate of the drug culture.”
[Hurley, 126]: That Ginsberg was a “marijuana-smoking
homosexual and….” is irrelevant to his argument on legalizing
pornography.
Ad hominem Circumstantial: guilt by association; “the
respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by
alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent.”
[Hurley, 126]
My Example: A person on death row writes an argument
against the death penalty. The reader dismisses the argument
because “what do you expect, the person is on death row [his
circumstances]? This is a fallacy, because you are supposed to
evaluate the argument on its merits – its strengths and
weaknesses, and not simply dismiss due to the circumstances of
the arguer.
Tu Quoque (“you too”): The respondent tries to “make the first
arguer appear to be hypocritical”.

My Example: A person who chain smokes cigarettes gives a
lecture to students about how they should stop smoking. The
listeners dismiss the arguer as a hypocrite because she smokes.
However, could a smoker still make a good or strong argument
that others should stop smoking because smoking is bad for
your health?
Reminders of fallacies based on previous units
Fallacies of Weak Induction:
Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small
Biased Statistics: the sample is not representative
False Cause: cause is falsely attributed to a correlation; one
version is post hoc: See the text on pp. 301 - 302
Slippery slope: a version of false cause, which occurs when
there is a chain of cause-and-effect relations in which at least
one link is weak; often a form of catastrophic thinking: See
the text on pp. 305 - 306
Weak Analogy: where the differences between the items
compared outweigh the similarities, or the similarities are not
relevant. See the text p. 310/
Appeal to ignorance: “If you can’t prove me wrong, then I must
be right!” [293 in text]
Appeal to unqualified authority: See also testimonials among
propaganda tricks; sometimes celebrities are used as
authorities, when they have no expertise in the subject. (What
would this say about the celebrities who are used in “Half the
Sky”?) Moreover, even a qualified authority in a subject area
might be wrong. (See p. 5 of electronic reserves article,
“Materials and Exercises on Fallacies”.)

Examples of “begging the question”
“The first, and most common, way of committing this fallacy is
by leaving a key premise out of the argument while creating the
illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the conclusion.
Examples:
Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that
abortion is morally wrong.
It’s obvious that the poor in this country should be given
handouts from the government. After all, these people earn less
than the average citizen.
Clearly, terminally ill patients have a right to doctor assisted
suicide. After all, many of these people are unable to commit
suicide by themselves.
The first of these arguments begs the question ‘How do you
know that abortion is a form of murder?’….and the third [I
omitted the second argument] and fourth beg the questions `Just
because the poor earn less than the average citizen, does this
imply that the government should give them handouts?’ and
`Just because terminally ill patients cannot commit suicide by
themselves, why does it follow that they have a right to a
doctor’s assistance?’” [Hurley, “Logic”, 7th edition, p. 157]
Notice that the problem is in how the arguer can build their own
argument, and not simply that an opponent would disagree with
the conclusion. Thus, the first arguer could improve his/her
argument by adding a premise that “abortion is murder”, and
showing how abortion is murder. The next arguer might need to
show why the poor or some of the poor deserve help from the
government, (and perhaps why others couldn’t provide help
instead), while the last arguer has to first show why anybody
should be committing suicide in the first place, as well as why
they should have assistance in doing so.
Arguers often leave out premises when they are “preaching to
the choir”, that is, to those who already share their beliefs or
assumptions.

Examples of “begging the question” continued
Begging the question can also occur when “an argument merely
restates the conclusion in slightly different language. Examples:
“Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and
kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that
someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and
inhuman acts.” [Hurley, p. 158]
Your text emphasizes this form of begging the question on pp.
Examples of “Begging the question” continued
Begging the question can be found in longer arguments in which
“circular reasoning” occurs in a “chain of inferences”.
“Ford Motor Company clearly produces the finest cars in the
United States. We know they produce the finest cars because
they have the best design engineers. This is true because they
can afford to pay them more than other manufacturers.
Obviously they can afford to pay them more because they
produce the finest cars in the United States.” [Hurley, p. 158]
Examples of Red Herring
This fallacy is “committed when the arguer diverts the attention
of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different
but sometimes subtly related one. He or she then finishes by
either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by
merely presuming that some conclusion has been established.
By doing so, the arguer purports to have won the argument. The
fallacy gets its name from a procedure used to train hunting
dogs to follow a scent. A red herring…is dragged across the
trail with the aim of leading the dogs astray. Since red herrings
have an especially potent scent…only the best dogs will follow
the original scent.” [Hurley, p. 131]: Here is an example:

“Environmentalists are continually harping about the dangers of
nuclear power. Unfortunately, electricity is dangerous no
matter where it comes from. Every year hundreds of people are
electrocuted by accident. Since most of these accidents are
caused by carelessness they could be avoided if people would
just exercise greater caution.” [Hurly, p. 132]
Examples of Straw Man
This fallacy “is committed when an arguer distorts an
opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it
[that is, the straw in the straw man], demolishes the distorted
argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument
has been demolished.” [Hurley, p. 129] An example:
“Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public schools.
Obviously Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism. But atheism is
what they used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the
suppression of all religions and the replacement of God by an
omnipotent state. Is that what we want for this country? I
hardly think so. Clearly Mr. Goldberg’s argument is nonsense.”
[129]
Does Mr. Goldberg’s argument have anything to do with
atheism? How else might he argue against prayer in public
schools?
This fallacy involves two arguers.
Fallacies: Linguistic fallacies of ambiguity
Equivocation “occurs when the conclusion of an argument
depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either
explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the
argument.” [164 in Hurley]
Examples: “Any law can be repealed by the legislative
authority. But the law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law
of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.” What

word is equivocated on? [164, Hurley]
Examples: “Sailors don’t have to do any laundry. If they just
throw their clothes overboard they’ll be washed ashore.” [What
word is equivocated on here? This example might also include
an amphiboly – see below – who is “they” in “they’ll be washed
ashore”?][p. 322 in your text, #5 in exercises]
Amphiboly occurs when there is an ambiguity or unclarity in the
syntax or grammar of the argument, so that an incorrect
conclusion is drawn.
Examples: “John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It
follows that John has at least the courage to admit his own
mistakes.” [Is it John who has made the mistake?] [p. 165 in
Hurley]
Examples: “Sign in a bar: `SPECIAL COCKTAILS FOR THE
LADIES WITH NUTS’”. What is this supposed to mean? What
does it sound like it means? [322 in your text, # 7 in the
exercises.]

DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSUASION AND PROPAGANDA, LANGUAGE USE, AND FA.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSUASION AND PROPAGANDA, LANGUAGE USE, AND FA.docx

Similar to DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSUASION AND PROPAGANDA, LANGUAGE USE, AND FA.docx (17)

More from duketjoy27252

More from duketjoy27252 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSUASION AND PROPAGANDA, LANGUAGE USE, AND FA.docx