Your browser window currently does not have enough height, or is zoomed in too far to view our website content correctly. Once the window reaches the minimum required height or zoom percentage, the content will display automatically.
Alternatively, you can learn more via the links below.
-Opt.jpg)
Any communication attempting to persuade someone to do something but without giving good reasons.
Last edition, we showed that arguments are attempts to persuade people to act or do something. For strong arguments, we need true reasons.
When an argument is ‘persuasive’, it requires us to check the validity of an argument, and then test the truth (or soundness) of an argument. To test validity, we ask, ‘if all the reasons were true, would the conclusion also be true?’ If the answer to this is yes, we say the argument is valid. To test the soundness, we check the actual truth of the reasons. If the reasons are proved to be true, we know from the first step that the conclusion must also be true. We call this a sound argument. Sound arguments are persuasive.
‘Rhetorical ploys’ are attempts to persuade using bad reasons. These ploys can be powerful, using reasoning that attempts to draw on our emotions or assumptions to persuade us to act or think in certain ways. But when we have critical thinking skills, we have the power to identify rhetorical ploys and protect ourselves from believing something that is not true!
So, what exactly is a rhetorical ploy? The most common rhetorical ploys are appeals to specific emotions. We can name these ploys by the nature of the emotion they are targeting. For example, an ‘Appeal to Popularity’ and ‘Appeal to Fear’. Other types of ploys use language in a way that seems persuasive but, after proper consideration, is misleading.
People use rhetorical ploys to try to convince you of doing or believing something that benefits them. For example, companies use advertising to convince you to buy the product, as that benefits the company’s bottom line. They don’t care if the advertisement is ‘true’ or not. Similarly, politicians use rhetorical ploys to get you to vote for them. They do not care if their arguments are sound (true). Their only concern is getting your vote! Donald Trump is considered a master at using these ploys! Critical reasoning is therefore important to understand the real, underlying reasons why people are trying to convince you of something. It’s important to keep you independent and smart.
Let’s look at an example of an analysis of an argument made with an Appeal to Popularity.
Appeal to popularity is commonly seen in advertisements that attempt to persuade us by appealing to our desire to have what others have, and to not miss out on the benefits that other people are already enjoying. Sporting labels can be a good example. People may be tempted to buy Nike Jordan basketball shoes for basketball because the ‘cool people’ wear Jordans. However, if we are going to buy shoes for playing basketball, we should not buy them simply because cool people wear them, we should buy shoes that actually perform well for basketball.
Analysing the Appeal to Popularity argument with critical thinking looks like this:
-Table1-Opt.png)
This argument is valid. That is, if the reasons were true, the conclusion would be true. However, when we check to see if the reasons are actually true (soundness), we find that Reason 2 is not true. The best shoe for basketball is not determined by who wears the shoe, it is determined by how well the shoe performs. Given Reason 2 is not true, this argument cannot be sound. We should not be persuaded by this argument!
This following example shows how the argument can be improved. Maybe you can come up with a stronger argument!
-Table2-Opt.png)
This ploy is regularly used by politicians to pass laws that otherwise challenge fundamental human rights. For example, anti-bikie and anti-association laws enacted across Australia were claimed as necessary to ‘keep the community safe from organised crime’, especially from drug-related crime. These laws have been criticised for breaching the basic human right of freedom of assembly.
The fear generated by the government and media was powerful. This appeal to emotion was designed to persuade the public that highly restrictive laws were required for the safety of the community. While motorcycle clubs continue to be targeted by these laws, statistics show that actual motorcycle club members were responsible for a very tiny percentage of actual drug-related crime committed across Australia. In fact, drug-related crime has continued to escalate significantly since these laws were enacted. Let’s see how this looks using critical thinking analysis:
-Table3-Opt.png)
This argument is valid. That is, if all the reasons were true, the conclusion would also be true. However, a fact check by reference to official government data shows that Reason (2) is false. The falsity of Reason (2) also makes Reason (3) false. This argument therefore cannot be sound.
Gaslighting is a rhetorical ploy used to cast doubt on another person’s claims. While slightly different than an appeal to emotion, this is a powerful ploy often used in everyday life. Gaslighting is considered to be unethical and manipulative.
It is most commonly recognised in circumstances where, for example, person A makes a complaint about person B. In response, person B makes a false statement about person A in an attempt to discredit their complaint, and often to make person A look at fault. Successful use of gaslighting will convince person A into believing that they themselves are at fault!
The name itself, gaslighting, is said to arise from an old trick where, before electricity was around, people used gas-powered lights in their homes. Person A would secretly dim the lights to make it hard for person B to see. When person B complains that ‘it’s a bit dark in here’, person A responds by saying, ‘no it’s not, there must be something wrong with your eyes.’ Let’s look at this using critical thinking analysis.
-Table4-Opt.png)
An attack by gaslighting can be difficult to defend against. In this scenario, person A would need to test their eyesight, perhaps by walking into another room. They could also get another person to walk into the room to get a second opinion on the lighting.
Gaslighting is often used by people that know it will be difficult for the other person to refute the gaslighter’s claims. A typical example may be seen when a police officer overreacts to a situation and arrests a person without lawful reason. When the person makes a complaint, the police officer simply makes a false allegation that the person had acted in a threatening manner, thereby justifying (or trying to justify) the arrest. If there was no-one else around to witness the event or there was no CCTV footage of the event, it would be extremely difficult to disprove the statement of the officer.
Remember, the most common rhetorical ploy is the appeal to an emotion. We looked at appeals to popularity and fear, however other types include appeals to guilt, compassion, love, status and wealth. Now that you understand what a rhetorical ploy is, listen carefully to the reasoning people give to support their claims to see if you can identify a ploy in action!
Any communication attempting to persuade someone to do something but without giving good reasons.
Last edition, we showed that arguments are attempts to persuade people to act or do something. For strong arguments, we need true reasons.
When an argument is ‘persuasive’, it requires us to check the validity of an argument, and then test the truth (or soundness) of an argument. To test validity, we ask, ‘if all the reasons were true, would the conclusion also be true?’ If the answer to this is yes, we say the argument is valid. To test the soundness, we check the actual truth of the reasons. If the reasons are proved to be true, we know from the first step that the conclusion must also be true. We call this a sound argument. Sound arguments are persuasive.
‘Rhetorical ploys’ are attempts to persuade using bad reasons. These ploys can be powerful, using reasoning that attempts to draw on our emotions or assumptions to persuade us to act or think in certain ways. But when we have critical thinking skills, we have the power to identify rhetorical ploys and protect ourselves from believing something that is not true!
So, what exactly is a rhetorical ploy? The most common rhetorical ploys are appeals to specific emotions. We can name these ploys by the nature of the emotion they are targeting. For example, an ‘Appeal to Popularity’ and ‘Appeal to Fear’. Other types of ploys use language in a way that seems persuasive but, after proper consideration, is misleading.
People use rhetorical ploys to try to convince you of doing or believing something that benefits them. For example, companies use advertising to convince you to buy the product, as that benefits the company’s bottom line. They don’t care if the advertisement is ‘true’ or not. Similarly, politicians use rhetorical ploys to get you to vote for them. They do not care if their arguments are sound (true). Their only concern is getting your vote! Donald Trump is considered a master at using these ploys! Critical reasoning is therefore important to understand the real, underlying reasons why people are trying to convince you of something. It’s important to keep you independent and smart.
Let’s look at an example of an analysis of an argument made with an Appeal to Popularity.
Appeal to popularity is commonly seen in advertisements that attempt to persuade us by appealing to our desire to have what others have, and to not miss out on the benefits that other people are already enjoying. Sporting labels can be a good example. People may be tempted to buy Nike Jordan basketball shoes for basketball because the ‘cool people’ wear Jordans. However, if we are going to buy shoes for playing basketball, we should not buy them simply because cool people wear them, we should buy shoes that actually perform well for basketball.
Analysing the Appeal to Popularity argument with critical thinking looks like this:
This argument is valid. That is, if the reasons were true, the conclusion would be true. However, when we check to see if the reasons are actually true (soundness), we find that Reason 2 is not true. The best shoe for basketball is not determined by who wears the shoe, it is determined by how well the shoe performs. Given Reason 2 is not true, this argument cannot be sound. We should not be persuaded by this argument!
This following example shows how the argument can be improved. Maybe you can come up with a stronger argument!
This ploy is regularly used by politicians to pass laws that otherwise challenge fundamental human rights. For example, anti-bikie and anti-association laws enacted across Australia were claimed as necessary to ‘keep the community safe from organised crime’, especially from drug-related crime. These laws have been criticised for breaching the basic human right of freedom of assembly.
The fear generated by the government and media was powerful. This appeal to emotion was designed to persuade the public that highly restrictive laws were required for the safety of the community. While motorcycle clubs continue to be targeted by these laws, statistics show that actual motorcycle club members were responsible for a very tiny percentage of actual drug-related crime committed across Australia. In fact, drug-related crime has continued to escalate significantly since these laws were enacted. Let’s see how this looks using critical thinking analysis:
This argument is valid. That is, if all the reasons were true, the conclusion would also be true. However, a fact check by reference to official government data shows that Reason (2) is false. The falsity of Reason (2) also makes Reason (3) false. This argument therefore cannot be sound.
Gaslighting is a rhetorical ploy used to cast doubt on another person’s claims. While slightly different than an appeal to emotion, this is a powerful ploy often used in everyday life. Gaslighting is considered to be unethical and manipulative.
It is most commonly recognised in circumstances where, for example, person A makes a complaint about person B. In response, person B makes a false statement about person A in an attempt to discredit their complaint, and often to make person A look at fault. Successful use of gaslighting will convince person A into believing that they themselves are at fault!
The name itself, gaslighting, is said to arise from an old trick where, before electricity was around, people used gas-powered lights in their homes. Person A would secretly dim the lights to make it hard for person B to see. When person B complains that ‘it’s a bit dark in here’, person A responds by saying, ‘no it’s not, there must be something wrong with your eyes.’ Let’s look at this using critical thinking analysis.
An attack by gaslighting can be difficult to defend against. In this scenario, person A would need to test their eyesight, perhaps by walking into another room. They could also get another person to walk into the room to get a second opinion on the lighting.
Gaslighting is often used by people that know it will be difficult for the other person to refute the gaslighter’s claims. A typical example may be seen when a police officer overreacts to a situation and arrests a person without lawful reason. When the person makes a complaint, the police officer simply makes a false allegation that the person had acted in a threatening manner, thereby justifying (or trying to justify) the arrest. If there was no-one else around to witness the event or there was no CCTV footage of the event, it would be extremely difficult to disprove the statement of the officer.
Remember, the most common rhetorical ploy is the appeal to an emotion. We looked at appeals to popularity and fear, however other types include appeals to guilt, compassion, love, status and wealth. Now that you understand what a rhetorical ploy is, listen carefully to the reasoning people give to support their claims to see if you can identify a ploy in action!
Criminology is more than just the study of crime; it's about understanding the system that controls crime, how it works, who it benefits, and why it sometimes goes wrong.
If you’ve experienced gardening, you’re likely well acquainted with the mental health benefits of getting your hands dirty.
In this series, we showed that arguments are attempts to persuade people to act or believe something. The strongest arguments are sound arguments.
Tokyo now has fifty per cent more inhabitants than the entirety of Australia, and there are more seventeen year-olds in India than there are people in Australia.
Help us get About Time off the ground. All donations are tax deductible and will be vital in providing an essential resource for people in prison and their loved ones.
Help us get About Time off the ground. All donations are tax deductible and will be vital in providing an essential resource for people in prison and their loved ones.
Leave a Comment
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere. uis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.