WEBVTT 00:00:00.500 --> 00:00:03.640 align:middle line:96% Welcome to Evaluating an Argument, 00:00:03.640 --> 00:00:06.830 align:middle line:96% an instructional video on reading comprehension 00:00:06.830 --> 00:00:11.000 align:middle line:96% brought to you by the Excelsior College Online Writing Lab. 00:00:13.670 --> 00:00:16.239 align:middle line:96% Pretty much anything you read will contain one or more 00:00:16.239 --> 00:00:18.950 align:middle line:96% explicit or implicit arguments. 00:00:18.950 --> 00:00:21.930 align:middle line:96% The ability to evaluate these arguments to determine 00:00:21.930 --> 00:00:25.290 align:middle line:96% their credibility involves analysis and critical thinking. 00:00:25.290 --> 00:00:28.470 align:middle line:96% However, by evaluating what you read, 00:00:28.470 --> 00:00:30.360 align:middle line:96% you will have a much better understanding 00:00:30.360 --> 00:00:32.170 align:middle line:96% of what the text is trying to say 00:00:32.170 --> 00:00:34.130 align:middle line:96% and whether you agree with it. 00:00:34.130 --> 00:00:37.420 align:middle line:96% In this video, we will cover three topics 00:00:37.420 --> 00:00:39.580 align:middle line:96% to help you evaluate what you read: 00:00:39.580 --> 00:00:43.030 align:middle line:96% the difference between facts and opinions, 00:00:43.030 --> 00:00:46.410 align:middle line:96% the difference between opinions and arguments, 00:00:46.410 --> 00:00:48.730 align:middle line:96% and common types of logical fallacies 00:00:48.730 --> 00:00:51.190 align:middle line:96% that may invalidate an argument. 00:00:51.190 --> 00:00:55.200 align:middle line:96% After watching this video, be sure to visit the 00:00:55.200 --> 00:00:58.440 align:middle line:96% Online Reading Comprehension Lab of the Excelsior College 00:00:58.440 --> 00:01:02.050 align:middle line:96% Online Writing Lab for additional videos and resources on how 00:01:02.050 --> 00:01:06.110 align:middle line:96% to analyze a text, such as How to Identify Writing Patterns 00:01:06.110 --> 00:01:09.300 align:middle line:96% and Evaluating an Author’s Intent. 00:01:09.300 --> 00:01:13.980 align:middle line:96% The books and articles you read are full of facts and opinion. 00:01:13.980 --> 00:01:17.840 align:middle line:96% A fact is information that can be proven or disproven. 00:01:17.840 --> 00:01:20.840 align:middle line:96% An example of a fact is the statement: 00:01:20.840 --> 00:01:23.940 align:middle line:96% 50% of politicians in the U.S. Congress 00:01:23.940 --> 00:01:27.740 align:middle line:96% are millionaires while only 1% of U.S. citizens 00:01:27.740 --> 00:01:29.120 align:middle line:96% are millionaires. 00:01:29.120 --> 00:01:34.190 align:middle line:96% While a fact can be proven or disproven, an opinion cannot. 00:01:34.190 --> 00:01:37.010 align:middle line:96% This is because an opinion is a claim made 00:01:37.010 --> 00:01:40.510 align:middle line:96% without any supporting facts or evidence to back it up. 00:01:40.510 --> 00:01:44.030 align:middle line:96% An example of an opinion is: Big government 00:01:44.030 --> 00:01:45.840 align:middle line:96% is horribly inefficient. 00:01:45.840 --> 00:01:48.110 align:middle line:96% Although this statement might be true, 00:01:48.110 --> 00:01:51.330 align:middle line:96% there is no attempt to support it with facts or evidence, 00:01:51.330 --> 00:01:53.690 align:middle line:96% so it remains just an opinion. 00:01:53.690 --> 00:01:58.890 align:middle line:96% Furthermore, it's not clear what exactly "big government" means. 00:01:58.890 --> 00:02:02.370 align:middle line:96% Opinions rely on assumptions—unstated 00:02:02.370 --> 00:02:05.280 align:middle line:96% and unproven beliefs—to convey their point. 00:02:05.280 --> 00:02:08.810 align:middle line:96% In this case, the statement assumes that people will know 00:02:08.810 --> 00:02:13.920 align:middle line:96% what “big government” means and agree that it is horribly inefficient. 00:02:13.920 --> 00:02:16.850 align:middle line:96% When an opinion is supported with evidence, 00:02:16.850 --> 00:02:18.630 align:middle line:96% it becomes an argument. 00:02:18.630 --> 00:02:21.350 align:middle line:96% To put it another way, an argument 00:02:21.350 --> 00:02:24.100 align:middle line:96% is a claim that is supported with evidence. 00:02:24.100 --> 00:02:26.900 align:middle line:96% We can see the difference by comparing an opinion 00:02:26.900 --> 00:02:28.100 align:middle line:96% with an argument. 00:02:28.100 --> 00:02:30.780 align:middle line:96% Let's take this example of an opinion: 00:02:30.780 --> 00:02:34.390 align:middle line:96% The New York Yankees is the best team in the history 00:02:34.390 --> 00:02:35.930 align:middle line:96% of Major League Baseball. 00:02:35.930 --> 00:02:38.480 align:middle line:96% This claim has no supporting evidence. 00:02:38.480 --> 00:02:42.080 align:middle line:96% It relies on an assumption to prove its point. 00:02:42.080 --> 00:02:45.560 align:middle line:96% However, we can convert this claim into an argument 00:02:45.560 --> 00:02:48.090 align:middle line:96% by adding some evidence to support it: 00:02:48.090 --> 00:02:50.500 align:middle line:96% The New York Yankees is the best team 00:02:50.500 --> 00:02:52.740 align:middle line:96% in the history of Major League Baseball 00:02:52.740 --> 00:02:55.040 align:middle line:96% because it has won more World Series 00:02:55.040 --> 00:02:57.220 align:middle line:96% titles than any other team. 00:02:57.220 --> 00:02:59.350 align:middle line:96% The difference between the two statements 00:02:59.350 --> 00:03:02.330 align:middle line:96% is that the first example only provides a claim, 00:03:02.330 --> 00:03:05.270 align:middle line:96% while the second example provides some evidence 00:03:05.270 --> 00:03:06.870 align:middle line:96% to support the claim. 00:03:06.870 --> 00:03:09.710 align:middle line:96% Not all arguments are created equal. 00:03:09.710 --> 00:03:12.930 align:middle line:96% Some arguments are better supported than others. 00:03:12.930 --> 00:03:16.540 align:middle line:96% When evaluating an argument, think about how compelling 00:03:16.540 --> 00:03:17.720 align:middle line:96% the evidence is. 00:03:17.720 --> 00:03:19.180 align:middle line:96% Is it relevant? 00:03:19.180 --> 00:03:20.780 align:middle line:96% Is it persuasive? 00:03:20.780 --> 00:03:22.670 align:middle line:96% Is it logical? 00:03:22.670 --> 00:03:26.510 align:middle line:96% Sometimes, an argument is poorly supported 00:03:26.510 --> 00:03:29.320 align:middle line:96% because it is based on a a logical fallacy. 00:03:29.320 --> 00:03:32.640 align:middle line:96% A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning 00:03:32.640 --> 00:03:35.310 align:middle line:96% based on poor or faulty logic. 00:03:35.310 --> 00:03:37.720 align:middle line:96% There are many types of logical fallacies. 00:03:37.720 --> 00:03:40.620 align:middle line:96% Let's go over the most common ones. 00:03:40.620 --> 00:03:44.840 align:middle line:96% The Straw Man Fallacy involves taking someone’s argument 00:03:44.840 --> 00:03:46.920 align:middle line:96% and distorting or exaggerating it, 00:03:46.920 --> 00:03:50.650 align:middle line:96% then attacking the distortion as if it were the original claim. 00:03:50.650 --> 00:03:55.480 align:middle line:96% Here's an example: Person 1: I think pollution from humans 00:03:55.480 --> 00:03:57.360 align:middle line:96% contributes to climate change. 00:03:57.360 --> 00:04:00.950 align:middle line:96% Person 2: So, you think humans are directly 00:04:00.950 --> 00:04:04.280 align:middle line:96% responsible for extreme weather, like hurricanes, 00:04:04.280 --> 00:04:07.250 align:middle line:96% and have caused the droughts in the southwestern U.S.? 00:04:07.250 --> 00:04:09.940 align:middle line:96% If that’s the case, maybe we just need to go 00:04:09.940 --> 00:04:14.390 align:middle line:96% to the southwest and perform a “rain dance.” The False Dilemma 00:04:14.390 --> 00:04:18.610 align:middle line:96% Fallacy involves presenting only two options or sides when there 00:04:18.610 --> 00:04:20.810 align:middle line:96% are many options or sides. 00:04:20.810 --> 00:04:25.530 align:middle line:96% Here’s an example: Person 1: You’re either for the war 00:04:25.530 --> 00:04:27.120 align:middle line:96% or against the troops. 00:04:27.120 --> 00:04:31.270 align:middle line:96% Person 2: Actually, I do not want our troops 00:04:31.270 --> 00:04:33.640 align:middle line:96% sent into a dangerous war. 00:04:33.640 --> 00:04:38.470 align:middle line:96% The Hasty Generalization Fallacy involves making a claim based 00:04:38.470 --> 00:04:40.790 align:middle line:96% on evidence that is too small. 00:04:40.790 --> 00:04:44.750 align:middle line:96% Here’s an example: Some teenagers in our community 00:04:44.750 --> 00:04:47.110 align:middle line:96% recently vandalized the park downtown. 00:04:47.110 --> 00:04:50.570 align:middle line:96% Teenagers are so irresponsible and destructive. 00:04:50.570 --> 00:04:55.060 align:middle line:96% The Appeal to Fear Fallacy involves appealing to people’s 00:04:55.060 --> 00:04:59.850 align:middle line:96% fears by presenting a scary future if a certain decision is made today. 00:04:59.850 --> 00:05:04.970 align:middle line:96% Here’s an example: Elizabeth Smith doesn’t understand foreign policy. 00:05:04.970 --> 00:05:07.770 align:middle line:96% If you elect Elizabeth Smith as president, 00:05:07.770 --> 00:05:10.540 align:middle line:96% we will be attacked by terrorists. 00:05:10.540 --> 00:05:14.760 align:middle line:96% Ad hominem means “against the man.” 00:05:14.760 --> 00:05:18.970 align:middle line:96% Hence, the Ad Hominem Fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person 00:05:18.970 --> 00:05:21.190 align:middle line:96% instead of his or her argument. 00:05:21.190 --> 00:05:27.950 align:middle line:96% Here’s an example: Person 1: I am for raising the minimum wage in our state. 00:05:27.950 --> 00:05:31.830 align:middle line:96% Person 2: She is for raising the minimum wage, 00:05:31.830 --> 00:05:35.040 align:middle line:96% but she is not smart enough to even run a business. 00:05:35.040 --> 00:05:37.980 align:middle line:96% The Slippery Slope Fallacy involves 00:05:37.980 --> 00:05:40.360 align:middle line:96% claiming that an action or decision will 00:05:40.360 --> 00:05:42.580 align:middle line:96% lead to other terrible events that build up 00:05:42.580 --> 00:05:44.550 align:middle line:96% to an awful conclusion. 00:05:44.550 --> 00:05:49.000 align:middle line:96% Here’s an example: If we enact any kind of gun control laws, 00:05:49.000 --> 00:05:52.880 align:middle line:96% the next thing you know, we won't be allowed to have any guns at all. 00:05:52.880 --> 00:05:55.910 align:middle line:96% When that happens, we won’t be able to defend ourselves 00:05:55.910 --> 00:05:59.600 align:middle line:96% against terrorist attacks, and when that happens terrorists 00:05:59.600 --> 00:06:01.520 align:middle line:96% will take over our country. 00:06:01.520 --> 00:06:04.310 align:middle line:96% Therefore, gun control laws will cause 00:06:04.310 --> 00:06:06.980 align:middle line:96% us to lose our country to terrorists. 00:06:06.980 --> 00:06:10.540 align:middle line:96% The Bandwagon Fallacy involves convincing people 00:06:10.540 --> 00:06:14.250 align:middle line:96% to do or think something because everyone else does. 00:06:14.250 --> 00:06:18.310 align:middle line:96% Here’s an example: Everyone is going to get the new smart 00:06:18.310 --> 00:06:20.300 align:middle line:96% phone when it comes out this weekend. 00:06:20.300 --> 00:06:22.220 align:middle line:96% Why aren’t you? 00:06:22.220 --> 00:06:27.490 align:middle line:96% The Guilt by Association Fallacy involves connecting an opponent 00:06:27.490 --> 00:06:29.930 align:middle line:96% to a demonized group or bad person 00:06:29.930 --> 00:06:33.020 align:middle line:96% in order to discredit his or her argument. 00:06:33.020 --> 00:06:37.000 align:middle line:96% Here’s an example: We cannot have the educational reform 00:06:37.000 --> 00:06:39.350 align:middle line:96% that my opponent calls for because 00:06:39.350 --> 00:06:43.980 align:middle line:96% Dr. Crazy has also mentioned this kind of educational reform. 00:06:45.280 --> 00:06:49.990 align:middle line:96% Visit the Online Writing Lab for more information about logical fallacies. 00:06:51.760 --> 00:06:55.430 align:middle line:96% Analyzing a text can be difficult. However, 00:06:55.430 --> 00:06:58.810 align:middle line:96% by applying the information on how to evaluate an argument 00:06:58.810 --> 00:07:01.780 align:middle line:96% shared in this video, you’ll be able to tell the difference 00:07:01.780 --> 00:07:05.490 align:middle line:96% between a strong argument and a weak or flawed one. 00:07:05.490 --> 00:07:08.920 align:middle line:96% Remember to visit the Online Reading Comprehension Lab 00:07:08.920 --> 00:07:11.680 align:middle line:96% of the Excelsior College Online Writing Lab 00:07:11.680 --> 00:07:13.770 align:middle line:96% for additional videos and resources 00:07:13.770 --> 00:07:16.000 align:middle line:96% on how to analyze a text. 00:07:19.070 --> 00:07:21.150 align:middle line:96% Thanks for listening to this instructional video 00:07:21.150 --> 00:07:23.160 align:middle line:96% on Evaluating an Argument! 00:07:23.160 --> 00:07:26.000 align:middle line:96% Visit the Excelsior College Online Writing Lab 00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:30.140 align:middle line:96% for more support with reading and writing skills.