CrItical Thinking - Article Example

Emirates_____ Aviation College Aerospace and Academic Studies Madiha Tahira Ehsanullah ID: 200722007 Year & Semester: 4th Year,1st Semester Instructor: Mrs. Joan Macleod Course: Critical Thinking, Critical Analysis of an Audio Piece Title: Deceptive Reasoning in Politics Word count: 1,406 Date: 1st June 2012 Table of Contents 1 Argument ……………………………………………………………………………….. 3 2 Definitions ……………………………………………………………………………… 4 3 Arguers …………………………………………………………………………………. 5 4 Study of Arguments ……………………………………………………………………. 6 5 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………… 9 Reference …………………………………………………………………………………. 10 Argument__________________________________________________ “Deceptive Reasoning in Politics” Conclusion: The author has proposed the idea that the interviewee failed to clearly answer the questions addressed to him by the interviewer. Premises: The following premises further tries to prove the conclusion: The attitude and perception of the Irish people on war in Iraq The journalist’s own points of view regarding invasion of Iraq The president’s move to send soldiers to Iraq The death toll and consequences of the coalition sent to Iraq The argument and logical devices used by the president as attempt to answer questions Author’s perspective: How the interviewee vaguely responded to the questions imposed on him Opposing perspective: How the interviewer failed to exhibit professional conduct by constantly cutting across the interviewee’s attempts on answering Definitions__________________________________________________________________ The interviewer referred to in this article is the journalist Carole Coleman. The interviewee is President George W. Bush. Use of the term “fallacies” refers to the methods of arguments utilized by the interviewee as enumerated by McGill (2010) in his article “We are unaware of how much our brain messes up the most basic of arguments, leading to the mess of random thoughts, non-sequiturs, cognitive dissonance, white lies, misinformation, and syntax errors that we call consciousness…(here are) some of the most prevalent fallacies...as they appear in modern American politics.” In general, the tem fallacy may refer to misrepresentation of the truth and display of an erroneous character. For this article, however, it was emphasized that the use of such term covers the utilization of the deception for the arguments. The skill of deceiving and dodging the question by presenting such political logic tricks. Arguers_____________________________________________________________________ The Interviewer Carole Coleman is an Irish journalist working for Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ). She worked as Education and Environment Correspondent for five years before becoming Washington Correspondent in 2001. In 2004, she received ESB Political Journalist of the Year award in Ireland. She received much world attention in 2005 when she allegedly exhibited false modesty through constant interruptions to then President Bush’s responses to her questions. When asked about her so-called ‘disrespectful’ (while others regard as courageous) interruptions to the president’s answers, Coleman said that she “was afraid his stock answers would eat up all time she had for interview.” The Interviewee George W. Bush is the 43rd president of United States. He sworn in as president in 2001 and ended his term in 2009. He was the president when the 9/11 bombings happened. It was after this event, that he called in and began to start the war against terrorism. With the help of other countries who signed in as the “coalition”, they sent troops to Afghanistan, later on in Iraq to go on a “preventive war”, claiming that terrorists Al-Qaeda group have access to weapons of mass destruction. The Criticizer Being taught to think critically, the author’s main purpose of writing this article is to analyze the way in which the interviewee responded to the questions through the use of various types of fallacies, rhetorical devices and arguments. Study of Arguments________________________________________________________ Group thinking fallacy (Nationalism) It can also be classified under Ignoratio Elenchi which translates as ‘irrelevant thesis’. The group thinking fallacy (Nationalism) is used to reject, condemn, or silence criticism on one’s country. Instead of answering the question of what he thinks about the protests of the Irish community on his arrival, the interviewee attempted to answer by describing their country and what they do. It can be considered irrelevant to the question posed. “We’re a compassionate country, we’re a strong country. We’ll defend ourselves, but we help people. We’ve helped the Irish and we’ll continue to do so, a good relationship with Ireland.” Red Herring fallacy This is repeatedly used by the interviewee in answering most of the questions addressed on him. When asked about the war on Iraq, he overlooked the issue and points the attention on Abu Gharib prison scandal. Argumentum ad hominum The interviewer asked him about his view on the continuing death toll and the interviewee answered by pointing out the deeds of Saddam Hussein when as a leader. Instead of addressing the issue of death toll, the interviewee attacked the other party’s doing mentioning seven Iraq torture victims. Argumentum ad metum The interviewee used the ‘scare tactic’ pointing to people’s fear. He emphasized that Saddam Hussein “was a brutal dictator that had destroyed lives and put them in mass graves and torture rooms.” Slippery Slope fallacy When asked if they had found what they claim to be weapons of mass destruction, the interviewee responded by emphasizing the following points: (a) that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction; (b) that Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction which he used against his people; and that the (c) world is far better off without Hussein. All these statements fell under slippery slope fallacy wherein, he warranted that the existence of such conditions ultimately lead to the possession of weapons of mass destruction. In another question, this was also used by the interviewee when he stated that “a free Iraq is necessary for a better world.” The interviewee also appealed to an emotive content by saying that “nobody cares about their (the soldiers’) death more than I do.” Smokescreen fallacy The interviewer pointed out the inflation of terrorist attacks since the invasion of Iraq but the interviewee introduced the topic of 9/11 terrorist bombing. Argumentum ad nauseam This is a fallacy utilized by politicians repeatedly in every speech they make. In the interview, the president repeats his point of the world being a better place because of his decisions and actions. Poisoning the well The interviewee draws attention to France when asked about the support of European countries on the act of invading Iraq. He considered ‘poisoning the well’ by stating that France first agreed to the UN’s diplomatic plead to Iraq to surrender arms but then France did not keep up with the consequence of the said plea. He concluded it by using the apple polishing fallacy, claiming that France’s president would agree to a free and democratic Iraq. Conclusion_________________________________________________________________ The interview caught the attention of people. Political views were divided. The interviewer, being a journalist, astoundingly expressed her opinions and tried to get to the exact point by interrupting some moments while the interviewee is answering. The interviewee, being the president of the United States, failed to give direct answers when asked about the war in Iraq. Some call the interviewee’s behavior as a courageous act, while others see it as a disrespectful manner. Critics in favor of President Bush claim that the interviewer failed to exhibit professional objectivity and balance due to her occasional interruptions while the president is answering. The conduct of the interview, according to them, implied the journalist’s own prejudices about the war. On a careful analysis of the interview, one can find the logical fallacies and arguments utilized by the president. He indirectly answered most of the questions. There were attempts of making the answer sound factual by citing events, however, they cannot be considered as direct answers to the addressed question. Time can be considered an indispensable factor in the outcome of the interview. If only the interviewer was given an ample amount of time, she cannot argue that the reason for her constant interruptions was to make the interviewee get to the exact point of her questions. On the other hand, being a politician, there is not much time that would suffice for the interviewee to explain where his answers were leading to. Nevertheless, because the interviewee was briefed beforehand of the questions to be raised, he should have prepared direct and concise responses. References__________________________________________________ Coleman, C. (2005) Ireland: I wanted to slap him [Internet], The Sunday Times. Available from: [Accessed 31 May 2012] Magill, E. (2010) Top 10 logical fallacies in politics [Internet], The Unapologetic Geek. Available from: [Accessed 31 May 2012] Read More