Ignorance of Authority

In 1949, in the state of Illinois, there was a bill proposed called "An Act to Provide Protection to Insectivorous Birds by Restraining Cats", or for short, the "Cat Bill". The article I read was the veto statement made by the governor, Adlai Stevenson. There are many fallacies he uses when he addresses his stand he took regarding the bill. However, there are three that are the most noticeable.

Stevenson begins by stating all of the reasons why he denied the bill. Right off the bat, he starts to become very ignorant. He is allotted to have his own opinions, especially because of the position that he holds. However, he takes his side and pushes it on the reader as if there is no way anyone could feel differently than he does. He does give reasons for why he thought the proposal was not significant, but the way he writes makes it appear that he is saying, 'this law is completely ridiculous and should not have been considered at all'. This can be shown by his statement, "Whatever the reasons for passage at this session, I cannot believe there is a widespread public demand for this law or that it could, as a practical matter, be enforced." (par.3) His complete disbelief and ignorance is quite insulting, as there are obviously people who take the issue seriously. He uses his authority and an 'appeal to ignorance' to try to persuade the reader his opinion is right.

Another fallacy that is found is 'stacking the deck'. Stevenson only presents his side of the argument. He thinks that no one would doubt his statements, no matter how irrational, due to his authoritative position. However, in reality, reading his reasons created negative ethos for himself. As a leader and a governor, one expects him to be rational and to equally present both sides of the argument, regardless of his stand on it. He leaves out anything about why the supporters of the proposal felt the way they did. He ignores their opinions and arguments because they do not support his own.

The last fallacy is that of the 'slippery slope'. In the veto he says, "If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. " (par.5) He tries to make the reader feel that the proposed bill is incompetent because it will just cause more problems.

Stevenson tries to use logical fallacies to persuade the reader that his points are the most valid. However, they work against him and make him look rude and completely biased.

Cats or Birds?

What has more priority- a cat or a bird? In 1949, the governor of Illinois, Adlai E. Stevenson, wrote the “Cat Bill” veto, addressing “An Act to Provide Protection to Insectivorous Birds by Restraining Cats”. In this, Stevenson makes his stance on the matter, and in doing so he creates numerous logical fallacies. Those which predominantly appear are “slippery slope”, the “appeal to tradition”, “stacking the deck”, and “false dilemma”.

In his declaration, Stevenson overreacts, or makes the issue larger than it needs to be. He comments, saying that if you try to restrict cats from attacking birds, many negative repercussions will come from it. He says, “It would impose fines on owners or keepers who permitted their cats to run at large off their premises. It would permit any person to capture or call upon the police to pick up and imprison cats at large. It would permit the use of traps” (par.3). From this statement, he argues that by restraining cats, all these events are inevitable. The state will become chaotic because cats will be running around all the time and the police will have to use their time trying to capture cats when they have other important matters to be taking care of. This is an extreme statement, because most likely, cats will go on as they always have, without trouble. People will not always have to call the police or use traps to imprison cats. Stevenson makes the situation sound worse than it needs to be. Therefore, he uses the slippery slope fallacy to support his argument.

Being that this veto was in the year 1949, the people were not used to change. They were old-fashioned and followed the traditions of their parents. Therefore, Stevenson makes the fallacy of appealing to tradition. This is apparent when he states, “The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm” (par.6). He undermines the issue at hand, because he sees no relevance. He thinks that just because cats have always killed birds, that the issue can be passed by. Therefore, he is unable to look past the norms of society, and appeals to tradition, creating another fallacy.

Stevenson deliberately ignores the concerns of those who want to save the birds. He ignores their arguments and brushes them by. He does not see the legitimacy of the issue, which is shown clearly when he states, “I cannot believe there is a widespread public demand for this law” (par.4). But to make himself look correct, he uses the fallacy of “stacking the deck”. This is when somebody ignores the evidence or argument that doesn’t support his decision. This is clear because he makes the situation look less important than it is when he states that he doesn’t see any “demand for [the] law”. He does not address the points they had discussed. He only points out that “this Bill could only create discord, recrimination and enmity” (par.5). Therefore, by “stacking the deck” and only showing his opinion on the matter, he creates a logical fallacy.

Finally, Stevenson uses the “false dilemma” approach. This means that he only sees, or only presents two situations. Either he does not pass the law and birds are in more trouble, or he passes the law and then the state becomes more hectic. He has this mentality and therefore says “not because I love birds the less or cats the more, I veto and withhold my approval from Senate Bill No. 93” (par.7). He feels the need to add this information, stating that he is not biased. But perhaps, if he had thought more or considered the matter more, he would have realized that this issue could be more than just passing or not passing the law.

Stevenson, although not meaning to, created many logical fallacies in his argument. These were very apparent as he presented only his opinion, overreacted, and was not open to new ideas. If he had addressed more of the concerns of the people and had been more open-minded, these fallacies would have eliminated themselves on their own. Therefore, in order to make an argument ethical and logical, one must point out all sides of an argument and try to avoid any fallacies. By doing this, one becomes more credible and the argument becomes more reliable.

Touching Lives

A wonderful man who made a difference in the world is Martin Luther King, Jr. His famous speech “I have a dream” is widely known and referred to frequently. Before August 28, 1963, the date of his speech, the United States was greatly segregated. Black people were not treated equally, and white people were seen as better people who deserved everything. The country was racist. Something had to be done and King was the one to do it. He was courageous and bold and stood up for what he believed in. The most effective tactic he used during that speech was the audience he spoke to. With the correct audience, nearly anything can be achieved.

Martin Luther King, Jr. knew his audience. He knew who he was addressing and how to speak to them. On that day in August, over 200,000 civil rights supporters gathered to hear his message and act accordingly. The people in attendance, predominantly black, came because they were passionate about freedom and equal rights. Any speaker or author, like King, needs to recognize the beliefs of their audience, because this is the key in gaining their support and word. Martin states, “the Negro still is not free…the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination…the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity...the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition” (par.3). With this, he stirs the emotions of people, using pathos, and creates an image for all to recognize and relate to. Martin Luther King knew his audience and what they had been through.

Another important factor in touching those you are speaking to is by relating to them and understanding their circumstances. King knew exactly what the people were challenged with because he faced the same problem. He understood the feeling of segregation and being hated just because of the color of your skin. He could empathize with the people. Therefore, his argument becomes even more effective.

The crowd was filled with those who could relate, mainly black people, but white people still were in attendance, as many supported his beliefs as well. King showed his respect for all people. He reiterates “that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’” (par.4). King relates black men to white men, proving that all are equal and are granted the same freedoms. He also shows that respect should be given, even to those who have not shown mercy on black men. He says, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence” (par.8). King exemplifies to the people that although times have been hard, all must act with poise and rationally. He knows how the people must feel and their animosity towards those repressing them, but he speaks calmly, explaining that irrational judgment is not going to bring about anything good. King knows what the people are thinking, and therefore is able to alleviate their concerns.

Lastly, the people needed a leader with confidence. They have gone through horrible times; times of slavery and unjust punishments. Martin Luther King exemplified a fearless leader who stood up for his beliefs. He truly expresses his love for the people as he proclaims, “when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last” (par. 32)!
Martin Luther King, Jr. made a difference in the world because he stood up for what he wanted and was able to touch the lives of many. He knew his audience and addressed them in the appropriate manner, which he knew would be most effective.

Smoking Effects

The legitimacy of an argument can be formulated by the author’s credibility, their ability to appeal to their reader’s emotions, and by using logic. This type of appeal is called Logos. Paul Paryski, author of “The Negative Effects of Smoking on Bones, Joints and Healing” analyzes a subject which has not been touched thoroughly. He discusses the negative effects of smoking and how they affect our bones and joints and the healing process. In this article, Paryski uses logos to enhance his argument in showing the effects of smoking by using relevant facts and evidence which many believe to be acceptable.

The world has already familiarized itself with the knowledge that smoking has harmful effects to oneself and those around you. There are many studies and records proving that smoking leads to lung cancer and respiratory problems, yet, people continue to smoke. Two scientists have recently looked farther into the effects of smoking on their body. Paryski refers to these scientist’s conclusions, enhancing his credibility and ethos which in turn increases his logos because readers can trust his argument and become more convinced. Based off 82 studies, these scientists concluded that “healing is affected by smoking. [An] adequate degree of oxygenation is necessary to form mature collagen, which closes wounds...[and] smoking reduces the blood flow and the amount of available oxygen in the tissues under the skin” (par.5). Therefore, they are stating that when somebody smokes, they lose oxygen, affecting the ability to heal the body. Clearly, these facts and conclusions are logical. Readers have a strong reason to believe that smoking effects healing, therefore, his argument and use of logos becomes more acceptable.

One conclusion that Paryski addresses from the scientist’s discoveries is the greater effect of smoking on older people. Logically, this makes sense. Older people’s ability to recover from mishap and harm is significantly weaker than a strong adolescent. This is common knowledge and is an accepted part of life. Because their studies have shown how smoking creates problems for healing, the elderly will have an even harder time just due to what their body is capable of doing. Common knowledge enhances a logical argument because the reader can agree with what the author has to say. Therefore, the logos in this article increases.

Evidence is important in persuading an audience of the reader’s argument. In Paryski’s article he states that “smoking decreases the amount of oxygen available for the brain and the body tissues, including those of the musculoskeletal system. Analysis of the studies showed that the related adverse effects are: decreased bone density, lumbar disk problems, higher risk of sustaining hip and wrist fractures, a high risk of failure of bone fusion in fractures and grafts, low back pain, decreased wound healing ability, increase risk of postoperative infection” (par.9). These conclusions were based from studies whose purpose was to try and understand more effects of smoking than just the respiratory system. This conclusion and evidence allows readers to believe Paryski in his argument that there are effects of smoking on bones, joints, and healing.

One other inference readers can make from this article is that the study of smoking effects on bones, joints, and healing is very recent. This increases the ethos of Paryski’s article because readers can recognize that not much research has been done and there will be more to come in the future. Logos, or the use of logic, allows this article to be understandable and relatable.

Negative Effects of Divorce

One very effective way of persuading an audience comes from when you appeal to their emotions. Pathos stirs up the emotions in people. Karl Zinsmeister effectively stirs people’s emotions, feelings, and opinions on divorce and the negative effects on children in his article, “Divorce’s Toll on Children”. He “argues that divorce causes damage from which children never recover and that the conflict within a marriage will not cause the same amount of problems for children that the breakup of a marriage creates”. Zinsmeister effectively reaches the emotions of people by concrete examples or fact, word choice, and appealing to the emotion of fear in the readers.

His first appeal to readers is the facts, statistics, and examples. He begins stating that “since 1972, more than a million youngsters have been invoked in a divorce each year” (par.1) and that “around half of today’s children will go through a marital rupture” (par.2). These facts are blunt and overwhelming. Those reading this article will automatically recognize the enormity of divorce and how many children are affected. Zinsmeister then adds that “overall, only about one youngster in five is able to maintain a close relationship with both parents” (par.3). Facts, whether they are correct, have the power to be mind-blowing. So is the case with these facts. Readers are hit with how many children are truly affected in the world by divorce and begin understanding why Zinsmeister “argues that divorce causes damage”. Long-term studies show that “two-thirds of all the children showed symptoms of stress, and half thought their life had been destroyed by the divorce. Five years down the road, over a third were still seriously disturbed, and another third were having psychological difficulties” (par.21). These facts bring fear into the hearts of those that are reading this article. They may have recognized that children are affected by divorce, but these facts reinstate their concerns. Zinsmeister uses these facts to persuade people to believe that divorce negatively affects children.

Another successful tactic Zinsmeister uses is his word choice. Words contain much weight and portray various meanings. One must choose their words very carefully in order to persuade the audience in their favor. Karl’s argument statement uses the phrase “children will never recover”. The word “never” creates a negative connotation and makes readers feel hopeless and fearful. They believe anybody with children who files for divorce has sentenced their child to a life of misery. Does divorce have an effect on children? Many studies have proven that there are many effects. Will children never recover? This statement is quite bold, especially because all children react differently in situations. Nevertheless, people will believe him when he says that they will never recover. Another word he uses frequently is “youngsters”. This word creates an innocent impression on children, and allows readers to assume that children cannot overcome divorce due to their naivety. It adds to his argument that divorce creates damage on children which they will never get over. Readers then begin to believe and support her argument.

Finally, Zinsmeister effectively appeals to the emotion of fear. The people who read his article already are concerned or are looking for a reason to believe that divorce has a negative effect on children. By the facts and examples he uses, plus her word choice, the readers become scared of divorce and think negatively towards anybody who has done that to their children. Therefore, Zinsmeister stirs up the emotions of people, enhancing his argument with pathos and speaking to people’s feelings.

Smoking is Silly

Paul Paryski's article called “The Negative Effects of Smoking on Bones, Joints, and Healing” begins with a question. Paryski asks, “can smoking affect surgery, bone health and healing?” and the answer, according to 44 studies, is yes (caption). Instead of just saying that smoking is bad or that it causes cancer, the article discusses some specific ways smoking causes harm. The logic Paryski presents clearly shows the negative effects that smoking has on the human body. He uses a rational argument to convince the reader that smoking affects bone health, healing, “is the leading avoidable cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States”, and harms the musculoskeletal system (par. 2). By the end of the article, the reader realizes that it's illogical and irrational to smoke. In short, smoking is a dumb idea.

Paryski begins the paper with a strong statement that introduces the illogicality of smoking when he says, “there are roughly 50 million smokers in the United States in spite of a great deal of publicity about the negative effects of smoking on health (par. 1). He makes the reader wonder why so many people still smoke even though everyone knows it is such a harmful activity. Then he points out that “there is growing and conclusive evidence that smoking is the leading avoidable cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States” (par. 2).

In the next paragraph, Paryski begins to explain the afore mentioned negative effects, specifically the effects on the musculoskeletal system. He says that “healing is affected by smoking, since an adequate degree of oxygenation is necessary to form mature collagen, which closes wounds” (par. 5). By using the specific terms and an explanation of how healing is affected by smoking, Paryski shows the particular medical effects of smoking. Instead of just using a general statement like “smoking is bad for you” he explains a specific reason why it is bad.

As he discusses the effects on healing, Paryski is building a relationship with readers who are about to undergo the healing process. Not only will smoking kill you, but it will happen sooner than you think. People will go into surgery for something completely unrelated but will be unable to heal because of their smoking addiction. Obviously the rational thing to do is to quit smoking.

As Hailey said, Paryski “gives facts and statistics to support the argument. The author also cites a credible and authoritative source (a book written by and orthopedic surgeon) to back up his facts.” By using the specific examples of the effects on the muscoloskeletal system and how it affects the healing process, Paryski appeals to the rational thinking of his readers. The logic he employs, could convince anyone that smoking is bad and that he or she should quit immediately.

Smoker's Bones

In American culture, phrases such as "smoker's lung" are commonplace, illustrating our society's shared knowledge that smoking is harmful, especially to the human respiratory system. Other effects, including harm to the musculoskeletal system, are not as well known to the general public as a result of limited research on the topic. In his article, "The Negative Effects of Smoking on Bones, Joints and Healing," Paul Paryski examines research on smoking and orthopaedic health in order to educate consumers on the additional dangers of smoking; however, Paryski, although making a compelling argument, could strengthen his logical appeal to better persuade his audience.

Supporting the general belief that smoking is a deadly habit, the evidence provided by Paryski is not necessarily completely relevant to the topic of bone and joint health. Granted, depending on the characteristics and intelligence level of his audience, Paryski's outline of smoking's dangers may be adequate; however, his article is extremely general. Because his article is mainly a summary rather than the documented proceedings of a scientific experiment, it is broad in nature, addressing many negative aspects of smoking. Smoking's negative effect on the lungs, a relatively well known phenomenon, is restated throughout the article, especially in the eighth paragraph in which the many toxic chemicals produced by smoking are enumerated. Although these toxic chemicals are related to overall decline in bone and joint health, the specific manner in which they effect the musculoskeltal system is not described. Providing greater evidence of smoking's negative effect on bone and joint health, especially information that is not overly technical or scientific in understanding, would add greater relevance to Paryski's article.

Added descriptions and specific examples would also give Paryski's article increased acceptibility by his audience. Although he briefly describes a study to show the correlation between smoking and the reduction of blood flow to tissue, as well as an additional study reporting the observed differences between the bone density of smokers and nonsmokers, Paryski's article may not be compelling to all members of his audience (par. 5, 10). Describing these studies more in depth would help readers to better understand why smoking is harmful to bones, joints, and healing, allowing them to decide whether they believe these facts are true, rather than forcing them to blindly swallow the truth. Understanding increases acceptability; the same is true for Paryski's article.

Although providing general evidence that smoking is harmful to health, especially to the bones and joints, Paryski does not take into consideration other, potential causes for bad bone health. Smoking is known to be a deadly habit; however, healthcare professionals have never been able to actually test this hypothesis without being unethical. For smoking's negative effects on bone health to be validated, scientists would have to divide experimental subjects into two groups of individuals at similar levels of bone health, give one group cigarettes, and then compare the relative levels of each groups' bone health at the end of a specified amount of time. Because research of this type is highly questionable, it is impossible for researchers to know whether smoking truly affects the musculoskeletal system. Although there is a high correlation between bad bones and smoking as seen in the list of "related adverse effects," including "decreased bone density, lumbar disk problems, etc." there is the possibility that other health behaviors or predispositions could contribute to weakened bones (par. 9). Though a brief overview of smoking's negative effects on bone health, Paryski's article, although giving the most likely cause for weakened bones, fails to account for other explanations.

In Paryski's defence, because his article is written for an audience of "non healthcare professionals," his use of logos, a logical appeal of rhetoric, is more than likely adequate in persuading his audience that smoking is dangerous to bone health. These suggestions, although extremely analytical in nature, however, could strengthen the article's appeal to consumers, especially those asking the questions, "Why?" and "So what?" With added relevance, acceptability, and accountability, Paryski's article will gain persuasive power in further convincing consumers, especially those with "smoker's bones," that smoking is indeed harmful.

Paryski, Paul. "The Negative Effects of Smoking on Bones, Joints and Healing." Health and Age.com. N.p, 18 June 2009.Web. 25 September 2009.