Anatomy Of Refutation
Remember, all of your opponent's arguments can be shown to be defective.
Argument to be refuted
A: inconsistent with objective facts B: internally self-contradictory
C: false reason or premise D: false implications or results
E: false (1) fact (2) logic F: conclusion does not follow
Every argument consists of a major point or conclusion supported by premises or reasons that allegedly provide evidence for the conclusion.
When attacking an argument, we are claiming one of two things, or perhaps both: An argument is defective (1) when the evidence contradicts the conclusion, or (2) when the evidence is simply false or inadequate.
B: An argument is internally self-contradictory either when one of the premises contradicts the conclusion or when the premises contradict each other.
A: An argument may be inconsistent with objective fact when either the premises or reasons appealed to are simply false.
C: , or the implications or results of the conclusion would be considered false D.
C: Reasons or premises are false or unacceptable either when the conclusion does not follow F, or when we can simply show the premises to be false E. In the case of F we say the argument is a non sequitur. This differs from the case of B because in B we have a contradiction, whereas in the case of F there is no connection at all.
E: A reason or premise can be seen to be false in either a direct or indirect way. In a direct way. A reason or premise may be shown to be false indirectly in a number of ways.
The first way of attacking this premise is to (1) add another premise that is known to be true, and (2) then derive a false conclusion.
The second way of attacking this premise is to derive another conclusion that would be inconsistent with the given conclusion or some other conclusion that your opponent may draw.
F: A third general method of attacking this premise is to show that it is a generalization with known exceptions, hence it is unacceptable.
In general, assumptions can be attacked in one of three ways: either the assumptions (1) overlook, (2) evade, or (3) distort certain facts.
We overlook facts when we fail to note that there are exceptions to certain rules; when we use one rule in a situation in which another rule is more applicable; when we engage in sweeping generalizations (and claim that what is true in some cases is true in all cases, or when we make hasty generalizations (insufficient basis for a generalization): when we insufficiently bifurcate defined: to divide or fork into two branches an issue. In the case of the latter we set up alternatives that might not be exclusive.
We evade facts in our assumptions when we beg the question (i.e., reasserting our original position instead of supplying additional support), when we engage in special pleading, or when we are guilty of the fallacy of the complex question (i.e., argue a different issue).
We distort facts in our assumptions when we use false and misleading analogies ("register all matches and prevent forest fires"), when we identify false causes.
Argument to be refuted
A: inconsistent with objective facts B: internally self-contradictory
C: false reason or premise D: false implications or results
E: false (1) fact (2) logic F: conclusion does not follow
Every argument consists of a major point or conclusion supported by premises or reasons that allegedly provide evidence for the conclusion.
When attacking an argument, we are claiming one of two things, or perhaps both: An argument is defective (1) when the evidence contradicts the conclusion, or (2) when the evidence is simply false or inadequate.
B: An argument is internally self-contradictory either when one of the premises contradicts the conclusion or when the premises contradict each other.
A: An argument may be inconsistent with objective fact when either the premises or reasons appealed to are simply false.
C: , or the implications or results of the conclusion would be considered false D.
C: Reasons or premises are false or unacceptable either when the conclusion does not follow F, or when we can simply show the premises to be false E. In the case of F we say the argument is a non sequitur. This differs from the case of B because in B we have a contradiction, whereas in the case of F there is no connection at all.
E: A reason or premise can be seen to be false in either a direct or indirect way. In a direct way. A reason or premise may be shown to be false indirectly in a number of ways.
The first way of attacking this premise is to (1) add another premise that is known to be true, and (2) then derive a false conclusion.
The second way of attacking this premise is to derive another conclusion that would be inconsistent with the given conclusion or some other conclusion that your opponent may draw.
F: A third general method of attacking this premise is to show that it is a generalization with known exceptions, hence it is unacceptable.
In general, assumptions can be attacked in one of three ways: either the assumptions (1) overlook, (2) evade, or (3) distort certain facts.
We overlook facts when we fail to note that there are exceptions to certain rules; when we use one rule in a situation in which another rule is more applicable; when we engage in sweeping generalizations (and claim that what is true in some cases is true in all cases, or when we make hasty generalizations (insufficient basis for a generalization): when we insufficiently bifurcate defined: to divide or fork into two branches an issue. In the case of the latter we set up alternatives that might not be exclusive.
We evade facts in our assumptions when we beg the question (i.e., reasserting our original position instead of supplying additional support), when we engage in special pleading, or when we are guilty of the fallacy of the complex question (i.e., argue a different issue).
We distort facts in our assumptions when we use false and misleading analogies ("register all matches and prevent forest fires"), when we identify false causes.
Comments