Bringing Down the Argument

“In order to determine whether this argument from a reason is accurate or convincing, the middle premise must be articulated; once it is articulated, a rhetor who wants to be convincing can determine whether or now it can or needs to be supported by evidence. Such an examination in this case shows that at least a few examples should be assembled in order to shore up both the major and minor premise.” (167) The text uses several examples of this, such as “secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer” (166) and “Racist slurs directed against innocent people are offensive and ought to be punished.”
There are different flaws in each enthymeme’s, so I will take them one at a time. In the first, the major premise is sound. Based on the scientific evidence we have, secondhand smoke could cause lung cancer. The minor premise, “Because people are allowed to smoke in our workplace, secondhand smoke is present there.” (166) The term workplace here is at issue, because most workplaces banned smoking in workspaces long ago. As a result, is this minor premise defining the workplace as outside or in designated smoking areas as well as the office? If this is indeed the case, who could the secondhand smoke hurt? If the complaint is about the secondhand smoke outdoors, it is almost moos. As a former smoker, I see both sides of this issue, but I am aware that unless people outdoors are blowing the smoke almost into your mouth, there is very little risk of inhaling secondhand smoke.
If the complaint relates to designated smoking areas, the only people venturing into said areas are smokers, who really couldn’t complain about the dangers of secondhand smoke themselves without being more than a little hypocritical. One could make the argument that a non-smoking employee might feel the need to go into one of these areas to ask a question, make a request or any other business-related behavior, but all such an individual need do to keep themselves from being at risk of secondhand smoke is not to do so. Smoke breaks last a maximum (in most workplaces) of fifteen minutes, and if that is too long to wait, there are always cell phones people can be reached on.
The other possibility is that this workplace actually does allow smoking in the office, in which case the argument is either (for the most part) valid or a relic, an argument that no longer has any bearing on present-day circumstances. In any event, we can see how the facts that are left unstated, regardless of the strength of the deductive reasoning used, can unravel even the simplest of arguments.
Example #2 has issues before we can even reach the minor premise. Most people would consider racist slurs offensive, but this would likely depend on what sort of racism was being practiced and who it was practiced against. The minor premise states that a greek organization (we would be led to believe a fraternity, but since it is not clearly stated, we cannot be certain) shouted racial epithets at people passing by. Not only does the premise fail to define who was passing by (the phrasing would likely have differed if there was, say, an NAACP rally walking through campus as opposed to white students only, let alone a mix of ethnicities), but the term “racial epithets” is misleading. On the surface, it would seem to be your standard racial slurs (gook, wetback, etc), but consider society’s views of what is racist and what is not has changed vastly in the last half-century. In the early 1960s you still had firehoses being used on blacks in the south and schools had not even fully been integrated yet. Whereas a few years ago Don Imus was fired for using a “racial epithet” (“nappy-headed hoe”, specifically) on the air. Keep in mind that the FCC is not concerned, for the most part, with hate speech. Theoretically, a host could go on air and drop the N-bomb and not be fined by the FCC. What regulates such content today are the corporate conglomerates that own the vast majority of mass media outlets in this country. So fifty years ago, businesses reserved (and invoked) the right to reserve service to anyone (again, especially in the south), but today, a throwaway comment like Imus’ cost a man his job thanks to that very same business culture – “don’t upset the status quo.”
Tangent aside, the definition of “racial epithets” is vague at best, based on the changes that have taken place in our culture. The other line worth examining in the major premise relates to the punishment it advocates. Racist speech (which, keep in mind, is not offensive to 100% of the population) is largely looked down upon, but what is the punishment prescribed by this major premise? Even in the specific areas of the argument, the greek organization in question simply “ought to be punished.” What does that mean, exactly? Should they lose their charter? Be subject to a fine? Go through mandatory sensitivity training? Be expelled? Put on trial for a hate crime?
One would think some of these options are more realistic/appropriate than others, but as illustrated in the Imus example, one can never be too sure in today’s world. What is appropriate to some may not be to others, and that goes for punishment as well as the offense it relates too. Since the major premise (or the argument itself) refrains from stating what the punishment for this organization should be, how can we know whether to agree or disagree?
Arguments like the ones I have made examples of here are ones that tug at quick, visceral heart strings. In today’s world, smoking and racism are both terrible things. Think back even further than the 1960s, however, when doctors (yes, doctors!) were endorsing certain brands of cigarettes and tobacco products. I’d extend my previous history example to the racial issue, but I don’t feel that’s necessary, given the oppressive history of our country in regards to race.
Things change. Culture changes. People change. In the cases listed here, too much is left unsaid to make valid judgments on the arguments in question.
Don’t limit your analysis merely to the examples in this text, however. Turn on your radio or television and you’ll see the same things. Vague, loosely-connected statements designed to make you think a specific product or company will save you money or improve your life.
Logical proofs and thought-processes are one of the best things to have evolved in our brains. Used incorrectly, though, they can be incredibly deceptive. Appearances are not everything. Before you buy into any given argument, first tear down its walls.
Once you do, don’t be surprised if the wiring isn’t connected well, if it is at all.