CONCEALED CLAIMS

Arguments disguising as claims are called concealed claim. The intention the concealed claim
is to sway attitudes without going over the border. I am sure we all had someone try to
convince us of something by merely their choice of words and not their valid arguments. For
example, someone tries to not even a reason to argue by making a definition that should be
the conclusion. To simply put it, if a person defines euthanasia to mean legalized murder,
it is impossible to debate the question if a terminally ill patients who requests for assisted
suicide is given his wish, is it still considered murder as the patient itself who wanted to die.
There are several manner people can conceal claims through rhetoric. Any literary device that
attempts to convince by using words that conceal a dubious claims are known as slanters. It
should be known that there is a persuasion to assume a claim without reflecting its
truthfulness. Here are some slanters commonly used :
1. EUPHEMISM:

It a term used when a neutral or positive expression is used to replace more negative

one.
Example: Changing the name of the US Department of War to the US Department of
Defence. Changing the word have a more positive impact even though basically they
carry out same sort of operations.

2. DYSPHEMISM:

It is when a negative expression is used to make a more positive expression sound

worse.
Example: Simply calling someone who rebels against their government as terrorist
and traitors. In extreme cases, people who simply question the actions of the
governments are called terrorists.

3. INNUENDO:

It is when someone gets a point across without committing oneself to it. It allows you

to say something about someone without actually saying it outright.

Example: If someone asks you whether Liana is telling the truth, you may reply, Yes,
this time, which would suggest that maybe Liana doesnt usually tell the truth.

4. LOADED QUESTIONS:

This is a form of innuendo that seems to demand only a yes or no answer, but actually

requires more.
Example: Making assumptions about someone and conveying it by asking Are you
ever going to do anything with your life?

5. DOWNPLAYERS:

It is an attempt to make someone or something looks less important or less significant.

Example: Who cares what Marie has to say, she works for the government. The
implication is that working for the government disqualifies Maries opinion. The word
mere is often used as a downplayer. My GPA is 4.0 while Kenny has a mere 3.7.

6. UP-PLAYER:

A word or phrase that exaggerates the significance of a claim. An extreme version is

called as hyperbole.
Example: To say you are deathly ill when you simply have a seasonal cold.

7. STEREOTYPING:

Coming to conclusions about a people or group based on little or no evidence.

Example: Asians are good at math. White men cant dance. Even if there are
exceptions, are these statements generally true?

8. WEASELERS:

Linguistic techniques that water down a claim so that the person making the claim can
easily find a way out if challenged. In other words, claims that are very vague. Vague

claims allow numerous interpretations.

Example: The phrase Doctor recommended means that only one doctor has
recommended something! But the phrase makes it sound like many doctors
recommend it.

9. PROOF-SUBSTITUE:

An expression that suggests there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually

citing any sources.

Example: Authorities say or experts believe or studies show. The point is that
there are not actual support for a claim without citing a reliable source.

10. RIDICULE:

This is basically ridiculing someones point by laughing at it, although its applications
are sometimes more subtle. Also applies to using a nasty form and vicious humour of

all kinds.
Example: You believe that the government is on your side? Really? Ha! The point is
that any claim that the person being laughed at might make is never addressed by the
person laughing.

With this, it can be concluded that there every reason to believe that every source of
information with evidence of slanter is not worth considering. The key in making a good
argument is to provide reasons on what they believe. It is up to an individual to use critical
thinking to decide what information is acceptable and what is not.