How Not To Argue

Muhammad Imran Mustafa

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 Definitions
• Definition: set of propositions (premises)
which is followed by another proposition
(conclusion)
• Divided into:
1. Deductive
2. Inductive

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 Deductive argument
• Truth of the conclusion necessarily comes from
the truth of the premises

• E.g. a simply syllogism

1. Premise 1: All men are mortal
2. Premise 2: Azad is a man
3. Conclusion: Azad is mortal

• If premise 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion is

necessarily true.

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 Inductive arguments
• The premises give support to the conclusion, but
not completely

• Wikipedia: moving from a set of specific facts to a

general conclusion

• Example:
1. Premise 1: Most Malaysians eat nasi lemak
2. Premise 2: Azad is a Malaysian
3. Conclusion: Azad eats nasi lemak

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 Of arguments

• Validity: a valid argument is one where the truth of

it's premise entails the truth of the conclusion.
invalid otherwise

• Soundness: 

• Argument is valid

• All premises are true

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 Of arguments
• Strong if argument:

• is true

• is directly related to the issue

• is important, in view of the issue that is raised

• Weak if

• is false or ignores conditions in the issue

• not directly related to the issue raised

• it is not important, in view of the issue raised

Saturday, 20 February 2010
 Common Mistakes

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 1. Hasty generalisation

• "Making assumptions about a whole group

or range of cases based on a sample that is
inadequate"
• E.g. All my Chinese friends are rich. Rich
people don’t need help. Therefore, the
Chinese people don’t need help

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 2. Non sequiturs 

• Conclusion are drawn that do not follow

• E.g. The happenings in the world cannot be
explained by what we know. Therefore,
there must be someone planning it i.e. a
conspiracy.

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 3. Ad hominem & tu
quoque 
• "Against the person" & "You too"
• Arguments are not valid due to the person
• E.g. Richard Dawkins is an atheist and is anti
religion. Therefore, all his criticisms against
religion is invalid

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 3. Appeal to authority 

• Trying to get people to agree with us by

appealing to a (supposed) authority
• E.g. 'Ustaz X kata begini. Oleh itu, ianya
mestilah betul! Takkan ustaz itu menipu
kot!'

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 4. Straw man
• "Arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's
position and tries to score points by knocking it
down."

• Can be thought of as: taking the best of a

theoretical model and comparing it with the worst
in reality

• E.g. Democracy causes confusion and division. The

chaliphate during the prophet's time and the 4
khulafa' is the best system. Therefore, we must

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 5. Appeal to ignorance
• No one knows it, therefore, you should
listen to my argument
• Absence of evidence - proving a negative
• E.g. "People have been trying for years to
prove that God does not exist. But no one
has yet been able to prove it. Therefore,
God exists."

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 6. Weak analogy

• The two things that are being compared

aren't really alike in the relevant respects
• E.g. Metod da'wah

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 7. Begging the question

• The proposition to be proved is assumed

implicitly or explicitly in the premise.
• E.g. 1: “The belief in God is universal. After
all, everyone believes in God.
• E.g. 2: “If such actions were not illegal, then
they would not be prohibited by the law.”

Saturday, 20 February 2010

 Conclusion

• Logical fallacies can easily be avoided

• A bit of thought needed

Saturday, 20 February 2010