ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (06/28/85)
There is a type of argument that really states two views, one explicitly and the other implicitly. This argument generally takes the form: A, therefore B. The explicit view is obvious. The implicit view is that the speaker holds the belief necessary to justify the statement. To clarify this, consider an example: "The country's cat ranchers are in trouble due to competition from strays. Therefore, the government should subsidize cat ranching." In addition to the obvious, this speaker has implied the belief that whenever some group of businesspeople is in trouble, the government should step in with subsidies. But by leaving this premise unstated, the speaker has made it much harder to dispute. Keep an eye out for arguments of this sort. They can be tricky.
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (07/11/85)
> To clarify this, consider an example: > > "The country's cat ranchers are in trouble > due to competition from strays. Therefore, > the government should subsidize cat ranching." > > In addition to the obvious, this speaker has implied the > belief that whenever some group of businesspeople is in > trouble, the government should step in with subsidies. > But by leaving this premise unstated, the speaker has made > it much harder to dispute. > > Keep an eye out for arguments of this sort. They can be tricky. Even more subtle are arguments like this which give a dis-explanation to put across a viewpoint. In the example, the ACTUAL implied statement is that, when the country's cat ranchers are in trouble, the government should step in with subsidies. The generalization, to all businesspeople, is unwarranted. With cat exports shrinking dramatically and cheap cats coming in from Asia, there is no question but that cat ranching subsidies are needed. By contrast, current calls for subsidies to wombat ranchers should be soundly rejected, since wombats have no social value. ;-) -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP] (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/13/85)
>/* andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) / 5:56 pm Jul 10, 1985 */ >The generalization, to all businesspeople, is >unwarranted. With cat exports shrinking dramatically and cheap cats >coming in from Asia, there is no question but that cat ranching >subsidies are needed. By contrast, current calls for subsidies to >wombat ranchers should be soundly rejected, since wombats have no >social value. >;-) Unfortunately, not everyone is aware of the absurdity: Recently, shoe manufacturers lobbied congress in favor of import restrictions and/or tariffs on shoes. They claimed that shoe imports were a threat to national security Mike Sykora