Begging the Question and Straw Man arguments:
Another source of poor argument is one that caricatures the real position making any objection raised easier to refute. Let’s examine the first of two such arguments.
Begging the question:
During our discussion with a salesperson we tell them we have never taken out home contents insurance. The salesperson’s response is to suggest we are obviously not concerned about our possessions. We deny the claim. The salesperson responds by stating that if we cared we would have home contents policy.
An argument commits the fallacy of begging the question when the truth of its conclusion is assumed by one its premises, and the truth of that premise depends for its justification on the truth of the conclusion. So, the premise asks us to grant the conclusion even before the argument is given. In other words, the salesperson is trying to smuggle into the premises of an argument the very conclusion they are trying to prove. If we reconstruct the opening scenario it will enable us to see clearly the way in which the salesperson’s line of argument begs the question. Initially the salesperson argued from the proposition that we don’t care about our possessions together with the implicit, assumed, premise that anyone who cares would take out a home contents policy, to the conclusion if we cared we too would have home contents insurance.
But we don’t have to accept the salesperson’s premise that only those who have home contents insurance care about their possessions, we are not compelled to accept their conclusion that we have no concerns about our possessions. In other words, we can care about our possessions and still not have home contents insurance.
Question begging arguments come in many forms. What they have in common is they all take for granted precisely the point the salesperson should be trying to prove. But such arguments do not provide any grounds for us to accept the conclusion.
Straw man:
When we raise objections or concerns with a salesperson, like ‘I want to think about it’, it is common practice from them to restate the objection in another form. This practice can sometimes be helpful if the aim is to clarify our position. If for example we are unsure how a particular product might be of benefit the salesperson may restate the benefits in another way. This seems reasonable. However, it is also common practice to caricature the objection by the use of misrepresentation, exaggeration, distortion or simplification to make it easier for the salesperson to refute the objection.
By doing this they ignore our real objection to set up a weaker version. This makes the objection easier to counter thereby creating the impression the real objection has been overcome. Such tactics are known as the straw man fallacy.
What the salesperson is ignoring is the fact that we hold our views for genuine and sincere reasons. When we raise objections we are not simply being truculent in raising points of concern. Objections are raised because we are not convinced by the argument being presented to us. Adopting straw man tactics certainly makes the reformed objection easier for the salesperson to overcome than the real objection, but essentially it avoids the real issue. Consider the following responses to the standard objection ‘I can’t afford it’. ‘It’ of course being whatever is being offered.
So what you are saying is that you want to live on State benefits when you retire?
So you are happy to walk ten miles to the nearest service station when you breakdown?
So you don’t mind going through the winter with no hot water or central heating?
So you are happy to keep throwing you money away on excessive heating bills? So you don’t mind if someone slips on your drive and breaks their hip?
The response in each case is intended to suggest we are inconsistent in that we clearly want what the product does, but don’t want to pay for it. Yet there need be no inconsistency on our part. It is perfectly reasonable to say we don’t want to change our boiler and we want all the benefits of a boiler. Perhaps we genuinely cannot afford it, perhaps we want to get a second opinion, or perhaps we know we can get the same product cheaper elsewhere. Our objection of affordability is real and not met when the salesperson misrepresents, exaggerates, distorts, or simplifies.
The list of suggested phraseology in sales textbooks to caricature objections is endless. While this is testimony to the sales profession’s inventiveness, it is also testimony to their willingness to do whatever is required to get the deal. The examples given above are quite direct and obvious, though by no means the most blatant I’ve witnessed. Yet any restatement of our position which caricatures rather than clarifies avoids engaging with our actual concerns. Instead it attempts to portray a more extreme or weaker position making it harder for us to defend because, in all probability, we do not advocate it.
If we are not persuaded by the proposition on offer we should not allow the salesperson to mitigate any inadequacy on their part to properly explain the proposition by adopting straw man arguments. These tactics are used for the sole purpose of making it easier for them to refute our objection and close the deal.
However, the use of straw man arguments is not confined to dealing with objections. They are often used to misrepresent any opposing view to make it easier to undermine. Suppose we are firm advocates of the National Health Service. We believe that medical treatment should be provided free at the point of delivery. The salesperson responds by asking us how we can support a system that does not treat patients on the basis of clinical need but availability. And where the treatment we are likely to receive has more to do with our postcode than the state of our health.
We might agree with the points raised, but this does not provide sufficient grounds for us to be persuaded to buy private healthcare insurance. All the salesperson has done is caricature our position and restated it in distorted or simplified form. The misrepresentation takes no account of our wider commitment to the NHS. More to the point it ignores the fact that our commitment entails more than the treatment of our own healthcare needs. It also does not deal with the fact that private health insurance will not cover emergency ambulance service, accident and emergency, routine GP visits, and so on. So while we may well agree with the deficiencies of the NHS, we can remain unconvinced that private medical insurance offers the solution.
If we are to be convinced of the virtues of a product or service the salesperson needs to provide a substantive argument, not one that misrepresents our position to make it easier for them to refute.
When we are persuaded by straw man arguments, and we often are in our daily lives, our decision will not have been based on sound argument. Rather we will have been persuaded by a misrepresentation, exaggeration, distortion or simplification of our position. This is neither acceptable practice nor necessary, especially when you consider that an honest argument also has the power to persuade.
In #8 I will look at Red Herrings and Attacking the Person arguments.