Arguing from the Particular to the General:
In our continued look at the often unfair and foul nature of some sales presentations three more common fallacies or mistakes in reasoning will be examined. Spurious reasoning may be an honest mistake by a salesperson, we were not all trained in the subtle art of Rhetoric. But it is convenient if it makes more plausible what a more substantive argument might not. Questionable reasoning then becomes a device which denies us the right to make informed decisions about what is the right course of action to take.
Arguing from the Particular to the General:
This is a weak piece of inductive reasoning which moves from the particular to the general. For example a salesperson attempts to undermine a product or company by a single instance, e.g.; ‘a friend of mine had a terrible experience with ….’ But there is not a single company in the world that has not had some complaint lodged against it. But this is not a compelling argument that the company offers a bad service or product.
Despite the obvious shortcomings of such arguments some salespeople still use it to try and persuade us to buy their product or service. It typically occurs when they cite examples drawn from personal or professional experience. There is nothing essentially wrong with drawing on first-hand experience. But when offered as a substitute for a substantive argument we should not be persuaded. For example:
I know a woman who was declined a loan by XYZ bank and her business went bust.
What does this prove? It may actually be proof XYZ bank is a good judge of a viable business rather than a malicious cause of the poor woman losing her business.
I know someone whose house was robbed three times after they decided not to install shootbolts multipoint locking on their windows.
This claim may be true but on its own does not provide a sufficient enough reason to suppose the house would not have been burgled anyway. Before we can make a fair assessment of any product or service we need background information, anecdotal or apocryphal evidence alone isn’t enough.
The moderate view:
An argument recommending an intermediate position between two extremes is not a bad position to take for any salesperson. It makes them seem reasonable, fair-minded, and honest. Indeed, the idea of a compromise has a certain appeal. We might even view the salesperson as being reasonable and sensible. Yet whenever the intermediate position forms the basis of an argument we need to be wary of the moderate view fallacy. Organisations offering the most diverse products and opinions can all claim to take the moderate position.
Suppose, for example, we are looking to invest a capital sum: deposit-based organisations represent themselves as the mean between cash and unit trusts; unit trust companies the mean between deposits and equities; equities the mean between unit trusts and futures markets, and so on.
But as means they all are right and none of them are right. In other words, they are all the right decision for someone and all the wrong decision for someone else. There is nothing in each being posited as a mean that makes them the right course of action
Take as another example. Suppose one double glazing firm recommends changing all the doors and windows in the house. Another suggests changing just the doors. A third suggests a mid-point between the two. Now this moderate view might seem reasonable. If it means we begin the process of effectively insulating and securing our home when we otherwise wouldn’t. So perhaps there is something to commend the moderate view.
However, the problem resides in the idea that truth, or in this case what is the right course of action for us, lies always in the mean position between two extremes. Yet no matter how convenient this may be for the fortunate salesperson, it is of no practical use as a criterion for discovering the right course of action for us. This is because every piece of advice or course of action can be expressed as the mean between too extremes. For example, we are trapped in the desert. We know there is a town to the North and a town to the West and so certain or survival if we reach one or the other. But we cannot decide which way to go. A salesperson suggests we head North West, the mean between the two. What would you do?
What is the best advice is just as likely to lie at one extreme as in the middle position. The moderate view fallacy is a common one and often expressed as being the voice of reason. We should of course not suppose that every mean between two extremes is a dishonest argument.
But this moderate view becomes a dishonest argument when it is suggested that the advice ought to be taken because it is the mean between two extremes. The right advice can always be expressed as a mean between two extremes, but it is not the right advice because it is a mean.
The right advice ought to flow from a careful analysis of our particular needs, and what makes it acceptable are the reasons and evidence offered in support. There is nothing essentially wrong with advice that is contrasted, but don’t suppose the advice given is the right advice simply because it is the mean between extremes.
Repeated affirmation:
The repeated affirmation fallacy occurs when a salesperson simply says the thing to be believed over and over again. Now the very idea we might be persuaded by such blatant repetition of a single phrase or statement is preposterous. Granted, few salespeople would be foolhardy enough to simply repeat the same statement in an attempt to persuade us. However, this does not mean that many sales presentations do not rely on repeated affirmations as a substitute for a substantive argument.
Take for example the salesperson who wants to convey the idea of financial security. Throughout the sales presentation they may say something like:
Only good loft insulation will reduce future energy bills.
Without proper loft insulation your future finances may become uncertain.
Securing your finances with this product will give you peace of mind.
Though differently worded these statements contain nothing but the single idea with which the salesperson started. Yet there is nothing in repeated affirmation to indicate we have any additional reason to buy. While it might be insisted that each of these statements is true they rely for their persuasive force on the idea of repetition and suggestibility, not argument.
Loft insulation and reduce energy bills may well be what we need but our being convinced of the need should not rely on suggestibility but the facts supported by evidence. This of course is just what the use of repeated affirmations is designed to avoid. Providing supporting evidence is a laborious approach for those salespeople preferring quick results; and it works. Some of us prefer to act blindly under the weight of repetition. But if we want to make informed decisions we need to be aware of repeated affirmations, and the usual clue is the absence of an argument.
It does not seem unreasonable to demand from a salesperson advice supported by sound reasoning. Yet, well-intentioned as some salespeople may be, they may themselves be completely unaware they are committing these errors in reasoning, or resorting to tried and tested rhetorical ploys to persuade us. If they are unaware of what they are doing then we need to be doubly aware.
In #4 I will look at Weasel Words, False Causes and Slippery Slopes arguments.