Differentiating Reasoning

CRT/205
April 4, 2014
Captain E. F. Rollins


Differentiating Reasoning
Article: Air Pollution
The author uses deductive arguments in writing this article by resorting to scare tactics and nationalism. Scare tactics is defined by our course material as, “Trying to scare people into doing something or accepting a position” (University of Phoenix, 2012). An example of the scare tactics used in this article is when the author talks about the results of burning fossil fuels. The author concludes that burning fossil fuels “makes the air unsafe to breathe, causes acid rain, and damages our environment” (“Air Pollution”, 2014, para 2.). This conclusion is meant to scare the reader into accepting this position by describing terrible results of burning fossil fuels (University of Phoenix, 2012).
Nationalism is defined as, “a powerful and fierce emotion that can lead to blind endorsement of a country’s policies and practices” (University of Phoenix, 2012). The author attempts to appeal to the reader’s sense of nationality by claiming “that environmental protection requirements cause American industries to be at a disadvantage when competing with foreign companies with fewer restrictions” (“Air Pollution”, 2014, para 7). The author wants the reader to accept this claim of not abiding by environmental requirements because our companies would not be able to compete with companies outside of the United States (“Air Pollution”, 2014).
Article: Advertising
The author of this article uses deductive arguments such as rationalizing, apple polishing, and popularity. Rationalizing is defined as “a false pretext to satisfy our own desires or interests” (University of Phoenix, 2012). An example of rationalizing can be seen in the conclusion against seller advertising (“Advertising”, 2014, para 1). In this conclusion against seller advertising, the author states “that the constant stream of advertising that bombards consumers every day misinforms or encourages them to live beyond their means” (Advertising”, 2014, para 1). This conclusion is the author’s attempt to justify why the reader should accept this position but it is only a rationalization that only serves the author’s viewpoint (University of Phoenix, 2012).
Apple polishing is defined as “old-fashioned flattery” (University of Phoenix, 2012). We see this in the author’s statement “that viewers can draw conclusions for themselves about the products used by characters on television and in movies” (“Advertising”, 2014, para 11-12). This implies that the viewers are smart enough to see through this advertising and therefore, the advertisers are not at fault if viewers purchase a product solely on the fact that a famous person is endorsing it (University of Phoenix, 2012).
Finally, popularity is defined as “urging someone to accept a claim simply on the grounds that all or most or some substantial number of people believe it” (University of Phoenix, 2012). The basis for the conclusion in support of sexy ads was that advertisers were only providing the images that people wanted to see (“Advertising”, 2014, para 8-10). This is an attempt by the author to persuade the reader to accept this conclusion based on the fact that it is what is popular (University of Phoenix, 2012).






REFERENCES
"Air Pollution." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2014. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.
"Advertising." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2014. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.
University of Phoenix. (2012). What is critical thinking, anyway? Retrieved from University of
Phoenix, CRT205 - Critical Thinking website.