Formulating Persuasive Arguments Flashcards

An essay argues: 'Either we abolish the minimum wage entirely or workers will always be exploited.' What fallacy is present?

Answer: False dichotomy

False dichotomy presents only two options when other possibilities exist, such as raising, indexing, or reforming the minimum wage rather than abolishing it.

Which of the following is the strongest counter-argument to the claim 'Jury trials should be abolished because juries are emotionally biased'?

Answer: Emotional bias can be mitigated through juror selection, instructions, and deliberation, while juries also provide democratic legitimacy

This response directly addresses the bias concern by showing it can be managed, then adds the positive value juries provide — a two-pronged rebuttal.

Why is it rhetorically effective to use the phrase 'Even if we accept...' in a persuasive argument?

Answer: It shows that your argument succeeds even under the opponent's most favorable assumptions

Granting the opponent's premise for the sake of argument and still winning demonstrates that your position is robust regardless of contested factual assumptions.

What is 'question-begging' (petitio principii)?

Answer: Assuming the conclusion within the premises of the argument

Question-begging embeds the conclusion in the premises, making the argument circular since the conclusion is required to accept the premise.

In formulating a persuasive argument about a contested legal issue, which strategy best ensures internal consistency?

Answer: Maintaining a single coherent definition of key terms and applying it consistently throughout

Consistent definitions prevent internal contradiction and make the argument harder to undermine by exposing shifts in meaning.

Which of the following best describes 'epistemic humility' and how it functions in persuasive argumentation?

Answer: Acknowledging the limits of one's knowledge while still advancing a well-supported position

Epistemic humility builds credibility by signaling that the writer distinguishes between what is certain and what is probable, avoiding overreach that opponents can exploit.

A student writes: 'The government should fund arts education because art is beautiful.' What is the primary weakness of this argument?

Answer: The premise ('art is beautiful') does not logically connect to the conclusion ('government should fund it')

The argument lacks a warrant: even if art is beautiful, that alone does not establish why the government — rather than private individuals — bears a funding obligation.