110 pages • 3 hours read
Jay HeinrichsThank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2007A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Index of Terms
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaPart 3, Chapters 15-16Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 3: “Defense”
Part 3, Chapter 15 Summary: “Spot Fallacies: The Seven Deadly Logical Sins”
Heinrichs introduces seven deadly logical sins. The first sin is false comparison, or examples being placed in incorrect categories. Political candidates often use this fallacy. For example, one candidate might say, “I’m a successful businessman. Elect me mayor and I’ll run a successful city” (168). Just because the candidate is a successful businessman does not mean he will have a successful political career. Business skills and political skills are not the same.
The second logical sin is the bad example. With this fallacy, persuaders use an incorrect or wrongly interpreted example in their argument (i.e., an example that fails to prove the argument’s conclusion). Hasty generalizations fall under this sin, such as: “That intern from Yale was great. Let’s get another Yalie” (171). Having one hardworking intern from Yale does not mean the next will prove the same.
The third logical sin is ignorance as proof. In this case, persuaders claim that a lack of examples support that something does not exist. Superstitions fall under this sin.
The fourth logical sin is tautology, which is when persuaders repeat something using different words. Heinrichs calls tautology “one of the most boring fallacies” (173) because it leads to the repetition of an argument’s premise. For example: “The Cowboys are favored to win since they’re the better team” (173). “The Cowboys are favored to win” and “They’re the better team” are the same, making this an illogical argument.
The fifth logical sin is false choice, or when the number of choices given is not the number of choices that exist. An example of this sin is when “two or more issues get squashed into one, so that one conclusion proves another conclusion” (174). Pollsters often use this fallacy.
The sixth logical sin is the Red Herring or Chewbacca Defense. Here, a persuader intentionally brings up an irrelevant issue during an argument. They use this issue to distract from the real issue.
The seventh and final logical sin is the wrong ending, or when a conclusion is not supported by proof. Politicians are notorious for committing this sin: “Allow a few students to pray after class, and one day gospel ministers will be running our public schools” (178). It is reasonable to allow students to pray after class (proof). However, politicians often use proof to reach an incorrect and extreme conclusion (“gospel ministers will be running our public schools”).
Part 3, Chapter 16 Summary: “Call a Foul: Nixon’s Trick”
Heinrichs presents “eight rhetorical out-of-bounds” (200) in deliberative argument. These fouls fall into three categories: “speaking in a tense that doesn’t fit, arguing about values or offenses instead of choices, or forcing someone out of an argument through humiliation” (195-96).
The first foul is switching tenses from future to present tense. To get an audience on their side, persuaders can occasionally use demonstrative rhetoric in a deliberative argument. However, they need to quickly switch back to future tense (as their choice is to take place in the future). Heinrichs recommends calling out an opponent should they continue to use present or past tense.
The second foul is simply being inflexible or stubborn. The third foul, humiliation, takes the second foul further. Attacking an opponent’s ethos is an important tactic in argumentation. An attack becomes a foul when it focuses on debasing or insulting an opponent rather than trying to persuade an audience.
The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh fouls are innuendo, threats, nasty language and signs, and utter stupidity. However, the eighth and “foulest of the foul” (198) is truthiness—coined by comedian Stephen Colbert. Truthiness is the tendency to only believe items that already match one’s mindset.
Part 3, Chapters 15-16 Analysis
One major difference between formal logic and rhetoric “is their attitudes towards rules” (164). Formal logic follows strict rules, meaning individuals cannot commit logical sins. Rhetoric has virtually no rules—the responsibility of catching fallacies falling on an audience. If the audience catches on to a logical sin, the persuader loses their ethos. Heinrichs details seven logical sins in Chapter 15 and wants individuals to use them to identify fallacies from political candidates, businesses, and other outside forces. He notes, “All you have to do is look for bad proof, wrong number of choices, and a disconnect between proof and conclusion” (164).
The main rule in argument is that everyone involved needs to have goals and “remain intent on real persuasion. Things can get a little rough—you might have some logical horseplay, an ad hominem attack or two, some intense emotions, crude language, even—but the game continues” (185-86). The only fouls in rhetoric are fighting and distracting. Heinrichs intentionally uses the sports term “foul” in Chapter 16, because using rhetorical fouls pushes arguments out of bounds. Both fighting and distracting prevent arguments from reaching their conclusions. A deliberative argument cannot resume until those involved are “back in bounds” (200), or no longer trying to argue the inarguable.
Heinrichs reiterates the moral ambiguity of rhetoric in Chapters 15-16:
The good news for us manipulators is, truthiness gives us open season. If our ethos is strong enough, we can make up facts as we go! The bad news is, if a significant number of Americans don’t believe the ‘media’ (of which I guess my writer’s cabin and I form a vital part), or scientists, or statistics, or any authority whose opinion isn’t truthy, then all we have left is rhetoric (200).
Truthiness is an extremely dangerous part of rhetoric because arguments are ultimately decided by how people feel about facts. It is much more difficult to persuade an audience with facts that do not match their political orientation, even if said facts are true. Truthiness is rampant in American politics, driving the country’s extreme partisanship. Because rhetoric is not part of most people’s education, many are unable to spot this foul. Heinrichs believes rhetoric is the solution to America’s current division: If more people understood the art of persuasion, they would be less likely to fall for truthiness.
