Rhetorical Argument

Confirmation bias is a common type of cognitive bias to see. This is when you instinctively read and believe information that confirms what you already believe, while discounting what you do not. For instance, say you are to write an argument paper picking one side of an argument. You choose to argue that short class times are better for learning. In researching, you ignore 50 articles that say longer class times are better, and instead find three articles that agree with your argument.

We tend to be more skeptical of things that we do not agree with, because it threatens our worldview. This is something that is important to be aware of, particularly in argument papers, because you need to address the other side of the argument fairly and with respect. See also: Fake news.

Correlation does not equal causation is a handy phrase to remember when analysing or building an argument. Let's say that a politician points out that crime has risen in the area ever since the new skate park was put in, and he is arguing that the skate park is attracting seedy people. The implication, of course, is that the rise in crime is because the skate park was put in, when really, it could just be a huge coincidence, there could be a third, hidden factor that is into play, or it could even be reverse causation.

Let's look at those:

1. The divorce rate in Maine has a 99.26% correlation with per capita consumption of margarine. Clearly, people are spending too much on margarine, which is causing financial troubles in couples, who are then getting divorced. (Coincidence)
2. Taller children tend to score better on the same standardized tests than short children. Clearly, our society favors tall people over short. (Third factor: Older children, who have been through more schooling, tend to also be taller, so really, older children do better than younger children on standardized tests)
3. Several serial killers liked watching violent movies. Violent movies must cause people to become violent. (Reverse causation: Serial killers may be drawn to violence because they were already violent people.)

Strawman arguments are where Person A misrepresents Person B's argument by making it seem ridiculous or untenable. In essence, Person A creates a "strawman" - an overly simplistic or misrepresented argument - that is easier to defeat than addressing the real argument.

An interesting example of this is the McDonald's coffee lawsuit case. You may have heard about this case: a woman sued McDonald's because her coffee was too hot. It's often used as an example of a frivolous lawsuit and many people mocked the woman. However, the actual case showed that the coffee was hot enough to cause third-degree burns and required skin grafts; the coffee was 180 - 190 degrees when poured. Additionally, there had been over 700 previous reports of injuries from the coffee prior to the lawsuit.

The story of a woman too stupid to know that coffee was hot was a "strawman" argument: it was a misrepresentation of the situation in order to support the premise that there are too many frivolous lawsuits. Obviously the facts of the case show that it was not frivolous, but a serious issue.

So it's not just individual people who can make strawman arguments, but entire groups

As writers, you must be careful to always accurately represent the other side of the argument, even if you don't agree with it. It's much harder to rebut a good point - and most times the other side has them, otherwise there wouldn't be two sides! - but it's also much more satisfying than beating up a strawman.