Which of the following best describes fareed zakaria’s primary argument?

Introduction to the Case Study

This last chapter is different from the others. Instead of introducing a new area of critical thinking, it is a capstone activity in which you will apply the skills you’ve learned to one contemporary, controversial issue.

The topic for this case study is global climate change. Because it is beyond the scope of this course to thoroughly evaluate a complex scientific topic, you will not be expected to form a position or offer your opinion on this topic. Rather, the material in this chapter is presented for you to practice evaluating arguments, identifying fallacies, and questioning sources—with the hope that you will continue to apply these skills whenever you encounter material aimed to persuade.

This chapter won’t present any new exposition. Instead, we provide some relevant review notes that have been excerpted from the earlier chapters. You can consult these notes if you need a refresher as you work through the final videos, articles, and questions in the course.

REVIEW NOTES

Arguments

To say that something is true is to make a claim. But to give reasons to believe that it is true is to make an argument. Thus all arguments consist of at least two parts:

1. Premise: one or more reasons to support the claim

2. Conclusion: the claim being supported

Common Fallacies

Fallacy: a type of flawed reasoning

1. Begging the question: fallacy in which the argument relies on a premise that resembles the conclusion, depends on the conclusion, or is as controversial as the conclusion.

2. Appeal to popularity: fallacy in which the arguer attempts to bolster his or her argument by mentioning that “everybody” (or a large group of people) shares the same belief, preference, or habit.

3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: fallacy in which the arguer assumes that because there is a correlation between two events (i.e., one preceded the other), then the first must have caused the second. The phrase is Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.”

4. Appeal to ignorance: fallacy in which the arguer claims that because something cannot be proven false, it must be true unless the opponent can disprove the conclusion.

5. Appeal to emotion: fallacy in which the arguer tries to persuade the audience by arousing feelings such as pity, fear, patriotism, flattery, etc. in lieu of presenting rational arguments.

6. Unqualified authority: fallacy in which the arguer tries to get people to agree by appealing to the reputation of someone who is not an expert in the field or otherwise qualified to prove that something is true.

7. Ad hominem: fallacy in which the arguer attacks his or her opponent’s personal characteristics, qualifications, or circumstances instead of the argument presented. The phrase is Latin for “to the man.”

8. False dichotomy: fallacy in which the arguer inaccurately portrays a circumstance as having a limited number of possible outcomes, thus setting up an either-or situation with the intent of presenting one of those alternatives as drastically more preferable.

9. Straw Man: fallacy in which the arguer sets up a vulnerable version of his or her opponent’s position and then presents evidence to knock down the distorted position.

10. Red herring: fallacy in which the arguer raises an irrelevant side issue to distract the opponent or audience from what is really at stake.

11. Slippery slope: fallacy in which the arguer suggests that one event is going to spark a chain of events leading up to an undesirable outcome, even when there is no logical reason to believe with certainty that the first event will cause that chain of events.

12. Weak analogy: fallacy in which the arguer uses a comparison to support their argument, but the two things being compared are not similar enough for the comparison to be relevant.

Evaluating Claims and Sources

When claims are presented to you, evaluate them by asking two key questions:

1. How credible is the claim itself?

2. How credible is the source of the claim?

Whenever you’re evaluating a claim, keep an eye out for the following:

· Whether evidence is offered to support the claim

· Whether there are any obvious inaccuracies

· Whether the claim is an observation or an inferred conclusion

The process of evaluating a source also relies on two essential questions:

1. Is the source likely to have accurate information and authentic knowledge?

2. Is there reason to think that the source might be intentionally misleading?

Expertise

Expert: someone who knows more than most people about a specific subject

Expert opinion doesn’t guarantee truth, but it is usually a reliable guide to it. You must have good reasons to be skeptical of a claim held by experts in the field.

If you’re having trouble deciding if someone is truly an expert, here are some things to look for:

· Education from reputable institutions or in relevant programs

· Experience—the more in the field, the better

· Professional accomplishments that are directly relevant

· Reputation among peers

Limits of Expertise

Expertise adds credibility, but it only goes so far. As a critical thinker, you’ll want to keep an eye out for the ways that the credibility of experts is damaged.

Expertise loses credibility when the expert

· makes a claim outside their area of expertise (remember the fallacy of unqualified authority);

· makes simple factual errors or mistakes in logic or reasoning;

· seems to be speaking from an emotional orientation;

· has a clear conflict of interests (e.g., being paid to present a specific view);

· doesn’t provide sufficient support for tenuous claims; or

· holds a view in direct opposition to most other experts in the same subject area.

Questions to Ask When Evaluating Websites

· Who is speaking or writing?

· Who is the intended audience?

· Where are they speaking or writing?

· Who has invested the time and/or money to disseminate this?

· What’s the site’s reputation? If you’re not sure, you can search to see if the site is ever referenced by other sites you already find credible.

· Is the site well-produced and free of sloppy writing, spelling errors, and editorial mistakes?

· Does the author or speaker offer any credentials lending credibility to their claims?

· Could the information be outdated? For example, a 2004 article reviewing the best earbuds on the market is most likely no longer accurate.

· What person or organization created, sponsors, or vouches for the credibility of information on this website or page? And if they have a strong perspective from one side of a controversial issue, what other sources could help round out the picture?

Examples of Rhetorical Techniques Used to Persuade

Emotive Language

· Emotive language is also called “loaded language.”

· It has strong connotations that produce certain emotions.

· People often have immediate emotional reactions to certain words, and speakers and writers can take advantage of such reactions in their word selection.

· Politics and advertising use emotive language a lot.

· Sometimes emotive language is blended into observational statements so that the speaker seems to be merely stating a fact when he or she is actually issuing a personal opinion.

· Watch out for arguments that rely heavily on emotive language, especially if the emotive language replaces factual information and reasoning.

· We often have psychological tendencies to react to emotive language without taking into account other considerations.

Innuendo

Innuendo is when you heavily imply something without actually saying it. The advantage of using innuendo is in being able to plant an idea in your audience’s mind without having gone on record as actually saying it. Scare quotes can sometimes function as innuendo; so can downplaying your opponent or target.

Loaded Questions

A loaded question is when you pose a question that contains an unjustified assumption.

Multiple Perspectives
When the topic at hand is a complicated scientific issue, it is important to understand the fundamentals before considering arguments from opposing sides. The first video below explores how the American public actually feels about the issue of climate change. Is it simply a matter of being “for” or “against” global warming, or is the debate much more complicated than that? What are the different positions that various voices in the United States take on this issue?

Watch the video below, and then answer the following questions.

Vimeo video. http://vimeopro.com/yalefes/videos/video/31750421 . Uploaded by the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. For a text transcript, follow the link below.

Multiple Choice Question

What organization conducted this study?

· the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

· the Pew Research Center

· the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

· the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

Multiple Choice Question

Which of the following is one of the Six Americas described in the video?

· Confident

· Dismissive

· Engaged

· Optimistic

Multiple Choice Question

Which of the Six Americas is the largest?

· Alarmed

· Concerned

· Dismissive

· Doubtful

Multiple Choice Question

A person who has heard of the issue of climate change but is not interested enough to learn anything substantial about it would most likely be placed in which category?

· Alarmed

· Disengaged

· Concerned

· Dismissive

· Response Board Question

Top of Form

As a critical thinker, how much should knowledge about how other Americans feel about this issue affect your own position? Explain your answer.

Exploring the Context

The information provided in this chapter is not intended to be a thorough examination of climate change science. However, having a basic understanding of what people are talking about when they refer to “climate change” can make it easier to dissect the arguments people make on this topic. The following page from the EPA’s website provides some context for the issue and explores some of the basic scientific concepts related to the debate on climate change.

Go to the webpage below, click on “Show All Responses,” and read the questions and answers. Then answer the following questions.

Climate Change Facts

Multiple Choice Question

This website is run by which of the following organizations?

· the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

· the United States Environmental Protection Agency

· the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

· the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Multiple Choice Question

How does the site support its claim that there is a scientific consensus?

· It describes how the major scientific organizations in the United States (as well as many independent ones) have issued statements agreeing that climate change is happening, it’s mostly human-caused, and it presents significant risks.

· It asserts that every scientist agrees by this point on all the major facts about climate change.

· It admits that most scientists don’t see eye to eye on this issue, and therefore there is almost nothing that they agree on.

· It points out that many of the major scientific organizations in the United States have come to an agreement about exactly how much the earth will warm, how quickly it will warm, and what the consequences of the warming will be in specific regions of the world.

Multiple Choice Question

According to this site, what is primarily responsible for rising temperatures in recent years?

· natural variations in the earth’s climate

· fluctuations in the sun’s energy

· a rise in greenhouse gases

· the melting of polar ice caps

Multiple Choice Question

According to the site, what impact does an excess of carbon dioxide have on the earth?

· It traps heat and thus makes the earth’s temperature rise.

· It creates a hole in the ozone layer.

· It lowers the sea level.

· It makes plants grow better.

Multiple Choice Question

What actions does the site recommend for addressing this issue?

· Encourage individuals to drive less and to install solar panels.

· Stop all emissions of carbon dioxide.

· Develop better technology to more accurately measure the earth’s temperature.

· Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases at the government, community, business, and individual levels.

Taking Sides
If you’re trying to persuade people to feel a certain way about a controversial issue, how do you convince them? There are many organizations that take a strong stance on the issue of climate change, and they produce material aimed to sway audiences toward one side or the other. This provides rich fodder to practice the critical thinking skills you’ve developed during this course. As you watch the following videos, pay close attention to the specific arguments that are being pitched. Do any of the arguments contain fallacies? Are the persuasive techniques in these videos always logical, or are some emotional?

Watch the video below, and then answer the following questions.

YouTube video. https://youtu.be/UvLt3nU14W4 . Uploaded February 2, 2009, by HeartlandTube. To activate captions, first click the play button and then click the CC button in the embedded player. For a text transcript, follow the link below.

· Response Board Question

Top of Form

Using this Climate and Energy Policy page, identify the organization that created this video, explain their stated position on the topic of climate change, and then describe the extent to which you believe this stated purpose affects their credibility.

Which of the following summarizes the central argument of this video?

· The so-called “global warming crisis” is really an alarmist hoax promoted by financially motivated politicians and corporations.

· Global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and it is not caused by human activity.

· If we don’t do something about global warming, crops will dry up, animals will die, and children will go hungry.

· The science is too ambiguous for us to have any idea what’s going on with the climate, so there’s no reason to take action on climate change.

Short Answer Question

This video asserts that those who believe in climate change are claiming that the earth is on fire, the planet is dying, and it’s our fault for living. Explain how this characterization of the opposing side is arguably an example of the “straw man” fallacy.

At one point in the video, the narrator says, “Are the people who say they want to save the planet finally going to tell you that many times the only thing that’s green about their solutions is the money lining the pockets of corporations heavily invested in so-called ‘green’ technologies? And are they going to admit that the cost of force-feeding these technologies into every aspect of our lives could bankrupt a world already teetering on financial ruin?” Explain how these questions function as loaded questions.

Watch the video below, and then answer the following questions.

YouTube video. https://youtu.be/43cyNWLVuac . Uploaded November 28, 2012, by Climate Reality. To activate captions, first click the play button and then click the CC button in the embedded player. For a text transcript, follow the link below.

· Response Board Question

Top of Form

Using this About Us page, identify the organization that created this video, explain their stated position on the topic of climate change, and then describe the extent to which you believe this stated purpose affects their credibility.

Which of the following summarizes the central argument of this video?

· Climate change will cause devastating environmental and social consequences unless those who believe in the science behind climate change work to dispel the myths spread by big oil companies.

· Climate change is not actually happening even though big oil companies and corrupt politicians have successfully spread lies that it is.

· With information spreading so fast on the Internet these days and corporations buying out the media, it’s impossible for us to separate fact from fiction or know anything for sure.

· The environmental benefits of reducing carbon emissions far exceed the economic costs.

Short Answer Question

Although this is a video about climate change, the beginning and end of the video spend time offering evidence that information spreads differently and that we are more connected than ever before to support the fairly indisputable argument that the world has changed. Explain how this is arguably an example of the “red herring” fallacy.

At one point in the video, the narrator talks about industry “funding politicians who deliberately deny the truth,” and then almost immediately shows Senator Jeff Sessions. Explain how this functions as innuendo.

In addition to presenting verbal claims, both videos use appeals to emotion as persuasive techniques. Reflect on the language, images, and music used in the videos, and then provide one example of an appeal to emotion you see at work in each of the videos.

Pay attention to the pronouns used in the videos: “we,” “they,” and “you.” Why do you think the video creators chose to rely heavily on these words? Is there a difference between the way each video uses these same words?

Debating Whether to Act
Flip on the TV and you can see any amount of reporters, journalists, politicians, and pundits sharing their opinions on controversial issues. In this activity, you will watch a video clip from This Week, in which four journalists share their opinions about what should be done regarding climate change.

Watch the video below, and then answer the following questions.

YouTube video. https://youtu.be/YxTw3EbUWKo . Uploaded January 6, 2008, by hollywoodliberal1. To activate captions, first click the play button and then click the CC button in the embedded player. For a text transcript, follow the link below.

Multiple Choice Question

In the debate, George Will quotes a 1975 New York Times article about global cooling as evidence to support which of the following implied arguments?

· If the same types of news sources were wrong about global cooling in the 1970s, why should we believe them when they say the earth is warming today?

· There are just as many credible news sources today suggesting that the earth is cooling.

· There are many news sources that were wrong 30 years ago but are accurate today.

· You can’t trust news sources from the 1970s for accurate climate data, because they used to believe that the earth is cooling.

Multiple Choice Question

Which of the following BEST describes George Will’s primary argument?

· This country is better off spending its money on reducing the effects of climate change than on education, culture, and AIDs prevention.

· The earth is actually cooling these days, not warming, so therefore any measures to halt global warming are completely unwarranted.

· Even though humans have only been recording temperatures for the past 200 years, glacier ice and tree rings can be used to prove that the earth is warmer today than it has ever been.

· There is not enough evidence supporting human-caused global warming to warrant expensive and drastic steps to prevent it.

Multiple Choice Question

Which of the following BEST describes Fareed Zakaria’s primary argument?

· Humans have only been recording temperatures for the past 200 years, so we can’t prove that this is the warmest the earth has ever been.

· The only thing this country needs to do to stop global warming is to institute a carbon tax.

· Since there is scientific consensus that the earth is warming due to human activity, it would be prudent to take reasonable measures to stop this trend.

· Stopping global warming is more important than education, culture, or AIDS prevention.

Short Answer Question

During her argument, Katrina vanden Heuvel quotes a British government official who called global warming skeptics “climate loonies.” Explain how this is arguably an ad hominem attack.

Challenging Credibility
Editorials are another place where you can dependably find strong opinions expressed. It’s up to the critical thinker to discern what arguments they’re pitching, how they respond to the arguments of others, what evidence they offer to support their positions, and whether their credentials give them the authority to speak on the subject.

These two op-eds appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The first, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” was published on January 27, 2012, and the second, “Check with Climate Scientists for Views on Climate,” was published a few days later in response to the arguments made in the first article.

Read the following articles, and then answer the questions below.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

No Need to Panic about Global Warming
There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
January 27, 2012

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Reprinted with permission of the Wall Street Journal, Copyright ©2015 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. License number 3699361108475.

To read the following op-ed, you will need to use this link to the WSJ website. If you have trouble viewing the article there, use the text version.

Check with Climate Scientists for Views on Climate

Multiple Choice Question

Which of the following BEST describes the primary argument of the “No Need to Panic” article?

· The integrity of the scientific “consensus” on climate change is compromised by biases, and there isn’t enough solid evidence to justify implementing expensive programs to control climate change.

· Political candidates shouldn’t support any measures to protect the environment, because environmental concerns are mostly promoted by alarmist scientists and do not represent the majority.

· We can’t trust scientists who promote the idea of global warming, because they often accept bribes from environmentalist groups, and they are the same scientists who denied genetics during the Cold War era.

· There is indisputable evidence to suggest that the earth is cooling, not warming, and therefore it makes no sense to fund programs aimed at halting global warming.

Multiple Choice Question

Which of the following BEST summarizes the primary argument of the “Check with Climate Scientists” article?

· Nothing about the science of climate change can be called into question at this point, because there is a consensus among 97 percent of scientists.

· It is important to take drastic steps to curb climate change, regardless of the negative impact it has on economic growth.

· The so-called “scientists” who signed the “No Need to Panic” op-ed are mostly dentists who have no authority to weigh in on the matter of climate change.

· It would be reckless for policymakers to disregard the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence verifying the dangers of climate change.

· Response Board Question

Top of Form

Look at the list of scientists who signed the “No Need to Panic” article and the scientists who signed the “Check with Climate Scientists” article, do a web search on at least three from each article to find out their credentials and backgrounds, and then compare your findings. Do you see any biases that might compromise their objectivity? Explain your answer.

The “Check with Climate Scientists” article’s opening argument consists of comparing the scientists writing the “No Need to Panic” article to dentists practicing cardiology. Do you think this is a fair argument, or is it an example of an ad hominem attack and a weak analogy? Explain your answer.

At one point in the “No Need to Panic” article, the authors imply that the current state of science is beginning to resemble the time in the Soviet Union when biologists who believed in genes were sent to the gulag or condemned to death. Do you think this is a fair argument, or is it an example of a slippery slope fallacy or a weak analogy? Explain your answer.

How do these articles differ in their portrayal of the economic consequences of fighting climate change, and what support does each article provide for its position?

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form