Posted: April 4th, 2023

Read the various perspectives on going to war in Iraq. President Bush David Koe

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

Read the various perspectives on going to war in Iraq.
President Bush
David Koehler
Compare and contrast former President Bush’s claim that Iraq was a threat to world peace with David Koehler’s position on the issue. Which claims are valid? Which are based on fallacious reasoning (note instances)? Who has the stronger argument? Why?

Reading material:
CO2: Apply critical thinking to problem identification
CO3: Deconstruct techniques used in decision-making
CO4: Examine decision-making models.
CO5: Apply decision-making techniques.
CO6: Assess barriers/risks to decision implementation
CO7: Evaluate resources and actions required for implementation.In the two lessons we have covered this far, we have seen that a premise is evidence and reasoning that supports a claim or argument. We have also seen that a premise can be mistaken if the evidence or reasoning is weak or flawed, and does not support the conclusion. A fallacy is when an argument appears to be correct but is found to be incorrect when investigated further.
A formal fallacy refers to an invalid form of argument – for example, all men are human, all women are human, therefore all men are women. The premises are true but the conclusion is not. An informal fallacy refers to emotional or psychological persuasion that induces illogical reasoning. Have you ever been persuaded by an argument based on fallacy?

Know Yourself
The cardinal rule for critical thinkers is to know yourself. We need to know where we are vulnerable to manipulation, and we need to know which fallacies we tend to use.
Self-esteem
The next cardinal rule is self-esteem. We need confidence and self-esteem to resist rather than give in to pressure. Self-esteem also reduces our defensiveness and thus helps us to think critically rather than respond emotionally and fall back on fallacies. We need self-esteem so that we do not crumble in the face of manipulation and challenges, and so that we do not feel the need to attack others personally.
Listening
Good listening skills help us to assess arguments accurately and thereby make us better critical thinkers. If you detect a fault in someone’s argument, or a lack of reliable evidence, you can address it respectfully after you have listened to their argument. Remember not to dismiss people or their arguments just because you do not agree.
Communication and Writing Skills
Good communication and writing skills enable us to express and present effective arguments, and ensure that our efforts have the desired results. If you are unclear about someone’s communication you should ask them for clarification. Ensure that all definitions are clear and accurate.
Fallacies of relevance are another category of informal fallacies which occur when a premise is logically unrelated to the conclusion. The premise and conclusion may appear to be related but contain one of the following fallacies outlined by Boss (2012).
Ad hominem means against the man. The fallacy of ad hominem or personal attack is when we attack the person rather than the argument, to create disapproval towards the person and their argument. The attack can be circumstantial, whereby a person’s circumstances are used to accuse them of hypocrisy or to dismiss their argument. We may for example, dismiss the janitor’s view because he is ‘just a janitor,’ or we may dismiss our children’s views because they are ‘too young to know anything’. We may dismiss a wealthy person’s views on how to relieve poverty or gang violence in the ghettos because of their privileged position. Dismissing someone’s views or feelings, rather than responding, is a form of abuse and often leads to conflict (Grey, 1993.)
Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumptions
If evidence does not support assumptions used in an argument, then the fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed. We will now have a look at the kinds of fallacies of unwarranted assumptions.
Loaded Questions

Sometimes we ask a question based on the assumption of an answer to a different unasked question. For example, the question ‘When are you planning to have children?’ assumes the person is planning to have children.
Begging the Question

Some conclusions are circular because they are simply restatements of premises or definitions. Watch this video to learn more about begging the question:
Issues
Arguments may make you think of quarreling and fighting, but in critical thinking arguments refer to the ability to inquire intelligently and respectfully through reason and evidence.

An issue refers to the uncertainty or controversy that arises from a poorly defined set of problems. When problems are unclearly defined and unfocused, the response is accordingly shallow and unsatisfactory.
Miscommunication
At the heart of most misunderstandings is a cross-purpose miscommunication. Issues usually arise when one party talks about how they feel, and the other party perceives it as an attack – and because the arguments are poorly defined and poorly constructed, issues start to fester. To clarify issues, we need to ask the right questions. The questions we ask determine the answers we will get.
Issues
Arguments may make you think of quarreling and fighting, but in critical thinking arguments refer to the ability to inquire intelligently and respectfully through reason and evidence.

An issue refers to the uncertainty or controversy that arises from a poorly defined set of problems. When problems are unclearly defined and unfocused, the response is accordingly shallow and unsatisfactory.
Miscommunication
At the heart of most misunderstandings is a cross-purpose miscommunication. Issues usually arise when one party talks about how they feel, and the other party perceives it as an attack – and because the arguments are poorly defined and poorly constructed, issues start to fester. To clarify issues, we need to ask the right questions. The questions we ask determine the answers we will get.

How to Recognize, Analyze, and Construct Arguments
If we begin a discussion with an open-ended question, it invites analysis and exploration. If we begin with a position statement, it is rhetoric. While rhetoric certainly has its place, it is used as a persuasive tactic and does not belong at the beginning of a discussion when we have not yet researched other perspectives and evidence.
Since rhetoric is a persuasive tactic, the purpose is to win. The purpose of argumentation on the other hand, is to discover the truth, propose good reasons for a position, and to allow the position to be evaluated. Good arguments therefore allow for analysis, feedback and criticism.
Breaking Arguments Down
We want to be able to follow an argument’s line of thought. To do this, we must identify its different parts. When we break down an argument in this manner, we are able to analyze the propositions, and the connection between the premises and conclusion to determine the quality of the argument.

We will now look at the process of breaking down and diagramming an argument. For a more in depth descriiption, please see page 175 of Boss (2012). Consider the following argument: Since Andrew worked hard all year and made the most sales, I knew he would get the bonus.

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now