32 TENTH UNIT ARGmE.:;TATIVE PAS~GE.S FOR IffiICAL EVALUATION You need a bit of courage to criticize reasoning which people present in current publications and in daily conversation. At least you need a bit of boldness. To criticize the reasoning you have to focus attention On the ways people put their claims together to draw conclusions. To pay attention to ~~e fOrMS or patterns with which people ~ke L~erences reluires interpretation and restructuring of what they actually say. When we interpret and reorg~~ize What people actually say we run the risks of being inaccurate and unfair. It would be nice to be able to criticize others without opening ourselves to criticism. But it seems that we have to put forth our interpretations and rec~nstructions for critical scrutiny when we criticize others; and that takes a bit of courage. Most of the passages in this Unit are accompanied by SOMe leadi~g questions about how to analyze them. It is hoped that they are leading as opposed to being misleading questions. In criticizing the reasoning do not think that you need to criticize the entire argument. In many cases you may think that, on the whole, a good case is made for some cl')nclusion, but that certain subarguments in the case are fallacious. It is common that only part of a complex of arguMents is defective. The jo~ of logical criticism is frequently to uncover and disMiss the logical~T weak arg'.lments so that serinus atter.tion can be directed towards the truth of the premises of the logically correct ar~~ents. Do not let this sample of arguments Mislead you to a conclusion that most people argue poorly when they try to argue. The material presented here is a biased sample. Huch material was read and passages which seerr.3d defective were selected; arguments which seemed strong were systematically rejected for inclusion. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •••••••••• I. Recall the stories frOM late ~ Another terror-1st V-Ict-Im Dec. 1981 about assassination --07 teans sent frOM Libya to assassin- ate u. S. leaders. Some people in our I. All Americans must feel frustrated by the country had doubts about the accuracy of recent assassination of a member of a U.S. the reports of there being such "hit diplomatic mission. f Lt. Col. Charles Ray. an American military squads" from Libya. The excerpt rom a attache in Paris. was the latest of more than Jan. 22, 1982 C-J editorial seems to make 300 diplomats from various c:ountries killed by a wild leap frOM facts about Ray, Dozier, terronsts since 1968. when the State Depart- ment s~arted keeping statistics and a tneory about the seriousness of f Just a few weeks ago. another member of assassination threats from ene!!lies 0 the U.S. mission in Pans was shot at. After democracy and capt1alism to a conclusion that, U.S. Brig. Gen. James Dozier, a NATO that the speculation about the Ubyan commamier. was kidnapped in ltaly. i 1 It should be obvIOUS that the terrorist at- hit squads must be taken ser ous y. tacks are part of a concerted effort to stir fear. There seems to be no structure to confUSion and dissension among the Western their apparently illogical leap. But allies. It also should be obvious that the terror- ist network is being encouraged and financed try using as a target tor reconstruc- by enemies of democracy and capitalism. _ tim the pattern of confusing 'some one Perhaps the killing of Ray ~ilI end the or other' with 'sol'1e definite one' on snickers heard from some quarters 'about the p. 18. Perhaps they think the facts rf'Cent report that a "hit squad" has been diS- d patched to the United States by Libyan dictator about the assassination of Ray an Moammar Kbadafy. others give them:Some threats, reports. ' and ~~ors of assassination attempts from enemies of democracy etc., must be taken seriously. They have: The rumors of Libyan "hit squads" were SO:"le threats, reports, etc.,. By a fallacit)'Us fnr.n we took note of they c~~ then move to their conclusion. How do you thL~k ~~ey g~t there? 33 ~ ~,3~Back On p.JJ we referred to a fallacious 9ne place to cut C-J' it/lsI patt~rn of 1nfere~ce in which so~on~ mOVes frmn a claim that a certain theory or pro- posal is plausib10 to a conclusion that it is probable that it is correct or workable. Consider the bright ideas offered in these two C-J letters on the right. Perhaps you may also want to evaluate Hr. Reed's Control of the federal budg,~t has becomr impossible With entrenched Interests pre~slnb for milk. peanut and tobacco support.; and thl' pork-barrel programs for dam". canals and water projects. So we need a new area to cut The idea of one Six-year presidential term ~ms reasonable. Why not limit Senate and House members to a total of 12 years In Con. theory from ~~e perspective that his idea gress" One result would be to r~duce the votr influencing practice of "look what I got from Washington for my district." is good, in the sense it saves a lot of Money, but that it may not be good enou~h, namely, Save enough money to be worthwhile. See the bottom of p. J2. Hewlett's sug- gestion could also be evaluated from this To really dream. why not consider electlnr:: half as many senators and representatlve~" When we had 13 states. we needed two senator' from each state. but now one shou Id be enough And if we had half as many representatlve~. think of the personnel and office space tha I could be saved Cuts in the cost of opera tint; Congress could save 1500 mJlhon each year. NELSON REED, Mont Vernon. perspective. ~ • • • • • • • . . . . . . .. . • • • • • 11../ .l.. S{ Y I ¥.In one sense of 'teach' you teach regard- less of whether or not the pupil learns. In another sense o~ 'teach' nothi."'lg is taught if , the pupil learns nothing. In light of this ambigui ty, assess the argument implicit in Getting even ~ Cl '/JJ I ~.2 A. Kemppinen's brief letter to ~ in re- action to an article reporting that many Let's really do something about our econo- my in the car manufactUring bUSiness. Here's a Simple idea that is fair and would be easy to implement: physicians 1¥.Ti.rrle Jan. is, 19~-- had not repaid i . student loans. I Harvard Medical School obvlOusly does not teach its students profeSSional . I Whenever a foreign country charges an Im- port tax on American cars. let's unpose the same import rate on their cars. __ .... ":110..~ ethics. since many of its alumni do not re- r pay their student loans What could be more fair and helPful to our auto manufacturers. their employees and our nation') - H.D. HEWLETT. Columbus. \ Auvo /. Kemppinen I J. Breiner, Cols. Dispatch Nov. So LATELY, TAXPAYERS have been looking at the cost of the inves- tigation and saying, "They're crazv. They're going to spend more th~n $13 million trying to explain what happefted to the money." They wonder if it is worth it. Well, consider what happens when a poIicman catches an 18-year- old carrying a $400 television set from somebody's home. The theft amounts to only $400. But when the creaky wheels of the criminal justice system have finished turning, punishing this kid may cost the taxpayers more than if they had p;Jid to send him to Harvard. There is the cost of the arrest, the prosecution and, if the youth is indi- gent, the defense. It costs money to keep him in jail. . The poiot is that taxpayers rou- tinely pay more for the arrest and punishment of a criminal than is the loss due to the crime. SO IT IS NOT really out of line to spend $1.3 million to find $1.3 mil- lion. Ballwin. Mo <"-r 1(1'/~1 24, 1981Jr In the column from which the excerpt ~ o~ the left was taken Breiner is discus- sing the controversy over the fact that it is taking the accounting firm of Price- Waterhouse much time and much money to trace what happened to $1.3 million dol- lars missing from the Ohio treasury. He offers an analogical argument to defend the expenditure of up to $1.3 million to uncover what happened to the missinrr $1.3 million. Reconstruct this argunent in an analogical form and then try to evaluate it without making too many assumptions that are controversial. , , o. Recall pp. 31- • :32 and ask yourself t llrrlited by what standard 1 Then re- I construct and ap- praise an argument in the brief Nov. 11, 1981 ~ let- ter on the right. ) It is not the possession of ..... eapons that impels countries to fight with one anOlher. but causes, real or fanciful. that motivate nations to acquire the arms for war. Limit- ed weapons did not prevent Hannibal from killing as many Romans in a sl11gle battle (Cannae) as the US. lost 111 se,en years of Viet Nam fighting. nor did it SlOp the genocidal acts of Genghis Khan . History proves that while men with guns kill. those without arms or ..... lth Infe- rior weapons die. Common sense dlCLates that we and our all1es stay well anned WIf/;am R flt.l"k:ni B,'t.lc;" ~bu '< ,,, O,spalch Wa.hin9lon Bu'""u WASHINGTON - It wasn't a good year for 12,000 federal bu- reaucrats. The Reagan administration wants to trim the federal work- Coree, and the latest figures from the government show that it shr~nk by ~hat_.number in 1981. . The report was released by Rep. Mlc~ael Barnes, D-Md., who has an Interest in these matters be- cause he represents an affluent' s~burb of.Washington where many highly paid federal employees live. MANY OF THE 1981 job cuts were ~one by simply getting rid of agen~les, such as the Community Services Administration . . Barnes noted that about one- third of the reductions came through a mechanism called "re- ~uction in force" or RIF. The RIF J?~ cuts came to 3,411 of the total firings. . ~~turally, Barnes was quick to Criticize the cutbacks, saying they had been done unfairly. His repo~t nOte~ that the government's high- er paid workers - above the feder- al pay grade of GS-12 - made up _ 44.percent of the RIF. But he also poInted out that the lowest-paid employees - GS grades one through four - accounted for only 11 I?ercent of the RIF. These developments have not brought many tears to the eyes of people in Washington who don't work for the government and have to live by their wits instead of having civil service protections. Staffers on Capitol Hill, in pri- vate conversations, are showing little compassion for the fired agency personnel. Of course, a Hill staffer can be fired in a minute if his boss wakes up in a bad mood one morning. What's lost in all of this uproar is that the government employs more than a million people, and so losing 12,000 of them will hardly bring the federal establishment quaking to its knees. (On this page: ad hominem cir- cumstantial, ad populum? 34 ~ 7. On the left is an excerpt from a ne'.rs article from the Jan. 10, 1982 Columbus Disoatch. Perhaps news articles should report the facts and not argue for any con- clusion. Nevertheless, this article makes a case for the justification o~ the Reduction In Force (RIF) of Federal Employees. Do you detect an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy in dismissing an argument against their view? Would you reconstruct some of the closing remarks as an illegitimate appeal to popular sentiment to justify a claim? Do you find hints of a Division fallacy in their dismissal of Barnes' points? It wouldn't be correct to conclude that the details of an RIF proBram are justified even if the RIF program is, on the whole, justified. - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.BelOW are two "target" forms of fallacies: one of a misuse of relative terms and the other an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy • The cost of doing R in way X is hiBh. ••• The cost of doing R in way X is higher than doi."'lg R in way Y. Those who do R in way X are going to make a profit fnrm tax monies, .'. Those who do R in way X are going to overcharge the public for doing it. Aim at these "target" forms in your efforts to expose fallacies in the letter below which appeared in the Jan. 10, 1982 Columbus Disoatch. Fees to house retarded adults in home not told and too high I A Dec. 30 Dispatch story told of a plan Cor placing eight mentally retarded adults in a home located at 1421 Kenwick Rd. The story stated that it would be cheaper to house these people in this manner. What it neglected to mention was that Human Services receives $50 a day per individual. I certainly don't consider that a bargain. I feel this is high, especially since I know this is taxpayers' money paid to a profit-making organization. Division?, misuse of relative terms.) Mrs. Tom Wolfel Columbus 35 'f. Journal says stingy drug policie's force suTfering , . . BOSTON (UPI) - Hospitalized pa- tients endure too much day-to-day pain because doctors and nurses are needlessly stingy with narcotics, an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine laid "VI ednesday. Hospital staffers should get rid of their unrealistic fear that patients will become addicted or suffer barm- ful side effects from pain-killers and increase doses of pain-killers if necessary .. "rote Dr. Marcia Angell, deputy edItor of the medical journal. "Few things a doctor does are more important than relieving pain," she wrote. "Yet the treatment of severe pain in hospitalized patients Is regularly and systematically inade- - - quate." "Pain Is soul~estroying. No pBnent should bave to endure intense pain un- Decessarily. Tbe quality of mercy Is essential to the practice of medicine' bere, of an places, it sbould not b; .trained. " Dr. Angell said one study showed that 73 percent of patients undergoing .• treatment for pain continued to ex- perience moderate to severe dlscom- • fort despite medication. - ~ "The desire to protect patients from becoming insidiously drawn into a .tate of addiction cfutorts both our lense of priorities and our scientific judgment," sbe said. Dr. Angell wrote tJult addiction is "exceedJnily unUkely," and happens ~---.... -'ln probably no more lban 0.1. percent ,. The report about Dr. Angell' .of the time. Withdrawal Is ac- . th f' k' 11 compllshed easily if pain no longer ex-nev:s on e use 0 paln- 1. - IIts abe wrote. in.::; druss appeared in the Jan. ' 14, 1982 Lantern. Her 2nd. and 5th paragraph justify interpreting her co~clusion as: Doctors and nurses should increase the dosages of pain- killing medication for hospital patients until severe and moderate pain is removed regardless of risk of addiction. In so far as she is tryinG to motivate people to act her appeals to emotions are appropriate. Of course, though, the emotional appeals are irrelevant to our forming a correct opinion on what is likely to happen if we act in the which she wants us to. In par- ticular, the emotional appeals are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not fear that patients will become addicted is realistic. Fortunately for our evaluation of her reasoning ,an argument for the unlikelihood of addiction if pain-killer use is increased. is reported in the last paragraph of the above excerpt. . Complete the reconstruction below in the way which you think represents Dr. Angell's reasoning. Pass cri~ical judgment on this reasoning. Under conditions of present usuage of pain-killers in hospitals .1~~ of the patients administered pain-killers become addicted to them. ( • o=}· 10. Er. r·jcGee's letter appeared in the C-J ori Christmas Day 1981. vlould you reconstruct his argument as a hasty generalization from anecdotal experience? Does he use flimsy analogies to support a persuasive definition of 'pusher.' Perhaps he even i.rt roduces traces of ad hominem circumstantial in this short letter. Reconstruct it to see whether any inference can be salvaged from it. Per- r_aps not. ) r:-: . - The worst pUShers ~. !t', P"M\ iUt Columbus police are rounding ' .. uP 10 'many drug pushers. . . • 'Unfortunately, the big mooey-millting push- · en areo't busted because they are protected by ~ the law. These dealers happen to have MDs t- aile!" their urnes. '.. My motber listened to tbeir' advice for : • years and now is addicted to pills in tbe worst _ way. Her habit is very costly, but it .helps ;' doctors play lolf, take vaations and invest on the stock market. Young people who see their parents taking pills are more inclined to pop sopors and down· · en. Then they are thrown In )-111 Let's put the :- IM&rden of pilt .~ It belongs - DE:\:\1S , -McGEE. c.klmbus '"- 36 II. ~ I/. We can sympathize Witl1 la"Tence' S residents' desire to defend their to"~. Fut arp. str~nb defenses reported in this excerrt on tr.e right frnM the Jan. 8, 1982 C-J? Do you detect a cOMFcsition fallacy tn kee~ la"T~nce rro~ last place7 Could ynu re~()~struct an illegiti~~te aFpeal tn tr.e pnpu:ace as an autliority7 I~.!s a Su~re~e cnurt Justice an authority on econcr.ic fIlatters 7 Consider the excer:lt fror~ a rnici-Deoc. 1981 C-J editorial just be- la..:. A1.rrt • t the "tarcet" f nnn be low to try to ~cover an accident falJacy. The C-J 1s ar~uinc to support Chief Justice Warren :ur~~r's suggestion that U.S. prisons be co:"xerted to factories producing standard cons~er products. •• fa. Factories with fences t'nder Burger's concept. prisoners would eirn the pre\'all1ng local wage. or at least the federal minimum .... ·age. from which they would piy sute and federal taxes and pOSSibly room and board. As for objections from private business. certalnl\' the most voracious consumer SOClct\· In the world could absvrb the production of 100:000 pnioMrs, as Burger L'ud X c~n use morft P than X now uses. DALE McFE,4ITERS s.u,..,.H .. .,.., Staff w,,.., LA WRE~CE, Mass - This New England factory town, along with its neighboring commUnities, has just bl.-en rated the absolute worst place to live of Americ(~ 277 metropolitan areas. lAwrencc R. Smith, esecuth'e di- rector of the local Chamber of Com· merce, Says heatedly as he loads down a VISitor with promotional literature, "U anybody came up here or talked to anybody up here, they'd know it was just wrong. Totally false, totally inac- curate, Evervbod\' around here knows better, This is a GOOD place to live' "Visit us," he urges, "or just write and we'll send vou some information that shows this is a pretty good area," Not. bowever. according, to Rand McNally's just-published $11,95 "Places Rated Almanac: Your GUide To Finding The Best Places To Live In America .. &sed on a point s)'Stem that rated .uch things as climate, health care and recreation, Lawrence-Haverhill wound up with 1,427 points. 846 behind winner AUanta. Washington. D.C" finisbed sec- ond, Pittsburgh was fourth. Local anal}'Sts. scouring the ratings fer bTlght spots. note that Lawrence- Haverhill didn't finish last in anv one category and that if the town's water bad been fluoridated that would have been enough to loft it ahead of Favette- ville-Springdale. Ark., the runner-up worst place. n Ps ar~ more Ps than X now uses. ( n is some number such as 100,000.) • • • X can u.se n More P than X now uses. 13. SOnetil<.es it is rig::' Government expected to appeal to the populace to Care lor elderJrv as the aut.t_ority on ,"'hat 'I I ~ , I J ought to be done. Still, ever: whp.n it is right to appeal to ti:e public t s op1r.ion, the appeal can be carried out in an incorrect way. Recnnstruct ani apprabe Reeves' ...., way of reaching a conclusion on pub- lic opinion on ~are of the elderly. The bulk of the cnlumn. which is left-out. points out the problems the U.S. faces 1! the governments have to bear the main burden or car~ for the elderly. (Cn thi~ page: ad populum, accident, a~peals to authority, poll-taking) cor::;:osition Richard Reeves WASHINGTON - Traveling the country for the past couple of years I have asked the same question over and over: "Who is responSible for uking care of your parents in their old age"" The aaswers - from students in Ithaca, N.Y" and professors in New York City. from autoworkers in Detroit and U,S. senators here - bave almost always been "the go'.-ernment." I caMOt recall more than a couple of pe0- ple who gave a different answer, Mariy people were uncomfortable when they said it. but they laid it. Some bitterly blamed Franklin D, Roos- evelt and said that such dependence on govern- ment was ruining America, but their answer was the sarr.e. Jrowe\'er much we love to talk about rug· ged individualism and taking care of the faml' ly, an American consensus has been reached that uking care of the old is a public functIOn on the same order as educating children In a worltlng democracy, consensus IS the ultimate power, and the decISion hiS been mace 37 IY. Discussion of this editorial from the 1'1. . Tax break misiaJ{e Jan. 14, 1982 C-J CQuld lead to disputes. Disputes could arise over the wisdom of Reagan's administration's decision to stop the IRS from denying tax-exempt status to schools practicing racial discrimination. The decision of Jan. 8 is reported below. Disputes also arise when we reoonstruct an argument as an appeal to authority. Disputes arise • " The Reagan administration may have a Ie· :lal point in dropping an ll-year-old govern· .rnent policy of denying tax-exempt status to :private educational institutions that practice ,racial discrimination. But it is on shaky ground ;from a moral standpoint. . In justifying the reversal of an Internal :Revenue Service policy dating back to the Nix· ·on administration, the Justice and Treasurv 'departments argue that IRS has no clear basis in law for denying tax-exempt status to private schools and colleges that discriminate. over whether or not the alleged authorities are truly authorities. What's the dispute about here? It depends upon what we pay at- tention to. It is clear that the C-J is arguing that Reagan should have oontinued . . Deputy Treasury Secretary Richard McNa· ·mar says it is inappropriate for the executive 'branch to exercise such a power in areas where .Congress has not spoken clearly, the IRS denia 1 of tax-exempt ions. To sup- port their main conclusion they offer two arguments to rebut Reagan's belief that ~: That legal technicality, if indeed it is one. ~idn't seem to bother the Nixon, Ford and ;Carter administrations, They denied tax-ex· Dempt status to 100 private institutions on the the Administrative Branch has no legal right to deny tax exemptions. Let us ground that taxpayers should not have to subsi· dize practices that run contrary to the nation's firm policy against racial discrimination, focus attention on those two areuments. Reoonstruct and appraise an argument that there are no Significant leeal objec- tions to denying tax-exempt ion ; and make this argument an appeal to the authority of Presidents: Nixon, Ford, and Carter. We think the Reagan administration made a mistake, especially since the IRS policy was before the courts and its legality would have been decided in due course. The Justice De- partment plans to ask the Supreme Court to throw out that case in light of the administra- tion's change of policy, .: WASHINGTON (UPI) - Widely criticized for restoring tax-exempt sta- tus to private schools that refuse ~o . admit blacks, President Reagan saId Tuesday he is "unalterably 0l'posed" t.o racial discrimination and WIll submIt new legislation to attack the problem. The decisIon Friday by the Treasury and Justice departments restored tax exemptions to Bob Jones University of . Greenville, S.C., and the Goldsboro Christian Schools .of Goldsboro, N.C. White House spokesman David Ger- • gen said Reagan concurred in the deci· sion by his departmental Chiefs, but was "disturbed" by and regretted the perception that his administration was retreating on civil rwts. . .. But the president said there was another issue at stake, wbich went to the heart of the decision by Treasurv and Justice, and it involved "adminis. trative agencies exercising powers that the Constitution assigns to the Con- gress." In ,otbe~ words, Gergen said, Rea- gan stJlI objects to agencies sucb as the IRS taking such broad actions without benefit of legislation. "Such agencies," Reagan said, "can. Dot be allowed to govern by adminis- trative fiat. "That was the sole basis of the deci- lion" Friday, he said. "I regret that there bas been a nusunderstanding of the purpose of the deciSIon," C-J 1/13.82 IS. How can we use the C-J's observation that "the IRS policy was before the courts and its legality would have been decided in due course " as a premise for a oonclusion that there is no significant legal objection to continuing the IRS policy? If the legality of the policy is before the Court and the Court has not yet heard the case, then we arp. ignorant of whether or not the policy is legal. Isn't the citation of the fact that the policy is before the Court an indirect assertion that we are ignorant of the legality of the policy? Reconstruct the edi torial' s appeal to the IRS's policy being before the Court as an appeal to ignorance. If you do not think that it should be reconstructed as an appeal to ignorance how should it be interpreted? Or do you know of some legal principle that can be used to guide us on What course to follow when we are practicing a policy of whose legality we are ignorantl Appeal to Authority Appeal to Ignorance 38 Mini.ster believes Hasty generalization post hoc question begging Divisionl I'. in 'visualizing' By GEORGE PLAGENZ C-T . II 0", '1r-.H ... ".R- wnw ,q a , SAN DIEGO, Calif. - She could well be the most beautiful minister in the world but the thought bas to cross your mind as you watch ber and laten to ber: Is it the medium or the message wbich attracts 3,000 people to her Sunday morning services at the Califor- nia .Theater? 1 decided to put the Rev. Terry Cole-Whittaker's message to the test. She had told us, during the meditation part of the service, to picture vividly in our minds whatev!!r it is we desire and that, if we do that, we will discover that the picture will come to life. Would the technique work on the tennis court? 1 found myself an opponent I had beaten in practically every set of tennis we had ever played together. She had also heard Mrs. Cole-Whittaker ex- pound her "visualization" theory at the Sunday serv- ice. She was anxious to try it out. Before each serve - hers or mine - she would close her eyes and picture what she desired the score to be after the next point had been played. For example, if the score was 40-30 my favor, she would form the picture "40-40" in her mind, which would mean she had won the next point. Tben we would play the point. Believe it our not - and 1 would not have 00. lieved it - she won the set, 6-3. One set of tennis does not a theory prove, but this visualization technique bas been tried on a higher level than tennis and been proved workable. Tbere is a specialist in cancer therapy in Califor- nia who combines conventional medical treatment with visualization by the patient. - One of the techniques Simonton recommends to hls patients is to form a picture in the mind of the beallng process going on within their bodies. He .told .a 12-year-old boy to picture his white, bealing corpus- cles as cowboys attacking his tumor. The boy recov- ered. Terry Cole-Whittaker, wbose Church of Religious Science bere has grown from a membersbip of 50 to 3,600 in five years, started practiCing visualization in her freshman year of college. "I wanted to be homecoming queen," sbe says, "but my hair had turned from blond to darker. I was overweight and not even close to being the prettiest in my class. "So I worked on it. 1 did visualizations on being homecoming queen. 1 conjured up all the feelings, the emotions, the joy I would feel if I were picked. I lost 25 pounds and became a blonde again. I didn't under- stand a whole lot about the prinCiples but they worked. I was chosen as homecoming queen." At 41, she is still a startling beauty. A couple of years ago she finished third in the national Mrs. America contest. Her weekly television program, called "With love, Terry!," is heard currently in the ~n Diego and < Los Angeles areas, but she has set her sights on a .. world-wide television ministry. U people put ber preaching into practice, they ~ will "close the gap between potential and perform- ~ ance," she says. . ~ Why does her teaching work? X --1 This doctor - Dr. Carl Simonton - ~Ib his patients they have a mind that is in charge cif their body's cells. Tbe body will do what you tell it to do, he .~ys. .- "It works," she says, "because what we believe in ! our minds manifests itself physically, tangibly • .iD Our ., experience. What you believe, you get. I teach people , belief in the power within us which can make things I U bOW to cbange their negative, limited thinking into a e~actly as we choose them to be." ". "_ ".Does this fallacious pattern occ;" t rr SO, show how.. If fallacious, say why. In a few cases,visualization of a desired outCOMe is followed by that outcome • ••• In ~th::..!...e-s-e-f-e-w--c-a-s-e-s-visuaUzation causes the desired ()utcome • ••• In general, visualization of a desired outcome does (canl) cause the occurrence of the desired ()utcome. Who, if' anynne,is arguing here? And for what? Assess the attempt to explain how the alleged visualization process works. What's assumed to answer the question about how her teaching worksf Jr -----.---:--;.--.~- - --- - - ... --- .... ----.. ~ .... -- - . .._ .... ---- .... - • - - - - • Small businesses supply endless goods and n. I it f 1r Plight of the little guy services. Collectively they employ thousands. • S a S 11 b · . Ohio are being robbed Yet whenever taxes are increased, small busi- to recon- . ma USlDesSes .In. nesses pay more than others. t t this while large corporations are given the luxury M a consequence of that stupid taxing phi- s rue of long-term tax abatements to keep them in iosophy, small businesses fold or are forced letter on the state. . into inflationary price increases. - E. ERIC the left as It is incredible that our ~~te leaders would OSBORN, Amlin. C-'" "1 '0/11 itting take advantage of the effiCiently run small ..... coram business community by tripling the franchise the Division Fallacy:Collf!ctively small tax and dunning corporate lDcome below $25,- bib"" business and so small 000 at nearly 5 percent while treaung large US nesses are a ~ ., companies generously. businesses should be taxed as big ones. I~. A REBUl'TAL l'l· Religion, not the lack of same; was reason America founded Bernard H. Witsbergrr's letter to the editor (Dispatch, Dec. 27) would have been more understandable if it had come from a political figure in a Communist country. I suggest that he take another look at American history to see why this great country of ours was founded. Witsberger states in his letter that "when people's religion con(Jicts with the traditions, interests, arfd culture of their country, its consititution, and its laws, then those people should quit either their religion or their country." Maybe Witsberger doesn't realize that our Founding Fathers established America's laws and precepts on the principles recorded in the laws of God, including the Ten Commandments. It is not the people with religion (God) who are in conflict with our nation's traditions, Constitution, laws and so forth, but the people without religion (God). Religion, not the lack of it, was the reason for the founding of this country. Also, Witsberger apparently does not understand the First Amendment to our Constitution in regard to the separation of church and state. The amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [,orbidding the Cree exercise thereof The intention of our Founding Fathers was to protect the American people from an established government church which would be controlled by the government and paid for b~' taxpayers. They wanted to avoid this favoritism by separating church and state in function. This does not mean they intended a government devoid of God or of guidance found in Scripture. To separate personal religious preference from a forced establishment of religion is far different from separating godliness from government. It is when government gets away from God that problems arise. So I suggest that Witsberger either get religion or move to a country like the Soviet Union where he won't have to be bothered with it. I I sincerely hope he will do the former. Brenda Joyce Clevinger 39 '{ On Jan. 10, 1982 the rebuttal on the left was prL~ted in the Columbus Disoatch. ! Witsberger, who is being criticized, ! wrote his letter to criticize Columbus Diocese Bishop Herrmann for complaining of inaccurate reporting of clerical activity. Perhaps the gist of the argument in the part of Witsberger's letter below is: By our traditions and constitution no relieion should L~fluence public policy by virtue of being an official state religion. ••• By our traditions and Constitution no religion should influence public policy in any way. Witsberger's argument is reconstructed so that it is an obvious misuse of the relative term 'influence by.' "7'--1'" V I t IS IrOniC that Herrmann seems worried about his and other bishops' image in view of the frightening picture of the Catholic bishops meddling in national and state legislation, not onl:.· in the abortion issue but also in the issues of capital punishment, the living will, armaments, illegal aliens, along with attempting to get public mone\' for p:aroc~ial schools, and all this in flagrant VIOlatIOn of the Constitution. Religious meddling is causing chaos in Iran; it has brought about the assassination of Anwar Sadat; and it has already disrupted the demucratic process J in the United States. . The U.S. tradition of separation of church and state demands that no religious leader or group should attempt to influence government in the United 6tates anywhere at anytime. When people's religion conflicts with the traditions, interests, and culture of their country, its constitution, and its laws, then those people should quit either their religion or their country. Whether they do or. do not, they have no righ ... whatsoever by any means or way whatsoever to impose their religion upon others who differ in be1ief. A so-called religious person does not make a pursuit _ - Columbus I ,. Does her 5th. paragraph bring out the flaw in Witsberger's argument? How? right by claiming approval of his god. All meddling in government by a person or group in the name of a religion should be declared criminal and liable for prosecution. The U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Let it be so. And as it is so, then by implication no religion should be permitted to influence In the course of exposing Witsberger's fallacy does Clevinger co~~t, or tend to commit, genetic fallacies and ad hominem abusive fallacies by noting a slight analogy between Witsberger's views and those of some Co~ists? 1 lawmakers. . Bernard H. Witsberger Delaware. Ohio I 40 (.=-=--- Embattled ERA ! I Letters to TIME. JANUARY 4.1982 . 10. What a display of twisted legal logic by Federal Judge Marion Callister [Jan. • 4): on the one hand be rules "that states have the constitutional right to change their minds." while, On the other hand, Congress has no constitutional right to its decision to extend the original deadline Time maga~ine have to be very short. So, the writers do not have Space to develop their rD~ath Knell? for passage of ERA. SeUa A. Hytonen arguments in de-: Berkeley. Calif tail so that ~ I 21. I am a prO-ERA Mormon who has cfosely followed the legal maneuverings between NOW and Judge Callister. The outcome of the ERA extension-recision cases was determined by the male Mor- mon hierarchy from the day the case showed up in Callister's courtroom. Susan W Howard Santa Barbara. Calif they appeal to ' reason. They need to present a readily grasp- ed point which may not be their' best point. So, we criticize the letters on the left simply on the basis of what is written. Perhaps with ample space the writers would uslie B. Hardy offer much Oklahoma City TIME. JANUARY 25.1982 stronger argu- ments. :ttHaving Judge Callister. a member of the Mormon Church, rule on the fate of the most significant piece of women's rights legislation since the 19th Amend- ment 60 years ago is akin to having an ex- ecutive of the National Rifle Association decide on the constitutionality of gun- control legislation. 20. If you regard the U.S. as a Whole and the several states as its parts, do you think that a Division Fallacy can be detected in S.A Hytonen's letterl ,. r. Wouldn't this be a kind of post hoc reasoning? C is an M, Ms believe P, C be- lieves P. Therefore, C believes P because Two rulings hurt ERA I t was a stunning defeat. a double blow to the dwindling prospects for ratifica- tion of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In a long-awaited two-pan decision. U.S. District Judge Marion J. Callister ruled in Boise, Idaho. last week that states have the constitutional right to change their minds. He declared that the legisla- tures of Idaho. Tennessee. Kentucky. Ne- braska and South Dakota had acted legal- ly when they voted to rescind their initial ratifications of ERA. In an 81-page ruling the judge wrote: "Congress has no power to determine the validity or invalidity of a properly cenified ratification or recision." If that ruling is eventually sustained. it would reduce the number of states that have ratified the proposed 27th amend- ment from 35 to 30, far shon of the 38 re- quired to change the Constitution. The second pan of Judge Callister's opinion. ifit is not overturned. means that ERA is already dead. He ruled that Con- gress had acted unconstitutionally when it decided to extend its original seven-year deadline for slates to ratify ERA from March 22, 1979. to June 30. 1982. De- clared the judge: "When this time is set. it is binding on Congress and the states and it cannot be changed by Congress there- after." He noted that both houses had ap- proved the original deadline by two-thirds votes but had allowed the extension by simple majorities. Angry backers of the amendment an- nounced that they would appeal directly to the Supreme Coun. The National Or- ganization for Women had tried to force the former high official of the Mormon Church to remove himself from the case C is an M? (See pp. 29,32) But even if C 'be- lieves P because he is an M wouldn't it be an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy to sug- gest that C's judgment that P is incorrect? In light of these questions, consider S.W. Howard's letter. I on the ground that his religious beliefs posed a conflict of interest leaders of his L church are strongly opposed to ERA. A 2 ~ Frequently analogies are used to argue in an ad hominem way. It is pointed out that C is analogous to X who is bad, biased, etc., about something similar to what C is talJd..ng about. We are implicitly encouraged to transfer our tendency t.o conlTlit ad haninem fallacies about what X would say to what C did say. Such an approach is subject to criticism on the basis of the analogy and then on the suggestion that we use ad hominem reasoning. Do these rather indirect remarks suggestion a pattern tor starting to organize the brief remarks of 1.. Hardy into an argument 1 41 ;;':-:.::.10 -:~', cS.( !-:0:;]i.1C; .. c::'rc·J::ista:. tial t r:Ususe 01 relative terr.: Some Bones of Contention In the Dec. 21, 1981 issue of ~ there was an article in the "Science" section with the above title. The article described a ceremony in which the Yurok Indians of California buried the reMains of some of their a~cestors w!-:ich they had recovered front archaeologists by a California State Court order. ':'he article went on to describe the rather successful effort of Native A~ericans to recover and rebury the remains of Indians and earli~r Native Ar.ericans which had been collected in the late 19th and early 20th centurie~. The article went on to report, and to reveal sympathy with, the regret of so~e scientists over this effort to rebury the remains of these people. SOMe excerpts from this article are on the left below. On the right belaw are two letters arguing on points raised by "Some Bones of Contention." Let t S analyze and appraise those two arguments in the "letters" section of Time Jan. 11, 1982. For their part, scientists fear that the ~ction in Sacramento is only. the first step m a systemaltc assault against other pri- vate and public Indian collections. Many also perceive an antiscientific bias in the Indians' campaign and a broader threat to . all free inquiry. U.C.L.A. Archaeologist Clement Meighan. who is the chairman of a recently formed committee seeking to overturn the state's decision in the courts. even invokes the image of China's Cultur- al Revolution, during which centers of learning were shut down and scholars ex.- i1ed to the countryside to do menial labor. Says Meighan: "Since many of these bones ~re over 2,OOOy~rs old, it's hard to imag- me how any Indian in California can trac •. lineal descent (from them]." U nfortunately, much of this archaeolog-Ical treasure-37I skeletal remains ~nd more than 100,000 artifacts, including Jewelry, tools and musical instruments- has barely been studied, especially not with the latest analytical tools for dating, identi- fying and interpreting ancient fragments. It is hard not to wonder what secrets reo main in this rich legacy left by America's first settlers. Curator Riddell hardly seems to be exaggerating.when he warns: "In re- burying this collection, we are unwittingly assisting the Indians in destroying their past. .. -By'~ GoIdeta. Reporl«l by Ale ...... StMWy/Pnrldt''''olnt _ I 2.'t 43. i.. ?lossl is arguing that the b~np.s should be returned • Do you think she uses an ana logy to make ad hominem cir- cU!'lstantial case for her point? Burying the Hatchet The controversy over reburying the remams of California Indians is not sim. ply a dispute between archaeologists and Indians [Dec. 211. Indeed. some collec- tions of potentially threatened artifacts are in. museums owned and operated by the tnbes. The disputed materials-and the information they hold-are pan of the scientific and cultural heritage of all the people of the state of California. As a window on the lives of anciem native Californians. they help us understand the past and therefore ourselves. Edwin C Krupp. Director Griffith Observatory Los Angeles In the article "Some Bones of Com en- tion" Curator Francis Riddell savs that bv allowing California Indians to r~burv th~ bones of their ancestors. "we are u~wit­ tin~ly assisting the Indians in destroying their past" If white men wanted to learn about their own history. would they dig up Arlington National Cemetery? Anne AI. Ploss/ Hanol'er YH 2'#. E_ Krupp is arguing that the bones ougr.t be kept in museums. Do you detect in his argument a pattern of infp.rences such as: Sone Indians have no right to object to keeping the bones in musuems • to • -.Indians have no right to object to keeping the bones in museums • • -. It is right to keep the bones in musuems. ? Do you think that Krupp's argument can be interpreted as containing a portion which can be reconstructed as: Keeping the bones in museums is good for SOMe purposes • ••• Keeping the bones in museums is the best use of the bones. 1 Dear Fellow Americans, 42 ~S (This open letter appeared as a full pa"'e ad in the Dec. 18, 1981 N.Y. Times.) ..J The actions of the Polish government in suspendins basic riehts and liberties of its citizens should cause every American to say a siler.t thank you for the foresight of the drafters of the U.S. Constitution. The Associated Press story describing the Polish government's martial law actions is a litany of the precise types of governmental abuses which the Foundin~ Fathers sought to prevent by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of iliGhts. The "3reat Urit" of habeas cOrpus in Article I prevents Americans from being seized and interned indefinitely, as Poles may be, and Lech Walesa and other members of the Polish Solidarity Union apparently have been. The First Amendment prohibition against "abridging the freedom of speech or of the press" protects Americans from allowing government to require a permit for printing equipment and dissemination of literature, and protects us from the shutting down of all but one government-controlled radio station, one television station, and one newspaper - which has just been ordered in Poland. The First Amendment's guarantee of the pre-Constitutional "right of the people peaceably to assemble" protects us from an equivalent of the Polish government's edict that "all gatherings, processions and demonstrations are banned." And the Second Amendment guarantee that the pre-Constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" prohibits a Polish government-type order that "all firearms, amnnlnition and explosives must be ha.'1ded in to the police." Poland has precisely the firearms laws that the iJRA has been opposing in the United States. Handguns are allowed only to the privileged few; rifles and shotguns may be kept only with police permission, and every gun is registered. So seizing those guns requires only that the permits be revoked. and an order to turn them in or face imprisonment. As several commentators have noted, the courageous Polish people are ~~llin~ to continue their active year-long fight against repression by a tyrannical government; they are willing to fight the suspension of the fundamental rights of free men; but the authorities have all the guns." Fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers had great foresight. They knew that when all intellectual debate has ended, when all appeals for reasonableness have failed, when the only choice remaining is whether to submit or resist, then the overriding questions becomes whether the people have the means to resist. The writers of the Constitution had experienced, and resisted, a tyrannical government; they had both the will and the means to resist. And they wanted to be certain that their descendants also had the means to resist, which is \,lhy they wrote the Second Amendment as the ultimate protection for the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and all the remainder of the Constitution. And so long as the Second Amendment is not infringed, what is happening in Poland can never happen in these United States. Thank you, l·~. Jefferson. Sincerely yours, I ~r We present the letter in full be- Neal Knox, Executive Director cause when emotions are to be arous- National Rifle Association // ed by words it otten takes several _ Institute for Legislative Action words to present the ·pictures" and ideas which are to arouse us. Re-read pp. 40 _ 41 on illegitimate appeals to emotion. Does the argument of' the above letter reduce to what is suggested on p. 41t Also see p. 32 and on the model of fallacy of going fran 'good' to I 'good enough to be chosen' invent a fallacious form ot going trom 'bad' toa'it's worse than the other alter- natives.' The letter reminds us that gun control is badl It does restrict liberties and does involve risks. But the alternatives are worse 1 , 1 1 1 1 I ~, We rnay think that the a::peal on the pre- vil')u5 page 43 • • . An armed cltl2enry ·c:.1 '. , 1/2/82 The National Rifle Association is trying to get some mileage out of the crisis in Poland. director Neal Knox, "but the authorities have all the guns" Gee whiz If it badn't been for gun-controi laws. pistol-packing Poles would have madl: quick work of those tanks and disciplined troops armed with rifles and machine guns and artillery pieces that suddenly appeared in the streets of every city in the country. is not to be heeded wi th- out consid- erable delib- eration. We As part of its crackdown on the Solidarity movement. the Warsaw government ordered that all gun~, ammunition and expl.osives in private hands be turned In to the pollee. rnay even think that use of small arms by Poles The NRA was quick to observe that di$3rm- ing the populace was easy because "Poland has precisely the firearms laws that the NRA has been opposing in the U.S." Gee whiz again. Instead of spending billion, on MX missiles and B-1 bombers and M-I tank" and de-mothballed battleships and whatnot, thr United States should simply arm its military forces with snul>-nosed revolvers. "The Polish people are willing to continue their year-long fight against repression by a tyrannical government," says NRA executive Then watch the enemie!' of freedom squirm would have been totally useless in resisting iMposition of martial law. H~rever, should we dismiss the concerns of the NRA about the role of a privately armed Citizenry in a last-line defense of basic liberties as absurd concerns because of the "strawman" rebuttal in the Jan. 2, 1982 C-J editorial above? Don't they, the editorial writers, distort the open or ambiguous suggestion of the NRA: Use' of small arms by citizens would be effective in resisting tyranny. by reading it as: Use of srnall arms by citizens would be totally effective in resisting tyranny? Wouldn't there be an accident fallacy in going from 'not totally effective' to 'not effective 't ~ We might have been British "., A recent C-J editorial misused a statement by National Rifle Association Director Neal Knox to deny the truth and promote the news- paper's views on gun control; that did a great disservice to the American people. The Warsaw government ordered all guns. ammunition and explosives in private hands turned over to the Polish police. The C-J im- plied they only ordered handguns turned in and that the only guns used by private citizens are snubnosed revolvers. ~~Does ~.W. Thornpson in his Jan. 18,1982 C-J letter sketch out an effective way of showing th~t the C-J editorial above pro- vides only a "strawrnan" refutation of the NRA's views on private uncontrolled owner- ship of firearms? But what about his last paragraph? Do you sense a hasty general- ization or an accident fallacy in the in- ference below? Why'd h~ write that paragraph? The armed citizens of Afghanistan have prevented the complete takeover of their coun- try by Russia. Many freedom fighters there are armed with Single-shot rifles made in the 1890s. They seem to be gaining in their effort against 90,000 Russian troops who have tanks, machineguns and "yellow rain." Private uncontrolled ownership of firearm~ by people in the American Colonies in 1776 provided a rnost effective means of pre- serving liberties. If the right to own firearms had been de- nied to the citizens of the American colonies, we would be British subjects today. - HIRAM W. THOMPSON, Groveport. ••• Private uncontrolled ownership of fire- arms by people (in the U.S. in 1982) provides a most effective way of pre- serving liberties. ~~Presumably P.T. Camboni thinks it is ~g~ illogical to reject his analogical reason- ing that laws can't stop people frOM kil- ling with guns. Does he offer an an~ lOcical argument t What is itt Do you thitk he may have reached sorne premises of his analogy by accident/equivocation fallacies such as: Speeding laws do not not people who do speed from speeding; so, Speeding laws do not stnp people frorn speeding. Certa1nly'g9n control laws won't stop people who get guns and kill with guns frorn killing with guns. But how much dnes that tell us about stopping people frorn killing with guns 1 See p. 25 on arnbiguity of general staternents. Laws won't help ~ 112.1/84 Consider this scenario of a crime: A man decides to rob a store and uses a handgun to carry out his intent. He pulls the trigger and wounds, perhaps kills. someone. A man. a gun and a bullet are involved in the crime - two inanimate objects and a human being. AU the laws in the world wouldn't prevent ~at .man from obtaining a weapon to carry out his IDtent. Laws do not stop heroin addicts from obtaining heroin; they do Dot stop motor- iats from speeding. It is illogical and foolish to think that re- strictive handgun laws will prevent handgun crimes. We must focus our efforts on the peo- ple wbo commit crimes, instead of on the inani- mate objects they abuse while breaking the law. Millions of law-abiding . .\mericans use these same objects every day for sport and protec- tion. - PATRICK T. CAMBONI, Columbus 44 An economics lesson At a Ford automobile plant at Saarlouis. West Germany. 7.762 workers turn out 1.200 ~cort models a day. At an identical plant at Halewood. England. 10.040 workers produc~ only 800 cars a day. Each car at Saarlouis requires 21 man hours of labor; at Halewood It takes 40 hours. Although German workers are paid $4.75 an hour more than their British counterparts. it costs Ford $1.000 less to build a car in Germa- ny and ship it to England. One percent of the cars built at Saarlouis f~il at a quality control cheCkpoint; 14 percent fail at Halewood Saarlouis has the lowest Injury record in Ford's European operations. Halewood workers say the German plant is unsafe. Another comparison: Halewood had 20 strikes in the first nine months of 1981; Saar- louis never has strikes. But that's a vast improvement for Hale- wood. which registered 300 strikes in 1976, Maybe British workers are beginning to see a connection between their lackluster perform- ance and their country's economic plig~t. ~'l.In this Nov. 21, 1981 C-J editorial, England's auto industry is com- pared unfavorably with that of West Germany. Perhaps we need to know more about the economies of the two countries to make a fuss about comparing on:y ~~e Saarlouis and Halewood plants. But what lesson about connections stou:d this conrarative data sh~' to British workers? Does it show that their "lackluster" performance is a significant factor in England's economic pliEr~ t lOris it the other way around T 3~ C-J Nov. 21, 1981 The All Savers certificates. hailed as the saVings Instrument which would bail out sa\'ings and loan aSSOCiations and funnel money back into mortgages. haven't quite live up to expectations. But Kenneth Elshoff, president and chief executive officer of the Ohio League of Savings Associations, 88 E. Broad St., credits the one-year, tax-free certificates with bringing in some new funds. Quoting from ,a report by the Feder- al Home Loan's Fifth District Bank, Cincinnati's sampling of 18 large asso- Ciations In the three-state area, he said as of ~ov. 10, there were $474 million In depoSits In the area, compared With '333 million depOSits the previous month, so total increase was $141 mil- lion from the October period. '3~.L R. R e. e. f/ e. S : e XCU,. t . But according to official reports, juvenile . . crime is decreasing significantly, The 1980 Un- iform Crime Reports, issued by the Justice Department in September. indicate that arrests " C!f persons under 18 years of age decreased by more than 6 percent in the last recorded year . - and that was the fifth straight year of . decline. : :. In li80. juvenile automobile thert arrests . were down by 18 percent. Juvenile burglary arrests were down 11 percent, and larceny arrests were down 5 percent. And it was not - U1at all arrests were down - adult arrests . continued to increase . •. .. ' The reason for the decline in juvenile crime - or, at least in apprehended juvenile crimi- :~, nals - is quite simple. There are fewer juve- niles. Between 1970 and 1980, the number of 5- ~., to l!t-year-olds In tbe United States decreased by 6 million wblle the overall pop~tion in- creased by 23 rrullion. '31 There is good news reported in the Dec. 29, 1981 C-J article just below. But do you think that the Natinnal Safety Council reasnned well to a good explanation for thi~ good.news? ~ ,I. Lowest'nbliday toll cheers safety group UDited Press InternatioDal Adherence to good driving rules and relatively fair weather were the reasons the 1981 Christmas traffic death toll was the lowest Friday-through-Sun- day holiday count since records began in 1955. the National Safety Council said Monday. A final United Press International count showed 355 people were killed on the nation's roadways be- tween 6 p.m. Thursday and midnight Sunday, about 200 deaths lower than the 550 that was the highest estimate by the council. "What the council has found is that fewer people were killed because of the relatively good weather across the country," said Charlene Moran of the safe- ty council. . "People were also beeding the advice of the council and other organizations to be aware, drive defensively and observe speed limits." 30·From what is presented should we cr. 1 e4it o~ferin~ All Savers certificates. '" '" .t '''S .", '" 1ft ... ~,," ~ r ,~~ Richard Reeves presented a longer column in the Jan. 11, 1982 C-J in which he examined the changing character of juvenile crilr.e. But we focus only on his explanation of why there has been a decline in apprehended juvenile criMinal!. Do ynu find hints of post hoe, pro~ter hns reasoning hereT 1 Ambiguous Statistics 45 '31. That's a "lotta" litterl Really? A lot for a year, for month. for a day? If we reasnn hastily '31. from ambiguous statistical state~8nts such as that reported in the excerpt on the right fro~ the Dec. 12, 1981 C-J we should talk primarily of ourselves Survey outlines litter problem in the state as receivers of data as those committing the fallacy although we can. perhaps, criticize some inference of R.Teater here. Do we have here presentation of data in such a way that a situation which we should ex- pect to occur see~~ to be an unexpected situation which calls for serinus attention,if not action. United Press Interuational The Ohio Department of Natural Resources said Tuesday the state's first comprehensive roadway and recreational litter sur- vey shows there are 200 million pieces of litter weighing 22 million pounds in Ohio . (See pp. 26-27) Are we tempted here to reaSon as fol- lows. There is a substantial litter proble~. (But the read- ing for which this premise is clearly true is: The problem of removing the litter is a pr()ble~ of remov- ing a large amount of material and this job may be under control.) . "This is enough litter to fill 151 boxcars compris- ing a train 1 J,lz miles in length," said ODNR Direc- tor Robert Teater. "This is a substantial litter prob- .Jem." .·.There is a substantial unsolved litter problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WASHINGTON (UPI) - A congressional . study released Tuesday shows that over the next 10 years, only the top 10 percent of American taxpayers will benefit significantly from the personal tax cut enacted this sum- mer. The study said that. the wealthiest 5 per- cent of Americans, With adjusted gross in- comes of more than $55,850, would save more than $9,000 in federal taxes in 1990 compared to their 1980 income tax debt. The next 5 percent - those with adjusted gross Incomes of between $44,540 and $55,850 - would reduce their 1990 tax bill by $2,097 compared to what they owed Uncle Sam in 1980, the study said. But the news was not so bright for the remaining 90. percent of American taxpayers, the report said. The 40 percent of Americans with income between $22,610 and $44,540 would save an average $58 in 1990 compared to their 1980 tax debt. Taxpayers in the bottom half of the scale - with incomes below $22,610 - would not receive any tax cut by 1990, paying $133 more In taxes by the end of the decade than they did in 1980. The Democratic chairman of the Joint Ec- onomic Committee, which conducted the study, used the results to label President Rea- gan's tal( program "trickle-down ... hocus- pocus." But Republican staff members disa- greed, calling the conclusions invalid. In a letter to the committee members ac- companying the report, chairman Henry Reuss, D-Wis., said, "The results confirm the fact that supply-side economics is indeed tric- kle-down economics," a phrase used to de- scribe tax cuts for the rich that eventually "trickle down" to the poor. "The result of all this hOCUS-pocus is that SO percent of American taxpayers under Pres- ident Reagan's program will by 1990 be pay- ing more taxes and a greater percentage of total tax revenues while the 10 percent of taxpayers at the top will pay sharply less taxes and a sharply lesser share of total taxes paid," he said. "If this isn't a Robin Hood-in-reverse scheme, what is')" Reuss asked. The above article is frnm the Dec. 30 1981 C-J. 3~,If we think carefully about the above report frOM the bi-partisan Joint Economic Study Co~~ttee and combine SOMe of the datd we can organize the study's results to reason in the followinE way. The top l~p in 1990 will pay significantly less income tax than the top 10% in 1980 paid. The 10\01er 90% in 1990 will not be paying significantly less taxes than the 10 lower 90% in 1980 paid. (This is put mildly to include 90% of taxpayers.) ••• It is only the top 10% in 1990 which will pay Significantly less income taxes than the top 10% in 1980 paid. The conclusion is awkward and,perhaps, not t~ informative. But does it entitle us to go on to infer: It is only the top 10% which will pay sig- nificantly less income taxes under the Reagan nlanT Is there a top 10% to resent? . C-J Jan. 19, 1982 3 'I What happened in Vietnam 46 Some people apparently believe that when a nation is large it usually is wrong. In the case of a democracy such as the United States they cannot put up with the fact that sometimes we take two steps forward and one step back. In his recent letter to the C-J, John Quigley saw little or nothing that's right in our attitude toward Vietnam, and little that's wrong with that country. He seems to have forgotten that during the Vietnam War the North Vietnamese were con- stantly in the south ruining the countryside and murdering and intimidating the people, while our troops were forbidden to advance into the porth. We may have been wrong to get involved; but we were even more wrong once we were in to limit ourselves to a no-win situation. - F.T. RUDY, Columbus. C-J Jan. 19, 1982 35 Recognizing the bad guys In chastising the C-J for its editori;1 "Hanoi gambit," letter writer John Quigley proved once again that the view from the exalted beights of intelligentsia at Ohio State Universi- ty is distorted by a lack of oxygen to the brain and not, as be would have us believe, by a lack of facts. It was Russia which "annexed" the coun- tries around its perimeter. It was North Korea which attacked South Korea. It was North Viet- nam which attacked the south, and then its neighbors. Even if Quigley slept through basic history, he must have read about Russia annexing M- ghanistan recently. It's apparent who the bad guys are, and it ain'~ us. - J.P: KIRWIN, Columbus. 33.we haven't discussed this issue in our listing of fallacies. But our training in loe1c tells us that the Organizing rebuttals C-J Jan. 11,1982 33 The U.S. reneged The-{)ec. 31 editorial "Hanoi's Gambit" de- c~ied the use "for propaganda purpoies" by Vietnam of the lour ex-GIs who recently visit- ed that country to explore the MIA and Agent Orange. issues. The editoria.1 writers are upset that Vietnam may be trying to utilize such person-to-person contact as a step towards dip- lomatic relations with the U.S. In its only Teason against opening relations. the. editorial parrots the State Deptartment poSitIOn that, relations are out while Vietnam has troops in Kampuchea, but that situation has .existed only since 1979. For lour years . prior to that, the U.S. rejected relations With Vietnam. During that period, the likely reason for no ~elations was that Hie U.S. could not bring Itself to deal with a small nation that had driven out our troops. Now the U.S. is nearly alhed With China, an enemy of Vietnam. To deal with Vietnam would anger China. The State Department purports to be out- raged over Vietnam's intervention in Kampu- chea, but it was the U.S. that led the way in denouncing the brutal government in Kampu- chea that was replaced in 1979 by Kampuchean guerrillas and Vietnam's army. . . The editorial chides Vietnam for being "heavily dependent on a Soviet subsidy," but Vietnam. has been forced into that dependence because Its economy is in bad shape. The' editorial obliquely attributes Vietnam's economic woes to its socialist form of govern- ment. While the organization of Vietnam's economy has been laulty in some respects. one cannot overlOOk the fact that half a million U.S. troops defoliated Vietnam's countryside, left land mines and 8-52 bomb craters in its rice fields, bombed its industry, and killed and maimed its population. In the 1973 peace agreement, the U.S. promised reparations for these depradations, but has reneged. U the U.S. administration were motivated by the sense of justice it purports to feel over Poland, it would be scrambhng to open rela· tions With Vietnam and to send much-needed aid. - JOHN QUIGLEY, Ohio State Universi- ty, College of Law. (T 1/ ,,/ .~ J... .. , way to rebut an argument is to know what the argument is, show that the pre- mises do n~t support the cnnclusion, or that the premises are false or highly du~ious. Recnnstruct Quigley's argument and assess whether Rudy (3~) and KiT\od.n (,5) attack his argument at all. . . . . . • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3'.'~ can squeeze in here the brief note about some reasnning ~f J. Falwell reported Jan. 18, 1982 in tr.e C-J. Perhaps you want to assess Falwell's reasoning on the use of a 1924 rep~rt and for pos- sible misuse of the relative term 'supporten' Isn't there a difference between 'suppnrt the legal rights of' and 'support the political aiMS ofl' Could such a difference be relevant to Falwell's reas~ningl Does Ira Glasser attack Falwell's form of reasoning or his premises? " ,£, • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• Moral Majority blasts ACLU Moral Majority leader Jerry Fal· well is raising funds to attack the American Civil Liberties Union which be calls the "single most destrut.:tive . tbreat" to the American way of life. ACLU raised the ire of some church 'lfOup5 for leading the fight against the Arkansas creationism law. . Falwell charges that the ACLU Is a Oxnmunist front, and as proof he cites .• 1824 FBI reliirt calling the ACLU a lIipporter of • au6verslve move- menta," ACLU aecutlve director Ira Glas- ser dismisses It u "paranoid, scuzzy stuff" that .... ys more about the Moral MAjority than it does about us." '" 47 ~? Cnls. Dispatch Jan. 10, 82 ,. """ . ll-yeur-old qUOlt>s Cf'nt>~i~ as proof Cod created world Onp thing I just can't seem to understand i!; how all those evolutionists ran sa~' that the earth just "evolved." I'm only 14 years of age amI J know that that isn't true. God made the world Himself. It says so in Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," Genesis reads. How can anyone caB God a liar? They'll see when God judges them. They'll be sorry for all etE'rni ty that they ever believed that stuff about evolution. How can the evolutionists say a human just "evolved?"A human being is magnificent. The brain, alone, is complex. How can a brain just "evolve?" The evolutionists say there was an explosion. What exploded? Where did whatever exploded come from? Why would anyone want to make up something like evolution? I think this evolution matter isjust plain ridiculous. One can just sit and think about evolution and see how stupid it is. Sherrie Mack Columbus 38'.C nlS. Dispatch Jan. 24, 1982 19-year-old boy discounts view of girl, 14, on evolution theory Sherrie Mack (letter to the editor, Jan. 10) was at a loss to understand "how all those evolutionists can say that the earth just evolved. I'm only 14 years of age and I know that isn't true." She also asked, "Why would anyone want to make up something like evolution ?" I think that anyone who read her letter can see that she has been brought up in a totally one-sided atmosphere. rm only 19 years of age, and in no way do I feel that I, or anyone else my age, is Qualified to say "I know that isn't true."' Having been raised in a quite liberal family, I've seen all sides of the evolutionist vs. creationist argument - from my high school science classes to occasionally attending church services. The evolution theory is a result of centuries of scientific study; no one sat down and made it up overnight. In a way, I feel kind of sorry for Sherrie. Maybe once she completes some of her biology, geology, and anthropology classes in high school, she can see what the e\'olution theory is based upon. In no way do I want to change her religious beliefs, but I do think that she can't '37 Perhaps much of S. }f.ack's argu- develop any kind of accurate opinion or !'lent can be recnnstructed as an belief without thoroughly studying each appeal to ignorance. Does her Genesis quotatinn support her read- ' side of the situation. Brian Long Delaware, Ohio ing 'God made the world Himself"w1th ~ the sense that God did not make the world by starting an evolutionary process? Can we uncover snme illegitimate appeal to fear in her remarks nn eternal damnation? '38 How does Erian IDng discnunt her view on evolutinnary theory? Or does he talk only about her and himself? ................................................................................. 3'. Leave Nancy alone c.~ .1.Q,J1l. 'ftJ, Nancy's proper role C-j Johnny Carson has spent $20,000 for lux uri- C-J letter writer O.K. Waters completely ous bed linens of hand embroidered silk and missed the point in his defense of Nancy Rea· custom-made pillow cases that cost $390 each. gan. As a working single parent and a taxpay· Liberace has table plates valued at $1,000 ing citizen, I resent being called a free loader each. and a nitpicker. It's time for the nitpickers to get off Nancy Mrs. Reagan lacks any awareness of what Reagan's back. is going on in the real world. While the poor Do you suppose the free-loaders feei the and needy go hungry and jobless, she callously Reagans should have purchase.J something flaunts her wealth and position wearing fur cbeap and given them the rest of the money? . ~ts .and buying outrageously priced dinner The truly needy will be taken care of. It is ware. the free-loaders who scream the loudest, when References to Johnny Carson's and Liber· it should be the over-burdened taxpayers. - ace's extravagances as private figures are in- O.K. WATERS, Newark. appropriate. Mrs. Reagan is a public figure who lacks the sensitivity for, or is ignorant of, '3'lPerhaps this is a trivi10us issue. but her public role. - SUSAN E. ALLEN, Colum· can you rebut '.-later's analocies better 'bus. l.-r 1/~1/5.2 better than S. Allen ("O)? 48 4/. Wiretap safeguards WI:: REALIZE wiretaps are dangerous to the extent they can be used - illegally - to invade a person's privacy but they also can be an instrument for law enforcement agencies to fight today's organized criminals armed with sophisticated equipment. The need for this weapon and oth- er electronic weaponry to fight crime was explained a few days ago to members of the Ohio Senate Judi- ciary Committee which is conducting hearings on Senate Bill 417. The proposal would allow police to use wiretaps in efforts to gain evi- dence while investigating organized crime. Very importantly, the bill re- quires a court-order to use a wjretap. Lt. Dave Dailey, commander of the Columbus Police Division's or- ganized crime unit, told about the existence of a local gang which is under surveillance for criminal activ- ities in areas of narcotics, prostitu- tion, assaults and even murders. The officer revealed some back- ground of the gang numberin~ about 350. In addition to a "boss," the ~ang includes an attorney, bartenders, auto and petty thieves, drug pushers and what he termed "enforcers." He added these people control 12 bars and also are involved in the sale of pornography. Dailey and Columbus Police Chief Earl Burden maintain that wiretaps and other electronic surveillance de- vices are necessary to cope with rack- eteers, to obtain evidence to put this type of person behind bars. We feel police should have thl' proper tools to do their job which is to protect society. Certainly there are no restrictions handicapping tpe criminal. The pending legislation is not for Columbus alone but for all law en- forcement officers in Ohio. We think most law-abiding citizens would fa- vor Senate Bill 411. We hope the St?nate gives it serious consideration. 41, Consider the reasoning implicit L~ the seventh paragraph of the editorial above fro~ the Jan. 24. 1982 Cols. Disnatch. Do you think that it may go as follows? i. If there are no restrictions handica~pinr, the criminal and there i5 a crime problem. then some restrictions on police action should be reMoved. ii. There are no res~rictions handicapping the criminal. iii. There is a crime problem. ••• Some restrictions on the police should be removed. iv. Senate Bill 417 removes some restrictions on the police • • -_ Senate Bill 417. on wiretapin~. should be passed. Is there a move from I some one or other' to so:,e definite one" How should we read 'There are no restrictions handicapping the criminal" Cer- tainly all criminal activity is against the law. Does it amount to z There are no laws on how to break the law legallY? Do you think that the whole arguMent can be criticized for making onlY a case that Bill 417 is good,has some merits, when it should be argued that it is good enough to be chosen. In any event. this place is good enough to stop the Tenth Unit. EN!) OF '!'EN'!'~ U!IT!' Jan. 2.5. 1982 ....