Developing Credible Ethos in Analytical Arguments

Take some time to develop/write the intro; this is where you establish yourself as a credible source on your topic. Prove you know what you’re talking about and thus are worth listening to.  This is especially important if you are going to rip up someone else.  Show the reader you are knowledgeable.

Write from the mental/psychological position of “finding the most valid ‘truth’” rather than that of “going in for the attack”.  As much as possible, think scientifically, not rhetorically.  If that’s not possible, at least sound scientific, not rhetorical.

Scientific tone:

1) Direct and to the point; simple language vs. wordy and complex.

2) Objective vs. subjective; interested in objective validity not personal agenda

3) As critical of one’s own position as with the “opposing” position

4) Using argument as a means of establishing valid claims, not establishing alpha-male dominance.

Analyze, criticize/evaluate judiciously, cautiously and slowly: 

1) don’t criticize sound arguments; instead, concede to correct/valid points (you look stupid if you criticize something incorrectly)

2) carefully choose which points you will criticize

3) take your time developing your criticism. Don’t expect the reader to see the weakness you are pointing out or to agree that it is a weakness: each bit of analysis and criticism is itself an argument: take your time to prove and explain why something is a logical fallacy, faulty reasoning or poor science; simply claiming it is such is only the first step

You get more mileage entirely undermining a couple claims vs. a half-assed attack on all the claims.

4) write in an objective, fair-minded tone; don’t sound like you are attacking or you will appear biased and in-credible

Analyze, criticize/evaluate ethically:

       1) do not put words in the source’s mouth

       2) do not quote out of context

3) when criticizing, do not make logically fallacies of your own

Note: Post Hoc: refers to mistaking correlation for cause.  Statements of causality always refer to the past or present, not the future.  Look for other fallacies related to statements about possible future outcomes.