support the conclusion in an appropriate manner (Browne & Keeley, 2013). It is a fallacy, Ad Hominem Fallacy, that Mr. Ravaswami attacks Ms. Forsythe by questing her motives concerning the leadership training program. He suggests that she may be eyeing his position in the company and secretly endorsing the Aspen Institute, which Ms. Forsythe had recommended to handle the program. In the memo, there is the Straw Person fallacy as the writer tries to influence his opponent’s point of view by attacking her. Moreover, the Glittering Generality Fallacy is also shown through diversions to other unrelated matters, for instance, the extreme liberal views of Ms. Forsythe.
How good is the Evidence?
It is important for a reader to question the author’s …show more content…
However, at times the authors misuse their statistics. Brown and Keeley (2013) assert that identifying problems with the author’s statistics is a key step in critical thinking and is crucial for the reader to either accept or reject the conclusions. Mr. Ravaswami’s statistics, such as the relationship between height and leadership are misleading and deceptive to the reader. However, one may tend to think since many tall people have filled many managerial positions, there are no short people who are as competent. Recruitment of tall people may mean that there are more tall people in the society or the society prefers tall people. There are no known studies conducted to show that short people make incompetent leaders but from observation, short people have successfully led organizations.
What Significant Information is omitted?
In a bid to persuade a reader, the author may leave out some important information, which may be used to assess the conclusion’s worth. One should thus find the omitted information, to ascertain whether the author has provided enough information to sustain the claims. Leaving out too much information would make the reader reject the conclusion (Browne & Keeley, 2013). In the memo, the writer does not include leader who are below 6 feet tall. Research results proving that people cannot be taught to become leaders are not included. Moreover, he does not paint a clear and unbiased picture of the company’s growth.
What Reasonable Conclusions are
How good is the Evidence?
It is important for a reader to question the author’s …show more content…
However, at times the authors misuse their statistics. Brown and Keeley (2013) assert that identifying problems with the author’s statistics is a key step in critical thinking and is crucial for the reader to either accept or reject the conclusions. Mr. Ravaswami’s statistics, such as the relationship between height and leadership are misleading and deceptive to the reader. However, one may tend to think since many tall people have filled many managerial positions, there are no short people who are as competent. Recruitment of tall people may mean that there are more tall people in the society or the society prefers tall people. There are no known studies conducted to show that short people make incompetent leaders but from observation, short people have successfully led organizations.
What Significant Information is omitted?
In a bid to persuade a reader, the author may leave out some important information, which may be used to assess the conclusion’s worth. One should thus find the omitted information, to ascertain whether the author has provided enough information to sustain the claims. Leaving out too much information would make the reader reject the conclusion (Browne & Keeley, 2013). In the memo, the writer does not include leader who are below 6 feet tall. Research results proving that people cannot be taught to become leaders are not included. Moreover, he does not paint a clear and unbiased picture of the company’s growth.
What Reasonable Conclusions are