The way in which a writer deals with opposing views is revealing. Some writers address the arguments of the opposition fairly, conceding points when necessary and countering others, all in a civil spirit. Other writers will do almost anything to win an argument, either ignoring opposing views altogether or misrepresenting such views and attacking their proponents.

Writers build credibility—ethos—by addressing opposing arguments fairly. As you read arguments, assess the credibility of your sources by looking at how they deal with views not in agreement with their own.

Describing the views of others (straw man fallacy)

Writers and politicians often misrepresent the views of others. One way they do this is by setting up a straw man, a character so weak that he is easily knocked down.

The straw man fallacy consists of an oversimplification or outright distortion of opposing views. For example, in a California debate over attempts to control the mountain lion population, pro-lion groups characterized their opponents as trophy hunters bent on shooting harmless lions. In truth, such hunters were only one faction of those who saw a need to control the lion population.

During the District of Columbia’s struggle for voting representation, some politicians set up a straw man, as shown in the following example.

STRAW MAN FALLACY

Washington, DC, residents are lobbying for statehood. Giving a city such as the District of Columbia the status of a state would be unfair.

The straw man wants statehood. In fact, most District citizens are lobbying for voting representation in any form, not necessarily through statehood.

Quoting opposing views

Writers often quote the words of writers who hold opposing views. In general, this is a good idea, for it ensures some level of fairness and accuracy. At times, though, both the fairness and accuracy are an illusion.

A source may be misrepresented when it is quoted out of context. All quotations are to some extent taken out of context, but a fair writer will explain the context to readers. To select a provocative sentence from a source and to ignore the more moderate sentences surrounding it is both unfair and misleading.

Sometimes a writer deliberately distorts a source through the device of the ellipsis mark. An ellipsis mark tells readers that words have been omitted from the original source. When those words are crucial to an author’s meaning, omitting them is obviously unfair.

ORIGINAL SOURCE

Johnson’s History of the American West is riddled with inaccuracies and astonishing in its blatantly racist description of the Indian wars.

—B. Smith, reviewer

MISLEADING QUOTATION

According to B. Smith, Johnson’s History of the American West is “astonishing in its . . . description of the Indian wars.”