Journal #5

Journal #5 – from Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” (p.95-6)

1. Identify the specific argument that Paine is making in each paragraph. For each of the arguments, identify whether Paine is making an emotional, ethical, or logical appeal and suggest an effective counterargument.



#1 Argument: We need to stand up against Britain and conquer tyranny. It’s hard to conquer, but the harder it is, the greater it is when it happens. Everything in life comes with struggle.
Appeal: Emotional – it’s based on trying to get people to focus on emotions rather than logical reasoning
Effective Counterargument: Since Britain is sovereign over them, so they have the right to get taxed.
Logical – There is not a good chance that America would not win.
Logical Fallacy: Non-sequiter – compares taxing to slavery
Aphorisms – he had many short statements about life, and uses an aphoristic writing style.




#2 Argument: Thomas Paine’s secret opinion is that God Almighty won’t let military force destroy people who have tried so hard to avoid way by every method that wisdom could have invented.
Appeal: Ethical- bases his argument on his religion and the emotions of God. We are morally right, so God is going to support us.
Effective Counterargument: The British king also gets his power from God, so saying that God protects Americans is contradicting to saying that God is giving Britain the military power to destroy the Americans when he is only going to save them.
Logical- God doesn’t chose sides.
Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem – Paine attacks the King of Britain personally, calling him a common murderer, a highwayman, or a housebreaker
Begging the Question – why would God help the British, if he is not going to let the Americans lose to the British forces? The British think that God is on their side.



#3 Argument: American is not happy unless it’s clear from Britain. We’re fighting now so our children will be free. The war is inevitable, so we should fight now.
Appeal: Logical – it’s going to happen sooner or later
Ethical (emotional) – makes it seem like the man is a bad parent, emotional because children are being used. It’s saying “this is what we should do for our children”
Effective Counterargument: just because you go to war for your child doesn’t mean it will work out well. You could die, or some other disaster.
Logical Fallacies: False Dichotomy – not talking about any sort of options between the two extremes.
Begging the question – assumption they are going to win.




#4 Argument: It’s better to fight defensively offensively. It’s okay to fight back. Calls the king a thief. We should fight because the king has trampled on our rights, as if a thief came into our house and destroyed.
Appeal: Ethical ?
Effective Counterargument: the king has the power and rights to do these things, unlike a king so the comparison is faulty analogy. The colony technically belongs to the king.
Logical Fallacies: Argument by analogy – not using much reasoning






2. Can you identify any of the logical fallacies that we discussed in Paine’s arguments? If so, which ones? Overall, what do you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of Paine’s arguments?
I think that the strongest argument was the one where it states that it is better to fight on the defensive. If someone attacks you it is alright to attack them back as long as you don’t initiate it. The argument about the kids was probably the weaker argument. It has a lot of holes in it that should be patched up to fit a better argument.