Examples:

1. You had better agree that the new company policy is the best bet if you expect to keep your job.
2. NAFTA is wrong, and if you don't vote against NAFTA we will vote you out of office.

Convincing Others: Identify the threat and the proposition. Then argue that the threat is unrelated to the truth or falsity of the proposition.

References: Cedarblom and Paulsen: 151; Copi and Cohen: 103

Examples:

1. How can you say that's "out"? It was so close! And, besides, I'm down ten games to two!
2. We hope you accept our recommendations. We spent the past three months working extra time on it!

Convincing Others: Identify the proposition and the appeal to pity. Then argue that the pitiful state of the arguer has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition.

References: Cedarblom and Paulsen: 151; Copi and Cohen: 103; Davis: 82

Examples:

1. You can't agree that evolution is true, because, if it were, we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
2. You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have no meaning. (Note a similar line of — yet contradictory — reasoning: “Since life has no meaning, God does not exist.”)

Convincing Others: Identify the alleged consequences to the proposition/belief and argue either that they are not

• true consequences or
• as "disagreeable" as the author/speaker makes them out to be.

References: Cedarblom and Paulsen: 100; Davis: 63

Examples:

1. Right thinking Canadians will agree with me that we should have another free vote on capital punishment.
2. A reasonable person would agree that our income statement is too low.
3. Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce the deficit. (The author is implying that what Turner says is false.)
4. This proposal is likely to be rejected by those bureaucrats on Parliament Hill. (Compare this to: “This proposal is likely to be rejected by our leaders on Parliament Hill.”)

Convincing Others: Identify the prejudicial terms used (eg., “Right thinking Canadians,” “A reasonable person,” “claims,” “those bureaucrats”). Then demonstrate the irrationality behind the biased thinking:
Show that ...

1. disagreeing with the conclusion does not make a person “wrong thinking” or
2. “unreasonable.”
3. “claims” are not always false.
4. “those bureaucrats” are our honest leaders.

References: Cedarblom and Paulsen: 153; Davis: 62

• the majority of the population believes it to be true or
• most respected or esteemed members in the population believe it to be true.

Examples:

1. If you were beautiful, you could live like this. So, buy Buty-EZ, and become beautiful.
2. Polls suggest that the Liberals will form a majority government. So you may as well vote for them.
3. Everyone knows that the Earth is flat. So why do you persist in your outlandish claims?

Convincing Others: Identify the common belief and show that it is a misperception.

References: Copi and Cohen: 103; Davis: 62