The United States is about to invade which one of the following
countries:
A) Iraq
B) Canada
C) Las Vegas
Now “B” is just an all out ridiculous answer choice.
And while losing a grand or two on the slots in Vegas can make even
the most non-violent person take up arms, would we really want to
destroy the countr ““ err, I mean, city ““ which inspired
such movies as “Casino?”
The right answer is of course “A,” and it would be
pretty hard to miss given that everything that comes out of the
White House has been on repeat for the last few weeks. Political
pundits (and fellow Daily Bruin Viewpoint contributors) have
managed to put together all sorts of interesting arguments in the
president’s favor.
The best part of it all is the assuredness with which these men
(who are primarily white) make their statements. Thankfully,
however, my preparation for the LSAT included the rigorous
TestMasters prep course, which has given me a new logical way of
looking at the world. The crux of the test lies in being able to
tear apart and identify the logical weaknesses inherent in most
arguments. Robin Singh, owner extraordinaire of TestMasters, even
came up with his own “66 Flawed Methods of
Reasoning.”
And you thought there were only 62.
Anyway, thanks to Mr. Singh’s FMRs, I now have the tools
needed to poke holes through the dubious claims of the “Bush
Doctrine,” starting with FMR No. 1, Circular Reasoning:
“The argument assumes what it seeks to establish.”
Contrary to evidence provided by the CIA and FBI, Bush and Co.
keep pushing Hussein’s ties to Sept. 11, 2001 (Los Angeles
Times, Aug. 2). The White House believes Hussein to be guilty;
therefore, he must be guilty. It’s as if the White House
started with their conclusion and then worked backwards to create
the premises to strengthen this very conclusion, ala the latest
line linking Hussein to Sept. 11, 2001.
This realization leads me to FMR No. 42, “Assuming
that what is true of some of the parts of a group is true of all of
the parts of that group.” There are many members of the
“We hate the United States” camp: Timothy McVeigh, the
Unibomber, Osama bin Laden, Hussein, the French, the list grows
every day. But just because McVeigh and bin Laden are terrorists
does nothing to add weight to the argument that Hussein also
supports terrorism.
In fact, without our patriotic American chemical suppliers,
Hussein would not have the materials for the biological weapons
that Washington so stubbornly insists he has (Senate Committee
Report, 1994). This same report stated, “It was later learned
that these microorganisms exported by the United States were
identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed
from the Iraqi biological warfare program.”
But let’s move on to one of my favorite FMRs, No. 11,
“Mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient
condition.” It has repeatedly been cited by experts in the
Pentagon and CIA that if we attack Hussein, then we risk him
unleashing his worst weapons. So attacking Hussein is sufficient to
bring about this risk. Put another way, attacking Hussein
necessarily incurs a risk of retaliation. The Bush administration,
unfortunately, has taken this risk of retaliation as a sufficient
reason for war.
This is what those of us in the “biz” call an
“Incorrect Reversal.”
Let’s be clear here ““ if we don’t want to run
that risk, then we simply don’t invade.
Is this logic too clear or something? If only Bush and Cheney
had taken the TestMasters course.
Now for the sake of brevity, I am not going to list any more
FMRs, although I’m sure I could illustrate all 66 using the
Bush doctrine alone.
Furthermore, I hope this exercise illustrates something further,
that logical reasoning is nothing without critical thinking, which,
as opposed to logical thinking, involves looking at the hidden
agendas, the subtle claims and the context in which a certain
argument is made.
Unfortunately, that’s something that seems to have been
lost in both law school admissions and our current war on
terrorism.