The last feature of this argument we are going to examine is found in the first paragraph. It is called arguing from analogy. Used well, it is a very powerful tool. However, it is often used
when a gun is fired by a police officer it is with the intent to kill or wound someone, whereas generally the driver of a pursuit vehicle kills by accident. Of course, this doesn’t make an accidental death arising from a police car chase any less painful for the bereaved relatives. But it does explain the attitude to which the author is objecting: the attitude that ‘if (the weapon) is a car, that seems to be accepted as an unavoidable accident’.
Does the analogy successfully support the argument? Not entirely. Although the similarities seem quite striking, they are undermined by significant differences. A gun is primarily a weapon; a car is primarily a transport vehicle, and becomes a weapon only if it is misused. Also, if you place too much weight on this analogy, where do you draw the line? Do you want to say that any police action that results in tragic accidents should be banned, whatever the instrument – batons, riot shields, water hoses, tear gas . . .? If we completely disarm the police of all ‘potentially lethal weapons’, how can we ask them to protect the public from criminals who could harm them? It is a genuine dilemma, and it cannot be solved by judging all actions by their sometimes-tragic consequences.
• ‘Thrill of the chase’ is not a bad argument.
It tackles a difficult and controversial subject and draws a conclusion that many people will have sympathy with. But it does not have all the answers. In this unit we have looked at the strengths and some of the weak points in the reasoning, so that an informed and considered judgement can be made as to whether its conclusions are acceptable. Or you may decide that there is more to be investigated and more argument to be had.
Summary
similar in certain respects to that of a parent.
If, on the other hand, the argument was that a good ruler has to treat every citizen like his or her own child, that would be taking the analogy too far. In other words the fairness of an analogy depends upon the use it is put to in a particular argument.
An analogy is used in the first paragraph of
‘Thrill of the chase’. Identify the two things that are being compared; and assess how successful the analogy is in the context of the argument.
Activity
Commentary
The comparison is between deaths resulting from the police action of chasing stolen cars and deaths resulting from police action involving a gun. In order to give support to the argument, the analogy has to compare things that really are similar in ways that are relevant.
It also has to be true that there should be an outcry if police action resulted in deaths from firing a gun. The author clearly assumes that there should by using the word ‘rightly’ when drawing the analogy.
The similarities are fairly obvious. Guns and car chases both kill. And if things go wrong, both of them kill innocent bystanders as well as criminals and suspects. It is often said that a car is potentially a lethal weapon and this is very much what the analogy is saying here. Is it a fair comparison? As far as the consequences go, yes, it seems very fair.
Why should we disapprove of a shooting accident, but shrug our shoulders at a driving accident, just because the ‘weapons’ used are different?
But there are dissimilarities, too, and they cannot all be brushed aside. A gun is designed to be a weapon, whereas a car is not. Also,
2 Find an example of an argument based on analogy – or write one yourself. Critically examine it, like we examined the example in the ‘Thrill of the chase’ passage, and decide whether or not it does its job successfully.
Answers and comments are on page 325.
1 In paragraph 3 of ‘Thrill of the chase’ it is observed that car chases can be fun for all the participants. In paragraph 5 it is implied that car thieves are predominantly bored young men looking for excitement.
How could these claims be developed to counter the argument of some police officers that banning police pursuit would lead to an increase in car theft?
End-of-chapter assignments
one as the last word, it would be the second, the recommendation to confiscate income, since this follows from the more general claim that the law should be extended.
You might have been tempted by the last sentence of paragraph 3, which claims that there is no real difference between direct and indirect profit from crime. This certainly is a conclusion, as the word ‘therefore’ would suggest, and it follows from the reasoning in the third paragraph. But establishing this conclusion is only one step in the argument, and it is not the final step. It is therefore an intermediate conclusion, not the main one.
Best answer: ‘If the principle of not benefiting from crime means anything, all income, direct or otherwise, should be confiscated from anyone whose criminal past has helped them to get rich’; or the same statement in your own words.
2 Two objections, or counter-arguments, are considered in the passage. What are they?
Why does the author raise them? How does he deal with them?
Activity
Commentary
The counter-arguments are contained in the third and fourth paragraphs. They are recognisable from the use of the words
‘protest’ and ‘object(ed)’, but also from the obvious fact that they challenge the author’s conclusions.
Why should an author include in a text a challenge to his own conclusions? Doesn’t that weaken the argument? No, it strengthens it, because it shows that the author has an answer to the challenge. Imagine you were in a In the previous chapter you looked at a longer
piece of text and answered some searching critical questions. Some of them were about analysis, some about evaluation and some about objections and further argument. In this chapter, and in the next two, we will examine two new articles, applying each of these skills in turn. We start, in this chapter, with analysis.
The text on the next page is an argument about criminals who become celebrities. Read it through twice, once for general meaning, then again for more detail. Then answer the following questions.
1 What is the main conclusion of the passage?
Activity
Commentary
Although arguments like this are longer and more involved than the ones you have been used to, the strategy for analysing or
interpreting them is much the same as it was for the short, illustrative examples in Unit 2.
When seeking the main conclusion, first look for a likely candidate – perhaps some
recommendation or prediction or verdict – and ask yourself if other parts of the argument are reasons for making such a claim, or not. If not, look for another candidate.
It should be fairly obvious what this passage,
‘Time to get tough’, is leading up to. It claims that the legal principle of no profit from crime should be extended to cover celebrity criminals.
And it claims that, on principle, income from criminal celebrity should be confiscated. These two claims between them summarise the author’s main contention. If you had to pick
4.8 Applying analysis skills
talent and comes only indirectly from crime, not directly like the money from fraud or bank raids. The reply, not surprisingly, is that this is unacceptable. Two reasons are given: firstly, that the producers ‘would say something like that, because they take a cut of the profits; secondly, that gangsters need no talent: their criminal reputations are enough to draw an audience. From this the author concludes that whether the debate and it is your turn to speak. Even before
the opposition have their chance to raise an objection, you have anticipated it and responded to it. It is sometimes called a pre-emptive move: dealing with a point before it has been made.
Take the first ‘protest’ that producers and others allegedly make. The objection is that the money ex-convicts make from acting, writing, presenting and so on is due to their
It is an established legal principle, in almost all parts of the world, that convicted criminals should not profit from their crimes, even after serving their sentences.
Obviously offenders such as fraudsters and armed robbers cannot be allowed to retire comfortably on the money they made fraudulently or by robbing banks.
But the law does not go far enough. It should also apply to the growing number of
notorious criminals who achieve celebrity status after their release from jail. Ex-convicts who become television presenters, film stars or bestselling authors often make big money from their glitzy new careers. But they would never have had such careers if it weren’t for their crooked past.
The producers, agents and publishers who sign the deals with celebrity criminals protest that the money does not come directly from a convict’s
previous crimes, but that it is a legitimate reward for their redirected talent, and for the audiences they attract. But this is an unacceptable argument. Firstly, the producers and others take a big cut of the profit, so obviously they would say something of that sort.
Secondly, a notorious gangster needs no talent to attract an audience: their reputation is enough. Therefore, whether the income is direct or indirect, it is still profit from crime.
It is often objected that once a person has served a sentence, they should be entitled to start again with a clean sheet; that barring them from celebrity careers is unjust and infringes their rights. This is typical of the views
expressed by woolly-minded liberals, who are endlessly ready to defend the rights of thugs and murderers without a thought for their victims. They forget that the victims of crime
also have rights. One of those must surely be the right not to see the very person who has robbed or assaulted them, or murdered someone in their family, strutting about enjoying celebrity status and a mega-buck income. Moreover, victims of crime do not get the chance to become chat-show hosts, or star in crime movies, because being a victim of crime is not seen as glamorous.
If the principle of not benefiting from crime means anything, all income, direct or otherwise, should be
confiscated from anyone whose criminal past has helped them to get rich. After all, no one is forced to become a big-time crook. It is a choice the individual makes. Once they have made that choice the door to respectable wealth should be permanently closed.
It’s the price they pay. If would-be criminals know they can never profit in any way from their wickedness, they might think twice before turning to crime in the first place.