Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Informal Logic Analysis Paper
“Weasel-Words Rip my Flesh” is a 2005 story by Jack Shafer, which appeared on the front page of the New York Times. The story’s title was inspired by the phrase ‘weasel words, ‘ which means the intentional use of ambiguous or misleading words in writing. In this story, the author uses multiple weasel words, seemingly because she does not have any data to support her argument. The author’s primary point is that several women at Elite Colleges set their career paths to motherhood (Shafer 2005). Thus, the thesis statement in the piece is: “Some decades ago, women in college desired to have full-time careers while still studying, but they suspended their jobs for the sake of motherhood roles.
The first skill present in the article is the type of argument: deductive and inductive argument. The author involves inductive reasoning in the piece where she uses specific instances to derive a conclusion. For example, halfway through the story, the author mentions that “at age 18, people have expectations which are imperfect predictors of their life choices in ten years (Shafer 2005).” In this scenario, the author uses inductive reasoning by using a specific instance to derive a conclusion. Further, the author’s use of deductive reasoning is limited throughout the story. She lacks a valid argument, evident from the fact that she does not make a standing-out hypothesis, which increases the possibility of making a logical conclusion.
The second skill used to compare the author’s work is focus and correctness. When we refer to this New York Times article, the author mentions that many women at Elite colleges set career paths that are later influenced by motherhood. The argument is valid: however, the author violates a good story’s elements by failing to mention anything sturdy to make the hypothesis tested to look correct. The author informs readers that many women of these women are being prepared for occupational lifestyle at Ivy League institutions. She repeats these weasel phrases in the first half of the story and uses it whenever she needs to express quantity. The author would have enhanced correctness by using real numbers to express quantity rather than overusing the phrase ‘many women.’
The third skill used in comparing the article is validity and soundness, which is closely related to inductive and deductive reasoning. The author’s arguments can be said to lack validity and soundness, given that the conclusion ‘many elite colleges set career path for motherhood roles is false (Shafer 2005). In essence, the author would have enhanced the deductive argument in the article by logically stating facts that confirm the conclusion. The article would have contained sound reasoning if the conclusion had necessarily followed some facts about elite college education and their impacts on women.
Conclusion
I disagree with the author’s arguments in ‘Weasel-Words Rip My Flesh!’ that several women in elite colleges set their career paths, which are often affected by motherhood. The author pointed out that women would put aside their careers to raise their children. Even though this argument is not false, the premises under which it is arrived at is not valid. In this case, the author arrived at a correct conclusion with a false premise. If the premise were true, the author would have used facts and avoid relying on weasel phrases such as many women. Therefore, it is easy to see that the story does not contain an excellent argument since it does not begin with a premise that is true to support the conclusion.
Work Cited
Shafer, J. (2005, September 20). Spotting a bogus trend story in today’s New York Times. Retrieved June 9, 2020, from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/09/spotting-a-bogus-trend-story-in-today-s-new-york-times.html