Response to Shelley's Week 6 Questions

Shelley pondered the effectiveness of generalizations used in argument discussed by Warnick and Inch. The authors reason that “in a generalization one reasons that what is true of certain members of a class will also be true of other members of the same class or of the class as a whole.” Warnick and Inch supply four questions that are intended to test the validity of the claim made in generalizations. Because these tests shed light on how easily a generalization can fall short, Shelley wondered how effective they really are and if “they work on an audience.”

I think that in certain arenas generalizations can be very effective, even if they are invalid or exaggerated. I think that they would be very effective on young audiences because they may lack the analytical skills to test the generalization. They may also not have the knowledge or life experience to supply comparisons to refute the claim of the generalization.

The other area where I think that the use of generalizations in arguments can be effective is in politics. Generalizations create buzz and even if they later prove to be invalid or unfounded that initial reaction took place and changed the rhetorical situation. For instance, during the campaign there were generalizations (some due to association) made by both candidates. McCain pointed out the connection between William Ayers and Obama, which created a media storm that may have caused viewers (the audience) to make generalizations about Obama’s politics and patriotism. Though the facts about the connection seemed to invalidly produce the generalization they were still powerful, especially among right-wing conservatives.

This brings me to another reason why generalizations can be effective even if faulty. Sometimes the audiences’ desire to believe them can over shadow their desire to test or question the validity. I believe that this can make for a very difficult rhetorical situation and a distraction. Furthermore, if the generalization being made proves to be true, then that can support the speaker if he/she attempts to make another claim (chaining).