Simplistic Reasoning: A Rhetorical/Logic Term

Simplistic Reasoning: Etymology/Term, Literal and Conceptual Meanings

Etymology of “Simplistic Reasoning”

The term “simplistic reasoning” has its roots in the combination of two key components: “simplistic” and “reasoning.” The word “simplistic” originates from the late 18th century, derived from the French word “simpliste,” which denotes a tendency to oversimplify complex issues. On the other hand, “reasoning” comes from the Old French term “raisonner,” meaning to discuss or debate. The fusion of these elements results in a term that encapsulates a form of thinking characterized by an overly simplified approach to complex problems.

Literal Meaning

• At a literal level, simplistic reasoning refers to a cognitive process marked by an excessive inclination towards simplicity and a reluctance to engage with the intricacies of a subject.
• It involves reducing multifaceted issues to straightforward, often superficial, explanations, neglecting nuances and complexities.

Conceptual Meaning

• Conceptually, simplistic reasoning extends beyond the mere act of oversimplification.
• It embodies a mindset that shies away from embracing the complexities inherent in various phenomena.
• This form of reasoning may manifest as a cognitive shortcut, providing individuals with a seemingly clear and straightforward understanding of a situation, but at the cost of overlooking crucial details and contributing to a superficial comprehension of reality.
• In an academic context, simplistic reasoning can hinder critical thinking and impede the pursuit of in-depth knowledge and analysis.
• Recognizing and addressing this tendency is essential for fostering a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to complex issues within academic discourse.

Simplistic Reasoning: Definition as a Rhetorical Term

Simplistic reasoning, when employed as a rhetorical term or device, refers to the deliberate use of overly simplistic or superficial arguments to persuade or influence an audience. It involves presenting ideas or issues in an excessively straightforward manner, often oversimplifying complex subjects to make them more easily digestible for the intended audience. This rhetorical strategy may involve the use of generalizations, stereotypes, or binary distinctions, creating an illusion of clarity and certainty while disregarding the intricacies inherent in the topic.

Simplistic Reasoning: Types and Examples

Type of Simplistic Reasoning	Description	Example
Overgeneralization	Making broad and sweeping conclusions based on limited evidence or instances.	Example: “I met two lazy students, so all students must be lazy.”
False Dichotomy	Presenting a situation as if only two alternatives exist when, in reality, there are more options.	Example: “You’re either with us or against us.”
Hasty Generalization	Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence.	Example: “I tried one brand of cereal, and I didn’t like it, so all cereals must be bad.”
Cherry-picking Evidence	Selectively presenting only the evidence that supports a particular viewpoint while ignoring conflicting information.	Example: “Look at these statistics that prove my point, but I won’t mention the data that contradicts it.”
Oversimplification	Reducing a complex issue to a simple, easily understood explanation, often neglecting important nuances.	Example: “The economic problem can be solved by just lowering taxes.”
Anecdotal Evidence	Relying on personal anecdotes or isolated examples to support a general claim.	Example: “I know someone who smoked for 90 years and lived to be 100, so smoking must be harmless.”
Circular Reasoning	Using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises, resulting in a circular and unhelpful explanation.	Example: “The Bible is true because it says so, and we know it’s true because it’s the word of God.”
Appeal to Emotion	Using emotional language or anecdotes to evoke strong feelings rather than presenting a logical argument.	Example: “Support this policy because it will make our country great again and protect our families.”

It’s important to note that these examples illustrate how simplistic reasoning may manifest in various forms and contexts. Recognizing these patterns can contribute to a more critical and nuanced understanding of arguments in different discussions.

Simplistic Reasoning: Examples in Everyday Life

1. Overgeneralization in Social Settings:
   • Example: “I had a bad experience with one person from that city, so everyone from there must be unfriendly.”
2. False Dichotomy in Decision-Making:
   • Example: “Either I get this promotion, or my career is over. There’s no middle ground.”
3. Hasty Generalization in Food Preferences:
   • Example: “I tried sushi once and didn’t like it, so all Japanese food must be unappealing.”
4. Cherry-picking Evidence in News Consumption:
   • Example: “I only read news sources that confirm my beliefs; everything else is fake news.”
5. Oversimplification in Health Habits:
   • Example: “The key to a healthy lifestyle is just eating salads and avoiding carbs.”
6. Anecdotal Evidence in Product Recommendations:
   • Example: “My friend used this skincare product, and her skin cleared up immediately, so it must work for everyone.”
7. Circular Reasoning in Personal Beliefs:
   • Example: “I believe in ghosts because the paranormal investigator on TV said they exist, and I trust them because they are experts.”
8. Appeal to Emotion in Political Discussions:
   • Example: “Support this candidate because they have a touching life story, not because of their policies.”
9. Stereotyping in Cultural Assumptions:
   • Example: “All teenagers are lazy and disrespectful; it’s just how they are.”
10. Black-and-White Thinking in Relationship Dynamics:
    • Example: “If my partner doesn’t always agree with me, then they must not really love me.”

These examples highlight how simplistic reasoning can manifest in various aspects of everyday life, influencing decision-making, interpersonal relationships, and personal beliefs. Being aware of these tendencies can promote more thoughtful and critical thinking.

Simplistic Reasoning in Literature: Suggested Readings

1. Fisher, Walter R. “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument.” Communication Monographs, vol. 51, no. 1, 1984, pp. 1-22.
2. Govier, Trudy. A Practical Study of Argument. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010.
3. Fledman, Richard. Reason in Argument. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.
4. Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
5. Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
6. Walton, Douglas N. Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. University of Toronto Press, 2008.
7. Walton, Douglas N. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
8. Woods, John. Paradox and Paraconsistency: Conflict Resolution in the Abstract Sciences. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
9. Zarefsky, David. Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning. The Teaching Company, 2008.