#6 - 10 Sales Tricks to Avoid - Conditional and Appeals to Force arguments

Conditional and Appeals to Force arguments:

For an argument to be an argument it needs premises and a conclusion. But just because we hear a sales presentation where the argument presented has premises and a conclusion it does not follow, as we saw in the last chapter, it is a fair argument. As in the previous chapter we are often offered what merely looks like a sound argument but which is nothing of the kind. Let’s deal first with another conditional argument that is fallacious.

Conditional argument:

As in the previous chapter some arguments sound plausible when taken at face value. However, when we look at them more closely they are far from convincing. Those of us who are alert will be quick to raise an objection. Those of us not so alert will be unfairly persuaded by what amounts to empty rhetoric masquerading as an argument. Identifying spurious arguments requires we ask ourselves whether the premise or premises offered actually support the conclusion. Consider this slightly different form of conditional ‘If … then …’ argument to see whether the premise offered supports the conclusion.

If we were paid commission on the sale, then there would be a temptation to mis-sell. But we do not get paid a commission. Therefore, we don’t have a temptation to mis-sell.

In this example the commission salesperson is assumed to be the only one with a motive to mis-sell. The argument once again seems plausible but this also looks like a bit of well-poisoning. But in addition we would be wrong to ac cept the conclusion on offer from the premises given. Once again the premises could be true but the conclusion false. We need only to think of other equally plausible reasons why someone might mis-sell to the public. Have they equivocated on the term ‘commission’ to exclude things like bonuses? Is their salary and perks performance-based?

From the consumers perspective is not a debatable point whether or not the salesperson should meet the proper requirements of sound arguments – it is incumbent upon them to do so. But even the most well-intentioned of salespeople will from time to time fail to meet these standards. We need to be vigilant in ensuring we are being offered sound arguments where the premises support the conclusion. Beware any statement that contains ‘if … then …’ If it does then you might be being led down a spurious road to a convenient conclusion.

Appeals to Force:

The sort of argument which appeals to force rather than reason is not really an argument at all, rather a rhetorical ploy. So, arguments, and I use the term loosely here, appealing to force or a threat are powerful in eliciting emotions. Again, there is nothing essentially wrong with appealing to emotions unless used to persuade us at the cost of not fulfilling the proper requirements of a sound argument.

When we talk about appeals to force we are not suggesting salespeople occasional go in for a bit of arm-twisting, at least not physically. We are referring to arguments that by-pass argument and go straight to the negative consequences of inaction. For example:

If you don’t install this security system, your house is more than likely burgled.

If you don’t re-point those capping tiles you could lose the whole roof in the next storm.

If you don’t remove that tree in the front garden it will undermine your whole house.

So common is this kind of argument it hardly warrants further examples. In all such cases the utterance is an appeal to force rather than an argument based on premises and a conclusion.

Whether the use of this type of statement is acceptable practice is not the issue. The fact is they are used quite frequently in sales presentations to intimidate rather than allow us to come to a rational decision. If what the salesperson has to sell us is truly beneficial then why don’t they offer sound reasons backed up by appropriate evidence? The truth has as much power to convince as a lie? If you are getting an appeal by force ask yourself why.

In #7 I will look at Begging the Question and Straw Man arguments.