#4 - 10 Sales Tricks to Avoid - Weasel Words, False Causes and Slippery Slope arguments

Weasel Words, False Causes and Slippery Slope arguments:

While it would be desirable if salespeople presented us with reasoned arguments upon which we could base our decisions, it is not something we can rely upon. We must take what comes. However, this does not mean we have to accept what comes if it is questionable definitions, or implausible explanations about what the future holds.

Weasel words:

Keeping to the point is excellent advice for any salesperson to adhere too. But sometimes they find it difficult to do so. If arguments are ill-thought out there is a tendency to change the meaning of a word in the middle of the argument so that the conclusion can be maintained. These vague or weasel words usually appear in an argument when we put the salesperson under the pressure of a counterexample. For example:

Salesperson: All investments carry some risk. Customer: What about deposit based funds? Salesperson: Well that’s not really an investment.

Here ‘investment’ is the weasel word. The salesperson’s response to the customer’s counterexample in effect changes the meaning of ‘investment’ to ‘investment that exposes the capital sum to risk’. The first statement remains true, but only at the cost of becoming trivially true. It is tantamount to saying ‘all investment which are risky are risky’ – a meaningless statement.

Take the following example:

Salesperson: All businesses are interested in making a profit. Customer: What about non-profit organisations. Salesperson: Well they are not really businesses.

Here ‘business’ is the weasel word. The salesperson’s response to the counterexample has changed the meaning of ‘businesses’ to ‘businesses which make a profit’. Again this is only trivially true and amounts only to saying ‘every business which makes a profit makes a profit’ – another meaningless statement.

Making a key term vague - either broadening or narrowing its definition to maintain a conclusion undermines the credibility of an argument and we should be suitably unimpressed. We might not be able to prevent salespeople using weasel words but we can insist they be clear about any terms they use, and then insist they only use them as defined. If not we should refuse to accept the meaningless claims they then make to justify the advice given.

Whether the use of weasel words is a consequence of shoddy thinking, or a deliberate attempt to deceive, they have no place in an honest sales presentation. More to the point, whether we are deceived unintentionally or intentionally the use of weasel words still misrepresents the truth.

False causes:

It is not uncommon for salespeople to explain why something happened by arguing about causes. However, what causes what is not always as clear cut as we are often led to believe. It is hard enough in everyday life to know just what caused what to occur. But when used in the narrow confines of a sales presentation we need to be especially on our guard as we might find we are parted with our money by an argument based on a convenient fiction.

If we are asked to make important decisions based on a false understanding of what causes what we are either being ill-advised or misled. While the former may be the result of ignorance, the latter is clearly dishonest.

The following argument seems plausible:

The number of people claiming on their long-term illness policy is rising each year. With more people than ever being prone to long-term illness it is important you take out long-term sickness protection.

In support of the claim of rising claims the salesperson might even produce statistical evidence as proof. The evidence might even be from a very wide variety of sources and respected authorities. But are the increased claims a result of the general deterioration of public health? Most events have a number of possible causes. But a plausible cause for the increased claims rate is not enough. The increased number of claims might just as easily be explained by an increased number of policyholders. Therefore the reason there are more claims is because there are more policyholders, not more people are prone to long-term illness. In fact the incidence of long-term illness among the population might actually be falling but the claims rate still rising.

The salesperson must go on to show that increased long-term illness among the population is the cause of increased claims. Only then can we access the risk and decide if we ought to take appropriate action. Without appropriate evidence to support this particular claim we have nothing firm upon which to basis our decision. Fairy tales are not the stuff upon which informed decisions should be made.

Some causal arguments offered by salespeople are just coincidental rather than necessarily related. For example:

Since launching our new ‘mortgage plus’ product sales have soared. The public response to this new product shows we have listened to our customers and responded with a first rate product.

Once again the salesperson might support the claim by providing evidence of the increased number of sales since the product launched. But is the soundness of the product the most likely cause of increased sales? Could it just be coincidental? Perhaps the product was launched during a peak period in the mortgage cycle - quite possible if the marketing department had anything to do with it.

Additional evidence is often necessary before any explanation of a direct causal link can be accepted with any degree of confidence. Causal explanations are often very persuasive, but not always true. We need to ask whether there might be another explanation for the claim being made. If there is then the initial explanation loses its persuasive force.

The slippery slope:

A slippery slope argument gets going when we are led by the salesperson to acknowledge that a difference between two things is not really significant. The slippery slope argument is a particularly inviting trap when the first step is the easiest to make. For example:

If tomorrow morning you woke up and found you had 25 pence less in your pocket than you thought, would that alter the quality of your life? What if it was only 50 pence, would that alter your quality of life? Would a pound make a difference? Of course not, so £30 a month is easily affordable!

The basic idea with this type of argument is to get us to make a series of small concessions acknowledging that it is a difference that makes no difference. However, as an argument it does not follow from the fact that a pound is an insignificant sum that £360 a year is insignificant. More to the point, whether we can afford to spend £30 a month is not a reason on its own to buy the product; something more is needed.

Another version of the slippery slope argument is the domino effect. This type of argument is often based on the premise that there is a causal link between sequences of events until a ‘horrible’ outcome befalls us. This is not to deny that a causal link exists between events, clearly everything that happens has some cause. But what makes this a fallacy, or dishonest trick, is when we are led to take what might occur at each stage to the conclusion that the last ‘horrible’ step will happen - unless of course we take immediate action to prevent it. For example:

I can understand your reluctance to make a hasty decision. But suppose you sit on this for a day or two, then suppose you feel unwell and your doctor recommends a medical check-up, perhaps even an ECG. Then you decide to go ahead with the life policy. The delay might be costly. Because of your recent visit to the doctor we will probably insist on a medical examination. Our underwriters might load the premium. The cost might then be too high so you can’t afford the policy. Should you die uninsured this will have a negative impact on your children’s education and future prospects. Is that what you want?

No salesperson should offer an argument that infers from what might happen to what will happen. Such arguments are rightly termed fallacious, erroneous and implausible and so there is no reason why we should be persuaded when they are used.

When a salesperson starts to string together a causal chain of events be aware of the subtle change in such arguments moving from a sequence of mights to a will. If not you might end up with a fantasy story.

We might not have a choice about how salespeople present their arguments to us. But we can examine closely the structure and content of the arguments deployed against us. Just because an argument sounds plausible it doesn’t necessarily mean it is plausible let alone true. When words change their meaning, fictions act as convenient causes and slopes become increasingly slippery all add up to fairy tale sales presentations.

In #5 I will look at Getting an ought from an is argument.