The Broken Soldier

The following is the first post in the educational series, “Introduction to Informal Logic/Fallacy Theory.” Each day I will take statements, making every effort to keep the author’s real identity secret, and treat each statement with concepts from Informal Logic/Fallacy Theory. For my enlisted audience, please print this series as it may be useful to you in “CLEPing” out of a critical thinking course, or make a good primer for the same offered on campus or through correspondence. This material is also covered in Composition courses, Introduction to Logic, and sometimes in Introduction to Philosophy courses. These courses are distribution requirements for most degrees at most accredited universities. This material is also a useful tool in sniffing out statements of questionable form and or validity. Information one can use both in and out of the classroom.

My method is standard. I will introduce the fallacy, describe its defining characteristics, discuss why this sort of statement is fallacious in natural language argument, and provide a real-world example of the fallacy’s use.

Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence

A basic principle of argumentation is that a cogently and honestly stated argument presents all known relevant evidence. When an arguer intentionally omits relevant data to make his position seem stronger or his opponent’s seem weaker, the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence has occurred. This fallacy can be difficult to detect if full data isn’t known or revealed. Suppressing evidence is fallacious because it deliberately focuses attention on information supporting the arguer’s position, but no information that may contradict it. Consider the following example from neo-Modern Social Darwinist Leonardo LeCron Gosol’s work focused on eristic reasoning in ethics and law, Assigning the Victim Blame.

“Your have been ordered to Ft. Knox on 21 Feb. The doctors do not have any additional documentation to validate what you are claiming. I asked you for the documentation last week and on two separate occasions you stated the following:

10 Feb:

“When you receive my medical documents tomorrow, as well, if you wish, read the discussion of
the symptoms I’ve experienced in posts on my site, you will find, as I have already told you, primary medical sources are on my side. The symptoms I experience and their likely cause are in *bold*.”

11 Feb you wrote:

“My wife will have the documents you requested to you later today.”

The reason I asked for the documentation is so I could talk to the doctors at Ft. Knox about your medical condition, as determined by your civilian doctor. To date I still have not received the information. As such, the appointment has now been made and you are directed to make the appointment.”

LeCron Gosol possessed the following quoted statements, but chose to suppress them in attempt to make his premise - his opponent had not complied with requests for various documents after promising to do so, and offered no reasonable excuse for not doing so - appear stronger than it truly is to an outside observer. This premise is part of a larger argument designed to make his opponent appear uncooperative.

“Feb 10

I am facing an uphill struggle. A system biased against those it is meant to help. I need time to prepare, sir. ”

Feb 11

“Prepare medical documents and written opinions of my medical doctors, and prepare a legal strategy with my lawyer. Preparation requires time. Time is what I am asking for.”

“Re: MEB, I really only have one shot at this, sir. If Dr. [Name deleted] or his colleagues screw me again, there isn’t anything, until the laws are changed, that I can do about it. This, sir, is why I need time to prepare and coordinate this with my doctors and my attorney.”

“I do not believe a just outcome is possible working within this system without assistance from those outside the system. Those outside this system need time to prepare, and so do I.”

While committing this fallacy may help LeCron Gosol support his position, that he would need to suppress evidence speaks to the inherent weakness of his position, and to a less-than honest approach in arguing it.