Oversimplification

There are many different types of fallacies in the world of rhetoric, and since learning about their specific names, I have definitely started noticing them more and more in the world. One that I have found to be particularly prevalent in much of what I read is the logical fallacy called oversimplification. This is where a writer will take a whole issue, or question, or idea, and narrow it all down to just one point, or a couple of main points, that will usually summarize an issue nicely without addressing the details and facts of it. They can be difficult to identify overall sometimes, but they are generally wrapped up in short sentences or phrases that stick out to you, so other times they may be easy to see. Typically, when I am looking out for them is when I will see them the most, and once I have identified them, I can better judge whether or not I trust the argument as a whole after seeing their use of this fallacy.

The problem with oversimplification is that many issues that are even worth talking about or debating about are complex enough that you can’t honestly just boil them down to one thing and ignore the rest of the argument. I think this fallacy really gets to me because it doesn’t acknowledge the many details and exceptions involved in a problem, which are often abundant. It can be very difficult to make sure you don’t do this in your writing; I have done it myself without realizing it. The difficulty is in the fact that when we talk about things it is typically in an abstract, analytical, separate way from the actual happenings in the world having to do with them. When we examine the issue away from the action, and away from all of the emotional charge, and adrenaline, it is easier to see things simpler, and to reassure ourselves that there is just one tidy solution for the whole thing. We want to do that by nature because we want to fix the issue, and oversimplifying it makes it easier to talk about doing just that. However, it is usually not as simple as it is made out to be. The article we read in class yesterday on immigration is a prime example of this. Most issues really should be simplified in context to some extent so they are easier to work through, but immigration is definitely a complex issue, or we wouldn’t still be debating it after all these years of dealing with our dysfunctional system and trying to figure out what to do about it. But the fact that this strategy is still used demonstrates that it must be effective to some point, and it continues to be used, whether intentionally or not. It may be hard to detect if you are invested in an argument in an emotional way, and it is something you’d like to have wrapped up neatly into one box and kept there. Sometimes we would like to do that, but we are often forced to acknowledge that we just can’t over-simplify things to the point that the real issues at hand are hidden in the background, not being addressed. Ultimately, it is important to recognize the valid points from all angles of an issue, and to give a fair analysis to both sides. Because no matter what kind of rhetorical devices they use, the best policy is always just to seek the truth wherever it may be found.