The first step in assessing someone's argument for fallacies is to explicate their argument, which means interpreting what the person wrote (or said) in order to clarify, in the most straightforward terms, the premises and conclusion of the argument. This can involve making implicit premises or conclusions explicit (putting unstated claims into words). Such interpretation introduces room for error, and even the possibility of committing a fallacy in the act of checking someone else's text for fallacies. (The most likely fallacies when explicating someone's argument are probably straw man and quotation out of context.)

In critical thinking, in order to make sure we are explicating arguments properly, we follow two important principles: the principle of charity and the principle of fidelity.

Principle of Charity

The principle of charity requires that when there is room to interpret someone as having meant either of two possible arguments, and one of those is a stronger argument than the other, then we are obligated to take the stronger one as our interpretation. This is "giving the benefit of the doubt" to other people, when construing their arguments.

Let's consider the following example.

Suppose that someone says, referring to a residential street: "We should put a speed bump here, because I am sick and tired of everyone speeding along this road where there are kids playing".

We could choose to represent this uncharitably in a couple of ways that would make it a very weak argument.

One would be to say that the argument is:

"I am having emotional frustration about cars on this street, therefore the city should spend resources to make me feel better emotionally."

Then we could accuse the arguer of an appeal to emotion.

Yet another way to represent the statement as a bad argument, would be to read it as:

"Literally everyone -- every single car, ever -- has been breaking the speed limit on this street; therefore it needs a speed bump."

Then we could accuse the arguer of the fallacy of a sweeping generalization, assuming that at least some cars actually obey the speed limit.

Both of these representations would violate the principle of charity, because there is a better way to represent the argument, which is:

1. Wherever speeding is common around children, it would be good to slow down the cars, which may include putting in a speed bump.

2. On this street, speeding is indeed a common occurrence, and it is around children.

3. Therefore, it would be a good thing to slow down the cars, which may include putting in a speed bump.

This makes a valid argument, and the second premise is not a sweeping generalization, because we have interpreted the arguer's use of the word "everyone" as a hyperbole (exaggerating to emphasize a point, in a way that does not have to be taken literally).

Generally, following the principle of charity means not constructing a straw man in one's representation of another person's argument. The first two versions of the argument, above, are straw men; the last one is not. Another way to think of the principle of charity, is that it is "steel manning" -- the opposite of straw manning. We are constructing the strongest plausible interpretation of their argument, not the weakest one.

Principle of Fidelity

The principle of fidelity requires that when explicating someone's argument, we do not twist or alter their claims so as to make a different argument than what they plausibly could have meant. This is a matter of being true to both the explicit and implicit meanings of someone's statements, in view of their full context and background. This means that we should get a nod of approval from the original arguer upon seeing our representation of the argument (assuming the arguer is honest). Also it means that we should not go too far with the principle of charity; we cannot "fix" their argument to the point of ignoring clear-cut fallacies or inconsistencies.

Let's consider an example:

Suppose someone says:

"I hate all blue-eyed people, they are just so stupid, like my cousin Lizzy."

If we were to represent this statement as:

"It is possible that some people of low intelligence happen to have blue eyes",

then we would be violating the principle of fidelity, by pushing charity to an excess, and removing the fallacious generalization that the arguer is making. Here, we must explicate the argument as making a hasty generalization about blue-eyed people, which the arguer then uses to justify bias against the entire group.

Combining the Two Principles

When we have satisfied both these principles, then we can be assured we have made a fair and accurate explication of someone's argument. On the one hand, we know we have made the strongest (most valid, with the most plausible premises) representation we can of the argument. On the other hand, we know we have not strayed from the arguer's actual words so as to distort their meaning.

Once this is done, then we are ready to check if there are fallacies, or not, in the argument.

External References

• Logic Made Simple by Rubin & Young
• "The Principles of Charity and Fidelity" by Bradley H. Dowden