Gingrich's Argument Analysis

During a December 2nd, 2016 episode of CNN’s At This Hour With Berman and Michaela, the show played an audio clip of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s harsh comments about president-elect Donald Trump’s recent meeting and dinner with potential Secretary of State Mitt Romney. On the surface, Gingrich is making a strong argument against Romney’s, in Gingrich’s words, “sucking up.” From a critical view, however, Gingrich actually commits one of several fallacies that often serve to weaken one’s argument. In this case, Gingrich uses an unsupported assertion in order to have his argument appear stronger than it actually is. A fallacy is a mistaken belief which is usually based on an unsound argument. One example of a fallacy is called an unsupported assertion. An unsupported assertion is an assertion which is not supported, but nevertheless constitutes a major part of an argument. In his argument against Romney, Gingrich, either unknowingly or purposefully, uses an unsupported assertion to paint Romney in an extremely negative light. Gingrich says, “I'm sure last night, at an elegant three-star restaurant in New York, that Mitt was fully at home, happy to share his vision of populism, which involved a little foie gras, a certain amount of superb cooking, but was
A step he could have taken to rid his statements of fallacies would have been to remove of the absolutes. Instead of saying, “I’m sure last night…,” he could have said, “I think that last night.” Of course, politicians are not usually in the habitat of turning “facts” into opinion, but from a logical standpoint, doing so would serve to strengthen his argument. Making clear that his statements were of his own opinion and not fact would also allow Gingrich to use his politician's ethos to illustrate that he knows how Washington politics work. This would allow him to both remove his fallacies while simultaneously strengthening his argument against