Paine - Journal #5

Journal #5 – from Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” (p.95-6)

1. Identify the specific argument that Paine is making in each paragraph. For each of the arguments, identify whether Paine is making an emotional, ethical, or logical appeal and suggest an effective counterargument.


#1 He was saying that the revolution would be hard, but it will be worth it in the end. The British don’t have the power to tax and “enslave” them. Only God has the power to take away freedom. The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. Paine is making an emotional, ethical, and logical appeal. The counter argument could be that the Americans owe the English because they were granted everything from England. It’s going to be bad if you lose. The logical fallacies are Sentimental Appeal and Faulty Analogy.

#2 God won’t let us lose. He wants us to win. It has an ethical and logical appeal. A counter argument would be that God doesn’t want war at all, so he doesn’t support either side. Another argument could be that God is on England’s side instead.

#3 The argument he is trying to make is that they should fight now and not later. The appeals are logic, emotional, and ethical. A counter argument would be that things might work themselves out or America could lose the war and life would get worse.

#4 The argument is that we would not fight an offensive war, but we are fighting a defensive war. The King is a thief, therefore we should fight. The appeal is emotional. An effective counter argument would be that Britain is more powerful, and if we lose, we will get stricter punishment.





2. Can you identify any of the logical fallacies that we discussed in Paine’s arguments? If so, which ones? Overall, what do you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of Paine’s arguments?

The logical fallacies are Faulty Analogy, Sentimental Appeal, Begging the Question, Ad Hominem
His strengths are that he is a prominent historical figure and easily persuades through means other than logic. He inspires people through emotion and ethics. His arguments’ weaknesses are that he doesn’t make a convincing logical argument.