False Equivalence and the Black Cat

For this paper, you will be employing these critical reasoning skills not to solve a crime (a jury has already concluded what happened), but rather to analyze the flaws in the narrator’s thinking, the way he uses and misuses facts to try to explain away his personal responsibility for his wife’s murder. Many of the claims the narrator makes are hard to believe. In fact, he states himself that “some intellect more calm, more logical, and far less excitable” than his own would find his claims invalid. Start with those statements. Where can you examine his language or his argument to find faulty critical reasoning processes or manipulative rhetorical strategies?

In writing your paper keep a number of things in mind:

Assume you know more about the story and about critical reasoning than your readers. As such, make sure you provide them with enough background and context to understand your argument and the techniques you are using to make them. Your goal is not only to prove your conclusions but also to provide useful insight into the critical reasoning you are employing .
Anchor your analysis in the language of “The Black Cat.” You will need specific evidence from the text to prove your points.
Consider the difference between facts and the interpretation of facts. The narrator does provide us with many “facts,” but how can we employ critical reasoning to interpret those facts, poke holes in the argument, and offer more rational explanations for the events of the story and the narrator’s claims about them?
In shaping your argument about the narrator’s claims, consider the analytical devices that we have discussed in class.
Validity and soundness in arguments
Cognitive biases
Plausibility
Logical fallacies
Requirements:

At least 1200 words; no more than 1500 words.
Parenthetical citations and a Works Cited page correctly formatted in MLA Style.
A compelling, focused, and relevant examination of the writing prompt.
Fluid embedding of textual evidence from the course texts. Avoid quoting long passages.
Organization: a clear thesis, focused topic sentences, and a balance of evidence and commentary.
Old/new transitions (see Style, Chapter 4) and correct grammar/punctuation.

My topic is about how the Narrator uses false equivalences and an
anchoring bias to convince the readers that his inexcusable actions should be blamed on the
black cat. I am focusing on specific areas where these two fallacies were applied and how the
unnamed narrator is able to manipulate his audience into thinking there is a deeper connection
between the black cat and some evil entity. Furthermore, I am going to explore the flaws in the
Narrator’s thinking based off of the fallacies he applied and how faulty they are.
My working thesis: False equivalences are scattered around “The Black Cat” in an attempt by
the Narrator to convince readers that the black cat and an evil entity are one in the same.
Additionally, the Narrator uses an anchoring bias multiple times in the story to plant a suspicion
in the readers head that is hard to get out.
Evidence from “The Black Cat”:
– False equivalency: The cat biting him – “the fury of a demon instantly possessed me”
(232)
– Anchoring Bias: “all black cats as witches in disguise” (231)
Evidence from critical thinking sources:
– Using the False Equivalence
– “of two acts that are being equated, the person presenting the equivalence might believe
that this difference is small enough that the equivalence is reasonable, while someone

Last Completed Projects