# Avoid Bald Assertions

When people make arguments, sometimes there is a major failure to reason logically by making assumptions about facts that aren't provided and making assertions without connecting them to the facts provided in the scenario (i.e., evidence) that support the assertion. We call these "bald" assertions.

## **Examples of Bald Assertions**

Some students believe that using "because" demonstrates reasoning. Maybe, maybe not: Using "because" sometimes can be insufficient. As you have experienced as students advancing in your education, you have been taught that arguments or assertions need to be connected to "because" in order to support the argument. The concept is true, but the execution is what matters. Frequently, when using "because," people actually incorporate unsubstantiated assumptions and [enthymemes](https://prof-mackelly.gitbook.io/bus-210-2200/preparing-to-understand-legal-thinking-reasoning-and-analysis/introduction-to-deductive-reasoning-rule-based-reasoning#enthymemes). Here are a few examples of bald assertions.

### **Example 1: "Global warming must be a hoax because my city had its coldest winter ever recorded."**

Certainly, "Global warming is a hoax" is merely a bald assertion because it's not supported by any facts. ***But*** adding "because" does not fix the problem. The fact that "my city had its coldest winter" is not logically connected to "global warming." Without a definition of "global warming" and facts that fall directly within that definition, the statement is still a bald assertion. The assertion skips the necessary logical steps to constitute a legitimate analysis.

{% hint style="info" %}
Aside: The fact that the assertion in this example is a bald assertion does not inherently mean that the assertion is false. It simply means that the reasoning is flawed, and it is not a legitimate argument to support the claim that global warming is a hoax.
{% endhint %}

### **Example 2: "A burrito is a sandwich because it is a filling served inside bread."**

* Of course, this has the same problem as the hot dog (the definition of "burrito" and the definition of "sandwich"). But *in addition* to these definitions, what are a few questions—arising from critical thinking—that need to be answered to make a logical argument about whether a burrito is a sandwich? Here are a few (but not all) questions:
  * Does "bread" include only a flour tortilla, or can it include a corn tortilla (or something else)?
  * Does "inside" mean that the ingredients are incorporated into the "bread," between pieces of "bread," or wrapped in "bread"?
  * If it is wrapped in "bread," is there food that is commonly viewed as a sandwich and also wrapped in "bread"? (For example, based on the common usage of "sandwich," it is hard to disagree that a piece of meat between two slices of bread falls within the meaning of "sandwich." What if there is evidence that the same meat wrapped in a tortilla—commonly referred to as a chicken wrap—is also commonly considered a sandwich? Could this support an argument by analogy that a burrito can be a sandwich because both burritos and some sandwiches are wrapped in a tortilla? Maybe, maybe not.

### **Example 3: "Jack is liable for Jill's alleged injuries because he was speeding when he hit her vehicle."**

* Many people "reason" that because Jack was doing something illegal, he is responsible for Jill's injuries. This is flawed reasoning because it assumes that acting illegally automatically makes someone liable. As you will learn, this is false.
* Now, let's try this with more detail, based on two rules of law (i.e., definitions) from Unit 2:
  * For a driver **to be liable** for the tort of negligence, the alleged wrongdoer must (1) have had a duty to drive with reasonable care to avoid hurting others; (2) the driver must have acted negligently (e.g., failing to drive with regard for others' safety); and (3) the driver's negligence must have been the cause of the injured party's harm. The second rule is that a driver is negligent if they exceed the speed limit.
  * Here, many students look at the word "negligent" and assert that Jack is liable for Jill's injuries because he was speeding when he hit her. Although the student used "because," the reasoning is flawed. It is logical to assert that Jack was negligent because (a) speeding constitutes negligence, and (b) Jack was speeding. But the rule for liability explained above requires more than just negligent conduct, and **liability requires evidence that the negligent conduct&#x20;***<mark style="color:red;">**caused**</mark>***&#x20;Jill's injuries**.
  * Without evidence about what caused Jill's injuries, it's entirely possible that Jack's negligence did not cause her alleged injuries (or at least not all of them). For instance, she could have had the same injuries before the accident, and the accident did not make them worse (i.e., she could have been in the exact same condition before and after Jack's negligent conduct). If there was evidence that she had pre-existing injuries, we cannot assume that Jack's negligence caused the injuries that Jill is claiming.

For example, a brief search of YouTube, TikTok, and other social media sites reveal a plethora of videos depicting law enforcement officers asserting that citizens are required to provide their identification or personal information (e.g., name, date of birth, address, explanations of their presence, etc.). Are these officers correct? ***It depends.*** This is a fictional, but realistic, example:

> \[*Citizen walking on a public sidewalk, and officer approaches.*]
>
> **Officer:** How are you doing today?
>
> Citizen: Good, thanks.
>
> **Officer:** Where are you going?
>
> Citizen: I don't need to tell you.
>
> **Officer:** Do you have identification?
>
> Citizen: Yes, but I'm not going to give it to you.
>
> \[*Officer removes notepad from pocket to take notes*.]
>
> **Officer:** What is your name?
>
> Citizen: l'm not telling you.
>
> **Officer:** Look, I'm not trying to be difficult. We received a call about a suspicious person walking around on this block, so we're investigating.
>
> Citizen: Okay. Well, I'm just walking.
>
> **Officer:** Sir, we received a call about a suspicious person and we're investigating that call. We're talking to you as part of that investigation. So, when we talk to someone during and investigation, we always get their name so we know who we're talking to. Tell me your name.
>
> Citizen: I'm not giving you my name. Am I being detained?
>
> **Officer:** No. You're not in trouble, we're just investigating a call about suspicious behavior. Now, you're refusing to tell me who you are. That's pretty suspicious to me. Give me your name.
>
> Citizen: I'm not telling you that.
>
> **Officer:** Sir, we just need to know who we're talking to. Now, give me your name. That is a lawful order.
>
> Citizen: No, I don't need to.
>
> **Officer:** Yes, you do.
>
> Citizen: No, I don't.
>
> **Officer:** Listen, you are required to give me your ID or tell me who you are. We need to verify who you are. If you aren't gonna comply, then I'm going to have to arrest you for obstruction. We are investigating a call about suspicious activity and you are obstructing that investigation.

Is the officer correct that the order to produce identification or provide their name was a lawful order? It depends on a few things. Here are just a few examples:

* Was there reasonable suspicion, merely based on "a call" about a "suspicious" person, to believe that the citizen had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime? Without reasonable suspicion, a citizen has no obligation to disclose their identity; and merely being or acting "suspicious" does not constitute reasonable suspicion that the person was, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.
* What is the state law?
  * Some states make it an offense to refuse to identify oneself *if* the police stopped the citizen based on reasonable suspicion. Some states do not. For instance:
    * [In Ohio](#user-content-fn-1)[^1], it is a misdemeanor in Ohio to refuse to disclose one's name, address, or date of birth under certain circumstances when reasonable suspicion exists.
    * [In Wisconsin](#user-content-fn-2)[^2], although law enforcement may "demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct" when reasonable suspicion exists, a simple refusal to comply with the demand is not a crime. Wisconsin has no equivalent to Ohio's "[failure to disclose](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2921.29)" statute. Moreover, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a simple refusal to comply with the demand does not constitute the crime of resisting or obstructing an officer.\*

***

<details>

<summary>License</summary>

This page by Matthew L. Mac Kelly is licensed under [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), except where otherwise noted. <img src="https://1975576868-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FGadqYnQq6nrcfzJhclgF%2Fuploads%2Fgit-blob-eba7d5cf5c91fc2c7217b5ccacaecb8fd57a6b1b%2Fimage%20(2).png?alt=media" alt="" data-size="line">

</details>

[^1]: See [Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2921.29).

[^2]: [Wis. Stat. § 968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/24).
