The Grumpy Grammarian

When I evaluate student papers, one dilemma I have is to decide whether the fault with a confusing essay is fuzzy writing or fuzzy thinking.  When what the student intends to say is obscured by faulty sentence structure or vague wording, I am reasonably sure that it's a writing problem.  If I were to speak with the student, he or she could probably tell me what the intended meaning was.  On the other hand, some essays are quite clear, but what they say makes no logical sense.  I start to wonder whether the student's brain has any functioning logic circuits.  As one wit commented, "If I gaze intently into that student's eyes, would all I see be snow falling on a quaint village?"

A case in point is a student's essay in defense of capital punishment.  The student's opening paragraph makes it perfectly clear that her intent is to prove that the death penalty is just and necessary punishment for those who commit capital crimes.  However, in the second paragraph, the student writes:  "The reason some countries do not use the death penalty is because they do not have as many capital crimes."  What troubles me about this statement is not "the reason is . . . because" but the logic of having this statement in an essay that supports the death penalty.  If countries without the death penalty have fewer capital crimes, my logic tells me that having capital punishment is not such a great idea.  If we abolished it, this seems to say, we would have fewer rapes and murders.  Conversely, if we continue to have the death penalty (which the student is defending), won't we continue to have more capital crimes?  This is good? 

The student blithely continues with this line of thought (the very next sentence):  "The death penalty punishes people for extreme crimes, and it prevents them from committing more crimes."  Wait a minute – didn't the author just say that countries without the death penalty have fewer capital crimes?  Or is the student now suggesting that we should execute people before they commit murder so that they won't commit murder?  Whatever the sense, how does this statement logically follow its predecessor?

The same essay notes that among the countries besides the U.S. that do have capital punishment are China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq.  How does citing five countries that are global pariahs in the area of human rights prove that capital punishment is just?  Logically, by naming these countries, isn't this student implying that our system of justice is – and should be – just like theirs?  (Perhaps I'm giving the student too much credit, but I'm assuming that she has some inkling that these countries are not exactly noted for their humane treatment of their citizens.)

Finally, the essay addresses the problem that "people have been convicted and found later to be innocent."  Then comes this puzzling analysis:  "To prevent this, a person should not be sentenced to the death penalty until all evidence leads a jury to believe that the person is guilty."  Huh?  Isn't that precisely the process by which some innocent people have been convicted?  Ah, but the student continues:  "If there are still unanswered questions, the case should continue and the person should be placed in jail."  That sounds remarkably like an argument for life imprisonment rather than the death penalty – but the student's broken logic circuits do not recognize this implication at all.

It's extremely difficult to critique a logically defective essay such as this.  To be sure, I can (and I did) show that the evidence in the paper constitutes a strong argument against having the death penalty and is thus contrary to the student's stated purpose, but the student is likely to conclude that my criticism (and her grade) is based on my disagreement with her conclusions, not the faulty logic of her supposed support.  A logical demonstration that an essay is illogical cannot be understood by someone who cannot recognize faulty logic.  One might as well try to explain colors to someone who is color-blind.

This type of essay frightens me more than one that is merely ungrammatical.  Faulty grammar is curable, but I'm not sure that the kind of reasoning illustrated by this essay can be easily corrected.  Furthermore, it is dangerous.  This student has reached a conclusion about an important issue without the slightest clue as to how she got there.  She has not only failed to support her opinion; she also fails to recognize that the very evidence she cites supports the opposite view.  That is the kind of thinking (if we can even call it thinking) that is the basis for prejudice and all sorts of muddle-headed ideas.  These ideas may translate into action – and that's why it is a hundred times more dangerous than faulty grammar is.

Understand – the issue here is not whether her conclusion is right.  Whether she supports or opposes the death penalty is unimportant.  What is important is the process by which this student and others form the ideas that ultimately guide their actions.  Is that process rational, or is it muddled?

Intelligent people reach different conclusions about controversial issues.  If they didn't, the issues wouldn't be controversial in the first place.  We shouldn't declare people stupid just because they disagree with us.  However, we may call them stupid and dangerous if they take a stand on an important issue without the slightest clue about how they arrived at that position.

As usual, I believe that we can blame this failure to logically process ideas on our school system.  Students are taught to memorize, not to analyze or to reason.  Teachers shun controversial topics for fear of being politically incorrect.  The principles of logic are ignored (how many students know what a non sequitur is?).  If controversy does arise, everyone's opinion must be deemed equally valid, whether or not it is supported.  We must not point out muddle-headed thinking, lest we damage the child's self-esteem.

Much as these pages emphasize the importance of grammar and of graceful, clear writing, an even more important challenge faces schools and teachers.  They must instruct students in how to reason, to think, and to support their views (whatever they may be) with a modicum of logic.