Argument in the alternative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originating in the legal profession, argument in the alternative is used to pre-empt objections by arguing on multiple strategies simultaneously, showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's. Bart Simpson's classic "I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything!" could be considered a somewhat humorous example. In a more serious example, a lawyer might argue, not only that his client was elsewhere when a murder or other crime took place, but also that even if he had been on the scene he would have had no way of accessing the alleged murder weapon.

The secondary line of reasoning might be presented to persuade a sub-audience who would not otherwise agree with the primary argument. The two alternatives need not both appeal to rational or logical considerations; for example, in a different courtroom example, a lawyer might allege, not only that his client did not commit the crime, but also that even if he had, he would have been justified in doing so. The first argument might be sound, but the second might very well appeal only to the emotions of certain jurors, and if so, would clearly be fallacious.

Occasionally, such arguments can be confusing to some people, who perceive a self-contradiction. Generally speaking, this is a case of mistakenly thinking the argument claims both alternatives are true, when in reality it is claiming only that one or the other of them must be.

Note that there need not be exactly two alternatives.