The non sequitur and dealing with tough questions

In February I posted about presenting under fire and gave links to some good resources for handling difficult speaking situations. I'd like to add another resource to that list: In the Line of Fire, by Jerry Weissman, is a good book if you are interested in beefing up your skills for answering the tough questions.

The non sequitur
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." By definition, a non sequitur appears to be a disconnected or random comment, or a random change in subject. Inexperienced presenters, flustered by the heat of the moment and being on the spot, may inadvertently state conclusions that do not follow from the premise or they may make rambling statements that do not follow logically from the question being asked. This can make one appear as if they are avoiding the question (even if that was not their intent). Politicians -- on the left and the right -- are infamous for deliberately using the non sequitur to dodge questions or to give the mere appearance of answering the question. For example, if the question is "Is XYZ constitutional?" and the answer is "Well, polls show that most people favor XYZ. In a recent study, in fact, 87% of respondents support XYZ." Is this not a non sequitur?

non se·qui·tur n.
(1) A reply that has no relevance to what preceded it. (2) (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
                                    -- Websters online

Earlier this month, MSNBC reported on a May 4th exchange between US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a private US citizen, CIA veteran Ray McGovern, which took place during a Q&A session after the Defense Secretary's speech. (You can see the four-minute piece by MSBC here; Jon Stewart's take on it here.)

McGovern asked Secretary Rumsfeld "why he had lied"* before the war about the link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, a link that McGoven stated was refuted by the CIA and the 9/11 Commission. After saying that "I have not lied,"  Rumsfeld then goes down a path that appears to have more to do with the pre-war consensus regarding the existence of WMD; he did not address the al-Qaeda/Iraq question. When Rumsfeld brings up the WMD issue, McGovern then accused Rumsfeld of specifically stating before the war that he "knew where they [WMD] were." Rumsfeld denied he said that. McGovern then quotes back Rumsfeld's own words from March 2003 (seen in the screen shot from MSNBC below).

*(McGovern's phrasing of the question, by the way, is at least in part fallacious since his question contains a presumption -- that Rumsfeld lied -- which has not been established. This is a bit like the old example of a complex question: "Do you still beat your wife?" Later McGovern asks "Was it a lie?" rather than "Why did you lie?").

    
Rumsfeld slips to a couple of non sequiturs when McGovern claims again that Rumsfeld clearly stated before the war that there was "bullet-proof evidence" of ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. "Was that a lie?" McGovern asked. But instead of giving evidence of the al-Qaeda tie, the Secretary said that it was a fact that "Zarqawi was in Baghdad before 9/11..." McGovern claims that this is evidence of nothing. Rumsfeld truly slips though when he refers to the fact that the troops were prepared with protective chemical suits, etc. as evidence that most believed there to be WMD in Iraq. Rumsfeld essentially changes the subject and claims: "It's easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style?"

The Secretary's answer got a laugh from the audience, but did it answer the question? The question remember was about al-Qaeda ties to Iraq, not the existence of WMD. Yet, even if the question had been on WMD, the troops being issued protective suits is also a non sequitur and is evidence only that the top leadership believed there to be WMD, not proof that the Secretary did not "lie" or mislead (which was the original question). In response, "That's what we call a non sequitur" said McGovern. "It doesn't matter what the troops believe; it matters what you believe." (Transcripts of the exchange.)

My aim is not to get in a political debate here, but only to show via a high-profile example what can happen when we answer questions under fire. You or I may never be in this hot of a situation as Donald Rumsfeld. But what do you think? How could the US Defense Secretary have handled the situation better (or did he do as well as he could have)? What the Secretary does do well here, of course, is to keep his cool. Always good advice. His vague, meandering replies in this case, however, leave many wondering if he is being purposely evasive or whether he really has no answer to the question (s) other than to give non sequiturs. Good advice for the rest of us -- everyday business people, researchers, etc. -- is to know our story deeply and anticipate questions (especially the tough ones) so that we can at least minimize the chances of being caught off guard.

Links related to the use of logic and argument
Here are several links to good, short articles on the basics of logical argument, logical fallacies, and so on. Very useful for the writer and speaker alike to review the basics of argument and how to spot fallacies, etc.

• On "Spotting the fallacious argument" by lawyer Paul Mark Sandler
• Logical Fallacies from virtuescience.com
• On using logic in composition. (English 101, yes, but a good refresher.)
• Logic & Fallacies (from infidels.org)
• Logical Fallacies in Writing
• FAQ on Constructing a Logical Argument
• Hundreds of links from issues of logic, critical thinking, rhetoric, statistics, persuasion, etc.
• How Thinking Goes Wrong: Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things
• Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
• The Fallacy files (searchable and excellent)
• Argumentative writing (Purdue's on-line writing lab)
• Critical Thinking Mini-Lessons
• Teaching Critical Thinking (great pdf document by Tim van Gelder)
• Persuasion Analysis
• Spotting fake photos (OK, not on argument or logic, but in the age of "Photoshop for the masses" everyone needs to be on their toes.
• Glossary of Mathematical Mistakes
• Entire website on changing minds and persuasion
• Assertiveness and self-confidence and a whole plethora of great articles for those interested in personal and organizational development
• Finally, Monty Python video clip: the argument clinic (classic stuff).

Comments

[Mark McGuinness]

Excellent blog Garr, and a very interesting post.

At the risk of introducing a non sequitur :), when dealing with tough questions from an audience, I often think "Win the argument, lose the audience" - i.e. if you simply rely on logic and facts to prove the other person "wrong", you risk making them look stupid and that can alienate the audience. That's not to say you should abandon your convictions, but I always try to handle these situations in a way that includes and validates others' viewpoints.

There was obviously a lot of history between Rumsfeld and the journalists – the relationship had clearly deteriorated into a battle of wills. Once they had got to that stage, maybe Rumsfeld did the best he could – but if we looked at the history of interaction between him and the press, there were probably many other paths he could have taken to build a more collaborative relationship with them.

Most of us aren’t usually presenting in a life-or-death context like the Iraq situation, which should make it easier to handle disagreement. I always assume there is a possibility of establishing a collaborative relationship with the audience. It’s OK for us to disagree, but that doesn’t mean we can’t respect each other, or even have some fun together.

Here are some approaches that work for me:

1. I try to find some common ground with the questioner. Acknowledge the validity of the question, and try to get a sense of what's driving it - "That's a really important question, am I right in thinking you're concerned about XYZ here?". If you get a "yes" to that question, the two of you have at least agreed on something – it may seem insignificant, but it can change the tone of the conversation.

2. If I don’t agree, with them, I’ll explain why, and give the evidence I’ve based my opinion on, but still leave room for an alternative viewpoint.

3. If I’m really taken by surprise or don’t know the answer, it’s best to be honest and say so. “Thanks for your question, I’d never considered applying this stuff to that situation, I’ll need to think about the implications. Can I think about it and get back to you? I’ll give you my answer in this afternoon’s session.”

I find people respond much better to this approach than trying to bluff it or evade the question. Of course this won’t work if the question is about basic stuff that is central to your presentation subject – those are the things we really SHOULD prepare!

But we can’t know everything about everything - if the question really is a non sequitur or about something that is marginal to your subject, audiences can recognise that too. To make it clear that I’m not avoiding the question, I always arrange to continue the discussion in private or (if possible) give the audience my answer at a future presentation.

4. I also try to incorporate the disagreement. Some people aren’t trying to be difficult or disruptive by interjecting with an opposite point of view – it’s how their mind works, and how they learn. As soon as you say one thing, they think “Yes but what about the opposite?”. So I actually ask them to “let me know if they have any other questions/concerns about that”.

Even if they are trying to be obstructive, this can take the wind out of their sails a bit – since I’ve invited them to “give the alternative view” they are co-operating with me if they continue to do so…

Those usually work for me – you can’t please all the people all of the time, but at least these approaches give us options other than locking horns.

[Michael Vanderdonk]

This post is much like cherry jam... :-)

And further on the topic of argument and persuasion in a speech or presentation. I'm currently reading:
http://www.randomhouse.com.au/WEB_ASP/ttle_detail.asp?isbn=1740513460
And the author, a retired QC, has many tips and points on preparation, response, thinking on your feet, dealing with interruptions, persuasion, and much much more....

[dharana]

That was a really insightful post, Garr. I have always loved debating and the links related to Logic and Argument that you gave are really revealing to me.

[Randy Furco]

I don't kow, just surfin' keep bloggin'.

Check out the blog I am trying to get going for my wifes momma.

http://crystalkardinal.blogspot.com/

[alex]

Excellent post and beautiful blog.

Thank you so much!

[rick]

You've completely missed it on this one. The ability to evade moronic questions is one of a politician's most valuable skills. You should have described how skillful Rumsfeld was in responding to a "have you stopped beating your wife," question. Instead your political biases led you to assail Rumsfeld. Sad.