Here is the definition of that.
To make one's opinion clear, proving that the opposite one is not true by showing that its result is not logical or sensible.
Now I'd like to talk about an example of this that relates our controversial issue "Bullying (in schools)."
Suppose stopping bullying is NOT possible. If it were, Japanese education system will ruin. Victims of bully feel fearful to go to school because they get bullied if they go to school. As a result of that, the number of children who go to school decrease. Then, children who bullied their friends will bully their teachers instead of their friends. As a result, children who have power not only physically, but mentally will control and run a school. This idea is so ridiculous. Therefore, stopping bullying is possible.
This example is a good one, Kyousuke, but the steps of the reductio ad absurdum argument, using your scenario would be more like this...
返信削除1) Suppose that it were not possible to stop bullying from happening.
2) Bullying would spread in schools to the extent that children would be too afraid of being bullying to even go to school.
3) The bullies would control schools to the extent that even teachers would be the victims of bullying.
4) The education system could not continue and schools would have to be shut down.
5) With schools shut down, companies could not get competent workers and society would cease to function smoothly.
In this way, it's an argument that starts with a rather extreme premise, and then escalates to absurd and alarmist levels. Actually, people who argue against increased immigration to countries often use these sorts of arguments to make people feel panic.