Overview:
- As weve discussed, Trifles takes the form of a classic murder mystery. The characters, to varying degrees, try to solve the murder of Mr. Wright although they focus on different things and use different techniques. By the end of the play, its clear that the women–with their focus on trifles– solve the murder while the men are still left clueless.
- In this essay, youre going to analyze the characters use of logic (or misuse of logic when you identify logical fallacies) to explain (pick one): why the women were able to solve the murder OR why the men were unable to solve the murder.
Instructions:
- Read the essay #2 prompt below
Requirements:
- At least 1750 words
- Argumentative thesis statement in last position of first paragraph
- Analysis of logic, which may include premises, syllogisms, and logical fallacies
- Quotations with parenthetical citations using MLA style
- Header with name, date, class and final word count
Note: Failure to meet the minimum word count will count as a failure to complete the assignment.
Your essay will be graded on:
- the strength of argument,
- the specificity of your thesis, and
- your use of textual evidence (this includes your selection of quotes and your analysis of them)
IMPORTANT !!!!!!! I have already done the introduction and first body paragraph. THE FILE IS ATTACHED you will mimic this for the second and third. I also have an outline for the other two paragraphs
3 Examples of Logic
Hasty Generalization – The Sheriff’s Dismissal of the Kitchen
Reasoning:
Premise #1: The sheriff assumes that since the kitchen is filled with “trifles” or unimportant items, nothing significant could be found there (Glaspell 966).
Premise #2: The investigation should only focus on areas like the bedroom or the barn, where “important” evidence is likely to be found.
Conclusion: There is no need to examine the kitchen for clues because it contains nothing relevant.
The sheriff’s inquiry is compromised by this incorrect thinking, which is a type of hasty generalization. His generalization that the kitchen is unimportant causes him to overlook the evidence that the women eventually find reveals Mrs. Wright’s true motivation. This example shows how logical fallacies mislead the male investigators, but the women’s attentiveness to these “trifles” leads to the case’s solution.
2. Syllogism – The Womens Deduction About the Bird
Reasoning:
Premise #1: The birdcage is damaged, indicating violence (Glaspell 971).
Premise #2: Mr. Wright was described as a hard man, likely to impose control over his household (Glaspell 972).
Premise #3: The birds neck was snapped, a sign of brutality.
Conclusion: Mr. Wright killed the bird, symbolizing his oppressive nature towards his wife.
This syllogism presents a convincing case supported by logical inference. The women collect obvious details and piece them together to figure out that Mrs. Wright’s emotional triggers were the deceased bird and the damaged birdcage. This strengthens the women’s understanding of the crime and demonstrates that reasoning may be applied effectively when appropriate consideration is given to small details.
3. Fallacy of Division – The Mens Attitude Toward Womens Concerns
Reasoning:
Premise #1: The men believe that since women are concerned with household matters (e.g., cooking, sewing), these matters are insignificant in the larger context of life.
Premise #2: The kitchen and its items, which are closely associated with womens duties, must also be unimportant to solving the case.
Conclusion: Since womens work and concerns are trivial, the evidence in the kitchen is also trivial.
This is a perfect example of the fallacy of division, where the males mistakenly believe that since women’s issues are traditionally viewed as “small” and domestic, the murder investigation cannot be affected by anything related to the kitchen or household. This fallacy shows how logical fallacies caused by gender prejudices obstruct the truth by making the men ignorant to the important facts that the women discover.
