Distorted material generally involves faulty cause-and-effect statements or generalizations which are not backed up by concrete facts. For example:

(a) reversible cause-and-effect statements:

"Women are not promoted because they quit" ... may be true; but it is also true that "Women quit because they are not promoted". In the first statement women are implied to be the cause of their own problem; whereas, in the second the cause appears to lie elsewhere.

(b) labels which become descriptions of behaviour:

"Women are dependent because they are married" ... tends to sound like "Dependent women are married". If this were true, then it would also be true that "Not dependent (independent?) women are not married". A more true statement is probably... "Women are thought of as dependent persons (i.e. those who do not support themselves) because the Commission has labeled them dependent for the convenience of reporting immigration statistics or dispensing Manpower allowances."

(c) implied equality:

"Secondary earners with unstable employment patterns" ... tends to sound the same as and become equated with ... "Secondary earners are unstable employees/trainees".

(d) implied causation:

"... the trade-off between adequate income protection and work disincentives" ... tends to sound as if one always accompanies the other and is, in fact, the cause of the other, as in ... "adequate income protection is the cause of work disincentives". Perhaps the causes of work disincentives have more to do with unfulfilling, unrewarding work which leaves the worker with a sense of not being able to make a useful contribution to society; lack of job opportunities; unreasonable demands from employers; unacceptable working conditions; and so on.

(e) implied choice:

"Income maintenance schemes should seek to cover those in need without undermining the basic incentive to work or distorting programs ..." The kinds of alternative choices offered here are both complex and depressing. Those that are omitted seem to be of vital importance.

It is up to organizations such as CCLOW to monitor this type of reasoning and question the inconsistencies which arise.