Critical Thinking Unit 2

8/2/2019 Critical Thinking Unit 2

1/22

Critical Thinking Unit 2

Assessing and DevelopingArguments


2/22

Brief Overview of Arguments

Must contain three elements:

Reason - used to support a conclusion

Conclusion - should be decided by reasoning

Persuasion - the argument must attempt to

persuade

Indicator words for conclusions - therefore, so,

consequently, thus etc.

Element of Persuasion indicators - should, which

proves that, must, ought etc.

Indicator words for reasons - because, as, given

that, since, seeing as etc.

Words that link reasons together - also, and, in

addition etc.


3/22

Counter Arguments/Assertions

Counter Assertions:

They don't make the writer contradictory.

It doesn't contain a reason and conclusion.

It highlights that the author is aware of opposingviewpoints and is able to deal with them.

Used in a way to strengthen the argument.

Counter Arguments:

Contain a reason and conclusion.

It opposes another argument.

It can do this by: challenging the reasons in the otherargument, using different reasons to oppose the otherargument, finding faults and flaws in the reasoning inother argument.

Indicators for counter arguments and counter assertions:

although, despite this, however, contrary to this, on theother hand, some may argue.


4/22

Hypothetical Reasoning

Claims

Any part of an argument can be referred to as a claim.Almost everything that is said or written, other thanquestions, exclamations and instructions is a claim. It issomething that is stated and can be challenged. They canbe facts, opinions, principles, reasons, and conclusions.

A hypothetical claim states that something will happen onthe condition that something else happen, or thatsomething is true provided that something else is true.(hope this sentence wasn't confusing)

e.g. If I revise thoroughly, then I will pass my exam. I havetherefore planned a revision programme.

Hypothetical claims usually begin with 'if'. They can be

used as reasons or conclusions.


5/22

Assumptions

An assumption is a missing reason in an argument. Thewriter accepts the assumption, but has not stated it. Theassumption is essential for the conclusion to be drawn.They aren't stated in a passage, because it's often anobvious reason.

An example is here:'Using biofuel is a cheap way to run a car. It's easy toconvert an ordinary car to run on biofuel. You should haveyour car engine converted to biofuel.'

The author must assume that:

- biofuel is readily available locally

- the cost of the fuel is a problem for the car's owner- the owner can afford the cost of converting the carengine

- it is possible to convert a car


6/22

Evidence and Examples

Fact - information that can be verified and that is held tobe true

Factual claim - a statement or judgement based oninformation that can be verified and that is held to be true

Example - something which is used as evidence because itis characteristic of the same kind of things or because it

can serve to illustrateEvidence - something that is used to develop or support areason, it's often in the form of numerical date or estimateor a factual claim

Types of Evidence:

- an example

- statistical or numerical data- an estimate

- a factual claim

- a personal observation

- a statement from a source or witness


7/22

Evidence continued...

Problems with evidence from research:

- Selective use of data

- Interpreted in different ways

- Methods may be flawed

- Sample size - use of percentages

Questions we should ask:

- Who funded the research?

- How many people made up the sample?

- Was the sample representative?

- How was the survey conducted?

- When was the survey carried out?

- Are the examples typical and relevant?- Are research findings clear-cut or ambiguous?


8/22

Opinions, Explanations, Descriptions

and Common Notation

Opinion - statement of a person's beliefs and ideas. (notthe same as arguments and not always supported byreasons)

Explanation - a reason, or reasons given to show how orwhy something is the way that it is, but doesn't attempt topersuade the reader to accept the conclusion.

Description/Accounts - the author describes somethingthat has taken place or an object. There's no attempt topersuade the reader using reasons to support a conclusionso it's not an argument.

CA - Counter Argument/Assertion

R1/R2 - Reason 1/2

C - Conclusion

Ev - Evidence

Eg - Example

IC - Intermediate Conclusion


9/22

Intermediate Conclusions, Analogies

and Principles1. Identify the two conclusions (look for element ofpersuasion, conclusion indicators)

2. Identify the IC by checking that it provides support forthe main conclusion

IC - A conclusion that is formed on the way to the main

conclusion. The IC is supported by reasons and givessupport to/acts as a reason for the main conclusion (MC).

Analogy - is a form of argument which uses parallelsbetween similar situations to persuade the audience toaccept a conclusion. They suggest that situations aresignificantly similar and work in the same way.

General Principles - it's like a general rule like statementwhich applies beyond the immediate circumstances andacts as a guide to action. They may be used in anargument as reasons, conclusions or assumptions. Also,there are different kinds e.g. ethical, legal, medical,ethical guidelines, business or working practices.


10/22

Inconsistencies, Contradictions,

Ambiguity and Inferences

Inconsistent parts of argument cannot both be the case atthe same time, or they would support different conclusions.

Contradictions are a special form of inconsistencies. Ideasor facts which are contradictory say exactly the oppositethings.

Ambiguity... A word or phrase that is ambiguous if it canhave more than one meaning and its not clear whichmeaning is intended in a particular context.

Inferenceis another name for the process of looking at

the next logical step. If you can draw a conclusion fromsome reasoning, you can say that the conclusion followsfrom the reasoning.


11/22

Oppositions and other terms

Refute demonstrates wrongif you do this in someonesarguement, you show they dont work highlightingweaknesses in them and perhaps showing the argument isinconsistent.

Repudiate disown/condemn an opinion, rejecting asunfounded or inapplicable it has a sense of rejectionwithout knowing the reason why.

Necessary Conditionmust be the case e.g. Talent isnecessary if you wish to become a professional footballeror musician.

Sufficient Conditionsomething which is enough to ensurethat something is the case e.g. Being convicted of murderis a sufficient condition for going to prison.

Knowledgeif we claim to have knowledge of somethingwe accept its true, and it can be checked objectively tobe valid and confirmed.

Beliefif we claim to believe something, we accept itmightnt be valid, or it mightnt be possible to confirmobjectively.


12/22

Evaluating the use of evidence

Evidence can be:

Irrelevant

Misused

Or

Doesnt always give us the grounds to accept the restof the authors reasoning.

Does the evidence actually give us grounds to accept theauthors reasons and conclusion?

Is the evidence precisely relevant?

Is the evidence sufficient?

Is the evidence used in a strong way?

Relevant evidence is precisely focussed on the reasoninge.g. Timescale, group of people, area. (must be talkingabout the same thing) In this subject relevant meansprecise and focussed on the reason.


13/22

Evaluating continued...

Sufficient means enough

A sufficient condition is something which is enough toensure that something will be the case.

Evidence which is sufficient to support the conclusion isenough, and strong enough to give support to aconclusion.

Insufficiencyform is the unreasonably selective use ofevidence often the author ignores vast evidence whichopposes their argument. It can be common knowledgethat is ignored.


14/22

Example Evaluating

Used to illustrate or develop reasoning and they providegrounds for us to accept a reason or conclusion.

Three Questions to ask:

Is the example showing the argument or being used tosupport a general conclusion?

Is it precisely the same as the situation being described?Is the specific example typical/representative of the groupbeing described?

Offering alternative explanations:

- Authors often use explanations to support their reasoning(especially in a scientific or social scientific context). These

can often affect the strength of support for the conclusion.

- If an author has used an explanation which is clearlywrong or implausible, this will weaken the support for theirconclusion.

- If you offer a better alternative explanation you will showthe weakness in an authors explanation.


15/22

Appeals

Appeala reference to something or someone, in orderto persuade an audience to accept a conclusion.

Evaluateto judge whether an argument or reasoning isstrong or weak.

Appeal to authorityreferring to an expert witness orrecognised authority to support a claim.

Many arguments refer to an authority to strengthen theirclaims, or use the popularity or traditional status of an idea,in order to support it. People may refer to past events tosupport a future action, other arguments may try topersuade you by arousing strong emotions.

Appeal to popularitya form of argument which justifies aconclusion by its popularity.

However just because something is popular doesnt meanits right. Popularity isnt a bad thing in itself, but its notenough to support a conclusion.


16/22

Appeals continued...

Appeal to traditiona form of argument that supports aconclusion by saying its traditional, or its always been donethis way.

However, the fact that something has been done for a longtime, doesnt mean its right. Such arguments are oftenattempts to persuade us to resist change, and appealing totradition in a way that avoids the real issues. But, an appeal totradition may not necessarily be a weakness.

Appeal to historya form of argument that supports aprediction about the future with a reference to the past.

The past may not be a reliable guide to the future and thesepredictions are only probable, not certain. There may be allsorts of changes in circumstance that mean future events aredifferent.

Appeal to emotionthis attempts to support a conclusion byengaging the audiences emotion rather than giving reasons.It works by referring to things that make us feel very emotional,and attempts to persuade the audience in a way that makesthem feel strongly about it, rather than by using good reasons.


17/22

Evaluating Appeals

Characteristic of weak appeal:

Important to remember that finding an appeal in anargument doesnt necessarily mean the conclusionswrong. A conclusion cant be supported by a weak orirrelevant appeal, but it may be possible to support inanother way.

Evaluating an appeal and checking that its a weak onebefore saying that the conclusion cant be supported thatway involves asking three questions:

- Does it override or exclude other opinions/evidence?

- It is without any form of evaluation or convincingevidence?

- Does it give logical reasons to support conclusion?


18/22

Flaws and Generalisations

Flawa fault in the pattern of reasoning which weakensthe support given to the conclusion of an argument.

Two wrongs dont make a right a flaw that attempts tojustify one wrong thing on the basis of another differentharmful thing.

Tu quoquean attempt to justify an action on the basisthat someone else is doing it.

Generalisationis drawing a general conclusion fromspecific evidencetwo forms (hasty and sweeping)

Hasty Generalisationdraws a general conclusion frominsufficient evidence.

Sweeping Generalisationmoves from some or many toall creating a stereotype. May sometimes move back toindividual again.


19/22

Relationships/CorrelationsUnwarranted Assumption of Causal Relationship/Casual FlawAssumes causal connection without good reason, and itoversimplifies casual relationships or confuses cause andeffect.

Confusing Correlation and Cause

Assuming that because one thing happens before another,or two things happen together, one causes the other.However, there may simply be a correlationrelationshipsbetween two things that happen at the same time butwhere neither causes the other.

Oversimplifying Cause and Effect

Another flawed pattern of causal reasoning is to look at acomplex situation and say that factor A causes factor B. In acomplex situation though, there may be several factorswhich together bring about an effect.

Post hoc flawthe reasoning follow pattern: A happensbefore therefore A cause B (special form of confusingcorrelation and use).


20/22

Confusing Relationships

Confusing cause and effectThird common, but flawed pattern of causal reasoning isconfusing cause and effectthat is thinking that the effect isthe cause.

e.g. Weather reporters should give better weather, as itclearly influences weather when generally it does what the

reporters say it will as some people would like less winter inthe future.


21/22

Other Logical Flaws

Restricting the optionsPresents a limited picture ofchoices available in a situation in order to support oneparticular option.

Slippery SlopeReasons from one possibility, through aseries of events that arent properly or logically linked, toan extreme consequence. Often negative weak links, butopposite is wishful thinking the positive version.

Circular ArgumentAn argument in which one of thereasons is the same as the conclusion, or an argument inwhich you have to assume that the conclusions right inorder for the reason to make sense. E.g. Youve got blueeyes because your eyes are blue.

Confusing necessary and sufficient conditionsAnargument that assumes that a necessary condition is alsosufficient, or that a sufficient condition makes it necessaryas well.


22/22

Other Logical Flaws 2

Attacking the arguer (ad hominem)A form of reasoningthat dismisses the opposing view, by attacking the personputting it forward rather than by addressing theirreasoning.

Straw PersonThis flaw misrepresents or distorts anopposing view in order to dismiss it.

Arguing from one thing to anotherA form of reasoningwhich uses a reason about one thing to support aconclusion about something different.

ConflationBringing together 2 or more different conceptsand treating them as the same thing.

Documents

Critical Thinking Unit 2