critical thinking unit 2

critical thinking unit 2

1. Identifying argument elements

   • main conclusion (aims to persuade and has a reason to support it)
   • Reason (because, due to, supports the MC)
   • Explanation (to support/add further info to the reasons)
   • example (illustrates a scenario/ instance/ case study)
   • Evidence (provides factual claim/statistical data to back up MC)
   • Hypothetical claim/reason (if this happened it would lead to...)
   • Counter argument (opposing the MC for purpose of dismissal)
   • analogy (a comparison made to support MC)
   • princibles
   • assumptions

2. Evaluating evidence

   • 1) is it precisely relevant to the MC? e.g. the same...
     • ...Subject?
     • ...time scale?
     • ...Area?
     • ...Context?
     • ...group of people?
   • 2) is it sufficient (strong) enough to support the MC? e.g. is it...
     • ...disregarding data that would oppose the MC?
     • ...is it misused/manipulated/twisted?
     • ...is it contradictory or inconsistent with the reasoning?

3. evaluating examples

   • 1) Does it support the conclusion?
   • 2) Is it typical/representative of the group of people?
   • 3) Is it precisely the same as the situation discussed?
   • 4) Does it contain any other circumstances that might complicate the issue?

4. Evaluating Explanations

   • 1) are they fully correct, partially correct or wrong?
   • 2) Is it likely to happen?
   • 3) is there a alternate/better explanation?

5. The Ev/Ex/Exp/An/Pr "blah blah blah" strengthens/weakens the argument/claim/MC because... (explain why using indicators)

6. Identifying and evaluating annalogies

   • Identify by rewording the analogy; "blah blah blah is being compared negatively/positively to this and that which supports the MC blah blah blah"
   • evaluate by:
     • 1) (identify)
     • 2) what are the similarities between the two circumstances
     • 3) What are the differences?
     • 4) If the similarities outweigh the differences this offers strong support for the MC. if not, it doesn't.

7. Evaluating hypothetical reasoning

   • 1) Is the condition plausible?
   • 2) is it a logical consequence/likely that it will happen
   • 3) does it precisely support the MC?
   • The HC "blah blah" Strengthens/weakens MC. Condition is/isn't plausible because... Consequences do/don't follow because... It does/doesn't precisely support mc because... (does it need any more information?)

8. evaluating principles

   • The principle "blah blah blah" offers strong/some/weak support to the MC
   • ...because it is/isn't relevant because...
   • ...it does/doesn't relate to other situations due to...
   • It clashes with other stronger principles such as...

9. evaluating reasoning

   • Flaws
     • Attacking the arguer
     • Unrelated conclusion
     • begging the question
     • circular argument
     • conflation
     • Confusing cause and effect
     • Confusing correlation and cause (coincidently)
     • Confusing necessary and sufficient
     • Restricting the options
     • Hasty generalisation (1>100)
     • sweeping generalisation (100>1)
     • Non sequitur (unconnected)
     • Oversimplifying casual relations flaw 1=3 but 1+1+1=3
     • Slippery slope
     • Straw person (distorts opposing view)
     • Tu Quoque "because everyone else does"
     • 2 wrongs dont make a right
     • Casual flaw
   • Appeals
   • use unit 1...