Critical Thinking Unit 2

Critical Thinking Unit 2

1. Analysis of argument

   • identifying elements of argument
     • arguments, explanations and descriptions
       • explanation: a reason, or reasons, showing why something is the way it is
       • Description: (account), no attempt to persuade using reason, literally stating facts
       • Claim: something that is stated and can be challenged
       • Argument: attempt to persuade, must contain a conclusion and at least one reason
       • Opinion: statement of beliefs and/or ideas
     • intermediate conclusions
       • has its own reasons, but also is a reason in itself for the main conclusion
     • Evidence: something that is used to develop or support a reason
       • often in form of numerical data, an estimate or a factual claim
     • example: something used as evidence because it is characteristic of the same kind of things or because it can serve to illustrate a principle
   • applying and extending analytical skills
     • analogies
       • identify precisely the situations being compared (X,Y,Z)
       • identify the conclusion being supported by the analogy
     • principles
       • a general rule that is a guide to action which can be applied in a range of circumstances
       • should, it is wrong to, it is right to, it is fair to, etc.

2. evaluating argument

   • Evaluating reasoning: the use of evidence, examples and explanation
     • evidence
       • relevant?
       • sufficient? do we need more information to support the conclusion?
       • is there another conclusion that can be drawn from it?
     • examples
       • typical/representative
       • precisely illustrates issue at hand
         • or is it just being used to support a general conclusion?
     • explanations
       • offering alternative explanations
         • that are plausible
   • Evaluating reasoning: appeals
     • appeal: a reference to something or someone, in order to persuade an audience to accept a conclusion
     • authority: referring to an expert witness or recognised authority to support a claim
     • popularity: justifies a conclusion by its popularity
     • tradition: supports a conclusion by saying it has always been done a certain way
     • history: supports a prediction about the future with a reference to the past
     • emotion: supports a conclusion by engaging the audience's emotions rather than giving reasons
     • weakens argument if it is used to...
       • override or exclude other opinions or evidence
       • without any form of evaluation or convincing evidence
       • take the place of logical reason to support the conclusion
   • evaluating reasoning: flaws
     • tu quoque
       • attempt to justify an action on the basis somebody else is doing it
     • generalisation
       • general conclusion drawn from insufficient evidence
       • sweeping, hasty or unwarranted
     • slippery slope
       • opposite to wishful thinking
     • post hoc
       • when I wore socks, I did well in my exams, so wearing socks causes me to do well
     • circular argument
       • reason amounts to same as conclusion, no new information is added
     • false dichotomy
       • presents 2 options as the only ones
         • often one has disastrous consequences
         • point out a 3rd option to prove the flaw
     • conflation
       • bringing two or more different concepts together and treating them as the same thing
     • correlation equals cause
       • two or more things happening at the same time, assumed to cause each other
     • simplification of cause and effect
       • assuming a causal relationship
     • straw person
       • distorts or misrepresents an opposing view in order to dismiss it
     • confusing necessary and sufficient conditions
     • ad hominem
       • dismisses an opposing view by attacking the person putting forward that view rather than addressing their reasoning
   • Evaluating reasoning: analogies, hypothetical reasoning and principles
     • analogies
       • analogy: using parallels between similar situations to persuade the audience to accept a conclusion
       • evaluating analogies
         • good comparison between the situations?
           • consider significant similarities and differences
         • does the comparison give strong support to the conclusion being drawn?
     • hypothetical reasoning
       • evaluating hypothetical reasoning
         • is the condition likely?
         • do the consequences follow?
         • does the reasoning s?pport the conclusion>
     • principles
       • evaluating principles
         • how generally does the principle apply
           • does it apply to the situation in question
           • in what other situations does it apply
           • are there any situations in which the principle doesn't apply?
         • does the principle support the author's conclusion