ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

Objectives:
By the end of the tutorial, you should be able to:
distinguish between inductive and deductive forms of reasoning.
discuss intelligently the strengths and weaknesses of each in terms of logic.
explain what lies behind the claim that all knowledge is provisional and articulate a
position on whether or not you consider that this is genuinely so.
identify common logical fallacies in arguments and label them conventionally, where
possible.
use the terms ethos, pathos and logos appropriately in the analysis of written or
spoken arguments.

Sources:
Preparation before class:
It is important you review the following sources and the activities in the tutorial notes so you can
actively participate in class.
1) Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Deductive and Inductive Arguments
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
2) Research Methods Knowledge Base, Deduction and Induction
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
3) Broken logic (two-minute video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRZk62QNOsM
4) List of logical fallacies (with explanations) from University of Texas, El Paso
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
5) Don Lindsay list of logical fallacies (with examples)
http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html
6) Ethos, Pathos and Logos (explanation and examples)
http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html
7) See also various links in the text below.

@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 1

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

Introduction
Thus far we have relied on the following simple formulation:
Reason(s) + Conclusion (or Main Claim) = Argument
However, reasoning can take many forms, of which the most important are deductive reasoning
(or deduction) and inductive reasoning (or induction).

What is deductive reasoning?

Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the particular, and is therefore sometimes
referred to as top-down logic. We can illustrate this by looking at the categorical syllogism - a
form of deductive reasoning first developed by Aristotle (384-322BC). The categorical
syllogism consists of two premises (statements which we treat as being true, for the purposes of
the argument) and a conclusion, which should follow logically from them.
All engineers are good mathematicians.
Matthew is an engineer.
Therefore Matthew is a good mathematician.

[major premise]
[minor premise]
[conclusion]

It is not difficult to isolate a pattern or template from this example:

All As are Bs
[major premise]
C is an A
[minor premise]
Therefore C is a B
[conclusion]
From the pattern we can easily generate further categorical syllogisms:
All teachers wear spectacles.
Nur is a teacher.
Therefore Nur wears spectacles.
Or
All Martians have six legs.
Barack Obama is a Martian.
Therefore Barack Obama has six legs.
Of course, while the conclusion is valid in both the above examples, it is certainly not true (in the
real world). If one or both of the premises is not true (in the real world), then the conclusion
cannot be true (in the real world), even though it may be logically valid. However, if the
premises are indeed true, then a logically valid conclusion must (in all cases) be true:

@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 2

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

All Singaporeans are human.

Daniel is Singaporean.
Therefore Daniel is human.

Activity A
Read the text below and try to reduce the argument to a three-part syllogism, similar to those we
have discussed above. This is a speech delivered by Susan B. Anthony in 1873, after she was
arrested for illegally casting in a vote in the previous years U.S. presidential election.
Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having
voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this
evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised
my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond
the power of any state to deny.
The preamble of the Federal Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America."
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole
people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them;
not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as
men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while
they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican
government - the ballot.
For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half
of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the
supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female
posterity.
To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this
government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex;
the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the
rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an
oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which
makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and
daughters, of every household - which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension,
discord, and rebellion into every home of the nation.

@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 3

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote
and hold office.
The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our
opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no
state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or
immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several
states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes.
Susan B. Anthony 1873. Source: http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/anthony.htm
Syllogisms become slightly trickier to understand (valid or invalid?) when either the major or minor
premise begins with no or some:

No blicks are gats.

All dorks are gats.
Therefore no dorks are blicks.
All wombats are white.
Some marsupials are wombats.
Therefore some marsupials are white.

(Fortunately human beings tend to become confused less easily than penguins do).
Source: http://uselesshumor.com/2011/04/funny-pictures-logic-another-thing-that.html

@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 4

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

All Americans are rich.

No ES1531 students are American.
Therefore no ES1531 students are rich.

All Greeks are human

All humans are mortal
Therefore all Greeks are mortal.

The Belgian beer Stella Artois used to be advertised with the slogan reassuringly expensive
(see the joke coupon below).

Source:http://www.google.com.sg/imgres?imgurl=http://v4.blurgroup.com/marketing/wpcontent/uploads/sites/8/StellaArtois.jpg&imgrefurl=http://marketing.blurgroup.com/blog/advertising-blog/king-of-copy-what-makes-a-killerslogan/&h=233&w=400&sz=32&tbnid=0RBKsDmYzl5tZM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=117&zoom=1&usg=__eFOInd66i5xPWwVzuD4MmP5fmOU=&docid
=aq92lP1Q5V8FNM&sa=X&ei=FYL_UdzhDMaNrQeI-ICQBQ&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAQ&dur=421

How could we explain the logic here?

Good things are expensive.
______________________.
Therefore______________.

@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 5

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

What is inductive reasoning?

As we have seen, deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the particular, and is
therefore sometimes referred to as top-down logic. By contrast, inductive reasoning proceeds
from specific observations or data to a general conclusion.
For some reason, philosophers of science (that is, philosophers who study the forms of thought
which underlie scientific study and progress) often use the example of swans to illustrate what is
meant by induction.

Source:http://www.google.com.sg/imgres?imgurl=http://investwithanedge.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/whiteswan.jpg&imgrefurl=http://investwithanedge.com/record-number-of-etfslaunched&h=300&w=480&sz=91&tbnid=SKBH2P77ChL6kM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=144&zoom=1&usg=__OND_qPpIOLfpLVpOAFqh5FOwmCE=&doci
d=XhCTZLwilLzk6M&sa=X&ei=ToT_UZG8Csq4rAe92YGICA&ved=0CD4Q9QEwBg&dur=691

Let us assume that, hundreds of years ago, an English ornithologist (zoologist specializing in
birds) attempts to identify and categorize species. He or she travels widely, and frequently
observes large white birds (called swans) with long necks swimming on rivers and lakes or
waddling on their banks. An example of inductive reasoning here might go as follows:
I saw a lot of white swans on the river near Oxford.
I saw even more white swans on the river near Windsor.
Therefore all swans are white.
Induction is often said to be the main form of reasoning underlying science. In fact, the terms
scientific method and inductive method are sometimes used interchangeably. On the basis of
data from specific experiments, or a finite number of observations, or (perhaps in the social
sciences) from conducting a finite number of interviews, the researcher draws a general
conclusion. For instance, over time it was observed that the boiling point of water is around
100C at sea level, but that boiling occurs at lower temperatures up mountains (for example, at
about 71C at the summit of Everest). From particular observations such as these arose the
@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 6

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

general conclusion that altitude (or, in fact, atmospheric pressure) affects the boiling point of
liquids.
Now back to our ornithologists conclusion that all swans are white. One day he or she sees:

Source:
http://www.google.com.sg/imgres?imgurl=http://theundergradpsychologist.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/white_black_swans1.jpg&imgrefurl
=http://theundergradpsychologist.wordpress.com/tag/blackswans/&h=1000&w=1400&sz=771&tbnid=OeG0SRrS7o549M:&tbnh=98&tbnw=137&zoom=1&usg=__Nn25nxJoGn6m4GLCb5L3W641Tyw=&do
cid=HJ1OpNIGmsAb_M&sa=X&ei=y4T_UYH-AsOzrAehyIGACQ&ved=0CEUQ9QEwAw&dur=39

So far, all observations have been of white birds. Then the bird on the right is seen.

Activity B:
What should the ornithologist do now with the conclusion that all swans are white? Think about
this for a few moments or discuss in pairs. There are several possible ways in which the scientist
could proceed, after sighting the bird on the right.

Joke 1
Of course observations of phenomena in the real world can be interpreted in different ways.
An ordinary, non-academic person (a layman), a scientist, a mathematician and a logician were
on holiday, driving through New Zealand, when they saw a black sheep in a field.

@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 7

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

The layman says Look! Sheep in New Zealand are black.

The scientist says "Not so. There is one sheep in New Zealand which is black.
The mathematician sighs and rolls his eyes. "I beg to differ. There is one sheep in New Zealand,
one side of which is black.
The logician says No, no! It would be imprudent to state any more than that there is at least one
sheep in New Zealand, at least one side of which is black.

This is a good point at which to consider the notion of a hypothesis (note: stress on the second
syllable). When a researcher arrives at a general statement on the basis of limited data this might
be called a hypothesis. The researcher is not confident enough yet to call this statement a
conclusion or a finding. It is the best guess that can be made on the basis of current evidence. A
hypothesis needs to be tested through further research. So perhaps, really, we should have said
(above) that the ornithologist had a hypothesis that all swans are white.
Conclusions (or hypotheses) arrived at by induction can, of course, form the basis for deductive
reasoning:
All swans are white.
That bird over there is white.
Therefore it is a swan.

Problems with deduction

Of course, we know already (from the photo) that (in the real world) the major premise is faulty.
Therefore the conclusion cannot possibly be true in the real world. In well-formed deductive
reasoning, the conclusion is valid if we assume that the major and minor premise are valid.
Hence, if the premises are true (in the real world), the conclusion must also be true. However, if
one or both of the premises are false in the real world, then any conclusion derived logically
from them must also be false.

Joke 2
The writer and lexicographer Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) was once out for a walk in
Edinburgh with his friend James Boswell. In a narrow side street they saw two women shouting
and shaking their fists at each other from windows on upper floors of buildings facing each other
across the street. "They will never agree," said Dr. Johnson to Boswell, "They are arguing from
different premises."
Of course, while that is a witty remark, it is actually perfectly possible to reach the same
conclusion from different premises:
All Singaporeans are human.
All taxi-drivers are human.
@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 8

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

Daniel is Singaporean.
Therefore Daniel is human.

AY2013-14 Semester 1

Daniel is a taxi-driver.
Therefore Daniel is human.

Problems with induction

As regards induction, a different problem arises. How much data must we collect or how many
observations must we make before we can be confident that a particular inference is valid? How
many swimming dogs must we observe before we can be confident that All dogs can swim is a
valid conclusion? A thousand, a million, ten million? And if we happen to see just one dog
drown without making any attempt to swim, does that mean the claim that all dogs can swim is
false?
Secondly, can we be sure that our observations are secure? Were some or all of the black sheep
we saw, actually goats? Could they have been black only on one side (the side we saw)? Are
there other ways of interpreting the observations/data?

Problems with both

Whether a conclusion is arrived at by induction or by deduction there is a sense in which it is
always provisional. For instance, depending on available technology (sophistication of
telescopes) the number of planets in our solar system has been put at anywhere been five and
nineteen at various points in history. Each conclusion about the number of planets was based on
observations (via telescope) that is, via induction. It is also possible to imagine deductive
reasoning being applied:
All bodies which orbit the sun are planets.
Pluto orbits the sun.
Therefore Pluto is a planet.
However, in 2006 Pluto was placed into a second category by astronomers (dwarf planet)
because (unlike the eight planets in our solar system) it has not cleared its orbit of all other
objects, and because other bodies further away from Earth orbit the sun and are larger than Pluto.
We can now say that all planets orbit the sun, but that not all bodies which orbit the sun are
planets. In other words, being observed to orbit the sun is a necessary condition of planethood,
but not a sufficient condition.
In relation to the inductive method, Karl Popper (1902-1994) argues that no number of
observations can ever absolutely prove that a conclusion is watertight or that a theory is valid,
whereas (in principle) a single observation can show it to be false. Those who subscribe to this
view, therefore, consider that all knowledge is provisional and that there is an asymmetry
between proof and falsification.
Not everyone agrees, but the next time you find yourself wanting to say or write that X proves
that Y, please hesitate. In some cases less forceful language (such as, suggests that) might be
more appropriate. This relates to the subject of hedging which will be discussed later in the
course.
@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 9

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

What is wrong with the argument in the following example?

52% of road accidents in Singapore involve male drivers, so this proves that women are
safer drivers than men.

What are fallacies?

Fallacies are unsound or invalid arguments. At first sight they may appear to be logical, but in
fact there is something fundamentally wrong with them. An example would be the fallacy that
because it is observed that one event (x) typically follows another (y), y must be the cause of x. It
is conceivable that early humans heard the cock (rooster) crow very early each morning and then
saw the sun rise over the horizon.
Erroneous conclusion: the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise.

Joke 3
An old man went out onto the porch each morning and shouted May this house be safe, today
and always, from tigers! One day his young grand-daughter said But Grandpa, there are no
tigers for around here! only to receive the reply See! It works!
Refer to one or more of the online resources on the subject of fallacies (see reading list above).
Then complete the following exercise:
Activity C: Exercise on Fallacies
Identify the type of fallacy in each of the following items:
1. Three students turned up late to a nine oclock class on Wednesday. The tutor concluded that
they had been up late partying the previous evening.
2. Either students love ES1531 and pass with flying colours, or else they hate it and fail dismally.
3. Students who fail ES1531 should not be at all concerned. Lots of people fail the driving test
(often more than once), but they pass in the end.
4. If you fail ES1531 you will find that no-one wants to speak to you, prospective employers will
laugh in your face, and you will spend the rest of your life sleeping in the street and raking
through rubbish bins for discarded scraps of food.
5. ES1531 is a module suitable only for elite students. Only those of high calibre should enroll.
6. Since ES1531 was introduced, no engineers have been sent to prison for negligence. Hence,
ES1531 acts as a safeguard for the reputation of the engineering profession.
@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 10

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

7. Students like ES1531 because it is a hugely enjoyable module.

8. Please treat ES1531 tutors with compassion, as many of them work very long hours, have
heavy family responsibilities, and are on the verge of nervous exhaustion because of the
demands of the job.
9. Last semester one student wrote in his feedback that ES1531 is a waste of time. However, this
student thinks that several hours playing Plants Versus Zombies on his phone is time well spent,
so we can disregard his criticism.
10. If ES1531 became an elective rather than a core module, more engineers would graduate
with under-developed thinking skills, and more structures, such as bridges, would collapse as a
result.
If you search on the Internet you will find various lists of fallacies. Sometimes the terminology
may differ from the terms we use in ES1531, and sometimes you will find far more types of
fallacy than are dealt with here. However, it is important to remember that not all types of logical
weakness have a convenient label.
A word of caution: German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 1860) pointed out that It would
be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate name, so that
when a man used this or that particular trick, he could at once be reproved for it. Quite often we can
use a particular term (hasty generalization, say, or false analogy) to help us in showing that a
particular argument is weak. However, many failures in argumentation cannot be explained by the use
of a convenient label. Instead, we may need to show that the conclusion (or main claim) does not
logically follow from the reasoning or evidence (or that there is insufficient reasoning or evidence)
simply by explaining what the flaws are. However, being critical does not mean always being negative,
always pointing out flaws because sometimes there arent any. If we examine an argument carefully
and find it to be sound, then we should say so. Dont try to find fallacies where none exist!
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states (in part): Everyone charged with a penal
offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
Critical thinkers may proceed in a rather different way, always presuming that writers and speakers are
fallible (they can make mistakes) and that the arguments they present may therefore be faulty.
However, some arguments seem (after careful examination) to be generally valid. In such cases, critical
thinkers should affirm this and not tie themselves in knots by trying to demonstrate non-existent flaws.

@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 11

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

Logos, pathos, ethos

Aristotle argued that effective speakers and writers seek to influence or persuade their audiences
in three ways: via ethos, pathos and logos. This insight is still useful today. But what did he
mean?
Ethos
This relates to the standing or credibility of the speaker or writer. Notice how speakers at a
conference are often introduced by a second person, who reads out brief and impressivesounding biographical details. Similarly, details of the achievements of authors (including the
titles of previous works, and what has been said about them) are often given on the cover of a
book, or on its first few pages. This is to establish ethos.
Rightly or wrongly we are more likely to accept the arguments of someone who has first shown
evidence of credibility. Why do speakers tend to wear formal clothes when delivering a
conference paper? The logic of their arguments would not change if they wore torn jeans and a
dirty T-shirt. Speakers tend to dress formally because they know the value of ethos.
Pathos
The classical Greek word pathos is at the root of English words like sympathy, empathy and,
indeed, pathos. It refers to ways in which speakers and writers may try to persuade us through
emotion rather than logic. One example is Richard Nixons 1952 speech on American television
after he had been accused of accepting improper financial gifts. Nixon was at the time the
Republican Partys candidate for Vice President. Towards the end of the speech he gave an
example of one gift that he and his family had accepted from a political supporter: a black and
white cocker spaniel dog intended for his two daughters (aged six and four). He told his audience
that the girls had named the dog Checkers and, he went on, regardless of what they say about it,
we're going to keep it.
It was alleged that Nixon had received illegal financial gifts, but he managed to sway the
emotions of some of his audience by referring to the love his young daughters had for the little
dog.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luz3zrjhgeE from 6.09 onwards.
In general, a speaker or writer who creates a good mood among his/her audience or readership
may help in persuading some of them to accept his/her position, even though the logic behind it
may be flimsy. A well-judged joke or anecdote can sometimes create the impression that the
speaker or writer is a likeable person, which in turn may dispose listeners or readers to accept
arguments which might otherwise seem flawed.
Be wary!

@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 12

ES1531 Critical Thinking and Writing

Week 3 Tutorial 4 Deconstructing Arguments

AY2013-14 Semester 1

When analyzing an argument, look out for cases where the speaker or writer appears to be
relying too heavily on pathos or ethos. Good arguments are those which are logical above all
else!
Logos
The Greek word logos forms the basis for the English word logic. We said earlier that an
argument consists of evidence or reasons leading to a conclusion, but perhaps a tighter definition
would be that an argument (or at least a longer argument) is generally made up of a series of
interconnected statements intended to establish a definite proposition. Critical thinkers should
look for the conclusion (or main claim) in an argument and then identify the steps which purport
to lead to it. Does the conclusion follow logically from the evidence/reasoning? (Of course,
although the main claim in an argument often appears at the end of a text, it may also be stated at
the outset).
Critical thinkers may not always use the terms pathos, logos and ethos, but it is helpful to
remember the concepts behind them when looking carefully at the way people seek to be
persuasive.
Activity D:
What faults can you find in the following argument?
There is no justification for the claim that the people of Bastroslavia should be allowed to vote in
elections. First of all, they have no experience of democracy. How, then, could we expect them to cast
their votes in any sensible or judicious way? Secondly, it is well known that only those with a high level
of education are capable of choosing people who are suitable to serve in government or as
representatives of the public. The National Party of Bastroslavia is made up of highly-educated
individuals who have served the country well since independence in 1950. Changing the system of
government would almost certainly lead to chaos, with the economy collapsing and many people losing
their jobs. The choice is simple: either Bastroslavia continues on its path to prosperity, led by the
National Party, or a change is made under which illiterate people are allowed to vote, putting at risk
everything which has been achieved in the last six decades.

Homework:
Discuss the following in the online forum of your class.
The issue of euthanasia is a complex and emotive one. Read the BBC report about Tony
Nicklinson http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/22/tony-nicklinson-right-to-die-case and
then look at possible arguments against legalizing euthanasia
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml)
Which of these arguments do you find most convincing?
Overall, do you agree that euthanasia should continue to be illegal? Why or why not?

@ES1531, CELC, NUS

Page 13