Critical Thinking

CRITICAL THINKING: Writing Logically, Thinking Critically
Strand Description: Any research endeavor entails a great deal of critical thinking. This
strand addresses the nature of research work as a course of critical reading and writing.
Logic is such as broad and generic term for diverse skills in critical thinking. In this
course, the students will be trained in the rigors of critical thinking, specifically in
argumentation using the deductive and inductive modes of reasoning. As the teams
continue to explore resources and formally write their research outline, and eventually
their manuscript, the skills in deduction and induction would prove to be crucial in
developing their research ideas. Another focus is the discrimination of different types of
fallacious arguments. In earlier segments of the strand, they are expected to understand
the format and line of thought that encapsulates an argumentative statement. Then, they
will be able to analyze how a seemingly legitimate statement can actually be considered
as a fallacy due to irrelevance and insufficiency of evidence. As students develops high-
order thinking in dissecting statements in the same manner that an argument is
scrutinized, they would be able to hone the skill , as well as, appreciate the relevance of
critical thinking through reading in view of writing; hence, this strand.
By practicing how to analyze the coherence and to formulate valid arguments –format of
claim, support, and reason, the student researchers would develop the skill in presenting
inferences supported by evidences. The skills in drawing out inferences and analyzing
assumptions would prove to be very crucial. As the research teams continue to evaluate
and revise their respective sources and papers, the activities in this strand will highlight
and reinforce critical thinking to enable the students to (1) better understand the themes
and thesis of other sources of information, (2) equip them with the skills for skepticism,
objectivity, and reflective thinking. These skills are very important in processing and
critically analyzing readings, engaging in academic writing, and in utilizing effective and
appropriate words during academic discourse such as research presentation. At the end
of the course, it is expected that students would be able to perform a close analysis and
be able to discriminate the literal, contextual, figurative, and rhetorical aspects of a
discourse, whether written or non-written. In conclusion, the research team would be
able to accomplish a well-reasoned and well-argued generalization.
Essential Questions:
• What are the attributes of a critical thinker?
• How do deductive and inductive modes of reasoning differ and
what are the hints to distinguish the two?
• Why are the skills in deductive and inductive reasoning important in
research?
• What makes a statement or an argument fallacious?
• Why is it important for a researcher to master valid reasoning?
• What are the indicators associated with the parts and functions of
an argument?
• How should an argument be constructed for a more effective
delivery of its purpose?
Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !133

What is thinking?
To begin with, it is purposeful mental activity over which we exercise

some control. Control is the key word. This does not mean that
thinking must always be conscious. The evidence that the
unconscious mind can join in purposeful mental activity is
overwhelming. The most dramatic example is that fact that insights
often come to us when we are no longer working on a problem but
have turned away from it to other activities.
With these important considerations in mind, we can attempt a

more formal definition of thinking. Thinking is any mental
activity that helps formulate or solve a problem, make a
decision, or fulfill a desire to understand. It is a searching for
answers, a reaching for meaning. Numerous mental activities
are included in the thinking process. Careful observation, remembering, wondering,
imagining, inquiring, interpreting, evaluating, and judging are among the most important
ones. Often several of these activities work in combination, as when we solve a problem
or make a decision. We may, for example, identify an idea or dilemma, then deal with it -
say, by questioning, interpreting, and analyzing – and finally reach a conclusion or
decision.
Good thinking is a habit.
It is frequently said that good thinkers are born, not made. Though there is an element of
truth in this, the idea is essentially false. Some people may have more talent for thinking
than others, and some learn more quickly. As a result, over the years one person may
develop thinking ability to a greater extent than another. Nevertheless, effective thinking
is mostly a matter of habit. Research proves that the qualities of mind it takes to think
well can be mastered by anyone. It even proves that originality can be learned. Most
important, it proves that you don’t need a high IQ to be a good thinker. The difficulty of
improving your thinking depends on the habits and attitudes you have. Chances are
you’ve had no direct training in the art of thinking before this, so you’re bound to have
acquired some bad habits and attitudes.
What is Critical Thinking?
Critical means “involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation”. In this sense,

critical thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently. More precisely critical thinking
is the general term given to a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions
needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims; to
discover and overcome personal prejudices and biases; to formulate and present
convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and to make a reasonable, intelligent
decisions about what to believe and what to do.
Put somewhat differently, critical thinking is disciplined thinking governed by clear
intellectual standards. Among the most important of these intellectual standards are
clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correctness,
completeness, and, fairness.
COMMON CRITICAL THINKING HINDRANCES
Egocentrism: Self-centered thinking. For Relativistic thinking: Thinking that

GOOD THINKING IS …
CLEAR …………….. rather than ………….… MUDDLED
PRECISE………. rather than …………..… VAGUE

ACCURATE …………… rather than …………….. INACCURATE
CONSISTENT……………. rather than ………….…. INCONSISTENT
LOGICAL …………… rather than …………….. ILLOGICAL
COMPLETE ................ rather than ……………... INCOMPLETE

FAIR ….…..….… rather than ….....….…... BIASED
BENEFITS OF CRITICAL THINKING
In a critical thinking course, students learn a variety of skills that can greatly improve
their classroom performance. These skills include:
• Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others
• Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs
• Developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs
“The main aim of education is practical and reflective judgment, a mind trained to
be critical everywhere in the use of evidence.” - Brand Blanchard
Increasingly, employers are looking not for employees within highly specialized career
skills, since such skills can usually best learned on the job, but for workers with good
thinking and communication skills – quick learners who can solve problems, think
creatively, gather and analyze information, draw appropriate conclusions from data, and
communicate their ideas clearly and effectively. These are exactly the generalized
thinking and problem-solving skills that a course in critical thinking aims to improve.
Critical thinking is valuable in many contexts outside the classroom and the workplace.
First, critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal decisions – by teaching
us to think about important life decisions more carefully, clearly, and logically. Second,
critical thinking plays a vital role in promoting democratic processes. Despite what cynics
might say, in a democracy it is really is “we the people” who have the ultimate say over
who governs and for what purposes. It is important, therefore, that citizens’ decisions be
as informed and as deliberate as possible. Many of today’s most serious societal
problems – have largely been caused by poor critical thinking. And as Albert Einstein
once remarked, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the level of
thinking we were at when we created them.”
Finally, critical thinking is worth studying for its own sake, simply for the personal
enrichment it can bring to our lives. One of the most basic truths of human condition is
that most people, most of the time, believe what they are told. Throughout the recorded
history, people accepted without question that the earth was the center of the universe,
that demons cause disease, that slavery was just, and that women are inferior to men.
Critical thinking, honestly and courageously pursued, can help free us from the

unexamined assumptions and biases of our upbringing and our society. In short, critical
thinking allows us to lead self-directed, “examined” lives.
“To become a critical thinker is not, in the end, to be the same person you
are now, only with better abilities; it is an important sense, to become a
different person.” - Gerald Nosich
“Character is destiny.”
- Heraclitus
CHARACTERISTICS OF A CRITICAL THINKER
Critical Thinkers … Uncritical Thinkers …
Have a passionate drive for clarity, Often think in ways that are unclear,
precision, accuracy, and other critical imprecise, and inaccurate.
thinking standards.
Are sensitive to ways in which critical Often fall prey to egocentrism,

thinking can be skewed by egocentrism, sociocentrism, relativistic thinking,
sociocentrism, wishful thinking, and unwarranted assumptions, and wishful
other impediments. thinking.

Understand the value of critical See little value in critical thinking.
thinking, both to individuals and to
society as a whole.
Pretend they know more than they do
Are intellectually honest with and ignore their limitations.
themselves, acknowledging what they
don’t know and recognizing their
limitations. Are close-minded and resist criticisms
of beliefs and assumptions.
Listen open-mindedly to opposing
points of view and welcome criticisms
of beliefs and assumptions. Often base beliefs on mere personal
preference or self-interest.
Base their beliefs on facts and evidence
rather than on personal preference or
self-interest. Lack awareness of their own biases and
preconceptions.
Are aware of the biases and
preconceptions that shape the way they Tend to engage in “groupthink”,
perceive the world. uncritically following the beliefs and
values of the crowd.
Think independently and are not afraid
to disagree with group opinion. Are easily distracted and lack the
ability to zero in on the essence of an
issue or problem.
Are able to get to the heart of an issue Fear and resist ideas that challenge
or problem, without being distracted by their basic beliefs.
details.
Are often relatively indifferent to truth
Have intellectual courage to face and and lack curiosity.
assess fairly ideas that challenge even
their most basic beliefs. Tend not to persevere when they
encounter intellectual obstacles or
Pursue truth and are curious about a
difficulties.
wide range of issues.
Have the intellectual perseverance to

pursue insights or truths despite
obstacles or difficulties.
INFERENCE – CRITICAL THOUGHT
What is an inference? An inference is a conclusion about the unknown made on the

basis of the known.

How reliable is an inference? The reliability of inferences covers an enormous range.
Some inferences are credible, but inferences based on minimal evidence or on evidence
that may support many different interpretations should be treated with skepticism. In fact,
the strength of an inference can be tested by the number of different explanations we
can draw from the same set of facts. The greater the number of possible interpretations,
the less reliable the inference is.
What is a fact? Facts are information that can be verified.
What is a judgment?
A judgment is also an inference, but although many inferences are free of positive or
negative connotation, such as “I think it’s going to rain,” a judgment always expresses
the writer’s or speaker’s approval or disapproval.
UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AND STEREOTYPES
An assumption is something we take for granted, something we believe to be true

without any proof or conclusive evidence. Almost everything we think and do is based on
assumptions. If the weather report calls for rain, we take an umbrella because we
assume that the meteorologist is not lying, that the report is based on scientific analysis
of weather patterns, that the instruments are accurate, and so forth. There may be no
proof that any of this is true, but we realize that it is wiser to take the umbrella than to
insist that the weather bureau provide exhaustive evidence to justify its prediction.
Many of our beliefs and opinions are also based on assumptions. One might base
support of capital punishment on the assumption that it deters crime. A politician might
base opposition to higher taxes on the assumption that most people don’t want to pay
them. The assumption may or may not be correct, but without evidence they are really
only guesses.
Warranted assumptions means that we have good reason to hold them. Unwarranted
assumption, however, are unreasonable. An unwarranted assumption is something
taken for granted without good reason. Such assumptions often prevent our seeing
things clearly.
One of the most unwarranted assumption is a stereotype. The word stereotype comes
from the printing press era, when plates, or stereotypes, were used to produce identical
copies of one page. Similarly, when we stereotype, as the word is now used, we assume
that individual people have all been stamped from one plate, so all college sophomores
are alike, or all politicians, or police officers, or African Americans, professors, women,
and so forth. When we form opinion of someone that is based not on his or her individual
qualities but, rather, on his or her membership in a particular group, we are assuming
that all or virtually all members of that group are alike. Because people are not identical,
no matter what race or other similarities they share, stereotypical connections will often
be false or misleading. Typically stereotypes are arrived at through a process known as
hasty generalization.
Critical thinking demands that we become aware of our own thinking, including our
assumptions. A conscious assumption is one which we are aware: we know that we are
taking something for granted. The assumptions we need to become most conscious of

are not the ones that lead to our routine behaviors, such as carrying an umbrella or
going to class, but the ones upon which we base our more important attitudes, actions,
and decisions. If we are conscious of our tendency to stereotypes, we can take
measures to end it.
ARGUMENT : Recognizing Argument
In critical thinking, passages that present reasons for a claim are called arguments.
When people hear the word argument, they usually think of some kind of quarrel or
shouting match. In critical thinking, however, an argument is simply a claim defended
with reasons.
Arguments are composed of one or more premises and a conclusion. Premises are
statements in an argument offered as evidence or reasons why we should accept
another statement, the conclusion. The conclusion is the statement in an argument that
the premises are intended to prove or support. An argument, accordingly, is a group of
statements, one or more of which (called the premise) are intended to prove or support
another statement (called the conclusion).
A statement is a sentence that can be viewed as either true or false. Here are
some examples of statements.
Red is a color.
There are nine planets in the solar system.
Canada is in North America.
Abortion is morally wrong.
The Matrix is a better movie than Titanic.
Some of these statements are clearly true, some are clearly false, and some are
controversial. Each of them is a statement; however, because each can be prefaced with
the phrase “It is true that” or “It is false that.” Four things should be noted about
statements. First, a sentence may be used to express more than one statement. For
example, the grammatical sentence
Roses are red and violets are blue.
expresses two distinct statements (“Roses are red” and “Violets are blue.”). Each of
these is a statement because each is capable of standing alone as a declarative
sentence. Second, a statement can sometimes be expressed as a phrase or an
incomplete clause, rather than as a complete declarative sentence. Consider the
sentence:
With mortgage interest rates at thirty-year lows, you owe it to

yourself to consider refinancing your home. (radio ad)
Grammatically, this is a single declarative sentence. The speaker’s intent, however, is

clearly to defend one assertion (“You owe it to yourself to consider refinancing your
home”) on the basis of another (“Mortgage interest rates are at thirty-year lows”). The
fact that we have to rephrase the sentence slightly to make this explicit should not
obscure the fact that two statements are being offered rather than one.

Third, not all sentences are statements, that is, sentences are either assert or deny that
something is the case. Here are some examples of sentences that are not statements:
What time is it? (question)

Hi, Dad! (greeting)
Close the window! (command)
Please send me your current catalogue. (request)
Let’s go to Paris for our anniversary. (proposal)
Insert tab A into slot B. (instruction)
Oh, my goodness! (exclamation)
None of these is a statement because none of them asserts or denies than anything is
the case. None says, in effect, “This is a fact. Accept this; it is true.” Consequently,
sentences like these are not parts of arguments. Finally, statements can be about
subjective matters of personal experience as well as objectively verifiable matters of fact.
If you say, for example
I feel a slight twinge in my left knee
this is a statement because it is either true or false ( you might be lying, after all) even
though other people may have no way of verifying whether you are telling the truth.
Not all sentences, however, are as they appear. Some sentences that look like non-
statements are actually statements and can be used in arguments. Here are two
examples:
Alyssa, you should quit smoking. Don’t you realize how
bad that is for your health?
Commencement address: Do not read beauty

magazines. They will only make you feel ugly. (Mary Schmich)
The first statement contains a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a sentence

that has the grammatical form of a question but is meant to be understood as a
statement. In the example, the person asking the question isn’t really looking for
information. She’s making an assertion: that smoking is very bad for one’s health. This
assertion is offered as a reason (premise) to support the conclusion that Alyssa should
quit smoking.
The second example includes an ought imperative, that is, a sentence that has the
form of an imperative or command but is intended to assert a value or ought judgment
about what is good or bad or right or wrong. Grammatically, “Do not read beauty
magazine” looks like a command or suggestion. In this context, however, the speaker is
clearly making an assertion: that you shouldn’t read beauty magazines. Her statement
that reading such magazines will only make you feel ugly is offered as a reason to
support this value judgment.
How can we tell when a sentence that looks like a command or suggestion is really an
ought imperative? The key question to ask is this: Can we accurately rephrase the
sentence so that it refers to what someone should or ought to do? If we can, the
sentence should be regarded as a statement.

To recap: Imperative sentences are not statements if they are intended as orders,
suggestions, proposals, or exhortations. They are statements if they are intended as
piece of advice or value judgments about what someone ought or ought not to do.
What is not an argument?
The basic test is quite simple. Something counts as an argument when (1) it is
a group of two or more statements and (2) one of those statements (the
conclusion) is claimed or intended to be supported by the others (the
premise). By applying this simple test, we can usually tell whether a given
passage is or is not an argument. Now, let’s look at five types of non-
argumentative discourse that are sometimes confused with arguments:
• Reports (simply conveys information about a subject)
• Unsupported assertions (statements about what speaker or writer
happens to believe)
• Conditional statements (an if-then statement, consists of two basic parts
- following the word if is called the antecedent; the second part following
the word then, is called the consequent) [conditional statements need not
be explicitly if-then form; in modern usage, then is usually dropped.
• Illustrations (intended to provide examples of a claim, rather than prove
or support the claim)
• Explanations (tries to show why something is the case, not to prove that
it is the case)
How does one distinguish arguments from explanations?

There are four basic tests.
(1) The Common-Knowledge Test - If the statement that the passage seeks to
prove or explain a matter of common knowledge, it is probably an explanation
rather than an argument.
The North won the American Civil War because it had a
larger population and a greater industrial base.
(2) The Past Event Test - If the statement that passage is seeking to prove or
explain an event that occurred n the past, it is an explanation because it is much
more common to try to explain why past events have occurred rather than to
prove that they occurred.
Mel flunked because he never went to class.
(3) The Author’s Intent Test – if the speaker’s or writer’s intent to prove or
establish that something is the case – that is, to provide reasons or evidence for
accepting a claim as true or if its intent to explain why something is the case –
that is, to offer an account of why some event has occurred or why something is
the way it is
Kevin is majoring in political science because he
wants to go to law school.
(4) The Principle of Charity Test - This principle requires that we always interpret
unclear passages generously and, in particular, that we never interpret a
passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably permits us to

interpret it as not an argument at all. This test often proves helpful when the
other tests yield no clear answer.
Jeremy won’t come to the frat party tonight
because he has an important exam tomorrow.
HIDDEN ASSUMPTIONS IN ARGUMENT
Even when arguments appear to be well supported with premises, and, where
necessary, logical relationships are signaled with joining words, many real-life arguments
come to us incomplete, depending on hidden assumptions, unstated premises and
conclusions. Sometimes a missing premise or conclusion is obvious that we don’t even
recognize that it is unstated.
The burglar had red hair, so Tracey certainly wasn’t the

burglar. [Missing premise: Tracey does not have red hair.]
Ken is lazy and lazy people don’t last long around here.
[Missing conclusion: Ken won’t last long around here.]
Since I’ve sworn to put up with my tired Honda until I can

afford a BMW, I must resign myself to the old wreck for a while
longer. [Missing premise: I can’t afford a BMW now.]
Filling in the omitted assumptions here would seem unnecessarily pedantic or even
insulting to our intelligence. Literature, by its nature elliptical, depends on the reader to
make plausible assumptions:
Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; such men are dangerous.
- Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar
Shakespeare assumes his audience will automatically make the connection – Cassius is
a dangerous man. But not all missing assumptions are obvious or acceptable. At the
heart of critical thinking
Good and Bad Arguments
In critical thinking a good argument is an argument that satisfies the relevant critical
thinking standards that apply in a particular context. The most important critical thinking
standards are accuracy (Are the premises true?) and logical correctness (Do the
premises, if true, provide good reasons to accept the conclusion?) There are, however,
other critical thinking standards that should also be considered in evaluating arguments.
Among these are clarity, precision, relevance, consistency, completeness, and fairness.
When is it reasonable to accept a premise? In general, it is reasonable to accept an

unsupported claim as true when (1) the claim does not conflict with personal
experiences that we have no good reason to doubt, (2) the claim does not conflict with
background beliefs that we have no good reason to doubt, and (3) the claim comes from
a credible source.
Evaluating Arguments: Some General Guidelines

• Are the premises true?

• Is the reasoning correct? Is the argument deductively valid or inductively
strong?
• Does the arguer commit any logical fallacies?
• Does the arguer express his other points clearly and precisely?
• Are the premises relevant to the conclusion?
• Are the arguer claims logically consistent? Do any of the arguer’s claims to
contradict other claims made in the argument?
• Is the argument complete? Is all relevant evidence taken into account (given
understandable limitations of time, space, context, and so on)?
• Is the argument fair? Is the arguer fair in his or her presentation of the
evidence and treatment of opposing arguments and views?
ARGUMENT: The Structure of Argument
When we offer our own views on an issue we expressing an opinion.
Premises and conclusion

The structure of all arguments, no matter what the subject, consists of two
components: premise and conclusions. The conclusion is the key assertion that the
other assertions support. The other assertions are the premises, reasons that
support the conclusion. For example:
Because the poor spend proportionately more of

their income on gambling than higher income
groups and because gambling sends a “something
for nothing” message that erodes the work ethic,
government should take steps to contain and curtail
the spread of gambling.
In this example, the conclusion – that government should take steps to contain and
curtail the spread of gambling – is supported by two premises: that the poor spend
proportionately more of their income on gambling than higher income groups and
that gambling sends a message that erodes the work ethic. For a group of assertions
to be an argument, the passage must contain both these elements – a conclusion
and at least one premise.
Distinguishing between premise and conclusions
In order to evaluate the strength of an argument, we need to understand its structure,

to distinguish between its premise and conclusions. Joining words – conjunctions
and transitional words and phrases – indicate logical relationships between ideas
and therefore often help us to make this distinction. Notice the radical change in
meaning that results from the reversal of two clauses joined by the conjunction
“because”.
I didn’t drink because I had problems; I had problems because I drank.

- Barnaby Conrad

The use of joining words in argument is especially important because they indicate
which assertions are being offered as premises and which are offered as conclusions.
For example:
Instead of building another bridge across the bay to alleviate

traffic congestion, we should develop a ferry system because
such a system would decrease air pollution as well as traffic
congestion.
A ferry system would decrease air pollution as well as traffic

congestion, so we should develop a ferry system rather than
build another bridge.
In the first example, “because” indicates a premise, a reason in support of the conclusion
that creating a ferry system makes more sense than building a bridge. In the second
example, “so” indicates the conclusion. Both statements present essentially the same
argument; the difference between the two sentences is rhetorical – a matter or style, not
substance.
Standard Form
With the help of joining words and transitional phrases, we can analyze the structure of
an argument and then put it into standard form. An argument in standard form is an
argument reduced to its essence: its premise and conclusion. In other words, it is an
outline of the argument. In the previous argument on gambling, each premise is
indicated by the “because” that introduces it, the conclusion then following from these
two premises. In standard form, the argument looks like this:
Premise 1: The poor spend proportionately more of their income on

gambling than do higher income groups.
Premise 2: Gambling sends a “something for nothing” message that
erodes the work ethic.
Government should take steps to contain and curtail

the
spread of gambling.
Note: is a symbol in logic meaning “therefore”.
Logical Relationships Between Ideas – Joining Words
Joining words and transitional phrases are especially important in written argument
because the strength of an argument is in part dependent on the clarity of the
relationships between the premise and the conclusion. But their use and importance are
not limited to argument. Joining words fall into three categories: coordinating
conjunctions, subordinating conjunctions, and transition words.

Logical C o o r d i n a t i n g Subordinating M a j o r
Relationship Conjunction Conjunction Transi
tion
Additi and also,

on moreo
ver
Contrast but while howev

and yet whereas er
concession although on the other
though hand
even though
Cause for because

since
as
Result so so that theref

Effect and so in that ore
in order that thus
hence
consequently
Condit if
ion unless
provided that
Many of these words mean almost the same thing; they express the same logical
connection between the ideas they join. For example, “but”, “although” and “however” all
express contrast, so we can join the following two ideas with any one of the three and
arrive at a similar, if not, identical meaning.
I love foreign films, but I have difficulty with subtitles.
I love foreign films although I have difficulty with subtitles.
I love foreign films; however, I have difficulty with subtitles.

A REVIEW: PUNCTUATION OF JOINING WORDS
Coordinating conjunctions – put a comma before the conjunction

when it joins two independent clauses unless the clauses are short.
The homeless are creating and living in unsanitary conditions all
over America, so cities must provide housing for them.
Subordinating conjunctions – introductory subordinate clauses

[clause that begin with a subordinating conjunction] are usually
followed by a comma.
Although the homeless are creating and living in unsanitary
conditions all over America, cities are not providing needed
housing.
When a subordinate clause follows the main clause, the comma is

usually omitted.
Cities are not providing needed housing even though the homeless
are creating and living in unsanitary conditions all over
America.
Transition words – transitional words and phrases, because they do

not join sentences but only connect ideas, should be preceded by a
semicolon or a period when they come between two clauses.
over America; therefore, cities must provide adequate
housing for them.
If, in the preceding example, a comma rather than a semicolon

preceded “therefore”, many readers would consider it a run-together
sentence or comma splice.
When a transition word is embedded within a clause, it is usually set

off with commas.
over America; cities, therefore, must provide adequate
housing for them.
DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION
Before we can effectively evaluate an argument, we need to understand clearly what

kind of argument is being offered. Traditionally, arguments have been divided into two
types: deductive arguments and inductive arguments. Because the standards for
evaluating deductive and inductive arguments are quite different, it is important to
understand the difference between these two types of arguments.

All arguments claim to provide support - that is, evidence or reasons – for their
conclusions. But arguments differ greatly in the amount of support they claim to provide.
Deductive arguments try to prove their conclusions with rigorous, inescapable logic.
Inductive arguments try to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely or
probable given the premise(s). Here are some examples of deductive arguments:
All humans are mortal.

Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
No single shooter could have shot as quickly and as accurately as Lee Harvey
Oswald.
Oswald is alleged to have done the in the Kennedy assassination.
Therefore, Oswald was not the lone assassin.
Because civil libertarians have learned that free speech is an indispensable

instrument for the promotion of other rights and freedom – including racial
equality – we fear that the movement to regulate campus expression will
undermine equality, as well as free speech.
Deductive arguments claim to provide logically conclusive grounds for their conclusions.
That is, they attempt to show that their conclusions must be true given the premise
asserted. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, simply claim are likely or probable
given the premises offered. Here are some examples of inductive arguments.
Every ruby so far discovered has been red. So, probably all rubies are red.
The bank safe was robbed last night.

Whoever robbed the safe knew the safe’s combination.
Only two people know the safe’s combination: Lefty and Bugsy.
Bugsy needed the money to pay his gambling debts.
Bugsy was seen sneaking around outside the bank last night.
It is only reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Bugsy robbed the safe.
Polls show that 75 percent of Republicans favor a school prayer amendment.

Joe is a Republican.
Therefore, Joe probably favors a school prayer amendment.
All whales are mammals. All mammals are animals. Hence, all whales are
mammals.
The Indicator Word Test
Here are some common deduction indicator words:

Certainly it logically follows that
Definitely it is logical to conclude that
Absolutely this logically implies that
Conclusively this entails that
Here are some common inductive indicator words:

Probably one would expect that
Likely it is a good bet that

It is plausible to suppose that chances are that
It is reasonable to assume that odds are that
The indicator word test is often extremely helpful. Nevertheless, two limitations of the
test should be noted. First, many arguments contain no indicator words. For example:
Capital punishment should be abolished because innocent persons may
be mistakenly executed. inductive
Pleasure is not the same thing as happiness. The occasional self-
destructive behavior or the rich and famous confirms this far too vividly.
(Tom Morris) deductive
Second, arguers often use indicator words loosely or improperly. For example, it is
common to hear speakers use strong phrases like “it must the case that” and “it is logical
to assume that” when the context makes clear that the argument is not intended to be
strictly deductive. For this reason, the indicator word test must be used with caution.
Other tests are the strict necessity test, common pattern test, and principle of charity
test. You will surely encounter these in a more advance course in reasoning or logic. It is
sometimes said that the basic difference between deduction and induction is that
deduction moves from general premise to particular conclusions, whereas induction
moves from particular premise to general conclusions. That, however, is a
misconception. Here are some examples:
Deductive: from particular premise to general conclusion

Lincoln was president from 1861 to 1865. (particular premise)
So, all persons born during Lincoln’s presidency were born in
the 19th century. (general conclusion)
Inductive: from general premises to a particular conclusion

All of Stephen King’s previous novels have been very good.
(general premise)
Therefore, Stephen King’s next novel will probably be good.
(particular conclusion)
Key Differences between Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Deductive arguments claim that … Inductive arguments claim that…

If the premises are true, then the If the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true. conclusion is probably true
The conclusion follows necessarily The conclusion follows probably from

from the premises. the premises.

The premises provide conclusive The premises provide good (but not
evidence for the truth of the conclusive) evidence for the truth of
conclusion. the conclusion.
It is impossible for all the premises It is unlikely for the premises to be

to be true and the conclusion false. true and the conclusion false.
It is logically inconsistent to assert Although it is logically consistent to

the premises and deny the conclusion, assert the premises and deny the
meaning that if you accept the conclusion, the conclusion is
premises, you must accept the probably true if the premises are
conclusion. true.
Exercise 27 Write YES if the statement is an argument, otherwise write NO.
1. If you don’t listen to radio talk shows, you really should, because it gives you a
chance to reassure yourself that a great many people out there are much sillier than
you are. (D.Barry, Dave Barry’s Bad Habis, 1985)
2. If a bridge collapse, if a dam breaks, if a wing falls off an airplane and people die, I
cannot see that as God’s doing. I cannot believe that God wanted all those people to
die at than moment, or that He wanted some of them to die and had no choice but to
condemn the others along with them. I believe that these calamities are all acts of
nature, and that there are is no moral reason for those particular victims to be singled
out for punishment. ( Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People, 1981)
3. When what is just or unjust is thought to be determined solely by whoever has the
power to lay down the law of the land, it unavoidably follows tha the law of the land
cannot judged either just or unjust. (Mortimeer J.Adler, Six Great Ideas, 1981)
4. Since human beings have a tripartite soul, says Plato, the highest good for humans
cannot be pleasure, since pleasure would be the goal of satisfying only the body
appetites, which constitutes only one of the three elements of the soul. (T.Z. Lavine,
From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest, 1984)
5. Longevity is perhaps the best single measure of the physical quality of life. [If you’re
dead, there’s little you can do to be happy.] (Carl Sagan,The Demon-Haunted World:
Science as a Candle in the Dark, ‘95)
6. Typically, male desires incline most men towards dominance, while typically;
women desires incline most women towards nurturance [caring/raising].
Consequently, in every society, men fill the overwhelming number of high-status
positions in hierarchies. (Larry Arnhart, Darwinian Natural Right, 1998)
7. Associate as much as you can with people of admirable character and proven
sagacity [wisdom]. We become like the people we’re around. (Tom Morris, If Aristotle
Ran General Motors, 1997)

8. The culture of primitive peoples is often based on wildlife. Thus, the Plains Indians
not only ate buffalo, but buffalo largely determined [their] architecture, dress,
language, arts, and religion. (Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949)
Exercise 28 Write Ar if the statement is best understood as an argument, Ex if an

explanation.
1. Because height is inherited, short people bear shorter children than tall people on
average. (Wendy Northcutt, The Darwin Awards, 2000)
2. I always turn to sports section first. The sports page records people’s
accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man’s failures. (Earl Warren quoted
Steve Rushin, “The Season of High Heat, 1993)
3. I wear glasses primarily so I can look for the things that I keep losing. (Bill Cosby,
Time Flies, 1987)
4. When someone dies, it is important that those close to him participate in the process;
it will help them in their grief, and will help them face their own death more easily.
(Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, Death: The Final Stage of Growth, 1975)
5. It is unethical to perform laboratory tests on people, so scientists use rats. (Graham R.
Thomson and Jonathan Turk, Earth Science and the Environment, 1993)
6. Mankind must have laws, and conform to them, or their life would be as bad as that
of the most savage beasts. And the reason of this is that no man’s nature is able to
know what is best for human society; or knowing, always able and willing to do
what is best. (Plato, Laws, c. 345 BC.)
7. We need to develop the thinking tools and strategies that will enable to think for
ourselves and arrive at intelligent conclusions. We can’t simply rely on expert
opinions, because those opinions are often in conflict and influenced by the expert’s
own biases. (John Chaffe, The Thinker’s Way, 1998)
Exercise 29 Analyze the following arguments. Underline the premise and encircle the
conclusion.
1. When the universe has crushed him man will still be nobler than that which kills
him, because he knows that he is dying, and of its victory the universe knows
nothing. (Blaise Pascal, Pense’es, 1670)
2. Rights area either God-given or evolve out of the democratic process. Most rights are
based on the ability of people to agree on a social contract, the ability to make and
keep agreements. Animals cannot possibly reach such an agreement with other
creatures. They cannot respect anyone else’s rights. Therefore, they cannot be said to
have rights. (Rush Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, 1992)
3. Parenting is about drawing clear moral boundaries and enforcing acceptable limits
to produce conscience and compassion in children. To do otherwise is to create kids
who think their rights and interests supersede those of others. (Kathleen Parker, “The
Sin of Pride is Killing Our Children”, 1999)
4. Our faith comes in moments; our vice is habitual. Yet there is a depth in those brief
moments, which constrains us to ascribe more reality to them than to all other
experiences. For this reason the argument which is always forthcoming to silence

those who conceive extraordinary hopes of man, namely the appeal to experience, is
forever invalid and vain. (Ralph Waldo Emerson, “The Over-Soul“, 1841).
5. How can anyone in his right mind criticize the state police for the speed traps? If
you’re not speeding, you don’t have to worry about them. It could save your life if
some other speeder is stopped. (Newspaper call-in column, Wilkes-Barre Times Leader,
July 3, 1998)
6. Philosophy is dangerous whenever it is taken seriously. But so is life. Safety is not an
option. Our choice, then, are not between risk and security, but between a life lived
consciously, fully, humanly in the most complete sense and a life that just happens.
(Douglas J. Soccio, Archetypes of Wisdom, 3rd ed., 1998)
7. Our nation protests, encourages, and even intervenes in the affairs of other nations
on the basis of its relations to corporations. But if this is the case, how can we
dissociate ourselves from the plight of people in these countries? (Louis P. Pojman,
Global Environmental Ethics, 2000)
8. If a man say, “ I love God,” and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not
his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he had not seen? (I John
4:20)
9. Each of us has an intellectual dimension to his experience. We need ideas as much as
we need food, air, or water. Ideas nourish the mind as the latter provide for the body.
In light of this, it’s clear that we need good ideas as much as we need good food,
good air, and good water. (Tomas Morris, If Aristotle Ran the General Motors, 1997)
10. Whether you like it or not, you’d better accept reality the way it occurs: as highly
imperfect and filled with most fallible human beings. Your alternative? Continual
anxiety and desperate disappointments. (Albert Ellis and Robert A. Harper, A New
Guide to Rational Living, 1978)
Exercise 30 Write D if the argument is deductive then identify it as either VALID or

INVALID. Write I if the argument is inductive then identify it as STRONG or WEAK.
1. On Monday I drank ten rum-and-Cokes, and the next morning I woke up with a
headache. On Wednesday I drank eight gin-and-Cokes, and the next morning I woke
up with a headache. On Friday, I drank none bourbon-and-Cokes, and the next
morning I woke up with a headache. Obviously, to prevent further headache, I must
give up Coke.
2. Eggs are Php 120 per dozen at this shop. It follows that if I can buy one hundred
eggs for Php 1200.
3. The Petronas Tower is taller than the Empire State Building, Therefore, because the
Eiffel Tower is shorter than the Empire State Building it follows that the Petronas
Tower is taller than Eiffel Tower.
4. Do most Filipinos like rap music? Apparently not. In a random survey of ten
thousand senior citizens’ nursing home around the country, fewer than 5 percent
said they enjoyed listening to rap.
5. Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer, said that they heavy elements like iron and zinc
that compose human bodies were created billions of years ago in the interior of long-
extinct stars. Moreover virtually all astronomers agree with Sagan on this point.
Therefore it is probably true that the heavy elements like iron and zinc that compose
human bodies were created billions of years ago in the interiors of long-extinct stars.

6. Jerry was born on Easter Sunday. It necessarily follows, therefore, that his birthday
always falls on a Sunday.
7. Wally weighs 200 pounds. Hence, Joyce weighs 150 pounds because she weighs
exactly 25 percent less than Wally does.
8. If the moon is made of cheese, pigs can fly. The moon is not made of cheese. So pigs
can fly.
9. If you master if-then reasoning, you will do well in Critical Thinking. You do well in
Critical Thinking. Therefore, you will master if-then reasoning.
10. People organizations were justified in suing tobacco companies to recover health-
care costs associated with smoking. Similarly, they would be justified in suing
McDonalds and Jollibee to recover the health-care costs associated with eating fatty
foods.
Exercise 31 Underline the premise and box the conclusion. Box all indicator words.
1. Racial segregation reduces some persons to the status of things. Hence, segregation
is morally wrong. Adapted from: Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham
Jail,” Liberation: An Independent Monthly, Jun 1963
2. While performing an autopsy on a dead sea turtle, Dr. Stacy found shrimp in the
turtle’s throat. Sea turtles can only catch shrimp if they are stuck in nets with the
shrimp. Therefore, the dead sea turtle was probably caught in a net. Adapted from:
Shaila Dewan, “Animal Autopsies in Gulf Yield Mystery,” New York Times, Jul 14, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/science/ earth/15necropsy.html
3. Most people experience no side effects from the yellow fever vaccine. People with
egg allergies shouldn’t get the yellow fever vaccine, though, because some part of
the vaccine is grown inside eggs. Adapted from: Division of Vector Borne Infectious
Diseases, “Vaccine | CDC Yellow Fever,” Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention,http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/YellowFever/vaccine/
4. There are two ways of settling a dispute: by discussion and byphysical force. Since
the fi rst way is appropriate for human beings and the second way appropriate for
animals, we must resort toforce only when we cannot settle matters by discussion.
Adapted from: Cicero, De Officiis 11
5. Positron-emission tomography, better known as PET, is a method for examining a
person’s brain. Before undergoing PET, the patient inhales a gas containing
radioactive molecules. The molecules are not dangerous for the patient because they
break down within a few minutes, before they can do any damage. Adapted from:
Bryan Kolb and Ian Q. Wishaw, Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology, 5th ed. (New
York: Worth Publishers, 2003), 161
6. The head of the spy ring is very dangerous. He is also exceptionally clever and a
master of disguise. He has a dozen names and a hundred different appearances. But
there is one thing he cannot disguise: he is missing the tip of his little finger. So, if
you evermeet a man who is missing the top joint of his little finger, you should be
very careful! Adapted from: Th e 39 Steps, directed by Alfred Hitchcock (London: Gaumont
British, 1935)
7. Some people buy college degrees on the Internet because they’retrying to pretend
that they went to college. That’s a waste of money,since it’s easy to make a college
degree on your computer, and a degree that you make yourself is just as good as a
degree that you bought on the Internet. Adapted from: “Fake Degrees in Government,”

The Onion, Oct 18, 2006, http://www.theonion.com/articles/fake-degrees-in-government,
15092/
8. People are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights. Governments exist to
protect those rights. When a government violates those rights, people have a right to
rebel against that government and create a new one. The king of Great Britain has
repeatedly violated the rights of the American colonists. Th us, the American
colonists have a right to rebel against the king of Great Britain.
9. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that charter schools associated with the public school
system perform better than those that operate on their own. Although the public-
school bureaucracy can sometimes make it hard to get things done, it also provides
invaluable support and services to the charter schools that are associated with it. I
don’t see why some people are intent on destroying the public-school system.
Adapted from: Paul Kelleher, letter to the editor, New York Times, Sep 1, 2006, http://
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res =9C03E7D81E3EF932A3575AC0A9609C8B63
10. The only remaining question was why the man had been murdered. Was it a
politically motivated crime or a private one? I thought right away that it must be a
privately motivated crime. Political assassins move quickly and flee. But in this case,
the murderer’s footprints are all over the room, showing that he had spent quite a
while in this room. Adapted from: Arthur Conan Doyle, A Study in Scarlet (London: Ward
Lock & Co., 1888; repr., London: Penguin, 2001), 138
Retrieved from http://www.hackettpublishing.com/pdfs/Workbook_TOC_Ch1.pdf, Dec. 13, 2012
Workshop # 16 Work in pairs or triads. Re-write the following

arguments in standard form. Paraphrase in simple sentences, if
needed, for clarity and brevity. DO NOT CHANGE THE IDEA OF
THE ARGUMENT.
1. As a basketball player, Michael Jordan had a unique combination of grace,

speed, power, and competitive desire. He had more NBA scoring titles than
anyone else. He retired with the NBA’s highest scoring average. Therefore,
Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time. Adapted from: NBA,
“Michael Jordan Bio,” NBA Encyclopedia Playoff Edition, n.d., http://www.nba.com/
history/players/jordan_bio.html
2. Someone who can’t get enough to eat clearly lives in poverty. But someone who
can’t aff ord the things that his or her society regards as necessities also lives in
poverty. Wealthier societies will regard more things as necessities than poorer

societies. Thus, the “poverty line,” which is the amount of money someone must
have to count as “non-poor,” will be higher in a wealthier society than in a
poorer society. Adapted from: David Phillips, Quality of Life: Concept, Policy, and
Practice (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2006), 110
3. Investigators from the Bigfoot Researchers Organization have either glimpsed or

heard Bigfoot on twenty-seven out of thirty Bigfoot-scouting expeditions in the
United States and Canada. Dr. Krantz, one of the investigators, believes that
Bigfoot is a species of primate known as a Gigantopithecus. Therefore, Bigfoot
really does exist. Adapted from: Associated Press, “Team Heads to Michigan to Search
for Bigfoot,” FOXNews.com, Jun 27, 2007, http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,286879,00.html
4. Smaller high schools are better than larger high schools since smaller high
schools have been shown to have higher graduation rates and a higher
proportion of students going on to college. New York City has broken a number
of large high schools up into several smaller schools. Adapted from: David M.
Herszenhorn, “Gates Charity Gives $51 Million to City to Start 67 Schools,” New York
Times, Sep 18, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/nyregion/gates-
charity-gives-51-million-to-city-to-start -67-schools.html
5. In 1908, something flattened eight hundred square miles of forest in a part of

Siberia called Tunguska. Theories abound about “the Tunguska event.” Some
people say it was a UFO. Some even say it was a tiny black hole. Recently,
however, scientists discovered that a lake in the area has the shape of an impact
crater that would have been created by an asteroid or comet. So, the Tunguska
event was caused by an asteroid or comet. Adapted from: Paul Rincon, “Fire in the
Sky: Tunguska at 100,” BBC News, Jun 30, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
science/nature/7470283.stm
6. There is a “generation gap” in Americans’ knowledge of politics. That is to say,
older people know more about politics than younger people. This is not the
result of older people generally being more interested in politics than younger
people. Opinion polls from the 1940s through the mid-1970s show that younger
people used to be at least as well informed about politics as the older people of
their time were. Adapted from: Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone (New York: Simon
& Schuster, 2000), 36
7. All cars should have a spear mounted on the steering wheel, aimed directly at
the driver’s chest. After all, we should do everything we can to encourage
cautious driving. Since people behave much more cautiously when they know
that their life is on the line, steering wheel–mounted spears would make people
drive much more cautiously. Adapted from: Steven E. Landsburg, The Armchair
Economist (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 5
8. Human nature is not inherently good. Human nature consists of those human
traits that are spontaneous; these things cannot be learned. Thus, if something
can be learned, then it is not part of human nature. Yet, goodness is not
spontaneous; people must learn how to be good. Adapted from: Xunzi, Xunzi, in

Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy, 2nd ed., edited by Philip J. Ivanhoe and Bryan
W. van Norden (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2005), 298–99
9. It is possible for someone to wonder whether her life is meaningful even if she
knows that she has enjoyed her life. This shows that a meaningful life is not the
same as an enjoyable life. At the same time, someone who is alienated from her
life or feels like her life is pointless, even if she is doing things that might seem
worthwhile from an objective perspective, is not leading a meaningful life. This
shows that a meaningful life is not the same as a life spent on objectively
worthwhile projects. All of this shows that neither enjoyment nor objectively
worthwhile projects, considered separately from the other, are sufficient for a
meaningful life. Adapted from: Susan Wolf, “Happiness and Meaning: Two Aspects of
the Good Life,” Social Philosophy & Policy 14 (1997), 211
10. Suppose that Tim learns that his grandfather had done something terrible in the
1920s, several years before the birth of Tim’s mother. Suppose also that Tim has
invented a time machine. While it may seem that Tim could go back in time and
kill his grandfather to prevent him from doing this terrible thing, in fact, it is
impossible for Tim to kill his grandfather. The past has already happened. It
cannot be changed. Since Tim’s grandparents had Tim’s mother, who went on to
have Tim, it must be the case that Tim did not kill his grandfather. Adapted from:
David Lewis, “The Paradoxes of Time Travel,” American Philosophical Quarterly 13
(1976), 149–50
Retrieved from http://www.hackettpublishing.com/pdfs/Workbook_TOC_Ch1.pdf
UNTANGLING ARGUMENTS :
LEVELS OF LANGUAGE AND WORD MARKERS
Not all statement can be considered an argument. In the art of formulating arguments,
special language are used. The goal of the speaker is indicated by the words used. there
are three levels of language – linguistic, speech, and conversational. A linguistic act is
a mere uttering or for the sake of saying it. A speech act is best exemplified when one
gives an unsolicited advice while a conversational act entails an effect. According to
Sinnott-Armstrong (2013), a linguistic act is a meaningful utterance of a word or a
statement. A speech act is when a speaker advises and accomplishes the act of uttering
even if the expected effect from the listener or reciever is accomplished. A
conversational act assumes the bringing of a desired effect from the receiver such as an
action, a change in attitude, behavior or any sort of effect or response.
When untangling an argument, word markers are often identified. There are four basic
markers – assuring, guarding, discounting, evaluative terms. An assuring term
indicates that there are backup reasons even though such reasons or proofs are not fully
given. A guarding term is used in the deliberate attempt to weaken a claim so that the
argument becomes less subject to attack. Discounting term is used when one
anticipates criticisms and dismiss them in the argument itself. Evaluative term, from the

word itself presents the strength or weakness as a means of judgment and therefore can
be a positive or negative term.
Exercise 31 Identify the level of language in the following examples. Write L for
linguistic, S for speech, or C for conversational. (adapted from Think Again: How to Reason
and Argue by Sinnott-Armstrong and Neta, www. Courser.org)
1. To say “I am sorry” is to apologize to someone even if that person does not

forgive you.
2. To alert someone to a danger is to make that person aware of that danger.
3. Concluding, either spoken or written.
4. When I say, “I order you to leave” in appropriate circumstances, then I thereby
order you to leave.
5. When I say, “I apologize for hurting you” in appropriate circumstances, then I
thereby apologize for hurting you.
6. When I say, “I am sorry for hurting you” in appropriate circumstances, then I
thereby am sorry for hurting you.
7. When I say, “I convince you to keep trying” in appropriate circumstances, then I
thereby convince you to keep trying.
8. “I told you to floss your teeth everyday!”, says a mother to his young son.
9. My mom believes that our neighbor is having an affair.
10. “Wow, your dancing really improved a lot!”
Exercise 32 CLOSE ANALYSIS: Use the following labels to indicate the function of
each of the bold words or phrases in this passage from "A Piece of “God’s
Handiwork”, by Robert Redford. (adapted from Think Again: How to Reason and Argue
by Sinnott-Armstrong and Neta, www. Courser.org)
A. assuring term E. positive evaluative term
B. conclusion marker F. negative evaluative term
C. discounting term G. premise marker
D. guarding term H. None
(Paragraph 3) The BLM says its hands are tied. Why? Because these lands were set aside
subject to “valid existing rights,” and Conoco has a lease that gives it the right to drill.
Sure Conoco has a lease—more than one, in fact —but those leases were originally
issued without sufficient environmental study or public input. As a result, none of them
conveyed a valid right to drill. What’s more, in deciding to issue a permit to drill now,
the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the environmental impacts of drilling in these
incomparable lands, but instead determined there would be no significant
environmental harm on the basis of an abbreviated review that didn’t even look at
drilling on the other federal leases.
1. The BLM says its hands are tied.

2. Because these lands were set aside subject to “valid existing rights,”and Conoco has
a lease that gives it the right to drill.

3. Sure Conoco has a lease—more than one, in fact —but those leases were originally
issued without sufficient environmental study or public input.
6. As a result, none of them conveyed a valid right to drill. What’s more, in deciding to
issue a permit to drill now, the BLM did not conduct a full analysis of the
environmental impacts of drilling in these incomparable lands, but instead
determined there would be no significant environmental harm on the basis of an
abbreviated review that didn’t even look at drilling on the other federal leases.
7. What’s more, in deciding to issue a permit to drill now, BLM did not conduct a full
analysis of the environmental impacts of drilling in these incomparable lands, but
instead determined there would be no significant environmental harm on the basis
of an abbreviated review that didn’t even look at drilling on other federal leases.
8. REFER TO SENTENCE IN #7 What’s more… the environmental impacts of drilling
in these incomparable lands, ….
9. What’s more, in deciding to issue a permit to drill now, the BLM did not conduct a
full analysis of the environmental impacts of drilling in these incomparable lands,
but instead determined there would be no significant environmental harm on the
basis of an abbreviated review that didn’t even look at drilling on the other federal
leases.
10. REFER TO SENTENCE IN #7 What’s more, … but instead determined there would
be no significant environmental harm on the basis of an abbreviated review that
didn’t even ...
(Paragraphs 6-8) What we’re talking about is, in the words of President Clinton, a small
piece of “God’s handiwork.” Almost 4 1/2 million acres of irreplaceable red rock
wilderness remain outside the monument. Let us at least protect what is within it. The
many roadless areas within the monument should remain so—protected as wilderness.
The monument’s designation means little if a pattern of exploitation is allowed to
continue. 
 
Environmentalists—including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and the Wilderness Society—appealed BLM’s decision to the
Interior Department’s Board of Land Appeals. This appeal, however, was rejected earlier
this month. This is a terrible mistake. We shouldn’t be drilling in our national
monuments. Period. As President Clinton said when dedicating the new monument,
“Sometimes progress is measured in mastering frontiers, but sometimes we must
measure progress in protecting frontiers for our children and children to come.” 
 
Allowing drilling to go forward in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument would
permanently stain what might otherwise have been a defining legacy of the Clinton
presidency.
1. Almost 4 1/2 million acres of irreplaceable red rock wilderness remain outside the
monument.
2. The many roadless areas within the monument should remain so—protected as
wilderness.

3. The many roadless areas within the monument should remain so—protected as
wilderness.
4. The monument’s designation means little if a pattern of exploitation is allowed to
continue.
5. This appeal, however, was rejected earlier this month.
6. This is a terrible mistake.
7. We shouldn’t be drilling in our national monuments.
8. We shouldn’t be drilling in our national monuments. Period.
9. As President Clinton said when dedicating the new monument, “Sometimes
progress is measured in mastering frontiers, but sometimes we must measure
progress in protecting frontiers for our children and children to come.”
10. Allowing drilling to go forward in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument would
permanently stain what might otherwise have been a defining legacy of the Clinton
presidency.
FACT, OPINION AND VALID REASONING
A Recap of Definitions
INFERENCE - a conclusion about something we don’t know based on what we do know
FACT – information that can be verified; come in vast array of forms : statistics, names,
events – and are distinguished by their ability to be verified
JUDGEMENT – also an inference, but although many inferences are free of positive or
negative connotation, such as “I think it’s going to rain,” a judgment always
expresses the writer’s or speaker’s approval or disapproval.
PREMISES – reasons that support a conclusion
CONCLUSION – the key assertion that the other assertions support
ARGUMENT - a rational piece of discourse, written or spoken, that attempts to persuade

others to believe something. Whenever we want to convince someone else of
the “rightness” of our position by offering reasons for that position, we are
presenting an argument. An argument is a process of influencing others,
changing their minds through reasoned discussion. Arguments consists of
three parts: claim, support and reasoning.
Claim – an argument’s thesis, a statement about which people will disagree. There are
three types of claim which is used, there is a need to define the terms with care
✍ Claims about facts Does X exist? Does X lead to Y?

How can we define X?
✍ Claims about what is valuable What is X worth?
✍ Claims about policy What action should we take?
Support – Support consists of facts, opinions and examples that you present to readers
so that they will accept your claim. Usually, you will present several types of
support for a claim.
✍ Can be a fact – verifiable as true or false (be sure it is an updated fact)

✍ Can be an opinion – a statement of interpretation and judgment; but must be based
on evidences in order to be convincing. Opinions are arguments themselves; they
are not true or false in the way that statements of fact are. Rather, they are more or
less supported, you do your own argument a service by referring to the opinions of
expert who agree with you
✍ Can be an example – a particular instance of a statement one is trying to prove. The
statement is a generalization, offering an example is a demonstration that a
generalization is correct
Reasoning – Reasoning is a pattern of thought that connects the support to a claim.
Each type of support involves corresponding form of reasoning. Reasoning will
be based on appeals to a reader’s:
✍ logic,
✍ respect for authority, or
✍ emotion.
ARGUMENTATIVE THESIS – the claim, the so-called argumentative thesis, expresses

one’s view on a subject. The goal in the argument is to defend the claim as being true,
probable and desirable.
Sample Arguments from an Excerpt:
Claim: College education can help you think critically and thinking is a good thing.
Support #1: (fact) 70% of college graduates take jobs unrelated to their majors
Reasoning: (Appeal to logic) a generalization –what’s true of most will be true of you
Support #2 : (Opinion) statement by Ornstein “ Solutions to the significant problems

facing the society demand a widespread, qualitative improvement in
thinking and understanding
Reasoning: (Appeal to authority) (Ornstein is an expert on thinking and learning,

his testimony is valuable)
Support #3: (Opinion) (“you will do well to make clear thinking a goal of college)
Reasoning: (Appeal to emotion) (“self-interest will lead you to agree…)
Key term defined: critical thinking is the ability to identify and solve problems, to plan
strategically to challenge, and to generate.

CRITICAL DECISIONS
Form, support, and opinions: Finding support for you arguments. Once you have
decided on a claim, turn your attention to gathering support, question your claim
vigorously: What will readers need to see in order to accept your view as true,
probable, or desirable? Assemble support from the various categories available to
you:
Facts Statistics Expert opinions Emotions
Devise an action plan: Take advantage of the various kind of support available to
you when arguing. To the extent it is appropriate for the context in which you are
arguing, make appeals to logic, authority, and emotion. Think strategically about
how best to position your facts, statistics, expert opinions, and appeals to
REASONING AND LINES OF ARGUMENT
Reasoning in an argument is a pattern of thinking used to connect statements of

support to a claim. Formally, types of reasoning are referred to as lines of arguments.
There are three lines of arguments available in presenting claims of facts, value, and
policy. One can appeal to the reader’s sense of logic, respect for authority, and emotion.
The following chart summarizes the main lines of arguments one can use in connecting
supporting statements to a claim. To support a claim of fact, for instance, there are six
ways to argue while there are five ways to argue for claims of value and five for claims of
policy. In presenting a claim, it is typical to offer several statements of support and,
correspondingly, several lines of arguments.
Matching lines of arguments with types of claims
Claims of Fact Claims of Value Claims of Policy

Appeals to Reason
Generalization X X
Causation X X
Sign X
Analogy X X X
Parallel Case X X X
Appeals to Authority X X X
Appeals to Emotion X X
Appealing to Logic – an appeal to reason is by far the most common basis for arguing
in the academic world. There are five most common appeals to logic.
(1) Argument from generalization - a general principle; a statement that applies

to other examples of such group; allows to support claims that answer
questions of fact and value
Example: Claim: Plastic litter kills animals
Support: Birds, turtles, sea lions and various mammals have died from

plastic litter.
Reasoning: Generalization – Danger to animals cited can be
generalized to other animals that come into contact with plastic litter.
(2) Argument from causation – begins with a fact or facts about some person,
object or condition. Enables a claim that an action created by that person,
object or condition leads to a specific result or effect.
Example: Claim: Insect problems arose with the practice of intensive, single-
crop farming
Support: The variety of vegetation in natural habitats discourages
infestation; natural habitats have “checks and balances”.
Reasoning: Cause and Effect – By creating one-crop farms and
eliminating the checks and balances of natural habitats,
farmers caused their own insect problems
(3) Argument from sign - In an argument from sign, two things are correlated;
that is, they tend to occur in the presence of one another. When you see one
thing, you tend to see the other. A sign is not a cause, however. If a sign has
proven a particularly reliable indicator, then it can be used to support a claim
that answers a question of fact
Example: Claim : In advertisements, words and images of dehydration
resonate from readers and viewers.
Support: Readers have profound psychological association with
dryness.
Reasoning : Sign. Dry skin is a sign of sterility and infertility, deeply
resonant themes for men and women.
(4) Argument from analogy – sets up a comparison between the topic being
argued and another topic that initially appears unrelated. While suggestive
and at times persuasive, analogy actually proves nothing. There is always a
point at which an analogy will break down, and it is usually a mistake to build
an argument on analogy alone. As one of several attempts to persuade
readers, an analogy spices the argument and makes it memorable.
Example: Claim: Learning involves a complex blending of learner, materials
and context.
Support: In a symphony orchestra, meaning (sound) is created through
interaction of musicians, conductor, composer and history.
Reasoning: Analogy – The complex interactions needed to create
symphonic music are analogous to the interaction needed to
create meaning for a learner.
(5) Argument from parallel case – Argues a relationship between directly related
people, objects, events or conditions. The implicit logic is this: the way a
situation turned out in closely related case is the way it will (or should) turn
out in this one. An argument from parallel case requires that situations
presented as parallel be alike in essential ways; if this requirement is not
met, the argument losses force. The argument would also be weakened if
someone could present a nearly perfect case.
Example: Claim: Registration can mark a modest beginning to resolving the
problem of Handguns.
Support: Cars and drivers are licensed.
Reasoning: Parallel Case – The registration of guns will have a
limited effect on deaths caused by guns, just as the registration
of drivers and automobiles has a limited effect on the number of

traffic deaths. Both efforts, however minimal, show a willingness
to manage a problem.
APPEALING TO LOGIC – (1) establishing yourself as an authority

(2) referring readers to expert
Example: Claim: Herman Melville’s “Bartleby the Scivener” is a story about Melville
Support: Leo Marx says so.
Reasoning: Authority – Leo Marx is a respective literary critic who has
taught at leading universities; his insights are valuable and
are worth examining.
USE AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES

1. Prefer acknowledged authorities to self-proclaimed ones.
2. Prefer an authority working within his or her field of expertise to one who
is reporting conclusions about another subject.
3. Prefer first – hand accounts over those from sources who were separated
by time or space from the events reported.
4. Prefer unbiased and disinterested sources over those who can reasonably
suspected of having a motive for influencing the way others see the
subject under investigation.
5. Prefer public records to private documents in questionable cases.
6. Prefer accounts that are specific and complete to those that are vague and
evasive.
7. Prefer evidences that is credible on its own terms to that which is
internally inconsistent or demonstrably false to any know facts.
8. In general, prefer a recently published report to an older one.
9. In general, prefer works by standard publishers to those unknown or “vanity”
presses.
10.In general, prefer authors who themselves, follow (standard) report-writing
conventions…
11.When possible, prefer an authority known to your audience to one they have
never heard of…
APPEAL TO EMOTIONS – Appeals to reason are based on the force of logic; appeals
to authority are based on the reader’s respect for the opinion of experts. By contrast,
appeals to emotion are designed to tap the needs and values of an audience. Arguments
based on appeals to reason and authority may well turn out to be valid; but validity does
not guarantee that readers will endorse a position. To succeed in the effort to appeal to
emotion, one must make the readers feel the same urgency to act as the writer does.
Example: Claim: You should vote for the tax increase.

Support: Our children attend a school that is in deplorable conditions.
Reasoning: Emotion – The story of the conditions at the school is unsettling
enough to convince town council members to vote for a tax
increase, which will alleviate those conditions.

Plan your emotional appeal by beginning with a claim that has already been supported
by an appeal to reason.
MAKING AN EMOTIONAL APPEAL

1. List the needs of your audience with respect to your subject: these needs
might be physical, psychological, humanitarian, environmental or
financial.
2. Select the category of needs best suited to your audience and identify
emotional appeals that your think will be persuasive.
3. In your appeal, place the issue you are arguing in your reader’s lap. Get
the reader to respond to the issue emotionally.
4. Call on the reader to agree with you on a course of action.
WRITING AN ARGUMENT
(1) The Problem-Solution Structure

I. There is a serious problem
A. The problem exists and is growing. (provide support for this statement)
B. The problem is serious (provide a support)
C. Current methods cannot cope with the problem (provide support)
II. There is a solution to the problem (your claim goes here)
A. The solution is practical. (provide support)
B. The solution is desirable (provide support)
C. We can implement the solution (provide support)
D. Alternate solutions are not as strong as the proposed solution
(review – and reject-competing solutions)
Note: This six-part structure for argument does not suggest, necessarily, a six-
paragraph argument. A problem-solution argument can be considerably longer than six
paragraphs.
(2) The Classic Five-Part Structure

1. Introduce the topic to be argued. Establish its importance.
2. Provide background information so that readers will be able to follow your
discussion.
3. State your claim (your argumentative thesis) and develop your argument by
making a logical appeal based on the following factors: generalization,
causation, sign, analogy, parallel case, or authority. Support your claims with
facts, opinions, and examples. If appropriate, mix an emotional appeal or an
appeal to authority with your logical appeals.
4. Acknowledge counterarguments and treat them with respect. Rebut these
arguments. Reject their evidences or their logic or concede some validity and
modify your claim accordingly. Be flexible: you might split the
counterarguments and rebut them one at a time at different locations in the

paper; or you might begin the paper with a counterargument, rebut it, and
then move on to our own claim.
5. A useful way to conclude is to summarize the main points of your argument.
Then remind readers of what you want them to believe or do.
Note: This five-part structure for argument does not suggest, necessarily, a five-
paragraph argument. Arguments can be considerably longer than five paragraphs.
EVALUATING ARGUMENTS AND AVOIDING COMMON ERRORS
(1) Defining terms – your evaluation of an argument should begin with its claim.
Locate the claim and be sure that all terms are well-defined. If they are not,
determine whether the lack of definition creates ambiguities in the argument
itself.
(2) Examining lines of reasoning – lines of reasoning that a writer develops-

generalization, causation and so on – establish logical support for a claim. Be
critical of the fallacies, particularly the seven most common flaws:
a. Faulty generalization
b. Faulty cause and effect
c. Confusing correlation with causation
d. Faulty analogy
e. Either/or reasoning
f. Personal attack
g. The begged question
(3) Examining evidence – arguments also can falter when they are not adequately
or legitimately supported by facts, examples, statistics, or opinions. Refer to the
following guidelines when using evidences.
a. Facts and Examples should :
i. fairly represent the available data
ii. be current
iii. be sufficient to establish validity
iv. have provision for the acknowledgement of negative instances (be
honest enough to point out what evidences against your position)
b. Statistics
i. Use statistics from reliable and current sources
ii. Comparative statistics should compare items of the same logical
class
b. Expert opinion
i. “Experts” who give opinions should be qualified to do so
ii. Experts should be neutral
Sources: Bassham, G. et.al. 2005. Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction. 2nd ed.
USA:McGrawHill
Cooper,S. and Patton,R. 2004. Writing Logically, Thinking Critically. USA:

Pearson-Longman
Ruggiero, V.C. 1998. The Art of Thinking A Guide to Critical and Creative
Thought. 5th ed. USA: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.
Ruggiero, V. R. 2008. Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. 7th ed. USA:
McGraw-Hill

Exercise 33 Read and understand the excerpt. Write TRUE if the inference is true,
write FALSE if false, and write OPINION if a mere opinion.
A. When people are confident and cheerful, they are generally inclined to spend more
freely. With this in mind, we have designed these ads to project a feeling of cheerful
confidence that should encourage viewers to spend more freely on your product.
(Ad agency pitch to potential client)
1. The first sentence of excerpt A

2. The ad agency focused on practical aspect of spending by appealing to the cheerful
confidence of the consumers.
B. Their spiritual devotion had allowed the Knights of the Templars to understand the
great truth that Petrus had quoted the night before: that the house of the Lord has
many mansions. They sought to put an end to religious conflict and to unite the
main monotheistic religions of the time: Christians, Jewish, and Islamic. Their
chapels were built with the rounded cupola of the Judaic temples of Solomon, the
octagonal walls of the Arab mosques, and the naves that were typical of Christian
churches.
3. The commitment of the Knights of the Templars to their faith became their strength
in fulfilling their mission of unity among the monotheistic religions of the world.
4. This mission of the knights is exemplified even by the structure of their chapel
which is best represented by Petrus’s quote from the Bible – that the house of the
Lord has many mansions.
5. Petrus and the narrator could have been together in the Journey to Santiago de
Compostela.
6. The use of the quote: “the house of the Lord has many mansions, was used to
explain how the design of the chapel of the Knights of the Templars justify their
mission or vice versa.
7. Consistent use of verses from the Bible to explain the rituals of the Tradition in the
novel and the detailed historical background of the journey to Santiago de
Compostela presents the personal spiritual quest of the author.
8. The writer of the novel based the descriptions of the setting to the early
architectural designs of the temple built by King Solomon.
9. When the Moors dominated the southern part of Europe (including Spain) they
allowed freedom of religion resulting to the division of the people which eventually
led to the creation of the Knights of the Templars
10. The goal of the Knights of the Templars is to mediate peace among the believers of
the three monotheistic religions.

Exercise 34 Using the given information / research result, evaluate the succeeding
generalization by writing:
A – claim of fact 1 – appealing to logic
B – claim of value 2 – appealing to authority
C – claim of policy 3 – appealing to emotion
[Sample answer: A-1}
1. A college education can help you think critically. The importance of thinking
critically cannot be overstated. Robert Ornstein of the Institute for the Study of
Human Knowledge put it this way: “Solutions to the significant problems facing
modern society demand a widespread, qualitative improvement in thinking and
understanding ...”
2. Effective, strategic thinkers are needed urgently and are appreciated everywhere,
and you will do well to make clear thinking an explicit goal of your studies.
Specifically, you should learn to identify and solve problems; to plan strategically; to
challenge others and yourself; and to generate new ideas and information.
3. Funding decisions for agricultural research should be based on a coherent, long-term

approach to food security. Channeling a large amount of the national budget to the
agricultural sector would affect the budget allocation to education, military, and
health. All are equally important to maintain a sustainable economy.
4. Eventually, taxes will have to be raised if the government cannot reduce our massive
national debt. The taxpayers should get actively involved in monitoring
transparency because hard-work deserves justice in terms of services and higher
buying power. Is it not only proper that those who pays higher taxes should be given
better social services?
5. As litter. Plastic is unsightly and deadly. Birds and small animals die after getting
stuck in plastic, six-pack beverage rings. Pelicans accidentally hang themselves with
discarded plastic fishing line. Turtles choke on plastic bags or starve when their
stomach become clogged with hard-to-excrete, crumbled plastic. Sea lions poke their
heads into plastic rings and have their jaws locked permanently shut. Authorities
estimate that plastic refuse annually kills up to 2 million birds and at least 100,000
mammals.
Workshop #17 Dissect the given arguments in Exercise 34 by writing the claim,
supporting statement(s), and reasoning. Write only the sentence openers and
the last words of the statements.

Critical Thinking

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Critical Thinking

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CRITICAL THINKING: Writing Logically, Thinking Critically

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !133

To begin with, it is purposeful mental activity over which we exercise

With these important considerations in mind, we can attempt a

Good thinking is a habit.

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical means “involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation”. In this sense,

Egocentrism: Self-centered thinking. For Relativistic thinking: Thinking that

CLEAR …………….. rather than ………….… MUDDLED

PRECISE………. rather than …………..… VAGUE

CONSISTENT……………. rather than ………….…. INCONSISTENT

LOGICAL …………… rather than …………….. ILLOGICAL

COMPLETE ................ rather than ……………... INCOMPLETE

BENEFITS OF CRITICAL THINKING

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !135

CHARACTERISTICS OF A CRITICAL THINKER

Critical Thinkers … Uncritical Thinkers …

Are sensitive to ways in which critical Often fall prey to egocentrism,

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !136

Have the intellectual perseverance to

INFERENCE – CRITICAL THOUGHT

What is an inference? An inference is a conclusion about the unknown made on the

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !137

What is a fact? Facts are information that can be verified.

UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AND STEREOTYPES

An assumption is something we take for granted, something we believe to be true

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !138

ARGUMENT : Recognizing Argument

Roses are red and violets are blue.

With mortgage interest rates at thirty-year lows, you owe it to

Grammatically, this is a single declarative sentence. The speaker’s intent, however, is

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !139

What time is it? (question)

I feel a slight twinge in my left knee

Commencement address: Do not read beauty

The first statement contains a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a sentence

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !140

What is not an argument?

How does one distinguish arguments from explanations?

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !141

HIDDEN ASSUMPTIONS IN ARGUMENT

The burglar had red hair, so Tracey certainly wasn’t the

Since I’ve sworn to put up with my tired Honda until I can

Good and Bad Arguments

When is it reasonable to accept a premise? In general, it is reasonable to accept an

Evaluating Arguments: Some General Guidelines

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !142

ARGUMENT: The Structure of Argument

When we offer our own views on an issue we expressing an opinion.

Premises and conclusion

Because the poor spend proportionately more of

Distinguishing between premise and conclusions

In order to evaluate the strength of an argument, we need to understand its structure,

I didn’t drink because I had problems; I had problems because I drank.

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !143

Instead of building another bridge across the bay to alleviate

A ferry system would decrease air pollution as well as traffic

Premise 1: The poor spend proportionately more of their income on

Government should take steps to contain and curtail

Note: is a symbol in logic meaning “therefore”.

Logical Relationships Between Ideas – Joining Words

Research Syllabus CRITICAL THINKING ALVAREZ, M.T.H. !144

Additi and also,

Contrast but while howev