Critical Reasoning

All there is to know

 Questions test your ability to:

• Identify the main point or conclusion of an argument

• Make inferences or draw conclusions of an argument
• Identify assumptions
• Assess the effect of additional information on the
argument
• Identify the unstated conclusion of an argument
• Identify the method of reasoning employed in an argument
• Detect reasoning errors
 Identify:

• Premise
• Conclusion
• Where they are
positioned
• How they are related
• Cue words
• Type of logic
Understanding the Argument
• Premise
– facts that support the conclusion
– key words: because, since, in the view of, given that

• Conclusion
– logical outcome supported by the premise
– key words: therefore, hence, thus, so, implies, indicates that

• Assumptions:
– A logical gap that links the premise and the conclusion. It
is understood, never stated
 Identify the premise and the
conclusion through cue words

• She cried. She did not pass the test.

• She cried because she did not pass

the test.
Understanding the Argument

An auto mechanic who is too thorough in checking a car is

likely to subject the customer to unnecessary expenses.
On the other hand, one who is not thorough enough is
likely to miss some problem that could cause a serious
accident. Therefore, it is a good idea not to have your car
checked until a recognizable problem develops.
 Understanding the Argument
• Premise:
1. An auto mechanic who is too thorough in checking a car is likely to
subject the customer to unnecessary expenses.
2. On the other hand, one who is not thorough enough is likely to miss
some problem that could cause a serious accident.
• Conclusion:
Therefore, it is a good idea not to have your car checked until a
recognizable problem develops.
• Assumption:
Most car owners are concerned with the cost of car maintenance than
with safety. Car mechanics are either too thorough, or not thorough
enough. There is no middle ground. Car problems will manifest
themselves before they are serious enough to cause accidents.
Identify position of conclusion

• David was talking during the

lesson so he did not understand
the teacher’s instructions.

• David did not understand the

teacher’s instructions because he
was talking during the class.
 Connecting events to draw
a conclusion
• The sun rose this morning. The sun rose
yesterday. Therefore, the sun will rise
tomorrow.

• Sara overslept, which caused her to be late

leaving for school; therefore, she ran all
the way, causing her to be out of breath.
Unstated Conclusions

• Identify the main premise

• look for links between the premises
• look for the answer choice that links the
premises
• verify the conclusion against the premises-
it must be supported by all of the facts
Unstated Conclusions

When we regard people to be morally responsible

for their actions, we regard them as being the
object of praise or blame with respect to those
actions. But it seems evident that people cannot
be the object of praise or blame for their actions
unless they performed them of their own free will.
Therefore, -----
Unstated Conclusions
• People are morally responsible only for actions that they
perform of their own free will.
• People are not morally responsible for actions they did not
perform
• People can be blamed or praised for actions that they
perform of their free will
• People are morally responsible only for actions for which
they can be blamed or praised
• People who are not morally responsible for their actions
cannot be blamed or praised for their actions.
Determining what the
writer is trying to say:
Looking for Verbs and
Adverbs:

 The ground was wet so it must

have been raining.

 The ground was wet so it

probably has been raining.
 Determining what the
writer is trying to say:
Look for Adjectives:

• Teachers in New York deserve extra pay for the

work they do.

• Prisoners in San Quentin rioted today because they

were angry about their condition.
Making Inferences
• If all the statements are true which of the following
must be true?

• Which of the following conclusions is most strongly

supported by the statements can be properly inferred
from the passage?

– With ‘must be true’ Q, use deductive reasoning

– With ‘may be true’ Q, use inductive reasoning
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

• All men are mortals

• Brain is a man
• Therefore, Brain is a mortal
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT:

• Answer should be
supported by all the
premises
• Remains within the scope
of the argument.
• The scope of the
argument is defined by
its limits, its boundaries.
• Linked to the argument
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT:

• Freshmen usually find economics I

difficult
• Jones is a Freshman
• Therefore Jones finds Economics I
difficult
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT:

• Argument by Example

• Argument by Analogy
Argument by Example

The US gives billions of dollars in foreign aid

to Balonia. Leaders of Balonia resent
foreign aid. The US should discontinue
direct foreign aid to developing countries.
Argument by Analogy

• The conservative and labor parties support a

viable economy, including economic growth,
industrialization, a fair wage policy and
unrestricted immigration.

• The Conservative Party endorsed free trade.

• Therefore, the labor party will endorse free trade.

Argument by Analogy

• France and England have the same

population size

• France has fluoridated drinking water

• England will have fluoridated drinking

water.
Determining the logical
sequence of an Argument
• Find the conclusion first

• Find the premise

• Determine if the premise is true.

• Determine the logical form of the argument.

Venn diagram and
deductive argument
All weeds are plants; all daisies are weeds. Therefore,
all daisies are plants.

Weeds
Plants
Daises
All weeds are plants; all daisies are
weeds. Therefore, all daisies are plants.

Plants

Weeds

Daises
Because all dollars are money and all Yen are
money, then all dollars must be Yen.

Money

Yen
Dollar
Dr. Deutch’s economics class is difficult.

Dr. Jack’s economic class is difficult

Professor’s Sol’s economic class is difficult

Therefore all economic classes are difficult.

 Difficult
J

S
Analyzing the logical
sequence of an argument
Dear Ann Landers: I am a 21-year-old guy who is perfectly straight. I
like to go to a gay bar in our neighborhood because the music is
good and the people are friendly.

My dad sat me down last night and asked me if I was a switch-hitter. I

told him absolutely not. He said her was very relieved because he
had heard I was a steady at this place.

When I explained I liked the ambiance, he advised me to find my fun

some place else because everyone assumes that a guy who goes to a
gay bar is gay. I think he is wrong.
Premise and conclusion:

• Any person frequenting a gay bar is gay

• You are a person frequenting a gay bar

• Therefore, you are presumed to be gay.

 Gay

Frequenters

You
Strengthening an argument

• Support one assumption

• Provide additional facts

to support the conclusion
Strengthening an argument

It has recently been proposed that we adopt an all

volunteer army. This policy was tied on a
limited basis several years ago, and was a
miserable failure. The level of education of the
volunteers was unacceptably low, while levels
of drug abuse and crime soared among the army
personnel. Can we trust our national defense to
a volunteer army? The answer is clearly no.
Strengthening an argument
• The general level of education has risen since the first time an
all volunteer army was tried.
• The proposal was made by an organization called Citizens of
Peace.
• The first attempt to create a volunteer army was carried out
according to the same plan now under proposal and under
conditions as those that exist today.
• A volunteer army would be less expensive than an army that
relies on the draft.
• The size of the army needed today is smaller than that needed
when a volunteer army was first tried.
Weakening an Argument

The recent turnaround of the LEX corporation is

a splendid example of how an astute chief
executive officer can rechannel a company’s
assets towards profitability. With the new CEO
at the helm, LEX has gone, in only three
business quarters, from a 10 million dollar
operating loss to a 22 million dollar operating
gain.
Weakening an Argument
• The passage assumes the the new CEO was the only
factor that affected the corporation’s recent success.
• The recent success of the corporation may be only
temporary.
• The chief executive officer may be drawing a salary
and bonus that will set a damaging precedent for this
and other corporations
• The author does not define probability.
• Rechanneling assets is a short term solution.
FALLACIES:

• Guilt by association
• Faulty analogy
• Causal fallacies
• Post hoc ergo hoc
• You too
Faulty Analogy:

• Tariffs on textiles benefit the textile

industry

• Tariffs on steel benefit the steel industry

• A tariff on every imported product

benefits the economy.
Causal Fallacies:

Roni develops a rash whenever exposed to

cactus weed. On his way home from a hike,
he breaks out in a rash. Upon applying
some ointment, he exclaims, “I must have
brushed by a cactus weed.”
Argument:

• Rashes are caused by cactus weed

• I have a rash

• I must have touched a cactus plant.

Post hoc ergo hoc

• Event y is followed by x

• So x is the cause of y
YOU TOO:

• You assert not to do x

• But you do x

• I can ignore you advice not to do x

 More Fallacies
• STATISTICAL:
– data is drawn from a sample not representative of
population or too small a sample is used to generalize
findings.
• UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION:
– has no basis or merit
• IRRELEVANT APPEAL:
– Validity is judged based on the the belief of very few
people.
More Fallacies

• REFUTATION ERRORS:
– attacking the author of the argument or any
piece of information irrelevant to the argument

• CIRCULAR REASONING:
– A premise is restated as the conclusion, or
premise presupposes the conclusion