This document provides an overview of argumentation and critical thinking. It defines an argument as a claim defended with reasons, and identifies the key components of arguments as premises and conclusions. It also distinguishes between simple and complex arguments, and defines five types of non-arguments. The document discusses how to evaluate arguments by assessing whether premises are true and whether premises provide good reasons for the conclusion. It also contrasts deductive and inductive arguments and provides examples of common patterns of reasoning for each. Finally, it defines logical fallacies and identifies two major groups - fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence.

1. Management and Law Department
(MLD)
Centre for Foundation Studies and Extension Education
(FOSEE)
PCR0025
Critical Thinking
All Foundation
ONLINE NOTES
FOSEE , MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY (436821-T)
MELAKA CAMPUS, JALAN AYER KEROH LAMA, 75450 MELAKA, MALAYSIA.
Tel 606 252 3594 Fax 606 231 8799
URL: http://fosee.mmu.edu.my/~asd/

2. PCR0015 Critical Thinking Topic 3
Topic 3: Argumentation
• Argument is a claim put forward and defended with reasons.
• Arguments are composed of:
1. Premises
2. Conclusion
• Statement: A sentence that can sensibly be regarded as either true or
false.
• 2 things about statements:
1. A sentence may be used to express more than one statement.
2. Not all sentences are statements.
3. Consider the CONTEXT in which particular expression is
used.
Identifying Premises and Conclusions
1. Premise indicators
• Since, for, seeing that, in view of the fact that, because, given
that, being that, as, as indicated by.
2. Conclusion indicators
• Therefore, hence, so, it follows that, that is why, wherefore, as a
result, suggests that, thus, consequently, accordingly, for this
reason, which shows that, implies that, we may infer that, proves
that.
• 2 types of arguments:
1. Simple
2. Complex
• 5 types of nonarguments:
1. Reports
2. Unsupported statements of belief and opinion
3. Conditional statements
4. Illustrations
5. Explanations
______________________________________________________________________________________
MM 2/ 8

3. PCR0015 Critical Thinking Topic 3
Reports
• To convey information about a subject, not to offer reasons why one
statement should be accepted on the basis of others.
Unsupported statements of belief/opinion
• No claim that these statements follow from or imply any other
statements.
Conditional statements
• “if-then” statements.
Illustrations
• Intended to provide examples of a claim rather than to prove or
support the claim.
Explanations
• Try to show why something is the case, not to prove that it is the case.
Evaluating Arguments
• 2 questions:
1. Are the premises true?
2. Can the premises provide “good reasons” for its conclusion?
Are the premises true?
• When is it reasonable to accept a premise?
• It is true if:
1. it is supported by evidence
or
2. it uses Principle of Rational Acceptance.
• Principle of Rational Acceptance:
1. The claim does not conflict with personal experience
2. Does the claim conflict with our background beliefs?
3. Does the claim come from a credible source?
• Good reasons to doubt the credibility of a source may incude:
1. The source is not a genuine expert or authority.
2. The source is speaking outside the area of his experience.
______________________________________________________________________________________
MM 3/ 8

4. PCR0015 Critical Thinking Topic 3
3. The source is biased/has motive to lie or mislead.
4. The accuracy of the source’s personal observations @
experiences is doubtful.
5. The source is a media source/internet source that is generally
unreliable.
6. The claim made by the source is, in itself, highly implausible
@ unlikely.
Can the premise provide `good reasons’ for its conclusion?
• 2 kinds of arguments:
1. Deductive
2. Inductive
Deductive arguments
• Try to prove that their conclusions with rigorous, inescapable
logic.
• Attempt to show that conclusions must be true given the premises
asserted.
Inductive arguments
• Simply claim that conclusions are likely @ probable given the
premises offered.
Key differences
Deductive Inductive
1. If the premises are true, then the 1. If the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true. conclusion is probably true.
2. The conclusion follows 2. The premises follows probably
necessarily from the premises. from the premises.
3. The premises provide conclusive 3. The premises provide good (but
evidence for the truth of the not conclusive) evidence for the
conclusion. truth of the conclusions.
4. It is impossible for all the 4. It is unlikely that the premises
premises to be true and conclusion are true and the conclusion false.
false.
5. It is logically inconsistent to 5. Although it is logically consistent
______________________________________________________________________________________
MM 4/ 8

5. PCR0015 Critical Thinking Topic 3
assert the premises and deny the to assert the premises and deny the
conclusion (if you accept the conclusion, the conclusion is
premises, then you must accept the probably true if the premises are
conclusion.) true.
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
1. Hypothetical Syllogism
Syllogism: A three-line argument, consists of exactly 2 premises and a
conclusion. Several types:
a) Modus ponens
b) Chain argument
c) Modus tollens
d) Denying the antecedent
e) Affirming the consequent
2. Categorical syllogism
3-line argument in which each statement begins with the word all,
some, @ no.
3. Argument by elimination
Seeks to logically rule out various possibilities until only a single
possibility remains.
4. Argument based on Mathematics
The conclusion is certain, not mere likely @ probable.
5. Argument from definition
The conclusion is presented as being true by definition.
Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning
1. Inductive Generalization
An argument in which a generalization is claimed to be probably true
based on information about some members of a particular class.
2. Predictive argument
______________________________________________________________________________________
MM 5/ 8

6. PCR0015 Critical Thinking Topic 3
A prediction that is defended with reasons.
3. Argument from authority
Asserts a claim and then supports that claim by citing some presumed
authority @ witness who has said that the claim is true.
4. Causal argument
Asserts or denies that something is the cause of something else.
5. Statistical argument
Rests on statistical evidence.
6. Argument from Analogy
The conclusion is claimed to depend on comparison between 2 @ more
things.
DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY
Valid deductive argument: Logically reliable deductive argument (the
conclusion really does follow necessarily from the premises)
Invalid deductive argument: The conclusion does not follow
necessarily from the premises.
INDUCTIVE STRENGTH
Strong inductive argument: Logically reliable inductive argument. The
conclusion is probably true if the premises are true.
Weak inductive argument: The conclusion is not probably true even if
the premises are true.
Conclusion
• Good Argument is when:
1. All the premises are true
2. The premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion
3. Meet the standards of critical thinking discussed in Topic 1.
______________________________________________________________________________________
MM 6/ 8

7. PCR0015 Critical Thinking Topic 3
LOGICAL FALLACIES
Logical fallacy: An argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.
2 major groups:
1. Fallacies of relevance
2. Fallacies of insufficient evidence
Fallacies of Relevance
• Mistakes in reasoning that occur because the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusions.
1. Personal Attack
2. Attacking the motive
3. Look Who’s Talking (Tu Quoque)
4. Two Wrongs Make a Right
5. Scare Tactics
6. Appeal to Pity
7. Bandwagon Argument
8. Straw Man
9. Red Herring
10. Equivocation
11. Begging the Question
Personal Attack
• When we reject someone’s argument/claim by attacking the person
rather than the person’s argument/claim.
Attacking the Motive
• Error of criticizing a person’s motivation for offering argument/claim,
rather than examining the merit/worth of the argument/claim itself.
Look Who’s Talking (Tu Quoque)
• When we reject someone’s argument because the person fail to
practice what he preaches.
Two Wrongs Make A Right
• When an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that
some other act is just as bad or worse.
______________________________________________________________________________________
MM 7/ 8

8. PCR0015 Critical Thinking Topic 3
Scare Tactics
• When an arguer threatens harm to someone if he/she doesn’t accept
the arguer’s conclusion, and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of
arguer’s conclusion.
Appeal to Pity
• When an arguer inappropriately attempts to evoke feelings of pity @
compassion from his listeners/readers.
Bandwagon Argument
• The arguer tries to play on a person’s desire to be popular, accepted,
@ valued rather than appealing to logically relevant reasons/evidence.
Straw Man
• When an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument/calim to make it
easier to attack.
Red Herring
• When an arguer tries to sidetrack his audience by raising an irrelevant
issue to settle the original issue.
Equivocation
• When a key word is used in 2 @ more senses in the same argument
and the apparent success of the argument depends on the shift in
meaning.
Begging the Question
• When arguer states/assumes the point to be proven.
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
• Mistakes in reasoning in which the premises, though relevant to the
conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusions.
1. Inappropriate appeal to authority
2. Appeal to Ignorance
3. False Alternatives
4. Loaded Questions
5. Questionable Cause
6. Hasty Generalization
______________________________________________________________________________________
MM 8/ 8

9. PCR0015 Critical Thinking Topic 3
7. Slippery Slope
8. Weak Analogy
9. Inconsistency
Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
• Citing a witness or authority that is untrustworthy.
Appeal to Ignorance
• Claiming that something is true because no one has proven it false or
vice versa.
False Alternatives
• Posing a false either/or choice
Loaded questions
• Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted
presupposition.
Questionable Cause
• Claiming without sufficient evidence, that one thing is the cause of
something else.
Hasty generalization
• Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is biased or too small.
Slippery slope
• Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly harmless action,
if taken, will lead to a disastrous outcome.
Weak analogy
• Comparing things that are not really comparable.
Inconsistency
• Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.
______________________________________________________________________________________
MM 9/ 8