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.
This is a presentation for a training session for the Social Sciences Research Development Initiative (SSRDI), it is part of the Academic Skills Lectures Series.
The slides aim to train members of Ateneo Debate Union to detect fallacies in argumentation. It is the hope that this would enhance their case construction skills. The principles used borrows heavily from logic.
This slideshow talks about why rebuttals are important, what to rebut in an argument, why should you rebut, how to rebut, what to rebut and how to construct a good rebuttal.
This is a presentation for a training session for the Social Sciences Research Development Initiative (SSRDI), it is part of the Academic Skills Lectures Series.
The slides aim to train members of Ateneo Debate Union to detect fallacies in argumentation. It is the hope that this would enhance their case construction skills. The principles used borrows heavily from logic.
This slideshow talks about why rebuttals are important, what to rebut in an argument, why should you rebut, how to rebut, what to rebut and how to construct a good rebuttal.
If there is something that would be considered difficult by most of the students but even young researchers, that would be to clearly define an argument and also manage to convey it without sounding judgemental or racist.
Critical thinking is a difficult concept to define in clear, objective terms. This can make it a challenging objective for teachers to implement and assess. The aim of this resource is to provide teachers with some tools to help clarify and communicate what critical thinking is and how it might be implemented as a teaching method.
Evaluating an Argument1. ClaimDebatable statement- forms main .docxSANSKAR20
Evaluating an Argument
1. Claim
Debatable statement- forms main point of argument.
What do you think?
State the claim
Is the claim a logical conclusion based on the reasons, evidence and warrants? Is the claim a logical fallacy?
2. Reasons
Arguments that support the main claim.
“Because clauses…”
Why do you think so?
State the Reasons
Do the reasons directly relate and support the claim? Logical fallacies?
3. Evidence
Personal experience, facts and statistics that support sub-claims.
How do you know you’re right?
State the Evidence
How does the evidence support the reasons and claim? Errors in logic?
4. Warrants
Usually unstated – connects the evidence and reasons to the claim. Why do you think your Reasons support your Claim?
State the Warrants -
Do the warrants follow logically to the claim? Errors? Flaws?
5. Logical Fallacies
Common Mistakes in thinking that may lead to wrong conclusions or distort evidence.
Is the argument built upon flawed thinking?
Identify Logical Fallacies
How do the fallacies distort the argument?
Evaluating an Argument
Using the five parts of an argument
Part 1 – Claim [who should do what?]
What is the “debatable statement” that forms the main point of the argument?
What does Camel “think?”
“X” asserts that __________
Part 2 – Reasons [because clauses]
Why should one accept the claim?
Reasons are statements that, taken together, give readers a basis for accepting the claim.
Camel asserts that ___________ should __________ because ________________ and _________________.
Part 3 – Evidence
[How do you know your reasons are true?]
How does the arguer know she is right?
Sources of evidence: personal experiences,
Outside authorities, facts, studies, statistics, etc.
Evidence is not debatable – its interpretation is!
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company encourages smokers to choose Camel Cigarettes because more doctors choose Camel cigarettes, Camel uses “rich, full-flavor” tobacco, and Camel cigarettes are soothing to a smoker’s throat and taste buds.
Evidence – Doctor Survey (113, 597 were surveyed)
What persuasive appeal is being used here?
Part 4 Warrants (unstated assumptions)
Why do you think your Reasons support the Claim?
Each reason has its own warrant:
Choose Camels because:
1. More doctors chose Camels in a national survey – Assumption _________________
2. Camel uses costlier tobacco – Assumption _________________________________
3. T-zone: Taste and Throat “proving ground” Assumption _______________________
Part 5 – Look for Logical Fallacies
See Bedford p. 180-181
Evaluate the Argument
1. Are the warrants logical?
2. Does the evidence support the reasons and claim?
3. Is the claim a reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence?
4. How would you rate the effectiveness of this argument?
ENG 101
Evaluating an Argument
Overview – Choose an opinion you currently hold – one that is not a central value in your life, but an opinion that you tacitl ...
The Toulmin method is a style of argumentation that breaks arguments down into six component parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing.
1.) An electron with mass 9.11 × 10−31 kg has a velocity of 4..docxpaynetawnya
1.) An electron with mass 9.11 × 10−31 kg has a velocity of 4.30 × 105 m/s in the innermost
orbit of a hydrogen atom. What is the de Broglie wavelength of the electron?
___ × 10^__ m
2.) Thompson determined the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron to be −1.76 × 1011 coulomb/kilogram. Millikan determined the charge on the electron to be −1.60 × 10−19 coulomb. According to these findings, what is the mass of an electron?
__ × 10^__ kg
3.)(has two parts) Referring to the figure below, how much energy is needed to move an electron in a hydrogen atom from n = 1 to n = 5? Give the answer
(a) in joules ___x10^__ J
(b) in eV ___
5.) (has two parts) Explain how you know that the electron configurations
(a) boron = 1s2 2s22p1
(b) aluminum = 1s2 2s22p6 3s23p1
(c) potassium = 1s2 2s22p6 3s23p6 4s1
have the correct total number of electrons.
(a) Boron is atomic number__(fill in)__ and there are _(fill in)___ electrons.
(b) Aluminum is atomic number_(fill in)___ and there are __(fill in)____ electrons.
(c) Potassium is atomic number __(fill in)__and there are ___(fill in)___electrons.
6.) Explain how you know the following electron configurations are correct.
(a) Nitrogen 1s22s22p3
(b) Phosphorus 1s22s22p63s23p3
(c) Chlorine 1s22s22p63s23p5
(a) Nitrogen's atomic number is _(fill in)__ and the number of electrons shown in the configuration is __(fill in)
(b) Phosphorus' atomic number is __fill in_and the number of electrons shown in the configuration is __fill in__
(c) Chlorine's atomic number is __(fill in)__ and the number of electrons shown in the configuration is __(fill in)__-
1
The Graduate School - UMUC
CRITICAL THINKING Rubric
SUMMER 2015
Learners demonstrate the ability to apply logical thinking processes to formulate clear, defensible ideas
and to draw ethical conclusions.
Critical Thinking Evaluation Criteria:
1. Identify and clearly explain the main issue or problem under
critical consideration. See: Defining Critical Thinking
1.1 Summarize the issue or problem with supporting
details to provide full understanding.
Explanation: What, exactly, is the problem or issue you’re meant
to consider? If you can’t state it clearly in your own words, you
don’t really understand it. Make sure you’ve covered the facts
and the background in your summary, and make the key
relationships clear.
1.2 Identify the underlying causes or conditions
contributing to the issue or problem and consider the
context.
Explanation: What factors have contributed to the issue or
problem? Be sure you can explain how the circumstances may be
shaping the issue. Look for assumptions people may be operating
under, including your own assumptions. If any assumptions seem
unsound, challenge them.
1.3 Pose significant questions to be answered prior to
analyzing and addressing the issue or problem.
Explanation: As you think about an issue, you need to pose
2
questions to guide your analysis. These quest ...
Case Study 10.1 Introduction to the Case Study Introduction to.docxtidwellveronique
Case Study / 10.1 Introduction to the Case Study
Introduction to the Case Study
This last chapter is different from the others. Instead of introducing a new area of critical thinking, it is a capstone activity in which you will apply the skills you've learned to one contemporary, controversial issue.
The topic for this case study is global climate change. Because it is beyond the scope of this course to thoroughly evaluate a complex scientific topic, you will not be expected to form a position or offer your opinion on this topic. Rather, the material in this chapter is presented for you to practice evaluating arguments, identifying fallacies, and questioning sources—with the hope that you will continue to apply these skills whenever you encounter material aimed to persuade.
This chapter won't present any new exposition. Instead, we provide some relevant review notes that have been excerpted from the earlier chapters. You can consult these notes if you need a refresher as you work through the final videos, articles, and questions in the course.
REVIEW NOTES
Arguments
To say that something is true is to make a claim. But to give reasons to believe that it is true is to make an argument. Thus all arguments consist of at least two parts:
1. premise – one or more reasons to support the claim
2. conclusion – the claim being supported
Common Fallacies
Fallacy:a type of flawed reasoning
1. Begging the question: fallacy where the argument relies on a premise that resembles the conclusion, depends on the conclusion, or is as controversial as the conclusion.
2. Appeal to popularity: fallacy where the arguer attempts to bolster his or her argument by mentioning that "everybody" (or a large group of people) shares the same belief, preference, or habit.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: fallacy where the arguer assumes that because there is a correlation between two events (i.e., one preceded the other), then the first must have caused the second. The phrase is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this."
4. Appeal to ignorance: fallacy where the arguer claims that because something cannot be proven false, it must be true unless the opponent can disprove the conclusion.
5. Appeal to emotion: fallacy where the arguer tries to persuade the audience by arousing feelings such as pity, fear, patriotism, flattery, etc. in lieu of presenting rational arguments.
6. Unqualified authority: fallacy where the arguer tries to get people to agree by appealing to the reputation of someone who is not an expert in the field or otherwise qualified to prove that something is true.
7. Ad hominem: fallacy where the arguer attacks his or her opponent's personal characteristics, qualifications, or circumstances instead of the argument presented. The phrase is Latin for "to the man."
8. False dichotomy: fallacy where the arguer inaccurately portrays a circumstance as having a limited number of possible outcomes, thus setting up an either-or situation with the intent of prese ...
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
How to Create Map Views in the Odoo 17 ERPCeline George
The map views are useful for providing a geographical representation of data. They allow users to visualize and analyze the data in a more intuitive manner.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
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