Critical Thinking Unit 2

Assessing and Developing Arguments

Brief Overview of Arguments

Must contain three elements: Reason - used to support a conclusion Conclusion - should be decided by reasoning Persuasion - the argument must attempt to persuade Indicator words for conclusions - therefore, so, consequently, thus etc. Element of Persuasion indicators - should, which proves that, must, ought etc. Indicator words for reasons - because, as, given that, since, seeing as etc. Words that link reasons together - also, and, in addition etc.

Counter Arguments/Assertions
Counter Assertions: They don't make the writer contradictory. It doesn't contain a reason and conclusion. It highlights that the author is aware of opposing viewpoints and is able to deal with them. Used in a way to strengthen the argument. Counter Arguments: Contain a reason and conclusion. It opposes another argument. It can do this by: challenging the reasons in the other argument, using different reasons to oppose the other argument, finding faults and flaws in the reasoning in other argument. Indicators for counter arguments and counter assertions: although, despite this, however, contrary to this, on the other hand, some may argue.

Hypothetical Reasoning
Claims Any part of an argument can be referred to as a claim. Almost everything that is said or written, other than questions, exclamations and instructions is a claim. It is something that is stated and can be challenged. They can be facts, opinions, principles, reasons, and conclusions. A hypothetical claim states that something will happen on the condition that something else happen, or that something is true provided that something else is true. (hope this sentence wasn't confusing) e.g. If I revise thoroughly, then I will pass my exam. I have therefore planned a revision programme. Hypothetical claims usually begin with 'if'. They can be used as reasons or conclusions.

Assumptions
An assumption is a missing reason in an argument. The writer accepts the assumption, but has not stated it. The assumption is essential for the conclusion to be drawn. They aren't stated in a passage, because it's often an obvious reason. An example is here: 'Using biofuel is a cheap way to run a car. It's easy to convert an ordinary car to run on biofuel. You should have your car engine converted to biofuel.' The author must assume that: - biofuel is readily available locally - the cost of the fuel is a problem for the car's owner - the owner can afford the cost of converting the car engine - it is possible to convert a car

Evidence and Examples

Fact - information that can be verified and that is held to be true Factual claim - a statement or judgement based on information that can be verified and that is held to be true Example - something which is used as evidence because it is characteristic of the same kind of things or because it can serve to illustrate Evidence - something that is used to develop or support a reason, it's often in the form of numerical date or estimate or a factual claim Types of Evidence: - an example - statistical or numerical data - an estimate - a factual claim - a personal observation - a statement from a source or witness

Evidence continued...
Problems with evidence from research: - Selective use of data - Interpreted in different ways - Methods may be flawed - Sample size - use of percentages Questions we should ask: - Who funded the research? - How many people made up the sample? - Was the sample representative? - How was the survey conducted? - When was the survey carried out? - Are the examples typical and relevant? - Are research findings clear-cut or ambiguous?

Opinions, Explanations, Descriptions and Common Notation

Opinion - statement of a person's beliefs and ideas. (not the same as arguments and not always supported by reasons) Explanation - a reason, or reasons given to show how or why something is the way that it is, but doesn't attempt to persuade the reader to accept the conclusion. Description/Accounts - the author describes something that has taken place or an object. There's no attempt to persuade the reader using reasons to support a conclusion so it's not an argument. CA - Counter Argument/Assertion R1/R2 - Reason 1/2 C - Conclusion Ev - Evidence Eg - Example IC - Intermediate Conclusion

Intermediate Conclusions, Analogies and Principles

1. Identify the two conclusions (look for element of persuasion, conclusion indicators) 2. Identify the IC by checking that it provides support for the main conclusion IC - A conclusion that is formed on the way to the main conclusion. The IC is supported by reasons and gives support to/acts as a reason for the main conclusion (MC). Analogy - is a form of argument which uses parallels between similar situations to persuade the audience to accept a conclusion. They suggest that situations are significantly similar and work in the same way. General Principles - it's like a general rule like statement which applies beyond the immediate circumstances and acts as a guide to action. They may be used in an argument as reasons, conclusions or assumptions. Also, there are different kinds e.g. ethical, legal, medical, ethical guidelines, business or working practices.

Inconsistencies, Contradictions, Ambiguity and Inferences

Inconsistent parts of argument cannot both be the case at the same time, or they would support different conclusions. Contradictions are a special form of inconsistencies. Ideas or facts which are contradictory say exactly the opposite things.

Ambiguity... A word or phrase that is ambiguous if it can have more than one meaning and its not clear which meaning is intended in a particular context.
Inference is another name for the process of looking at the next logical step. If you can draw a conclusion from some reasoning, you can say that the conclusion follows from the reasoning.

Oppositions and other terms

Refute demonstrates wrong if you do this in someones arguement, you show they dont work highlighting weaknesses in them and perhaps showing the argument is inconsistent. Repudiate disown/condemn an opinion, rejecting as unfounded or inapplicable it has a sense of rejection without knowing the reason why. Necessary Condition must be the case e.g. Talent is necessary if you wish to become a professional footballer or musician. Sufficient Condition something which is enough to ensure that something is the case e.g. Being convicted of murder is a sufficient condition for going to prison. Knowledge if we claim to have knowledge of something we accept its true, and it can be checked objectively to be valid and confirmed. Belief if we claim to believe something, we accept it mightnt be valid, or it mightnt be possible to confirm objectively.

Evaluating the use of evidence

Evidence can be: Irrelevant Misused Or Doesnt always give us the grounds to accept the rest of the authors reasoning. Does the evidence actually give us grounds to accept the authors reasons and conclusion? Is the evidence precisely relevant? Is the evidence sufficient? Is the evidence used in a strong way? Relevant evidence is precisely focussed on the reasoning e.g. Timescale, group of people, area. (must be talking about the same thing) In this subject relevant means precise and focussed on the reason.

Evaluating continued...
Sufficient means enough A sufficient condition is something which is enough to ensure that something will be the case. Evidence which is sufficient to support the conclusion is enough, and strong enough to give support to a conclusion.

Insufficiency form is the unreasonably selective use of evidence often the author ignores vast evidence which opposes their argument. It can be common knowledge that is ignored.

Example Evaluating
Used to illustrate or develop reasoning and they provide grounds for us to accept a reason or conclusion. Three Questions to ask: Is the example showing the argument or being used to support a general conclusion? Is it precisely the same as the situation being described? Is the specific example typical/representative of the group being described? Offering alternative explanations: - Authors often use explanations to support their reasoning (especially in a scientific or social scientific context). These can often affect the strength of support for the conclusion. - If an author has used an explanation which is clearly wrong or implausible, this will weaken the support for their conclusion. - If you offer a better alternative explanation you will show the weakness in an authors explanation.

Appeals
Appeal a reference to something or someone, in order to persuade an audience to accept a conclusion. Evaluate to judge whether an argument or reasoning is strong or weak. Appeal to authority referring to an expert witness or recognised authority to support a claim. Many arguments refer to an authority to strengthen their claims, or use the popularity or traditional status of an idea, in order to support it. People may refer to past events to support a future action, other arguments may try to persuade you by arousing strong emotions. Appeal to popularity a form of argument which justifies a conclusion by its popularity. However just because something is popular doesnt mean its right. Popularity isnt a bad thing in itself, but its not enough to support a conclusion.

Appeals continued...
Appeal to tradition a form of argument that supports a conclusion by saying its traditional, or its always been done this way. However, the fact that something has been done for a long time, doesnt mean its right. Such arguments are often attempts to persuade us to resist change, and appealing to tradition in a way that avoids the real issues. But, an appeal to tradition may not necessarily be a weakness. Appeal to history a form of argument that supports a prediction about the future with a reference to the past. The past may not be a reliable guide to the future and these predictions are only probable, not certain. There may be all sorts of changes in circumstance that mean future events are different. Appeal to emotion this attempts to support a conclusion by engaging the audiences emotion rather than giving reasons. It works by referring to things that make us feel very emotional, and attempts to persuade the audience in a way that makes them feel strongly about it, rather than by using good reasons.

Evaluating Appeals
Characteristic of weak appeal: Important to remember that finding an appeal in an argument doesnt necessarily mean the conclusions wrong. A conclusion cant be supported by a weak or irrelevant appeal, but it may be possible to support in another way. Evaluating an appeal and checking that its a weak one before saying that the conclusion cant be supported that way involves asking three questions: Does it override or exclude other opinions/evidence? It is without any form of evaluation or convincing evidence? Does it give logical reasons to support conclusion?

Flaws and Generalisations

Flaw a fault in the pattern of reasoning which weakens the support given to the conclusion of an argument. Two wrongs dont make a right a flaw that attempts to justify one wrong thing on the basis of another different harmful thing. Tu quoque an attempt to justify an action on the basis that someone else is doing it. Generalisation is drawing a general conclusion from specific evidence two forms (hasty and sweeping) Hasty Generalisation draws a general conclusion from insufficient evidence. Sweeping Generalisation moves from some or many to all creating a stereotype. May sometimes move back to individual again.

Relationships/Correlations
Unwarranted Assumption of Causal Relationship/Casual Flaw Assumes causal connection without good reason, and it oversimplifies casual relationships or confuses cause and effect. Confusing Correlation and Cause Assuming that because one thing happens before another, or two things happen together, one causes the other. However, there may simply be a correlation relationships between two things that happen at the same time but where neither causes the other. Oversimplifying Cause and Effect Another flawed pattern of causal reasoning is to look at a complex situation and say that factor A causes factor B. In a complex situation though, there may be several factors which together bring about an effect. Post hoc flaw the reasoning follow pattern: A happens before therefore A cause B (special form of confusing correlation and use).

Confusing Relationships
Confusing cause and effect Third common, but flawed pattern of causal reasoning is confusing cause and effect that is thinking that the effect is the cause. e.g. Weather reporters should give better weather, as it clearly influences weather when generally it does what the reporters say it will as some people would like less winter in the future.

Other Logical Flaws

Restricting the options Presents a limited picture of choices available in a situation in order to support one particular option. Slippery Slope Reasons from one possibility, through a series of events that arent properly or logically linked, to an extreme consequence. Often negative weak links, but opposite is wishful thinking the positive version. Circular Argument An argument in which one of the reasons is the same as the conclusion, or an argument in which you have to assume that the conclusions right in order for the reason to make sense. E.g. Youve got blue eyes because your eyes are blue. Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions An argument that assumes that a necessary condition is also sufficient, or that a sufficient condition makes it necessary as well.

Other Logical Flaws 2

Attacking the arguer (ad hominem) A form of reasoning that dismisses the opposing view, by attacking the person putting it forward rather than by addressing their reasoning. Straw Person This flaw misrepresents or distorts an opposing view in order to dismiss it. Arguing from one thing to another A form of reasoning which uses a reason about one thing to support a conclusion about something different. Conflation Bringing together 2 or more different concepts and treating them as the same thing.