critical thinking argument examples

Pursuing Truth: A Guide to Critical Thinking

Chapter 2 arguments.

The fundamental tool of the critical thinker is the argument. For a good example of what we are not talking about, consider a bit from a famous sketch by Monty Python’s Flying Circus : 3

2.1 Identifying Arguments

People often use “argument” to refer to a dispute or quarrel between people. In critical thinking, an argument is defined as

A set of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises.

There are three important things to remember here:

Arguments contain statements.
They have a conclusion.
They have at least one premise

Arguments contain statements, or declarative sentences. Statements, unlike questions or commands, have a truth value. Statements assert that the world is a particular way; questions do not. For example, if someone asked you what you did after dinner yesterday evening, you wouldn’t accuse them of lying. When the world is the way that the statement says that it is, we say that the statement is true. If the statement is not true, it is false.

One of the statements in the argument is called the conclusion. The conclusion is the statement that is intended to be proved. Consider the following argument:

Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I. Susan did well in Calculus I. So, Susan should do well in Calculus II.

Here the conclusion is that Susan should do well in Calculus II. The other two sentences are premises. Premises are the reasons offered for believing that the conclusion is true.

2.1.1 Standard Form

Now, to make the argument easier to evaluate, we will put it into what is called “standard form.” To put an argument in standard form, write each premise on a separate, numbered line. Draw a line underneath the last premise, the write the conclusion underneath the line.

Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I.
Susan did well in Calculus I.
Susan should do well in Calculus II.

Now that we have the argument in standard form, we can talk about premise 1, premise 2, and all clearly be referring to the same thing.

2.1.2 Indicator Words

Unfortunately, when people present arguments, they rarely put them in standard form. So, we have to decide which statement is intended to be the conclusion, and which are the premises. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that the conclusion comes at the end. The conclusion is often at the beginning of the passage, but could even be in the middle. A better way to identify premises and conclusions is to look for indicator words. Indicator words are words that signal that statement following the indicator is a premise or conclusion. The example above used a common indicator word for a conclusion, ‘so.’ The other common conclusion indicator, as you can probably guess, is ‘therefore.’ This table lists the indicator words you might encounter.

Each argument will likely use only one indicator word or phrase. When the conlusion is at the end, it will generally be preceded by a conclusion indicator. Everything else, then, is a premise. When the conclusion comes at the beginning, the next sentence will usually be introduced by a premise indicator. All of the following sentences will also be premises.

For example, here’s our previous argument rewritten to use a premise indicator:

Susan should do well in Calculus II, because Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I, and Susan did well in Calculus I.

Sometimes, an argument will contain no indicator words at all. In that case, the best thing to do is to determine which of the premises would logically follow from the others. If there is one, then it is the conclusion. Here is an example:

Spot is a mammal. All dogs are mammals, and Spot is a dog.

The first sentence logically follows from the others, so it is the conclusion. When using this method, we are forced to assume that the person giving the argument is rational and logical, which might not be true.

2.1.3 Non-Arguments

One thing that complicates our task of identifying arguments is that there are many passages that, although they look like arguments, are not arguments. The most common types are:

Explanations
Mere asssertions
Conditional statements
Loosely connected statements

Explanations can be tricky, because they often use one of our indicator words. Consider this passage:

Abraham Lincoln died because he was shot.

If this were an argument, then the conclusion would be that Abraham Lincoln died, since the other statement is introduced by a premise indicator. If this is an argument, though, it’s a strange one. Do you really think that someone would be trying to prove that Abraham Lincoln died? Surely everyone knows that he is dead. On the other hand, there might be people who don’t know how he died. This passage does not attempt to prove that something is true, but instead attempts to explain why it is true. To determine if a passage is an explanation or an argument, first find the statement that looks like the conclusion. Next, ask yourself if everyone likely already believes that statement to be true. If the answer to that question is yes, then the passage is an explanation.

Mere assertions are obviously not arguments. If a professor tells you simply that you will not get an A in her course this semester, she has not given you an argument. This is because she hasn’t given you any reasons to believe that the statement is true. If there are no premises, then there is no argument.

Conditional statements are sentences that have the form “If…, then….” A conditional statement asserts that if something is true, then something else would be true also. For example, imagine you are told, “If you have the winning lottery ticket, then you will win ten million dollars.” What is being claimed to be true, that you have the winning lottery ticket, or that you will win ten million dollars? Neither. The only thing claimed is the entire conditional. Conditionals can be premises, and they can be conclusions. They can be parts of arguments, but that cannot, on their own, be arguments themselves.

Finally, consider this passage:

I woke up this morning, then took a shower and got dressed. After breakfast, I worked on chapter 2 of the critical thinking text. I then took a break and drank some more coffee….

This might be a description of my day, but it’s not an argument. There’s nothing in the passage that plays the role of a premise or a conclusion. The passage doesn’t attempt to prove anything. Remember that arguments need a conclusion, there must be something that is the statement to be proved. Lacking that, it simply isn’t an argument, no matter how much it looks like one.

2.2 Evaluating Arguments

The first step in evaluating an argument is to determine what kind of argument it is. We initially categorize arguments as either deductive or inductive, defined roughly in terms of their goals. In deductive arguments, the truth of the premises is intended to absolutely establish the truth of the conclusion. For inductive arguments, the truth of the premises is only intended to establish the probable truth of the conclusion. We’ll focus on deductive arguments first, then examine inductive arguments in later chapters.

Once we have established that an argument is deductive, we then ask if it is valid. To say that an argument is valid is to claim that there is a very special logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion, such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Another way to state this is

An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

An argument is invalid if and only if it is not valid.

Note that claiming that an argument is valid is not the same as claiming that it has a true conclusion, nor is it to claim that the argument has true premises. Claiming that an argument is valid is claiming nothing more that the premises, if they were true , would be enough to make the conclusion true. For example, is the following argument valid or not?

If pigs fly, then an increase in the minimum wage will be approved next term.
An increase in the minimum wage will be approved next term.

The argument is indeed valid. If the two premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true also. What about this argument?

All dogs are mammals
Spot is a mammal.
Spot is a dog.

In this case, both of the premises are true and the conclusion is true. The question to ask, though, is whether the premises absolutely guarantee that the conclusion is true. The answer here is no. The two premises could be true and the conclusion false if Spot were a cat, whale, etc.

Neither of these arguments are good. The second fails because it is invalid. The two premises don’t prove that the conclusion is true. The first argument is valid, however. So, the premises would prove that the conclusion is true, if those premises were themselves true. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, I guess, considering what would be dropping from the sky) pigs don’t fly.

These examples give us two important ways that deductive arguments can fail. The can fail because they are invalid, or because they have at least one false premise. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive, an argument can be both invalid and have a false premise.

If the argument is valid, and has all true premises, then it is a sound argument. Sound arguments always have true conclusions.

A deductively valid argument with all true premises.

Inductive arguments are never valid, since the premises only establish the probable truth of the conclusion. So, we evaluate inductive arguments according to their strength. A strong inductive argument is one in which the truth of the premises really do make the conclusion probably true. An argument is weak if the truth of the premises fail to establish the probable truth of the conclusion.

There is a significant difference between valid/invalid and strong/weak. If an argument is not valid, then it is invalid. The two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There can be no such thing as an argument being more valid than another valid argument. Validity is all or nothing. Inductive strength, however, is on a continuum. A strong inductive argument can be made stronger with the addition of another premise. More evidence can raise the probability of the conclusion. A valid argument cannot be made more valid with an additional premise. Why not? If the argument is valid, then the premises were enough to absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Adding another premise won’t give any more guarantee of truth than was already there. If it could, then the guarantee wasn’t absolute before, and the original argument wasn’t valid in the first place.

2.3 Counterexamples

One way to prove an argument to be invalid is to use a counterexample. A counterexample is a consistent story in which the premises are true and the conclusion false. Consider the argument above:

By pointing out that Spot could have been a cat, I have told a story in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.

Here’s another one:

If it is raining, then the sidewalks are wet.
The sidewalks are wet.
It is raining.

The sprinklers might have been on. If so, then the sidewalks would be wet, even if it weren’t raining.

Counterexamples can be very useful for demonstrating invalidity. Keep in mind, though, that validity can never be proved with the counterexample method. If the argument is valid, then it will be impossible to give a counterexample to it. If you can’t come up with a counterexample, however, that does not prove the argument to be valid. It may only mean that you’re not creative enough.

An argument is a set of statements; one is the conclusion, the rest are premises.
The conclusion is the statement that the argument is trying to prove.
The premises are the reasons offered for believing the conclusion to be true.
Explanations, conditional sentences, and mere assertions are not arguments.
Deductive reasoning attempts to absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Inductive reasoning attempts to show that the conclusion is probably true.
In a valid argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
In an invalid argument, it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
A sound argument is valid and has all true premises.
An inductively strong argument is one in which the truth of the premises makes the the truth of the conclusion probable.
An inductively weak argument is one in which the truth of the premises do not make the conclusion probably true.
A counterexample is a consistent story in which the premises of an argument are true and the conclusion is false. Counterexamples can be used to prove that arguments are deductively invalid.

( Cleese and Chapman 1980 ) . ↩︎

2 Logic and the Study of Arguments

If we want to study how we ought to reason (normative) we should start by looking at the primary way that we do reason (descriptive): through the use of arguments. In order to develop a theory of good reasoning, we will start with an account of what an argument is and then proceed to talk about what constitutes a “good” argument.

I. Arguments

Arguments are a set of statements (premises and conclusion).
The premises provide evidence, reasons, and grounds for the conclusion.
The conclusion is what is being argued for.
An argument attempts to draw some logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
And in doing so, the argument expresses an inference: a process of reasoning from the truth of the premises to the truth of the conclusion.

Example : The world will end on August 6, 2045. I know this because my dad told me so and my dad is smart.

In this instance, the conclusion is the first sentence (“The world will end…”); the premises (however dubious) are revealed in the second sentence (“I know this because…”).

II. Statements

Conclusions and premises are articulated in the form of statements . Statements are sentences that can be determined to possess or lack truth. Some examples of true-or-false statements can be found below. (Notice that while some statements are categorically true or false, others may or may not be true depending on when they are made or who is making them.)

Examples of sentences that are statements:

It is below 40°F outside.
Oklahoma is north of Texas.
The Denver Broncos will make it to the Super Bowl.
Russell Westbrook is the best point guard in the league.
I like broccoli.
I shouldn’t eat French fries.
Time travel is possible.
If time travel is possible, then you can be your own father or mother.

However, there are many sentences that cannot so easily be determined to be true or false. For this reason, these sentences identified below are not considered statements.

Questions: “What time is it?”
Commands: “Do your homework.”
Requests: “Please clean the kitchen.”
Proposals: “Let’s go to the museum tomorrow.”

Question: Why are arguments only made up of statements?

First, we only believe statements . It doesn’t make sense to talk about believing questions, commands, requests or proposals. Contrast sentences on the left that are not statements with sentences on the right that are statements:

It would be non-sensical to say that we believe the non-statements (e.g. “I believe what time is it?”). But it makes perfect sense to say that we believe the statements (e.g. “I believe the time is 11 a.m.”). If conclusions are the statements being argued for, then they are also ideas we are being persuaded to believe. Therefore, only statements can be conclusions.

Second, only statements can provide reasons to believe.

Q: Why should I believe that it is 11:00 a.m.? A: Because the clock says it is 11a.m.
Q: Why should I believe that we are going to the museum tomorrow? A: Because today we are making plans to go.

Sentences that cannot be true or false cannot provide reasons to believe. So, if premises are meant to provide reasons to believe, then only statements can be premises.

III. Representing Arguments

As we concern ourselves with arguments, we will want to represent our arguments in some way, indicating which statements are the premises and which statement is the conclusion. We shall represent arguments in two ways. For both ways, we will number the premises.

In order to identify the conclusion, we will either label the conclusion with a (c) or (conclusion). Or we will mark the conclusion with the ∴ symbol

Example Argument:

There will be a war in the next year. I know this because there has been a massive buildup in weapons. And every time there is a massive buildup in weapons, there is a war. My guru said the world will end on August 6, 2045.

There has been a massive buildup in weapons.
Every time there has been a massive buildup in weapons, there is a war.

∴ There will be a war in the next year.

Of course, arguments do not come labeled as such. And so we must be able to look at a passage and identify whether the passage contains an argument and if it does, we should also be identify which statements are the premises and which statement is the conclusion. This is harder than you might think!

There is no argument here. There is no statement being argued for. There are no statements being used as reasons to believe. This is simply a report of information.

The following are also not arguments:

Advice: Be good to your friends; your friends will be good to you.

Warnings: No lifeguard on duty. Be careful.

Associated claims: Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to the dark side.

When you have an argument, the passage will express some process of reasoning. There will be statements presented that serve to help the speaker building a case for the conclusion.

IV. How to L ook for A rguments [1]

How do we identify arguments in real life? There are no easy, mechanical rules, and we usually have to rely on the context in order to determine which are the premises and the conclusions. But sometimes the job can be made easier by the presence of certain premise or conclusion indicators. For example, if a person makes a statement, and then adds “this is because …,” then it is quite likely that the first statement is presented as a conclusion, supported by the statements that come afterward. Other words in English that might be used to indicate the premises to follow include:

firstly, secondly, …
for, as, after all
assuming that, in view of the fact that
follows from, as shown / indicated by
may be inferred / deduced / derived from

Of course whether such words are used to indicate premises or not depends on the context. For example, “since” has a very different function in a statement like “I have been here since noon,” unlike “X is an even number since X is divisible by 4.” In the first instance (“since noon”) “since” means “from.” In the second instance, “since” means “because.”

Conclusions, on the other hand, are often preceded by words like:

therefore, so, it follows that
hence, consequently
suggests / proves / demonstrates that
entails, implies

Here are some examples of passages that do not contain arguments.

1. When people sweat a lot they tend to drink more water. [Just a single statement, not enough to make an argument.]

2. Once upon a time there was a prince and a princess. They lived happily together and one day they decided to have a baby. But the baby grew up to be a nasty and cruel person and they regret it very much. [A chronological description of facts composed of statements but no premise or conclusion.]

3. Can you come to the meeting tomorrow? [A question that does not contain an argument.]

Do these passages contain arguments? If so, what are their conclusions?

Cutting the interest rate will have no effect on the stock market this time around, as people have been expecting a rate cut all along. This factor has already been reflected in the market.
So it is raining heavily and this building might collapse. But I don’t really care.
Virgin would then dominate the rail system. Is that something the government should worry about? Not necessarily. The industry is regulated, and one powerful company might at least offer a more coherent schedule of services than the present arrangement has produced. The reason the industry was broken up into more than 100 companies at privatization was not operational, but political: the Conservative government thought it would thus be harder to renationalize (The Economist 12/16/2000).
Bill will pay the ransom. After all, he loves his wife and children and would do everything to save them.
All of Russia’s problems of human rights and democracy come back to three things: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. None works as well as it should. Parliament passes laws in a hurry, and has neither the ability nor the will to call high officials to account. State officials abuse human rights (either on their own, or on orders from on high) and work with remarkable slowness and disorganization. The courts almost completely fail in their role as the ultimate safeguard of freedom and order (The Economist 11/25/2000).
Most mornings, Park Chang Woo arrives at a train station in central Seoul, South Korea’s capital. But he is not commuter. He is unemployed and goes there to kill time. Around him, dozens of jobless people pass their days drinking soju, a local version of vodka. For the moment, middle-aged Mr. Park would rather read a newspaper. He used to be a bricklayer for a small construction company in Pusan, a southern port city. But three years ago the country’s financial crisis cost him that job, so he came to Seoul, leaving his wife and two children behind. Still looking for work, he has little hope of going home any time soon (The Economist 11/25/2000).
For a long time, astronomers suspected that Europa, one of Jupiter’s many moons, might harbour a watery ocean beneath its ice-covered surface. They were right. Now the technique used earlier this year to demonstrate the existence of the Europan ocean has been employed to detect an ocean on another Jovian satellite, Ganymede, according to work announced at the recent American Geo-physical Union meeting in San Francisco (The Economist 12/16/2000).
There are no hard numbers, but the evidence from Asia’s expatriate community is unequivocal. Three years after its handover from Britain to China, Hong Kong is unlearning English. The city’s gweilos (Cantonese for “ghost men”) must go to ever greater lengths to catch the oldest taxi driver available to maximize their chances of comprehension. Hotel managers are complaining that they can no longer find enough English-speakers to act as receptionists. Departing tourists, polled at the airport, voice growing frustration at not being understood (The Economist 1/20/2001).

V. Evaluating Arguments

Q: What does it mean for an argument to be good? What are the different ways in which arguments can be good? Good arguments:

Are persuasive.
Have premises that provide good evidence for the conclusion.
Contain premises that are true.
Reach a true conclusion.
Provide the audience good reasons for accepting the conclusion.

The focus of logic is primarily about one type of goodness: The logical relationship between premises and conclusion.

An argument is good in this sense if the premises provide good evidence for the conclusion. But what does it mean for premises to provide good evidence? We need some new concepts to capture this idea of premises providing good logical support. In order to do so, we will first need to distinguish between two types of argument.

VI. Two Types of Arguments

The two main types of arguments are called deductive and inductive arguments. We differentiate them in terms of the type of support that the premises are meant to provide for the conclusion.

Deductive Arguments are arguments in which the premises are meant to provide conclusive logical support for the conclusion.

1. All humans are mortal

2. Socrates is a human.

∴ Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

1. No student in this class will fail.

2. Mary is a student in this class.

∴ Therefore, Mary will not fail.

1. A intersects lines B and C.

2. Lines A and B form a 90-degree angle

3. Lines A and C form a 90-degree angle.

∴ B and C are parallel lines.

Inductive arguments are, by their very nature, risky arguments.

Arguments in which premises provide probable support for the conclusion.

Statistical Examples:

1. Ten percent of all customers in this restaurant order soda.

2. John is a customer.

∴ John will not order Soda..

1. Some students work on campus.

2. Bill is a student.

∴ Bill works on campus.

1. Vegas has the Carolina Panthers as a six-point favorite for the super bowl.

∴ Carolina will win the Super Bowl.

VII. Good Deductive Arguments

The First Type of Goodness: Premises play their function – they provide conclusive logical support.

Deductive and inductive arguments have different aims. Deductive argument attempt to provide conclusive support or reasons; inductive argument attempt to provide probable reasons or support. So we must evaluate these two types of arguments.

Deductive arguments attempt to be valid.

To put validity in another way: if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

It is very important to note that validity has nothing to do with whether or not the premises are, in fact, true and whether or not the conclusion is in fact true; it merely has to do with a certain conditional claim. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

Q: What does this mean?

The validity of an argument does not depend upon the actual world. Rather, it depends upon the world described by the premises.
First, consider the world described by the premises. In this world, is it logically possible for the conclusion to be false? That is, can you even imagine a world in which the conclusion is false?

Reflection Questions:

If you cannot, then why not?
If you can, then provide an example of a valid argument.

You should convince yourself that validity is not just about the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion. Rather, validity only has to do with a certain logical relationship between the truth of the premise and the truth of the conclusion. So the only possible combination that is ruled out by a valid argument is a set of true premises and false conclusion.

Let’s go back to example #1. Here are the premises:

1. All humans are mortal.

If both of these premises are true, then every human that we find must be a mortal. And this means, that it must be the case that if Socrates is a human, that Socrates is mortal.

Reflection Questions about Invalid Arguments:

Can you have an invalid argument with a true premise?
Can you have an invalid argument with true premises and a true conclusion?

The s econd type of goodness for deductive arguments: The premises provide us the right reasons to accept the conclusion.

Soundness V ersus V alidity:

Our original argument is a sound one:

∴ Socrates is mortal.

Question: Can a sound argument have a false conclusion?

VIII. From Deductive Arguments to Inductive Arguments

Question: What happens if we mix around the premises and conclusion?

2. Socrates is mortal.

∴ Socrates is a human.

1. Socrates is mortal

∴ All humans are mortal.

Are these valid deductive arguments?

NO, but they are common inductive arguments.

Other examples :

Suppose that there are two opaque glass jars with different color marbles in them.

1. All the marbles in jar #1 are blue.

2. This marble is blue.

∴ This marble came from jar #1.

1. This marble came from jar #2.

2. This marble is red.

∴ All the marbles in jar #2 are red.

While this is a very risky argument, what if we drew 100 marbles from jar #2 and found that they were all red? Would this affect the second argument’s validity?

IX. Inductive Arguments:

The aim of an inductive argument is different from the aim of deductive argument because the type of reasons we are trying to provide are different. Therefore, the function of the premises is different in deductive and inductive arguments. And again, we can split up goodness into two types when considering inductive arguments:

The premises provide the right logical support.
The premises provide the right type of reason.

Logical S upport:

Remember that for inductive arguments, the premises are intended to provide probable support for the conclusion. Thus, we shall begin by discussing a fairly rough, coarse-grained way of talking about probable support by introducing the notions of strong and weak inductive arguments.

A strong inductive argument:

The vast majority of Europeans speak at least two languages.
Sam is a European.

∴ Sam speaks two languages.

Weak inductive argument:

This quarter is a fair coin.

∴ Therefore, the next coin flip will land heads.

At least one dog in this town has rabies.
Fido is a dog that lives in this town.

∴ Fido has rabies.

The R ight T ype of R easons. As we noted above, the right type of reasons are true statements. So what happens when we get an inductive argument that is good in the first sense (right type of logical support) and good in the second sense (the right type of reasons)? Corresponding to the notion of soundness for deductive arguments, we call inductive arguments that are good in both senses cogent arguments.

With which of the following types of premises and conclusions can you have a strong inductive argument?
With which of the following types of premises and conclusions can you have a cogent inductive argument?

X. Steps for Evaluating Arguments:

Read a passage and assess whether or not it contains an argument.
If it does contain an argument, then identify the conclusion and premises.
If yes, then assess it for soundness.
If not, then treat it as an inductive argument (step 3).
If the inductive argument is strong, then is it cogent?

XI. Evaluating Real – World Arguments

An important part of evaluating arguments is not to represent the arguments of others in a deliberately weak way.

For example, suppose that I state the following:

All humans are mortal, so Socrates is mortal.

Is this valid? Not as it stands. But clearly, I believe that Socrates is a human being. Or I thought that was assumed in the conversation. That premise was clearly an implicit one.

So one of the things we can do in the evaluation of argument is to take an argument as it is stated, and represent it in a way such that it is a valid deductive argument or a strong inductive one. In doing so, we are making explicit what one would have to assume to provide a good argument (in the sense that the premises provide good – conclusive or probable – reason to accept the conclusion).

The teacher’s policy on extra credit was unfair because Sally was the only person to have a chance at receiving extra credit.

Sally was the only person to have a chance at receiving extra credit.
The teacher’s policy on extra credit is fair only if everyone gets a chance to receive extra credit.

Therefore, the teacher’s policy on extra credit was unfair.

Valid argument

Sally didn’t train very hard so she didn’t win the race.

Sally didn’t train very hard.
If you don’t train hard, you won’t win the race.

Therefore, Sally didn’t win the race.

Strong (not valid):

If you won the race, you trained hard.
Those who don’t train hard are likely not to win.

Therefore, Sally didn’t win.

Ordinary workers receive worker’s compensation benefits if they suffer an on-the-job injury. However, universities have no obligations to pay similar compensation to student athletes if they are hurt while playing sports. So, universities are not doing what they should.

Ordinary workers receive worker’s compensation benefits if they suffer an on-the-job injury that prevents them working.
Student athletes are just like ordinary workers except that their job is to play sports.
So if student athletes are injured while playing sports, they should also be provided worker’s compensation benefits.
Universities have no obligations to provide injured student athletes compensation.

Therefore, universities are not doing what they should.

Deductively valid argument

If Obama couldn’t implement a single-payer healthcare system in his first term as president, then the next president will not be able to implement a single-payer healthcare system.

Obama couldn’t implement a single-payer healthcare system.
In Obama’s first term as president, both the House and Senate were under Democratic control.
The next president will either be dealing with the Republican-controlled house and senate or at best, a split legislature.
Obama’s first term as president will be much easier than the next president’s term in terms of passing legislation.

Therefore, the next president will not be able to implement a single-payer healthcare system.

Strong inductive argument

Sam is weaker than John. Sam is slower than John. So Sam’s time on the obstacle will be slower than John’s.

Sam is weaker than John.
Sam is slower than John.
A person’s strength and speed inversely correlate with their time on the obstacle course.

Therefore, Sam’s time will be slower than John’s.

XII. Diagramming Arguments

All the arguments we’ve dealt with – except for the last two – have been fairly simple in that the premises always provided direct support for the conclusion. But in many arguments, such as the last one, there are often arguments within arguments.

Obama example :

The next president will either be dealing with the Republican controlled house and senate or at best, a split legislature.

∴ The next president will not be able to implement a single-payer healthcare system.

It’s clear that premises #2 and #3 are used in support of #4. And #1 in combination with #4 provides support for the conclusion.

When we diagram arguments, the aim is to represent the logical relationships between premises and conclusion. More specifically, we want to identify what each premise supports and how.

This represents that 2+3 together provide support for 4

This represents that 4+1 together provide support for 5

When we say that 2+3 together or 4+1 together support some statement, we mean that the logical support of these statements are dependent upon each other. Without the other, these statements would not provide evidence for the conclusion. In order to identify when statements are dependent upon one another, we simply underline the set that are logically dependent upon one another for their evidential support. Every argument has a single conclusion, which the premises support; therefore, every argument diagram should point to the conclusion (c).

Sam Example:

Sam is less flexible than John.
A person’s strength and flexibility inversely correlate with their time on the obstacle course.

∴ Therefore, Sam’s time will be slower than John’s.

In some cases, different sets of premises provide evidence for the conclusion independently of one another. In the argument above, there are two logically independent arguments for the conclusion that Sam’s time will be slower than John’s. That Sam is weaker than John and that being weaker correlates with a slower time provide evidence for the conclusion that Sam will be slower than John. Completely independent of this argument is the fact that Sam is less flexible and that being less flexible corresponds with a slower time. The diagram above represent these logical relations by showing that #1 and #3 dependently provide support for #4. Independent of that argument, #2 and #3 also dependently provide support for #4. Therefore, there are two logically independent sets of premises that provide support for the conclusion.

Try diagramming the following argument for yourself. The structure of the argument has been provided below:

All humans are mortal
Socrates is human
So Socrates is mortal.
If you feed a mortal person poison, he will die.

∴ Therefore, Socrates has been fed poison, so he will die.

This section is taken from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ and is in use under creative commons license. Some modifications have been made to the original content. ↵

Share This Book

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

(10 reviews)

Matthew Van Cleave, Lansing Community College

Publisher: Matthew J. Van Cleave

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by "yusef" Alexander Hayes, Professor, North Shore Community College on 6/9/21

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book is accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

While many modern examples are used, and they are helpful, they are not necessarily needed. The usefulness of logical principles and skills have proved themselves, and this text presents them clearly with many examples.

Clarity rating: 5

It is obvious that the author cares about their subject, audience, and students. The text is comprehensible and interesting.

Consistency rating: 5

The format is easy to understand and is consistent in framing.

Modularity rating: 5

This text would be easy to adapt.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization is excellent, my one suggestion would be a concluding chapter.

Interface rating: 5

I accessed the PDF version and it would be easy to work with.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The writing is excellent.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This is not an offensive text.

Reviewed by Susan Rottmann, Part-time Lecturer, University of Southern Maine on 3/2/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

I reviewed this book for a course titled "Creative and Critical Inquiry into Modern Life." It won't meet all my needs for that course, but I haven't yet found a book that would. I wanted to review this one because it states in the preface that it fits better for a general critical thinking course than for a true logic course. I'm not sure that I'd agree. I have been using Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," and I think that book is a better introduction to critical thinking for non-philosophy majors. However, the latter is not open source so I will figure out how to get by without it in the future. Overall, the book seems comprehensive if the subject is logic. The index is on the short-side, but fine. However, one issue for me is that there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which is pretty annoying if you want to locate particular sections.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I didn't find any errors. In general the book uses great examples. However, they are very much based in the American context, not for an international student audience. Some effort to broaden the chosen examples would make the book more widely applicable.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

I think the book will remain relevant because of the nature of the material that it addresses, however there will be a need to modify the examples in future editions and as the social and political context changes.

Clarity rating: 3

The text is lucid, but I think it would be difficult for introductory-level students who are not philosophy majors. For example, in Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," the sub-headings are very accessible, such as "Experts cannot rescue us, despite what they say" or "wishful thinking: perhaps the biggest single speed bump on the road to critical thinking." By contrast, Van Cleave's "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking" has more subheadings like this: "Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form" or "Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives." If students are prepared very well for the subject, it would work fine, but for students who are newly being introduced to critical thinking, it is rather technical.

It seems to be very consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 4

The book is divided into 4 chapters, each having many sub-chapters. In that sense, it is readily divisible and modular. However, as noted above, there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which would make assigning certain parts rather frustrating. Also, I'm not sure why the book is only four chapter and has so many subheadings (for instance 17 in Chapter 2) and a length of 242 pages. Wouldn't it make more sense to break up the book into shorter chapters? I think this would make it easier to read and to assign in specific blocks to students.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The organization of the book is fine overall, although I think adding page numbers to the table of contents and breaking it up into more separate chapters would help it to be more easily navigable.

Interface rating: 4

The book is very simply presented. In my opinion it is actually too simple. There are few boxes or diagrams that highlight and explain important points.

The text seems fine grammatically. I didn't notice any errors.

The book is written with an American audience in mind, but I did not notice culturally insensitive or offensive parts.

Overall, this book is not for my course, but I think it could work well in a philosophy course.

Reviewed by Daniel Lee, Assistant Professor of Economics and Leadership, Sweet Briar College on 11/11/19

This textbook is not particularly comprehensive (4 chapters long), but I view that as a benefit. In fact, I recommend it for use outside of traditional logic classes, but rather interdisciplinary classes that evaluate argument read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as accurate, error-free, and unbiased

The book is broadly relevant and up-to-date, with a few stray temporal references (sydney olympics, particular presidencies). I don't view these time-dated examples as problematic as the logical underpinnings are still there and easily assessed

Clarity rating: 4

My only pushback on clarity is I didn't find the distinction between argument and explanation particularly helpful/useful/easy to follow. However, this experience may have been unique to my class.

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as internally consistent

I found this text quite modular, and was easily able to integrate other texts into my lessons and disregard certain chapters or sub-sections

The book had a logical and consistent structure, but to the extent that there are only 4 chapters, there isn't much scope for alternative approaches here

No problems with the book's interface

The text is grammatically sound

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

Perhaps the text could have been more universal in its approach. While I didn't find the book insensitive per-se, logic can be tricky here because the point is to evaluate meaningful (non-trivial) arguments, but any argument with that sense of gravity can also be traumatic to students (abortion, death penalty, etc)

No additional comments

Reviewed by Lisa N. Thomas-Smith, Graduate Part-time Instructor, CU Boulder on 7/1/19

The text covers all the relevant technical aspects of introductory logic and critical thinking, and covers them well. A separate glossary would be quite helpful to students. However, the terms are clearly and thoroughly explained within the text,... read more

The content is excellent. The text is thorough and accurate with no errors that I could discern. The terminology and exercises cover the material nicely and without bias.

The text should easily stand the test of time. The exercises are excellent and would be very helpful for students to internalize correct critical thinking practices. Because of the logical arrangement of the text and the many sub-sections, additional material should be very easy to add.

The text is extremely clearly and simply written. I anticipate that a diligent student could learn all of the material in the text with little additional instruction. The examples are relevant and easy to follow.

The text did not confuse terms or use inconsistent terminology, which is very important in a logic text. The discipline often uses multiple terms for the same concept, but this text avoids that trap nicely.

The text is fairly easily divisible. Since there are only four chapters, those chapters include large blocks of information. However, the chapters themselves are very well delineated and could be easily broken up so that parts could be left out or covered in a different order from the text.

The flow of the text is excellent. All of the information is handled solidly in an order that allows the student to build on the information previously covered.

The PDF Table of Contents does not include links or page numbers which would be very helpful for navigation. Other than that, the text was very easy to navigate. All the images, charts, and graphs were very clear

I found no grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The text including examples and exercises did not seem to be offensive or insensitive in any specific way. However, the examples included references to black and white people, but few others. Also, the text is very American specific with many examples from and for an American audience. More diversity, especially in the examples, would be appropriate and appreciated.

Reviewed by Leslie Aarons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, CUNY LaGuardia Community College on 5/16/19

This is an excellent introductory (first-year) Logic and Critical Thinking textbook. The book covers the important elementary information, clearly discussing such things as the purpose and basic structure of an argument; the difference between an argument and an explanation; validity; soundness; and the distinctions between an inductive and a deductive argument in accessible terms in the first chapter. It also does a good job introducing and discussing informal fallacies (Chapter 4). The incorporation of opportunities to evaluate real-world arguments is also very effective. Chapter 2 also covers a number of formal methods of evaluating arguments, such as Venn Diagrams and Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives, but to my mind, it is much more thorough in its treatment of Informal Logic and Critical Thinking skills, than it is of formal logic. I also appreciated that Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index, but there is no glossary; which I personally do not find detracts from the book's comprehensiveness.

Overall, Van Cleave's book is error-free and unbiased. The language used is accessible and engaging. There were no glaring inaccuracies that I was able to detect.

Van Cleave's Textbook uses relevant, contemporary content that will stand the test of time, at least for the next few years. Although some examples use certain subjects like former President Obama, it does so in a useful manner that inspires the use of critical thinking skills. There are an abundance of examples that inspire students to look at issues from many different political viewpoints, challenging students to practice evaluating arguments, and identifying fallacies. Many of these exercises encourage students to critique issues, and recognize their own inherent reader-biases and challenge their own beliefs--hallmarks of critical thinking.

As mentioned previously, the author has an accessible style that makes the content relatively easy to read and engaging. He also does a suitable job explaining jargon/technical language that is introduced in the textbook.

Van Cleave uses terminology consistently and the chapters flow well. The textbook orients the reader by offering effective introductions to new material, step-by-step explanations of the material, as well as offering clear summaries of each lesson.

This textbook's modularity is really quite good. Its language and structure are not overly convoluted or too-lengthy, making it convenient for individual instructors to adapt the materials to suit their methodological preferences.

The topics in the textbook are presented in a logical and clear fashion. The structure of the chapters are such that it is not necessary to have to follow the chapters in their sequential order, and coverage of material can be adapted to individual instructor's preferences.

The textbook is free of any problematic interface issues. Topics, sections and specific content are accessible and easy to navigate. Overall it is user-friendly.

I did not find any significant grammatical issues with the textbook.

The textbook is not culturally insensitive, making use of a diversity of inclusive examples. Materials are especially effective for first-year critical thinking/logic students.

I intend to adopt Van Cleave's textbook for a Critical Thinking class I am teaching at the Community College level. I believe that it will help me facilitate student-learning, and will be a good resource to build additional classroom activities from the materials it provides.

Reviewed by Jennie Harrop, Chair, Department of Professional Studies, George Fox University on 3/27/18

While the book is admirably comprehensive, its extensive details within a few short chapters may feel overwhelming to students. The author tackles an impressive breadth of concepts in Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4, which leads to 50-plus-page chapters that are dense with statistical analyses and critical vocabulary. These topics are likely better broached in manageable snippets rather than hefty single chapters.

The ideas addressed in Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking are accurate but at times notably political. While politics are effectively used to exemplify key concepts, some students may be distracted by distinct political leanings.

The terms and definitions included are relevant, but the examples are specific to the current political, cultural, and social climates, which could make the materials seem dated in a few years without intentional and consistent updates.

While the reasoning is accurate, the author tends to complicate rather than simplify -- perhaps in an effort to cover a spectrum of related concepts. Beginning readers are likely to be overwhelmed and under-encouraged by his approach.

Consistency rating: 3

The four chapters are somewhat consistent in their play of definition, explanation, and example, but the structure of each chapter varies according to the concepts covered. In the third chapter, for example, key ideas are divided into sub-topics numbering from 3.1 to 3.10. In the fourth chapter, the sub-divisions are further divided into sub-sections numbered 4.1.1-4.1.5, 4.2.1-4.2.2, and 4.3.1 to 4.3.6. Readers who are working quickly to master new concepts may find themselves mired in similarly numbered subheadings, longing for a grounded concepts on which to hinge other key principles.

Modularity rating: 3

The book's four chapters make it mostly self-referential. The author would do well to beak this text down into additional subsections, easing readers' accessibility.

The content of the book flows logically and well, but the information needs to be better sub-divided within each larger chapter, easing the student experience.

The book's interface is effective, allowing readers to move from one section to the next with a single click. Additional sub-sections would ease this interplay even further.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Some minor errors throughout.

For the most part, the book is culturally neutral, avoiding direct cultural references in an effort to remain relevant.

Reviewed by Yoichi Ishida, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Ohio University on 2/1/18

This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking. Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic, this textbook does not cover suppositional arguments, such as conditional proof and reductio ad absurdum. But other standard argument forms are covered. Chapter 3 covers inductive logic, and here this textbook introduces probability and its relationship with cognitive biases, which are rarely discussed in other textbooks. Chapter 4 introduces common informal fallacies. The answers to all the exercises are given at the end. However, the last set of exercises is in Chapter 3, Section 5. There are no exercises in the rest of the chapter. Chapter 4 has no exercises either. There is index, but no glossary.

The textbook is accurate.

The content of this textbook will not become obsolete soon.

The textbook is written clearly.

The textbook is internally consistent.

The textbook is fairly modular. For example, Chapter 3, together with a few sections from Chapter 1, can be used as a short introduction to inductive logic.

The textbook is well-organized.

There are no interface issues.

I did not find any grammatical errors.

This textbook is relevant to a first semester logic or critical thinking course.

Reviewed by Payal Doctor, Associate Professro, LaGuardia Community College on 2/1/18

This text is a beginner textbook for arguments and propositional logic. It covers the basics of identifying arguments, building arguments, and using basic logic to construct propositions and arguments. It is quite comprehensive for a beginner book, but seems to be a good text for a course that needs a foundation for arguments. There are exercises on creating truth tables and proofs, so it could work as a logic primer in short sessions or with the addition of other course content.

The books is accurate in the information it presents. It does not contain errors and is unbiased. It covers the essential vocabulary clearly and givens ample examples and exercises to ensure the student understands the concepts

The content of the book is up to date and can be easily updated. Some examples are very current for analyzing the argument structure in a speech, but for this sort of text understandable examples are important and the author uses good examples.

The book is clear and easy to read. In particular, this is a good text for community college students who often have difficulty with reading comprehension. The language is straightforward and concepts are well explained.

The book is consistent in terminology, formatting, and examples. It flows well from one topic to the next, but it is also possible to jump around the text without loosing the voice of the text.

The books is broken down into sub units that make it easy to assign short blocks of content at a time. Later in the text, it does refer to a few concepts that appear early in that text, but these are all basic concepts that must be used to create a clear and understandable text. No sections are too long and each section stays on topic and relates the topic to those that have come before when necessary.

The flow of the text is logical and clear. It begins with the basic building blocks of arguments, and practice identifying more and more complex arguments is offered. Each chapter builds up from the previous chapter in introducing propositional logic, truth tables, and logical arguments. A select number of fallacies are presented at the end of the text, but these are related to topics that were presented before, so it makes sense to have these last.

The text is free if interface issues. I used the PDF and it worked fine on various devices without loosing formatting.

1. The book contains no grammatical errors.

The text is culturally sensitive, but examples used are a bit odd and may be objectionable to some students. For instance, President Obama's speech on Syria is used to evaluate an extended argument. This is an excellent example and it is explained well, but some who disagree with Obama's policies may have trouble moving beyond their own politics. However, other examples look at issues from all political viewpoints and ask students to evaluate the argument, fallacy, etc. and work towards looking past their own beliefs. Overall this book does use a variety of examples that most students can understand and evaluate.

My favorite part of this book is that it seems to be written for community college students. My students have trouble understanding readings in the New York Times, so it is nice to see a logic and critical thinking text use real language that students can understand and follow without the constant need of a dictionary.

Reviewed by Rebecca Owen, Adjunct Professor, Writing, Chemeketa Community College on 6/20/17

This textbook is quite thorough--there are conversational explanations of argument structure and logic. I think students will be happy with the conversational style this author employs. Also, there are many examples and exercises using current events, funny scenarios, or other interesting ways to evaluate argument structure and validity. The third section, which deals with logical fallacies, is very clear and comprehensive. My only critique of the material included in the book is that the middle section may be a bit dense and math-oriented for learners who appreciate the more informal, informative style of the first and third section. Also, the book ends rather abruptly--it moves from a description of a logical fallacy to the answers for the exercises earlier in the text.

The content is very reader-friendly, and the author writes with authority and clarity throughout the text. There are a few surface-level typos (Starbuck's instead of Starbucks, etc.). None of these small errors detract from the quality of the content, though.

One thing I really liked about this text was the author's wide variety of examples. To demonstrate different facets of logic, he used examples from current media, movies, literature, and many other concepts that students would recognize from their daily lives. The exercises in this text also included these types of pop-culture references, and I think students will enjoy the familiarity--as well as being able to see the logical structures behind these types of references. I don't think the text will need to be updated to reflect new instances and occurrences; the author did a fine job at picking examples that are relatively timeless. As far as the subject matter itself, I don't think it will become obsolete any time soon.

The author writes in a very conversational, easy-to-read manner. The examples used are quite helpful. The third section on logical fallacies is quite easy to read, follow, and understand. A student in an argument writing class could benefit from this section of the book. The middle section is less clear, though. A student learning about the basics of logic might have a hard time digesting all of the information contained in chapter two. This material might be better in two separate chapters. I think the author loses the balance of a conversational, helpful tone and focuses too heavily on equations.

Consistency rating: 4

Terminology in this book is quite consistent--the key words are highlighted in bold. Chapters 1 and 3 follow a similar organizational pattern, but chapter 2 is where the material becomes more dense and equation-heavy. I also would have liked a closing passage--something to indicate to the reader that we've reached the end of the chapter as well as the book.

I liked the overall structure of this book. If I'm teaching an argumentative writing class, I could easily point the students to the chapters where they can identify and practice identifying fallacies, for instance. The opening chapter is clear in defining the necessary terms, and it gives the students an understanding of the toolbox available to them in assessing and evaluating arguments. Even though I found the middle section to be dense, smaller portions could be assigned.

The author does a fine job connecting each defined term to the next. He provides examples of how each defined term works in a sentence or in an argument, and then he provides practice activities for students to try. The answers for each question are listed in the final pages of the book. The middle section feels like the heaviest part of the whole book--it would take the longest time for a student to digest if assigned the whole chapter. Even though this middle section is a bit heavy, it does fit the overall structure and flow of the book. New material builds on previous chapters and sub-chapters. It ends abruptly--I didn't realize that it had ended, and all of a sudden I found myself in the answer section for those earlier exercises.

The simple layout is quite helpful! There is nothing distracting, image-wise, in this text. The table of contents is clearly arranged, and each topic is easy to find.

Tiny edits could be made (Starbuck's/Starbucks, for one). Otherwise, it is free of distracting grammatical errors.

This text is quite culturally relevant. For instance, there is one example that mentions the rumors of Barack Obama's birthplace as somewhere other than the United States. This example is used to explain how to analyze an argument for validity. The more "sensational" examples (like the Obama one above) are helpful in showing argument structure, and they can also help students see how rumors like this might gain traction--as well as help to show students how to debunk them with their newfound understanding of argument and logic.

The writing style is excellent for the subject matter, especially in the third section explaining logical fallacies. Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this text!

Reviewed by Laurel Panser, Instructor, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

This is a review of Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, an open source book version 1.4 by Matthew Van Cleave. The comparison book used was Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic 12th Edition published by Cengage as well as... read more

Competing with Hurley is difficult with respect to comprehensiveness. For example, Van Cleave’s book is comprehensive to the extent that it probably covers at least two-thirds or more of what is dealt with in most introductory, one-semester logic courses. Van Cleave’s chapter 1 provides an overview of argumentation including discerning non-arguments from arguments, premises versus conclusions, deductive from inductive arguments, validity, soundness and more. Much of Van Cleave’s chapter 1 parallel’s Hurley’s chapter 1. Hurley’s chapter 3 regarding informal fallacies is comprehensive while Van Cleave’s chapter 4 on this topic is less extensive. Categorical propositions are a topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 4 and 5 provide more instruction on this, however. Propositional logic is another topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 6 and 7 provide more information on this, though. Van Cleave did discuss messy issues of language meaning briefly in his chapter 1; that is the topic of Hurley’s chapter 2.

Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index. A glossary was not included.

Reviews of open source textbooks typically include criteria besides comprehensiveness. These include comments on accuracy of the information, whether the book will become obsolete soon, jargon-free clarity to the extent that is possible, organization, navigation ease, freedom from grammar errors and cultural relevance; Van Cleave’s book is fine in all of these areas. Further criteria for open source books includes modularity and consistency of terminology. Modularity is defined as including blocks of learning material that are easy to assign to students. Hurley’s book has a greater degree of modularity than Van Cleave’s textbook. The prose Van Cleave used is consistent.

Van Cleave’s book will not become obsolete soon.

Van Cleave’s book has accessible prose.

Van Cleave used terminology consistently.

Van Cleave’s book has a reasonable degree of modularity.

Van Cleave’s book is organized. The structure and flow of his book is fine.

Problems with navigation are not present.

Grammar problems were not present.

Van Cleave’s book is culturally relevant.

Van Cleave’s book is appropriate for some first semester logic courses.

Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments

1.1 What is an argument?
1.2 Identifying arguments
1.3 Arguments vs. explanations
1.4 More complex argument structures
1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form
1.6 Validity
1.7 Soundness
1.8 Deductive vs. inductive arguments
1.9 Arguments with missing premises
1.10 Assuring, guarding, and discounting
1.11 Evaluative language
1.12 Evaluating a real-life argument

Chapter 2: Formal methods of evaluating arguments

2.1 What is a formal method of evaluation and why do we need them?
2.2 Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives
2.3 Negation and disjunction
2.4 Using parentheses to translate complex sentences
2.5 “Not both” and “neither nor”
2.6 The truth table test of validity
2.7 Conditionals
2.8 “Unless”
2.9 Material equivalence
2.10 Tautologies, contradictions, and contingent statements
2.11 Proofs and the 8 valid forms of inference
2.12 How to construct proofs
2.13 Short review of propositional logic
2.14 Categorical logic
2.15 The Venn test of validity for immediate categorical inferences
2.16 Universal statements and existential commitment
2.17 Venn validity for categorical syllogisms

Chapter 3: Evaluating inductive arguments and probabilistic and statistical fallacies

3.1 Inductive arguments and statistical generalizations
3.2 Inference to the best explanation and the seven explanatory virtues
3.3 Analogical arguments
3.4 Causal arguments
3.5 Probability
3.6 The conjunction fallacy
3.7 The base rate fallacy
3.8 The small numbers fallacy
3.9 Regression to the mean fallacy
3.10 Gambler's fallacy

Chapter 4: Informal fallacies

4.1 Formal vs. informal fallacies
4.1.1 Composition fallacy
4.1.2 Division fallacy
4.1.3 Begging the question fallacy
4.1.4 False dichotomy
4.1.5 Equivocation
4.2 Slippery slope fallacies
4.2.1 Conceptual slippery slope
4.2.2 Causal slippery slope
4.3 Fallacies of relevance
4.3.1 Ad hominem
4.3.2 Straw man
4.3.3 Tu quoque
4.3.4 Genetic
4.3.5 Appeal to consequences
4.3.6 Appeal to authority

Answers to exercises Glossary/Index

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a “critical thinking textbook.”

About the Contributors

Matthew Van Cleave , PhD, Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, 2007. VAP at Concordia College (Moorhead), 2008-2012. Assistant Professor at Lansing Community College, 2012-2016. Professor at Lansing Community College, 2016-

Contribute to this Page

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.1: The Basics

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 223814

So far, we’ve discussed the basic ideas behind arguments or inferences. Each argument has premises which are the assumptions or the support of the argument. Each argument also has usually one, but sometimes more conclusions . The conclusion is the main point of the argument. The goal of any argument is to offer reasons for believing the conclusion. The reasons are the premises and the claim that you are supposed to accept if you agree with the argument is the conclusion.

So far so good. But there’s a lot more that we can say about arguments.

Ideally, when we’re trying to understand an argument fully—long before we decide whether or not we agree with the argument or whether or not it’s a good argument—we have a full grasp of the structure of the argument. That is, we need to know which premises go with which other premises, whether each premise is supposed to directly demonstrate the conclusion or is merely indirect support for the conclusion, etc. In short, we need a map or a diagram of the argument before we can decide whether or not it’s a good argument.

Simple arguments are called syllogisms: 2 premises and 1 conclusion and immediate inferences: 1 premise and 1 conclusion.

I like all vegetables

Carrots are a vegetable

So I like Carrots

So, there aren’t any vegetables I don’t like.

But normal arguments (arguments you’d find in a letter to the editor or in a social media post or on the radio or tv) aren’t like that—they have more premises, some of which don’t directly support the conclusion, but instead support other premises. It’s like a big complex argument that’s actually made out of smaller arguments.

So, if you want to understand how a complex argument in the real world hangs together, you need to be able to construct a map or diagram of that argument.

We’ll need to find out two things about each premise:

1. What kind of support does it offer for its conclusion? Does it support its conclusion in conjunction with other premises? Or does it instead form an argument by itself for the conclusion?

2. Does it support the main conclusion directly? Or does it instead support the conclusion indirectly by offering support for another premise, which in turn supports the main conclusion?

How do we go about actually building an Argument Map? Well, we could choose any convention at all, so we have to decide on what sorts of shapes, labels, symbols, etc. we’ll use for the sake of this course.

The first thing to note is that some people teach argument mapping going in an upwards direction—meaning that the conclusion would be on top and the premises for the conclusion would be below it. But we’re going to go a different way so that our argument maps more clearly track the usual format of an argument: the premises on top and the conclusion on bottom.

Here are some basic concepts and the associated conventional symbols and shapes:

Conjoint vs. Independent Support

We need to be able to decide (once we’ve sorted out which are premises for which conclusion) what kind of support a set of premises provide for their conclusion. It’s independent support when each premise seems like it’s an argument for the conclusion on its own. It’s conjoint support when a premise doesn’t seem to support the conclusion without the help of the other premises. A good test for conjoint support is to pretend one of the premises is false . Does this affect the inference(s) from the other premise(s) to the conclusion?

Labradors are gentle, but they aren’t very aggressive,

so they wouldn’t make good guard dogs.

This feels like independent support because each inference makes sense on its own:

Labradors are gentle,

Labradors aren’t very aggressive,

Let’s look at another:

[1] Vegetables are healthy and [2] tomatoes are vegetables, so [3] tomatoes are healthy.

Since 1 is a general principle and 2 is an instance of that general principle (or something like that), it makes sense to think that they’re conjoint. Any time you see this pattern—where one premise is a definition or general claim and another premise is a more particular claim that falls under that definition or general claim—you’ll think that those premises are likely conjoint.

The "General-Specific Pattern

When you see two premises where one premise is a general definition, a generalization, a hypothetical or conditional, or a general principle, and the other premise is a specific claim about an individual under that generalization, those are almost certain to be conjoint premises.

A motorbike is any two-wheeled motor-driven vehicle and that moped has two wheels that are driven by a motor, so...
If anyone goes to the amusement park, they’re going to be exhausted at the end of the day; and Cheri went to Six Flags today, so...
Lying is wrong, but getting out of trouble would require me to lie, so....

If we try negating 2, then the inference doesn’t make any sense:

[1] Vegetables are healthy and [2] tomatoes are not vegetables , so [3] tomatoes are healthy.

If we try negating 1, the inference falls apart again:

[1] Vegetables are unhealthy and [2] tomatoes are vegetables, so [3] tomatoes are healthy.

Let’s try one more slightly more complex conjoint support example:

Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)

[1] Gina told me the Earth is round and [2] Gina wouldn’t lie to me, and furthermore [3] Gina is an astrophysicist, so [4] the Earth is round.

Let’s try the negation test on 1:

[1] Gina told me the Earth is flat and [2] Gina wouldn’t lie to me, and furthermore [3] Gina is an astrophysicist, so [4] the Earth is round.

What??? Let’s try it on 2:

[1] Gina told me the Earth is round and [2] Gina often lies to me , and furthermore [3] Gina is an astrophysicist, so [4] the Earth is round.

What???? Let’s try it on 3:

[1] Gina told me the Earth is round and [2] Gina wouldn’t lie to me, and furthermore [3] Gina is not an astrophysicist , so [4] the Earth is round.

Well... this isn’t as incoherent as the other examples. But why mention that Gina is an astrophysicist at all if it doesn’t at least help 1 and 2 demonstrate the conclusion that the Earth is round? With the negation of 3 as part of the argument, it seems thoroughly awkward that we should be talking about Gina being or not being an astrophysicist at all. If anything, it seems to work against the inference.

What’s the lesson here? The negation test isn’t perfect, but it does almost always reveal when you’ve got a premise that seems to work together with other premises. In the Gina case, we’ve got a premise that is closely related in subject matter and so we’ve got some reason to conjoin it with 1 and 2.

Here’s how we go about mapping conjoint vs. independent support once we’ve decided what sort of support is involved.

Mapping Independent Support

Example \(\pageindex{2}\).

We use multiple arrows to signify multiple independent inferences. So, we have many premises which do not work together to demonstrate the conclusion . Each premise offers its own reason for accepting the conclusion.

Paradigm example:

(1) This test is easy.

(2) Tetsuo got an A on the test and

(3) Xochitl got an A on the test and

(4) Francisco got an A on the test.

If the other premises were not there, the argument would not fall apart. The premises don’t need each other to be true to support the conclusion.

“Given 2, 1 follows, and given 3, 1 follows, and given 4, 1 follow.”

Independent support is really like having multiple inferences. So the map above seems to tell us that there are three separate inferences that just happen to have the same conclusion.

Mapping Conjoint Support

Example \(\pageindex{3}\).

We use brackets to signify a single inference with many conjoint or mutually dependent premises . The premises work together to support the conclusion . Without the other conjoint premises, it would be unclear why one conjoint premise should be taken as a reason for accepting the conclusion.

(1) You are behaving unfairly.

(2) You’re giving more to some than to others and

(3) giving more to some than to others isn’t fair.

If any one of them is false or wasn’t there to begin with, the inference falls apart.

“Given 2, 1 doesn’t follow unless we also have 3 (and 4, 5, 6, ...).”

Deductive arguments are more often than not conjoint support. This is just a rough and ready rule, but the way standard Deductive arguments (without extra irrelevant premises) work is that the premises are all necessary for the inference to demonstrate the conclusion. So it makes sense that they would be conjoint premises.

Here’s a complete example of a problem like you might see on a quiz or exam (though they’ll usually be less complex than these, at least to start out).

Example \(\PageIndex{4}\)

(1) Government mandates for zero-emission vehicles won’t work because (2) only electric cars qualify as zero-emission vehicles, and (3) electric cars won’t sell. (4) They are too expensive, (5) their range of operation is too limited, and (6) recharging facilities are not generally available.

Adding in 3 makes the inference make sense again ( Oh, I see, electric cars won’t solve our problems ). You can do the same by taking 2 away. Wait, we’ll say, what about other zero-emission vehicles ??? Adding 2 back in makes sense of the inference.

4, 5, and 6 are independent because they don’t have much to do with one another. The inference from 4 to 3, 5 to 3, and 6 to 3 all makes sense. “They’re too expensive, so they won’t sell.” (makes sense). “Their range is limited, so they won’t sell” (makes sense). “There aren’t enough recharging facilities, so they won’t sell” (makes sense!).

Example \(\PageIndex{5}\)

We also use downward braces if there are more than one conclusion for any given inference. This is called Multiple Conclusions .

(1) The president may have her faults, but

(2) she is an outstanding leader and

(3) we should reelect her.

(4) Her foreign policy has brought about respite from violence in various war torn regions as

(5) she sent in troops to protect refugees in Rwanda and (6) she negotiated an armistice between Egypt and Israel. (7) Her economic policy has also been largely successful in that (8) a potential recession has been avoided for now. (9) She is also a great moral leader as (10) hers is a model family and (11) she demonstrates true integrity daily.

Notice how 1 isn’t actually part of the argument: it just introduces the topic but isn’t a premise or conclusion. 2 and 3 are both conclusions (notice the “and”, which often links premises to premises and conclusions to conclusion) because neither is a premise/evidence for the other and both are implied by the rest of the argument (4, 7, and 9).

Why did we go with independent support for all of the top-most premises? Try to reason through it on your own.

Terminology

Let’s introduce some new terminology so we can have a common language with which to talk about arguments:

A “ level ” or “ layer ” of an argument map is one horizontal row of a carefully-drawn argument map. Notice how the previous argument map above is drawn so that even though there’s a lot going on in the argument, we can see 3 distinct layers or horizontal rows?
A Main Conclusion is the final conclusion of the argument. It doesn’t serve as a premise/support for any other proposition in the complex argument. It’s always in the bottom-most layer
A Main Premise is one among the set of premises that directly support the main conclusion. It’s always in the layer that’s the second from the bottom.
A sub-premise is a premise in a sub-inference.
A sub-conclusion is a conclusion in a sub-inference. (Note that a sub-conclusion is always a premise itself, and that it is usually one of the main premises unless the argument gets really complex).

So here it is, the anatomy of a typical 3-layer argument diagram:

The following excerpt from Knachel’s text covers some of the same ground we just covered, but sometimes it’s helpful to see a different explanation of the same thing:

From: Knachel, Matthew, "Fundamental Methods of Logic" (2017).

Philosophy Faculty Books. 1. http://dc.uwm.edu/phil_facbooks/1

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

V. Diagramming Arguments

Before we get down to the business of evaluating arguments—of judging them valid or invalid, strong or weak—we still need to do some preliminary work. We need to develop our analytical skills to gain a deeper understanding of how arguments are constructed, how they hang together. So far, we’ve said that the premises are there to support the conclusion. But we’ve done very little in the way of analyzing the structure of arguments: we’ve just separated the premises from the conclusion. We know that the premises are supposed to support the conclusion. What we haven’t explored is the question of just how the premises in a given argument do that job—how they work together to support the conclusion, what kinds of relationships they have with one another. This is a deeper level of analysis than merely distinguishing the premises from the conclusion; it will require a mode of presentation more elaborate than a list of propositions with the bottom one separated from the others by a horizontal line. To display our understanding of the relationships among premises supporting the conclusion, we are going to depict them: we are going to draw diagrams of arguments.

Here’s how the diagrams will work. They will consist of three elements: (1) circles with numbers inside them—each of the propositions in the argument we’re diagramming will be assigned a number, so these circled numbers in the diagram will represent the propositions; (2) arrows pointed at circled numbers—these will represent relationships of support, where one or more propositions provide a reason for believing the one pointed to; and (3) horizontal brackets—propositions connected by these will be interdependent (in a sense to be specified below).

Our diagrams will always feature the circled number corresponding to the conclusion at the bottom. The premises will be above, with brackets and arrows indicating how they collectively support the conclusion and how they’re related to one another. There are a number of different relationships that premises can have to one another. We will learn how to draw diagrams of arguments by considering them in turn.

Independent Premises

Often, different premises will support a conclusion—or another premise—individually, without help from any others. When this is the case, we draw an arrow from the circled number representing that premise to the circled number representing the proposition it supports.

Consider this simple argument:

\(\require{enclose} \enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 1\kern .06em}\) Marijuana is less addictive than alcohol. In addition, \(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 2\kern .06em}\) it can be used as a medicine to treat a variety of conditions. Therefore, \(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 3\kern .06em}\) marijuana should be legal.

The last proposition is clearly the conclusion (the word ‘therefore’ is a big clue), and the first two propositions are the premises supporting it. They support the conclusion independently. The mark of independence is this: each of the premises would still provide support for the conclusion even if the other weren’t true; each, on its own, gives you a reason for believing the conclusion. In this case, then, we diagram the argument as follows:

Intermediate Premises

Some premises support their conclusions more directly than others. Premises provide more indirect support for a conclusion by providing a reason to believe another premise that supports the conclusion more directly. That is, some premises are intermediate between the conclusion and other premises.

\(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 1\kern .06em}\) Automatic weapons should be illegal. \(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 2\kern .06em}\) They can be used to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time. This is because \(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 3\kern .06em}\) all you have to do is hold down the trigger and bullets come flying out in rapid succession.

The conclusion of this argument is the first proposition, so the premises are propositions 2 and 3. Notice, though, that there’s a relationship between those two claims. The third sentence starts with the phrase ‘This is because’, indicating that it provides a reason for another claim. The other claim is proposition 2; ‘This’ refers to the claim that automatic weapons can kill large numbers of people quickly. Why should I believe that they can do that? Because all one has to do is hold down the trigger to release lots of bullets really fast. Proposition 2 provides immediate support for the conclusion (automatic weapons can kill lots of people really quickly, so we should make them illegal); proposition 3 supports the conclusion more indirectly, by giving support to proposition 2. Here is how we diagram in this case:

Joint Premises

Sometimes premises need each other: the job of supporting another proposition can’t be done by each on its own; they can only provide support together, jointly. Far from being independent, such premises are interdependent. In this situation, on our diagrams, we join together the interdependent premises with a bracket underneath their circled numbers.

There are a number of different ways in which premises can provide joint support. Sometimes, premises just fit together like a hand in a glove; or, switching metaphors, one premise is like the key that fits into the other to unlock the proposition they jointly support. An example can make this clear:

\(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 1\kern .06em}\) The chef has decided that either salmon or chicken will be tonight’s special. \(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 2\kern .06em}\) Salmon won’t be the special. Therefore, \(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 3\kern .06em}\) the special will be chicken.

Neither premise 1 nor premise 2 can support the conclusion on its own. A useful rule of thumb for checking whether one proposition can support another is this: read the first proposition, then say the word ‘therefore’, then read the second proposition; if it doesn’t make any sense, then you can’t draw an arrow from the one to the other. Let’s try it here: “The chef has decided that either salmon or chicken will be tonight’s special; therefore, the special will be chicken.” That doesn’t make any sense. What happened to salmon? Proposition 1 can’t support the conclusion on its own. Neither can the second: “Salmon won’t be the special; therefore, the special will be chicken.” Again, that makes no sense. Why chicken? What about steak, or lobster? The second proposition can’t support the conclusion on its own, either; it needs help from the first proposition, which tells us that if it’s not salmon, it’s chicken. Propositions 1 and 2 need each other; they support the conclusion jointly. This is how we diagram the argument:

The same diagram would depict the following argument:

\(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 1\kern .06em}\) John Le Carre gives us realistic, three-dimensional characters and complex, interesting plots. \(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 2\kern .06em}\) Ian Fleming, on the other hand, presents an unrealistically glamorous picture of international espionage, and his plotting isn’t what you’d call immersive. \(\enclose{circle}{\kern .06em 3\kern .06em}\) Le Carre is a better author of spy novels than Fleming.

In this example, the premises work jointly in a different way than in the previous example. Rather than fitting together hand-in-glove, these premises each give us half of what we need to arrive at the conclusion. The conclusion is a comparison between two authors. Each of the premises makes claims about one of the two authors. Neither one, on its own, can support the comparison, because the comparison is a claim about both of them. The premises can only support the conclusion together. We would diagram this argument the same way as the last one.

Another common pattern for joint premises is when general propositions need help to provide support for particular propositions. Consider the following argument:

We shouldn’t elect someone who has proven an incompetent business leader.

Candidate Z has proven an incompetent CEO. So, we shouldn’t elect Candidate Z.

These premises will be mapped with conjoint support since the premises need to work together to show the conclusion. One general principle about who we shouldn’t elect, and one particular claim about Candidate Z.

End Knachel Text

Let’s walk through a few examples of arguments that need mapping:

Example \(\PageIndex{6}\)

She's the best girlfriend ever. She bought me a new backpack for Christmas, she's never late for a date, and she always treats me with care.

First, we need to identify each proposition —that is, each claim that can be true or false independently of the other claims. This is a bit interpretive, so sometimes there aren’t hard and fast rules that produce one particular right answer, but generally we can all come up with the same propositions:

(1) She's the best girlfriend ever. (2) She bought me a new backpack for Christmas, (3) she's never late for a date, and (4) she always treats me with care.

What a nice young person! Next, we need to decide what the conclusion is and which propositions are premises. A nice test that often helps is to read all of the premises and then say “therefore...” and then read what you think is the conclusion. It should make sense as an inference if you do this properly. For instance, this is clearly not so good:

She’s the best girlfriend ever, she bought me a new backpack, and she always treats me with care, therefore she’s never late for a date.

Uhhhhh...what?

This one sounds a lot more sensical:

She bought me a new backpack, she’s never late for a date, and she always treats me with care, therefore she’s the best girlfriend ever.

It seems like the three premises are evidence for the claim that she is the best girlfriend ever. The thing we’re being asked to believe as a result of this reasoning is that she’s the best girlfriend ever. So that is the conclusion of the inference.

Now we’ve already basically ruled out that 2, 3, and 4 have any inferential relationship between them. They all seem to give us reasons for believing the conclusion directly. Furthermore, none of them seems to give us reason for believing any other. Maybe 4 could be the conclusion of 2, but that’s a real stretch. So based on all of this, we can reasonably conclude that 2, 3, and 4 are all on the same level and are all main premises for the conclusion.

Next, we need to decide if these are conjoint or independent premises. What do you think?

How do we decide? Using the negation test. If negating or saying the opposite of one premise doesn’t make the inference fall apart, then the premises are not conjoint —they’re independent. Let’s try it here:

She bought me a new backpack, she’s sometimes late for a date , and she always treats me with care, therefore she’s the best girlfriend ever.

I mean, it is a bit weird, but it’s not nonsense . Sure, she’s sometimes late for a date, but the inference still makes sense.

She hasn’t bought me a new backpack , but she’s never late for a date, and she always treats me with care, therefore she’s the best girlfriend ever.

Again, it’s strange, but not nonsensical. We wonder why the backpack thing is brought up in the first place, but we don’t immediately think “oh, well, she can’t be the best girlfriend ever if she hasn’t bought you a backpack!” Instead, we just think, “she’s clearly an excellent partner, backpack or none.”

The last one is a bit stranger:

She bought me a new backpack, she’s never late for a date, but she doesn’t always treat me with care , therefore she’s the best girlfriend ever.

Interesting...the case is definitely pretty weak for her being the bester girlfriend ever at this point, but the inference hasn’t utterly fallen apart. An opposite conclusion doesn’t now follow, we just have weaker reason for accepting the conclusion than we had before. This test reveals how strong a piece of evidence proposition 4 was for the conclusion in the original argument, but it doesn’t tell us that 4 is conjoint—the argument didn’t fall apart.

With all of this in mind, the premises appear to be independent reasons from one another for accepting the conclusion that she is the best girlfriend ever. So the argument map looks like so:

How about another example? This time I’ve skipped right to numbered propositions:

Example \(\PageIndex{7}\)

(1) Obama was the best President in American history. (2) He protected people with pre-existing medical conditions from certain financial ruin or death by passing the Affordable Care Act, and (3) that feat was among the greatest legislative victories an American President has ever known. (4) He was able to topple the head of Al-Qaida and the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and (5) he oversaw the recovery from the largest economic disaster since the Great Depression. (6) Anyone who could bring us back from the brink of global economic meltdown to a stable and healthy economic like we had at the end of his tenure must be a truly great president.

Before we ever get to the question of whether or not this is a good argument, or what’s wrong with it if anything, or whether or not the conclusion is true, we must understand the argument. In particular we must understand the structure of the argument. This argument is complex, so what’s going on here?

What’s the conclusion? It’s probably somewhat obvious here. There’s one claim that seems like the kind of claim someone might have as a thesis statement, or might defend in an Oxford-style debate. There’s one claim that seems to unify the rest of the propositions: everything is meant to justify or defend the claim that Obama was the best President in American history.

With a longer argument like this, sometimes it is best to simply work sentence-by-sentence. 2 and 3 are part of the same sentence. The “and” tells us that there probably is no inferential link between 2 and 3. “and” is usually not interchangeable with “therefore”. When we read the content of 2 and 3, furthermore, 3 makes reference to 2. Often when a premise makes reference to another premise we can conclude that they are conjoint premises. Not always, mind you, and often that means that one is a subpremise for the other. Nevertheless, in this case the reference to “that feat” in 3 ties 3 to 2 conjointly. We can run the negative test to be sure we’re correct here:

Now I’m unclear why we should think he’s the best president in history if the reason we’re being given is that he passed an important, but unremarkable piece of legislation. Not convincing. If anything, it seems to suggest that he was a fine, but unremarkable president.

(1) Obama was the best President in American history. (2) He didn’t protect people with pre-existing medical conditions from certain financial ruin or death by passing the Affordable Care Act, and (3) that feat would have been among the greatest legislative victories an American President has ever known.

Ummm...no. His not passing landmark legislation doesn’t make him the best president.

This is one way you know you’re dealing with conjoint premises: if one premise explains how the other premise supports the conclusion.

So these two premises are conjoint. What about 4? It’s part of the same sentence as 5, but the topics are so wildly different that it’s hard to see how they could be conjoint premises. Instead, it seems safe to assume they’re independent and that they’re independent from 2 and 3 for the same reason. They do, however, appear to be premises for the main conclusion (1) and so appear to belong on the second level with the other main premises 2 and 3.

The last proposition, though, seems to essentially be about the same topic as 5 and furthermore seems to be the reason 5 supports the conclusion. This is one way you know you’re dealing with conjoint premises: if one premise explains how the other premise supports the conclusion. So 6 and 5 appear to be conjoint. If you ran the negative test, you’d soon learn that the negated inferences make no sense.

As a result, the whole argument map, which is a bit strange looking, looks like this:

Wrestling with Philosophy

Official Website for Amitabha Palmer

Critical Thinking: Defining an Argument, Premises, and Conclusions

Defining an Argument Argument: vas is das? For most of us when we hear the word ‘argument’ we think of something we’d rather avoid. As it is commonly understood, an argument involves some sort of unpleasant confrontation (well, maybe not always unpleasant–it can feel pretty good when you win!). While this is one notion of ‘argument,’ it’s (generally) not what the term refers to in philosophy. In philosophy what we mean by argument is “ a set of reasons offered in support of a claim.” An argument, in this narrower sense, also generally implies some sort of structure . For now we’ll ignore the more particular structural aspects and focus on the two primary elements that make up an argument: premises and conclusions. Lets talk about conclusions first because their definition is pretty simple. A conclusion is the final assertion that is supported with evidence and reasons. What’s important is the relationship between premises and conclusions. The premises are independent reasons and evidence that support the conclusion. In an argument, the conclusion should follow from the premises. Lets consider a simple example: Reason (1): Everyone thought Miley Cyrus’ performance was a travesty. Reason (2): Some people thought her performance was offensive. Conclusion: Therefore, some people thought her performance was both a travesty and offensive. Notice that so long as we accept reason 1 and reason 2 as true, then we must also accept the conclusion. This is what we mean by “the conclusion ‘follows’ from the premises.” Lets examine premises a little more closely. A premise is any reason or evidence that supports the conclusion of the argument. In the context of arguments we can use ‘reasons’, ‘evidence’, and ‘premises’ interchangeably. For example, if my conclusion is that dogs are better pets than cats, I might offer the following reasons: (P1) dogs are generally more affectionate than cats and (P2) dogs are more responsive to their owners’ commands than cats. From my two premises, I infer my conclusion that (C) dogs are better pets than cats.

Lets return to the definition of an argument. Notice that in the definition, I’ve said that arguments are a set of reasons. While this isn’t always true, generally, a good argument will generally have more than one premise. Heuristics for Identifying Premises and Conclusions Now that we know what each concept is, lets look at how to identify each one as we might encounter them “in nature” (e.g., in an article, in a conversation, in a meme, in a homework exercise, etc…). First I’ll explain each heuristic, then I’ll apply them to some examples. Identifying conclusions: The easiest way to go about decomposing arguments is to first try to find the conclusion. This is a good strategy because there is usually only one conclusion so, if we can identify it, it means the rest of the passage are premises. For this reason, most of the heuristics focus on finding the conclusion. Heuristic 1: Look for the most controversial statement in the argument. The conclusion will generally be the most controversial statement in the argument. If you think about it, this makes sense. Typically arguments proceed by moving from assertions (i.e., premises) the audience agrees with then showing how these assertions imply something that the audience might not have previously agreed with. Heuristic 2: The conclusion is usually a statement that takes a position on an issue . By implication, the premises will be reasons that support the position on the issue (i.e., the conclusion). A good way to apply this heuristic is to ask “what is the arguer trying to get me to believe?”. The answer to this question is generally going to be the conclusion. Heuristic 3: The conclusion is usually ( but not always ) the first or last statement of the argument. Heuristic 4: The “because” test. Use this method you’re having trouble figuring which of 2 statements is the conclusion. The “because” test helps you figure out which statement is supporting which. Recall that the premise(s) always supports the conclusion. This method is best explained by using an example. Suppose you encounter an argument that goes something like this: It’s a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit. It tastes delicious. Also, lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer Suppose you’re having trouble deciding what the conclusion it. You’ve eliminated “it tastes delicious” as a candidate but you still have to choose between “it’s a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit” and “lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer”. To use the because test, read one statement after the other but insert the word “because” between the two and see what makes more sense. Lets try the two possibilities: A: It’s a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit because lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer. B: Lots of facebook posts say that amazonian jungle fruit cures cancer because it’s a good idea to eat lots of it. Which makes more sense? Which is providing support for which? The answer is A. Lots of facebook posts saying something is a reason (i.e. premise) to believe that it’s a good idea to eat amazonian jungle fruit–despite the fact that it’s not a very good reason… Identifying the Premises Heuristic 1: Identifying the premises once you’ve identified the conclusion is cake. Whatever isn’t contained in the conclusion is either a premise or “filler” (i.e., not relevant to the argument). We will explore the distinguishing between filler and relevant premises a bit later, so don’t worry about that distinction for now. Example 1 Gun availability should be regulated. Put simply, if your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, they’re more likely to kill you than if they don’t have access. Interestingly, this turned out to be true not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too. http://listverse.com/2013/04/21/10-arguments-for-gun-control/

Ok, lets try heuristic #1. What’s the most controversial statement? For most Americans, it is probably that “gun availability should be regulated.” This is probably the conclusion. Just for fun lets try out the other heuristics. Heuristic #2 says we should find a statement that takes a position on an issue. Hmmm… the issue seems to be gun control, and the arguer takes a position. Both heuristics converge on “gun availability should be regulated.” Heuristic #3 says the conclusion will usually be the first or last statement. Guess what? Same result as the other heuristics. Heuristic #4. A: Gun availability should be regulated because people with easy access to guns are more likely to kill you. Or B: People with easy access to guns are more likely to kill you because gun availability should be regulated. A is the winner. The conclusion in this argument is well established. It follows that what’s left over are premises (support for the conclusion): (P1) If your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, they’re more likely to kill you than if they don’t have access. (P2) Studies show that P1 is true, not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too. (C) G un availability should be regulated. Example 2 If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns. This means only “bad” guys would have guns, while good people would by definition be at a disadvantage. Gun control is a bad idea. Heuristic #1: What’s the most controversial statement? Probably “gun control is a bad idea.” Heuristic #2: Which statement takes a position on an issue? “Gun control is a bad idea.” Heuristic #3: “Gun control is a bad idea” is last and also passed heuristic 1 and 2. Probably a good bet as the conclusion. Heuristic #4: A: If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns because gun control is a bad idea.

B: Gun control is a bad idea because if you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns.

Published by philosophami

Philosopher, judoka, coach, traveller, hiker, dancer, and dog-lover. View all posts by philosophami

Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Subscribe Subscribed
Copy shortlink
Report this content
View post in Reader
Manage subscriptions
Collapse this bar

Search Search Search …
Search Search …

Critical thinking arguments for beginners

Critical thinking is one of the most valuable sets of life skills you can ever have and it’s never too late to learn them. People who can think critically are better at problem solving of all kinds, whether at school or work, in ordinary daily life, and even in crises. You can practice critical thinking by working through typical arguments from premises to conclusions.

Thinking critically isn’t about following a single path to an inevitable conclusion. It’s about developing a set of powerful and versatile mental processing tools in your head and being able to apply these meaningfully to the world around you.

You need no special qualifications to become a strong critical thinker, and can’t pick it up simply from reading books about critical thinking. The only way to hone critical thinking skills is to practice critical thinking.

If you’re ready to learn more about critical thinking arguments for beginners then read on…

What is critical thinking?

Let’s first illustrate the answer to this question by taking a look at how we can think critically about potential misinformation online.

Your friend on a social media site has shared a photograph of election ballot slips apparently being tipped into a river by a postal truck driver, reportedly a supporter of a political party who will benefit from lower postal voter turnout.

Your friend is a supporter of another party and expresses outrage at the alleged law-breaking, election influencing, and reduced chances for her own party candidate. Many other friends pile in with sympathetic and equally outraged comments, or new allegations.

The temptation might be strong to accept the narrative caption which accompanies the picture, echo your friends’ emotional responses, and share the photo further. However, as a critical thinker, you should step back and ask some crucial questions first:

Is the photo obviously manipulated? Sophisticated image alterations can now be made which won’t be spotted by the majority of non-experts. Could this be an image of a simple truck crash with ballot papers photoshopped in?
Does your friend fact-check stories, pictures, memes etc.. before posting them online? If she has a history of posting stories which turned out to be false, it reduces her credibility in presenting the current story.
I s there anything in the photograph which supports or undermines the claims made? If you can see that the van has a foreign registration plate, the ballot papers aren’t in English, or the date on the clock is actually several years ago, it is clear that the true story is somewhat different to the one being told.

Let’s say that your initial suspicions after asking yourself these questions are enough that you do a quick web search for the story.

Your search reveals that credible sources have already uncovered the photo as having been manipulated and spread by an online political group. It was originally a local news story about a crashed postal truck in another country five years earlier and has no relationship whatsoever to the current election in your country…

Your critical thinking helped you to avoid falling into group-think along with your friends and saved you from spreading more misinformation online. These real life type examples are are an excellent way to grasp the relevance and value of critical thinking arguments for beginners.

Now for a little of the theory. Critical thinking is a description that brings together a range of useful intellectual skills and their synergies. While there is no definitive list, there are some common key competences necessary for critical thinking:

Conducting analysis. Being able to understand the issue in question; distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information; identify commonalities, differences and connections.
Making inferences. Using inductive or deductive reasoning to draw out meanings; identifying assumptions; abstracting ideas; applying analogies and recognizing cause and effect relationships in order to develop theories or potential conclusions.
Evaluating evidence. Making a judgement about whether a theory or statement is credible or correct; adjusting views and theories in the light of new data or perspectives; grasping the significance of events and information.
Making robust decisions. Reaching sound conclusions by applying critical thinking skills to the available evidence.

To apply critical thinking in real life, you also need to possess the right attitude to problem solving, as well as the critical thinking skills themselves.

This means being automatically inclined to think critically in the face of a difficult question or problem. Being fair, open-minded, curious and free from ideology or group-think will all help to create a mindset in which critical thinking can thrive.

What are critical thinking arguments?

Let’s now look at some of the basic building blocks underpinning critical thinking arguments for beginners.

In critical thinking and logic, ‘argument’ has a particular meaning. It refers to a set of statements, consisting of one conclusion and one or more premises. The conclusion is the statement that the argument is intended to prove. The premises are the reasons offered for believing that the conclusion is true.

A critical thinking argument could use a deductive reasoning approach, an inductive reasoning approach, or both.

Deductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning attempts to absolutely guarantee a conclusion’s truth through logic. If a deductive argument’s premises are true, it should be impossible for its conclusion to be false. For example:

All humans are mortal. (Premise)
Socrates is a human. (Premise)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)

Inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning attempts to show that the conclusion is probably true, with each premise making the case for the conclusion stronger or weaker. For example:

Three independent witnesses saw Max climb in through the window of the house. (Premise)
Max’s fingerprints are on the window frame and several stolen items. (Premise)
Max confessed to the burglary. (Premise)
Therefore, Max committed the burglary. (Conclusion)

Do note that in either case, straight assertions, explanations or conditional sentences are not arguments.

How do I assess a critical thinking argument?

You can evaluate whether an argument is valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak .

If an argument is said to be ‘valid’, it means that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. If an argument is ‘invalid’, it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

An argument is ‘sound’ if it is both valid and contains only true premises. If either of these conditions isn’t met then the argument is ‘unsound’.

A deductively ‘strong’ argument is both valid and it is reasonable for the person in question to believe the premises are true. In a deductively weak argument , the person considering the premises may have good reason to doubt them.

When an argument is inductively strong, the truth of the premises makes the the truth of the conclusion probable. In contrast, in an inductively ‘weak’ argument, the truth of the premises do not make the truth of the conclusion probable.

Counterexamples

A ‘counterexample’ is a consistent story which shows that an argument can have true premises but a false conclusion, rendering it invalid.

NB A valid argument is not necessarily true, and a weak argument is not necessarily false.

All of these fundamentals can be applied both to simple practice arguments and then to more complex problems of the type you might encounter in real life.

For example:

All unicorns are Swedish (Premise)
My new pet is a unicorn (Premise)
Therefore, my new pet is Swedish (Conclusion)

The premises here are both false – unicorns do not exist, and I therefore cannot own one as a pet. However, if they were true, then the conclusion would be true. What we have here is a valid argument, but not a sound one, nor a strong one.

How can I practice critical thinking arguments for beginners?

Now that you have the basic tools and concepts for putting together a critical thinking argument, you can look out for real life examples to practice with.

News stories

Look at the headlines covering stories in TV, online or paper news. Do you agree that the facts of the story are credible and constitute premises strong enough to justify the headline drawn from them?

Social media

Critically examine stories and claims shared by friends and contacts online. Ask yourself whether the evidence presented is credible and justifies the claims being made.

Corporate statements

Evaluate claims made by big corporations in public statements and annual reports alongside their actions and impacts. For example, if a major oil company claims that it is working to combat climate change, how strong, valid and sound are their arguments?

Conclusion…

Whatever your starting point, we hope this article has set you on the road to becoming a critical thinker, and that these developing skills might open new doors at school, at work or in other areas of life. The world needs more critical thinking at all levels and your contribution might one day be valuable.

Mastering Your Thought Process Using Critical Thinking Frameworks

People live their days dealing with all sorts of problems, from the awfully mundane to the considerably urgent. Oftentimes, a sound decision-making […]

9 Common Characteristics of Strong Critical Thinkers

Famous highly-intelligent thinkers in the world such as Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, and Marie Curie are known not only because of their […]

Critical Reading vs. Critical Thinking

In the digital age, we are presented with information from all scopes and spectrums. In order to understand the meaning behind texts, […]

Debate & Critical Thinking

We’ve all had debates with friends or on social media, where we get into it over some heated issue. Emotions get out […]

Diagramming Arguments, Premise and Conclusion Indicators, with Many Examples

Abstract: Analyzing the structure of arguments is clarified by representing the logical relations of premises and conclusion in diagram form. Many ordinary language argument examples are explained and diagrammed.

“Argument” Defined

How to Identify Arguments

How to Analyze Simple Arguments

Premise Indicators
Conclusion Indicators
Equal Status Indicators

How to Analyze Complex Arguments

Links to Diagramming Exercises
Tutorials for Diagramming

Formal arguments are evaluated by their logical structure; informal arguments are studied and evaluated as parts of ordinary language and interpersonal discourse.

Statement or Proposition:

How to identify the presence of an argument.

[1] I conclude the dinosaurs probably had to cope with cancer. These are my reasons : [2] a beautiful lower leg bone was found in Alberta, [3] the end of the fibula was grossly malformed, and [4] this appearance closely matches osteosarcoma in humans.

Since [1] the solution turns litmus paper red, [2] I conclude it is acidic, inasmuch as [3] acidic substances react with litmus to form a red color.

Ask yourself “What is the author trying to prove in this passage?” In order to determine whether or not an argument is present in a passage, it sometimes helps to pose this question. If an answer is directly forthcoming, then the passage is most likely an argument. Despite that, the presence of an argument cannot be always known with certainty; often the purpose of the passage can only be contextually surmised. Establishing the intention of a speaker or writer is sometimes the only determining factor of whether or not an argument is present. A charitable , and insofar as possible, an impartial conventional interpretation of the context, content, and purpose of the passage should be sought.

“[1] The types of sentences you use are quite varied. [2] I've noticed that your recent essays are quite sophisticated. [3] You have been learning much more about sentence structure.”

“ Because [1] of our preoccupation with the present moment and the latest discovery, [2] we do not read the great books of the past. Because [3a] we do not do this sort of reading, and [3b] do not think it is important, [4] we do not bother about trying to learn to read difficult books. As a result , [5] we do not learn to read well at all.” [1]

Statement [1] provides evidence for [2].

Next, [2] together with [3] ([3a] and [3b] being combined here as one compound statement for simplification) gives evidence for [4].

Finally, as a result of [4], statement [5] concludes with some degree of probability.

The number of arguments in a passage is conventionally established by the number of conclusions in that passage.

[1] John didn't get much sleep last night. [2] He has dark circles under his eyes. [3] He looks tired.

[1] Studies from rats indicate that neuropeptide Y in the brain causes carbohydrate craving, and [2] galanin causes fat craving. Hence , [3] I conclude that food cravings are tied to brain chemicals [4] because neuropeptide Y and galanin are brain chemicals.

The structure of the argument can be inferred by attending to the premise and conclusion indicators even though the content of the argument might not be fully understood.

[1] The piano teacher should consider an additional study of the pipe organ. [2] As an organist. the teacher would have added income at times when she is not teaching; consequently , and for this reason [3] she would receive added publicity and prestige. Therefore , [4] she would be likely to attract additional students and additional income.

Working with Premise Indicators:

for since as because [* when the term means “for the reason that” but not when it means “from the cause of”] in as much as follows from after all in light of the fact assuming seeing that granted that; given that in view of as shown by; as indicated by deduced from inferred from; concluded from due to the fact that for the reason [* often mistaken for a conclusion indicator ]

[2a] Reading the point of intersection of a graph depends on the accuracy with which the lines are drawn. [2b] Reading the point of intersection also depends upon the ability to interpret the coordinate of the point. [1]Thus, the graphical method for solving a system of equations is an approximation.

“[3] [the mind must] obtain a little strength by a slight exertion of its thinking powers.”

Working with Conclusion Indicators:

thus therefore consequently hence so it follows that proves that; demonstrates that; shows that indicates that accordingly [* an indicator often missed ] implies that; entails that; follows that this means we may infer; it can be inferred that suggests that results in in conclusion for this reason; for that reason [* often mistaken for premise indicators (a conclusion follows these phrases; a premise precedes these phrases .)]

“[3a] So it may well be that cancer is induced not by the original substances but [3b] [it may well be that cancer is induced] by the products of their metabolism once inside the organism.”

Working with Equal Status Indicators:

or [ the inclusive “or,” i.e. “ either or or both ”] and as [* when it connects similar clauses; not when it connects a result with a cause ] in addition although despite; in spite of besides though but yet however moreover nevertheless not only … but also ( and also the semicolon “;”)

If one of the clauses has already been identified as a premise or a conclusion of an argument, then its coordinating clause is probably the same type of statement. Check the following examples.

Comment : Notice that statements [2] and [3] work together as a reason, so both together provide evidence for [1].

“ … [3] it depends on the indices of refraction of the lens material and [4] [it depends on] the surrounding medium.”

For [1] and [2], so [3].

[1] If students were environmentally aware, they would object to the endangering of any species of animal. [2] The well-known Greenwood white squirrel has become endangered [3] as it has disappeared from the Lander campus [4] because the building of the library destroyed its native habitat. [5] No Lander students objected. [6] Thus , Lander students are not environmentally aware.

as because thus

Statement [6] is the final conclusion since it has the conclusion indicator “thus” and the import of the paragraph indicates that this statement is the main point of the argument. (It is also the last sentence in the paragraph.)

[1] If students were environmentally A ware, [ then ] they would O bject to the endangering of any species of animal. [5] No student O bjected [to the endangering of the Greenwood white squirrel].

[1] If A then O [5] Not O

“[6] Thus, Lander students are not environmentally A ware,”

[1] If A then O [5] Not O [6] Not A

“The explanation as to why productivity has slumped since 2004 is a simple one. That year coincided with the creation of Facebook ” [11]

“In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the ship's prow is ‘gilded and shaped like the head of a dragon with wide open mouth’ so when, a moment later, the children stare at the picture ‘with open mouths’, they are being remade in its image … The painted ocean to which Joan is drawn is ‘like a mighty animal’, a ‘wicked virile thing’. The implication in both cases is that art is not safe, and that this is why it's needed.” [emphasis mine] [12]

“He asked: ‘Who are the Âdityas?’ Yâ gñ avalkys replied: ‘The twelve months of the year, and they are Âdityas, because they move along (yanti) taking up everything [ i.e. , taking up the lives of persons, and the fruits of their work] (âdadânâ h ). Because they move along, taking up everything, therefore they are called Âdityas.’”[emphasis mine] [13]

Circular Argument:

Links to diagramming online quizzes with suggested solutions, notes: diagramming arguments.

1. Mortimer J. Adler, How to Read a Book (New York: Simon and Schuster: 1940), 89. ↩

2. Some English textbooks describe argumentative paragraph structure as deductive (proceeding from general to specific statements or inductive (proceeding from specific to general statements). For example, educator and rhetorician Fred Newton Scott writes:

“There are two orders of progress in thought, one proceeding from the statement of a general principle to particular applications of the principle (deductive reasoning), the other proceeding from the statement of particular facts to a general conclusion from those facts (inductive reasoning). In deductive reasoning, the general principle (stated usually at the beginning) is applied in the particulars; in inductive reasoning the general principle (stated usually at the end) if inferred from the particulars, as a conclusion. In a deductive paragraph, as would be expected, the sentences applying the principle to the particular case in hand, usually follow the topic-statement, which announces the principle. In an inductive paragraph the sentences stating the particular facts usually precede the topic-statement, which gives the general conclusion.” [emphases deleted]

Fred Newton Scott, Paragraph-Writing (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1909), 62-63. Since this distinction between induction and deduction proves faulty for many arguments, deductive arguments are now described as those that provide total support for their conclusion ( i.e. ,a they logically entail the conclusion); whereas, an inductive argument give partial support for their conclusion ( i.e. , they provide only some evidence for the conclusion.) ↩

3. Most paragraphs have a three-part structure: introduction (often a topic sentence), body (often supporting sentences), and conclusion (often a summary statement). In argumentative writing, the conclusion of an argument is often the topic sentence or main idea of a paragraph. Consequently, the first sentence or last sentence of many argumentative paragraphs contain the conclusion. ↩

4. René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature (New York: Harcourt, Brace: 1956), 127. ↩

5. Mary Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792 London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1891), 273. ↩

6. Irvin D. Yalom, The Gift of Therapy (New York: Harper Perennial, 2009), 133. ↩

7. Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetskii, Unraveling DNA trans. Lev Liapin (New York: VCH Publishers, 1993), 175. ↩

8. Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind (London: 1921 George Allen & Unwin, 1961), 40. ↩

9. Wollstonecraft, Vindication , 175. ↩

10. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations , trans George Long (New York: Sterling: 2006), 69. ↩

11. Nikko Schaff, “Letters: Let the Inventors Speak,” The Economist 460 no. 8820 (January 26, 2013), 16. ↩

12. Matthew Bevis, “What Most I Love I Bite,” in the “Review of The Collected Poems and Drawings of Stevie Smith ,” London Review of Books 38 No. 15 (28 July 2016), 19. ↩

13. B ri hadâra n yaka-Upanishad in The Upanishads , Pt. II, trans. F. Max Müller in The Sacred Books of the East , Vol. XV, ed. F. Max Müller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1900), 141. ↩

Readings: Diagramming Arguments

Carnegie Mellon University, iLogos: Argument Diagram Software and User Guide Free software cross-platform. Also, a list with links to other argument diagramming tools.

Martin Davies, Ashley Barnett, and Tim van Gelder, “ Using Computer-Aided Argument Mapping to Teach Reasoning, ” in Studies in Critical Thinking , ed. J. Anthony Blair (Windsor, ON: Open Monograph Press, 2019), 131-176. Chapter outlining how to use argument mapping software in logic classes. doi: 10.22329/wsia.08.2019

Jean Goodwin, “ Wigmore's Chart Method ,” Informal Logic 20 no. 3 (January, 2000), 223-243. doi: 10.22329/il.v20i3.2278 Tree diagram method for complex argument representation and inference strength assessment for legal analysis.

Mara Harrell, Creating Argument Diagrams , Carnegie Mellon University. Tutorial on identification of indicators, rewriting statements, providing missing premises, and reconstruction of arguments. (28 pp.)

Dale Jacquette, “ Enhancing the Diagramming Method in Logic ,” Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal 1 no. 2 (February, 2011), 327-360. Also here . An extension of the Beardsley diagramming method for disjunctive and conditional inferences as well as other logical structures.

Michael Malone, “On Discounts and Argument Identification,” Teaching Philosophy 33 no. 1 (March, 2010), 1-15. doi: 10.5840/teachphil20103311 Discount indicators such as “but”, “however”, and “although” are distinguished from argument indicators, but help in argument identification.

Jacques Moeschler, “Argumentation and Connectives,” in Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society , eds. Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey (Cham: Springer, 2016), 653-676.

John Lawrence and Chris Reed, “ Argument Mining: A Survey ,” Computational Linguistics 45 no. 4 (September, 2019), 765-818. doi: 10.1162/coli_a_00364 Review of recent advances and future challenges for extraction of reasoning in natural language.

Frans H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Argumentative Indicators in Discourse (Dordercht: Springer, 2007). Sophisticated study of indicators for arguments, dialectical exchanges, and critical discussion. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5

Wikipedia contributors, “ Argument Map , Wikipedia . History, applications, standards, and references for argument maps used in informal logic.

(Free) Online Tutorials with Diagramming

Carnegie Mellon University, Argument Diagramming v1.5 (Open + Free) . Free online course on argument diagramming using built-in iLogos argument mapping software by Carnegie Mellon's Open Learning Initiative. (With or without registration and two weeks for completion).

Harvard University, Thinker/Analytix: How We Argue . Free online course on critical thinking with argument mapping with Mindmup free diagramming software, videos, and practice exercises. (Requires registration and 3-5 hrs. to complete).

Joe Lau, “ Argument Mapping ” Module A10 on the Critical Thinking Web at the University of Hong Kong. (No registration and an hour to complete).

Send corrections or suggestions to philhelp[at]philosophy.lander.edu Read the disclaimer concerning this page. 1997-2024 Licensed under the Copyleft GFDL license.

The GNU Public License assures users the freedom to use, copy, redistribute, and make modifications only if they allow these same terms, with or without changes, for their copies. Works for sale must link to a free copy.

25 Critical Thinking Examples

critical thinking examples and definition, explained below

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze information and make reasoned decisions. It involves suspended judgment, open-mindedness, and clarity of thought.

It involves considering different viewpoints and weighing evidence carefully. It is essential for solving complex problems and making good decisions.

People who think critically are able to see the world in a more nuanced way and understand the interconnectedness of things. They are also better able to adapt to change and handle uncertainty.

In today’s fast-paced world, the ability to think critically is more important than ever and necessary for students and employees alike.

Critical Thinking Examples

1. identifying strengths and weaknesses.

Critical thinkers don’t just take things at face value. They stand back and contemplate the potential strengths and weaknesses of something and then make a decision after contemplation.

This helps you to avoid excessive bias and identify possible problems ahead of time.

For example, a boxer about to get in the ring will likely need to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent. He might learn that his opponent’s left hook is very strong, but his opponent also gets tired after the third round. With this knowledge, he can go into the bout with strong defenses in the first three rounds before going on the offense.

Here, the boxer’s critical thinking skills will help him win his match.

2. Creating a Hypothesis based on Limited Data

When scientists set out to test a new theory, they first need to develop a hypothesis. This is an educated guess about how things work, based on what is already known.

Once a hypothesis has been developed, experiments can be designed to test it.

However, sometimes scientists may find themselves working with limited data. In such cases, they may need to make some assumptions in order to form a hypothesis.

For example, if they are studying a phenomenon that occurs infrequently, they may need to extrapolate from the data they do have in order to form a hypothesis.

Here, the scientist is engaged in critical thinking: they use the limited data to come up with a tentative judgment.

3. Moderating a Debate

A debate moderator needs to have strong critical thinking skills. They need to use objective evaluations, analysis, and critique to keep the discussion on track and ensure that all sides are heard fairly.

This means being able to identify when a point has been made sufficiently, or when someone is beginning to veer off topic and being able to direct the conversation accordingly.

Similarly, they need to be able to assess each argument objectively and consider its merits, rather than getting caught up in the emotion of the debate. If someone is using an unfair point or one that is not factual, the moderator needs to be switched on and identify this.

By remaining calm and impartial, the moderator can help to ensure that a debate is productive and respectful.

4. Judging and Adjudicating

A judge or adjudicator needs to weigh the evidence and make a determination based on the facts.

This requires the adjudicator to be able to try to see both sides of an argument. They need the ability to see past personal biases and to critically evaluate the credibility of all sides.

In addition, judges and adjudicators must be able to think quickly and make sound decisions in the face of complex issues.

For example, if you were to be adjudicating the above debate, you need to hear both sides of the argument and then decide who won. It’s your job to evaluate, see strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and come to a conclusion.

5. Grading an Essay

Teachers need critical thinking skills when grading essays so that they can effectively assess the quality of the writing. By critically analyzing the essay, teachers can identify any errors or weaknesses in the argument.

Furthermore, they can also determine whether the essay meets the required standards for the assignment. Even a very well-written essay may deserve a lower grade if the essay doesn’t directly answer the essay question.

A teacher needs to be able to read an essay and understand not only what the student is trying to say, but also how well they are making their argument. Are they using evidence effectively? Are they drawing valid conclusions? A teacher needs to be able to evaluate an essay holistically in order to give a fair grade.

In order to properly evaluate an essay, teachers need to be able to think critically about the writing. Only then can they provide an accurate assessment of the work.

6. Active Reading

Active reading is a skill that requires the reader to be engaged with the text in order to fully understand it. This means not only being able to read the words on the page, but also being able to interpret the meaning behind them.

In order to do this, active readers need to have good critical thinking skills.

They need to be able to ask questions about the text and look for evidence to support their answers. Additionally, active readers need to be able to make connections between the text and their own experiences.

Active reading leads to better comprehension and retention of information.

7. Deciding Whether or Not to Believe Something

When trying to determine whether or not to believe something, you’re engaging in critical thinking.

For example, you might need to consider the source of the information. If the information comes from a reliable source, such as a reputable news organization or a trusted friend, then it is more likely to be accurate.

However, if the source is less reliable, such as an anonymous website or a person with a known bias, then the information should be viewed with more skepticism.

In addition, it is important to consider the evidence that is being presented. If the evidence is well-supported and logically presented, then it is more likely to be true. However, if the evidence is weak or relies on fallacious reasoning, then the claim is less likely to be true.

8. Determining the Best Solution to a Situation

Determining the best solution to a problem generally requires you to critique the different options. There are often many different factors to consider, and it can be difficult to know where to start.

However, there are some general guidelines that can help to make the process a little easier.

For example, if you have a few possible solutions to the problem, it is important to weigh the pros and cons of each one. Consider both the short-term and long-term effects of each option before making a decision.

Furthermore, it is important to be aware of your own biases. Be sure to consider all of the options objectively, without letting your personal preferences get in the way.

9. Giving Formative Feedback

Formative feedback is feedback that you give to someone part-way through a learning experience. To do this, you need to think critically.

For example, one thing you need to do is see where the student’s strengths and weaknesses like. Perhaps the student is doing extremely well at a task, so your feedback might be that they should try to extend themselves by adding more complexity to the task.

Or, perhaps the student is struggling, so you suggest to them that they approach the learning experience from a different angle.

10. Giving Summative Feedback

Summative feedback occurs at the end of a learning scenario. For example, the written feedback at the end of an essay or on a report card is summative.

When providing summative feedback, it is important to take a step back and consider the situation from multiple perspectives. What are areas for improvement and where exactly might the student have missed some key points? How could the student have done better?

Asking yourself these questions is all part of the process of giving feedback, and they can all be considered examples of critical thinking. You’re literally critiquing the student’s work and identifying opportunities for improvement.

11. Evaluating Evidence

When evaluating evidence, critical thinkers take a step back and look at the bigger picture. They consider all of the available information and weigh it up. They look at logical flaws, the reliability of the evidence, and its validity.

This process allows them to arrive at a conclusion that is based on sound reasoning, rather than emotion or personal bias.

For example, when a social scientist looks at the evidence from his study, he needs to evaluate whether the data was corrupted and ensure the methodology was sound in order to determine if the evidence is valuable or not.

12. Media Literacy

Media literacy seems to be in short supply these days. Too many people take information off the internet or television and just assume it is true.

A person with media literacy, however, will not just trust what they see and read. Instead, they look at the data and weigh up the evidence. They will see if there was a sound study to back up claims. They will see if there is bias in the media source and whether it’s just following an ideological line.

Furthermore, they will make sure they seek out trustworthy media sources. These are not just media sources you like or that confirm your own point of view. They need to be sources that do their own research, find solid data, and don’t pursue one blind agenda.

13. Asking your Own Questions

Asking your own questions is an important part of critical thinking. When you ask questions, you are forcing yourself to think more deeply about the information you are considering.

Asking questions also allows you to gather more information from others who may have different perspectives.

This helps you to better understand the issue and to come up with your own conclusions.

So, often at schools, we give students a list of questions to ask about something in order to dig deeper into it. For example, in a book review lesson, the teacher might give a list of questions to ask about the book’s characters and plot.

14. Conducting Rigorous Research

Research is a process of inquiry that encompasses the gathering of data, interpretation of findings, and communication of results. The researcher needs to engage in critical thinking throughout the process, but most importantly, when designing their methodology.

Research can be done through a variety of methods, such as experiments, surveys, interviews, and observations. Each method has strengths and weaknesses.

Once the data has been collected, it must be analyzed and interpreted. This is often done through statistical methods or qualitative analysis.

Research is an essential tool for discovering new knowledge and for solving problems, but researchers need to think critically about how valid and reliable their data truly is.

15. Examining your own Beliefs and Prejudices

It’s important to examine your own beliefs and prejudices in order to ensure that they are fair and accurate. People who don’t examine their own beliefs have not truly critically examined their lives.

One way to do this is to take the time to consider why you believe what you do. What experiences have you had that have led you to this belief? Are there other ways to interpret these experiences? It’s also important to be aware of the potential for confirmation bias , which is when we seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs, while ignoring information that contradicts them.

This can lead us to hold onto inaccurate or unfair beliefs even when presented with evidence to the contrary.

To avoid this, it’s important to seek out diverse perspectives, and to be open-minded when considering new information. By taking these steps, you can help ensure that your beliefs are fair and accurate.

16. Looking at a Situation from Multiple Perspectives

One of the most important critical thinking skills that you can learn in life is how to look at a situation from multiple perspectives.

Being able to see things from different angles can help you to understand complex issues, spot potential problems, and find creative solutions. It can also help you to build better relationships, as you will be able to see where others are coming from and find common ground.

There are a few simple techniques that you can use to develop this skill.

First, try to imagine how someone else would feel in the same situation.

Second, put yourself in their shoes and try to see things from their point of view.

Finally, ask yourself what other factors may be influencing their perspective. By taking the time to view things from multiple angles, you will be better prepared to deal with whatever life throws your way.

17. Considering Implications before Taking Action

When faced with a difficult decision, it is important to consider the implications of each possible action before settling on a course of action.

This is because the consequences of our actions can be far-reaching and often unforeseen.

For example, a seemingly small decision like whether to attend a party or not might have much larger implications. If we decide to go to the party, we might miss an important deadline at work.

However, if we stay home, we might miss out on an opportunity to meet new people and make valuable connections.

In either case, our choice can have a significant impact on our lives.

Fortunately, critical thinking can help people to make well-informed decisions that could have a positive impact on their lives.

For example, you might have to weight up the pros and cons of attending the party and identify potential downsides, like whether you might be in a car with an impaired driver, and whether the party is really worth losing your job.

Having weighed up the potential outcomes, you can make a more rational and informed decision.

18. Reflective Practice

Reflecting on your actions is an important part of critical thinking. When you take the time to reflect, you are able to step back and examine your choices and their consequences more objectively.

This allows you to learn from your mistakes and make better decisions in the future.

In order to reflect effectively, it is important to be honest with yourself and open to learning new things. You must also be willing to question your own beliefs and assumptions. By taking these steps, you can develop the critical thinking skills that are essential for making sound decisions next time.

This will also, fortunately, help you to constantly improve upon yourself.

19. Problem-Solving

Problem-solving requires the ability to think critically in order to accurately assess a situation and determine the best course of action.

This means being able to identify the root cause of a problem , as well as any potential obstacles that may stand in the way of a solution. It also involves breaking down a problem into smaller, more manageable pieces in order to more easily find a workable solution.

In addition, critical thinking skills also require the ability to think creatively in order to come up with original solutions to these problems.

Go Deeper: Problem-Solving Examples

20. Brainstorming New Solutions

When brainstorming new solutions , critical thinking skills are essential in order to generate fresh ideas and identify potential issues.

For example, the ability to identify the problems with the last solution you tried is important in order to come up with better solutions this time. Similarly, analytical thinking is necessary in order to evaluate the feasibility of each idea. Furthermore, it is also necessary to consider different perspectives and adapt to changing circumstances.

By utilizing all of these critical thinking skills, it will be possible to develop innovative solutions that are both practical and effective.

21. Reserving Judgment

A key part of critical thinking is reserving judgment. This means that we should not rush to conclusions, but instead take the time to consider all the evidence before making up our minds.

By reserving judgment, we can avoid making premature decisions that we might later regret. We can also avoid falling victim to confirmation bias, which is the tendency to only pay attention to information that supports our existing beliefs.

Instead, by keeping an open mind and considering all the evidence, we can make better decisions and reach more accurate conclusions.

22. Identifying Deceit

Critical thinking is an important skill to have in any situation, but it is especially important when trying to identify deceit.

There are a few key things to look for when using critical thinking to identify deceit.

First, pay attention to the person’s body language. Second, listen closely to what the person is saying and look for any inconsistencies. Finally, try to get a sense of the person’s motive – why would they want to deceive you?

Each of these questions helps you to not just take things at their face value. Instead, you’re critiquing the situation and coming to a conclusion using all of your intellect and senses, rather than just believing what you’re told.

23. Being Open-Minded to New Evidence that Contradicts your Beliefs

People with critical thinking skills are more open-minded because they are willing to consider different points of view and evidence.

They also realize that their own beliefs may be wrong and are willing to change their minds if new information is presented.

Similarly, people who are not critical thinkers tend to be close-minded because they fail to critique themselves and challenge their own mindset. This can lead to conflicts, as closed-minded people are not willing to budge on their beliefs even when presented with contradictory evidence.

Critical thinkers, on the other hand, are able to have more productive conversations as they are willing to listen to others and consider different viewpoints. Ultimately, being open-minded and willing to change one’s mind is a sign of intelligence and maturity.

24. Accounting for Bias

We all have biases, based on our individual experiences, perspectives, and beliefs. These can lead us to see the world in a certain way and to interpret information in a way that supports our existing views.

However, if we want to truly understand an issue, it is important to try to put aside our personal biases and look at the evidence objectively.

This is where critical thinking skills come in.

By using critical thinking, we can examine the evidence dispassionately and assess different arguments without letting our own prejudices get in the way. Start by looking at weaknesses and logical flaws in your own thinking.

Play the devil’s advocate.

In this way, you can start to get a more accurate picture of an issue and make more informed decisions.

25. Basing your Beliefs on Logic and Reasoning

In order to lead a successful and fulfilling life, it is important to base your beliefs on logic and reasoning.

This does not mean that you should never believe in something without evidence, but it does mean that you should be thoughtful and intentional about the things that you choose to believe.

One way to ensure that your beliefs are based on logic and reasoning is to seek out reliable sources of information. Another method is to use thought games to follow all your thoughts to their logical conclusions.

By basing your beliefs on logic and reasoning, you will be more likely to make sound decisions, and less likely to be swayed by emotions or misinformation.

Critical thinking is an important skill for anyone who wants to be successful in the modern world. It allows us to evaluate information and make reasoned decisions, rather than simply accepting things at face value.

Thus, employers often want to employ people with strong critical thinking skills. These employees will be able to solve problems by themselves and identify ways to improve the workplace. They will be able to push back against bad decisions and use their own minds to make good decisions.

Furthermore, critical thinking skills are important for students. This is because they need to be able to evaluate information and think through problems with a critical mindset in order to learn and improve.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

Developing technical and problem-solving skills
Engaging in more active listening
Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
Seeking out more diversity of thought
Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

What information should be included?
Which information resources should the author look to?
What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
What is the most effective way to show information?
How should the report be organized?
How should it be designed?
What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

Why and How to Use Critical Thinking in Everyday Life

Written by Argumentful

Critical thinking is a helpful skill that allows you to analyze information and make informed decisions. It’s all about taking a step back and evaluating information objectively, considering multiple perspectives, and making sound judgments based on evidence. With critical thinking, you can tackle problems with confidence, communicate your thoughts and ideas clearly, and reduce the influence of emotions, biases, and misinformation. Plus, by using critical thinking, you can continue to grow and develop as a person by questioning your own beliefs and perspectives.

Elder and Paul’s article “ Critical Thinking: The Nature of Critical and Creative Thought ” argues that critical thinking is essential for success in everyday life. They explain that critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating information, as well as generating new ideas and perspectives.

Overall, critical thinking is a valuable tool for all of us to navigate the complex and ever-changing world we live in.

Here are some examples of using critical thinking in our daily lives.

EXAMPLES OF CRITICAL THINKING IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Using critical thinking in making smart health choices.

When it comes to taking care of yourself, using critical thinking to check the reliability of your sources and weigh the strength of the evidence can help you make better decisions for your health. If your doctor recommends a certain treatment or you come across a new health trend online, how can you be sure it’s the right choice for you? By using critical thinking, you can evaluate the credibility of sources, consider the evidence behind health claims, and make informed decisions that promote your well-being. Whether it’s choosing a fitness plan, exploring alternative therapies, or making dietary changes, critical thinking can help you take control of your health and make choices that are truly right for you. Don’t just blindly follow health advice, use critical thinking to help you make informed decisions for a healthier you!

Smart budgeting for a stable future

By taking a closer look at your income and expenses, you can use critical thinking to make informed decisions about your finances that will set you up for long-term stability. Should you invest now or should you save for a rainy day? What expenses can you cut back on to reach your financial goals? By using critical thinking, you can assess your financial situation, weigh the risks and benefits of different options, and make smart decisions that improve your financial stability.

Diane Halpern, award-winning educator and past president of the American Psychological Association, explains that critical thinking involves skills such as analyzing arguments, evaluating evidence, and making informed decisions.

Whether it’s creating a budget, setting savings goals, or making investments, critical thinking can help you make informed decisions that put you on a path towards financial security.

Problem solving at work

When you’re facing a problem on the job, using critical thinking can help you get to the bottom of it, weigh your options, and make a well-informed decision. Sometimes the solution may be simple, but other times, it can be complex and involve multiple factors. By using critical thinking, you can objectively analyze the problem, consider different perspectives, and determine the best course of action. This can lead to more effective problem-solving and decision-making in the workplace, helping you to tackle challenges and reach your goals with confidence.

Joe Lau, associate Professor at the University of Hong Kong explains how to identify and avoid common thinking errors, as well as how to use critical thinking to solve problems and make decisions.

So, when a problem arises on the job, don’t just react impulsively, take a step back and use critical thinking to find the best solution.

Fighting propaganda and misinformation with critical thinking

In today’s world with so much information at our fingertips, it’s important to use critical thinking skills to sort out credible sources from misinformation and propaganda. What if instead of relying on hearsay or biased sources, you could make informed decisions based on accurate information? That’s where critical thinking comes in handy. By evaluating the evidence and reasoning behind information, you can separate facts from fiction and make well-informed choices in all areas of your life. Whether it’s evaluating news articles, scientific studies, or even advertisements, critical thinking can help you navigate the maze of information and make informed decisions.

Making decisions about relationships

This might sound like we’re overthinking it, but even in the area of personal relationship you should use clear thinking. When making decisions about relationships, critical thinking can help you evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your relationships, and make informed choices about the future. Should you get married? Should you end the relationship with a friend that is not supportive of your life choices and goals? By using critical thinking, you can weigh the pros and cons of these important decisions, and make choices that align with your values and aspirations. You can work out the decisions to these challenges methodically when you think critically.

Shopping and consumer decisions

By critically evaluating product claims, advertisements, and customer reviews, you can make informed purchasing decisions that meet your needs and budget. No longer will you be swayed by flashy advertising or a single glowing review. With critical thinking skills, you can objectively assess the validity of product claims, compare prices and features, and determine what truly matches your needs and budget. This can lead to more informed and confident purchasing decisions, saving you time and money in the long run. So, before you click “add to cart,” take a moment to critically evaluate the information available and make an informed choice!

Planning for the future

When making decisions about education, career, and retirement, critical thinking skills will help you evaluate options and make informed choices about the future. Will you continue living driven by others or will you make choices that align with your own goals and values? Weigh the pros and cons of different options, consider long-term consequences, and make decisions that are truly right for you!

Evaluating political information

In a politically charged world, you need critical thinking skills to evaluate political information, identify biases and propaganda, and make informed decisions about political issues. Who will you vote for in the next election? What political issues matter most to you? By using critical thinking, you can examine political information with a skeptical eye, consider multiple perspectives, and make justified choices based on facts and evidence. This can help you navigate the complex world of politics. So, don’t just take political information at face value, use your critical thinking skills to help you make informed and impactful decisions.

Making decisions about personal safety

If you are faced with safety concerns, critical thinking skills can also help you evaluate potential risks, make informed decisions, and take action to protect yourself and your loved ones. It’s always better to be prepared and proactive when it comes to safety. By using critical thinking, you can assess potential dangers, weigh your options, and take steps to ensure the well-being of yourself and those around you. Whether it’s preparing for natural disasters, navigating unfamiliar territory, or making decisions about personal safety, critical thinking can help you make choices that promote peace of mind and security.

Managing stress and emotions by thinking critically

By critically evaluating the root causes of stress and emotions, individuals can make informed decisions about how to manage their mental health and well-being. When was the last time you took a step back and evaluated what’s causing your stress and emotions? By using critical thinking, you can dig deeper into the root causes of your feelings and identify patterns or triggers. For example, maybe you notice that you feel stressed every time you have a big project due at work. By recognizing this pattern, you can take proactive steps to manage your stress, such as breaking down the project into smaller tasks or seeking support from a colleague. Similarly, if you’re feeling overwhelmed with negative emotions, critical thinking can help you evaluate what might be contributing to those feelings and determine steps you can take to improve your emotional well-being. For example, perhaps you’re feeling down because you’re not spending enough time with friends and family.

By recognizing this, you can make an effort to reach out and connect with loved ones, which can help boost your mood and emotional health.

By now you can probably guess the benefits of thinking critically. Here are some of them.

BENEFITS OF THINKING CRITICALLY

Better decision making : By using critical thinking skills, you can evaluate information objectively, consider multiple perspectives, and make informed decisions that are based on evidence.
Improved problem solving : When faced with a challenge, critical thinking can help you identify the root cause, evaluate potential solutions, and make an informed decision.
Increased creativity : Critical thinking encourages you to challenge assumptions and consider new ideas, leading to increased creativity and innovation.
Better communication : By using critical thinking, you can organize your thoughts, clarify your ideas, and communicate effectively with others.
Reduced influence of emotions and biases : By using critical thinking, you can reduce the influence of emotions, biases, and misinformation and make decisions based on rational analysis and evidence.
Personal growth and development : By questioning your own beliefs and perspectives, critical thinking can lead to personal growth and self-discovery.
Enhanced analytical skills : By regularly practicing critical thinking, you can improve your ability to analyze information, evaluate arguments, and make sound judgments.
Increased confidence : By making informed decisions based on rational analysis and evidence, critical thinking can increase your confidence in your own abilities.
Improved critical evaluation skills : Critical thinking can help you evaluate information and arguments from multiple perspectives, leading to improved critical evaluation skills.
Better understanding of complex issues : By using critical thinking skills, you can gain a better understanding of complex issues and make informed decisions about important topics.

So what are some techniques that can help in building critical thinking?

TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING CRITICAL THINKING

Asking questions : Asking questions helps to clarify understanding, gather information, and challenge assumptions.
Examining evidence : Evaluate the evidence supporting a claim, and determine its relevance, reliability, and sufficiency.
Analyzing arguments : Evaluate the structure of arguments, including the premises, conclusions, and any underlying assumptions.
Considering multiple perspectives : Try to consider multiple viewpoints and understand the reasoning behind each perspective.
Practicing skepticism : Don’t accept information or arguments at face value, instead question their validity and seek additional evidence.
Checking for biases : Recognize your own biases and try to avoid them when evaluating information and arguments.
Seeking diverse sources of information : Look for information from a variety of sources, including those that challenge your beliefs.
Reflecting on your thought process : Regularly reflect on your own thought processes, and try to identify areas where you may be able to improve your critical thinking skills.
Engaging in discussion and debate : Engage in discussions and debates with others, and actively listen to their perspectives and arguments.
Continuously learning : Stay curious and actively seek out new information and knowledge, as this can help you to expand your understanding and improve your critical thinking skills.

It’s important to also be aware of the many challenges that can divert us from thinking critically.

CHALLENGES TO CRITICAL THINKING

Challenges to critical thinking can arise from a variety of sources, such as emotions, biases, lack of information, and cognitive biases. However, these challenges can be overcome with practice and a few helpful tips.

Emotional involvement : Emotions can cloud your judgment and make it difficult to think critically. To overcome this challenge, try to recognize when you are feeling emotional and take a step back to assess the situation objectively.
Confirmation bias : Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for and interpret information in a way that confirms your existing beliefs. To overcome this, seek out diverse sources of information and try to consider multiple perspectives.
Lack of information : When making decisions or evaluating arguments, it can be challenging to think critically when you don’t have all the necessary information. To overcome this challenge, gather information from credible sources and be transparent about what you don’t know.
Cognitive biases : Cognitive biases refer to systematic errors in thinking that can impact our decision making and critical thinking skills. To overcome this, try to recognize and avoid common cognitive biases, such as the sunk cost fallacy or the availability heuristic.
Fear of being wrong : Sometimes, fear of being wrong can prevent you from thinking critically. To overcome this challenge, try to approach situations with an open mind and embrace the opportunity to learn and grow.

Final words

In conclusion, critical thinking is a valuable skill that can be improved with practice and by being aware of the challenges that can impact our ability to think critically.

Richard Paul, an expert in critical thinking and co-founder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, emphasized the importance of critical thinking in everyday life and provided several insights on how to apply it effectively.

One of the key things that Paul said about critical thinking for everyday life is that it involves actively and skillfully analyzing information and ideas, rather than simply accepting them at face value. He stressed the importance of questioning assumptions, considering different perspectives, and evaluating evidence in order to arrive at well-reasoned conclusions.

Paul also emphasized the need to be aware of our own biases and assumptions, as well as the influence of external factors such as media and advertising. He encouraged us to develop a habit of reflection and self-assessment, constantly questioning our own thought processes and seeking out new information and perspectives.

By recognizing these challenges and taking steps to overcome them, you can become a more effective critical thinker and make better decisions in your everyday life.

References :

“Critical Thinking: The Nature of Critical and Creative Thought” by Richard Paul and Linda Elder
“Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking” by Diane Halpern
“An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better” by Joe Lau
“Critical Thinking: An Introduction” by Alec Fisher
“Thinking Critically” by John Chaffee
“A Rulebook for Arguments” by Anthony Weston
“How to Read a Book” by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren
“The Art of Reasoning” by David Kelley
“Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman
“Thinking About Thinking: A Guide to Metacognition” by John Dunlosky and Katherine Rawson

The Importance of Critical Thinking when Using ChatGPT (and Other Large Language Models)

Artificial intelligence has made tremendous strides in recent years, allowing for the creation of conversational AI...

How to Critically Evaluate News and Media Sources

I think we all agree that access to information has never been easier. With the click of a button, we can access an...

Critical Thinking in the Workplace

Imagine that you're in a job interview and the interviewer asks you to describe a time when you had to solve a complex...

10 Using Computer-Aided Argument Mapping to Teach Reasoning

Martin davies; ashley barnett; and tim van gelder, introduction [1] , [2].

Argument mapping is a way of diagram m ing the l ogical structure of an argument to explicitly and concisely represent reasoning. (See F igure 1, for a n example.) The use of argument mapping in critical thinking instruction has increased dramatically in recent decades. A brief history of argument mapping is provided at the end of this p a per.

P re- and post-test studies have demonstrate d t he pedagogi cal ben e fit of argument mapping using cohorts of university students and i n telligence analysts as subjects, and by comparing argument map ping intervention s with data from comparison groups or benchmarks from other meta-analytic reviews . It has been found that intensive practice mapping argume n ts with the aid of software has a strong positive e f fect on the critical thinking ability of students . Meta-analys i s has shown that high-intensity argument mapping courses improve critical thinking scores by around 0.8 of a standard deviation — more than twice the typical effect size for standard c ritical thinking courses (van Gelder, 2015) . This strongly suggests that argument mapping is a very effective way to teach critical thinking.

The process of making an argument map is beneficial because it encourages students to construct (or reconstruct) their arguments with a level of clarity and rigor that, when divorced from prose, often goes unnoticed. The shortcomings of a badly-constructed map are plain to see. This is not the case with dense blocks of written prose, which can give an impressionisti c sense of rigor to the reader.

Figure 1. A short argument showing the main conventions used in argument mapping. The main conclusion is placed at the top of the map. The reasons for the main conclusion are identified by green shaded areas connected by lines to the main conclusion. The main conclusion in this example has two reasons, 1A and 1B. Inside the green shaded areas white claim boxes are used to display individual premises. Premises are placed in separate premise boxes because each premise needs its own justification. The surrounding green reason envelope effectively groups together linked premises working together to form a reason for the conclusion. Argument maps clearly show which premises of a reason are supported by further reasoning. For example, 1A-a is a premise, which is itself supported by a reason, 2A-a. As claim 1A-a is both a premise in one inference and a conclusion in another it sometimes called an ‘intermediate conclusion’ or lemma. Objections to claims are identified by a red shaded area. In the map above, there is only one objection, 2C-a. NB: When colour cannot be used the labels to the right of the shading helps to designate reasons and objections (i.e., the words ‘supports’, ‘opposes’).

Argument maps can also help students evaluate reasoning because they can easily focus on eva luating each inferential step of an arg u ment. These inferential steps are indicated by the green and red co n necting lines in the example provided. Students using argument ma p ping software can easily see how their evaluation of each step affects the conclusion. For example, i n the argument in figure 1 , suppose the objection in red is strong enough that we can no longer accept claim 1B-a in the reason above it. That would mean that the second reason given for the contention (formed by claims 1B-a and 1B-b ) no longer offers any support for the con clusion . However, the first reason (formed by claims 1A-a and 1A-b ) is unaffected by the objection and may still be strong enough to establish the conclusion. A map makes this very intuitive. It is much harder to see the implications of chan g ing premises using prose alone and without the visual markers pr o vided by mapping software.

One of the main pitfalls when using argument mapping in teaching is that student s may find the level of rigor and clarity encouraged by the tec hnique to be onerous. However, u sing interesting examples that increase the demands of the argument mapping course gradually and incrementally allow s students to have fun exploring how different argument s work . In most argument mapping software students can freely move the parts of an argument around and experiment with d ifferent logical structures. This ability to “play around” with an a r gument allows students , over time, to gain a deep and practiced u n derstanding of the structure of arguments —an important aim of any critical thinking course . Anecdotally, i t also helps with student e n gagement: by manipulating parts of a map using a software, partic i pants more actively engage with critical thinking tasks than they would do otherwise (i.e., if maps were not being used) .

From an instructor’s point of view, adapting a classroom to teach critical thinking using argument mapping requires flexibility, and a willingness to experiment and try out new methodologies and princ i ples. Some of these are covered in this paper. Fortunately , a variety of s oftware and the exercises needed to run an argument mapping course are available for free online. We return to these later.

Computer-aided argument m apping

Computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) uses software programs specifically designed to allow students to quickly represent reasoning using box and line diagrams. This can, in principle, be done without software (Harrell, 2008) , but the software makes it much easier. Bo x es are used to contain claims and line s are used to show which claims are reasons for other s . The software does no t itself analyze argume n t ative text s , or ch eck the validity of the argument s , but by making argument maps students can, with practic e, get better at argument analysis and evaluation .

In terms of entry-level skills required to use CAAM, little more is needed other than a solid understanding of the target language, basic computer skills, a broad familiarity with the importance of critical thinking, and a willingness to experiment with argument mapping software. In terms of achieving expertise in using CAAM, however, a rigorous approach to text analysis is involved, along with adoption of a number of CAAM methodical principles, and of course, the help of a dedicated and experienced instructor. Lots of argument mapping practice (LAMP) is also recommended (Rider & Thomason, 2008) .

The theoretical basis for argument mapping improving critical thinking skills is based on two principles:

It takes for granted the well-established notion of dual coding as it is understood in cognitive science. Human information processing is enhanced by the use of a number of sensory modalities. Diagrams and words allow better cognitive processing of complex information than words alone.
It assumes the not unreasonable point that cognitive processing capacity in humans is limited, and that understanding complex arguments is enhanced by “off-loading” information as visual displays (in other words, it’s easier to remember and understand information if one can draw a diagram).

Argument mapping is similar to other mapping tools such as mind mapping and concept mapping. All attempt to represent complex rel a tionships. However, there are also important differences. Unlike mind mapping, which is concerned with associational relationships between ideas, and concept mapping, which is concerned with relational co n nections between statements and events, argument mapping is princ i pally concerned with inferential or logical relationships between claims (Davies, 2011) . There is a difference between argument ma p ping and various diagrammatic representations in formal logic too. Argument mapping is concerned with representing informal, i.e., “r e al world”, or natural language argumentation. It thus contrasts with the use of diagrammatic techniques such as Venn diagrams as used in formal logic. In an important sense, argument maps should make i n telligible what is going on in arguments as they are (imperfectly) e x pressed in prose.

As noted, a rgument mapping software provides several benefits in the classroom. The software makes building argument maps easy, so teachers can provide their students with many practical exercises to work on. Because the software allows the students to edit their maps freely, they can engage in sel f-directed exploratory learning as they try out different argument structures to see what works best.

Argument maps also show the anatomy of an argument more clea r ly than can be done in prose . By seeing models of well- constructed map s, students can appreciate how all arguments are made up of claims and how some of these work together as co-premises. They can see at a glance how claims belong to separate line s of reasoning, and can see why some claims are necessary for an argument to su c ceed and why some are not.

For example, o ften when students are presented with a range of re a sons for a conclusion in prose , they will focus on counting the mi s takes and erroneously think that the side of the debate that made the most number of outrageous mistakes must be wrong about the co n clusion. But by presenting the argument in the form of a map illu s trate s the point that these bad reasons neither increase or decrease the reliability of a conclusion, and hence are irrel evant to our final eval u ation. Instead, attention needs to be focused on the strongest reasons, not the number. It i s possible that the side of an argument that pr e sented the worst reasons for a given conclusion also provided the most conclusive reason (s ee figure 2).

Argument maps can make discussing complicated arguments in a classroom much easier too. The number of reasons or objections to a contention can be easily “read-off” an argument map (this is difficult to do with a prose equivalent). Example arguments can be displayed on the projector and the teacher can point precisely to the part of the argument that he or she want to discuss. When debating issues in a classroom using argument maps can help externalize and depersona l ize the debate so that the students are no longer arguing with one a n other in a competitive way but are collaborating on mapping an a r gument together in an attempt to construct the best argument for or against the conclusion. This promotes a sense of involvement in a joint scholarly enterprise.

Figure 2. Argument maps clearly distinguish between separate reasons, so it easier to focus on the logical implications of the good reasons and not get distracted by the bad reasons that should just be ignored when it comes to evaluating the conclusion.

An additional benefit is this: Maps also make assessing student’s reasoning skills much easier in assignments, because the teacher can clearly see what his or her students had in mind without the confounding variables to be found in an argumentative essay (Davies, 2009). Also, asking the students to make an argument map prior to writing an argumentative essay can also help ensure that the basic structure of the argument is adequate before they start writing. For a number of reasons, this can assist in the process of essay writing.

Teaching using computer-aided argument mapping

Let us now look at how to teach critical th inking using argument mapping . Some of these point s apply to any informal logic or critical thinking class, but they are particularly relevant to any class intending to use argument mapping as a teaching tool .

The parts of an argument

In teaching students about argument mapping it is helpful to first di s t inguish the following component parts of an argument and to provide examples of each:

contention/conclusion (a singular claim being argued for);
reasons (a set of claims working together to support a conclusion or sub-conclusion)
objections (a claim, or set of claims working together to oppose or undermine a conclusion, another reason, or an inference);
inference (a logical move or progression from reasons to contention).
Inference indicator words (a word or phrase that identifies a logical progression from reasons to a contention, such as ‘because’, ‘therefore’ or ‘it can be concluded that’);
Evidential sources taken as the endpoint of a line of reasoning (arguments must end somewhere, and often this will be a source of information, e.g. a media report, or an expert opinion , that we expect people to accept without the need for additional arg u ment.)

A rgument mapping concerns itself with relationships between claims or propositions. The first main challenge is to discuss with students the nature of claims. Experience in teaching argument mapping has shown us that students find this concept problematic, a nd , if students are unclear about claims, they cannot easily create argument maps.

How can the notion of a claim be taught to students? One might start with definition s such as:

A claim is a declarative sentence that has a truth value; or
A claim is an assertion that can be agreed with or disagreed with (or partly agreed with).

O ften , however, students find such definitions difficult to grasp. It is best to start with examples of simple empirical statements using the first definition above . M odel claims can be instructive here , along with a discussion about the states of affairs that can establish if and whether certain sentences can be said to be true or false (or empirica l ly uncertain) :

The door is shut . (This might be true, false, or empirically u n clear , i.e., when viewed from an angle ) .
Donald Trump was elected President of the United States . (T his is clearly true, and there are a number of facts that make it so. )
Sally is at McDonald’s . (T his could be determined by observ a tional evidence and perhaps knowledge of Sally dining habits . )
Acid turns blue litmus paper red . (T his could be determined by procedures used in the science of Chemistry . )

Students should then be encouraged to find similar claims in published literature. They should practice reading passages from texts, paying attention to whether the claims meet the standard criteria. The criteria are as follows.

Claims should be:

Singular declarative sentences (i.e., not making more than one point);
Complete sentences (not fragments);
Precisely expressed with a potential truth value (not vague or ambiguous);
Free of inference indicator words.

Once simple empirical claims are successfully used to clarify the notion of the claim, instructors can begin to use examples less reliant on a truth value, i.e., claims more subject to dispute and more likely to engender arguments. The second definition of a claim is apposite here: an assertion which can be agreed with or disagreed with (or partly agreed with). For example:

In a democracy, the poor have more power than the rich.

This is not a simple empirical claim (there is no discoverable fact of the matter) yet it is a claim with a potential truth value—even if this is not easily ascertained. While not a claim with an empirical basis, the same criteria for claims still apply. Examples like this can lead to many useful departure points for instruction and debate.

Once appraised of the distinction between an empirical claim and a contestable claim, one can introduce the distinction between claims and reasons. This is where inference indicator words become important. For example, it would be a mistake to include the following inference as a single claim in an argument map, because it contains two claims connected by the inference indicator ‘because’.

In a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them.

i .e., not :

but instead:

It should be mad e clear to students that t here should be no reaso n ing going on inside a claim box. S tudents should watch out for typical inference indicator terms that occur in passages of text such as: so, since, consequently, therefore, as a result/consequence, in view of the fact that, as shown by (see Table 1 , below). These terms are repr e sented as relationships between the claims and their location in the map rather than in the premise boxes themselves. Because in this e x ample becomes an inference indicator (not part of the statement), and any claims in boxes are rendered as complete sentences (not fra g ments). This is important to stress because the argument mapping software doesn’t check what the students put into the claim boxes. Without instructor input, students can create unintelligible maps b e cause they put either multiple claims into each box or ungrammatical or fra g mentary sentences that don’t have a potential truth value .

It is also important to make clear to students that claims are not questions, commands, demands, exhortations, warnings, and so on. Shut the door! (a demand) is not a claim as it is not potentially true or false. Similarly, interrogative forms such as: Is Sally going to McDonald’s? is not a claim. (One cannot ask: Is the question: Is Sally going to McDonald’s? true or false?) By contrast, one can establish the truth of the assertion: Sally is at McDonald’s . Practice should be emphasised in establishing claims in key passages of text, identifying non-claims, and turning non-claims into claims.

It is generally helpful to make sure that claims are singular statements and do not include conjunctions (e.g., and, but, moreover) though there is nothing logically wrong with putting conjunctions into an argument map. Conjunctions are permitted in a single claim box if they expand or elaborate on a singular claim rather than add another. If they add another claim they must be treated differently. For example, take So c rates is a man but he is not famous . This is two separate claims: So c rates is a man AND Socrates is not famous —the first true; the second clearly false, and in an argument map we generally shouldn’t conflate them. These would be represented in separate claim boxes.

It is also important to stress that claims are always complete sentences. They should also be clearly potentially true or false: “ Reshine moisturiser may make you look better ” is not even a potentially clear claim (how would one decide if it is true or false?) whereas the more precise “ Reshine moisturiser will make all your wrinkles disa p pear from your face within 24 hours ” is a claim that is much easier to verify or falsify. Moreover, it seems to beg a reason (e.g., that Reshine moisturiser might have exfoliate properties) and this suggests at least that there might be some science behind this. In the latter case, but not the former, there is—potentially at least—a fact of the matter that can be empirically determined. All claims can be mapped, but those with reasons and evidentiary support will inevitably be seen as much stronger—as they should.

The distinction between (a) simple empirical claims; (b) contestable claims that unclearly expressed; and (c) clearly expressed contestable claims which potentially admit of reasons that could be potentially true or false, is fundamental to argument mapping and time needs to be given to explore the differences.

These points are important to establish early in argument mapping as one of the ways in which students can fail to map arguments properly is either by (a) constructing a map without claims at all; (b) using unclear claims or truth-dubious claims; or (c) putting more than one claim inside a reason, objection or contention box. Any of these can lead to poorly constructed maps. Argument mapping can help students understand why these problems are important, but the software doesn’t assess students’ work for these problems. Some programs however offer online tutorials that cover some of these points. [3] Importantly, students should be given time to play around with the argument mapping software being used, and to practice putting claims into boxes. Simple examples of prose, e.g., from Letters to the Editor, advertising slogans, or extracts from academic texts can be used for this purpose.

Sources of evidence and the provisional endpoints of arguments

Arguments and argument maps need to stop somewhere and where possible it is good practice to finish a line of reasoning with an evidence source that is uncontentious and can be accepted without further debate. Evidential sources come in many forms. For example, a person might accept the claim that he or she has disease x because they trust the expert opinion of their doctor. Evidence sources include assertions, data, common belief, case studies, legal judgements, expert opinion, personal experience, quotes, statistics, and so on. The argument mapping software Rational e™ allows users to represent sources of evidence as unique claim boxes that can be used to clearly mark the current endpoint of a line of reasoning (see Figures 3 and 4 below).

Of course, whether a source of evidence is uncontentious or not is provisional, and this provisional nature make the notion of an endpoint to an argument difficult to teach to students. Teachers need to make the point clear to students that context matters when deciding if a particular source of evidence can be used as an endpoint in an argument. It is probably fine to take the testimony of one’s housemate that there is no milk in the fridge, but it is not acceptable to take for granted the assertion that Donald Trump is a part of a conspiracy of reptilian space aliens trying to take over the planet. It probably helps to reassure students that deciding on an acceptable endpoint to their argument is a very difficult thing to do and they can always revise their argument map at a later point in time if they tied off a line of debate too quickly.

Figure 3. Example of source of evidence used to end a line of reasoning. The argument mapping software Rationale™ has unique icons for different sources.

Once the notion of a claim is clear, the concept of an argument needs to be introduced and applied using CAAM software. The notion of an argument, like the notion of claim, may also need some explanation. An argument qua an unpleasant interpersonal quarrel between individuals, is in such common use that it can be hard for students to see the alternative. The philosophical concept of an argument is typically defined as a connected series of claims intending to establish some concl u sion, or variations on this, e.g., a sequence of claims with an inference i.e., a logical move, to a conclusion/contention . Students should be taught to appreciate that while claims are singular propositions only, arguments are—by definition—claims for which reason(s) are given.

Figure 4. Ideally, a good argument map requires all premises to be either supported by further reasoning or provisional sources of evidence.

Simple, Complex and Multi-Layer Arguments

Early on, the distinction between simple and complex arguments should be made clear. A simple argument is one for which a single reason is given; a complex, or multi-reason argument—as the name suggests—is one with a set of reasons supporting a contention. Here is an example of each:

Simple argument with a single reason

Complex argument with more than one reason

A key pitfall for students is in telling whether an argument has separate reasons working independently (as in this last example) or whether the reasons work together as dependent co-premises. We return to this later.

As students advance their understanding of argument mapping, multi-layer arguments can be introduced. These arguments have primary reasons supported by secondary level reasons.

An example is provided below. Here is should be noted that the contention of one argument can become a premise of another argument (naturally, mapping an argument does not imply one agrees with it):

A multi-layer argument

It takes a great deal of practice for students to accurately reconstruct multi-layer arguments from a passage of raw text. Gratuitous assumptions are often made in authentic prose, premises are left out, and connections between premises are contentions are not clear. The job of the argument mapper is to make all connections between reasons and contentions, and between primary and secondary-level reasons very explicit. There is no substitute for a skilful pedagogy that builds student’s skills from achieving competence in analysing and reconstructing simple and complex arguments, eventually to multi-layer arguments.

Expressed as a single multi-level argument this becomes:

The notion of an objection can be generally explained without difficulty as it mirrors the structure of reasons. Indeed, objections are simply reasons against something, and likewise, come in simple, complex and multi-layer variations.

When discussing objections, it should be made clear to students that objections can be supported by reasons—reasons here provide evidence that suggests an objection is a good one. For example:

Students should be made aware that very often passages of text are ambiguous. Argument mapping has to deal with such ambiguities. Is the following example a singular claim, or a claim for which a reason is given (an argument)? i.e., is it best rendered as a simple conditional claim?

Or should it be rendered as an argument (a contention with a premise offered in support of it)?:

Such examples are often context-dependent; a function of whether the author is trying to convince the reader of something, or whether they are merely asserting something. Class time should be devoted to looking at passages of text, establishing whether they are arguments or mere assertions and translating them into the argument mapping software.

As well as statements that could be arguments, there are also arguments that have implicit inferences that need elucidation. This phenomenon is very common. For example:

If you want a new car, now is the time and Hindmarsh is the place.

This advertising slogan for a Building Society money-lender is probably best interpreted (charitably) as an argument, not merely a conditional statement. It is trying to convince us of something. Context, and knowledge of the role of money-lenders in society can help interpret it. A moment’s reflection will tell us that the passage is trying to convince us that we should borrow money from Hindmarsh . Unfortunately for students, this contention is not present in the passage but must be gleaned from it. Indeed, the passage also intimates we want a new car! What seems like a simple conditional assertion appears to be a subtle argument with an intermediate conclusion and number of assumed premises. A possible interpretation of the argument is represented using the argument mapping software Rationale™ below.

No argument software can assist on its own with the interpretation of difficult passages of text like this, and an instructor’s role is essential (Note that argument mapping convention requires that implicit or hidden claims, when explicated, are expressed in square brackets […].).

Exposure to many different texts, and teaching sensitivity to argument context, can help. For example, the following advertising slogan:

The bigger the burger the better the burger, and the burgers are bigger at [Hungry] Jack’s.

conceals an implicit conclusion: So/Therefore the burgers are better at [Hungry] Jack’s. Not including the contention renders the passage as a simple assertion rather than what it really is, namely, an argument with an implied contention—and a non-sequitur at that!

Enthymematic arguments (with suppressed claims) are difficult for students, and are commonplace in reasoning. In this example, these premises work together as co-premises to support the (implied) contention. We shall discuss how to deal with these below.

As well as dealing with enthymematic arguments, mapping is also helpful in clearly identifying and exposing instances of circular reasoning—where question-begging supporting reasons are provided, as the following example indicates:

Inference indicators

Early in class instruction it is important to introduce the idea of an inference indicator. There are two types: (a) reason indicators and (b) conclusion indicators. The difference between them is the role they play in an argument. It should be demonstrated how these words and phrases have different grammatical roles too. Reason indicators such as because point to the reason in a grammatical construction; conclusion indicators (like so and therefore) point to the contention. The role they play in sentence construction can be introduced and it can be shown how they can be transposed.

Students should learn the different kinds of indicators to help determine what a reason is; and what a conclusion is. They should be given practice in translating passages like these into simply box and arrow diagrams, or—if they are confident—into argument maps. A table showing how the indictors work can be helpful here (examples provided here are not exhaustive).

At present, CAAM software has a limited range of inference indic a tors most ly using because or the neutral term supports exclusively (i.e., premise X supports contention Y ; or X because Y ) . S tudents need to be able to translate the many inference indicators used in text into the blunt categories offered by CAAM software. This is one of its drawbacks. F uture develo pments might address this. Given present limitations, it is important that students understand how to interpret ordinary language arguments replete in inference indicators of diffe r ent kinds. Nothing substitutes for class work using passages of text that illuminate the many examples of indicator words in use.

Over-interpretation of inference indicators

When students are sufficiently informed about inference indicators, they can be prone to overuse their relevance and see arguments when they are not there. This is something the instructor needs to be wary of as well. Take, for example, the sentence: Sally said she was hungry before, so that is why you can see her eating a sandwich now . This appears to have an inference connector, “so”, but the “so” functions grammatically to connect an explanation to an observation, not as an inference indicator. The passage is not concluding that you can see Sally eating a sandwich. Similarly, Synonyms are good servants but bad masters , therefore select them with care . This is not proffering a contention; it is best interpreted as a subtle piece of advice. Inference indicator words are thus not always indicating an inference (neither is the indictor word thus in that sentence). There is a difference between their use in inference-making and their use in grammatical construction. Again, lots of text-based practice is needed.

Tiers of Reasons/Objections :

A procedural approach to argument m apping.

We have mentioned that arguments can be represented in terms of tiers of reasons and objections in the form of multi-layered arg u ments . It is very easy for students to become overwhelmed by the di f ficulty of this task. How is this best taught and what are the things to watch out for?

As always, it is best to start with simple examples and then attempt more complex examples. The following example , the kind of thing to be found in a ‘Letter to the Editor’ , provides an instructive case.

Dogs fetch balls and cats don’t, so you can play with dogs. I mean, who’d disagree with that? It’s obvious isn’t it? You can’t play with cats, of course. They are too stuck up. Dogs clearly make better pets.

It is clearly an argument. How can one map it to clearly display the reasoning? To establish this, it is best to ask students to follow a s e ries of steps. Th is is important as th ere is a strong tendency for st u dents to jump into the task of mapping a passage without clearly thinking through the text, nor establishing the connections between the component parts of an argument.

Here is a suggested step-by-step approach that could be used with students to help them understand arguments . It is a good idea to a sk student s to follow these steps for any argument under consideration :

This step is follow by:

Eliminating the redundant expressions not germane to the argument, and the questions (non-claims), we get the following: <1>Dogs fetch balls and cats don’t, so <2>you can play with dogs. I mean, who’d disagree with that? It’s obvious isn’t it? <3>You can’t play with cats, of course. They are too stuck up. <4>Dogs clearly make better pets.

The claims are as follows:

Dogs fetch balls and cats don’t
You can play with dogs
You can’t play with cats
Dogs make better pets

Using the What’s the point? test mentioned above, the conclusion reveals itself to be the last claim <4>. This is placed at the top of the map, but how are the reasons supporting it to be arranged? The temptation might be that there are two independent reasons supporting the contention: You can play with dogs and You can’t play with cats.

But this representation of the argument is missing something. W hat is to be done with claim <1> Dogs fetch balls but cats don’t? A t this point a ttention should be drawn to the inference indicator “so” that seems to draw a conclusion , i.e., it is not merely functioning gra m matically in the sentence . But this “so” is clearly not an inference to claim <4>; it appears to be an inference to an intermediate conclusion that consists of claim <2> and thus should thus be represented in a multi-level argument like this:

On reflection, it can be seen that that the two supporting reasons <2> and <3> are best rendered as a single claim—an intermediate concl u sion (they are both making a point about “playing”) —and the claim about “ fetching ” can be seen as reasoned support for this . This ca p tures the intended use of the connector word “so” linking <1> to <2>. There is thus another rule to consider:

The resulting argument map provides a clear example of serial re a soning that accurately represents the case being made:

In the case of more complex arguments additional principles need to be followed.

The principle of abstraction

A very useful guideline for argument mapping is the principle of a b straction . In many cases, t he higher the claim in a multi-layered a r gument the greater the degree of abstraction; or to put it differently, the lower the claim the more specific it should be. In the above exa m ple, “playing” is more abstract than “ fetching balls ” , and both claims are less abstract than “better pet ”. They provide serial support for each other . Students should be guided in how to apply this principle, as without this, maps can become a jumble of disorganized claims with no clear hierarchical structure. Once again, this requires practice and students should be given a number of exercises where they are required to rank claims in terms of their degree of abstraction. To our series of rules we can add the following :

The principle of level consistency

Complex arguments have both a vertical and a horizontal axis. A r guments can be multi-layered along the vertical axis (as we have just seen) , but premises are present along a horizontal axis as well. I n sofar as many premises can be brought to bear in an argument it is i m portant to stress another principle, the principle of level consistency. W ithin each horizontal level, reasons or objections should be appro x imately of equal weighting in terms of their abstraction or generality. In the following argument t his rule is not adhered to and is cons e quently hard to interpret:

This argument is improved by subordinating lower-level claims to a more general claims at the middle-level, and ensuring level consiste n cy at the lower level, as follows:

We can thus add another guideline :

Missing Premises

Teaching students how to look out for missing premises is complex, but there are strategies that can help. It is difficult because reasoning is often replete in missing premises. Indeed, it is very rare that all premises are made explicit in reasoning. This is due to the implicit reliance of speakers or writers on the background beliefs assumed to be shared in any argumentative exchange. Here is a simple example.

Art must represent the world if it is to appeal to a broad audience for generations to come . So t hat’s why Blue Poles will not appeal to a broad audience .

In a normal human exchange, this would be a perfectly clear expression of a (rather dated) view about the painting Blue Poles . It is also an argument. We are giving a reason for a conclusion, as indicated by the words “so that’s why”. However, when teaching argument mapping it is an example of an argument with a missing premise; a premise that needs to be exposed, and made clear. What, precisely, is being argued?

In this case, it is easy to see what missing is. It is the assumption that Blue Poles does not represent the world . Exposing this missing premise allows it to be evaluated, confirmed or rejected. In this example, the missing premise can stated quite easily; in simple passages, this is often the case. But for more complex reasoning a series of steps need to be followed to ensure all missing premises are catered for. Fortunately, there is a very simple way to establish missing premises. This is done by applying two rules: the Rabbit Rule and the Holding Hands Rule . These rules are outlined in more detail in online tutorials available with the software Rationale™ .

Assumptions and how to find them using the Rabbit Rule and Holding Hands Rule

The Rabbit Rule is applied (vertically) to the inferential link between conclusion and the premises. This rule states that no conclusion should come out of thin air. (No rabbits out of hats!) The conclusion term(s) have to be present in the terms of the premises of an argument for it to appear in the conclusion. In the argument under consideration we can see that “ Blue Poles ” appears in the conclusion but does not appear in the available premise. We therefore know that Blue Poles must be supplied to the missing premise.

The Holding Hands Rule is applied horizontally between premises to any remaining terms after the Rabbit Rule has been applied (that is, if a term is not already supplied by means of the Rabbit Rule). The remaining terms must “hold hands” with another premise. No term can appear in one premise alone—there is always a companion term “holding hands”. In this example, we can see that “represent the world” appears in the stated premise, so it must be present in the missing premise. As the argument is negating something about Blue Poles , we similarly apply a corresponding negation to the terms of the missing premise. The argument can be expressed as follows:

We can add the following to our list of procedural rules to establish missing premises:

The following example of a famous deductively valid argument in Philosophy demonstrates how both the Rabbit Rule and the Holding Hands Rule are satisfied. It also demonstrates an example of co-premises in action:It may not have escaped notice that the two claims that support the above contention are jointly necessary for the conclusion to follow. Strictly speaking they are not two independent reasons supporting the conclusion, but are co-premises that jointing support the conclusion. This raises the important issue of co-premises or “linked” premises. This is another crucial methodological principle that students find difficult.

A co-premise is when two or more premises are jointly necessary for the truth of the conclusion. Co-premises are often enthy me matic and s ome times a co-premise is trivial. For example, a person who reasons that they should rent a house because they should find a place to live as quickly as possible , tacitly assumes that renting a house is quickest way of find ing a place to live .

Such assumed claims are often tacit in arguments in both writing and speech , and are often so trivial they do not need to be stated . However, they are an important feature of arguments. Indeed, every argument has at least two of them. In CAAM this is often mentio ned as “The Golden Rule”: every argument has at least two co-premises. In the following example, we have extended the previous argument discussed by the addition of enthymematic co-premises.

While ubiquitous in reason ing, co-premises are not always unco n troversial . Often, co-premises conceal hidden assumptions that are false or misleading. This is why it is good argument mapping practice to expose them. For example, it need not be accepted (without ev i dence— or even intuitively) that pets that you can play with make be t ter pets than those you can’t [play with] (elderly people , the infirm or disabled , for example, like more docile pets). Being able to e x pose hidden assumption clearly for the purpose of critiquing them is a m a jor advantage of argument mapping. Argu ment mapping software makes identification and representation of hidden claims easier by using color conventions and shading; however, this does not help st u dents deciding how to determine how to locate a co -premise in a pa s sage of text. Clear i nstruction and LAMP is needed. Probably the best way to approach co-premises in the classroom is to begin by discus s in g the differences between complex reasoning and linked reasoning.

Co-p remises (Linke d r easoning)

S tudents find the distinction between linked reasoning (dependent premises) and complex reasoning (independent premises ) hard to grasp. It is best taught by showing students a number of simple multi-premise a rguments and asking them to classify examples of complex and linked reasoning . In the following example, it is fairly easy to see that the supporting premises are independent and not necessary for each other .

Plausibly, neither premise could be true; or both could, or one coul d be true and the other false. If either premise was true t he conclusion could sensibly follow in either case. The conclusion could follow even if one of the claims was missing.

In other examples, co-premises are neede d as the claims are not ind e pendent of each other and are examples of linked reasoning . For i n stance :

We should go to Rome for our holidays. Rome is beautiful. Also, it will enable us to visit your relatives and this is something really need to do.

The passage complete with numbered claims would look like this:

<1 We should go to Rome for our holidays>. <2 Rome is beautiful.> Also, <3 It will enable us to visit your relatives> , and <4 this is something really need to do>.

How can one teach students w hich premises are linked and which are independent?

To our set of suggested procedural rules discu ssed earlier, we can add another step:

In the example above the claim Rome is beautiful is an independent reason (it does not depend on visiting relatives) and the contention We should go to Rome for our holidays can be supported by it. The contention can follow from Rome being beautiful regardless of the other claims provided. However, the claims about visiting the relatives appear to be linked. The claim: This is something [Visiting your relatives] we really need to do will not alone support the conclusion without including the claim It [Visiting Rome] will enable us to visit your relatives . Note however, this relationship is not symmetrical. Premise <3> can support the contention without premise <4>. However, <4> can’t without <3>. If one premise can’t support a conclusion without another premise, they are said to be “linked”. In convergent (or divergent) reasoning, none of the claims are dependent on any other claim; either one of the claims might support the conclusion alone. By contrast, in linked reasoning, the claims are not independent; they are necessary for each other for the conclusion to follow.

With <2> as an independent premise, and <3> and <4> being linked premises, the map would appear as follows:

A useful feature of argument mapping is the capacity to display linked premises in an intuitive visual way . Like other software, t he software Rationale™ (used here) uses the colo r green for reasons and the colo r red for objections ( the colo r orange is used exclusiv e ly for rebuttals , i.e., objections to objections ) . Co-premises are ind i cated by an umbrella shading that fades to white . This is a subtle visual indic a tion that no argument is ever complete and more premises could p o tentially be added.

O bjections too can be linked as co-premises as the following exte n sion to the argument indicate. We have added a rebuttal against an objection (in orange) to demonstrate their use.

On the other hand <5 > travelling to Rome is very expensive ,> primarily because <6 > flights are so expensive>. And <7 > we don’t have a lot of money at the moment>. But then again, <there is plenty of money in the children’s bank account we could use>.

We have laid out the complete map of the argument on page 169.

Note here that the claim that Travelling to Rome is expensive could well object to the conclusion alone, but premise could not (without premise ). The premises under consideration must independently support the conclusion to stand as independent reasons. If this is not the case, the premises are said to be linked.

A brief history of argument mapping

Argument mapping can be traced to the work of Richard Whately in his Elements of Logic (1834/1826) but his notation was not widely adopted. In the early twentieth century, John Henry Wigmore mapped legal reasoning using numbers to indicate premises (Wigmore, 1913; Wigmore, 1931) . Monroe Beardsley developed this, and it became standard model of an argument map (Beardsley, 1950) . On this a p proach, premises are numbered, a legend is provided to the claims identified by the numbers, and serial, divergent and convergent re a soning can be clearly represented. An example of each of these forms of reasoning using the standard model is provided below.

This model is still widely used and is advantageous in contexts where students are required to produce argument maps without access to software (e.g., in paper-based logic and reasoning exams under timed conditions).

In 1958, Stephen Toulmin devised another model of an argument map that included the notion of a “warrant” (which licenses the inference from the reasons, which he called “data”, to the claim), “backing” (which provides the authority for the warrant), modal qualifiers (such as “probably”), and “rebuttals” (which mention conditions restricting the inference) (Toulmin, 1958). An example of a Toulmin map is provided below.

In 1973, Stephen L. Thomas refined Beardsley’s approach (Thomas, 1997/1973) . Thomas included in his approach the important notion of “linked” arguments where two or more premises work together to support a conclusion (the distinction between dependent and ind e pendent premises having being described earlier). This innovation made it feasible for arguments to include “hidden” premises. He is also said to have introduced the terms “argument diagram”, “basic” (or “simple”) reasons, i.e., those not supported by other reasons (as distinct from “complex” reasons). He also made the distinction b e tween “intermediate” conclusions (a conclusion reached before a final conclusion) and a “final” conclusion (not used to support another conclusion). Thomas also suggested including objections as reasons against a proposition, and that these too should be included in arg u ment maps.

In 1976 , Michael Scriven proposed a procedure for mapping that could be recommended to students (Scriven, 1976) . This involved a number of steps: ( 1) writing out the statements in an argument; ( 2) clarifying their meaning; ( 3) listing the statements, including any hi d den claims; and ( 4) using numbers for premises along the lines of the Beardsley-Thomas model. In the case of hidden assumptions, Scriven’s notation used an alphabetical letter to distinguish hidden assumptions from explicit reasons. Scriven also emphasized the i m portance of a rebuttal in argument mapping, a notion identified earlier by Thomas.

In the 1990s a number of innovations occurred. Robert Horn helped popularize the notion of an argument map by producing idiosyncratic, large-format argument diagrams on key issues in philosophy such as “Can Computers Think?” (Horn, 1999; Horn, 2003) . These maps did not adopt either the standard model or Toulmin -style notation for mapping arguments, but did use arrows and pictures to make the co n tent clear, making it obvious for the first time that argument maps could be visually interesting as well as informative. These were di s tributed widely and used in class teaching. In addition, computer software programs began to be developed. This was important, as dedicated argument mapping software allowed premises to be co m posed, edited and placed within an argument map, as distinct from a legend alongside the map.

Argument mapping software

Once dedicated computer software was introduced, the standard mo d el of numbered premises became outdated in all contexts outside its use in examinations. Several iterations of mapping software were d e veloped in Australia and the U . S .A. with increasingly greater levels of sophistication. Tim van Gelder developed Rationale™ and bC i sive ™ , the former designed as a basic argument mapping software, the latter designed for business decision-making applications (van Gelder, 2007, 2013) . Both were later purchased by Dutch company Kritisch Denken BV .

A variety of argument mapping packages are now available, inclu d ing Araucaria, Compendium, Logos, Argunet , Theseus, Convince Me, LARGO, Athena, Carneades and SEAS . These range from single-user software such as Rationale™ , Convince Me and Athena ; to small group software such as Digalo , QuestMap , Compendium, Belvedere, and AcademicTalk ; to collaborative online debating tools for arg u mentation such as Debategraph and Collaboratorium . Enhancements to argument mapping software proceed apace. For example, there are moves to introduce a Bayesian network model to Rationale™ to cater for probabilistic reasoning.

Rationale™ or bCisive are perhaps the easiest programs to use for teaching argument mapping, but they require a subscription. E xcellent free alternative s i nclude the Argumen t Visualization mode in the online MindMup : https://www.mindmup.com/tutorials/argument-visualization.html , and the cross-platform desktop package iLogos

http://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/argument_mapping/

Argument mapping class room examples

There are a number of free argument resources available online.

The designers of Rationale™ made tutorials to be used with their software. https://www.rationaleonline.com/docs/en/tutorials#tvy5fw
Simon Cullen, who helped design the MindMup argument visualisation function, has posted some of the activities he uses for teaching philosophical arguments using argument maps. http://www.philmaps.com
Ashley Barnett, who has written lots of questions for argument mapping courses for students and intelligence analysts has posted his teaching material on http://www.ergoshmergo.com

In this paper we have covered some of the basic concepts and considerations that teachers need to be aware of when using CAAM in the classroom. A set of procedural steps was suggested that is recommended for use with students. Understanding claims and arguments and how they are structured is only the start. Students should also be aware of how to interpret inference indicators, construct and analyse simple, complex and multi-layer arguments, and be able to integrate objections and rebuttals. They should be wary of misusing inference indicators, confusing reasons with evidence for reasons, and misinterpreting independent reasons for co-premises. There is much more we could have discussed. We have not touched on the use of inference objections (in contrast to premise objections). We have not mentioned argument webs or chains of reasoning, nor have we discussed in detail the appropriate ways to integrate evidence into an argument. However, it should be clear from this brief outline how CAAM can assist students in disentangling arguments in everyday prose—replete, as it often is, with non-sequiturs, repetition, irrelevancies, unstated conclusions, and other infelicities.

Beardsley, M. C. (1950). Practical logic. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Davies, M. (2009). Computer-assisted argument mapping: a rationale approach. Higher Education, 58, 799-820. Higher Education, 58(6), 799-820.

Davies, M. (2011). Mind Mapping, Concept Mapping, Argument Mapping: What are the Differences and Do they Matter? Higher Education, 62 (3), 279-301.

Harrell, M. (2008). No Computer program required: Even pencil-and-Paper argument mapping improves critical-thinking skills. Teaching Philosophy, 31 (4), 351-374.

Horn, R. (1999). Can Computers Think? : Macrovu.

Horn, R. E. (2003). Infrastructure for Navigating Interdisciplinary Debates: Critical Decisions for Representing Argumentation. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. B. Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Rider, Y., & Thomason, N. (2008). Cognitive and Pedagogical Benefits of Argument Mapping: L.A.M.P. Guides the Way to Better Thinking. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge Cartography: Software Tools and Mapping Techniques (pp. 113-130): Springer.

Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thomas, S. N. (1997/1973). Practical reasoning in natural language (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument (first ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

van Gelder, T. (2007). The Rationale for Rationale™. Law, Probability and Risk, 6 , 23-42.

van Gelder, T. (2013). Rationale 2.0.10. Retrieved from http://rationale.austhink.com/download

van Gelder, T. J. (2015). Using argument mapping to improve critical thinking skills. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education (pp. 183-192). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Whately, R. (1834/1826). Elements of logic: comprising the substance of the article in the Encyclopædia metropolitana: with additions, &c. (5th ed.). London: B. Fellowes.

Wigmore, J. (1913). The Problem of Proof. Illinois Law Review, 8 , 77.

Wigmore, J. (1931). The Science of Judicial Proof as Given by Logic, Psychology and General Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials (2 ed. Vol. Little, Brown and Co. ): Boston.

The colored versions of the argument maps in this chapter are available only in the open-access Ebook edition of this book at: https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog ↵
https://www.rationaleonline.com/docs/en/tutorials#tvy5fw). ↵

Share This Book

How to Write a Critical Thinking Essay With Tips and Examples

11 December 2023

last updated

Essay writing is an integral academic exercise for students in higher educational institutions. As an example of different paper types, a critical thinking essay requires students to employ analytical and reflective writing skills. In essence, these skills underscore essential features of a critical thinking essay: analysis of information, reflection on key findings, a review of the relevance of the information, and an identification of any conclusions made by the author(s) or other scholars. Hence, a critical thinking essay is a specific type of writing that requires learners to read documents and make interpretations from their points of view. In turn, writers need to learn how to write a critical thinking essay to master their analytical, creative, and reflective skills.

General Guidelines for Writing a Critical Thinking Essay

Critical thinking is an essential skill, particularly for students who need to analyze and interpret data. In this case, the essence of this skill is that learners confront issues every day that require them to make prompt decisions. Moreover, critical thinking is the mechanism by which individuals arrive at these decisions. Therefore, a critical thinking essay is a document that allows students to address an issue holistically. Then, it means addressing issues in an essay format by using critical thinking skills from different perspectives, highlighting possible alternatives, and making well-thought-out decisions. To the audience, such a text makes it easy to understand the writer’s message and either agree or disagree with it. Besides, the decision to agree or disagree is based on the writer’s information regarding an issue in question. Hence, this is why authors of critical thinking essays need to provide details that make their arguments stronger and more palatable to the audience.

How to write a critical thinking essay with examples

1. Defining Characteristics of a Critical Thinking Essay

When writing a critical thinking essay, students should address several essential features. Firstly, writers need to reflect on what they have read, meaning taking time to consider the relevance of the information. In this case, such an attitude helps them to make strong arguments in defense of their points of view. Secondly, learners need to analyze how the information is presented and state whether it is sufficient or needs improvement. Thirdly, writers need to review the information based on previous knowledge. Here, they should say whether the information advances a concept or theory or contradicts existing knowledge. Finally, scholars need to identify the conclusion reached by the author(s) of the information and support or challenge it.

2. How to Identify a Critical Thinking Essay

Based on the essential features described above, students can tell whether an essay that they are writing is a critical thinking paper. Ideally, learners can know that their papers are critical thinking essays if prompt requirements require them to read and analyze a text. Basically, the analysis process includes reflecting on the text, commenting on how information is presented and its relation to previous knowledge, and supporting or challenging the conclusion made. In principle, these requirements reflect the defining features of a critical thinking essay.

3. How Does a Critical Thinking Essay Differ From Other Papers

A critical thinking essay differs fundamentally from other types of essays because it requires a student to read a text, such as a book or a poem, and analyze it using the writer’s perspective. Moreover, some instructions need students to analyze a film. In other words, writing a critical thinking essay emphasizes the students’ understanding of information and the meaning of what they have read, watched, or heard. Indeed, it is a central point of difference from other types of papers that require students to refrain from personal viewpoints. Then, this feature means that instructors grade a critical thinking essay based on the writer’s ability to develop a coherent argument and use essential writing skills. In this light, one can argue that a critical thinking essay is a form of an argumentative essay .

Free Examples of 20 Topics for Writing a Critical Thinking Essay

1. identify communication differences between men and women.

Under this topic, the students’ task is to read texts that talk about how men and women communicate and identify the differences. In this case, writers should analyze what they have read and summarize it via concise statements or arguments.

2. Discuss Drug Use in Sports

Under this topic, the students’ task is to research texts, such as research journal articles and government reports, that address the problem of drug use in sports and summarize their findings.

3. Explore the Anti-Meth Campaign

Under this topic, the students’ task is to read widely about anti-meth campaigns and provide an in-depth analysis of their impacts. By reading a critical thinking essay, the audience should understand whether specific campaigns have been effective or ineffective.

4. Discuss Homelessness and Its Social Impacts

Under this topic, the students’ task is to read texts about homelessness, such as journal articles and reports by governments and other humanitarian organizations, and explain the root causes and social implications of homelessness.

5. Discuss the History of College Football in the United States

Under this topic, the students’ task is to read documents, such as books and media articles, narrating college football history in the US. After writing a critical thinking essay, the audience should identify specific challenges that college football has faced in its development in the country.

6. Explore Health Effects of Obesity

Under this topic, the students’ task is to read research studies and medical reports discussing obesity. In turn, a critical thinking essay should explain the specific causes of obesity and the risks that obese individuals face.

7. Discuss the Significance of Street Art and Graffiti

Under this topic, the students’ task is to read texts discussing the evolution of street art and graffiti and make compelling arguments as to why they are essential features of modern art.

8. Sports On Television: Is It Necessary?

Under this topic, the students’ task is to explain why television has become a critical platform for sports and how it undermines or helps advance its social and cultural significance.

9. What Is the Essence of Multicultural Identity?

Under this topic, the students’ task is to explore the phenomenon of multiculturalism that has become notable and acceptable in modern society and explain its significance.

10. The Relevance of Body Size in Modeling

Under this topic, the students’ task is to explore the modeling profession and explain why body size matters. In other words, a critical thinking essay should make a case as to why a model should have a particular body size.

11. Understanding Multicultural Families

Under this topic, the students’ task is to explore multicultural families by reading texts that address the issue from a research or commentary perspective and summarize the leading arguments.

12. Changing Gender Roles: What It Means for Traditionalists

Under this topic, the student’s task is to explore gender roles from a historical and present perspective and discuss how it threatens or cements traditional views about the roles of men and women.

13. What Is Ethnic Music, and Does It Matter in a Multicultural Society?

Under this topic, the students’ task is to study multiculturalism and identify how ethnic music is a significant characteristic.

14. American Society and the Latino Influence

Under this topic, the students’ task is to study contemporary American society’s characteristics and indicate the extent to which Latinos and their culture (Latin American) have become a significant part of the American identity.

15. Challenges of Single-Parent Households

Under this topic, the students’ task is to read research studies on single parenthood and identify its challenges.

16. What Are the Features of a Good Movie?

Under this topic, the students’ task is to watch movies they consider “good” and provide an analysis of what makes them so.

17. Describe a Poem With a First-Person Point of View

Under this topic, the students’ task is to select a poem, examine it, and describe its outstanding features, such as literary devices.

18. The Dynamics of Adoption in a Multicultural Society

Under this topic, the students’ task is to examine the aspect of adoption within the context of a multicultural society.

19. What Store Strategies Influence Consumers?

Under this topic, the students’ task is to study the phenomenon of retail stores and give an analysis of specific factors that lead to their growth or shut down.

20. Euthanasia: The Questions of Ethics, Morals, and Legality

Under this topic, the students’ task is to examine the aspect of euthanasia (mercy or assisted killing) and give an opinion on whether society should address it from a perspective of ethics, morals, or law.

How Students Can Understand if They Need to Write a Critical Thinking Essay by Looking at a Topic

When it comes to essay writing, the department’s requirements provide direction about a critical thinking topic. By reading such a topic, students get an idea of what kind of paper they are supposed to write. Regarding a critical thinking essay, a topic should require students to research a specific theme, reflect on what they have read, and comment on how the author(s) have presented information, the relevance of the information to existing knowledge, and the significance of the author’s conclusion. In turn, these five tasks underscore the essential features of a critical thinking essay.

Structure of a Critical Thinking Essay

When it comes to an essay structure , a critical thinking essay comprises three main sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. When writing each of these sections, students should capture essential features. Firstly, the introduction should provide a hook to capture the readers’ attention and formulate a thesis statement to guide the paper’s arguments and ideas. In the body, writers should use topic sentences to introduce paragraphs. Besides, students should follow a sandwich rule, where they make a claim, provide supporting facts, and explain the significance of cited evidence to the paper’s thesis. In the conclusion part, authors should restate a thesis statement, summarize the main body points, and make a concluding remark. Finally, other essential features that learners should use in the main text are transitions to give a critical thinking paper a natural and logical flow of ideas and arguments.

Sample Outline Template for Writing a Critical Thinking Essay

I. Introduction

A. Start with a hook sentence that makes a critical thinking essay interesting. B. Cover brief information about a theme discussed in body paragraphs. C. End with a thesis statement of a critical thinking essay.

A. Background Information:

introduce an issue for readers;
provide examples that support this issue;
explain how examples correlate with a theme;
finish with defining an issue for readers.

B. Argument on an Issue

begin with an argument on an issue;
covers examples to support this argument;
explain how examples and argument are related;
conclude how an argument on this theme is relevant.

C. Importance of an Issue

state why this issue is important;
support this statement with examples from credible sources;
explain how these examples underline the importance of an issue;
end with a concluding sentence that supports this importance.

III. Conclusion

A. Restate a thesis claim. B. Cover the key points discussed in body paragraphs. C. Provide a final thought on an issue.

An Example of a Critical Thinking Essay

Topic: Roles of Critical Thinking Skills

I. Introduction Sample of a Critical Thinking Essay

Critical thinking is a requirement in higher education because it reflects the level of mental preparedness of students intending to join the labor industry. In this case, essay writing is one of the strategies that higher education institutions use to develop these critical thinking skills in students. Writing argumentative essays has profoundly shaped my critical thinking skills and made me more reflective and analytical in my texts.

II. Examples of Body Paragraphs in a Critical Thinking Essay

A. background information of an issue.

The advent of the Internet opened a new world of research as scholars found a platform to publish research findings. Besides scholars, public and private entities have turned to the online platform to spread information they perceive as critical and needful. Over time, I have come to see the Internet as a crucial reservoir of knowledge, and I always turn to it for personal enrichment. Moreover, Gilster (1997) perceives critical thinking as a critical skill for individuals who use online platforms for academic purposes. In this case, the author demonstrates that, since the Internet is full of falsehoods and incomplete and obsolete information, it is critical for those who depend on this technology to employ critical thinking. Hence, such thinking helps users distinguish between essential, relevant information, and what appears to be irrelevant and nonessential.

On the issue of critical thinking, examining and analyzing content are fundamental exercises. In essence, critical thinking entails reading a text and interpreting it by using an analytical lens. For example, when students read novels, they can use their critical thinking skills to analyze the plot and characters and provide arguments that indicate an in-depth understanding of both (Gilster, 1997). In most cases, such ideas go beyond what is written in the novel to include the student’s interpretation of events. In my case, I use the Internet to find research and media articles on different topics, such as homelessness, substance abuse, crime, and police and law enforcement. Moreover, I use these articles to reflect on the dynamics that shape life in contemporary society, using my critical thinking skills to relate the past, present, and future. Therefore, I can state confidently that this habit has made me a strong debater on contemporary issues.

By using critical thinking skills, readers make deductions, thereby showcasing their understanding levels. As the literature suggests, critical thinking serves as a basis for knowledge accumulation and advancement (Ku & Ho, 2010). In my academic journey, I have employed critical thinking to gain insight into several issues. Furthermore, one of these issues is the significance of politics to the life of ordinary citizens. Then, many documents I have read about politics have made me conclude that politicians are selfish by default and only develop consensus when their interests are accommodated. Hence, this understanding has made me have minimal expectations from local and national political figures.

III. Conclusion Sample of a Critical Thinking Essay

Critical thinking is a key skill that helps individuals to analyze and reflect on information from diverse sources. Over the years, I have used critical thinking to analyze research and media articles published on online platforms and make logical deductions. Moreover, these deductions point to my ability to take information, analyze, and interpret it. Thus, I can confidently state that my critical thinking skills have made me aware of human weaknesses and the risk of putting too much trust in people vulnerable to shortcomings.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy: The thinking and survival skills new users need to make the Internet personally and professionally meaningful . New York, NY: Wiley.

Ku, K. Y., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning , 5 (3), 251-267.

Summing Up on How to Write a Good Critical Thinking Essay

A critical thinking essay is a document that reflects students’ ability to use analytical and reflective skills in studying an issue. Although writing a critical thinking essay assumes following a basic structure of a standard essay, it has features that distinguish it from other papers. When writing this type of essay, students should master the following tips:

read and analyze information;
reflect on study findings;
review the relevance of the information within the context of existing knowledge;
identify any conclusions made by authors or other scholars and their significance.

To Learn More, Read Relevant Articles

How to cite a ted talk in apa 7 with tips and examples, common grammar, punctuation, and spelling mistakes with examples.

Critical Thinking: Definition and Analysis

This essay about the significance of critical thinking in various aspects of life, from academia to everyday interactions. It emphasizes the importance of analysis and synthesis in fostering intellectual autonomy and resilience. Through examples in different contexts, it highlights how critical thinking enables individuals to navigate complex information, evaluate arguments, and cultivate intellectual humility.

How it works

Critical thinking, a term often echoed in scholarly circles, workplaces, and beyond, is a skill of immense significance across various dimensions of life. It serves as the cornerstone of education, problem-solving, decision-making, and personal development. However, despite its ubiquitous presence, the concept of critical thinking remains somewhat enigmatic, with its definition subject to interpretation and nuanced understanding. In this exploration, we delve into the depths of critical thinking, endeavoring to unravel its essence, dissect its components, and illuminate its implications.

At its essence, critical thinking can be described as the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information or arguments in a systematic and reasoned manner.

It goes beyond mere acceptance or rejection of ideas; rather, it involves a rigorous examination of evidence, assumptions, and logical coherence. Critical thinkers engage in reflective and independent thinking, questioning assumptions, exploring alternative perspectives, and arriving at well-informed conclusions. Essentially, critical thinking acts as intellectual armor, equipping individuals with the tools to navigate the complex landscape of information and ideas in today’s world.

One of the foundational elements of critical thinking is analysis. Analysis entails breaking down complex ideas or issues into their constituent parts, closely examining them, and discerning patterns, relationships, or implications. It serves as the scaffolding for reasoned judgments by providing a framework for understanding. During analysis, evidence is scrutinized, biases are uncovered, the credibility of sources is assessed, and underlying assumptions are revealed. Through this process, a deeper understanding of the subject matter is attained, enabling individuals to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses more effectively.

However, analysis in critical thinking is not limited to deconstruction; it also involves synthesis – the integration of disparate elements into a coherent whole. Synthesis represents the culmination of analytical inquiry, where insights gleaned from individual pieces of information or perspectives are merged to form a comprehensive understanding. It is the creative aspect of critical thinking, where innovative ideas or solutions emerge from the interplay of diverse viewpoints. Thus, analysis and synthesis work in tandem to foster holistic comprehension and innovative thinking.

To underscore the significance of analysis in critical thinking, one can examine its application across various contexts. In academia, students are frequently tasked with analyzing literary texts, scientific data, historical events, or philosophical arguments. Through close examination, experimentation, or historical research, students learn to dissect complex phenomena, identify underlying themes or principles, and construct coherent interpretations. Similarly, professionals in fields such as business, law, or healthcare rely on analytical skills to dissect problems, assess risks, and formulate effective strategies. Whether it involves conducting market research, analyzing legal precedents, or diagnosing medical conditions, the ability to analyze information critically is indispensable.

Moreover, analysis in critical thinking extends beyond academic or professional domains; it permeates everyday life. Consider the deluge of information encountered through media channels, social networks, or interpersonal interactions. In an era of information overload and misinformation, the ability to analyze sources critically is paramount. Individuals must scrutinize news articles for bias, fact-check viral claims, and discern the agenda behind persuasive rhetoric. By honing analytical skills, individuals become less susceptible to manipulation and more adept at navigating the complexities of the modern world.

Furthermore, analysis in critical thinking fosters intellectual humility – the recognition of one’s fallibility and the willingness to revise beliefs in light of new evidence or perspectives. In a world marked by ideological polarization and echo chambers, intellectual humility is a rare trait. However, critical thinkers, through their commitment to rational inquiry and open-mindedness, cultivate this virtue. They recognize that truth is multifaceted and elusive, and that certainty is often illusory. Consequently, they approach arguments or viewpoints with skepticism, subjecting them to rigorous analysis before rendering judgment.

In conclusion, critical thinking, grounded in analysis, is an indispensable skill for navigating the complexities of the modern world. It empowers individuals to dissect information, evaluate arguments, and synthesize insights, fostering intellectual autonomy and resilience. Whether in academia, professional endeavors, or everyday life, the ability to think critically is indispensable. By honing analytical skills and nurturing intellectual humility, individuals can traverse the vast expanse of information and ideas with clarity and discernment. As dedicated practitioners of critical thinking, let us embrace the challenge of analysis, for therein lies the path to intellectual enlightenment and empowerment.

Cite this page

Critical Thinking: Definition And Analysis. (2024, Apr 07). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-thinking-definition-and-analysis/

"Critical Thinking: Definition And Analysis." PapersOwl.com , 7 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-thinking-definition-and-analysis/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Critical Thinking: Definition And Analysis . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-thinking-definition-and-analysis/ [Accessed: 20 Apr. 2024]

"Critical Thinking: Definition And Analysis." PapersOwl.com, Apr 07, 2024. Accessed April 20, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-thinking-definition-and-analysis/

"Critical Thinking: Definition And Analysis," PapersOwl.com , 07-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-thinking-definition-and-analysis/. [Accessed: 20-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Critical Thinking: Definition And Analysis . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/critical-thinking-definition-and-analysis/ [Accessed: 20-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Red Herring Fallacy (29 Examples + Definition)

You've stumbled across debates or discussions that seem to veer off-topic, haven't you? Well, there's a term for that: the Red Herring Fallacy.

A Red Herring Fallacy is an example of a deceptive tactic that diverts attention away from the real issue at hand, steering the conversation towards a different, often unrelated, topic.

In this article, you'll learn how it has been utilized and exploited throughout history, in politics, media, and everyday conversations. We'll break down the complex world of red herrings into manageable bites, offering a detailed list of examples to help you master the concept.

What is a Red Herring Fallacy?

Think of it as the magician's sleight of hand but in conversation. While a magician diverts your attention to perform a trick, a red herring pulls your focus away from the main issue to something else. In debates or discussions, this tactic muddles the waters and makes it harder to get to the truth.

The red herring logical fallacy often occurs when someone doesn't have a good argument or counter-point. Fallacies are logical errors, usually in arguments, that people make which lead to inconsistent reasoning.

In particular, this is an informal fallacy because the content of the premise(s) is what causes the misleading argument. Formal fallacies, on the other hand, are about the structure of the argument rather than the content.

Instead of admitting defeat or saying, "I don't know," they throw in a distraction. Imagine you're talking about the need for clean energy, and someone says, "Well, what about jobs?" The concern for jobs is real but it's a red herring if it's used to dodge the actual issue of clean energy.

Why should you care? Knowing how to spot a red herring gives you the upper hand in any discussion. You'll be able to stick to the main topic and avoid time-wasting detours. It's a skill that can elevate your communication prowess, whether in a classroom debate, a job interview, or even social conversations.

Other Names for this Fallacy:

Ignoratio elenchi
Missing the point
Irrelevant conclusion

Other Logical Fallacies:

Straw Man Fallacy : Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
Ad Hominem : Attacking the person instead of their argument.
Slippery Slope : Arguing that one event will lead to a series of other events , without evidence.
False Dilemma : Presenting only two options when more exist.
Circular Reasoning : Using your conclusion as evidence for your argument.

The term "Red Herring" has an interesting origin. It dates back to the 1800s and was used to train hunting dogs. A smoked, cured herring, which is red and has a strong smell, was dragged across the trail to divert the dogs. If the dogs could ignore this potent distraction and stick to the original scent, they were considered well-trained.

Over time, the phrase evolved to symbolize any diversion or distraction from the real issue.

29 Examples Of A Red Herring Error

1) diet pills.

"These diet pills didn't work because you didn't exercise enough," even though the advertisement claimed no exercise was needed.

This is a red herring argument because the focus shifts from the inefficacy of the pills to your lack of exercise. The original advertisement claimed that no exercise was required, making exercise an irrelevant point. The argument distracts from the original issue, that the pills might not be effective on their own.

2) Celebrity Endorsement in Politics

"Vote for her; she's a great person!" even though the discussion is about her political qualifications.

This is a political red herring fallacy because the focus shifts from her political qualifications to her character. It deflects from the real question of whether she's fit for public office based on her political stance and experience. It appeals to most people's desire to combat corruption by suggesting she won't give in to it, but it doesn't speak to her actual qualifications.

3) Homework Deadline

"You give us too much homework," when questioned about missing a specific deadline.

While a common explanation, this is a red herring fallacy because it shifts the focus from the missed deadline to the amount of homework given. It's used to avoid discussing the issue of why this specific homework assignment was not submitted on time.

4) Poor Grades

"But I'm the star player on the basketball team," when asked about receiving a 'C' in a class.

This is a red herring fallacy because the athletic achievement distracts from the academic performance. The issue of being a star player on the team is irrelevant to the grade received in class.

5) Traffic Fine

"There are criminals out there, and you're wasting time on me?" when given a speeding ticket.

This is a red herring fallacy because it diverts the issue from your speeding to crime in general. It attempts to trivialize your own wrongdoing by highlighting other unrelated problems.

6) Climate Change

"We should focus on poverty instead," during a discussion on climate change.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts the focus from climate change to poverty. While poverty is an important issue, it doesn't negate the importance of discussing climate change.

7) Job Interview

"I have excellent communication skills," when asked about experience in project management.

This is a red herring fallacy because it moves the focus from your experience in project management to your communication skills. The question was specifically about managing projects, not about how well you communicate.

8) Parent-Teacher Meeting

"But he gets good grades," when discussing disruptive behavior in class.

This is a red herring fallacy because it sidesteps the issue of disruptive behavior by highlighting good grades. Academic performance does not excuse poor behavior in class.

9) Budget Overruns

"Another department also had budget overruns last year," when questioned about your own project going over budget.

This is a red herring because it deflects from your project's financial issues by pointing to another department's budget overruns. It doesn't address or excuse your project's budgetary issues.

10) Veganism

"Plants have feelings too," during a discussion about the ethics of eating meat.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts the topic from the ethics of eating meat to the feelings of plants. The issue of plant feelings is irrelevant to the discussion of eating meat.

11) Vaccination

"What about medical malpractice suits?" during a conversation about the effectiveness of vaccines.

This is a red herring fallacy because it distracts from the issue of vaccine effectiveness to discuss medical malpractice. The two are unrelated and should not be conflated.

12) Movie Ratings

"It made a lot of money," when debating if a movie is good or not.

This is a red herring fallacy because it changes the focus from the movie's quality to its financial success. How much money it made doesn't necessarily reflect its quality.

13) Workplace Equality

"Men work more dangerous jobs," during a discussion on gender pay gaps.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts the focus from equal pay for equal work to the type of jobs men do. It avoids addressing the real issue of gender pay inequality.

14) Cheating in Sports

"Everyone else is doing it," when caught using performance-enhancing drugs.

This is a red herring fallacy because it moves the focus from your cheating to others' actions. The actions of others don't justify your own wrongdoing.

15) Rising Crime Rates

"The real problem is the lack of family values," during a conversation about rising crime rates.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts from the topic of rising crime rates to family values. While family values might be important, they don't directly relate to the issue at hand.

16) Air Pollution

"What about water pollution?" during a discussion about air pollution.

This is a red herring fallacy because it moves from air pollution to water pollution. Both are important but discussing one does not negate the other.

17) Pet Care

"Animal cruelty in meat industries," during a conversation about proper pet care.

This is a red herring fallacy because it switches from the original topic of proper pet care to animal cruelty in the meat industry. Although both are related to animals, they are separate issues.

18) Organic Foods

"Non-organic farming practices are more efficient," during a discussion on the health benefits of eating organic.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts from the health benefits of organic foods to the efficiency of non-organic farming. Efficiency is not relevant to the discussion of health benefits.

19) Healthcare System

"We should focus on education reform," during a debate on healthcare.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts from healthcare to education reform. Both are significant, but the presence of one issue doesn't invalidate the other.

20) Tobacco Companies

"Tobacco companies fund cancer research," during a discussion about the harms of smoking.

This is a red herring fallacy because it switches from the harms of smoking to the funding of cancer research. Funding research doesn't make smoking any less harmful.

21) Relationships

"But I buy you gifts," during a fight about not spending enough quality time together.

This is a red herring fallacy because it diverts from the issue of spending time together to material gifts. Gifts don't replace the need for spending quality time.

22) Professional Development

"I've been focused on my current projects," when asked why professional development courses were not completed.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts from the need for professional development to current projects. Focusing on current projects doesn't negate the need for development.

23) Space Exploration

"We have enough problems here on Earth," during a debate on the value of space exploration.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts from the potential benefits of space exploration to earthly problems. One does not invalidate the other.

24) Academic Dishonesty

"The education system is flawed," when caught plagiarizing.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts from your own academic dishonesty to a flawed education system. Your actions aren't justified by a flawed system.

25) Historical Debates

"The technological advancements it led to," during a discussion about the impact of colonialism.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts from the negative impacts of colonialism to its technological benefits. The latter doesn't excuse the former.

26) Local Elections

"Lack of family values," during a local election focusing on policies and qualifications.

This is a red herring fallacy because it diverts from the candidates' qualifications and policies to their family values. Family values are not the issue at hand.

27) Gun Control

"What about knife crimes?" during a debate on gun control.

This is a red herring fallacy because it switches from gun control to knife crimes. Knife crimes are a separate issue and don't negate the need for gun control discussions.

28) Software Piracy

"The high cost of software," during a discussion on software piracy.

This is a red herring fallacy because it shifts from the illegality of software piracy to the cost of software. High costs don't make piracy acceptable.

29) Diet Trends

"Body-shaming," during a conversation on the effectiveness of a new diet trend.

This is a red herring fallacy because it diverts from the effectiveness of a diet trend to the issue of body-shaming. One does not invalidate the other.

The Psychological Mechanisms Behind It

Understanding the red herring fallacy means diving into the brain's shortcuts, called heuristics . Humans are wired to conserve energy, and that includes mental energy. When someone throws a red herring into a conversation, your brain might latch onto it because it's simpler or more emotionally charged. You've essentially been handed a 'mental detour' that seems easier to travel.

In psychology, this relates to cognitive biases . These biases act like filters for our brain, helping us quickly sort through irrelevant information. A red herring appeals to these biases, offering a shortcut that feels satisfying but leads away from logical reasoning. By tapping into emotional or straightforward ideas, a red herring bypasses your critical thinking, nudging you off the path of rational debate.

The Impact of the Red Herring Fallacy

The red herring fallacy doesn't just disrupt a single argument; it has ripple effects.

In personal relationships, it can lead to unresolved issues and miscommunication. Instead of focusing on the core problem, you end up arguing about irrelevant details, and nothing gets solved. Instead of having a friendly conversation, the other party will use this to avoid answering or provide misleading information.

Similarly, in public debates or discussions, red herrings divert collective attention from critical issues, often causing misplaced priorities or uninformed decisions.

In educational settings, students exposed to red herring fallacies might not develop strong critical thinking skills . When a line of reasoning gets derailed, the opportunity for thorough examination and understanding also gets lost. This can inhibit the ability to dissect arguments, a skill vital in both academic and real-world scenarios.

How to Identify and Counter It

The first step in dealing with a red herring fallacy is recognition. Listen closely to the conversation and ask yourself if the current topic aligns with the original point. If you find yourself straying, that's a red flag.

Another sign is feeling an emotional pull away from the core issue. Emotions are often the bait used to lure you into the red herring's trap. This is the reason it's often used as a literary device - to keep the reader's attention! Especially true in a mystery novel.

Countering a red herring involves steering the conversation back to the main issue. In other words, you want to re-divert attention away from the irrelevant thesis back to the relevant information. Politely point out that the current topic, while interesting, is not relevant to the matter at hand. Use evidence and logic to refocus the discussion.

Remember, your goal isn't to win the argument but to arrive at a well-reasoned conclusion. By staying vigilant and keeping the conversation on track, you protect the integrity of the dialogue.

Ad Hoc Fallacy (29 Examples + Other Names)
Logical Fallacies (Common List + 21 Examples)
Genetic Fallacy (28 Examples + Definition)
Hasty Generalization Fallacy (31 Examples + Similar Names)
Tu Quoque Fallacy (25 Examples + Description)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

IMAGES

Critical Thinking: The Critical Thinking Series, Part 2: What is
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking Week 1 Notes
Critical Thinking Essay Sample
Critical Thinking: What is an Argument?
Critical Thinking AS Level Argument Elements

VIDEO

Tutorial 1
Video Argument presentation for Critical Thinking Class
Critical Thinking, part 2
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking 12: Arguments, analogies
Critical Thinking

COMMENTS

LOGOS: Critical Thinking, Arguments, and Fallacies
And threats to the system demand a defensive response. Critical thinking is short-circuited in authoritarian systems so that the conclusions are conserved instead of being open for revision. ... You can think of this type of argument as a faulty chain of events or domino effect type of argument. Example 6: If you don't study for your ...
Chapter 2 Arguments
Chapter 2 Arguments. Chapter 2. Arguments. The fundamental tool of the critical thinker is the argument. For a good example of what we are not talking about, consider a bit from a famous sketch by Monty Python's Flying Circus: 3. Man: (Knock) Mr. Vibrating: Come in.
What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
Logic and the Study of Arguments
2. Logic and the Study of Arguments. If we want to study how we ought to reason (normative) we should start by looking at the primary way that we do reason (descriptive): through the use of arguments. In order to develop a theory of good reasoning, we will start with an account of what an argument is and then proceed to talk about what ...
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a ...
3.1: The Basics
3.1: The Basics. So far, we've discussed the basic ideas behind arguments or inferences. Each argument has premises which are the assumptions or the support of the argument. Each argument also has usually one, but sometimes more conclusions. The conclusion is the main point of the argument.
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking. Critical Thinking is the process of using and assessing reasons to evaluate statements, assumptions, and arguments in ordinary situations. The goal of this process is to help us have good beliefs, where "good" means that our beliefs meet certain goals of thought, such as truth, usefulness, or rationality. ... This example ...
Arguments and Critical Thinking
Sherry Diestler, Becoming a Critical Thinker, 4th ed., p. 403. " Argument: An attempt to support a conclusion by giving reasons for it.". Robert Ennis, Critical Thinking, p. 396. "Argument - A form of thinking in which certain statements (reasons) are offered in support of another statement (conclusion).".
Chapter 8: Identifying Arguments
But in logic and critical thinking, an argument is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument. An example: It is raining. So you should bring an umbrella. In this argument, the first statement is the premise and the second one the conclusion.
Critical Thinking: Defining an Argument, Premises, and Conclusions
The premises are independent reasons and evidence that support the conclusion. In an argument, the conclusion should follow from the premises. Lets consider a simple example: Reason (1): Everyone thought Miley Cyrus' performance was a travesty. Reason (2): Some people thought her performance was offensive.
Critical thinking arguments for beginners
In critical thinking and logic, 'argument' has a particular meaning. It refers to a set of statements, consisting of one conclusion and one or more premises. The conclusion is the statement that the argument is intended to prove. The premises are the reasons offered for believing that the conclusion is true. A critical thinking argument ...
3. What is a Good Argument (I)?
I can see how people might initially get this impression, since so many of the introductory examples you see in logic and critical thinking texts are short two-premise arguments. For the purpose of introducing new logical concepts, the short two-premise argument forms are very useful. But you can have arguments with five, ten or a hundred premises.
41+ Critical Thinking Examples (Definition + Practices)
There are many resources to help you determine if information sources are factual or not. 7. Socratic Questioning. This way of thinking is called the Socrates Method, named after an old-time thinker from Greece. It's about asking lots of questions to understand a topic.
Diagramming Arguments, Premise and Conclusion Indicators, with Copious
Example Argument: [1] Studies from rats indicate that neuropeptide Y in the brain causes carbohydrate craving, and [2] galanin causes fat craving. Hence, [3] I ... Free online course on critical thinking with argument mapping with Mindmup free diagramming software, videos, and practice exercises. (Requires registration and 3-5 hrs. to complete
25 Critical Thinking Examples (2024)
25 Critical Thinking Examples. Critical thinking is the ability to analyze information and make reasoned decisions. It involves suspended judgment, open-mindedness, and clarity of thought. It involves considering different viewpoints and weighing evidence carefully. It is essential for solving complex problems and making good decisions.
Using Critical Thinking in Essays and other Assignments
Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement. Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process ...
Why and How to Use Critical Thinking in Everyday Life
Reduced influence of emotions and biases: By using critical thinking, you can reduce the influence of emotions, biases, and misinformation and make decisions based on rational analysis and evidence. Personal growth and development: By questioning your own beliefs and perspectives, critical thinking can lead to personal growth and self-discovery.
Using Computer-Aided Argument Mapping to Teach Reasoning
Introduction [1], [2]. Argument mapping is a way of diagram m ing the l ogical structure of an argument to explicitly and concisely represent reasoning. (See F igure 1, for a n example.) The use of argument mapping in critical thinking instruction has increased dramatically in recent decades. A brief history of argument mapping is provided at the end of this p a per.
6 Main Types of Critical Thinking Skills (With Examples)
Critical thinking skills examples. There are six main skills you can develop to successfully analyze facts and situations and come up with logical conclusions: 1. Analytical thinking. Being able to properly analyze information is the most important aspect of critical thinking. This implies gathering information and interpreting it, but also ...
How to Spot and Evaluate Weak Arguments: A Critical Thinking Guide
For example, take this argument into account: All cats are mammals and all mammals have fur, so it follows that all cats have fur. ... In critical thinking and logic, an argument is a framework ...
False Dilemma Fallacy (27 Examples
A False Dilemma Fallacy occurs when an argument falsely presents two options or solutions as the only possible choices, ignoring or dismissing the existence of alternative options. ... gaining traction in the 20th century as the study of logic and critical thinking evolved. It serves as a catch-all phrase for situations that limit perceived ...
How to Write a Critical Thinking Essay With Tips and Examples
When writing a critical thinking essay, students should address several essential features. Firstly, writers need to reflect on what they have read, meaning taking time to consider the relevance of the information. In this case, such an attitude helps them to make strong arguments in defense of their points of view.
Critical Thinking: Definition and Analysis
Essay Example: Critical thinking, a term often echoed in scholarly circles, workplaces, and beyond, is a skill of immense significance across various dimensions of life. ... and that certainty is often illusory. Consequently, they approach arguments or viewpoints with skepticism, subjecting them to rigorous analysis before rendering judgment ...
Red Herring Fallacy (29 Examples
By tapping into emotional or straightforward ideas, a red herring bypasses your critical thinking, nudging you off the path of rational debate. The Impact of the Red Herring Fallacy. The red herring fallacy doesn't just disrupt a single argument; it has ripple effects. In personal relationships, it can lead to unresolved issues and ...

Pursuing Truth: A Guide to Critical Thinking

2.1 Identifying Arguments

2.1.1 Standard Form

2.1.2 Indicator Words

2.1.3 Non-Arguments

2.2 Evaluating Arguments

2.3 Counterexamples

2 Logic and the Study of Arguments

I. Arguments

II. Statements

III. Representing Arguments

IV. How to L ook for A rguments [1]

V. Evaluating Arguments

VI. Two Types of Arguments

VII. Good Deductive Arguments

VIII. From Deductive Arguments to Inductive Arguments

IX. Inductive Arguments:

X. Steps for Evaluating Arguments:

XI. Evaluating Real – World Arguments

XII. Diagramming Arguments

Share This Book

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

3.1: The Basics

Conjoint vs. Independent Support

The "General-Specific Pattern

Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Mapping Independent Support

Mapping Conjoint Support

Example \(\PageIndex{4}\)

Example \(\PageIndex{5}\)

Terminology

V. Diagramming Arguments

Independent Premises

Intermediate Premises

Joint Premises

Example \(\PageIndex{6}\)

Example \(\PageIndex{7}\)

Critical Thinking: Defining an Argument, Premises, and Conclusions

Share this:

Published by philosophami

Critical thinking arguments for beginners

What is critical thinking?

What are critical thinking arguments?

Deductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning

How do I assess a critical thinking argument?

Counterexamples

How can I practice critical thinking arguments for beginners?

News stories

Social media

Corporate statements

Conclusion…

You may also like

Mastering Your Thought Process Using Critical Thinking Frameworks

9 Common Characteristics of Strong Critical Thinkers

Critical Reading vs. Critical Thinking

Debate & Critical Thinking

Diagramming Arguments, Premise and Conclusion Indicators, with Many Examples

“Argument” Defined

How to Analyze Simple Arguments

How to Analyze Complex Arguments

Statement or Proposition:

Working with Premise Indicators:

Working with Conclusion Indicators:

Working with Equal Status Indicators:

Circular Argument:

Readings: Diagramming Arguments

(Free) Online Tutorials with Diagramming

25 Critical Thinking Examples

Critical Thinking Examples

2. Creating a Hypothesis based on Limited Data

3. Moderating a Debate

4. Judging and Adjudicating

5. Grading an Essay

6. Active Reading