Chapter 10-11

Constructing Arguments &

Reasoning Critically
Course Textbook:
Thinking Critically
12th Edition / 2019
John Chaffee
CENGAGE
 CHAPTER 6 OBJECTIVES

After completing this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Recognize Arguments
2. Evaluate Arguments
3. Use Cue Words Signaling Reasons
4. Use Cue Words Signaling Conclusions
5. Differ Valid Arguments from Invalid Arguments
6. Reason Critically
7. Use The Critical Thinker’s Guide to Reasoning
 Recognizing
Arguments
Cue words
Constructing
Constructing Arguments
Extended Decide
Arguments Explain
Identifying a thesis Predict
Conducting research Argument Persuade
Evaluating sources A form of thinking in which certain
Understanding
Organizing ideas reasons are offered to support Deductive Arguments
a conclusion Application of a general
Evaluating rule
Arguments Modus ponens
Truth Modus tollens
Validity Disjunctive syllogism
Soundness
 RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
Argument: A form of thinking in which certain
statements (reasons) are offered in support of another
statement (a conclusion)
Reasons: Statements that support another statement
(known as a conclusion), justify it, or make it more
probable.
Conclusion: A statement that explains, asserts, or
predicts on the basis of statements (known as
reasons) that are offered as evidence for it.
 RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
Cue words signaling reasons:
since in view of
for first, second
because in the first (second) place
as shown by may be inferred from
as indicated by may be deduced from
given that may be derived from
assuming that for the reason that
 RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
Cue words signaling conclusions:
 therefore  it follows that
 thus  thereby showing
 hence  demonstrates that
 so  allows us to infer that
 (which) shows that  suggests very strongly that
 (which) proves that  you see that
 implies that  leads me to believe that
 points to  allows us to deduce that
 as a result
 consequently
 then
 WE CONSTRUCT
ARGUMENTS TO DECIDE
REASON: Throughout my life, I’ve always been interested in all
different kinds of electricity.
REASON: There are many attractive job opportunities in the
field of electrical engineering.
CONCLUSION: I will work toward becoming an electrical
engineer.
REASON:
REASON:
CONCLUSION:
 WE CONSTRUCT
ARGUMENTS TO EXPLAIN
REASON: I was delayed in leaving my house because my dog
needed an emergency walking.
REASON: There was an unexpected traffic jam caused by
motorists slowing down to view an overturned chicken truck.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, I was late for our appointment.
REASON:
REASON:
CONCLUSION:
 WE CONSTRUCT
ARGUMENTS TO PREDICT
REASON: Some people will always drive faster than the speed
limit allows, whether the limit is 55 or 65 mph.
REASON: Car accidents are more likely to occur at higher
speeds.
CONCLUSION: It follows that the newly reinstated 65-mph
speed limit will result in more accidents.
REASON:
REASON:
CONCLUSION:
 WE CONSTRUCT
ARGUMENTS TO PERSUADE
REASON: Chewing tobacco can lead to cancer of the mouth
and throat.
REASON: Boys sometimes are led to begin chewing tobacco by
ads for the product that feature sports heroes they admire.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, ads for chewing tobacco should be
banned.
REASON:
REASON:
CONCLUSION:
 EVALUATING ARGUMENTS
To construct an effective argument, you must be skilled in
evaluating the effectiveness, or soundness, of arguments
that have already been constructed. You must investigate
two aspects of each argument independently to determine
the soundness of the argument as a whole:
1. How true are the reasons being offered to support the
conclusion?
2. To what extent do the reasons support the conclusion, or
to what extent does the conclusion follow from the reasons
offered?
 VALID ARGUMENTS vs.
INVALID ARGUMENTS
In addition to determining whether the reasons are
true, evaluating arguments involves investigating the
relationship between the reasons and the conclusion.
Valid Argument An argument in which the reasons
support the conclusion so that the conclusion follows
from the reasons offered.
Invalid Argument An argument in which the reasons
do not support the conclusion so that the conclusion
does not follow from the reasons offered.
 EXAMPLE FOR INVALID
ARGUMENT
REASON: Barrack Obama believes that it is vital for our
national security that we develop alternative sources of
energy.
REASON: Barrack Obama is the president of the United
States.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, we should develop alternative
sources of energy.
This argument is not valid because even if we assume that
the reasons are true, the conclusion does not follow.
 Understanding Deductive Arguments
 We use a number of basic argument forms to organize, relate to, and make sense of the world.
Two of the major types of argument forms are deductive arguments and inductive
arguments.
 The deductive argument is the one most commonly associated with the study of logic. Though it
has a variety of valid forms, they all share one characteristic: If you accept the supporting
reasons (also called premises) as true, then you must necessarily accept the conclusion as true.
For example, consider the following famous deductive argument:
 REASON/PREMISE: All men are mortal.
 REASON/PREMISE: Socrates is a man.
 CONCLUSION: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
 Understanding Deductive Arguments
Many deductive arguments, like the one just given, are structured as
syllogisms, an argument form that consists of two supporting premises
and a conclusion. There are also, however, many invalid deductive forms,
one of which is illustrated in the following syllogism:
• REASON/PREMISE: All men are mortal.
• REASON/PREMISE: Socrates is a man.
• CONCLUSION: Therefore, all men are Socrates.
Whenever we reason with the form illustrated by the valid Socrates
syllogism, we are using the following argument structure:
• PREMISE: All A (men) are B (mortal).
• PREMISE: S is an A (Socrates is a man).
• CONCLUSION: Therefore, S is B (Socrates is mortal).
 Understanding Deductive Arguments
• When we diagram this argument
form, it becomes clear why it is a
valid way of thinking:
• The first premise states that
classification A (men) falls within
classification B (mortal).
• The second premise states that
S (Socrates) is a member of
classification A (men).
• The conclusion simply states
what has now become
obvious—namely, that
S(Socrates) must fall within
classification B (mortal).
 Understanding Deductive Arguments
A second valid deductive form that we commonly use in our thinking goes by the
name modus ponens—that is, “affirming the antecedent”—and is illustrated in
the following example:
• PREMISE: If I have prepared thoroughly for the final exam, then I will do well.
• PREMISE: I prepared thoroughly for the exam.
• CONCLUSION: Therefore, I will do well on the exam.
When we reason like this, we are using the following argument structure:
• PREMISE: If A (I have prepared thoroughly), then B (I will do well).
• PREMISE: A (I have prepared thoroughly).
• CONCLUSION: Therefore, B (I will do well).
 Understanding Deductive Arguments

A third commonly used valid deductive form has the name modus tollens—that is, “denying the
consequence.
• PREMISE: If Michael were a really good friend, he would lend me his car for the weekend.
• PREMISE: Michael refuses to lend me his car for the weekend.
• CONCLUSION: Therefore, Michael is not a really good friend.
When we reason in this fashion, we are using the following argument structure:
• PREMISE: If A (Michael is a really good friend), then B (he will lend me his car).
• PREMISE: Not B (he won’t lend me his car).
• CONCLUSION: Therefore, not A (he’s not a really good friend).
Like other valid reasoning forms, this form is valid no matter what subject is being
considered.
 Understanding Deductive Arguments

A fourth common form of a valid deductive argument is known as a disjunctive syllogism. The term
disjunctive means presenting several alternatives.
• PREMISE: Either I left my wallet on my dresser, or I have lost it.
• PREMISE: Th e wallet is not on my dresser.
• CONCLUSION: Therefore, I must have lost it.
When we reason in this way, we are using the following argument structure:
• PREMISE: Either A (I left my wallet on my dresser) or B (I have lost it).
• PREMISE: Not A (I didn’t leave it on my dresser).
• CONCLUSION: Therefore, B (I have lost it).
To determine the accuracy of the conclusion, we must determine the accuracy of the
premises. If they are true, then the conclusion must be true.
 TIME TO LOOK BACK
Argument is a form of thinking in which certain
reasons are offered to support a conclusion.
Cue words for arguments help us identify
“reasons” and “conclusions.”
Arguments are inferences that we use to help us
decide, explain, predict, and persuade.
We evaluate arguments by investigating
“How true are the supporting reasons?” and “Do
the reasons support the conclusion?”
A valid argument is one in which the reasons
support the conclusion so that the conclusion
follows from the reasons offered.
 REASONING CRITICALLY
Reasoning is the type of thinking that uses arguments—
reasons in support of conclusions—to decide, explain, predict,
and persuade.
Inductive reasoning An argument form in which one reasons
from premises that are known or assumed to be true to a
conclusion that is supported by the premises but does not
necessarily follow from them.
Fallacies Unsound arguments that are often persuasive and
appearing to be logical because they usually appeal to our
emotions and prejudices, and because they often support
conclusions that we want to believe are accurate
 REASONING CRITICALLY
 Empirical generalization A form of inductive reasoning in which a
general statement is made about an entire group (the “target
population”) based on observing some members of the group (the
“sample population”).
 Scientific Method
1. Identify an event for investigation
2. Gather information
3. Develop a theory/hypothesis
4. Test/experiment
5. Evaluate results
 APPLYING THE SCIENTIFIC
METHOD
Select one of the following situations or describe a
situation of your own choosing. Then analyze the situation
by working through the various steps of the scientific
method listed directly after.
•Situation 1: You wake up in the morning with an upset
stomach.
•Situation 2: Your grades have been declining all semester.
•Situation 3: (Your own choosing)
 APPLYING THE SCIENTIFIC
METHOD (Continued)
1. Identify an event or a relationship between events
to be investigated. Describe the situation you have
selected.
2. Gather information about the event (or events).
Elaborate the situation by providing additional details.
Be sure to include a variety of possible causes for the
event. (For example, an upset stomach might be the
result of food poisoning, the flu, anxiety, etc.)
 THE CRITICAL THINKER’S
GUIDE TO REASONING
The process of becoming an accomplished critical thinker and effective
reasoner is a challenging quest that requires ongoing practice and reflection:
 What is my initial point of view?
 How can I define my point of view more clearly?
 What is an example of my point of view?
 What is the origin of my point of view?
 What are my assumptions?
 What are the reasons, evidence, and arguments that support my point of view?
 What are other points of view on this issue?
 What is my conclusion, decision, solution, or prediction?
 What are the consequences?
 TIME TO LOOK BACK
Fallacies are unsound arguments that are
often persuasive and appearing to be logical
because they usually appeal to our emotions
and prejudices.
Th e scientific method works on the
assumption that the world is constructed in a
complex web of causal relationships that can
be discovered through systematic
investigation.
“Th e Critical Th inker’s Guide to Reasoning” is
an organized approach for exploring complex
issues.
 SUGGESTED FILM
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
Al Gore’s documentary addresses the scientific causes of global warming
as well as the social and political factors that support and/or inhibit its
decrease.
Supersize Me (2004)
How does business and consumerism affect our health? What are the
responsibilities of any business to costumer health? Director Morgan
Spurlock documents thirty days in which he only eats McDonald’s food.
He critically explores the physical and psychological effects of his
experiment, raises ethical questions regarding the role of America’s
commercial food industry in contributing to obesity, and asks us to
question the authority behind the food we eat.
QUIZ TIME