PLS2601 Rev 1

© 2020 University of South Africa
All rights reserved
Printed and published by the

University of South Africa
Muckleneuk, Pretoria
PLS2601/1/2021–2027
10001158
InDesign
HSY_Style
CONTENTS
Page
Lesson 0: Orientation to Critical Reasoning1

Outcomes of this module 2
Notional hours 2
Breakdown of the study guide 2
Some notes 3
Lesson 1: What is Critical Reasoning?4

1.1 Introduction4
1.2 What is critical reasoning? 6
1.2.1 Critical reasoning is not dogma 6
1.3 Critical Reasoning, Informal Logic, and Formal Logic 6
1.4 Critical Reasoning Competence – Thinking for yourself 7
1.5 Critical Reasoning Competence – Thinking in an informed way 8
1.6 Critical Reasoning Competence – Critical self-reflection 10
1.6.1 Examine assumptions 10
1.6.2 Acknowledge biases/prejudices 10
1.6.3 Be suspicious of dogma 11
1.7 A note about “standard form” 11
1.8 Conclusion12
Lesson 2: Different kinds of writing and definitions14

2.1 Introduction 14
2.2 Different kinds of writing 14
2.2.1 Descriptive writing 15
2.2.2 Narrative writing 16
2.2.3 Explanatory writing 16
2.2.4 Instructive writing 17
2.2.5 Argumentative writing 17
2.3 Different types of definitions 18
2.3.1 Stipulative definition 19
2.3.2 Persuasive definition 19
2.3.3 Lexical definition 20
2.3.4 Enumerative definition 20
Lesson 3: The Argument23

3.1 Introduction23
3.2 The statement or proposition 25
3.3 The conclusion 26
3.4 The premise 27
3.5 The complex argument 28
3.6 The implicit premise and conclusion 30
3.6.1 The implicit premise 30
3.6.2 The implicit conclusion 30
3.7 Conclusion 31
PLS2601/1(iii)

Lesson 4: Different types of arguments33

4.1 Introduction 33
4.1.1 What is truth? 33
4.2 Value arguments 34
4.3 Empirical arguments 34
4.4 Deductive arguments 36
4.4.1 Hypothetical syllogism 37
4.4.2 Categorical syllogism 41
4.5 Inductive arguments 43
4.6 Deductive validity 44
4.7 Soundness46
4.8 Conclusion48
Lesson 5: Fallacies50
5.1 Introduction 50
5.2 Different types of fallacies 50
5.3 Informal fallacies 51
5.3.1 Informal fallacy – slippery slope 51
5.3.2 Informal fallacy – straw man 52
5.3.3 Informal fallacy – false dilemma 53
5.3.4 Informal fallacy – begging the question ( petitio principii)54
5.3.5 Informal fallacy – ad hominem argument 55
5.3.6 Informal fallacy – false appeal to authority 56
5.3.7 Informal fallacy – hasty generalisation 57
5.3.8 Informal fallacy – red herring 58
5.3.9 Informal fallacy – complex question 59
5.3.10 Informal fallacies – equivocation 59
5.3.11 Informal fallacy – false appeal to force 60
5.3.12 Informal fallacy – bandwagon argument 62
5.3.13 Informal fallacy – false analogy 64
5.4 Structural or formal fallacies 66
5.4.1 Formal fallacy – affirming the consequent 68
5.4.2 Formal fallacy – denying the antecedent 69
5.5 Conclusion70
Lesson 6: Analysing, mapping/diagramming and evaluating arguments72

6.1 Introduction72
6.2 How to analyse and map/diagram an argument 72
6.3 How to evaluate an argument 75
6.4 Conclusion 79
Bibliography80
Glossary82
Glossary: English 82
Glossary: Afrikaans 86
Glossary: Zulu 90
Glossary: Northern Sotho 94
(iv)

LESSON 0
11Orientation to Critical Reasoning
Welcome to PLS2601 Critical Reasoning! We hope that this journey will be challenging,
but nonetheless exciting. The outcome of this module is to empower you to think
for yourself. In order to do this, you need to become adept at critical thinking. This
module will give you the foundation upon which you can build your critical thinking.
You might be wondering why you are doing this module. This is a philosophy module,
and you might be studying science, education, communication or psychology. What
is the point of this module for you? To be able to think critically will be of great
value in both a personal, and a professional context. Critical thinking will assist you
to understand disparate viewpoints, to analyse the information you receive from
others, as well as to evaluate that information. This ability will help you in making
responsible decisions. Critical reasoning is therefore a ‘transferable skill’ – you can
use this skill even if you are not a philosopher.
The aim of this module is thus to give you the opportunity to acquire critical thinking
tools to critically analyse and evaluate any information with which you are presented.
These tools will enable you to make appropriate and well-reasoned decisions when
faced with both the easy and the more challenging situations you encounter in your
everyday life.
The module will necessitate that you be involved in your own learning – you will
need to participate actively by answering questions, participating in activities, and
contributing to your own learning. By doing this, you will acquire competencies
that will enable you to understand what critical reasoning is about, but also to apply
it to your life.
It is important that you start this module by making your way to Tutorial Letter
101. In this tutorial letter, you will find important information about the syllabus,
such as the assignment questions, the assessment plan, and the study programme.
This study guide is divided into seven lessons. None of these lessons stand in isolation
– the nature of critical reasoning is such that you will need to understand all of these
lessons and how they relate to one another.
The examples may sometimes be challenging to your personal views – we did this
purposefully to challenge you to view the world from a multitude of perspectives as
opposed to looking at it only through your own set of biased lenses. This module will
tackle uncomfortable topics such as abortion, non-traditional romantic relationships,
South African politics and so on. We hope that this will enable you to think outside
of your own box, since you are now an adult learner.
Your learning will be your responsibility, and the amount of value you get from this
module will be related to how dedicated you are to your studies.
PLS2601/11

OUTCOMES OF THIS MODULE

The purpose of this module is to equip learners with critical reasoning and problem-
solving skills in argumentation by identifying and avoiding fallacious reasoning, and
by analysing, evaluating and constructing arguments.
The outcomes of the module is the following:

• Learners should be able to identify arguments.
• Learners should be able to analyse arguments, which entails the identification of
premises and conclusions, and simple and complex arguments.
• Learners should be able to evaluate arguments, which entails identifying
deductive and inductive arguments and empirical and value arguments, as well
as distinguishing between soundness and validity.
• Learners should be able to identify fallacies.
NOTIONAL HOURS
To help you to adopt a sensible and realistic study plan, we will provide you with an
explicit indication of the notional study hours you need to spend on each topic of
the study material. The notional study hours attached to this module are 120. Please
remember that notional study hours refer to the actual time you actively spend on
reading the study guide, thinking about the key concepts in critical reasoning, doing
the assignments and engaging online with your lecturers and your classmates.
BREAKDOWN OF THE STUDY GUIDE

Lesson 1: What is critical reasoning?
In this lesson, you will explore what critical reasoning is. This is the start of your
critical reasoning journey.
You will need to spend 10 notional hours on this lesson.
Lesson 2: Different types of writing and definitions

This lesson examines different types of writing and definitions.
Lesson 3: The argument

In this lesson, we start to engage with the building blocks of the argument – namely,
premises and conclusions.
Lesson 4: Different types of arguments

In this lesson, we look at the different types of arguments – specifically, we look at
empirical and value, and deductive and inductive arguments. We also distinguish
between validity and soundness.
2
LESSON 0: Orientation to Critical Reasoning
Lesson 5: Fallacies
This lesson examines some of the different fallacies.
Lesson 6: Analysing, mapping/diagramming and evaluating arguments

This lesson shows you how to analyse and evaluate arguments.
You need to spend 20 notional hours on this lesson.
This means that after working through the material, you will have used 105 notional
hours. That will leave you with 15 notional hours to complete two assignments and
an exam.
SOME NOTES
This module relies on Open Education Resources (OERs), which are all available
online. This means you will not need to purchase a textbook for this module.
Although every care is taken to ensure that the links provided in this study guide are
up to date, occasionally links change. This is the nature of the internet. However,
you can find updated links on the myUnisa page. Please do let your lecturer know
when a link is broken. These OERs are used for two reasons – the one is to deepen
your own understanding of the content discussed in this module, and the second is
to utilise resources that are already available online.
It is important to note that this is a semester module – this mean that the module
will be presented twice a year, once per semester. You will only need to complete
one semester, unless you fail the module.
PLS2601/13
1 LESSON 1
1 What is Critical Reasoning?
OUTCOMES OF THIS LESSON
At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

(1) Define critical reasoning;
(2) Differentiate between formal logical and critical reasoning;
(3) Understand and explain the three core competencies of critical reasoning;
(4) Understand, explain and use “standard form” arguments.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Welcome to PLS2601 – Critical Reasoning. We hope you find this journey exciting
and informative. You are probably wondering what this module is about, and why
it is useful to complete this module.
Study the image below.
FIGURE 1:
View of street with marketing messages
(https://static.pexels.com/photos/34639/pexels-photo.jpg)
4
LESSON 1: What is Critical Reasoning?
You may not be aware of this, but in this image, there are many messages, or, as we
will refer to them, arguments. Advertising is just one way in which we are bombarded,
daily, with messages. These messages tell us what to believe, what to do and what
to buy (Bowell & Kemp, 2015, p. 3). Some of the messages we ignore and others
we accept. Sometimes we accept or reject messages reflectively, and other times we
are not even aware of them.
Other times, people may use rhetoric to persuade us. Rhetoric can be defined as
“[a]ny verbal or written attempt to persuade someone to believe, desire or do Belangrik!
something that does not attempt to give good reasons for the belief, desire, or action,
but attempts to motivate that belief, desire or action solely through the power or
the words used” (Bowell & Kemp, 2015, p. 6). Politicians often use rhetoric – they
use words that can be manipulative and coercive, and do not provide good reasons
to substantiate claims.
ACTIVITY 1
Watch the following two videos on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vDWWy4CMhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnpTWKKWQ1o
The first video is an excerpt of Dr Martin Luther King’s famous I have a dream
speech. The second is an excerpt of one of Adolf Hitler’s speeches. Both employ
rhetoric, i.e. they aim to convince without appealing to arguments. However, there
is a distinctive difference between the two. What do you think this difference is?
1 FEEDBACK ON ACTIVITY 1
Many people mistake good argumentation for rhetoric – that is, they confuse any
attempt to persuade (i.e. rhetoric), with an attempt to persuade with good reasons
(i.e. argumentation). One place where rhetoric is often employed is in politics. Here
we see two types of politicians – one good, Dr Martin Luther King, and one bad,
Adolf Hitler. In Dr King’s speech, we see the use of rhetoric – a lot of emotive talk,
sweeping statements, and powerful words are used – but it is used for good. He
headed the civil rights movement in the USA in the 1960s. Now if we compare
the speech to the one by Adolf Hitler, even without understanding German our-
selves, we know through history that he used rhetoric for bad – his actions lead
to the Second World War and the death of millions of Jews, Romanians and other
people considered “undesirable”. Hitler was known as a great orator – he could
use the power of speech to incite an entire nation and convince them of his plans
for Germany. In this module, we will not be analysing rhetoric per se, however, it
will be useful for you to employ the skills you learn in this module to analyse that
which our politicians tell us.
In this module, we will teach you how to be critical of the millions of arguments
you encounter in your lifetime.
PLS2601/15

1.2 WHAT IS CRITICAL REASONING?

Critical reasoning involves the ability to actively and skilfully conceptualise, analyse,
and question ideas and beliefs. We can define critical reasoning as: “active, reflective and
informed thinking that involves the ability to deliberately and skillfully question, analyse, interpret
and evaluate ideas and beliefs in the light of reasons, or evidence, which support them” (Van den
Berg, 2010, p. 3).
Perhaps an easier way to understand critical reasoning is to think about what critical
reasoning is not.
1.2.1 Critical reasoning is not dogma

Critical reasoning is the opposite of dogma. Dogma is unquestioned information
from an authority — information that is embraced without the intervention of active
thought or criticism. An example of a dogmatic belief is thinking that a woman’s
role is that of housekeeper, and nothing else, simply because that is what you were
told or shown growing up. This type of belief implies that being a housekeeper is
the role of women – which is a highly questionable belief.
Therefore, to reason critically is to question the ideas and beliefs of others and oneself
and to challenge dogma and authority.
When we start to question the ideas and beliefs we live by, we start to think for
ourselves. To think for ourselves involves a critical attitude of reflecting on our
thoughts and actions. To think critically is to question the world and thus to engage
critically with the possibilities and alternatives which the world offers.
Please note that the terms “critical reasoning”, “critical thinking” and “clear
thinking” are used interchangeably in this study guide. In other words, critical
reasoning implies critical thinking or clear thinking. Critical reasoning involves
three important components of reasoning.
These components are as follows:

• Critical reasoning is thinking for yourself.
• Critical reasoning is informed reasoning. Belangrik!
• Critical reasoning is critical self-reflection.
We will examine these three competencies later on in Lesson 1. First, we examine
the difference between critical reasoning, informal logic and formal logic.
1.3 CRITICAL REASONING, INFORMAL LOGIC, AND FORMAL

LOGIC
The terms “critical reasoning” and “informal logic” can be used interchangeably.
Informal logic is just another term for critical reasoning. Formal logic, however, is Belangrik!
something different. So what is “formal logic”?
Leo Groarke (2017) provides us with the distinction. He says:

“Informal logic is ‘informal’ insofar as it studies arguments as they occur
in natural language discourse rather than formal languages of the sort that
characterize propositional logic, the predicate calculus, modal logic, etc.
6
(languages which have rigorously specified syntax, semantics and grammar,

and clearly defined proof procedures).”
Simply put, formal logic “examines the formal structures of arguments in logical
language or symbols and it employs precise rules for testing the validity of arguments”
(Van den Berg, 2010, p. 146).
Therefore, in natural language, that is, the language you and I use every day, we
would say something like this:
If it is raining, then my garden will be wet.
EXAMPLE
In informal logic, we may represent the above like this:
If p, then q.
This means p and q are variables, and can stand for anything, e.g. If it rains (p), then
my garden will be wet (q).
A formal logician would try to do away with words as far as possible – as you may
imagine, words can be confusing, and meaning may differ across cultures and
languages. Formal logic aims to be “universal”, and uses symbols to replace words.
The same sentence (If p, then q) would be represented in formal logic like this:
P → Q1
In this module, we remain within the realm of ‘informal logic’ or critical reasoning.
Let us now turn our attention to the three core competencies of critical reasoning.
1.4 CRITICAL REASONING COMPETENCE – THINKING FOR

YOURSELF
One of the central competencies of critical reasoning is being able to think for
yourself. However, what does that mean?
To think for yourself involves a critical attitude of reflecting on how we think in

various areas of our lives. This means that we question the world, and engage critically
with the possibilities and alternatives that the world offers (Van den Berg, 2010, p.
6). For example, let’s say that you were raised in a household with a mother and a
father – it is only natural that your understanding of a couple would be modelled
on what you were shown growing up – a man and a woman. However, if you look
around you, and open yourself up to alternatives, you will see that there are many
types of romantic relationships, e.g. two men (gay monogamy), two women (lesbian
monogamy), one man and many women (polygyny), one woman and many men
(polyandry), more than two people (polyamory), and so on. It does not mean you
have to reject all heterosexual monogamous relationships, but rather that you should
engage critically with the values you were taught and shown as a young person
growing up, to determine your own position.
Recall what was said earlier about the difference between dogma and critical thinking
– thinking for yourself means doing the opposite of accepting dogma. Accepting
dogma means accepting authority without question and taking things for granted
1 The arrow is the symbol for a conditional statement, which is an ‘if...then’ statement – conditional
statements will be dealt with later in this module.
PLS2601/17
(Van den Berg, 2010, p. 6). As a critical thinker, you should therefore challenge your
own blind acceptance of authority and critically examine dogma.
In South Africa, we have many examples of critical thinkers. Think about how the
struggle heroes, like Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo, etc. questioned
the apartheid system in South Africa. They questioned the oppressive laws such as
the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949), the Pass Laws, the Group Areas Act
(1950) and many others, and protested against the white domination of other races.
These struggle heroes were exemplary critical thinkers, and changed the future of
our country for the better.
FIGURE 2:
Nelson Mandela
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nelson_Mandela,_2000_(5).jpg)
The next critical thinking competence is “thinking in an informed way”, which we

discuss in the following section.
1.5 CRITICAL REASONING COMPETENCE – THINKING IN AN

INFORMED WAY
An informed opinion is one that can be substantiated or is based on fact, rather
than mere personal opinion. For example, if I say “Evolution is not true – I did not
evolve from a monkey!” then my opinion is based on mere personal opinion, and
is not informed by the scientific basis of the theory of evolution. This is because
evolution does not entail that humans evolved from monkeys, but rather that there
is a common ancestor somewhere along the line.
8
FIGURE 3:
An uninformed opinion of the evolution of humans
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_evolution.svg)
FIGURE 4:
An informed opinion of the evolution of humans
(http://dinopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Human-evolution-chart-origin.gif)
ACTIVITY 2
Compare figures 3 and 4 – what do you think the difference is? Why do I say that
figure 3 is uninformed, but that figure 4 is informed?
Figure 3 gives us a mistaken representation of evolution, one that is not based
on science. Figure 4 provides a more nuanced and scientifically sound view of
hominid evolution. In lesson 2, we will deal with the straw man fallacy – figure 3
is a very good example of this fallacy, which is when a position is misrepresented.
PLS2601/1 9

It may be useful to keep the following distinctions in mind. An opinion is “a personal

belief or idea about the value, usefulness, meaning and so on of a state of affairs”
(Van den Berg, 2010, p. 7). This entails that an opinion is relative to the speaker’s Belangrik!
feelings, state of mind, or experience. An informed opinion on the other is “supported
by reasons for the soundness or acceptability of claims we make” (Van den Berg,
2010, p. 7).
1.6 CRITICAL REASONING COMPETENCE – CRITICAL SELF-

REFLECTION
The third important competency that critical thinkers have is the ability to reflect
on their own positions. Let us think about a contentious moral issue – abortion.
Abortion is contentious, because people differ vastly about what the moral thing to
do is. Now, the issue in this module is not whether you agree with abortion or not,
the question is how you arrived at this conclusion. What are your reasons? How
deeply have you interrogated your own belief system?
Van den Berg reminds us that “[t]he bravest thinkers are, however, those who question
their own beliefs, preconceived ideas and biases” (2010, p. 7).
Type text here
So how does one reflect critically on one’s own beliefs?
1.6.1 Examine assumptions

What does it mean to examine one’s assumptions? All of us assume things all the time.
We assume that the door will open when we turn the key, and we are surprised when
it doesn’t. We assume that people will see a red traffic light, and act accordingly. We
have no access to other drivers’ mental states, yet, we feel fairly confident that when
the light is green for us, it means other people will stop. When they don’t, there are
often catastrophic consequences. Assumptions can also be ideological – we assume
nurses and flight attendants are female, whereas doctors and pilots are male. We make
assumptions about people based on how they look, the language they speak, and
where they come from. To reflect critically on yourself, it is important to question
these assumptions – why do you automatically assume that pilots are male? More
importantly, what does that assumption say about your beliefs about gender equality?
1.6.2 Acknowledge biases/prejudices

The assumptions we make about people and situations often reflect a deeper issue –
one of prejudice. We may think that men are pilots because it is very difficult to qualify
as a pilot. By thinking this, we assume that women do not possess equal cognitive
capacities to men. Alternatively, it may be that we think women are caring and so
occupations that entail caring for others, like nursing or being a flight attendant,
suit women better. If we look a bit deeper at these types of ideas, we can see that
there are deep-rooted biases or prejudices based on societally constructed ideas
about gender roles. It is up to us as critical thinkers to acknowledge these biases,
and constructively work on dismantling them.
10
1.6.3 Be suspicious of dogma

Dogma is “unquestioned information – information that is embraced without the
intervention of active thought or criticism” (Van Den Berg, 2009, p. 4). Another
definition of dogma is “An opinion, a belief; a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid
down, especially by a church or sect. Also: an imperious or arrogant declaration of
opinion” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2019b). Dogmatic beliefs are those beliefs
that are often “given” to us through society, schools, parents, and the media. Some
of these beliefs, however, can be incorrect or damaging.
Therefore, if you are a critical thinker, you will be suspicious of dogma. This does
not mean you need to discard every belief that you have been taught, for example, a
religious belief. However, what it does mean is that you will carefully examine your
belief, and ensure that you have not blindly accepted it.
ACTIVITY 3
Can you think of a dogmatic belief that you may hold? Why do you say this belief
is dogmatic? Can you think of other examples of dogmatic beliefs?
This activity is more personal – you will have to think long and hard about what
you believe about, for example other people, relationships, knowledge, the origins
of the universe, art and everything in between. Once you have done that, then
you can begin to question whether these beliefs are dogmatic or not – and if they
are dogmatic, how are you going to examine them so that they become critical
beliefs. It is important to note here that critically examining your beliefs does
not entail changing your beliefs, but rather thinking of good reasons to continue
holding those beliefs.
1.7 A NOTE ABOUT “STANDARD FORM”

Occasionally, in this study guide, I will refer to “standard form”. The standard
form of an argument is when the argument is written out in a way that makes the
argument’s premises and conclusion explicit. Here is an example of an argument,
not written in standard form.
The coffee shop on the corner has the best coffee in Tshwane. Their barista
has 30 years’ experience, and their beans are imported from South America.
Now, here is the same argument in standard form:

P1: The barista has 30 years’ experience. Baie belangrik!
P2: Their beans are imported from South America.
C: The coffee shop on the corner has the best coffee in Tshwane.
The Ps represent the premises, and the C represents the conclusion. A conclusion is
roughly the point being argued for, while premises are those reasons that support
the conclusion. The line above the conclusion is called an inference bar and indicates
that a conclusion is about to be drawn. The numbers next to the Ps represent the
number of the premise. If you are slightly unsure of this, then do not worry – in
lesson 3, we revisit standard form in more detail.
PLS2601/111

1.8 CONCLUSION
Becoming a critical thinker is a difficult journey – it requires a lot of introspection
and reflection on the beliefs of society, as well as your own beliefs. In the lessons
that follow, we will provide you with the tools necessary to aid you on this journey.
We will show you how to construct arguments, how to identify strong and weak
arguments, and these tools will assist you in your journey to critical thinking.
END-OF-LESSON QUESTIONS
In order to test your understanding of this lesson, answer the following questions:
(1) Define critical reasoning.

Critical reasoning involves the ability to actively and skillfully conceptualize,
___________________________________________________________
analyze, question and evaluate ideas and beliefs
___________________________________________________________
critical self reflection
___________________________________________________________
(2) What is the difference between critical reasoning and formal logic?
Critical thinking ___________________________________________________________
also concerns itself with the structure and deductive validity of arguments
but contrasts with ___________________________________________________________

formal logic by virtue of its emphasis on the actual language content of
statements and ___________________________________________________________

context. Critical thinking is sometimes referred to as informal logic.
(3) What are the three critical thinking competencies?

thinking for yourself
___________________________________________________________
thinkin gin an informed way
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(4) What is “standard form”?

___________________________________________________________
Often, it is one which provides the simplest representation of an object and which allows it to be identified in a unique way.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(5) Name three ways in which you can critically reflect on your own beliefs.
exami,ne assumptions
___________________________________________________________
acknowledge baisis
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
be suspicious of dogma
12
(6) What is the difference between an informed opinion and an opinion?

___________________________________________________________
an opinion is a personal belief or judgment about something. An informed opinion
___________________________________________________________
is also a judgment, but it is supported with information or knowledge on the subject.
___________________________________________________________
(7) What is rhetoric and how does it differ from argumentation?

To be effective, rhetoric will insist that the argument takes account of the human environment
___________________________________________________________
and that it as well connected with human sentiment. 1st difference: Rhetoric sees argumentation
___________________________________________________________
as a route to effective persuasion, whereas logic sees argumentation as a path to rational persuasion.
___________________________________________________________
(8) Give an example of what you think a good argument is.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
You don't want tea, therefore you must want coffee.
___________________________________________________________
PLS2601/113

2 LESSON 2
2 Different kinds of writing and definitions
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to

(1) Identify different types of writing;
(2) Identify different types of definitions;
(3) Understand the role that definitions play in argumentation.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In your lifetime, you will encounter many different kinds of writing – you will read
novels, adverts, shampoo bottles, newspapers, blogs, social media posts and academic
texts amongst many others. The character of some types of writing, like love letters
and shopping lists, is obvious, and not relevant to this module. However, there are
some types of writing that employ argumentation. In this lesson, we distinguish
between the different types of writing, in order for you to contextualise where you
are likely to find arguments.
2.2 DIFFERENT KINDS OF WRITING

Critical reasoning, as a sub-discipline, is a branch of the broader discipline of
philosophy. Here, the development of clear, concise, and logical arguments – in
written format – is important. We must, therefore, pay some attention to different
types of writing if we wish to become robust critical thinkers. In fact, before setting
out to construct arguments, it is appropriate to do research. And this requires reading.
But, we need to know what we are reading.
For instance, if one picks up a book of poetry, it is unlikely that you will find
Augustinho Neto’s poem Farewell at the Moment of Parting particularly useful for
an assignment in the sub-discipline of Cognitive Psychology (Neto, 1998). One
cannot take any value away from the poet, but his writing is not of an academic or
argumentative nature. However, it is key for you to know that the text is poetic, and
is thus unsuitable for the purpose for which you require literature. It is also essential
that you develop a familiarity with the kind of writing style that is demanded of you
within a particular situation.
Linguistics have long contemplated how best different types of writing can be
classified. “Types of writing” may also be called “modes of discourse” or “types
of discourse” or “text type” (Aumüller, 2014). For our purposes, we will use the
identification of types of writing developed by Egon Werlich in 1976, which arises
from categories that human beings are able to identify because they are most
often apparent in singular sentences (Strazny, 2011, p. 946). Mind-mapped, this
categorisation looks as follows:
14
LESSON 2: Different kinds of writing and definitions
Writing type
The classification of a piece of writing by identifying its most striking
characteristics.
2.2.1 Descriptive writing

To “describe” something to another person, or just to record a description for yourself,
is to construct a language-based picture of an object, a place, a person or a situation.
Perhaps one could call “describing” as “painting with words”. The following extract
is from a travel book about the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC):
“The road deteriorated significantly as we entered Kinshasa, but the harassed traffic police,
standing precariously amongst the potholes, worked valiantly to control the masses of vehicles.
We stopped often to ask them directions to the airport, and though they couldn’t help not
one of them asked us for anything. Again, we started to question what we’d read about the
DRC” (Martin, et al., 2016, p. 9).
Can you identify what the authors have done in this piece of text? Although this
extract could have come from a novel, by far, the overwhelming characteristic of the
text is the description given of an experience in the capital city of the DRC. Here is
a further example, which describes the location of some rock art:
“It is granite country and a number of isolated kopjes half-covered with straggly bush growth
can be seen scattered around. Half-way up one of these small kopjes is a large granite boulder
wedged in a small rock-shelter… covered with paintings, there being also some nearly weathered
away examples on the ceiling of the rock-shelter itself” (Burkitt, 1928, p. 117).
Descriptive writing
Texts which attempt to describe a particular situation, person, or object.
PLS2601/1 15

2.2.2 Narrative writing

“Narrative writing” differs from descriptive writing because the author does not try
to paint a picture with words, but rather tells a story or expresses a state of emotion
or experience through linguistic means. Although descriptive writing may occur
within such texts – often within novels – the narrative type of writing will dominate
as a story is being told. Consider the following extract from the novel, Native Son by
America’s first bestselling African American author, Richard Wright:
“As he turned into Drexel Boulevard and headed toward Daltons’, he thought of how restless
he had been, how he was consumed always with a body hunger. Well, in a way he had settled
that tonight; as time passed he would make it more definite” ([1940]2000, p. 180).
Although the text is descriptive of the emotional experience of the narrator, the
description is not given of an object external to the storyteller as would be the case
in descriptive type writing. A story is told of the inner workings of the man.
Poetry is also an example of narrative writing, where often deeper, more meaningful
realities are expressed through language, though the significance goes beyond the
words used:
“There is much to remember
and little to forget
When greatness
Dies a simple death
For souls of men” [Chisiza in Cook and Rubadiri (2009, p. 141)].
In this poem, there is no description, and no analysis. The poem merely expresses
the thoughts of an individual.
Narrative writing
A text that tells a story or expresses the creative thoughts of the writer.
2.2.3 Explanatory writing

“Explanatory writing” is also sometimes known as “informative writing”, because in
this particular kind of writing, the writer seeks to explain or to inform the reader of
some particular information. For example, the providing of a definition is explanatory
writing. Explaining an idea’s meaning, is also explanatory.
Here is an example:
“Epistemolog y is the philosophical study of theories of knowledge.”
In this definition, no argument is being made, no description is given and no story is

being told. Rather the term “epistemology” is defined, and in doing this, the author
gives information about the meaning of the concept to the reader.
Explanatory writing
Occurs when the writer explains or informs the reader of a concept, term or
phenomenon’s meaning.
16
2.2.4 Instructive writing

Although many of us choose to ignore instructions provided in new items we buy, or
even in the modules we study, they are essential for anybody to function effectively
within society. If I did not follow the instructions of the word processor, I would
not be able to type this study guide. When we speak of “instructive writing”, we
mean – we are using an explanatory type of writing to give the definition – text
that gives instructions to the reader in order for them to easily follow a process to
accomplish a particular purpose.
“Write an essay of not more than 1 000 words on the topic that follows making sure that
you follow the norms of essay writing, including appropriate referencing…”
This is an example of “instructive writing” that you are sure to have come across
before. In this instance, the lecturer instructs the student of a particular path to
follow in order to achieve a set goal, namely, the completion of the assignment in
terms of the assessment criteria and outcomes of the module.
Instructive writing
A type of writing, simply written, wherein instructions are given to an
individual in order that a particular objective may be met.
2.2.5 Argumentative writing

The type of writing that you are preparing yourselves to generate by registering
for this module, is “argumentative writing”, wherein positions are presented, and
theories developed, always with the support – or back-up – of justified evidence or
argument. Within philosophical writing, this is the primary mode of discourse that
we engage in. Here is an example:
“The dominance of Western empiricism, exercised in the global South through
colonial expansion, left systems of knowledge among colonised peoples devoid
of their own identity, with the scar of perpetual inferiority ever looming large
because our epistemologies held on to metaphysics, values and beauty.”
Here, part of an argument has been presented by the author. The conclusion is offered
support by the premise, and the context of the extract is set, too. A description has not
just been given, but explanation for why the author holds to the particular position
is provided. More than likely this argument would produce reaction, but that is not
the point. The argument made is strong, because there is evidence in support of it.
Argumentative writing
Argumentative writing presents a position which is defended through
argument with justified reasons for the stance provided.
PLS2601/117

ACTIVITY 4
Identify the types of writing apparent in the following extracts:
(1) “You programme the washing machine by first setting on the power switch,
after which you turn the dial to the required setting. I recommend you use
the economy one. And then you press the start button.”
(2) “It is through this distinction between distinct objects of sensation and per-
ception that Aquinas’s account of perception transcends the limits of British
empiricism. Sensation, for Aquinas, is the awareness of what he… calls the
proper and the common sensibles” (Lisska, 2016, p. 117).
(3) “An increasing body of research within environmental and development
studies contains approaches that can be deployed to rebuild environmental
explanations on realist grounds” (Forsyth, 2001, p. 150).
(4) “… [E]vidence exists that the activation of religious thoughts may encourage
prosocial behaviour. Specifically, reminders of moralizing deities, who watch
and judge humans, increase generosity and decrease cheating” (Girotto,
Pievani, & Vallotrigara, 2014, p. 251).
(5) “‘I am sending a delegation to tell Hamilton Hope that my uncle Gxumisa will
lead the men against Magwayi,’ said Mhlontlo. ‘I will no longer be available
to take part in any blood-spilling.’
He had to mourn his wife. He could not go into battle. The ukuzila custom forbade
it. He would have to mourn for many moons since this was his wife of the Great
House, and therefore the Queen-Mother of all the wives and children from all the
Houses” (Mda, 2015).
(1) Instructive writing
(2) Argumentative writing
(3) Descriptive writing
(5) Narrative writing
2.3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEFINITIONS

One of the worst enemies of critical reasoning is vague or ambiguous terms – if
one is unsure of what a term means, how can one construct an argument around it?
Vague terms can obscure ideas, and lead to faulty reasoning (Van den Berg 2010:
72). Vague terms can also lead to misunderstandings, which can lead to conflict.
It is important to understand that a definition is not a premise (which we will deal
with in lesson 3), but simply a clarification that aids understanding (Epstein &
Kernberger, 2006, p. 27).
According to Epstein and Kernberger (2006, p. 29), a good definition is one that
satisfies the following conditions:
• “The words doing the defining are clear and better understood than the word
or phrase being defined.”
• “The words being defined and the defining phrase can be used interchangeably.”
18
According to Bassham, Irwin, Nadrone & Wallace (2008, p. 99), there are a number
of different types of definitions. For the purposes of this module, we will look at
four different ones.
2.3.1 Stipulative definition

This definition is when you use a new word in a different way, or you have created
a new word. In philosophy, and academia generally, this is often used. For example,
Thomas Kuhn (1996, p. x) defined paradigms as “universally recognized scientific
achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community
of researchers”. In everyday language, a paradigm is simply a pattern or model of
some phenomenon.
As you may imagine, a stipulative definition is very subjective, since the author herself
determines the definition. She is “coining” the use of the term (Van den Berg, 2010,
p. 74). This also means that people may differ about what exactly a term means.
One example of this playing out is in the animal rights field. Steven Wise is the founder
of the NonHuman Rights Project. One of their core projects is to secure actual legal
rights for nonhuman animals through litigation (Nonhuman Rights Project, 2019).
Their aim is to demand recognition of the legal personhood of great apes, elephants,
dolphins and whales. The current legislation only ascribes “thinghood” to animals,
and therefore there is limited legal protection awarded to animals. However, with
their approach, they want to redefine “legal personhood” to include certain animals
too, and by so doing, award them certain legal liberties. This project therefore hinges
on a stipulative definition of “personhood”.
2.3.2 Persuasive definition

With a persuasive definition, the “arguer defines a term in an effort to persuade a
reader or listener to agree with the arguer’s point of view regarding the thing being
defined” (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 99). As such, there are often emotional appeals
within these definitions, and so one should be very wary of these kinds of definitions.
For example, if someone is trying to convince you that abortion is morally wrong,
and they use a definition like “abortion is the murdering of innocent little babies”,
they are using a persuasive definition. Abortion is a complicated medical, social
and political issue, and reducing it to the murder of babies does not leave room for
a constructive debate.
Persuasive definition is often used in political and social topics on which people have
very strong opinions (2008, p. 99).
PLS2601/1 19
2.3.3 Lexical definition
This is also known as a “logical definition” (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 74). A lexical
definition is the definition as is known in every day – i.e. natural – language. It is the
“dictionary definition” of the word. For example, a textbook is “[a] book used as
a standard work for the study of a particular subject” (Oxford English Dictionary,
2019a). In lexical definitions, there is no attempt to persuade you of any particular
point of view, and there are no values embedded in the definition – these definitions
just reflect the word’s general usage.
(https://pixabay.com/en/definition-word-dictionary-text-390785/)
2.3.4 Enumerative definition

This type of definition uses examples to define – it is “defining by example”. So,
per illustration, imagine if your favourite music was kwela, and someone you meet
does not know what kwela music is. In order to explain, you could say something
like, “Kwela is like the music of Lemmy Mabaso, Spokes Mashiyane, and Kippie
Moeketsi”. In an example like this, you would be using the examples of specific
music artists to define the term.
One of the problems with this kind of definition, though, is that they tend to be
incomplete (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 101). They also rely on a certain level of shared
knowledge – perhaps your friend had never heard of the artists mentioned above,
and this would mean that your definition did not help clarify the concept of “kwela”.
ACTIVITY 5
Identify the following definitions:
(1) Coffee is a drink made by the infusion or decoction from the seeds of a
shrub, roasted and ground, extensively used as a beverage and acts as a
moderate stimulant.
(2) Corporal punishment is when horrible parents beat their poor children for
no good reason.
20
(3) Actresses means performers like Bonang Matheba, Leleti Khumalo, Minnie
Dlamini and Pearl Thusi.
(4) Fizzy drinks are those horrible drinks that corrode your teeth and makes
you gassy.
(5) A person is a homo sapiens at any point of development, including right
after conception.
(6) A lazy academic is someone like John.
(7) Derrida uses the term différance to mean “difference and deferral of meaning”.
(8) A mug is a drinking vessel, frequently cylindrical (and now usually with a
handle), generally used without a saucer.
(9) Politicians means Cyril Ramaphosa, Musi Maimane, Julius Malema and
Pravin Gordhan.
(10) To be a good parent means to love a child unconditionally for its entire life.
(1) Lexical definition
(2) Persuasive definition
(3) Enumerative definition
(4) Persuasive definition
(5) Stipulative definition
(7) Stipulative definition
(8) Lexical definition
(10) Stipualitve definition
In this chapter, we examined the types of writing, as well as different types of

definitions that you may encounter when engaging with different texts. This chapter
now sets the tone for the rest of the study guide – you will now be able to identify
argumentative writing when you come across it, as well as judge the kind of definition
used therein.
(1) What are the different types of writing?

___________________________________________________________
(1) Instructive writing
___________________________________________________________
(3) Descriptive writing
(5) Narrative writing
___________________________________________________________
(2) Construct an argumentative paragraph.

___________________________________________________________
“The dominance of Western empiricism, exercised in the global South through
colonial expansion, left systems of knowledge among colonised peoples devoid
___________________________________________________________
of their own identity, with the scar of perpetual inferiority ever looming large
because ___________________________________________________________
our epistemologies held on to metaphysics, values and beauty.”
PLS2601/121

(3) Find an example of a piece of narrative text.

___________________________________________________________
“‘I am sending a delegation to tell Hamilton Hope that my uncle Gxumisa will
lead the men against Magwayi,’ said Mhlontlo. ‘I will no longer be available
___________________________________________________________
to take part in any blood-spilling.’
___________________________________________________________
(4) List the different types of definitions.

___________________________________________________________
Lexical definition
Persuasive definition
___________________________________________________________
Enumerative definition
Stipulitive defintion
___________________________________________________________
(5) In your own words, explain the importance of definitions for critical reasoning.
Vague terms ___________________________________________________________
can obscure ideas, and lead to faulty reasoning
Vague terms can also lead to misunderstandings, which can lead to conflict.
It is important___________________________________________________________
to understand that a definition is not a premise,
but simply a clarification that aids understanding
___________________________________________________________
(6) What is the difference between stipulative and persuasive definitions?

With a persuasive definition, the “arguer defines a term in an effort to persuade a
___________________________________________________________
reader or listener to agree with the arguer’s point of view regarding the thing being
defined” ___________________________________________________________
with stipulative-
This definition is___________________________________________________________
when you use a new word in a different way, or you have created
a new word
(7) What is an enumerative definition? Give two examples to illustrate.
Politicians means Cyril Ramaphosa, Musi Maimane, Julius Malema and
___________________________________________________________
Pravin Gordhan.
___________________________________________________________
Actresses means performers like Bonang Matheba, Leleti Khumalo, Minnie
Dlamini and Pearl Thusi.
___________________________________________________________
22
3 LESSON 3
3 The Argument

(1) Identify premises and conclusions;
(2) Distinguish between statements and premises;
(3) Identify missing premises and/or conclusions;
(4) Recognise premise and conclusion indicators.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this module, we deal with those messages that aim to persuade us that the claims
they are forwarding are true, or that a chosen action is the appropriate one. We call
these messages arguments.
An argument can be defined as “a set of propositions of which one is a conclusion

and the remainder are premises, intended as support for the conclusion” (Bowell &
Kemp, 2015, p. 3). Put differently, an argument is “a group of statements that intend
to affirm the truth or acceptability of a claim” (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 4).
Before we carry on with unpacking these definitions, it is important that we briefly

examine the concept of “truth”. Think about the following claim: Cape Town is closer
to Johannesburg than Durban is. A brief look at figure 5 below will confirm that this
statement is not true.
PLS2601/123
FIGURE 5
South Africa
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:South_Africa-Regions_map.png)
Even a cursory glance at the above image will make it clear that Cape Town is much
further away from Johannesburg than Durban is from Johannesburg. Therefore,
the statement “Cape Town is closer to Johannesburg than Durban is” is true. However, the
concept of “truth” is usually not as simple as this. A statement such as “prostitution
should be legalised” will be much more controversial than the statement “Cape Town is
closer to Johannesburg than Durban is”, and its “truth” is more difficult, if not impossible,
to ascertain. This is because “[t]he nature of truth is a deep and controversial
philosophical issue” (Bowell & Kemp, 2015, p. 8). Even though it falls outside of
the scope of this module to debate the concept of “truth” it is nonetheless worth
thinking critically about what “truth” means and how we can make sense of it in
our daily lives, and as critical thinkers.
Additional Resource
Visit this webpage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y5cftds7-8 to listen
to a short overview of theories of truth by philosopher Joshua Rasmussen.
We now turn our attention to the constituent parts of the argument.
24
LESSON 3: The Argument
3.2 THE STATEMENT OR PROPOSITION

In this module, the words “statement” and “proposition” are interchangeably used.
A proposition is “[t]he factual content expressed by a declarative sentence on a
particular occasion” (Bowell & Kemp, 2015, p. 10). Defined differently, we can say that
a statement is “an assertion that is either true or false” (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 147).
It is important to note that questions, commands, requests and exclamations are
not statements.
ACTIVITY 6
Which of the following sentences are propositions?
(1) Robert Mugabe is no longer president of Zimbabwe.
(2) Mom, where are my school shoes?
(3) Get out of here!
(4) People’s meat-based diets contribute heavily to the environmental crisis.
(5) St. Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican friar.
(6) PLS2601 is a fun module.
(7) Ms Mmako, please bring tea and coffee to the meeting.
(1) Proposition – this statement can be proven true and false.
(2) This is a question and therefore it is not a statement.
(3) This is a command and therefore it is not a statement.
(4) This statement is a declaration that can be argued for or against, and so
is a proposition.
(5) This statement is a factually true one, and so is a proposition.
(6) One can argue for or against this statement.
(7) This is a request and therefore it is not a statement.
It is important to understand the content of a statement. This means that even when
a statement is phrased in two different ways, it could be “the same proposition”. For
example, these two sentences are the same statement or proposition: “Themba kicks
the ball” and “The ball is kicked by Themba”. A slightly more difficult example of
two differently phrased sentences expressing the same proposition is “The morally
correct dietary choice is veganism” and “Eating animal products is immoral”.
These two sentences express the same sentiment, so they can be seen as the same
proposition in an argument.
When analysing arguments, it is vital that you understand which sentences are
propositions, and which are not. Look at the following example:
I am so angry! The cashier gave me the incorrect change. It proves that service delivery in
this country is appalling! Who does the cashier think she is?
This example contains four sentences, but only two of them are part of the argument.
The first sentence, “I am so angry”, is an exclamation. The last sentence, “Who
does she think she is?” is a question. Recall that exclamations and questions are not
propositions. So, one only needs to look at the middle two sentences in order to analyse
this argument. The conclusion is “Service delivery in this country is appalling”, and
the supporting statement is “The cashier gave me the incorrect change”.
PLS2601/125

Let us now turn our attention to the constituent parts of the argument – the premise
and the conclusion.
3.3 THE CONCLUSION

Every argument tries to convince you of something. That point or issue of the argument
is the conclusion. We can define a conclusion as a “statement in an argument that
the premises are intended to support” (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 44). But how can we
go about identifying conclusions?
When we analyse an argument, the first step is usually to identify the conclusion.
Thereafter, we can move on to identifying the premise(s). Bowell and Kemp (2015,
pp. 13-16) provide us with useful guidelines to identify conclusions.
(1) Ask yourself, “What is the point of this argument?” The conclusion is that of
which the speaker is trying to convince you.
(2) Any proposition can be a conclusion. This means that it can be mundane
(“the sun is shining today”) or highly theoretical (“Karl Popper’s theory of
falsificationism changed the face of philosophy of science forever”).
(3) There may be more than one conclusion in a chain or extended argument.
In these arguments, we will first argue for one point and then move on to
another and another. (We will explain this in more detail later in lesson 3).
These are known as “sub-conclusions”.
(4) You can also look for conclusion indicators. These are words like
• Therefore
• In conclusion
• So
• It follows that
• We can conclude that
• Consequently
• This shows that
• Accordingly
• Subsequently
• As a consequence
• Thus
• Thence
• Then (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 50).
ACTIVITY 7
Identify the conclusions in the following arguments
(1) Serena Williams is the best tennis player in history. She has won 23 grand
slam titles.
(2) Since all humans deserve to be treated equally, it follows that job discrimi-
nation based on race and sex is unjust.
(3) It will rain on my birthday. The weather report predicted rain for this weekend,
and it has rained on my birthday every year for the past six years.
(4) The death penalty deters criminals from breaking the law. In addition, some
crimes deserve to be punished harshly. Thus, the death penalty should be
reinstated in South Africa.
26
(5) The killing of humans is always wrong. Humans should not kill another hu-
man under any circumstances. Since the death penalty entails the killing
of humans, it should remain illegal.
(1) Serena Williams is the best tennis player in history.
(2) Job discrimination based on race and sex is unjust.
(3) It will rain on my birthday.
(4) The death penalty should be reinstated in South Africa.
(5) [The death penalty] should remain illegal.
3.4 THE PREMISE

A premise is a reason provided in support of a conclusion. A premise can be defined
as “a statement that is supposed to serve as a reason for accepting an argument”
(Van den Berg, 2010, p. 43). The premise thus serves a very specific function – it
supports the conclusion.
So, how do we go about identifying premises? Bowell and Kemp (2015, pp. 16-18)
provide us with useful guidelines to identify premises.
(1) Ask yourself “What are the speaker’s reasons for believing their conclusion?”
Try to identify the evidence that the speaker gives in support of their conclusion.
(2) A premise need not be universally accepted or uncontroversial. If I am trying
to convince you, for example, that we should reinstate that death penalty, I
could provide a premise like “criminals are no longer human”. Clearly, that
is a very controversial statement, but it remains a premise in my argument.
(3) Look for premise indicators. These words and phrases signal premises and so
provide us with a clue that a premise follows. Some examples of these words are:
• Because
• For
• If
• Moreover
• Since
• For the reason that
• Given that
• Whereas
• Insofar as
• Firstly, secondly, thirdly, etc.
• Seeing that
• In the light of (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 50).
(4) Since premise indicators are not always used, it may be worthwhile to add
premise indicators in front of or between propositions. Once you have done
so, you can establish if they make sense as premises.
PLS2601/127

ACTIVITY 8
Identify the premises in the following arguments
(1) Serena Williams is the best tennis player in history. She has won 23 grand
slam titles.
(2) Since all humans deserve to be treated equally, it follows that job discrimi-
nation based on race and sex is unjust.
(3) It will rain on my birthday. The weather report predicted rain for this weekend,
and it has rained on my birthday every year for the past six years.
crimes deserve to be punished harshly. Thus, the death penalty should be
reinstated in South Africa.
(5) The killing of humans is always wrong. Humans should not kill another hu-
man under any circumstances. Since the death penalty entails the killing
of humans, it should remain illegal.
Identify the premises in the following arguments
(1) She has won 23 grand slam titles. (One premise)
(2) All humans deserve to be treated equally. (One premise)
(3) The weather report predicted rain for this weekend, and it has rained on my
birthday every year for the past six years. (Two premises)
crimes deserve to be punished harshly. (Two premises)
(5) The killing of humans is always wrong. Humans should not kill another
human under any circumstances. The death penalty entails the killing of
humans. (Three premises)
3.5 THE COMPLEX ARGUMENT

Some arguments are simple arguments, which means they have one or more premises
that support one conclusion. However, in many cases, arguments are complex.
A complex argument is an argument that contains a sub-argument. Complex
arguments are also known as chain arguments.
Here is an example to illustrate:

Premise: All toddlers are between the ages of 2 and 5.
Premise: Pharelo is between the ages of 2 and 5.
Sub-conclusion: Pharelo is a toddler.
Premise: All toddlers love ice cream.
Conclusion: Pharelo loves ice cream.
The sub-conclusion [Pharelo is between the ages of 2 and 5] was used to support the
overall argument, the conclusion of which is Pharelo loves ice cream. In most cases “the
conclusion of a sub-argument may serve as a premise for a further sub-argument, and
perhaps, the conclusion of this argument will serve as the premise for yet another
argument” (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 63).
28
ACTIVITY 9
Rewrite the following complex arguments in standard form.
(1) [Puleng is not a South African citizen] – a. [She was born in Zimbabwe] – b.
[Furthermore, she has not married a South African] – c, and [therefore is not
a South African by marriage] – d. [She has also not applied for permanent
residence] – e.
(2) [A cow can think] – a. So, [it possesses consciousness] – b. Since [we
should not kill any conscious beings] – c, [we should cease all killing of
cows immediately] – d.
(3) [Many people have more than one job] – a. [It is becoming increasingly
difficult to survive on one income] – b. [The cost of living is increasing, but
income isn’t increasing at the same rate] – c. [In addition, millennials often
have a variety of skills] – d, and so [working in multiple fields are now a
possibility] – e.
(4) [All university students should take an English class] – a. [Speaking English
is critical for surviving in today’s capitalist society] – b since [most business
dealings worldwide are conducted in English] – c. [Studying English will also
improve the way graduates express themselves] – d. [Being proficient Anglo-
phones will also improve South African students’ international mobility] – e.
(1) PSC: c
SC: d
NOTE:
PMC: b, d, e
In these answers, the ‘SC’ and ‘MC’
MC: a represents sub-conclusion and main
conclusion.
(2) PSC: a
SC: b So, PSC means premise for the sub-
conclusion. PMC means premise for the
PMC: b, c main conclusion.
MC: d
(3) PSC1: c
SC1: b
PSC2: d
SC2: e
PMC: b, e
MC: a
(4) PSC: c
SC: b
PMC: b, d, e
MC: a
PLS2601/1 29

3.6 THE IMPLICIT PREMISE AND CONCLUSION

In some arguments, we may encounter premises and even conclusions that are missing.
3.6.1 The implicit premise

If a premise is missing, the arguer expects her audience to fill in the missing premise.
These “missing” or implicit premises are sometimes also known as assumptions. This
means that the arguer holds a view, but is not explicitly stating or defending that view.
Here is an example of an argument with a missing premise:

Mpho says: “I am a good parent. My children never watch more than an hour of TV a day.”
We can also rewrite the argument like this:

P1: My children never watch more than an hour of TV a day.
C: I am a good parent.
Before we carry on, try to think of what the possible missing premise could be.
The conclusion of this argument is that Mpho is a good parent. Her reason is that
she does not allow her children to watch more than an hour’s TV a day. There seems
to be a missing premise here – what is the link between being a good mother and
the amount of TV children watch?
If we rewrite the argument like this, it makes more sense:

Mpho says: “No good parent would allow their children to watch more than an
hour of TV a day. My children never watch more than an hour of TV a day.
Therefore, I am a good parent.” If we rewrite it in standard form, it looks like this:
Standard form:
P1: No good parent would allow his or her children to watch more than an hour of TV a day.
P2: My children never watch more than an hour of TV a day.
C: I am a good parent.
In the example above, we added a premise that links good parenting with the amount
of television watching children are permitted to have.
3.6.2 The implicit conclusion

An argument could also contain a missing conclusion. Here is an example.
Voluntary euthanasia decreases the suffering of terminally ill patients. People should be able
to decide how and when to end their lives.
There is something missing here – what is the point of these two sentences? It seem
as though the arguer is trying to say something like, “Voluntary euthanasia should
be morally/legally permissible”. Of course, we cannot figure out exactly what the
conclusion is, but we can aim to get a close approximation thereof. It is possible that
the person was trying to say something like the following:
30
P1: Voluntary euthanasia decreases the suffering of terminally ill patients.

P2: People should be able to decide how and when to end their lives.
C: Voluntary euthanasia should be morally/legally permissible.
ACTIVITY 10
Visit this webpage http://homepages.umflint.edu/~simoncu/103/missing.pdf
Carefully read the pdf, and complete the exercises on page 2. Then, head over
to the Discussion Forums on myUnisa, post your answers and discuss with your
classmates.
Additional Resource
Visit this webpage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EMHQh37Zd8 to listen
to this lecture on complex arguments and implicit premises.
3.7 CONCLUSION
I hope that you now understand what an argument is. Roughly, it is a reason or
reasons (premise/s) given in support of a conclusion. When you are analysing an
argument, it is important to first identify the premises and conclusions (and possible
sub-arguments). Once you have done that, you can move on to analysing these
arguments i.e. you can establish whether they are strong or weak arguments.
Additional Resource
Visit this webpage http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/nature-arguments to listen to this
lecture by Oxford professor Marianne Talbot on the nature of arguments.
(1) What is a statement?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(2) What is an argument?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
PLS2601/131

(3) What are the steps to follow to identify a conclusion?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(4) Make a list each of conclusion and premise indicators.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(5) What is a complex argument?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(6) How would you go about looking for a hidden conclusion?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(7) What are the steps you would take to identify all the premises in an argument?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(8) Construct your own complex argument – be sure to use standard form.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
32
4 LESSON 4
4 Different types of arguments

(1) Distinguish between value and empirical arguments;
(2) Distinguish between inductive and deductive arguments;
(3) Understand the difference between soundness and validity;
(4) Identify arguments that are value, empirical, inductive, deductive, sound
and/or valid.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In lesson 3, we discussed the basic building blocks for an argument – premises and
conclusions. Now we move on to unpacking arguments in more depth. There are
different kinds of arguments. In this lesson, we will distinguish specifically between
value and empirical arguments, and between inductive and deductive arguments.
Thereafter, we will explain when arguments are sound and/or valid. However,
before we commence on that journey, we need to have a conversation about truth.
A fundamental concept of logic is truth – typically “the overarching concern of the
critical thinker is typically with the truth (or lack of it) of the conclusions of arguments”
(Bowell & Kemp, 2015, p. 69). The concept of truth is thus uniquely important.
4.1.1 What is truth?

It may well be impossible to answer this question. Some may hold the position that
there is an objective truth out there, and we must just reach or discover it. Others
may argue that there is no such thing, and that what is true for one person is not
true for another.
However, for the purposes of this module, we will not move beyond a “common-
sense” understanding of truth – so, if I say “fish live in water”, then that can be taken
as a true statement. It is the case, however, that some statements cannot be judged
as objectively true, for example “abortion is morally acceptable” cannot be said to
be true or false like the statement “fish live in water” can. This former claim relies
strongly on belief or opinion, whereas the claim, “fish live in water” is objectively true.
You will see, occasionally, that the study material refers to “truth-value” – this
simply refers to the truth or falsity of a claim. Therefore, for example, “fish live
in water” is always true, whilst “fish live in the sky” is always false. Similarly,
“today is Tuesday” will be true or false depending on the day of the week, but will
always have a different truth-value from the proposition “today is Wednesday”.
PLS2601/133
This means that the propositions “today is Tuesday” and “today is Wednesday”
cannot have the same truth-values – it is a logical impossibility that today is both
Tuesday and Wednesday.
While you keep this in mind, we will now move to discussing the different
categorisations of arguments – specifically, the difference between value and empirical,
and deductive and inductive arguments.
4.2 VALUE ARGUMENTS

A value argument is making some claim about how things ought to be, or about
how the arguer believes things to be. Often, these arguments have to do with norms
or moral claims (e.g. abortion is morally wrong), or aesthetic claims (e.g. Da Vinci’s
Mona Lisa is a good artwork), or beliefs and desires (e.g. I think the ANC is the
best political party for South Africa). Value claims are not empirically verifiable (see
section 4.3 for more information on empirical arguments). Value claims are the kind
of claims dealt with in fields like psychology, sociology, political science and so on
(Van den Berg, 2010, p. 82).
Compare the following two statements per illustration:
• Sugar sweetens coffee.

• Sweetened coffee tastes better than
unsweetened coffee
(Van den Berg, 2010, p. 82).
https://pixabay.com/en/black-coffee-cup-coffee-2084545/
The first statement is an empirical statement, insofar that it makes a claim that
is verifiable by the senses. The second statement is a subjective one that may or
may not be accurate depending on who is making the claim. Some of the most
contentious arguments fall within this category. Think about the many competing
moral claims that different people make. For example, the moral permissibility of
abortion or euthanasia, or the legalisation of prostitution or narcotic substances are
all contentious claims. The arguments that people make for or against such claims
are value arguments.
4.3 EMPIRICAL ARGUMENTS

Empirical arguments, as was alluded to in section 4.2, are those arguments that
are verifiable using the senses or scientific knowledge. Put differently, they are
arguments about facts (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 82). It means that the premises of
such an argument can be verified by direct observation.
34
LESSON 4: Different types of arguments
Consider the following examples:

P1: I just saw a stray cat in the parking lot of the campus.
C: Therefore, there are stray cats on campus.
P1: Raw fish can carry Salmonella.

P2: Salmonella is a dangerous and potentially fatal disease.
C: Therefore, eating raw fish may cause illness.
These premises can be verified empirically – we can see the cats on campus, or do
laboratory tests on raw fish to determine if it carries salmonella. One’s beliefs or
values do not influence the truth of these arguments.
Let us brieﬂy pause here

You may be looking at the example above and wondering what just happened?
What do the Ps and Cs and the line under the second premise represent?
If you are confused, then please go back to section 1.7 A Note about ‘Standard
Form’ in lesson 1.
Here is an illustration to assist:
FIGURE 6:
Standard form
(https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606005.10)
ACTIVITY 11
Identify which of the following statements/arguments are empirical and which are
value arguments.
(1) It is considered good luck if it rains on your wedding day!
(2) I cannot make it to my lecture today, as my car has broken down.
(3) Graffiti cannot be considered an artform! It is nothing more than the defac-
ing of public property.
(4) There are two universities in Tshwane.
(5) If the South African Reserve Bank increases the repo rate then the economy
will slow down.
PLS2601/1 35

(6) The legalising of marijuana is a very bad thing for society – the last thing
we need is yet another substance that corrupts the youth.
(7) Any person who protests is a downright criminal! Protesting does nothing,
and is usually done by someone who just wants a day off from work.
(1) Value
(2) Empirical
(3) Value
(4) Empirical
(5) Empirical
(6) Value
(7) Value
Now that we have an understanding of empirical and value arguments, we move

on to discussing a different way of classifying arguments, namely deductive and
inductive arguments.
4.4 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

A deductive argument is an argument that, if the premises are true, then it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
2019). Put differently, the conclusion is contained within the premises. The truth of
the premises assures us of the truth of the conclusion.
So, for example,

P1: All humans need oxygen to survive.
P2: Tshepo is a human.
C: Tshepo needs oxygen to survive. [adapted from Cederblom and Paulsen
(2006, p. 211)]
The truth of the above conclusion (Tshepo needs oxygen to survive) is guaranteed
by the truth of the two premises.
A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to provide a

guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are
true. This is also known as deductive validity, and is dealt with in more depth in
lesson 4.6. This point can also be expressed by saying that, in a deductive argument,
the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if
the premises were true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false
(Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019).
A successful deductive argument has two important properties:

(1) The conclusion follows from the premises (if all the premises are true, it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false);
(2) The premises are true (Cederblom & Paulsen, 2006, p. 211).
36
Deductive arguments often take the form of a syllogism, which is a three-line

argument that always has exactly two premises and one conclusion. For example
P1: All blue-eyed people own goats.
P2: John is a blue-eyed person.
C: Therefore, John owns a goat.
This is an example of a categorical syllogism, which we will examine in depth further

along in this lesson. We turn our attention, first, to hypothetical syllogisms.
4.4.1 Hypothetical syllogism

We will deal with two types of syllogisms in this module. The first is a hypothetical
syllogism and the second is a categorical syllogism (see section 4.4.2). In this section,
we examine the hypothetical syllogism.
A hypothetical syllogism has at least one conditional or hypothetical statement. This

means it has one “if-then” statement (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 65).
Let us pause here

A conditional statement has two parts – an antecedent and a consequent.
The antecedent follows the “if” part and the consequent follows the “then”
part of the sentence.
E.g. If [pigs can fly], then [the moon is made out of cheese].
antecedent consequent
If P then Q
Here is a figure per illustration:
FIGURE 7:
Conditional Statement
(ht tps://c ambr idgewr itersgroup.f iles.wordpress.c om /2018/02 / if- p -then - q1.
jpg?w=768&h=431)
PLS2601/1 37

Here are some examples of conditional statements:

If it is raining, then it is cloudy.
If Sam does not practice piano daily, then she will fail her music exam.
If the petrol price keeps increasing, then food prices will also keep increasing.
If I eat fruit and vegetables daily, then I will be healthy.
In this module we will deal with two hypothetical syllogisms – these are called modus
ponens and modus tollens arguments. There are also fallacy versions of these syllogisms,
but we will deal with those in sections 5.16 and 5.17.
a) Modus Ponens
Modus Ponens is a Latin expression meaning “affirmative mode” (Bassham, et al.,
2008, p. 61). In this argument, the first premise is a conditional statement (If P
then Q). The second premise affirms the antecedent (in other words, affirms the
truth of the antecedent) and the conclusion affirms the consequent. This argument
is always valid regardless of the truth or falsity of the premises or conclusion. It is
important for you to recognise the pattern that is followed by the argument. (See
section 4.6 for more information about deductive validity.) The pattern for a modus
ponens argument is the following:
P1: If P (is true), then Q (is true)

P2: P (is true)
C: Therefore, Q (is true)
Or, put even more simply,
P→Q Note:
The ∴ symbol
P
means ‘therefore’
∴Q
Here is an example:
P1: If P, then Q If it is raining, then my car will be wet.
P2: P It is raining. (P, the antecedent, is true)
C: Therefore, Q My car is wet. (Q, the consequent is true)
Bassham et al (2008, p. 65) says that “[a]rguments with this pattern consist of one
conditional premise, a second premise that asserts as true the antecedent (the if part)
of the conditional statement, and a conclusion that asserts as true the consequent
(the then part) of the conditional”. We can see that by confirming the antecedent as
true in the second premise (also known as “affirming the antecedent”), we can then
conclude that the consequent is true.
38
ACTIVITY 12
Rewrite the following arguments in the standard form for modus ponens. Also,
identify whether these arguments are value arguments or empirical arguments.
(a) It has been said that the team that wins the league, is the best soccer team
in the country. Since Kaizer Chiefs won, it means they are the best soccer
team in South Africa.
(b) I find ice cream too sweet and studies have shown that people who find ice
cream too sweet have more taste buds than the average person does. This
means I have more taste buds than some others do.
(c) Abortion is immoral. If one argues that a fetus is a human being, and it is,
then abortion is akin to murder and immoral.
(a) The above example is not written in standard form. However, you can ex-
trapolate a modus ponens argument therefrom. It can be rewritten like this:
P1: If a team wins the league, then they are the best soccer team in the
country.
P2: Kaizer Chiefs won the league.
C: Kaizer Chiefs is the best soccer team in South Africa.
NB: You will notice that this argument is a value argument, with an empirical prem-
ise. The second premise is verifiable, because one can easily find out who has
won the league. The conclusion drawn, however, is a value one, as the person is
arguing that the “best” team is Kaizer Chiefs – “best” is a value claim. It would be
a different story if the person argued that, for example, winning the league meant
the team scored the most goals, as that would also be an empirical claim, and so
would transform the argument into an empirical one.
(b) The above example is not written in standard form. However, you can extrapolate
a modus ponens argument. You can also see that in the above example, what
is usually the second step in the modus ponens argument (an affirmation of
the antecedent) is placed first in the argument. It can be rewritten like this:
P1: If a person finds ice cream too sweet, then they have more taste
buds than the average person does.
P2: I find ice cream too sweet.
C: I have more taste buds than some others do.
This is also an empirical argument – one can verify the amount of taste buds one
has empirically (although this could be quite a difficult thing to do, in essence, it
is empirically verifiable). One can also look up the study to see whether the con-
ditional statement is true.
(c) This is a value argument. It deals with abortion and whether abortion is right or
wrong. It is also written in a way that the conclusion comes first, and what
is usually the second premise (affirming the antecedent) is in the middle of
the conditional statement.
Here is how you can rewrite it in standard form:
P1: If a fetus is a human being, then abortion is akin to murder, and
therefore immoral.
P2: A fetus is a human being.
C: Abortion is akin to murder and therefore immoral.
PLS2601/1 39
If you want to be more specific, then you can see that there is a sub-argument
contained in this argument, with a missing premise. You could rewrite it like this:
P1: If a fetus is a human being, then abortion is akin to murder.
P2: A fetus is a human being.
SC: Abortion is akin to murder.
P3: Murder is immoral.
C: Abortion is immoral.
The next hypothetical syllogism that you have to know is the modus tollens argument.
b) Modus Tollens
P2: Not Q My car is not wet. (Q, the consequent, is false)
C: Not P It is not raining. (P, the antecedent, is false)
In this argument, the consequent of the conditional statement is denied (asserted to

be false) in the second premise. Following the second premise, the consequent of
the conditional statement is also declared false (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 65).
Let us pause here

You may be looking at the P and Q in the above section and wondering what
they mean. The P and Q (If P, then Q) are simply variables “that can be
replaced with … statements, or propositions, namely items that are true or
false” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019).
It is somewhat like using variables2 in mathematics. This image presents the
Pythagorean Theorem:
FIGURE 8:
Pythagorean theorem (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Pythagorean_theorem_abc.svg)
2 A variable in mathematics is a quantity that may change and is often represented by using numbers.
40
In the above equation, the letters a, b and c are variables – this means they
can be replaced by any number. It works similarly with the letters we use in
critical reasoning, except those letters can be used to represent any proposition,
sentence or statement.
Here are some more examples:

P1: If it is raining, then my dad will make pancakes.
P2: My dad is not making pancakes.
C: Therefore, it is not raining.
P1: If I train for the next two months, then I will be able to run a marathon.
P2: I will not be able to run a marathon.

C: Therefore, I will not be training for the next two months.
In addition to the hypothetical syllogism, we will also examine the categorical

syllogism.
4.4.2 Categorical syllogism

A categorical syllogism “may be defined as a three-line argument in which each
statement begins with the word all, some or no” (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 65). Usually,
categorical syllogisms use “classy” language, in other words, one term that includes
another. By class, “we mean any collection of things, in the broadest possible sense of
the word ‘thing’” (MacKinnon, 1985, p. 118). In everyday language, we class things
together – birds, horses, animals, humans, one-armed pirates, blue hangers, blonde
actresses, young boys, South Africans, etc. In the section above, whilst discussing
hypothetical syllogisms, we did not really need to use classes or categories to make
the hypothetical syllogisms work. However, categorical syllogisms rely on categories
or classes to work. We will see how understanding “classy language” helps us later
on in this section.
Let us start with the most basic form of a categorical syllogism. The standard form
of the syllogism is the following:
P1: All M are P All Gautengers are South Africans.
P2: All S are M All Joburgers are Gautengers.
C: All S are P All Joburgers are South Africans [adapted from MacKinnon
(1985, p. 146)].
There are three important terms that you have to know when it comes to categorical
syllogisms. These are the:
• middle term (M) – occurs in both premises
• major term (P) – occurs in first premise and is predicate of the conclusion
• minor (S) – subject of the conclusion and occurs in second premise
In the above example, M (i.e. Gautengers) represents the middle term. We can see that
this middle term connects the other two terms (P and S, which are South Africans
and Joburgers). S is known as the minor term. The minor term is the subject of the
conclusion and occurs in the second premise.
PLS2601/141

Let us pause here

You may be asking yourself: What is a predicate? What is a subject?
Remember: Every complete sentence in the English language has at least
two parts – the subject and the predicate.
The subject is a noun or pronoun (who or what? e.g. he, she, they, leaves,
things, stuff, November, leaves, aliens, etc.) and the predicate is the part of
the sentence that says something about the subject (e.g. smiles, is blue, is
always cold, tastes delicious, etc.)
Here are some examples:
[My bunny (subject)] [likes carrots (predicate).]
[November (subject)] [is always warm (predicate).]
[Aliens (subject)] [fly around in UFOs (predicate).]
[All Californians (subject)] [are Americans (predicate).]
Now let us return to major, minor, and middle terms. Here are a few rules to help
you understand:
• Only the major and the minor term occur in the conclusion of a categorical
syllogism.
• You cannot have any of the terms appearing twice in the same premise.
• Each term appears only twice in the entire argument – no more and no less.
Let us pause here

Watch the following short video that explains this in more detail: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_axMz-RHmvg
Not all categorical syllogisms will follow the exact formulation above. In some cases,
it may read something like the following:
P1: All M are P All stop signs are octagons.
P2: Some S are M Some red objects are stop signs.
C: Some S are P Some red objects are octagons.
Or it could read like this:

P1: All M are P All seagulls are fish eaters.
P2: No S are M No canaries are seagulls.
C: No S are P No canaries are fish eaters. (MacKinnon, 1985, p. 153).
It will be up to you to identify the major term, and establish whether it is a valid
deductive argument (see section 4.6 on deductive validity).
42
ACTIVITY 13
Identify the major term, the minor term and the middle term of each of these
arguments.
(1) P1: All birds have feathers.
P2: Some dinosaurs were birds.
C: Some dinosaurs have feathers.
(2) P1: All dinosaurs were cold-blooded.

P2: No mammals are dinosaurs.
C: Therefore, no mammals are cold-blooded
(3) P1: All dinosaurs are reptiles.

P2: All crocodiles are dinosaurs.
C: Therefore, all crocodiles are reptiles
Identify the major term, the minor term and the middle term of each of these
arguments.
(1) Minor term: Dinosaurs
Major term: Have feathers
Middle term: Birds
(2) Minor term: Mammals

Major term: Cold-blooded
Middle term: Dinosaurs
(3) Minor term: Crocodiles

Major term: Reptiles
Middle term: Dinosaurs
Now that you understand deductive arguments, we move on to discussing inductive

arguments.
4.5 INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

In an inductive argument, the conclusion follows with a strong degree of likelihood –
i.e. “if the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is
false” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019). Consider the following example:
I hear thunder in the distance. We may see some rain later today.
The premise describes the sound of thunder, and the conclusion that it may rain is
likely true. However, how often has distant thunder not lead to rain? Often enough
that the conclusion cannot follow with absolute certainty.
Another way to think of an inductive argument is that it is ampliative –

“meaning that the conclusion goes beyond what is (logically) contained in the
premises (which is why they are non-necessary inferences)” (Douven, 2017).
PLS2601/143

We saw that, with deductive arguments, the premises necessarily entail or contain the
conclusion – one cannot reach another logical conclusion with a deductive argument.
Contrarily, in an inductive argument, there is a “leap” being made to the conclusion
– the conclusion amplifies upon the premises. In other words, the conclusion goes
beyond the premises. The premises thus provide good, but not conclusive evidence for
the truth of the conclusion (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 58). Here is an example per
illustration:
School uniforms should be banned. Not only are they expensive, but they limit a student’s
individuality. The petty enforcement of uniform policy may also take away precious teaching
time and resources. Forcing girls to wear skirts and boys to wear pants reinforce traditional
gender roles.
The conclusion of this argument is that uniforms in schools ought to be banned – the
premises provide us with good support for this conclusion. However, the conclusion
is not logically necessary – from the same set of premises, one could conclude that
there should be cheaper, gender-neutral uniforms. For example:
Not only are school uniforms expensive, but they limit a student’s individuality. The petty
enforcement of uniform policy may also take away precious teaching time and resources. Forcing
girls to wear skirts and boys to wear pants reinforce traditional gender roles. It follows then
that the implementation of a cheaper, gender-neutral uniform is preferable.
Here we used the same premises to reach a different conclusion. The premises
therefore give varying amounts of support to the conclusion, and so we speak of the
strength or weakness of an inductive argument. Consider this example:
Studying to be a teacher is a good thing to do, because my mom said so.
This seems to be quite a weak argument – why should we believe your mom’s view
of what is a good thing to do? We can strengthen this argument by adding more
rigour. For example:
Studying to be a teacher is a good thing to do. This is because a teacher’s role in society is
important. Teachers form our children, and so are imperative to the functioning of a democracy.
In addition, teachers are often not well remunerated, so this means that the work they do is
even more important.
This argument is now more forceful – there are more reasons, and the reasons given
are more relevant to the conclusion that is reached.
So far, in this lesson, we have considered value and empirical, and deductive and
inductive arguments. Now, we will move on to discussing two further concepts
that are important to know on our critical reasoning journey – these are “validity”
and “soundness”.
4.6 DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY

How do you ascertain whether a conclusion in a deductive argument really does
follow necessarily from the premises? You have to determine whether it is valid.
“A valid deductive argument is an argument in which it is impossible for all the
premises to be true and the conclusion false” (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 76). It is
important to understand that validity in this sense is a technical term – in common
everyday English, valid often means good or true, but that is not how we use the
term in critical reasoning.
44
Why is the concept of validity so important?

“Validity is the basis of all exact, rigorous reasoning directed at the discovery
of truth. … a valid argument perfectly preserves whatever truth is contained
in the argument’s premises. In short, validity is important because validity
preserves truth. Only by reasoning validly can we reason rigorously from truth
to truth.” (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 76)
It is important to note that even a valid deductive argument can be clearly false, or,
to use the more precise term, “unsound”. Consider the following:
P1: If a star is made out of fairy dust, then the moon must be made out of
gorgonzola cheese.
P2: A star is made out of fairy dust.
C: Therefore, the moon is made out of gorgonzola cheese.
This argument is deductively valid (it is a modus ponens argument), but factually false.
Its structure is valid, but its content unsound. A valid, sound deductive argument is
something like the following:
P1: If Johannesburg is in Gauteng, then Johannesburg is in South Africa.
P2: Johannesburg is in Gauteng.
C: Therefore, Johannesburg is in South Africa.
This argument is deductively valid (it is also a modus ponens argument), and it is
factually true.
It is important to remember that validity “refers to the relationship between the

premises and the conclusion of the argument” (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 148). For the
purposes of this module, you have learnt only two types of deductive arguments
– hypothetical syllogisms (of which you know modus ponens and modus tollens) and
categorical syllogisms.
So, if you are confronted with an argument, how do you go about establishing validity?
Firstly, you have to ignore the truth-values of the premises and the conclusion – i.e.
discard the content of the argument and only look at its structure. Second, you should
determine whether the argument’s structure is one of the following: modus ponens,
modus tollens, or a categorical syllogism. If the argument follows one of these exact
patterns, then it is valid.
Valid deductive patterns

Hypothetical Syllogisms Categorical Syllogisms
Modus Modus
Ponens Tollens
P1: If P then P1: If P then P1: All M are P P1: All M are P1: All M are P
Q Q P P2: No S are M
P2: All S are M
P2: P P2: Not Q P2: Some S C: No S are P
C: All S are P
are M
C: Q C: Not P
C: Some S
are P
PLS2601/145

ACTIVITY 14
Determine whether these arguments are valid deductive arguments:
(1) P1: All Martians are ticklish.
P2: All aliens are Martian.
C: Therefore, all aliens are ticklish.
(2) P1: If Martians are ticklish, then they are female.

P2: Sophia is a ticklish Martian.
C: Sophia is female.
(3) P1: If Sophia ate the cookies, then she is a Martian.

P2: Sophia ate the cookies.
C: Sophia is female.
(4) P1: Some Martians are taller than two metres.

P2: All Martians taller than two metres have purple hair.
C: Some Martians have purple hair.
Determine whether these arguments are valid deductive arguments:
(1) Valid
(2) Valid (modus ponens)
(3) Invalid
(4) Invalid
4.7 SOUNDNESS
It is important that we remember that validity is not the same as soundness. “Soundness
refers to the truth or strength of the premises of an argument” (Van den Berg, 2010,
p. 147). Validity, on the other hand, refers to the structure of the argument. Earlier
the following example was given:
P1: If a star is made out of fairy dust, then the moon must be made out of
gorgonzola cheese.
P2: A star is made out of fairy dust.
C: Therefore, the moon is made out of gorgonzola cheese.
We then ascertained that this is a valid argument, since it is a modus ponens argument. We
must now establish that the premises are actually true claims. We know, empirically,
that both premises 1 and 2 are simply untrue. Stars are comprised of hot gasses like
hydrogen and helium, and the moon consists of rock. Therefore, “[w]hen we assess
the soundness of an argument, we want to establish whether or not the evidence
provided by the premises is actually true” (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 91).
When an argument is deductively sound, it means, “the argument is valid, and all
its premises are actually true” (Bowell & Kemp, 2015, p. 87). When an argument is
inductively sound, it means the argument “is inductively forceful and its premises
are actually true” (Bowell & Kemp, 2015, p. 87).
46
Valid and Valid and Invalid and Invalid and

Sound Unsound Sound Unsound
This argument The argument has The argument The argument

has both a valid a valid structure, has an invalid has an invalid
structure, and but unsound structure, but s t r u c t u r e
its premises are premises. sound premises. and unsound
true. premises.
P1: If it is raining P1: If I stand on P1: If I run 5 km P1: If the moon

outside, then my my head, then every day, then is made out of
garden will be I will become a eventually I will cheese, then
wet. millionaire. become fitter. pigs can fly.
P2: It is raining P2: I am standing P2: I have P2: Pigs can fly.
outside. on my head. become fitter.
C: Therefore, the
C: Therefore, C: Therefore, I C: Therefore, I moon is made
my garden will will become a am running 5 km out of cheese.
be wet. millionaire. every day.
[Invalid because
it commits a
fallacy – this
is discussed in
lesson 5]
ACTIVITY 15
Determine whether these arguments are sound:
(1) P1: All kettles are red.
P2: Red things are always large.
C: Therefore, kettles are always large.
(2) Going to university is a waste of time. Apparently, only 10% of university
graduates are able to get a job after their degree.
(3) If one sees a watch lying in the street, one would not assume that it came to
be there all by itself. Rather, one would pick it up, examine it, and establish
that it is a very intricate artefact. One could safely conclude that a watch-
maker made this watch. The universe resembles a watch. Just like the watch
is an intricate artefact, and therefore has a maker, so too the universe is an
intricate phenomenon. Therefore, one can conclude that the universe is a
product of intelligent design. [Adapted from William Paley (1802)]
(4) To be a person is to be a member of the moral community. This entails
that persons possess rights and deserve respectful treatment. If we define
personhood as the possession of a minimum intelligence, self-awareness,
self-control, a sense of time and the capacity to relate to others, then ani-
mals can be persons too.
14
PLS2601/147

(1) Unsound
(2) Unsound
(3) Sound
(4) Sound
4.8 CONCLUSION
In this lesson, we discussed the different types of arguments. First, we looked at
value and empirical arguments, whereafter we moved on to deductive and inductive
arguments. It is important that you know the differences between all of these
arguments, so that you are able to identify these in your assignments and examination.
We also looked into validity and soundness, which are also very important to grasp.
(1) What is a value argument? Provide your own example.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(2) What is an empirical argument? Provide your own example.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(3) What is a hypothetical syllogism?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(4) What is the difference between a modus ponens argument and a modus tollens
argument?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
48
(5) What is a categorical syllogism?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(6) How would you describe an inductive argument?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(7) Construct your own inductive argument with three premises and one conclusion.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(8) What is the difference between validity and soundness?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
PLS2601/1 49

5 LESSON 5
5 Fallacies
At the end of lesson 5, you should

(1) Understand what a fallacious argument is;
(2) Identify fallacies in arguments;
(3) Distinguish between formal and informal fallacies.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
I hope that by now, you have an understanding of what an argument is as well as
the different types of arguments one gets. The next step in your critical reasoning
journey is to know what a problematic argument is. Specifically, we call problematic
arguments fallacies. A fallacy is “a deceptive argument that attempts to persuade us,
but contains a fundamental flaw in its reasoning” (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 13). A
fallacy is thus more than just a “bad” argument, but it is specifically an argument that
is deceitful and tempts us to be persuaded by it. A fallacy must also be distinguished
from one that is simply untrue (or unsound – a concept we have already discussed
in lesson 4).
Importantly, a fallacious argument may have either true or false premises – “simply
having false premises does not make an argument fallacious” (Bowell & Kemp, 2015,
p. 220). If this seems confusing, don’t worry! It will become clearer as we move along.
It is important to note that fallacies are still arguments – they contain premises and
conclusions, but they are, strictly speaking, arguments that contain a mistake in
reasoning (Bowell & Kemp, 2015, pp. 219-220). Another way to think of fallacies
are arguments “that tend to persuade but should not persuade” – they thus contain
an element of trickery (Cederblom & Paulsen, 2006, p. 142).
There are in the region of 220 fallacies, but we will only deal with a handful of the
most common ones in this module.
5.2 DIFFERENT TYPES OF FALLACIES

In this module, we will deal with two types of fallacies – informal and formal. Most
of the fallacies we will be dealing with are informal, with only two being formal.
The character of informal fallacies vary, so a concrete definition is difficult. However,

informal fallacies usually either distract or appeal to emotion in order to convince.
Furthermore, informal fallacies often “involve bringing irrelevant information
into an argument or they are based on assumptions that, when examined, prove to
50
LESSON 5: Fallacies
be incorrect” (Radford University, 2019). As such, informal fallacies are therefore

dependent on the misuse of language and of evidence (Radford University, 2019).
Informal fallacies are substantive errors in an inductive argument (Mesa Community
College, 2019).
A formal fallacy, on the other hand, is one that makes a purely logical mistake, and
will make an argument invalid (but not necessarily unsound – this will make more
sense at the end of this lesson). Therefore, formal fallacies “are created when the
relationship between premises and conclusion does not hold up” (Radford University,
2019). Formal fallacies are characterised as a structural error in a deductive argument
(Mesa Community College, 2019)
Additional Resource
Here is a video that explains the distinction between formal and informal
fallacies in more detail: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/
wiphi-critical-thinking/wiphi-fallacies/v/formal-informal-fallacy
In this lesson, we will first discuss informal fallacies, and thereafter, formal fallacies.
5.3 INFORMAL FALLACIES

As was explained above, informal fallacies often rely on a misuse of language and
of evidence. As such, they are failures of reasoning, and not failures of logic (or the
form of the argument). In this module, we will deal with 13 informal fallacies, listed
below. There are many, many more.
5.3.1 Informal fallacy – slippery slope

Imagine the irate parent berating his or her child for not studying. The parent says
something like “if you don’t study, then you will fail your exam. If you fail your
exam, then you won’t get into university, and if you don’t get into university, you
will never get a proper job and then you’ll be living on the streets”. This is a classic
case of a slippery slope fallacy.
This fallacy usually includes a chain of conditionals in its argument set-up (a

conditional is an “if… then…” statement – see lesson 4 for more detail on conditional
statements). The arguer proposes that one action or decision, will lead to another
action and then yet another with the result that the conclusion is quite far removed
from the initial premise. In our example above, we start with the premise “if you
don’t study, then you will fail your exam” – this premise is fairly uncontroversial.
However, the conclusion of the argument is that the child will be homeless – this is
an exaggerated conclusion to draw from the premise of failing a test.
In order to identify the slippery slope, you can try to answer the following questions:
• Is a series of events presented as if these events are connected?
• Does the conclusion seem exaggerated or extreme in some way?
PLS2601/151

Here is another example:

We cannot allow homosexuals to marry. If we allow two men or two women to marry each
other, then we should allow people to marry their pets too! If people marry their pets, the
moral fibre of society is completely ruined. Next thing you know, people will start marrying
their cars!
Along with extreme ignorance, this argument exhibits a chain of events. However,
the conclusion is an exaggerated one. How can allowing two people to marry lead
to people marrying inanimate objects? In addition, the above example also does not
have an explicit “chain of conditionals” statements of “if…then”, rather, the chain
is implied.
Additional Resource
Here is a video that explains the slippery slope fallacy in more detail: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxylBjtzMNQ
Slippery slope argument

A slippery slope argument leads one from seemingly unimportant and obviously
true first premises to exaggerated consequences in the conclusion.
5.3.2 Informal fallacy – straw man

The straw man fallacy occurs as part of a bigger debate or conversation. Let us imagine
the parent and child again. The child, about to finish her final year of high school,
feels unsure of what she wants to do thereafter. She says the following to her parent:
I feel like it would be good for me to take a year or two out before studying. If I go and study
something now just for the sake of studying, I might just waste your money if I later decide
to change my direction. I don’t know where my passion lies, and think that it may be wise
to do a few internships and job shadow for a while before committing to a degree in a specific
field. In addition, I can save some money, so that I can contribute to my study fees.
The parent replies,

Oh! So you just want to leech off me for the rest of your life? I will not allow that! You had
better start sending those application forms out.
The parent committed a straw man fallacy – the child provided good reasons for
delaying her tertiary studies. The parent, instead of addressing the good argument,
changed the child’s argument into a “straw man”, i.e. a “weaker” version of her
argument.
A straw man fallacy can be explained as follows: “Your reasoning contains the Straw
Man Fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one
that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted
position (the straw man) believing you have thereby undermined the opponent’s
actual position” (Dowden, 2019).
52
LESSON 5: Fallacies
Remember, while reasoning critically, one should build the strongest case you can in
opposition to another position, not the weakest (Cederblom & Paulsen, 2006, p. 145).
One way to identify this fallacy is to keep in mind that it is always against another
position. Here is another example (Cederblom & Paulsen, 2006, p. 145).
The younger generation should be more politically involved. They must not care about the future.
The straw man fallacy is committed here, since the speaker is presenting the younger
generation’s view on politics as indifferent – they do not care about the future.
However, they may have different reasons for avoiding political involvement.
Additional Resource
Here is a video that explains this fallacy in more detail https://www.khanacademy.
org/par tner- content /wi-phi/wiphi- critical-thinking/wiphi-fallacies/v/
straw-man-fallacy
Straw man argument

A fallacious form of reasoning that consists of making one’s own position
appear strong by misrepresenting, or ridiculing an opponent’s position.
5.3.3 Informal fallacy – false dilemma

This fallacy is also called the “false dichotomy” or the “excluded middle” fallacy. In
this fallacy, the interlocutor presents an either-or choice, when there may be many
more alternatives (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 26). Another way to say this is that “a
reasoner unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be
made among this short menu of choices” (Dowden, 2019).
Here is an example:
Either you support the dissolution of the ruling party, or you agree with their corrupt practices.
There are clearly many alternatives to the above – one can support a ruling party, but
condemn corrupt practices. Alternatively, one can disagree that they have corrupt
practices to begin with. Matters are usually a lot more complex than someone who
employs the false dilemma would like you to believe.
When someone employs the false dilemma fallacy, she is ignoring the complexity
of the issue. It is called the “excluded middle” because any middle ground is simply
ignored, and gradations or alternatives are overlooked on purpose (Van den Berg,
2010, p. 27). Here is another example (Cederblom & Paulsen, 2006, p. 144):
Either we allow abortion or we force children to be raised by parents who don’t want them.
There are obviously other alternatives – one can ask relatives to take care of the
child, or provide parents with counselling to come to terms with parenthood, or,
perhaps place the child up for adoption. It becomes easy to get distracted from
the complexity of an issue when only two alternatives are presented (Cederblom &
Paulsen, 2006, p. 144).
PLS2601/153

Additional Resource
Here is a video that explains this fallacy in more detail https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=w7jh5HxYfjA
False dilemma
A false dilemma is created when an arguer presents an either-or choice when,
in fact, there are more than two alternatives.
5.3.4 Informal fallacy – begging the question (petitio principii)

You may have heard people use “begging the question” in everyday English to refer,
roughly, to “asking” or “raising” a question. However, in critical reasoning, it means
something very different. This fallacy occurs when there is circular reasoning, i.e.
“the arguer assumes the truth of what she wants to prove” (Van den Berg 2010:
32). Put differently, it is “[a] form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is
derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion” (Harris, 2019). Remember,
with inductive arguments, the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises –
there is an inductive “leap” from the premises to the conclusion. By contrast, when
a begging the question fallacy is committed, the conclusion is already contained in
the premises. There is thus no progress in the argument (Harris, 2019).
Here is an example:
Person A: The Bible says that the world was created in seven days.
Person B: How do you know that you can trust the Bible?
Person A: Because it says in the Bible, that it is the truth!
Person A is saying that we should believe a particular notion of the creation of the
universe in a particular book, because that particular book says so! The conclusion
is therefore just a restatement of one of the premises, and the argument is not taken
any further.
Additional Resource
Here is a video that explains this fallacy in more detail https://www.khanacademy.
org/par tner- content /wi-phi/wiphi- critical-thinking/wiphi-fallacies/v/
begging-the-question
Begging the question fallacy

This fallacy occurs when what is supposedly proved by the conclusion of an
argument is already assumed true in the premises.
54
LESSON 5: Fallacies
5.3.5 Informal fallacy – ad hominem argument

This fallacy occurs when the person making an argument is attacked, rather than
the argument itself. Put differently, “attacks on the person rather than the arguments
are often used to undermine the credibility of an opposing point of view” (Cottrell
2011:117). “Ad hominem” is in the Latin term for “the man” or more broadly “the
person”.
Here is an example:
Dumisani says fracking in the Karoo is a bad idea. But Dumisani is a hemp-wearing,
lentil-eating hippy who wears sandals in winter. He obviously does not know what he is
talking about [adapted from Bowell and Kemp (2015, p. 229)].
In the above argument, the person does not engage with Dumisani’s arguments
against fracking – rather, they simply attack him personally, and use that personal
attack to conclude that Dumisani’s view against fracking is flawed.
An ad hominem fallacy can also occur when we attack a person’s circumstances or

interests. For example:
Dr Phakeng argued that the salaries of surgeons working at Chris Hani Baragwanath
Hospital should be increased. She argues that the low salaries of surgeons are forcing them
to go into the private health care sector and this is detrimental for public health. In addition,
the circumstances at the Baragwanath hospital are very trying – there is lack of necessary
resources. But of course, she would argue that the surgeons should earn higher salaries – she
is a surgeon herself!
The arguer in the above piece represents Dr Phakeng’s argument quite well, but
then discredits it simply because of Dr Phakeng’s circumstances. The arguer does
not address the merits of her proposal, but rather just attacks her personally because
of her profession.
Additional Resource
Here is a video that explains this fallacy in more detail
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-critical-thinking/
wiphi-fallacies/v/ad-hominem
Ad hominem argument
An attack on the character, interests or circumstances of an opponent who is
making a claim rather than challenging the claim itself.
PLS2601/155

5.3.6 Informal fallacy – false appeal to authority

This fallacy is also known in Latin as argumentum ad verecundiam. When we construct
arguments about issues, we often appeal to authority to substantiate our positions.
As Bradley Dowden says, “[y]ou appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning
by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most
reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes
from listening to authorities” (Dowden, 2019).
Let’s look at a legitimate example of appealing to authority:

Dr Ndlovu, a cardiologist, says that avoiding excessive red meat and eating mostly a plant-
based diet, along with regular exercise, reduce the chances of having a heart attack.
In this case, it is a legitimate appeal to authority – since Dr Ndlovu is a cardiologist,

we can take her opinion on how to reduce the chances of having a heart attack
seriously. Compare that example to the following one:
Neurologist Dr Harley said that the EFF’s position on urban land reform is problematic.
If this is the case then we can dismiss the EFF’s position.
What is the difference between these two examples? In both cases, well-educated
people are cited. In the second case, however, Dr Harley is not an authority on the
particular subject at hand, which is land reform. In this case, citing a lawyer who
specialises in land reform may be more appropriate than citing a neurologist. If “an
expert makes a claim about something that truly lies within this person’s area of
expertise”, then we can legitimately appeal to their authority (Cederblom & Paulsen,
2006, p. 165).
Additional Resource
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PDrnZoM3nA
False appeal to authority

This fallacy is committed when someone cites an authoritative or famous
person who is not an expert in the field under discussion.
56
LESSON 5: Fallacies
5.3.7 Informal fallacy – hasty generalisation

We often make generalisations, and these are not always fallacious. For example
All emeralds are green.
The fallacy of hasty generalisation, however,

is when a general conclusion is drawn from a
sample that is biased or too small (Bassham, et
al., 2008, p. 155). Per illustration,
My mom and uncle both owned a Ford and they

both had endless trouble with their cars. A Ford
is the worst car you could buy!
FIGURE 9:
Emerald
https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Beryl-Quartz-Emerald-
Zambia-85mm_0872.jpg
This argument is fallacious because it draws a general conclusion from a biased sample
(Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 155). Two Fords out of a possible sample of millions is not
an adequate sample size to conclude that Fords are bad cars. In order to draw that
conclusion, you would need a much bigger sample size.
Another way that you can think about the fallacy of a hasty generalisation, is that it is
an argument that jumps to a conclusion, and where that conclusion is a generalisation
(Dowden, 2019). Even though we draw conclusions all the time, in critical reasoning,
we want to investigate whether that conclusion is drawn based on sufficient evidence.
Additional Resource
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c_AL3jexZg
(You only need to watch this video until 1:47)
Hasty generalisation
The fallacy of hasty generalisation occurs when a conclusion is drawn based
on ill-considered or insufficient evidence.
PLS2601/1 57
5.3.8 Informal fallacy – red herring
FIGURE 10:
Red Herring
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redherring.gif
A red herring is a smelly fish. It is so smelly, that it would even distract a bloodhound
on a trail (Dowden, 2019). Based upon this reality, in the context of critical reasoning,
a red herring fallacy is “a digression that leads the reasoned off the track of considering
only relevant information” (Dowden, 2019). Put in a different way, this fallacy
is committed when “an arguer tries to sidetrack his audience by raising an irrelevant
issue and then claiming that the original issue has effectively been settled by the
irrelevant diversion” (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 135).
Here is an example:
Critics have accused my administration of doing too little to save the family farm. These
critics forget that I grew up on a farm. I know what it’s like to get up at the crack of dawn to
milk the cows. I know what it’s like to work in the field all day in the blazing sun. Family
farms are what made this country great, and those who criticize my farm policies simply
don’t know what they’re talking about. (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 135)
The issue at hand is whether this politician’s administration is doing enough to save
this farm, but she is distracting the listener by saying that she grew up on a farm and
that by virtue of that, she is doing enough to save the farm. The fact that she grew
up on a farm is the “red herring” with which she is trying to distract the audience.
Additional Resource
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0STrY58i4
Red herring fallacy

This fallacy occurs when an arguer tries to distract his audience with an
irrelevant issue and then claims that the irrelevant issue has settled the
original issue.
58
LESSON 5: Fallacies
5.3.9 Informal fallacy – complex question

This fallacy is also known as a “loaded question”. This fallacy takes place when
a question has “an unfair or questionable assumption” (Bassham et al. 2008:152).
Consider the following question:

Are you still cheating on your spouse?
The question is phrased in such a way that it necessitates a yes or no answer. If the
responder answers yes, then she confirms that she cheats, and if she answers no,
then she admits that she used to cheat on her spouse, but is not cheating anymore.
Either answer forces the responder to admit to something that she does not want
to admit to.
If a person uses this type of question in an argumentative context, then she

is committing the complex question fallacy. Here are some more examples (Bassham
et al. 2008:153):
When are you going to stop acting so immature?
How long have you been stealing money from your boss?
Where did you hide the body?
How long have you planned this bank robbery before you carried it out?
From these examples, we can see that a complex question does not always necessitate
a yes or no answer, but rather rolls two or more questions into one where one of the
questions makes an unfair presupposition.
Additional Resource
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRflpIUqYiI
Complex question fallacy

This fallacy occurs when two or more questions are disguised as one question.
5.3.10 Informal fallacies – equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation is “[w]hen a word or an expression shifts meaning from
one premise to another” (Cederblom & Paulsen, 2006, p. 151). This fallacy thrives
on vague, ambiguous, and ambivalent words and terms.
Consider the following example:

You are perfectly willing to believe in miracles such as a person landing on the moon. Why
are you so skeptical of the miracles described in the Bible? [Adapted from Cederblom
and Paulsen (2006, p. 161)]
In the above example, there is a shift in meaning of the word “miracle”. In the first
sense, the word miracle means an amazing event, where in the second it means
PLS2601/1 59

something supernatural that defies the laws of nature. If we fall prey to this fallacy, it
is because we are unable to notice an ambiguity or vagueness that the interlocutor is
presenting (Bowell & Kemp, 2015, p. 248). Think of this silly, but accurate, example:
I am in shape! Round is a shape!
The arguer deliberately utilises a word with a dual meaning in order to joke. Being
in shape usually means being fairly fit and possibly quite lean. But, a circle, which
is round, is also a shape. However, the second sense of shape usually means some
sort of geometric pattern. The arguer is equivocating the two meanings of the word
“shape”.
Additional Resource
wiphi-fallacies/v/fallacy-of-equivocation
Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used in one
sense in one part of an argument and in a different sense in another part of
the same argument.
5.3.11 Informal fallacy – false appeal to force

It happens that when an arguer knows that an argument is weak, she may attempt
to get her point agreed to through the use of physical or non-physical force – as
many have experienced – in, e.g. bullying. Logically, though, force can never replace
reason, so the argument remains unconvincing (Copi, Cohen & MacMahon, 2014,
p. 121). In Latin, this fallacy is called the argumentum ad baculum (literally, the argument
to the stick). This fallacy is defined as “[a] fallacy in which the argument relies upon an open
or veiled threat to force” (Copi , et al., 2014, p. 121).
Let’s consider an example of a fallacious appeal to force:

Advocate Mohammed, has his offices in the centre of a small town in the Western Cape.
He noticed that the town is becoming littered, the roads potholed, and there are informal
jobseekers loitering outside his offices. Mr Mohammed writes to the local councillor: “For
many years I have practised law in your constituency, being the only advocate around here.
But the condition of your town is appalling. Soon I may have to move my chambers to Cape
Town. Surely you would not want that to happen to the town you are elected to serve?”
In this example, the advocate could, at first glance, be seen to be using the argumentum
ad verecundiam fallacy, i.e. appealing to his authority as an advocate. However, to get
his way, the thrust of the argument is not so much on his position, but on the fact
that if the town is not cleaned up, he will move away. Whilst the councillor may wish
to improve the condition of the town, the threat of the advocate is not a sufficiently
strong argument for him to do so.
60
LESSON 5: Fallacies
Appeals to force have also been used in propaganda for a very long time.3 Often,
military powers at war have employed subtle force to gain momentum for their
causes. Consider the poster below:
FIGURE 11:
War Time Poster
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/LibertyBond-WinsorMcCay.jpg)
The argument contained in this poster stems from the context of the First World War,
wherein Americans were encouraged to purchase “liberty” or “war bonds”, which
would give financial assistance to the countries that were at war with the Germans.
A poster like this one serves to bully Americans who were not able to enlist in the
3 “Propaganda” is deﬁned as “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause
or to damage an opposing cause” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda).
PLS2601/1 61

military, to contribute funds for the war effort. The emotive image of the American
soldier, defeating war, hunger, disease, etc., played on the guilt of citizens to give of
their money. Although this type of force is non-physical, it is nevertheless forceful.
There is no well-reasoned argument present here.
Additional Resource
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LShYAhqpwJ0
Appeal to force
An appeal to force is made when an arguer employs a threat – physical or
non-physical – to force someone into accepting the argument.
5.3.12 Informal fallacy – bandwagon argument

One of the dangers of democratic societies, is the assumption that the majority of
people must always be correct in their thoughts and actions. Epistemologically, this
is known as the “consensus theory of truth”. When people are carried along with
majority emotions to agree with a position rather than use their own independent
and critical reasoning skills to reach a decision about a proposition, rationality is
placed on the proverbial “back burner”. This is often the case in politics. Watch the
following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOEfL4k_zF8
In this video, you see the German fascist dictator Adolf Hitler interacting with
crowds of his supporters in Berlin, Germany in 1936. Emotions run high, and the
crowds of his supporters blindly cheer, allowing themselves to be carried away by
their emotional connection to the nationalism of their country embodied in the
figure of the leader ( führer). Yet, even prior to the moments that these videos were
captured, Hitler’s supporters had orchestrated a reign of terror (McNab, 2011). Where
was independent thought?
The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, was critical of this sort of thinking,
which he called the “herd mentality” (Nietzsche, 2017).4 Of it, he wrote:
“I teach that the herd seeks to preserve one type of individual, and that it defends itself on
both sides, as much against those who degenerate from that type (criminals, etc.) as against
those who would dominate it. The trend of the herd is towards inertia and stagnation…”
(2017, §285).
In his critique, Nietzsche was pointing out something of the human tendency to
unquestioningly follow along with the ideas of a group, without obtaining critical
distance from a group and pondering about what they believe or hold. One of the
marks of a critical thinker is to resist being part of the herd or climbing on the
bandwagon.
4 A “herd” is the collective noun for a group of animals, particularly those of the bovine family, such
as domestic cattle.
62
LESSON 5: Fallacies
It is when this is not done that the fallacy of the bandwagon argument is committed.
A “bandwagon” refers to a cart that would have been used to carry a musical band in
a street parade. In Latin, this informal fallacy is known as the argumentum ad populum,
or the “argument to the people” or the “argument to the masses”. This argument
is committed when “… support [is] given for some conclusion [which] is an appeal to popular
belief” (Copi , et al., 2014, p. 112).
Consider Donald Trump’s statement in 2015 (prior to his election as US President),

when he called for a complete banning of Muslims entering the United States,
depicting all Muslims as “hate-mongers”:
“… [I]t is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension… Where this hatred comes
from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this
problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous
attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human
life.”
Trump attempted to gain traction for his campaign by appealing to a white American
fear of Muslims, partly rooted in the 9/11 attacks, perhaps earlier found in the first
Gulf War and the latter one. His argument is based on assumption and generalisation.
Critical exploration of the facts demonstrate it to be false. But for sure, there were
some people who bought into what he proposed, based solely on emotion.
Watch the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FPcCiqEVe8
The advertising industry has used the argumentum ad populum to its advantage by
promoting commonly held – stereotypical – understandings of what beauty, femininity,
handsomeness, etc., is. In this advert, an actress who embodies beauty – young,
white, famous – is used to promote a product, and we are informed about many
other women who have, like this actress, purchased it and have found it effective.
The emotional response, which the advertising company is appealing to is for other
young women to go out and buy their product.
ACTIVITY 16
Can you provide any just cause to purchase the product advertised in the video?
If you think critically about the video, can you identify what the advertiser is at-
tempting to say to consumers?
Bandwagon argument
A bandwagon argument occurs when an arguer attempts to persuade people
to a particular stance by virtue of the emotional, populist sentiment contained
in the argument rather than the strength of the argument.
PLS2601/163

5.3.13 Informal fallacy – false analogy

The usage of analogy is an everyday process for understanding. For example, when
I use the term “keyboard” to label the object upon which I am currently typing this
sentence, that label is analogical. In other words, the label or name is not the object.
Rather, it is a linguistic device used to demonstrate the particular object. Analogies
are also used to linguistically describe how one may be feeling, for example. A sick
person may describe themselves as “feeling like death”. The analogy is an extreme
example, but somehow vaguely relates to the health situation of the person. However,
the analogy fails when the reality remains that the sick person is still alive, and thus
does not know what death feels like, as no dead person has yet returned from death
to describe death.
When a strong analogical argument is made, the comparison between entities within
the argument need to be strongly related. For example, the argument could be made:
The loyalty of subjects to a monarch is dependent upon the absoluteness of the sovereign. King
Mswati III of Eswatini’s subjects have a stronger sense of loyalty to him than do the subjects
of Queen Elizabeth II’s kingdom, who is merely a constitutional ruler.
Both entities that are compared are royal monarchs and both are sovereigns of
countries. The analogical argument made would seem to be a strong one, although
it could be countered on different terms and for different reasons.
However, when an arguer makes an analogical argument wherein the entities

or phenomena used are not strongly related, the analogy is false (called either a
“false” or “faulty” analogy). Salmon (2013, p. 135) gives the example of early white
anthropologists, who when studying the first peoples of Australia, noted that the
names children used for “mother” and “father” were also used for the brothers and
sisters of parents. Because in the West only mothers and fathers are given these
names, the European anthropologists concluded that the people they were studying
were confused about who their parents were (2013, p. 135). However, this analogical
argument is false, because of the difference in the meanings of the parental noun
among the anthropologists and those they were “studying” (2013, p. 135).
Additional Resource
Here is a video that explains this fallacy in more detail https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=zYp7q-jJWiM
False analogy
A false analogy is made when an argument is presented in the form of an
analogy, but the analogy made is weak.
64
LESSON 5: Fallacies
This brings us to the end the section of informal fallacies. The table below summarises
the informal fallacies. Thereafter, we move on to discussing formal fallacies.
Summary of informal fallacies
Slippery slope A slippery slope argument leads one from seemingly

unimportant and obviously true first premises to exaggerated
consequences in the conclusion.
Straw man A fallacious form of reasoning that consists of making one’s

own position appear strong by misrepresenting, or ridiculing
an opponent’s position.
False dilemma A false dilemma is created when an arguer presents an

either-or choice when, in fact, there are more than two
alternatives.
Begging the This fallacy occurs when what is supposedly proved by

question the conclusion of an argument is already assumed true in
the premises.
Ad hominem An attack on the character, interests or circumstances of

fallacy an opponent who is making a claim rather than challenging
the claim itself.
False appeal This fallacy is committed when someone cites an

to authority authoritative or famous person who is not an expert in the
field under discussion.
Hasty The fallacy of hasty generalisation occurs when a conclusion

generalisation is drawn based on ill-considered or insufficient evidence.
Red herring This fallacy occurs when an arguer tries to distract his
audience with an irrelevant issue and then claims that the
irrelevant issue has settled the original issue.
Complex This fallacy occurs when two or more questions are

question disguised as one question.
Equivocation The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word or phrase

is used in one sense in one part of an argument and in a
different sense in another part of the same argument.
Appeal to force An appeal to force is made when an arguer employs a

threat – physical or non-physical – to force someone into
accepting the argument.
Bandwagon A bandwagon argument occurs when an arguer attempts

argument to persuade people to a particular stance by virtue of the
emotional, populist sentiment contained in the argument
rather than the strength of the argument.
False analogy A false analogy is made when an argument is presented

in the form of an analogy, but the analogy made is weak.
PLS2601/165

ACTIVITY 17
Identify the fallacies below
(1) I see that you spend a lot of time online. Do you enjoy wasting your time
like that?
(2) Either you support the EFF, or you are a racist!
(3) The minister of Finance made a statement that prostitution should be legal-
ised. Since she is a member of parliament, we must conclude that she is right.
(4) My doctor says I must eat healthier in order to lose weight. I don’t know how
I can believe her, as she herself is severely overweight.
(5) I don’t know why my mom is making such a big deal about my phone bill – I
am doing really well at school and never miss curfew! She should just get
over my high phone bill.
(6) Since private schools have 100% matric pass rates, I don’t see why public
schools also cannot obtain 100% pass rates. I mean, they are both South
African schools, so what is wrong with public schools?
(7) My cousin is being a real pain! I should just take some aspirin, and then he
should get better.
(8) Evolution is clearly false. There is no way that I evolved from a monkey!
(9) We cannot allow any child under the age of 10 to watch TV. If such young
children watch TV, then they struggle to sleep. We know that lack of sleep
causes aggression. With so many young, aggressive people, very soon
you will have an increase in violent crimes. Very soon, the prisons will be
overcrowded, and most young people will be hardened criminals.
(10) Ghost are definitely real! I know because I have seen one.
(1) Complex question
(2) False dilemma
(3) False appeal to authority
(4) Argument ad hominem
(5) Red herring
(6) False analogy
(7) Equivocation
(8) Straw man
(9) Slippery slope
(10) Begging the question
5.4 STRUCTURAL OR FORMAL FALLACIES

Like Epstein and Kernberger say (2006, p. 199) “[s]ome arguments are bad just
because of their form”. This means that regardless of the content of the argument,
whether the conclusion and/or premises are true or false, the “reasoning alone tells
us the person is not reasoning well” (2006, p. 199). There are quite a number of
structural fallacies, but for the purposes of this module, you will only have to know
two of them i.e. affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. A key aspect
of grasping these two fallacies is to understand what a conditional proposition is.
Even though we discussed this in lesson 4, we will recap it here.
66
LESSON 5: Fallacies
A conditional proposition takes the form of an “if-then” statement (Bowell & Kemp,
2015, p. 78). Here are some examples:
If it rains, then my car will be wet.

If the sun is out, then it is warm.
If I wear my lucky shirt, then I will get the job.
If the president is impeached, then the country will suffer economic consequences.
In standard form, the conditional will be written in the following way:

If P, then Q.
P and Q in this case are variables – that means you can replace P and Q with any
statement. For example:
If P [it is raining] then Q [my car will be wet].
In formal logic, the conditional is presented in the following way – the arrow presents
that this is a conditional statement:
P→Q
If it is raining → my car is wet.
In the conditional statement, the clause represented by P is called an antecedent, and

the clause represented by Q is a consequent. It is very important that you memorise
these terms, and understand what they are, since they form the basis of the following
two structural fallacies.
It is important that you understand, too, that the conditional is not an argument
on its own, but rather “[a] conditional is one proposition [and] [a]n argument cannot
consist of just one proposition” (Bowell and Kemp 2015:82). For the purposes of
this module, there are two arguments with a conditional statement as a premise
that you need to know – modus ponens and modus tollens. Here they are represented in
standard form:
Modus Ponens: P1: If P, then Q If it is raining, then my car will be wet.

P2: P It is raining.
C: Q My car is wet.
Modus Tollens: P1: If P, then Q If it is raining, then my car will be wet.

P2: Not Q My car is not wet.
C: Not P It is not raining.
You can refer back to lesson 4 where we discuss hypothetical syllogisms to recap
these two argument forms. Now that we have recapped the two argument forms,
we move on to discussing the two formal fallacies.
PLS2601/167

5.4.1 Formal fallacy – affirming the consequent

Recall that a formal fallacy is bad because of its form/structure, not because of
the truth or falsity of its premises and/or conclusion. Affirming or confirming the
consequent occurs when you think that since “you have enough evidence to affirm
the consequent of a conditional, you then suppose that as a result you have sufficient
reason to affirm the antecedent of the conditional” (Dowden, 2019). For example,
P1: If she is South African, then she speaks isiZulu.
P2: Hey, she does speak isiZulu.
C: So she must be South African.
This fallacy relates to the modus ponens argument. Recall, a modus ponens looks like this:
P1: If P, then Q If she is South African, then she speaks isiZulu.
P2: P She is South African.
C: Q She speaks isiZulu.
The fallacy of affirming the antecedent takes the following form:

P1: If P, then Q If she is South African, then she speaks isiZulu.
P2: Q She speaks isiZulu. (Q, the consequent, is true)
C: P She is South African. [Adapted from Dowden (2019)]
In the second premise, you can see that the consequent is being affirmed, whereas
in the modus ponens argument, the antecedent is being affirmed. The structural fallacy
can be clearly determined in this instance also by considering the content of the
argument: merely because someone speaks isiZulu does not necessarily imply that
that person is South African. She could be a Mozambican who spent some years
working in Johannesburg, for example.
Additional Resource
wiphi-fallacies/v/affirming-the-consequent
ACTIVITY 18
Identify which of the following arguments are modus ponens arguments or affirm-
ing the consequent fallacies.
(1) If the moon is made out of cheese, then Jupiter’s moons must be made
out of camembert. We all know that the moon is made out of cheese, so
Jupiter’s moons must be made out of camembert.
(2) If a student commits plagiarism, then she must be expelled from the uni-
versity. Zinhle has been expelled, so she must have committed plagiarism.
(3) If I have a headache, then I must take some painkillers. I have a killer
headache from marking assignments the whole day, so I must take some
Disprin when I get home.
68
LESSON 5: Fallacies
(4) If animals are sentient, then we must protect their interests. Peter Singer
says we must protect animals’ interests therefore, they must be sentient.
(1) Modus ponens
(2) Affirming the consequent
(3) Modus ponens
(4) Affirming the consequent
5.4.2 Formal fallacy – denying the antecedent

This fallacy relates to the modus tollens argument that we discussed earlier in this study
guide. Recall, the modus tollens argument has the following structure:
P2: Not Q My car is not wet. (Q, the consequent, is false)
C: Not P It is not raining. (P, the antecedent, is false)
If we look at the second premise, we can see that the modus tollens, which is a valid
argument, denies the consequent of the conditional statement. In the fallacy, the
antecedent is denied i.e. denying the antecedent. Thus, the argument will look like this:
P2: Not P It is not raining.
C: Not Q My car is not wet.
Additional Resource
wiphi-fallacies/v/denying-the-antecedent
Here is a summary of the formal fallacies:
Valid form of the argument Invalid form of the argument
Modus ponens P1: If P, then Q Affirming the P1: If P, then Q

(affirming the consequent
P2: P P2: Q
antecedent)
C: Q C: P
Modus tollens P1: If P, then Q Denying the

(denying the antecedent
P2: Not Q P1: If P, then Q
consequent)
C: P2: Not P
C: Not Q
PLS2601/1 69

Note that the name of the valid or invalid argument is based on the arguer’s action
in the second premise. For instance “denying the antecedent” is named as such,
because in premise 2, the antecedent is denied.
5.5 CONCLUSION
In this lesson, we examined “bad” arguments, also known as fallacies. We looked,
specifically, at 13 informal fallacies, and 2 formal fallacies. It is important that you
know these fallacies, and practice spotting them in arguments.
(1) What is the difference between a formal and an informal fallacy?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(2) Define “fallacy”.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(3) Define the false dilemma fallacy, and then construct your own example.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(4) What is the difference between a modus ponens argument and affirming the
consequent?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(5) What is “equivocation”?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
70
LESSON 5: Fallacies
(6) How would you describe the “begging the question” fallacy?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(7) Give an example of a hasty generalisation.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(8) Explain the ad hominem fallacy.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
PLS2601/171
6 LESSON 6
6 Analysing, mapping/diagramming and
evaluating arguments
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In this lesson, we will examine how to analyse and evaluate arguments. You cannot
evaluate an argument unless you have analysed it. To analyse means to “break an
argument down into its various parts to see clearly what conclusion is defended and
on what grounds” (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 171). Once we understand the argument,
we can then move on to evaluating it. When we evaluate, we ask the million-rand
question “Is this argument a good one?”
6.2 HOW TO ANALYSE AND MAP/DIAGRAM AN ARGUMENT

The first and most important step in analysing an argument is identifying premises
and conclusions. If you know and understand the work covered in lesson 3, you
will have a solid foundation to start analysing an argument. A good way to analyse
arguments is called diagramming. There are six steps to help us diagram an argument
(Bassham, et al., 2008, pp. 171-172).
STEP 1: Circle any premise and conclusion indicators you see.

STEP 2: Number or label the statements consecutively.
STEP 3: Identify the premises and conclusions.
STEP 4: Arrange the premises and conclusion/s in a diagram/map, with the
premises placed above the conclusion.
STEP 5: Omit any logically irrelevant statements.
STEP 6: Add arrows to indicate the relationship between the premises and
conclusion.
Let us look at the following example, and analyse it according to these steps.
Unisa is the best university in South Africa, because it has the highest student numbers.
Unisa also provides degrees in a variety of different disciplines. Moreover, it has some of the
best academics in the country in its employ. Unisa is in Tshwane.
STEP 1: Circle any premise and conclusion indicators you see.

Unisa is the best university in South Africa, because it has the highest student numbers.
Unisa also provides degrees in a variety of different disciplines. Moreover, it has some of the
best academics in the country in its employ. Unisa is in Tshwane.
In this example, there are two premise indicators i.e. ‘because’ and ‘moreover’. If you
are unsure of what a premise and conclusion indicator is, please go back to lesson
3 to refresh your memory.
72
LESSON 6: Analysing, mapping/diagramming and evaluating arguments

[Unisa is the best university in South Africa] -1, [because it has the highest student numbers]
- 2.[Unisa also provides degrees in a variety of different disciplines] - 3. [Moreover, it has
some of the best academics in the country in its employ] - 4. [Unisa is in Tshwane] – 5.

In this argument, you should be able to identify the first statement as the conclusion.
Most of the other statements support the fact that Unisa is the best university in
South Africa.
TIP: The premise indicator “because” logically signals that there is both a
premise and a conclusion in the same sentence. What precedes the “because”
is the conclusion, and what follows it, is the premise (Bassham, et al., 2008,
p. 177).
STEP 4: Arrange the premises and conclusion/s in a diagram/map, with the

premises placed above the conclusion.
Premises: (2) (3) (4) (5)
Conclusion: (1)
STEP 5: Omit any logically irrelevant statements.

If we examine the above argument, we can see that statement number 5 is logically
irrelevant. It does not add to the argument’s conclusion in any significant way.
Therefore, we can exclude it.
(2) (3) (4)

(1)
STEP 6: Add arrows to indicate the relationship between the premises and
conclusion
(2) (3) (4)
(1)
The argument above is a simple argument, with three premises supporting one
conclusion. How do we diagram/map a complex argument? Let’s look at the following
example.
Pharelo is a toddler. All toddlers are between the ages of 2 and 5. Pharelo is between the
ages of 2 and 5. All toddlers love ice cream. It follows that Pharelo loves ice cream.
STEP 1: Circle any premise and conclusion indicators that you see.
Pharelo is a toddler. All toddlers are between the ages of 2 and 5. Pharelo is between the
ages of 2 and 5. All toddlers love ice cream. It follows that Pharelo loves ice cream.
PLS2601/1 73


[Pharelo is a toddler] – 1. [All toddlers are between the ages of 2 and 5] – 2. [Pharelo
is between the ages of 2 and 5] – 3. [All toddlers love ice cream] – 4. [It follows that
Pharelo loves ice cream] – 5.

The main conclusion here is statement 5, which is that Pharelo loves ice cream.
However, there is also a sub-conclusion. The sub-conclusion is statement number
1, which is that Pharelo is a toddler. We can see that the rest of the argument relies
on Pharelo’s status as a toddler to reach the conclusion that she loves ice cream. The
other statements are premises.
It is important that you start by locating the main conclusion. Once you have identified
the main conclusion, you can work your way back through the passage to ascertain
how the argument fits together (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 176).
STEP 4: A
rrange the premises and conclusion/s in a diagram/map, with the
premises placed above the (sub-)conclusion/s.
(2) (3)
(1) (4)
(5)
STEP 5: Omit any logically irrelevant statements

There are no irrelevant statements in this argument.
STEP 6: A
dd arrows to indicate the relationship between the premises and
conclusion.
(2) (3)
(1) (4)
(5)
ACTIVITY 19
Draw the argument diagrams/maps for the following arguments:
(1) [All cats are animals] – 1. [All cats are friendly] – 2. [Boo is a cat] – 3.
[Therefore, Boo is a friendly animal] – 4.
(2) [If it is raining, then Cebisa will not go to the shops] – 1. [It is raining] – 2.
[She will not go to the shops] – 3. [Cebisa does not have anything else to
do] – 4. [Cebisa will stay at home] – 5.
(3) [Democracy should be abolished] – 1. [The voters are uniformed] – 2. [Study
after study has shown that the majority of people do not know enough about
the issues] – 3. In addition, [one does not need democracy to run a suc-
cessful country] – 4.
74
Draw the diagrams for the following arguments:
(1) (1) (2) (3)
(4)
(2) (1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
(3) (3)
(2) (4)
(1)
Additional Resource
This is a free course of Argument Diagramming by Carnegie Mellon.
https://oli.cmu.edu/courses/argument-diagramming-open-free/
(Click on “Enter and Open and Free Course”, then enter without account by
clicking the captcha and clicking “enter course”.)
6.3 HOW TO EVALUATE AN ARGUMENT

An argument can be good or bad in many ways (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 203). When
we evaluate an argument, we are “critically examining the plausibility of the claims
that have been made; critically considering assumptions, preconceived ideas and
faulty reasoning; weighing possible solutions; clarifying issues; making informed and
reasoned decisions; forming one’s own opinions on issues and locating issues within
a global perspective” (Van den Berg, 2010, p. 80). Before we move on to establishing
what a good argument is, we must first establish what a good argument is not.
• A good argument does not mean it “agrees with my views” (Bassham, et
al., 2008, p. 203).
We all hold views that are dear to us. I may think that SuperSport United is the
best soccer team in South Africa. So, when someone makes an argument that says:
SuperSport United is the best soccer team in South Africa because my brother says so.
PLS2601/175

I may then be tempted to accept this argument, since it agrees with my own view.
However, if I interrogate this argument, I may see that the premise is a really weak
one, and gives me very little reason to accept the conclusion. What about my brother’s
opinion makes it one worth accepting? Bassham et al state that “[t]o suppose that
an argument is good only if it agrees with your own pre-existing opinions is the
epitome of close mindedness” (Bassham, et al., 2008, pp. 203-204).
• A good argument is not one that is persuasive (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 203).
Although the point of constructing an argument is to persuade one’s audience to
accept one’s point, a convincing argument is not necessarily a good one. If someone
had a gun to your head, it can be very easy to be persuaded by their argument. Does
this mean their argument is good? Obviously not. So one must be careful not to
think that all arguments that persuade, must necessarily be good ones.
• A good argument does not mean it is “well-written” or “well-spoken”
(Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 203).
Many people are skilled at rhetoric and eloquence – simply put, some people have the
“gift of the gab”. For example, in politics, people sound very convincing, since they
are usually trained to do so. However, their statements are often devoid of a good
argument, and they rely on people’s emotion and devotion to get their point accepted.
Similarly, you could read an extremely boring article written by a philosopher, scientist
or mathematician that contains very strong arguments, even though it is not very
imaginative and exciting. The latter may be the stronger argument, even though it
is not particularly eloquent or easy to understand for the layperson.
What then, is a good argument?

• A good argument does not contain a fallacy
A fallacy is by definition a bad argument as it contains an error in reasoning. Even
though an argument that contains a fallacy may be convincing, it does not mean
that it is a good argument. Therefore, if you can identify a fallacy in an argument,
then that automatically means that the argument is a bad one.
• A good argument is deductively valid or inductively strong
Recall in lesson 4 we discussed deductive validity, which is defined as “an argument
in which it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false”
(Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 76). However, as we discussed in that same lesson, just
because an argument is valid, does not mean that it reflects reality accurately. Inductive
arguments cannot be “valid” or “invalid”, but they can be stronger or weaker. An
inductively strong argument is one where the conclusion is probably true if the
premises are true (Bassham, et al., 2008, p. 203).
• A good argument tends to truth (or is sound)
As we mentioned in lesson 2, the concept of “truth” is a philosophical minefield –
people have varying definitions thereof, as well as varying ways of ascertaining the
veracity of claims. However, in our case, we just want to establish that an argument
is sound – i.e. the “truth or strength of the premises of an argument… [and] whether
or not the evidence provided by the premises is actually true” (Van den Berg, 2010,
p. 91). For empirical arguments, this will be easier to do than for value arguments. It
is impossible to establish the truthfulness of value claims, because, moral claims, for
instance, are determined to be moral or immoral by the individual. However, one can
assess the strength of an argument. For example, compare the two arguments below.
76
Argument 1
School uniforms should be banned. Not only are they uncomfortable, but they also stifle
individuality and creativity. In addition, they are often very expensive. School uniforms also
infringe on some people’s religious freedom, by prohibiting them to wear certain religious regalia.
Argument 2
School uniforms should be banned because they are ugly.
As we can see, both arguments have the same conclusion, that school uniforms
must be banned. However, argument 1 is much stronger, since the premises are
more comprehensive and relevant to tuition, than someone’s subjective view that they
are not fashionable or pretty. Argument 1 is therefore “stronger” than argument 2.
Bassham et al (2008, p. 206) provide us with these questions to help us evaluate

arguments:
• Are the premises true?

• Is the reasoning correct? In other words, is the argument deductively valid
or inductively strong?
• Does the arguer commit any fallacies?
• Are the premises relevant to the conclusion?
• Is all relevant evidence taken into account? In other words, has the arguer
tried her best to find all the relevant facts, given the constraints of time,
space, and context?
ACTIVITY 20
Evaluate the following arguments for argument type, the presence of fallacies,
and the degree to which the premises support the conclusion:
(1) If abject poverty affects only a few people, then we should focus on more
important issues like curbing crime. Abject poverty only affects a few people.
Therefore, we should focus on curbing crime.
(2) The legalisation of cannabis has some psychologists worried. Some argue
that this is a miracle drug and anecdotal evidence suggests that it can assist
with physical ailments. However, the drug’s psychological effects remain a
worry for those working in the mental health field. The use of cannabis is
associated with long-term cognitive impairments. Worryingly, a study has
found that when young people use cannabis, their neural connections were
impaired when compared to non-users. Cannabis can also have particularly
adverse effects on those who already suffer from psychiatric disorders, such
as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
(3) Since the sex trade is not regulated, it means that sex workers are vulnerable
citizens. Sex workers are often exploited. Their clients insist on unprotected
and often violent sex, against the wishes of the sex worker. Their employ-
ers take huge cuts of their wages, leaving the sex workers economically
vulnerable. Since the trade is illegal, these workers have no recourse – they
cannot go to the police, for fear of prosecution, and they have no other
legal recourse for their unfair working conditions. In order to protect these
vulnerable workers, the sex trade needs to be decriminalised.
PLS2601/177

(1) If abject poverty affects only a few people, then we should focus on issues
that are more important like curbing crime. Abject poverty only affects a few
people. Therefore, we should focus on curbing crime.
We can see that the conclusion follows from the premises. This is a modus
ponens argument, so its structure is valid, and no fallacies are being com-
mitted. The premises are also relevant to the conclusion. However, this
argument has a glaring weakness – its second premise is simply false –
abject poverty affects billions of people worldwide. Therefore, even though
this argument has some strengths, it is overall weak since the arguer is not
telling the truth.
(2) The legalisation of cannabis has some psychologists worried. Some argue
that this is a miracle drug and anecdotal evidence suggests that it can assist
with physical ailments. However, the drug’s psychological effects remain a
worry for those working in the mental health field. The use of cannabis is
associated with long-term cognitive impairments. Worryingly, a study has
found that when young people use cannabis, their neural connections were
impaired when compared to non-users. Cannabis can also have particularly
adverse effects on those who already suffer from psychiatric disorders, such
as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
This argument is an inductive, value argument, so proving it objectively true
is going to be impossible. Even those studying the effects of marijuana on
people cannot really conclude beyond a shadow of doubt that it is always
negative. However, we can look at the argument and ask ourselves whether
the premises give sufficient support for the conclusion. The conclusion is
that the legalisation of marijuana has some psychologists worried – and if we
examine this conclusion, we can see that it is not a very difficult conclusion
to support. We can see that the rest of the argument seems well argued,
does not make any obviously false statements, and does not contain any
fallacies. This means that the argument looks like quite a good one. Impor-
tantly, this does not mean that there are not possible counter-arguments
or that one has to agree with it. It just means that as an argument, this one
seems like a fairly strong one.
(3) Since the sex trade is not regulated, it means that sex workers are vulnerable
citizens. Sex workers are often exploited. Their clients insist on unprotected
and often violent sex, against the wishes of the sex worker. Their employ-
ers take huge cuts of their wages, leaving the sex workers economically
vulnerable. Since the trade is illegal, these workers have no recourse – they
cannot go to the police, for fear of prosecution, and they have no other
legal recourse for their unfair working conditions. In order to protect these
vulnerable workers, the sex trade needs to be decriminalised.
This argument is an inductive, value argument, so proving it objectively true
is going to be impossible. The conclusion of this argument is that “the sex
trade needs to be decriminalised”. There are no obvious fallacies being com-
mitted, and the premises seem to lend sufficient support to the conclusion.
There are also no blatantly false statements, and so this argument seems
like a strong one.
78
6.4 CONCLUSION
In this lesson, we unpacked two key processes in your critical reasoning journey.
The one was how to analyse arguments, the other was how to evaluate arguments.
(1) What are the steps to analysing arguments?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(2) Why do you think “diagramming” an argument is important?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(3) How would you go about evaluating an argument?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(4) Construct a complex argument, then analyse and evaluate it.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
PLS2601/1 79
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aumüller, M., 2014. Text Types. [Online] Available at: http://www.lhn.uni-

hamburg.de/printpdf/article/text-types
[Accessed 8 March 2019].
Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nadrone, H. & Wallace, J. M., 2008. Critical Thinking: A
Student’s Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bowell, T. & Kemp, G., 2015. Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. 4th ed. New York:
Routledge.
Burkitt, M., 1928. South Africa’s Past in Stone & Paint. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cederblom, J. & Paulsen, D. W., 2006. Critical Reasoning: Understanding and Criticizing
Arguments and Theories. 6th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Cook, D. & Rubadiri, D., 2009. Poems from East Africa. Nairobi: East African
Educational Publishers Ltd.
Copi, I., Cohen, C. & MacMahon, K., 2014. Introduction to Logic. 14th ed. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
Douven, I., 2017. Abduction. [Online] Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/abduction/
[Accessed 20 February 2019].
Dowden, B., 2019. Fallacies. [Online]
Available at: https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#H6
Epstein, R. L. & Kernberger, C., 2006. Critical Thinking. 3rd ed. London:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Forsyth, T., 2001. Critical Realism and Political Ecology. In: After Postmodernism:
An Introduction to Critical Realism. London: Athlone Press, pp. 146-154.
Girotto, V., Pievani, T. & Vallotrigara, G., 2014. Supernatural beliefs: Adaptations
for social life or by-products of cognitive adaptations. Behaviour, Volume
151, pp. 385-402.
Groarke, L., 2017. Informal Logic. [Online]
Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
Harris, M. C., 2019. Fallacies: Begging the Question. [Online]
Available at: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-
critical-thinking/wiphi-fallacies/v/begging-the-question
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019. Deductive and Inductive Arguments.
[Online]
Available at: https://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
Kuhn, T. S., 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lisska, A., 2016. Aquinas’s Theory of Perception: An Analytic Reconstruction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
80
Bibliography
MacKinnon, E., 1985. Basic Reasoning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Martin, M., Baker, C. & Hatch-Barnwell, C., 2016. Crossing the Congo: Over Land and
Water in a Hard Place. London: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd..
McNab, C., 2011. Hitler’s Masterplan: The Essential Facts and Figures for Hitler’s Third
Reich. London: Amber Books Ltd..
Mda, Z., 2015. Little Suns. Cape Town: Umuzi.
Mesa Community College, 2019. Informal Fallacy. [Online]
Available at: http://www.mesacc.edu/~barsp59601/text/lex/defs/i/
informalfallacy.html
Neto, A., 1998. Farewell at the Moment of Parting. In: G. Moore & U. Beier, eds.
The Penguin Book of Modern African Poetry. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Nietzsche, F., 2017. The Will to Power. London: Penguin Classics.
Nonhuman Rights Project, 2019. Litigation. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nonhumanrights.org/litigation/
Oxford English Dictionary, 2019a. Textbook. [Online]
Available at: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200006?redirectedFrom=te
xtbook#eid
Oxford English Dictionary, 2019b. dogma. [Online]
Available at: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/56479?redirectedFrom=dog
ma#eid
Paley, W., 1802. Natural Theolog y, or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the
Deity. Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Philadelphia: John Morgan.
Radford University, 2019. Formal and Informal Fallacies. [Online]
Available at: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ivytech-engl112/chapter/
formal-and-informal-fallacies/
Salmon, M., 2013. Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. 6th ed. Boston:
Wadsworth.
Strazny, P., 2011. Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York, NY: Fitzxroy Dearborn.
Van Den Berg, M., 2009. Critical Reasoning PLS2601. Pretoria: University of South
Africa.
Van den Berg, M., 2010. Critical Reasoning and the Art of Argumentation. Revised ed.
Pretoria: Unisa Press.
Wright, R., [1940]2000. Native Son. London: Random House.
PLS2601/181
GLOSSARY
Glossary: English
Ad hominem argument. An attack on the character, interests or circumstances of
an opponent who is making a claim rather than challenging the claim itself.
Affirming the consequent fallacy. This fallacy is committed when the consequent
in a conditional statement is affirmed and the antecedent is taken to be true on these
grounds.
Analogy. Reasoning by analogy is based on comparison with similar cases. An

argument based on analogy only succeeds when the similarities between the cases
or entities are relevant.
Analysing arguments. The process of dismantling arguments in order to identify

their premises and conclusions.
Antecedent. An antecedent is the condition that is claimed to lead to a certain effect

(also called the “consequent”).
Appeal to force fallacy. This fallacy occurs when an arguer appeals to the threat
of force or coercion to persuade an opponent to accept a point.
Appeal to the masses. Fallacious reasoning based on mass sentiment, popular

feelings, or nationalism, rather than offering good reasons for accepting a conclusion.
Argument. An argument is a group of statements, one of which is called the

conclusion, whose truth or acceptability the argument is intended to establish. The
other statements are called premises, which are supposed to support the conclusion.
Argumentative writing. Argumentative writing argues for or against a particular

point of view. It is concerned with arguments and the point of an argument is to
convince the reader or the audience that a claim is true or acceptable.
Begging the question fallacy. This fallacy occurs when what is supposedly proved
by the conclusion of an argument is already assumed true in the premises.
Cause-and-effect reasoning. A kind of inductive argument in which it is argued

that a particular event or effect occurs based on specific antecedent conditions or
causal factors.
Comparative writing. A kind of writing that compares or contrasts two or more

things, events or viewpoints by focusing on similarities and differences.
Complex question fallacy. This fallacy occurs when two or more questions are
disguised as one question and it demands a “yes” or “no” answer.
82
Glossary
Conclusion. The main claim in an argument that the premises are intended to prove.
Conclusion indicator. A signal word or phrase that precedes a conclusion.
Consequent. A consequent is what is said to follow if the antecedent condition is

assumed true.
Counterargument. This is an argument an arguer formulates in answer to another

argument.
Counterexample. A counterexample is a specific example, which defeats or runs

counter to the claim made in an argument.
Critical reasoning. Critical reasoning involves the ability to actively and skilfully
conceptualise, analyse, question and evaluate ideas and beliefs.
Critical self-reflection. Critical self-reflection is an act of examining one’s own

thoughts and beliefs; related to self-knowledge and self-awareness.
Critical thinking. Synonym for “critical reasoning”.
Deductive argument. An argument in which the premises are claimed to give

sufficient support for the conclusion to follow.
Denying the antecedent fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone argues
that because the antecedent doesn’t happen, the consequent cannot happen.
Descriptive writing. A kind of writing that describes something or gives information

about state of affairs or events.
Distraction fallacies. These fallacies occur when attention is distracted from the
weak point of an argument.
Emotion fallacies. These fallacies confuse emotion with reason.
Empirical argument. An argument in which the premises assert that some empirically
determinable facts apply.
Equivocation. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used

in one sense in one part of an argument and in a different sense in another part of
the same argument.
Evaluating arguments. The process of critically examining the plausibility of

claims advanced in an argument; critically considering assumptions; and weighing
possible solutions to issues.
Fallacy. A fallacy is a deceptive argument that tries to persuade us to accept the

claim that is being advanced, but the reasons in support of the claim are irrelevant
or inappropriate.
False appeal to authority. This fallacy is committed when someone cites an

authoritative or famous person who is not an expert in the field under discussion.
False dilemma. A false dilemma is created when an arguer presents an either-or

choice when, in fact, there are more than two alternatives.
PLS2601/183
Faulty analogy. The error of faulty analogy occurs when a comparison is drawn
between two different cases or issues, though there are no relevant similarities
between them.
Fallacious reasoning. Invalid reasoning that suppresses relevant evidence, or

contains questionable premises.
Hasty generalisation. The fallacy of hasty generalisation occurs when a conclusion

is drawn based on ill-considered or insufficient evidence.
Inductive argument. An argument in which the conclusion is subject to probability,

even if the premises are assumed true.
Invalid deductive argument. An argument in which the structure is invalid and

the premises fail to give sufficient support to the conclusion.
Logical definition. This type of definition defines a term by selecting those properties
that are shared by and confined to all the things that the term covers.
Narrative writing. A kind of writing that aims at unfolding a story or recounting

a series of events.
Persuasive definition. A type of definition that aims at influencing the reader’s

attitude and thinking by suggesting a new meaning for a term that is already
in common use.
Preconceived idea. A preconceived idea is a societal assumption that decisively

influence our thinking, but which we have not critically reflected upon.
Premise indicator. A signal word or phrase that precedes a premise.
Premise. A premise is a statement that serves as a reason in support of an argument’s

conclusion.
Principle of charitable interpretation. This principle entails that when more than
one interpretation of an argument is possible, the argument should be interpreted
so that the premises provide the strongest support for the conclusion.
Slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument leads one from seemingly
unimportant and obviously true first premises to exaggerated consequences in the
conclusion.
Social conditioning. Seeing only what we expect to see.
Sound. An argument is sound if it is valid and you accept that all its premises are true.
Soundness. Refers to the truth or strength of the premises of an argument.
Statement. A statement is an assertion that is either true or false.
Statistical extrapolation. A kind of inductive reasoning that refers to some statistical

study or evidence. An inference is drawn about a target population based on what
is taken to be true of a sample group.
84
Glossary
Stereotypes. Generalisations, or assumptions, that people make about the

characteristics of all members of a group, based on an image (often wrong) about
what people in that group are like.
Stipulative definition. A kind of defi nition that stipulates that a given term should
be used in a particular way.
Straw man argument. A fallacious form of reasoning that consists of making one’s
own position appear strong by misrepresenting, or ridiculing an opponent’s position.
Structural fallacies. These fallacies contain fl aws in reasoning because their form
or structure is invalid.
Thesis. The conclusion of an extended argument.
Valid. A criterion of cogent reasoning that requires that the premises of an argument
in fact support its conclusion, either deductively or inductively.
Valid deductive argument. An argument of which the structure is valid and the
premises give sufficient support for the conclusion to follow.
Validity. Refers to the relationship between the premises and the conclusion of an
argument.
Value argument. An argument that assets a claim of preference or a moral judgment

about right and wrong, good and bad.
PLS2601/185
Glossary: Afrikaans
Ad hominem argument. Ad hominem-argument. ’n Aanval op die karakter, belange
of omstandighede/gesteldheid van ’n opponent wat ’n bewering maak, eerder as om
die bewering self te betwis.
Affirming the consequent fallacy. Bevestiging van die konsekwens drogredenasie.

Hierdie drogredenasie word begaan wanneer die konsekwens in ’n voorwaardelike
stelling bevestig word en die antesedent op grond daarvan as waar aanvaar word.
Analogy. Analogie. Redenering deur analogie is gebaseer op ’n vergelyking met

soortgelyke gevalle. ’n Argument wat op analogie gebaseer is, slaag net indien die
ooreenkomste tussen die gevalle of entiteite relevant is.
Analysing arguments. Ontleding van argumente. Die uitmekaarhaal van argumente

ten einde hul premisse en konklusies te identifiseer.
Antecedent. Antesedent. ’n Antesedent is ’n toestand/omstandighede/gesteldheid/

voorwaarde wat na bewering lei tot ’n sekere uitwerking (wat ook bekend staan as
die “konsekwens”).
Appeal to force fallacy. Beroep op dwang drogredenasie. Hierdie drogredenasie

kom voor wanneer die argumenteerder hom/haar op ’n dreigement van geweld of
dwang beroep om ’n opponent te oorreed om ’n punt te aanvaar.
Appeal to the masses. Beroep op die massas. Valse redenering gebaseer op

massasentiment, populêre gevoelens of nasionalisme eerder as wat goeie redes
aangebied word waarom ’n konklusie aanvaar behoort te word.
Argument. Argument. ’n Argument is ’n groep stellings, waarvan een die

gevolgtrekking/konklusie genoem word, en waarvan die waarheid of aanvaarbaarheid
veronderstel is om deur die argument bevestig te word. Die ander stellings staan
bekend as premisse, en hulle is veronderstel om die konklusie/gevolgtrekking te
ondersteun.
Argumentative writing. Argumentatiewe skryfwerk. Argumentatiewe skryfwerk

is skryfwerk waar in argumente aangevoer word ten gunste van of teen ’n spesifieke
gesigspunt. Dit is gemoeid met argumente, en die punt van ’n argument is om die
leser of die gehoor te oortuig dat ’n stelling waar of aanvaarbaar is.
Begging the question fallacy. Sirkelredenering. Hierdie drogredenasie kom voor

wanneer dit wat veronderstel is om deur die gevolgtrekking van ’n argument bewys
te word, reeds in die premis as waar aanvaar word.
Cause-and-effect reasoning. Oorsaak-en-gevolg-redenering. ’n Tipe induktiewe

argument waarin geredeneer word dat ’n spesifieke gebeurtenis of uitwerking voorkom
op grond van spesifieke voorafgaande omstandighede of kousale faktore.
Comparative writing. Vergelykende skryfwerk. ’n Tipe skryfwerk waarin twee

of meer dinge gebeure of gesigspunte vergelyk of gekontrasteer word deur op
ooreenkomste en verskille te fokus.
Complex question fallacy. Kompleksevraag-drogredenasie. Hierdie drogredenasie

kom voor wanneer twee of meer vrae vermom word as een vraag waarop ’n “ja”- of
“nee”-antwoord verlang word.
86
Glossary
Conclusion indicator. Konklusie-aanwyser. ’n Snellerwoord of -frase wat ’n konklusie

voorafgaan.
Conclusion. Konklusie/gevolgtrekking. Die hoofstelling in ’n argument wat

veronderstel is om deur die premisse bewys te word.
Consequent. Konsekwens. ‘n Konsekwens is dit wat volg indien die voorafgaande

toestand/omstandighede/voorwaarde as waar aanvaar word.
Counterargument. Teenargument. Dit is ’n argument wat deur die argumenteerder

geformuleer word in antwoord op ’n ander argument.
Counterexample. Teenvoorbeeld. ’n Teenvoorbeeld is ’n spesifieke voorbeeld wat

gebruik word om die bewering wat in ’n argument gemaak word, te weerlê.
Critical reasoning. Kritiese redenering. Kritiese redenering behels die vermoë om

idees en oortuigings op aktiewe en bedrewe wyse te konseptualiseer, te ontleed, te
bevraagteken en te evalueer.
Critical self-reflection. Kritiese selfrefleksie. Kritiese selfrefleksie behels aktiewe

bevraagtekening van ’n mens se eie denke en oortuigings; dit is verwant aan selfkennis
en selfbewussyn.
Critical thinking. Kritiese denke. Sinoniem vir “kritiese redenering”.
Deductive argument. Deduktiewe argument. ’n Argument waarin aanvaar word

dat die premise genoegsame steun gee aan die konklusie wat volg.
Denying the antecedent fallacy. Ontkenning-van-die-antesedent-drogredenasie.

Hierdie tipe drogredenasie kom voor wanneer iemand argumenteer dat omdat die
antesedent nie gebeur nie, die konsekwens ook nie kan gebeur nie.
Descriptive writing. Beskrywende skryfwerk. ’n Tipe skryfwerk waarin iets beskryf

word of waarin inligting gegee word oor ’n stand van sake of oor gebeure.
Distraction fallacies. Afleidingsdrogredenasies. Hierdie drogredenasies kom voor

wanneer die aandag afgelei word van die swak punt van ’n argument.
Emotion fallacies. Emotiewe drogredenasies. Hierdie drogredenasies verwar

emosie met rede.
Empirical argument. Empiriese argument. ’n Argument waarin die premisse

aanvoer dat sekere empiries bepaalbare feite van toepassing is.
Equivocation. Dubbelsinnigheid. Die denkfout van dubbelsinnigheid kom voor

wanneer ’n woord of frase in een deel van ’n argument in een betekenis gebruik
word, en in ’n ander deel van dieselfde argument in ’n ander betekenis.
Evaluating arguments. Evaluering van argumente. Die proses van die kritiese
bestudering van die geloofwaardigheid van bewerings wat in ’n argument gemaak
word; die kritiese oorwegings van aannames; en die opweeg van moontlike oplossings
vir vraagstukke.
Fallacious reasoning. Valse redenering. Ongeldige redenering wat relevante

getuienis/bewyse onderdruk, of twyfelagtige premisse bevat.
PLS2601/187
Fallacy. Drogredenasie. ’n Drogredenasie is ’n misleidende argument wat ’n mens
probeer oortuig om die bewering/stelling wat gemaak word te aanvaar, terwyl die
redes ter ondersteuning van hierdie bewering/stelling irrelevant of ontoepaslik is.
False appeal to authority. Valse beroep op gesag. Hierdie drogredenasie word

begaan wanneer iemand ’n gesaghebbende of beroemde persoon aanhaal wat nie ’n
kundige is op die gebied onder bespreking nie.
False dilemma. Valse dilemma. ‘n Valse dilemma ontstaan wanneer ‘n redeneerde

‘n óf-óf-keuse aanbied wanneer daar in werklikheid meer as twee alternatiewe is.
Faulty analogy. Gebrekkige analogie. Die fout van gebrekkige analogie kom voor
wanneer ’n vergelyking getrek word tussen twee verskillende gevalle of kwessies
terwyl daar geen relevante ooreenkomste tussen hulle is nie.
Hasty generalisation. Oorhaastige veralgemening. Die drogredenasie van oorhaastige

veralgemening vind plaas wanneer ’n gevolgtrekking gemaak word op grond van
ondeurdagte of onvoldoende getuienis/bewyse.
Inductive argument. Induktiewe argument. ’n Argument waarin die gevolgtrekking

onderworpe is aan waarskynlikheid, selfs al word die premisse as waar aanvaar.
Invalid deductive argument. Ongeldige deduktiewe argument. ’n Argument

waarin die struktuur ongeldig is en die premisse gee nie voldoende steun aan die
gevolgtrekking nie.
Logical definition. Logiese definisie. Hierdie tipe definisie word gebruik om ’n term
te definieer deur daardie eienskappe te selekteer wat gedeel word deur en beperk is
tot al die dinge wat deur die term gedek word.
Narrative writing. Narratiewe skryfwerk. ’n Tipe skryfwerk wat gerig is op die

ontvouing van ’n storie of die oorvertel van ’n reeks gebeure.
Persuasive definition. Oorredende definisie. ’n Tipe definisie wat gerig is op die

beïnvloeding van die leser se houding en denke deur ’n nuwe betekenis voor te stel
vir ’n term wat reeds algemeen in gebruik is.
Preconceived idea. Vooringenome idee. ’n Vooringenome idee is ’n aanname wat

in ’n samelewing heers en ’n beslissende uitwerking het op die denke in daardie
samelewing, maar waaroor daar nie krities nagedink word nie.
Premise indicator. Premis-aanwyser. ’n Snellerwoord of -frase wat ’n premis

voorafgaan.
Premise. Premis. ’n Premis is ’n stelling wat dien as rede vir of ondersteuning van
die konklusie van ’n argument.
Principle of charitable interpretation. Beginsel van welwillende interpretasie.

Hierdie beginsel behels dat wanneer meer as een interpretasie van ’n argument
moontlik is, die argument so geïnterpreteer moet word dat die premisse die sterkste
steun aan die konklusie bied.
Slippery slope argument. Gladdehelling-argument. ’n Gladdehelling-argument

lei ’n mens van ’n skynbaar onbelangrike eerste premis wat klaarblyklik waar is na
oordrewe gevolge in die konklusie.
88
Glossary
Social conditioning. Sosiale kondisionering. Wanneer ’n mens net sien wat jy

verwag om te sien.
Sound. Begrond. ’n Argument is begrond indien dit geldig is en ’n mens kan aanvaar
dat al die premisse waar is.
Soundness. Begronding. Het betrekking op die waarheid of sterkte van die premisse
van ’n argument.
Statement. Stelling. ’n Stelling is ’n bewering wat óf waar óf vals is.
Statistical extrapolation. Statistiese ekstrapolasie. ’n Tipe induktiewe redenering

wat betrekking het op ‘n statistiese studie of statistiese bewyse. ’n Gevolgtrekking
word gemaak oor ’n teikenpopulasie op grond van wat as waar aanvaar word met
betrekking tot ’n steekproefgroep.
Stereotypes. Stereotipes. Veralgemenings of aannames wat deur mense gemaak

word oor die kenmerke/eienskappe van alle lede van ’n groep, gebaseer op ‘n siening
(dikwels verkeerd) oor hoe mense in daardie groep is.
Stipulative definition. Stipulerende definisie. ’n Tipe definisie wat stipuleer dat ’n

gegewe term op ’n bepaalde wyse gebruik moet word.
Straw man argument. Strooiman-argument. ’n Misleidende vorm van redenering wat

daaruit bestaan dat ’n mens jou eie posisie sterker laat voorkom deur ’n wanvoorstelling
of bespotting van ’n opponent se posisie.
Structural fallacies. Strukturele drogredenasies. Hierdie drogredenasies bevat

redenasiegebreke omdat hul vorm of struktuur ongeldig is.
Thesis. Tese. Die konklusie van ’n uitgebreide argument.
Valid deductive argument. Geldige deduktiewe argument. ’n Argument waarvan die

struktuur geldig is en die premisse gee voldoende steun aan die konklusie wat volg.
Valid. Geldig. ’n Kriterium van koherente redenering wat vereis dat die premisse
van ’n argument die konklusie óf deduktief óf induktief ondersteun.
Validity. Geldigheid. Dit het betrekking op die verhouding tussen die premisse en
die konklusie van ’n argument.
Value argument. Waarde-argument. ’n Argument waarin ’n voorkeur uitgespreek

word, of ’n morele oordeel gevel word oor reg en verkeerd, goed en sleg.
PLS2601/1 89
Glossary: isiZulu
Ad hominem argument. Ukuhlaselwa okubhekiswe kumuntu siqu sakhe,
kwizintshisekelo zakhe noma kwisimo somuntu ophikiswayo okunguyena obeka
umbono othile endaweni yokuba kuphonselwe inselelo umbono wakhe ngokwawo.
Affirming the consequent fallacy. Ukuqinisa into engamalutha. Ukuqinisa into

engamalutha kwenzeka lapho okulandelayo esitatimendeni esinemibandela kuqiniswa
khona bese kuthathwa leso esandulelayo njengesiyiqiniso ngenxa yalezi zizathu.
Analogy. Isifanekiso. Ukucabangisisa ngengqondo okwenziwa ngesifanekiso

kwesekelwe ekuqhathaniseni izimo ezifanayo. Impikiswano eyesekelwe phezu
kwesifanekiso iphumelela kuphela uma ukufana phakathi kwalezo zimo noma
kwalezo zinto kufanele.
Analysing arguments. Ukuhlaziya izimpikiswano. Uhlelo lokwehlukanisa

izimpikiswano ukuze kubonwe isichasiselo kanye nesiphetho sayo.
Antecedent. Okwandulelayo. Okwandulelayo yisimo esithathwa njengesiholele

kumthelela othile (ophinde waziwe “njengomphumela”).
Appeal to force fallacy. Ukukhalazela ukuphoqelela into engamalutha. Le nto

engamalutha yenzeka lapho ophikisayo ekhalazela ukwesabisa okuphoqelela
ngamandla noma ingcindezelo yokuvumisa lowo aphikisana naye ukuba emukele
iphuzu lakhe.
Appeal to the masses. Ukuncenga uquqaba lwabantu. Ukucabangisisa okungamalutha

okwesekelwe emcabangweni woquqaba lwabantu, imizwa evamile, noma okobuzwe,
kunokuba kunikezwe izizathu ezizwakalayo zokwemukela isiphetho.
Argument. Impikiswano. Impikiswano yiqoqo lezitatimende eziningi, esinye sazo

esibizwa ngokuthi yisiphetho, okuhloswe ngaso ubuqiniso kumbe ukwemukeleka
kwaso. Lezi ezinye izitatimende zibizwa ngokuthi yizichasiselo, okumele zesekele
isiphetho.
Argumentative writing. Umbhalo oyimpikiswano. Umbhalo oyimpikiswano

wesekela noma uphikisana nephuzu elithile. Uphathelene nezimpikiswano kanye
nephuzu lempikiswano ukuze kudeliswe ofundayo noma abalaleli ukuthi umbono
othile uyiqiniso noma wemukelekile.
Begging the question fallacy. Ukushwelezela into engamalutha. Lokhu

okungamalutha kwenzeka lapho lokho okuthathwa njengokufakazelwe yisiphetho
sempikiswano sekuvele kwathathwa njengokuyiqiniso ngenxa yezincasiselo ezibekiwe.
Cause-and-effect reasoning. Ukucabangisisa isisusa nomphumela. Uhlobo

lwempikiswano esetshenziswayo lapho kubhekwa khona ukuthi isehlakalo noma
umphumela othile wenzeka ngenxa yezimo ezithile ezandulelayo noma izigameko
zesikhashana.
Comparative writing. Umbhalo oqhathanisayo. Uhlobo lombhalo oluqhathanisa

noma olwehlukanisa izinto ezimbili noma ngaphezulu, izehlakalo noma imibono
ngokubhekisa ekufaneni nakumehluko.
Complex question fallacy. Indida yento engamalutha. Lena yinto engamalutha

eyenzeka lapho imibuzo emibili noma ngaphezulu kwalokho ivezwa sengathi
ingumbuzo owodwa bese idinga nje kuphela impendulo ethi “yebo” noma “cha”.
90
Glossary
Conclusion. Isiphetho. Okukhulu yimpikiswano izichasiselo ezihlose ukuyifakazela.
Conclusion indicator. Inkomba yesiphetho. Igama noma isigejana samazwi andulela

isiphetho.
Consequent. Okungumphumela. Okungumphumela yilokho okulandelayo uma

isimo esandulelayo sithathwa njengesiyiqiniso.
Counterargument. Impikiswano ephikisayo. Lena yimpikiswano elethwa yilowo

ophikisayo lapho ephendula enye impikiswano.
Counterexample. Isibonelo esiphikisayo. Isibonelo esiphikisayo yisibonelo esithile

esehlula noma esiphikisa iphuzu elibekwe kwimpikiswano.
Critical reasoning. Ukucabangisisa okuneso elihlolayo. Ukucabangisisa okuneso

elihlolayo kufaka phakathi ikhono lokwakha umqondo ngokukhuthele nangokhalipha,
ukuhlaziya, ukubuza Kanye nokulinganisa imibono kanye nezinkolelo.
Critical self-reflection. Ukubhekisa kuwe okuhlaziyayo. Ukubhekisa kuwe

okuhlaziyayo yisenzo sokuzihlola imicabango nezinkolelo zakho; okuhambisana
nokuzazi kanye nokuziqonda wena ngokwakho siqu sakho.
Critical thinking. Ukucabanga okunokuhlaziya. Ngelinye igama elisho

“ukucabangisisa okuneso elihlolayo”.
Deductive argument. Impikiswano esuselwa kokuthile. Impikiswano lapho izizathu

ezibekwayo kuthathwa ngokuthi zinikeza ukwesekela okwenele ukuthi kuthathwe
isiphetho esizolandela.
Denying the antecedent fallacy. Ukuphika into engamalutha eyandulelayo. Lolu

hlobo lwento engamalutha kwenzeka lapho ebeka ukuthi ngenxa yokuthi lokho
okwandulelayo akwenzeki, ngakho-ke okuwumphumela akukwazi ukwenzeka.
Descriptive writing. Umbhalo ochazayo. Uhlobo lombhalo oluchaza okuthile noma

olunikeza ulwazi mayelana nesimo sezinto noma sezigameko.
Distraction fallacies. Into ethikamezayo engamalutha. Le nto engamalutha yenzeka

lapho kuba nokuthikanyezwa ephuzwini lempikiswano elingenamandla.
Emotion fallacies. Into engamalutha ethinta imizwa. Le nto engamalutha idida

imizwa ngesizathu.
Empirical argument. Impikiswano eyesekelwe embonweni. Yimpikiswano lapho

isichasiselo sifakazela khona ukuthi amaqiniso angatholakalanga ngendlela yesayensi
kodwa asekelwe embonweni ayasebenza.
Equivocation. Ukumbangcaza. Into engamalutha yokumbangcaza yenzeka lapho

igama noma isigejana samagama sisetshenziswa khona ngomqondo owodwa
engxenyeni eyodwa yempikiswano nangomqondo owehlukile kwenye ingxenye
yempikiswano eyodwa.
Evaluating arguments. Ukulinganisa impikiswano. Uhlelo lokuhlola ngeliso

elihlolayo ubuqiniso benkulumo eyethulwe kwimpikiswano; ukubhekisisa
okulinganiswayo ngeliso elihlolayo; Kanye nokubheka isisindo salokhu okungaba
yisisombululo sodaba.
PLS2601/1 91
Fallacy. Into engamalutha. Into engamalutha yimpikiswano edukisayo ezama
ukusivumisa ukuba semukele umbono oveziwe, kodvwa izizathu zokwesekela lowo
mbono azivumelani noma zingezingafanele.
False appeal to authority. Ukufuna ukufakazelwa yisiphathimandla ngento eyize.

Le nto engamalutha yenziwa lapho othile ecaphuna khona umuntu osesikhundlela
noma odumile ongeyona ingcweti emkhakheni okukhulunywa ngawo.
False dilemma. Ubucayi obungelona iqiniso. Ubucayi obungelona iqiniso bakhekha

ngesikhathi ophikisayo ethula izinto ezimbili noma ukukhetha phakathi kwezinto
ezimbili lapho, empeleni, kukhona ezinye izinto ezingaphezulu kwezimbili.
Faulty analogy. Isifanekiso esinephutha. Iphutha lesifanekiso esinephutha lenzeka

lapho kwenziwa ukuqhathanisa phakathi kwezimo noma kwezindaba ezimbili,
kungabi khona ukufana okuhambisanayo phakathi kwazo.
Fallacious reasoning. Ukucabangisisa into engamalutha. Ukucabangisisa

okungasebenzi okucindezela ubufakazi obufanele, noma okuqukethe izichasiselo
ezingaqondakali kahle.
Hasty generalisation. Inkulumo emawala mayelana nezinto eziningi. Le nto

engamalutha yenkulumo emawala mayelana nezinto eziningi yenzeka lapho kuthathwa
isinqumo esesekelwe phezu kobufakazi obungabhekisisiwe noma obungenele.
Inductive argument. Impikiswano evumisayo. Impikiswano lapho isiphetho

sithathelwe phezu kokwethembela entweni ukuthi ingenzeka, nakhona izichasiselo
zithathwa njengeziyiqiniso.
Invalid deductive argument. Impikiswano esuselwa entweni engasebenzi.

Impikiswano lapho uhlaka lungasebenzi kanti nesichasiselo sehluleka ukunikeza
isiphetho ukwesekela okwenele.
Logical definition. Incazelo eqondile. Lolu hlobo lwencazelo luchaza itemu

ngokukhetha lezo zingxenye okwabelanwa ngazo nezibophela zonke izinto ezichazwa
yilelo temu.
Narrative writing. Umbhalo olandisayo. Uhlobo lombhalo oluhlose ukwembula

indaba noma ukubala uchungechunge lwezehlakalo.
Persuasive definition. Incazelo enamandla okuvumisa. Uhlobo lwencazelo ehlose

ukufaka ithonya endleleni ofundayo abona nacabanga ngayo ngokwenza isiphakamiso
sencazelo entsha yetemu eselivele lisetshenziswa ngokwejwayelekile.
Preconceived idea. Umbono ocatshangelwe phambili. Umbono ocatshangelwe

phambili ngumcabango ovame emphakathini, lo mcabango uba nethonya ekucabangeni
kwethu, kodwa kube wumcabango ocatshangisisiwe kahle.
Premise indicator. Inkomba yesichasiselo. Igama noma isigejama samazwi

esiwuphawu olwandulela isichasiselo.
Premise. Isichasiselo. Isichasiselo yisitatimende esisebenza njengesizathu esesekela

isiphetho sempikiswano.
Principle of charitable interpretation. Umgomo wokuguqulela okunokuzwela. Lo

mgomo uqukethe ukuthi uma kunokwenzeka kube nokuguqulelwa okungaphezulu
kokukodwa, impikiswano kumele iguqulelwe ukuze izichasiselo zikwazi ukunikeza
ukwesekela okuqinile kulokho okuyisiphetho.
92
Glossary
Slippery slope argument. Impikiswano eba yihaba. Inkulumo eba yihaba eholela
othile kusichasiselo esibonakala singabalulekile nesiyiqiniso ekuqaleni iye ekubeni
ngumphumela owenziwe ihaba lapho iphethwa.
Social conditioning. Ukubeka isimo sengqondo kokuthile. Ukubona kuphela lokho

esilindele ukukubona.
Sound. Okunesisindo. Impikiswano iba ngenesisindo uma ineqiniso futhi wemukela

nokuthi zonke izichasiselo zayo ziyiqiniso.
Soundness. Ukuba nesisindo. Kubhekiswe eqinisweni noma esisindweni sesichasiselo

sempikiswano.
Statement. Isitatimende. Isitatimende yinto esiqinisa ukuthi into ethile iyiqiniso

noma ingamanga.
Statistical extrapolation. Izibalo ezilinganisayo. Uhlobo lwempikiswano

esetshenziswayo ebhekise ocwaningweni noma kubufakazi bezibalo obuthile.
Kunikezwa isibalo ngengqondo mayelana nenani labantu okungumqondo walokho
okuthathwa njengokuyiqiniso mayelana nesampuli yeqembu.
Stereotypes. Ababheka uhlangothi olulodwa. Inkulumo emawala mayelana nabantu

abaningi, imicabango, eyenziwa ngabantu mayelana nobunjalo bawo wonke amalungu
eqembu, eyesekelwe emfanikisweni (ovame ukungabi lona iqiniso) mayelana nokuthi
banjani abantu kulelo qembu.
Stipulative definition. Incazelo eyalezelayo. Uhlobo lwencazelo ebeka ukuthi itemu

elithile kumele lisetshenziswe ngendlela ethile.
Straw man argument. Impikiswano yomuntu oyedwa. Uhlobo lokucabangisisa

okungamalutha okuveza umbono womuntu oyedwa ubonakale unamandla ngokuba
kungabekwa kahle, noma kwenziwe inhlekisa umbono walowo ophikisayo.
Structural fallacies. Ukuma kwento engamalutha. Lokhu okungamalutha kuqukethe

into okungeyona ekucabangisiseni ngoba uhlobo noma ukwakheka kwakho kungelona
iqiniso.
Thesis. Umqondo ogcinayo. Isiphetho sempikiswano eyeluliwe.
Valid. Iqiniso. Indlela yokucabangisisa eqinisekile edinga ukuthi isichasiselo

sempikiswano yesekele isiphetho sayo, ngendlela ehlaziyayo noma evumisayo.
Valid deductive argument. Impikiswano ehlaziyayo eyiqiniso. Lena yimpikiswano

okuhleleka kwayo kuyiqiniso kanye nesichasiselo kunikeza ukwesekela okwenele
kwesiphetho esizolandela.
Validity. Ukuba neqiniso. Kubhekise ebudlelwaneni phakathi kwesichasiselo kanye

nesiphetho senkulumo.
Value argument. Impikiswano eyiqiniso. Impikiswano evuma inkulumo yesinqumo

esinconywaywo noma sokuziphatha ngokuthi ingefanele kanye nengafanele, ingenhle
noma akuyona enhle
PLS2601/1 93
Glossary: Northern Sotho
Ad hominem argument. Kgang ya Ad hominem (kgang kgahlanong le motho).
Tlhaselo go motho, kgahlego goba mabaka a mophengkišani yo a dirago sephetho
go na le go hlohla sephetho seo ka bosona.
Affirming the consequent fallacy. Go tiišetša kgang ya sephetho se se fošagetšego.

Kgang ye e fošagetšego ye e dirwago ge ditlamorago ka go pego ya peelano di
tiišetšwa gomme seo se diregilego pele se tšewa bjalo ka nnete go ya ka mabaka ao.
Analogy. Tshwano. Go nagana ka mokgwa wa go swantšha wo o theilwego

papišong ya dilo tša go swana. Kgang yeo e theilwego go tshwantšho e atlega fela
ge ditshwantshwani gare ga ditaba goba dilo tša moswananoši di le tša maleba.
Analysing arguments. Go sekaseka dikgang. Mokgwa wa go fetšiša dingangišano

gore go šupše bonnete le phetho ya tšona.
Antecedent. Ketapele. Ketapele ke peelano yeo go tšewago gore e iša go sephetho

se se itšego (gape se bitšwa “ditlamorago”).
Appeal to force fallacy. Kgopelo go gapeletša kgang ye e theilwego sephethong seo

se fošagetšego. Kgang ye e fošagetšego ye e direga ge mongangiši a nyaka maatla a go
tšhošetša goba a go gapeletša go kgodiša mophenkgišani go dumela taba goba ntlha.
Appeal to the masses. Kgopelo go mašabašaba. Mogopolo wo o fošagetšego go

ya ka boitshwaro bja batho, maikutlo ao a tumilego goba bosetšhaba, go e na le go
fa mabaka ao a kwagalago a go amogela sephetho.
Argument. Kgang. Kgang ke sehlopha sa dipego, seo ye nngwe ya tšona e bitšwago

sephetho, yeo nnete goba kamogelego ya tšona kgang e ratago go e hwetša. Dipego
tše dingwe di bitšwa ngangišano yeo e fago lebaka le le thekgago sephetho.
Argumentative writing. Go ngwala ka mokgwa wa go ngangiša. Go ngwala ka

mokgwa wa go ngangiša ke go nganga ga go kwana goba go ganetša kgopolo ye e
itšego. Go ama diphegišano gomme tabataba ya kgang ke go kgodiša mmadi goba
mmogi gore sephetho ke therešo goba se a amogelega.
Begging the question fallacy. Mogopolo wo o fošagetšego wa go kgopela potšišo.

Kgopolo ye e fošagetšego ye e direga ge go tšewa gore seo se kgonthišitšwego ke
sephetho sa ngangišano se šetše se tšeerwe go ba therešo pegong yeo e thekgago
sephetho.
Cause-and-effect reasoning. Kgopolo ya lebaka le ditlamorago. Mohuta wa go

ngangiša ka go naganišiša woo go ona go ngangišwago gore tiragalo goba ditlamorago
tše di itšego di direga go ya ka mabaka ao a itšego ao a bilego gona pele goba di
hlotšwe ke mabaka a mangwe.
Comparative writing. Go ngwala ka go bapiša. Mokgwa wa go ngwala wo o bapišago

goba o fapantšhago dilo tše pedi goba go feta, ditiragalo goba ditebelelo ka go šetša
kudu go ditshwantshwani le diphapantšho.
Complex question fallacy. Kgopolo ye e fošagetšego ya potšitšo yeo e raranego.

Kgopolo ye e fošagetšego ye e direga ge dipotšišo tše pedi goba go feta di itira nke
ke potšišo e tee gomme di nyaka karabo ya “ee” goba “aowa”.
Conclusion. Sephetho. Sephethokgolo ge go ngangišanwa seo dipego tšeo go tšewago

gore ke nnete di ratago go e kgonthišiša.
94
Glossary
Conclusion indicator. Tšhupo ya sephetho. Lentšu goba sekafoko tšhupi tšeo di

tlago pele ga sephetho.
Consequent. Ditlamorago. Ditlamorago ke seo se latelago ge peelano yeo e tlago

pele go tšewa gore ke nnete.
Counterargument. Kgang ya go ganetša. Ye ke kgang yeo mongangi a e hlamago

go araba kgang ye nngwe.
Counterexample. Mohlala wo o lego kgahlanong. Mohlala wo o lego kgahlanong

ke mohlala wo o itšego wo o lego kgahlanong le sephetho seo se dirilwego ge go
ngangišanwa.
Critical reasoning. Phahlelo ya go tsenelela. Go naganišiša ka go tsenelela go

hlaloša bokgoni bja go bopa kgopolo, go sekaseka, go botšiša le go lekola dikgopolo
le ditumelo.
Critical self-refl ection. Boitekolo bja go tsenelela. Boitekolo bja go tsenelela ke

tsela ya go itekola monagano le ditumelo; tšeo di tswalanego le go tseba semelo sa
gago le go lemoga boitshwaro bja gago.
Critical thinking. Kgopolo ya go tsenelela. Lehlalošetšagotee la “Phahlelo ya go

tsenelela”.
Deductive argument. Sephetho go tšwa mehlaleng. Kgang yeo go yona dipego tšeo
di theilwego go tšewago gore di fa sephetho seo se tlogo latela thekgo ye e kgodišago.
Denying the antecedent fallacy. Go ganetša kgopolo ye e fošagetšego ya mathomo.

Mohuta wo wa mogopolo wo o fošagetšego o direga ge motho a nganga gore ka ge
seo se tlago mathomong se sa ba gona, gona ditlamorago di ka se be gona.
Descriptive writing. Go ngwala ka go hlaloša. Mokgwa wa go ngwala woo ka

ona o hlalošago selo goba o fago tshedimošo ka seemo sa mabaka goba ditiragalo.
Distraction fallacies. Maaka a go tloša šedi. Megopolo ye e fošagetšego ye e diregago

ge šedi e tlošwa go ntlha ye e fokolago ya kgang.
Emotion fallacies. Kgopolo ye e fošagetšego ya go huetša maikutlo. Megopolo

ye e fošagetšego ye e hlola kgakantšho gare ga khuduego le kgang ye e kwagalago.
Empirical argument. Kgang go ya ka maitemogelo. Kgang yeo go yona tshedimošo ye

e tšewago gore ke nnete e tiišago gore nnete yeo e ka hwetšago go tšwa maitemogelong
e gona.
Equivocation. Polelo ye e sa kwagalego. Mogopolo wo o fošagetšego wa polelo ye

e sa kwagalego o direga ge lentšu goba sekafoko le/se šomišwa tlhalošong ye nngwe
karolong ye nngwe ya kgang le go tlhalošong ye e fapanego karolong ye nngwe gape
ya kgang yona yeo.
Evaluating arguments. Go lekola dikgang. Mokgwa wa go hlahloba ka go sekaseka

bonnete bja tiišo/polelo yeo e tšweleditšwego ngangišanong; ka go eleletša kakanyo
o di sekaseka; le go hlokomediša ditharollo tša maleba tša ditaba.
Fallacy. Mogopolo wo o fošagetšego. Mogopolo wo o fošagetšego ke kgang ye e

lahletšago woo o lekago go re gapeletša go amogela sephetho seo se tšweletšwago,
gomme mabaka ao a thekgago sephetho seo e se a maleba goba e se a maswanedi.
PLS2601/1 95
False appeal to authority. Maatlakgogedi a bofora go bolaodi. Mogopolo wo o
fošagetšego wo o phethagatšwa ge motho a bolela ka motho yo a nago le maatla a
taolo goba yo a tsebegago yo e sego setsebitsebi lefapheng la taba ye go bolelwago
ka yona.
False dilemma. Boemo bjo bothata bja bofora. Boemo bjo bothata bja bofora bo
hlolega ge mongangiši a hlagiša kgetho e tee go tše pedi mola, nneteng, go na le
dikgetho tša go feta tše pedi.
Faulty analogy.Ditshwantshwani tše di nago le phošo. Ditshwantshwani tša phošo

goba tše di nago le phošo di direga ge papetšo e dirwa gare ga mabaka goba ditaba
tše pedi, gomme go se ditshwanthswani tša maleba gare ga tšona.
Fallacious reasoning. Kakanyo ye e fošagetšego. Kakanyo ye e fošagetšego gomme

e theilwe go phošo yeo e utago bohlatse bja maleba, goba yeo e nago le pego ye go
tšewago gore e nepagetše fela e belaetša.
Hasty generalisation. Sephethokakaretšo sa ka pela. Mogopolo wo o fošagetšego

wa go tšea sephethokakaretšo ka pela go ya ka bohlatse bjo bo sa šetšwago gabotse
goba bjo bo sa kgodišego.
Inductive argument. Ngangišano go ya ka sephetho go tšwa maitemogelong. Kgang

yeo go yona sephetho se theilwego go mabaka go ya ka kgonagalo, le ge pego yeo
go tšewago gore ke nnete e tiišetšwa gore e nepagetše.
Invalid deductive argument. Kgang ya kgonthišišo ya bonnete bja sephetho yeo

e sego ya kgonthe. Kgang yeo go yona sebopego e sego sa makgonthe gomme pego
yeo go tšewago gore ke nnete e sa fego sephetho thekgo ye e kgodišago.
Logical definition. Tlhalošo ya go kwagala. Mohuta wo wa tlhalošo o hlaloša lereo

ka go kgetha dipopego tšeo di lego gona go, gape e lego fela tša dilo ka moka tšeo
lereo le di akaretšago.
Narrative writing. Mongwalokanegelo. Mokgwa wa go ngwala wo o lebišitšwego

go go anega kanegelo goba go anega tatelano ya ditiragalo.
Persuasive definition. Tlhalošo ya go kgodiša. Mohuta wa tlhalošo wo o lebišitšwego

go go huetša boitshwaro le go nagana tša mmadi ka go šišinya tlhalošo ye mpsha ya
lereo leo le šetšego le tlwaetšwe go šomišwa.
Preconceived idea. Kgopolo yeo go šetšego e akantšwe. Kgopolo yeo e šetšego e

akantšwe yeo e huetšago ka moo re naganago, eupša e le yeo re sa e lebelelago ka
go e sekaseka.
Premise indicator. Sešupo sa pego yeo go tšewago gore ke nnete. Lentšu goba
sekafoko leo le/seo se tlago pele gape leo/seo go tšewago gore ke therešo.
Premise. Pego yeo e thekgago sephetho. Pego yeo go tšewago gore ke nnete ke pego
yeo e fago lebaka leo le thekgago sephetho sa kgang.
Principle of charitable interpretation. Molao wa tlhathollo ya maleba. Molao wo

o ra gore ge tlhathollo ya go feta e tee ya kgang e ka ba gona, kgang e swanetše go
hlathollwa gore dipego tšeo go tšewago gore ke nnete di fe thekgo ye e tiilego ya
sephetho.
Slippery slope argument. Kgang ya ditiragalo tšeo di ka hlolago kotsi goba go se

atlege. Kgang ya ditiragalo tšeo di ka hlolago kotsi goba go se atlege e iša motho go
96
Glossary
tšwa go dipego tša tšeo go tšewago gore ke nnete tšeo go bonalago di se bohlokwa
go iša go ditlamorago tšeo di feteleditšwego sephethong.
Social conditioning. Tlwaetšo yamaitshwaro/ditumelo. Go bona fela seo re letetšego

go se bona.
Sound. Kwagalago. Kgang e a kwagala ge e le ya kgonthe gomme o amogela gore

dipego ka moka tša yona ke nnete.
Soundness. Bokgonthe. Bo šupa nnete goba maatla a theo ya kgang.
Statement. Pego. Pego ke polelo yeo e ka bago nnete goba maaka.
Statistical extrapolation.Kakanyo ya sephetho sa dipalopalo. Mokgwa wa go

tšweletša kgopolo wo o šupago thutelo ya dipalopalo goba bohlatse. Sephetho go
ya ka tshedimošo ye o šetšego o na le yona se tšewa ka ga palo ya baagi bao ba
lebantšwego go ya ka seo go tšewago go ba nnete ka mohlala wa sehlopha.
Stereotypes. Dikgopolotee. Dikakaretšo, goba dikakanyo, tšeo batho ba di dirago

ka ga boitshwaro bja maloko ka moka a sehlopha, go ya ka seswantšho (gantši seo
se fošagetšego) ka ga ka moo batho ba sehlopha seo ba lego ka gona.
Stipulative definition. Tlhalošo go ya ka mabaka. Mohuta wa tlhalošo wo o

gapeletšago gore lereo leo le fi lwego le swanetše go šomišwa ka tsela ye e itšego.
Straw man argument. Kgang ya kganetšo ya mophenkgišani. Mokgwa wo o

fošagetšego wa go nagana woo o dirago gore motho a tšee seo a dumelago go sona
go ba seo se nago le maatla ka go nyatša, goba go dira metlae ka seo mophenkgišani
a dumelago go sona.
Structural fallacies. Kgang ya tlhamego ye e fošagetšego. Megopolo ye e fošagetšego

ye e na le bofokodi ge motho a nagana gobane popego goba sebopego sa yona ga
se amogelege.
Thesis. Thesese. Sephetho sa kgang ye telele.
Valid. Kgonthe. Selekanyo sa kgopolo ye e gapeletšago tumelo ya gore gabotsebotse

theo ya kgang e thekga sephetho sa yona, e ka ba sephetho go tšwa mehlaleng yeo
e šetšego e le gona goba sephethokakaretšo seo se dirwago ka morago ga mehlala
ye mmalwa yeo e lekilwego.
Valid deductive argument. Sephetho sa makgonthe sa go tšwa mehlaleng. Kgang

yeo popego ya yona e amogelegago gomme dipego ka go yona di fago sephetho se
se tlogo latela thekgo ye e kgodišago.
Validity. Tiišetšo. E šupa tswalano gare ga pego yeo e fago lebaka leo le thekgago
sephetho le sephetho tša kgang.
Value argument. Kgang ya mohola. Kgang yeo e tiišago sephetho sa dikgetho

goba kahlolo go boitshwaro bja setho mabapi le seo se lokilego goba se se sa lokago
goba botse le bobe.
PLS2601/1 97

PLS2601 Rev 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLS2601 Rev 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© 2020 University of South Africa

All rights reserved

Printed and published by the

Lesson 0: Orientation to Critical Reasoning1

Lesson 1: What is Critical Reasoning?4

Lesson 2: Different kinds of writing and definitions14

Lesson 3: The Argument23

Lesson 4: Different types of arguments33

Lesson 6: Analysing, mapping/diagramming and evaluating arguments72

OUTCOMES OF THIS MODULE

The outcomes of the module is the following:

BREAKDOWN OF THE STUDY GUIDE

You will need to spend 10 notional hours on this lesson.

Lesson 2: Different types of writing and definitions

Lesson 3: The argument

Lesson 4: Different types of arguments

Lesson 6: Analysing, mapping/diagramming and evaluating arguments

OUTCOMES OF THIS LESSON

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

Study the image below.

1.2 WHAT IS CRITICAL REASONING?

1.2.1 Critical reasoning is not dogma

These components are as follows:

1.3 CRITICAL REASONING, INFORMAL LOGIC, AND FORMAL

Leo Groarke (2017) provides us with the distinction. He says:

(languages which have rigorously specified syntax, semantics and grammar,

1.4 CRITICAL REASONING COMPETENCE – THINKING FOR

To think for yourself involves a critical attitude of reflecting on how we think in

The next critical thinking competence is “thinking in an informed way”, which we

1.5 CRITICAL REASONING COMPETENCE – THINKING IN AN

It may be useful to keep the following distinctions in mind. An opinion is “a personal

1.6 CRITICAL REASONING COMPETENCE – CRITICAL SELF-

1.6.1 Examine assumptions

1.6.2 Acknowledge biases/prejudices

1.6.3 Be suspicious of dogma

1.7 A NOTE ABOUT “STANDARD FORM”

Now, here is the same argument in standard form:

(1) Define critical reasoning.

but contrasts with ___________________________________________________________

statements and ___________________________________________________________

(3) What are the three critical thinking competencies?

(4) What is “standard form”?

(6) What is the difference between an informed opinion and an opinion?

(7) What is rhetoric and how does it differ from argumentation?

(8) Give an example of what you think a good argument is.

OUTCOMES OF THIS LESSON

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to

2.2 DIFFERENT KINDS OF WRITING

2.2.1 Descriptive writing

2.2.2 Narrative writing

2.2.3 Explanatory writing

In this definition, no argument is being made, no description is given and no story is

2.2.4 Instructive writing

2.2.5 Argumentative writing

2.3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEFINITIONS

2.3.1 Stipulative definition

2.3.2 Persuasive definition

2.3.4 Enumerative definition

In this chapter, we examined the types of writing, as well as different types of

(1) What are the different types of writing?

(2) Construct an argumentative paragraph.

(3) Find an example of a piece of narrative text.

(4) List the different types of definitions.

(6) What is the difference between stipulative and persuasive definitions?

Lesson 0: Orientation to Critical Reasoning1

Lesson 1: What is Critical Reasoning?4

Lesson 2: Different kinds of writing and definitions14

Lesson 3: The Argument23

Lesson 4: Different types of arguments33

Lesson 6: Analysing, mapping/diagramming and evaluating arguments72