Critical Thinking: Chapter 8

EVALUATING ARGUMENTS AND

TRUTH CLAIMS
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED

• to appreciate the importance of critical thinking

standards such as clarity, precision, accuracy,
consistency, and fairness
• to distinguish arguments from nonarguments
• to identify premises and conclusions
• to distinguish deductive from inductive arguments
• to assess the logical validity or strength of
arguments
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED

• to distinguish relevant from irrelevant reasons

• to identify common logical fallacies
• to diagram short arguments,
• to analyze extended arguments to clarify their content
and structure
• to recognize hidden assumptions and implied premises
and conclusions
EVALUATING ARGUMENTS

In this chapter we use this tool kit of skills to tackle

the question: When is an argument a good one?
• We will also address an issue that is crucial in
argument evaluation, namely : When is it reasonable
to accept a premise as true?
• Finally, we will learn some powerful strategies for
refuting bad arguments.
WHAT “GOOD ARGUMENT” DOES NOT
MEAN?

Good argument does not mean “agrees with my

view”: confuse “good argument” with “argument
whose conclusion I agree with.”
• It is a signal of close-mindedness
• It reflects the mindset: : “I have a monopoly on the
truth. Anyone who disagree with me must be
wrong”.
WHAT “GOOD ARGUMENT” DOES NOT
MEAN?

Good argument does not mean “persuasive

argument.”
• not all arguments are meant to persuade
• bad arguments often persuade, whereas good
arguments often fall on deaf ears
WHAT “GOOD ARGUMENT” DOES NOT
MEAN?

Good argument does not mean “well written or well-

spoken argument.”
• we sometimes praise arguments for their literary or
rhetorical merit—their clarity, eloquence, organization,
imaginativeness, and the like.
• some obviously bad arguments possess literary merit,
whereas some obviously good ones do not.
 WHAT IS A GOOD ARGUMENT?

A good argument is basically an argument in which two

conditions are met:
• all premises are true.
• the premises provide good reason to accept the
conclusion
 GOOD DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Deductive Argument

valid
invalid
All true False
premises premise

Good
Sound Unsound
 GOOD INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Inductive arguments

strong weak
True False
premises premises
Good
Cogent Uncogent
 WHAT IS A GOOD ARGUMENT?

Under the view of Critical thinking: an argument that satisfies the

relevant critical thinking standards that apply in a particular context.
• Accuracy – Are all the premises true?
• Logical Correctness – Is the reasoning correct? Is the argument
deductively valid or inductively strong?
• other critical thinking standards must be taken into account,
including clarity, precision, relevance, consistency, completeness
and fairness.
 EVALUATING ARGUMENTS
General Guidelines (Key questions)

• Are the premises true?

• Is the reasoning correct? Is the argument deductively valid or
inductively strong?
• Does the arguer commit any logical fallacies?
• Does the arguer express his or her points clearly and
precisely?
• Are the premises relevant to the conclusion?
 EVALUATING ARGUMENTS
General Guidelines (Key questions)

 Are the arguer’s claims logically consistent? Do any of the

arguer’s claims contradict other claims made in the argument?
 Is the argument complete? Is all relevant evidence taken into
account?
 Is the argument fair? Is the arguer fair in his or her
presentation of the evidence and treatment of opposing
arguments and views?
 WHEN IS IT REASONABLE TO ACCEPT
A PREMISE?

In general, it is reasonable to accept an unsupported claim as

true when:
• The claim does not conflict with personal experiences that
we have no good reason to doubt,
• The claim does not conflict with background beliefs that we
have no good reason to doubt, and
• The claim comes from a credible source.
Does the Claim Conflict with our Personal Experiences?

• People often place too much trust in their own observation

and experiences.
• Personal experiences are often less reliable than we think.
• We need to be aware that “believing” is often “seeing” and that
things are not always as they appear.
• Critical thinkers recognize that their beliefs, hopes, fears,
expectations, and biases can affect their observations.
 Does The Claim Come From A Credible
Source?

• Is the source a genuine expert or authority?

 Does the authority speak in his or her field of expertise?
 Is the source biased or has some other motive to lie or mislead?
 Is the accuracy of the source’s personal observations or
experiences questionable?
 Is the source contained in a source that is generally unreliable
(e.g. gossip magazine) ?
 Does The Claim Come From A Credible
Source?

Has the source been cited correctly or has been quoted out
of context?
Is the issue one that can be settled by expert opinion?
Is the claim made by the source highly improbable on its
face?
 REFUTING ARGUMENTS
USUALLY IT'S BAD

• To refute an argument is to defeat it – to show that the

premises do not provide good reasons to accept the
conclusion.
• There are two ways to refute an argument:
1. Show that a premise or a critical group of
premises is false or dubious
2. Show that the reasoning is bad - that the
premises do not provide adequate logical support
for the conclusion.
Strategy One: Show That A Premise—or A Critical
Group Of Premises— Is False Or Dubious

Sometimes it is possible to defeat an argument by

showing that a single premise is false.
1. All presidents live in the White House.
2. Paris Hilton is president.
3. So, Paris Hilton lives in the White House.

2. Here, simply noting that the second premise is false is

enough to refute the argument. Because this premise
is false, the argument fails to provide good reason to
accept the conclusion.
Strategy One: Show That A Premise—or A Critical
Group Of Premises— Is False Or Dubious

Some arguments, however, cannot be refuted simply by

showing that one of their premises is false. Here is an
example:
1. Children who have unsupervised access to the Internet may
be exposed to pornographic and violent images.
2. Some sexual predators use the Internet to find and
communicate with children.
3. Children have no ability to use a keyboard or mouse
correctly.
4. So, children should not be allowed unsupervised access to
the Internet.
Strategy One: Show That A Premise—or A Critical
Group Of Premises— Is False Or Dubious

In this example, the third premise is false (many children

do know how to use a keyboard and mouse correctly).
However, showing that the premise is false is not
sufficient to refute the argument, for premises 1 and 2
are adequate to support the conclusion even without
premise.
Premise 3 is not a critical premise of this argument.
Strategy Two: Show That the Conclusion Does Not
Follow from the Premises

• The second way to refute an argument is by showing

that the reasoning is faulty—that the conclusion does
not follow properly from the premises.
• You can show that an argument is poorly reasoned by
showing that it is either:
• (a) deductively invalid (the conclusion does not follow
with strict necessity from the premises)
• or (b) inductively weak (the conclusion does not follow
probably from the premises)
 Strategy Two: Show That the Conclusion Does Not
Follow from the Premises

The most important questions to ask in assessing the logic of an

argument are:
• “Does the conclusion follow necessarily from the premises?”
• “Are the premises relevant to the conclusion?” (Does the argument,
for example, commit the fallacy of straw man, personal attack, or some
other fallacy of relevance?)
• “Are the premises sufficient to support the conclusion?” or “Does
the argument omit any crucial countervailing evidence?”
 Strategy Two: Show That the Conclusion Does Not
Follow from the Premises

Get high-speed Internet access by satellite. It’s fast, reliable, and won’t tie up
your phone lines.
Do the premises provide enough evidence for the conclusion?
The answer will be “No,” because the arguer has omitted important
evidence that points to a contrary conclusion. The ad fails to mention
any costs associated with purchasing high-speed service (a hefty
installation fee plus high monthly payments) or the long-term
contractual commitments that are typically required.
 Strategy Two: Show That the Conclusion Does Not
Follow from the Premises

Get high-speed Internet access by satellite. It’s fast, reliable, and won’t tie up
your phone lines.
Do the premises provide enough evidence for the conclusion?
The answer will be “No,” because the arguer has omitted important
evidence that points to a contrary conclusion. The ad fails to mention
any costs associated with purchasing high-speed service (a hefty
installation fee plus high monthly payments) or the long-term
contractual commitments that are typically required.
 Strategy Two: Show That the Conclusion Does Not
Follow from the Premises

All mothers should stay home with their young kids. It would promote
closer family ties, and studies show that children with stay-at-home
moms do better in school, have higher self-esteem, and are less likely
to get involved with drugs or commit crimes.
The argument ignores the facts that many mothers have to work to
make ends meet and that the economic and social costs of removing
working mothers from the workforce would be enormous.
PREPARE SLIDES IN WHICH YOU ANALYZE AND CRITICALLY
EVALUATE ANOTHER PERSON’S ARGUMENT OR CLAIMS.

Instruction:
• Are the premises true? (You may need to do some research to
make an informed judgment on this issue, or to collect data to verify
the points.)
• Is the reasoning good? Is the argument deductively valid or
inductively strong?
• Does the arguer commit any logical fallacies?
• Does the writer express his or her points clearly and
precisely?
PREPARE SLIDES IN WHICH YOU ANALYZE AND CRITICALLY
EVALUATE ANOTHER PERSON’S ARGUMENT OR CLAIMS.

Instruction:
• Are the arguer’s claims logically consistent?
• Is the argument complete? Is all relevant evidence taken into
account? Is the argument fair?
• Is the arguer fair in his or her presentation of the evidence
and treatment of opposing arguments and views?
• Considering all critical thinking standard
EXAMPLE

Nói về việc học của con trai XXX, bà Y chỉ vào góc nhà phía tây nhớ
lại: “X nó chăm học lắm, có nhiều lúc nó chong đèn học thâu đêm.
Những khi đèn dầu hết, nó học nhờ ánh trăng và bắt chước người xưa
bắt đom đóm bỏ vào quả cà rỗng để học. Có hôm nó học khuya quá,
thương con, nhà còn nắm gạo, tui nấu cháo cho nó nhưng nó không
chịu ăn. Nó bảo mẹ ăn đi mà lấy sức, con không đói đâu. Nó bê cháo
đến nài cho mẹ ăn làm tui cảm động cứ ôm lấy con mà khóc”.
(Tiết lộ thú vị... 'làm nên' Bộ trưởng X - baodatviet.vn)