Introduction To Arguments

PHI 200 Critical Thinking Mr.
Peter Thomas
Unit V Introduction to Arguments

General Objectives
After successfully completing this unit, students should be able to:
• Understand, appreciate and make use of the basic terms and concepts used in arguments.
• Recognize the general features of arguments.
• Distinguish deductive from inductive arguments and evaluate them for validity,
soundness, strengths and weaknesses.
• Differentiate arguments from non-arguments.
• Use various techniques – ethos, pathos and logos as means of persuasion.
• Develop strategies for identifying reasons, conclusions and arguments within a passage or
speech.
• Practice identification of simple arguments.
Content:
Introduction:
A. Some Basic Concepts

i. Beliefs
ii. Claims
iii. Issues
iv. Truth and knowledge
Barriers – Enhancers to knowledge
v. Bias
vi. Evidence – see, handout, “What is Evidence?”
vii. Facts and opinions
B. Understanding Arguments
i. Types of discourse for writing prose.
ii. Features of an argument.
iii. Identifying and constructing arguments.
iv. Is it an argument or non-argument?
v. Distinguishing an argument from an explanation.
vi. Determining the conclusion of an argument.
C. Two types of argument

i. Deductive argument
ii. Inductive argument
iii. Doubt vs demonstration of proof
iv. Some common patterns of deductive argument
D. Fallacies:
E. Conditions
1
PHI 200 Critical Thinking Mr. Peter Thomas
“If we reason it is not because we like it, but because we must” … Will Durant in The
Mansion of Philosophy.
Introduction:
Our lessons on “Critical Thinking Skills” and “General Benefits of Critical Thinking” are good
reminders of the ultimate goal or objective of this course:
i. To come to correct conclusions, and
ii. To make wise decisions.
We seek to achieve this goal by standards of rationality. We use certain terms to put certain
ideas and thoughts into proper perspective. This is why we choose to begin with “Some Basic
Concepts” so as to highlight some of those unfamiliar terms.
A. Some Basic Concepts:

(a) Beliefs and Claims:
i. Belief:
Belief is the faith, confidence or principle that one has or develops to accept
something as true [or not true]. It is based on one’s personal evaluation of one’s
critical thought and rationality. Belief allows the rational individual to come to a
conclusion and to make a decision. It is prepositional (put forward for consideration)
and must be expressed in a declarative or assertive sentence. It is a judgement or
opinion very often dependent on proof. A very good example here is the decision of
Mohammed Ali whose belief caused him to refuse going to fight in Viet Nam in the
early 1970’s. His belief was grounded in religion, and that sparked world-wide
arguments.
ii. Claim:
A claim is the basic building block of critical thinking, reasoning or argument. It is a
grammatical statement which is supposedly, declared or asserted to be true or false.
The word, “supposedly”, is very important, because the sentence referred to may be a
fact, a forecast/prediction, a suggestion, or belief or an opinion. Look at some
examples:
• Sauteurs is in St. Patrick – statement of fact, declaration, assertion.
• Is Sauteurs in St. Patrick? – question, obviously not a claim.
• Sauteurs, be in St. Patrick – command, not a claim.
• My goodness! Sauteurs is in St. Patrick! – exclamation, no claim.
A claim does not always require evaluation. If I say I am ill, who determines that?
Doctors may try to dispute that; but I know, deep within, that I am not well. I believe
(personal) that I am sick, so I declare, assert or claim that “I am sick”.
Claims come in different types as follows:

• Objective Claims:
Whose truthfulness or falsity is independent of what people think. For example,
“God exists”, or “There is organizational life on Mars”, or “There was an earthquake
in Costa Rica on the afternoon of March 5, 2018”. It does not matter what people
2
think or believe, or claim differently. If the above are positive, so be it. Objective
claims express undisputable facts. If someone says, “Sauteurs is closer to the sea
shore than Mt. St. Catherine is”, this is a true declaration. But if the individual says,
“There are more stones in Sauteurs than [there are] on Mt. St. Catherine”, this is
controversial. The truth or falsity will be confirmed only by counting the stones and
that will be devastation.
• Subjective Claims:
The truthfulness or falsity of this type of claim depends on what people think, say or
believe. Let us examine the following statements:
 My Critical Thinking tutor is a cool guy: This is a doubtful statement. Many
students do not think so. Watch the adjective, “cool”.
 Rum is good to drink: doubtful again; judgement depends on someone’s taste.
Watch words like good, bad, nice, etc. Who decides what is good or bad?
 Black girls are more romantic than white ones: There is dispute here; we are
trying to compare the adjective of quality, “romantic”. Has any one person
ever romanced all the black girls and all the white ones? Some did many, but
certainly, NOT ALL.
 He is such a fool! To whom is he a fool? Who made you or me a judge of
character?
Some claims may contain both objective and subjective elements. Let us consider,
“Someone borrowed my pure, gold, love-binding pen”. Now let us analyze:
• Was the pen truly “borrowed”? If so, do you expect it back? This may be
objective. It expresses openness.
• Was the pen truly “gold”? It could have been gold plated. Again, it expresses
openness.
• Was the pen “love-binding”? Is there any thought of betrayal? Who/which
party makes it “love-binding”? This is a non-objective expression. It leans
more to the subjective type; for one party may think it truly “love-binding”.
iii. Issues:
For our critical thinking purposes, an issue deals with the truth or falsity of claims.
Strictly speaking, issues are claims constructed so as to be supported/ not supported
by arguments/ evidence, and are central or focal points for critical thinking.
The concept of issue is simple. It is a matter that raises a concern or asks questions --
- Is the claim true? Is it legitimate? Is it according to one’s honest conscience? Let
us look at two examples:
• “J is taller than O?”
Is it a concern about who is shorter/taller? Is anyone cheating/cheated on account
of height. Well, to settle the issue, measure the height of the boys/ girls in
question. i.e. get the evidence.
• “Should males [some females do it too] wear their trousers low enough to show
off their underwears?”
3
Note that this sentence is not a claim. Why? But it seems to be an issue. What do
the moralists/the law enforcers think? What example is this to the up-coming
generation?
These two examples may be small matters, but they do cause concern. They involve
questions or queries, so they become issues.
iv. Truth and knowledge:

This topic jiggles the mind of every Christian. It reminds me of Jesus at His
Crucifixion Trial, when He was brought before Pontius Pilate, accused of:
• perversion of the nation
• refusal of paying tribute to Caesar i.e. taxes and praises
• acclamation of being a King; and
• claiming to be able to destroy and rebuild the Jewish Temple in three days i.e.
blasphemy.
Pilate asked Him, “Art thou a king?” After remaining silent for almost all of the trial,
Jesus replied,
Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born,
and for this cause came I into the world, that I shall
bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the
truth heareth my voice.
Enraged, Pilate retorted, “Truth! What is truth?” [John 18:37-38, Authorized King
James Version]. Notice that Jesus said”… I shall bear witness of the truth”. Not a
truth. So it appears that there is just one truth. Write this truth as “Truth” and all
other truths as common “truth”.
(a) Truth vs truth:
Truth with capital “T” is the unaltered, unchanged manifestation of objective
reality. Go back to objective claim. It is a type (or to be) discovered. It already
exists and favours or exposes itself to the curious and mindful. To arrive at this
particular Truth, one should resolve to:
• observe a little more accurately,
• weigh things a little more thoroughly, and
• make up [one’s] mind a little more carefully.
In short, pay a little more attention to the Essential and Ancillary skills of critical
thinking.
The other “truth” with a common “t”, is simply a truth--- one of many truths which
may, one day, turn out to be untruths.
Over to you
• 13th century notion of flat earth.
• coconut oil was discarded as something wholesome to eat.
• once nutritious eggs, now filled with cholesterol.
• our folk tales of Loupgarou, LaDiablesse, Mamma Maladie, mermaids, and so
on, which now turn out to be scary jokes or tales.
4
With this kind of truth, we are basically dealing with experimental or business
(consumer) beliefs, which are often lies. This kind of truth is merely someone’s idea
or belief which may or may not be true. Such truth may well be treated as an opinion
until proven otherwise [with evidence].
(b) Knowledge:
Knowledge is a sense of having achieved or gained information, but more than
that. It is not just having an answer or solution to a problem, but rather having the
intellectual realization that an answer or solution exists. It requires understanding
of many detailed and complex principles/steps in a process. It involves:
• skill or “how to” about things (e.g. How to make a cup of tea).
• ability to express what is known (The Amazing Power of Language). If
not, confusion.
• the processes (how) associated with getting to know things (Research
Skills of COM 101).
• the actual manner of obtaining things… (knowledge and practice)
 active process or learning by discovering or even by route learning

(cramming), which includes:
• direct experience.
• testing and proving (scientific method)
• reasoning (via analysis, consideration of all the facts and possible
interpretations, drawing of logical conclusions).
 passive process or route learning:

This is actually gaining information without much trial. Included here is
“being told” or accidental hearing (“What is Evidence?”) and grape-vineism
i.e. hearsay, rumours or gossips.
NB: The classroom, television, news media, and public places as the pub, barber or hair dressers’
salons are major areas for passive exchanges. One must guard against such exchanges because
they
• encourage uncritical acceptance of information
• promote imperfect telling or listening (It is important for the teacher to point out errors).
• encourage people to accept opinions as facts or vice versa (fact ↔ opinion).
True knowledge is not so easy to obtain despite the reduction in size of the world (Global
Village) and the seemingly easy access to information (tv, radio, mass media, internet…). This
difficulty exists as a result of:
• resistance to long, unanswered questions or unsolved problems as the cause and cure of
cancer, AIDS, the existence of God, etc.
• poor judgement with preference (“curry favour”) or lack of compassion e.g. who should
get organ transplants, jobs, the right of smokers and non-smokers in public places, etc.
• forgotten or unwise rejection (or refusal) to pass on knowledge or information from
generation to generation e.g. teaching/learning of Patois to our youth, traditional dishes,
dress, mass bands.
• people simply refuse to accept/admit information.
5
Barriers and Enhancers to knowledge:

Information/knowledge is all around us and can be obtained fairly easily. Those who cannot
obtain it are faced with barriers of various kinds.
i. Barriers:
Our main barriers to knowledge are:
• Selfishness:
This quality probably stems from fear of others knowing as much as or even more than
those who [think they] know. As such, some hide or retain information or even pass it on
wrongly/falsely, sometimes on purpose. Educators must be careful here, for we need a
bright and successful future; so we ought to be true to our wards, because it is more
difficult to “unlearn” what has long been learned and practiced.
• Lack of resources and unwillingness to [want to] know:
No more moonlight story-telling, fewer libraries and our dislike for reading all mar our
gateway to knowledge. Electronic devices may help, but how many of us seek real, or
hardcore knowledge? The majority listen to music and watch foreign skits. Much of
these border-line laziness.
• Assumption:
This is a killer in disguise. We prefer to take everything for granted rather than do a little
research. This may be an unconscious activity, but it stifles the curiosity to KNOW.
• Guessing:
This is often referred to as judgement on the hunch. It is a common, everyday activity
which obviously works at times. It is simply taking on a piece of information without
seeking out the EVIDENCE. Often, this is a last-ditch survival technique for most people
who deny the importance of EVIDENCE.
Enhancers:
Information/knowledge is available and can be obtained no matter the cost. There are many
people, scholars, for example, who know a whole lot of many things. There are still others who
are woefully ignorant. Perhaps, in an effort to boost or enhance their knowledge, such people
should:
• honestly admit their ignorance:
Such honest admission reveals good sense, restraint and intellectual maturity. It
demonstrates personal moral strength and an essential step to move upwards.
• get up and out:

There is nothing wrong with doing a little research, finding for oneself. It involves:
• a need for more informed judgement.
• detection of relevant facts.
• development of alternative explanations and opinions.
• look for repetition of things known/researched:

Such practice increases and improves skills and competence. It serves as reinforcement,
reminder, memory bank or a retention element for recall.
6
• above all, demonstrate the “will to want to know” or self-determination. This improves
interest and encourages those who know to help.
• challenge themselves.
Students are invited to THINK of obstacles to their own knowledge or learning ability.
v. Bias:
A pronouncement with no special or personal interest in an issue, nothing to gain or lose by
audience’s favourable or negative reaction is referred to as a case of disinterest, impartiality
or objectivity. Any case or evaluation that slants or tilts to one side or the other is referred to
as BIAS, and consequently lacks openness. Lack of objectivity is easily developed or
influenced by one’s:
• personal philosophy of life.
• political and social views.
• psychological constitution.
• personal feelings or opinions.
• attitudes towards certain people and issues.
These biases may be as simple as not to affect people’s judgement i.e. “don’t give a damn”,
or as complex as or significantly observable to affect critical thinking and life itself (e.g.
ideologies).
Detecting and controlling bias:

Bias may not be easily detected, but if, during evaluation of an issue, someone finds
ANYONE of the following, then that person can correctly say that there is bias; and must
avoid it.
• a person approaches an evaluation and insists that he or she must be proven correct.
• a person starts an evaluation or investigation and insists that views which are familiar or
popular must be proven correct.
• a person approaches an issue and insists that all information which he/she gives must be
accepted as favourable and all other opposing views must be ignored.
• a person approaches an issue and opposes all strong points that his opponent puts forward
and insists that all his/her weak points must be accepted.
• a person approaches an issue and praises all the sources he/she proposes and underscores
all other sources (even credible ones) proposed by others.
• a person approaches an issue and lends support to points that oppose his/her opponent
without careful examination of the evidence.
Any ONE of the six cases above indicates bias and must be avoided by knowledge of the truth by
fair evaluation, and that may require some searching.
Types of bias:
Bias comes in various forms:
• Cognitive bias:
This type of bias is readily used by psychologists. It is the type that interferes with one’s
ability to:
7
• think clearly i.e. cognitive growth and development.

• process information accurately.
• reason objectively.
It fools one into believing that one knows everything, like a ground dove, “I know”, when, in
fact, one knows little or nothing.
As an example, we evaluate an argument or discussion on the basis of agreeing with points

put forward instead of using logic or reason --Is the reasoning solid? Would you say, or
conclude that “All dogs are cats? Yes, “All dogs are animals”, and “Some animals are cats”.
If we insist that this is so, then this is something we long believe or know to be true. Judge
this against the three buttons above.
➢ Belief bias:
This is the tendency to evaluate a conclusion based on one’s belief of that conclusion. Of
course, a conclusion should come from reasoning; so belief bias gives support to one’s
bias to reasoning. It is a type of cognitive bias because it tampers with one’s clear
thinking or objectivity.
➢ Conformation bias:
This is a closely related form of cognitive bias. It refers to the tendency or inclination to
put more weight or emphasis on evidence that supports one’s personal view point (Button
#5 of Detecting and Controlling Bias), and underscores other points of view. It is
scarcely different from belief bias. Like belief bias, it is an unconscious expression of the
human tendency to think that one’s side must always be correct.
➢ Bandwagon bias:
This may also be referred to as bandwagon effect, the Inn Crowd or gang, and we once
had many of these in Grenada. It is an unconscious tendency to link or align one’s
thinking with that of other people. This is a very powerful source of cognitive distortion.
One school of thought, through experimentation, concluded that “what people say they
see may alter what they think they see”. Such bias is commonplace in commerce and
politics.
➢ Negativity bias:
This probably stems from a sense of modesty or abstemiousness. It is the tendency to
weigh negative things more heavily than positive ones when evaluating issues. Say, for
example, Paul refers to Joan as a “beautiful angel”. She replies, “A monster like me?” i.e.
playing up negativity. People are hard-wired with it. The brain responds more forcefully
to negativity. In economics, this attitude is referred to as a loss aversion – a case in
which people labour more to avoid loss than to gather, save or amass wealth/gain.
➢ In-group bias:
This must not be lumped with the “In Crowd” bias mentioned earlier. This type of bias
points to the formation of negative opinions of people who do not belong to the same
club, church, party or nationality. Such bias colours up perception and distorts
judgement. In this case, the “in-group” people see their failure as mere misfortune and
8
that of others as gross inability or ignorance. This lack of appreciation and proper
judgement of circumstances is called Fundamental attribution error.
➢ Overconfidence bias:
This is sometimes called overconfidence effect or complacency which, in itself, is self-
deceptive. It is a case in which one places higher-than-usual marks on oneself.
➢ Better-than-average bias:
This is a common placed illusion in which some members of a group rate themselves as
better than most of the group for some particular characteristic e.g. singing. This too is
self-deceptive.
➢ Available heuristic:
This comes from the term, heuristics, which refers to a set of general rules or habits
unconsciously followed in estimating the probability of the occurrences of events. It
involves the probability of events on the basis of how often one thinks of events of a
particular type. E.g. occurrences of major hurricanes in Grenada.
For example, if one watches several documentaries of homicide, flood, or earthquakes as

I do, then homicide, flood or earthquake will be at the forefront of one’s mind, but that
does not mean that a homicide, flood or earthquake will occur every time one thinks of
any of them. We generally and unconsciously wash our hands before and after eating,
using the toilet or snubs someone who sneezes and coughs from the flu, thinking we will
be infected likewise. We never think that our physical or health constitution may be low
or needs boosting. Not too long ago, females could not enter a church without their heads
covered. Why? Ice does not carry germs.
➢ False Conesus effect:

This is a close relative to available heuristic and closer still to false generalization (done
under Fallacies). It is a general sweeping statement or notion that one’s actions may be
judged on the basis of those of one’s close unit or company.
So here we have it. Bias is common-place and may be generated by psychology, impulse or
even by evidence itself. The human psyche is programmed by features that often distort
perception, colour and judgement, and impairs the ability to think objectively. The best way to
overcome this it to:
• know or understand the different kinds of evidence,
• make it a habit to think CRITICALLY, and be
• critical of arguments and evidence that always agree with or accord to what we already
believe. In short, exercise skepticism.
Over to you
1. Which of the cognitive biases discussed so far do you think you might be most subjected
to? Why?
2. Think of other psychological tendencies you may have that are interfering with your
objectivity of thinking e.g. Are you generally generous or selfish?
9
3. Think of someone contemplating getting a pet, weigh the argument on both sides. What
cognitive bias is that person especially prone to?
4. Explain belief bias or conformation bias in your own words, and give an example of a
time when you may have been subjected to it.
5. What might you do to compensate for a bias factor you listed in question 1 or 2 in this
exercise [Hint: “What is Evidence?”].
vi. Evidence:
Refer to handout, “What is Evidence?”
vii. Facts and Opinions:

This title suggests and places us in a “callaloo” of terms through which are expected
to swim. We made the point earlier that a claim is a sentence that is supposedly true
or false or one that is verified by evidence. Information used to verify a claim
generally comes from books, articles, interviews with experts, the internet (in some
cases) and other sources which writers and compilers use to persuade their readers.
Sometimes, creative literature (poems and short stories) may suffice. Our prime
source of evidence often comes from non-literary works. As we stay in touch with
our sources we must be on the look-out (quiviv) for both factual and non-factual
information, subjective opinion, judgements, interpretations and all other forms of
deliberations. Both facts and non-facts are important, but what really are they?
(a) Facts:
A fact is an item of information that is supposedly true (see objective claims). Take,
for example, our planet, Sun, which is about 93 million miles from planet Earth.
• that is a fact, despite our individual belief or what geography may otherwise
propose.
• it is verifiable.
• can be measured or determined by very sophisticated instruments.
• scientists then and now hold the same view (i.e. corroboration)
Not all facts, however, are authenticated or undoubtedly true. Let us do an

experiment to demonstrate this. [Recall our assignment with pairs of blue & black
socks. Note the word “ENSURE!”]
Toss a coin. You get head (H) as your outcome. Quite true.
• Did you know (knowledge) that you would get “H”? No.
• As a matter of fact, you did. True.
• Can you get “H” again at the very next toss? You do not know; but it is there to be
done. The question is, “Can you spin “H” at the very next toss? Probably; perhaps;
maybe!
• Put the case that you failed to get “H” at the second toss, does that mean that it could
not be done? No. It was possible. You were not sufficiently lucky (!) to do it.
10
This experiment, and others like it, demonstrate the non-factual element of facts. Do you
recall your home assignment on blue socks and black socks in a box? This is another
inauthenticated or doubtful aspect of facts.
The experiment and its outcome demonstrate that not all facts can be verified. Contrary
to what jurisprudence (the law) may think or teach, we do not always have to have a
witness to verify a fact. So, for the sake of argument, we must separate verification and
documentation of facts from every other offer of proof. A fact may be verified by
various kinds of evidence [See “What is Evidence?”], namely:
• personal experience. How can someone prove that a person did not experience
spiritual healing?
• unpublished reports
• published reports
• eye-witness testimony … Can it always be trusted? No.
• celebrity (movie stars, sports wizards) testimony
• expert opinion [Are experts always correct? Are they not human?]
• experiments - - Who is bias; What are the conditions?
• statistical or random, stratified, systematic measurements.
• surveys – not always true.
• formal and informal observations
• research review.
Here is a very important point to note. When verifying information (e.g. political surveys
or prediction of election results) by statistical measurements, one must take time to
determine:
• who created the study – person or organization
• the purpose/intent/ reason or “whyness” of the study
• the manner/method (howness) of the conduct of the study
• the characteristics of the sources of the study, namely:
- credibility of conductor/conductee
- reliability of both above
- age of data collected
- variations (changes/fluctuations) of information with time
- validity - soundness
- the lesson to be learned from the study.
Over to you
Class discussion: Students are charged with the responsibility to do research and be prepared to
discuss in class.
Topic: “Tell It As It Is (with concerns and consequences). In Grenada…”

➢ Anxiety of the youth:
− proper education
− jobs and the future – nepotism
− role model, why?
11
− facing changes – self-motivation

− innovation
➢ concerns of (and for) the elderly with respect to

− folding businesses, inflation,
− dwindling pensions/resources
− hunger & malnutrition (including obesity)
− reducing natural resources (scarcity of air, land space, water); pollution
➢ confidence in (and assurance of) our leaders

− self-agrandisement
− deception, negation of their word.
− concerns for the poor and indigent
− limited housing, transportation, healthcare, food security (big).
− provocative morals; male-male, female-female marriages
➢ violence and crimes, including

− precursors/fore runners
− vandalism (physical, verbal)
➢ abuse
− physical
− verbal
− sexual (rape, incest, seduction), of the elderly.
− domestic
− terrorism (ambush, ...)
− punishment (at home, in school, in society/community).
(b) Opinion:
Like fact, an opinion is a claim, but, in this case, it is subjective. It is a particular type of
sentence or statement which tries to assert that a thing is true or false (not a question or
command). It is an idea not yet verified, certified or fully documented. The information it
expresses is still open to doubts, disputes or questions. Any decision or judgement made
from it lacks proof.
Separation of fact from opinion:
Separating fact from opinion is not very easy because:

• There is need to know the reliable sources. Some sources like almanacs, indices, statistical
abstracts give dry bone, unattractive information. Other sources like encyclopedia,
dictionaries and government documents need vigilance for regular changes.
• some information considered to be facts are colourful, heavily dramaticised and is easily
accepted. To be factual, such information must be objective, verifiable and credibly
documented.
12
• some information taken as fact may simply look like facts but are mere opinions. Take for
instance, a lie. One student claims that he/she did not talk unnecessarily or cheat during an
exam. But he/she did. His/her friend heard or saw and can swear to it.
• any information submitted as fact must be up-to-date or current in use or knowledge.
Information used as opinion is based on disproved or out-of-date or shaky substance. For
example: “Was there Russian presence in Grenada during the US Rescue Mission in 1982?”
There is a mixture of answers – No, yes. Thus far, the answer is “yes” as verified in Sir Paul
Scoon’s book, Survival for Service, 2003, p.157.
• opinion is influenced by a number of factors:
➢ writer’s/speaker’s choice of words which reveal attitudes,
 so be free to disagree – how? Where? and
 develop, within reason, your own interpretation e.g. ratio, relationship, etc.
➢ writer’s/speaker’s status in society, especially in the political arena. We are dealing here
with
 wealth
 education
 popularity – peace maker, warrior, bad manism, celebrity.
 contribution to society/community
 leadership skills
 versatility – e.g. Brian Lara’s skill as a batsman influenced the W.I. Cricket selectors
to appoint him as Captain of the W.I. Cricket Team!
Types of opinion:
We made the point earlier that opinion is subjective. Opinions come in various forms or types.
Included here are:
1. Prediction: e.g. reference letter
This word has its origin from Latin, predicare: “to tell before or ahead of time”. It is a
special type of claim or judgement made about something that may or may not occur at some
future time. It is a claim of something yet unknown or to come, BUT remains an opinion at
the time it is made. It may turn out to be factual if the outcome eventually proves true. e.g.
There will be a severe storm tonight.
• Prediction: The truth or falsity of this statement is not yet known. If a storm does rage,
the statement becomes a fact. If a severe storm does not rage, the statement is false, and
remains a prediction. Note the word, “severe”. Who/What determines severity?
• Opinion: the statement or declaration is based on someone’s feelings or experience.
Some predictions may be based on strong, scientific evidence which makes the claim
plausible or believable, “beyond reasonable doubt”. An opinion is often found in
arguments as conclusions when the other claims are facts or pieces of evidence. It may
even be found as supporters of other judgements or recommendations.
13
Here is an example worth noting. Call it a problem if you may.
Problem: A stick, A, is planted perpendicularly to the surface of the earth. S1, S2, S3 represent
the sun’s position in the morning, midday and in the afternoon, respectively.
EXPLAIN, briefly, why the shadow of the stick will shorten in the morning, be shortest
at midday and will lengthen in the afternoon.
Predictions are claims about the future; in your opinion, how will the sun’s shadows fall today?
EXPLANATION:
• The idea/phenomenon of the lengths of shadow has always been that way; so, there is no
reason to believe that it will not be so at any other time. (prediction or assumption?)
• The earth spins on its axis around the sun which appears to move across the sky. To some
locations on earth, the sun seems to approach in the morning (and brings long [ultra
violet] rays [good for walking babies], and leaves in the afternoon, with
progressively/regressively shorter rays (shortest at midday: cancer-causing) and continues
on with longer rays (good for walking) in the later afternoon.
When the sun is “far away”, its rays are long and slanting (morning and afternoon), and
when it is “near”, its rays are perpendicular (overhead) and is easily experienced.
The scientific fact and experience mentioned above are good (valid). This phenomenon
represents a prediction, because it is about the future and, like everything else, no-one
knows what the future holds. Theoretically, the future will not necessarily be the same as
the past or even the present. The laws of physics can change overnight, but in many
cases, they do not. So this prediction becomes fact. One such Law of physics reads as
14
follows: “When a solid object is exposed to a light source, that object casts a shadow so
that it (object) stands between the light source and the shadow”.
2. Hypothesis:
We have already dealt with hypothesis in Unit III. We are dealing with it here as a type
of opinion. In fact, it is a claim put forward for consideration, to be tested, to be
investigated. It is more than mere guess; it has much reasoning. Sometimes it is so
strongly supported that it appears as a fact.
e.g.
▪ Global warming is ever present (currently taking place). This statement sounds
plausible, but not yet accepted as fact. i.e. no real (undisputed) proof. It is still a hot
issue at all world conferences.
▪ The earth spins on its axis and forms an orbit around the sun. People today accept
this fact. This phenomenon has been tested repeatedly as true since the times of
Copernicus. Who was Copernicus? What did he do or profess? What activity or
study today bears witness to his works? No rational, informed person today dares to
question his findings.
3. Definitions:
Here, we are attempting to discuss the functional aspects of definitions. A definition is a
claim that says what a thing is and often names its distinguishing characteristics. For
example, we say that “A shadow is a non-illuminated (dark) path caused when light is
interrupted by a solid or opaque object”. This is not a scientific fact; not even like a
hypothesis. It is simply a claim of the meaning of the English word, “shadow” or “umbra”.
Definitions are very important in evaluating arguments, since the success of the reasoning
depends on how a word or term is understood. Ex-President, Bill Clinton, was allegedly
accused of sexual impropriety with one of his young female receptionists. His prosecutors
used the term “sexual relations”, and gave a legal generic definition of what “sexual relation
is … In his defense, Clinton (a lawyer-politician by profession), gave an escapist’s definition
or meaning. According to Clinton, “It depends on what [the word] “IS”, is” … So, we can
see that if not properly tailored, definitions can be very ambiguous (multi-faceted) or
connotative.
Types of Definitions:
➢ Stipulative:
A definition that creates a new word or term, or uses an old word or term in a new way.
Here are two examples:
• “workaholic” – someone who is obsessed with working
• “churchical”—being bound to the church or church activities.
15
It is subjective because it is one which a speaker or writer has determined. It is neither

true nor false, but rather, fitting or appropriate. They are regularly used in cultural,
political, scientific or technological circles.
➢ Persuasive:
A subjective type of definition used to get listeners to agree with or buy into the
points made of the thing discussed. It is usually laced with emotional appeals and
slanted terms, and used in arguments over highly charged political or social topics on
which people have firm views. For example: “Capital punishment” means the state-
sanctioned, vengeful murder of helpless prisoners”. The definition here is slanted,
loaded, non-objective, non-neutral, and seeks to persuade audience to adopt the
speaker’s/writer’s particular attitude toward the death penalty.
➢ Lexical:
This is a less personal definition. It is used in a similar way as the standard language
i.e. the conventional, generic dictionary way. For example,
• “Pastel” means a colour with soft, subdued shade.
• “Rug” is a heavy fabric used to cover a floor.
➢ Precising:
This is the type of definition which makes a vague word more precise so that the
reader or listener may not develop his/her own interpretation. For example, in my
Critical Thinking class,
• Class participation means attending class, listening attentively, asking and
answering questions and participating in class discussions, doing assignments.
• A “heavy smoker”, for some health officials, is someone who smokes more
than twenty-four cigarettes per day.
You would have noted that the vague terms, “Class participation” and “heavy
smoker” are given comparatively precise meanings to permit clearer understanding
and more accurate assessment.
➢ Theoretical:
This is a type of definition without a clear-cut boundary or demarcation. For
example, we say that “Our Caribbean or calendar year has two seasons – a dry season
from January to May, and a rainy (wet) season, from June to December. When,
exactly, in these months, does the season begin or end? Can we count on these
definitions? They are mere convenience.
➢ Occupational:
This is an assignment of definition according to function. We speak of male-female
pipe fittings or “father-mother” figures in the home or society, for example, simply
because of the role these entities play.
4. Recommendation:
This is a claim or suggestion about what should be done, how someone should act or what
policy should be adopted. It is often recognizable by inclusions like ‘should’, ‘must’, ‘ought
to’ or ‘its time that’. It expresses an opinion rather than an objective fact.
16
One may agree or disagree with a recommendation, but neither way will make it ‘true’ or
‘false’.
5. Value judgements:
“Value judgements” falls under a special kind of claim that places special value or worth of
lack of it on something. This claim makes use of effective words like “nice”, “bad”, “nasty”,
“wicked”, etc. For example, one may say, “It is disgraceful how young people treat the
elderly”, to express/denote some judgement or value. It expresses an opinion about the value
that young people place on the elderly. There are no objective grounds for the use of such
word. The word, or words like it,
• do not express scientific questions or issues
• cannot be explained by any empirical (reliable or experimental observation).
Value judgements cannot be validated by scientific observation or procedure. They simply
introduce bias.
6. Generalization:
Recall “false consensus” of cognitive bias, which uses one or just a few for all.
Generalization is a claim which covers many particular cases or examples, and uses them to
make general sweeping statements or conclusions i.e. it uses the particular to judge the
general. e.g. Children love bright colours. Yes, some, many or even the majority may love
bright colours, but once there is at least ONE child who does not, then the claim becomes
faulty (hence unacceptable). Undoubtedly, some generalizations are definitely true. e.g. In
sunlight, shadows lengthen in the afternoon.
Now let us recall some of the things we have just discussed or should have discussed.
1. Some facts may not be quite factual.
e.g. She did say that the interview would have been tomorrow when, in fact, it is today.
• Factual: She did say that the interview was tomorrow.
• Non-factual: the interview is/was today.
Conclusion: There could have been a genuine error here, so the take-home message
is partially factual.
2. Some opinions are stated emphatically as facts and are difficult to tear apart. For
example, “Talking in church is wrong”.
• Who decides that it is wrong?
• Does the preacher/pastor not talk in church? Do we segregate talkers?
• If a sniper unexpectedly enters a church must a member of the congregation not
talk to stop him or to alert the others?
• What if there is no service at the church, is it still wrong to talk [even if there is a
service?]
• What about during church cleaning or decorating… Should workers still not talk?
3. Time/or duration or tradition tends to make opinions facts: For example:

• Dirty hands/instruments can spread germs (T).
• Ice does not carry germs (F). What does ice do?
17
• After living rent-free in a place for at least 12 years, Grenadian law allows tenants
to claim ownership of the property (T). But time is not the law. It simply
strengthens a long-standing statement or legibility.
4. Eyewitnesses testimony is NOT always reliable (T).

An eyewitness testimony may be influenced by so many variables—time, colour,
weather, (substance) or drugs, alcohol, past/recent episodes, etc.
Some general guidelines for decision on facts or opinion:
1. If a statement is common knowledge, then it is a fact and does not need any supporting
evidence. e.g.
• Both Blaize and Gairy were past Prime Ministers of Grenada (T).
• A bus ride in Grenada costs more than $1 today (T).
2. If a statement is not common knowledge or is not known to be so, but is accepted as correct,
then treat it as a fact. It needs no supporting evidence, except the source of the information.
e.g. “Great apes and humans show their canine teeth whenever they are frightened or
angry”.
This is well known, although we overlook it. It is experienced, and cited in National
Geographic Discovery TV.
3. If a statement is not commonly known as fact/or accurate, then it will remain an opinion and
needs supporting document or verifiable information.
e.g. “The rate of suicide among young Grenadians has escalated in the last five years”.
This piece of information:
• is not commonly known [though it may be true].
• cannot be ordinarily confirmed as accurate
• may be confirmed or proven reliable by the police, the church or the Department of
Social Work.
4. If a statement cannot be verified as fact or opinion, then it must be treated as an opinion.

e.g.
• I saw a ray/flash of lightning one minute ago (?)
• Miss Maggie did put a spell on my friend (?)
• Zombies [Jumbies] live under silk cotton trees (?)
• Females in menses should not enter cemeteries or climb fruit-bearing trees (?)
The four statements above are not yet verified, so they must remain as opinions.
18
B. Understanding Arguments
1. Types of discourse for writing prose:
Reference reading: CAPE Communication Studies, pp. 115-117, 179, 199-200.
Writers utilize four modes of prose writing namely:

1. Description: The organizing principle of which is spatial i.e. it freezes an
objection in space and writes about it.
2. Narration: which concerns mainly temporal (time) sequences.
3. Exposition: which clarifies an idea by analysis, illustration, definition,
classification and division and comparison and contrast.
4. Argument: an attempt to convince an audience by using logic and persuasion.
An argument or the argumentative mode may be studied or identified as either logic or

persuasion.
(a) Logic:
If we are dealing with an argument from the standpoint of logic, then two early philosophers,
Aristotle and Socrates, come to mind. Such form of argument deals with reason, reasoning
or rationality. It is characterized by the presence of
• evidence of all kinds (“What is Evidence?”)
• basic facts (“facts vs opinions”).
• expert testimonies (Experts are not always right!)
• personal experience
• refutation or counter argument.
Or
(b) Persuasion:
This stems from rhetoric, which is the art of using words when speaking or writing to
influence people. People like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and evangelists Billy Graham and
John Hagee were very good at that. Conventionally, this form of argument uses words to
show that one’s point of view is plausible or desirable. It tries to get people to see another
side of a claim or reasoning. It makes use of:
• repetition – hammering home certain words/phrases for emphasis e.g. “I have a
dream” speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
• rhetorical question – for vividness, inclusiveness or imaginative conversation
• emotive or psychological appeals – for playing on audiences’ minds or feelings
e.g. “I have a dream”.
19
Modes or Methods of Persuasion:
[First, read the following excerpt of history.]
Alexander the Great conquered the world when he was still a young man. He
became extremely proud of his accomplishments and named several cities after
himself. Aristotle was his teacher and had no cities named after him. There is,
to date, no indication that Aristotle envied Alexander. Nevertheless, Aristotle’s
imprint on civilization turned out to be more profound than that of Alexander.
Aristotle became well known for his works in logic, biology and psychology, and
made enduring contribution to virtually every other subject including physics,
astronomy, meteorology, zoology, metaphysics, political science, economics,
ethics and rhetoric.
Among Aristotle’s contributions in rhetoric is the theory of persuasion which

famously contained the idea that a speaker or writer convinces or influences
his/her audience in modes.
Aristotle’s modes of persuasion were:

1. Ethos: using oneself as pattern.
This is the idea that uses one’s personal attributes to convince or influence others. It makes
use of one’s
• personal experience or background
• reputation
• accomplishments
• expertise.
Though these may work, just remember that “Dog’s luck is not cat’s”.
2. Pathos: mixture of sympathy and emotion

In this case, a speaker/writer tries to connect to the personal level of an audience or listener,
and uses emotive or psychological rhetoric or language to play on their minds (“I have a
dream”).
3. Logos: mixture of lies, reason, emotion

This is the method used in business, political, religious and such circles where the emphasis
is based on roping in supporters. It is the least effective of the three methods and often ends
up in quarrels and chaos. It is a combination of pumping in misleading information, applying
some form of reason or rationality and some measure of emotion.
Now recall that critical thinking deals with

• identifying reasons
• evaluating reasons
• giving reasons
20
Recall, too, our lectures on “Inference, Thinking, Reasons and Evidence”. We can now sum up
all of these and conclude that, for critical thinking purposes, “any discourse that provides a
reason or reasons for accepting or dismissing a claim is referred to as an argument.” A claim, as
mentioned before, is a statement which is supposedly or arguably true or false. Almost always,
the word, “argument” spells ambiguity, and results in confusion. At the onset, it is often
confused with:
• Quarrel:
We sometimes hear people say, for example, “There was a big argument down the road; a
really big, warlike one, a verbal contest.” This type of “contest”, in essence, is an alteration,
a quarrel, a riot, a brawl. It is filled with emotions and very little thought or reason, if any. It
involves a clash of egos, and a degeneration of ethics and social conduct. It is filled with hot
bloodedness and is often intervened by arbitrators, police, court cases, enmity and sometimes
DEATH!!
• Formal Debate:
This may even be a debate-like discourse or classroom discussion which is basically an
exchange of opinions or ideas between two or more individuals or groups. It is a cooperate
endeavor or effort in which people with different points of view vie for deeper, more accurate
understanding of an issue. In such discussions, egos or tempers are controlled by a chairman
or moderator, often within a time-frame. Each side or party thinks, s/he is correct and dares
or challenges the other to prove otherwise. The wonderful thing here is that all parties
emerge as victors with a greater, deeper insight or knowledge i.e. a win-win situation.
Ideally, it provides for growth and intellectual development in knowledge, wisdom and,
hopefully, understanding and self-control and respect.
▪ Argument proper:
An argument is a line of reasoning that supports a judgement or decision. To say it
another way, it is reasoning that leads to a decision or conclusion. It presents reasons for
a claim, and is well defended with facts or evidence. Anytime there is an argument, there
must be a claim (or a base, a belief or a declaration) for which to produce evidence,
reasons or facts. For instance, we declare that “Planet Earth is round; so we must
produce the evidence, reasons or facts to support or dispute this declaration (claim or
belief).
Basically, an argument includes or contains

▪ A position, or a stance or a point of view (to support or dispute)
▪ An attempt to persuade or convince others to see and accept that point of view
▪ Reasons given to support that point of view. We referred to these earlier as
supporting details (SD).
ii. Features of an argument:

Before identifying and/or structuring an argument, one should be cognizant of certain
feature:
▪ Position: Authors as well as speakers have a position/or point of view that they want to
get across. We call this purpose or intent, and they strive to persuade their
21
audience/listeners/readers to see and accept that point of view [Com. Studies:

Purpose/intent].
▪ Reason/proposition: Reasons are provided to support a conclusion. Reasons are also
referred to as “contributing arguments and proposition” i.e. main and supporting details
or ideas. We call this “Premise”.
▪ A line of reasoning: This is the orderly set of reasons provided. It is the path that leads an
audience through the steps leading to the desired goal and or conclusion [Com. Studies:
coherence/fluency].
▪ Conclusion: Arguments (all forms of writing) must lead to an end or conclusion. This
conclusion would normally be the position or intent that the author/ speaker wants the
audience to accept. Sometimes the conclusion does not support the purpose or intent that
the author/speaker is advocating [Com. Studies: Effective vs ineffective ending].
▪ Persuasion: This involves the effort put forward to get the audience to “buy into/or agree
with the author’s/speaker’s point of view. The presenter uses a special persuasive
devicee.g. affective language, repetition, etc.
▪ Signal words: These are the special words, short sentences and/or phrases, figures of
speech, that help the audience to follow the direction or course of the argument. [Com.
Studies: Language and/or writing techniques to maintain purpose or intent].
iii. Identifying and Constructing Arguments:

Whenever we are searching for or attempting to construct an argument, it is imperative that
we be mindful of the previously mentioned features which, in brief, are:
• Author’s/speaker’s position or point of view.
• Propositions and reasons
• A line of reasoning for support (with main point and supporting details)
• Conclusion as to whether or not purpose is achieved
• Persuasion i.e. effort to get others to buy into the viewpoint
• Use of indicator and signal words (technique) to achieve purpose i.e.
effectiveness/impact.
To identify an argument, ask questions like:

• What was the point of producing the particular text?
• What is the main point or take-away message?
• What does the writer/speaker want the reader/listener to believe/accept or do?
• What reasons or supporting ideas are offered to uphold/maintain the presenter’s position?
What impact do these ideas have on the reader/listener?
Structuring arguments:
In a broad sense, an argument consists of three parts, namely:
i. There must be a broad-based proposition, depending on the defense of a claim, belief
or declaration. For example, we can say, “All men (i.e. mankind) are mortal”. Here
we declare, believe or claim that all men are subjected to death. This claim, true or
false, must be defended according to our belief, and must have supportive evidence.
usually, especially in debates, this proposition is explicitly given as , “Be it resolved
22
that… “Without this explicit (written/spoken) declaration, there is no argument …

there is no issue. The idea remains hidden as an opinion or assumption.
ii. Premises:
These are statements of supporting evidence of our belief. They form the building
blocks of the argument and may/must come from several reputable sources [See
“What is Evidence?”]
(a) Major premise/term:
This is the most broad-based or sweeping statement about an issue. In
Communication Studies, this is represented by the topic sentence of a paragraph.
Her are a few examples:
• All men are mortal
• All four-legged objects are horses
• Most long-haired girls are snubs
• All unemployed people are fools.
What could be more broad-based or derogatory than these? How or why do we

make these statements? What are our grounds? These are mere opinions,
subjective feelings, and must be challenged for proof or supporting evidence.
information on proof (SD) narrows down the proposition, and ultimately leads to
a conclusion.
(b) Minor premise/term:

This is (or these are) offers of support for the sweeping statements of the major
premise or term and, in syllogisms, determines the conclusion and consequently
the type of reasoning.
A syllogism is an argument with three lines or three sentences, ____ major, and
minor premises and a conclusion. All discussions, if understood properly, can be
reduced to three lines/sentences.
So let us narrow down the major premises given before:

• Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Jack is a man.
• Major premise: All four-legged objects are horses.
Minor premise: This [chair] is a four-legged object.
• Major premise: All long-haired girls are snubs.
Minor premise: Gloria is a long-haired girl.
• Major premise: All unemployed people are fools.
Minor premise: Norris [not Paul]is an unemployed person.
iii. Conclusion:
A conclusion is a statement that leads to the end point of an argument and, in essence,
should closely relate to a writer’s or speaker’s main position or stance. In critical
thinking, it is a deduction (that which is drawn) from the given reasons or evidence or
23
supporting details. So from the major and minor premises or evidence/details given
above, we can conclude that…
• Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Jack is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jack is mortal.
• Major premise: All four-legged objects are horses.

Minor premise: This [chair] is a four-legged object.
Conclusion: Therefore, this [chair] is a horse.
• Major premise: All long-haired girls are snubs.

Minor premise: Gloria is a long-haired girl.
Conclusion: Therefore, Gloria is a snub.
• Major premise: All unemployed people are fools.

Minor premise: Norris [not Paul]is an unemployed person.
Conclusion: Therefore, Norris [not Paul] is a fool.
Premise indicators:
Let us not lose sight of “Reflection” and “The Amazing Power of Language”. It is important to
concentrate on unity whenever we speak and write. Unity is provided by proper linkages or
connections of words, sentences or ideas. Overall, we refer to these as coherent speaking and
writing. Coherent devices include:
• Transitional words
• Logical organization
• Special language and imagery
• Noun-pronoun references (and agreements)
• Repetition/emphasis
• Indicators (words or indicator indices).
Unity allows the audience’s thoughts to flow smoothly so as to develop full understanding.
A premise indicator “announces” that a premise to an argument is on its way. Premise indicators
include words/phrases like:
• since • considering that
• for • given that in view of the fact that
• seeing that • judging from
• in as much as • on account of
• because
So the previously discussed premises may be read as:

• Since all men are mortal,
• [And] Since Jack is a man,
or
• Given that all long-haired girls are snubs,
• [And] Given that Gloria [not Jane or Mary] is a long-haired girl, and so on…
24
Conclusion indicators:
Like premise indicators, conclusion indicators “announce” that a conclusion to an argument is on
its way. Conclusion indicators include words or phrases like:
• therefore • that is why • for this reason
• hence • wherefore • thus
• so as a result • this being so • accordingly
• then • this suggests that
• it follows that • consequently
Based on the fore-going, the previous arguments (syllogisms) should be respectively read as:
• Since all men are mortal,
[And] Since Jack is a man,
Therefore, Jack is mortal.
Or
• Given that all long-haired girls are snubs,
[And] Given that Gloria [not Jane or Mary] is a long-haired girl,
Then Gloria [not Jane or Mary] is a snub.
• And so on…
Interestingly, arguments in format, can have verbal [English] as well as numerical[mathematical]

relationships. [Do you still hate Math?].
e.g. 𝐼𝑓 𝑎 = 6, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏 = 12, 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑎 + 𝑏.
𝐺𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎 = 6 …
[𝐴𝑛𝑑]𝐺𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑏 = 12.
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑎 + 𝑏 = 6 + 12.
= 18 [𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦].
Now let us convert these English paragraphs into argumentative syllogisms or formats.
1. “Sports committees run races for boys of a certain
age group. Alfred and Bob are of that age group.
Alfred and Bob can run in those races.
The argument format should read:

Major premise: Since Sports Committees run races for boys of a certain age group,
Minor premise: [And] since Alfred and Bob are of that age group,
Conclusion: Then Alfred and Bob can run in those races.
25
2. 𝐼𝑓 𝑎 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑠 8 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑠 − 6,

𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑎 + 𝑏? "
The corresponding argumentative syllogism or format should read:

Major premise: 𝐺𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎 = 8
Minor premise: 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑏 = −6
Conclusion: 𝐼𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎 + 𝑏 = 8 + (−6)
= +2
i.e. same principle, but different outcomes.
𝑠𝑜 𝑎 + 𝑏 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑏𝑒 + 14 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑤𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 2.
3. “Government laws prohibit teachers to lead prayers in public

schools. Paula leads prayers in a public school classroom. Paula
obviously breaks the law.”
Argumentative format:
Major premise: Because government laws prohibit teachers to lead prayers in public school
classrooms,
Minor premise: And since Paula leads prayers in a public school classroom,
Conclusion: Then, obviously, Paula breaks the law.
No. This is not true, although it sounds plausible. We must first establish that Paula is a teacher.
Paula could have been anybody else EXCEPT a teacher. This tells us that although a conclusion
sounds correct, it is NOT always true i.e. it does not always follow from the premises. [More on
this later].
4. Is it an argument or non-argument?
We defined an argument as a “line of reasoning that supports a judgement or decision.”
We showed that an argument is different from a quarrel or a formal debate. We know
that we encounter quarrels, debates and arguments in all walks of life and very often, we
have to put up a defense. But how do we know when a discourse is an argument or non-
argument?
Very simple… If we have an argument, there must be:

i. A base, belief, claim or statement on which to give support.
ii. First, a premise(s) or supporting detail, and second, a conclusion, which may
(may not) follow from the premise(s).
If the issue at hand does not look like (i) and (ii) above, then it is MOST LKELY a non-
argument, which may be either (a report, an unsupported assertion (RE “What is
Evidence?”), a conditional statement (i.e. an “if… then” discussion) an example
(illustration) as an analogy or an explanation.
(a) Reports
A report is a type of discourse (speech/writing) that seeks to narrate and inform. It
may dwell on a series of events, may state aims or probably offer reasons for
26
accepting or rejecting a proposal. It may contain some measure of internal arguments

BUT not an overall argument. The writer/speaker in this case
• Does not endorse it
• Does not offer it as his/her own.
(b) Unsupported assertions.

Go back to your copy of “What is Evidence?” “The sub-topic, “Unsupported
assertions” concerns someone’s beliefs. The beliefs in this case may be true or false
rational or irrational. If they contain claims that follow other claims, then they are
parts of an argument(s). e.g. “My belief is that people are not really afraid of dying.
Something more unsettling, more tragic and more terrifying then death frightens us.”
There is no claim here. None of these statements follows from other statements.
They are mere unsupported assertions.
(c) Conditional statements:

Conditional statements are discussed further under types of arguments. A conditional
statement can also be written in the general form, p →q i.e. “if p, then q”, where “p”
and “q” represent separate statements. In the Grenada’s General Elections 2013,
there was the slogan, “If no Uncle Tilly, … then no NDC”, other “if then” examples
maybe:
• “If I have money, “then” I can take you out.
• “Then” you must speak Spanish “if” you live in Spain.
• “If you do not succeed at first, [“then”] try again.
The conditional statement consists of two parts:

• The antecedent or hypothesis, the “if-part,” gives the fact on which to base the
proof. If is the part of the general statement that comes often as “p”, e.g.
 If you have no more than 2 errors, you will get an A
 If a triangle is isosceles, then it has two congruent angles.
 The consequent or “then-part”, (q), is called the conclusion.
The “if” or the “then” may or may not be written (i.e. explicit or implicit). E.g.
 Should you buy oranges you will get nuts.
 Pete will graduate, provided he passes the course.
These two examples are not arguments; they have no claims to show any
statement. Now look at another:
“If it rains, the party will be cancelled,”
• There is no assertion that “it will rain.”
• There is no assertion that “the party will be cancelled.”
• The result of the party depends on whether or not it rains.
Conditional statements may, at times, involve some reasoning processes, but that
does not make them arguments. Examine again:
“If Harry is older than Paul, and Paul is older than Sam, then
Harry is older than Sam.”
27
There is no argument here; not even a claim; only the assertion that one statement is true on the
condition that the others are true, and this condition comes AFTER a process of reasoning.
Conditional statements may lead to chain of arguments when the antecedent (hypothesis or “p”)
and the consequent (or “q”) lead to a conclusion by a chain of intervening statements. i.e. If the
𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑝 + 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑞 → 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛, then we have a chain argument. For example,
“If Larry ever plays ball today, then I’ll eat my hat.
If I eat my hat, I will have constipation/intestinal obstruction.
So if Larry plays ball today [then] I’ll have constipation or intestinal obstruction.
(d) Illustrations:
Provide examples of claims and NOT proofs or support. If one says, “Many birds are
protected by law. For example, the Grenada Dove and the tree owl fly freely
everywhere.”
• The second sentence, “For example, the Grenada Dove… everywhere.” only
provides EVIDENCE for the first sentence. i.e. notable and representative
example of a chain.
• May be confusing and used for arguments… tricky stuff!! BUT
• Phrases like “for example” and “for instance” do appear sometimes in arguments
rather than in illustrations.
• There is a suitable difference between illustrating a claim and providing sufficient
evidence for that claim.
Here is another example: “Many of the world’s eminent thinkers are bachelors. For
instance, “Descartes Locke and Humé were all unmarried.” The last sentence simply
provides examples and not sufficient or convincing evidence for the claim of the
world’s eminent bachelors and, in critical thinking, this type of example is referred to
as the “PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY” approach.
(e) Explanations:
This calls for understanding. The word, “explanation,” is a troublesome one and
many students confuse it with “illustration” and “definition”
Let us now examine the following statements:

i. The Titanic sank because it struck an iceburg.
ii. Capital punishment should be abolished because [since] innocent people may
be mistakenly executed.
Both statements look very much alike because they

• have reasons
• both use the indicator word, “because”.
They are, however, significantly different…

• Statement (i) is an explanation.
• Statement (ii) is an argument (recall definition).
28
An explanation tries to show “HOW” something happens and not to give or provide
reasons or proofs (“WHY”) for the occurrence of something or does not draw out the
meaning of the issue.
Whatever we do, we must not lose sight of the concerns of critical thinking:
• Identifying reasons
• Evaluating reasons
• Giving or providing reasons
An explanation has two parts:

(i) The explanandum: the statement that is explained i.e. the lesson that is explained.
(ii) The explanans: the statement that DOES the explaining e.g. the teacher that
explains the lesson.
In the statement, “I fell down because I tripped,” the

• Explanandum is “I fell down”. It is the explained – the “HOW”.
• Explanans is “… because I tripped,” the reason or “Whyness” of the fall.
Distinguishing Arguments From Explanations

As mentioned earlier, not all arguments are distinctly clear cut from explanations. Bassham et al,
in their book, Critical Thinking, A student’s Introduction, 4th ed., 2002, outlined four basic tests
as follows:
1. The common-knowledge Test (C-K-T):
When faced with or posed a situation, ask the following question:
“Is the statement to be proved or explained commonly known?
If yes: then it is probably an explanation, so there is no need to prove a well-known fact.

If no: then it is an argument; so produce evidence of proof.
For example, if one says, “All beaches in Grenada come alive on Easter weekend,” almost all
Grenadians know that Grenada’s beaches, even the smallest ones, are busy at Easter. So this
statement should be accepted as an explanation – no proof; but why? Can you offer reasons?
2. The Past-Event-Test (P. E. T):

As before, ask: “Is the event to be proven or explained well-known in the past?
If yes: then prove it. If, for instance, one asks, “Why was there a Grenada Revolution in
1979?” the ordinary Grenadian does not know. Any attempt to prove it will be mere
opinion, belief or speculation.
If no: it is probably an argument; so

• Produce evidence as proof. But “was there a Grenadian Revolution in 1979?”
Sure; almost everyone, young or old, knows it. The literature, proof or
evidence is glaring.
29
3. The Author’s – Intent – Test (A-I-T):

This is simply the part the author or writer plays in proving that something or a claim is true.
There may be conflict of interest here. The author or writer may seek to produce evidence or
reasons for accepting that a claim is true i.e. provision of reasons as to why a thing is, as it is.
If the reasons are good, then the issue is probably an argument. If the author gives an
account as to why an event took place, or why something is in a particular way, then we very
likely have an explanation. For example, “Pat is majoring in Languages because he wants to
be a linguist.” This simply explains (explanation) why Pat is doing foreign languages.
BUT: “Pat is majoring in Languages because he knows many foreign words and idioms,
foreign dishes, foreign places and foreign customs.” Here, we have reasons to
justify why Pat is doing foreign languages.
4. The Principle – of – Charity Test (P.C.T):

This is a case of being kind rather than fair… a storage bin or giving the benefit of a doubt.
It is a test which offers the best interpretation of an issue so as to cater for negative criticisms
or counter remarks. It may be explained in the form of a euphemism which offers a soft
interpretation for a harsh or unclear text. It helps or works when other tests have failed.
Take, for example, “She will skip this class because of exams tomorrow.” None of the others
– C.K.T, P.E.T or A.I.T works; so place it in the P.C.T. for safety.
Implicit(unstated) premises and conclusion:

Recall, for a little, our lessons on inference (active reasoning) and indicators (indicator words
or indices). You will recall that indicators signal the advent of premises and conclusions.
But some indicators are not written. Experience and understanding enable us to find
indicators that are unstated. See some examples:
(i) “You cannot board the bus; you may as well remain here.” [“Since”] you cannot board
the bus,
• The square brackets [ ] signify understanding.
• An indicator, [since] may be substituted.
• Such indicator is the “implied premise indicator.”
(ii) “There is no God; you should stop worrying and begin to enjoy your life”… ad. on a
London bus.
[Because] there is no God; you should stop worrying and begin to enjoy your life.”
• It is interesting to note that this advertisement does not have tutor’s support.
• It simply demonstrates an “implicit conclusion indicator.”
NB: Before supplying indicators, be sure to understand the claim, so as not to lose the gist or
meaning of the original statement.
Over to you
Determine the premise and conclusion indicators in each case.
a. “He wears expensive clothes; he is rich.
b. “Light takes time to reach our eyes; all that we see really existed in the past (Louis
Pojman: The Theory of Knowledge).
30
c. “Don’t worry about senility. When it hits you, you wont know it. (Bill Cosby: Time
Flies).
d. “You want to be very careful about lying; otherwise you are nearly sure to get caught.”
(Mark Twain, Advice to Youth”).
VI. Determining the Conclusion of an Argument:

Go back to your Cape Communication Studies test, and read p.127-130, 182-3 to refresh
yourself on main idea and thesis statement. Now whenever you are trying to finish the
conclusion of an argument,
i. Find the main idea (MI) of the argument and ask yourselves. “What is the
author’s/listener’s position on the particular issue?”
ii. Now examine the beginning and ending of the given passage. The conclusion is often
(but not always) in one of those places.
For example, “I think faith is a vice, because faith means reason for doubting it.”
[from Berland Russel in The Existence: ‘The Nature of God.’].
Premise: [Since] faith means believing a proposition when there is no good reason for
doubting it
Conclusion: [Then] [I think] Faith is a vice.
iii. Ask yourself: “What is the writer/speaker trying to prove or put forward?”
The answer will be the conclusion (i.e. MI).
iv. Try putting the word, “therefore”, or any other conclusion indicator, before one of the
statements.
If it fits, then the statement is probably the conclusion.
v. Use the “because” trick to form the premise indicator e.g. “The writer/speaker
believes… (conclusion), “because … (premise).
The conclusion, in this case, comes before the premise. For example, in “He wears
fancy clothes; he is rich.”
Premise: [Because] He wears fancy clothes
Conclusion: [Therefore,] He is rich.
C. Two types of Argument:

Our earlier quotation, “If we reason, it is not because we like to, but because we
must.” [from Will Durant in “The Mission of Philosophy”] becomes useful here.
The argument, better still, the true argument is the hallmark of logical thinking.
Recall that the heart of critical thinking remains as:
• Thinking logically, and
31
• Finding or identifying reasoning fallacies in one’s own thinking and in the

thinking of others.
Good arguments come in either the

(a) Deductive form or the
(b) Inductive form.
(a) Deductive Argument

The word, deductive comes from Latin, “deducere” which means “to lead away from; to
trace the course; to pull or draw from.”
Deductive argument is very often encountered as deductive logic, deductive reasoning or

deductive demonstration. Such argument may have any number of premises and
definitely, a conclusion. If however, the argument has three lines… two premises and a
conclusion, it is specifically called a SYLLOGISM.
A deductive argument is best studied by its characteristics:

(i) Validity:
Validity refers to the degree to which something (in this case, an argument) can be
trusted or the degree of trustworthiness. Validity is the fundamental concept of
deductive logic. It maintains that both the premises and conclusion of an argument
are true. With validity, then, there is no way the premises could be true and the
conclusion false. Let us look at an example: “All Grenadians are West Indians.
Sandra is a Grenadian. So Sandra is a West Indian.”
This is a deductive syllogism. Why? Because …

• It consists of 3 – lines
• It arrives at a conclusion or proof based on accepted facts (premises)
o The statement of the conclusion or proof follows logically from the
given hypothesis.
o The premises fully support the conclusion or conclusion is fully
supported by the premises.
(ii) Soundness:
We have just proven that the last argument is valid and has true premises. Any
argument of this kind is said to be sound. In other words, an argument that is valid is
also sound, or has demonstrated its conclusion. So sound argument → true
conclusion. So in summary, a deductive argument (deductive logic, reasoning or
demonstration)
• Is valid
• Is sound
• Is logical in its pronouncement with 100% proof.
• Has true premises.
• Has premises that give 100% support to its conclusion.
• Proceeds from a general to a specific way.
32
(b) Inductive argument:

The word, “inductive”, means “to lead on, move away from main idea”. is also seen as
inductive logic, reasoning or demonstration. It is a case in which the premise or evidence
proferred does not fully support the conclusion. To be meaningful, the conclusion has to
depend on outside information as
• Past experience
• Outside knowledge
• Eye witness support, etc.
Let us look at an example:

“At 4:15 p.m. daily, vehicular traffic at St. George’s Bus Terminal is hectic; it is probably the
same on Queen’s Park Bridge.”
Now let us put this into an argument format.
Premise: [Since] At 4:15 p.m. daily, vehicular traffic at St. George’s Bus Terminal (SGBT) is
hectic.
Conclusion: [It is wise to say that] It [vehicular traffic] is probably the same as Queen’s Park
Bridge (QPB).
How much truth do we have here?

• Vehicular traffic can be [but not always] hectic at 4:15pm daily.
• Vehicular traffic can be or is hectic ONLY on certain days, certainly NOT on Sundays or
public holidays EXCEPT when there is a function.
• It is not customary to have hectic traffic on QPB except again, there is a function.
• It probably, may be/likely to be/or is hectic on QPB, if there are added activities (outside
information) as a parade, game, some social function, or induced activities.
• Finally, the word, probably, signals uncertainty.
So the premise, though it gives some support, does not give 100% or unrivalled support to the
conclusion; and this makes the reasoning inductive or inconclusive. In short, it leads us away
from the main point or source of the argument.
Let us, again, look at another example.

“Not more than 8 students have ever received A grades in PHI 200 in any
semester. No more than 8 students will receive A’s in PHI 200 this semester.”
Again, put this in argument format.

[Since] Not more than 8 students have ever received A’s in PHI 200 in any semester.
[It stands to reason that] No more than 8 students will receive A’s in PHI 200 this
semester.
Let us examine again:

• We will do a fair exam, open to all members of the class.
• A’s are there for the scoring.
33
• There is no air-tight-proof or reason that less than or more than 8 students will
receive A’s this semester.
• The results depend on a number of parameters, namely,
− What if > 8 (more than 8) students study extremely harder than ever?
− What if > 8 really understand the course and apply what they study?
− What if > 8 really understand the exam questions and respond superbly?
− What if > 8 students have prior knowledge of the questions?
− What if > 8 cheat on the day of the exam or even tamper with the teacher’s
record?
− What if the tutor favors > 8 students and chooses to increase their grades
for whatever reason, to save face or to keep his/her job, say?
− And what if? What if?
So you see, there are many reasons for inductive reasoning. The fact is, “Premises do not
give 100% support to the conclusion.” This behavior of the premise makes an inductive
argument either strong (over 50%) or weak (under 50%) support. The conclusion in this
case will be judged by the probability support or proof it receives from the premises. This
type of support i.e. degree of support, dictates the extent to which such argument is true,
reasonably true (doubtful) or false. Jurisprudence (the law) refers to this as “beyond all
reasonable doubts.” “doubtful” or “false” respectively.
Doubt vs Demonstration of Proof (Truth) vs Proof of Truth
Doubtfulness is:
• Uncertainty of truth, fact or existence of something.
• Unsolved difficulty of point of conclusion.
• Questioning of truth or falsity or suspicion.
It is that suspicion or skepticism which Humé, Descartes and Locke advise us to adopt
before accepting something.
Demonstration is a show or act or illustration of that truth or falsity. In law, issues are
expected to be resolved, NOT by show or dramatization, But “Beyond Reasonable
Doubt,”— not by mere proof; for what one individual may consider as “proof” may not be
proof at all.
Evidence, truthful information, presented facts (not proof) are what help to dispel doubt
from or pin doubt on liligants (i.e. contestants or any other connotations of law suits).
Proof “beyond reasonable doubt is substandard or below the level of deductive
demonstration or reasoning. Deductive demonstration is show of “truthfulness” from
premise to conclusion i.e. untarnished evidence (facts) or illustration of reasoning from
given evidence (with logics, validity and soundness all the way. It speaks “Truth” and
nothing but the “Truth”. Proof, on the other hand, is subjective and depends on:
• Skill of the presenter, with masterful use of Language and sway of judge, jury and
public (crowd support). Some legal personalties are very good at that - - using
scare tactics, force, scary facials, loud voices and shouts to ward off the truth. It is
34
very crucial, therefore, that the jury maintain a particular standard and possess
critical thinking ability.
• The level of understanding and interpretation of presenter.
• The intellectual and understanding ability of the audience and their resultant
response.
• The register: language to suit people, subject/topic, and occasion. There may be
need here for experts, though they are not always truthful.
• Any other factors including bribes, bias, emotions, etc.
With all these being said, we end by looking at the characteristics of inductive reasoning –
They
• are invalid (lacking trust & poor in evaluation and analysis).
• are unsound (have loopholes in evidence and reasoning, infiltrated with lies, etc.)
• are illogical (cannot be followed coherently.)
• start in a specific way and fan out to generalities or open statements.
• do not demonstrate full or 100% support in either direction:
premise ↔ conclusion.
• their conclusions, though they may sound impressive, are not conclusively
demonstrated.
Closer look at arguments:

You will recall that in Unit II, we spoke of a sentence as having a subject and a predicate.
We also reminded ourselves to pay attention to predicate because we will meet it up again
in Unit V, under arguments. Well, here we are.
Let us look at the sentence, “All men are mortal.” The subject here is “men”, with “all”
being an adjective. The predicate is “are mortal” with “are” being the verb. You will
recall that the same sentence, “All men are mortal” was given as the major premise of an
argument on p.23. We said that such sentence was too wide, too general, too sweeping.
We had to short list it, to narrow it down, to one man, a special man whom we called
Socrates, in the minor premise, which read, “Socrates is a man.” Notice, now that the
subject of the minor premise is “Socrates,” and the predicate is “is a man”. In this case,
the subject, “Socrates,” compliments the predicate, and vice versa. So we can say
“Socrates is a man” or “A man is Socrates.” In other words, the predicate of the major
premise, determines the conclusion of the argument. This being so, we can conclude,
“Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” In other words:
If all men are mortal, ……………….. major premise
And if Socrates is a man, ………… minor premise
Then Socrates is mortal ………… conclusion.
If we observe carefully, we see that

• The main idea “men” or the subject of the major premise, becomes the main idea,
“man” of the minor premise.
• The main idea (“Socrates”) or the subject of the minor premise, is the compliment
(“man”) of the predicate of the minor premise.
35
• The main idea (Socrates) or the subject of the minor premise, remains the subject
of the minor premise remains the subject of the conclusion.
• The predicate, “are mortal”, of the major premise returns in the singular form, “is
mortal”, in the conclusion.
Go back and look at it. Call the subject #1 in each case, and the predicate #2. We see that
the equivalent subject word, “men, man, Socrates” appears four times, (three times as
subject and once as predicate—in the minor premise) and that the predicate “is mortal”
appears twice ONLY in the major premise and in the conclusion.
These are observable characteristics of deductive arguments which, we said,

− Are valid
− Are sound
− Are logical
• Start broad/wide and end up narrow/specific
• Have premises that give 100% support to their conclusions
− Demonstrate conclusion.
Can we reason the same way for inductive argument? Let us see.
“Government laws prohibit teachers to lead prayers in public schools.
Paula leads prayers in a public classroom. Paula obviously breaks the
law.”
If we put this in the form of a syllogism, we get

Major premise: Since the government laws prohibit teachers to lead prayers in
public schools.
Minor premise: Since Paula leads prayers in a public school classroom.
Conclusion: Therefore, Paula obviously breaks the law.
On examination, we see as follows:

Subject Predicate 2
Major premise: laws 1 prohibit teachers…
Minor premise: Paula leads prayers…
Conclusion: Paula 3 obviously breaks the law…
Only
• The subjects of minor premise and conclusion agree.
All the other main ideas/items are different; So the argument is inductive. So when is an
argument inductive? It is so IF
• One of the premises and conclusion are true
• Both premises are true and the conclusion is false.
• One premise is true and the conclusion is false.
• All premises are false and the conclusion is true.
• All premises and conclusion are false.
36
So why is the just concluded argument inductive? And what are the characteristics of it?
How can we convert this inductive argument into a deductive argument? Give it a shot.
Some Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning:
It is important to remember that in deductive reasoning, the conclusion follows directly

(gets 100% support) from the premises, whether or not we agree with the claim or
proposition [“All 4-legged objects can never be horses.”] The premises can be of any
number; but if the argument has three lines or steps, i.e. 2 premises and I conclusion, it is
specifically called s SYLLOGISM. Syllogisms come in many forms including:
1. Hypothetical syllogism
2. Categorical syllogism
3. Arguments by elimination
4. Arguments based on mathematics
5. Arguments from definitions.
1. Hypothetical (deductive) reasoning:

This seeks to explore deductive reasoning through its basic form. Of the two premises
forwarded, the major one must be hypothetical or conditional i.e. having the “if…
then” form. It carries the general format:
𝐼𝑓 𝐴 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐵 𝑜𝑟 𝐴 → 𝐵 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐴 𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 (≡) 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐵 is
equivalent to the consequent.
In actual fact, the argument should be:

• 𝐼𝑓 𝐴 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐵. OR 𝐴 → 𝐵. OR 𝐴 → 𝐵. - - general/conditional
𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝐴. 𝐴. 𝐴. - - affirmation (locks down)
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐵. ∴ 𝐵. 𝐵. - - assertion/conclusion
It must be written in capital letters which stand for claims and are called variables.
Now let us put this in English.
“If I want to pass my exams (𝐴 = 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡), then I must study hard
(𝐵 ≡ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡) – major premise?
But I want to pass my exams, “A” – minor premise?
Therefore, I must study hard, “B” --- conclusion?
Philosophy scholars study hypothetical reasoning under different varieties or patterns,

namely:
(a) Modus ponens (MP), as illustrated above:
This is also known as “affirming the antecedent”, which is the “if A.” part or the
conditional hypothetical or the first premise. The single “A.” emphatically agrees
with, or locks down the antecedent, and may be considered the minor premise.
The “Then B” part or the consequent, confirms or asserts or declares the predicate
of the major premise as true or desirous, and is considered the conclusion. i.e. the
argument is deductive.
37
(b) Chain Arguments (CA)

This argument has the general format in 3 conditional parts or statements:
i.e. 𝐼𝑓 𝐴 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐵. … (𝑖) 𝐴 → 𝐵.
𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑓 𝐵 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐶. … (𝑖𝑖) OR 𝐵 → 𝐶.
∴ 𝑖𝑓 𝐴 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐶. ∴ 𝐴 → 𝐶.
Again, let us convert this to English.

(i) “If you do not study hard (A), then you will fail the exam (B);
(ii) And if you fail the exam (B), you will be expelled (C).
(iii) Therefore, if you do not study hard (A), then you will be expelled (C).
Notice we already know two conditionals:

“If you do not study hard (A).”
“If you fail the exam (B)”
We also know the consequent of the first conditional

“then you will fail the exam, B”, call this B, which is the antecedent of the second
conditional.
From this, we are able to arrive at or deduce a conclusion. So strictly speaking, we can
rewrite this as:
𝐼𝑓 𝐴 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐵, … (i) 𝐴 → 𝐵, … (i)
And 𝑖𝑓 𝐵, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐶 … (ii) OR 𝐵 → 𝐶 … (ii)
∴ 𝑖𝑓 𝐴 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐶 ∴ 𝐴 → 𝐶.
(c) Modus tollens (MT)

Do not confuse this with (a) Modus ponens (MP). Modus tollens is the rule of
“denying the consequent.” Again it follows the general format:
𝐼𝑓 𝐴 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐵 𝐴 → 𝐵. (𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙)
𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝐵 OR ~𝐵 (𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝐵)
∴ 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝐴 ~𝐴 (𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝐴)
This is so because
• The one conditional premise (antecedent) is “If A”.
• The second premise denies the consequent to read, not 𝐵 𝑜𝑟 ~𝐵.
• If, as was said previously, “what is good for B holds true for A”, then what
is not good for B should not be good for A.
In this case, the consequent (B) is denied, so the conclusion must also deny the
antecedent.
Now let us see how this looks in English.

“If I eat fish (A), I will show up allergies (B).
But I do not show up allergies, Not B or ~B,
So it goes to show that I do not eat fish, Not A or ~A.
38
Students should note, as has been seen, that Modus ponens, chain arguments and
Modus tollens are logical, valid, sound, reliable and 100% conclusive from true
premises; so they are treated as deductive.
(d) Denying the antecedent (DA).

This is a form of faulty or fallacious deductive reasoning. This pattern of
reasoning is not logical or reliable. Again, it follows the general format:
If A then B.
But Not A. OR A→B… general.
Therefore, Not B. ~𝐴… denial.
~𝐵… denial.
In this case, the argument has true premises but false conclusion.
Let us look at two English examples.
(i) If Jeff passed the exams (A), then he passed his English course (B)
But Jeff did not pass the exams. Therefore, he did not pass his English course.
i.e. If A, then B. OR A→B

This is true, and
But Not A ~A
obviously so.
∴ not B ~𝐵
(iii)If Shakespeare wrote Survival for Service (A), then he was a great writer (B).
but Shakespeare did not write Survival for Service [Sir Paul Scoon did].
Therefore, Shakespeare was not a great writer:
Written If A then B OR A→B This is untrue and definitely

But Not A ~A misleading; for Shakespeare
∴ Not B ~B. WAS a great writer.
The conclusion is false although the premises are true. So the argument is
inductive. The minor premise, Not A (or ~A) was the decisive statement.
Students should note this when answering questions. Very often correctly
answering a second or third part of a question depends on answering the first
part correctly.
(e) Affirming the consequent (AC):

The invalidity or unreliability of this type of argument is based on its physical
structure and not on its content. It has the format:
If A then B OR A→B
But B B
∴ A. A.
39
Again, let us look at two English examples.
(i) If Pat is a member of the Lyon’s Club (A), then Pat is a male person (B)
[But we also call some females Pat].
Yes, Pat is a male person (B),
Therefore, Pat is a member of the Lyon’s Club (A).
(ii) If Chris Gail scores 100 runs today (A), then he is a super player (B). but
Chris Gail is a super player (B).
Therefore, Chris Gail scores 100 runs today (A).
This is not necessarily so. Chris Gail, by West Indian cricket standard, is a
super player whether or not he scores 100 runs today; even if he scores 0.
In these two instances, the premises are true, but the conclusions are
doubtful or probable, because Gail does not score 100 runs today or does
note come good in every game. Or, as we noted in example 1, some
females are also called Pat.
The arguments put forward above are logically unreliable, because their
conclusions though plausible, are doubtful – even false. Arguments of this
sort are treated as deductive only because the reasoning pattern is
characteristically uncertain. Again, the second or minor premise in each
case decides the conclusion. “Denying the antecedent” and “affirming the
consequent” introduce a condition of formal fallacy in reasoning. The
fallacy seen in these examples i.e. (d) and (e), is considered formal on
account of:
(i) Failure of form: reference to the way in which the argument is set
up… (Not A) and
(ii) Misuse of language: See Use of Language, Unit II.
The conclusion, then, is doubtful, and that makes the argument inductive.
40
D. Fallacies
A fallacy is an error, a flaw, a mistake or preferably, a … delusion – that makes a line of
reasoning unsound. It is a case in which an argument does not prove its point. Look at an
example:
“You say it is unhealthy to drink while I am chewing food, but I have seen you doing it.”
• This is condemnation of an unhealthy practice (eating and drinking at the same time)
• The fact that the other person drinks while eating has no bearing on the unhealthiness
of the practice.
• This argument is a fallacy, a flaw in the reasoning.
• The premise, “I have seen you doing it,” is irrelevant to the issue or question.
There are several models (and distributions) of fallacies. For the purpose of this class,
Philosophy/Critical Thinking, we will adopt the following classification:
I. Unacceptable premises/evidence.
II. Irrelevant premises/evidence.
III. Insufficient premise/evidence.
I. Unacceptable premises/evidence:
This classification deals with doubtful claims or grounds which cannot stand on their own
or support a belief or opinion. These claims do not provide a firm basis for acceptability
of judgement or conclusion.
i.e. Shady (shaky) premises → shaky conclusions, hence inconclusive cases/arguments.
See an example:
“Getting wet in the rain gives you a cold. These builders worked for several hours in
pouring rain. Therefore, they will get colds.”
The conclusion here is based on shaky, false or unacceptable premise that “getting wet in
the rain gives you the cold.” Besides, it refers to YOUR getting a cold; not the builders.
This is an unrelated error most people commit. There is no direct link or evidence
between getting wet and catching a cold. Most of the time, when people get wet, they do
not catch the cold.
Fallacies under this classification include these two representatives:

1. Begging the question:
This fallacy is also called “Circular reasoning” simply because it argues in a circle.
In this case, the conclusion of the argument repeats one of its premises. More
precisely, an argument of this type is trying to support a contention by offering as
evidence what amounts to a repackaging of the very contention in question. The
meaning or explanation is no clearer than the proposition.
Here are two examples:
41
(i) “Obviously, the President told the truth about the war. He would not lie to us
about it.”
• The reason here for believing the president is that the President would
not lie.
• The conclusion is not given in the same words as the premises, but in
equivalent words.
• We are still not sure that the president has spoken the truth or not.
(ii) “That God exists is proved by scripture, because scripture is the word of God
and as such, cannot be false.”
• Wanting proof of the existence of God should not be found in the
assertion that scripture is the word of God.
Many people quote scripture for their own selfish uses.
2. False dilemma:
This may be seen elsewhere as “Fallacy of false alternatives.” It is simply the
establishment of a conclusion by offering the same conclusion (in different words) as
an alternative that must be accepted. It really does not explore all the options or
alternatives. It closes the doors to several other means of solving problems.
Look at this example:

A man says to his wife, “Either we clean out the garage, or this junk will run us out of
our house and home.”
Here,
• the man thinks or pretends that cleaning out the garage is the only solution to his
removal from house and home
• he never thinks of stopping gathering more junk.
• He never thinks of his unpaid mortgage and fore closure
Sometimes, this fallacy is called the “Black-white fallacy”, the “Either-or-fallacy” or

the “False choice fallacy”.
II. Irrelevant premises/evidence.

Arguments of this group present premises or claims that cannot demonstrate or support
the truth of their conclusions. In this case, the premises and conclusions are not related,
hence the argument is inductive.
Included in this classification are our 10 chosen representatives:

(a) Equivocation:
Let us trace this word back to equi ≡ equal, same/similar, and vocation ≡ job,
ambition or calling. Other words which are sometimes used are “ambiguity” and
“amphiboly”, all of which relate to having more than one meaning or interpretation.
In such a case, the argument put forward is invalid.
42
Look at two examples using the words, “bread” and “man”

(i) “Man refers to “human kind” “children” or “people” and “bread” refers to “food”,
“sustenance,” or even “money”.
(ii) “Never deprive a man of his bread and butter,” where “man” as we know is “a
male individual” or “human kind” and “bread” connotes “job”, “position” or
“money”. Notice how the given words shift meanings in the two examples.
(b) Composition:
This is a case in which the parts of one thing are erroneously made to equal the whole
of that thing.
Here is an example:
“Bananas are rich in iron; so, every banana dish is rich in iron.”
• This is a case of emergent property in which the content of the whole cannot equal the
part.
• In some cases, the parts and the sum share the same properties, as in the sentence,
“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” from which we understand that during
biological development, each individual goes through the same stages as the group.
(c) Division:
This is the opposite of composition. It assumes that what is true or good for the
whole, holds good or true for the part. Consider these two sentences.
(i) “We are in Mrs. B’s class, and we are happy.”
• The idea here is that every man, Jack, in Mrs. B’s class is happy. Is
that really so?
(ii) “During the recent discovery, my financial portfolio gained considerably in

value. Therefore, the Wine Selling Department, which is my portfolio, gained
considerably in value”.
(d) Argumentum and hominem (Latin):

This is pronounced as written and translated as “argument to the man (person)”. It is
perhaps the commonest fallacy on planet Earth. It means, simply, dismissing
someone’s position (idea, proposal, claim, message or argument) by dismissing the
person. Today, we hear it in popular circles as “Dismiss or condemn the message, not
the messenger”. In essence, we tend to put the blame on the person rather than on the
message which that person brings.
Let us look at two examples:

(i) What do you think about Hillary Clinton’s proposal for immigration reform?
“It’s ridiculous. She just wants Latino votes.”
• The speaker is just bad-mouthing Hillary,
• What the speaker says does not tell anything about the strengths and
weaknesses of the proposal.
43
(ii) “You can forget what Father “S” said about the dangers of abortion, because
Father “S” is a priest, and priests are required to hold such views.
• The speaker is not really bad-mouthing Father “S”.
• The speaker is not talking about what Father “S’s” circumstances—
being a priest.
• No-one can deduce from the example the dangers of abortion or even
what is wrong with Father “S’s” thinking.
(e) Appeal to authority:

This type of fallacy makes use of information from an unauthoritative source to
support a contention.
For example:
(i) “My father thinks the president lied. Therefore, the president lied”.
• The fact that one’s father thinks the president lied does not make it so.
• Does the father have special expertise in detecting lies?
(ii) “My doctor thinks my car has leaking valves. Therefore, my car has leaking
valves”.
• Is your doctor a motor mechanic? S/he may have expertise in leaking
heart valves. It just may not be that the car has leaking valves.
• How credible is your doctor as a source for motor mechanical
problems?
(f) Appeal to ignorance:

Ignorance here refers to lack of knowledge. It may be either
i. Inability to prove the incorrectness of a case, OR
ii. Inability to prove the correctness of a case.
This inability to prove or disprove a case does not make the matter right or wrong.
The problem is lack of evidence. logically, there must be something to produce
something. This may be sometimes called “Misplacement of the burden of proof.”
Let us look at two examples:
i. “Evidently, his birth certificate is a forgery. Can you prove it is not?”
• The speaker must produce evidence of forgery, and not transfer that
burden to anyone else.”
ii. “No-one has yet proved that ghosts do not exist; therefore, they do.”
• Proof requires more than an absence of disproof.
• The speaker is trying to shift the burden of proof to someone else.
(g) Appeal to emotion:

This fallacy plays on people’s emotions or feelings instead of producing an argument.
It can be expressed in several ways depending on the specific emotion involved. e.g.
outrage, pity, peer pressure, scariness, pride, guilt, envy, jealousy. All of these pieces
of appeal to emotions are pieces of persuasion that parade around us as arguments.
44
(h) Appeal to popularity:

Sometimes we see this as the “Fallacy of common belief” or even “crowd support.”
In this case, we depend on public opinion or support to settle an issue.
Look at an example:
“The Iranians have nuclear weapon. Everyone knows that.”
• The argument here does not provide support for the claim that the Iranians
have nuclear weapon.
• Proof of this can be obtained not by popular opinion, pools, but by technical
investigation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
(i) Appeal to tradition”

In this fallacy, we are appealing for the sake of the old time. Time, tradition or habit
does not/should not make things right or true. We often hear that:
• Chicken soup is a good cure for the flu or cold.
• Astrology decides/ or holds the key to one’s future
• Slavery is right on account of its establishment over a period of time.
Tradition can be wrong, and there should be no reason for doing or believing that
something is right just on tradition alone.
(j) Straw man:

This fallacy is a case or misrepresentation of one set of information for dismissal or
rejection. It does not address the pertinent subject directly; it only invents another
weak story to surround the real story, and that can be easily struck down.
Here is a n example:
Jack: I think we should legalize medicinal marijuana.
Paul: Maybe you think everyone should go around stoned, but I think that is absurd.
• Paul has transformed jack’s position into one that nobody would accept.
Legalizing medicinal marijuana is one thing; but to go about stoned…
walking like a yo-yo!
III. Insufficient premises/evidence:

This group of fallacies deals with illogical relationship between premises or evidence
and conclusion. In such cases the premises are not enough to produce a satisfactory
conclusion i.e. one beyond any reasonable doubt. The conclusion must therefore be
rejected:
Included in this group are the following four types which we will study for the
semester.
(a) Hasty Generalization:
Simply, this is quick classification of all things in the same group of a few with
similar qualities.
Let us examine an example:
“A few negro men are involved in a notorious gang violence in the USA.
Someone shouted, ‘This is typical of all black people … those criminals.”
• The evidence here points to a few; the blame is put on all black people.
45
• This is judgement of a class based on the behavior and evidence of a few of

that class.
• The black group is not properly represented; so, no inference should be made.
(b) False or weak analogy:

An analogy represents similarities between two things. Like generalization, it
passes judgement on all on the action or behavior of a few. Strictly speaking, if
two things are similar in SOME respects, they should never be considered similar
in ALL respects. Here is an example:
“Planet Earth has air, water and living things.
Planet Mars has air and water.
So, Planet Mars must have living things.”
• So wrong! Success of an analogy depends on the nature and extent of the
similarities of two planets under study.
• The greater the dissilarites, the more doubtful the conclusion.
• To be successful, the argument in this case, must establish insignificant
dissimilarities.
(c) False or questionable cause:

This fallacy operates under the concept that two events are connected when, in
fact, they are not. A common example here is if one thing happens soon enough
after another, the belief is that the first is connected to, and is the cause of, the
second. Some scholars call this the “post hoc – after this then that” or the “ergo
propter hoc – because of this, then that,” fallacy.
Look at two popular sayings:
(i) “wearing crystals around one’s neck keeps off colds.”
(ii) “wearing copper bracelets prevents arthritis.”
• Only a controlled study can prove the above beyond a reasonable doubt.
(d) Slippery Slope:

This fallacy speaks of the concept that one bad action leads to another bad action.
Look at this example:
“Do not school our youth about contraceptives because this will
open the door to sexual promiscuity.”
Here, there is a first action of teaching contraceptives, and a follow-up to opening

“door to promiscuity.” It seems here that promiscuity will not turn up if there is
no teaching about contraceptives. An initial first step (action) leads the doer
down the slippery slope to other unpleasant actions.
Look at another example:
“Teaching Evolution in schools leads to loss of faith in God,
and loss of faith leads to weakening of moral values and
eventual increase in crimes, violence and social disorders.
Therefore, Evolution should not be taught in schools.”
46
“Crime, violence and social disorders” will always be a part of human

development. They have been so long before Evolution became a part of the teaching
curriculum. There is no good reason to believe now that the chain of events, so far, resulted
from the teaching of Evolution in schools.
Over to you
Identify the type of fallacy referred to in each case.
1. Students from a certain rural school visited a supermarket. One such student stole a bar of
candy and was caught. One of the clerks of the supermarket yelled, “That’s how these
country bookies are … thieves!” _______________________________
2. “Just as a guava tree under some stress bears more fruits than another tree that lacks for
nothing, so too a woman under stress bears more children than one who suffers nothing at all.
____________________________________
3. “A woman’s place is in the home. That’s the way it has always been, and that’s the way it
ought to be.” ________________________________
E. Conditions:
Let us examine the title, “Conditions,” try to make sense of it, then establish relationships.
We should be thinking of conditional claims i.e. “if… then” claims, general conditions,
proofs of arguments.
(a) Conditions:
A condition is a requirement or prerequisite for meeting (or not meeting) an outcome or
result of an event. Some authorities recognize four types of conditions:
i. Necessary condition
ii. Sufficient condition
iii. Necessary and sufficient condition
iv. Contributary condition
I. Necessary Condition:
This refers to a situation that must be present for an event to occur, but its presence
alone does not lead to the eventual outcome. It is “that which needs to take place for
something else to happen – the sine qua non. Without that condition, the other thing
or event cannot happen.
Look at some examples:
(a) “Paul reads a book on architecture (X) which greatly influences his choosing of
architecture (Y) as a career. Written X→Y, where X =architectural reading and Y
= consequence. We cannot say, for certain, that reading the book was a necessary
condition for Paul’s career choice.
• If Paul had not read the book, would he still have chosen architecture as a
career?
• What if Paul did not have the basic qualifications (and the positive drive)
to be an architect?
(b) “For controlled drinking to occur, it is necessary that there NOT be ready access
to alcohol.”
• Does ready access to alcohol, by itself, cause uncontrollable drinking?
• What about the inner drive to drink?
47
• What about peer pressure?

• Even when there is no readily available alcohol, do people still drink
uncontrollably?
(c) “If you do not make advanced arrangements for a taxi to come to the house to
take you to the airport, then a taxi won’t arrive in time for you to catch the plane.”
• Firstly, note the “if-then” condition (or the antecedent-consequent or
cause-effect condition).
• Secondly, note the necessary condition or the requirement of “advanced
arrangement for timely arrival” of a taxi.
• Thirdly, note the soundness of the argument i.e. “advanced arrangement
“(X)→ timely arrival of a taxi (Y).
• Finally, note the presence of the “deductive” element of the argument i.e.
conclusion getting 100% support from premises.
II. Sufficient Condition:

A sufficient condition is one which, by itself, can bring about an event such that
anytime the cause is present, the event occurs. That condition which, if it does not
take place (or is present), is enough to guarantee that something else happens. With
the presence or occurrence of the condition, the expected consequent results.
Do you remember Jesus at his trial?
• “I am a king,” he said.
• “I will destroy and rebuild the temple in three days.”
Were these conditions enough to crucify Jesus? Why, really, did they kill Him? [The
Jews had their hidden reasons which, to them were sufficient.].
“John has a ticket, so he must be allowed into the building”
• Is having a ticket sufficient for entry to the building?
• Is there no other condition that can deny entry?
• Does having a ticket (sufficiency of condition) form or crown off the totality
of all other conditions for entry?
• Sufficient conditions (having a ticket, X) having been met, satisfy all other
conditions (consequents, Y).
Necessary but NOT sufficient condition (proof):

We often deal with necessary but not sufficient conditions. A condition may be
necessary but may not be sufficient to prove a case (Recall) Demonstration vs proof).
Other conditions may be necessary for this purpose.
See some examples:

(a) “Some policemen have taken (are taking) their Commissioner to court because they
passed their exams and are not promoted.”
• Is success in the exam the SOLE requirement for promotion?
• Do we know of, or do they have any other requirements?
− Punctuality at/for duties
− Neatness of appearance
48
− Respect to/for authority

− Ability to think on their feet (use of discretion on duty)
− Upholding proper (Police) code of conduct.
− Etc., etc.
(b) “I have a ticket for the lottery draw which is enough to make money.”
• This is untrue.
• One can make money besides having a “lottery ticket.”
• The ticket must win if one is to make money.
• The ticket, if pronounced a winner, may be a counterfeit, or may be denied
payment on various grounds - - no date, no signature/stamp, defaced prints,
etc.
(c) “I have 6 CSEC passes, so I must be accepted at TAMCC.”

• What do you think about this?
• For what programme is the speaker qualified?
III. Necessary and sufficient conditions:

This represents a case in which BOTH requirements MUST be met in order to
SATISFY an argument, arrangement, reasoning or successful outcome. Confusing
Necessary with Sufficient conditions often leads to reasoning errors or fallacious
outcomes, or delusions.
Look at a couple of examples:

(a) “The presence of oxygen, O, is a necessary condition for combustion, C.” i.e. C
→ O. where O = oxygen; C = combustion
From this statement, one can correctly deduce:

• There must be oxygen, O, in order to have combustion, C.
• Combustion, C, cannot occur without oxygen, O.
• If there is combustion, C, there must be oxygen, O.
(b) “HIV is a necessary and sufficient condition for AIDS” because:

• One can get AIDS only through HIV.
• HIV, by itself, can lead to AIDS.
• No other factor needs to be present.
IV. Contributory condition:

This is also called “Contributory cause or factor”. It is not necessary for any event to
occur. It is not sufficient either. Think of it as ancillary or augmentary, for it helps to
bring about an event or to make that event more likely.
See the following two examples:

(a) Proposition:
“The country is already filled with strife (X); so the assassination of the President
might contribute to civil war (Y)”
49
You can see here that the imminent death of the President is
• Not a necessary cause of the civil war.
• Not a sufficient cause of/for the war.
BUT it
• Adds to the tension and hostility of the situation that already exists, and is
leaning towards conflict.
• May even contribute to the war which may immediately follow.
(b) Proposition:
“Birds have wings.
The item given has wings
Therefore, the item is a bird.”
Ask yourself, “Is the argument deductive or inductive?”
If wings are present, then that proves that the item is a bird. True or false?
The answer is false, on the grounds that:

• Having wings is not sufficient proof that the item is a bird, but is
necessary.
• There are other necessary conditions leading to its being a bird:
 The item was or had to be or is a living creative.
 The item has to have feathers
 The item has/had to have the DNA of a bird.
A winged item/object can be anyone of

• An aeroplane
• A fruit with fanned out parts (What fruit/fruits have wings?)
• A seed (What seed/seeds have wings?)
• A hotel/restaurant/church/any large building with extension.
• A flying insect, or even a bat.
• A toy.
Is having wings a sufficient condition for the item to be a bird? Why?

• No. it is not a sufficient condition, because birds…
• “usually fly” (except penguins, ostrich)
• Are animate at some time in their existance.
• Lay eggs.
• Are bipedal.
• Must have feathers.
• Have beaks or some modification of beaks.
• What animals have wings and are not birds?
50
Example:
John’s report makes references to branches. So, John is talking about a tree.
Is the conclusion:
T, F, or T/F?
Is it a necessary condition that a tree have branches?

No, because we can have a “branch of”
• A company/store/bank. Besides, a tree must be alive.
• An organization. Have we heard of family tree/ lineage?
• Does a banana tree have branches?
Is it sufficient to say that the report refers to a tree?

No.
51

Introduction To Arguments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Introduction To Arguments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHI 200 Critical Thinking Mr.

Unit V Introduction to Arguments

A. Some Basic Concepts

C. Two types of argument

A. Some Basic Concepts:

Claims come in different types as follows:

iv. Truth and knowledge:

 active process or learning by discovering or even by route learning

 passive process or route learning:

Barriers and Enhancers to knowledge:

• get up and out:

• look for repetition of things known/researched:

Detecting and controlling bias:

• think clearly i.e. cognitive growth and development.

As an example, we evaluate an argument or discussion on the basis of agreeing with points

For example, if one watches several documentaries of homicide, flood, or earthquakes as

➢ False Conesus effect:

vii. Facts and Opinions:

Not all facts, however, are authenticated or undoubtedly true. Let us do an

Topic: “Tell It As It Is (with concerns and consequences). In Grenada…”

− facing changes – self-motivation

➢ concerns of (and for) the elderly with respect to

➢ confidence in (and assurance of) our leaders

➢ violence and crimes, including

Separation of fact from opinion:

Separating fact from opinion is not very easy because:

Here is an example worth noting. Call it a problem if you may.

It is subjective because it is one which a speaker or writer has determined. It is neither

3. Time/or duration or tradition tends to make opinions facts: For example:

4. Eyewitnesses testimony is NOT always reliable (T).

Some general guidelines for decision on facts or opinion:

4. If a statement cannot be verified as fact or opinion, then it must be treated as an opinion.

Writers utilize four modes of prose writing namely:

An argument or the argumentative mode may be studied or identified as either logic or

Modes or Methods of Persuasion:

[First, read the following excerpt of history.]

Among Aristotle’s contributions in rhetoric is the theory of persuasion which

Aristotle’s modes of persuasion were:

2. Pathos: mixture of sympathy and emotion

3. Logos: mixture of lies, reason, emotion

Now recall that critical thinking deals with

Basically, an argument includes or contains

ii. Features of an argument:

audience/listeners/readers to see and accept that point of view [Com. Studies:

iii. Identifying and Constructing Arguments:

To identify an argument, ask questions like:

that… “Without this explicit (written/spoken) declaration, there is no argument …

What could be more broad-based or derogatory than these? How or why do we

(b) Minor premise/term:

So let us narrow down the major premises given before:

• Major premise: All four-legged objects are horses.

• Major premise: All long-haired girls are snubs.

• Major premise: All unemployed people are fools.

So the previously discussed premises may be read as:

Interestingly, arguments in format, can have verbal [English] as well as numerical[mathematical]

The argument format should read:

2. 𝐼𝑓 𝑎 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑠 8 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑠 − 6,

The corresponding argumentative syllogism or format should read:

3. “Government laws prohibit teachers to lead prayers in public

Very simple… If we have an argument, there must be:

accepting or rejecting a proposal. It may contain some measure of internal arguments

(b) Unsupported assertions.

(c) Conditional statements: