Critical Thinking: A Beginner’s Guide

 1) What is an argument?
 Discussion in which reasons are advanced (put forward) in favor of a
proposal.

Standard Form
 Schema for identifying the steps of an argument.

 General Format: 1. First Reason (premise) 2. Second Reason 3.

Therefore, the proposal is… (conclusion)

 Arguments can contain any number of premises leading to a single

conclusion.

 It can also contain a series of subconclusions, a conclusion that

functions as a premise for a further conclusion.

 It is conventional to signal subconclusions by “So” instead of

“Therefore” in order to tell the reader more is coming.

 When looking for an argument, the best thing to do is start by asking

yourself: what is this author trying to prove? This is to say, what is his
or her main conclusion?

 Standard form evaluation enables us to confront the truth.

Induction versus Deduction
 An inductive argument is a line of reasoning that produces only a
probable conclusion. However, the truth of the premises does not
guarantee the truth of the conclusion. [Wrinkles + White Hair  Old
lady (may still be young due to medical conditions, etc]

 A deductive argument is a line of reasoning in which the truth of the

premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. If all the premises in
the argument are true, then the conclusion MUST be true. [All man
are boys (general principle), John is a boy (confirms principle), John is
a man]

 While the inductive argument holds uncertainty in its conclusion, the

deductive argument holds the same uncertainty in its first premise.

 Note: we typically use induction when we have empirical data to plug

into the premises.

 Evaluating a deductive argument means attacking the premise you

find most controversial.

 Argument by analogy is an argument draws a conclusion about one

thing based on its likeness to another thing.

 Determine deductive argument: two premise could be both true while

the conclusion is false  Inductive argument.

 The pattern for the deductive reconstruction of arguments by analogy

can be represented symbolically as follows:

2
 1. a : b :: c : d (a is to b just as c is to d)
2. a-P-b (a is related to b through P)
3. c – P – d (Therefore, c is related to d through P (read books)

Validity and soundness

 Two criteria for evaluating deductive arguments:

1) Validity: An argument is valid when the premises imply the conclusion

such that, if the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true.
Validity is objective. (Does it imply the conclusion?)

2) Soundness: An argument is sound when it is valid (structure) and its

premises are true (content). Soundness Is subjective.

 Remember: Uncertainty in the premises is the mark of deductive

arguments.

3
  2) Categorical syllogisms

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought

without accepting it.” – Aristotle

 Syllogisms: Three-step transitive (a relationship holds between

members of a sequence such that the middle member makes a bridge
from the first member to the last.) argument

1. X is Y
2. Y is Z
3. Therefore, X is Z.

Categorical statements
 Statement that asserts a relationship between two categories [“A
banana is a fruit.”]  Categorical syllogisms are composed of
categorical statements.

 Every categorical statement has two parts: a subject and a predicate.

 A subject is the term about which something is affirmed or denied.

 The predicate is the phrase that affirms or denies something about the
subject.

4
  Sentential Logic
 Propositional logic, studies the connections between different kind of
statements

Conditional Statements
 Form “If… (Antecedent), Then… (Consequent)”
 The logical operator asserts a relationship between two categorical
statements: it asserts that the truth of second categorical statement is
implied by the truth of the first categorical statement. [Given the truth
of the antecedent, the consequent must be truth as well]
 If the antecedent is false, we don’t know whether the consequent is
true or false.

 Categorical statements are descriptive statements as they attempt to

convey facts by describing membership in categories.

Prescriptive (Normative) Statement

 Tells us how the world should be. (Value judgement)
 Important to identify prescriptive statements  Often serve as the
main proposal of an author’s argument – the conclusion he or she is
trying to establish.
 Conditional statements can also connect two prescriptive statements.

Predictive Statement
 Tells us how the world will be
 Descriptive statement about the future.
 Can provide a condition for a prescriptive statement.

Counterfactual-conditional statement
 Tells us how the world would be if its antecedent were true.

5
  Useful in arguments, especially when criticizing an opponent
 Advances a consideration against the prescriptive statement
presented.

Rules of Inference
 6 main patterns

1) Hypothetical syllogism
 Application of the same transitive reasoning before

X is Y(bridge), Y is Z, Therefore, X is Z.

IF Dawn is telling the truth, then Mark is the killer.

If Mark is the killer, then Vincent is innocent.

 The premises form a sequence such that the middle memver of the
sequence makes a bridge from the first member to the last.
 Standard symbolic representation of the hypothetical syllogism:

If P, then Q.
If Q then R.

Therefore, if P, then R.

 Good rule of inference in cases: The conclusion depends on an

unknown factor.

6
 2) Modus ponens (Method of affirming the antecedent)
 Hypothetical syllogism except it allows you to eliminate the “if” and
come to a definite conclusion.

 If Dawn is telling the truth, then Vincent is innocent.

Dawn is telling the truth (because she passed the lie detector test)
Therefore, Vincent is innocent. [Definite conclusion]

 Asserts a conditional statement in the first premise and then

proceeding to affirm its antecedent in the conclusion.
 If P then Q.
 P.
 Therefore, Q.

3) Fallacy of affirming the consequent

 If Dawn is telling the truth (about seeing Mark shoot Cassandra), then
Vincent is innocent.
Vincent is innocent (because he was with the waitress when the shot
went off)
Therefore, Dawn is telling the truth (about seeing Mark shoot
Cassandra)

 If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

 Step 2 affirms the consequent of the conditionaol in step 1 (Q) instead

of affirming its antecedent (P).

7
 4) Modus tollens
 Allows you to deny the consequent of a conditional statement and
thereby conclude that its antecedent is not true.
 If Dawn is telling the truth, then Mark is the killer.
But Mark is not the killer (because he was in Moscow)
Therefore, Dawn is not telling the truth. (Denial of its antecedent)

 If P, then Q.
Not-Q.
Therefore, not-P.

5) Fallalcy of denying the antecedent

 Switching the order of the variables (P and Q) and it instantly destroys
the validity of the argument.

 If Dawn is telling the truth, then Mark is the killer.

But Dawn is not telling the truth (because she was at a football game)
Therefore, Mark is not the killer.

 If P, then Q.
Not P
Therefore, Not-Q.

 Step 2 denies the antecedent of the conditional in step 1 (P) instead of

denying its consequent (Q).

One thing that makes it difficult to distinguish the two modus rules from
their corresponding fallacies is that the antecedent and/or the consequent
of the conditional may already be negative.

8
 6) Reductio ad absurdum
 The whole point to learning rules of inference is to be able to defend
your position on one side of a debate. This rule of inference is
particularly useful in a directly confrontation with an opponent.
 One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens.
 Moduus tellens is such a useful way to reverse an opponent’s
argument that eh basic idea behind it has been expanded into a
souped-up format kknown as __.
 The goal is not just to reverse your opponent’s argument, but to
reduce it to an absurdity (impossibility).
 Assumes for the sake of argument that the opponent’s view is correct
and then proceeding to show how this very assumption leads to an
impossibility.

 To prove Dawn is not telling the truth.

1. Suppose Dawn were telling the truth

2. If Dawn were telling the truth, then Mark would have had to travel
from Moscow to Gamerton in less than 6 hours.
3. It is absurd to suppose that someone can travel from Moscow to
Gamerton in such a short amount of time.
4. Therefore, Dawn is not telling the truth

 Note the argument starts with a “to prove’ line  Premise 1 of the
argument is actually the opponent’s view.
 Note: The use of counterfactual conditional in premise 2 
Antecedent of the conditional is contrary to fact.

9
Disjunctive Syllogism
 Proposes that the issue boils down to a choice between two
possibilities then reject one of those possibilities in order to conclude
that the other must be true.


To learn more and get OneNote, visit www.onenote.com.

10