DON’T JUST THINK; BE LOGI-

CAL

Critical Thinking Manual for College Stu-

dents

By Lei Bao

1
Table of Contents
- ABOUT THE AUTHOR

- PROLOGUE

- CHAPTER 1: AN OVERVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING

- 1.1 What is critical thinking?

- 1.2 Why do you need critical thinking skills?

- 1.3 Higher order thinking skills

- CHAPTER 2: ELEMENTS OF CLEAR THINKING

- 2.1 Inquiry-based learning

- 2.2 Information credibility

- 2.3 Dissent and openness

- CHAPTER 3: ANATOMY OF ARGUMENTS

- 3.1 Objective and subjective claims

- 3.2 Identifying issues

- 3.3 Arguments

- 3.3.1 Premises

- 3.3.2 Conclusion
- 3.3.3 Collaboration

- CHAPTER 4: NON-ARGUMENTS

- 4.1 Explanations

- 4.2 Hypotheticals

- 4.3 Rhetoric

- CHAPTER 5: ANALYZING ARGUMENTS

- 5.1 Level of reason

- 5.2 Relevance

- 5.3 Unstated assumptions

- CHAPTER 6: TWO TYPES OF ARGUMENTS

2
 - 6.1 Deduction

- 6.1.1 Validity

- 6.1.2 Soundness

- 6.2 Induction

- 6.2.1 Strength

- 6.2.2 Cogency

- CHAPTER 7: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN STEM AND THE HUMANITIES

- 7.1 Mathematical induction

- 7.2 Statistics

- CHAPTER 8: INFORMAL FALLACIES

- 8.1 Abusing the man

- 8.2 Appeal to authority

- 8.3 Circular reasoning

- 8.4 Appeal to emotion

- 8.5 Appeal to force

- 8.6 Appeal to ignorance

- 8.7 Straw man

- 8.8 Red herring

- 8.9 False cause

- 8.10 False dilemma

- 8.11 Hasty generalization

- 8.12 Slippery slope

- 8.13 False analogy

- 8.14 Complex question

3
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mr. Lei Bao grew up in China and has been living in Guam for almost 10 years. He holds two

bachelor's degrees in English and Surveying Engineering Technology and a master's degree

in Logic. He has 13 years of teaching experience across different countries and regions.

Throughout his career in education, he has always valued his students' success as the meas-

urement for his performance.

4
PROLOGUE
Take a moment and visualize: We are living in a world inhabited by billions of people. Every-

one has their own views and perspectives. Everyone has their own beliefs and understanding

of this world. How, then, do we know what information is true and factual versus biased and

prejudiced? This is where critical thinking comes into play.

Critical thinking is a very essential skill to develop. As humans, we have an innate ability

to think, but at times, the thinking occurring inside our heads is twisted because of our per-

sonal preferences or misleading information, which in turn changes how we think about

something or the decisions we make. What we see and hear may not always be true or even

based on facts. Sometimes, it is just a point of view or conclusion based on personal judg-
ment. It is our individual responsibility to be able to critically analyze and make sense of in-

formation to ensure that the information we absorb or understand is accurate. Critical think-

ing can help us decipher the thinking process and explore the truth.

CHAPTER 1: AN OVERVIEW OF CRITICAL

THINKING
Critical thinking skills are becoming more and more essential in the modern world — a world

full of redundant and misleading information. These skills gradually evolve into a vital com-

ponent for achieving academic success. You probably do not realize that you are using critical

5
thinking almost every day, from comparing and choosing Netflix subscriptions to evaluating

and assessing how to successfully work with others for a group project. Now it is time to sys-

tematically anatomize these skills and apply them to different scenarios.

1.1 What is critical thinking?

To think critically, we examine credibility, evaluate reasoning, and eventually make decisions.

The objective of critical thinking is to avoid prejudice and maintain a rational position. To

think critically, you identify two sides of a debate and analyze each of their strengths and

weaknesses. Generally speaking, critical thinking skills include:

- Actively seeking two sides of a debate

- Examining the credibility of a claim

- Testing the relevance of the evidence used to support the claim

You need to always keep an open mind and have the courage to challenge any authority’s

claim since your goal is to rationally interpret what you are reading, hearing, and thinking.

1.2 Why do you need critical thinking skills?

No matter what your major is, the process of academic life is a path to pursue rationality. This

path is not always a clear, easy road; it is often filled with various obstacles, such as bias,

emotion, and misjudgment. Critical thinking enables you to analyze, evaluate, compare, and

contrast the surrounding unstructured information and synthesize it with your rational

thought, which reflects the merit of the theories, methods, concepts, and debates in your

academic life.

Developing critical thinking skills will enable you to construct stronger arguments for

your assignments, projects, or exams. You will be equipped with the ability to research and

select relevant evidence to support your arguments and ideas.

6
1.3 Higher order thinking skills

Educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom discovered a series of essential learning and think-

ing skills for college students called “Bloom’s Taxonomy.” This framework is used to catego-

rize the levels of reasoning skills that students use for effective learning. There are six levels

of Bloom's Taxonomy: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and

creating (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Bloom’s Taxonomy

7
Note: From A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxon-

omy of Educational Objectives, by L. W. Anderson and D. R. Krathwohl (Eds.), 2001, Addison

Wesley Longman, Inc.

As a college student, you are required to develop these higher order thinking skills for aca-

demic success. You will find that they enhance your capabilities in both reading and writing,

which will eventually help you to work effectively and efficiently as an independent learner

and to cooperate with your peers more constructively.

“No, no, you’re not thinking; you’re just being logical.” ~Niels Bohr

8
CHAPTER 2: ELEMENTS OF CLEAR THINK-
ING
Like other skills, such as swimming, learning a foreign language, or solving mathematical

equations, thinking critically requires practice. The more that a person exercises and applies

critical thinking in his or her everyday life, the stronger these skills become. In this chapter,

you will learn about the elements of clear thinking to help you improve your own thinking

processes.

2.1 Inquiry-based learning

Inquiry-based learning has existed for thousands of years. Philosophers like Socrates and

Confucius used variations of this inquiry-based format in their teachings. It later became a

critical component of the scientific method of the early Enlightenment and continues to play

a vital role in research and discovery today.

As an independent learner, you should adapt inquiry-based learning in every subject you

are taking. In this learning environment, your instructor is mostly a resource provider and

guide-on-the-side empowering you to ask questions and explore answers for yourself. You

and your classmates rely on each other and on various resources to solve problems and an-

swer questions. It is a space of experimentation. While the process of inquiry-based learning

might seem messy compared to the textbook-based learning approach, you can learn at a

more rapid pace because you are not wasting time repeating what you already know. There

are four cycling steps of inquiry-based learning that lead to deeper understanding:

1. Asking appropriate questions of the materials

2. Investigating answers to these questions

3. Creating new understanding as a result

4. Demonstrating what you have gained

9
This working process encourages you to actively and creatively engage with questions and

problems in collaboration with your classmates or your group. Furthermore, the research

tasks enable the exploration and investigation of issues and are open-ended so that different

responses and solutions are possible.

2.2 Information credibility

Whenever you open an app or a website, you see information and content that was made

somewhere by someone. Before putting your trust in a source, you need to explore two

things:

1. The authority of the person or organization presenting the information

2. Their perspective

Here, “authority” means the person’s recognized knowledge or expertise on a topic. If you

want to tell if a source is an authority on a topic, you need to step away from the source and

do some research. Nobody is going to say he or she is not an authority on a topic.

Reading a website or article from beginning to end only gives you the information that

the source wants you to see. It is really easy to make a website or social media account look

authoritative. Using critical thinking techniques in reading requires you to investigate a

source’s authority, and you will want to consider these factors:

1. The author or authors’ professional background

2. The process used to produce the information

3. The systems that are in place to catch mistakes and correct them

An author’s professional or educational background can indicate whether they are qualified

to speak knowledgeably about a topic. Generally speaking, those who work professionally in

a field or have done a lot of work within it are better equipped than random people off the

street. This doesn’t mean that experts are always right, of course, but they are more likely to

10
be right than someone who doesn’t have expert knowledge on a particular subject. For in-

stance, a scientist who has done research on climate change and published studies on the

issue in prominent journals is a much more reliable source on climate change than a blogger

with no formal scientific training or education. Unfortunately, failure to believe in and trust

expertise is a big problem on the internet.

Another good indicator of whether a source is reputable is the process used to produce

or gather information. The process a source used to gather information is often indicated

right there in the work. A reporter might attend a protest and talk to some protesters, and

then describe those conversations in a story he writes for the newspaper. A professor might

explain in her new study that she surveyed 5,000 people for her research. Some news organ-
izations even publish their journalistic ethics, philosophies, and methodologies for the public.

Lastly, the system in place to catch mistakes is just as important as the process a source

uses to collect information. News publications often employ fact-checkers and professional

journalists to verify information. Editors also take part in fact-checking efforts during the pro-

cess of writing articles. Sometimes another force steps in to help point out mistakes — the

public. Everyday citizens might write a letter to the editor or leave a comment on an article.

When very serious corrections are made, sometimes a publication’s editor-in-chief, public ed-

itor, or ombudsman will step in to explain what went wrong.

In addition to varying backgrounds and processes for gathering information, every

source also has its perspective or point of view. You’ll notice the word “bias” is not being used

because “bias” means unfairly favoring something. However, we tend to associate bias with

anyone we disagree with, even though not every person unfairly preferences some things

over others. Nevertheless, everyone wakes up each morning with a particular perspective on

the world due to their lived experiences.

Rather than dismiss sources because their backgrounds might make them supposedly

biased, use the knowledge you learn about them to understand their perspectives. Consider

their reason for sharing information. How might their perspective influence what they’re try-

ing to say?

11
 When reading an opinion, we should carefully consider the author’s perspective while

examining his or her arguments. We will talk more about opinions and arguments in the next

chapter.

There is so much information online, both reliable and unreliable, that to sort through it

all we need to stop, think, and look around. We read critically to find out who is behind the

information. Then, we seek out specific information about those sources, their authority, and

their perspective. Each bit of information we get about a source is like a piece of stained glass.

Once all the pieces are put together, it becomes a lens through which we view their claims

and argument. That makes us better at understanding what information is reliable and in

turn, what information we should pass on. It also makes life more colorful!

2.3 Dissent and openness

Many social manners are about creating consistency, so it is easy to overlook the vital im-

portance of dissent in an effective community. Communities rely on shared values and com-

mon purpose. Critical thinkers try to align their decisions together and work to eradicate pas-

sive or aggressive behavior. Common values and customs are there to streamline the conduct

of stakeholders and remove unhelpful individualists.

You can imagine that a functioning community is like a school of fish that all swim in the

same direction. However, the community cannot work without pockets of dissent. Dissent is

disagreement or differing opinions on a topic, especially from popular or widely accepted

views. We need the obstinate fish that has his or her own view and tries to swim in a different

direction. We need dissent and divergence in order to reach the right conclusions and deci-

sions in the end. Without it, we limit our perspectives and deny ourselves the chance to po-

tentially adopt better ways of thinking. If no one challenges the beliefs in the community,

there will only be thoughtless, unchanging doctrine. Full consensus often leads to full medi-

ocrity.

12
 As a critical thinker, you make decisions, and you stand for them, but you must also leave

room for those who disagree with you and be open to hearing their perspective. Listen to the

dissenters and understand why they have a different opinion. You do this not only for them,

but also for anyone in the community who may become a dissenter in the future.

From time to time, you will make changes to your decisions and beliefs based on input

from dissenters. As you do that, it is important that you make it known that you listened to

them and took their views into account. That statement alone will reassure others that it is

perfectly fine to speak one’s mind and make proposals that diverge from the current plan.

You become much more flexible, productive, and innovative, and people will know they won’t

be judged by their opinions.

In a community, once dissenting views have been heard and fully considered, it’s time for

alignment again. After divergence comes convergence — decisions are made and communi-

cated. It is time for the community to agree and commit or to disagree and commit. Commit-

ment from everyone is key.

For long-term success, the team of critical thinkers must learn to appreciate dissent and

to create unity around the joint commitment. When that happens, the fish will again all swim

in the same direction, which is a decision that may have been influenced by the obstinate few

who had valuable input on the direction that the community is going.

CHAPTER 3: ANATOMY OF ARGUMENTS

Critical thinking helps you utilize reason or logic to evaluate something you read, hear, or see.

In most cases, people use critical thinking to evaluate an argument someone has made. In

this chapter, we will step back and carefully examine claims, issues, and arguments and anat-

omize arguments to understand how they work.

13
3.1 Objective and subjective claims

Arguments are made up of claims. Logic texts commonly use interchangeable terms such as

“statement” and “proposition.” These are all intended to mean the same thing.

Claim = Statement = Proposition

An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter that can be scientifically measured

and proven to be either true or false. For these factual matters, there are recognized criteria

and methodologies to determine whether they are true or false.

A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter. It is an expression of opin-

ion, belief, or personal preference. Unlike an objective claim, a subjective claim cannot be
proven right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria.

The distinction between subjective and objective claims is a subtle one. You should be

careful not to simplify claims into assumptions about truth values or to end up in a position

of relativism or objectivism.

Figure 2 Claims Spectrum

Claims scatter on a spectrum from being objective to being subjective, depending on their

degree (Figure 2). At the objective end of the spectrum are facts. They are deemed as being

14
true or false, regardless of the individual making the claim. “It is 88 degrees Fahrenheit out-

side today” is an example of an objective claim. The statement can be made by anyone –

whether a meteorologist or just an average man on the street – and using scientific means,

we can verify whether it is true or not.

At the other subjective end of the spectrum are opinions. They are only relevant to the

subject making the claim. Therefore, only the subject can truly substantiate the claim. For

example, the statement “I like sunny weather” is a subjective claim. The validity of this state-

ment is fully dependent on the subject making the statement.

Most claims might fall somewhere in between pure objective facts and pure subjective

opinions. To determine whether a claim is objective or subjective, one can ask if it meets sev-
eral criteria to be deemed an objective claim:

1. An objective claim can be proven to be true or false.

2. An objective claim has a consensual method for determining whether it is true or

false.

3. In the event of a disagreement about whether the claim is true or false, at least one

person will be correct.

Thus, a question of fact has an either correct or incorrect answer while an opinion is a prefer-

ence that can have many better or worse answers. These two types of claims create different

dynamics to issues.

My dear students:

If you step back and think about the fears and worries you have, you might

find that most of them are derived from other people’s judgments. We sometimes

allow other people’s opinions to influence our lives. Letting somebody else dictate

your life leads to unhappiness, but it can feel like you cannot control it. You care

about what your parents, friends, peers, etc. have to say when you do certain

things. Many life gurus encourage us not to adopt such a habit, but they can never
explain how to do this.

15
 This section helps you realize that a subjective claim is an expression of opin-

ion, belief, or personal preference. It cannot be proven right or wrong by any gen-

erally accepted criteria. In that case, wasting your attention on those unprovable

claims is inefficient and unhelpful. If your goal is to live a healthier, happier, and

more successful life, use critical thinking to distinguish subjective claims and ob-

jective claims first and spend most of your energy on the objective ones.

~Lei Bao

3.2 Identifying issues

Issues are the motivation for applying critical thinking to situations and the central focus
which critical thinking addresses. Whenever we are questioning the truth or falsity of a claim,

we raise an issue.

Example 1

Claim: I need a pair of new glasses.

Issue: Do I need a pair of new glasses?

Example 2

Claim: Tom’s laptop was stolen yesterday.

Issue: Was Tom’s laptop stolen yesterday?

The concept of an issue is not difficult to understand. An issue is nothing more than a Yes/No
question. It is a question asking whether a given claim is true or not. However, exploring val-

uable issues from various contexts is a difficult skill. The quality of the issues you discover

determines the quality of the insight on the topic and breeds the quality of the decision made

or the action taken. It stands to reason, then, that if you can get better at identifying issues,

you can get better answers that lead to a whole host of benefits.

16
3.3 Arguments

It is essential to recognize that an argument is composed to address a specific issue by offer-

ing a position on the issue and providing reasons for that position. An argument consists of

two parts:

1. Premise(s)

2. Conclusion

3.3.1 Premises

When someone makes an argument, he or she is defending a specific position or stance on

some issue at hand. To analyze an argument, one thing you must do is to identify the prem-

ises. Ask yourself, “What reasons or evidence did the author give for their conclusion?” or

“Why does the author think that this is the answer?”

Sometimes the person making the argument will make it easier on you by using key-

words or phrases that indicate a reason: ”because,” “due to,” “as shown by,” “given that,” and

so on. Be aware of such words, but don’t rely on them. They won’t always appear in an argu-

ment.

Besides, there are sometimes unstated or implied premises. The person making the ar-

gument may leave out a fact or reason, assuming that you already know that fact or that it’ll

be taken for granted. Once you’ve identified the premises, you will then need to evaluate

their truth or authenticity.

3.3.2 Conclusion

When we talk about the conclusion of an argument, we do not mean a summary or overall

review of what’s been said (as might be meant when your professor asks you to include a

conclusion paragraph in your essay). Rather, the conclusion of an argument is what follows

17
from the claims being made. It is the final statement of the position someone is taking on an

issue.

3.3.3 Collaboration

These two parts of an argument must work together to offer a particular stance or position

on an issue. In an argument, the premise(s) supposedly provide the reasons for believing the

conclusion is true.

For example, a student tells her instructor,

“My grandmother died, and I had to miss class to go to her funeral. I should be excused

for my absence.”

The issue at hand is whether the student should be excused from class. Now the student be-

lieves the conclusion is that she should be excused and offers a reason — attending her grand-

mother’s funeral — to defend that conclusion. That reason is the premise of the argument.

The instructor can then evaluate whether the student has offered a good argument or not.

To “evaluate” means to do two things:

1. Decide whether the premise or premises are true or accurate

2. Determine whether the premises are logically related to the conclusion

In future sections, you will learn more about this evaluation process. We are going to break

down the definition of an argument by focusing on four key points:

1. Premise(s)

2. Conclusion

3. The application of reason or logic

4. Relevance of premise(s) and conclusions

18
Chapter 4: NON-ARGUMENTS
As discussed earlier, an argument is a set of premises that, when combined, imply a conclu-

sion. However, people often make a common mistake by providing information to express a

view without actually making an argument. This can be misleading, as such statements often

lack rigorous evidence and/or a clear conclusion. We call an example of this type of statement

a non-argument. In this chapter, we will discuss three types of non-arguments.

19
4.1 Explanations

An explanation is a statement that tries to describe or make something clear. For example,

your parent might give you an explanation that attempts to shed light on going to college.

“Everyone with a college degree learns valuable skills, such as learning to meet dead-

lines and making social connections.”

This is an attempt to explain why or how going to college will result in a positive experience.

However, your parent is not trying to convince you that going to college will be worth the

investment.

If we want to build up an argument based on this idea, here is how to develop it:

Premise 1: It is important to learn how to meet deadlines and make social connections.

Premise 2: A college is a unique place where a person can learn these specific

skills.

Conclusion: In order to learn these skills, you should go to college.

This is an argument because it provides premises that infer a conclusion. Your parent makes

a claim about the skills that you can learn and then connects it to her next premise that col-

lege is the right environment to learn these skills, instead of just giving you explanations with-

out connecting them to the conclusion. This argument is clear.

4.2 Hypotheticals

Imagine you continue to discuss the worth of a college education with your parent. She might

say,

“If you don’t go to college, then you might not get a job.”

This is a hypothetical scenario. It is based solely on an imagined example and does not exhibit
the qualities of an argument. A hypothetical may be a useful tool to support an argument,

20
but it makes no attempt to justify a clear conclusion. Thus, on its own, a hypothetical is not

an argument.

Here is a better way to frame this argument:

Premise 1: A college education provides you with credentials that many employers will

require.

Premise 2: If you do not have a college degree, you will be limited to specific jobs, or you

may have difficulty finding a job at all.

Conclusion: In order to have a better chance at finding a job, you should go to college

and earn the credentials.

Rather than making a hasty conclusion, the degreeless young person will face difficulties find-

ing a job. This argument is backed up with evidence.

4.3 Rhetoric

Many politicians give speeches promising to bring change. Sometimes their words might

evoke strong reactions, but other times they might be dismissed as “just empty rhetoric.”

They decorate what they say with rhetoric, which is language that is meant to persuade but

relies on emotional force that often carries no reasoning.

For example, in his famous speech, U.S. President John F. Kennedy said,

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Kennedy’s quote looks to motivate people to do volunteer work in a delicate rhetorical pack-

age. This use of the word “rhetoric” suggests that a speech is just empty talk with no valuable

evidence to back it up.

Rhetoric, however, shouldn’t be demonized as underhanded or negative. It’s a tool that

can be used for good. Rhetoric helps us develop the skill of effective persuasion. Practicing

21
and understanding rhetoric can help us in all kinds of contexts, from term papers and court-

rooms to daily conversations and advocacy, and that is why we bring up this concept in our

critical thinking course.

CHAPTER 5: ANALYZING ARGUMENTS

Chapter 3 was about understanding how an argument is built. The focus of analyzing an ar-

gument is to look closely at the evidence the author presents and ask if it is relevant and suf-
ficient. We can analyze and evaluate an argument through three criteria:

1. Level of reason

2. Relevance

3. Unstated assumptions

5.1 Level of reason

In making an argument, an individual should rely on reason or logic to defend a particular

conclusion, rather than on emotion, intuition, or instinct. For example, an employee tells his
boss,

22
 “Please give me a raise. I need to make more money, so I can buy a bigger house.”

The employee is trying to appeal to his boss's emotions, hoping the boss might feel bad for

him. Whether he needs a bigger house or not, the employee is not offering a solid, logical

reason for why he should get a raise. He is simply trying to persuade his boss to agree with

his desire.

To make an argument, the employee could detail his workplace accomplishments, pro-

jects he has initiated, deadlines he’s met, and other concrete reasons that could justify a raise.

5.2 Relevance

Remember the use of the term “supposedly” in our definition: a premise supposedly provides

a reason for thinking the conclusion is true. When people come up with arguments, they be-

lieve that the premise(s) they offer justify or support the conclusion they’ve drawn. However,

the point of applying critical thinking to arguments is to evaluate whether that is the case.

For example, when you ask your classmate about taking a certain class, instead of telling you

what the class is about, he says,

“Oh no! Do not take that class. I hate that class. It’s so early in the morning, and I am

not a morning person.”

To support his conclusion that you should not take the class, his premises are that

Premise 1: The class meets early in the morning.

Premise 2: He does not like mornings.

Now, did those premises tell you whether you should take the class? What does your class-

mate’s dislike of mornings have to do with you? When you analyze an argument, you must

not only evaluate the premises and conclusions separately, but you need to consider their

relevance by determining whether the premises can logically support and lead to the conclu-
sion.

23
5.3 Unstated assumptions

Sometimes, it can be difficult to tell whether someone’s making an argument or whether the

argument is a good one because pieces of it are missing. People do not always explain their

arguments very well. Have you ever heard of the phrase “it goes without saying”? That “it” is

an unstated assumption — a premise that, for some reason, is simply assumed rather than

explicitly stated. For example, consider the following argument:

“It’s not required for you to do an internship. You would rather spend your summer at

the beach, so don’t do an internship.”

The unstated assumption here that “goes without saying” is that people should only do what
they want to do — you want to spend the summer at the beach, therefore you should do that

instead of getting an internship.

The problem with unstated assumptions is not that they are or are not true. The problem

is if they remain hidden, then the analysis of an argument is incomplete. Not all unstated

assumptions will be true or accurate or reasonable. If an unstated assumption is not brought

out of hiding, which is achieved by figuring out when some piece of an argument is missing

and filling in the gap, we may miss a weakness or error in reasoning that can undermine the

argument’s conclusion.

If you’re the one making the argument, and you leave some premise unstated, someone

else may fill in the gap for you, and they may not fill it with the same reason you would have

used! In this case, you’re allowing someone else to make your argument for you and to put
words in your mouth that might not belong there. In both making and assessing arguments,

you should always pay attention to what is not being stated.

“Don’t raise your voice, improve your argument.” ~Desmond Tutu

24
CHAPTER 6: TWO TYPES OF ARGUMENTS
There is a great divide in the world of rational argument: deductive and inductive arguments.

All arguments fall into one camp or the other, but what is the dividing line? Generally speak-

ing, deduction is an argument from general to specific, and induction is an argument from

specific to general.

Deduction = "General to Specific"

Induction = "Specific to General"

However, what divides the deductive from the inductive is not only the patterns but the in-

tent. When you are considering an argument, it is important to know which type you are deal-

ing with. You can’t decide whether an argument is successful unless you know what it is trying

to achieve. In this chapter, we are going to elaborate on the differences of these arguments.

6.1 Deduction

Deduction aims to provide certainty. It offers a guarantee that the conclusion is true. It deliv-

ers the proof. Here is an example:

Premise 1: All dogs are mammals.

Premise 2: Some dogs can be trained to help humans.

Conclusion: Some mammals can be trained to help humans.

25
A closer look at this argument will show how deduction aims for a guaranteed conclusion. In

assessing the logic of the premises, the corresponding conclusion is proven to be true. The

intent of a deductive argument is to provide certainty. The conclusion is inescapable if all the

premises are true.

6.1.1 Validity

The words “valid” and “validity” are commonly used in discussions about arguments. This

section will discuss what validity means in the context of deductive arguments. The concept

of validity is a tool for evaluating the internal logic of a deductive argument. To say a deduc-

tive argument is valid is not the same as saying that the argument is good or sound. Here is

an example:

Premise 1: All snails can speak Chinese.

Premise 2: A garden snail is a type of snail.

Conclusion: A garden snail can speak Chinese.

Although it seems counterintuitive, this is a valid argument. An argument is valid if the truth

of the premises can guarantee the conclusion. If it is true that all snails can speak Chinese,

and a garden snail is a type of snail, then it must be true that a garden snail can speak Chinese.

6.1.2 Soundness

Let’s put the argument in the previous section under more scrutiny.

Premise 1: All snails can speak Chinese. (False)

Premise 2: A garden snail is a type of snail. (True)

Conclusion: A garden snail can speak Chinese. (False)

This is a valid argument, but it is not a sound argument. Soundness is an evaluation of

whether an argument is valid and whether its premises are true. A sound argument must be

26
both valid and have true premises. While it is true that a garden snail is a type of snail, all

snails can speak Chinese is false, which makes the conclusion also false. As a result, our argu-

ment is unsound.

Validity and soundness are properties of a deductive argument, while the truth is a prop-

erty of a claim. Here is an argument that is sound because it is both valid and has true prem-

ises:

Premise 1: All legal voters in the U.S. are adults. (True)

Premise 2: John is a legal voter in the U.S. (True)

Conclusion: John is an adult. (True)

Here is an argument where the premises are true, but the argument is invalid. Therefore, the

argument is unsound:

Premise 1: All legal voters in the U.S. are adults. (True)

Premise 2: 17-year-old John is a legal driver in the U.S. (True)

Conclusion: John is an adult. (False)

The argument is not valid because the conclusion is not guaranteed by the truth of the prem-

ises. Therefore, it is unsound.

Let’s take a look at a slightly different example:

Premise 1: All legal voters in the U.S. are adults. (True)

Premise 2: 20-year-old Tom is a legal driver in the U.S. (True)

Conclusion: Tom is an adult. (True)

In this particular case, both the premises are true, and the conclusion happens to be true.

However, the two premises don’t logically guarantee that conclusion, so the argument is in-

valid. Therefore, it is unsound.

27
 When analyzing a deductive argument, it helps to remember that if it is invalid, it will

automatically be unsound. A deductive argument cannot be invalid and sound. In summary,

we should only accept conclusions of arguments that are both valid and sound.

6.2 Induction

Now it is time to consider the other type of reasoning — inductive arguments. 99% of the

arguments that we encounter in the real worlds of business, medicine, law, science, educa-

tion, etc. are inductive arguments. It is only in specialized domains such as mathematics and

computer programming that we can regularly deploy the power of deduction.

The intent of induction is to demonstrate that the conclusion is likely true. It is not asking
for certainty, but only reasonable confidence – in other words, possibility. An inductive argu-

ment makes the case that a conclusion is probably true. Look at this example:

Premise: Tomorrow is the government's payday.

Conclusion: There is probably a lot of traffic tomorrow.

Is it for sure that there will be a lot of traffic tomorrow? Maybe a sudden bad weather condi-

tion closes all the business activities, or a public emergency presses everyone to stay at home.

However, can you be reasonably confident that there will be a lot of traffic tomorrow? Sure!

Past experience has shown that there tends to be a lot of traffic on the government’s payday,

so the possibility is high that tomorrow will be the same.

In the example, the inductive argument is making a prediction about an event that has

not happened yet, so while you can’t definitively say the conclusion will be true, it is sup-

ported by a premise based on previous events or experience. There is a good chance, then,

the conclusion might end up being true.

Inductive arguments never provide absolute proof. As such, it would be unfair to call an

inductive argument a failure only because it does not provide absolute proof of something.

Its goal is not for absolute proof, just possibility.

28
6.2.1 Strength

Inductive arguments whose premises give us a strong (even if potentially arguable) reason

for accepting the conclusion are called strong inductive arguments. In contrast, inductive ar-

guments that do not provide a credible reason for accepting the conclusion are considered

weak inductive arguments.

Since inductive arguments have a different intent than deductive arguments, it would be

unreasonable for us to apply the same standards to evaluate them. We cannot use the terms

“valid” and “sound” in reference to inductive arguments. Those two terms can be only applied

to deduction.

Inductive arguments’ intent is not to guarantee the conclusion. Therefore, every induc-

tive argument is invalid following the previous definition. However, that does not mean that

they are useless. Instead, we will say inductive arguments are relatively strong or weak de-

pending on how probable their conclusions are supported by their premises. That one induc-

tive argument is stronger than another means one’s conclusion is more probable than the

other, given their respective premises. Obviously, the strength or weakness of an inductive

argument occurs in degrees. The more probable the conclusion, then the stronger the induc-

tion.

6.2.2 Cogency

The concept of strength is not enough for us to accept an inductive argument. For inductive

arguments, we will need to add the concept of cogency to our evaluative criteria, just as we

add the concept of soundness for deductive arguments. A cogent argument is a strong induc-

tive argument in which all the premises are true. If even one premise is false, the argument is

considered uncogent. Weak inductive arguments are also uncogent since strength helps de-

termine cogency.

29
CHAPTER 7: BRIDGING THE GAP BE-
TWEEN STEM AND THE HUMANITIES
In today’s society, interest in the humanities seems to be declining. This is partly because of

the advocacy of STEM — science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. These disci-

plines teach us what the world is made up of and provide us the convenience to live in this

physical environment. However, STEM can’t replace the humanities to inspire and teach us

how to interpret the world, interact with other people, and find meaning in our lives. In many

careers, these are essential skills to have, so it is wrong to see the humanities as less valuable

than STEM. The controversy should not even exist if critical thinking bridges the gap between

STEM and the humanities. In this chapter, we are going to discuss two essential applications

of critical thinking in the STEM disciplines.

7.1 Mathematical induction

Mathematical induction is a method of proof. It is widely used for proofs related to discrete

numbers. Here is an example using mathematical induction to prove a conjecture:

Proof.

2+4+6+ ... + 2n = n(n+1)

(n is a natural number)

We cannot check the reliability of the formula for all the terms of the expression one by one.

To prove the validity of the formula for each term, we need inductive reasoning showing that

if the formula is true for one integer, then it will also be true for the next integer, and the one

after that, and so on.

Premise 1 (Base case): Formula is true for n=1

Premise 2 (Inductive case): If the formula is true for n=k, then the formula is true for n =
k+1

30
Here is the proof:

When n=1, the left hand side (LHS) of the equation equals 2, and the right hand side

(RHS) of the equation equals 1 x (1+1) = 2.

Let n=k, and assume 2+4+6+ ... + 2k = k(k+1) is true.

When n = k+1,

LHS of the equation is

2+4+6+ ... + 2k +2(k+1) = k(k+1) + 2(k+1), and

k(k+1) + 2(k+1) = (k+1)(k+2).

RHS of the equation is (k+1)(k+2).

So LHS equals RHS meaning the formula is true for n = k+1.

The mathematical proof is now completed.

7.2 Statistics
Statistics is the area of mathematics that applies inductive reasoning as the foundation for

collecting and analyzing data. Some examples can include keeping track of your favorite
sports team as they rack up wins and losses or using data to predict the outcome of an elec-

tion. To be more specific, statistics can be broken down into the following areas:

- Sampling

Sampling is a method of inductive generalization. We collect data from a selective

sample and project the property to the entire population. This is arguably the most

important area of all statistics. It’s important because it ensures that we collect our

data in just the right way, so we can make a cogent argument to draw a reliable con-

clusion. It also helps us know when we have just enough information for further anal-

ysis.
- Descriptive statistics

31
 Descriptive statistics is about summarizing or highlighting key aspects of our data.

The tools here describe the collected information with a graph or other organizational

aid in useful and meaningful ways.

- Inferential statistics

Inferential statistics is about finding a trend and making predictions from the data.

Here the goal is to take just a small bit of information, analyze it carefully, and then

see what conclusions we can infer about the bigger picture.

Whether a solid conclusion can be drawn with a statistics method in your research depends

on the quality of the inductive argument you establish. You should always apply the

knowledge you learned from the previous chapters to secure the strength and cogency of the
arguments you use to support the research.

“Humanity without science is fragile, science without humanity is lethal.” ~Abhijit

Naskar

32
CHAPTER 8: INFORMAL FALLACIES
An informal fallacy is any kind of error in reasoning that renders a weak inductive argument.

It can involve distorting relevance, manipulating conclusions, distracting you from the actual

issue, etc. It seems like informal fallacies are not difficult to spot, but this is not always the

case.

Sometimes people use informal fallacies intentionally to try and win a debate. In these

cases, they are often presented with a certain level of confidence. In doing so, they are more

persuasive. If people sound like they know what they are talking about, we are more likely to

believe them even if their stance doesn’t make complete, logical sense.

Most informal fallacies can be spotted by thinking critically. Make sure to apply the
method of analyzing arguments from Chapter 5 when you sense an error in the reasoning

process. By applying critical thinking, you will be able to detect logical fallacies in the world

around you and prevent yourself from using them as well.

8.1 Abusing the man

Abusing the man is when someone uses a personal attack as the refutation for an argument.

It is an attack on the author’s character or attributes to discredit his or her argument. Here is

an example:

Person A: To feasibly provide better education to the local college students, we should

increase the WiFi coverage on campus. In that case, students can access the online ed-

ucation services for various purposes such as classroom activities, library group discus-

sions, or field projects.

Person B: Why should we listen to you? You did not even graduate from college.

Person A may not have graduated from college, but that does not automatically undermine

his or her argument. Person B’s rebuttal is not addressing the issue of whether we should

33
increase the WiFi coverage on campus but is instead attacking Person A personally. This is

not a strong rebuttal to the argument. It is a fallacy.

8.2 Appeal to authority

An appeal to authority is when someone uses an authority’s opinion as a premise to support

the conclusion. Not all appeals to authority contribute to weak arguments. Only those ap-

peals to inappropriate authority are. For example,

Person A: This Facebook post says I can get Covid-19 from dogs.

Person A’s argument is weak unless the author of the Facebook post is an expert in diseases
and shares the majority opinion of the medical community. Otherwise, there is no reason to

listen to it.

Let’s see another example:

Person B: My neighbor told me that the best way to treat my cat’s flea problem is to rub

red pepper on her fur. Since my neighbor is a lawyer, I know that I can trust his advice.

Person B’s reasoning here is weak because even though her neighbor may be an expert in his

field, he is the wrong type of expert for the situation. Lawyers specialize in legal concerns, but

Person B’s issue deals with treating a sick animal. Person B would be better off consulting a

professional whose expertise is appropriate for the situation, like a veterinarian.

Let’s examine one final example:

Person C: My doctor says I should reduce my sugar consumption for less inflammation.

Unlike the previous two examples, this is an appropriate appeal to authority because it fulfills

two conditions:

1. The authority being appealed to is a relevant expert in the topic

34
 2. The majority of experts on that topic agree with the opinion presented

8.3 Circular reasoning

Circular reasoning, or begging the question, is when the argument is restated rather than ac-

tually proven. In other words, instead of explaining why the conclusion is true, you just para-

phrase the original conclusion as proof. Here is an example:

My father is always right because he has never done anything wrong.

You haven’t explained why your father is always right. You’ve just repeated that he is always

right by stating that he has never done anything wrong, which is essentially the same idea. A
typical formula for circular reasoning is:

A is true because A is true.

8.4 Appeal to emotion

An appeal to emotion fallacy is when an author uses emotion-based language to try to per-

suade the reader or listener of a certain belief or position. It follows the formula:

Conclusion: X is true.

Premise: Think of how sad you will be if it’s not true or how happy you will be if it is true.

Here is an example:

Conclusion: I deserve a better grade for my final exam.

Premise: This past week was a disaster for me. My grandpa passed away, my girlfriend

broke up with me, and my car got stolen.

In general, how someone is feeling, what someone perceives to be unfair, or even things that
someone might perceive to be moral or immoral do not carry much weight for making a

35
strong argument since they are often rooted in emotional impulses rather than logical rea-

soning.

8.5 Appeal to force

Appeal to force is a type of informal fallacy that arises when the speaker uses intimidation or

force to gain acceptance for his or her conclusion instead of providing evidence. In other

words, the appeal to force fallacy happens when the speaker points out his or her power over

the listener or warns the listener of bad consequences that may occur if the listener refuses

to accept the speaker’s argument. For example,

You better not break up with me. Don’t forget your dad is an employee of my family’s

corporation, and I could have him fired.

If we analyze the given example, we can see that the speaker poses a threat to the listener if

he or she does not accept the argument’s conclusion. The fact that the speaker intimidates

the listener does not make the argument strong.

8.6 Appeal to ignorance

An appeal to ignorance fallacy happens when you conclude that something is not the case

because it has not yet been proven or that something is the case because it has not yet been

disproven. Typical formulas for appeal to ignorance are

Formula 1

Premise: X has not been proven.

Conclusion: X must be false.

Formula 2

Premise: X has not been disproven.

36
 Conclusion: X must be true.

Let’s see some examples:

Example 1

Premise: There is no evidence to show that God exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

Example 2

Premise: There is no evidence to show that ghosts do not exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, ghosts exist.

Both arguments demonstrate appeal to ignorance because the absence of evidence does not

necessarily prove an idea is true or false. You need supporting evidence to be able to conclude

something.

8.7 Straw man

A straw man fallacy is a technique where someone distorts the issue so that it is easier to

refute or where someone tries to refute a point someone made by giving a rebuttal to a mod-

ified version of the original argument. For example,

Person A: We should allocate more resources to the Department of Education.

Person B: Oh, so we should deny resources to the other departments and starve them?

Person B’s rebuttal contains a straw man fallacy to undermine an honest and rational princi-

ple that both parties’ arguments should be addressing the same issue. Person A is speaking

on the issue of whether we should allocate more resources to the Department of Education.

Person B distorts the focus of the argument. While still on the topic of resources, Person B is

instead addressing the issue of whether the other departments should be denied resources.

37
Giving more resources to one department does not mean having to deny resources to other

departments. These are two different issues.

8.8 Red herring

Red herring is a fallacy that misleads or distracts a debate from the relevant issue. A red her-

ring is often intentionally used in politics or court debates. For example,

Reporter: Did you permit that man to be imprisoned?

Politician: You know what? There is too much fake news around now. We should regu-

late reporters’ behavior.

The reporter raises an issue on whether the politician permitted the man to be imprisoned.

However, the politician intentionally distracts the relevant issue to a completely different one

— whether we should regulate reporters’ behavior. This maneuver is a version of the red her-

ring in which unnecessary issues are introduced to confuse opponents or distract them from

the truth in an argument.

8.9 False cause

The false cause fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on a sup-

posed causal connection that likely does not exist. For example,

Premise: I wore a green sweater in the last exam and got an “A.”

Conclusion: I should wear it again this time to secure another “A.”

The author’s argument is built on the idea that wearing a sweater that is a specific color leads

a person to getting a good grade. This is an instance of false cause. The supposed causal con-

nection is not supported by legitimate evidence but is instead based on the author’s imagi-

nation.

38
8.10 False dilemma

A false dilemma occurs when an argument presents only two points while disregarding or

ignoring others that exist to narrow the argument towards a particular stance. This is also

known as an “either/or” fallacy. Here is an example:

You are either joining us or choosing to be our enemy.

There are only two options given when there are more options available, such as a person not

choosing any side and just remaining neutral. This attempt at false dilemma tries to drive the

conclusion in a direction where only one specific answer can be given in order to incriminate

the opposing party.

To really be able to identify false dilemma, let’s also look at the following example:

When you complete CT101, you should be prepared to either pass the class or fail the

class.

Compared to the first example, this one is not committing false dilemma. In the situation

where you finish the entire CT101 course – which implies that you reached the end of the

semester and did not withdraw from or stop showing up to class – there are truly only

two options: you earned a grade that demonstrates you passed the class, or you earned

a grade that demonstrates you failed the class. Arguments where there are exactly two

options do not meet the criteria for the false dilemma fallacy.

8.11 Hasty generalization

A hasty generalization is when someone generalizes, or draws a broad conclusion, without

sufficient data and a credible sample as support. For example,

Premise: My boyfriend cheated on me and broke up with me last night.

Conclusion: Men are evil and untrustworthy.

39
This argument attempts to generalize a conclusion based on limited knowledge. The speaker

is making a claim about an entire group of people based on personal experience from one

incident involving just a single member of that group. This fallacy is also called “overgeneral-

ization,” which is a statistics approach that we should avoid using.

8.12 Slippery slope

A slippery slope is a conclusion based on the premise that one small step will lead to a chain

of unstoppable events that will eventually result in some unwanted event. In other words, if

we allow A to happen, then B will happen, then C will happen, etc., then an unwanted Z will

eventually happen, which means that A should be stopped or avoided. Here is an example:

Premise 1: If you don’t study hard, you won’t pass the exam.

Premise 2: If you don’t pass the exam, you will fail this course.

Premise 3: If you fail this course, you cannot graduate with a degree.

Premise 4: If you cannot graduate with a degree, you cannot find a job.

Premise 5: If you cannot find a job, you will be broke.

Premise 6: If you are broke, you will not have money to buy food.

Premise 7: If you don’t have money to buy food, you will starve to death in the street.

Conclusion: Since you don’t want to starve to death in the street, you’d better study

hard.

The problem here is that the main issue is being covered by extreme hypotheticals with no

real proof to support their relevance.

8.13 False analogy

A false analogy fallacy is when two things that are unlike are being compared based on a triv-

ial or irrelevant similarity to prove a point. For example,

40
 Employees are like nails. You have to hit them to make them work.

This is an absurd analogy that attempts to compare employees and nails based on a suppos-

edly shared characteristic of needing to hit them in order to get them to work. This charac-

teristic functions very differently in the context of employees and nails, so claiming that the

two are the same or similar is a weak argument.

8.14 Complex question

A complex question is a fallacy that’s often used in a courtroom. This is when the lawyer has

planted a hidden assumption in a question. If you are not careful about how you answer it,
you will be framed to accept the assumption. For example,

Lawyer: What time did you leave the crime scene?

The lawyer’s question assumes that you were at the crime scene. Unless you address and cor-

rect the assumption (for instance, “I was never at the crime scene to begin with”), you will

end up being forced to admit that you were at the crime scene, even though you were not.

41