CRITICAL THINKING

Lecturer: Ms. Thư – 0943463639e

thutran1010th@gmail.com

Week 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking

1.1. Definition
Critical thinking means “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection,
reasoning, or communication”. (Scriven & Paul, 1987)

1.2. Critical thinking standard: Clarity, Precision, Accuracy, Relevance, Consistency,

Logical Correctness, Completeness, Fairness

1.3. Components of a critical thinking process

Observing – Feeling – Wondering – Imagining – Inferring – Knowledge – Experimenting –
Consulting – Identifying and analyzing arguments – Judging – Deciding

1.4. Methods of building and improving critical thinking

1.4.1. General Strategy: Attentiveness, Habit of Inquiry, Self-confidence, Courage, Open-
mindedness, Willingness of suspend judgement, Trust in reason, Seeking the truth

1.4.2. Developing critical thinking skills with Bloom’s taxonomy (1965) (revised by
Anderson et al., 2001)

1.4.3. Graphical tools for critical thinking

a. Notetaking: Cornell Method
b. Mind mapping
c. Outlining:
- Rule 1a: Equivalent values
- Rule 1b: Equivalent values
- Rule 2: Avoid Overlapping
- Rule 3: Parallelism: Listing, Venn Diagram, Problem/Solution Outline

Week 2: The Credibility of A Claim and Its Source

2.1. Assessing The Content of The Claim
Conflict with Personal Observation: Our own observation: not always infallible
Factors affecting our observations: mental state, physical condition around us (bad lighting,
lots of noise, the speed of events, etc.), inexact measuring instruments, belief, hope, fear,
expectation, interest, and bias,…
Conflict with Background Information: facts learn from observations and other sources:
not able to specify, confirm by a variety of sources (media, friends, or teachers)
Initial Plausibility - a rough assessment of how credible a claim seems to us based on
background information

2.2. Assessing The Credibility of The Source

An interested party: any of the people or organizations who may be affected by a
situation, or who are hoping to make money out of a situation (Cambridge Dictionary)
e.g. KOC, KOL, influencer, celebrities as brand ambassador

How to judge a person’s expertise

- Education and experience
- Accomplishments, reputation, and position, in no particular order

Week 3: The Basics Of Arguments

3.1. Statements and non-statements
A statement is an assertion that something is or is not the case.
- A statement is true if what it asserts is the case, and it is false if what it asserts is not the
case.
- The same statement can be true on some occasions and false in others.
- Ambiguous statements express two different things.
- Questions and commands are not typically statement, but question used to express
statements are rhetorical question.
3.2. Arguments
Definitions of arguments
An argument is a group of statements some of which, the premises, are offered in support
of another statement, the conclusion.
Conclusion and premise indicators:
- Conclusion:
The standards form of an arguments
Premise 1,
Premise 2, and so on for as many premises as there are
Therefore, conclusion.
e.g. P1: I’m on leave this week.
P2: I never answer work emails when I’m on leave. Therefore,
C: I don’t answer work emails this week

P1: I’m having a bad day today.

P2: I only have bad day on Mondays.
 C: Today is Monday.

P1: I am annoyed when people chew loudly

P2: The guy sitting next to me is chewing his banh mi really loud.
C: That guy annoys me.

The Intricacies of Arguments

When the part of an argument that is missing is a premise, we call that statement a
suppressed premise.
An argument has a suppressed conclusion if it’s not explicitly stated.

Argument Mapping

3.2. Arguments
Descriptions, narratives, or anecdotes
Explanation

Week 4: Evaluating Arguments

4.1. Deductive and non-deductive arguments
A deductive argument is an
argument for which the premises are
offered to provide logically conclusive
support for its conclusion.
A non-deductive argument is an
argument for which the premises are
offered to provide probable, but not
conclusive, support for its conclusion.

4.2. The validity and strength of arguments

When evaluating arguments, we have two main questions to ask:
 Do the premises provide enough logical support for the conclusion?
 Are the premises true?

Validity applies to deductive argument; strength applies to non-deductive argument.

A valid argument is deductive An invalid argument is deductive

argument that succeeds in providing argument that fails in providing
decisive logical support. decisive logical support.
 A strong argument is non-deductive A weak argument is non-deductive
argument that succeeds in providing argument that fails in providing probable,
probable, but not conclusive support for its but not conclusive support for its
conclusion logical support. conclusion logical support.

4.3. Sound and cogent arguments

A sound argument is a valid deductive argument that has true premises.
A cogent argument is a strong non-deductive argument that has true premises.

Week 5: Formal Logical Fallacies

5.1. Definition and classifications of logical fallacies
Definition: A logical fallacy is a form of argument that seems to be correct but with
proves, upon examination, not to be so. It is a defect in reasoning that can be intentional
or unintentional.
Classification
Formal Fallacies Informal Fallacies
A detect on the form of the argument A detect in the content of an argument

5.2. Formal fallacies

Affirming the consequent Valid or strong argument

If A, then B. If A, then B.
B  A
Therefore, A. Therefore, B.

e.g. If she stays up late, she will be tired in the morning. She is tired this morning;
therefor, she stayed up late last night.

Denying the antecedent Valid or strong argument

If A, then B. If A, then B.
not A  not B
Therefore, not B. Therefore, not A.

e.g. If she stays up late, she will be tired in the morning. She didn’t stay up late last
night; therefore, she isn’t tired this morning.

Arguing backwards with ‘all’ Valid or strong argument

All S are P.  All S are P.
 a is P a is S
Therefore, a is S. Therefore, a is P.

e.g. All the students in this class love their Ms. Chloe. Joe loves Ms. Chloe; therefore,
Joe is a student in this class.
Reasoning in a chain with ‘some’ Valid or strong argument
Some S are P. All S are P.
Some P are Q.  All P are Q.
Therefore, some S are Q. Therefore, all S are Q.

Arguing backwards with ‘no’ Valid or strong argument

All S are P. All S are P.
No P is Q.  No Q is P.
Therefore, no Q is P. Therefore, no Q is S.

Arguing backwards with ‘almost all’ Valid or strong argument

Almost all S are P. Almost all S are P.
a is P  a is P.
Therefore, a is S. Therefore, it’s very likely that a is P.

Reasoning in a chain with ‘almost all’ Valid or strong argument

Almost all S are P. All S are P.
Almost all P are Q.  All P are Q.
Therefore, Almost all S are Q. Therefore, all S are Q.

Act 5.2. Match

1. Arguing backwards with ‘all’ – b. All S are P. a is P. Therefore, a is S.
2. Affirming the consequent – c. If A, then B. B. Therefore, A.
3. Arguing backward with ‘no’ – a. No S are P. No Q is S. Therefore, no Q is P.
4. Denying the antecedent – e. If A, then B. not A. Therefore, not B.
5. Reasoning in a chain with ‘almost all’ – f. Almost all S are P. Almost all P are Q. Therefore,
all most all S are Q.

Act 5.4. Rewrite the fallacious

1. If there is an intruder, then Brutus will bark. Brutus has barked. Therefore, there’s an
intruder.
 If there is an intruder, then Brutus will bark. There has been an intruder. Therefore,
Brutus barked.
2. If it barks, then it’s a dog. It’s not barking. Therefore, it isn’t a dog.
 If it barks, then it’s a dog. It isn’t a dog. Therefore, it’s not barking.
3. All people in that neighborhood are Chinese. None of my friends live in that
neighborhood. Therefore, none of my friends are Chinese.
 All people in that neighborhood are Chinese. None of my friends are Chinese. Therefore,
none of my friends live in that neighborhood.
4. Some of the products in this shop are fake. Some fake products come from China.
Therefore, some of the products in this shop come from China.
 All of the products in this shop are fake. All fake products come from China. Therefore, all
of the products in this shop come from China.
5. All puppies are cute. Those kitten are cute. Therefore, those kittens are puppies.
 All puppies are cute. Those kitten are puppies. Therefore, those kittens are cute.

Act 4.1. True or False

1. T
2. T
3. F – the conclusion is true
4. F – highly like/ possible

Week 6: Informal Logical Fallacies

6.1. False Analogy: Many argument rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas,
or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant
respects  the analogy is weak  the argument commits the fallacy of weak analogy.
e.g. Guns are like hammers – they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used
to kill someone.

6.2. The Red Herring Fallacy (đánh trống lảng): An arguer tries to sidetrack their
audiences by raising an irrelevant issue and then claims that the original issue has
effectively been settle by the irrelevant diversion.

6.3. The Strawman Fallacy: Occurring when your opponent over-simplified or

misrepresents your argument (i.e., setting up a ‘straw man’) to make it easier to attack or
refute.

6.4. The Ad Hominem/’At the Person’ Fallacy (Personal Attack): Rejecting someone’s
argument by attacking the person rather than evaluating their argument on its merits – The
argument is directed at the person making the claim, not the claim itself.
e.g. He is a priest, so of course, he has to say that abortion is wrong. That story
cannot be true. Tom supports it, and we know how morally repulsive he is.
6.5. Appeal to Authority: Relying upon the view of apparent (as opposed to genuine)
authorities to settle the truth of a statement or argument – Just because someone in a
position of power believes something to be true, doesn’t make it true.
e.g. Richard Long, a respected New Zealand newsreader featured in advertising
campaigns for Hanover Finance. Long has no financial expertise.

6.6. Post Hoc/ Causal fallacy: Post hoc is short for post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this,
therefore because of this”). This fallacy happens when you mistake something for the cause
just because it came first – superstition.

6.7. Appeal to Popularity/ Bandwagon Fallacy/ Sampling error: Arguing that a claim
must be true because lots of people believe it.
e.g. Three out of four people think X brand toothpaste cleans teeth best.

6.8. Appeal to Emotion/ Appeal to Pity: An arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or
compassion when such feelings are not logically relevant to the arguer’s conclusion.
e.g. Daughter: Can we get a puppy?
Father: No.
Daughter: If you love me, we’d get a puppy.

6.9. False Dilemma/ False Dichotomy: Occurring when a argument presents two options
and gives them impression that only one of them may be true, never both, and that there
are no other possible options.
e.g. Either this… or not…; Environment or Jobs

6.10. False Dilemma/ False Dichotomy: Arguers say that an innocent-looking first step
should not be taken because once taken, it will be impossible not to take the next, and the
next, and so on, until you end up in a position you don’t want to be in – bà n lù i.

6.11. Hasty Generalizations: Arguer draws a general conclusion from a sample that is
biased or too small – occurring when someone draws expansive conclusions based on
inadequate or insufficient evident.

Act 6.2.
1 – c. Hasty Generalization
2 – b. Appeal to Authority
3 – e. Slippery Slope
4 – a. Red Herring
5 – d. The Strawman Fallacy
Exercise
WEEK 2
Act 2.1.
a. Physical conditions affecting observation: bad lighting, lots of noise, the speed of events,
measurement
b. Mental states affecting observation: hope, fear, anger

Act 2.2
Good eye contact
Fluent speaking
Confident, convincing voice tone
Hand gesture: uncrossed arms
Body posture

Act 2.3
Confidence (or lack of it)
Fancy titles
Usage of jargon

Act 2.4
Act 2.5
Issue 1: Is Crixivan an effective HIV/AIDS medication? – d. the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration

Issue 2: Should possession of handgun be outlawed? – e. a U.S. senator

Issue 3: What was the original intent of The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
and does it include permission for every citizen to possess handgun? – e. the President of
the United States

WEEK 3
Act 3.1
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. Yes

Act 3.2
1. T
2. F
3. F
4. T

Act 3.3
1. (a) Since… it follows that
(b) Tuan studies regularly.
2. (a) … because…
(b) Sarah is a mother.
3. (a) …thus…
(b) All dogs are animals.
4. (a) Given that…, from the fact that…
(b) Kim is a politician.
5. (a) Provided that…, it follows that…
(b) Three is greater than one.
6. (a) Given that…, because…, it must be concluded that…
(b) No dogs are fish.

Act 3.4
1. Garfield is a cat.
2. Sue is an astronomer.
3. Bob is not a mammal.
4. Camila is logician.
5. The sign outside of our school said that it is ULIS.

Act 3.5.
Non-arguments: 1, 2, 5
Arguments: 3, 4

Act 3.6
1. 4 + 5 => 2 (+3) => 1
2. 3 => 2 (+ 4 + 5) => 1