TỔNG ÔN CRITICAL THINKING

No. Topic Chapter Exercises

1 Understand the process 1

of argument Ex. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.14, 1.16
development

2 2 kinds of reasoning 2 Ex. 2.1 – 2.17

3 Quality of reasoning: 3 Ex. 3.1-3.15

Clear thinking- Clarity,
ambiguity

4 Build credibility, using 4; 5 Ex. 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.12

evidence to support
claims in arguments. Ex. 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11,
Persuasion through 5.13, 5.15, 5.20
rhetoric 5.2; 5.5.

5 Identify and handle 6 Ex.6

fallacies, bias, emotion,
and propaganda:
Relevance Fallacies

6 Identify and handle 7 Ex.7

fallacies, bias, emotion,
and propaganda:
Induction Fallacies

7 Identify and handle 8 Ex. 8.1-8.4

fallacies: Formal
Fallacies and Fallacies
of language

8 Deductive argument 9; 10 Ex. 9.1-9.8; 9.13-9.19; 9.21, 9.24

Ex 10.1, 10.4, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10,
10.12, 10.14, 10.15, 10.16, 10.22
(Midterm test)

9 Inductive reasoning 11 Ex. 11.1, 11.2, 11.6, 11.10, 11.13,

11.14, 11.17, 11.20, 11.22, 11.23,
11.24, 11.26, 11.29, 11.33, 11.34,
11.38

TOPIC 1: UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENT DEVELOPMENT

1. Critical thinking involves three things: (1) claims, (2) issues, and (3) arguments.
(1) Claims are any statement of fact, belief, opinion, etc. For example:
● “You need to use an umbrella today.”
● “You should become a doctor.”
● “You can only be happy if you own a fancy new car or buy a nice pair of shoes”

- Objective claim vs. subjective claim: An objective claim is true or false regardless of
whether people think it is true or false. Claims that lack this property are said to be
subjective.
- “Fact vs. opinion”: People sometimes refer to true objective claims as “facts,” and use
the word “opinion” to designate any claim that is subjective.
- “Factual claim”: An objective claim. Saying that a claim is “factual” is not the same as
saying it is true. A factual claim is simply a claim whose truth does not depend on our
thinking it is true.
- Moral subjectivism: Moral subjectivism is the idea that moral judgments are subjective.
“There is nothing either good or bad but that thinking makes it so.”

(2) Issues: A question regarding the validity of a claim.

Example:
Claim: “You need to use an umbrella today.” or “You don’t need to use an umbrella today.”
=> Issue: Do I need to use an umbrella today?

(3) Arguments: A set of statements/claims providing reasons for believing that a claim is
true.
All arguments have 2 components:
● Premise (P): the reason for believing a claim is true.
● Conclusion (C): the answer to the issue.
For example:
Issue: Should you get a dog?
Claim: I should get a dog.
Argument: A dog would keep me company; so I should get one.
Premise => Conclusion

2. Cognitive bias: A feature of human psychology that skews belief formation. (Thiên kiến
nhận thức là sai sót có tính hệ thống trong nhận thức của một người, điều này sẽ ảnh hưởng
tới lựa chọn và phán đoán của họ.)
The ones discussed in this chapter include the following:
● Belief bias: Evaluating reasoning by how believable its conclusion is.
● Confirmation bias: A tendency to attach more weight to considerations that support
our views.
● Availability heuristic: Assigning a probability to an event based on how easily or
frequently it is thought of.
● False consensus effect: Assuming our opinions and those held by people around us
are shared by society at large.
● Bandwagon effect: The tendency to align our beliefs with those of other people.
● Negativity bias: Attaching more weight to negative information than to positive
information.
● Loss aversion: Being more strongly motivated to avoid a loss than to accrue a gain.
● In-group bias: A set of cognitive biases that make us view people who belong to our
group differently from people who don’t.
● Fundamental attribution error: Having one understanding of the behavior of people
in the in-group and another for people not in the in-group.
● Obedience to authority: A tendency to comply with instructions from an authority.
● Overconfidence effect: A cognitive bias that leads us to overestimate what
percentage of our answers on a subject are correct.
● Better-than-average illusion: A self-deception cognitive bias that leads us to
overestimate our own abilities relative to those of others.
 TOPIC 2: TWO KINDS OF REASONING

1. Indicators of premise, conclusion, deductive/inductive arguments

● Indicators of premise:
Since…
For…
In view of…
This is implied by…
● Indicators of conclusion:
Thus… Accordingly…
Consequently… This shows that …
Therefore… This implies that…
So… This suggests that…
Hence… This proves that…
● Indicators of deductive arguments:
- certainly it logically follows that
- definitely it is logical to conclude that
- absolutely this logically implies that
- conclusively this entails that
- it necessarily follows that
● Indicators of inductive arguments:
- probably one would expect that
- likely it is a good bet that
- it is plausible to suppose that chances are that
- it is reasonable to assume that odds are that

2. Two kinds of arguments: deductive and inductive.

A deductive argument is used to prove a claim, while an inductive argument is used to

support a claim.

● Deductive argument: is used to demonstrate or prove a conclusion, which it does

if it is sound.
- An argument is valid if the premises were true, the conclusion could not be false. Here is
the structure of a valid argument:

Example:
Premises: Jimmy Carter was president immediately before Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush
was president immediately after Bill Clinton. (Tức là: Jimmy Carter -> Bill Clinton ->
George W. Bush)

Conclusion: Jimmy Carter was president before George W. Bush.

=> As you can see, it’s impossible for these premises to be true and this conclusion to be
false. So the argument is valid.

Another examples of valid/invalid arguments:

- An argument is sound if it is valid and its premise (or premises) is true.

For example:
Premises: Bill Clinton is taller than George W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter is shorter than
George W. Bush. (Bill Clinton > George W. Bush > Jimmy Carter)

Conclusion: Therefore, Bill Clinton is taller than Jimmy Carter.

=> This argument is sound because it is valid and the premises are true. As you can see, if an
argument is sound, then its conclusion has been demonstrated.

● Inductive arguments: The premise of a good inductive argument doesn’t

demonstrate its conclusion; it supports it.

For example:

Premise: After 2 P.M. the traffic slows to a crawl on the Bay Bridge.

Conclusion: Therefore, it probably does the same thing on the Golden Gate Bridge.

=> The fact that traffic slows to a crawl after 2 P.M. on the Bay Bridge does not demonstrate
or prove that it does that on the Golden Gate Bridge; it supports that conclusion. It makes it
somewhat more likely that traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge slows to a crawl after 2 P.M.

- The more support the premise of an inductive argument provides for the conclusion, the
stronger the argument; the less support it provides, the weaker the argument.

For example:

Premise: After 2 P.M. the traffic slows to a crawl on the Bay Bridge.

Conclusion: Therefore, it probably does the same thing on the Golden Gate Bridge.

=> We can make this argument become stronger by saying in this way:

Premise: After 2 P.M. the traffic slows to a crawl on the Bay Bridge, the San Mateo Bridge,
the San Rafael Bridge, and the Dumbarton Bridge.

Conclusion: Therefore, it probably does the same thing on the Golden Gate Bridge.

=> This argument is stronger than the first argument because its premise makes the
conclusion more likely. The more bridges in a region on which traffic slows at a given time,
the more likely it is that that phenomenon is universal on the bridges in the region.

3. Unstated premise

Example 1:

Stated premise: The wind is from the south.

Unstated premise: Around here, a south wind is usually followed by rain.

Conclusion: There will be rain.

=> The unstated premise in the argument could have been a universal statement to the effect
that a south wind always is followed by rain at this particular location, in which case the
argument would be deductive.

Example 2:

“Flunk her! This is the second time you’ve caught her cheating.”

=> Analyze:

Stated premise: This is the second time you’ve caught her cheating.

Unstated premise: Anyone who has been caught cheating two times should be flunked.

Conclusion: She should be flunked.

4. What are not premises, conclusions, or arguments?

● Pictures
● If . . . then . . . Sentences
● Lists of Facts
● “A because B” (Example: “Mike is in his swimsuit because he was swimming.” =>
It’s not an argument due to what follows “because” in the sentence is the cause, not
the evidence.)

5. Ethos, Pathos, And Logos

There are three levels of beliefs: (1) ethos, (2) logos, and (3) pathos.

(1) Ethos: we can be persuaded by the speaker's personal attributes, including such things
as his or her background, reputation, accomplishments, expertise, and similar things.
(2) Logos: the speaker may persuade us by using information and arguments.
(3) Pathos: a speaker can persuade us by connecting with us on a personal level, and by
arousing and appealing to our emotions by a skillful use of rhetoric.
 TOPIC 3: QUALITY OF REASONING: CLEAR THINKING- CLARITY,
AMBIGUITY

1. Vagueness
EX: We will leave class earlier today. => The word “earlier'' here is not clear, not precise
enough because 5mins is also earlier. due to the unclear boundary of the word “earlier”,
people will have different assumptions or different interpretation of a word or a sentence =>
It creates VAGUENESS/ obscurity
- A term is vague if it has an imprecise boundary
- Vague terms can be useful in everyday life because often we do not have to be too
precise. How precise we should be depends of course on the context.
- Vagueness should be avoided when we want to speak precisely, as vagueness
decreases the informational content of a claim
For example, compare these sentences :
"He is quite old, actually exactly eighty years old."
"He is quite old, actually about eighty years old."
"He is quite old."
OR
"Is there going to be a lot of homework for this course?“
"Is the final exam going to be difficult?"
"We shall leave class earlier."
- Vague terms can make a claim vague and impossible to confirm or disprove.
Horoscope predictions for example : "Be prepared for a change of direction this week as
something crops up." - SCMP Sunday Post Magazine. => CHANGE CÁI GÌ, CÁI GÌ CROP
UP
"This piece of news is going to affect the market somewhat." => AFFECT DƯ NÀO
- One might try to use vagueness to one's advantage in order to be Non-committal or
imprecise.
"As a minister I agree that to some extent I am responsible." => responsible for what? are u
going to từ chức ?
"The government will deal with this problem in an appropriąte manner when the right time
comes." => what is the appropriate manner? When exactly is the right time ?
Chúng tôi kỳ vọng VNINDEX sẽ quay trở lại vùng ..... điếm trong phiên giao dịch kế tiếp.
Chiến lược là mua vào đi với những cổ phiếu trong tầm ngắm. => which stock?

2. Ambiguity
● Semantic / Lexical ambiguity
 - This is a single word or term having more than one meaning in the language.
Eg "What you have said is very deep.
Women can fish.
● Referential ambiguity
- It is not clear which thing or group is being referred to. This often arises when the
context does not make it clear what a pronoun or quantifier is referring to.
"Ally hit Georgia and then she started bleeding." => She là Ally hay Georgia
"Everybody is coming to the party." => everyone means the whole class or school or different
type of people
● Syntactic ambiguity
- This means having more than one meaning because there is more than one way to
interpret the grammatical structure
"We shall be discůssing violence on TV." => cái này có thể nhiều cách hiểu: vấn đề bạo lực
trên TV là nó trong những bộ phim hay là vấn đề bạo lực đc bàn luận trên 1 chương trình
TV….
“There is somebody in the bed next to me” => có 1 người nằm cạnh tôi trên giường hay có 1
người nằm trên cái giường cạnh tôi. cái cạnh tôi đó là người hay giường?
● Group ambiguity
- It is not clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group collectively or
individual.
"Police now are corrupted" => nói 1 vài police hay là tất cả
"Lawn mowers create more air pollution than dirt bikes do". => mình k biết đc số lượng của
lawn mowers là bn so với dirt bikes, nhớ nó nhiều hơn thì ô kê nó có thể tạo ô nhiễm nhiều
hơn, nma nhỡ ít hơn thì k chắc. để cái câu này clearer thì nên thêm lượng từ vào, ví dụ 1 cái
máy cắt cỏ tạo ô nhiễm nhiều hơn 1 cái xe máy.

3. Generality
The word “dog” is more general than “Husky”, The word “Husky” is more general than “the
blue-eyed Husky”
The word “rau cải” is more general than “rau cải thìa”
BÀI TẬP
What are the ways in which these examples are ambiguous?
For sale - an antique table suitable for lady with thick legs. => Syntactic ambiguity ( cô gái có
đôi chân to hay cái bàn có chân to? )
For sale - ten puppies from an Australian terrier and a Boston terrier. => Syntactic ambiguity
( bn con chó đang on sale? )
He left the bomb fifty yards to the right of the car in front of the house. => Syntactic
ambiguity
Mary loves Peter and Paul and Susan loves him too. => Referential ambiguity
It is not advisable to take aspirin and alcohol after a meal.
To travel in Canada, you will need a birth certificate or dl and other photo id
A. Vagueness
B. Syntactic ambiguity
C. Semantic ambiguity
D. Grouping ambiguity

* Ngoài lề: khi viết bài writing or debate, nếu muốn làm rõ chính kiến của mình thì nên dùng
rhetorical definition, nó sẽ mang tính chất persuade nhiều hơn là 1 giải thích chính xác cái
thuật ngữ đấy nghĩa là gì
Ví dụ: Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to
have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability.
 TOPIC 4: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC

Rhetorical Devices: putting a positive or negative slant to definitions,

explanations,analogies, or comparisons in order to persuade someone.

1. Rhetorical Definitions
- Definitions are aimed at proving the meaning of a word for proper usage.
- Rhetorical definitions provide a meaning that also contains emotional meaning so that the
meaning of the word (and what it stands for) has a positive or negative slant.
(EXAMPLES: "You want to know what _____ mean? I'll tell you what ___ means.", Asked
what "conservative" means, a person points to white-power neo-nazi skinhead and says "That
right there is what 'conservative' means.",

2. Rhetorical Explanations
- Explanations aim at describing some concept, relation, system, event, or process so that a
deeper understanding can be achieved. Rhetorical explanations are ones that are laced with
rhetorical devices so that the concept, relation, system, event, or process being explained
takes on a positive or negative slant.

3. Rhetorical Analogies
- Analogies are often used to help in explaining something by likening it to something else,
usually something that is familiar. Rhetorical analogies will liken one thing to something else
that evokes positive or negative feelings, thereby putting the first thing in a positive or
negative light. (EXAMPLES: -You know, you're very much like Hitler. Just like you, he was
a vegetarian and was always faithful to his lover and wife, Eva Braun.)

4. Misleading Comparisons
- These work by providing you with a comparison that aims at leading you to believe
something. Unlike rhetorical analogies, they do not say that one thing is like another thing,
but rather compare two things in a way that presents one as better than the other, leading you
to form a belief that is not substantiated by the comparison. Strategy of misleading
comparisons: they make vague comparisons; leave out important information; apply different
standards in the comparison, and compare things that really can't be compared.
(EXAMPLES: "Smoking 'light' cigarettes is better for you than smoking regular cigarettes.";
"Drinking fruit juice is better for you than drinking gasoline.")

List of Rhetorical devices (13)

No. Name of device Definition Example

1 Euphemism (Nói giảm Words or phrases that are substituted for “Used cars” => “pre-
nói tránh) other words or phrases to put what is owned vehicles”
being discussed in a more positive or
negative light. (1)“The government faces
 (Các từ hoặc cụm từ được thay thế cho
các từ hoặc cụm từ khác để đưa nội dung
đang được thảo luận theo hướng tích cực
hoặc tiêu cực hơn.)
Euphemism: A neutral or positive
expression used instead of one that
carries negative associations.
2 Dysphemism (Nói quá Dysphemism: A negative expression
- mang lại ấn tượng used instead of one that carries positive
tiêu cực) associations.
Xem VD (1), (2) để hiểu rõ hơn nhé.
3 Hyperbole (Cường - Hyperbole is purposely extravagant
điệu) overstatement, or exaggeration to an
extreme.
- It is used for emphasis or as a way of
making a description more creative and
humorous. The audience knows it’s an
exaggeration, so it shouldn’t be taken
literally.
(Cường điệu là nói quá hoặc phóng đại
có chủ đích, nhằm nhấn mạnh hoặc để
diễn đạt vấn đề một cách thú vị và hài
hước hơn.)
4 Proof-surrogate (Bằng An expression used to suggest that there is
chứng thay thế) evidence for a claim without actually
citing any evidence.
(Một cách diễn đạt được sử dụng để đề
cập việc có bằng chứng cho tuyên
bố/phát ngôn của bản thân nhưng thực tế
lại không trích dẫn bất kỳ bằng chứng
nào.)
5 Rhetorical analogy - Comparing one thing to another in order
(Phép tương tự) to convey a particular feeling (either
negative or positive).
- This often comes in the form of a simile
or metaphor.
(- So sánh điều này với điều khác để
truyền đạt một cảm giác cụ thể đến người
resistance from an
organized group of
freedom fighters.”
("Chính phủ phải đối mặt
với sự phản kháng từ một
nhóm đấu tranh tự do có
tổ chức.")
“Music” => “noise”
(2)“The government is
valiantly combating
resistance from
terrorists.” ("Chính phủ
đang dũng cảm chống lại
sự kháng cự từ những kẻ
khủng bố.")
- If people want to express
their love to someone, they
can say “I love you to the
moon and back”.
- My dad is a total Hitler.
He never lets me stay out
past 10 on weeknights.
“Scientists have known
that aliens exist for years
now.”
=> Which scientist? What
research did you base on?
“Theresa’s sense of humor
is as dry as
the Sahara.”
“The American
revolutionaries used tactics
similar to those employed
 nghe (tiêu cực hoặc tích cực). by the Viet Cong.”
- Điều này thường xuất hiện dưới hình
thức ví von hoặc ẩn dụ.

6 Rhetorical definition Language to express or elicit an attitude “Religion - the opiate of

about something the people”
(Ngôn ngữ để thể hiện hoặc gợi ra một
thái độ về điều gì đó)

7 Rhetorical explanation An explanation that conveys a strong Franklin stayed in France

attitude or feeling because of the diction throughout the revolution
used. because he was a
(Dấu hiệu nhận biết của phép tu từ này là celebrity there.
câu có từ “because”)
Notre Dame lost to USC
this weekend because they
played like my little
brother’s peewee team.

8 Ridicule (Châm
biếm/Chế giễu)
An attempt to weaken a claim or
undermine credibility by making an idea
or person appear ridiculous.
(Cố gắng làm suy yếu một lời tuyên bố/
khẳng định bằng cách diễn đạt nó thành
một ý tưởng lố bịch.)
“You don’t like how the
PATRIOT Act expands
police powers? How
about the next time you
need help, try calling a
hippie.” (Bạn không thích
cách Đạo luật PATRIOT
mở rộng quyền hạn của
cảnh sát? Nếu thế thì lần
sau khi bạn cần trợ giúp,
hãy thử gọi một cô gái
hippie.)

9 Innuendo (Lời nói A claim that makes an implicit Student Y? Yes, I

bóng gió/ ngụ ý) suggestion. remember her. She
(Đưa ra lời đề xuất ngầm, lời khen hời hợt satisfied the minimum
khiến cho người nghe có những ấn tượng requirements of the course.
tiêu cực)

10 Downplayer A word, phrase, or punctuation used to “I wouldn’t invite Jimmy

make someone or something look less
significant or subtly diminishes a concept
or weakens a claim.
(Một từ, mệnh đề hoặc dấu câu được sử
dụng để làm cho ai đó, một cái gì đó trở
nên kém quan trọng hơn hoặc làm giảm
đi tính chính xác của khái niệm hoặc
làm suy yếu một lời khẳng định)
to drum for the band—he’s
barely been playing for
two years.”
Today’s “patriots” are just
looking for a way to make
a quick buck in Iraq.
(“Những người yêu nước”
ngày nay chỉ đang tìm
cách kiếm tiền nhanh
 chóng ở Iraq.)

11 Weaseler A word or phrase that deceptively Save up to 40% (when

weakens a claim by making a strong claim typical savings will be
and then they take back the claim to some less)
extent.
(Một từ/ cụm từ được sử dụng để làm suy“Using our hair treatment
yếu/ tạo lỗ hổng một lời tuyên bố nào đó.
may leave
your hair healthier and
Các nhãn hàng hay áp dụng phương pháp shinier!”
này để quảng cáo cho sản phẩm của mình
bằng cách đưa ra những lời cam đoan
hiệu quả của sản phẩm theo cách “nước
đôi” và có phần “lươn lẹo” :))

12 Stereotype (Khuôn A thought or image about a group of “The mind of a political

mẫu) people based on little or no evidence. liberal is full of holes and
their soul is without moral
fibre.” (Tâm trí của một
nhà tự do chính trị đầy lỗ
hổng và tâm hồn của họ
không có một chút đạo đức
nào.)

“I wouldn’t expect
anything different from a
philosopher.”

13 Loaded question (Câu A question about a dilemma, which
hỏi tải - nhét chữ vào makes people answering it have to accept
miệng) a hostile, or unjustified assumption.
(Một câu hỏi về một tình huống tiến thoái
lưỡng nan, khiến những người trả lời câu
hỏi đó phải chấp nhận một giả định thù
địch hoặc phi lý. Đơn giản hơn, nó chính
là các cách hỏi lửng, bỏ nhỏ sau lưng để
gièm pha nhau nơi công sở, ngoài xã
hội...)
“Are you still abusing
illegal drugs?” (Bạn vẫn
lạm dụng thuốc bất hợp
pháp?
=> Câu này trả lời có thì
không ổn mà trả lời không
thì lại ngầm thừa nhận
mình từng dùng thuốc bất
hợp pháp trong quá khứ)
 TOPIC 5: RED-HERRING FALLACIES
● Red-herring fallacies (relevance fallacy) = The premise not relevant to the issue in the
question.
● Some common ones:

Types Definition Example

1. Argument ad ● Most common

hominem ● Dismiss sb’s position
(Ngụy biện hạ (opinion, idea, claim….) by
bệ cá nhân) dismissing that person.

Six types:
*) Inconsistency ad hominem:
Argument that dismisses the source’s
position due to the source’s alleged
hypocrisy or inconsistency. (Bác bỏ
quan điểm của người khác vì cho
rằng họ không nhất quán trong lời
nói và hành động).
*) Inconsistency ad hominem:
Don’t listen to her saying against
abortion. I happen to know that she
had three abortions herself.
=> quan điểm và hành động của cô
ta về việc phá thai k đồng nhất với
nhau.

*) Abusive/personal attack ad *) Abusive/personal attack ad

hominem: When you abuse a person hominem:
or use invectives to attack his/her Look at that face. Would anyone
argument. vote for that? Can you imagine
that, the face of our next president?

=> Donald Trumps đã sử dụng

những từ xúc phạm đến đối thủ
(irrelevant arguments) để kêu gọi
dân bầu cử cho mình.

*) Guilt by Association ad
hominem: associate (=dismiss) the
person with something - mostly
negative.
*) Guilt by Association ad
hominem:
Christa is thinking about becoming
a vegetarian. Then she learns that
many mass murderers were also
vegetarians. So, she keeps eating
meat.
=> đánh đồng rằng vegetarians =
mass murders nên đã từ bỏ trở
thành ng ăn chay.

Laura is the class president. She

believes that the class should

*) Circumstantial ad hominem:
when you attack a person’s situation
or circumstances that might have
motivated the argument. (dựa vào
hoàn cảnh/khía cạnh nào đó để ám
chỉ người ta).
*) Poisoning the Well: Dismiss
what sb is going to say by talking
about the person’s consistency /
circumstances. (Hạ bệ những lời
ngta chuẩn bị nói bằng cách nhận
xét về tính cách hoặc một điều gì đó
lquan/có ảnh hưởng đến họ).
*) Genetic Fallacy: argue that the
origin of a contention in & of itself
automatically renders its false. (kiểu
như: thông tin từ chỗ A, chỗ A là một
nguồn tin k đáng tin cậy, nên thông
tin đó sai).
2. Straw Man ● Bóp méo luận điểm của đối
(Ngụy biện bù phương, chỉ trích luận điểm
nhìn rơm). bị bóp méo đó => giành lợi
thế cho mình (disort,
mispresent).
● Khác vs:
sponsor a dance as a fundraiser.
Then she learns that a group of
girls that she doesn't like also
support the idea of a dance as a
fundraiser. So, Laura changes her
mind and decides that the class
should plan a race instead.
*) Circumstantial ad hominem:
*) Poisoning the Well:
Your friend tells you that her
brother wants to date you, but she
says that he is a player and never
keeps a girlfriend for very long.
Now, when you meet him, your
opinion will be tainted.
=> Bạn bị ảnh hưởng bởi niềm tin
rằng anh ta là playboy (vì bạn của
bạn nói vậy).
*) Genetic Fallacy:
Where did you get the news? From
the talk radio? (thông tin không
chính xác vì đài radio đưa ttin k
đáng tin).
God is just an idea of people
before the existence of science.
(phủ nhận sự tồn tại của Chúa vì
Chúa chỉ từ trí tưởng tượng của
con người).
Pamela is the class secretary. She
says that she thinks that the class
should do more service projects.
Mark says he can't believe that
Pamela doesn't support the annual
school dance.
=>Mark đã bóp méo quan điểm
 - Ad hominem = đề cập trực của Pamela.
tiếp đối phương (irrelevant
arguments). Biology teacher taught evolution
by stating that all things evolve.
Student says she just can't accept
that humans came from bugs.
=> Hiểu sai lời giảng của GV và
cho rằng GV k đúng 😃

False Dilemma ● Ignoring other alternative
(song đề sai) ● Lỗi lập luận: A xảy ra hoặc B
xảy ra thì có thể suy ra A sai
thì B đúng.
Hắn làm việc xấu như vậy hắn
không thể là người tốt được. Hắn
là một người xấu.
=> A: “Hắn là một người tốt” hoặc
B: “Hắn là một người xấu”.

TWO TYPES:
*) The Perfectionist Fallacy: *) The Perfectionist Fallacy:
Perfection OR nothing. He is against using vaccines in
children because they deem that
vaccines are not 100% effective.
=> He doesn’t think vaccines are a
perfect choice -> shouldn’t do
anything until find new solutions.

*) The Line Drawing Fallacy: If *)The Line Drawing Fallacy:

there’s no line between A & not-A, There shouldn’t be restrictions on
there’s no real difference between violence in films. After all, when
these. will the film become “violent”?
You can’t draw a line.

Misplacing the ● Bắt đối phương phải chứng
burden of proof minh bằng được lời nói của
mình là sai, nếu không chứng
minh được thì coi như mình
đúng.
Marketer: Our new diet pills are
guaranteed to help you lose
weight.
Interviewer: Are they safe
though?
Marketer: Do you have any
evidence to suggest that they’re
not?
=> Ng tiếp thị là người phải chứng
minh tdung của thuốc giảm cân để
thuyết phục khách hàng.

=> Marketer shifted the burden of

proof to the customers - which is a
fallacy.

Appeal to *) Argument from Outrage: *) Argument from Outrage:

Emotion Invoking anger with inflammatory
words followed by a conclusion. Are you tired of being ignored by

*) Scare Tactics: evoke sb’s feelings *) Scare Tactics:
(scared) to accept an irrelevant “Brother told his younger sis: This
conclusion.
*) Appeal to Pity/Envy/Jealousy/
Fear: highlight remarks design to
raise up your feelings -> persuade
you to agree with the conclusion.
*) Other kinds invoking emotions:
● Apple Polishing (= Appeal
to Flattery): Nịnh nọt để
thuyết phục ng khác.
● Appeal to Guilty (= Guilt
Tripping)
● Wishful Thinking
● Appeal to Force (một dạng
khác của Scare Tactics,
nhưng theo kiểu uy hiếp).
● Peer Pressure: Rejection st
if they dont accept the claim.
(Extra, k qtrong lắm)
● Group Think: Vì đa phần họ tạo áp lực để ngta theo ý mình).
nghĩ vậy nên sự thật là vậy.
● Nationalism: one may be led
to blind endorsement of
policy or claim.
*) Other kinds similar to the
your government? Is it right that
the top 1% have so much when the
rest of us have so little? I urge you
to vote for me today!
=> no claim was made linking
your vote with the problems going
away. The politician simply raised
your bother to hold the politician
position for a promise she really
never made.
candy bar contains peanuts.
If you eat it, you will die.”
=> The brother’s words scared the
younger ones; hence, she won’t eat
the candy bar.
*) Appeal to Emotions:
Commercials that show starving
children in Africa before asking for
donations to feed them. (raise the
feeling of pity for African children
-> people donate for them).
I just don’t like her because she’s
too perfect. Don’t everyone have a
weak point? (feeling jealous as
she’s perfect -> persuade the other
to hate her for the same reason.)
I know in my heart of hearts that
our home team will win the World
series. (Wishful Thinking.)
Do it otherwise you are such a
coward. (Peer pressure Fallacy ->
 invoking emotions (đánh dấu vàng
= tham khảo):
● Smoke screen/Red herring:
Irrelevant topic introduced to
lead away from original
topic.
● Rationalizing: False pretext
to satisfy sb’s feelings.
● Subjectivism: An
assumption true for sb but not
true for the others.
● Tradition: Use tradition as
the basis of claim.
● Relativism: không đúng vs
tôi nên nó sai.

Begging the Trying to support a contention by Tôi tư duy nên tôi tồn tại”.
Question (lập offering as “evidence” what amounts => Sự lòng vòng nằm ở chỗ, nếu
luận vòng to a repackaging of the original tôi không tồn tại, thì sao tôi lại tư
quanh) contention. duy được?
● Luận điểm và luận cứ tạo sự
lòng vòng với nhau.

Irrelevant ● = Relevant fallacy.

conclusion ● Conclusions don't fit with the
above categories.
- 2 wrong make 1 right: A
làm việc X với B => B cũng
có thể làm điều X với A
(X=việc làm xấu).
- Wishful thinking and
Denial
 TOPIC 6: INDUCTION FALLACIES

1. Generalizations
● Generalizing from Too Few Cases (Hasty Generalization)
Definition: Arriving at a general statement or rule by citing too few supporting cases is the
fallacy known as Generalizing from Too Few Cases (Hasty Generalization)
The weak support is called a lonely fact.
→ A very appropriate alternative name for the fallacy of hasty generalization is the
Fallacy of the Lonely Fact.
One version of hasty generalization is known as the Argument by Anecdote.
- An Anecdote is a story
- When a speaker or writer tries to support a general claim by offering a story, he
commits this fallacy.
- Example: Did you read where John Travolta flew his plane into LAX and parked it
on the tarmac - right out there in everyone’s way? That’s the trouble with these
Hollywood actors. They don’t care about anyone but themselves.
→ Lấy ví dụ 1 câu chuyện/sự việc để đánh đồng.

The fallacy of hasty generalization that frequently occurs when someone tries to derive a
statement about all or most members of a population from a statement about a tiny sample of
the population is sometimes called the Fallacy of Small Sample.
Example: People who live in Cincinnati have no idea where Akron is. I didn’t, when I lived
in Cincinnati.
→ Lấy thiểu số để làm luận cứ suy ra kết luận của đa số.

● Generalization From an Exceptional Case

Definition: Arriving at a general statement or rule by citing an atypical supporting case is the
fallacy known as Generalizing from Exceptional Cases.
Example: Animals will live longer if they are on a calorie-restricted diet. This has been
shown in experiments with rats.
Bill Gates dropped out of college and he was still successful. So why do I need to go to
college?
→ Dựa vào trường hợp đặc biệt để đánh đồng.

2. Weak analogy

Definition: The fallacy known as Weak Analogy (sometimes called False Analogy) is a weak
argument based on debatable or unimportant similarities between two or more things.

This fallacy generally follows the pattern:

● A has characteristics w, x, y, and z.
● B has characteristics w, x, and y.
 ● Therefore, B probably has characteristic z, too.
● But characteristics w, x, and y are not relevant to z or
● A and B have differences relevant to z which are ignored by the arguer.

Example: My mom is just like Adolf Hilter. I doubt she will let me go out with you guys.

In the wild, wolves eat nothing but raw meat. Therefore, we should feed our dog nothing but
raw meat.
3. Mistaken Appeal to Authority

Definition: A speaker or writer commits the Mistaken Appeal to Authority when he or she
tries to support a contention by offering as evidence the opinion of a non authoritative source.

Example: My father thinks the president lied. Therefore, the president lied.

My doctor thinks my car has leaking valves. Therefore, my car has leaking valves.

4. Mistaken to Popularity

Definition: The fallacy known as Mistaken Appeal to Popularity (sometimes called

Mistaken Appeal to Common Belief) happens when a speaker or writer treats an issue that
cannot be settled by public opinion as if it can.

Example: Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!

Hondas get great gas mileage. Everyone knows that.

5. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (=After this, therefore because of it)

Definition: A speaker or writer commits this fallacy when he or she assumes that the fact that
one event came after another establishes that it was caused by the other.

Example: Every day the sun comes up right after the rooster crows; therefore, the rooster
causes the sun to come up.

After you drove my car, it was hard to start. Therefore, it was something you did that made
my car hard to start.

→ Sau khi sự kiện 1 xảy ra thì sự kiện 2 xảy ra nên sự kiện 2 xảy ra là do sự kiện 1.

Special cases:

● Overlooking the Possibility of Coincidence

Example: After Susan threw out the chain letter, she was in an automobile accident.
Therefore, throwing out the chain letter caused her to get in an automobile accident.

● Overlooking a Possible Common Cause

Example: I left the lights on when I went to bed. Next morning I woke up with a headache.
Therefore, leaving the lights on caused the headache.

● Overlooking the Possibility of Random Variation

Example: In our tests, we asked randomly selected men to drive a golf ball as far as they
could. We then had them wear our magnetic bracelet and try again. On the second occasion,
the men hit ball an average of ten feet further. Our bracelet can lengthen your drive as well.

● Overlooking the Possibility of Regression

Example: The girls shot well below their average on Monday, so I made them do 50 sets of
pushups. Guess what? Their average was much better on Tuesday. Pushups did the trick.

6. Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (=With this, therefore because of it)

Definition: A speaker or writer commits this fallacy when he or she assumes that the fact that
2 events happen at about the same time establishes that one caused the other.

Example: John had a heart attack while he was saying a prayer. Therefore, the prayer caused
the heart attack.

Children with long hair are better spellers than children with short hair. Therefore, having
long hair makes a child a better speller.

→ Khi có sự việc 1 thì có sự viện 2 nên sự kiện 2 chỉ có khi có sự việc 1.

Special cases:

● Overlooking the Possibility of Coincidence

Example: I got cancer when I lived under a high-voltage power line. Therefore, the high-
voltage power line caused my cancer.

● Overlooking a Possible Common Cause

Example: Chimney fires and long underwear purchases increase in frequency at the very
same time. Therefore, chimney fires cause people to buy long underwear.

● Overlooking the Possibility of Reverse Causation

Example: People who walk long distances enjoy good health. Therefore, walking long
distances will make you healthy.

7. Slippery slope

Definition: The Slippery Slope fallacy is an argument that rests on an unsupported warning
that is controversial and tendentious, to the effect that something will progress by degrees to
an undesirable outcome.

Example: We should not require gun owners to carry liability insurance, because if we do
that, before long they will repeal the Second Amendment.

Raising the Pentagon’s budget by 5 percent this year will just lead to a continuous 5%
increase. In twenty years, the whole budget will go to the military!

→ Nói quá, vẽ ra viễn cảnh xấu để thuyết phục người khác.

8. Untestable Explanation
Definition: When someone offers an explanation that could not be tested even in principle,
he or she is said to commit the fallacy of Untestable Explanation.

Example: He has heart issues because of sins done in a previous life.

My father died at a young age. God’s will.

→ Sử dụng bằng chứng không thể xác thực để thuyết phục người khác.
 TOPIC 8: DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
There are four types of claims: A- ('all ... are ...') ,, I- ('some ... are ...'), E- ('no ... are ...'), and
O- ('some ... are not ... 'claims. These claims can be described by means of Venn diagrams.
The A and I claims are called confirmatory claims. The E and O claims are called negative
claims.
Claims used in daily life can be transformed into A, E, I and O claims based on specific rules
of thumb.
The square of opposition shows the relationships between different types of claims. With the
help of the square of opposition we can often read the truth values of the claims
Conversion, obversion and contraposition are categorical techniques that can be used to
transform claims.
Categorical syllogisms are standardized deductive arguments. We can test their validity on
the basis of Venn diagrams or on the basis of three rules. The three rules are based on
affirmative and negative claims and on distribution.

Deductive reasoning II - CH.10

There are four types of truth tables: conjunction, negation, conditional, and disjunction.
A table gives us a "truth-functional analysis" of the original claim. It displays the truth values
of a general claim based on the truth values of smaller parts of the claim.
The main purpose here is to produce a claim that is similar to the original claim, but where
the truth-functional structure is represented.
We can determine whether an argument is valid based on a truth table. This can be done, for
example, by deduction.
Deduction is a useful means of proving, in particular, that an argument is valid instead of an
argument being invalid.

A-claim E-claim I-claim O-claim

All S are P No S are P Some S are P Some S are not P

Affirmative Negative Affirmative Negative

*Translating claims which the word “only” and “the only” occurs

Original: Only sophomores are eligible candidates

Translation: All eligible candidates are sophomores

Original: The only people admitted are people over twenty-one

Translation: All people admitted are people over twenty-one

*Translating claims about times and places

Original: I always get nervous when I take logic exams

Translation: All times I take logic exam are times I get nervous

*Translating claims about specific individuals

Original: Aristotle is a logician

Translation: All people identical with Aristotle are logicians

*Translating claims that use mass nouns

Original: Most boiled okra is too ugly to eat

Translation: Some examples of boiled okra are things that are too ugly to eat

Note: Một số TRƯỜNG HỢP cần lưu ý

Words/Structure Dạng được xếp vào

When/whenever đứng trước 1 cụm nào đó Coi là S

The only S is P

Whenever S are P A-claim: All S are P

Wherever S are P

The only P are S

Khi nói về specific individual E-claim hoặc A-claim

Not all S are P O-claim

Sau S+all it take là P A-claim

Photo trang 253( the square of opposition) trang 257,258 (Immediate inferences of Venn
diagram), trang 289
 TOPIC 9: INDUCTIVE REASONING

1. Argument from analogy

- Analogy: comparison of things based on similarities
- Argument from analogy: an argument that suggests that the presence of certain
similarities is evidence for further similarities.
- Common form:
X and Y both have properties p, q, r (and so forth)
X has feature F
-> Therefore, Y has feature F
Example:

Example 1: Bill is a Democrat.Therefore, his brother Sam is a Democrat.

- Analogues: Bill and Sam
- The conclusion-analogue (Sam) is argued to have the attribute of interest (being a
Democrat) because the premise-analogue (Bill) is said to have it.
Example 2: Saccharin causes cancer in rats, and rats are like humans, biologically speaking.
So saccharin causes cancer in humans, too.
- Premise an: rats
- Conclusion an: human
- Attribute of interest: saccharin causing cancer
- Similarities: biological similarities

2. Inductive generalizing (arguing from the specific (sample) to the general

(population)).

- Generalization: statement made about all or most members of a group

- Inductive generalization: inductive argument that relies on characteristics of a sample
(a portion of the population) to make a claim about the population as a whole → dựa
 vào các đặc điểm của mẫu (một phần dân số) để đưa ra khẳng định về tổng thể
- Form:
Such and such percent of observed Xs are Yz
Therefore the relevant percentage of all Xs are Ys
Example: Some students in my class are interested in virtual internship. It could be
concluded that 3 AEP students tend to like virtual internship.
-> Hasty generalization
I’ve asked 120 3rd year students from different majors/classes, and all of them are…
- Specific: sample (120 students)
- Population: 3rd year AEP students (400 students)
85% of the who are surveyed are interested in …
Example 1
80% of surveyed BA students like to learn Chinese as second foreign languages.
Therefore, most of BA students like to learn Chinese as second foreign languages.
Example 2:
I like all the subjects I’ve learnt so far.
Therefore, I will like all of this program’s subjects.

3. The statistical syllogism (from general to specific)

- Statistical argument: take generalization and draw conclusion about a smaller

samples of the population (usually individuals)
- Form
Most Xs are Ys
This is an Xs
Therefore, this is a Y
(The strength of the argument depends on the percentage of Xs that are Ys)
Example
Most BA students are critical.
Linh is a member of BA class.
Therefore, Linh is critical.

4. Causal statements and their support

An argument: is intended to support or demonstrate a contention.
A causal statement: sets forth the cause of some event.
Example:
- This is an argument: The toilet is leaking because the floor is wet
- This is a causal statement: The floor is wet because the toilet is leaking.

5. Forming Causal Hypotheses

A causal hypothesis: is a tentative claim - a statement offered for further investigation or
testing.
- Paired Unusual Events Principle: If something unusual happens, look for something
else unusual that has happened and consider whether it might be the cause.
- Common Variable Principle: A variable common to multiple occurrences of
something may be related to it causally.
- Covariation Principle: When a variation in one phenomenon is accompanied by a
variation in another phenomenon, we have a covariation or correlation, these being
the same for our purposes.