Critical Thinking in Management

Developing/Constructing Arguments
 Recognising
Constructing Arguments
Arguments:
Constructing
Inference & Arguments
identifiers
Decide, Explain,
Predict, Persuade
Distinguishing Forms of
Arguments: ARGUMENT:

Statements/Claims: A form of thinking in

which certain reasons
•Definition are offered to support a
•Universal conclusion.
•Qualified & Specific Evaluating
•Verification, Evaluation & Arguments
Advocacy
Truth, Validity,
•Premises, Conclusions & Soundness
Support
Fallacious
•Deductive & Inductive Appeals
Reasoning
 Assignments

• You will be required to write in certain genres & use

the conventions of that genre: essays, reports, reviews,
discussion papers
• You will present information, discussions etc through
presentations also.

 Essay techniques
 Critical thinking

These will require that you develop “Arguments”

 Definition of an “Argument”
An argument is a series of statements used
to persuade someone of something. That
“something” is call the conclusion or main
claim/point.

• Premises (reasons): are statements that directly

support the conclusion.
• A simple argument has two premises and a
conclusion.
• In an argument, the conclusion is only supported
by its premises.
 Distinguishing Forms of Arguments:
Statements or Claims
• For the purposes of critical thinking, all sentences can be
divided into those that can be true or false, and those that
cannot.
• Sentences that can be true or false are called statements or
claims.
– Three categories of statements:
1. Whether the statements are verifiable, evaluative or
advocatory claims
2. Whether they are specific or , if non-specific, whether the
qualification strengthens or weakens the claim
3. Whether they serve as conclusions, premises or support in an
argument.
 (2) Qualified & Specific Statements (i)
• Specific claims or statements contain or imply language
or figures of an exact nature:
– 45% of the people surveyed supported the reforms
– One third of the investment has been lost
– This marked the first time that India successfully orbited a satellite

• Such statistical statements are powerful & persuasive

expressions in an argument, but they are also easy to attack,
because a single example to the contrary is sufficient to refute
them.

• The most common specific statements are universal ones, in

which the figure involved is either 100% or 0% usually
expressed by words. E.g. always, never, all, non, everyone, no
one.
 (2) Qualified & Specific Statements (ii)

• Non-Specific or Qualified Statements are ones in which no specific

number is cited:
– 49% of those casting ballots voted for Blair
– Approximately 49% of those casting ballots voted for Blair
– More than 49% of those casting ballots voted for Blair
– Less than half of those casting ballots voted for Blair
– Blair received more votes than did Hague

• Only the first example is a “specific” statement/claim.

• All the rest use “qualifiers” e.g. approximately, more than, less than
etc.
– Using “approximately” makes the statement weaker, but harder to
disprove/attack
– Comparative “qualifiers” are often harder to disprove than specific claims,
and can be effective when used in an argument.
 (1) Statements of Verification, Evaluation
& Advocacy (1)
• Fact & Opinion: In critical thinking the difference between
what are commonly known as “fact” & “opinion” is not
great. Both “facts” and “opinions” can be used to support
arguments & sometimes strong “expert” opinions can
outweigh weak or inconsistent “facts”.

• Verification & Evaluation: A more important distinction

for critical thinking is between claims that are thought to be
verifiable, & those that are presented as evaluative.
– Verifiable?= confirmed by observation or by reference to
established sources (books).
– Evaluation?= statements of taste/preference & interpretation.
– Note: Opinions can be expressed sometimes as statements of
verification & sometimes as statements of evaluation.
 Example
Consider the following claims:
1. John thinks that’s a shade of blue
2. John thinks that’s a lovely shade of blue
3. That’s a shade of blue
4. That is a lovely shade of blue

• 1 & 2 are opinions, expressed as statements of

verification (issue is whether that is what John thinks,
not what colour it is)
• 3 is a statement of verification (we can observe &
ascertain whether it is blue)
• 4 is a statement of evaluation (what is “lovely” is a
matter of taste)
– All 4 statements could well be false however. It could be red!
 Statements of Verification, Evaluation &
Advocacy (2)

• Advocatory claims: are a little different from

verifiable or evaluative claims.

– Advocatory = describes what ought to have been or to

be. E.g. “Gordon Brown should be a good man”
• Usually used for statements about morality, ethics, duty etc.
– Verifiable & evaluative = discusses what is, was or will
be. E.g. “Nelson Mandela is a free man” & “Nelson
Mandela is a good man” are verifiable and evaluative
statements respectively.
 Why Categorise Statements? (3)
The point of categorizing statements is to understand better
the arguments in which they appear. We have already seen
that specific claims are the most persuasive, but also the most
easily refuted.

Correctly identify such statements helps to indicate what needs

to be done to attack and defend an argument.

Knowing if a statement is one of verification, evaluation, or

advocacy helps ensure a consistency of argument, because if
the conclusion is a statement of verification, it must be
supported by at least one premise that is a verifiable claim; and
so too with conclusions of evaluation and advocacy.
 (3) Premises, Conclusions and Support
An argument is a series of statements used to persuade
someone of something. That “something” is call the
conclusion or main claim/point.

• Premises are statements that directly support the conclusion.

• In an argument, the conclusion must be supported by at
least one premise that is verifiable

– Each premise can be supported therefore, in these ways:

• Supporting arguments – one which has at its conclusion the statement as the
premise being supported.
• Assumptions – self-evident sets of beliefs
• Evidence – statistical studies, historical information, physical evidence,
observations, experiments, theoretical laws.
• Authority – Judgement of others: scientific, medical, scholarly, religious.

– Hierarchy of support or evidence -

 Inductive & Deductive Reasoning

• Two basic kinds of argument

– Inductive – moving from the specific to the general and where
arguments are based on experience or observation
– Deductive – moving from the general to the specific and based on laws,
rules or other widely accepted principles.

• These principles are applicable to Research Methodology and the

development of your research strategy

• The appropriate selection of an inductive or deductive format is the first step

towards sound argumentation.

• Each form of argument will require different sorts of support.

– E.g. Inductive – observation methodology & detailed observations
– E.g. Deductive – observation has been supported by reference to the law of
gravity. It could be further supported by further discussion of Newton’s Law,
even though he may never see another ball kicked.
 Identifiers for Analysing Arguments
Premise (Reasons)
Identifiers:
Since
For
Because
As shown/indicated by
In view of
First, second/place
May be inferred/deduced from
Given/assuming that
For the reason that
May be derived from
Signalling Conclusions:
Thus, then, therefore, hence
Thereby showing
(Which) shows that
(Which) proves that
Points to
Implies that
As a result/Consequently
Suggests strongly
We can conclude that
Demonstrates that
Allows us to infer that
 Evaluating Arguments: Validity, Truth &
Soundness
• The first rule in evaluating any argument is to challenge its form or its
content, not its conclusion directly. We can always evaluate the form of an
argument, but not always the content:

 If in an argument, the conclusion is supported by at least one premise that

is verifiable. Therefore the form of the argument is “VALID”.

 If it is valid, then the content of the premises must be evaluated, to

determine if they are true or false.

• A true premise is one that you believe has or can be verified, or is self-
evident, in the case of a verifiable statement, or has or can be justified,
or is self-evident, in the case of an evaluative or advocatory statement.
• The verification or justification usually comes in the form of support,
such as evidence, expert opinion and supporting arguments (see
previous slides)
 Evaluating Arguments - summary

• IS THE STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT

VALID?

– DO THE REASONS & EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE

CONCLUSION?

– ARE THE REASONS FALSE/TRUE?

 For a sound argument we must have true reasons

and a valid structure
 Inference. A definition

Noun.
The reasoning involved in making a logical
judgement on the basis of circumstantial
evidence & prior conclusions, rather than on
the basis of direct observation.
 Judgement
“Though we often pretend otherwise,
judgement of many things is not always easy.
There are ‘maybe’ situations. We may have
to do make a decision. Sometimes, the
decision is not as firmly based as we would
like”. (De Bono, 1995:27)

Reflect on the exercise just undertaken & consider the importance of:
– Information
– Perception
– Truth Vs assumptions/inferences
– Making a full as possible consideration of the situation before making
your judgements and decisions
 Arguments are constructed for different
purposes
Examples:
On a job, course of action in
• Decide management. E.g. new outlet

• Explain The causes of a problem or

situation. E.g. absenteeism

• Predict What may happen in the future.

E.g. forecast consumer trends

• Persuade To stop smoking, to adopt an

attitude towards a brand.
 Fallacious Appeals

Appeals • Fallacious appeals are not appropriate:

We often make appeals – Misdirected appeals
in support of arguments. • Authority or questionable authority
• Common belief
• Common practice, tradition
E.g. Referring to
• Two wrongs make a right
Einstein’s theories as an • To indirect consequences (slippery
authoritative source to slope/domino effect) (negative)
support a statement • Wishful thinking (positive)
about mass & energy. – Emotional appeals
• Fear, scare or force tactics
• Loyalty
• Pity, or sob story
• Prejudice or stereotypes
• Spite, hatred, indignation
• Vanity
 Your presentation topics
• What type of discussion (presentation and handout) are you
going to develop? Informative or argumentative?

• Are your facts verifiable? What/who are your sources?

• Are your reasons true?

• Is the structure logical? How many

points do you have and are they the
most important?

• Is the argument structure sound?