CRITICAL THINKING FOR THE MILITARY OFFICER

(DSC – KAREN: NAIROBI)

Theophilus Chando(PhD)

1
 Introduction
• Critical Thinking is a tool for every person
• Without it people can make very silly and sometimes
very costly mistakes
• The military officer uses critical thinking most of the
time – especially in responding to the problems of
“what?” and “how?”
• However, what really is Critical Thinking? What do we
do in Critical Thinking?
2
Critical Thinking as a Tool for Analysis and
Planning
Underlying Logic.
• In every action, it is imperative to understand and articulate the grounds
underlying the situation calling for action.
• It helps planners develop the logic that will shape their response and
deduce the campaign and mission objectives.
• While the first two steps of the military campaign planning process covers
this analysis, the emphasis tends to be on drawing out the deductions
rather than capturing the implicit logic; both need to be done.
•Understanding the Logic.
• Initial assessment efforts can help inform and develop the campaign logic,
i.e. understanding the operating environment and campaign objectives.
•Articulating the Logic.
• It is vital to articulate the logic throughout the process.

3
 Relationships between Logic and
Critical Thinking
• Formal logic dates back to the times of
Aristotle, in the 5th Century B.C., but has
undergone considerable change over the
years.
• Informal Logic was established in the late
1960s to handle argumentation in natural
language in a comprehensive way.
• Critical Thinking is an outgrowth of
informal logic, combining formal logic
and informal logic.
• It established itself strongly from the
1970s.
• Both Informal and Formal Logic are
subjects of Philosophy.
4
 Lecture Content
• What is critical thinking?
• What is an Argument?
• Logical fallacies:
• of relevance.
• of presumption.
• of ambiguity
• Analysis of Arguments

5
 What is Critical Thinking?
• Often when we use the word critical we mean “negative regard of an issue,
or fault-finding,” almost always making “Critical Thinking” evoke a kind of
thinking which is concerned with an undesirable thoughts about other
people’s opinions/ideas. This is wrong
• Critical thinking means “involving or exercising skilled judgment or
observation.” The term “critical” is derived from the Greek word, “krinein,”
meaning, “to judge.” A critical thinker, therefore, is a judge of situations, and
issues.
• In this sense critical thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently.
• More precisely, it is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and
skilfully conceptualizing, applying, analysing, synthesising, and/or evaluating
information gathered from, or generated by observation, experience,
reflection, reasoning, or communication as a guide to belief and action.
6
 An Intellectual Disposition
• Critical thinking is an intellectual disposition which enables one to identify,
analyse, and evaluate arguments and truth claims; to discover and overcome
personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and present convincing
reasons in support of conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent decisions
about what to believe and what to do.
• It entails a set of skills to process and generate information and beliefs, and the
habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide
behaviour.

7
 Critical Thinking is not:
• The mere acquisition and retention of information alone
• The mere possession of a set of skills (because it involves the continuous use of
them), and
• The mere use of those skills (as an exercise) without accepting their results

8
 Critical Thinking Standards
• Clarity - Everything that can be said must be said clearly (L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus)
• Precision – Do not skirt around the subject, or use too many words to describe it
(Okham’s Razor).
• Accuracy – Be sure you have your facts right. There is no room for guess work for a
military officer. This can be very costly, as all of you probably know.
• Relevance - stay focused on relevant ideas and information, without wasting time
on side issues which add no value to the information at hand.
• Consistency – Always say what you mean and mean what you say. Do not change
positions for convenience reasons.
• Logical correctness - Draw well-founded conclusions from the beliefs you hold.
Establish the right connection between your belief and statements supporting it
• Completeness - In most contexts, we rightly prefer deep and complete thinking to
shallow and superficial thinking.
• Fairness - Critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair—that is, open- 9
 Barriers to Critical Thinking
The most common barriers to critical • unwarranted assumptions
thinking: • scapegoating
•lack of relevant background information • rationalization
•poor reading skills • denial
•prejudice • wishful thinking
•superstition • short-term thinking
•egocentrism (self-centred thinking) • selective perception
•Socio-centrism (group-centred thinking) • selective memory
•peer pressure • overpowering emotions
•conformism • self-deception
•provincialism • face-saving
•narrow-mindedness • fear of change
•closed-mindedness • relativistic thinking
•distrust of reason • stereotyping
10
 Benefits of Critical Thinking
• Critical thinking course equips learners (especially military officers) with a
variety of skills that can greatly improve their performance in any and every
undertaking of their choice. These skills include:
• understanding the arguments and beliefs of others – soldiers with good
thinking and communication skills who can solve problems, think creatively,
gather and analyse information, draw appropriate conclusions from data,
and communicate their ideas clearly and effectively.
• critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs - critical thinking can help
us avoid making foolish personal decisions.
• developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs
- Critical thinking can help free us from the unexamined assumptions and
biases of our upbringing and our society.

11
 Critical Thinking and Argumentation
• Argument: A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of or
against a proposition, proposal, or case.
• Elements of an Argument:
• Premise: A statement that is assumed to be true for the purpose of an
argument from which a conclusion is drawn.
• Conclusion: A statement that purports (or claims) to follow from
another or others (the premises).
• Description: An argument consists of … sequences of propositions
arranged in such a way that some of the propositions are supposed to be
the reason, justification, guarantee, warrant, or support for another
proposition in the sequence. The sentences that provide the reason or
warrant are called premises. The proposition that is supposed to be
warranted by the premises is called the conclusion.

12
 Identifying Premises
Some common premise
indicators:
•since
• inasmuch as
•because
• in view of the fact that
•given that
• as indicated by
•seeing that
• as
•considering that
• judging from
• on account of

13
 Examples of Premises
• You cannot claim that the government is unfair in taxation, because the kind of
infrastructural arrangements needed by the modern world today requires very
large sums of money to achieve
• Since you need to do well in your training, you must do everything it takes to
stay focused on the requirements of your training.
• Women are not by any means to blame when they reject the rules of life, which
have been introduced into the world, seeing that it is men who have made
them without women’s consent. (Michel de Montaigne)
• I think that, as human intelligence continues to explore the unexplored sections
of life, the world is bound to change in every aspect.

14
 Common Indicators of Conclusions
• therefore • thus
• hence • consequently
• so • accordingly
• it follows that • for this reason
• that is why • which shows that
• wherefore • this implies that
• as a result • this suggests that
• this being so • we may infer that

15
 Examples of Conclusions
• Paris is in France. France is in Europe. It follows that Paris is in
Europe.
• Every time there is someone at the gate, the dog barks. The dog is
barking, so someone must be at the gate.
• All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is
mortal.
• “As we have seen, the CS decided to issue a press release because
the report on security was disparaging.”

16
 What an Argument is not
• What an argument is not The basic test is quite simple. Something counts as an
argument when (1) it is a group of two or more statements and (2) one of those
statements (the conclusion) is claimed or intended to be supported by the
others (the premises).
• Are these arguments?
• I haven’t seen you since high school.
• You’ve had that jacket for as long as I’ve known you.
• Thus far everything has been great.
• It was so cold that even the aquatic reptiles shivered.
• I wouldn’t mind seeing that movie again.
• There is water on the floor because the sink overflowed.

17
 Basic Logical Concepts
• In evaluating any argument, one should always ask two
key questions:
• (1) Are the premises true? and
• (2) Do the premises provide good reasons to accept
the conclusion?

18
 Exercise
• Evaluate the following arguments
• Nothing is better than true love, but half a loaf is better than nothing,
therefore, half a loaf is better than true love.

• As I was travelling from my house to the DSC, Karen, nobody passed me

along the way. I wonder where nobody learnt to move that fast.

• All mammals live on land, and since the whale is a mammal, it, certainly,
lives on land.

19
Logic and CriticalThinking

20
 Types of Logical Inference
• Deduction
• an analytic process based on the application of general rules to
particular cases in which the inference of a result (conclusion
guaranteed)
• Induction
• synthetic reasoning which infers the rule from the case and the
result (conclusion is probable)
• Abduction
• another form of synthetic inference but of the case from a rule
and a result (taking your best shot)

21
How Can We Tell Whether an Argument
is Deductive or Inductive?
• All arguments claim to provide support—that is, evidence or reasons— for their
conclusions. But arguments differ greatly in the amount of support they claim
to provide.
• Deductive arguments try to prove their conclusions with rigorous, inescapable
logic. They claim that the conclusion derives from the premises with necessity.
• Inductive arguments try to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely
given the premise(s).

22
Inductive vs Deductive vs Abductive Reasoning
Inductive Deductive Abductive
Theory Theory Observation

Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis

Pattern Observation Inference

Observation Confirmation Conclusion 23

 Inductive Reasoning - Example
• Specific Premise:
• The crow is a bird that flies.
• The sparrow is a bird that flies.
• Generalisation:
• All birds fly.

24
 Key Differences between Deductive and
Inductive Arguments
Deductive arguments claim that . . .
•If the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true.
•The conclusion follows necessarily
from the premises.
•It is impossible for all the premises to
be true and the conclusion false.
•It is logically inconsistent to assert the
premises and deny the conclusion; if
you accept the premises, you must
accept the conclusion.
Inductive arguments claim that . . .
•If the premises are true, then the
conclusion is probably true.
•The conclusion follows probably from
the premises.
•It is unlikely for the premises to be
true and the conclusion false.
•Although it is logically consistent to
assert the premises and deny the
conclusion, the conclusion is probably
true if the premises are true.
25
 Inductive Reasoning
• A strong inductive argument has premises that provide evidence
that its conclusion is more likely true than false.
• A weak inductive argument has premises that do not provide
evidence that its conclusion is more likely true than false.
• A cogent inductive argument has all true premises and supplies
strong support for its conclusion.
• An uncogent inductive argument has one or more false premises or
weak support for its conclusion.

26
 Inductive Reasoning
• An inductive argument is one in which the premises are intended to provide
support, but not conclusive evidence, for the conclusion.
• Because inductive arguments do not guarantee that their conclusions are true,
we evaluate them according to the strength of the support they provide for
their conclusions.
• An inductive argument is strong when its premises provide evidence that its
conclusion is more likely true than false.
• An inductive argument is weak when its premises do not provide evidence that
its conclusion is more likely true than false.
• Example:
• Most critical thinking students improve greatly in their ability to analyse
arguments.
• So, you will probably improve greatly in your ability to analyse
arguments.

27
Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning
• A way to identify inductive arguments is to look for their common
patterns. Four of these are:
• inductive generalizations,
• statistical arguments,
• arguments from analogy, and
• causal arguments

28
 Induction and Inductive Generalisations
• A generalization is a statement made about all or most members of a group.
• Inductive generalization is one of the most important kinds of inductive
arguments.
• An inductive generalization is an argument that relies on characteristics of a
sample population to make a claim about the population as a whole.
• In other words, it is an argument that uses evidence about a limited number of
people or things of a certain type, the sample population, to make a claim
about a larger group of people or things of that type, the population as a whole.
• Example:
• All the chickens sold by Wuo Nyaloo are red - beacked.
• Therefore, most of the chickens reared by Wuo Nyaloo are red-beacked.

29
 Evaluating Inductive Generalizations
• So far we have been relying on our innate logical abilities and common sense to
determine whether an inductive generalization is strong or weak. To a great
extent, that is what we will continue to do.
• Although there are standard tests for determining whether a deductive
argument is valid or invalid, there is no standard test for determining whether
an inductive argument is strong or weak.
• Still, we are not totally lost when it comes to evaluating inductive
generalizations. There are three questions we must ask of each inductive
generalization we examine:
• Are the premises true?
• Is the sample large enough?
• Is the sample representative?

30
 Induction and Statistical arguments
• A statistical argument argues from premises regarding a percentage of a population to
a conclusion about an individual member of that population or some part of that
population.
• Example:
• Ninety percent of this class are in favour of not having a cumulative final exam
in their critical thinking class.
• Marks is a student in this class.
• So, Marks is in favour of not having a cumulative final exam in the critical
thinking class.

• Just 42 percent of this class students come from outside Kenya

• Muzi is a member of this class.
• So, Muzi doesn’t come from outside Kenya

31
 Induction and Arguments from Analogy
• An analogy is a comparison of things based on similarities those things share.
• Example: Up is to down as right is to left.
• Analogies, then, depend on what is similar or the same in two or more cases.
Analogies are everywhere: on exams, in arguments, in newspapers, in poems,
and in songs. In literature in general, and poetry in particular, analogies are
common. Similes, which are comparisons using like or as, are actually a type of
analogy.
• Example:
• The Post Office is a government agency as the Department of Motor
Vehicles is a government agency.
• The Post Office is closed for Independence Day.
• So, the Department of Motor Vehicles must be closed for Independence
Day.

32
 Induction and Arguments from Analogy
• Example:
• A whale resembles a fish in the general shape of its body and in the fact that
it lives in water.
• If we knew no better, an argument from analogy would lead us erroneously
to suppose that the whale also resembled a fish in breathing by gills instead
of lungs.

• “Filling the mind of the child with facts", an analogy is implied, in this case,
between a mind and a bucket, bag, or box.

33
 Induction and Causal Arguments
• Roughly speaking, a cause is that which brings about a change, that which
produces an effect. The relationship of cause and effect, however, doesn’t come
into play only when we’re surprised by something. We count on it all the time
without realising it. For example, you may count on your car starting every
morning. But how often do you think about all the cause-and-effect
relationships involved in that occurring?
• David Hume once said: “Nor is it reasonable to conclude, merely because
one event, in one instance, precedes another, that one is the cause, the
other the effect.”
• We should note that not all causal arguments contain the word cause. Other
causal terms include produces, is responsible for, affects, makes, changes, and
contributes to.

34
 Induction and Causal Arguments
• Example:
• My car wouldn’t start this morning, and I haven’t replaced the battery since
I bought the car six years ago.
• So, it is probably a dead battery that caused the car not to start.

• Every time we have a full moon, people behave strangely.

• So, the full moon must cause the strange behaviour.

35
 Abductive Reasoning
• Abduction, or inference to the best explanation, is a method of reasoning in which one
chooses the hypothesis that would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence.
• Abduction means determining the precondition. It is using the conclusion and
the rule to assume that the precondition could explain the conclusion.
• Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and
proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set.
• Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the
information at hand, which often is incomplete.
• Example:
• A medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning: given this set of
symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would best explain most of them?
• Likewise, when jurors hear evidence in a criminal case, they must consider
whether the prosecution or the defence has the best explanation to cover all
the points of evidence.
• Abductive reasoning is characterized by lack of completeness, either in the evidence, or
in the explanation, or both.
36
 Application of Abductive Reasoning
• Practical Application • Uses in the Military
• Fault detection • Military Police (detectives)
• Fault isolation • Intelligence
• Fault identification • Operations

• Some Challenges
• Insufficient knowledge
• Limited observations
• Mixture of faults or premises
• Delayed effects
• Fault masking or misdirection
(dishonesty, misleading, or
deception)
37
Definitions

38
 The Importance of Precise Definitions
• A convincing argument often depends on the clear and
accurate definition of language.
• In many discussions, terms may need to be defined before a
position can be advanced. Define for instance the word:
“democracy” or “military strategy.”

• He who defines the terms wins the argument. — Chinese

proverb

39
 Types of Definitions
• Stipulative Definitions. If you’ve ever created a new word or used an old word in
an entirely new way, you have provided a stipulative definition; that is, you tell
your readers or listeners what it is you mean by the term. (This is what we call in
thesis writing, “operational definition of terms”).
• Example: “Lottoholic” means someone who is obsessed with playing the
lottery.

• Persuasive Definitions. Another kind of subjective definition is a persuasive

definition, in which an arguer defines a term in an effort to persuade a reader or
listener to agree with the arguer’s point of view regarding the thing being
defined.
• Example: Advertising is the means by which companies convince
unsuspecting consumers to buy defective or unnecessary products.
40
 Types of Definitions
• Lexical Definitions. In a lexical definition, a word is defined in the way it is
standardly used in the language.
• Example: Blue jeans are trousers made of blue denim.
• Précising Definitions. A précising definition is intended to make a vague word
more precise so that the word’s meaning is not left to the interpretation of the
reader or listener.
• Example: From a class syllabus: “Class participation” means attending class,
listening attentively, answering and asking questions, and participating in
class discussions.

41
 Strategies for Defining
• Ostensive Definition: Provide a concrete example of the term.
• Example: The capital letter a looks like this: A.
• Enumerative Definition: List members of the class to which the term refers.
• Example: The term country refers to Zambia, Malawi, Angola, Namibia, and so on.
• Definition by Subclass: Indicate what subclasses the word contains.
• Example: Fiction includes short stories, novellas, and novels.
• Etymological Definition: Show the history of the term.
• Example: Euthanasia comes from two Greek term, eu and thanatos, meaning, good and
death, respectively, or,
• A playwright is not one who writes plays, but one who makes a play the way a wheelwright
makes a wheel. The term wright comes from an Old English word, wrytha, meaning
“work.”
• Synonymous Definition: Use a word that has the same meaning or nearly the same meaning as
the term being defined.
• Example: A playwright is a dramatist.
• Definition by Genus and Difference: Place the term in a class that helps narrow its meaning and
then provide characteristics that distinguish the term from other terms in the same class.
• Example: A fawn is a young deer.
42
 Rules for Constructing Good Lexical
Definitions
• Don’t make the definition too broad or too narrow. A definition is too broad if it
includes too much and is too narrow if it includes too little. A good definition
applies to all and only the things being defined.
• Example: A definition of automobile as “a vehicle with four wheels” would be
too broad because it would include golf carts and lawn mowers.
• Convey the essential meaning of the word being defined. A good definition
should do more than just pick out some uniquely identifying properties of the
thing being defined.
• Example: Defining horse as “the animal ridden by Napoleon during the battle
of Waterloo” is clearly a poor definition, even though the defining expression
does apply uniquely to horses.

43
 Rules for Constructing Good Lexical
Definitions
• Provide a context for ambiguous words. Many words are ambiguous; that is,
they have two or more distinct meanings.
• Example: the book in academic work means quite something different from
book where one is securing a place.
• Avoid slanted definitions. Avoid, biased or emotionally charged definitions that
improperly play on the emotions or attitudes of an audience.
• Example: “a person who doesn’t socialize with people is a witch.
• Avoid figurative definitions. A good definition should express clearly the
conventional meaning of a word, not be couched in figurative or metaphorical
language.
• Example: Advertising means legalized lying.

44
 Rules for Constructing Good Lexical
Definitions
• Avoid needlessly obscure definitions. A good definition should clarify the
meaning of a word for someone who may be unfamiliar with the term. Thus, a
definition should not include a lot of big words or technical jargon that readers
aren’t likely to understand.
• Example: Mouse means a quadrupedal mammalian of any of the more
diminutive species of the genus Mus of the order Rodentia.
• Avoid circular definitions. A definition is circular if a person would need to know
what the defined word means in order to understand the word or words used to
define it.
• Example: Entomologist means someone who engages in the science of
entomology.

45
Fallacies

46
 Argumentum ad hominem (Attacking the
person)
• Arguer attacks the character of another arguer.
• Example:
• Friedrich Nietzsche is not a philosopher of worth.
His argument against Christians for making a
caricature of God is not worth the paper it is
written on. Nietzsche was a moral reprobate who
died out of madness caused by syphilis.
• Mr. Muli’s argument that Teachers’ Service
Commission should increase teachers’ pay is
wrong. Mr. Muli is a member of the opposition
party and cannot be expected to say anything
different. I cannot be expected to endorse
anything he says.

48
 Argumentum ad Hominem (tu quoque)-
Look who’s talking
• Arguer attacks the hypocrisy of another arguer.
• Example:
• My opponent, Evoloko, has accused me of engaging in corrupt economic
deals. But Evoloko has more corrupt deals to his credit than I have.
Didn’t he grab the land meant for the country’s largest meat processing
factory, just five years ago, when his party was in power? Clearly,
Evoloko’s charge that I’m guilty of corruption is untrue.
• A priest to a young man: “You should quit drinking alcohol. It is not good
for your health.” young man: “look who’s talking! Every Sunday at mass
you take alcohol yet you tell me to quit. I’ll quit when you do, Fr.
Redbottle!”

49
 Two Wrongs Make a Right
• Arguer tries to justify a wrong by citing another wrong.
• Example:
• I admit we took the officials for lunch, site seeing, and treated them to
some night club sessions, in order to be considered to host the next
continental military games. But everybody does it. That’s the way the
process works. There is nothing really wrong in what we did.
• “Why pick on me, sir? Everyone else sleeps in class on Friday
afternoons.”
• I don’t feel guilty about cheating in Dr. Chando’s test. Half the class
cheated on his test.

50
 Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to
force, or threat of force)
•Arguer threatens a reader or listener.
• Example:
• You are very well aware that every lecturer here serves at the pleasure
of the commandant. The commandant is keen on student officers
performing well in their course units, and every lecturer is advised to
ensure that every student officer performs well in his/her unit. Whoever
doubts this will surely hear from the commandant himself, and this, I am
afraid, might be too late for the concerned person.
• Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree our country’s interests are
paramount in our relationship to your country. It would be regrettable if
we had to send our armed forces to demonstrate the validity of our
claim.

51
 Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to
Pitty)
• Arguer tries to evoke pity from a reader or listener.
• Example:
• Sir, I cannot fail in the critical thinking unit. This is a very significant unit
for a military officer. You see sir, I am one of the very few officers chosen
by my government to come for this course. If I don’t get good grades in
this course, my government will surely get disappointed and I will not get
promoted to the next rank. So you see why I should have the best grades,
sir?
• Your honour, my client is not guilty. Yes, the evidence links my client to the
murder of her husband, but, your honour, my client is a single mother, and
she just delivered a baby one an a half months ago. The death of her
husband is a tragedy for her since she remains the only bread winner for
her young helpless children. If this court finds my client guilty, then this
court is condemning these innocent children to misery.
52
 Bandwagon Argument
• Arguer appeals to a reader’s or listener’s desire to be accepted or valued.
• Example:
• All the people who matter in this country drive the majestic Toyota Land
Cruiser V8. It would be great if you got yourself one.
• I can’t believe you’ve never tasted Jack Daniels. What, then, have you
been drinking, while 90 percent of Kenyans drink Jack Daniels?
• There must be something unlucky about knocking the left foot while on
a long journey. Millions of people cannot be wrong.

53
 Straw Man
• The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s
argument or claim to make it easier to attack. Literally, in stead of facing the
real man in a fight, one constructs a straw man, since this shall be easy to attack
and defeat
• Example: James argues that cabbage is a good vegetable, with good
nutritional value. But cabbage has a lot of water in it, and is easily attacked
by pests. They can get destroyed much faster than most vegetables if not
properly tended when in the garden. Cabbage, then, cannot be better than
other vegetables. (This argument misrepresents James’ view. James hasn’t
claimed that cabbage is better than other vegetables. The claim is, merely
that cabbage has good nutritional value. By mischaracterizing James’ view—
making it seem weaker or less plausible than it really is, and attacking the
misrepresentation-the arguer has committed the straw man fallacy).
• The logical pattern of straw man arguments is this:
• 1. James’ view is false or unjustified [but where James’ view has been
unfairly characterized or misrepresented].
54
• 2. Therefore, James’ view should be rejected.
 Red Herring
• Arguer tries to distract the attention of the audience by raising an
irrelevant issue.
• Example:
• Thuso argues that pumpkins are good for health, and so
everybody should eat pumpkins. But the taste of pumpkins is flat
and their look does not inspire even the appetite of a hyena.
Certainly Thuso has no idea of what she is talking about.
• Many people criticize Nicolo Machiavelli for introducing modern
day political totalitarianism, but Machiavelli was one to the most
famous Italian diplomats, who served the Florentine State
diligently, and with unflinching patriotism.

55
 Equivocation
• Arguer uses a key word which could be interpreted in two or more different
senses, without specifying which sense is intended, thus leaving it open to a
wrong interpretation.
• Example:
• The roto company is advertising “tanks for all occasions.” It’s illegal for
anyone but the military to own tanks. So, roto is breaking the law.
• Any law can be repealed by the proper legal authority. The law of gravity
is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by a proper legal
authority.
• Plants have chlorophyll, and since out bullet manufacturing installation
is a plant, it follows that it has chlorophyll.

56
 Petitio Principi (Begging the Question)
• Arguer assumes the point to be proven. An arguer states or assumes as a
premise the very thing he/she is seeking to prove as a conclusion.
• Example:
• I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I have a right to say
whatever I please.
• Walking in thickly forested areas is dangerous because it’s unsafe.
• Capital punishment is morally wrong because it is ethically
impermissible to inflict death as punishment for a crime.
• We cannot accept such acts as public demonstrations against an elected
government. It is not right to accept such acts of lawlessness and
disregard for public order.
• Expressions such as these tend towards begging the question:
• It has been indisputably proven that …
• Research has shown that …
• Everyone knows that … 57
 Fallacies of Relevance/ Irrelevance
• Here, the conclusion is based on premises which are
irrelevant to their claims. The given premises fail to justify
or establish the claims or truth of the conclusion
purportedly based on them.

58
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to
innapropriate authority)
• Arguer cites an unreliable authority or witness.
• Example:
• The use of birth control pills is dangerous to a woman’s health. Didn’t
you hear the Pope say that in his last Easter summon, which has
circulated widely in the news media?
• The youth group of our estate has endorsed the latest model of
Volkswagen golf. It is certainly every reasonable person’s dream car
Whatever the evidence fails to support, a popular name cannot support
either.

59
 Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to
Ignorance)
• Arguer claims that something is true because no one has proven it false or vice
versa.
• Example: That God does not exist is no longer a subject of dispute.
Theologians have not established it since they began the battle millennia
ago.

60
 Fallacies of Presumption
False Dichotomy
•Sometimes called “fallacy of false dilemma”.
•Arguer poses a false either/ or choice.
• Example: US President, George Bush, in his campaign to garner world
support for the American intended military attack on Afganistan, in an
attetmpt to force it to hand over Osama bin Laden, America’s prime suspect
in the September 11, 2001, argued:
• You are either with us or with the terrorists. And our war against
international terrorism will extend to all those who support and harbour
them.

61
Loaded/Complex Question

62
 Non causa pro causa
(not cause for the cause)
• Arguer claims, without adequate evidence, that one thing is the cause of
something else.
• Example:
• Each time Jakom watches our football matches, we lose to our opponents.
Today Jakom watched out football match and we lost to our opponents. It is
Jakom’s watching of our football matches which makes us lose to our
opponents

• The rooster crowed. The sun came up. Therefore the rooster made the
sun come up.

63
Hasty Generalisation
• Arguer draws a general conclusion from a sample that is
biased or too small.
• Example:
• BMWs are a pile of junk. I have two friends who drive
BMWs, and both of them have had nothing but
trouble from those cars.

64
 Slippery Slope
• Arguer claims, without adequate evidence, that a seemingly harmless action
will lead to a very bad outcome.
• Example:
• Immediate steps should be taken to outlaw pornography once and for
all. The continued manufacture and sale of pornographic material will
almost certainly lead to an increase in sex-related crimes such as rape
and incest. This in turn, will gradually erode the moral fabric of society
and result in an increase in crimes of all sorts. Eventually a complete
disintegration of law and order will occur, leading in the end to total
collapse of civilization.
• Kenya’s military shouldn’t get involved in other countries. Once the
government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die.

65
 Weak Analogy
• Arguer compares things that aren’t truly comparable.
• Example:
• Guns are like hammers – it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of
hammers – so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.
• Her visitor was English, so she was certain of the beverage to offer … tea.

66
 Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the
masses)
• The arguer asserts something is true due to large numbers
supporting it.
• Example:
• An opinion poll indicated that 80% of the nation are
patriots.
• Ten thousand people bought Toyota V8s. Ten thousand
people cannot be wrong!
• A noted philosopher explains in an interview:
“Eminent minds have come to the conclusion that in
our civilised world the evil man prevails over the good.
As Hobbes put it: ‘The life of a man is solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short.’ If I am accused of
pessimism, all I can say is that I have lots of company
and famous company, too”
67
Analysis of Arguments

68
 An Argument
• An argument is like an organism. It has both a gross, anatomical structure and a
finer, as-it-were physiological one.
• When set out explicitly in all its detail, it may occupy a number of printed pages or
take perhaps a quarter of an hour to deliver; and within this time or space one can
distinguish the main phases marking the progress of the argument from the initial
statement of an unsettled problem to the final presentation of a conclusion.
• These main phases will each occupy some minutes or paragraphs, and represent
the chief anatomical units of the argument — its ‘organs’, so to speak. But within
each paragraph, when one gets down to the level of individual sentences, a finer
structure can be recognised, and this is the structure with which logicians have
mainly concerned themselves.
• It is at this physiological level that the idea of logical form has been introduced, and
here that the validity of our arguments has ultimately to be established or refuted.

69
 Analysing Arguments
• Analysis is a skill you need everywhere in life.
• Lawyers analyse complex claims and sort out the issues;
• physicians analyse symptoms;
• detectives look for patterns in the evidence;
• business people sort through the parts of an intricate deal; and
• members of the armed forces analyse the arguments during the
planning for a campaign.

70
 Analysing Arguments
• Find the main conclusion first. It is easy to get lost if you don’t have a clear idea
where you are going. For that reason it is often a good idea, to start by locating
the main conclusion and then working back through the passage to see how the
argument as a whole works together to support the conclusion.
• Examples:
• The death penalty should be abolished because it’s biased against the
weak within society, there’s no evidence that it’s a more effective
deterrent than life imprisonment, and innocent people may be executed
by mistake.
• No student at the Defence Staff College is a civilian. Mugambi is a
civilaian. So, Mugambi is not a student at the Defence Staff College.

71
 Analysing Arguments
• Pay close attention to premise and conclusion indicators. One common mistake
students make in diagramming arguments is to overlook premise and
conclusion indicators such as since, as, so, and because. Pay especially close
attention to premise indicators like since and because that precede
independent clauses:
• Example: All dogs go to heaven. So, Sparky will go to heaven because
Sparky is a dog.
• In this argument the premise indicator because signals that, logically speaking,
there are two statements in the second sentence (a premise and a conclusion)
rather than one. These two statements must be distinguished for purposes of
argument analysis.

72
 Analysing Arguments
• Remember that sentences containing the word and often contain two or more
separate statements. We have seen that a single sentence frequently expresses
two or more distinct statements. Sometimes these statements are separated by
the word and.
• Example: Never drive Nissan Salons. They’re very unstable, and their
engines heat up very fast
• Here the second sentence is a compound sentence that expresses two logically
distinct premises separated by the word and.

73
 Analysing Arguments
• Treat conditional statements (if-then statements) and disjunctive statements (either-or
statements) as single statements. Conditional statements should always be treated as a
single logical unit because they assert a single complete thought. For example, the
conditional sentence
• Example: If you are intelligent, then you will understand Critical Thinking
• doesn’t assert that you are intelligent, nor does it assert that you will understand
Critical Thinking. Rather, it asserts a single conditional statement: that one event will
occur (you will understand Critical Thinking) if another event occurs (you are
intelligent). Because conditional sentences assert only a single statement, they should
always be treated as a single logical unit for purposes of argument analysis.
• For similar reasons disjunctions (either-or statements) should also be diagrammed as
single statements. Notice that if I say
• Example: Either Tanzania will win the CECAFA Cup or Kenya will win the CECAFA
Cup
• I am asserting a single (disjunctive) statement: that one of two events will occur—
either Tanzania will win the CECAFA Cup or Kenya will win the CECAFA(but not both).
Because disjunctive statements, like conditional statements, express a single complete
thought, they should always be diagrammed as single statements.

74
 Structure of an Argument
(Toulmin Model of Arguments)

Qualifier
Information or Data (Therefore) Claim

(Mostly, Probably
Perhaps)

Since (Warrant) Unless (Rebuttal)

Because (Backing) Because (Backing)

 Example of an Argument
Data Qualifier
Claim
Anne is one of So Presumably Anne now has
Jack’s sisters
red Hair
Since (Warrant) Unless (Rebuttal)
Any sister of Jack’s may Anne has dyed/
be taken to have red gone white /
hair lost her hair …

On account of the fact that (Backing)

All his sisters have previously been
observed to have red hair.
76
 Writing Argumentative Essays
• Most of our work consist of writing papers containing a plausible
argument to indicate what should be done:
• Staff papers
• Staff requirements
• Policy positions/briefs
• Comments
• Appreciations
• Dissertations/thesis
• Media articles
• Lectures/briefings/presentations
• Intelligence briefings/analyses

77
 Writing Argumentative Essays
• The following outline will help you keep track of the steps in the
process of writing an argument.
• Before You Write
• Know yourself
• Know your audience
• Choose and narrow your topic
• Write a sentence that expresses your claim
• Gather ideas: brainstorm and research
• Organize your ideas

78
 Writing Argumentative Essays
• Writing the First Draft
• Provide an interesting opening
• Include a thesis statement
• Develop your body paragraphs
• Provide a satisfying conclusion
• After the First Draft
• Read what you have written and revise
• Consider what you have not written and revise
• Show your work
• Edit your work
• Hand it in
79
 Notes on Style
• Do:
• … produce a professional looking argument
• … be interesting
• … be informative
• … write in a way that is easy to read
• … include a contents/scope page
• … use clear headings and sub-headings
• … be concise and precise
• … use simple language wherever possible
• … check your spelling and grammar
• … reference your work fully using an
acceptable format
• Don’t:
• … use words when you are not
absolutely certain of their meaning
• … use difficult words to impress
your reader
• … use overly simplistic language
• … repeat yourself
• … digress
• … use fallacious (wrong) arguments
80
 Writing Argumentative Essays
• Evaluating an argumentative essay:
• Is the problem or question clearly identified and realistic?
• Is there a critique of appropriate literature within and around the field of
inquiry?
• How has the author used available evidence to convince the reader that his
or her chosen methodology was appropriate in answering the question?
• Is there an argument outlining the appropriate methodological choice?
• Is this methodological choice substantiated as the best approach to answer
the posed question?
• How has the author critiqued the chosen method and identified any
weaknesses in the research?
• Has the research contributed anything towards the body of research
knowledge (mainly within the conclusions/findings)?
• Why is this argument important?
• At what level of Bloom’s taxonomy was the person supposed to work?
81
 Conclusion
• Very few of the subjects you will learn will change your life.
• But this one truly can.
• Critical thinking is an adventure.
• Becoming mentally fit is hard work.
• And thinking independently, critically and to provide a critique can
be a little scary at times.
• But in the end you’ll be a smarter, stronger, more confident thinker.
• A military officer certainly needs critical thinking skills

82