Critical Thinking

1
Critical Thinking

• 2

2
Flaws in arguments

• Arguing from the particular to the general.
• Using an inappropriate analogy.
• Insufficient evidence/failing to look for extra
  evidence.
• Cause and effect or, linking things when there is
  no link.Post hoc.
• Slippery slope flaw, where one thing leads to
  many more!
• Ad hominem. Attacking the arguer not the
  argument.
• Necessary and sufficient conditions.
• The straw man fallacy. This involves
  misrepresenting the opponents view.
• Begging the question. Taking for granted the
  conclusion towards which you are arguing. Going
  round in circles.
• Leaving out a vital link in reasoning, the
  assumption flaw.
• Restricting the options.
• Appeal to pity.
• You too, tu quoque.
• Arguing from the past to the future

3
Now, in teams, you have to use the 14 arguments
on cards to decide which argument fits which
category. May the best team win.
4
1, Arguing from the particular to the general.

• Some people say that depiction of violence on TV
  has no effect on viewers behaviour. However, if
  what was shown on TV didnt affect behaviour, TV
  advertising would never influence viewers to buy
  certain products. But we know it does. So it
  cant be true that TV violence does not affect
  behaviour.

Just because TV advertising affects buying
behaviour it does not mean it affects violent
behaviour.
5
1.Arguing from the particular to the general.
When something has happened and you use this
example to defend your argument and say So it
must be true always you run big risks of falling
into this trap. People often fall foul of this
flaw when they are arguing from personal
experience, especially when they are young and
have not a wide experience to call upon. (One of
the problems of lack of years Im afraid).
6
2, Using an inappropriate analogy.

• Motorists who drive fast in town are putting
  childrens lives at risk. If they came into town
  brandishing knives, the police would surely
  arrest them. But, though cars can kill and injure
  in the same way, motorists are allowed to
  endanger childrens lives every day. More action
  should be taken to stop cars speeding in towns.

Knives are designed to harm, cars are not so they
are different!
7
2.Using an inappropriate analogy.
Comparisons in arguments always are rather dodgy,
often the comparison does not quite work or isnt
exactly as you would want it. When building your
own arguments I would try to avoid them like the
plague!. However, as a teacher, I use them all
the time since they often help with understanding
new ideas. If you start from something people
know about you can often bring in new concepts
which they didnt know about before. So they can
be used in arguments, but beware of having them
ripped apart before your very eyes, because they
are too different from what you are actually
talking about.
8
3, Insufficient evidence/failing to look for
extra evidence.

• If people became healthier as the affluence of
  the country increased, we would expect the
  country to be healthier now than they were 30
  years ago. But over the last 30 years people have
  become more susceptible to heart disease, strokes
  and cancer. So, the increased wealth of the
  country has not produced improvements in the
  health of the country.

Does being healthy equate to only heart disease,
stroke and cancer, NO.
9
3.Insufficient evidence/failing to look for extra
evidence.
When people argue from evidence, watch that they
present both sides of the story. It is easy to
give examples from the side you are arguing and
forget to give the opposing view in your
argument. This presents a limited amount of
evidence upon which to build your argument.
10
4, Cause and effect or, linking things when there
is no link.

• We always find that the sales of rugby balls go
  up when England do well in the rugby World Cup.
  So, if we want England to do well in the rugby
  World Cup we should sell more rugby balls.

A post hoc argument.
11
4.Cause and effect or, linking things when there
is no link. Post hoc.
Often people can make links between two
occurrences. Our brains are pre-programmed to
look for links, so this is an easy flaw to fall
for. If two things happen at the same time or one
after the other, it does not mean that we are
looking at cause and effect! Watch for it! It
could just be coincidence.
12
5, Slippery slope flaw, where one thing leads to
many more!

• It is said that the legalisation of cannabis will
  lead to more young people trying harder and
  harder drugs and so lead to a nation of crack
  addicts.

One thing does not always lead to another!
13
5.Slippery slope flaw, where one thing leads to
many more!
Easy to spot! Its the sort of thing headmasters
always say to pupils in school about litter! If
you drop one piece of litter then before you know
it everyone will drop litter and well be knee
deep in the stuff from one end of the playground
to the other.
14
6, Attacking the arguer not the argument.

• The managing director of a local building company
  argued that there could be no pay rise this year
  since profits were down. However, he has been
  convicted of drink driving twice in the past year
  so, the workers should press on with their strike.

An Ad hominem argument
15
6.Ad hominem. Attacking the arguer not the
argument.
In this type of flaw the arguer actually attacks,
albeit figuratively, the personality or good
standing of their opposing arguer. This sort of
flaw is commonly seen in the Primary School. So
and so is not right because he smells!
Unfortunately it also happens in the House of
Commons, for example when Tony Blair was
attacked for sending his own children to Private
education when he himself was arguing for
comprehensive education for all.
16
7, Necessary and sufficient conditions.

• You cannot win a five set tennis match if you are
  unfit. But, you are fitter than your opponent, so
  you will win the match.

Necessary but not sufficient.
You may be fitter but less skilful.
17
7.Necessary and sufficient conditions.
If a condition is necessary to conclude an
argument then once it is established the argument
could be true. For example- To get into the
Sixth form at Kirkley you need 5 GCSEs at grade
C or above. If you get them, youre in! NOT
SO!!! If you were a real pain in the
then you might not get in, if you move to London
then you might not get in. etc. Just because a
condition is necessary does not mean that the
case is proven, it may not be sufficient (enough)
to do the job.
18
8, The straw man fallacy. This involves
misrepresenting the opponents view.

• Cyclists are increasingly intolerant of car
  drivers. They see the car as the cause of a vast
  number of respiratory diseases and a host of
  other urban problems, such as crime. But, they
  ignore all the positive contributions the private
  car has made to society. It has given people the
  freedom to visit friends and relatives, and has
  made shopping much easier. Therefore, until the
  urban cycle lobby is prepared to approach the
  subject of urban transport in a more reasonable
  way, its plea for more cycle lanes should be
  rejected.

19
8, The straw man fallacy. This involves
misrepresenting the opponents view.
Cyclists want cycle lanes, the argument is not
put forward, but instead a distortion of the
argument which is clearly NOT what the majority
of cyclists believe IS put forward and easily
knocked down. Watch politicians, they do this
lots!!!!!
20
8.The straw man fallacy. This involves
misrepresenting the opponents view.
This is where you take the opponents argument and
Sex it up to the extent that it no longer is
defensible, and you can easily knock it down.
There will be a lot of rhetoric involved in this
type of argument. You should also look for people
trying to put words into your mouth. They are
trying to put their spin on your argument and
then knock it down easily. (It is easy to knock
down a man made of straw when jousting,
especially compared to a real living opponent)
21
9, Begging the question. Taking for granted the
conclusion towards which you are arguing. Going
round in circles.

• Differences between the roles that males and
  females play in society are not fixed by our
  genetic make-up but are learned in each
  individuals social development. Thus gender is
  something that is learned rather than something
  which has a biological cause.

22
9.Begging the question. Taking for granted the
conclusion towards
Usually easy to spot, this is where people try to
argue from the conclusion backwards to the
reasons! It feels as if the argument has gone
nowhere. Because it hasnt. If you try to write
out the argument as a diagram R1 R2 -gt C for
example. You find that the conclusion becomes a
reason and a reason becomes a conclusion.
?
Thus gender is learned not genetic
Differences in roles are learned not fixed from
genes.
23
10, Leaving out a vital link in reasoning, the
assumption flaw.

• Cigarette advertising was banned on TV 30 years
  ago. Since then we have seen the level of smoking
  fall. If we banned all cigarette advertising,
  then the level would fall even further.

Assuming that banning other forms of advertising
will make the numbers of smokers fall also.
24
10.Leaving out a vital link in reasoning, the
assumption flaw.
Weve already spent time identifying assumptions
they are the parts of an argument that are not
written down. This is where, when you try to
write out the R1 R2 C just does not work
because there is an R missing. i.e. the
assumption. It is often wrong also, which is why
people leave it out of the argument. Or it is due
to bigotry, or racism, or sexism, or stereotyping
of some other sort, or something similar.
25
11, Restricting the options.

• The number of cod in the North Sea has
  dramatically declined in the last 10 years. This
  could be due to Global Warming making the water
  too warm for the cod to spawn successfully, or it
  could be due to over fishing. Since the number of
  foreign factory trawlers fishing here has
  increased and sea temperature has hardly risen,
  we must conclude that the decline in the cod is
  due to over fishing.

The lack of cod could be due to pollution.
26
11.Restricting the options.
This is where the arguer gives you alternatives
to choose, s/he says its either A or B. You then
are forced to choose A or B when C, D, or even Z
are perfectly feasible alternatives, which you
are not being offered.
27
12, Appeal to pity.

• Children from poor families should be supported
  in their education. They have had such a hard
  life they deserve better in the future.

Not an argument, just trying to get people to
feel sorry!
28
12.Appeal to pity.
This is where the arguer tries to tug on the old
heartstrings. If you feel sorry for the opponent
then you wont push too hard. Let him/her off if
they have had a hard time and are trying to get
back on track, even if they are in the wrong. No
way, dont be fooled.
29
13, You too, tu quoque.

• The leader of the Opposition can hardly accuse
  the Government of distorting the truth. He wasnt
  telling the truth when he said that he would
  support all measures to combat crime.

Snot fair, he was doin it too. Doesnt matter
its still wrong.
30
13.You too, tu quoque.
This is where the pupils get their own back in
argument flaws! Have you ever (YES) heard a
fellow pupil saying OK you caught me doing so
and so, but there were ten million other pupils
doing the same thing Implying that s/he should
be let off the punishment, since others were also
committing the crime.
31
14, Arguing from the past to the future.

• Teds yellow beetle was stolen three times last
  year! Harrys red beetle has never been nicked.
  Therefore, It is more likely that Cassies new
  yellow beetle is going to be nicked than my new
  red one.

Just because it has happened before does not
mean it will happen again.
32
14.Arguing from the past to the future. 
When something has happened in the past, people
often say We should learn from history. History
repeats its self Bob Marley Without a
knowledge of your history how can you know your
destiny? In critical thinking this sort of
argument does not stand up on its own. Just
because something has happened once does not
indicate it is likely or definitely going to
happen again in the future. Things change,
fashion for example, if you went to the local
nightclub in clothes which were dead trendy in
1845 you might not get the reception you would
have if you had been wearing them in 1845!