Critical Reasoning
and the Art of
Argumentation
(PLS2601)
Summary of prescribed book, 2014
,Chapter 1.................................................................................................................... Page 1
What is critical reasoning?
Chapter 2.................................................................................................................... Page 3
Obstacles to clear thinking: Preconceived Ideas and Fallacies
Chapter 3.................................................................................................................... Page 8
Working with arguments
Chapter 4.................................................................................................................... Page 9
How to analyze arguments
Chapter 5.................................................................................................................... Page 10
Definitions, counterexamples and counter arguments
Chapter 6.................................................................................................................... Page 11
Evaluating arguments
Chapter 7.................................................................................................................... Page 13
Applying the knowledge and skills to the evaluation of arguments
Chapter 8.................................................................................................................... Page 14
Constructing arguments and writing argumentative essays
1
,Chapter 1: What Is Critical Reasoning?
o a field of study as old as philosophy
o the ultimate goal of critical reasoning is to know how to apply
knowledge and skills wisely
Definition: Critical reasoning is active, reflective and informed thinking that
involves the ability to deliberately and skilfully question, analyze, interpret and
evaluate ideas and beliefs in the light of the evidence which supports them.
Active and reflective thinking: Critical reasoning is essentially an active
process and a reflective activity, which involves us raising critical questions
ourselves and thinking statements and ideas through for ourselves, rather
than passively receiving information from someone else and gullibly
accepting the ideas and beliefs of other people. We call this competency
the ability to think for yourself.
Informed thinking: An important feature of critical reasoning is to reflect
critically on the implications of our abilities and to give reasons or evidence in
support of our beliefs and claims. This critical reasoning competency is the
ability to reason critically in an informed way.
Reasoning skills:
1. Recognize problems
2. Question assumptions, values and motives
3. Analyze arguments
4. Clarified interpret data and ideas
5. Evaluate arguments
6. Judge the acceptability and soundness of claims
Critical reasoning takes into account the following:
The statements (premises and conclusions) must have meaning as
statements and as courses of actions.
The statements have emotive side (because arguments expressed in
natural language are seldom impersonal and value free). Values,
attitudes, feelings, assumptions and preconceived ideas are
embedded in natural language and these can easily influence our
reasoning.
The quality of argumentation. This includes the meaning and
acceptability of arguments (not only their formal structure and validity),
being aware how prejudice can influence our reasoning, how to use
observation skills, how to be aware of different points of view, how to
2
, evaluate arguments, how to be culturally sensitive, how to be aware of
preconceived ideas, and problem-solving and decision-making.
Differences and similarities between formal logic and critical reasoning
Formal logic Critical reasoning
Similarity Deal with argumentation and argument analysis
Differences Explores the nature and
Examines the formal function of arguments in
structure of arguments natural language and is
in logical language and concerned with the art
employs precise rules for of argumentation rather
testing the validity of than the formal theory
arguments. of reasoning.
Includes more than
Generally ignores the studying the structure
meaning of statements validity of arguments in
in natural language the sense that it reflects
(everyday spoken on the quality,
language, whether it is character and
English, Afrikaans, Zulu) soundness of
arguments. Therefore
has a much broader
scope than formal logic.
How to apply the critical reasoning skills you have acquired wisely and
responsibility
As a critical thinker, you need to reflect critically on your own biases, beliefs
and prejudicial attitudes before you can adopt a critical attitude towards
ideas and beliefs of other people. Critical reasoning is not about 'trashing'
other people's ideas, beliefs and arguments. Instead, critical reasoning
requires you to be constructive and creative by weighing up different points
of view, offering alternative solutions to problems, and considering other
possibilities and options. Being able to apply knowledge wisely requires a
philosophical attitude of critical self-reflection.
There are three basic critical reasoning competencies:
Thinking for yourself
To think critically is to question the world and thus to engage critically with the
possibilities and alternatives that the world offers. To reason critically is to think
for yourself by challenging authority and critically examining dogma, that is,
unquestioned knowledge claims.
3
,Informed reasoning
Critical reasoning also involves offering well-informed and reasoned
alternatives. Telling the difference between unsubstantiated opinions and
well-informed opinions is an important first component in critical reasoning.
An informed opinion is supported by reasons for the soundness or
acceptability of claims we make.
Critical self reflection
To reason critically does not only involve a critical attitude towards the ideas
and beliefs of other people, but also towards your own beliefs and biases. A
crucial part of critical reasoning, involves critical self reflection, that is, the
ability to reflect critically on your own assumptions, and to critically evaluate
your own prejudicial attitudes and biases.
Chapter 2| Obstacles to clear thinking: Preconceived Ideas and
Fallacies
Critical reasoning involves providing reasons or evidence file claims and
beliefs. The better the reasons and arguments we offer, the closer we come
to showing that our claims are acceptable and the more likely we are to
persuade our audience that our point of view is correct.
Preconceived ideas
- Societal assumptions that have a decisive influence on our thinking
- Have not been subject to critical reflection
- Imbedded in all cultures
- Get their power from social conditioning
- We become conditioned to think the same way as our parents
- Cognitive blind spots: prevent us from seeing both sides of an issue
- Critical thinkers should not take anything for granted
- Not all preconceived ideas are false and present obstacles to clear
thinking
Fallacies
- A fallacy is a descriptive argument that attempts to persuade us, but
contains a fundamental flaw in its reasoning
- Arguments are not supported by evidence or reasoned argumentation
- In a fallacy, the reasons advanced are irrelevant or inappropriate to
the conclusion the reasons supposedly support
4
, Good argument Fallacy
- Gives reasons in support of a - Gives no reasons in support of
claim its claim
- Has a structure (the conclusion - Persuades us to accept the
follows from the premises) conclusion
- Provides reasons that are - Gives reasons that are not
appropriately connected to related to its claim
what is being claimed
Not all unsound or invalid arguments are fallacies. The difference between a
fallacy and an unsound argument is that a fallacy, although deceitful,
tempts us to be persuaded, whereas an unsound argument does not. There
are three categories of fallacies: distraction fallacies, emotion fallacies and
structural fallacies.
1. Distraction fallacies
Distraction fallacies are fallacies that try to distract attention away from the
weak point of an argument.
Slippery slope: A slippery slope argument entails reasoning in a chain with
conditionals (if so, then something else), where at least one of that if- then
premises is false or doubtful. In other words, the conclusion does not follow
from the premises. A typical slippery slope argument leads us from seemingly
unimportant and obviously true first premises to exaggerated consequences
in the conclusion. In a slippery slope argument, our attention is distracted by
the terrible situation presented in the conclusion.
Straw man: The term straw man refers to a scarecrow which is supposed to
frighten off crows or other birds, but is itself very feeble. The straw man fallacy
consists of making the arguers own position appear to be strong by making
the opposing position appear to be outrageous, or weaker than it actually is.
We can identify a straw man argument by looking for two false premises in
the argument:
The premise that inaccurately represents the opponents view
The implicit premise that you must either support this unmaintainable or
unacceptable position or you must support the view taken by the
arguer.
In this kind of fallacious reasoning no other alternatives are offered.
Begging the question (petitio principii): The begging the question fallacy
consists of circular reasoning, where the arguer takes for granted the truth of
5
and the Art of
Argumentation
(PLS2601)
Summary of prescribed book, 2014
,Chapter 1.................................................................................................................... Page 1
What is critical reasoning?
Chapter 2.................................................................................................................... Page 3
Obstacles to clear thinking: Preconceived Ideas and Fallacies
Chapter 3.................................................................................................................... Page 8
Working with arguments
Chapter 4.................................................................................................................... Page 9
How to analyze arguments
Chapter 5.................................................................................................................... Page 10
Definitions, counterexamples and counter arguments
Chapter 6.................................................................................................................... Page 11
Evaluating arguments
Chapter 7.................................................................................................................... Page 13
Applying the knowledge and skills to the evaluation of arguments
Chapter 8.................................................................................................................... Page 14
Constructing arguments and writing argumentative essays
1
,Chapter 1: What Is Critical Reasoning?
o a field of study as old as philosophy
o the ultimate goal of critical reasoning is to know how to apply
knowledge and skills wisely
Definition: Critical reasoning is active, reflective and informed thinking that
involves the ability to deliberately and skilfully question, analyze, interpret and
evaluate ideas and beliefs in the light of the evidence which supports them.
Active and reflective thinking: Critical reasoning is essentially an active
process and a reflective activity, which involves us raising critical questions
ourselves and thinking statements and ideas through for ourselves, rather
than passively receiving information from someone else and gullibly
accepting the ideas and beliefs of other people. We call this competency
the ability to think for yourself.
Informed thinking: An important feature of critical reasoning is to reflect
critically on the implications of our abilities and to give reasons or evidence in
support of our beliefs and claims. This critical reasoning competency is the
ability to reason critically in an informed way.
Reasoning skills:
1. Recognize problems
2. Question assumptions, values and motives
3. Analyze arguments
4. Clarified interpret data and ideas
5. Evaluate arguments
6. Judge the acceptability and soundness of claims
Critical reasoning takes into account the following:
The statements (premises and conclusions) must have meaning as
statements and as courses of actions.
The statements have emotive side (because arguments expressed in
natural language are seldom impersonal and value free). Values,
attitudes, feelings, assumptions and preconceived ideas are
embedded in natural language and these can easily influence our
reasoning.
The quality of argumentation. This includes the meaning and
acceptability of arguments (not only their formal structure and validity),
being aware how prejudice can influence our reasoning, how to use
observation skills, how to be aware of different points of view, how to
2
, evaluate arguments, how to be culturally sensitive, how to be aware of
preconceived ideas, and problem-solving and decision-making.
Differences and similarities between formal logic and critical reasoning
Formal logic Critical reasoning
Similarity Deal with argumentation and argument analysis
Differences Explores the nature and
Examines the formal function of arguments in
structure of arguments natural language and is
in logical language and concerned with the art
employs precise rules for of argumentation rather
testing the validity of than the formal theory
arguments. of reasoning.
Includes more than
Generally ignores the studying the structure
meaning of statements validity of arguments in
in natural language the sense that it reflects
(everyday spoken on the quality,
language, whether it is character and
English, Afrikaans, Zulu) soundness of
arguments. Therefore
has a much broader
scope than formal logic.
How to apply the critical reasoning skills you have acquired wisely and
responsibility
As a critical thinker, you need to reflect critically on your own biases, beliefs
and prejudicial attitudes before you can adopt a critical attitude towards
ideas and beliefs of other people. Critical reasoning is not about 'trashing'
other people's ideas, beliefs and arguments. Instead, critical reasoning
requires you to be constructive and creative by weighing up different points
of view, offering alternative solutions to problems, and considering other
possibilities and options. Being able to apply knowledge wisely requires a
philosophical attitude of critical self-reflection.
There are three basic critical reasoning competencies:
Thinking for yourself
To think critically is to question the world and thus to engage critically with the
possibilities and alternatives that the world offers. To reason critically is to think
for yourself by challenging authority and critically examining dogma, that is,
unquestioned knowledge claims.
3
,Informed reasoning
Critical reasoning also involves offering well-informed and reasoned
alternatives. Telling the difference between unsubstantiated opinions and
well-informed opinions is an important first component in critical reasoning.
An informed opinion is supported by reasons for the soundness or
acceptability of claims we make.
Critical self reflection
To reason critically does not only involve a critical attitude towards the ideas
and beliefs of other people, but also towards your own beliefs and biases. A
crucial part of critical reasoning, involves critical self reflection, that is, the
ability to reflect critically on your own assumptions, and to critically evaluate
your own prejudicial attitudes and biases.
Chapter 2| Obstacles to clear thinking: Preconceived Ideas and
Fallacies
Critical reasoning involves providing reasons or evidence file claims and
beliefs. The better the reasons and arguments we offer, the closer we come
to showing that our claims are acceptable and the more likely we are to
persuade our audience that our point of view is correct.
Preconceived ideas
- Societal assumptions that have a decisive influence on our thinking
- Have not been subject to critical reflection
- Imbedded in all cultures
- Get their power from social conditioning
- We become conditioned to think the same way as our parents
- Cognitive blind spots: prevent us from seeing both sides of an issue
- Critical thinkers should not take anything for granted
- Not all preconceived ideas are false and present obstacles to clear
thinking
Fallacies
- A fallacy is a descriptive argument that attempts to persuade us, but
contains a fundamental flaw in its reasoning
- Arguments are not supported by evidence or reasoned argumentation
- In a fallacy, the reasons advanced are irrelevant or inappropriate to
the conclusion the reasons supposedly support
4
, Good argument Fallacy
- Gives reasons in support of a - Gives no reasons in support of
claim its claim
- Has a structure (the conclusion - Persuades us to accept the
follows from the premises) conclusion
- Provides reasons that are - Gives reasons that are not
appropriately connected to related to its claim
what is being claimed
Not all unsound or invalid arguments are fallacies. The difference between a
fallacy and an unsound argument is that a fallacy, although deceitful,
tempts us to be persuaded, whereas an unsound argument does not. There
are three categories of fallacies: distraction fallacies, emotion fallacies and
structural fallacies.
1. Distraction fallacies
Distraction fallacies are fallacies that try to distract attention away from the
weak point of an argument.
Slippery slope: A slippery slope argument entails reasoning in a chain with
conditionals (if so, then something else), where at least one of that if- then
premises is false or doubtful. In other words, the conclusion does not follow
from the premises. A typical slippery slope argument leads us from seemingly
unimportant and obviously true first premises to exaggerated consequences
in the conclusion. In a slippery slope argument, our attention is distracted by
the terrible situation presented in the conclusion.
Straw man: The term straw man refers to a scarecrow which is supposed to
frighten off crows or other birds, but is itself very feeble. The straw man fallacy
consists of making the arguers own position appear to be strong by making
the opposing position appear to be outrageous, or weaker than it actually is.
We can identify a straw man argument by looking for two false premises in
the argument:
The premise that inaccurately represents the opponents view
The implicit premise that you must either support this unmaintainable or
unacceptable position or you must support the view taken by the
arguer.
In this kind of fallacious reasoning no other alternatives are offered.
Begging the question (petitio principii): The begging the question fallacy
consists of circular reasoning, where the arguer takes for granted the truth of
5
