2. Do You Agree with Him? Why?
Source: http://sergeicartoons.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Global-warming.jpg
3. An Inconvenient Truth
Must See:
Must See:
An Inconvenient Truth (Video).
An Inconvenient Truth (Video).
URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=%22Inconvenient+truth%22&hl=en
URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=%22Inconvenient+truth%22&hl=en
Futurama explains Global Warming - -as used in An Inconvenient Truth - -Google Video.
Futurama explains Global Warming as used in An Inconvenient Truth Google Video.
URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7826207674342179094&q=%22global+warming%22&hl=en
URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7826207674342179094&q=%22global+warming%22&hl=en
Climate Crises (site): http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Climate Crises (site): http://www.climatecrisis.net/
10. Module 3: Arguments - Part 2 (of 3)
2. What is an Argument?
1. Distinguishing
Fact & Opinion
3. Identifying Premises
& Conclusions
4. What Is Not
an Argument?
8. Writing
Arguments
5. Deduction &
Induction
7. Evaluating
Arguments
6. Analyzing
Arguments
11. “When asked how World War III would be fought,
Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how
World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones!”
12. Remember!
Before we can effectively analyze
and evaluate an argument, we
need to understand clearly what
kind of argument is being
offered.
13. 3.5 Deduction & Induction
Arguments
below
deductive or
inductive?
Argument 1
All Humans are Mortal.
P. Ramlee is human.
Therefore, P. Ramlee is Mortal.
Argument 2
All of Yasmin Ahmad‘s movies have been good.
Therefore, Yasmin Ahmad‘s next movie will probably be good.
Types of Arguments:
Deductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is
claimed or intended to follow necessarily from the premises.
Inductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is
claimed or intended to follow probably from the premises.
14. 3.5 Deduction & Induction
KEY DIFFERENCES
Deductive arguments claim that…
Inductive arguments claim that…
If the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true.
The conclusion follows necessarily
from the premises.
The premises provide conclusive
evidence for the truth of the
conclusion.
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, meaning that if you
accept the premises, you must
accept the conclusion.
If the premises are true, then the
conclusion is probably true.
The conclusion follows probably
from the premises.
The premises provide good (but
not conclusive) evidence for the
truth of the conclusion.
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.
Source: G Bassham & Co., Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction, p.58
15. 3.5 Deduction & Induction
There are four tests that can be used to determine
whether an argument is deductive or inductive:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Indicator Word Test
The Strict Necessity Test
The Common Pattern Test
The Principle of Charity Test
16. 3.5.1 The Indicator Word Test
Farah is a BBA student.
Most BBA students own laptops.
So, probably Farah owns a laptop.
The indicator word test asks whether there are any indicator words that
provide clues whether a deductive or inductive argument is being offered.
Common deduction indicator words include words or phrases like
necessarily, logically, it must be the case that, and this proves that.
Common induction indicator words include words or phrases like
probably, likely, it is plausible to suppose that, it is reasonable to think
that, and it's a good bet that.
In the example above, the word probably shows that the argument is
inductive.
17. 3.5.2 The Strict Necessity Test
Texans are architects.
No architects are Democrats.
So, no Texans are Democrats.
The strict necessity test asks whether the conclusion follows from the
premises with strict logical necessity. If it does, then the argument is
deductive.
In this example, the conclusion does follow from the premises with strict
logical necessity. Although the premises are both false, the conclusion
does follow logically from the premises, because if the premises were
true, then the conclusion would be true as well.
18. 3.5.3 The Common Pattern Test
Either Bruce Lee voted in the last election, or he didn't.
Only citizens can vote.
Bruce Lee is not, and has never been, a citizen.
So, Bruce Lee didn't vote in the last election.
The common pattern test asks whether the argument exhibits a pattern of
reasoning that is characteristically deductive or inductive.
If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically
deductive, then the argument is probably deductive.
If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically inductive,
then the argument is probably inductive.
In the example above, the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning called
"argument by elimination.“
Arguments by elimination are arguments that seek to logically rule out various
possibilities until only a single possibility remains. Arguments of this type are
always deductive.
19. 3.5.4 The Principle of Charity Test
Ramlan: Karen told me her grandmother recently climbed
Gunung Kinabalu.
Zaid : Well, Karen must be pulling your leg. Karen's grandmother
is over 90 years old and walks with a cane.
In this passage, there are no clear indications whether Zaid's argument
should be regarded as deductive or inductive. For arguments like these,
we fall back on the principle of charity test.
test
According to the principle of charity test, we should always interpret an
test
unclear argument or passage as generously as possible.
We could interpret Zaid's argument as deductive. But this would be
uncharitable, since the conclusion clearly doesn't follow from the premises
with strict logical necessity. (It is logically possible--although highly
unlikely--that a 90-year-old woman who walks with a cane could climb
Gunung Kinabalu.) Thus, the principle of charity test tells us to treat
the argument as deductive.
20. 3.5 Exercise 1
Tony: Are there any good Italian restaurants in town?
Nasir: Yeah, Luigi's is pretty good. I've had their Neapolitan rigatoni,
their lasagne col pesto, and their mushroom ravioli. I don't think
you can go wrong with any of their pasta dishes.
Is Nasir’s argument
deductive or
inductive? Why?
21. 3.5 Exercise 2
I wonder if I have enough cash to buy my psychology textbook
as well as my biology and history textbooks. Let's see, I have
$200. My biology textbook costs $65 and my history textbook
costs $52. My psychology textbook costs $60. With taxes,
that should come to about $190. Yep, I have enough.
Is this argument
deductive or
inductive? Why?
22. 3.5 Exercise 3
Mother: Don't give Shahariza that brownie. It contains walnuts, and I
think She is allergic to walnuts. Last week she ate some oatmeal
cookies with walnuts, and she broke out in a severe rash.
Father: Shahariza isn't allergic to walnuts. Don't you remember she ate
some walnut fudge ice cream at Fuadah's birthday party last
spring? She didn't have any allergic reaction then.
Is the Father’s
argument
deductive or
inductive? Why?
23. 3.5 Deduction & Induction
Type
Description
Inductive
Reasoning
Making observations, and then drawing conclusions from those observations
Moves from specific evidence to general conclusion
Conclusion must be figured out and then evaluated for validity
Inductive = Evidence Conclusion
Questions to ask:
What evidence is available? What has been observed?
What can be concluded from that evidence?
Is that conclusion logical?
Deductive
Reasoning
Moves from conclusion to evidence for the conclusion
Evaluate if the evidence is valid
Includes formal logic
Deductive = Conclusion Evidence
Questions to ask:
What is the conclusion?
What evidence supports it?
Is that evidence logical?
24. “Formal education will make you a living;
self-education will make you a fortune.”
- Jim Rohn
25. 3.6 Analyzing Arguments
To analyze an argument means to break it up into
various parts to see clearly what conclusion is
being defended and on what grounds.
Identifying Premises & Conclusions
(Refer to 3.3)
Diagramming Short Arguments
Summarizing Longer Arguments
26. 3.6.1 Diagramming Short Arguments
Diagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze relatively short
arguments (roughly a paragraph in length or shorter).
Six (6) basic steps:
1. Read through the argument carefully, circling any premise and
conclusion indicators you see.
2. Number the statements consecutively as they appear in the argument
(Don’t number any sentences that are not statements.)
3. Arrange the numbers spatially on a page with the premises placed
above the conclusion(s) they are alleged to support.
4. Using arrows to mean “is evidence for,” create a kind of flowchart that
shows which premises are intended to support which conclusions.
5. Indicate independent premises by drawing arrows directly from the
premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support. Indicate
linked premises by placing a plus sign between each of the linked
premises, underlining the premises to the conclusions they are claimed
to support
27. 3.6.1 Diagramming Short Arguments
TIPS
1. Find the main conclusion first.
2. Pay close attention to premise and conclusion
indicators.
indicators
3. Remember that sentences containing the word and often
contain two or more separate statements.
4. Treat conditional statements (if-then statements) and
disjunctive statements (either-or statements) as single
statements.
statements
5. Don’t number or diagram any sentence that is not a
statement.
statement
6. Don’t diagram irrelevant statements.
statements
7. Don’t diagram redundant statements.
statements
28. 3.6.2 Summarizing Longer Arguments
The goal of summarizing longer arguments is
to provide a brief synopsis of the
argument that accurately and clearly
restates the main points in the
summarizer’s own words.
Summarizing involves two skills:
Paraphrasing
Finding missing premises and conclusions
29. 3.6.2 Paraphrasing
A paraphrase is a detailed restatement of a passage using
different words and phrases. A good paraphrase is:
Accurate
It reproduces the author’s meaning fairly and without bias and
distortion.
Clear
Clarifies what an argument is saying. It often translates complex and
confusing language into language that’s easier to understand.
Concise
It captures the essence of an argument, and strips away all the
irrelevant or unimportant details and puts the key points of the
argument in a nutshell.
Charitable
It is often possible to interpret a passage in more than one way. In
such cases, the principle of charity requires that we interpret the
passage as charitable as the evidence reasonably permits (e.g.
clarifying the arguer’s intent in ways that make the arguments
stronger and less easy to attack).
30. 3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Accurate
Example:
Original Passage:
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very
remote relation. – Hence, she must be engaged in frequent
controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our
concerns. – Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate
ourselves, by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or
the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
(George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796)
Paraphrase:
Europe has a set of vital interests that are of little or no concern to us. For
this reason, European nations will often become embroiled in conflicts
for reasons that don’t concern us. Therefore, we shouldn’t form artificial
ties that would get us involved in the ordinary ups and downs of
European politics.
31. 3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Clear
Example:
Original:
The patient exhibited symptoms of an edema in the
occipital-parietal region and an abrasion on the left
patella.
Paraphrase:
The patient had a bump on the back of his head and
a scrape on his left knee.
32. 3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Concise
Example:
Original:
The shop wasn’t open at that point of time, owing to
the fact that there was no electrical power in the
building. (23 word)
Paraphrase:
The shop was closed then because there was no
electricity in the building. (13 words)
33. 3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Charitable
Example:
Original:
Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Therefore, if
you continue to smoke, you are endangering your
health.
Paraphrase:
Cigarette smoking is a positive causal factor that
greatly increases the risk of getting lung cancer.
Therefore, if you continue to smoke, you are
endangering your health.
34. 3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions
“The bigger the burger, the better the burger.
Burgers are bigger at Burger King (BK).”
(Implied conclusion: Burgers are better at BK)
In real life people often leave parts of their argument unstated
for different reasons (being obvious and familiar, concealing
something, etc).
35. 3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions
An argument with a missing premise or conclusion is called an
Enthymeme.
Enthymeme
Two (2) basic rules:
Faithfully interpret the arguer’s intentions.
Ask: What else the arguer must assume – that he does not say –
to reach his conclusion. All assumptions you add to the argument
must be consistent with everything the arguer says.
Be charitable.
Search for a way of completing the argument that (1) is a
plausible way of interpreting the arguer’s uncertain intent and (2)
makes the argument as good an argument as it can be.
Be generous in interpreting other people’s incompletely stated
Be generous in interpreting other people’s incompletely stated
arguments as you would like them to be in interpreting your own.
arguments as you would like them to be in interpreting your own.
36. 3.6.2 Standardizing
To analyze longer arguments, we can use a method called
Standardizing.
Standardizing consists of restating an argument in
Standardizing consists of restating an argument in
standard logical form when each step in the argument
standard logical form when each step in the argument
is numbered consecutively, premises are stated above
is numbered consecutively, premises are stated above
the conclusions they are claimed to support, and
the conclusions they are claimed to support, and
justifications are provided for each conclusion
justifications are provided for each conclusion
in the argument.
in the argument.
37. 3.6.2 Standardizing
Standardizing involves five (5) basic steps:
1. Read through the argument carefully. Identify the main
conclusion (it may be only implied) and any major premises
and sub-conclusions. Paraphrase as needed to clarify
meaning
2. Omit any unnecessary or irrelevant material.
3. Number the steps in the argument and list them in correct
logical order (i.e., with the premises placed above the
conclusions they are intended to support).
4. Fill in any key missing premises and conclusions (if any).
5. Add justifications for each conclusion in the argument. In
other words, for each conclusion or sub-conclusion,
indicate in parentheses from which previous lines in the
argument the conclusion or sub-conclusion is claimed to
directly follow.
38. 3.6.2 Standardizing - Example
We can see something only after it has happened. Future events,
however, have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems
to imply both that it has and has not happened, and that’s
logically impossible.
The argument is lacking
a main conclusion.
Standardizing:
1. We can see something only after it has happened.
2. Future events have not yet happened.
3. So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not
happened (from 1-2)
4. It is logically impossible for an event both to have happened and not to
have happened.
5. [Therefore, it is logically impossible to see a future event.]
(From 3-4)
Refer to Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments. p. 188-189.
(“Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction” book, 2nd Edition)
39. 3.6.2 Standardizing: Common Mistakes to Avoid
Common Mistakes to watch out for (or avoid):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Don’t write in incomplete sentences.
Don’t include more than one statement per line.
Don’t include anything that is not a statement.
Don’t include anything that is not a premise or
a conclusion.
Refer to Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments. p. 192-193.
(“Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction” book, 2nd Edition)
40. Group Activity
Global Warming: Most scientists now argue that atmospheric pollution is making the
world’s climate warmer.
Break into groups of 4 - 6, read the articles on Global Warming provided by the
lecturer, and then reflect, discuss and answer the following questions:
Standardize (summarize the arguments) the “Global warming” article (150
words or less).
Is Global Warming relevant to us? Why?
us
What strategies can Malaysia use to reduce pollution?
What can You do to reduce pollution?
20 min
Group discussion
5 min
Summarize discussion findings
15 min
Group presentation & discussion
The Group leader must submit their findings in hard-copy or soft-copy format to the
lecturer before or during the next class.
41. Summary
5. Deduction and
Induction
Deductive arguments are arguments in which the
conclusion is claimed or intended to follow
necessarily from the premises.
Inductive arguments are arguments in which the
conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably
from the premises.
2. Analyzing
Arguments
To analyze an argument means to break it up into
various parts to see clearly what conclusion is being
defended and on what grounds.
Diagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze
relatively short arguments (roughly a paragraph in
length or shorter).
Standardizing is a method used to analyze longer
arguments, which involves paraphrasing and finding
missing premises and conclusions.
44. Contact Details
Zaid Ali Alsagoff
UNIVERSITI TUN ABDUL RAZAK
16-5, Jalan SS 6/12
47301 Kelana Jaya
Selangor Darul Ehsan
Malaysia
E-mail: zaid.alsagoff@gmail.com
Tel: 603-7627 7238
Fax: 603-7627 7246
45. References
Books
Chapter 3 (Deduction & Induction) & 7 (Analyzing Arguments): G Bassham,
W Irwin, H Nardone, J M Wallace, Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction,
McGraw-Hill International Edition, 2007
Online Resources
Climate Crisis: http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Global Warming: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/
Graphics
George Bush (under water):
http://sergeicartoons.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Global-warming.jpg
Global Warming (sun and earth):
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/global-warming-2.jpg
Global Warming (factories):
http://www.climatecrisis.net/downloads/images/Desktop-6.jpg
The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/globalwarming-4.gif
P. Ramlee: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Ramlee.jpg
Big burger: http://grecfrites.typepad.com/stock/images/booker_eating_big_burger.jpg
