AR 414 Research Method January 13, 2022

Laggui, Denise Aynrand B. AR. Irene G. Florendo

SW-MT-01

1. What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to
believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking.
Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following :

• understand the logical connections between ideas

• identify, construct and evaluate arguments
• detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
• solve problems systematically
• identify the relevance and importance of ideas
• reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values

Critical thinking is not a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good

memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. A
critical thinker can deduce consequences from what he knows, and he knows how to
make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information
to inform himself.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of
other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and
bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative
reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge,
improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can use critical thinking to
enhance work processes and improve social institutions.

Some people believe that critical thinking hinders creativity because it requires
following the rules of logic and rationality, but creativity might require breaking rules.
This is a misconception. Critical thinking is quite compatible with thinking "out- of-the-
box", challenging consensus and pursuing less popular approaches. If anything,
critical thinking is an essential part of creativity because we need critical thinking to
evaluate and improve our creative ideas.

2. What are fallacies?

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own
and others’ writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you
make, read, and hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: first, fallacious
arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual
reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in
newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard to
evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak,
somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages
or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. The goal of this
AR 414 Research Method January 13, 2022
Laggui, Denise Aynrand B. AR. Irene G. Florendo
SW-MT-01

handout, then, is not to teach you how to label arguments as fallacious or fallacy-free,
but to help you look critically at your own arguments and move them away from the
“weak” and toward the “strong” end of the continuum.

3. Types of fallacies:
a. Hasty generalization

Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a

sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small). Stereotypes
about people (“librarians are shy and smart,” “wealthy people are snobs,” etc.) are a
common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization.

Example: “My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I’m in is hard,
too. All philosophy classes must be hard!” Two people’s experiences are, in this case,
not enough on which to base a conclusion.

Tip: Ask yourself what kind of “sample” you’re using: Are you relying on the opinions or
experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If so,
consider whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion.
(Notice that in the example, the more modest conclusion “Some philosophy classes are
hard for some students” would not be a hasty generalization.)

b. Missing the point

Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not the

conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Example: “The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.
Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a
very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the
punishment for drunk driving.” The argument actually supports several conclusions—
”The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious,” in particular—but it doesn’t
support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.

Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask yourself
what conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Looking at your
conclusion, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a
conclusion, and then see if you’ve actually given that evidence. Missing the point often
occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful
if you know you’re claiming something big.

c. Post hoc (also called false cause)

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which
translates as “after this, therefore because of this.”

Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes

one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register for
a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it’s true that the first event caused the
AR 414 Research Method January 13, 2022
Laggui, Denise Aynrand B. AR. Irene G. Florendo
SW-MT-01

one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren’t really
related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn’t the same thing as causation.

Examples: “President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up.
Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.” The increase in taxes might or might not be
one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn’t shown us that one caused
the other.

Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some explanation
of the process by which the tax increase is supposed to have produced higher crime
rates. And that’s what you should do to avoid committing this fallacy: If you say that A
causes B, you should have something more to say about how A caused B than just that
A came first and B came later.

d. Slippery slope

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire
consequence, will take place, but there’s really not enough evidence for that
assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the “slippery slope,”
we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can’t stop
partway down the hill.

Example: “Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don’t respect life,
we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon
our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It
will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make
animal experimentation illegal right now.” Since animal experimentation has been legal
for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this
chain of events won’t necessarily take place. Even if we believe that experimenting on
animals reduces respect for life, and loss of respect for life makes us more tolerant of
violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which things stop—we may not slide all
the way down to the end of civilization. And so we have not yet been given sufficient
reason to accept the arguer’s conclusion that we must make animal experimentation
illegal right now.

Like post hoc, slippery slope can be a tricky fallacy to identify, since sometimes a chain
of events really can be predicted to follow from a certain action. Here’s an example
that doesn’t seem fallacious: “If I fail English 101, I won’t be able to graduate. If I don’t
graduate, I probably won’t be able to get a good job, and I may very well end up
doing temp work or flipping burgers for the next year.”

Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say “if A, then B, and
if B, then C,” and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.

e. Weak analogy

Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or
situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant
AR 414 Research Method January 13, 2022
Laggui, Denise Aynrand B. AR. Irene G. Florendo
SW-MT-01

respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the
fallacy of weak analogy.

Example: “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be
used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of
hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.” While guns and
hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and
being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to
restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large
numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—it would be
hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument
based on it.

If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two
things in the world: “My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when
it rains (I work more when I’m stuck inside) and they’re both kind of murky.” So the mere
fact that you can draw an analogy between two things doesn’t prove much, by itself.

Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion—arguers frequently

compare fetuses with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that would
violate the rights of an adult human being also violates the rights of fetuses. Whether
these arguments are good or not depends on the strength of the analogy: do adult
humans and fetuses share the properties that give adult humans rights? If the property
that matters is having a human genetic code or the potential for a life full of human
experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share that property, so the argument and
the analogy are strong; if the property is being self-aware, rational, or able to survive on
one’s own, adult humans and fetuses don’t share it, and the analogy is weak.

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you’re making, and see whether
the two things you’re comparing both share those properties.

f. Appeal to authority

Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or

authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we
try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by
appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the
fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example: “We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor
Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.” While Guy Handsome may
be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there’s no particular reason why
anyone should be moved by his political opinions—he is probably no more of an
authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.

Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure
that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second, rather
than just saying “Dr. Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to explain the
AR 414 Research Method January 13, 2022
Laggui, Denise Aynrand B. AR. Irene G. Florendo
SW-MT-01

reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way,
your readers have more to go on than a person’s reputation. It also helps to choose
authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who
will be perceived as biased.

g. Ad populum

Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” There are several
versions of the ad populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes advantage of
the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to
try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common
versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience
to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.

Example: “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!” While the
opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have,
it certainly doesn’t determine what is moral or immoral: there was a time where a
substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not
evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to agree with the
conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.

Tip: Make sure that you aren’t recommending that your readers believe your conclusion
because everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, people will like you
better if you believe it, and so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opinion is not always
the right one.

h. Ad hominem and tu quoque

Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem
(“against the person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”) fallacies focus our attention on
people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the
conclusion is usually “You shouldn’t believe So-and-So’s argument.” The reason for not
believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a
hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her
opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.

Examples: “Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms
women. But Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so why should we listen to her?” Dworkin’s
appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously,
have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is
fallacious.

In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done
the thing he or she is arguing against, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be
listened to. Here’s an example: imagine that your parents have explained to you why
you shouldn’t smoke, and they’ve given a lot of good reasons—the damage to your
health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, “I won’t accept your argument, because you
used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!” The fact that your parents have
AR 414 Research Method January 13, 2022
Laggui, Denise Aynrand B. AR. Irene G. Florendo
SW-MT-01

done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put forward
in their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your response is
fallacious.

Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents’ reasoning, rather than on their personal
character. (The exception to this is, of course, if you are making an argument about
someone’s character—if your conclusion is “President Jones is an untrustworthy person,”
premises about her untrustworthy acts are relevant, not fallacious.)

i. Appeal to pity

Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept
a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

Examples: “I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me
an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a cold, so it was really
hard for me to study!” The conclusion here is “You should give me an A.” But the criteria
for getting an A have to do with learning and applying the material from the course;
the principle the arguer wants us to accept (people who have a hard week deserve
A’s) is clearly unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might feel relevant
and might even get the audience to consider the conclusion—but the information isn’t
logically relevant, and so the argument is fallacious. Here’s another example: “It’s
wrong to tax corporations—think of all the money they give to charity, and of the costs
they already pay to run their businesses!”

Tip: Make sure that you aren’t simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by
making them feel sorry for someone.

j. Appeal to ignorance

Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no
conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion
on this issue.”

Example: “People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one
has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.” Here’s an opposing
argument that commits the same fallacy: “People have been trying for years to prove
that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God
exists.” In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a
positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is
not fallacious: if qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for
something for a long time, they haven’t found it, and it’s the kind of thing people ought
to be able to find, then the fact that they haven’t found it constitutes some evidence
that it doesn’t exist.

Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a
conclusion from that lack of evidence.

k. Straw man
AR 414 Research Method January 13, 2022
Laggui, Denise Aynrand B. AR. Irene G. Florendo
SW-MT-01

Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond
in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy,
the arguer sets up a weak version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by
knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man (like a scarecrow)
isn’t very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponent’s argument
isn’t very impressive either.

Example: “Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who looks at it!
But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and
its fans should be left in peace.” The feminist argument is made weak by being
overstated. In fact, most feminists do not propose an outright “ban” on porn or any
punishment for those who merely view it or approve of it; often, they propose some
restrictions on particular things like child porn, or propose to allow people who are hurt
by porn to sue publishers and producers—not viewers—for damages. So the arguer
hasn’t really scored any points; he or she has just committed a fallacy.

Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and
sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the best version of an
opponent’s argument, then you’ve really accomplished something.

l. Red herring

Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a
side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer
never returns to the original issue.

Example: “Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all,
classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.”
Let’s try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what’s wrong with this argument:

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting
along well.

Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.

When we lay it out this way, it’s pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent—
the fact that something helps people get along doesn’t necessarily make it more fair;
fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the
audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be
distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve
would be fair.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues
do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise
supports the conclusion?

m. False dichotomy
AR 414 Research Method January 13, 2022
Laggui, Denise Aynrand B. AR. Irene G. Florendo
SW-MT-01

Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are
only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are
left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But
often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought about
them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends.

Example: “Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new
building, or we continue to risk students’ safety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone’s
safety, so we must tear the building down.” The argument neglects to mention the
possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from
the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we
shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms.

Tip: Examine your own arguments: if you’re saying that we have to choose between just
two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven’t mentioned? If
there are other alternatives, don’t just ignore them—explain why they, too, should be
ruled out. Although there’s no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three
options, four options, etc. when really there are more is similar to false dichotomy and
should also be avoided.

n. Begging the question

Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to

detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that
begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing
real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the
conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular
reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the
argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of
general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons
for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

Examples: “Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help

another human being escape suffering through death.” Let’s lay this out in premise-
conclusion form:

Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering
through death.

Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

If we “translate” the premise, we’ll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing
twice: “decent, ethical” means pretty much the same thing as “morally acceptable,”
and “help another human being escape suffering through death” means something
pretty similar to “active euthanasia.” So the premise basically says, “active euthanasia is
morally acceptable,” just like the conclusion does. The arguer hasn’t yet given us any
real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking “well, really,
AR 414 Research Method January 13, 2022
Laggui, Denise Aynrand B. AR. Irene G. Florendo
SW-MT-01

why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?” Her argument “begs” (that is,
evades) the real question.

Here’s a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is
needed to make the argument valid is completely ignored: “Murder is morally wrong.
So active euthanasia is morally wrong.” The premise that gets left out is “active
euthanasia is murder.” And that is a debatable premise—again, the argument “begs”
or evades the question of whether active euthanasia is murder by simply not stating the
premise. The arguer is hoping we’ll just focus on the uncontroversial premise, “Murder is
morally wrong,” and not notice what is being assumed.

Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and
conclusion in a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are
required to move from one premise to the next or from the premises to the conclusion.
Write down the statements that would fill those gaps. If the statements are controversial
and you’ve just glossed over them, you might be begging the question. Next, check to
see whether any of your premises basically says the same thing as the conclusion (but in
different words). If so, you’re probably begging the question. The moral of the story: you
can’t just assume or use as uncontroversial evidence the very thing you’re trying to
prove.

o. Equivocation

Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single

word or phrase that is important to the argument.

Example: “Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to
our money.” The equivocation here is on the word “right”: “right” can mean both
something that is correct or good (as in “I got the right answers on the test”) and
something to which someone has a claim (as in “everyone has a right to life”).
Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like
“freedom,” “justice,” “rights,” and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or
misunderstanding. Either way, it’s important that you use the main terms of your
argument consistently.

4. Own example of fallacies:

a. Hasty generalization

“Architecture course has a lot of drawing and math subjects, all of the students must be
very good in drawing and math.”

- Most people think that all students who are taking up architecture are really
good in drawing or math, but in reality not all students are really good at
drawing or math, some even fail in those subjects.
AR 414 Research Method January 13, 2022
Laggui, Denise Aynrand B. AR. Irene G. Florendo
SW-MT-01

b. Appeal to Pity

“I was not able to pass the requirement, but you should consider it because there was a
heavy traffic while I’m on my way to class, and I woke up late because I had to stay up
all night finishing this task, I was not able to finish it early because I don’t have my
laptop with me.”

- Some people find good reasons to make their audience feel pity on them
because of circumstances that they are providing.

Sources:

- Lau, J., & Chao, J. (n.d.). What is critical thinking? Retrieved January 12, 2021,
from https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/ct.php
- Fallacies. (2019, January 24). Retrieved January 12, 2021, from
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/