2

CRITICAL THINKING
AND LOGIC

Histories make men wise; poets, witty; the mathematics, subtle; natural
philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able to contend.
—Francis Bacon

2.1 Introduction
Critical thinking is often also called informal logic. The central theme of critical thinking is
logic and all that is relevant to logic. Informal logic is often contrasted with what is known
as formal logic. But before we analyse the distinction between these two kinds of logic, we
need get a general understanding of what logic is.
Logic can be described as the systematic study of inferences. The British empiricist
philosopher John Locke once said, “Logic is the anatomy of thought”. Formal logic is
the study of the form of inferences or arguments, which enables us to judge whether an
argument has a form that has been recognised as a form of proper inference, wherein the
conclusion is derived from the premises following certain accepted rules or methods of
inference. Although informal logic is not so concerned with the formalisation that defines
formal logic, it helps to assess inferences without being involved with formalisation. If we
look into the history of informal logic, we will see that it developed as a discipline simply
to enable us to “assess, analyse and improve ordinary language (or ‘everyday’) reasoning”.1
26 • Critical Thinking

We must remember that critical thinking and informal logic is an interdisciplinary approach
to inferences or arguments. This is so because an attempt to understand reasoning is made
in critical thinking from the “point of view of philosophy, formal logic, cognitive psychol-
ogy, and a range of other disciplines. Most of the work in informal logic focuses on the
reasoning and argument (in the premise-conclusion sense) one finds in personal exchange,
advertising, political debate, legal argument, and the social commentary that characterises
newspapers, television, the World Wide Web, and other forms of mass media ”.2 What is
clear by now is that in critical thinking we are concerned with inferences or arguments. It is in
this respect that critical thinking is related with logic and especially with arguments—their
recognition and their evaluation. We shall start with the recognition of an argument.

2.2 What Is an Argument?

In a very general way, we may say that whenever a person gives reasons in order to support
a claim, she is attempting at presenting an argument. “To attempt to persuade by giving
good reasons is to give an argument.”3 Such arguments are found in great abundance, not
only in the works of great philosophers or logicians but also in everyday discourse. We are
always presenting our friends, our families and our work mates with numerous arguments
in support of what we believe, what we do and what we think. Whenever there is a contro-
versy or debate about some issue, we find contenders in the debate presenting arguments
either to resolve or dissolve the debate or sometimes to keep the debate alive. We have to
remember that an argument is always backed by reason or evidence. In this respect, an argu-
ment is different from its close neighbour, opinion.
Consider the following claims:
The BJP was doing a better job running the country than the Congress Party is
doing now.
All children of parents who speak different languages are dyslexics.
Logicians are humourless people.
We would surely understand that these are opinions and not arguments. But the state-
ments below are most certainly arguments:
The BJP was doing a better job running the country than the Congress Party is
doing now because during their tenure there was lesser unemployment and the
inflation was also lower.
In the past, I have met nearly ten children whose parents speak different languages
and all of them were dyslexics. So all children of parents who speak different lan-
guages are dyslexics.
Logicians are constantly engaged in exercises of reason, in which there is no place
for emotion. An emotionless person is incapable of humour. So all logicians are
humourless.
All these are possibly bad arguments but they are arguments nonetheless and cannot
be regarded as mere opinions like the previous set. We should be able to understand that an
 Critical Thinking and Logic • 27

unsupported opinion or a mere description cannot be regarded as an argument. For instance,

if I say, “It was a hot and humid April morning, and I was desperately trying to finish the
second chapter of my book on critical thinking,” then neither would I be voicing an opin-
ion, nor expressing an argument. What I am doing here is just describing an April morning.
Suppose you say, “How many people in Chennai read The Times of India?” I would be
asking a question. So not everything that we say, hear, write or read are arguments.
We need to remember that we may come to form opinions by following a course
of rational deliberation. In such a case, our opinions are based on arguments, which in
turn are based on reasons or evidence. But we must also remember that not all opinions
are backed by arguments. If we look at opinions from a political point of view, we may
claim that every individual has the right to his or her opinion. But we need to remember
that from a logical point of view, all opinions are not at par. One might just arrive at an
opinion following one’s own gut feeling. This is definitely different from an opinion that
has resulted from a long and reasoned thought process.
What critical thinking teaches is to form opinions on the basis of evidence and argu-
ments because opinions on serious and controversial matters have to be defended by rational
arguments. It is in this sense that critical thinking really liberates people as it makes them
judge what they are told to do and believe and also helps them think through all these before
arriving at an opinion or taking a course of action. But how do we recognise an argument?

KEY POINTS

What is and what is not an argument?

To attempt to persuade by giving good reasons is to present an argument.
Whatever counts as an argument is always backed by reason or evidence.
It is wrong to regard an argument as an opinion when it is not supported by
any evidence.
An argument is not a mere description.
What critical thinking teaches you to do is to form opinions on the basis of
evidence and arguments because opinions on serious and controversial matters
have to be defended by rational arguments.

THINKING THROUGH EXERCISE 1

i. When do we present arguments?

ii. Can you provide examples of arguments and opinions?
iii. How does a description differ from an argument?
iv. Are all opinions irrational?
v. How does knowledge of arguments help us become good critical thinkers?
28 • Critical Thinking

2.3 Ho Can We Recognise an Argument?

An argument is a string of connected statements of which some are premises on the basis of
which one of them i.e., the conclusion, is established. The premises may be regarded as
the set of claims that a person puts forward in order to support a further claim that she
wants to make, which is the conclusion. In plain language, we may say that every argument
has two parts: The principal claim the argument is trying to persuade us to accept is the
conclusion. The others (there may also be just one) are the claims that support the primary
claim by providing reasons for accepting it and these are the premises. Let us try to illustrate
through an example what we have discussed so far:

All Kathakali dancers are from Kerala.

Raghu is a Kathakali dancer.
So, Raghu is from Kerala.

Note:
Here, the principal claim is that Raghu is from Kerala
So the conclusion is that Raghu is from Kerala
In order to support this claim, two other supporting claims are made from which the
conclusion follows. These are premises.
The premises are:
i. All Kathakali dancers are from Kerala
ii. Raghu is a Kathakali dancer

We need to remember a few things here. We can have even just one premise in an argu-
ment. Not all arguments need more premises than that. Let us consider an example:
No foreigners are allowed to vote in the national elections.
Therefore, no one who is allowed to vote in the national election can be a foreigner.
Note:
Here, the principal claim is that no one who is allowed to vote in the national elec-
tions can be a foreigner.
So the conclusion is that no one who is allowed to vote in the national election can
be a foreigner.
In order to support this claim, only one supporting claim is made from which the
conclusion follows. This is the premise.
The premise is:
No foreigners are allowed to vote in the national elections

We may now try to understand how we can recognise an argument. We should look for
the following features in an argument:
A string of statements
Relation between these statements
 Critical Thinking and Logic • 29

KEY POINTS

What is an argument? How can we recognise it?

An argument is a string of connected statements of which some are premises on
the basis of which one of them, i.e., the conclusion, is established.
The conclusion is the principal claim of the argument.
The other claims that support the principal claim are premises.
We may recognise an argument by:
i. finding a string of statements
ii. determining if the statements in the strings are related
iii. determining if the relation is such that some of the statements support one
of the statements, which is the principal claim
iv. finding the supporting statements that are the premises
v. finding the supported statement that is the conclusion.

THINKING THROUGH EXERCISE 2

i. What is an argument?
ii. What are the principal claims of an argument and what are the supporting
claims of an argument?
iii. How do you recognise an argument?

The relation should be such that some of the statements support one of the statements
(the supporting statements are premises).
The supported statement, which is the conclusion, should follow words like “therefore”
and “so”.
A thorough understanding of the flow of an argument depends upon our recognition of
premises and the conclusion. Let us now see how that can be done.

2.4 Premises, Hidden Premises, Conc usions,

and Intermediate Conclusions
We have discussed what a premise is and also what a conclusion is. There are certain words
that may be regarded as indicator words for premises and conclusions. These indicator
words not only indicate that an argument is being presented but also indicate which of
the statements in the argument are premises and which are conclusions. Let us see what
these indicator words may be.4
30 • Critical Thinking

Indicator words for premises

since because for
it follows from as is indicated by given that
is established by the fact that is implied by

Indicator words for conclusions

therefore thus so
hence it follows that then
in conclusion accordingly consequently
as a result implies shows
establishes

We may now try to make use of our knowledge of these indicator words to determine
the premise and the conclusion of an argument. We shall consider rather complicated
arguments and see how indicator words come handy in deciphering their structure. Here
is one example:

There is life somewhere in the universe as well as here on earth, for the universe is infinite and
it can’t be that in an infinite universe only one place has the special features needed for life.5

If we look carefully into this argument, we will notice a few things:

Though we usually think that the conclusion comes at the end and is followed by
the words or phrases that are indicators of conclusions, in this case it is mentioned
right at the beginning and has no conclusion indicating phrase attached to it.
The conclusion is: There is life somewhere in the universe as well as here on earth.
We know this because there is a premise indicator that differentiates the premises
from the conclusion. The premise indicator is the word “for”.
What follows after the word “for” are premises.
The premises are:
i. The universe is infinite.
ii. It can’t be that in an infinite universe only one place has the special features needed
for life.
We may now rewrite the argument in the following way:

Premise 1: The universe is infinite.

Premise 2: It can’t be that in an infinite universe only one place has the special features needed
for life.
Conclusion: There is life somewhere in the universe as well as here on earth.
 Critical Thinking and Logic • 31

Let us consider another argument:

If Susan is leaving for New Delhi early tomorrow morning then she will be back home by 8.
She is back home by 8.
So, she must be leaving for New Delhi early tomorrow morning.

If we look carefully into the argument, we will notice:

There is a conclusion indicator in the argument, i.e., the word so.
The conclusion is: Susan must be leaving for New Delhi early tomorrow morning.
The rest of the statements of the argument are premises.
The premises are:
i. If Susan is leaving for New Delhi early tomorrow morning then she will be back
home by 8.
ii. Susan is back home by 8.
We may now rewrite the argument is the following way:

Premise 1: If Susan is leaving for New Delhi early tomorrow morning then she will be back
home by 8.
Premise 2: Susan is back home by 8.
Conclusion: Therefore, Susan must be leaving for New Delhi early tomorrow morning.

KEY POINTS

We should look for words indicating the premises.

We should look for words indicating the conclusion.
Not all arguments are organized in the same manner.

THINKING THROUGH EXERCISE 3

i. What are the two things that we need to recognise in order to recognise an
argument?
ii. What are premise indicators?
iii. What are conclusion indicators?
iv. Do arguments have to be organised in the same manner? Give examples to
illustrate your answer.
32 • Critical Thinking

2.5 Hidden Premises

We shall now discuss some arguments that have hidden premises. These are known as
enthymemes. Consider an argument of the following kind:

Premise: It’s morally wrong to treat human beings as mere objects.

Conclusion: So, genetically engineering human beings is morally wrong.6

We may think that this is an argument with just one premise. This however is not true. If
we notice carefully, we will realise that there is a hidden premise lurking here:

If we genetically engineer human beings then we would be treating them as mere objects.

We may consider another example:

Premise: It is our moral duty to provide food for future generations.

Conclusion: It follows that it is our moral duty to genetically engineer crops.7

We must realise that the hidden premise in this case is:

Genetically engineering crops provides food for future generations.

Here, we are finding out the inner connection that validates the connection being made in
the conclusion. In the conclusion of this particular argument, what is being stated is that
it is our moral duty to harvest genetically engineered crops. At first, it might seem strange to
you for this claim to be supported by the premise, “it is our moral duty to provide food for
future generations”. But soon we realise that the only possible way that this can be achieved
is by genetically engineering crops, and that is why the premise we already have might be
regarded as a support for the conclusion. So we provide the hidden premise: Genetically
engineering crops provides food for future generations.
Let us consider another simple example from everyday conversation. Suppose you say
to a friend, “Amitabh Bachchan is taller than Shah Rukh Khan,” and the friend at once
responds, “Oh! Then he has to be taller than Aamir Khan too.” What is clear at once to
us is that your friend is saying this because he already knows that Shah Rukh Khan is
taller than Aamir Khan. And this is the hidden premise that supports his conclusion that
Amitabh Bachchan is taller than Aamir Khan.

KEY POINTS

Hidden premises
Not all premises of an argument are spelt out in an argument.
We must find the hidden premise by trying to identify the missing relating statement
that can relate the given premise with the conclusion.
 Critical Thinking and Logic • 33

THINKING THROUGH EXERCISE 4

i. What is a hidden premise?

ii. Give two examples of arguments with hidden premises.

2.6 Intermediate Conclusions

Sometimes we have arguments that contain intermediate conclusions. Intermediate con-
clusions work as premises of a subsequent argument that occurs within the body of the
original argument itself. Let us consider an example:

Sher Khan is a tiger.

All tigers are carnivorous.
So Sher Khan is also carnivorous.
And since all carnivorous animals have sharp teeth, Sher Khan too has sharp teeth.

Now let us re-write this argument with the intermediate conclusion clearly specified.

Premise 1: Sher Khan is a tiger

Premise 2: All tigers are carnivorous.
Conclusion 1 and Premise 3: Sher Khan is carnivorous.
Premise 4: All carnivorous animals have sharp teeth.
Conclusion 2: Sher Khan too has sharp teeth.

Notice that Conclusion 1 follows from Premises 1 and 2. Then Conclusion 1 doubles up
as Premise 3, which along with Premise 4 leads to Conclusion 2. So here the intermediate
conclusion is that Sher Khan is carnivorous.
We may consider another argument that has within it a sub-argument:

A computer cannot cheat in a game, because cheating means deliberately breaking rules in order
to win. A computer cannot deliberately break rules because it has no freedom of action.8

Now let us re-write this argument.

Premise 1: A computer has no freedom of action.

Conclusion 1 and Premise 2: Thus, a computer cannot deliberately break rules.
Premise 3: Cheating requires deliberate breaking of rules.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, a computer cannot cheat.

Note here we have an argument that contains another sub-argument. And the intermedi-
ate conclusion, “A computer cannot deliberately break rules,” serves as a premise for the
principal conclusion, “A computer cannot cheat”.
34 • Critical Thinking

KEY POINTS

Intermediate conclusions
Many arguments contain a sub-argument.
The conclusion of the sub-argument serves as a premise for the entire argument.
These conclusions are regarded as intermediate conclusions.

THINKING THROUGH EXERCISE 5

i. What is an intermediate conclusion?

ii. How does a statement perform the dual role of a premise as well as a conclusion?
iii. Give two examples of arguments that have intermediate conclusions.

2.7 Truth Content and Logical Content

We shall now be discussing an extremely important feature of logical arguments. When we
are trying to understand what an argument is, we realise that it is an attempt at establishing
a claim on the basis of other claims. If I present an argument for Claim A by supporting
it with Claim B and Claim C, then what I am saying is that if you accept Claims B and C
then you have to also accept Claim A. I say this because Claim A follows from Claims B
and C. It is as if Claim A is hidden inside Claim B and Claim C, and all we do in the
argument is bring it out. We have to remember that at no point are we claiming that either
Claim A, B or C are actually true. Consider this argument:
Raj Kapoor is the father of Shekhar Kapoor.
Shekhar Kapoor is the father of Anil Kapoor.
So, Raj Kapoor is the grandfather of Anil Kapoor.

Notice that this is an extremely good argument though both of its premises as well as its
conclusion are false. But the falsity of the premises or the conclusion does not make the
argument in question a bad argument.
We need to realise that in logic, we are interested in two things:
i. The truth content of a statement
ii. The logical content of a statement
On the one hand, in the case of the statement “Raj Kapoor is the father of Shekhar
Kapoor,” we may ask whether it is factually true. In such a case, we would be trying to
evaluate the evidence that we need to establish the truth of this statement. So we would be
concerned with the truth content of the statement. On the other hand, in the case of the
statement “Raj Kapoor is the father of Shekhar Kapoor,” we might ask what would follow
 Critical Thinking and Logic • 35

KEY POINTS

Truth content and logical content

When we are asking for evidence for the truth of any of the statements of an
argument, we are asking about the truth content of the argument.
When we are asking whether the conclusion follows from the premises, we are
asking about the logical content of an argument.
In evaluating the logical content of an argument, the relevant concept is validity.

THINKING THROUGH EXERCISE 6

i. What is the truth content of an argument?

ii. What is the logical content of an argument?
iii. Provide some examples of arguments that have the same logical content but
different truth content.

from it if it were true. In the above argument, we realise that if both the premises were
true then whatever would follow from it would be the conclusion. In such a case, we are
concerned with the logical content of the statement.
When evaluating an argument, we have to take into account both the truth content
and the logical content. We must understand that there may be flaws in arguments both
due to errors in truth content or errors in logical content. When there is some error in
logical content, we are left with an argument that is invalid. We are now going to discuss
one of the most, if not the most, important concept in logic—validity.

2.8 Validity
We are going to once again consider our argument with false premises and a false conclusion:

Argument 1
Raj Kapoor is the father of Shekhar Kapoor.
Shekhar Kapoor is the father of Anil Kapoor.
So, Raj Kapoor is the grandfather of Anil Kapoor.

Consider another argument that is exactly like this but with a few changes in the names:

Argument 2
Raj Kapoor is the father of Randhir Kapoor.
Randhir Kapoor is the father of Karishma Kapoor.
So, Raj Kapoor is the grandfather of Karishma Kapoor.
36 • Critical Thinking

Now we have an argument exactly like the previous one but all the statements involved
in this argument (both the premises and the conclusion) are true. Consider another argu-
ment very much like the two above:

Argument 3
Raj Kapoor is the father of Shekhar Kapoor.
Shekhar Kapoor is the father of Karishma Kapoor.
So, Raj Kapoor is the grandfather of Karishma Kapoor.

Now we have an argument that has two false premises but has a true conclusion. Consider
another argument quite like these:

Argument 4
Raj Kapoor is the father of Pankaj Kapoor.
Pankaj Kapoor is the father of Shahid Kapoor.
So, Raj Kapoor is the grandfather of Shahid Kapoor.

Here we have an argument with one false premise and a false conclusion. What is interest-
ing is that we would never be able to find an argument of the same kind with two true
premises and a false conclusion. We already have Argument 2, which is also an argument
with two true premises but not a false conclusion. So let us see if we can construct such an
argument. To begin with, we need to understand what makes all these arguments similar.
The similarity lies in the pattern, which is roughly as follows:

X is the father of Y.
Y is the father of Z.
So, X is the grandfather of Z.

We can arrive at all the possible categories of arguments simply by replacing the terms X,
Y and Z. Let us now consider an argument of the above pattern in which two premises
are true.
Prithviraj Kapoor is the father of Raj Kapoor.
Raj Kapoor is the father of Rishi Kapoor.

Here we have two premises that are true and are of the pattern:
X is the father of Y.
Y is the father of Z.

Just blindly following the pattern of arriving at the conclusion, we will arrive at the following:
Prithviraj Kapoor is the grandfather of Rishi Kapoor.

To our surprise, we shall see that this conclusion is true. We can continue like this
and we will see in each case that true premises will lead to true conclusions. Why is this?
The answer is simple: If X is the father of Y and if Y is the father of Z then X has to be the
grandfather of Z. Such is the relation between a grandfather and a grandchild. Here, X is
 Critical Thinking and Logic • 37

KEY POINTS

Validity
An argument is valid if it is impossible for its conclusion to be false when the
premises are true
A valid argument might well contain false statements
Arguments wherein the truth of the premises definitely leads to a truthful conclusion
are deductive arguments

THINKING THROUGH EXERCISE 7

i. When is an argument valid?

ii. Can an argument that has all false statements be valid?
iii. Provide an example of an argument with one false premise and a true
conclusion.

the grandfather of Z if he is Z’s father’s father. So we see that there is something inherent
in the pattern of this argument that ensures that if an argument with this pattern has two
true premises then its conclusion will definitely be true. This is a valid argument.
In the case of any valid argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true but the
conclusion false. Validity ensures that in an argument, we move from truth to truth. This is
so because when one presents an argument, one is saying, “If you accept my premises, that
is, if my premises are true, then you will have to accept my conclusion, that is, the conclu-
sion will also be true”. This statement captures the essence of the notion of validity.
We must now come to an even more important point. The arguments we have been
discussing are known as deductive arguments—arguments wherein the truth of the prem-
ises ensures the truth of the conclusion. The notion of a deductive argument and validity
are closely tied. We shall now discuss these two concepts.

2.9 Deductive Arguments and Validity

From what we have discussed already, we must understand that a deductive argument
is “an inference in which it is asserted that the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the
premises are true”.9 Deductive arguments have two important features:

i. In a deductive argument, there is a strict relation between the premises and the conclu-
sion. The relation is strict in the sense that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false
if the premises are true. This is so because the conclusion is in fact contained within the
premises. In a way, in a deductive argument, the conclusion cannot and does not go
38 • Critical Thinking

beyond the premises and so it is impossible for it to turn out false when the premises
are true. This is why the premises strictly guarantee the truth of the conclusion. It is not
as though they make the conclusion probable—they make it certain.
ii. There is something in the very pattern (or, as it is termed in the study of logic, the
form) of a deductive argument that ensures its validity.
Let us now consider a deductive argument and verify the existence of these two fea-
tures. We begin with choosing our second argument from the previous section:
Raj Kapoor is the father of Randhir Kapoor.
Randhir Kapoor is the father of Karishma Kapoor.
So, Raj Kapoor is the grandfather of Karishma Kapoor.

Let us see how the first feature is present in this argument. The first premise is that Raj
Kapoor is Randhir Kapoor’s father, and the second premise is that Randhir Kapoor is
Karishma Kapoor’s father. So what we are saying is that Raj Kapoor is Karishma Kapoor’s
father’s father i.e., her grandfather. Isn’t that what the conclusion is saying? This truly
shows that the conclusion does not go beyond the premises of the argument and so it is
impossible for it to turn out false when the premises are true. This is why the premises
strictly guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Let us now see how the second feature is present in this argument. We have already
examined in the previous section how the pattern of this argument forbids the formation
of an argument that has the same pattern or form and premises that are true but a conclu-
sion that is false. This point can be made clearer by considering another argument:
If Kolkata Knight Riders win the IPL then Shah Rukh Khan will be happy.
Kolkata Knight Riders won the IPL.
So, Shah Rukh Khan is happy.

We will first try to see what the pattern or the form of the argument is:
If X, then Y.
X.
So, Y.

We can see that this is a valid argument. It will be impossible for us to come up with a
premise with the form If X then Y and another premise X, both of which are true, leading
to a conclusion with the form Y that is not true. For example:
If Kolkata is more densely populated than Chennai then it is more densely populated than Agra.
Kolkata is more densely populated than Chennai.
So, Kolkata is more densely populated than Agra.

We shall see that even in this argument the two premises contain the conclusion and
so this conclusion does not really go beyond the premises. We also see that the form of the
argument ensures its validity. We must mention here that if a deductive argument is not
only valid but also has true premises and conclusions then the argument is sound. We must
also mention that the kind of arguments we find in geometry are deductive in nature.
 Critical Thinking and Logic • 39

KEY POINTS

Deductive arguments and validity

A deductive argument is an inference in which it is asserted that the conclusion
is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true.
In a deductive argument, there is a strict relation between the premises and the
conclusion. The relation is strict in the sense that it is impossible for the conclu-
sion to be false if the premises are true.
There is something in the very pattern (or as it is called in logic, “form”) of a
deductive argument that ensures its validity.
The conclusion of a deductive argument brings out what is already implicit in
the premises.
A valid deductive argument with true premises and a true conclusion is known
as a sound deductive argument.

THINKING THROUGH EXERCISE 8

i. What is a deductive argument?

ii. What are the two key features of a deductive argument?
iii. What is the relation between the premises and the conclusion of a valid deduc-
tive argument?
iv. When is a deductive argument sound? Can you give an example of such an
argument?

In the next chapter, we shall discuss how we can test the validity of an argument or
judge if it is free from faults. But here we can say that in the case of deductive arguments,
there may be two ways of determining their validity. We may try to think of an argument
with the same form that has true premises but a false conclusion. We may appeal to what is
known in logic as rules of deductive reasoning to see if any of them have been violated. This is
the kind of thing we do in formal deductive logic and also in geometry and mathematics.

2.10 Inductive Arguments and Strength

Not all arguments are deductive in nature. Consider the following two arguments:
(A) (B)
“All vegetables contain Vitamin C. Most vegetables contain Vitamin C.
Spinach is a vegetable. Spinach is a vegetable.
So, spinach contains Vitamin C. So, spinach contains Vitamin C.”10
40 • Critical Thinking

If we look closely, we will note that there are significant differences between the two
arguments, though at first glance they seem to be saying the same thing. In the case of
Argument A, the first premise makes an unambiguous statement about all vegetables.
Argument B does not make such a statement. And this makes all the difference. Because
of this difference, in the case of Argument A, we will never find a situation wherein the
premises are true but the conclusion is false. This is not so in the case of Argument B. In
Argument B, it could well be the case that both the premises are true but the conclusion is
false. But we must realise that the premises of Argument B make it highly possible for the
conclusion to be true. In our daily lives, we draw such inferences very often.
Let us consider another example:
Most Indians are fond of cricket.
Preity Zinta is an Indian.
So, Preity Zinta is fond of cricket.

In this argument, we know that the first premise and the second premise make the
conclusion more probable. Some inferences are such that the conclusion does follow from
them but not with a hundred per cent certainty. In such cases, we consider the probabil-
ity of the conclusion being true and also attempt to discover evidence to prove that the
premises are true. This kind of argument is known as an inductive argument. An inductive
argument is an argument wherein the conclusion has a high probability of being true if the
premises are true. Sometimes we need to assess one argument against another and the best
way of doing it may be by determining which of the conclusions are more probable. In
induction, therefore, we judge the comparative strength of an argument by judging the
probability of its conclusion.
Inductive arguments may be of many kinds. Here are the three most important kinds
of inductive arguments:

i. Inductive analogy
Consider a situation wherein we have two things that are similar in many significant ways.
Knowing this, we may infer that these two things are probably similar in other ways as
well. For example:
I had a Sony sound system earlier on. It had a great sound box and excellent equaliser.
I just bought another Sony sound system.
So, this one will also have a great sound box and excellent equaliser.

This argument is of course not a deductive argument. And in spite of the fact that my old
Sony sound system was a good one, it might well turn out that the new one that I have
bought is not so good. But my past experience can be regarded as evidence that makes my
conclusion more probable.

ii. Enumerative inductive generalisation

We may have come to observe a large number of things or events of a particular kind and
also may have noticed that they all have one feature in common. From this observation,
 Critical Thinking and Logic • 41

we may conclude that all things or events of that kind all share that feature. Let us consider
an example:

All the swans I have seen in my life are white.

So, all swans are white.

This argument is of course not a deductive argument, and the appearance of a single
black swan would render the conclusion false. Even still, given the premise, the probabil-
ity of the conclusion being true is high.

iii. Restricted enumerative inductive generalisation

This kind of argument is very similar to the second kind of inductive argument. The only
thing that makes this argument different from the previous one is that it has a conclusion
that is more restricted. Let us consider an example:

All swans I have seen in my life are white.

So, most swans are white.

iv. Inductive argument with a singular conclusion

This kind of argument is a sort of combination of the first and third kinds of arguments.
It is similar to an inductive analogy because its conclusion is a singular one. It is also
similar to a restricted enumerative inductive generalisation because in this case too we are
arriving at a singular conclusion from a generalisation regarding many or most cases. Let
us consider an example:

KEY POINTS

Inductive arguments and strength

An inductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion has a high prob-
ability of being true given that the premises are true.
There are six kinds of inductive arguments:
i. Inductive analogy
ii. Enumerative inductive generalisation
iii. Restricted enumerative inductive generalisation
iv. Inductive argument with a singular conclusion
v. Statistical inductive argument
vi. Causal inductive argument
The strength of an inductive argument depends on the degree to which the premises
make the conclusion probable.
42 • Critical Thinking

Most children of working mothers are stubborn.

Jasmine is the child of a working mother.
So, Jasmine is stubborn.

v. Statistical inductive argument

In this kind of argument as well, we generalise based on past experiences. Here, however,
there is no need for previous experiences to be uniform. What are being used in the case of
such arguments are the principles of statistical regularity. “The premises describe a statisti-
cal relationship and the conclusion extrapolates that relationship from observed cases to
unobserved ones.”11 Let us consider an example:

Twenty-five per cent of the students who learn the piano at the Calcutta School of Music are
left-handed.
So, twenty-five per cent of all pianists are left-handed.

vi. Causal inductive argument

In this kind of argument, we conclude that an event (or an event of one kind) is the cause
of another event (or another kind of event) because the premises show that both these
events occur together. In other words, when we find events of one type occurring when-
ever events of another type occur, we conclude that there must be a causal connection
between the two kinds of events. Let us consider an example:
Whenever Sunanda eats shellfish she gets rashes all over her body.
So, possibly, eating shellfish is the cause of her rashes.

We may now make some remarks about inductive arguments in general. As we can see,
these arguments are very different from deductive arguments in which the conclusion follows

THINKING THROUGH EXERCISE 9

i. What is an inductive argument?

ii. Explain with the help of an example what an inductive analogy is.
iii. Explain with the help of an example what an enumerative inductive generali-
sation is.
iv. Explain with the help of an example what a restricted enumerative inductive
generalisation is.
v. Explain with the help of an example what an inductive argument with a sin-
gular conclusion is.
vi. Explain with the help of an example what a statistical inductive argument is.
vii. Explain with the help of an example what a causal inductive argument is.
viii. What determines the strength of an argument?
 Critical Thinking and Logic • 43

from the premises with certainty and as a matter of logical necessity. The conclusion of this
or any deductive argument simply spells out what is already implicit in the premises. In both
these respects, an inductive argument is very different from a deductive argument. In inductive
arguments, neither do conclusions follow from the premises as a matter of logical necessity and
with certainty and nor does the conclusion spell out whatever is already implicit in the prem-
ises. The premises of an inductive argument simply provide evidence that may support the
truth of the conclusion. The conclusion in a sense goes beyond the premises. So in the case of
an inductive argument, we do not speak about validity, rather we speak of inductive strength.
Here we are referring to the degree to which the premises make the conclusion probable.

2.11 Concluding Remarks

In this chapter, we have discussed the key notions of logic, which constitute the very
essence of critical thinking. A few important points to note here are as follows:

Critical thinking is concerned with logic.

Critical thinking is informal logic.
In critical thinking, we are concerned with the ability to think in ways that are
supported by reason and hence critical thinking is concerned with inferences or
arguments.
In critical thinking, we discuss how one can recognise and evaluate arguments.
An argument is presented in order to persuade a person to accept a claim that is
backed by reason.
An argument is not an opinion per se.
An argument is not merely a description.
An argument is a string of connected statements, some of which are premises on
the basis of which one of them, i.e., the conclusion, is drawn. The premises may be
regarded as a set of claims that a person puts forward in order to support a further
claim that she wants to make, which is also the conclusion.
We determine what the argument is by recognising its premises and its conclusion.
We use certain words as premise indicators and conclusion indicators.
There may be hidden premises in an argument.
There may be sub-arguments and intermediate conclusions of arguments.
We must distinguish between the truth content and the logical content of an
argument.
Validity is the key concept in a deductive argument.
A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises makes the truth of the
conclusion certain.
In a deductive argument, there is a strict relation between the premises and the
conclusion. The relation is strict in the sense that it is impossible for the conclusion
to be false if the premises are true.
44 • Critical Thinking

There is something in the very pattern or form of a deductive argument that ensures
its validity.
An inductive argument is one in which the conclusion has a high probability of
being true if the premises are true.

2.12 More E ercises

1. Consider the following statements to check if they are supported opinions. If they are
unsupported opinions, provide reasons that can support them:

All Bengalis support the Kolkata Knight Riders.

I don’t believe in God because I have never seen God.
Smoking is bad.
Only tall people can be good basketball players.
All religious people are fanatical.
2. Consider the following sets of statements and decide which of them are arguments:
“Everybody who dreams is asleep. When a person is asleep, he cannot control his
mind so as to to plan things. Therefore, dreams cannot be controled by a person
who is dreaming.”12
It is a hot summer day in Santiniketan. The students are all wearing straw hats.
They have postponed their weekend picnic to avoid the heat.
My former boss was always telling me to change my habits and so I changed my job.
Since we forgot to put baking powder in the cake, the cake did not rise.
All boxers are short tempered. Rambo is a boxer and so he must be short tempered.
3. State the premises and the conclusions of the following arguments:
Ram must have loved Sita, as only a person who loves his wife can risk his and his
brother’s life to save her, which Ram did.
Since Ram was an ally of Sugriva and Bali was Sugriva’s enemy, Ram considered
Sugriva his enemy.
If all students are allowed to vote and Sujata is a student then Sujata will certainly
be allowed to vote.
If I take up science I will get a job, and if I take up humanities I will be happy, and since
I cannot take both science and humanities, I cannot both get a job and be happy.
“If we hit our children, they will learn that violence is acceptable, so we shouldn’t
physically discipline our children.”13
4. Find the hidden premises in the following arguments:
I had to pay a fine because I forgot to return my library book on time.
The Mahabharata is still popular because it is a classic tale of the battle of good
against evil.
 Critical Thinking and Logic • 45

I cannot trust Tarun because a man who has cheated me once cannot be trusted.
Because Russell was a logician, he couldn’t be irrational.
“If to be foolish is evil, then it is virtuous to be wise.”14
5. Analyse the following arguments with intermediate conclusions:
You desire a thing only if you have had a pleasing experience with it in the past. All chil-
dren desire their mother’s milk. But they have not had a pleasant experience of it before
this life. So they must have experienced it in some other life. Hence, rebirth exists.
“Your face is covered in chocolate, so it must have been you that ate my cake, so
you owe me a cake.”15
If it rains, the field will be wet. It has rained and the field is wet. If the field is wet,
we shall not have a match and so we will not have a match.
All communists smoke cigars and Castro smokes cigars as he is a communist. But if you
smoke cigars, you wouldn’t enjoy a cigarette, and so Castro would not enjoy a cigarette.
“Labour is the basis of all property. From this it follows that a man owns what he makes
by his own hand and the man who does not labour has no rightful property.”16

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Leo Goarke, “Informal Logic”, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/

entries/logic-informal, accessed on 22 April 2009.
2. Ibid.
3. T. Bowell and G. Kemp, Critical Thinking—A Concise Guide (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 2.
4. I am following Trudy Govier’s discussion on this as we find it in her book, A Practical Study of
Argument (Canada: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1992)
5. Ibid., p. 6.
6. Gary Comstock, http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~gary/bioethics/reasoning/enthymemes.html, accessed
on 23 April 2009.
7. Ibid.
8. Trudy Grovier, A Practical Study of Argument, p. 28.
9. Stan Baronett, Logic (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Prentice Hall, 2008), p. 28.
10. Ibid.
11. Trudy Govier, A Practical Study of Argument, p. 319.
12. Ibid., p. 11.
13. T. Bowell and G. Kemp, Critical Thinking—A Concise Guide, p. 37.
14. http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/e/enthymeme.htm, accessed on 24 April 2009.
15. http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/elementsofarguments/intermediate
conclusions
16. Trudy Govier, A Practical Study of Argument, p. 29.