REALITY ASSUMPTIONS

CRITICAL THINKING
Diego Garcia
Chapter 3: Reality Assumptions
• Chapter 3 covers the concept of reality
assumptions; those assumptions about
reality that are taken for granted and
influence our perception of an issue.
• This chapter also covers the basics of
deductive reasoning.
 OBJETIVES
• At the end of this chapter the students will
understand:
• 1. Reality assumptions: learn to search for and bring out the
assumptions that they and others are making but not directly stating
• 2. Patterns of deductive reasoning: use deductive
reasoning to help them explore both the logic and
the truth of arguments and to avoid stereotyping
• 3. The use of deductive reasoning to text logic,
discover truth, make decisions, combat prejudice,
and argue constructively.
 REALITY ASSUMPTIONS
• Reality assumptions: are beliefs about
what is true and factual about the world,
and so they are sometimes called factual
assumptions or descriptive assumptions.
• They are based on the unique experiences
and education of each individual.
• Reality assumptions are sometimes
directly stated by a writer or speaker, but
they are usually implied.
 Detecting reality assumptions
• Assumptions may surface when we come
across a person or a group that holds
different assumptions.

• When we realize that an argument involves

differing reality assumptions, we need to
search for evidence that will prove or
disprove the assumptions.
 The importance of examining
assumptions
• A number of ideas that were once generally
accepted have come into question.
• Researchers frequently discover that what was
assumed to be factual might not be true, it may
have been true at one time, or it may never have
been true at all.
• When we build arguments on assumptions that are
not grounded in truth, our arguments are faulty,
and the actions we recommend will not achieve our
desired ends.
• When we keep current with research from reliable
sources, we are able to make the most effective
decisions.
 DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE
REASONING
• Inductive reasoning: involves finding truth by
making observations. The observation might be
made through statistical polling, experiments.
Inductive reasoning tells us what will probably
occur in a given situation based on what
observation tells us usually occurs.
• Deductive reasoning: is structured in such a way
as to give us certainty about what is true in a given
situation. The conclusion’s certainty is established
when deductive arguments contain true premises
(reasons) stated in the correct form.
 Deductive argument
• Deductive argument: is structured in such a way
as to give us certainty about what is true in a given
situation. The conclusion’s certainty is established
when deductive arguments contain true premises
(reasons) stated in the correct form.
• Deductrive argument: formal patterns are used to
reveal the logic of our reasoning. These patterns
give us a tool for “quality control”.
• When the correct deductive form is followed, the
reasoning is logical and the argument is called
valid.
 Valid argument
• Valid argument: an argument structured
in a correct deductive format.
• An argument structured in such a way that
if its premises are true, then its conclusion
must be true.
• Sound argument: A valid deductive
argument whose premises are true.
 SYLLOGISM
• A syllogism: is a deductive argument (usually
written in three steps) that moves logically from
a major and a minor premise to a conclusion.
• Major premise: the statement in a syllogism
that sets forth a general principle. It is the
predicate in the conclusion.
• Minor Premise: Express an instance of the
principle set out in the major premise. It is the
subject of the conclusion.
• Conclusion: the inference drawn from the
major and minor premises of a syllogism.
 Categorical statement
• Categorical statement: a statement in
which members of one class are said to be
included in another class. This statement
may be used as the major premise of a
syllogism.
• Conditional Syllogism: the major premise
asserts that if the condition cited in the first
part of a statement is true, then the claim
cited in the second part of the statement
will follow.
 EVALUATING ARGUMENTS
• Arguments are evaluated in terms of their
effectiveness or soundness through a process
that investigates both the truth of the reasons
and the validity of the conclusion.
• How true are the reasons being offered to
support the conclusion?
• To what extent do the reasons support the
conclusion, on to what extent does the
conclusion follow from the reasons offered?
• Does the argument pass the tests of both truth
and validity.
 EVALUATING ARGUMENT
• TRUTH: Evaluate the truth of the reasons
that are being used to support a conclusion.
– Does each reason make sense?
– What evidence is being offered as part of each reason?
– Is each reason based on a source that can be trusted?

• VALIDITY: evaluating arguments involves

investigating the relationship between the reasons
and the conclusion. When the reason supports the
conclusion the argument is considered to be truth.

• SOUNDNESS: When an argument includes

both true reasons and valid structure.
Deductive arguments: Categorical syllogism
• Categorical syllogism: A syllogism is an argument form
that consists of two supporting premises and a
conclusion. In a categorical syllogism, the premises and
conclusion are all categorical statements, that is,
statements about a category of things.

– All men(A) are mortal (B)

– Socrates (S) is a man (A)
– Therefore, Socrates (S) is mortal (B)
 Deductive Arguments: Modus ponens
• Modus ponens. A second valid deductive form. It is
affirming the antecedent. The antecedent is the first part
of a hypothetical statement. The second part of a
hypothetical statement is known as the consequent. In
this kind of syllogism, a hypothetical statement is
presented in the first premise, and the conditions of the
antecedent are affirmed in the second premise.
– If I have prepared thoroughly (A), then I will do well (B)
– I have prepared thoroughly (A)
– Therefore, I will do well (B)
Deductive Arguments: Modus tollens
• Modus tollens: a valid deductive form. Denying the
consequence. The first premise is a hypothetical
statement, but the second premise focuses on the
consequent. The conditions of the consequent are denied
in the second.

– If Janice is a really good friend (A), then she will remember me

(B)
– Janice did not remember me (Not B)
– Therefore, Janice doesn´t really care about me. (A)
Deductive Arguments: Disjunctive syllogism
• Disjunctive syllogism: The term disjunctive means
presenting alternatives, as in the first premise of our
example below. The second premise denies one of the
alternatives and the conclusion affirms the remaining
option.

– Either I left my wallet on my dresser (A) or I must have lost it (B)

– The wallet in not on my dresser (Not A)
– Therefore I have lost it (B)
 Deductive Arguments: /Chain or Hypothetical
argument
• If materialism is false, then Marxism is a faulty
philosophical system
• If Marxism is a faulty philosophical system, then
one should not believe everything Marx writes.
• Therefore: if materialism is false, then one
should not believe everything Marx writes.
– If p, then q
– If q, then r
– Therefore: if p, then r
 Argument by elimination
• Argument by elimination is a valid syllogism that
seeks to logically rule out various possibilities
until only a single possibility remains.
• Either A, or B, or C
• Not B or C
• Therefore, A.
– The car’s problem is the alternator, the generator, or the battery.
– It’s not the alternator or the generator.
– Therefore, it’s the battery.
 Understanding deduction
• Enthymeme: A syllogism with a key part or
parts implied rather than directly stated.
The uses of deductive reasoning
• Illuminate and clarify our beliefs and help us
considerer whether those beliefs are rational.
• Help us discover truth, particularly in
situations in which there is a right and wrong
answer.
• Help us make decisions.
• Help us to recognize and challenge
stereotypes and prejudicial statements.
• Help us understand argument