Critical Thinking

Critical Questions
Topics
• Framework
• Ambiguities
• Assumptions
• Fallacies in Reasoning
• Evidence
• Rival Causes
• Statistics Deceptive
• Critical Questions
Framework

evidence ambiguities fallacies

argument

issue reasons conclusion rival causes

statictics
assumptions
deceptive
Ambiguities
Ambiguity: the existence of multiple possible meanings for a word or phrase
To locate potential important ambiguous phrases:
• Review the issue for possible key terms
• Look for crucial words or phrases within the reasons and conclusion
• Keep an eye out for abstract words and phrases
• Use reverse role-playing to determine how someone might define certain words and phrases
differently
Find the meaning by context:
• the writer’s or speaker’s background
• traditional uses of the term within the particular controversy
• the words and statements preceding and following the possible ambiguity
Example:
The quality of education at this university is not declining. In my interviews, I found that an
overwhelming majority of the students and instructors responded that they saw no decline in the
quality of education here.
Assumptions
• Assumption:
belief, usually unstated, that is taken for granted and supports the explicit reasoning.
• Key attributes of assumptions:
• implicit hidden structure;
• influential in determining the conclusion;
• believed true by the person making the argument;
• potentially deceptive;
• necessary for the reasons to lead to a particular conclusion.
• Look for value and descriptive assumptions in the movement from reasons
to the conclusion:
• the gap between the conclusion and reasons;
• unstated ideas that support reasons;
• identify with the writer or speaker;
• identify with the opposition.
Value and Descriptive Assumptions
Typical Value Assumptions (Conflict and Sample Controversies):
• Loyalty–honesty Should you tell your parents about your
sister’s drug habit?
• Competition–cooperation Do you support grades as a motivator to
learning?
• Freedom of press–national security Is it wise to hold weekly
presidential press conferences?
• Order–freedom of speech Should we imprison those with radical
ideas?
• Rationality–spontaneity Should you check the odds before placing
a bet?

Typical Descriptive Assumptions: (an unstated belief about how the world
was, is, or will become)
• The events that happen to people are primarily the result of personal
Fallacies in Reasoning
Reasoning which depends on false or highly doubtful assumptions.
Example:
a. A friend worries constantly that other people are talking about him. You
ask a psychologist why he does so. He answers, “Because he is paranoid.”
b. Reading traditional textbooks is superior to reading E-texts in learning
effectiveness because it is highly advantageous for learning to have
materials made available in a textbook format.
Fallacies:
a. Explaining by Naming: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a
name for some event or behavior, you have also adequately explained the
event.
b. Begging the Question: An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in
the reasoning
1. Attacks person rather than ideas 16. Hasty generalization, draws a
2. Confuses a make-sense story with conclusion about a large group based
reality on experiences with only a few
members of the group
3. Uses slippery slope reasoning
17. Impossible certainty, assuming that a
4. Reflects a search for perfect solutions research conclusion should be
5. Inappropriately appeals to common rejected if it is not absolutely certain
opinion 18. Planning fallacy, the tendency for
6. Appeals to questionable authority people or organizations to
underestimate how long they will
7. Appeals to emotions need to complete a task
8. Attacks a straw person 19. Confusion of cause and effect,
9. Presents a faulty dilemma or either-or confusing the cause with the effect of
an event or failing to recognize that
10. Explains by naming the two events may be influencing
11. Distracts with glittering generalities each other
12. Begs the question 20. Neglect of a common cause, failure to
recognize that two events may be
13. Introduces a red herring related because of the effects of a
14. Causal oversimplification, fail to common third factor
consider the complexity of causes 21. Post hoc, assuming that a particular
15. Romantic fallacy, because something event, B, is caused by another event,
happened in the past, it will happen in A, simply because B follows A in time
Evidence
• Evidence:
Explicit information shared by the communicator that is used to
back up or to justify the dependability of a factual claim.
Needed to support reasons that are factual claims (in
prescriptive arguments)
Needed to directly support a descriptive conclusion (in
descriptive arguments)
• Questions on evidence:
• What is your proof?
• How do you know that’s true?
• Where’s the evidence?
• Why do you believe that?
• Are you sure that’s true?
• Can you prove it?
Evidence
• Major Kinds of Evidence:
• personal experiences
• case examples
• testimonials
• appeals to authorities or experts
• personal observations
• research studies
• analogies
Rival Causes
An inquisitive little boy noticed that
the sun would show up in the sky in
the morning and disappear at night.
Puzzled by where the sun went, the
boy tried to watch the sunset really
closely. However, he still could not
figure out where the sun was going.
Then, the boy also noticed that his
babysitter showed up in the
mornings and left at night. One day,
he asked his babysitter where she
went at night. The babysitter
responded, “I go home.” Linking his
babysitter’s arrival and departure
with the coming of day and night, he
concluded that his babysitter’s
leaving caused the sun to also go
home.
Comparing Causes
• Rival cause: a plausible alternative explanation that can explain why a
certain outcome occurred
• Apply the Following Criteria:
• Their logical soundness. Which ones make the most sense to you.
• Their consistency with other knowledge that you have.
• Their previous success in explaining or predicting similar events.
• The extent to which the explanation is implied by a greater variety of
accepted truths than other explanations.
• The extent to which it has been disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs.
• The extent to which it explains a larger number and variety of facts than
competing explanations.

• Indicators for causes:

... leads to ... influences
... is linked to ... deters
... increases the likelihood ... determines
... is associated with ... has the effect of
Statistics Deceptive
• Unknowable and biased statistics (problems in definition and
identification)
• Confusing averages (improper use of mean, median, mode)
• Measurement errors
• Concluding one thing, proving another (different wording of the statistic
and conclusion)
• Deceiving by omitting information
Critical Questions
1. What are the issue and the conclusion?
2. What are the reasons?
3. What words or phrases are ambiguous?
4. What are the value and descriptive assumptions?
5. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
6. How good is the evidence?
7. Are there rival causes?
8. Are the statistics deceptive?
9. What significant information is omitted?
10.What reasonable conclusions are possible?
Reference
• Browne, Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right
Question, 12E