20140410040542_Topic 3 Identifying Reasons and Conclusions

8/10/2019 20140410040542_Topic 3 Identifying Reasons and Conclusions

1/22

INTRODUCTION

Many a time we face situations where someone tries to convince us of aviewpoint in the hope that we would accept it. This is often known as "arguing acase" or "presenting an argument". Sometimes, the reasoning is simple tounderstand but at other times it can be rather difficult. Likewise, when wepresent a case, at certain times it can be easy for the other person to understand itand at other times it can be difficult. We will explain the method to identify what

reasoning is being presented when someone is arguing a case and how to presentreasoning in a clear manner ourselves.

There are basic critical thinking skills we must practise if we want to excel atcritical thinking in real circumstances. You cannot assess a case presented insupport of some belief or decision unless you are very clear on what the case is.

TTooppiicc

33

IdentifyingReasons andConclusions

LEARNING OUTCOMESBy the end of this topic, you should be able to:

1. Determine if reasoning is present in an argument;

2. Identify words used in the language of reasoning;

3. Use the Thinking Map to analyse and evaluate arguments;

4. Apply tests to evaluate the validity and acceptability of claims; and

5. Identify assumptions and evaluate inferences in an argument.


2/22

TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS56

DECIDING WHEN REASONING IS PRESENT

First of all, it must be realised that we use language for many purposes besides

trying to influence others of a standpoint. We use language for descriptive andinformative purposes, such as to report an event, describe things, tell stories, tell

jokes, make promises and many other things.

While language has an important role in conveying such information for thepurpose of this discourse, however, we are interested in how language is used inreasoning. Reasoning is the process of making inferences from the informationgiven.

The following passages are provided to see if you can tell which contain

reasoning and which do not.

Scenario 1

James burst out of Customs, diamonds and expensive watches falling from hisbag as he ran. As he reached the taxi stand, customers were sitting in all of thewaiting taxis. James ran towards the nearest taxi and leaped into it as it was

beginning to move. He pointed a gun at the driver and said, Downtown! Thetaxi turned towards the motorway. (Morton, 1988)

The above passage is simply a descriptive passage, and it does not providereasons for a conclusion, although we naturally make several inferences as weread it.

Scenario 2

Many substantial environmental problems cannot be solved by individual orlocal action; for example, the pollution caused by automobile exhaust gases is aworld-wide problem, and so such problems can only be addressed byinternational action.

Scenario 2 provides reasons for the conclusion that certain problems can only beaddressed by international action.

3.1


3/22

TOPIC 3 IDENTIFYING REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS 57

Scenario 3

The 19th century English theologian and biologist Gosse (1810 1888) (Figure3.1) had a problem. He was a devout Christian who accepted the Creation storyas set out in the Bible, but he was also a practising scientist. He was well awarethat the geological and fossil studies by other scientists seemed to show that theEarth was very old, perhaps millions of years old. How could he resolve thisconflict?

Figure 3 1:Philip Henry GosseSource:http://www.parlouraquariums.org.uk/

Scenario 3 does not provide reasons for a conclusion. It only describes a possiblesolution to a problem but there is no reasoning.

Thus, it is evident that at certain times, we use language to describe some state ofaffairs, and at other times, we use it to reason and arrive at a conclusion. Thereare also times when we use language to ridicule, insult or offend. Most articles innewspapers report events but the leading articles and letters to the editor will

often contain reasoning in support of a conclusion. As for novels, they rarelycontain much reasoning. Textbooks, on the other hand, often seek both to pass oninformation and to present the authors arguments. Finally, parliamentarydebates many a time contain reasoning as well as verbal abuse.


4/22


EXAMPLES OF REASONING

In order to understand reasoning, we shall thoroughly study the followingexample. Let us imagine a student, Peter, who has just completed a criticalthinking course and has failed the test which was set at the end of the course. Letus imagine that he sends this note to his teacher:

"That test was unfair. I studied for days, reading the material four times,underlining important details and then studying them. After doing allthese I should obtain a good grade. That test was unfair."

From this note, it is clear that Peter argues that "the test was unfair" and this is

basically his conclusion. Notice that the conclusion in this example has beenprovided at the beginning of a piece of reasoning and it comes again at the end ofthe note, perhaps to strongly stress the complaint. You may also think thatPeters conclusion is that the teacher should look again at the test or at Peter'sanswers, or that Peter's answers should be regarded favourably by the teacher or

by any other teacher competent in this field. The main allegation is thatsomething should be done to rectify a mistake, and in this situation, it goes

beyond what is actually said. Thus, you might say that this is his conclusion. Attimes, people do not express, or do not completely express, their conclusions.

Peter provided several reasons for his conclusion when he said, "I studied fordays, reading the material four times, underlining important details and thenstudying them." These are his reasons for coming up with the conclusion that thetest was unfair.

Among the lessons learned from the above example are:

(a) It is rather easy to see which reasons are presented for which conclusions.All that is needed is an understanding of our normal use of the language.

(b) You now understand what the words "conclusion" and "reason" mean, in asimple context as shown above. We use these words in their ordinary,

everyday sense.

(c) Conclusions can come at the beginning as well as the end of an argument,and although they may be unexpressed, they may be "implied" by what ismentioned.

(d) The task of judging whether an argument is good or not is rather difficult.What is really required is an understanding of what is said, what isassumed and what the context is.

3.2


5/22


1. Read the passage below which is adapted from a letter to an

American newspaper published a few years ago.

We should bring most of our troops home from Europe. Thethreat from Russia has gone now that the Evil Empire hascollapsed; the Europeans can defend themselves now that thethreat to their security is less and they are so rich; and we mustreduce our federal deficit fast, if our economy is not to collapse.

(a) What is the conclusion of this argument?

(b) What is the author trying to persuade us of?

(c)

What reasons are given in support of the conclusion?

(d) Is anything assumed (something not actually stated in thetext)?

(e) Again, you might like to comment briefly on whether theargument is a good one.

2. We need to make rail travel more attractive to travellers. There areso many cars on the road that the environment and human safetyare under threat. Rail travel should be made cheaper. Everyone

wants the roads to be less crowded but they still want theconvenience of being able to travel by road themselves. People willnot abandon the car in favour of the train without some newincentive.

(a) What is the conclusion of the argument?

(b) What is the author trying to persuade us of?

(c) What reasons are given in support of the conclusion?

(d) Is anything assumed (that is, implicit but not actually stated)?

SELF-CHECK 3.1


6/22


LANGUAGE OF REASONING

There are several words and phrases that are normally used characteristically toindicate that an individual is arguing a case or is presenting reasons for aconclusion. Among the words or phrases used to show that the claim indicated isa conclusion for which reasons have been presented are:

therefore

so

hence

thus

consequently

which proves/establishes that

justifies the belief/view that

it can be concluded that

from which we can infer

it follows that/it demonstrates that

must

However, it is not necessary that the utilisation of such phrases always indicatethe occurrence of a conclusion to an argument, just that it often does and that,taken in concurrence with the context, such language often provides you with animportant clue about the structure of the reasoning. These phrases are commonlycalled "conclusion indicators" because they signal the presence of a conclusion,for which reasons have been presented.

In addition, there are also words or phrases that are commonly utilised to signalthe presence of reasons, and are usually known as "reason indicators". Amongthe common reason indicators used are:

because

since

for

follows from the fact that

the reasons are

firstly

secondly

When we intend to refer to both "conclusion indicators" and "reason indicators,"we commonly speak of "argument indicators," which are signs that help usunderstand whether a reasoning is present and what the author's argument is.

3.3


7/22


1.

In the following examples, identify which words and phrases are"argument indicators". Also, identify the sentences that indicatereasons and its corresponding conclusions:

During a football game, John Terry committed a serious foul, sohe deserved a sending off.

The butler was in the pantry. In that case, he couldn't have shotthe master, who was in his study. Hence, the butler couldn'thave done it.

The Green Movement is mistaken in thinking that we shouldrecycle materials like paper and glass because paper comes fromtrees, an easily renewable resource, and glass is made fromsand, which is plentiful and cheap. Furthermore, in someAmerican cities recycling schemes have been abandonedbecause they are too expensive.

2. In the passage below, state which of the words marked in bold arereason indicators and which are conclusion indicators, and then

state which sentences are reasons and which are conclusions.Finally, state the reasons you think are presented by the author insupport of the corresponding conclusions.

Most parents want their children to have successful careers.Since education is essential to success, it is the duty of parents togive children the best possible education. Because it is also in thecountry's economic interest to have a highly educatedpopulation, the Government should help parents to provide fortheir children's education. Therefore, all parents should receivefinancial help towards the cost of their children's education, sothe lowly paid should receive tax credits and those who arebetter off should receive tax relief.

SELF-CHECK 3.2


8/22


THINKING MAP FOR UNDERSTANDINGAND EVALUATING REASONING

So far, we have seen many different pieces of reasoning and explained how tobest understand and evaluate them. We have been looking at small pieces ofreasoning, pondering how to handle them and paying attention to some of thecommon mistakes we commit in responding to reasoning. In the absence of suchassistance, most individuals tend to react by immediately challenging any claimthey disagree with or by presenting their own opinion without reflecting on thearguments presented and so on.

The key to effective critical thinking is asking the right questions. We nowpresent a basic model or "thinking map" a tool that can help us evaluate

reasoning as seen in Table 3.1. Basically, the thinking map is a list of keyquestions you should ask when analysing an argument be it your own orsomeone else's.

Table 3 1:Thinking Map Skillful Analysis and Evaluation of Arguments

Analysis

1. What is/are the main conclusion(s)?

(May be stated or unstated; may be in the forms of recommendations, or explanations

and so on. The presence of conclusion indicator words such as "therefore" may help.)

[Aim: It helps in organising your thinking about a piece of reasoning if you know

what the author is trying to persuade and/or convince you of]

2. What are the reasons (data, evidence, etc) and their structure?

3. What is assumed (that is, implicit or taken for granted, perhaps in the context)?

4. Clarify the meaning (by the terms, claims or arguments) which needs it.

Evaluation

5. Are the reasons acceptable to you?

(These include explicit reasons and unstated assumptions these may also involveevaluating factual claims, definitions and value judgments and judging the

credibility of the source.)

(a) Does the reasoning support its conclusion(s)?

(For example, is the supporting argument strong as "beyond reasonable doubt"

or weak)?

(b) Are there other relevant considerations/arguments which strengthen or

weaken the case?

(You may already know these or may have to construct them)

3.4


9/22


[Aim: Also called critico-creative thinking, which requires us to consider any other

relevant ideas we know or can think up which will help us to arrive at a good

judgment for the case in hand].

6. What is your overall evaluation based on what you have obtained above?

The first set of questions is based on analysis. You cannot respond reasonably toan argument without understanding it. Thus, the above given analyticalquestions help you to understand what is being stated and argued. This isfollowed by the evaluative questions, which will assist you in deciding whetheror not you should be convinced of the argument.

The Thinking Map should be used not only when you are considering otherpeoples reasoning but also when you are constructing your own. If you have agood case, you should be able to organise it so that your readers or listeners will

be able to clearly understand what you are trying to state in terms of how youcarry it out. It helps to use the "language of reasoning" in order to make yourconclusion and reasoning clear and unambiguous.


10/22


1. Sometimes, we may be led astray by flawed but persuasive"reasoning". Consider the following:

Three friends had dinner at a restaurant. The bill came up toRM25. Since RM25 is not easily divisible by 3, they decided toput up RM10 each. They gave RM30 to the waiter, whosubsequently returned them RM5 change. From the change, theytook RM1 each, and tipped the waiter the remaining RM2. So,for their dinner, they actually paid RM9 each (RM10 less theRM1 returned).

Three times RM9 is RM27. The waiter took RM2. This adds up toRM29. What happened to the remaining RM1?

Though it may not appear to be so, this is really a problem of logicrather than arithmetic. You are led to the wrong conclusion that theremaining RM1 cannot accounted for, because of flawed reasoning.Where is the flaw in this reasoning? Can applying the ThinkingMap expose it? If so, please elaborate your answer.

2. For the following passages, use the thinking map to help you

analyse the argument (noting any important assumptions) andwrite a brief evaluative response:

Big art exhibitions, which collect paintings from all over theworld, are bad for the paintings. Whenever they are transported,there is a danger of accidents and resultant damage ordestruction, and it cannot be good to subject paintings to thechanges of pressure and humidity that even carefully controlledtravel is likely to bring.

The number of crimes committed by people under the age of 17

has almost doubled in the last seven years. The Criminal JusticeAct which becomes law this year should have the effect ofreversing this trend. Children who commit crimes know that thepenalties are minimal. But the new Act will make it possible forparents to be made liable for fines and compensations, and forthem to be compelled to appear in court alongside offspringwho are under 17. The level of fines will be related to parentalincome and wealthy parents may have to pay up to $5,000 fortheir childrens crime.

SELF-CHECK 3.3


11/22


ACCEPTABILITY OF REASONS

We have already looked at some techniques required to understand what authors

mean, especially in the process of reasoning. Next, we will continue with theprocess of evaluating authors' reasonings. This is vital because when someoneprovides reasons which aim to persuade us to agree with a certain point of view,we not only want to understand what they are saying but we may also be in aposition to evaluate their claims. In other words, we want to decide whether it isa good reasoning and whether we should be persuaded by it. In order to do thisskillfully, we have to ask the right questions.

Generally, people commonly react in two ways towards a conclusion made byanother. If they agree with the conclusion, they say, "Yes, I agree with that,"

without considering the details of the argument. If they disagree with it, they say,"I do not agree with that," and may say something against the conclusion, such asdenying it, rejecting the argument or providing a contradictory or opposingargument. It is very uncommon for listeners to take the argument seriously andanalyse it for its validity. In order to obtain the truth about substantial issues, onehas to be systematic and skillful. We will look at how to go about this in moredetail here.

To set the context for our present work, let us look at an example, and use it toexplain the questions to be asked, and how they work:

In general context, most prospective parents would prefer to have sons.So if people can choose the sex of their child, it is likely that there willeventually be more males than females in our population. This couldproduce serious social problems; therefore we should prohibit the use oftechniques which enable people to choose the sex of their children.

If we were to evaluate this systematically, we need to ask the followingquestions:

Are the reasons acceptable(true, valid, factual, etc.)?

Does the reasoning supportits conclusion(s)?

Are there other relevant considerations/arguments?

What is your overall evaluation on this topic?

First, we have to decide whether it is true that "most prospective parents wouldprefer to have sons." Based on general knowledge, this claim may be true in somesocieties and cultures across the world, for instance in India and China, but it

3.5


12/22


may be untrue in others. To find out, we need to carry out our research or lookfor survey information on this matter to ascertain this statement.

The question that follows is: "Does this reasoning support its conclusion?" If it istrue that "most prospective parents would prefer to have sons," then does it notfollow that if people can choose the sex of their child, it is likely that there willeventually be more males than females in the population? If people prefer boysand can get boys, does it not seem very likely that more boys than girls will be

born? It is definitely hard to see anything wrong with that inference ofcorrelation.

The next reason is, "This could produce serious social problems," and thequestion is whether this claim is acceptable or not. It is not very easy to judge this

reason because it actually depends on whether there is a small or big surplus ofboys in society. Following this, the next question is, "Do the preceding claimssupport the conclusion that we should prohibit the use of techniques whichenable people to choose the sex of their children?" Well, if allowing thesetechniques to be used does produce a surplus of boys, which will in turn produceserious social problems, maybe we should ban them.

However, there is another question that we should ask: "Are there other relevantconsiderations or arguments in regards to this statement?" This is the point whenthinking about an issue requires us to be critical, creative and to think out-of-the-

box to arrive at the acceptance of an argument or claim.

Just why is this so important? It generally means, we have analysed thestatement constructively and are now more clear and ready to determine thevalidity and credibility in support of a conclusion we can accept, and not onlycomprehend.

To summarise the above, once you are reasonably clear about what an author issaying and what his reasons and conclusions are, you are in a position toevaluate the reasoning.

ACTIVITY 3.1

State additional and further considerations and/or arguments that arerelevant to the question of banning the use of techniques for selecting thesex of children.


13/22


14/22


15/22


In this section, we will go through the criteria required to judge the credibility ofsources of claims. Among the criteria that we should pay close attention to are:

(i) The sources reputation for reliability;

(ii) Whether the source has a vested interest;

(iii) Whether there is corroborationor validationof the claim from independentsources;

(iv) Whether the source has the relevant expertise or training;

(v) The nature of the claim itself; and

(vi) Whether the source can provide credible reasonsfor the claim they make.

To check the credibility of sources of claims, let us look into each question inTable 3.2.

Table 3 2:Five Criteria Required to Judge the Credibility of Sources of Claims

1. Questions on the person/source.

Do they have relevant expertise/knowledge/training/experience?

Do they have the capacity to observe accurately (includes all other abilities likehearing, proximity to event, absence of distractions, appropriate machines, andskill in handling machineries)?

Does their reputation suggest they are dependable?

Does the source have vested interest or show bias?

2. Questions on the circumstances/context in which the claim is made

3. Questions on the jurisdiction the source offers or can offer in support of the claim.

Is the claim based on primary and secondary sources?

Is the claim based on direct or on circumstantial evidence?

Is the claim based on direct reference to credibility considerations?

4. Questions on the nature of the claim which influence its credibility.

Is it very unlikely or is it easy to believe?

Is it a basic observation statement or an inferred judgment?

5. Is there corroboration or validation from other sources?


16/22


In summary, we can categorise the above mentioned criteria into five sectionswhich contain questions pertaining to the:

(i) Person/sourcewhose credibility we intend to judge;

(ii) Circumstances/contexts in which the claim is made that affect itscredibility;

(iii) Justification the source offers or can offer in support of the claim whichaffects its credibility;

(iv) Nature of the claimwhich influences its credibility; and

(v) Whether there is corroboration/validationfrom other sources.

EVALUATING INFERENCESWhen we argue on a certain case, we present reasons to support our conclusion,interpretation and decision. In other words, we infer our conclusion from ourreasons. Normally, arguments contain both reasons and inferences, and"inferences" are the ones that we use in order to move on from reasons toconclusions. This can be seen in the following example.

3.8

You are listening to a court case in which Jason, who collided withanother car, is accused of driving at twice the speed limit in the city andwith three times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood. Jason denies thecharges but the doctor who attended to him tells the court that Jasonsmelled very strongly of alcohol and blood tests showed alcohol in his

blood at three times the legal limit. Who is credible and why?

SELF-CHECK 3.5

ACTIVITY 3.2

Think about several examples of people or "sources" (like the BBC orTV3) you know and identify the areas in which they have a well-justifiedreputation for reliability and areas in which they do not. Discuss withyour coursemates.


17/22


Some people have solved their own unemployment problem by eitherlooking for a job or by willingness to work for less. So all the unemployedcould do the same.

In the above example, the inference is the move from "some people have solvedtheir own unemployment problem" to "all the unemployed could do the same."However, reasons and inferences have to be evaluated rather differently. In mostcircumstances, it is important to judge whether the reasons provided in someargument are true or otherwise acceptable. On the other hand, to judge whetherthe inference based upon those reasons are justified or not is a totally differentthing.

Let us look at the following example.

Women's brains are on average smaller than men's, therefore women areless intelligent than men.

Most people, when asked, say that they are unsure of why the brains of womenare smaller than those of men but they are very sure that the conclusionpresented is not true. Although the reason is true, there is no connection between

brain size and intelligence, so the reason does not support the conclusion.

The first response points to the fact that we expect to be able to see somereasonably established connection between reason and conclusion if one is to

justify the other a link we can perceive and accept in the light of everything elsewe believe.

The second says that if the reason is true but there are reasons for thinking theconclusion could be false, it cannot be a good inference. However, since thesecond response has received more support in the history of thinking aboutinferences, that is the one we will choose here. Thus, the fundamental idea is thatthe reason(s) do not make you accept the conclusion, and if you can think ofother ways in which the reasons can be proven to be true and the conclusion falseconcurrently, then the inference is false. The test to apply when judging aninference is:

Could the reason(s) be true (or otherwise acceptable) and the conclusionfalse (or otherwise unacceptable) at the same time?

If the answer to the above question is "No," then the inference, which is theprogress from reasons to conclusion, is a brilliant idea and forces you accept theconclusion if the reasons are true. On the other hand, if the answer is "Yes," thenthe inference fails, or is not justified.


18/22


In the example above, we face a situation where the reason is true but theinference from reason to conclusion is unjustified. In other words, the inference isunjustified because the reason could be true and the conclusion untrue at the

same time. Thus, it is clear that the attempt to decide whether an inference isjustified is very different from the tests you should apply when trying to decidewhether reasons are accepted.

If you have memorised the key points of this book, you will do well in thecritical thinking examination, and you have memorised them so you willdo well in the exam.

In the above example, the reasons are true, thus, the conclusion must also be true,and this makes it a good inference. However, the reason which says that you

only have to memorise the facts in order to do well in the examination isdefinitely false. Thus, this argument fails to justify its conclusion not because itmakes a poor inference, but due to the fact that at least one of the reasons onwhich it is based is not true.

In summary, for an argument to succeed in justifying its conclusion it must meettwo important conditions:

(i) Its reasons must be true or otherwise acceptable; and

(ii) The inferences which are then drawn from those reasons must be goodones.

Apply the test we have just explained to decide whether the inferencesyou identified in the passages given below are justified.

(a) The job of a driving instructor is challenging and rewarding. Onehas great freedom in working for oneself and it is unnecessary tohave passed any "A" levels. Therefore, a suitable job for anyone

without "A" levels is that of a driving instructor.*d+ If the world's climate is getting warmer, we would find that some

of the ice at both the North and South Pole would melt at anunusually high rate. If the ice is melting, we would see its effect inraising the level of the sea. There is evidence that this level isincreasing, so the world's climate must be getting warmer.

SELF-CHECK 3.6


19/22


Next, we would like to introduce the "deductively valid" concept, the higheststandard of all for judging inference. Can you think of any way the reason(s)could be true and the conclusion false? If the answer to that question is "No,"

then the inference is deductively valid, and if the answer is "Yes," then theinference is not deductively valid.

Hence, if an argument is deductively valid, the truth of its reasons absolutelyguarantees the truth of its conclusion; if the reasons are true, the conclusion must

be true, there are no other possibilities. A good example would be that if it is truethat "all whales are mammals" and "all mammals give birth to their young," thenit must be true that "all whales give birth to their young." There is no way thatthe reasons can be true and the conclusion false. Thus, this is a deductively validargument.

1. Compare the following two syllogisms.

(a) All men are mortal.Socrates is a man.Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

(b) All bird-watchers own binoculars.

Bob owns (a pair of) binoculars.Therefore Bob is a bird-watcher.

What is the difference, if any, between the two? Do bothconclusions follow logically from their respective assertions? Are

both conclusions acceptable?

2. Judge which of the following arguments is deductively valid andwhich is not. Explain in each case why you make your decision.

(a) Tom hates everyone Mary loves and Mary loves Tom. SoTom must hate himself.

(b) The butler was in the pantry. In that case, he could not haveshot the master, who was in the study. So, the butler couldnot have done it.

SELF-CHECK 3.7


20/22


In most texts, it is rather easy to spot assumptions.

Driving instructor is a challenging and rewarding occupation. One has

great freedom in working for oneself, and it is unnecessary to havepassed any "A" levels. Therefore, a suitable job for anyone without "A"levels is that of a driving instructor.

Anyone who reads the above passage would quickly assume that if a"challenging and rewarding occupation with freedom to work for yourself"appeals to you, then to be a driving instructor you require little more than to"have no A levels." This is called an implicit (hidden or unspoken) assumption.The inference made here is rather weak because the reasons could be true but theconclusion false, judging by any reasonable standard. Many a time, it is not so

easy to tell what is being assumed and in these circumstances, we proceed toelicit assumptions or assumptions that are drawn out, especially when thequality of the inference is important. Thus, the general strategy is that we shouldassign to arguments and explanations those assumptions which:

(i) Seem likely in the context; or

(ii) Make sense of what is said; or

(iii) Seem necessary to make the reasoning as strong as possible (if true).

A case presented cannot be assessed in support of some belief or decisionunless the individual is very clear on what the case is. One needs to identifyand ascertain reasons and conclusions made in the case.

The language of reasoning uses various types of words and phrases, knownas conclusion indicators, that indicate a conclusion is being made by theparticular claim.

A thinking map used in the understanding and evaluating of a reasoningincludes a list of important questions such as:

What are/is the main conclusion(s);

What are the reasons and their structure;

What is assumed;

Clarifying what is required;

Are the reasons acceptable or not; and


21/22


22/22


Acceptability of claim

Acceptability of reasons

Credibility of sources

Deductive validity

Inferences

Reasoning

Thinking map

1.

If the world's climate was getting warmer, we would find that some of theice at both the North and South Pole would be melting at an unusually highrate. If the ice was melting, we would see its effect in the raising of the levelof the sea. There is evidence that this level is increasing, so the world'sclimate must be getting warmer. Do you think that this argument containsan implicit assumption?

2. In each of the following examples, identify something which is implicitlyassumed and explain how assumptions affect the inference (does it make itmore acceptable or show that it is weak)?

(a)

If the building burned to the ground, there will be only a pile of ashesand rubble. There is now only a pile of ashes and rubble here.Therefore, the building has been burned to the ground.

(b) A teacher is speaking to a colleague about a student, Jones, just beforean exam. She says that Jones has worked hard so he will pass theexam.

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2005). Critical thinking. (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vaughn, L. (2004). The power of critical thinking: Effective reasoning aboutordinary and extraordinary claims. USA: Oxford University Press.

Wright L. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction to analytical reading andreasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.

20140410040542_Topic 3 Identifying Reasons and Conclusions

Documents

Transcript of 20140410040542_Topic 3 Identifying Reasons and Conclusions