A Once we identify an issue, the next task is to weigh the reasons for and against he claim and try to determine its truth or falsity. This is where arguments enter the picture. And arguments, we should say right here, are the single most important ingredient in critical thinking. Although it can get compli cated, at its core the idea is simple: We produce an argument when we give a reason for thinking that a claim is true. Let's say the issue is whether Sam should be excused for missing class. Sam says to his instructor, "My grand mother died. and i had to miss class to attend the funeral. ". He has offered a reason for thinking he should be excused for missing class, so he has produced an argument Whether his argument is any good is another matter, of course In fact, determining whether arguments are any good, and whether something that looks like an argument really is one, will take up the bulk of the rest of this book. The size of the book should tell you that there are lots of things to consider in this enterprise For now, lets keep things simple. a couple more terms are traditionally used in talking about arguments. a claim that is offered as a reason for believ- ng another claim is a premise. The claim for which a premise is supposed to give a reason is the conclusion of the argument. Let's lay out our example so everything is clear: The issue is whether Sam should be excused for missing class, or, if you like, should Sam be excused for missing class Premise: Sam's grandmother died, and he had to attend the funeral Conclusion: Sam should be excused for missing class Notice that the conclusion answers the question asked by the issue. One way this is often put is that the conclusion of the argument states a position on the Issue ments do not have to be so simple. Einsteins conclusion that E= mee argu- Although were dealing here with a short, one-prer was supported by complex theoretical reasons that require a lot of mathematics and physics to comprehend, and together they amounted to an argument that E Back to Sam and his excuse. Whether his argument is a good one depend on whether the premise really does support the conclusion-whether it really gives us a reason for thinking the conclusion is true. We'll be going into the matter in some depth later, but for now we should point out that there are two components to the premises support of the conclusion. First, the premise offer support for the conclusion only if the premise is true. So this may require independent investigation-indeed, more arguments may be required to sup port this claim. In that case, it will be the conclusion of some other argument and it will be the premise of the argument were considering Claims operate like this all the time, a premise in one argument will turn up as the conclusion of another More on this later as well The second requirement for a premises support of a conclusion is that it be relevant to the conclusion. Sometimes this is expressed by saying the prem ise is cogent. This requirement means that the premise, if true, must actually bear on the truth of the conclusion-that is, it must actually increase the like lihood that the conclusion is true. The analysis and evaluation of arguments Every professor has heard this line many times unless it's true in your case, we suggest you try something different
Confi rming Pages 10 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS Arguments Once we identify an issue, the next task is to weigh the reasons for and against the claim and try to determine its truth or falsity. This is where arguments enter the picture. And arguments , we should say right here, are the single most important ingredient in critical thinking. Although it can get complicated, at its core the idea is simple: We produce an argument when we give a reason for thinking that a claim is true. Let’s say the issue is whether Sam should be excused for missing class. Sam says to his instructor, “My grandmother died, and I had to miss class to attend the funeral.”* He has offered a reason for thinking he should be excused for missing class, so he has produced an argument. Whether his argument is any good is another matter, of course. In fact, determining whether arguments are any good, and whether something that looks like an argument really is one, will take up the bulk of the rest of this book. The size of the book should tell you that there are lots of things to consider in this enterprise. For now, let’s keep things simple. A couple more terms are traditionally used in talking about arguments. A claim that is offered as a reason for believing another claim is a premise. The claim for which a premise is supposed to give a reason is the conclusion of the argument. Let’s lay out our example so everything is clear: The issue is whether Sam should be excused for missing class, or, if you like, should Sam be excused for missing class? Premise: Sam’s grandmother died, and he had to attend the funeral. Conclusion: Sam should be excused for missing class. Notice that the conclusion answers the question asked by the issue. One way this is often put is that the conclusion of the argument states a position on the issue. Although we’re dealing here with a short, one-premise argument, arguments do not have to be so simple. Einstein’s conclusion that E mc 2 was supported by complex theoretical reasons that require a lot of mathematics and physics to comprehend, and together they amounted to an argument that E mc 2 . Back to Sam and his excuse. Whether his argument is a good one depends on whether the premise really does support the conclusion—whether it really gives us a reason for thinking the conclusion is true. We’ll be going into the matter in some depth later, but for now we should point out that there are two components to the premise’s support of the conclusion. First, the premise can offer support for the conclusion only if the premise is true. So this may require independent investigation—indeed, more arguments may be required to support this claim. In that case, it will be the conclusion of some other argument, and it will be the premise of the argument we’re considering. Claims operate like this all the time; a premise in one argument will turn up as the conclusion of another. More on this later as well. The second requirement for a premise’s support of a conclusion is that it be relevant to the conclusion. Sometimes this is expressed by saying the premise is cogent. This requirement means that the premise, if true, must actually bear on the truth of the conclusion—that is, it must actually increase the likelihood that the conclusion is true. The analysis and evaluation of arguments * Every professor has heard this line many times; unless it’s true in your case, we suggest you try something different. moo86677_ch01_001-040.indd 10 6/17/08 10:31:32 AM
HE BASICS: CLAIMS, ISSUES, AND ARGUMENTS Real Life A Breakthrough in Environmental Protection In 1989 the U.S. Corps of Engineers began dumping toxic sludge into the Potomac River under a permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA).The Corps continued to dump even after the permit expired in 1993, and, eventually, in 2002, the EPA issued a new permit. An internal agency memo in 2003 tried to justify its decision with the following argument: The toxic sludge"actually protects the fish in that they are not inclined to bite (and get eaten by humans) but they go ahead with their upstream movement and egg-laying Wow. Protection through poisoning. Imagine if we were to protect the fish in all the ations rivers this way! And get rid of all our toxic sludge at the same time! Comment- ing on the memo, Congressman George P Radanovich(Republican of Califomia) said, " This is one of the most frightening examples of bureaucratic ineptitude and backward logic I have ever seen EPA: Sludge Good for Fish, "Fly Fisherman, December 2002 Actually, it's the premise of the EPA argument, not the logic, that's suspicious will occupy us at length later, so for now let's make sure we understand the definition of"argument"before we move on to a few other introductory mat ters here it is. An argument consists of two parts; one part the premise ther part the conclusion)is true. (We should note that, sometimes, the word"argument"will be used to refer only to a premise, as in"Thats a good argument for your conclusion. " What Arguments Are Not We hope you' ve noticed that, when we use the word"argument, "we are not talking about two people having a feud or fuss about something That use of the word has nothing much to do with critical thinking, although many a heated exchange could use some. Remember, arguments, in our sense, do not even need two people we make arguments for our own use all the time. Speaking of wh at arguments are not, it's important to realize that not everything that might look like an argument is one. The following is nothing more than a list of facts Identity theft is up at least tenfold over last year. More people have learned how easy it is to get hold of another's Social Security num- bers, bank account numbers, and such. The local police department reminds everyone to keep close watch on who has access to such information Although they are related by being about the same subject, none of these claims is offered as a reason for believing another, and thus there is no argument here
Confi rming Pages will occupy us at length later, so for now let’s make sure we understand the definition of “argument” before we move on to a few other introductory matters Here it is: An argument consists of two parts; one part (the premise or premises) supposedly provides a reason for thinking that the other part (the conclusion) is true. (We should note that, sometimes, the word “argument” will be used to refer only to a premise, as in “That’s a good argument for your conclusion.”) What Arguments Are Not We hope you’ve noticed that, when we use the word “argument,” we are not talking about two people having a feud or fuss about something. That use of the word has nothing much to do with critical thinking, although many a heated exchange could use some. Remember, arguments, in our sense, do not even need two people; we make arguments for our own use all the time. Speaking of what arguments are not, it’s important to realize that not everything that might look like an argument is one. The following is nothing more than a list of facts: Identity theft is up at least tenfold over last year. More people have learned how easy it is to get hold of another’s Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, and such. The local police department reminds everyone to keep close watch on who has access to such information. Although they are related by being about the same subject, none of these claims is offered as a reason for believing another, and thus there is no argument here. THE BASICS: CLAIMS, ISSUES, AND ARGUMENTS 11 In 1989 the U.S. Corps of Engineers began dumping toxic sludge into the Potomac River under a permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Corps continued to dump even after the permit expired in 1993, and, eventually, in 2002, the EPA issued a new permit. An internal agency memo in 2003 tried to justify its decision with the following argument: The toxic sludge “actually protects the fish in that they are not inclined to bite (and get eaten by humans) but they go ahead with their upstream movement and egg-laying.” Wow. Protection through poisoning. Imagine if we were to protect the fish in all the nation’s rivers this way! And get rid of all our toxic sludge at the same time! Commenting on the memo, Congressman George P. Radanovich (Republican of California) said, “This is one of the most frightening examples of bureaucratic ineptitude and backward logic I have ever seen.” — “EPA: Sludge Good for Fish,” Fly Fisherman, December 2002 Actually, it’s the premise of the EPA argument, not the logic, that’s suspicious. Real Life “A Breakthrough in Environmental Protection” moo86677_ch01_001-040.indd 11 6/17/08 10:31:32 AM
But the following passage is different. See if you can spot why there is an argu- ment present The number of people who have learned how to steal identities has doubled in the past year. So, you are now more likely to become a victim of identity theft than you were a year ago Here, the first claim offers support for-a reason for believing-the second claim; we now have an argument. It is because the identity thieves are more numerous that one should think becoming a victim is more likely. FURTHER CONFUSIONS Arguments are often accompanied by a lot of extraneous stuff--rhetorical flourishes, asides, tangents, jokes. You'll often have to sort through all these things to find an actual argument We 'll try to give you some help in this, but ractice and your own vigilance will stand you in good stead. Arguments can also be difficult to identify because they are easily confused with two other kinds of things: explanations and attempts to persuade. We'll have a brief look at eac Arguments and Explanations In 2005, Patrick Lawler, 23, a construction worker from Littleton, Colorado accidentally shot himself in the head with his nail gun. He didnt realize he'd driven a nail into his brain until days later, after he went to a dentist and com- plained of a world-class toothache. An X-ray showed that the problem was a four-inch nail, not a bad tooth. Surgeons removed the nail, and Lawler seems to have recovered. Unfortunately, financial recovery may be more difficult Although he could have afforded it at the time of the accident, he had decided heo nst medical insurance. He now cannot pay the $100,000 in medical bills We can get both an explanation and an argument from this story. Lawler had a world-class toothache because he had driven a nail into his head. this is an explanation; it identifies the cause of the problem. By contrast, "Patrick Lawler should have carried medical insurance because now he can't pay his medical bills"is an argument, not an explanation. For several reasons, people often confuse the two. Let's put the two sentences about the unfortunate M awler side by side and compare them again Patrick lawler had a toothache Patrick Lawler should have because he had a nail in his carried medical insurance because now he can't pay his medical bills Both statements say,"X because Y "But remember, an argument has two parts, and one part(the premise) provides a reason for thinking the other part the conclusion) is true. The sentence on the right, above, is indeed an argu- ment, because"he can't pay h 1s medica al bills"provides a reason for thinking it true that Patrick Lawler should have had medical insurance. By contrast, in the sentence on the left, the part that says, " he had a nail in his head, "is not given as a reason for thinking that"Patrick Lawler had a toothache. "Patrick Lawler doesn't need a reason for thinking he had a toothache, and neither do
Confi rming Pages 12 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS But the following passage is different. See if you can spot why there is an argument present: The number of people who have learned how to steal identities has doubled in the past year. So, you are now more likely to become a victim of identity theft than you were a year ago. Here, the first claim offers support for—a reason for believing—the second claim; we now have an argument. It is because the identity thieves are more numerous that one should think becoming a victim is more likely. FURTHER CONFUSIONS Arguments are often accompanied by a lot of extraneous stuff—rhetorical flourishes, asides, tangents, jokes. You’ll often have to sort through all these things to find an actual argument. We’ll try to give you some help in this, but practice and your own vigilance will stand you in good stead. Arguments can also be difficult to identify because they are easily confused with two other kinds of things: explanations and attempts to persuade. We’ll have a brief look at each. Arguments and Explanations In 2005, Patrick Lawler, 23, a construction worker from Littleton, Colorado, accidentally shot himself in the head with his nail gun. He didn’t realize he’d driven a nail into his brain until days later, after he went to a dentist and complained of a world-class toothache. An X-ray showed that the problem was a four-inch nail, not a bad tooth. Surgeons removed the nail, and Lawler seems to have recovered. Unfortunately, financial recovery may be more difficult. Although he could have afforded it at the time of the accident, he had decided against medical insurance. He now cannot pay the $100,000 in medical bills he owes. We can get both an explanation and an argument from this story. Lawler had a world-class toothache because he had driven a nail into his head. This is an explanation; it identifies the cause of the problem. By contrast, “Patrick Lawler should have carried medical insurance because now he can’t pay his medical bills” is an argument, not an explanation. For several reasons, people often confuse the two. Let’s put the two sentences about the unfortunate Mr. Lawler side by side and compare them again. Patrick Lawler had a toothache Patrick Lawler should have because he had a nail in his carried medical insurance because head. now he can’t pay his medical bills. Both statements say, “X because Y.” But remember, an argument has two parts, and one part (the premise) provides a reason for thinking the other part (the conclusion) is true. The sentence on the right, above, is indeed an argument, because “he can’t pay his medical bills” provides a reason for thinking it is true that Patrick Lawler should have had medical insurance. By contrast, in the sentence on the left, the part that says, “he had a nail in his head,” is not given as a reason for thinking that “Patrick Lawler had a toothache.” Patrick Lawler doesn’t need a reason for thinking he had a toothache, and neither do moo86677_ch01_001-040.indd 12 6/17/08 10:31:34 AM
we, if he tells us he has one. "He had a nail in his head"states the cause of the headache and is not offered as proof that Patrick Lawler had one Basically, an argument attempts to support or prove a conclusion, while an explanation specifies what caused something or how it works or what it is made out of and so forth. Arguing that a dog has fleas is quite different from explaining what caused the fleas. Arguing that violent crime has increased different from explaining what caused it to increase. Offering an explanation of Dutch elm disease is entirely different from trying to prove that your expla nation is correct. Explanations and arguments are different things. However they are easily confused and we include an exercise that will help you keep them straight Arguments and Persuasion National forests need more roads like farmers need more drought. "We heard somebody say this who was trying to persuade an audience that more roads would be bad for our national forests. The remark, however, is not an argu ment; it's just a statement that portrays road building in the forests in a bad light. Now, some writers define an argument as an attempt to persuade some body of something. This is not correct. An argument attempts to prove or sup port a conclusion. When you attempt to persuade someone, you attempt to win him or her to your point of view; trying to persuade and trying to argue are logically distinct enterprises. True, when you want to persuade somebody of something, you might use an argument. But not all arguments attempt to persuade and many attempts to persuade do not involve arguments. In fact giving an argument is often one of the least effective methods of persuading people-which, of course is why so few advertisers bother with arguments People notoriously are persuaded by the flimsiest of arguments and sometimes ■ Bob realized too late that trick-or-treating with the kids in Yellowstone was
Confi rming Pages we, if he tells us he has one. “He had a nail in his head” states the cause of the headache and is not offered as proof that Patrick Lawler had one. Basically, an argument attempts to support or prove a conclusion, while an explanation specifies what caused something or how it works or what it is made out of and so forth. Arguing that a dog has fleas is quite different from explaining what caused the fleas. Arguing that violent crime has increased is different from explaining what caused it to increase. Offering an explanation of Dutch elm disease is entirely different from trying to prove that your explanation is correct. Explanations and arguments are different things. However, they are easily confused, and we include an exercise that will help you keep them straight. Arguments and Persuasion “National forests need more roads like farmers need more drought.” We heard somebody say this who was trying to persuade an audience that more roads would be bad for our national forests. The remark, however, is not an argument; it’s just a statement that portrays road building in the forests in a bad light. Now, some writers define an argument as an attempt to persuade somebody of something. This is not correct. An argument attempts to prove or support a conclusion. When you attempt to persuade someone, you attempt to win him or her to your point of view; trying to persuade and trying to argue are logically distinct enterprises. True, when you want to persuade somebody of something, you might use an argument. But not all arguments attempt to persuade, and many attempts to persuade do not involve arguments. In fact, giving an argument is often one of the least effective methods of persuading people—which, of course, is why so few advertisers bother with arguments. People notoriously are persuaded by the flimsiest of arguments and sometimes FURTHER CONFUSIONS 13 ■ Bob realized too late that trick-or-treating with the kids in Yellowstone was a poor idea. moo86677_ch01_001-040.indd 13 6/17/08 10:31:34 AM
CRITICAL THINKING BASICS are unfazed by even quite good arguments. Propaganda, for example, is an effec tive means of persuasion. Flattery has been known to work, too TWO KINDS OF GOOD ARGUMENTS ment and a good"inductive "argument. Before we explain these argu i ogicians recognize two kinds of good arguments: A good"deductive"argu- ent we should point out that the distinction between the two is second nature to instructors of critical thinking, and it is easy for them (and for us)to some times forget that it is new to many people. In addition, within the past few pages we have already brought up several new ideas, including"critical think ng, ""claim, ""argument, ""premise, ""conclusion, ""issue,"and more. This s quite a load, so dont worry if you don't understand the distinction imme- diately. In Chapter 2, we will go into more detail about arguments and will return to the distinction we are about to present. Your instructor may even wish to wait until then to go into the matter in depth Deductive Arguments The first type of good argument, a good deductive argument, is said to be valid, "which means it isn't possible for the premises to be true and the con- clusion false. Take this argument about one of our former students Premise: Josh Fulcher lives in Alaska Conclusion: Therefore, Josh Fulcher lives in the United States This is a valid argument because it isn't possible for Josh Fulcher to live in Alaska and not live in the United States. One more example Premise: Josh Fulcher is taller than his wife and his wife is taller than his son Conclusion: Therefore, Josh Fulcher is taller than his son. This, too, is a valid argument, because it isn't possible for that premise to be true and the conclusion to be false To put all this differently, the premises of a good deductive argument assuming they are true, prove or demonstrate the conclusion Inductive Arguments The premises of the other type of good argument, a good inductive argument don't prove or demonstrate the conclusion. They support it. This means that, assuming they are true, they raise the probability that the conclusion is true Premise: Fulcher lives in Alaska repellent. Fulcher's living in Alaska makes it more probable that Fulcher uses mosquito Premise: People who live in Butte City already spend a lot of time Conclusion: Therefore, a tanning salon won't do well there
Confi rming Pages 14 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS are unfazed by even quite good arguments. Propaganda, for example, is an effective means of persuasion. Flattery has been known to work, too. TWO KINDS OF GOOD ARGUMENTS Logicians recognize two kinds of good arguments: A good “deductive” argument and a good “inductive” argument. Before we explain these arguments, we should point out that the distinction between the two is second nature to instructors of critical thinking, and it is easy for them (and for us) to sometimes forget that it is new to many people. In addition, within the past few pages we have already brought up several new ideas, including “critical thinking,” “claim,” “argument,” “premise,” “conclusion,” “issue,” and more. This is quite a load, so don’t worry if you don’t understand the distinction immediately. In Chapter 2, we will go into more detail about arguments and will return to the distinction we are about to present. Your instructor may even wish to wait until then to go into the matter in depth. Deductive Arguments The first type of good argument, a good deductive argument, is said to be “valid,” which means it isn’t possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Take this argument about one of our former students: Premise: Josh Fulcher lives in Alaska. Conclusion: Therefore, Josh Fulcher lives in the United States. This is a valid argument because it isn’t possible for Josh Fulcher to live in Alaska and not live in the United States. One more example: Premise: Josh Fulcher is taller than his wife, and his wife is taller than his son. Conclusion: Therefore, Josh Fulcher is taller than his son. This, too, is a valid argument, because it isn’t possible for that premise to be true and the conclusion to be false. To put all this differently, the premises of a good deductive argument, assuming they are true, prove or demonstrate the conclusion. Inductive Arguments The premises of the other type of good argument, a good inductive argument, don’t prove or demonstrate the conclusion. They support it. This means that, assuming they are true, they raise the probability that the conclusion is true. Premise: Fulcher lives in Alaska. Conclusion: Therefore, he uses mosquito repellent. Fulcher’s living in Alaska makes it more probable that Fulcher uses mosquito repellent. And: Premise: People who live in Butte City already spend a lot of time in the sun. Conclusion: Therefore, a tanning salon won’t do well there. moo86677_ch01_001-040.indd 14 6/17/08 10:31:36 AM