critical thinking chapter two

Pursuing Truth: A Guide to Critical Thinking

Chapter 2 arguments.

The fundamental tool of the critical thinker is the argument. For a good example of what we are not talking about, consider a bit from a famous sketch by Monty Python’s Flying Circus : 3

2.1 Identifying Arguments

People often use “argument” to refer to a dispute or quarrel between people. In critical thinking, an argument is defined as

A set of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises.

There are three important things to remember here:

Arguments contain statements.
They have a conclusion.
They have at least one premise

Arguments contain statements, or declarative sentences. Statements, unlike questions or commands, have a truth value. Statements assert that the world is a particular way; questions do not. For example, if someone asked you what you did after dinner yesterday evening, you wouldn’t accuse them of lying. When the world is the way that the statement says that it is, we say that the statement is true. If the statement is not true, it is false.

One of the statements in the argument is called the conclusion. The conclusion is the statement that is intended to be proved. Consider the following argument:

Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I. Susan did well in Calculus I. So, Susan should do well in Calculus II.

Here the conclusion is that Susan should do well in Calculus II. The other two sentences are premises. Premises are the reasons offered for believing that the conclusion is true.

2.1.1 Standard Form

Now, to make the argument easier to evaluate, we will put it into what is called “standard form.” To put an argument in standard form, write each premise on a separate, numbered line. Draw a line underneath the last premise, the write the conclusion underneath the line.

Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I.
Susan did well in Calculus I.
Susan should do well in Calculus II.

Now that we have the argument in standard form, we can talk about premise 1, premise 2, and all clearly be referring to the same thing.

2.1.2 Indicator Words

Unfortunately, when people present arguments, they rarely put them in standard form. So, we have to decide which statement is intended to be the conclusion, and which are the premises. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that the conclusion comes at the end. The conclusion is often at the beginning of the passage, but could even be in the middle. A better way to identify premises and conclusions is to look for indicator words. Indicator words are words that signal that statement following the indicator is a premise or conclusion. The example above used a common indicator word for a conclusion, ‘so.’ The other common conclusion indicator, as you can probably guess, is ‘therefore.’ This table lists the indicator words you might encounter.

Each argument will likely use only one indicator word or phrase. When the conlusion is at the end, it will generally be preceded by a conclusion indicator. Everything else, then, is a premise. When the conclusion comes at the beginning, the next sentence will usually be introduced by a premise indicator. All of the following sentences will also be premises.

For example, here’s our previous argument rewritten to use a premise indicator:

Susan should do well in Calculus II, because Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I, and Susan did well in Calculus I.

Sometimes, an argument will contain no indicator words at all. In that case, the best thing to do is to determine which of the premises would logically follow from the others. If there is one, then it is the conclusion. Here is an example:

Spot is a mammal. All dogs are mammals, and Spot is a dog.

The first sentence logically follows from the others, so it is the conclusion. When using this method, we are forced to assume that the person giving the argument is rational and logical, which might not be true.

2.1.3 Non-Arguments

One thing that complicates our task of identifying arguments is that there are many passages that, although they look like arguments, are not arguments. The most common types are:

Explanations
Mere asssertions
Conditional statements
Loosely connected statements

Explanations can be tricky, because they often use one of our indicator words. Consider this passage:

Abraham Lincoln died because he was shot.

If this were an argument, then the conclusion would be that Abraham Lincoln died, since the other statement is introduced by a premise indicator. If this is an argument, though, it’s a strange one. Do you really think that someone would be trying to prove that Abraham Lincoln died? Surely everyone knows that he is dead. On the other hand, there might be people who don’t know how he died. This passage does not attempt to prove that something is true, but instead attempts to explain why it is true. To determine if a passage is an explanation or an argument, first find the statement that looks like the conclusion. Next, ask yourself if everyone likely already believes that statement to be true. If the answer to that question is yes, then the passage is an explanation.

Mere assertions are obviously not arguments. If a professor tells you simply that you will not get an A in her course this semester, she has not given you an argument. This is because she hasn’t given you any reasons to believe that the statement is true. If there are no premises, then there is no argument.

Conditional statements are sentences that have the form “If…, then….” A conditional statement asserts that if something is true, then something else would be true also. For example, imagine you are told, “If you have the winning lottery ticket, then you will win ten million dollars.” What is being claimed to be true, that you have the winning lottery ticket, or that you will win ten million dollars? Neither. The only thing claimed is the entire conditional. Conditionals can be premises, and they can be conclusions. They can be parts of arguments, but that cannot, on their own, be arguments themselves.

Finally, consider this passage:

I woke up this morning, then took a shower and got dressed. After breakfast, I worked on chapter 2 of the critical thinking text. I then took a break and drank some more coffee….

This might be a description of my day, but it’s not an argument. There’s nothing in the passage that plays the role of a premise or a conclusion. The passage doesn’t attempt to prove anything. Remember that arguments need a conclusion, there must be something that is the statement to be proved. Lacking that, it simply isn’t an argument, no matter how much it looks like one.

2.2 Evaluating Arguments

The first step in evaluating an argument is to determine what kind of argument it is. We initially categorize arguments as either deductive or inductive, defined roughly in terms of their goals. In deductive arguments, the truth of the premises is intended to absolutely establish the truth of the conclusion. For inductive arguments, the truth of the premises is only intended to establish the probable truth of the conclusion. We’ll focus on deductive arguments first, then examine inductive arguments in later chapters.

Once we have established that an argument is deductive, we then ask if it is valid. To say that an argument is valid is to claim that there is a very special logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion, such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Another way to state this is

An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

An argument is invalid if and only if it is not valid.

Note that claiming that an argument is valid is not the same as claiming that it has a true conclusion, nor is it to claim that the argument has true premises. Claiming that an argument is valid is claiming nothing more that the premises, if they were true , would be enough to make the conclusion true. For example, is the following argument valid or not?

If pigs fly, then an increase in the minimum wage will be approved next term.
An increase in the minimum wage will be approved next term.

The argument is indeed valid. If the two premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true also. What about this argument?

All dogs are mammals
Spot is a mammal.
Spot is a dog.

In this case, both of the premises are true and the conclusion is true. The question to ask, though, is whether the premises absolutely guarantee that the conclusion is true. The answer here is no. The two premises could be true and the conclusion false if Spot were a cat, whale, etc.

Neither of these arguments are good. The second fails because it is invalid. The two premises don’t prove that the conclusion is true. The first argument is valid, however. So, the premises would prove that the conclusion is true, if those premises were themselves true. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, I guess, considering what would be dropping from the sky) pigs don’t fly.

These examples give us two important ways that deductive arguments can fail. The can fail because they are invalid, or because they have at least one false premise. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive, an argument can be both invalid and have a false premise.

If the argument is valid, and has all true premises, then it is a sound argument. Sound arguments always have true conclusions.

A deductively valid argument with all true premises.

Inductive arguments are never valid, since the premises only establish the probable truth of the conclusion. So, we evaluate inductive arguments according to their strength. A strong inductive argument is one in which the truth of the premises really do make the conclusion probably true. An argument is weak if the truth of the premises fail to establish the probable truth of the conclusion.

There is a significant difference between valid/invalid and strong/weak. If an argument is not valid, then it is invalid. The two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There can be no such thing as an argument being more valid than another valid argument. Validity is all or nothing. Inductive strength, however, is on a continuum. A strong inductive argument can be made stronger with the addition of another premise. More evidence can raise the probability of the conclusion. A valid argument cannot be made more valid with an additional premise. Why not? If the argument is valid, then the premises were enough to absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Adding another premise won’t give any more guarantee of truth than was already there. If it could, then the guarantee wasn’t absolute before, and the original argument wasn’t valid in the first place.

2.3 Counterexamples

One way to prove an argument to be invalid is to use a counterexample. A counterexample is a consistent story in which the premises are true and the conclusion false. Consider the argument above:

By pointing out that Spot could have been a cat, I have told a story in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.

Here’s another one:

If it is raining, then the sidewalks are wet.
The sidewalks are wet.
It is raining.

The sprinklers might have been on. If so, then the sidewalks would be wet, even if it weren’t raining.

Counterexamples can be very useful for demonstrating invalidity. Keep in mind, though, that validity can never be proved with the counterexample method. If the argument is valid, then it will be impossible to give a counterexample to it. If you can’t come up with a counterexample, however, that does not prove the argument to be valid. It may only mean that you’re not creative enough.

An argument is a set of statements; one is the conclusion, the rest are premises.
The conclusion is the statement that the argument is trying to prove.
The premises are the reasons offered for believing the conclusion to be true.
Explanations, conditional sentences, and mere assertions are not arguments.
Deductive reasoning attempts to absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Inductive reasoning attempts to show that the conclusion is probably true.
In a valid argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
In an invalid argument, it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
A sound argument is valid and has all true premises.
An inductively strong argument is one in which the truth of the premises makes the the truth of the conclusion probable.
An inductively weak argument is one in which the truth of the premises do not make the conclusion probably true.
A counterexample is a consistent story in which the premises of an argument are true and the conclusion is false. Counterexamples can be used to prove that arguments are deductively invalid.

( Cleese and Chapman 1980 ) . ↩︎

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

(10 reviews)

Matthew Van Cleave, Lansing Community College

Publisher: Matthew J. Van Cleave

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by "yusef" Alexander Hayes, Professor, North Shore Community College on 6/9/21

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book is accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

While many modern examples are used, and they are helpful, they are not necessarily needed. The usefulness of logical principles and skills have proved themselves, and this text presents them clearly with many examples.

Clarity rating: 5

It is obvious that the author cares about their subject, audience, and students. The text is comprehensible and interesting.

Consistency rating: 5

The format is easy to understand and is consistent in framing.

Modularity rating: 5

This text would be easy to adapt.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization is excellent, my one suggestion would be a concluding chapter.

Interface rating: 5

I accessed the PDF version and it would be easy to work with.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The writing is excellent.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This is not an offensive text.

Reviewed by Susan Rottmann, Part-time Lecturer, University of Southern Maine on 3/2/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

I reviewed this book for a course titled "Creative and Critical Inquiry into Modern Life." It won't meet all my needs for that course, but I haven't yet found a book that would. I wanted to review this one because it states in the preface that it fits better for a general critical thinking course than for a true logic course. I'm not sure that I'd agree. I have been using Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," and I think that book is a better introduction to critical thinking for non-philosophy majors. However, the latter is not open source so I will figure out how to get by without it in the future. Overall, the book seems comprehensive if the subject is logic. The index is on the short-side, but fine. However, one issue for me is that there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which is pretty annoying if you want to locate particular sections.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I didn't find any errors. In general the book uses great examples. However, they are very much based in the American context, not for an international student audience. Some effort to broaden the chosen examples would make the book more widely applicable.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

I think the book will remain relevant because of the nature of the material that it addresses, however there will be a need to modify the examples in future editions and as the social and political context changes.

Clarity rating: 3

The text is lucid, but I think it would be difficult for introductory-level students who are not philosophy majors. For example, in Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," the sub-headings are very accessible, such as "Experts cannot rescue us, despite what they say" or "wishful thinking: perhaps the biggest single speed bump on the road to critical thinking." By contrast, Van Cleave's "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking" has more subheadings like this: "Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form" or "Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives." If students are prepared very well for the subject, it would work fine, but for students who are newly being introduced to critical thinking, it is rather technical.

It seems to be very consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 4

The book is divided into 4 chapters, each having many sub-chapters. In that sense, it is readily divisible and modular. However, as noted above, there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which would make assigning certain parts rather frustrating. Also, I'm not sure why the book is only four chapter and has so many subheadings (for instance 17 in Chapter 2) and a length of 242 pages. Wouldn't it make more sense to break up the book into shorter chapters? I think this would make it easier to read and to assign in specific blocks to students.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The organization of the book is fine overall, although I think adding page numbers to the table of contents and breaking it up into more separate chapters would help it to be more easily navigable.

Interface rating: 4

The book is very simply presented. In my opinion it is actually too simple. There are few boxes or diagrams that highlight and explain important points.

The text seems fine grammatically. I didn't notice any errors.

The book is written with an American audience in mind, but I did not notice culturally insensitive or offensive parts.

Overall, this book is not for my course, but I think it could work well in a philosophy course.

Reviewed by Daniel Lee, Assistant Professor of Economics and Leadership, Sweet Briar College on 11/11/19

This textbook is not particularly comprehensive (4 chapters long), but I view that as a benefit. In fact, I recommend it for use outside of traditional logic classes, but rather interdisciplinary classes that evaluate argument read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as accurate, error-free, and unbiased

The book is broadly relevant and up-to-date, with a few stray temporal references (sydney olympics, particular presidencies). I don't view these time-dated examples as problematic as the logical underpinnings are still there and easily assessed

Clarity rating: 4

My only pushback on clarity is I didn't find the distinction between argument and explanation particularly helpful/useful/easy to follow. However, this experience may have been unique to my class.

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as internally consistent

I found this text quite modular, and was easily able to integrate other texts into my lessons and disregard certain chapters or sub-sections

The book had a logical and consistent structure, but to the extent that there are only 4 chapters, there isn't much scope for alternative approaches here

No problems with the book's interface

The text is grammatically sound

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

Perhaps the text could have been more universal in its approach. While I didn't find the book insensitive per-se, logic can be tricky here because the point is to evaluate meaningful (non-trivial) arguments, but any argument with that sense of gravity can also be traumatic to students (abortion, death penalty, etc)

No additional comments

Reviewed by Lisa N. Thomas-Smith, Graduate Part-time Instructor, CU Boulder on 7/1/19

The text covers all the relevant technical aspects of introductory logic and critical thinking, and covers them well. A separate glossary would be quite helpful to students. However, the terms are clearly and thoroughly explained within the text,... read more

The content is excellent. The text is thorough and accurate with no errors that I could discern. The terminology and exercises cover the material nicely and without bias.

The text should easily stand the test of time. The exercises are excellent and would be very helpful for students to internalize correct critical thinking practices. Because of the logical arrangement of the text and the many sub-sections, additional material should be very easy to add.

The text is extremely clearly and simply written. I anticipate that a diligent student could learn all of the material in the text with little additional instruction. The examples are relevant and easy to follow.

The text did not confuse terms or use inconsistent terminology, which is very important in a logic text. The discipline often uses multiple terms for the same concept, but this text avoids that trap nicely.

The text is fairly easily divisible. Since there are only four chapters, those chapters include large blocks of information. However, the chapters themselves are very well delineated and could be easily broken up so that parts could be left out or covered in a different order from the text.

The flow of the text is excellent. All of the information is handled solidly in an order that allows the student to build on the information previously covered.

The PDF Table of Contents does not include links or page numbers which would be very helpful for navigation. Other than that, the text was very easy to navigate. All the images, charts, and graphs were very clear

I found no grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The text including examples and exercises did not seem to be offensive or insensitive in any specific way. However, the examples included references to black and white people, but few others. Also, the text is very American specific with many examples from and for an American audience. More diversity, especially in the examples, would be appropriate and appreciated.

Reviewed by Leslie Aarons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, CUNY LaGuardia Community College on 5/16/19

This is an excellent introductory (first-year) Logic and Critical Thinking textbook. The book covers the important elementary information, clearly discussing such things as the purpose and basic structure of an argument; the difference between an argument and an explanation; validity; soundness; and the distinctions between an inductive and a deductive argument in accessible terms in the first chapter. It also does a good job introducing and discussing informal fallacies (Chapter 4). The incorporation of opportunities to evaluate real-world arguments is also very effective. Chapter 2 also covers a number of formal methods of evaluating arguments, such as Venn Diagrams and Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives, but to my mind, it is much more thorough in its treatment of Informal Logic and Critical Thinking skills, than it is of formal logic. I also appreciated that Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index, but there is no glossary; which I personally do not find detracts from the book's comprehensiveness.

Overall, Van Cleave's book is error-free and unbiased. The language used is accessible and engaging. There were no glaring inaccuracies that I was able to detect.

Van Cleave's Textbook uses relevant, contemporary content that will stand the test of time, at least for the next few years. Although some examples use certain subjects like former President Obama, it does so in a useful manner that inspires the use of critical thinking skills. There are an abundance of examples that inspire students to look at issues from many different political viewpoints, challenging students to practice evaluating arguments, and identifying fallacies. Many of these exercises encourage students to critique issues, and recognize their own inherent reader-biases and challenge their own beliefs--hallmarks of critical thinking.

As mentioned previously, the author has an accessible style that makes the content relatively easy to read and engaging. He also does a suitable job explaining jargon/technical language that is introduced in the textbook.

Van Cleave uses terminology consistently and the chapters flow well. The textbook orients the reader by offering effective introductions to new material, step-by-step explanations of the material, as well as offering clear summaries of each lesson.

This textbook's modularity is really quite good. Its language and structure are not overly convoluted or too-lengthy, making it convenient for individual instructors to adapt the materials to suit their methodological preferences.

The topics in the textbook are presented in a logical and clear fashion. The structure of the chapters are such that it is not necessary to have to follow the chapters in their sequential order, and coverage of material can be adapted to individual instructor's preferences.

The textbook is free of any problematic interface issues. Topics, sections and specific content are accessible and easy to navigate. Overall it is user-friendly.

I did not find any significant grammatical issues with the textbook.

The textbook is not culturally insensitive, making use of a diversity of inclusive examples. Materials are especially effective for first-year critical thinking/logic students.

I intend to adopt Van Cleave's textbook for a Critical Thinking class I am teaching at the Community College level. I believe that it will help me facilitate student-learning, and will be a good resource to build additional classroom activities from the materials it provides.

Reviewed by Jennie Harrop, Chair, Department of Professional Studies, George Fox University on 3/27/18

While the book is admirably comprehensive, its extensive details within a few short chapters may feel overwhelming to students. The author tackles an impressive breadth of concepts in Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4, which leads to 50-plus-page chapters that are dense with statistical analyses and critical vocabulary. These topics are likely better broached in manageable snippets rather than hefty single chapters.

The ideas addressed in Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking are accurate but at times notably political. While politics are effectively used to exemplify key concepts, some students may be distracted by distinct political leanings.

The terms and definitions included are relevant, but the examples are specific to the current political, cultural, and social climates, which could make the materials seem dated in a few years without intentional and consistent updates.

While the reasoning is accurate, the author tends to complicate rather than simplify -- perhaps in an effort to cover a spectrum of related concepts. Beginning readers are likely to be overwhelmed and under-encouraged by his approach.

Consistency rating: 3

The four chapters are somewhat consistent in their play of definition, explanation, and example, but the structure of each chapter varies according to the concepts covered. In the third chapter, for example, key ideas are divided into sub-topics numbering from 3.1 to 3.10. In the fourth chapter, the sub-divisions are further divided into sub-sections numbered 4.1.1-4.1.5, 4.2.1-4.2.2, and 4.3.1 to 4.3.6. Readers who are working quickly to master new concepts may find themselves mired in similarly numbered subheadings, longing for a grounded concepts on which to hinge other key principles.

Modularity rating: 3

The book's four chapters make it mostly self-referential. The author would do well to beak this text down into additional subsections, easing readers' accessibility.

The content of the book flows logically and well, but the information needs to be better sub-divided within each larger chapter, easing the student experience.

The book's interface is effective, allowing readers to move from one section to the next with a single click. Additional sub-sections would ease this interplay even further.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Some minor errors throughout.

For the most part, the book is culturally neutral, avoiding direct cultural references in an effort to remain relevant.

Reviewed by Yoichi Ishida, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Ohio University on 2/1/18

This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking. Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic, this textbook does not cover suppositional arguments, such as conditional proof and reductio ad absurdum. But other standard argument forms are covered. Chapter 3 covers inductive logic, and here this textbook introduces probability and its relationship with cognitive biases, which are rarely discussed in other textbooks. Chapter 4 introduces common informal fallacies. The answers to all the exercises are given at the end. However, the last set of exercises is in Chapter 3, Section 5. There are no exercises in the rest of the chapter. Chapter 4 has no exercises either. There is index, but no glossary.

The textbook is accurate.

The content of this textbook will not become obsolete soon.

The textbook is written clearly.

The textbook is internally consistent.

The textbook is fairly modular. For example, Chapter 3, together with a few sections from Chapter 1, can be used as a short introduction to inductive logic.

The textbook is well-organized.

There are no interface issues.

I did not find any grammatical errors.

This textbook is relevant to a first semester logic or critical thinking course.

Reviewed by Payal Doctor, Associate Professro, LaGuardia Community College on 2/1/18

This text is a beginner textbook for arguments and propositional logic. It covers the basics of identifying arguments, building arguments, and using basic logic to construct propositions and arguments. It is quite comprehensive for a beginner book, but seems to be a good text for a course that needs a foundation for arguments. There are exercises on creating truth tables and proofs, so it could work as a logic primer in short sessions or with the addition of other course content.

The books is accurate in the information it presents. It does not contain errors and is unbiased. It covers the essential vocabulary clearly and givens ample examples and exercises to ensure the student understands the concepts

The content of the book is up to date and can be easily updated. Some examples are very current for analyzing the argument structure in a speech, but for this sort of text understandable examples are important and the author uses good examples.

The book is clear and easy to read. In particular, this is a good text for community college students who often have difficulty with reading comprehension. The language is straightforward and concepts are well explained.

The book is consistent in terminology, formatting, and examples. It flows well from one topic to the next, but it is also possible to jump around the text without loosing the voice of the text.

The books is broken down into sub units that make it easy to assign short blocks of content at a time. Later in the text, it does refer to a few concepts that appear early in that text, but these are all basic concepts that must be used to create a clear and understandable text. No sections are too long and each section stays on topic and relates the topic to those that have come before when necessary.

The flow of the text is logical and clear. It begins with the basic building blocks of arguments, and practice identifying more and more complex arguments is offered. Each chapter builds up from the previous chapter in introducing propositional logic, truth tables, and logical arguments. A select number of fallacies are presented at the end of the text, but these are related to topics that were presented before, so it makes sense to have these last.

The text is free if interface issues. I used the PDF and it worked fine on various devices without loosing formatting.

1. The book contains no grammatical errors.

The text is culturally sensitive, but examples used are a bit odd and may be objectionable to some students. For instance, President Obama's speech on Syria is used to evaluate an extended argument. This is an excellent example and it is explained well, but some who disagree with Obama's policies may have trouble moving beyond their own politics. However, other examples look at issues from all political viewpoints and ask students to evaluate the argument, fallacy, etc. and work towards looking past their own beliefs. Overall this book does use a variety of examples that most students can understand and evaluate.

My favorite part of this book is that it seems to be written for community college students. My students have trouble understanding readings in the New York Times, so it is nice to see a logic and critical thinking text use real language that students can understand and follow without the constant need of a dictionary.

Reviewed by Rebecca Owen, Adjunct Professor, Writing, Chemeketa Community College on 6/20/17

This textbook is quite thorough--there are conversational explanations of argument structure and logic. I think students will be happy with the conversational style this author employs. Also, there are many examples and exercises using current events, funny scenarios, or other interesting ways to evaluate argument structure and validity. The third section, which deals with logical fallacies, is very clear and comprehensive. My only critique of the material included in the book is that the middle section may be a bit dense and math-oriented for learners who appreciate the more informal, informative style of the first and third section. Also, the book ends rather abruptly--it moves from a description of a logical fallacy to the answers for the exercises earlier in the text.

The content is very reader-friendly, and the author writes with authority and clarity throughout the text. There are a few surface-level typos (Starbuck's instead of Starbucks, etc.). None of these small errors detract from the quality of the content, though.

One thing I really liked about this text was the author's wide variety of examples. To demonstrate different facets of logic, he used examples from current media, movies, literature, and many other concepts that students would recognize from their daily lives. The exercises in this text also included these types of pop-culture references, and I think students will enjoy the familiarity--as well as being able to see the logical structures behind these types of references. I don't think the text will need to be updated to reflect new instances and occurrences; the author did a fine job at picking examples that are relatively timeless. As far as the subject matter itself, I don't think it will become obsolete any time soon.

The author writes in a very conversational, easy-to-read manner. The examples used are quite helpful. The third section on logical fallacies is quite easy to read, follow, and understand. A student in an argument writing class could benefit from this section of the book. The middle section is less clear, though. A student learning about the basics of logic might have a hard time digesting all of the information contained in chapter two. This material might be better in two separate chapters. I think the author loses the balance of a conversational, helpful tone and focuses too heavily on equations.

Consistency rating: 4

Terminology in this book is quite consistent--the key words are highlighted in bold. Chapters 1 and 3 follow a similar organizational pattern, but chapter 2 is where the material becomes more dense and equation-heavy. I also would have liked a closing passage--something to indicate to the reader that we've reached the end of the chapter as well as the book.

I liked the overall structure of this book. If I'm teaching an argumentative writing class, I could easily point the students to the chapters where they can identify and practice identifying fallacies, for instance. The opening chapter is clear in defining the necessary terms, and it gives the students an understanding of the toolbox available to them in assessing and evaluating arguments. Even though I found the middle section to be dense, smaller portions could be assigned.

The author does a fine job connecting each defined term to the next. He provides examples of how each defined term works in a sentence or in an argument, and then he provides practice activities for students to try. The answers for each question are listed in the final pages of the book. The middle section feels like the heaviest part of the whole book--it would take the longest time for a student to digest if assigned the whole chapter. Even though this middle section is a bit heavy, it does fit the overall structure and flow of the book. New material builds on previous chapters and sub-chapters. It ends abruptly--I didn't realize that it had ended, and all of a sudden I found myself in the answer section for those earlier exercises.

The simple layout is quite helpful! There is nothing distracting, image-wise, in this text. The table of contents is clearly arranged, and each topic is easy to find.

Tiny edits could be made (Starbuck's/Starbucks, for one). Otherwise, it is free of distracting grammatical errors.

This text is quite culturally relevant. For instance, there is one example that mentions the rumors of Barack Obama's birthplace as somewhere other than the United States. This example is used to explain how to analyze an argument for validity. The more "sensational" examples (like the Obama one above) are helpful in showing argument structure, and they can also help students see how rumors like this might gain traction--as well as help to show students how to debunk them with their newfound understanding of argument and logic.

The writing style is excellent for the subject matter, especially in the third section explaining logical fallacies. Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this text!

Reviewed by Laurel Panser, Instructor, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

This is a review of Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, an open source book version 1.4 by Matthew Van Cleave. The comparison book used was Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic 12th Edition published by Cengage as well as... read more

Competing with Hurley is difficult with respect to comprehensiveness. For example, Van Cleave’s book is comprehensive to the extent that it probably covers at least two-thirds or more of what is dealt with in most introductory, one-semester logic courses. Van Cleave’s chapter 1 provides an overview of argumentation including discerning non-arguments from arguments, premises versus conclusions, deductive from inductive arguments, validity, soundness and more. Much of Van Cleave’s chapter 1 parallel’s Hurley’s chapter 1. Hurley’s chapter 3 regarding informal fallacies is comprehensive while Van Cleave’s chapter 4 on this topic is less extensive. Categorical propositions are a topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 4 and 5 provide more instruction on this, however. Propositional logic is another topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 6 and 7 provide more information on this, though. Van Cleave did discuss messy issues of language meaning briefly in his chapter 1; that is the topic of Hurley’s chapter 2.

Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index. A glossary was not included.

Reviews of open source textbooks typically include criteria besides comprehensiveness. These include comments on accuracy of the information, whether the book will become obsolete soon, jargon-free clarity to the extent that is possible, organization, navigation ease, freedom from grammar errors and cultural relevance; Van Cleave’s book is fine in all of these areas. Further criteria for open source books includes modularity and consistency of terminology. Modularity is defined as including blocks of learning material that are easy to assign to students. Hurley’s book has a greater degree of modularity than Van Cleave’s textbook. The prose Van Cleave used is consistent.

Van Cleave’s book will not become obsolete soon.

Van Cleave’s book has accessible prose.

Van Cleave used terminology consistently.

Van Cleave’s book has a reasonable degree of modularity.

Van Cleave’s book is organized. The structure and flow of his book is fine.

Problems with navigation are not present.

Grammar problems were not present.

Van Cleave’s book is culturally relevant.

Van Cleave’s book is appropriate for some first semester logic courses.

Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments

1.1 What is an argument?
1.2 Identifying arguments
1.3 Arguments vs. explanations
1.4 More complex argument structures
1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form
1.6 Validity
1.7 Soundness
1.8 Deductive vs. inductive arguments
1.9 Arguments with missing premises
1.10 Assuring, guarding, and discounting
1.11 Evaluative language
1.12 Evaluating a real-life argument

Chapter 2: Formal methods of evaluating arguments

2.1 What is a formal method of evaluation and why do we need them?
2.2 Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives
2.3 Negation and disjunction
2.4 Using parentheses to translate complex sentences
2.5 “Not both” and “neither nor”
2.6 The truth table test of validity
2.7 Conditionals
2.8 “Unless”
2.9 Material equivalence
2.10 Tautologies, contradictions, and contingent statements
2.11 Proofs and the 8 valid forms of inference
2.12 How to construct proofs
2.13 Short review of propositional logic
2.14 Categorical logic
2.15 The Venn test of validity for immediate categorical inferences
2.16 Universal statements and existential commitment
2.17 Venn validity for categorical syllogisms

Chapter 3: Evaluating inductive arguments and probabilistic and statistical fallacies

3.1 Inductive arguments and statistical generalizations
3.2 Inference to the best explanation and the seven explanatory virtues
3.3 Analogical arguments
3.4 Causal arguments
3.5 Probability
3.6 The conjunction fallacy
3.7 The base rate fallacy
3.8 The small numbers fallacy
3.9 Regression to the mean fallacy
3.10 Gambler's fallacy

Chapter 4: Informal fallacies

4.1 Formal vs. informal fallacies
4.1.1 Composition fallacy
4.1.2 Division fallacy
4.1.3 Begging the question fallacy
4.1.4 False dichotomy
4.1.5 Equivocation
4.2 Slippery slope fallacies
4.2.1 Conceptual slippery slope
4.2.2 Causal slippery slope
4.3 Fallacies of relevance
4.3.1 Ad hominem
4.3.2 Straw man
4.3.3 Tu quoque
4.3.4 Genetic
4.3.5 Appeal to consequences
4.3.6 Appeal to authority

Answers to exercises Glossary/Index

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a “critical thinking textbook.”

About the Contributors

Matthew Van Cleave , PhD, Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, 2007. VAP at Concordia College (Moorhead), 2008-2012. Assistant Professor at Lansing Community College, 2012-2016. Professor at Lansing Community College, 2016-

Contribute to this Page

Chapter Two: Characterizing Critical Thinking

I. Introduction

A book devoted to a specific subject should supply a general characterization of that subject, and the earlier, the better. In Chapter One, I made strides toward this goal by extracting a provisional formulation of critical thinking from cases in which it was clearly on display. In this chapter, I intend to fill out this characterization more completely and thereby discharge my obligation. I will do so, however, by approaching critical thinking from a different perspective, viz., the perspective of theoretical treatments it has been given in philosophy and education.

I begin by reflecting on the specific words in our term, 'critical' and 'thinking'. I then analyze a sampling of definitions on offer for 'critical thinking'. The goal of this analysis is two-fold: first, it will tie the approach we adopt in this handbook into the literature on critical thinking, enabling those who wish to explore other treatments of the subject to get their bearings; second, it will yield a more detailed description of the subject matter of this handbook, a description that will give shape to the discussion in subsequent chapters. After calling attention to two central assumptions that underpin our characterization of critical thinking, I close this chapter by emphasizing once more the value of our subject as we have understood it.

II. Critical Thinking as Subject Matter

One way to get at critical thinking is to find it out in the world of our experience. This is done in two stages: (a) locate episodes where we intuitively recognize its presence, and (b) detail the aspects of these cases that support our intuitive reactions. We adopt this grassroots, bottom up approach in Chapter One, and the result is this formulation: critical thinking is thinking that involves the application of standards and criteria in evaluating options, both practical and theoretical. There is much to be said for this approach. For one thing, it allows us to focus on those cognitive traits that incline us to value this type of thinking in the first place; for another, it does justice to the feeling we may have that while we may be unable to define critical thinking, we definitely know it when we see it. However, without guidance, this approach can lead to misplaced emphasis and skewed results, as when a newcomer to the arts concludes that the gallery intends to feature all of the fancy frames. One way to avoid this in our case is to check our formulation against other available formulations of critical thinking. On this top down approach, critical thinking is described in advance on the basis of certain assumptions about thinking and criticism, and the result is then confirmed or disconfirmed on the basis of how well it works when applied to particular cases. In this chapter, we adopt the top down approach. As we will see, our provisional formulation from Chapter One will be supported by considerations drawn from theoretical treatments of critical thinking.

II.1 Terminological Analysis

When first introduced to the term 'critical thinking', people often think of unpleasant episodes from their past in which they were on the receiving end of negative criticism. While it is true that remonstrances from mom and "feedback" from the boss can demonstrate critical thinking, these are not the only or the best illustrations of critical thinking. It is a mistake to tie critical thinking too closely to destructive criticism of others, a mistake grounded in misinterpretation of the word 'critical' in our term. This mistake reveals the need to fix the meaning of the two words that our term comprises.

First, consider 'thinking.' The meaning of this is obvious enough, it would seem--thinking is just what happens when we let our mind do its thing. It is what we do when we deliberate, reflect, ponder, explore, interpret, create, consider, and engage in a host of additional cognitive processes. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary ( www.webster.com ) supplies us with this suitably general definition: "to form or have in mind." Fortunately, we needn't spend too much time with this term--any exercise of our cognitive faculties that could involve evaluation is germane to our investigation. Before leaving this word, however, it is worth notion that we will concentrate in what follows on conscious thinking--i.e., thinking of which we are aware. While it is hoped that the skills which constitute critical thinking will become habitual, influencing us even at a sub-conscious level, this must be a consequence of the sustained conscious application of those skills.

Of the two component words, 'critical' is the one requiring more attention, as it is the one that misleads. Once again, we can turn to the dictionary for a relevant sense of 'critical': "exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation." In this sense, it is closely related to the Greek word 'kriterion,' or standard for judging. As defined, 'critical' is essentially concerned with thinking, as judgment and evaluation are types of thinking. Further, the definition focuses attention on types of thinking that involve the consideration of an option (viz., evaluation) or options (viz., judgment) relative to standards that serve to identify the relevant ideal. So understood, the term is free from the negative connotations that rise like spectres when you first consider the term. Instead, it applies without prejudice to evaluative thinking wherever it might be found.

II.2 An Analysis of Definitions

"The primary focus of critical thinking skills is on determining whether arguments are sound, i.e., whether they have true premises and logical strength" (Hughes 1996, 21).
"A critical thinker is someone who uses specific criteria to evaluate reasoning and make decisions" (Diestler 1998, 2).
"Critical thinking is evaluating whether we should be convinced that some claim is true or some argument is good, as well as formulating good arguments" (Epstein 2000, i).
"Critical thinking is the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim--and of the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it" (Moore & Parker 1998, 6).
"The ability to correctly validate or refute claims presented for our belief" (Kiersky & Caste 1995, 3).
"Critical thinking is consciously observing, analyzing, reasoning, and evaluating according to proven standards" (Mayfield 1997, 6).
"A unique kind of purposeful thinking in which the thinker systematically and habitually imposes criteria and intellectual standards upon the thinking, taking charge of the construction of thinking, guiding the construction of the thinking according to the standards, and assessing the effectiveness of the thinking according to the purpose, the criteria, and the standards" (Paul 1993, 21).
"... reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do" (Ennis).
"Active, persistent and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends" (Dewey)
"Critical thinking is correctly defined as the review, evaluation, and revision of previous thinking" (Stratton 1999, 10).

Each of these presupposes thinking as a basic activity and then supplies conditions that must be satisfied by thinking if it is to count as critical thinking. These definitions point to four salient aspects of the relevant type of thinking. First, as Dewey explicitly asserts, the type of thinking we're after is active --a critical thinker must be in charge of her thought processes, controlling their application to the subject at hand. This points to the second prominent aspect, viz., that critical thinking is purposeful thinking, an aspect that is featured in the definitions of Diestler, Moore & Parker, Paul, Ennis, and Stratton. In all of them, though, critical thinking is conceived as leading to conclusions, an essentially purposeful endeavor. Third, critical thinking is principled thinking, where this must be understood in two ways: (a) it is itself principled, being systematic, "reasonable," "careful," and conducted "according to proven standards"; and (b) it involves the application of principles to claims, arguments, beliefs, "previous thinking," courses of action, and the like. The first of these senses underwrites the ability to evaluate particular cases of critical thinking as better or worse, as we did in Chapter One. The second calls attention to the fact that critical thinking is rarely done in a vacuum; rather, it is typically done in specific substantive contexts, e.g., in the auto dealership, the biology laboratory, the forest, etc. The principles one must apply in these cases are drawn largely from the topic at issue. This point is closely related to the fundamentally evaluative character of critical thinking, the last of the salient aspects on display in these definitions. When you apply principles in an active fashion for the purpose of generating a conclusion about some topic, you are generally engaged in evaluation, i.e., in determining whether the topic is good or bad, right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, adequate or inadequate, etc.

Armed with these aspects, we can revisit and assess the provisional formulation we identified in the first chapter. The idea of activity is implicit in that formulation, but the purposive nature of critical thinking deserves more emphasis than it is given there. The second sense in which the thinking must be principled, and the closely associated aspect of evaluation, are given privilege of place, but the first sense in which it must be principled is not expressed in the formulation. Thus, the top down approach reveals the need to enlarge our working definition, which we can express as follows:

Working Definition : Critical thinking is thinking that involves the principled application of standards and criteria in the evaluation of practical and theoretical options for the purpose of reaching conclusions about those options.

So understood, critical thinking is clearly a species of the broader genus of thinking. It is not, for instance, creative thinking. Creative thinking is marked by the production of ideas which can then be regarded practical or theoretical options available for critique. For example, the process of brainstorming, which involves the unchecked production of ideas on a particular topic, is creative and explicitly non-critical. Of course, no good critical thinker can avoid creative thinking, since one is often called upon to generate the options that are then subjected to critical assessment, as well as reasons for or against those options. Hearkening back to the examples at the beginning of Chapter One, consider the process of creative scheduling that Monica must engage in if she is to achieve her goal of graduating in four years, or the creativity demonstrated by Kristine as she generates a relevant list of reasons for and against granting China Most Favored Nation status. In fact, most episodes thinking in which we are interested involve the symbiotic interaction of creativity and criticism, a constant interplay of production and evaluation--of making and shaking, so to speak. Nevertheless, conceptual considerations force us to recognize the difference between these two species of cognitive activity.

Other species that are categorically different from critical thinking include what we might call procedural thinking, which involves applying and following a protocol or recipe, and dogmatic thinking, which is marked by unwavering adherence to a creed or set of guidelines. Both of these are static in an important sense, involving thinking that is insensitive to the variety of results that evaluation can yield. By contrast, critical thinking requires to recognize and appreciate differences of context and complexity, always remaining open to the possibility that previously identified conclusions might be set aside in favor of others.

It is important to call attention to two assumptions that underpin the project of explicit instruction in critical thinking skills as it is developed here. First, as noted above, critical thinking primarily occurs in contexts that serve up standards that are specific to the subject matter considered and methodology employed. Thus, one must have factual knowledge about the domain in which one is working if one is to be an effective critical thinker. If one is to teach critical thinking, one must call attention to the fact that the specific principles applied are grounded in specific domains, and therefore the principles will vary with the domain. (The situation is more complicated than this, actually. Subject matter and methodology do not line up with one another--if you hold subject matter fixed, methods will vary, and vice versa. For example, philosophical subject matter receives both empirical and a priori treatment, and the same is true of the social sciences and the sciences. Given this variation, one must know where one is in the logical space determined by the interaction of subject matter and methodology if one is to know what principles and criteria to apply.)

Second, the variation of principles notwithstanding, we presume that there are general cognitive skills that are employed in any domain where critical thinking is found. Thus, skills like argument reconstruction and logical analysis, problem identification and solution, and so forth are applicable across the wide spectrum of contexts within which thinking is critical. This is not a point on which there is universal consensus; indeed, members of the critical thinking community have expressed deep doubts about the existence of such general skills. (See McPeck.) For now, we will press onward in spite of these reservations, but I will return to them in Chapter Five, developing them in detail and supplying an argument intended to undercut them.

III. Critical Thinking as Technology

Critical thinking is a tool that all of us have in our cognitive toolbox. However, possession does not imply mastery in this case. (Compare: I own a piano, but you don't want to hear me play it.) If a person spends time studying it, then they can develop mastery, in which case the tool becomes very useful indeed. It is applicable whenever there are arguments to be constructed, evaluated, or destroyed. When you are asked to change your belief system by accepting or rejecting some claim, it's time to bust open the toolbox and think critically about what it is you are being asked to do. Your persuasion should only follow on your endorsement, and this demands that you assess and then endorse the claim you are being asked to believe. As with most tools, critical thinking must be applied wisely. There are contexts in which its application is appropriate and contexts where it is not. Recall the example of brainstorming mentioned above--there it is better to refrain from critical evaluation and let everything in at first so that the pool of candidate ideas is as large and as varied as possible. The better part of wisdom is knowing how to pick your spots, and this is certainly true of critical thinking.

We apply principles and make evaluations daily, even hourly. Thus, we think critically all the time. In many of these cases, poor evaluations could lead to discomfort or worse. Given this, pursuit of the good life requires that we be good critical thinkers. Actually, it is too strong to say that it requires this, as the good life could be had by a shoddy but exceedingly lucky critical thinker. However, unless you wish to place your bets and risk significant losses, it is better to have some measure of control over the direction that life takes you. This can be achieved through the explicit study of these skills. Beyond mastering the skills associated with critical thinking, such study results in the cultivation of the "critical spirit", i.e., a willingness to think critically on a regular basis when the situation calls for it. Critical thinking can be conceived as technology, i.e., as a tool we apply to improve our lives, but it is important to see it as essential technology--it forms a part of who we are and how we view the world. When you train your students to think critically, you help them develop skills, but in addition, you influence their sense of self and their worldview.

IV. Critical Thinking Skills: An Annotated List

It is useful to have in hand a list of the relevant skills that you will enhance through explicit instruction in critical thinking. However, there is no standard list, and what stands out as a relevant skill often depends on the type of context within which critical thinking is to be done. Further complicating matters is the fact that theoretical perspectives lead people to emphasize different patterns and, as a result, generate different lists. Critical thinking ability is a many jointed beast, and there are many ways to carve it cleanly. As a consequence, any list is bound to seem incomplete.

Even so, a list of specific skills is valuable. My efforts in this section are guided by the working definition we now have in place. This definition points to three general types of activity comprised by critical thinking: goal pursuit, criteria application, and option evaluation. Critical thinking is purposeful thinking, i.e., thinking that is intended to get us somewhere, and so it requires exercise of goal pursuit skills. This goal is achieved through the application of standards and criteria, both general and subject-specific, and there are certain skills associated with this type of activity. Finally, standards and criteria are applied for the purpose of evaluating the relevant options, and the process of evaluation is one that requires a large suite of skills. As should be clear, the skills in these groups are not only in the business of supporting critical thinking. For instance, there is nothing about the pursuit of goals that requires critical thinking, as my goal of following the waffle recipe exactly illustrates; likewise, we could apply criteria out of curiosity, without having any interest in evaluation. While individually they are not wedded to critical thinking, they relate to one another in a way that yields critical thinking. Specifically, they are nested : if the type of goal pursuit centrally involves criteria application, and if criteria application is done for the purpose of option evaluation, then you have an episode of critical thinking.

In what follows, I use the three types of activity as a framework for organizing critical thinking skills. Some of the classificatory decisions are somewhat arbitrary, as several of these skills have a home in more than one of the sections. For example, observation and recollection, listed under criteria application, certainly figure into the other activities as well. Nevertheless, I’ve attempted to align specific skills with the activities that seem most closely related to them.

IV.1 Goal Pursuit Skills

These skills comprise those involved in the formation of goals and the maintenance of the plans formed to achieve those goals.

Goal Formation: If one is to pursue a goal, one must first have a goal. We form goals in all manner of circumstances and for many reasons; however, there are certain circumstances in which we form goals that require the exercise of critical thinking skills. Often this is nested inside the pursuit of other goals, given that goals are often achieved only after accomplishing sub-goals; in such cases, problem definition follows on criteria application and option evaluation, and so forms a seamless part of the exercise of the whole array of critical thinking skills. Two of those are:

Problem Definition: What is the problem that you are required to solve? Problems require solutions, and solutions serve as goals for whom the problems are troubling. Question Formulation: This is related to problem definition. Questions spur answers, which are held up as goals to pursue.

Quality Control: When you set a goal, you create a plan that you then execute as you pursue the goal. Plan maintenance and execution depend on the exercise of certain quality control skills. Principle among these are:

Coherence Assurance: Are the means of accomplishing the goal logically and logistically coherent with the goal? Do the sub-goals cohere with one another? If you accomplish all the sub-goals in order, will you thereby achieve the goal? Completion: Is the plan complete? Are there parts that must be filled out before the plan as a whole is executed?

IV.2 Criteria Application Skills

Included in this category are skills associated with recognition of the need for criteria application and with identification of the relevant standard.

Observation: What criteria do the circumstances require? Are there specific criteria associated with the subject matter under consideration? Does the plan, with its constituent goals and sub-goals, require specific criteria? Is there a pattern of appearance or behavior into which the option and attendant circumstances fit? You must be able to observe the situation and identify criteria germane to pursuit of your goal in that situation.

Recollection: Given observations about the goal and the circumstances, what is the nature of the criteria that are relevant? How are they to be applied? One must be able to recollect these details. (Note that if you don’t recollect them, research might be required; however, since research is a full-blown context for the complete exercise of critical thinking, research skills do not all fit into the category.)

IV.3 Option Evaluation Skills

Included in this list are all those skills (and there are many) associated with analysis of an option into aspects, inspection of those aspects in light of the relevant criteria, and synthesis of the results into a decision about the option. The skills on this list have application in each of these stages, depending on the circumstances. They are listed alphabetically.

Classification: What category does an aspect of an option or the result of a particular inspection fall into? How do these categories relate to one another?

Comparison: How do the various elements compare to one another? How does the element in question compare to the ideal described by the applied standard? How do the results of the inspections relate to one another?

Discrimination: What are the parts (spatial, temporal, etc.) of the option? What is the structure that binds these parts together?

Elaboration: How can the description of an aspect of an option or inspection be increased in detail without undermining their character?

Inference: What follows from the explicit aspects of the option or inspection? That is, what do they imply? Are these implied aspects relevant to the evaluation?

Ordering: How should the results of inspection be ordered—should one be given logical or thematic or political or ... prominence over others?

Prediction: What should follow if this option is believed or acted upon? (This forms a part of the thought experimentation that often figures into inspection of options, experimentation designed to determine the effects of a belief or course of action. Identification of these effects will often influence the results of an inspection.)

Restructuring: Can the analysis be accomplished in a different way? Can the inspection? Is there a different and preferable way to synthesize the results of inspection into an acceptable result?

Verification: Has the analysis been conducted correctly? The inspection? The synthesis?

An Introduction to Critical Thinking by

Get full access to An Introduction to Critical Thinking and 60K+ other titles, with a free 10-day trial of O'Reilly.

There are also live events, courses curated by job role, and more.

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, ...

Get An Introduction to Critical Thinking now with the O’Reilly learning platform.

O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.

Don’t leave empty-handed

Get Mark Richards’s Software Architecture Patterns ebook to better understand how to design components—and how they should interact.

It’s yours, free.

Check it out now on O’Reilly

Dive in for free with a 10-day trial of the O’Reilly learning platform—then explore all the other resources our members count on to build skills and solve problems every day.

Register or Log In
0) { document.location='/search/'+document.getElementById('quicksearch').value.trim().toLowerCase(); }">

Chapter 2 Summary

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Critical thinking takes place in a mental environment consisting of our experiences, thoughts, and feelings. Some elements in this inner environment can sabotage our efforts to think critically or at least make critical thinking more difficult. Fortunately, we can exert some control over these elements. With practice, we can detect errors in our thinking, restrain attitudes and feelings that can disrupt our reasoning, and achieve enough objectivity to make critical thinking possible.
The most common of these hindrances to critical thinking fall into two main categories: (1) Those obstacles that crop up because of how we think and (2) those that occur because of what we think. The first category is composed of psychological factors such as our fears, attitudes, motivations, and desires. The second category is made up of certain philosophical beliefs.

Psychological Obstacles

None of us is immune to the psychological obstacles. Among them are the products of egocentric thinking. We may accept a claim solely because it advances our interests or just because it helps us save face. To overcome these pressures, we must (1) be aware of strong emotions that can warp our thinking, (2) be alert to ways that critical thinking can be undermined, and (3) ensure that we take into account all relevant factors when we evaluate a claim.
The first category of hindrances also includes those that arise because of group pressure. These obstacles include conformist pressures from groups that we belong to and ethnocentric urges to think that our group is superior to others. The best defense against group pressure is to proportion our beliefs according to the strength of reasons.

Philosophical Obstacles

We may also have certain core beliefs that can undermine critical thinking (the second category of hindrances). Subjective relativism is the view that truth depends solely on what someone believes ¾ a notion that may make critical thinking look superfluous. But subjective relativism leads to some strange consequences. For example, if the doctrine were true, each of us would be infallible. Also, subjective relativism has a logical problem ¾ it’s self-defeating. Its truth implies its falsity. There are no good reasons to accept this form of relativism.
Social relativism is the view that truth is relative to societies ¾ a claim that would also seem to make critical thinking unnecessary. But this notion is undermined by the same kinds of problems that plague subjective relativism.
Philosophical skepticism is the doctrine that we know much less than we think we do. One form of philosophical skepticism says that we cannot know anything unless the belief is beyond all possible doubt. But this is not a plausible criterion for knowledge. To be knowledge, claims need not be beyond all possible doubt, but beyond all reasonable doubt.

Select your Country

1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

I. what is c ritical t hinking [1].

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following:

Understand the logical connections between ideas.
Identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.
Detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning.
Solve problems systematically.
Identify the relevance and importance of ideas.
Reflect on the justification of one’s own beliefs and values.

Critical thinking is not simply a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. Critical thinkers are able to deduce consequences from what they know, make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform themselves.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can also use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.

Some people believe that critical thinking hinders creativity because critical thinking requires following the rules of logic and rationality, whereas creativity might require breaking those rules. This is a misconception. Critical thinking is quite compatible with thinking “out-of-the-box,” challenging consensus views, and pursuing less popular approaches. If anything, critical thinking is an essential part of creativity because we need critical thinking to evaluate and improve our creative ideas.

II. The I mportance of C ritical T hinking

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. The ability to think clearly and rationally is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career.

Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy. The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyze information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.

Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills. Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyze the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.

Critical thinking promotes creativity. To come up with a creative solution to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary.

Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection. In order to live a meaningful life and to structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.

Good critical thinking is the foundation of science and democracy. Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.

Critical thinking is a metacognitive skill . What this means is that it is a higher-level cognitive skill that involves thinking about thinking. We have to be aware of the good principles of reasoning, and be reflective about our own reasoning. In addition, we often need to make a conscious effort to improve ourselves, avoid biases, and maintain objectivity. This is notoriously hard to do. We are all able to think but to think well often requires a long period of training. The mastery of critical thinking is similar to the mastery of many other skills. There are three important components: theory, practice, and attitude.

III. Improv ing O ur T hinking S kills

If we want to think correctly, we need to follow the correct rules of reasoning. Knowledge of theory includes knowledge of these rules. These are the basic principles of critical thinking, such as the laws of logic, and the methods of scientific reasoning, etc.

Also, it would be useful to know something about what not to do if we want to reason correctly. This means we should have some basic knowledge of the mistakes that people make. First, this requires some knowledge of typical fallacies. Second, psychologists have discovered persistent biases and limitations in human reasoning. An awareness of these empirical findings will alert us to potential problems.

However, merely knowing the principles that distinguish good and bad reasoning is not enough. We might study in the classroom about how to swim, and learn about the basic theory, such as the fact that one should not breathe underwater. But unless we can apply such theoretical knowledge through constant practice, we might not actually be able to swim.

Similarly, to be good at critical thinking skills it is necessary to internalize the theoretical principles so that we can actually apply them in daily life. There are at least two ways to do this. One is to perform lots of quality exercises. These exercises don’t just include practicing in the classroom or receiving tutorials; they also include engaging in discussions and debates with other people in our daily lives, where the principles of critical thinking can be applied. The second method is to think more deeply about the principles that we have acquired. In the human mind, memory and understanding are acquired through making connections between ideas.

Good critical thinking skills require more than just knowledge and practice. Persistent practice can bring about improvements only if one has the right kind of motivation and attitude. The following attitudes are not uncommon, but they are obstacles to critical thinking:

I prefer being given the correct answers rather than figuring them out myself.
I don’t like to think a lot about my decisions as I rely only on gut feelings.
I don’t usually review the mistakes I have made.
I don’t like to be criticized.

To improve our thinking we have to recognize the importance of reflecting on the reasons for belief and action. We should also be willing to engage in debate, break old habits, and deal with linguistic complexities and abstract concepts.

The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory is a psychological test that is used to measure whether people are disposed to think critically. It measures the seven different thinking habits listed below, and it is useful to ask ourselves to what extent they describe the way we think:

Truth-Seeking—Do you try to understand how things really are? Are you interested in finding out the truth?
Open-Mindedness—How receptive are you to new ideas, even when you do not intuitively agree with them? Do you give new concepts a fair hearing?
Analyticity—Do you try to understand the reasons behind things? Do you act impulsively or do you evaluate the pros and cons of your decisions?
Systematicity—Are you systematic in your thinking? Do you break down a complex problem into parts?
Confidence in Reasoning—Do you always defer to other people? How confident are you in your own judgment? Do you have reasons for your confidence? Do you have a way to evaluate your own thinking?
Inquisitiveness—Are you curious about unfamiliar topics and resolving complicated problems? Will you chase down an answer until you find it?
Maturity of Judgment—Do you jump to conclusions? Do you try to see things from different perspectives? Do you take other people’s experiences into account?

Finally, as mentioned earlier, psychologists have discovered over the years that human reasoning can be easily affected by a variety of cognitive biases. For example, people tend to be over-confident of their abilities and focus too much on evidence that supports their pre-existing opinions. We should be alert to these biases in our attitudes towards our own thinking.

IV. Defining Critical Thinking

There are many different definitions of critical thinking. Here we list some of the well-known ones. You might notice that they all emphasize the importance of clarity and rationality. Here we will look at some well-known definitions in chronological order.

1) Many people trace the importance of critical thinking in education to the early twentieth-century American philosopher John Dewey. But Dewey did not make very extensive use of the term “critical thinking.” Instead, in his book How We Think (1910), he argued for the importance of what he called “reflective thinking”:

…[when] the ground or basis for a belief is deliberately sought and its adequacy to support the belief examined. This process is called reflective thought; it alone is truly educative in value…

Active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought.

There is however one passage from How We Think where Dewey explicitly uses the term “critical thinking”:

The essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment; and the essence of this suspense is inquiry to determine the nature of the problem before proceeding to attempts at its solution. This, more than any other thing, transforms mere inference into tested inference, suggested conclusions into proof.

2) The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (1980) is a well-known psychological test of critical thinking ability. The authors of this test define critical thinking as:

…a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills. This composite includes: (1) attitudes of inquiry that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which the weight or accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically determined; and (3) skills in employing and applying the above attitudes and knowledge.

3) A very well-known and influential definition of critical thinking comes from philosopher and professor Robert Ennis in his work “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities” (1987):

Critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.

4) The following definition comes from a statement written in 1987 by the philosophers Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (link), an organization promoting critical thinking in the US:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.

The following excerpt from Peter A. Facione’s “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction” (1990) is quoted from a report written for the American Philosophical Association:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fairminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society.

V. Two F eatures of C ritical T hinking

A. how not what .

Critical thinking is concerned not with what you believe, but rather how or why you believe it. Most classes, such as those on biology or chemistry, teach you what to believe about a subject matter. In contrast, critical thinking is not particularly interested in what the world is, in fact, like. Rather, critical thinking will teach you how to form beliefs and how to think. It is interested in the type of reasoning you use when you form your beliefs, and concerns itself with whether you have good reasons to believe what you believe. Therefore, this class isn’t a class on the psychology of reasoning, which brings us to the second important feature of critical thinking.

B. Ought N ot Is ( or Normative N ot Descriptive )

There is a difference between normative and descriptive theories. Descriptive theories, such as those provided by physics, provide a picture of how the world factually behaves and operates. In contrast, normative theories, such as those provided by ethics or political philosophy, provide a picture of how the world should be. Rather than ask question such as why something is the way it is, normative theories ask how something should be. In this course, we will be interested in normative theories that govern our thinking and reasoning. Therefore, we will not be interested in how we actually reason, but rather focus on how we ought to reason.

In the introduction to this course we considered a selection task with cards that must be flipped in order to check the validity of a rule. We noted that many people fail to identify all the cards required to check the rule. This is how people do in fact reason (descriptive). We then noted that you must flip over two cards. This is how people ought to reason (normative).

Section I-IV are taken from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ and are in use under the creative commons license. Some modifications have been made to the original content. ↵

Share This Book

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2: Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 162132

Nathan Smith et al.

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

You have likely heard the term “critical thinking” and have probably been instructed to become a “good critical thinker.” Unfortunately, you are probably also unclear what exactly this means because the term is poorly defined and infrequently taught. “But I know how to think,” you might say, and that is certainly true. Critical thinking, however, is a specific skill. This chapter is an informal and practical guide to critical thinking and will also guide you in how to conduct research, reading, and writing for philosophy classes.

Critical thinking is set of skills, habits, and attitudes that promote reflective, clear reasoning. Studying philosophy can be particularly helpful for developing good critical thinking skills, but often the connection between the two is not made clear. This chapter will approach critical thinking from a practical standpoint, with the goal of helping you become more aware of some of the pitfalls of everyday thinking and making you a better philosophy student.

While you may have learned research, reading, and writing skills in other classes—for instance, in a typical English composition course—the intellectual demands in a philosophy class are different. Here you will find useful advice about how to approach research, reading, and writing in philosophy.

2.1: The Brain Is an Inference Machine
2.2: Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection
2.3: Developing Good Habits of Mind
2.4: Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence
2.5: Reading Philosophy
2.6: Writing Philosophy Papers
2.7: Summary
2.8: Key Terms
2.9: Review Questions

Thumbnail: Critical thinking as chess (Unsplash License; Lou Levit via Unsplash )

IMAGES

Critical Thinking Chapter 2
Critical Thinking Chapter 2 Notes.pdf
Chapter 2 Critical Thinking
Logic and critical thinking Chapter Two part 1 basic concepts of Logic and Argument by Afan Oromo
Critical Thinking Summary
Chapter 2 notes

VIDEO

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC
Logic and critical thinking chapter 2 part 1
Logic And Critical Thinking Chapter Two /logic Mid Exam/ corona exam
Logic and critical thinking Chapter 2 part 2
Logic and critical thinking Chapter Two part 1 basic concepts of Logic and Argument by Afan Oromo
logic and critical thinking chapter two course/basic concept of logic

COMMENTS

Critical Thinking Chapter 2 Flashcards
Critical Thinking Chapter 2. According to the text's definition of critical thinking, what factors must be present for critical thinking to be realized? Click the card to flip 👆. For critical thinking to be realized, the process must be systematic, it must be a true evaluation or formulation of claims, and it must be based on rational standards.
Chapter 2 Arguments
Chapter 2 Arguments. Chapter 2. Arguments. The fundamental tool of the critical thinker is the argument. For a good example of what we are not talking about, consider a bit from a famous sketch by Monty Python's Flying Circus: 3. Man: (Knock) Mr. Vibrating: Come in.
PDF Chapter 2
Critical Thinking, Chapter 2 - Premise / Subconclusion / Ultimate Conclusion Arguments Dona Warren 3 First the common question. Many people notice that an explanation of why is trying to convince us that a certain explanation is correct, and they wonder why this doesn't make the explanation an argument.
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking. Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic, this textbook does not cover suppositional arguments, such as conditional proof and reductio ad absurdum.
"An Introduction to Critical Thinking" (Chapter 2): Argument and
This video continues an overview of argumentation, by way of introducing and discussion some crucially important concepts: argument, premise, conclusion, ded...
PDF Chapter 2
Chapter 2 - Recognizing and Analyzing Arguments . 2.1 Introduction ... Having stretched our thinking about thinking, we have come to the point of realizing that thinking well is the acquired skill of reasoning well and that reasoning well is in turn the acquired skill of arguing well. As such, it would be correct to say that good arguments ...
PDF Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
"critical thinking textbook." The formal logic in chapter 2 is intended to give an elementary introduction to formal logic. Specifically, chapter 2 introduces several different formal methods for determining whether an argument is valid or invalid (truth tables, proofs, Venn diagrams). I contrast these formal methods
UI Critical Thinking Handbook: Chapter Two -- Theory
Chapter Two: Characterizing Critical Thinking =Theory= I. Introduction. A book devoted to a specific subject should supply a general characterization of that subject, and the earlier, the better. In Chapter One, I made strides toward this goal by extracting a provisional formulation of critical thinking from cases in which it was clearly on ...
PDF 2nd E d ition CRITICAL THINKING
CRITICAL THINKING 2 n d E d i t i o n Your Essential Guide Chatfield_Crit_think_2e_AW.indd 3 03/12/2021 11:02 00_CHATFIELD_2E_FM.indd 3 16-Mar-22 2:15:43 PM. UNDERSTANDING ... why in this chapter, but they are far from the whole story. We also need to be able to think criti-
Chapter 2. Critical Thinking and Logic
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 ...
Chapter 2 Summary
Chapter 2 Summary. CHAPTER SUMMARY. Critical thinking takes place in a mental environment consisting of our experiences, thoughts, and feelings. Some elements in this inner environment can sabotage our efforts to think critically or at least make critical thinking more difficult. Fortunately, we can exert some control over these elements.
Introduction to Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following: Understand the logical connections between ideas. Identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.
2.E: Chapter Two (Exercises)
Exercise 2.E. 5 2. E. 5: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions. Fill in each blank with either Necessary and Sufficient, Necessary but not Sufficient, Sufficient but not Necessary, or Neither Necessary nor Sufficient. A. Giving birth a baby is a _______ condition to becoming a mother. B. Eating spicy foods is, for many people, a _______ condition ...
2: Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing
This chapter is an informal and practical guide to critical thinking and will also guide you in how to conduct research, reading, and writing for philosophy classes. Critical thinking is set of skills, habits, and attitudes that promote reflective, clear reasoning. Studying philosophy can be particularly helpful for developing good critical ...
PDF Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide
Critical thinking: a concise guide/Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN -415-24016-6 (alk. paper) - ISBN -415-24017-4 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Critical thinking. ... Chapter 2 introduces two of the concepts required for the analysis and assessment of deductive arguments: validity and soundness. ...
What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
Critical Thinking Chapter 2 Flashcards
Critical Thinking Chapter 2. characteristics of critical thinkers. Click the card to flip 👆. -rational and reasonable. -ability to conceptualize. -reflective thinker. -cognitive thinking skills and attitudes. -creative thinker. -basic core knowledge.
Critical Thinking Basics
Critical thinking examines the arguments by which we try to evaluate claims or settle issues. This chapter initiates the study of critical thinking: its value, its purpose, its subject matter. 1. Critical thinking is the process of assessing opinions. 2. Critical thinking is clear thinking about issues. 3.
Critical Thinking
Chapter 9 A Little Categorical Logic. Chapter 10 A Little Propositional Logic. Chapter 11 Inductive Reasoning. Chapter 12 Finding, Evaluating, and Using Sources. Chapter 13 Writing Argumentative Essays. Chapter 14 Thinking Critically about the Media. Chapter 15 Science and Pseudoscience.
Logic and Critical Thinking: Chapt. 2: Basic concepts of ...
Today I teach Logic and Critical thinking in Afaan Oromoo. The Lesson i teach is What is logic? in chapter two. Please subscribe, like, share and comment.Use...