Introduction to Critical Thinking

Welcome to

Critical Thinking

Elements of

Arguments

Critical & Logical

Reasoning

ISM5001 Critical Thinking and Argumentation

An argument is a discussion of a controversial claim supported by reasons and evidence

It is not a fight.

What is an Argument?

ArgumentMapping

Argument Mapping Argument maps are just that – maps of arguments that

allow us to visualize the logical structure of an argument. Argument maps allow us to see how each part of an

argument relates to every other part – how the main conclusion is supported by reasons, which in turn are supported by their own reasons, which in turn are supported by their own reasons, and so on

Argument mapping will help us elucidate the process by which all these arguments are made.

Argument maps simply formalize what we already do implicitly, and, unfortunately, often inadequately

The president of Zambia rejected the help from the world food organization because it mainly includes GM corn from the USA. “My country is under starvation. However, I can not give my people poison…”

What would you do if you were in his place?

Argument Map

Introduce your claim (Sentence)Supporting reason 1: Evidence (facts or examples)

to supportreason 1:

Supporting reason 2: Evidence (facts or examples) to supportreason 2:

Supporting reason 3: Evidence (facts or examples) to supportreason 3:

Opposing claim: Response to opposing claim:Conclusion

Analyzing data

Convert text to diagrams “I would not accept genetically modified food for my

country because even if there is evidence that they can help preventing cancer, they may cause many other heath problems. In addition, we do not know if there are safe for our health. Research says that GMF can cause AIDS and can affect woman’s fertility. Even if they say that the crops can be easier planted and we have more crops with this method, there is a great environmental danger: When you plant a GM plant the other plants that are near to it may become genetically modified also. As a result, the crops will be contaminated, people will not have food to eat and they will be destroyed too…

The distinction between premises and conclusions

We can see rocks.Therefore, rocks exist.

The distinction between arguments with one and multiple premises

We can see rocks. If we can see rocks, then rocks exist. Therefore, rocks exist.

The distinction between multiple arguments and multiple premise We can see rocks. Therefore, rocks exist.

We can touch rocks. Therefore, rocks exist.

The distinction between simple and extended arguments

We can see rocks. If we can see rocks, then they exist. Therefore, rocks exist.

Sight is a reliable way to know what exists.

Therefore, if we see rocks, then they exist.

The distinction between supporting arguments and objections

We see rocks.Therefore, rocks exist.

My parents believe that rocks don’t exist.Therefore, rocks don’t exist.

The distinction between objections to conclusions, premises, and forms of reasoning

Tutorial Exercise

Trans fats should be banned in processed food. Trans fats are usually non-natural additives to foods. Trans fats are known to cause high cholesterol and possibly increase the occurrence of heart disease. Anything that increases the occurrence of heart disease should be banned ‘

This computer can think. So it is conscious. Since we should not kill any conscious beings, we should not switch it off

Software

Argunet [free, Windows & OS X & Linux, page] Araucaria [free, Windows & Mac & Linux, page] Argumentative [free, Windows, page] Athena [free, Windows, page] Carneades [free, Windows & Mac, page] DebateGraph [free, online, page] Rationale [$70, Windows, page

TheToulminModel

Stephen Toulmin

Stephen Toulmin, originally a British logician, is now a professor at the University of Southern California. He developed a concrete system for argumentation based on sound reasoning and consideration of the opposing point of view.

The Toulmin Model Imagine you are a lawyer. You are defending

Ms. Cheap against her landlord, Mr. Megabucks, who is suing her because she has been delinquent on her rent for 5 months.

What arguments can you construct for Ms. Cheap?

After you construct your arguments, what arguments do you think Mr. Megabucks’ lawyer will have?

The Toulmin Model insists that we consider the argument of our opposition in constructing our own argument.

1. Claim

4. Warrant(s)

2. Reason(s)

3. Grounds

5. Backing

On top we have the claim, the main assertion that is held to be true. But without the reasons (the “because”) that it stands on, there’s nothing telling us why it should be true. And the reasons in turn stand on the grounds. These are the supporting items of evidence that give validity to the reasons. But that’s not all.

Below the grounds we find the warrants- things that we have assumed to be true when giving the specific reasonsAnd finally, at the very bottom we have the backing- the backing is the evidence that “backs up” the warrants.

ClaimGrounds Rebuttal

Warrant

(Backing)

(Backing)Qualifier

Diagram of Toulmin

Toulmin Model: Elements of an Argument

Claim = the main point or position

Grounds = the evidence supporting the claim, aka the reasons

Warrant = an underlying assumption or basic principle that connects data and claim; often implied rather than explicit

Toulmin Model: Elements of an Argument

Backing: The general body of information from which the warrant was drawn.

Qualifiers: Phrases showing what degree of reliance is to be placed on the conclusion, given the arguments available to support them to set the degree of certainty. For example using terms such as usually,’ ‘possibly,’ ‘barring accidents,’ etc.

Rebuttals: Arguments that opposition might bring up to counter my argument

Claims

A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim is the conclusion, proposition, or assertion an arguer wants another to accept.

Claims Cont’d

There are four basic types of claims: fact: claims which focus on empirically verifiable

phenomena judgment/value: claims involving opinions,

attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things policy: claims advocating courses of action that

should be undertaken definition/classification: indicates what criteria

are being used to define a term or what category something falls into

Grounds

Grounds refers to the proof or evidence an arguer offers.

Grounds can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings, physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning example: “I’m a vegetarian. One reason is that

I feel sorry for the animals. Another reason is for my own health.”

example: “I made the dinner, so you can do the dishes.

More about grounds...

Grounds are the support the arguer offers on behalf of his/her claim. The grounds answer questions such as:o "What is your proof?“o "How do you know?“o “Why?”o Example:“It looks like Vibes Kartel will

remain in jail for a while. All his application for bail has been denied and the commissioner of police have threaten to resign if he gets bail.”

example: "The other Ritz Carlton hotels I've stayed at had great pools, so I'll bet this one has a great pool too."

Grounds

Grounds can be based on:o evidence: facts, statistics, reports, or

physical proof o source credibility: authorities, experts,

celebrity endorsers, a close friend, or someone's say-so

o analysis and reasoning: reasons may be offered as proof

o premises already held by the listener

Clue words for identifying grounds

The grounds for an argument often follow words such as “because,” “since,” “given that…”o example: “Airports should x-ray all

luggage because a bomb could be placed in a checked baggage.”

o example: “I expect to do well on the test, since I studied all night for it.”

Warrants

The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds.

The warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the connection between the claim and grounds

The implicit nature of warrants means the “meaning” of an argument is as much a part of the receiver as it is a part of the message.

Some arguments are “multi-warranted,” e.g., based on more than one inferential leap

Warrants

The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental connection between the grounds and the claim example: “Kelly is running a temperature. I’ll bet

she has an infection.”

example: "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever.”

(warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign of an infection)

(warrant: generalization; most or all Golden Retrievers are friendly)

warrants warrants can be based on: ethos: source credibility, authority logos: reason-giving, induction, deduction pathos: emotional or motivational appeals value premises: values shared by, or presumed to be

shared by, the receiver(s) note: these categories aren't mutually exclusive, there is

considerable overlap among the three

Appeals to Audience

While there's no perfect formula for winning over every reader in every circumstance, you should learn how and when to use three fundamental argumentative appeals. According to Aristotle, a person who wants to convince another may appeal to that person's reason (logos), ethics (ethos), or emotion (pathos).

If we think of these three appeals as independent and of the writer as choosing just one, however, we miss the point. The writer's job is to weave the various appeals into a single convincing argument. As you continue to expand and develop your ideas, look for ways of combining the three appeals to create a sound, balanced argument.

Argument 1

Claim Grounds

Warrant

The Sunshine girls are likely to win the ball game tonight

They are playingat home

(unstated) Generalization: The home team enjoys an advantage in netball

Argument 2

Claim Grounds

Warrant

“Juno” is a wonderful movie.

It was nominated for 4 Academy Awards

(unstated) Sign: a movie’s greatness can be measured in the number of Oscar nominations it receives

Argument 3

Claim Grounds

Warrant

Andrew was probably in a fight

He has a black eye

(unstated) Sign: A black eye is a reliable indicator that a person has been in a fight

Argument 4

Claim Grounds

Warrant

If you swim at Helshire Beach right after it rains you risk getting a bacterial infection

Runoff from the rain washes bacteria into the ocean

(unstated) Cause-effect: bacteria in the water causes persons to get ill.

sample argument 5

Claim Grounds

Warrant

My parents should allow me to go to the Fete

The parents of nearly all the students at St. Mile High have given their children permission to attend this party

(unstated) sign: My parents should act in accordance with the other parents of students at St. Miles High

Toulmin’s Model of ArgumentationLegalizing Marijuana