Critical

							Critical Thinking
Judging and giving reasons

When you are asked to do something critically, you are expected to make a
judgement about a situation or a piece of writing and to give reasons for your
judgement or conclusion. The simplest statement of this is:

         I agree with X because…

         I disagree with Y because…

followed by the reasons for agreeing and disagreeing. X and Y might be
people or ideas and theories.


Agreements and disagreements within academic writing

The simple statements above are not really suitable for academic writing
because they are too personal and perhaps a bit too simple. The following
are the sorts of statements you are more likely to find in academic writing.
There is still a suggestion of the author agreeing or disagreeing with a position
and giving reasons for a conclusion.

      The book develops the view that …, citing as evidence …
      The situation described here is consistent with the theory that…
      The argument is based on the assumption that …; this is not the case
       because …
      The paper fails to distinguish between …

Often, academic authors find themselves partly agreeing and partly
disagreeing with something.


Identifying the argument

You have to be able to recognise an argument before you can agree or
disagree with it. A basic argument has reasons that support a conclusion.
It is likely to be based on assumptions (which are perhaps not stated). If
there is a false assumption, a poor reason or an inappropriate conclusion,
then the argument will be weak and you are likely to disagree with it.

Sometimes, you can identify that there is an argument from the language of a
piece of writing. Words like “because” and “since” suggest that there are
reasons; words like “thus” and “therefore” suggest that there are conclusions.
Such signposts are helpful, but they are not always present.
Assumptions and premises

We have to make assumptions all the time when we are reasoning.
Assumptions are statements that underpin the argument: they might be taken
for granted and they might not even be stated. The main assumption of the
argument – the statement that is put forward at the start – is known as the
premise.

A simple example frequently used is:

       All men are mortal                        premise
       Socrates is a man                         assumption
       Therefore Socrates is mortal              conclusion

When an assumption or premise can apply to everyone or everything we are
speaking about, as above, then we can draw such conclusions.

Some problems with assumptions and premises

They may be false                                All men are reptiles
They may confuse “some” and “all”                Men are cruel to women
They may be irrelevant to the conclusion         Therefore Socrates is clever
They may be phrased in emotional language        Socrates is a know-all

Above all, an argument may be based on a hidden premise or assumption
which might contain one of these problems.

Assumptions include our shared understanding of meanings of words, the
ways we can compare similar situations and our common views on “what
counts” as an argument. If you are evaluating an argument, you should ask
what assumptions are involved.


Reasons

For a statement to be recognised as a reason, it should be relevant to the
conclusion. That is not enough, however; it must also support the
conclusion. It should not have to rely on an invalid assumption to support the
conclusion.

Reasons are often based on evidence – for example, statistics, findings from
an experiment or survey, examples, case studies. There may be evidence
relating to two conflicting conclusions to an argument, in which case it will be
necessary to make a judgement between them. Like assumptions, evidence
is also a potential source of problems; it may be inaccurate, wrongly
interpreted or irrelevant.
Critical Analysis

Here is a set of things you need to do if you want to analyse an argument
critically.

   1. Identify the circumstances. Is there one or more problem or issue?
   2. Consider what assumptions are being made.
   3. Find any possible causes (reasons) and effects of problems or
      situations.
   4. Find what evidence is being presented for a particular point of view.
   5. Identify any conclusions that the writer/speaker is drawing.
   6. Check the argument to see whether there are any flaws in it.


Flawed reasoning

There are many ways in which an argument can be flawed. The following are
just some of them.

      It is based on false or misleading assumptions.
      It is assumed that one thing causes another when it does not.
      It is assumed that one thing always leads to another when it only does
       sometimes.
      There is insufficient evidence to draw the conclusion.
      Statistics are misinterpreted.
      There is conflicting evidence that has not been taken into account.
      The argument is based on emotional language rather than reason.
      The argument depends on an appeal to authority rather than reason.


Example

Look at the letter to a newspaper below and see whether you can spot any
flaws in assumptions (either present or hidden), in the line of reasoning, in the
conclusion.

       Sir
       When I was in our town centre at the weekend, I saw a number of young
       people of university age who were very much the worse for wear and who
       were shouting drunken abuse at passers-by. We keep hearing that students
       have no money; yet it seems that they do and that they choose to spend it on
       beer rather than books. No wonder the country is in the state it is in when our
       universities have been dumbed down and it is no longer possible to say that a
       degree is an indication of a civilised mind and a better class of person. I can
       only conclude that we will go the same way as America.
Yours truly…
How reasoning is used in a coherent argument

Now look at the following abstract from a journal and see whether you can
identify the line of reasoning that Judi Kidger is using. What is she saying
about New Labour’s strategy? Why does she find it inadequate?

An abstract is a whole paper in miniature, so it is very useful to have a quick
look at the abstract to see whether you can identify the argument.


       Abstract

       As part of its Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, New Labour has focused on
       ensuring more teenage mothers enter education, training, or work, in order that
       they may avoid “long term social exclusion”. This paper argues that this
       conceptualization of the route to social inclusion is problematic for young
       mothers in that it ignores the structural and contextual barriers to them gaining
       inclusion, it discounts full-time mothering as a valid option, and it neglects the
       social and moral elements of their exclusion, while in fact contributing to this.
       A broader understanding of social inclusion is therefore advocated, which
       emphasizes the significance of social belongingness and community
       participation, along side economic self-sufficiency. Data are drawn from
       interviews with 14 young mother who act as volunteer “peer educators” in
       school sex education, to illustrate the ways in which this wider
       conceptualization of social inclusion might be more useful in meeting the
       needs of this group.

Kidger, Judi (2004) Including young mothers: limitations to New Labour’s
strategy for supporting teenage parents. Critical Social Policy Vol 24(3): 291-
311


Answer the following questions to help you identify the argument:

   1. What is the problem?
   2. What is Kidger saying about assumptions?
   3. Is she making any assumptions herself?
   4. What is she saying about causes and effects (hint: note the word
      “contributing”)?
   5. Are there any words that indicate a conclusion?
   6. What evidence does Kidger draw on in the paper?

If you have difficulty following anything in this handout, I’ll be happy to discuss
it with you.

Christine Sinclair, Centre for Academic Practice, Graham Hills Building,
0141 548 4062         christine.sinclair@strath.ac.uk