Basic logic and critical Thinking by ahmad1433


									Basic logic and critical
                Be ready for the challenge:
                     Upcoming exam
     Real time demonstration of critical thinking in your
                  argumentation essay
Key questions:
   What is critical thinking? Is it negative?
    Can it be creative? Explain.
   How does critical thinking relate to
    evaluations of evidence and credibility of
   How should critical thinking be applied to
    composing your essay?
   What are ethos, pathos, and logos and
    how do they relate to writing argument
   How do deductive arguments, inductive
    ones, and uncovering premises relate to
    this task?
Wow! This is, as Oprah would
say, “BIG!”
   Remember that the premises
    are often hidden, that is, the
    assumptions are often unstated
    (suppressed) in tricky
    arguments, and you are left to
    dig them out plus decide
    whether they are valid. Click on
    this site; for 2 bonus points
    comment on the fallacies in the
    top two tv ads in a typed
Know two distinct methods of arriving
at conclusions (forms of argument).

   What is induction? How is it used on
    a daily basis? What are its strengths
    and weaknesses?
   What is deduction? How is it used on
    a daily basis? What are its strengths
    and weaknesses?
   How do logical fallacies relate to
    critical thinking?
Be able to provide “homegrown”
examples of logical fallacies.
   The fact that the source is in
    print does not mean that it is
    sacred. Analyze it. Any
    agendas? Biases? Fallacies?
   Here we go again: take those
    critical thinking tools out of the
    toolbox and use them by directly
    integrating them into the text of
    your argumentation essay.
Cavalcade of Fallacies

•What are fallacies?
•Why is spotting them important in critical
thinking and writing an argumentation
•Click on the following items in sequence and
test yourself on which fallacy may have been
o   Everyone likes a wild fling now and then.
o   Hasty generalization. You might, but that does not
    mean everyone does.
o   If you don’t support the action (war in Iraq) you
    can’t support the troops.
o   Either or. Other options are possible, but this
    argument makes it look like only two exist. Also,
    irrelevant argument. You can support the troops
    without thinking the war is the best option.
o   Erik Santos visited two times last week
    and he also saw Moore’s Farenheit 911. He has
    several Islamic friends. He’s surely an unpatriotic
    Muslim sympathesizer.
o   Where do we start? Guilt by association.
    Ambiguity. What is patriotic supposed to mean in
    this context?
   Jesus Lemus, Hollywood
    movie star, uses levitra and
    swears by it. You should use
    it, too.
   False or irrelevant authority.
   You can’t prove that the Iraqui
    people don’t want the U.S.
    occupying their country. They
    must want us there.
   Appeal to ignorance.
   After smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes last year, a well-
    know 101A student started doing cocaine this fall. It’s easy to
    see that the pot caused the coke habit.
   False cause.
   The vice president stated that if we had “made the wrong choice
    [in voting for president] chances are that we could be hit again
    [by terrorists].”
   Red herring. The veep is using scare tactics on the gullible and
    avoiding the real issues. Also, note the suppressed premise of
    the argument: The administration in power at the time may be
    responsible for terrorist attacks like 9/11…hmmmm.
   If you voted to support the war in the first place, and if you
    changes your mind afterwards, you are an untrustworthy “flip
   Irrelevant argument. If the conclusion were true, it would
    suggest that the only virtue of leadership is refusing to change
    one’s mind or policy, and that changing course is automatically
   The President is unfit to lead. He can’t even pronounce the word
    sovereignty and he scowled during the debates.
   Irrelevant argument. Also attacking the person (ad hominem).
    Making fun of his gaffes is not the same as proving he lacks
    leadership qualities.

To top