1

Critical Thinking Module Handouts

E N G L I S H

1 1

Three Stages of Intellectual Development Karen Gocsik

Three Categories of Questions: Crucial Distinctions Richard Paul and Linda Elder

Critical Thinking: Distinguishing Between Inferences and Assumptions Linda

Elder and Richard Paul

Universal Intellectual Standards Linda Elder and Richard Paul

Valuable Intellectual Traits Foundation For Critical Thinking

Natural Egocentric Dispositions Foundation For Critical Thinking

A How-To List for Dysfunctional Living Linda Elder and Richard Paul

Logos, Pathos, and Ethos Department of English

10

How to Disagree Paul Graham

12

Love is a Fallacy Max Shulman

16

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

T H R E E

S T A G E S

O F

I N T E L L E C T U A L

D E V E L O P M E N T

From Teaching argument by Karen Gocsik

<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/faculty/pedagogies/argument.shtml>

Many professors are frustrated with first-year students inability to craft a balanced, reasoned
argument. Professors most often observe that:
First-year students too often confuse argument with opinionthat is, they write papers
that are subjective and self-oriented rather than objective and reader-based.
First-year students are sometimes black and white thinkers, unable or unwilling to address
the complexities of an issue.
First-year students who are inexperienced with a certain topic or discipline can jump on the
first band wagon they find, citing an authority with almost blind reverence, and ignoring
all other points of view.
First-year students are sometimes overwhelmed by the complexity of an intellectual
problem, finding that its impossible to take a stand.
First-year students will sometimes defend a weakly supported or poorly reasoned
argument because it is, after all, their opinion, and they have a right to it.
How does one work against these tendencies in our students thinking? We might begin by trying
to better understand these problems. A helpful model for understanding why our students get
stuck in any one of these intellectual positions can be found in William Perrys Forms of
Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme (1970). In this work, Perry argues
that college learners pass through three stages of intellectual development before becoming
sophisticated critical thinkers.]
DUALISM. Very young or unsophisticated thinkers tend to see the world in polar terms: black
and white, good and bad, and so on. These students also have what Perry calls a cognitive
egocentrismthat is, they find it difficult to entertain points of view other than the ones they
themselves embrace. If they have no strong beliefs on a topic, they tend to ally themselves
absolutely to whatever authority they find appealing. At this stage in their development, students
believe that there is a right side, and they want to be on it. They believe that their arguments are
undermined by the consideration of other points of view.
RELATIVISM. As students progress in their academic careers, they come to understand that
there often is no single right answer to a problem, and that some questions have no answers.
Students who enter the stage of relativism are beginning to contextualize knowledge and to
understand the complexities of any intellectual position. However, the phase of relativism has
some pitfallsamong them that students in this phase sometimes give themselves over to a kind
of skepticism. For the young relativist, if there is no Truth, then every opinion is as good as
another. At its worst, relativism leads students to believe that opinion is attached to nothing but
the person who has it, and that evidence, logic, and clarity have little to do with an arguments
value.
REFLECTIVISM. If students are properly led through the phase of relativism, they will
eventually come to see that, indeed, some opinions are better than others. They will begin to be
interested in what makes one argument better than another. Is it well reasoned? Well supported?
Balanced? Sufficiently complex? When they learn to evaluate others points of view, students begin
to evaluate their own. In the end, they will be able to commit themselves to a point of view that is
objective, well reasoned, sophisticatedone that, in short, meets all the requirements of an
academic argument.
EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

3
T H R E E

C A T E G O R I E S

C R U C I A L

O F

Q U E S T I O N S :

D I S T I N C T I O N S

By Richard Paul and Linda Elder

Foundation For Critical Thinking <www.criticalthinking.org>

Many pseudo critical thinking approaches present all judgments as falling into two exclusive
and exhaustive categories: fact and opinion. Actually, the kind of judgment most important to
educated people and the kind we most want to foster falls into a third, very important, and now
almost totally ignored category, that of reasoned judgment. . . . [J]udgment based on sound
reasoning goes beyond, and is never to be equated with, fact alone or mere opinion alone. Facts are
typically used in reasoning, but good reasoning does more than state facts. Furthermore, a position
that is well-reasoned is not to be described as simply opinion. . . .
. . . It is essential when thinking critically to clearly distinguish three different kinds of
questions:
Those with one right answer (factual questions fall into this category). What is the boiling
point of lead?
Those with better or worse answers (well-reasoned or poorly reasoned answers). How can
we best address the most basic and significant economic problems of the nation today?
Those with as many answers as there are different human preferences (a category in which
mere opinion does rule). Which would you prefer, a vacation in the mountains or one at the
seashore?
Only the third kind of question is a matter of sheer opinion. The second kind is a matter of
reasoned judgmentwe can rationally evaluate answers to the question (using universal
intellectual standards such as clarity, depth, consistency and so forth).
When questions that require better or worse answers are treated as matters of opinion, pseudo
critical thinking occurs. Students come, then, to uncritically assume that everyones opinion is of
equal value. Their capacity to appreciate the importance of intellectual standards diminishes, and
we can expect to hear questions such as these: What if I dont like these standards? Why shouldnt
I use my own standards? Dont I have a right to my own opinion? What if Im just an emotional
person? What if I like to follow my intuition? What if I dont believe in being rational? They then
fail to see the difference between offering legitimate reasons and evidence in support of a view and
simply asserting the view as true. The failure to teach students to recognize, value, and respect
good reasoning is one of the most significant failings of education today.

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

4
C R I T I C A L

T H I N K I N G :

I N F E R E N C E S

A N D

D I S T I N G U I S H I N G

A S S U M P T I O N S

B E T W E E N

( E X C E R P T )

By Linda Elder and Richard Paul

(adapted from Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life)
Foundation For Critical Thinking <www.criticalthinking.org>

In this article we focus on two of the elements of reasoning: inferences and assumptions. Learning
to distinguish inferences from assumptions is an important intellectual skill. Many confuse the two
elements. Let us begin with a review of the basic meanings:
1. Inference: An inference is a step of the mind, an intellectual act by which one concludes
that something is true in light of something elses being true, or seeming to be true. If you come
at me with a knife in your hand, I probably would infer that you mean to do me harm.
Inferences can be accurate or inaccurate, logical or illogical, justified or unjustified.
2. Assumption: An assumption is something we take for granted or presuppose. Usually it
is something we previously learned and do not question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We
assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us. If we believe that it
is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and we are staying in Chicago, we will infer that
it is dangerous to go for a walk late at night. We take for granted our belief that it is dangerous
to walk late at night in big cities. If our belief is a sound one, our assumption is sound. If our
belief is not sound, our assumption is not sound. Beliefs, and hence assumptions, can be
unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them. .
..
We humans naturally and regularly use our beliefs as assumptions and make inferences based
on those assumptions. . . . If you put humans in any situation, they start to give it some meaning or
other. People automatically make inferences to gain a basis for understanding and action. So
quickly and automatically do we make inferences that we do not, without training, notice them as
inferences. We see dark clouds and infer rain. We hear the door slam and infer that someone has
arrived. We see a frowning face and infer that the person is upset. If our friend is late, we infer that
she is being inconsiderate. . . . Many of our inferences are justified and reasonable, but some are
not.
As always, an important part of critical thinking is the art of bringing what is subconscious in
our thought to the level of conscious realization. This includes the recognition that our experiences
are shaped by the inferences we make during those experiences. It enables us to separate our
experiences into two categories: the raw data of our experience in contrast with our interpretations
of those data, or the inferences we are making about them. Eventually we need to realize that the
inferences we make are heavily influenced by our point of view and the assumptions we have
made about people and situations. This puts us in the position of being able to broaden the scope
of our outlook, to see situations from more than one point of view, and hence to become more
open-minded.
Often different people make different inferences because they bring to situations different
EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

5
viewpoints. They see the data differently. To put it another way, they make different assumptions
about what they see. For example, if two people see a man lying in a gutter, one might infer,
Theres a drunken bum. The other might infer, Theres a man in need of help. These inferences
are based on different assumptions about the conditions under which people end up in gutters.
Moreover, these assumptions are connected to each persons viewpoint about people. The first
person assumes, Only drunks are to be found in gutters. The second person assumes, People
lying in the gutter are in need of help. . . . The reasoning of these two people, in terms of their
inferences and assumptions, could be characterized in the following way:
Person One
Situation: A man is lying in the gutter.
Inference: That mans a bum.
Assumption: Only bums lie in gutters.

Person Two
Situation: A man is lying in the gutter.
Inference: That man is in need of help.
Assumption: Anyone lying in the gutter is
in need of help.

Critical thinkers notice the inferences they are making, the assumptions upon which they are
basing those inferences, and the point of view about the world they are developing. To develop
these skills, students need practice in noticing their inferences and then figuring the
assumptions that lead to them.
As students become aware of the inferences they make and the assumptions that underlie those
inferences, they begin to gain command over their thinking. . . .

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

6
U N I V E R S A L

I N T E L L E C T U A L

S T A N D A R D S

By Linda Elder and Richard Paul

Foundation For Critical Thinking <www.criticalthinking.org>

Universal intellectual standards are

standards which must be applied to thinking
whenever one is interested in checking the
quality of reasoning about a problem, issue,
or situation. To think critically entails having
command of these standards. . . . While there
are a number of universal standards, the
following are the most significant:
1. CLARITY: Could you elaborate further on that
point? Could you express that point in another
way? Could you give me an illustration? Could
you give me an example?
Clarity is the gateway standard. If a
statement is unclear, we cannot determine
whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we
cannot tell anything about it because we
dont yet know what it is saying. For
example, the question, What can be done
about the education system in America? is
unclear. In order to address the question
adequately, we would need to have a clearer
understanding of what the person asking the
question is considering the problem to be.
A clearer question might be What can
educators do to ensure that students learn the
skills and abilities which help them function
successfully on the job and in their daily
decision-making?
2. ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could
we check that? How could we find out if that is
true?
A statement can be clear but not accurate,
as in Most dogs are over 300 pounds in
weight.
3. PRECISION: Could you give more details?
Could you be more specific?
A statement can be both clear and
accurate, but not precise, as in Jack is
overweight. (We dont know how
overweight Jack is, one pound or 500
pounds.)
4. RELEVANCE: How is that connected to the
question? How does that bear on the issue?
A statement can be clear, accurate, and
precise, but not relevant to the question at

issue. For example, students often think that

the amount of effort they put into a course
should be used in raising their grade in a
course. Often, however, the effort does not
measure the quality of student learning; and
when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their
appropriate grade.
5. DEPTH: How does your answer address the
complexities in the question? How are you taking
into account the problems in the question? Is that
dealing with the most significant factors?
A statement can be clear, accurate,
precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is,
lack depth). For example, the statement, Just
say No! which is often used to discourage
children and teens from using drugs, is clear,
accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless,
it lacks depth because it treats an extremely
complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug
use among young people, superficially. It
fails to deal with the complexities of the
issue.
6. BREADTH: Do we need to consider another
point of view? Is there another way to look at this
question? What would this look like from a
conservative standpoint? What would this look
like from the point of view of . . .?
A line of reasoning may be clear accurate,
precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth
(as in an argument from either the
conservative or liberal standpoint which gets
deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the
insights of one side of the question.)
7. LOGIC: Does this really make sense? Does that
follow from what you said? How does that follow?
But before you implied this, and now you are
saying that; how can both be true?
When we think, we bring a variety of
thoughts together into some order. When the
combination of thoughts are mutually
supporting and make sense in combination,
the thinking is logical. When the
combination is not mutually supporting, is
contradictory in some sense or does not
make sense, the combination is not logical.

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

V A L U A B L E

I N T E L L E C T U A L

T R A I T S

Foundation For Critical Thinking <www.criticalthinking.org>

INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY: Having a

consciousness of the limits of ones knowledge,
including a sensitivity to circumstances in
which ones native egocentrism is likely to
function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias,
prejudice and limitations of ones viewpoint.
Intellectual humility depends on recognizing
that one should not claim more than one
actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness
or submissiveness. It implies the lack of
intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or
conceit, combined with insight into the logical
foundations, or lack of such foundations, of
ones beliefs.

remember occasions when we were wrong in

the past despite an intense conviction that we
were right, and with the ability to imagine our
being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.

INTELLECTUAL COURAGE: Having a

consciousness of the need to face and fairly
address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward
which we have strong negative emotions and to
which we have not given a serious hearing.
This courage is connected with the recognition
that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are
sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in
part) and that conclusions and beliefs
inculcated in us are sometimes false or
misleading. To determine for ourselves which
is which, we must not passively and
uncritically accept what we have learned.
Intellectual courage comes into play here,
because inevitably we will come to see some
truth in some ideas considered dangerous and
absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas
strongly held in our social group. We need
courage to be true to our own thinking in such
circumstances. The penalties for nonconformity can be severe.

INTELLECTUAL PERSEVERANCE: Having a

consciousness of the need to use intellectual
insights and truths in spite of difficulties,
obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to
rational principles despite the irrational
opposition of others; a sense of the need to
struggle with confusion and unsettled
questions over an extended period of time to
achieve deeper understanding or insight.

INTELLECTUAL EMPATHY: Having a

consciousness of the need to imaginatively put
oneself in the place of others in order to
genuinely understand them, which requires the
consciousness of our egocentric tendency to
identify truth with our immediate perceptions
of long-standing thought or belief. This trait
correlates with the ability to reconstruct
accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of
others and to reason from premises,
assumptions, and ideas other than our own.
This trait also correlates with the willingness to

INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY: Recognition of the

need to be true to ones own thinking; to be
consistent in the intellectual standards one
applies; to hold ones self to the same rigorous
standards of evidence and proof to which one
holds ones antagonists; to practice what one
advocates for others; and to honestly admit
discrepancies and inconsistencies in ones own
thought and action.

FAITH IN REASON: Confidence that, in the long

run, ones own higher interests and those of
humankind at large will be best served by
giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging
people to come to their own conclusions by
developing their own rational faculties; faith
that, with proper encouragement and
cultivation, people can learn to think for
themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw
reasonable conclusions, think coherently and
logically, persuade each other by reason and
become reasonable persons, despite the deepseated obstacles in the native character of the
human mind and in society as we know it.
FAIRMINDEDNESS: Having a consciousness of
the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without
reference to ones own feelings or vested
interests, or the feelings or vested interests of
ones friends, community or nation; implies
adherence to intellectual standards without
reference to ones own advantage or the
advantage of ones group.

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

8
N A T U R A L

E G O C E N T R I C

D I S P O S I T I O N S

Foundation For Critical Thinking <www.criticalthinking.org>

The human mind is naturally prone to the following egocentric tendencies:

EGOCENTRIC MEMORY The natural tendency to forget

evidence and information which does not support
our thinking and to remember evidence and
information which does
EGOCENTRIC MYOPIA The natural tendency to think
absolutistically within an overly narrow point of
view
EGOCENTRIC INFALLIBILITY The natural tendency to
think that our beliefs are true because we believe
them
EGOCENTRIC RIGHTEOUSNESS The natural tendency to
feel superior in the light of our confidence that we
are in the possession of THE TRUTH
EGOCENTRIC HYPOCRISY The natural tendency to
ignore flagrant inconsistencies between what we
profess to believe and the actual beliefs our
behavior imply, or inconsistencies between the
standards to which we hold ourselves and those to
which we expect others to adhere
EGOCENTRIC OVERSIMPLIFICATION The natural
tendency to ignore real and important complexities
in the world in favor of simplistic notions when
consideration of those complexities would require
us to modify our beliefs or values
EGOCENTRIC BLINDNESS The natural tendency not to
notice facts or evidence which contradict our
favored beliefs or values
EGOCENTRIC IMMEDIACY The natural tendency to overgeneralize immediate feelings and experiences so
that when one event in our life is highly favorable
or unfavorable, all of life seems favorable or
unfavorable as well
EGOCENTRIC ABSURDITY The natural tendency to fail to
notice thinking which has absurd consequences,
when noticing them would force us to rethink our
position

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

H O W - T O

L I S T

F O R

D Y S F U N C T I O N A L

L I V I N G

(from Becoming a Critic of Your Thinking)

By Linda Elder and Richard Paul
(adapted from Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life)
Foundation For Critical Thinking <www.criticalthinking.org>

Most people have no notion of what it means to take charge of their lives. They dont realize that
the quality of their lives depends on the quality of their thinking. We all engage in numerous
dysfunctional practices to avoid facing problems in our thinking. Consider the following and ask
yourself how many of these dysfunctional ways of thinking you engage in:
1. Surround yourself with people who think like you. Then no one will criticize you.
2. Dont question your relationships. You then can avoid dealing with problems within them.
3. If critiqued by a friend or lover, look sad and dejected and say, I thought you were my
friend! or I thought you loved me!
4. When you do something unreasonable, always be ready with an excuse. Then you wont
have to take responsibility. If you cant think of an excuse, look sorry and say, I cant help
how I am!
5. Focus on the negative side of life. Then you can make yourself miserable and blame it on
others.
6. Blame others for your mistakes. Then you wont have to feel responsible for your mistakes.
Nor will you have to do anything about them.
7. Verbally attack those who criticize you. Then you dont have to bother listening to what
they say.
8. Go along with the groups you are in. Then you wont have to figure out anything for
yourself.
9. Act out when you dont get what you want. If questioned, look indignant and say, Im just
an emotional person. At least I dont keep my feelings bottled up!
10. Focus on getting what you want. If questioned, say, If I dont look out for number one,
who will?
As you see, the list is almost laughable. And so it would be if these irrational ways of thinking
didnt lead to problems in life. But they do. And often. Only when we are faced with the absurdity
of dysfunctional thinking, and can see it at work in our lives, do we have a chance to alter it. The
strategies outlined in this guide presuppose your willingness to do so.
EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

10
LOGOS, PATHOS, AND ETHOS
<excerpt from Department of English En11 materials>

Arguers often use either one or a combination of three appeals to persuade others:
1. logical appeal (logos), or by appeal to their reason
2. emotional appeal (pathos), or by appeal to their emotions
3. ethical appeal (ethos), or by appeal to the arguers credibility or trustworthiness
The arguer may rely on one appeal exclusively; more often, he will use all three. The
rhetorical situation (the nature of the subject, the circumstances or the occasion, the audience)
determines which appeal will be predominantly used or what combination of appeal will be most
likely persuasive.

LOGICAL APPEAL (LOGOS)

From formal logic, we know that there are principally two types of reasoning:
1. inductive reasoning from particular to general, and
2. deductive reasoning from general to particular
When we conclude, for instance, that Sophia must be smart because she is a science
student, we are engaged in some form of deductive reasoning. We actually start the reasoning
process with an unstated premise that all science students are smart, and putting that premise
together with the fact that Sophia is a science student, we arrive at the conclusion that she must be
smart. On the other hand, when we conclude that a law school is good because 95% of its
graduates passed the bar exams in the last five years, we are doing some form of inductive
reasoning. We arrive at the generalization by looking at instances of success in the bar exams in the
past five years.
In real life, what we do is far more complex and the distinction between inductive and
deductive reasoning blurs. We actually move back and forth between inductive and deductive
reasoning. For instance, after taking a bite at three hard and green mangoes which we all find to be
sour, we might leap to the generalization that hard and green mangoes are sour. Though the
number we tasted or tested is small and will not probably make us confident about our
generalization, we were actually engaged in some form of inductive reasoning. Confronted with
another hard and greed mango, we might reason this way: All hard and green mangoes are sour.
This mango is hard and green. Therefore, it is sour. This, of course, is deductive reasoning. If after
tasting this particular hard and green mango, our conclusion is confirmed, we might engage once
more in inductive reasoning. Feeling a little bit more cautious, we counsel ourselves that perhaps
more hard and green mangoes need to be tested. And so, we taste more hard and green mangoes.
If this experiment confirms our generalization, we can perhaps confidently claim to anyone who
cares to listen that hard and green mangoes are sour. If we are challenged, we might do a little bit
of research about the experience of people eating hard and green mangoes in Thailand and
Malaysia. If the Thais and the Malaysians have experiences similar to ours, then we can probably
begin to announce to the world our exciting discovery.

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

11
EMOTIONAL APPEAL (PATHOS)
Writers also often appeal to the readers emotions in order to arouse their interest and
evoke feelings regarding the issue. Appealing to the emotions might supplement logical appeals
and there is nothing basically wrong with it. We might say appealing to the emotions is fair if the
emotions are based on facts.
Writers may appeal to the emotions through the use of emotion-laden words or highly
connotative words or through the use of vivid descriptions, figurative language, evocative images,
and compelling narratives. In President Aquinos highly applauded speech to the U.S. Congress,
for instance, she reminded the audience of the TV images shown throughout the world of Filipino
voters protecting the ballot boxes and of people offering flowers to the soldiers during the 1986
EDSA revolution. She also associated Ninoy Aquinos fasting for 40 days with Christs 40 days in
the desert.
When might we say that the appeal to the emotions is being abused by the writer? In
general, the emotional appeal becomes unfair when the writer resorts to exaggerated claims (e.g.,
withholding contrary evidence and presenting only positive evidence, distorting statistics,
exaggerating the slippery slope, etc.) or to sentimentalism (e.g., evoking ready made emotions
through stereotypical symbols of pity like orphans or symbols of patriotism like the flag). Use of
emotionally loaded words (Racists are scum, we should kill them all) that call for demonizing
and practically lynching those who hold opposite views is, needless to say, similarly suspect.
ETHICAL APPEAL (ETHOS)
Writers also try to build up their credibility with their readers. They do this through a
variety of waysshowing that they are fairly knowledgeable about the topic (perhaps because
they have done extensive research or because of long years of experience or training), that they
have a good perspective on the issue, that they respect the rules of good argumentation and are not
willing to twist facts simply in order to win a point, that they have good judgment and
discriminating taste, that they are people of high integrity who respect commonly held virtues, and
that they sincerely have only the readers interests when discussing an issue. They try to establish
common or shared values with their readers and respond in a fair way to opposing arguments by
accommodating or recognizing differences. In general, they may choose to exercise caution in the
use of language in order not to appear to be too extreme or too shrill.
In this regard, we should always be alert to the fallacies related to ethos. A writer who
twists the facts, for instance, immediately becomes suspect. If we are unable to decide immediately
on whether certain facts have been distorted, we might have to do some research to verify the facts
and to decide on the credibility of the writer. We can also ask other questions: Does the writer rely
on reliable authorities or respectable publications? Does the writer make personal attacks on the
opponent (fallacy of argumentum ad hominem or name-calling) instead of dealing with the issue?
Does the writer distort the position of the opponent in order to better attack it (fallacy of the straw
man)? Does the writer use extremist language that excludes rather than includes readers in shared
values, or does he try to accommodate differences of opinion? What is the tone of the essay?

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

12

H O W

T O

D I S A G R E E

By Paul Graham
<http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html>

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read.
The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they doin comment threads, on forums, and in
their own blog posts.
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to
motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand
on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting
implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That
doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is
enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement,
there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online,
where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to
disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully
reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an
attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

0 DH0. NAME-CALLING.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all
seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A
comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
0 DH1. AD HOMINEM.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry
some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be
increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

13
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's
still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the
senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it
make that he's a senator?
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad
hominemand a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders.
The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to
make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.
0 DH2. RESPONDING TO TONE.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest
form of these is to disagree with the author's tone.
E.g. I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such
a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters
much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since
tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might
be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying
much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the
author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
0 DH3. CONTRADICTION.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The
lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or
no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in
such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate
scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing
case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.
0 DH4. COUNTERARGUMENT.
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up
to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove
something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely
at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for
counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two
people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different
EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

14
things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble
they don't realize it.
There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from
what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when
you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.
0 DH5. REFUTATION.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the
most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that
the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a
passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's
mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a
straw man.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation.
Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate
refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.
0 DH6. REFUTING THE CENTRAL POINT.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of
disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks
out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is
done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For
example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or
numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose
of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them.
And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective
refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
<quotation>
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's
main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.
What It Means
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the
disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the
form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

15

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper
bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always
unconvincing.
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to
evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest
arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent
merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By
giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping
such balloons.
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing
against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something.
Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try
moving up to counterargument or refutation.
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but
that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a
lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real
point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in
the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them
happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

He leaped from the bed and paced the room. Ive got to
have a raccoon coat, he said passionately. Ive got to!
Petey, why? Look at it rationally. Raccoon coats are
unsanitary. They shed. They smell bad. They weigh too much.
Theyre unsightly. They
You dont understand, he interrupted impatiently. Its
the thing to do. Dont you want to be in the swim?
No, I said truthfully.
Well, I do, he declared. Id give anything for a raccoon
coat. Anything!
My brain, that precision instrument, slipped into high gear.
Anything? I asked, looking at him narrowly.
Anything, he affirmed in ringing tones.
I stroked my chin thoughtfully. It so happened that I knew
where to get my hands on a raccoon coat. My father had had one in
his undergraduate days; it lay now in a trunk in the attic back home.
It also happened that Petey had something I wanted. He didnt have
it exactly, but at least he had first rights on it. I refer to his girl, Polly
Espy.
I had long coveted Polly Espy. Let me emphasize that my
desire for this young woman was not emotional in nature. She was,
to be sure, a girl who excited the emotions, but I was not one to let
my heart rule my head. I wanted Polly for a shrewdly calculated,
entirely cerebral reason.
I was a freshman in law school. In a few years I would be out
in practice. I was well aware of the importance of the right kind of
wife in furthering a lawyers career. The successful lawyers I had
observed were, almost without exception, married to beautiful,
gracious, intelligent women. With one omission, Polly fitted these
specifications perfectly.
Beautiful she was. She was not yet of pin-up proportions,
but I felt that time would supply the lack. She already had the
makings.
Gracious she was. By gracious I mean full of graces. She had
an erectness of carriage, an ease of bearing, a poise that clearly
indicated the best of breeding. At table her manners were exquisite. I
EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

Cool was I and logical. Keen, calculating, perspicacious,

acute and astuteI was all of these. My brain was as powerful as a
dynamo, precise as a chemists scales, as penetrating as a scalpel.
Andthink of it!I only eighteen.
It is not often that one so young has such a giant intellect.
Take, for example, Petey Bellows, my roommate at the university.
Same age, same background, but dumb as an ox. A nice enough
fellow, you understand, but nothing upstairs. Emotional type.
Unstable. Impressionable. Worst of all, a faddist. Fads, I submit, are
the very negation of reason. To be swept up in every new craze that
comes along, to surrender oneself to idiocy just because everybody
else is doing itthis, to me, is the acme of mindlessness. Not,
however, to Petey.
One afternoon I found Petey lying on his bed with an
expression of such distress on his face that I immediately diagnosed
appendicitis. Dont move, I said, Dont take a laxative. Ill get a
doctor.
Raccoon, he mumbled thickly.
Raccoon? I said, pausing in my flight.
I want a raccoon coat, he wailed.
I perceived that his trouble was not physical, but mental.
Why do you want a raccoon coat?
I should have known it, he cried, pounding his temples. I
should have known theyd come back when the Charleston came
back. Like a fool I spent all my money for textbooks, and now I cant
get a raccoon coat.
Can you mean, I said incredulously, that people are
actually wearing raccoon coats again?
All the Big Men on Campus are wearing them. Whereve
you been?
In the library, I said, naming a place not frequented by Big
Men on Campus.

by Max Shulman

Love is a Fallacy

16

Holy Toledo! said Petey reverently. He plunged his hands

into the raccoon coat and then his face. Holy Toledo! he repeated
fifteen or twenty times.
Would you like it? I asked.
Oh yes! he cried, clutching the greasy pelt to him. Then a
canny look came into his eyes. What do you want for it?
Your girl. I said, mincing no words.
Polly? he said in a horrified whisper. You want Polly?
Thats right.
He flung the coat from him. Never, he said stoutly.
I shrugged. Okay. If you dont want to be in the swim, I
guess its your business.
I sat down in a chair and pretended to read a book, but out
of the corner of my eye I kept watching Petey. He was a torn man.
First he looked at the coat with the expression of a waif at a bakery
window. Then he turned away and set his jaw resolutely. Then he
looked back at the coat, with even more longing in his face. Then he
turned away, but with not so much resolution this time. Back and
forth his head swiveled, desire waxing, resolution waning. Finally he
didnt turn away at all; he just stood and stared with mad lust at the
coat.
It isnt as though I was in love with Polly, he said thickly.
Or going steady or anything like that.
Thats right, I murmured.
Whats Polly to me, or me to Polly?
Not a thing, said I.
Its just been a casual kickjust a few laughs, thats all.
Try on the coat, said I.
He complied. The coat bunched high over his ears and
dropped all the way down to his shoe tops. He looked like a mound
of dead raccoons. Fits fine, he said happily.
I rose from my chair. Is it a deal? I asked, extending my
hand.
He swallowed. Its a deal, he said and shook my hand.

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

Look, I said to Petey when I got back Monday morning. I

threw open the suitcase and revealed the huge, hairy, gamy object
that my father had worn in his Stutz Bearcat in 1925.

had seen her at the Kozy Kampus Korner eating the specialty of the
housea sandwich that contained scraps of pot roast, gravy,
chopped nuts, and a dipper of sauerkrautwithout even getting her
fingers moist.
Intelligent she was not. In fact, she veered in the opposite
direction. But I believed that under my guidance she would smarten
up. At any rate, it was worth a try. It is, after all, easier to make a
beautiful dumb girl smart than to make an ugly smart girl beautiful.
Petey, I said, are you in love with Polly Espy?
I think shes a keen kid, he replied, but I dont know if
youd call it love. Why?
Do you, I asked, have any kind of formal arrangement
with her? I mean are you going steady or anything like that?
No. We see each other quite a bit, but we both have other
dates. Why?
Is there, I asked, any other man for whom she has a
particular fondness?
Not that I know of. Why?
I nodded with satisfaction. In other words, if you were out
of the picture, the field would be open. Is that right?
I guess so. What are you getting at?
Nothing , nothing, I said innocently, and took my suitcase
out the closet.
Where are you going? asked Petey.
Home for weekend. I threw a few things into the bag.
Listen, he said, clutching my arm eagerly, while youre
home, you couldnt get some money from your old man, could you,
and lend it to me so I can buy a raccoon coat?
I may do better than that, I said with a mysterious wink
and closed my bag and left.

17

By all means, she urged, batting her lashes eagerly.

Dicto Simpliciter means an argument based on an
unqualified generalization. For example: Exercise is good. Therefore
everybody should exercise.
I agree, said Polly earnestly. I mean exercise is
wonderful. I mean it builds the body and everything.
Polly, I said gently, the argument is a fallacy. Exercise is
good is an unqualified generalization. For instance, if you have heart
disease, exercise is bad, not good. Many people are ordered by their
doctors not to exercise. You must qualify the generalization. You
must say exercise is usually good, or exercise is good for most people.
Otherwise you have committed a Dicto Simpliciter. Do you see?
No, she confessed. But this is marvy. Do more! Do
more!
It will be better if you stop tugging at my sleeve, I told her,
and when she desisted, I continued. Next we take up a fallacy
called Hasty Generalization. Listen carefully: You cant speak
French. Petey Bellows cant speak French. I must therefore conclude
that nobody at the University of Minnesota can speak French.
Really? said Polly, amazed. Nobody?
I hid my exasperation. Polly, its a fallacy. The generalization is
reached too hastily. There are too few instances to support such a
conclusion.
Know any more fallacies? she asked breathlessly. This is
more fun than dancing even.
I fought off a wave of despair. I was getting nowhere with
this girl, absolutely nowhere. Still, I am nothing if not persistent. I
continued. Next comes Post Hoc. Listen to this: Lets not take Bill
on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.
I know somebody just like that, she exclaimed. A girl
back homeEula Becker, her name is. It never fails. Every single
time we take her on a picnic
Polly, I said sharply, its a fallacy. Eula Becker doesnt
cause the rain. She has no connection with the rain. You are guilty of
Post Hoc if you blame Eula Becker.
EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

I had my first date with Polly the following evening. This

was in the nature of a survey; I wanted to find out just how much
work I had to do to get her mind up to the standard I required. I took
her first to dinner. Gee, that was a delish dinner, she said as we left
the restaurant. Then I took her to a movie. Gee, that was a marvy
movie, she said as we left the theatre. And then I took her home.
Gee, I had a sensaysh time, she said as she bade me good night.
I went back to my room with a heavy heart. I had gravely
underestimated the size of my task. This girls lack of information
was terrifying. Nor would it be enough merely to supply her with
information. First she had to be taught to think. This loomed as a
project of no small dimensions, and at first I was tempted to give her
back to Petey. But then I got to thinking about her abundant physical
charms and about the way she entered a room and the way she
handled a knife and fork, and I decided to make an effort.
I went about it, as in all things, systematically. I gave her a
course in logic. It happened that I, as a law student, was taking a
course in logic myself, so I had all the facts at my fingertips. Poll, I
said to her when I picked her up on our next date, tonight we are
going over to the Knoll and talk.
Oo, terrif, she replied. One thing I will say for this girl:
you would go far to find another so agreeable.
We went to the Knoll, the campus trysting place, and we sat
down under an old oak, and she looked at me expectantly. What
are we going to talk about? she asked.
Logic.
She thought this over for a minute and decided she liked it.
Magnif, she said.
Logic, I said, clearing my throat, is the science of
thinking. Before we can think correctly, we must first learn to
recognize the common fallacies of logic. These we will take up
tonight.
Wow-dow! she cried, clapping her hands delightedly.
I winced, but went bravely on. First let us examine the
fallacy called Dicto Simpliciter.

18

Seated under the oak the next evening I said, Our first
fallacy tonight is called Ad Misericordiam.
She quivered with delight.
Listen closely, I said. A man applies for a job. When the
boss asks him what his qualifications are, he replies that he has a
wife and six children at home, the wife is a helpless cripple, the
children have nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on their
feet, there are no beds in the house, no coal in the cellar, and winter
is coming.
A tear rolled down each of Pollys pink cheeks. Oh, this is
awful, awful, she sobbed.
Yes, its awful, I agreed, but its no argument. The man
never answered the bosss question about his qualifications. Instead
he appealed to the bosss sympathy. He committed the fallacy of Ad
Misericordiam. Do you understand?
Have you got a handkerchief? she blubbered.
I handed her a handkerchief and tried to keep from
screaming while she wiped her eyes. Next, I said in a carefully
controlled tone, we will discuss False Analogy. Here is an example:
Students should be allowed to look at their textbooks during
examinations. After all, surgeons have X-rays to guide them during
an operation, lawyers have briefs to guide them during a trial,
carpenters have blueprints to guide them when they are building a
house. Why, then, shouldnt students be allowed to look at their
textbooks during an examination?
There now, she said enthusiastically, is the most marvy
idea Ive heard in years.
Polly, I said testily, the argument is all wrong. Doctors,
lawyers, and carpenters arent taking a test to see how much they
have learned, but students are. The situations are altogether
different, and you cant make an analogy between them.

could fan them into flame. Admittedly it was not a prospect fraught
with hope, but I decided to give it one more try.

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

Ill never do it again, she promised contritely. Are you mad at

me?
I sighed. No, Polly, Im not mad.
Then tell me some more fallacies.
All right. Lets try Contradictory Premises.
Yes, lets, she chirped, blinking her eyes happily.
I frowned, but plunged ahead. Heres an example of
Contradictory Premises: If God can do anything, can He make a
stone so heavy that He wont be able to lift it?
Of course, she replied promptly.
But if He can do anything, He can lift the stone, I pointed
out.
Yeah, she said thoughtfully. Well, then I guess He cant
make the stone.
But He can do anything, I reminded her.
She scratched her pretty, empty head. Im all confused,
she admitted.
Of course you are. Because when the premises of an
argument contradict each other, there can be no argument. If there is
an irresistible force, there can be no immovable object. If there is an
immovable object, there can be no irresistible force. Get it?
Tell me more of this keen stuff, she said eagerly.
I consulted my watch. I think wed better call it a night. Ill
take you home now, and you go over all the things youve learned.
Well have another session tomorrow night.
I deposited her at the girls dormitory, where she assured me
that she had had a perfectly terrif evening, and I went glumly home
to my room. Petey lay snoring in his bed, the raccoon coat huddled
like a great hairy beast at his feet. For a moment I considered waking
him and telling him that he could have his girl back. It seemed clear
that my project was doomed to failure. The girl simply had a logicproof head.
But then I reconsidered. I had wasted one evening; I might
as well waste another. Who knew? Maybe somewhere in the extinct
crater of her mind a few members still smoldered. Maybe somehow I

19

You see, my dear, these things arent so hard. All you have
to do is concentrate. Thinkexamineevaluate. Come now, lets
review everything we have learned.
Fire away, she said with an airy wave of her hand.
Heartened by the knowledge that Polly was not altogether a
cretin, I began a long, patient review of all I had told her. Over and
over and over again I cited instances, pointed out flaws, kept
hammering away without letup. It was like digging a tunnel. At first,
everything was work, sweat, and darkness. I had no idea when I
would reach the light, or even if I would. But I persisted. I pounded
and clawed and scraped, and finally I was rewarded. I saw a chink
of light. And then the chink got bigger and the sun came pouring in
and all was bright.
Five grueling nights with this took, but it was worth it. I had
made a logician out of Polly; I had taught her to think. My job was
done. She was worthy of me, at last. She was a fit wife for me, a
proper hostess for my many mansions, a suitable mother for my
well-heeled children.
It must not be thought that I was without love for this girl.
Quite the contrary. Just as Pygmalion loved the perfect woman he
had fashioned, so I loved mine. I decided to acquaint her with my
feelings at our very next meeting. The time had come to change our
relationship from academic to romantic.
Polly, I said when next we sat beneath our oak, tonight
we will not discuss fallacies.
Aw, gee, she said, disappointed.
My dear, I said, favoring her with a smile, we have now
spent five evenings together. We have gotten along splendidly. It is
clear that we are well matched.
Hasty Generalization, said Polly brightly.
I beg your pardon, said I.
Hasty Generalization, she repeated. How can you say
that we are well matched on the basis of only five dates?
I chuckled with amusement. The dear child had learned her
lessons well. My dear, I said, patting her hand in a tolerant
EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

I still think its a good idea, said Polly.

Nuts, I muttered. Doggedly I pressed on. Next well try
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.
Sounds yummy, was Pollys reaction.
Listen: If Madame Curie had not happened to leave a
photographic plate in a drawer with a chunk of pitchblende, the
world today would not know about radium.
True, true, said Polly, nodding her head Did you see the
movie? Oh, it just knocked me out. That Walter Pidgeon is so
dreamy. I mean he fractures me.
If you can forget Mr. Pidgeon for a moment, I said coldly,
I would like to point out that statement is a fallacy. Maybe Madame
Curie would have discovered radium at some later date. Maybe
somebody else would have discovered it. Maybe any number of
things would have happened. You cant start with a hypothesis that
is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it.
They ought to put Walter Pidgeon in more pictures, said
Polly, I hardly ever see him any more.
One more chance, I decided. But just one more. There is a
limit to what flesh and blood can bear. The next fallacy is called
Poisoning the Well.
How cute! she gurgled.
Two men are having a debate. The first one gets up and
says, My opponent is a notorious liar. You cant believe a word that
he is going to say. ... Now, Polly, think. Think hard. Whats wrong?
I watched her closely as she knit her creamy brow in
concentration. Suddenly a glimmer of intelligencethe first I had
seencame into her eyes. Its not fair, she said with indignation.
Its not a bit fair. What chance has the second man got if the first
man calls him a liar before he even begins talking?
Right! I cried exultantly. One hundred per cent right. Its
not fair. The first man has poisoned the well before anybody could
drink from it. He has hamstrung his opponent before he could even
start ... Polly, Im proud of you.
Pshaws, she murmured, blushing with pleasure.

20

1951

classroom stuff. You know that the things you learn in school dont
have anything to do with life.
Dicto Simpliciter, she said, wagging her finger at me
playfully.
That did it. I leaped to my feet, bellowing like a bull. Will
you or will you not go steady with me?
I will not, she replied.
Why not? I demanded.
Because this afternoon I promised Petey Bellows that I
would go steady with him.
I reeled back, overcome with the infamy of it. After he
promised, after he made a deal, after he shook my hand! The rat! I
shrieked, kicking up great chunks of turf. You cant go with him,
Polly. Hes a liar. Hes a cheat. Hes a rat.
Poisoning the Well , said Polly, and stop shouting. I think
shouting must be a fallacy too.
With an immense effort of will, I modulated my voice. All
right, I said. Youre a logician. Lets look at this thing logically.
How could you choose Petey Bellows over me? Look at mea
brilliant student, a tremendous intellectual, a man with an assured
future. Look at Peteya knothead, a jitterbug, a guy wholl never
know where his next meal is coming from. Can you give me one
logical reason why you should go steady with Petey Bellows?
I certainly can, declared Polly. Hes got a raccoon coat.

EN 11 Critical Thinking Module Readings

manner, five dates is plenty. After all, you dont have to eat
a whole cake to know that its good.
False Analogy, said Polly promptly. Im not a cake. Im a
girl.
I chuckled with somewhat less amusement. The dear child
had learned her lessons perhaps too well. I decided to change tactics.
Obviously the best approach was a simple, strong, direct declaration
of love. I paused for a moment while my massive brain chose the
proper word. Then I began:
Polly, I love you. You are the whole world to me, the moon
and the stars and the constellations of outer space. Please, my
darling, say that you will go steady with me, for if you will not, life
will be meaningless. I will languish. I will refuse my meals. I will
wander the face of the earth, a shambling, hollow-eyed hulk.
There, I thought, folding my arms, that ought to do it.
Ad Misericordiam, said Polly.
I ground my teeth. I was not Pygmalion; I was Frankenstein,
and my monster had me by the throat. Frantically I fought back the
tide of panic surging through me; at all costs I had to keep cool.
Well, Polly, I said, forcing a smile, you certainly have
learned your fallacies.
Youre darn right, she said with a vigorous nod.
And who taught them to you, Polly?
You did.
Thats right. So you do owe me something, dont you, my
dear? If I hadnt come along you never would have learned about
fallacies.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, she said instantly.
I dashed perspiration from my brow. Polly, I croaked,
you mustnt take all these things so literally. I mean this is just

21