Instructor: Tran Thuy Nguyen

Contents
Chapter 1: What is Critical Thinking, Anyway?
Chapter 2: Two Kinds of Reasoning
Chapter 3: Clear Thinking, Critical Thinking, and
Clear Writing
Chapter 4: Credibility
Chapter 5: Persuasion Through Rhetoric: Common
Devices and Techniques
Chapter 6: More Rhetorical Device: Psychological and
Related Fallacies
Chapter 7: More Fallacies
Chapter 8: Deductive Arguments I: Categorical Logic
Chapter 9: Deductive Arguments II: Truth-Functional
Logic
Chapter 10: Thinking Critically About Inductive
Reasoning
Chapter 11: Casual Explanation
Chapter 12: Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning
Chapter 1: What is Critical
Thinking
1. Critical Thinking
1.1 Definition:
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any
subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker
improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully
taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking
and imposing intellectual standards upon them.
1.2 Characteristics of critical
thinkers
Strive for understanding
Are honest with themselves
Base judgment on evidence
Are interested in other peoples ideas
Control their feelings/emotions
Recognize that extreme views are seldom correct
Keep an open mind
They are very observant
Identify key issues and raise questions
Obtain relevant facts
Evaluate the findings and form judgments
1.3 Someone with CT skills is
able to
Understand the logical connections between ideas
Detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in
reasoning
Solve problems systematically
Reflect on the justification of ones own beliefs and
values
1.4 Phases of critical thinking
Phase 1: Trigger event
Usually unexpected event that causes some kind of inner
discomfort or confusion
Phase 2: Appraisal
A period of reflection and the need to find another
approach to deal with the issue



Phase 3: Exploration
People start asking questions and gathering information
Phase 4: Finding alternatives
Also called the transition when old ideas are either left
behind and a new way of thinking begins
Phase 5: Integration
Involve fitting new ideas and information into everyday
usage


2. Objective and subjective claims
2.1 Claims
When a belief (judgment, opinion) is asserted in a
declarative sentence, the result is a claim or statement
2.2 Objective claim
Whether an objective claim is true or false is
independent of whether people think it is true or false
Based on facts instead of a person's opinion
Example: There is life on Mars. It doesnt depend on
what people think

2.3 Subjective claim
Whether a subjective claim is true or false is
dependent of whether people think it is true or false.
Based on personal opinions or feelings
Example: Rice vinegar is too sweet. It depends on what
people think

2.4 Moral subjectivism
Moral subjectivism is the idea that all judgments and
claims that ascribe a moral property to something are
subjective.
There is nothing either good or bad but that thinking
makes it so


3. Issues
An issue is simply a question, whether
The answer of an issue can be yes or no
Example: Whether tuition increase necessary
Claim: The tuition increase necessary
Claim: The tuition increase NOT necessary



4. Argument
4.1 Definition
An argument consists of two parts: one part of which
(the premise or premises) is intended to provide a
reason for accepting the other part (the conclusion)

4.2 Premise
A reason for accepting a claim is expressed in
something called a premise
4.3 Conclusion
The claim itself is call the conclusion
5. Cognitive bias
5.1 Definition
A feature of human psychology that skews belief
formation
5.2 Belief bias
Evaluating reasoning by how believable its conclusion
is
5.3 Negative bias
Attaching more weight to negative information than to
positive information
5.4 In-group bias
A set of cognitive biases that make us view people who
belong to our group differently form people who dont

6. Truth and knowledge
Truth: A claim is true if it is free form error
Knowledge: if you believe something is so, have an
argument that is beyond a reasonable doubt that it is
so, and have no reason to think you are mistaken, you
can claim you know it is so

Chapter 2: Two Kinds of
Reasoning
1. Conclusion and Premise
indicators
1.1 Conclusion indicators
Thus
Therefore
Hence
This shows that
This suggests that

Consequently
So
Accordingly
This implies that
This proves that

Example:
Stacy drives a Porsche. This suggests that either she is
rich or her parents are
- The conclusion: Either she is rich or her parents are
- The premise: Stacy drives a Porsche

1.2 Premise indicators
Since
For
In view of
This is implied by
Example: Either Stacy is rich or her parents are, since
she drives a Porsche

2. Deductive Arguments
2.1 Definition
- A deductive argument is one in which it
is impossible for the premises to be true but the
conclusion false.
- The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises
and inferences


2.2 Example:
- All men are mortal (premise)
- Socrates was a man (premise)
- Socrates was mortal (conclusion)
If the premise is true, its impossible for the conclusion
to be false
If people have a deductive argument and accept the
truth of the premises, they must accept the truth of
the conclusion

3. Induction arguments
3.1 Definition
An inductive argument is one in which the premises
are supposed to support the conclusion
If the premises are true, it is improbable that the
conclusion would be false
Words which involve in inductive arguments include
probably, likely, possibly and reasonably
3.2 Example
Socrates was a Greek (premise)
Most Greeks eat fish (premise)
Socrates ate fish (conclusion)
If premises are true, it is possible for the conclusion to
be false (maybe Socrates was allergic to fish)
4.Deductive vs inductive
arguments
4.1 A deductive argument is valid if it isnt possible for
the premise to be true and the conclusion false
If the premise of a valid argument is in fact true, the
argument is said to be sound
The conclusion of a sound argument has been proved
or demonstrated.
A deductive reasoning has a premise proving and
demonstrating a conclusion
4.2 An inductive argument is stronger or weaker
depending on how much support the premise for the
conclusion
An inductive reasoning has a premise supporting a
conclusion
5. Unstated Premises
5.1 Definition
Deductive arguments are popular and can be rationally
persuasive, but people dont always state all of the
premises that their deductive arguments require.
These premises can be called unstated premises,
missing premises, or hidden assumptions.
Inductive and deductive arguments can have unstated
premises
Whether an argument is deductive or inductive may
depend on what the unstated premise is said to be
5.2 Example
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The unstated premise might seem too obvious to even
mentionthat if Socrates is a human, then Socrates is
mortal (or that all men are mortal)


6. Balance of consideration
reasoning
Involves deductive and inductive elements
If considerations are compared quantitatively,
weighing them involves deductive reasoning
Predictions as to outcomes involve inductive reasoning
7. Inference to best
explanation (IBE)
Is a common type of inductive reasoning in which one
tries to determine the best explanation for a
phenomenone

Chapter 3: Clear Thinking, Critical
Thinking, and Clear Writing
Four sources of confusion include vagueness,
ambiguity, generality, and undefined terms
1. Vagueness
1.1 Definition
Vagueness is a matter of degree; what matters is not
being too vague for the purpose at hand
Vagueness refers to something that is unclear
When a definition is vague it has no specific meaning
for the intended audience
1.2 Example
Happiness is a continuation of happenings which are
not resisted.
To think is to practice brain chemistry.
A person is a pattern of behavior, of a larger awareness.
None of these definitions give us any clarity as to what
the defined term actually means
2. Ambiguity
2.1 Definition
A statement is ambiguous when it is subject to more
than one interpretation and it is not clear which
interpretation is the correct one
2.1 Types of ambiguity
a. Semantic ambiguity: when a word can have two
possible meanings
- Example: Jessica is cold
Jessicas temperature
Jessicas personality
b. Syntactic ambiguity
When the sentence structure offers more than one
plausible meaning
Example:
I tackled the thief with my pyjamas on
- The thief was wearing my pyjamas or
- I was wearing pyjamas when I tackled the thief

c. Grouping ambiguity
Grouping ambiguity that results when it is not clear
whether a word is being used to refer to a group
collectively or to members of the group individually


Example: Secretaries make more money than
physicians do
It is true if the speaker refers to the 2 words collectively
because there are many more secretaries than there
are physicians.
It is false if the 2 words refer to individual secretaries
and physicians

d. Ambiguous pronoun reference
Occur when it is not clear to what or whom a pronoun
is supposed to refer.
Example: The boys chased the girls and they giggle a
lot.
Does not make sure who did make the giggling
4. Generality
A claim is overly general when it lacks sufficient detail
to restrict its application to the immediate subject
The less detail a claim provides, the more general it is.

5. Defining Terms
5.1 Lexical Definition
The meaning of a word that is given in the
dictionary...Lex Luther like dictionaries.
5.2 Stipulative Definition
A definition (of a word) that is specific to a particular
context.

5.3 Precising Definition
A definition whose purpose is to reduced vagueness or
generality or to eliminate ambiguity.
5.4 Persuasive or Rhetorical Definition
A pseudo-definition that is designed to influence
beliefs or attitudes; also called rhetorical definition.
5.5 Definition by Example or Ostensive Definition
Pointing to, naming, or otherwise identifying one or
more examples of the term being defined; also called
ostensive definition.
Example: A mouse is this thing here, the one with
the buttons
5.6 Definition by Synonym
Giving another word or phrase that means the same
thing as the term being defined
Example: Fastidious means the same as fussy
5.7 Analytical Definition
Specification of the features a thing must possess in
order for the term being defined to apply to it
Example: A samovar is an urn that has a spigot and is
used especially in Russia to boil water for tea.
6. Argumentative Essays
6.1 Components of an argumentative essay: four
components
1. A statement of the issue
2. A statement of ones position on that issue
3. Arguments that support ones position
4. Rebuttals of arguments that support contrary
positions
6.2 Hints for an argumentative essay
Focus: Make clear at the outset what issue you intend
to address and what your position on the issue will be
Stick to the issue: all points in an essay should be
connected to the issue under discussion
Arrange the components of the essay in a logical
sequence
Be complete: Accomplish what you set out to
complete, support your position, and anticipate and
respond to possible objections


Chapter 4: Credibility
1. Credibility
We should never take a piece of information at face
value. We must ask questions about it to find out if it
is credible.

1. Credibility
If something is credible, it means that it can believed
it is convincing
Claims lack credibility to the extend they conflict with
our observations, experience, or background
information, or come from sources that lack credibility
2. CRAVEN rules for Credibility
There are several ways of finding out if something is
credible an easy way to remember them is by using
CRAVEN
Context
Reputation
Ability to See
Vested interest
Expertise
Neutrality



2.1 Circumstantial or Context
This is details or the actual situation.
Example:
- Weather conditions,
- Time of day
- Clues at a site
Help people to work out what may have happened
2.2 Reputation
How someone is thought of in terms of their character
and reputation.
Example: doctors, have a positive reputation for
telling the truth.

2.3 Ability to See
Were eyewitnesses to an event able to see well, or hear
well?
Was the person actually there (primary source)?
If the person wasnt actually there, it is a secondary
source.
Example: does a person wear glasses or hearing aids?

2.4 Vested Interest
To stand to gain in some way if something happens
Example does the person have something to gain, or
lose, from telling the truth?
One example is where a salesman may try to persuade
you that a product is amazing. This is because he
needs to sell it to make a living he has a vested
interest in promoting the product



2.5 Expertise
An individual, group or organisation with relevant
training, experience, knowledge and skills
Example: I want to find out about Black Holes.
Which has the greatest expertise?
1. A university professor who has studied astronomy
for 40 years.
2. A science teacher in a high school.
3. A website written by a sixth former.

2.6 Neutrality
Impartial does not take sides
Example does the organisation have a code of ethics
which prevents them from taking sides?

3. Other keys helping credibility
3.1 Plausibility does the claim seem believable? Is it
ridiculous?
Example: Aliens have just landed in Biddulph
3.2 Corroboration is the statement or evidence
supported by other pieces of evidence
Example: Several eye-witnesses also describe seeing
the same thing. This means they corroborate each
other
3.3 Consistency does a person stick to their story or do
they contradict themselves?
Example: a witness may give two statements which
are different and contradict each other
3.4 Bias when a person or organisation favours a
particular point of view. They have a one-sided view of
events


Chapter 5: Persuasion Through
Rhetoric
1. Rhetorical Force
World have tremendous persuasive power, or what we
have called their rhetorical force or emotive meaning
The power of rhetoric is to express and elicit images,
feelings, and emotional associations
Rhetoric refers to the study of persuasive writing


2. Rhetorical Device 1
2.1 Euphemisms and Dysphemisms
a. Euphemisms: Neutral or positive expression instead
of one that carries negative associations
Replacing an offensive or bad statement with one more
pleasing, or vague to the reader
Example: used car refer to such a car as pre-owned

b. Dysphemism
Used to produce a negative effect on a listeners or
readers attitude toward something or to tone down
the positive association it may have
Example: Rebels refers to Freedom fighters
2.2 Weaselers
Expression used to protect claim from criticism by
weakening it.
Worlds that sometimes weasel: perhaps, possibly,
maybe and may be
Example: Almost everyone loves this product. (In
case you are the only one who doesnt love this
product.)
2.3 Down players
Diminish importance of the claim being written about
Example: there will be no raises this year you could
down play the effect by saying, even though the
company is experiencing financial stress, there will be
no salary cuts this year

3. Rhetorical device II
3.1 Stereotype
Oversimplified generalization about a person of a
certain class.
Example: Those Junior League ladies are all rich
bitches.
3.2 Innuendo
Insinuation of something deprecatory.
Example: Oh my goodness, if you eat another desert,
you are going to look like a pig.

3.3 Loaded questions
Question that rests on one or more unwarranted or
unjustified assumption.
Example:
Do these jeans make my butt look big?
Have you stopped beating your wife


4. Rhetorical device III
4.1 Ridicule/Sarcasm
Horse Laugh:
Ridicule disguised as reasoning to reject claim.
Example: You think extending the 12 year tax cuts, is
an increase in government expenses? That is stupid!
4.2 Hyperbole:
Huge over-statement.
Example: Its so hot today; I could cook dinner on the
sidewalk.



5. Rhetorical Device IV
5.1 Rhetorical definitions and explanations
Rhetorical definitions use emotively charged
language to express or elicit an attitude about
something
Example: defining abortion as the murder of an
unborn child
Rhetorical explanations are the same kind of
slanting device, this time clothed as explanations
Example: He lost the fight because hes lost his nerve
It is from that he lost because he was too cautious

Rhetorical definitions and explanations used to create
favorable or unfavorable attitudes about something
Example:
- If you loved me, you would dance with me.
- All old people will be murdered by Obamacare.



5.2 Rhetorical analogies and misleading
comparisons
Rhetorical analogy: a comparison of two things or a
likening of one thing to another in order to make one
of them appear better or worse than it might be
These device persuade by making inappropriate
connections between terms

6. Proof surrogates and repetition
6.1 Proof surrogates
An expression used to suggest that there is evidence or
authority for a claim without actually citing such
evidence or authority
Its obvious that, as we know, as everybody knows
6.2 Repetition
Technique of repetition, simply making the same point
over and over at every opportunity
Hearing or reading a claim over and over can
sometimes mistakenly encourage the belief that it is
true.

Chapter 6: Fallacies
Definition of Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as
opposed to making mistakes that are of a factual
nature
Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments
Example: If I counted eighteen people in the room
when there were in fact nineteen, then I made a
factual mistake.
1. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
1.1 Definition
"Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against
the person."
A theory is discarded not because of any evidence
against it or lack of evidence for it, but because of the
person who argues for it. Example
Thinking a persons defects refute his or her beliefs



1.2 Steps in this fallacy: 2 steps
An attack against the character of person making the
claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made
This attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument the person in question is making
1.3 Form of this argument
- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B makes an attack on person A.
- Therefore A's claim is false.
1.4 Example
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my
position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so
you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are
just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you
say."
2. Begging the Question
2.1 Definition
Is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim
that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly)
assume that the conclusion is true

2.2 The form of reasoning
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is
claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either
directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply
assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or
indirectly) in the premises does not constitute
evidence for that conclusion
2.3 Examples
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
3. Red Herring
3.1 Definition:
A fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in
order to divert attention from the original issue.
The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading
attention away from the argument and to another
topic
Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase
3.2 The form of reasoning
- Topic A is under discussion.
- Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant
to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic
A).
- Topic A is abandoned.

3.3 Example:
Premises:
- I think there is great merit in making the requirements
stricter for the graduate students.
- I recommend that you support it, too.
Conclusion:
- After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want
our salaries affected.
4. Straw man argument
4.1 Definition
This fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an
argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-
simplifying the arguments of the opposing side

4.2 Example:
"Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed
single mothers during the first year after childbirth
because they need sufficient money to provide
medical care for their newborn children.
My opponent believes that some parasites who don't
work should get a free ride from the tax money of
hard-working honest citizens.
2nd speaker oversimplified form so he can more
easily appear to "win."
2
nd
speaker is defeating a dummy-argument rather
than honestly engaging in the debate.

5. Slippery slope
5.1 Definition
An argument that says adopting one policy or taking
one action will lead to a series of other policies or
actions also being taken.
A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy
5.2 Example
"If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know
we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine.
Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other
drugs have somehow remained illegal.
6. Argument from ignorance
6.1 Definition
A logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is
true only because it has not been proven false, or that a
premise is false only because it has not been proven
true.
6.2 The common forms of the argument: 2 forms
Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently
explained, so it was not (or could not be) true.
Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one
hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore
considered proven.
6.3 Examples
Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they
must exist.
Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't
prove it, so it must be false.

7. Subjectivist Fallacy
7.1 Definition
Asserting that because there are no applicable
objective truths, the truthfulness of a proposition is
grounded in the respective perceptions of each
individual or group.
7.2 The form of reasoning
1. Claim X is presented.
2. Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is
not true for him/her.
3. Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.
7.3 Example
- Bill: "Your position results in a contradiction, so I can't
accept it.
- Dave: "Contradictions may be bad on your Eurocentric,
oppressive, logical world view, but I don't think they are
bad. Therefore my position is just fine.

8. Appeal to pity
8.1 Definition
The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to
get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel
sorry for someone.
8.2 Example
I know the exam is graded based on performance,
but you should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my
car broke down, and Ive had a cold, so it was really
hard for me to study!

9. Appeal to authority
9.1 Definition
- Add strength to arguments by referring to respected
sources or authorities and explaining their positions on
the issues discussing.
- If appealing to a supposed authority who really isnt
much of an expert, people commit the fallacy of appeal
to authority.
9.2 Example
We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected
people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly
stated their opposition to it.
Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters
having to do with acting.
10. Appeal to popularity
10.1 Definition
Arguers takes advantage of the desire most people
have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that
desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her
argument
10.2 Example
Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans
think so!
While the opinion of most Americans might be
relevant in determining what laws we should have, it
certainly doesnt determine what is moral or immoral
11. False dilemma
11. 1 Definition
Arguers sets up the situation so it looks like there are
only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of
the choices.
It seems that we are left with only one option: the one
the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place
11.2 Example
1. Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down
and put up a new building, or we continue to risk
students safety.
Obviously we shouldnt risk anyones safety, so we
must tear the building down
2. Every person is either my enemy or my friend.
If he/she is my enemy I should hate him/her.
If he/she is my friend I should love him/her.
So I should either love him/her or hate him/her.
Obviously, the conclusion is too extreme because
most people are neither your enemy nor your friend.