Thinking Critically

Thinking Critically Inductive Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning, & Warrant-based Reasoning; Appeals to Logic, Ethics & Emotion; & Avoiding Logical Fallacies-Presentation by Professor Y. Bailey-Kirby

Patterns of Reasoning • Three basic patterns of reasoning—induction, deduction, and warrant-based reasoning—organize ideas and evidence in different ways, reflecting differences in thinking patterns. • Be aware of the patterns during both researching and writing.

Inductive Reasoning • Induction builds from specific evidence (observations, experiences, examples, facts, statistics, testimony) and then, through interpretation, derives a claim (described as a conclusion or a generalization).

An Example of Inductive Reasoning • In a recent debate on gun control, Senator Robert C. Byrd (Democrat, Virginia) cites specific examples of rampant crime: “I read of young men being viciously murdered for a pair of sneakers, a leather jacket, or $20.” • He also offers statistical evidence of the increasing crime rate: “In 1951, there were 3.2 policemen for every felony committed in the United States; this year (1990) nearly 3.2 felonies will be committed per every police officer . . . .” • He concludes, “Something has to change. We have to stop the crimes that are distorting and disrupting the way of life for so many innocent, law-respecting Americans. The bill that we are debating today attempts to do just that.”

Deductive Reasoning • Deduction begins with a general claim (or premise) and then clarifies or illustrates the original claim with supporting information. • The effectiveness of deductive reasoning depends on a reasonable claim, thorough description of related evidence, and sound use of logic in reaching a conclusion.

An Example of Deductive Reasoning • All men are mortal.(generalization) • Socrates is a man.(specific case) • Socrates is mortal.(conclusion about the specific case.) This deduction may be restated as follows: • Socrates is mortal. (claim) • Socrates is a man. (support) • All men are mortal. (assumption)

Warrant-based Reasoning • Warrant-based reasoning begins with an idea expressed as a claim (or conclusion); it is presented in conjunction with related evidence. The warrant is the underlying assumption, often unstated, that established a relationship between the claim and the evidence, the same way a warranty (from the same root word) makes a claim (this product will work for at least one year) based on evidence (the product has been tested and has worked for at least one year.)

Examples of Warrant-based Reasoning • Claim: Assisted living facilities provide the most beneficial medical care for the elderly. • Evidence: Assisted living facilities provide homelike settings with familiar living arrangements. • Warrant: Homelike settings, with more familiar living arrangements, are beneficial. • Claim: High School students should be restricted to no more than two hours of TV viewing per day. • Evidence: An important study, as well as the testimony of educational specialists, reveals that students who watch more than two hours of TV a night have, on average, lower grades than those who watch less TV. • Warrant: Excessive TV viewing is linked to poor academic performance.

Analyze your Audience • To improve your work as a critical researcher and writer, evaluate the needs, assumptions, and challenges of your reading audience and assess how to meet their expectations. • To write a balanced, informed paper that clearly acknowledges the needs of varied readers, consider how the opposition might refute your claims. • Similarly, how might you refute theirs? How might you reconcile these opposing views?

Questions About Readers Ask yourself the following questions: • What do they know about the topic? • How skeptical might they be about your claims? • What preconceptions or misconceptions might they have? • What kinds of evidence do they require? • What kinds of objections might they raise? • What needs do they bring to the reading?

Evaluate Evidence • Evidence is the illustrative material used to support a claim. • As a researcher, analyze what kinds of evidence sources offer and how well they use it. • As a writer, select and present evidence with care because critical readers examine your evidence to decide whether it substantiates your claims. • Evidence can be classified as facts and statistics, examples, and expert testimony.

Appeals • Appeals to readers stress the logic of claims, emphasize the ethical nature of positions, and focus on the emotional nature of discussions. • Most writing blends these appeals to emphasize multiple perspectives. • As a researcher you should analyze the techniques writers use to improve your understanding of their work; as a writer, you can recognize the techniques to employ in your writing. • Appeals may be to LOGIC (Logos), ETHICS (Ethos), and/or EMOTION (Pathos).

Appealing to Logic • Appeals to logic emphasize evidence, providing facts and statistics to support a claim. • Logos is the rational appeal, the appeal to reason, so if you expect to persuade your audience, you must argue logically and must supply appropriate evidence to support your claims.

Appealing to Ethics • Appeals to ethics stress the writer’s trustworthiness, honesty, fairness, clarity, and directness. • Ethos, or the ethical appeal, is an appeal based not on the ethical rationale for the subject under discussion, but rather on the ethical nature of the person making the appeal. • A person making an argument must have a certain degree of credibility: That person must be of good character, be of sound sense, and be qualified to hold the office or recommend policy.

Appealing to Emotion • Appeals to emotion emphasize the needs, desires, hopes, and expectations of readers, particularly sympathy and self-interest. • There is nothing inherently wrong with using an emotional appeal, but the emotional appeal becomes problematic only if it is the sole or primary basis of the argument. • Indeed, since emotions often move people far more powerfully than reason alone, speakers and writers would be foolish not to use emotion.

Avoid Logical Fallacies • Logical fallacies are errors in thinking and writing that result from faulty logic. • Analyze logical fallacies to determine the logic of what you need; strive to avoid logical fallacies in what you write. • Examples of Logical Fallacies: Hasty Generalization, Oversimplification, Either/Or, Begging the Question, Association, Non Sequitur, Bandwagon, Red Herring, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, Ad Hominem, False Analogy.

Hasty Generalization • A hasty generalization is the conclusion based on too little evidence, suggesting a superficial investigation of an issue. • The recent increase in the numbers of tornadoes, hurricanes, heavy rains, and intense snow indicates that we are currently experiencing the effects of global warming. (Although recent weather has been severe, it is illogical to assume that changes in weather are related to global warming. In addition, such a statement ignores the fact that weather patterns have always occurred in cycles.)

Oversimplification • Oversimplificationignores the complexities, variations, andexceptions relevant to an issue. • Violence on television leads to violence in society. (Television violence may contribute to societal violence, but it is a single factor among many. Such a statement ignores the complex and multiple causes of violence.)

Either/Or • The either/or fallacysuggests that only two choices exist when, in fact, there are more. This type of thinking is not only illogical (because multiple alternatives are almost always available) but also unfair (because ignoring complexities and choices distorts a discussion). • For the same sake of learning, we must maintain the firmest kind of discipline, including corporal punishment, in our public schools, or we can expect chaos, disorder, and the disintegration of education as we know it. (The two alternatives presented are extremes: firm discipline resulting in order versus relaxed discipline resulting in chaos. The statement both ignores moderate methods of maintaining discipline and asserts that without firm discipline the worst will happen. It is highly manipulative.)

Begging the Question • Begging the question distorts a claim by including a secondary idea that requires proof, though none is given. • Since wealthy doctors control health care services, Americans can expect the costs of medical treatment to escalate. (The writer has provided no evidence that doctors control health care services. Further, the use of the word wealthy implies that doctors’ remuneration directly determine costs. Both of these issues muddy the logic of the argument.) • Sometimes begging the question is done very subtly, through word choice. • The antiwar demonstrations of the 1970s should be remembered as the cowards that they were. (The writer uses the words cowards to define the group without making any attempt to prove the implicit warrant that protesting is cowardly.)

Association • Fallacies of associationsuggest that ideas or actions are acceptable or unacceptable because of the people associated with them. Such a fallacy ignores the fact that ideas or actions should be evaluated on their merits. • Arab terrorists repeatedly have threatened peace around the world; is it any wonder that people from the Middle East are viewed with suspicion? (This assertion links all people in the region with a small group of terrorists. Such reasoning ignores the fact that terrorists often act alone or as part of small, fanatical groups that do not represent the larger population.)

Non Sequitur • Non Sequitur, a Latin expression meaning: “it does not follow,” presents a conclusion that is not the logical result of a claim or of evidence that precedes it. • Japanese children spend forty percent more time in the classroom than, and outperform, American children. American parents should take more interest in their children’s schooling. (Both statements may be true, but the writer does not establish any logical connection between them.

Bandwagon • The bandwagon fallacysuggests that if a majority of people express a belief or take an action, everyone else should think or do the same. Such arguments give the weight of truth or inevitability to the judgments of the majority, which may not be justified. • Over 70 percent of Americans favor tariffs on imports from China, and you should, too. (The argument falsely implies that the force of public opinion alone should sway undecided opinion. Such arguments are often bolstered by statistics from studies or surveys, but the use of numbers alone does not sufficiently support the writer’s position. The advisability of tariffs should be decided on the basis of their effect on national and international interests, not on possibly uninformed or self-interested and emotional opinions.)

Red Herring • A red herring is an irrelevant issue introduced into a discussion to draw attention from the central issue. • State boards of education should not vote to spend money for art and music programs when so many of our children fail to read at their grade levels. (Deplorable as the children’s poor preparation in reading may be, it has no bearing on the quality, or benefit to students, of arts education programs.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc—a Latin expression “after this, therefore because of this”—suggests a cause-and-effect relationship between two actions, even though one action simply preceded the other. • Since the artificial sweetener aspartame was introduced in 1981, cancer rates have risen in the United States. (Although cancer rates rose after the introduction of aspartame, there is not necessarily a verifiable link between the two.)

Ad Hominem • Ad hominem, a Latin expression meaning “to the man,” is an attack on a person involved with an issue, rather than on the issue itself. By shifting focus from ideas to people, writers fail to address the real issues. • Freedom of speech statutes should be restricted. After all, current law supports Larry Flynt, enabling him to publish Hustler, an offensive, degrading magazine. (The issue of free speech should be addressed on its own merits. The mention of Flynt, a visible and controversial publisher, sidetracks the discussion and fails to make any case against the statutes themselves.)

False Analogy • A false analogy is a comparison that is not based on relevant points of similarity. For an analogy to be logical, the subjects must be similar in several important, not superficial, ways. • Today’s stock market, like the stock market in the 1920’s, seems headed for trouble. (Although it follows some similar procedures, today’s market has many more checks and balances and regulations that make this analogy strained.

Thinking Critically