Crit Thinking by Moore and Parker Flashcards
Claim
A statement, true or false, that expresses an opinion/belief
Argument
2-part structure of claims; one part (premise) is given as a reason for thinking the other part (conclusion) is true
Issue
What is raised when claim called into question- whether it’s true or not
Premise
Reason for believing claim
Conclusion
States a position on the issue; must be true and cogent (relevant); not an explanation- an explanation specifies what caused; arguments support or prove conclusion
Rhetoric
- Seeks to persuade thru the use of emotive power of language –> slanters
- can include definitions, explanations, and analogies
Euphemism
Muting the disagreeable aspects of s/t
ex. “Pre-owned” car
- rhetorical device
Dysphemism
emphasize disagreeable aspects
ex. Terrorist for freedom fighter
- rhetorical device
Stereotypes
Oversimplified generalizations about members of a class
-rhetorical device
Innuendo
To insinuate s/t negative, but not say directly
Ex. She is competent- in many regards
There is at least 1 candidate in this race who does not have a drinking problem
-rhetorical device
Loaded questions
Rest on unwarranted assumptions
-rhetorical device
Weaseler
Words used to hedge a claim to protect it, words like possibly/perhaps
Downplayer
Attempt to make s/o or s/t look less important/significant
Proof surrogates
Suggesting evidence for a claim w/o saying what the evidence or authority is
Questions to ask when considering comparisons (4)
1- is imp info missing?
2- is the same standard of comparison used?
3- are the items comparable?
4- is the comparison expressed as an average?
Strong inductive argument
-the more support the premises of an inductive argmt provide for its concl, the stronger the argument
-premises support (don’t prove) the concl; raise possibility the concl is true
-when we surmise individual’s future deeds, we ordinarily use inductive argumts
Ex. John lives in AK, t/f he uses mosquito repellant
Valid deductive argument
-argmt whose premises are true mean concl is true; premises prove concl
-when we evaluate a person’s deeds (like a public official), we ordinarily use deductive arguments
Valid: if not possible for premise to be true and concl false
Sound: when premise of valid argmt is true
Ex. John lives in AK, t/f John lives in the US
Argument vs explanation
argumt is reason for thinking claim is true
- not list of facts
- not explanation- which identifies cause of problem
- argumts attempts to prove or support concl while explanation what caused s/t
Argument identification
at least 2 claims and the word therefore or equivalent (at least implicitly) b/f one of them
- presence of premise/concl indicators
- see if psg is attempt to support or demonstrate s/t
Diagramming Argumts
1- circle all premises, concl indicators ex. b/c, since, t/f
2- bracket each premise and concl and number them consecutively
3- diagram: arrow= therefore, reason for premise
plus sign and line under for premises in same argumt
counter-claims= arrow with lines thru it
Argumentative Essays
- a stmt of the issue
- a stmt of one’s position on the issue
- argumts that support one’s position
- rebuttals of argumts that support contrary positions
- begin with intro that demonstrates issue is imp/int’g
- outline after 1st draft and check wk against outline
- revise
What is critical thinking?
- examination and evaluation of claims, including their reltnshp to each other, is principal job of crit thinking
- whenever we call a claim into Q- we raise an issue–> issue is nothing more than a Q- Q is simply whether claim is true or not
- 2 ways to describe- 1- Is Moore taller than Parker? 2- Whether Moore is taller than Parker
Grouping ambiguity
when it is not clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group collectively or to members of the group individually
Fallacy of division (grouping ambiguity)
a claim about a group collectively is true about members of group individually
Fallacy of composition (grouping ambiguity)
each member of a group has a certain property t/f the group as a whole must have that property
Misplacing the Burden of Proof
- general rule: the less initial plausibility a claim has, the greater the burden of proof we place on claim-er
- other things being equal, burden falls on those supporting affirmative side of issue; want to have reasons why s/t is true b/f why it is not the case
- applies to existence- burden should fall on those who claim s/t exists
- always be suspicious when inability to disprove a claim is said to show one is mistaken in doubting claim
Slippery Slope
- claims are fallacious when no reason to think X will lead to Y
- it’s up to the person who offers slippery slope to show why first action will lead to 2nd
- unless reason supplied why 1st action MUST lead to 2nd, it’s a fallacy
- slippery slope has considerable force b/c psychologically one thing leads to another, even tho logically it does not
Premise and conclusion indicators
premise wds: since, for, b/c, in view of, given
concl wds: it follows that, this shows that, thus, hence
Inductive vs. deductive
Inductive: uses specific propositions to infer general principles
deductive uses general principles to infer specific propositions
-conclusion of deductive arguments must be true if promises are true
