CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING

Critical Thinking Standards (CTS)

The most significant critical (intellectual) thinking standards:

1.Clarity 2.Accuracy

3.Precision 4.Relevance

5.Depth 6.Breadth

7.Logic 8.Fairness

Barriers to Critical Thinking

1. Egocentrism (Thuyết tự đề cao mình)

The tendency to view one’s own interests, ideas and value as superior (thượng đẳng) to
everyone else (or self bias)

2. Sociocentrism (Chủ nghĩa vì lợi ích nhóm)

Group – Centred Thinking. Herd instinct (Bản năng bầy đàn) (conformism)-the tendency
to follow the crowd.

Example: People to grow up thinking that their society’s beliefs, institutions, and values
are better than those of other societ-ies.

3. Unwarranted assumption and stereotyping (Giả thuyết không căn cứ)

Assumption something taken for granted, believe truth or good without any proof or
evidence.

+ Unwarranted assumption: something taken for granted without good reasons.

+ Stereotyping (rập khuôn): making a hasty generalization (khái quát hóa vội vàng).

Example: No one can definitely prove that “God does not exit” So, it is reasonable to
suppose that God does exit

4. Wishful Thinking (mơ tưởng-niềm tin dựa vào ước muốn chứ không dựa vào thực tế)
Believe in something not because you had good evidence but because you wished it
were true/make you feel good.

CHAPTER 2: RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS

Fact  Can be proved or disproved

Opinion  Personal Belief

An argument is:

o A group of 2 or more statements - sentences can be viewed as either true or false

o One of those statement (the conclusion) is claimed.
o 3 important things that follow from this definition:
1. Arguments consist entirely of statements - sentences that it makes
sense to regard as either true or false, rhetorical questions should
be treated as statements
2. No single statement is an argument - arguments always consist of
at least two statements.
3. A passage is an argument only if the speaker or writer intends to
offer evidence or reasons why another statement should be
accepted as true.
o Good grammatically: It is false/true that… or Ought imperatives (Câu bắt buộc):
Can be understood as judgment/advice about what ought to be done.

Premise & Conclusion

o Look for premise indicators that provide clues when premises are being offered
(e.g.because, since, for)
o Look for conclusion indicators that provide clues when conclusions are being
offered (e.g.therefore, thus, hence, so).
o If the passage contains no indicator words, try these two strategies:
 Ask yourself, "What claim is the writer or speaker trying to prove?" That
claim will be the conclusion.
 Try putting the word "therefore" before each of the statements in turn.
The statement it fits best will be the conclusion.

What is not an argument ?

o Report: convey information about a subject
o Unsupported statements: what a speaker or writer happens to believe
 o Illustrations: provide examples of a claim, rather than prove or support the claim
o Conditional statements: an if-then statement
o Explanation: show why something is the case, not to prove that it is the case
o Questions, commands, and other kinds of non-statements can not be parts of
arguments

There are 4 basic tests of EXPLANATIONS:

The common-knowledge test: If the statement that the passage is seeking to prove or
explain a matter of common knowledge  the passage is probably an explanation
rather than an argument. (There’s usually little point in trying to prove something that is
already a well-known fact.)

EX: TV is very influential in society because most people watch it.

The past-event test: If the statement that the passage is seeking to prove or explain an
event that occurred in the past  the passage is probably an explanation rather than an
argument because it is much more common and try to explain why past events have
occurred than to prove that they occurred.

EX: The U.S. entered World War II because of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor

The author’s intent test: If the person making the statement is trying to “prove”
something, then the passage is an argument

EX: I want a college degree because I want a better life.

- If the person making the statement is trying to explainwhy something is true, then the
passage is an explanation

EX: Kevin is majoring in political science because he wants to go to law school.

The principle of charity test:

- One must interpret unclear passages generously

- One must never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably
permits one to interpret it as not an argument at all

- The test: If you have a choice between interpreting a statement as a “bad argument”
or an “unsatisfactory explanation,” do the latter.

- A bad argument is a worse mistake

 CHAPTER 3: BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS
Deductive arguments: the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow necessarily from
the premises  prove their conclusions with rigorous

Inductive arguments: a method of reasoning, the premises are viewed as supplying

some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion  show that their
conclusions are plausible or likely given the premise(s)

Some common deduction indicator Some common induction indicator words

words

Certainly, definitely, absolutely, probably, likely, odds are that, chances

conclusively, .. are that

it logically follows that one would expect that

it is logical to conclude that it is a good bet that

this logically implies that it is plausible to suppose that it is

reasonable to assume that
this entails that

The strict necessity test: The strict necessity test asks whether the conclusion follows
from the premises with strict logical necessity.

Yes  DEDUCTIVE No  INDUCTIVE

The common pattern tests: Check the format of arguments within the 2 groups,
including 11 types of argument to defending

Deductive arguments - 5 types:

1. Hypothetical syllogism:

- Syllogism a three -line argm, exactly 2 premises and 1 conclusion.

- Hypothetical syllogism contain at least 1 hypothetical or conditional (i.e, if then)
premise
 This pattern, as we have seen, is called modus ponens. Arguments with this pattern
consist of one conditional premise, a second premise that asserts as true the
antecedent (the if part) of the conditional, and a conclusion that asserts as true the
consequent (the then part) of the conditional. Other common varieties of
hypothetical syllogisms include:

Chain argument Modus tollens Denying the antecedent Affirming the

(denying the consequent
consequent)

If A then B. If A then B. If A then B. If A then B.

If B then C. Not B. Not A. Not A.

Therefore, if A then C. Therefore, not A. Therefore, not B. Therefore, not B.

2. Categorical syllogism (Tam đoạn luận): May defined as a 3-line in which

statement begins with the word all, some, or, no.

3. Argument by elimination: Find evidence to eliminate (various possibilities

4. Argement base on mathematics: (Include number, not %) Mathematics is a

model of logical step-by step reasoning (base on calculation of measurement)

5. Argument from definition: The conclusion is presented as being "true by

definition”

Inductive argument – 6 types

1. Inductive generalization: Attribute some characteristic to all or most members of

a given class.

2. Predictive arguments: About what may or will happen in the future (with
reasons).

3. Argument from Authority: An argument from authority assert a claim  support

that claims by citing some presumed authority or witness who said that the claim
is true.
 4. Casual argument: Something is the cause of something else.

5. Statically argument (Percentage)

6. Argument from analogy (so sánh): Is a comparison of two or more things that are
claimed to be alike in some relevant aspect.

The principle of charity test (We should be generous = learn to understand): We should
always interpret an unclear argument or passage as generously as possible.

- Deductive arguments that combine both of these desirable features—that is,

deductive arguments that are both valid and have all true premises  sound

- Deductive arguments that either are invalid or have at least one false premise, or both,
 unsound

 Deductive validity: Valid does not mean "true”

- Strong inductive argument: the conclusion follows probably from the premises.

Put otherwise, a strong inductive argument is an argument in which the following

conditions apply:

o If the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.

o The premises provide probable, but not logically conclusive, grounds for
o the truth of the conclusion.
o The premises, if true, make the conclusion likely
 o An argument both is inductively strong and has all true premises  cogent
o An argument either is weak or has at least one false premise  uncogent

- Weak inductive argument: the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises
or the premises, even if they are assumed to be true, do not make the conclusion
probable.

CHAPTER 9: A LILTLE CATEGORICAL LOGIC

1. All S are P.

Example: All Democrats are liberals.

Common Stylistic Variants of “All S are P”

o Every S is a P  Example: Every dog is an animal.

o Whoever is an S is a P  Example: Whoever is a bachelor is a male.
o Whatever is an S is a P  Example: Whatever is a lemon is a fruit.
o If anything is an S, then it is a P  Example: If anything is a lizard, then it is a
reptile.
o If something is not a P, then it is not an S  Example: If something is not a bird,
then it is not a sparrow.
o Any S is a P  Example: Any triangle is a geometrical figure.
o Each S is a P  Example: Each monkey is a primate.
o S are all P  Example: Senators are all politicians.
o S are always P  Example: Racists are always bigots.
o Only P are S  Example: Only Catholics are popes.
o Only if something is a P is it an S  Example: Only if something is a fish is it a
salmon.
o The only S are P  Example: The only seats available are seats in the upper deck.
o Something is an S only if it is a P Example: Something is an elm only if it is a
tree.

2. No S are P.

Example: No Democrats are liberals.

Common Stylistic Variants of “No S are P”

o No P are S  Example: No vegetables are fruits.
o S are not P  Example: Oaks are not conifers.
o Nothing that is an S is a P  Example: Nothing that is a known fact is a mere
opinion.
o No one who is an S is a P  Example: No one who is a Democrat is a Republican.
o None of the S is a P Example: None of the students is a registered Independent.
o Not a single S is P  Example: Not a single U.S. president is a woman.
o If anything is an S, then it is not a P  Example: If anything is a plant, then it is
not a mineral.
o All S are non-P  Example: All robots are nonhumans.

 use CROSS

3. Some S are P.

Example: Some Democrats are liberals.

Common Stylistic Variants of “Some S are P”

o Some P are S  Example: Some Democrats are women.

 o A few S are P  Example: A few mathematicians are poets.
o There are S that are P  Example: There are monkeys that are carnivores.
o Several S are P  Example: Several planets in the solar system are gas giants.
o Many S are P  Example: Many billionaires are Internet tycoons.
o Most S are P  Example: Most high school principals are men.
o Nearly all S are P  Example: Nearly all Hollywood producers are liberals.

4. Some S are not P

Example: Some Democrats are not liberals.

 use X to draw the relation of st to st

Common Stylistic Variants of “Some S are not P”
o Not all S are P  Example: Not all mammals are quadrupeds.
o Not everyone who is an S is a P  Example: Not everyone who is a used-
cardealer is a crook.
o S are not always P  Example: Sailors are not always swimmers.
o Some S are non-P  Example: Some theologians are nonbelievers.
o There are S that are not P  Example: There are bears that are not
carnivores.
o A few S are not P  Example: A few logicians are not eccentrics.
o Several S are not P  Example: Several of the world’s most famous sports
celebrities are not good role models.
o Most S are not P  Example: Most students are not binge drinkers.
o Nearly all S are not P  Example: Nearly all physicists are not sharp dressers.
 SOME use (X); NO/ALL use cross (///)

Standard form

All/Some/No + S + are/ are not + P

So specific situation such as:

 o Ex1: Paris is the capital of France

 All places identical with Paris are places that are the capital of France.

o Ex2: An wasn’t born in HCM

 No person identical with An are person who were born in HCM city.

Validity

Conclusion: valid or invalid

Half X  INVALID

Full X  VALID

NOTE

1. If the premises statement ALL, SOME or NO. Then we should draw ALL or NO
first, SOME later.
2. Place the X in the unshaded part.
3. If neither part of the area has been shaded, place X precisely on the line
separating the two parts. (Draw)
4. When drawing Venn 3 diagrams, conclusion must be checked for validity, don’t
draw conclusion.
5. Draw in order from the 1st to the end.
6. Put X in unshaded part

3 DIAGRAMS - To avoid such mistakes, remember these 3 rules:

1. If the argument contains one all or no statement, this statement should be

diagrammed first. In other words, always do any necessary shading before placing an X.
If the argument contains two all or no statements, either statement can be done first.

2. When placing an X in an area, if one part of the area has been shaded, place the X in
the unshaded part. Examples:
3. When placing an X in an area, if neither part of the area has beenshaded, place the X
precisely on the line separating the two parts. Examples:

CHAPTER 10: A LITTLE PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

1. Conjunction (&): compound statement consists of 2 or more statements
p&q (p and q)  only TRUE when both of p and q TRUE
2. Negation (~): represent the negation. ~p = not p
P true  ~ P: false; P false  ~P: true
3. Disjunction (v): FALSE if only both of simpler claims are FALSE
“P or Q”  P v Q
4. Conditional statements: FALSE if only 1st claim is TRUE and 2nd FALSE
“if P then Q”  “P  Q”
5. Validity
o All premises TRUE, conclusion FALSE  INVALID
o All premises TRUE, conclusion TRUE  VALID
6. Note
o p*  * means premises
o pC  C means conclusion or using 3 dots instead
o check truth table from the left to the right

2 variables

p q

1 T T

2 T F

3 F T

4 F F
 3 variables

p q r

1 T T T

2 T T F

3 T F T

4 T F F

5 F T T

6 F T F

7 F F T

8 F F F