PHIN101: Logical & Critical Thinking

Coverage: LOGIC, ARGUMENTATIONS, FALLACY (ignorant shock)

LOGIC
• the science of reasoning (that has various applications
argumentation: most important)
Main task of logic:
• to formulate general norms, laws, or rules that will help us answer
questions.

LOGICAL REASONING
• the kind of thinking whose purpose is to arrive at a
conclusion

ARGUMENT / argument schemata

• attempts to support or prove a conclusion
• business of logic to find out what it is that makes a valid argument (or
a valid inference) valid
• a sequence of sentences – premises at the beginning, conclusion at
the end
• can contain a number of smaller steps, subarguments, whose
conclusions serve as the premises of the main argument.

VALID ARGUMENT
• if the premises of a valid argument are all true, then its inclusion must
also be true
example; John will come to the party, or Mary will come to the party.
John will not come to the party.
.:Mary will come to the party.

Two characteristics of a good argument:

1. The argument’s premises are true.
2. The argument has a proper form.
 PHIN101: Logical & Critical Thinking
Types of good argument:
1. Deductive Arguments
❖ it isn’t possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false
❖ example; Premise: Josh Fulcher lives in Alaska.
Conclusion: Therefore, Josh Fulcher lives in the United
States.
2. Inductive Arguments
❖ The premise of this argument (assuming it is true) raises the
probability that the conclusion is true; thus it supports the conclusion
❖ Don’t prove or demonstrate the conclusion, but rather supports it
❖ Example;
Premise: People who live in Butte City already spend a lot of
time in the sun.
Conclusion: Therefore, a tanning salon won’t do well there.

TRUE PREMISES
▪ A statement is true when what it says about the world is accurate.
▪ A statement is false when it says about the world is inaccurate.

CRITICAL THINKING
• careful application of reason in the determination of whether a claim
is true
• evaluation of claims
• art of evaluating how we arrive at our judgements, and determining
whether we are justified or not

INFERENCE
• the process by which one statement (conclusion) is reached and
affirmed on the basis of one or more other statements (premises)
accepted as the starting point of the process
• mind proceeds from one or more propositions to another proposition,
related to the original propositions that if they are true it must also be
true.
 PHIN101: Logical & Critical Thinking

ARGUMENTATION
• must have two or more propositions as its component parts

ISSUE
• whether a given claim is true or not

CLAIMS
• basic elements in critical thinking
• either true or false

DESCRIPTION
• mental image of something
• can be arguments

QUESTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

• neither true nor false, and cannot be statements – can’t be arguments
or even part of arguments

EXPLANATION
• specifies what caused something or how it works or what it is made
out of and so forth

Putting arguments into Standard Form

Because arguments can be hard to follow, it's useful to put them into
standard form. To put an argument into standard form you:
1. put all the statements into declarative sentences and replace all
pronouns with nouns;
2. insert any unstated premises and any unstated conclusion;
3. number each statement;
4. place the premises before their conclusion; and
5. indicate conclusions with the word "therefore."
 PHIN101: Logical & Critical Thinking

Here's an example of the format of the standardization of a simple

argument:
(1) This is the first premise.
(2) This is the second premise.
[3] This is the third premise.
Therefore,
(4) This is the conclusion.
Standardizing isn't rearranging the phrases you find in a text. When
standardize, you should edit the clearer.

AUDIENCE
• the group that the person making the argument wishes to convince
• a premise can be true even though no one in the audience knows that
it’s true

RATIONAL DISCOURSE
• refers to exchanges in which we give reasons for our views and have
these reasons assessed, which in turn involves giving reasons that are
open to assessment

FALLACIES
• are bad arguments that are so common that they’ve been given a
name
• occur frequently because they look like good arguments
• a type of an argument that may seem to be correct but proves, on
examination, not to be so

Informal Fallacies
• typical errors or mistakes that arise commonly in ordinary discourse
• use persuasive arguments and so, although invalid, may appeal or
come across as correct
 PHIN101: Logical & Critical Thinking

1. Fallacies of Relevance
❖ when an argument relies on premises that are not relevant to its
conclusion and therefore cannot establish its truth
❖ the connection between the premises and the conclusion is often
emotional.
❖ In a good argument, it must be noted, the premises must provide
genuine evidence for the conclusion.
Types;
❖ Easy Target – also called straw man fallacy
o occurs in three steps;
o First, someone makes an inaccurate claim about the views held
by someone else.
o Second, the person argues that the inaccurately described view
is false.
o Finally, the person asserts that this argument shows that the
accurate view is false.
❖ Appeal to force (Argumentum ad baculum)
o employs the use of threat in a form calculated to win the assent
of another person or to cause him to accept a conclusion.
o It is the discourse of power.
o The threat may either be physical or psychological so it is an
argument based upon a threat.
o Arguers using this type of appeal try to persuade you by
pointing out their powers over you or by warning you of the bad
consequences of refusing to accept their argument.
❖ Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad misericordiam)
o This fallacy occurs when careful reasoning is replaced by
devices contrived to cause sympathy or to evoke pity from
another to get the other to accept the conclusion.
o The basic structure of the argument is this: you should accept my
conclusion out of pity.
 PHIN101: Logical & Critical Thinking
o The arguer urges you to believe something by arousing your
sympathy for him or his cause.
❖ Appeal to the people or popularity (Argumentum ad populum)
❖ The basis structure of the argument is this:
(1) Most people approve of or believe S.
Therefore,
(2) S is true.
❖ It is, in effect, an appeal to commonly or traditionally held
beliefs.
❖ The main error of this argument lies in the fact that the popular
acceptance of a policy does not show it to be wise.
❖ The fact that a great many people hold it to be true does not
prove an opinion to be true.
❖ To recognize the fallacy of appeal to the people, look for an
argument in which the conclusion is based on assertions about
commonly or traditionally held beliefs.
❖ Appeal to novelty or tradition (Argumentum Ad Novitatem,
Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem)
❖ occurs when someone argues that a statement is true because
people have either believed it for a short time (novelty) or for a
long time (tradition).
❖ Here’s the form of the fallacy:
(1) S has been believed by people for a short/long time.
Therefore,
(2) S is true.
❖ Attack against the person (Argumentum Ad Hominem, Argumentum
Ad Personam)
❖ A person commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he attacks a
person instead of arguing against the view the person asserts. It
has the following form:
(1) H asserts statement S.
(2) There is something objectionable about Person H.
Therefore,
PHIN101: Logical & Critical Thinking
(3) Statement S is false. or
(3’) H’s arguments for S are bad arguments.
❖ It is an attack upon the person rather than the persons’ ideas, on
the opponent’s character implying that what he says should not
be believed because of his character flaw.
❖ There are three common types of ad hominem arguments:
• Abusive
o when the attack is directly against a person
seeking to defame or discredit him.
o It involves two claims: first, that the opponent
possesses a certain undesirable or negative
characteristic and, secondly, that the opponents’
words or abilities are not to be trusted because of
that characteristic.
o The structure of this fallacy is:
Whatever anyone with undesirable characteristic X
says is probably not true.
Person A has undesirable characteristic X.
therefore, whatever A says is probably not true.
o To identify the ad hominem abusive fallacy, look
for an attack on the person’s character rather than
the person’s statements.
• Circumstantial
o when the attack is indirectly against persons
suggesting that they adopt their view chiefly
because of their special circumstances or
interests.
o It implies that the opponent has special, usually
self-interested, reasons for his or her claims.
o The argument attempts to refute the person’s
statements not by offering reasons against it but
by suggesting that the person himself does not
 PHIN101: Logical & Critical Thinking
have good reasons or honest motives for the
position.
o The structure of this fallacy may be represented
as follows:
Person A has self-interested reasons for asserting
S.
Therefore, S is probably not true.
o To identify the ad hominem circumstantial
fallacy, look for an argument that claims that the
opponent advances his or her argument not
because it is true but because the opponent has
some other, usually ulterior, motive for wanting
his or her argument accepted.
• Tu quoque
o shifting the burden of guilt.
o It is an argument in which one defends oneself by
accusing one’s attacker, usually of a similar
wrongdoing.
o “Two wrongs do not make a right” so that even if
the arguer is right in attacking his accuser, he has
not defended himself against the charge.
o To identify that tu quoque fallacy, look for an
argument that attempts to offer a defense by
accusing the accuser of a similar wrongdoing.
❖ Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad verecundiam)
❖ when the premises of an argument appeal to some party having
no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand.
❖ This means, in other words, that the fallacy of appeal to authority
occurs when the authority cited is not qualified in the relevant
matters or, less typically, is not free from adverse influences.
❖ The argument in this case relies upon the assertions of someone
who is not truly in a position to know.
 PHIN101: Logical & Critical Thinking
❖ The underlying idea of such arguments is that some statement
S is true because some authority A has said it is true. The
argument’s basis structure is thus –
Authority A asserts that S.
Therefore, S.
❖ The fallacy occurs when the person or publication is not
relevantly qualified or is not speaking without bias; in other
words, whenever the truth of some proposition is assented on
the basis of the authority of one who has no special competence
in that sphere, the appeal to misplaced authority is committed.
❖ To recognize the appeal to authority, look for an argument
based primarily on the premise that some person or some
publication reports that S is true.
❖ Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)
❖ when it is argued that a proposition is true on the ground that it
has not been proved false or vice-versa.
❖ The premises tell us that nothing can be known with certainty
one way or the other about a certain subject while the
conclusion states something definite.
❖ The two structures of the appeal to ignorance are:
We do not know that S is false. Therefore, S is true
We do not know that S is true. Therefore S is false.
❖ Our ignorance to prove either the truth or falsity of a conclusion
primarily signifies our inability and not the truth or falsity of the
very conclusion.
❖ The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs when the lack of
evidence or proof is not relevant to the conclusion but the
arguer believes that it is.
❖ To recognize the fallacy of appeal to ignorance, look for a
conclusion based upon an absence of proof or evidence.