Critical Thinking

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 1/58

Page 32

T

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

2 Two Kinds of Reasoning

Students will learn to . . . 1. Recognize general features of arguments 2. Distinguish between deductive and inductive arguments and evaluate them for validity,

soundness, strength, and weakness 3. Identify unstated premises 4. Identify a balance of considerations argument and an inference to the best explanation (IBE) 5. Distinguish between ethos, pathos, and logos as means of persuasion 6. Use techniques for understanding and evaluating the structure and content of arguments

ime to look more closely at arguments—the kind that actually show something (unlike the red herrings and emotional appeals and other fallacies we are going to be talking about later).

ARGUMENTS: GENERAL FEATURES

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 2/58

To repeat, an argument consists of two parts. One part, the premise, is intended to provide a reason for accepting the second part, the conclusion. This statement is not an argument:

God exists.

It’s just a statement. Likewise, this is not an argument:

God exists. That’s as plain as the nose on your face.

It’s just a slightly more emphatic statement. Nor is this an argument:

God exists, and if you don’t believe it, you will go to hell.

It just tries to scare us into believing God exists.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 3/58

Page 33

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Also not an argument:

I think God exists, because I was raised a Baptist.

Yes, it looks a bit like an argument, but it isn’t. It merely explains why I believe in God. On the other hand, this is an argument:

God exists because something had to cause the universe.

The difference between this and the earlier examples? This example has a premise (“something had to cause the universe”) and a conclusion (“God exists”).

As we explained in Chapter 1 (see page 8), an argument always has two parts: a premise part and a conclusion part. The premise part is intended to give a reason for accepting the conclusion part.

This probably seems fairly straightforward, but one or two complications are worth noting.

Conclusions Used as Premises The same statement can be the conclusion of one argument and a premise in another argument:

Premise: The brakes aren’t working, the engine burns oil, the transmission needs work, and the car is hard to start. Conclusion 1: The car has outlived its usefulness. Conclusion 2: We should get a new car.

In this example, the statement “The car has outlived its usefulness” is the conclusion of one argument, and it is also a premise in the argument that we should get a new car.

Clearly, if a premise in an argument is uncertain or controversial or has been challenged, you might want to defend it—that is, argue that it is true. When you do, the premise becomes the conclusion of a new argument. However, every chain of reasoning must begin somewhere. If we ask a speaker to defend each premise with a further argument, and each premise in that argument with a further argument, and so on and so on, we eventually find ourselves being unreasonable, much like four-year-olds who keep asking “Why?” until they become exasperating. If we ask a speaker why he thinks the car has outlived its usefulness, he may mention that the car is hard to start. If we ask him why he thinks the car is hard to start, he probably won’t know what to say.

Unstated Premises and Conclusions Another complication is that arguments can contain unstated premises. For example,

Premise: You can’t check out books from the library without an ID. Conclusion: Bill won’t be able to check out any books.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 4/58

The unstated premise must be that Bill has no ID. An argument can even have an unstated conclusion. Here is an example:

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 5/58

Page 34

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Conclusion Indicators

When the words in the following list are used in arguments, they usually indicate that a premise has just been offered and that a conclusion is about to be presented. (The three dots represent the claim that is the conclusion.)

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 is

Either she is rich or her parents are.

The premise is Stacy drives a Porsche.

The political party that best reflects mainstream opinion will win the presidency in 2016 and the Republican Party best reflects mainstream opinion.

If a person said this, he or she would be implying that the Republican Party will win the presidency in 2016; that would be the unstated conclusion of the argument.

Unstated premises are common in real life because sometimes they seem too obvious to need mentioning. The argument “the car is beyond fixing, so we should get rid of it” actually has an unstated premise to the effect that we should get rid of any car that is beyond fixing; but this may seem so obvious to us that we don’t bother stating it.

Unstated conclusions also are not uncommon, though they are less common than unstated premises. We’ll return to this subject in a moment.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 6/58

TWO KINDS OF ARGUMENTS Good arguments come in two varieties: deductive demonstrations and inductive supporting arguments.

Deductive Arguments

The premise (or premises) of a good deductive argument, if true, proves or demonstrates (these being the same thing for our purposes) its conclusion. However, there is more to this than meets the eye, and we must begin with the fundamental concept of deductive logic, validity. An argument is valid if it isn’t possible for the premise (or premises) to be true and the conclusion false. This may sound complicated, but it really isn’t. An example of a valid argument will help:

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 7/58

Page 35

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Premise Indicators

When the words in the following list are used in arguments, they generally introduce premises. They often occur just after a conclusion has been given. A premise would replace the three dots in an actual argument.

Since . . . For . . .

In view of . . .

This is implied by . . .

Example:

Either Stacy is rich or her parents are, since she drives a Porsche. The premise is the claim that Stacy drives a Porsche; the conclusion is the claim that either Stacy is rich or her parents are.

Premise: Jimmy Carter was president immediately before Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush was president immediately after Bill Clinton. Conclusion: Jimmy Carter was president before George W. Bush.

As you can see, it’s impossible for this premise to be true and this conclusion to be false. So the argument is valid.

However, you may have noticed that the premise contains a mistake. Jimmy Carter was not president immediately before Bill Clinton. George H. W. Bush was president immediately before Bill Clinton. Nevertheless, even though the premise of the preceding argument is not true, the argument is still valid, because it isn’t possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. Another way to say this: If the premise were true, the conclusion could not be false—and that’s what “valid” means.

Now, when the premise of a valid argument is true, there is a word for it. In that case, the argument is said to be sound. Here is an example of a sound argument:

Premise: Bill Clinton is taller than George W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter is shorter than George W. Bush. Conclusion: Therefore, Bill Clinton is taller than Jimmy Carter.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 8/58

This argument is sound because it is valid and the premise is true. As you can see, if an argument is sound, then its conclusion has been demonstrated.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 9/58

Page 36

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Inductive Arguments Again, the premise of a good deductive argument, if true, demonstrates that the conclusion is true. This brings us to the second kind of argument, the inductive argument. The premise of a good inductive argument doesn’t demonstrate its conclusion; it supports it. For example:

After 2 PM the traffic slows to a crawl on the Bay Bridge. Therefore, it probably does the same thing on the Golden Gate Bridge.

The fact that traffic slows to a crawl after 2 PM on the Bay Bridge does not demonstrate or prove that it does that on the Golden Gate Bridge; it supports that conclusion. It makes it somewhat more likely that traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge slows to a crawl after 2 PM.

Here is another example of an inductive argument:

Nobody has ever run a mile in less than 3 minutes. Therefore nobody will ever run a mile in less than 3 minutes.

Like the first argument, the premise supports the conclusion but does not demonstrate or prove it. If you are thinking that support is a matter of degree and that it can vary from just a little to a whole lot,

you are right. Thus, inductive arguments are better or worse on a scale, depending on how much support their premises provide for the conclusion. Logicians have a technical word to describe this situation. The more support the premise of an inductive argument provides for the conclusion, the stronger the argument; the less support it provides, the weaker the argument. Put another way, one argument for a conclusion is weaker than another if it fails to raise the probability of the conclusion by as much. Thus, the first argument given above is weaker than the following argument:

After 2 PM the traffic slows to a crawl on the Bay Bridge, the San Mateo Bridge, the San Rafael Bridge, and the Dumbarton Bridge. Therefore, it probably does the same thing on the Golden Gate Bridge.

This argument is stronger than the first argument because its premise makes the conclusion more likely. The more bridges in a region on which traffic slows at a given time, the more likely it is that that phenomenon is universal on the bridges in the region.

One more example of an inductive argument:

Alexandra rarely returns texts. Therefore she probably rarely returns emails.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 10/58

Once again, the premise supports but does not demonstrate or prove the conclusion. The differences between texting and emailing are sufficiently significant that the premise does not offer a great deal of support for the conclusion, but it does offer some. If Alexandra rarely returned telephone calls or letters as well as texts, that would make the argument stronger.

In Chapter 11 we will explain the criteria for evaluating inductive arguments.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 11/58

Page 37

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT In common law, the highest standard of proof is proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If you are a juror in a criminal trial, evidence will be presented to the court—facts that the interested parties consider relevant to the crime. Additionally, the prosecutor and counsel for the defense will offer arguments connecting the evidence to (or disconnecting it from) the guilt or innocence of the defendant. When the jury is asked to return a verdict, the judge will tell the jury that the defendant must be found not guilty unless the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt actually is a lower standard than deductive demonstration. Deductive demonstration corresponds more to what, in ordinary English, might be expressed by the phrase “beyond any possible doubt.” Recall that in logic, a proposition has been demonstrated when it has been shown to be the conclusion of a sound argument—an argument, that is, in which (1) all premises are true and (2) it is impossible for the premises to be true and for the conclusion to be false. In this sense, many propositions people describe as having been demonstrated or proved, such as that smoking causes lung cancer or that the DNA found at a crime scene was the defendant’s, have not actually been proved in the logician’s sense of the word. So, in real life, when people say something has been demonstrated, they may well be speaking informally. They may not mean that something is the conclusion of a sound deductive argument. However, when we—the authors— say that something has been demonstrated, that is exactly what we mean.

TELLING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS A useful strategy for telling the difference between deductive and inductive arguments is to memorize a good example of each kind. Here are good examples of each:

Valid Deductive Argument Juan lives on the equator. Therefore, Juan lives midway between the North and South poles.

Relatively Strong Inductive Argument Juan lives on the equator. Therefore, Juan lives in a humid climate.

Study the two examples so that you understand the difference between them. In the left example, if you know the definition of “equator,” you already know it is midway between the poles. The right example is radically different. The definition of “equator” does not contain the information that it is humid. So:

If the conclusion of an argument is true by definition given the premise or premises, it is a valid deductive argument.

Often it is said that a valid deductive argument is valid due to its “form.” Thus, consider this argument:

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 12/58

If Juan is a fragglemop, then Juan is a snipette. Juan is not a snipette. Therefore Juan is not a fragglemop.

What makes this argument valid is its form:

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 13/58

Page 38

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

If P then Q. Not-Q. Therefore not-P.

You can see, however, that ultimately what makes the argument valid, and makes its form a valid form, is the way the words “If . . . then” and “not” work. If you know the way those words work, then you already know that the conclusion must be true given the two premises.

Another way of telling the difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument is this: You generally would not say of a deductive argument that it supports or provides evidence for its conclusion. It would be odd to say that Juan’s living on the equator is evidence that he lives midway between the poles, or that it supports that claim. Thus:

If it sounds odd to speak of the argument as providing evidence or support for a contention, that’s an indication it is a deductive argument.

It would sound very odd to say, “The fact that Fido is a dog is evidence Fido is a mammal.” Fido’s being a dog isn’t evidence Fido is a mammal: it’s proof. “Fido is a dog; therefore Fido is a mammal” is a valid deductive argument.

DEDUCTION, INDUCTION, AND UNSTATED PREMISES Somebody announces, “Rain is on its way.” Somebody else asks how he knows. He says, “There’s a south wind.” Is the speaker trying to demonstrate rain is coming? Probably not. His thinking, spelled out, is probably something like this:

Stated premise: The wind is from the south. Unstated premise: Around here, south winds are usually followed by rain. Conclusion: There will be rain.

In other words, the speaker was merely trying to show that rain was a good possibility. Notice, though, that the unstated premise in the argument could have been a universal statement to the

effect that a south wind always is followed by rain at this particular location, in which case the argument would be deductive:

Stated premise: The wind is from the south. Unstated premise: Around here, a south wind is always followed by rain. Conclusion: There will be rain.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 14/58

Spelled out this way, the speaker’s thinking is deductive: It isn’t possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. So one might wonder abstractly what the speaker intended—an inductive argument that supports the belief that rain is coming, or a deductive demonstration.

There is, perhaps, no way to be certain short of asking the speaker something like, “Are you 100 percent positive?” But experience (“background knowledge”) tells us that wind from a particular direction is not a surefire indicator of rain. So probably the speaker did have in mind merely the first argument. He wasn’t trying to present a 100 percent certain, knock-down demonstration that it would rain; he was merely trying to establish there was a good chance of rain.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 15/58

Page 39

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

You can always turn an inductive argument with an unstated premise into a deductively valid argument by supplying the right universal premise—a statement that something holds without exception or is true everywhere or in all cases. Is that what the speaker really has in mind, though? You have to use background knowledge and common sense to answer the question.

For example, you overhear someone saying,

Stacy and Justin are on the brink of divorce. They’re always fighting.

One could turn this into a valid deductive argument by adding to it the universal statement “Every couple fighting is on the brink of divorce.” But such an unqualified universal statement seems unlikely. Probably the speaker wasn’t trying to demonstrate that Stacy and Justin are on the brink of divorce. He or she was merely trying to raise its likelihood. He or she was presenting evidence that Stacy and Justin are on the brink of divorce.

Often it is clear that the speaker does have a deductive argument in mind and has left some appropriate premise unstated. You overhear Professor Greene saying to Professor Brown,

“Flunk her! This is the second time you’ve caught her cheating.”

It would be strange to think that Professor Greene is merely trying to make it more likely that Professor Brown should flunk the student. Indeed, it is hard even to make sense of that suggestion. Professor Greene’s argument, spelled out, must be this:

Stated premise: This is the second time you’ve caught her cheating. Unstated premise: Anyone who has been caught cheating two times should be flunked. Conclusion: She should be flunked.

So context and content often make it clear what unstated premise a speaker has in mind and whether the argument is deductive or inductive.

Unfortunately, though, this isn’t always the case. We might hear someone say,

The bars are closed; therefore it is later than 2 A.M.

If the unstated premise in the speaker’s mind is something like “In this city, the bars all close at 2 A.M.,” then presumably he or she is thinking deductively and is evidently proffering proof that it’s after 2. But if the speaker’s unstated premise is something like “Most bars in this city close at 2 A.M.” or “Bars in this city usually close at 2 A.M.,” then we have an inductive argument that merely supports the conclusion. So which is the unstated premise? We really can’t say without knowing more about the situation or the speaker.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 16/58

Page 40

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Is an Ad Photo an Argument?

The short answer: No. The longer version: Still no. An advertising photograph can “give you a reason” for buying something only in the sense that it can cause you to think of a reason. A photo is not and cannot be an argument for anything.

The bottom line is this. Real-life arguments often leave a premise unstated. One such unstated premise might make the argument inductive; another might make it deductive. Usually, context or content make reasonably clear what is intended; other times they may not. When they don’t, the best practice is to attribute to a speaker an unstated premise that at least is believable, everything considered. We’ll talk about believability in Chapter 4.

BALANCE OF CONSIDERATIONS Should I get a dog? Miss class to attend my cousin’s wedding? Get chemo? Much everyday reasoning requires weighing considerations for and against thinking or doing something. Such reasoning, called balance of considerations reasoning, often contains both deductive and inductive elements. Here is an example:

Should assault weapons be banned? On the one hand, doing that would violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But on the other hand, when guns were outlawed in Australia the number of accidental gun deaths fell dramatically; that would probably happen here, too. It is a tough call.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 17/58

The first consideration mentioned in this passage—that banning assault weapons would violate the Second Amendment and therefore should not be done—is a deductive argument. The second consideration mentioned—that banning assault weapons would reduce the number of accidental gun deaths—is an inductive argument.

Inductive arguments can be compared as to strength and weakness; deductive arguments can be compared as to validity and soundness. Assigning weight to considerations can be difficult, of course, but is not hopelessly arbitrary. In Chapter 12 of this book we discuss the perspectives within which moral evaluations are made; you will see there that weighing considerations of the sort presented in the example above depend to a certain extent on the moral perspective one adheres to.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 18/58

Page 41

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION (IBE) An inference to the best explanation (IBE) is an argument whose conclusion explains the cause of something. Here is an example:

I awakened this morning with a backache. The only thing that could explain it is the different mattress I slept on last night. Therefore sleeping on that mattress caused my backache.

Through this reasoning, the speaker has concluded that sleeping on the mattress caused his or her backache. Here is another example of an IBE:

Incoming first-year students were randomly assigned to two groups. Students in one group took a philosophy course. Students in the other group did not. It was found that the students in the first group did better on a critical thinking test administered to all incoming first-year students after the semester was over. Therefore the improvement in test scores in the first group was due to the philosophy course.

The speaker has concluded that the philosophy course best explains why the first group did better on the test.

One more example of an IBE:

Sarah and another candidate were finalists for the teaching position. Sarah had better qualifications, but she had tattoos. The other candidate got the position. Therefore, Sarah didn’t get the position because of her tattoos.

The speaker has concluded that Sarah’s tattoos kept her from getting the position. Sometimes reasoning like that found in the above examples, which is intended to show what the cause

of something is, is referred to as “abduction.” We treat this type of reasoning as inductive reasoning, reasoning used to support a conclusion. In Chapter 11 we explain how to evaluate it.

WHAT ARE NOT PREMISES, CONCLUSIONS, OR ARGUMENTS We hope you’ve noticed, when we use the word “argument,” we are not talking about two people having a feud or fuss about something. That use of the word has nothing much to do with critical thinking, though many a heated exchange could use some critical thinking. Arguments in our sense do not even need two people; we make arguments for our own use all the time. And when we evaluate them, we think critically.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 19/58

Page 42

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Speaking of what arguments are not, it’s important to realize that not everything that might look like an argument, or like a premise or a conclusion, is one.

Pictures Pictures are not premises, conclusions, or arguments. Neither are movies. Your iPhone can do lots of things, but it can’t create a premise, a conclusion, or an argument. Sorry. Arguments have two parts, a premise part and a conclusion part, and both parts are propositional entities, which means (to repeat) that both parts must be expressible in a declarative, true-or-false sentence. Movies and pictures can be moving, compelling, beautiful, complex, realistic, and so forth—but they cannot be either true or false. You can ask if what is depicted in a movie actually happened, or if the story upon which it is based is a true story, but you can’t really ask if a movie itself is true or false—or valid or invalid or relatively strong or weak. Such questions don’t make literal sense. If it doesn’t make sense to think of a thing as true or false it cannot be a premise or a conclusion. If it doesn’t make sense to think of it as valid or invalid, or as being relatively strong or weak, it cannot be an argument. The various things listed in this paragraph are not premises, conclusions, or arguments.

The list of things that aren’t premises or conclusions or arguments therefore also includes emotions, feelings, landscapes, faces, gestures, grunts, groans, bribes, threats, amusement parks, and hip-hop. Since they may cause you to have an opinion or to form a judgment about something or produce an argument, you might be tempted to think of them as premises, but causes are not premises. A cause isn’t a propositional entity: it is neither true nor false. So it cannot be a premise.

If . . . then . . . Sentences Sometimes sentences like the following are taken to state arguments:

If you wash your car now, then it will get spots.

This statement might be the premise of an argument whose conclusion is “Therefore you shouldn’t wash your car now.” It might also be the conclusion of an argument whose premise is “It is raining.” But though it could be a premise or a conclusion, it is not itself an argument. An argument has a premise and a conclusion, and, though the preceding statement has two parts, neither part by itself is either a premise or a conclusion. “If you wash your car now” is not a statement, and neither is “Then it will get spots.” Neither of these phrases qualifies as either a premise or a conclusion. Bottom line: “If . . . then . . .” sentences are not arguments.

Lists of Facts Though the following might look like an argument, it is nothing more than a list of facts:

Identity theft is up at least tenfold over last year. More people have learned how easy it is to get hold of another’s Social Security number, bank account numbers, and such. The local police department reminds everyone to keep close watch on who has access to such information.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 20/58

Although they are related by being about the same subject, none of these claims is offered as a reason for believing another, and thus there is no argument here. But the following passage is different. See if you can spot why it makes an argument:

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 21/58

Page 43

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

The number of people who have learned how to steal identities has doubled in the past year. So you are now more likely to become a victim of identity theft than you were a year ago.

Here, the first claim offers a reason for accepting the second claim; we now have an argument.

“A because B” Sometimes the word “because” refers to the cause of something. But other times it refers to a premise of an argument. Mike walks into the motel lobby, wearing a swimsuit and dripping wet. Consider these two statements:

“Mike is in his swimsuit because he was swimming.”

“Mike was swimming because he’s in his swimsuit.”

These two sentences have the same form, “X because Y.” But the sentence on the left explains why Mike is wearing a swimsuit. The sentence on the right offers an argument that Mike was swimming. Only the sentence on the right is an argument. Put it this way: What follows “because” in the sentence on the left is the cause. What follows “because” in the right-hand sentence is evidence.

Be sure you understand the difference between these two sentences. Arguments and cause/effect statements can both employ the phrase “X because Y.” But there the similarity ends. When what follows “because” is a reason for accepting a contention, or evidence for it, we have an argument; when what follows “because” states the cause of something, we have a cause/effect explanation. These are entirely different enterprises. Arguing that a dog has fleas is different from explaining what gave it fleas. Arguing that violent crime has increased is different from explaining what caused it to increase.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 22/58

■ We guess she is laughing because of all the greenery in her fridge. (Note that we are using the word “because” to indicate a cause, not a premise.)

ETHOS, PATHOS, AND LOGOS When he was a young man, Alexander the Great conquered the world. Alexander was enormously proud of his accomplishment, and named several cities after himself. Alexander’s teacher, the Greek philosopher Aristotle, had no cities named after him (there is no indication that this disappointed Aristotle). Nevertheless, Aristotle’s imprint on civilization turned out to be even more profound than Alexander’s.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 23/58

Page 44

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Aristotle, who now is regarded as the father of logic, biology, and psychology, made enduring contributions to virtually every subject. These include (in addition to those just mentioned) physics, astronomy, meteorology, zoology, metaphysics, political science, economics, ethics, and rhetoric.

Among Aristotle’s contributions in the last field (rhetoric) was a theory of persuasion, which famously contained the idea that there are three modes by which a speaker may persuade an audience. Paraphrasing very loosely, Aristotle’s idea was that we can be persuaded, first of all, by a speaker’s personal attributes, including such things as his or her background, reputation, accomplishments, expertise, and similar things. Aristotle referred to this mode of persuasion as ethos. Second, a speaker can persuade us by connecting with us on a personal level, and by arousing and appealing to our emotions by a skillful use of rhetoric. This mode of persuasion Aristotle termed pathos. And third, the speaker may persuade us by using information and arguments—what he called logos.

Unfortunately, logos—rational argumentation—is one of the least effective ways of winning someone to your point of view. That’s why advertisers rarely bother with it. When the sellers of the first home automatic breadmaker found that its new kitchen device didn’t interest people, they advertised the availability of a second model of the same machine, which was only slightly larger but much more expensive. When consumers saw that the first model was a great buy, they suddenly discovered they wanted one, and began snapping it up. Why try to persuade people by rational argument that they need a breadmaker when you can get them to think they do simply by making them believe they have sniffed out a bargain?*

Still, despite the general inefficacy of logos as a tool of persuasion, people do frequently use arguments when they try to persuade others. This might lead you to define an argument as an attempt to persuade. But that won’t do. Remember, there are two kinds of argument. Deductive arguments are either sound or unsound, and whether a deductive argument is one or the other doesn’t depend in the least on whether anyone is persuaded by it. Likewise, inductive arguments are in varying degrees strong or weak; their strength depends on the degree to which their premises elevate the probability of the conclusion, and that, too, is independent of whether anyone finds them persuasive. The very same argument might be persuasive to Parker but not to Moore, which shows that the persuasiveness of an argument is a subjective question of psychology, not of logic. Indeed, the individual who does not think critically is precisely the person who is persuaded by specious reasoning. People notoriously are unfazed by good arguments while finding even the worst arguments compelling. If you want to persuade people of something, try propaganda. Flattery has been known to work, too.

We will be looking at alternative modes of persuasion—what Aristotle called ethos and pathos—in considerable detail in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. However, we do this not so you can persuade people, but so you can be alert to the influence of ethos and pathos on your own thinking.

Now, we aren’t suggesting it is a bad thing to be a persuasive writer or speaker. Obviously it isn’t; that’s what rhetoric courses are for—to teach you to write persuasively. Let’s just put it this way: Whenever you find yourself being persuaded by what someone says, find the “logos” in the “pathos,” and be persuaded by it alone.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 24/58

Page 45

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Exercise 2-1 The following exercises will give you practice (1) identifying premises and conclusions as well as words that indicate premises and conclusions, (2) telling the difference between deductive demonstrations and inductive supporting arguments, and (3) identifying balance of considerations arguments and inferences to the best explanation.

▲ —See the answers section at the back of the book.

Indicate which blanks would ordinarily contain premises and which would ordinarily contain conclusions.

▲ 1. a , and b . Therefore, c .

▲ 2. a . So, since b , c .

▲ 3. a , clearly. After all, b .

▲ 4. Since a and b , c .

▲ 5. a . Consequently, b , since c and d .

Exercise 2-2

Identify the premises and conclusions in each of the following arguments.

▲ 1. Since all Communists are Marxists, all Marxists are Communists. 2. The Lakers almost didn’t beat the Kings. They’ll never get past Dallas. 3. If the butler had done it, he could not have locked the screen door.

Therefore, since the door was locked, we know the butler is in the clear. ▲ 4. That cat loves dogs. Probably she won’t be upset if you bring home a

new dog for a pet. 5. Hey, he can’t be older than his mother’s daughter’s brother. His

mother’s daughter has only one brother. 6. Mr. Hoover [Our character is Professor Stooler.] will never make it into

the state police. They have a weight limit, and he’s over it. ▲ 7. Presbyterians are not fundamentalists, but all born-again Christians are.

So no born-again Christians are Presbyterians. 8. I guess Thork doesn’t have a thing to do. Why else would he waste his

time watching daytime TV? 9. “There are more injuries in professional football today than there were

twenty years ago,” he reasoned. “And if there are more injuries, then today’s players suffer higher risks. And if they suffer higher risks, then they should be paid more. Consequently, I think today’s players should be paid more,” he concluded.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 25/58

▲ 10. Let’s see . . . since the clunk comes only when I pedal, the problem must be in the chain, the crank, or the pedals.

Exercise 2-3

Identify the premises and the conclusions in the following arguments.

▲ 1. The darned engine pings every time we use the regular unleaded gasoline, but it doesn’t do it with super. I’d bet that there is a difference in the octane ratings between the two in spite of what my mechanic says.

2. Chances are I’ll be carded at JJ’s, since Kera, Sherry, and Bobby were all carded there, and they all look as though they’re about thirty.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 26/58

Page 46

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

3. Seventy percent of first-year students at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo come from wealthy families; therefore, probably about the same percentage of all Cal Poly San Luis Obispo students come from wealthy families.

▲ 4. When blue jays are breeding, they become aggressive. Consequently, scrub jays, which are very similar to blue jays, can also be expected to be aggressive when they’re breeding.

5. I am sure Marietta comes from a wealthy family. She told me her parents benefited from the cut in the capital gains tax.

6. According to Nature, today’s thoroughbred racehorses do not run any faster than their grandparents did. But human Olympic runners are at least 20 percent faster than their counterparts of fifty years ago. Most likely, racehorses have reached their physical limits but humans have not.

▲ 7. Dogs are smarter than cats, since it is easier to train them. 8. “Let me demonstrate the principle by means of logic,” the teacher said,

holding up a bucket. “If this bucket has a hole in it, then it will leak. But it doesn’t leak. Therefore, obviously, it doesn’t have a hole in it.”

9. We shouldn’t take a chance on this new candidate. She’s from Alamo Poly-tech, and the last person we hired from there was incompetent.

▲ 10. If she was still interested in me, she would have called, but she didn’t.

Exercise 2-4 Five of these items are best viewed as deductive arguments and five as inductive arguments. Which are which?

▲ 1. No mayten tree is deciduous, and all nondeciduous trees are evergreens. It follows that all mayten trees are evergreens.

2. Mike must belong to the Bartenders and Beverage Union Local 165, since almost every Las Vegas bartender does.

3. Either Colonel Mustard or Reverend Green killed Professor Plum. But whoever ran off with Mrs. White did not kill the professor. Since Reverend Green ran off with Mrs. White, Colonel Mustard killed Professor Plum.

▲ 4. I’ve never met a golden retriever with a nasty disposition. I bet there aren’t any.

5. Since some grapes are purple, and all grapes are fruit, some fruit is purple.

6. Why is Shrilla so mean to Timeeda? The only thing I can think of is that she’s jealous. Jealousy is what’s making her mean.

▲ 7. Biden will make a fine president. After all, he made a fine vice president.

8. The figure he drew has only three sides, so it isn’t a square.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 27/58

9. It was the pizza that made my stomach churn. What else could it be? I was fine until I ate it.

▲ 10. It’s wrong to hurt someone’s feelings, and that is exactly what you are doing when you speak to me like that.

Exercise 2-5 Which of the following items are intended to be deductive arguments?

▲ 1. Miss Scarlet’s fingerprints were on the knife used to kill Colonel Mustard. Furthermore, he was killed in the pantry, and she was the only person who had a key to the pantry. Clearly she killed the colonel.

2. Outlawing guns would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore they should not be outlawed.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 28/58

Page 47

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

3. There are sunfish in the water behind this dam, but none in the water released from it. Ordinarily this kind of thing happens only when the released water comes from the bottom of the dam, because then the released water is too cold for sunfish. Therefore the water released from this dam comes from the bottom.

4. Sparky is scratching again. He must either have a skin infection or flea bites.

5. Outlawing guns reduced gun deaths in Australia; therefore it would do the same here.

6. I’m sleepy again. I guess I didn’t get enough sleep last night. ▲ 7. I didn’t get enough sleep last night; therefore I should get to bed earlier

tonight. 8. The victims’ blood was on a glove found behind Simpson’s house. This

shows that Simpson committed the murders, because he alone had access to that area.

9. The indentation on the west coast of Africa is about the same size as the bulge on the east coast of South America, indicating that the two continents were once connected.

▲ 10. I can hear you lots better now! You must be holding the phone in a different position.

Exercise 2-6

Identify each of the following as either a. IBE b. balance of considerations reasoning c. neither of the above

▲ 1. Let’s go now. I know you wanted to work in the yard, but if we wait longer, we won’t make the movie. Plus, it’s gonna get cold if we don’t make tracks.

2. He said he was for the bill when it was proposed, and now he vetoes it? The only thing I can see is, he must be trying to get the teachers’ vote.

3. Yes, a card laid is a card played, but I kept my hand on it, so I didn’t actually lay it.

▲ 4. All things considered, we’d be better off taking the Suburban. Plus, let’s get AAA to help us make reservations.

5. Jackson will get an A in the course, since he aced the final. 6. “A gentleman goes forth on a showery and miry day. He returns

immaculate in the evening with the gloss still on his hat and his boots. He has been a fixture therefore all day. He is not a man with intimate friends. Where, then, could he have been? Is it not obvious?”

—Arthur Conan Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles, Chapter 3

▲ 7. It’s longer taking the 405, but you can drive faster—though who knows what the traffic’s like at this hour. I would say if you want to play it

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 29/58

safe, stay on the 5. 8. He made threats, plus he had the motive. Not only that, but who else

had access to a gun? If Mitchell didn’t do it, I don’t know who did. 9. The question is, are you running a temperature? Because if you are, it

can’t be a cold. The runny nose and the sore throat could be a cold, but not the temperature. Only the flu would give you a temperature.

▲ 10. Sherry seems right for the job to me. She speaks French, knows biology, has people skills, and makes a great impression. The only down side is, she can’t start until October. That pretty much eliminates her, unfortunately.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 30/58

Page 48

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Exercise 2-7 Identify each of the following as either a. IBE b. balance of considerations reasoning c. neither of the above

▲ 1. These tomatoes got plenty of sunlight and water. The only thing that could account for their being rotten is the soil.

2. Should we outlaw assault weapons? No. That would be a violation of the Second Amendment.

3. Should we outlaw assault weapons? Well, that depends. The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but outlawing them might make the country a safer place.

▲ 4. Priglet messed on the carpet again! Is he sick do you suppose? Or is he trying to tell us something? It seems like he does that only when we leave him alone for a long time. I bet he just has a weak bladder.

5. Either God exists or He does not. By believing that He exists, you lose nothing if you are wrong; but if you are right, He will reward you with happiness and eternal life. By believing He does not exist, you lose nothing if you are right; but if you are wrong, you may suffer eternal damnation. It is therefore prudent to believe that He exists.

—A paraphrase of Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) 6. Professor Stooler has been teaching here thirty years and he still hasn’t

unpacked his boxes from graduate school. It seems likely he won’t ever unpack them.

▲ 7. “The man I found in the room was definitely a fighter and a smart one too. He hid his gun, chest rack, and hand grenades just out of reach and well enough for us not to see them on our initial entry into the room.”

—Mark Owen, No Easy Way 8. I don’t like Mr. Biden’s personality, but I think he may be better than

Mrs. Clinton at working with people. Plus he has been around longer than she. That’s why I support him.

9. Susan doesn’t laugh at my jokes anymore. Maybe I’m not as funny as I think I am.

▲ 10. I am reading this sentence; therefore I am alive.

TECHNIQUES FOR UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS If an argument has been offered to us, before we can evaluate it we must understand it. Many arguments are difficult to understand because they are spoken and go by so quickly we cannot be sure of the conclusion or the premises. Others are difficult to understand because they have a complicated structure. Still others are difficult to understand because they are embedded in nonargumentative material consisting of background

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 31/58

information, prejudicial coloring, illustrations, parenthetical remarks, digressions, subsidiary points, and other window dressing. And some arguments are difficult to understand because they are confused or because the reasons they contain are so poor that we are not sure whether to regard them as reasons.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 32/58

Page 49

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

In understanding an argument that has been given to us, the first task is to find the conclusion—the main point or thesis of the passage. The next step is to locate the reasons that have been offered for accepting the conclusion—that is, to find the premises. Next, we look for the reasons, if any, offered for accepting these premises. To proceed through these steps, you have to learn both to spot premises and conclusions when they occur in spoken and written passages and to understand the interrelationships among these claims—that is, the structure of the argument.

Clarifying an Argument’s Structure Let’s begin with how to understand the relationships among the argumentative claims, because this problem is sometimes easiest to solve. If you are dealing with written material that you can mark up, one useful technique is to number the premises and conclusions and then use the numbers to lay bare the structure of the argument. Let’s start with this argument as an example:

I don’t think we should get Carlos his own car. He is not responsible in view of the fact that he doesn’t care for his things. And anyway, we don’t have enough money for a car for him, since we even have trouble making our own car payments. Last week you yourself complained about our financial situation, and you never complain without really good reason.

We want to display the structure of this argument clearly. First, circle all premise and conclusion indicators. Thus:

Next, bracket each premise and conclusion, and number them consecutively as they appear in the argument. So what we now have is this:

[I don’t think we should get Carlos his own car.] [He is not responsible] in view of the fact that [he doesn’t care for his things.] And anyway, [we don’t have enough money for a car for him], since [we even have trouble making our own car payments.] [Last week you yourself complained about our financial situation], and [you never complain without really good reason.]

Then we diagram the argument. Using an arrow to mean “therefore” or “is intended as evidence [or as a reason or as a premise] for,” we diagram the first three claims in the argument as follows:

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 33/58

Page 50

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Now, and together support ; that is, they are part of the same argument for . To show that and go together, we simply draw a line under them, put a plus sign between them, and draw the arrow from the line to , like this:

Because and + are separate arguments for , we can represent the relationship between them and as follows:

Finally, because and are separate arguments for ,the diagram of the entire passage is this:

So the conventions governing this approach to revealing argument structure are very simple: First, circle all premise- and conclusion-indicating words. Then, assuming you can identify the claims that function in the argument (a big assumption, as you will see before long), number them consecutively. Then display the structure of the argument, using arrows for “therefore” and plus signs over a line to connect two or more premises that depend on one another.

Some claims, incidentally, may constitute reasons for more than one conclusion. For example:

[Carlos continues to be irresponsible.] [He certainly should not have his own car], and, as far as I am concerned, [he can forget about that trip to Hawaii this winter, too.]

Structure:

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 34/58

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 35/58

Page 51

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Frequently, too, we evaluate counterarguments to our positions. For example:

We really should have more African Americans on the faculty. That is why the new diversity program ought to be approved. True, it may involve an element of unfairness to whites, but the benefits to society of having more black faculty outweigh the disadvantages.

Notice that claim introduces a consideration that runs counter to the conclusion of the argument, which is stated in . We can indicate counterclaims by crossing the “therefore” arrow with lines, thus:

This diagram indicates that item has been introduced by the writer as a consideration that runs counter to . Of course, one might adopt other conventions for clarifying argument structure—for example, circling

the main conclusion and drawing solid lines under supporting premises and wavy lines under the premises of subarguments. The technique we have described is simply one way of doing it; any of several others might work as well for you. However, no technique for revealing argument structure will work if you cannot spot the argumentative claims in the midst of a lot of background material.

Distinguishing Arguments from Window Dressing It is not always easy to isolate the argument in a speech or a written piece. Often, speakers and writers think that because their main points are more or less clear to them, they will be equally apparent to listeners and readers. But it doesn’t always work that way.

If you have trouble identifying a conclusion in what you hear or read, it could be the passage is not an argument at all. Make sure the passage in question is not a report, a description, an explanation, or something else altogether, rather than an argument. The key here is determining whether the speaker or writer is offering reasons intended to support or demonstrate one or more claims.

The problem could also be that the conclusion is left unstated. Sometimes it helps simply to put the argument aside and ask yourself, “What is this person trying to prove?” In any case, the first and essential step in understanding an argument is to spot the conclusion.

If you are having difficulty identifying the premises, consider the possibility that you have before you a case of rhetoric (see Chapter 5). (You can’t find premises in a piece of pure rhetoric because there are no premises.) You will have an advantage over many students in having learned about rhetorical devices in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8. By that time, you should be getting pretty good at recognizing them.

As you apply what you learn in this book to arguments you encounter in real life, you are apt to encounter arguments and argumentative essays whose organization is difficult to comprehend. When you do, you may find diagramming a useful technique. Also, as is obvious, what we have said in this section applies to arguments that others give us or that we otherwise encounter. You don’t diagram what’s in your head, though you need to be clear on your own conclusions, tentative or otherwise, and the reasons you have for accepting them. However, the diagramming technique does apply to material you write for others.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 36/58

If you find you have difficulty diagramming your arguments, it’s a good indication you should reorganize your essay and make the structure of your reasoning clearer.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 37/58

Page 52

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

EVALUATING ARGUMENTS Thinking critically requires us to evaluate arguments, and evaluating arguments has two parts. First, there is the logic part: Does the argument either demonstrate or support its conclusion? Is this argument either deductively valid or inductively relatively strong? You know now what these questions mean theoretically; over the course of this book, you will see what they involve in fact.

The other part, of course, is the truth part. Are the premises actually true? As we explain in Chapter 4, it is best to be suspicious of a premise that conflicts with our background information or other credible claims, as well as a premise that comes from a source that lacks credibility. And, as we develop at length in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, we want to avoid being tricked into accepting a claim by rhetoric or other psychological gimmickry. It also almost goes without saying that premises that are unclear require clarification before one accepts them—as we explain in Chapter 3. In general, determining the truth of premises requires knowledge, experience, a level head, and the inclination to look into things.

Recap The main ideas of the chapter are these:

■ Arguments always have two parts, a premise (or premises) and a conclusion.

■ The same statement can be a premise in one argument and a conclusion in a second argument.

■ The two fundamental types of reasoning are deductive demonstration and inductive support.

■ A deductive argument is used to demonstrate or prove a conclusion, which it does if it is sound.

■ An argument is sound if it is valid and its premise (or premises) is true. ■ An argument is valid if it isn’t possible for its premise or premises to be

true and its conclusion to be false. ■ An inductive argument is used to support rather than to demonstrate a

conclusion. ■ An argument supports a conclusion if it increases the likelihood that the

conclusion is true. ■ Support is a matter of degrees: An argument supports a conclusion to the

extent its premise (or premises) makes the conclusion likely. ■ An argument that offers more support for a conclusion is said to be

stronger than one that offers less support; the latter is said to be weaker than the former.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 38/58

Page 53

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

■ Some instructors use the word “strong” in an absolute sense to denote inductive arguments whose premise (or premises) makes the conclusion more likely than not.

■ If it doesn’t make sense to think of an argument as providing evidence or support for a contention, it is probably because it is a deductive argument.

■ Inductive arguments 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.

■ If an argument is written, diagramming it may help you understand it. ■ Balance of considerations reasoning often involves deductive and

inductive elements. ■ Inference to best explanation is a common type of inductive reasoning in

which the conclusion explains the cause of something.

Additional ExercisesThese exercises will test your comprehension of the chapter. They will also give you additional practice (1) distinguishing between deductive demonstrations and inductive supporting arguments, (2) recognizing when a passage contains more than a single argument, (3) recognizing the difference between arguments and explanations, (4) identifying unstated assumptions, and (5) diagramming arguments.

Exercise 2-8 Fill in the blanks where called for, and answer true or false where appropriate.

▲ 1. Arguments that are relatively strong or weak are called ____arguments. 2. All valid arguments are sound arguments. 3. All sound arguments are valid arguments.

▲ 4. If a valid argument has a false conclusion, then not all its premises can be true.

5. A sound argument cannot have a false conclusion. 6. “Strong” and “weak” are absolute terms.

▲ 7. If you try to demonstrate a conclusion, you are using____reasoning. 8. When a conclusion has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it has

always been demonstrated. 9. An argument can never have an unstated conclusion.

▲ 10. When you try to support a conclusion, you are using____reasoning. 11. The most effective way to convince someone is through argument.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 39/58

12. “If . . . then . . .” sentences may be arguments. ▲ 13. “If . . . then . . .” sentences may be premises.

14. Logic should be defined as the art of persuasion. 15. “A because B” is always an argument.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 40/58

Page 54

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

16. “A because B” is never an argument. ▲ 17. “IBE” refers to a type of deductive argument.

18. Inductive and deductive arguments both may occur in balance of considerations reasoning.

Exercise 2-9 Some of these passages are best viewed as attempted deductive demonstrations, and others are best viewed as offering inductive support. Which are which?

▲ 1. All mammals are warm-blooded creatures, and all whales are mammals. Therefore, all whales are warm-blooded creatures.

▲ 2. The brains of rats raised in enriched environments with a variety of toys and puzzles weigh more than the brains of rats raised in more barren environments. Therefore, the brains of humans will weigh more if humans are placed in intellectually stimulating environments.

3. Jones won’t plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and if he won’t plead guilty, then he will be tried on a felony charge. Therefore, he will be tried on a felony charge.

▲ 4. We’ve interviewed two hundred professional football players, and 60 percent of them favor expanding the season to twenty games. Therefore, 60 percent of all professional football players favor expanding the season to twenty games.

5. Jose is taller than Bill, and Bill is taller than Margaret. Therefore, Jose is taller than Margaret.

6. Exercise may help chronic male smokers kick the habit, says a study published today. The researchers, based at McDuff University, put thirty young male smokers on a three-month program of vigorous exercise. One year later, only 14 percent of them still smoked, according to the report. An equivalent number of young male smokers who did not go through the exercise program were also checked after a year, and it was found that 60 percent still smoked. Smokers in the exercise program began running three miles a day and gradually worked up to eight miles daily. They also spent five and a half hours each day in such moderately vigorous activities as soccer, basketball, biking, and swimming.

▲ 7. Believe in God? Yes, of course I do. The universe couldn’t have arisen by chance, could it? Besides, I read the other day that more and more physicists believe in God, based on what they’re finding out about the big bang and all that stuff.

▲ 8. From an office memo: “I’ve got a good person for your opening in Accounting. Jesse Brown is his name, and he’s as sharp as they come. Jesse has a solid background in bookkeeping, and he’s good with

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 41/58

computers. He’s also reliable, and he’ll project the right image. He will do a fine job for you.”

Exercise 2- 10 Diagram the arguments contained in the following passages.

▲ 1. North Korea is a great threat to its neighbors. It has a million-person army ready to be unleashed at a moment’s notice, and it also has nuclear weapons.

2. Shaun is going to the party with Mary, so she won’t be going alone.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 42/58

Page 55

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

3. Michael should just go ahead and get a new car. The one he’s driving is junk; also, he has a new job and can afford a new car.

4. If Karper goes to Las Vegas, he’ll wind up in a casino; and if he winds up in a casino, it’s a sure thing he’ll spend half the night at a craps table. So you can be sure: If Karper goes to Las Vegas, he’ll spend half the night at a craps table.

5. It’s going to be rainy tomorrow, and Serj doesn’t like to play golf in the rain. It’s going to be cold as well, and he really doesn’t like to play when it’s cold. So you can be sure Serj will be someplace other than the golf course tomorrow.

▲ 6. Hey, you’re overwatering your lawn. See? There are mushrooms growing around the base of that tree—a sure sign of overwatering. Also, look at all the worms on the ground. They come up when the earth is oversaturated.

7. “Will you drive me to the airport?” she asked. “Why should I do that?” he wanted to know. “Because I’ll pay you twice what it takes for gas. Besides, didn’t you say you were my friend?”

8. If you drive too fast, you’re more likely to get a ticket, and the more likely you are to get a ticket, the more likely you are to have your insurance premiums raised. So, if you drive too fast, you are more likely to have your insurance premiums raised.

▲ 9. If you drive too fast, you’re more likely to get a ticket. You’re also more likely to get into an accident. So you shouldn’t drive too fast.

▲ 10. There are several reasons why you should consider installing a solarium. First, you can still get a tax credit. Second, you can reduce your heating bill. Third, if you build it right, you can actually cool your house with it in the summer.

11. From a letter to the editor: “By trying to eliminate Charles Darwin from the curriculum, creationists are doing themselves a great disservice. When read carefully, Darwin’s discoveries only support the thesis that species change, not that they evolve into new species. This is a thesis that most creationists can live with. When read carefully, Darwin actually supports the creationist point of view.”

12. Editorial comment: “The Supreme Court’s ruling, that schools may have a moment of silence but not if it’s designated for prayer, is sound. Nothing stops someone from saying a silent prayer at school or anywhere else. Also, even though a moment of silence will encourage prayer, it will not favor any particular religion over any other. The ruling makes sense.”

▲ 13. We must paint the house now! Here are three good reasons: (a) If we don’t, then we’ll have to paint it next summer; (b) if we have to paint it next summer, we’ll have to cancel our trip; and (c) it’s too late to cancel the trip.

Exercise 2-

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 43/58

11 Which of the following instances of “because” are followed by a cause, and which are followed by a premise?

▲ 1. We’ve had so much hot weather recently because the jet stream is unusually far north.

2. Ms. Mossbarger looks so tired because she hasn’t been able to sleep for three nights.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 44/58

Page 56

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

3. It’s a bad idea to mow the lawn in your bare feet because you could be seriously injured.

▲ 4. Ken mows the lawn in his bare feet because he doesn’t realize how dangerous it is.

5. Ryan will marry Beth because he told me he would. 6. I’d change before going into town because your clothes look like you

slept in them. ▲ 7. You have high blood pressure because you overeat.

8. You’d better cut back on the salt because you could become hypertensive.

▲ 9. It’s a good bet Iran wants to build nuclear weapons because the UN inspectors found devices for the enrichment of plutonium.

10. Iran wants to build nuclear weapons because it wants to gain control over neighboring Middle Eastern countries.

Exercise 2- 12 Which of the following statements could not possibly be false?

▲ 1. Squares have four sides. 2. You will not live to be 130 years old. 3. A cow cannot yodel.

▲ 4. A six-foot person is taller than a five-foot person. 5. If the sign on the parking meter says “Out of Order” the meter won’t

work. 6. Nobody can be her own mother.

▲ 7. God exists or does not exist. 8. They will never get rid of all disease. 9. The ice caps couldn’t melt entirely.

▲ 10. The day two days after the day before yesterday is today.

Exercise 2- 13 For each of the following, supply a universal principle (a statement that says that something holds without exception) that turns it into a valid deductive argument.

Example Tay is opinionated. She should be more open-minded.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 45/58

One universal principle that makes it valid Opinionated people should all be more open-minded. (Note: There are alternative ways of phrasing this.)

▲ 1. Jamal keeps his word, so he is a man of good character. 2. Betty got an A in the course, so she must have received an A on the

final. 3. Iraq posed a threat to us, so we had a right to invade it.

▲ 4. Colonel Mustard could not have murdered Professor Plum, because the two men were in separate rooms when the professor was killed.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 46/58

Page 57

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

5. Avril is no liberal, since she voted against gun control. 6. Jimmi has a gentle soul; if there is a heaven, he should go there when he

dies. ▲ 7. Of course that guy should be executed; he committed murder, didn’t he?

8. I don’t think you could call the party a success; only eight people showed up.

9. Mzbrynski proved Goldbach’s conjecture; that makes him the greatest mathematician ever.

▲ 10. The fan needs oil; after all, it’s squeaking.

Exercise 2- 14 For each of the following arguments, supply a principle that makes it inductive rather than deductive.

Example Ryder is sharp, so he will get a good grade in this course.

One claim that makes it inductive Most sharp people get good grades in this course.

▲ 1. There are puddles everywhere; it must have rained recently. 2. The lights are dim; therefore, the battery is weak. 3. Simpson’s blood matched the blood on the glove found at the victim’s

condo: He killed her. ▲ 4. Of course it will be cold tomorrow! It’s been cold all week, hasn’t it?

5. Ambramoff isn’t very good with animals. I doubt he’d make a great parent.

6. The dog has either fleas or dry skin; it’s scratching a lot. ▲ 7. Why do I say their party wasn’t a success? Remember all the leftovers?

8. Cheston owns a rifle; he’s sure to belong to the NRA. 9. The dessert contained caffeine, so you might have trouble sleeping

tonight. ▲ 10. I took Zicam, and my cold disappeared like magic. Obviously, it works.

Exercise 2- 15 Diagram the following “arguments.”

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 47/58

▲ 1. , in light of the fact that and . [Assume and are part of the same argument for .]

2. and ; therefore . [Assume and are separate arguments for .]

3. Since , ; and since , . And since and , . [Assume and are separate arguments for .]

▲ 4. ; therefore and .And in light of the fact that and , .Consequently, . Therefore, . [Assume and are separate arguments for @.]

5. , , ; therefore . , in view of . And , since . Therefore . [Assume , , and are part of the same argument for .]

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 48/58

Page 58

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Exercise 2- 16 What does each diagram display—a or b?

▲ 1. a. 1 supports 3, as does 2. b. 1 in combination with 2 demonstrates 3.

2. a. 1 demonstrates 3, as does 2, b. 1 in combination with 2 demonstrates 3.

3. a. 3, which is supported by 1, supports two things, 2 and 4. b. 3, which is supported by 1, supports 2, which in turn supports 4.

▲ 4. a. In view of 5, 3 must be true, and it must also be true because of 2,

which follows from 1 combined with 4. b. 2 must be true because of 1 in combination with 4; and 2 and 5

combined demonstrate 3.

5. a. 1 in combination with 2 support 5. In addition, 3 supports 5, as does

4. So despite the fact that 6 indicates that 5 is false, 5.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 49/58

b. 6 follows from 3, and it follows from 4 as well. It is also supported by 5, which follows from 1 in combination with 2.

Exercise 2- 17 Diagram the arguments contained in the following passages.

▲ 1. Dear Jim, Your distributor is the problem. Here’s why. There’s no current at

the spark plugs. And if there’s no current at the plugs, then either your alternator is shot or your distributor is defective. But if the problem were in the alternator, then your dash warning light would be on. So, since the light isn’t on, the problem must be in the distributor. Hope this helps.

Yours, Benita Autocraft

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 50/58

Page 59

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

2. The slide in the dollar must be stopped. It contributes to inflation and increases the cost of imports. True, it helps exports, but on balance it is bad for the economy.

3. It’s high time professional boxing was outlawed. Boxing almost always leads to brain damage, and anything that does that ought to be done away with. Besides, it supports organized crime.

▲ 4. They really ought to build a new airport. It would attract more business to the area, not to mention the fact that the old airport is overcrowded and dangerous.

5. Vote for Cuomo? No way. He’s too radical, and he’s too inexperienced, and those two things make him dangerous. I do like his stand on trade, but I still don’t think you should vote for him.

Exercise 2- 18 Diagram the arguments contained in the following passages.

▲ 1. Cottage cheese will help you be slender, youthful, and more beautiful. Enjoy it often.

2. If you want to listen to loud music, do it when we are not at home. It bothers us, and we’re your parents.

3. If you want to see the best version of The Three Musketeers, try the 1948 version. Lana Turner is luscious; Vincent Price is dastardly; Angela Lansbury is exquisitely regal; and nobody ever has or ever will portray D’Artagnan with the grace, athleticism, or skill of Gene Kelly. Download it. It’s a must.

▲ 4. From a letter to the editor: “The idea of a free press in America today is a joke. A small group of people, the nation’s advertisers, control the media more effectively than if they owned it outright. Through fear of an advertising boycott, they can dictate everything from programming to news report content. Politicians as well as editors shiver in their boots at the thought of such a boycott. This situation is intolerable and ought to be changed. I suggest we all listen to National Public Radio and public television.”

5. Too many older Americans, veterans with disabilities, and families with children are paying far too much of their incomes for housing. Proposition 168 will help clear the way for affordable housing construction for these groups. Proposition 168 reforms the outdated requirement for an election before affordable housing can even be approved. Requiring elections for every publicly assisted housing venture, even when there is no local opposition, is a waste of taxpayers’ money. No other state constitution puts such a roadblock in front of efforts to house senior citizens and others in need. Please support Proposition 168.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 51/58

6. Decades after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, it’s no easier to accept the idea that a loser like Lee Harvey Oswald committed the crime of the century all by himself with a $12.78 mail-order rifle and a $7.17 scope. Yet even though two-thousand-plus books and films about the episode have been made, there is no credible evidence to contradict the Warren Commission finding that “the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald” and that “Oswald acted alone.”

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 52/58

Page 60

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

After all these years, it’s time to accept the conclusion. The nation pays a heavy price for chronic doubts and mistrust. Confidence in the government has declined. Participation in the voting process has steadily slid downward. The national appetite for wild theories encourages peddlers to persist. Evil is never easy to accept. In the case of JFK, the sooner we let it go, the better.

▲ 7. Most schools should offer single-sex classes. Single-sex classes promote learning. Girls do better in math and science courses when they are alone with other girls. Gender offers distractions that interfere with learning. Research also shows that in mixed classrooms most instructors will spend more time answering questions from boys. Schools that offer single-sex classes always report learning gains for students of both sexes.

8. “And we thought we’d heard it all. Now the National Rifle Association wants the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the ban on private ownership of fully automatic machine guns.

“As the nation’s cities reel under staggering murder totals, as kids use guns simply to get even after feuds, as children are gunned down by random bullets, the NRA thinks it is everybody’s constitutional right to have their own personal machine gun.

“This is not exactly the weapon of choice for deer hunting or for a homeowner seeking protection. It is an ideal weapon for street gangs and drug thugs in their wars with each other and the police.

“To legalize fully automatic machine guns is to increase the mayhem that is turning this nation—particularly its large cities—into a continual war zone. Doesn’t the NRA have something better to do?”

—Capital Times, Madison, Wisconsin 9. From a letter to the editor: “Recently the California Highway Patrol

stopped me at a drunk-drive checkpoint. Now, I don’t like drunk drivers any more than anyone else. I certainly see why the police find the checkpoint system effective. But I think our right to move about freely is much more important. If the checkpoint system continues, then next there will be checkpoints for drugs, seat belts, infant car seats, drivers’ licenses. We will regret it later if we allow the system to continue.”

▲ 10. “Well located, sound real estate is the safest investment in the world. It is not going to disappear, as can the value of dollars put into savings accounts. Neither will real estate values be lost because of inflation. In fact, property values tend to increase at a pace at least equal to the rate of inflation. Most homes have appreciated at a rate greater than the inflation rate (due mainly to strong buyer demand and insufficient supply of newly constructed homes).”

—Robert Bruss, The Smart Investor’s Guide to Real Estate 11. “The constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial protects citizens from

arbitrary government abuse, but it has at least one other benefit, too. It prevents crime.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 53/58

“A recent Justice Department study found that more than a third of those with serious criminal records—meaning three or more felony convictions—are arrested for new offenses while free on bond awaiting federal court trial. You don’t have to be a social scientist to suspect that the longer the delay, the greater the likelihood of further violations. In short, overburdened courts mean much more than justice delayed; they quite literally amount to the infliction of further injustice.”

—Scripps Howard News Service

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 54/58

Page 61

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

▲ 12. As we enter a new decade, about 200 million Americans are producing data on the Internet as rapidly as they consume it. Each of these users is tracked by technologies ever more able to collate essential facts about them—age, address, credit rating, marital status, etc.—in electronic form for use in commerce. One website, for example, promises, for the meager sum of seven dollars, to scan “over two billion records to create a single comprehensive report on an individual.” It is not unreasonable, then, to believe that the combination of capitalism and technology poses a looming threat to what remains of our privacy.

—Loosely adapted from Harper’s 13. Having your car washed at the car wash may be the best way to go, but

there are some possible drawbacks. The International Carwashing Association (ICA) has fought back against charges that automatic car washes, in recycling wash water, actually dump the salt and dirt from one car onto the next. And that brushes and drag cloths hurt the finish. Perhaps there is some truth to these charges.

The ICA sponsored tests that supposedly demonstrated that the average home car wash is harder on a car than an automatic wash. Maybe. But what’s “the average” home car wash? And you can bet that the automatic car washes in the test were in perfect working order.

There is no way you or I can tell for certain if the filtration system and washing equipment at the automatic car wash are properly maintained. And even if they are, what happens if you follow some mud-caked pickup through the wash? Road dirt might still be caught in the bristles of the brushes or strips of fabric that are dragged over your car.

Here’s my recommendation: Wash your own car. ▲ 14. Argument in Favor of Measure A

“Measure A is consistent with the City’s General Plan and City policies directing growth to the City’s non-agricultural lands. A ‘yes’ vote on Measure A will affirm the wisdom of well-planned, orderly growth in the City of Chico by approving an amendment to the 1982 Rancho Arroyo Specific Plan. Measure A substantially reduces the amount of housing previously approved for Rancho Arroyo, increases the number of parks and amount of open space, and significantly enlarges and enhances Bidwell Park. “A ‘yes’ vote will accomplish the following: • Require the development to dedicate 130.8 acres of land to Bidwell Park • Require the developer to dedicate seven park sites • Create 53 acres of landscaped corridors and greenways • Preserve existing arroyos and protect sensitive plant habitats and other environmental features • Create junior high school and church sites • Plan a series of villages within which, eventually, a total of 2,927 residential dwelling units will be developed • Plan area which will provide onsite job opportunities and retail services.”

—County of Butte sample ballot

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 55/58

Page 62

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

▲ 15. Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure A “Villages? Can a project with 3,000 houses and 7,000 new residents really be regarded as a ‘village’? The Sacramento developers pushing the Rancho Arroyo project certainly have a way with words. We urge citizens of Chico to ignore their flowery language and vote no on Measure A.

“These out-of-town developers will have you believe that their project protects agricultural land. Hogwash! Chico’s Greenline protects valuable farmland. With the Greenline, there is enough land in the Chico area available for development to build 62,000 new homes. . . .

“They claim that their park dedications will reduce use of our overcrowded Bidwell Park. Don’t you believe it! They want to attract 7,000 new residents to Chico by using Rancho Arroyo’s proximity to Bidwell Park to outsell other local housing projects.

“The developers imply that the Rancho Arroyo project will provide a much needed school site. In fact, the developers intend to sell the site to the school district, which will pay for the site with taxpayers’ money.

“Chico doesn’t need the Rancho Arroyo project. Vote no on Measure A.”

—County of Butte sample ballot 16. Letter to the editor: “I recently read about a man who killed another

man several years ago, then he made a plea-bargain with the District Attorney’s office and thus got a reduced charge and a shorter sentence. He didn’t even serve all of that sentence, because he got some time off for good behavior. After being out of prison for only a few months, he killed somebody else!

“I cannot understand how our so-called system of ‘justice’ allows this sort of thing to happen. According to FBI statistics, not a half-hour goes by without there being a murder somewhere in this country. How many of these murders are committed by people who have been released from prison? I can answer that: too many!

“The main reason there are so many people released from prisons is that there are not enough prisons to hold them all. If, on average, there is a murder every half hour, then, on average, there should be an execution every half hour. That would open up some more room in prisons and allow the authorities to keep both killers and non-killers off the streets. We’d all be safer as a result.

“It isn’t like the people I’m saying should be executed don’t deserve to die. They gave up their right to live the minute they pulled the trigger or wielded the knife or whatever means they used in their crime. We have to get tough about this or none of us will be safe.”

—Corning News & Review ▲ 17. Letter to the editor: “In regard to your editorial, ‘Crime bill wastes

billions,’ let me set you straight. Your paper opposes mandatory life sentences for criminals convicted of three violent crimes, and you whine about how criminals’ rights might be violated. Yet you also want

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 56/58

to infringe on a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. You say you oppose life sentences for three-time losers because judges couldn’t show any leniency toward the criminals no matter how trivial the crime. What is your definition of trivial, busting an innocent child’s skull with a hammer?”

—North State Record

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 57/58

Page 63

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

▲ 18. Freedom means choice. This is a truth antiporn activists always forget when they argue for censorship. In their fervor to impose their morality, groups like Enough Is Enough cite extreme examples of pornography, such as child porn, suggesting that they are easily available in video stores.

This is not the way it is. Most of this material portrays not actions such as this but consensual sex between adults.

The logic used by Enough Is Enough is that, if something can somehow hurt someone, it must be banned. They don’t apply this logic to more harmful substances, such as alcohol or tobacco. Women and children are more adversely affected by drunken driving and secondhand smoke than by pornography. Few Americans would want to ban alcohol or tobacco, even though these substances kill hundreds of thousands of people each year.

Writing Exercises 1. Write a one-page essay in which you determine whether and why it is

better (you get to define “better”) to look younger than your age, older than your age, or just your age. Then number the premises and conclusions in your essay and diagram it.

2. Should there be a death penalty for first-degree murder? On the top half of a sheet of paper, list considerations supporting the death penalty, and on the bottom half, list considerations opposing it. Take about ten minutes to compile your two lists.

After everyone is finished, your instructor will call on people to read their lists. He or she will then give everyone about twenty minutes to write a draft of an essay that addresses the issue “Should there be a death penalty for first-degree murder?” Put your name on the back of your essay. After everyone is finished, your instructor will collect the essays and redistribute them to the class. In groups of four or five, read the essays that have been given to your group. Do not look at the names of the authors. Select the best essay in each group. Your instructor will ask each group to read the essay it has selected as best.

As an alternative, your instructor may have each group rank-order their essays and ask a neighboring group which of their top-ranked essays is best. The instructor will read the top-ranking essays to the class, for discussion.

3. Is it possible to tell just by looking at someone whether he or she is telling the truth? Do a little Internet research and then take a position on the issue and defend it in a two-page essay. This assignment will help prepare you for Chapter 4.

*Dan Ariely,/rrafiona/Predicfabi/ify (NewYork:HarperCollins, 2008), 14,15.

3/26/2018 University of Phoenix: Critical Thinking

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259764613/cfi/6/30!/4/440/380@0:64.6 58/58