Chapter 1:

I. WHAT IS THINKING?
- Start asking questions and seek answers thinking

II. TYPES OF THINKING

Critical thinking Problem-solving Creative thinking
Decision-making
o Right-handed o Left-handed
o Logical o Creative
o Analytical (evaluating, o Thoughtful
reasoning) o Intuitive
o Objective o Subjective

III. WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

- “CRITICAL”: not mean “NEGATIVE” BUT involving or exercising skilled judgment
or observation
- Critical thinking: general term given to a wide range of cognitive skills and
intellectual features needed to:
o effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims
o discover and overcome personal prejudices and biases
o formulate and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions
o make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do

IV. CRITICAL THINKING STANDARDS

1. Clarity 2. Accuracy 3. Precision 4. Relevance
5. Consistency 6. Completeness 7. Logical correctness 8. Fairness

VI. BARRIERS TO CRITICAL THINKING

 EGOCENTRISM (self-centered thinking): the tendency to view one’s own
interests, ideas and values as superior to everyone’s else
- SELF-INTERESTED THINKING: tendency to accept and defend beliefs
that harmonize one’s own self-interest
- SELF-SERVING BIAS: tendency to overrate oneself
  SOCIOCENTRISM (group-centered thinking): the tendency to think by focusing
excessively on the group
- GROUP BIAS: the tendency to see one’s own group as being inherently
better than others
- CONFORMISM (Herd instinct): tendency to follow the crowd
 UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AND STEREOTYPES
- ASSUMPTIONS: something taken for granted, something we believe to be
true without any proof or conclusive evidence
- UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS: something taken for granted without
good reason
- STEREOTYPE: making a hasty generalization
 WISHFUL THINKING
- Believing in something:
 Because it makes one feel good, NOT BECAUSE there is good rational grounds
for thinking it is true.
 NOT BECAUSE you had good evidence for it but simply because you wished it
were true.
 RELATIVISTIC THINKING: the view that truth is a matter of opinion.
- SUBJECTIVISM – the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion
- CULTURAL RELATIVISM – the view that truth is a matter of social or
cultural opinion
- MORAL SUBJECTIVISM – the view that what is morally right and good for
an individual A, is whatever A believes is morally right and good
- CULTURAL MORAL RELATIVISM – the view that what is morally right
and good for an individual, A, is whatever A’s society or culture believes is
morally right and good
 Several serious problems with cultural moral relativism
1. Relativism makes it impossible for us to criticize other cultures’ customs and values,
even those that intuitively seem to us to be terribly wrong.
2. Relativism makes it impossible for us to criticize our own societies’ customs and
values.
3. Relativism rules out the idea of moral progress
 Chapter 2: recognizing arguments

I. FACTS vs OPINIONS
- "A fact is a thing that occurs, exists, is true."
▪ Tell who, what, when, where, or how much
▪ Have a verifiable truth value
▪ Can be quantified and is specific
▪ supported by evidence
- An opinion is a view about a particular issue. It is what the person believes or
thinks, and is not necessarily the truth.
▪ Tend to be vague.
▪ Are personal beliefs or value judgments

II. WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT?

- A Claim Defended with Reasons
▪ Made to address a specific problem, by offering a position and providing
reasons for that position
▪ A form of thinking in which certain statements (reasons) are offered in support
of another statement (a conclusion)
- Two parts of a basic argument:
▪ 1 or more premises: statements offered as reasons for accepting another
statement.
▪ a conclusion: a statement supported by reasons
III. IDENTIFYING STATEMENTS
- A statement is a sentence that can be viewed as either true or false
- Checking: A statement is a sentence that makes good grammatical sense when
it is prefaced with the words "It is true that..." or "It is false that...”, each makes an
assertion that is either true or false
- Not all sentences are statements
- Special cases of statements:
 A statement can be expressed by a phrase or a dependent clause rather than
as a complete sentence
 Rhetorical questions: sentences that have the grammatical form of questions
but are meant to be understood as assertions
  Ought imperatives: sentences that have the grammatical form of imperatives
(i.e., commands) but are intended to be understood as “ought statements,”
i.e., statements that express a judgment about what ought to be done
IV. IDENTIFYING PREMISES AND CONCLUSION
- Tips:
 Look for PREMISE INDICATORS: BECAUSE, SINCE, FOR, GIVEN THAT
AS, JUDGING FROM, and SEEING THAT.
 Look for CONCLUSION INDICATORS: THEREFORE, THUS, HENCE, SO,
AS A RESULT, ACCORDINGLY, CONSEQUENTLY, and WHICH SHOWS
THAT
 If the passage contains no indicator words, try these two strategies
▪ Ask yourself, "What claim is the writer or speaker trying to prove?" That
claim will be the conclusion.
▪ Try putting the word "therefore" before each of the statements in turn. The
statement it fits best will be the conclusion.
 Arguments are composed of one or more premises and a conclusion.
Premises are statements offered as reasons for accepting another statement.
A conclusion is a statement supported by reasons.
V. WHAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT?
- More precisely, a passage is an argument if and only if:
▪ It is a group of two or more statements.
▪ One of those statements (the conclusion) is claimed or intended to be
supported by the other(s) (the premises).
- THREE IMPORTANT THINGS to decide a passage is NOT an argument:
▪ consist entirely of statements
▪ just a single statement
▪ No intention to offer evidence or reasons
- 5 Confusions: reports, unsupported assertions, conditional statements,
illustrations, explanations.
1. REPORTS
▪ A statement or group of statements intended simply to convey information
about a subject.
▪ The authors are simply reporting a series of events, NOT TO OFFER
REASONS why one statement should be accepted on the basic of others.
▪ Reports about arguments
2. UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS
▪ A statement or set of statements in which the speaker or writer expresses his or
her personal opinion, but offers no reasons or evidence to back up that opinion.
3. CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS
▪ If......, then...... signals
▪ Non If......, then...... signals
4. ILLUSTRATIONS
▪ A passage intended to provide examples that illustrate or support a claim, not to
provide convincing evidence that the claim is true
5. EXPLANATIONS
▪ An explanation tries to show WHY something is the case, not to prove that it is
the case
 CHAPTER 3: BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS

I. Deductive vs. Inductive arguments

 Deductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is
claimed or intended to follow NECESSARILY from the premises.
Facts are true, then conclusion must be true.
 Inductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is
claimed or intended to follow PROBABLY from the premises.
Premises are true, conclusion MIGHT be true.
Deductive arguments claim that Inductive arguments claim that
❑ If the premises are true, then the ❑ If the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true. conclusion is probably true.
❑ The conclusion follows necessarily ❑ The conclusion follows probably from
from the premises.
the premises. ❑ The premises provide good (but not
❑ The premises provide conclusive conclusive) evidence for the truth of the
evidence for the truth of the conclusion. conclusion.
❑ It is unlikely for the premises to be true
❑ It is impossible for all the premises to and the conclusion false.
be ❑ Although it is logically consistent to
true and the conclusion false. assert the premises and deny the
❑ It is logically inconsistent to assert the conclusion, the conclusion is probably
premises and deny the conclusion, true if the premises are true.
meaning that if you accept the premises,
you must accept the conclusion.

II. How Can We Tell Whether an Argument is Deductive or Inductive?

 There are four tests that can be used to determine whether an
argument is deductive or inductive:

1. The Indicator Word Test

- The indicator word test asks whether there are any indicator
words that provide clues whether a deductive or inductive
argument is being offered.
 - Common deduction indicator words include words or phrases
like necessarily, logically, it must be the case that, and this
proves that.
- Common induction indicator words include words or phrases
like probably, likely, it is plausible to suppose that, it is
reasonable to think that, and it's a good bet that.
2. The Strict Necessity Test
- The strict necessity test asks whether the conclusion follows
from the premises with strict logical necessity. If it does, then
the argument is deductive.
Otherwise, the argument is inductive
3. The Common Pattern Test
- The common pattern test asks whether the argument exhibits a
pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive or
inductive
- If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive, then the argument is probably
deductive.
4. The Principle of Charity Test
 When interpreting an unclear argument or passage, always
- Give the speaker or writer the benefit of the doubt
- Never attribute to an arguer a weaker argument when the
evidence reasonably permits us to attribute to him or her a
stronger one
- And never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the
evidence reasonably permits us to interpret it as not an
argument at all
III. Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
 There are five common patterns of deductive reasoning:
1. Hypothetical syllogism
 1, modus ponens, chain argument, modus tollens, denying the
antecedent, affirming the consequent
2. Categorical syllogism
- A categorical syllogism may be defined as a three line
argument in which each statement begins with the word ALL,
SOME, or NO.
3. Argument by elimination
- An argument by Elimination seeks to logically rule out various
possibilities until only a single possibility remains
- Signals with EITHER/ NEITHER
4. Argument based on mathematics
- Mathematics is a model of logical, step-by-step reasoning. They
claim to prove their conclusion based on precise mathematical
concepts and reasoning. In an argument based on
mathematics, the conclusion is claimed to depend largely or
entirely on some mathematical calculation or measurement.
5. Argument from definition
- In Argument from definition, the conclusion is presented as
being “true by definition”, that is, as following simply by
definition some key word or phrase used in the argument.
IV. Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning
 There are six common patterns of inductive reasoning:
1. Inductive generalization
- A generalization is a statement that attribute some
characteristic to all, or most members of a given class.
 - An inductive generalization is an argument in which a
generalization is claimed to be PROBABLY TRUE based on
information about some members of a particular class.
2. Predictive argument
- A prediction is a statement about what may or will happen in
the future.
- In a Predictive argument, a prediction is defended with reasons.
3. Argument from authority
- An argument from authority asserts a claim and then supports
that claims by CITING SOME PRESUMED AUTHORITY OR
WITNESS who has said that the claim is true.
4. Causal argument
- A causal argument asserts or denies that something is the
cause of something else.
5. Statistical argument
- A statistical argument rests on statistical evidence, that is,
evidence that some percentage of some group or class has
some particular characteristic.
6. Argument from analogy
- An analogy is a comparison of two or more things that are
claimed to be alike in some relevant respect.
- In an Argument from analogy, the conclusion is claimed to
depend on an analogy between two or more things.
V. Deductive Validity (VALID = LOGICAL, WITH STRONG REASONS)
 A valid deductive argument is confirmed on the following grounds:
- If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
- The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
- The premises provide logically conclusive grounds for the truth
of the Conclusion.
- It is logically inconsistent to assert all the premises as true and
deny the conclusion.
 How to decide whether an argument is valid or not? Use the 2Cs
Test
- 1. By definition
Check to see
▪ the premises are actually true
▪ and the conclusion is actually false.
→ the argument is invalid
- 2. Invented situation
Invent a scenario in which
▪ the premises are true
▪ and the conclusion is false.
→ If you can, then the argument is invalid
 Premises true
Conclusion true
Valid argument (you cannot deny the conclusion)
 Premises false
Conclusion false
Valid argument (if the premises were true, the conclusion would have
to be true)
 Premises true
Conclusion true
Invalid argument (possible to deny the conclusion)
VI. Inductive Strength
 Strong inductive argument consists of probably true conclusion
1. Most college students own MP3 players.
Andy is a college student.
So, Andy probably owns an MP3 player.
2. All recent U.S. presidents have been college graduates.
Thus, the next U.S. president will be a college graduate.
- Cogent argument:
Premise(s) true
Conclusion probably true
- Uncogent argument:
Premise(s) false
Conclusion probably true
 Weak inductive argument consists of a conclusion that doesn’t follow
the premises
1. All previous popes have been men.
Therefore, probably the next pope will be a woman.
2. Most U.S. presidents have been married.
Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be a man.
CHAPTER 9: A LITTLE CATEGORICAL LOGICAL

I. Categorical statement:
 A categorical statement makes a claim about the RELATIONSHIP
between two or more categories or classes of things.
 Standard-form categorical statements:
1. All S are P All Democrats are liberals.
2. No S are P No Democrats are liberals.
3. Some S are P Some Democrats are liberals.
4. Some S are not P Some Democrats are not liberals.
1. Parts of Categorical statements:

 The standard categorical form has four basic parts:

1. Begin with the quantifiers: ALL, NO, or SOME
2. Have a SUBJECT TERM (S): a word or phrase that names a class
or that serves as the grammatical subject of the sentence.
3. Have a PREDICATE TERM (P): a word or phrase that names a
class or that serves as the subject complement of the sentence.
4. Have a COPULA (linking verb): some form of the verb “to be”
2. Useful tips for translating
 Rephrase all nonstandard subject and predicate terms so that
they refer to classes
 Rephrase all nonstandard verbs to are/ are not

 Fill in any unexpressed quantifiers be charitable with implicit

ideas

 Translate singular statement as ALL or NO statement

 Translate stylistic variants into the appropriate categorical form
Common stylistic variants of “ All S are P”

 Translate stylistic variants into the appropriate categorical form

Common stylistic variants of “ No S are P”
  Translate stylistic variants into the appropriate categorical form
Common stylistic variants of “ Some S are not P”

II. Categorical Syllogism

 A syllogism is three-line deductive arguments that consists of
two premises and a conclusion. (All statements are categorical
statements)
III. Using Venn diagram to test validity
▪ The beauty of the Venn Diagram is that it allows you to determine
whether a categorical syllogism is valid or invalid and to do so with
absolute assurance.

▪ Since we know how important it is to be able to test the validity of

syllogisms, it is worth the time to learn to use Venn Diagrams
correctly.
CHAPTER 10: A LITTLE PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

I. What is propositional logic

 The way to symbolize the parts of arguments, so we can analyze whole
argument for validity.
- Review – statement:

II. Symbolize argument: variables and truth table

Purpose:

III. Conjunction:
IV. Conjunction and validity:
V. Negations: