TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 1

A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.

*Fallacies can be divided into two general types:
- Fallacies of Relevance Arguments: in which the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion.
- Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence: Arguments in which the premises,
though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence
for the conclusion.

Chap 5:
Fallacies of Relevance
- A statement is negatively relevant to another statement if it provides at
least some reason for thinking that the second statement is false.
Ex: Marty is a high-school senior. So, Marty likely has a Ph.D.
- A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it provides no
reason for thinking that the second statement is either true or false.
Ex: The earth revolves around the sun. Therefore, marijuana should be
legalized.
- A fallacy of relevance occurs when an arguer offers reasons that are
logically irrelevant to his or her conclusion.

*11 fallacies of relevance

2
requirement: Type Definition Pattern Example
attack
Personal attack An arguer rejects a X is a bad person => Convicted murderer Johnny
/ Personal
I
character
(Ad Hominem) person’s argument or X’s argument must Palko has argued that he did not
peguse 1 Reject banchat claim by attacking the be bad receive a fair trial. But Palko is a
argument person’s character vicious thug who’s spent most of
rather than the person’s his adult life behind bars.LWhy
-

argument should we even listen to such a

or claim. parasite?7 Refuse argument
Attacking the An arguer criticizes a X has biased or has Professor X said that the
motive person’s motivation for questionable government needs to invest
offering hank
motives => X’s more budget in domestic
donged
dong
I

1
 TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 2

a particular argument or arguments or claim science projects to attract

claim, rather than should be rejected promising young scientists to
examining the worth of return to contribute. But
the argument or claim Professor X holds a key position
itself. in the Ministry of Science and
Technology of Vietnam, of
course, he will call for
investment in science.
Therefore, we should ignore
Professor X's words.
mucn chi Look who’s An arguer rejects X fails to follow his My sister told me that I should

I
am

vi
pham khugen talking (Tu another person’s or her own advice => clean my room. But why should I
a bhas ding
vi
Quoque) argument X’s claim or listen to her because she does
pham sa giong
~

or claim because that argument should be not clean her room either.
dae die,
mini phan bit person is a hypocrite. gia rejected
By:Ai faa
lehnen Two wrongs An arguer attempts to Others are “Why pick on me, officer?
hong argumentdo make a right justify a wrongful act by committing worse or Everyone else is using drugs.”
B:Xem n
khugen
the can a ta
lain
bar
bin, minh claiming that some
bien equally bad acts =>
no
hay ki? other act is just as bad Therefore my
Bg:Nei ngta 'lain theo-
two
wrongs... or worse. wrongful act is
Shing -> Look who's
talking justified
Scare tactics An arguer threatens Admit that Scooby-Doo is a
de doa harm to a reader or better cartoon show than
listener and this threat Pokémon! If you don’t, my big
is irrelevant to the truth brother is going to beat you up!
of the arguer’s
conclusion.
Appeal to pity An arguer attempts to P is presented with Student to professor: I know I
lois long throng hai evoke feelings of pity or the intent to create missed half your classes and
compassion, pity => Claim C is failed all my exams, but I had a
tanghier
where such feelings, true really tough semester. My pet
however boa constrictor died. With all I
understandable, are not went through this semester, I
relevant to the don’t think I really deserved an
truth of the arguer’s F. Any chance you might cut me
conclusion some slack and change my grade
to a C or a D?
Bandwagon An arguer appeals to a Most people believe All kool students dye hair and
argument person’s desire to be or do X => You wear shorts to school. You must
(Appeal to popular should believe or do change your style right away!
popularity) accepted, or valued, X
Asthe xu
humg rather than to logically
lam
dain
danz va

why
y no
2

fallacious:has
mistake)
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 3

relevant reasons or
evidence
Straw man An arguer misrepresents Person 1 makes Evolution is false! How could a
chi e another person’s claim Y.
whet mouse evolve into an elephant!?
vi

position to make it Person 2 restates

A bink. A
xin d kt, A nav B
easier to attack. person 1’s claim (in a
xu
hung ughisai y da distorted way). = Brighta
gay bin, A bi benh
&

them man k
phuling (ching si say dien
.
Person 2 attacks the miAmunc Hgatein
una
muni)
distorted version of
vichvi I chu ete
the claim.
=> claim Y is false.
Red Herring An arguer tries to 1. Topic A is under Leonardo DiCaprio regularly
sidetrack her audience discussion. makes statements around the
->
irrelevant
by raising an irrelevant 2. Topic B is issue of Climate Change. He
issue, and then claims introduced under thinks it's a pressing issue right
that the original issue the guise of being now. However, I think the
has been effectively relevant to topic A urgent issue should be the
settled by the irrelevant (when topic B is COVID-19 pandemic - which is
diversion actually not relevant currently killing millions of
2 chul de
to topic A). people at a rapid rate. So his
3. Topic A is argument is funny.
abandoned.
Equivocation An arguer uses a key
word in an argument in A bird in the hand is worth two
(am it is two (or in the bush. Therefore,
giaccan
tlap nhn more) different senses. President Bush is not worthy at
lai -
all.
v
mang menghia
khashad

Begging the An arguer states or A because B, B Bungee-jumping is dangerous

question assumes as a premise because A because it’s unsafe
(circular the very
reasoning) thing he is seeking to
prove as a conclusion
dring tie sting
nghia
Chap 6:
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
*9 fallacies of insufficient evidence
1. Inappropriate Appeal to Authority Inductive

Citing a witness or authority that is untrustworthy.

ma deet
chuyen gothisexpertcua'van todothi de
na van
3
have been aimed that. ...

I
180%b
so say, said that...

heard gam
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 4

Ex: My gardener told me that Obama will win the third term. So definitely
believe Obama will continue to recover the U.S.
2. Appeal to ignorance
Claiming that something is true because no one has proven it false or vice
versa (no one has succeeded (
even

Ex: There must be no life on other planets, We have not found any
3. False Alternatives
- Posing a false either/or choice dac do notitsi ha chan
Ex: You can take the bus 52 to IU, or you must take a taxi instead. No
student wants to waste money on taxi. Therefore, you have to take the bus
52.
80%
- They also can be in the form of an “if… then.”
If you can’t get IELTS 6, you cannot take courses in your university
program.
 Either you have IELTS 6 or you cannot take courses in your
university program. dan vai
ephuang
evidenze - the'
4. Loaded question giacting mot i thing he si
? &
khe"

Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted presupposition.

thekh'i
Ex: Are you still in favor of this irresponsible decision? ta'loxe
dei

5. Questionable Cause
- The post hoc fallacy: A xảy ra trước B nên kết luận A là nguyên nhân
của B
Ex: I saw a black cat on my way to school, then I was caught cheating. The
black cat caused my bad luck.
- Mere correlation fallacy: 2 việc xảy ra cùng lúc thường xuyên với nhau
là có quan hệ nguyên nhân- kết quả với nhau tan suct thug xuyen
Ex: Every morning this week I ate eggs, and every day I failed the exam. I
should stop eating eggs
- Oversimplified cause fallacy: B có rất nhiều nguyên nhân nhưng chỉ kết
luận A là nguyên nhân của B

4
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 5

Ex: Since the law on wearing helmets went into effect, traffic accidents
decreased by half. Obviously, this law is one of the best policies of the
government
6. Hasty Generalization
Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is biased or too small.
- Biased sample:
I polled 100 professors from 100 schools, only 25% of them believed in
God. I guess most Americans don’t believe in God anymore.
- Too small of a sample:
I asked my professors if they believed in God, and only one did. I guess
professors don’t believe in God anymore.
7. Slippery Slope
Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly harmless action, if
taken, will lead to a disastrous outcome.
Ex: Lost pens => Do not copy the article => Don't study => Failed exam =>
No degree => No work => No money
Common form: A leads to B, and B leads to C, and C to do D, and we
really don’t want D. Thus, we shouldn’t do A.

8. Weak analog sanh, dnI

so chatching (so sante bhp bhng)
tinh

Comparing things that aren’t really comparable

Ex: My ex-boyfriend was tall, handsome, rich, and kind. Now that he left
me, I found John who is tall, handsome and rich. So he’s surely a perfect
replacement for me.
• Common forms:
+ A has characteristics w, x, y and z. B has characteristics w, x and y.
Therefore, B probably has characteristic z, too.
+ A is x and y. B is x and y. C is x. So C is y.

9. Inconsistency
Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.
5
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 6

Ex: John is taller than Jake, and Jake is taller than Fred. So Fred is taller
than John.
• Common form: A and not A.

Chap 7:
Analyzing Arguments
I. Diagramming
1. Short arguments
* 5 steps: Either ... or
.(1)

(2)

fig
s +v
s tv, the

- Circling any premise and conclusion indicators.

aree
stands
- Number the statements consecutively -

statement
- Premises placed above the conclusion(s)
S v N andN (1)

- Using arrows for"

+

"is
+

mean
evidence

+ Indicate independent premises by drawing arrows directly from the premises

to the conclusions they are claimed to support. =x
+ Indicate linked premises by placing a plus sign between each of the linked
premises, underlining the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to
support
*Notes:
- Find the main conclusion first
->

- Remember: compound and complex sentences contain two or more

separate statements.
- Treat conditional statements (if-then) and disjunctive statements (either-or)
as single statements.
- Don’t number/ diagram any sentence that is not a statement.
- Don’t diagram irrelevant statements.
- Don’t diagram redundant statements.

6
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 7

Ex:
*Linked: No student at Wexford College is a Rhodes Scholar. Melissa is a
Rhodes Scholar. So, Melissa is not a student at Wexford College.
*Independent: Nick doesn’t own a car. Nick is legally blind. So, Nick
probably won’t drive a car to the game

Ex:

7
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 8

2. Longer argument
aese
A B B
i
↓
Summarizing involves two skills: B support A
A

- Paraphrasing L ?
~
- Finding missing premises and conclusions -
In, I matnhig- hit lan):weak

- fanseveral
reasons:Liet

An argument with a missing premise or conclusion is called an

Enthymeme.
8
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 9

To analyze longer arguments, we can use a method called

chat
Standardizing. -> Tim paraphase dung
I tim conce co'thiri o?
* 5 steps: premise,
can

- Identify the main conclusion and any major premises and sub-conclusions.
Paraphrase as needed to clarify meaning
- Omit any unnecessary or irrelevant material.
- Number the steps in the argument and list them in correct logical order
(i.e., with the premises placed above the conclusions they are intended to
support).
- Fill in any key missing premises and conclusions (if any).
- Add justifications for each conclusion in the argument. In other words, for
each conclusion or sub-conclusion, indicate in parentheses from which
previous lines in the argument the conclusion or sub-conclusion is claimed
to directly follow.
Ex: We can see something only after it has happened. Future events,
however, have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems to imply
both that it has and has not happened, and that’s logically impossible.
=> The argument is lacking the main conclusion
*Standardizing:
1. We can see something only after it has happened.
2. Future events have not yet happened.
3. So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not
happened (from 1-2)
4. It is logically impossible for an event both to have happened and not to
have happened.
5. [Therefore, it is logically impossible to see a future event.] (From 3-4)
*Notes: Common Mistakes to watch out for (or avoid):
1. Don’t write in incomplete sentences.
9
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 10
because
-
Error: - Because I

Because animals can experience pain and suffering.

Meter
Therefore, it’s wrong to kill or mistreat animals.
Correct:
Animals can experience pain and suffering.
Therefore, it’s wrong to kill or mistreat animals.
2. Don’t include more than one statement per line.
Error: 1
(1) ↑ (2)
The president should resign since he no longer enjoys the confidence of the
Board of Trustees. cas
Correct:
The president no longer enjoys the confidence of the Board of Trustees.
Therefore, the president should resign.
3. Don’t include anything that is not a statement.
Error:
Democrats and Republicans are all the same.
statement
Therefore, why should I care about politics? question ola

Correct:
Democrats and Republicans are all the same.
So I have no reason to care about politics.
4. Don’t include anything that is not a premise or a conclusion.
ireveliant
Error:
1. Many people argue that capital punishment is morally wrong.
2. But the Good Book says, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
3. What the Good Book says is true.
10
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 11

4. Therefore, capital punishment is not morally wrong. (from 2,3)

Correct:
Omit (1) doesn’t support the conclusion, so leave it out of the standardized
argument.

Chap 8:
Evaluating Arguments
*What “good argument” does not mean?
- Good argument does not mean “agrees with my view”
- Good argument does not mean “persuasive argument”.
- “Good Argument” does not mean “Well-Written or Well-Spoken Argument”
*What “good argument” does mean?
- A good argument, fundamentally, is an argument that is either deductively
sound or inductively cogent.
# *Refuting: cha bo

There are two ways to refute an argument: -vague:

moho
(1) Show that a premise or a critical group of premises is false or dubious
(2) show that the reasoning is bad - that the premises do not provide
adequate logical support for the conclusion.

Chap 11: generalization

Inductive Reasoning -
authority

it
statistical

1. Generalization predictive
casual

analog
11
 population
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 12
->
sample
- An inductive generalization is an argument that relies on characteristics
of a sample population to make a claim about the population as a whole.
- It is an argument that uses evidence about a limited number of people or
-
things of a certain type (sample population), to make a claim about a larger
group of people or things of that type (population as a whole) some,
-

most
many,
Ex: I know five or six truck drivers (sample), and all of them are
Democrats. So, probably most truck drivers (population) are Democrats.

- In evaluating inductive generalizations, there are three questions we

should ask:
• Are the premises true?
• Is the sample large enough?
• Is the sample representative or typical of the population as a whole?
An inductive generalization is a good one only if we can answer "yes" to all
three questions.
Ex: I've dated three men from Texas, and all of them wore cowboy boots.
So, it's probably the case that all men from Texas wear cowboy boots.
=> This is a bad inductive generalization. The sample size is much too small
to justify the conclusion.
*Notes: We could make the argument stronger by making the conclusion
less sweeping:
some:100%
strong
+ Many of the basses in the Susquehanna River weighs less than one
I
khi compare

I can nay pound →stronger

+ Most of the bass in the Susquehanna River weighs less than one pound
→weaker.
+ All the bass in the Susquehanna River weigh less than one pound →far
weaker 100%

- Other phrases that could soften the conclusion are possibly, probably, and
likely. he hissoft hom
ng
hom
12 -> stranger
 mat de
bit bi biased
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang vote coca" pepsi- CRITICAL THINKING 13
him
bit thing
& tin we vatkhad sat

by theget thing
->
tinating what
*Double-blind: the person taking the poll and the person responding should
have no information about each other, or at least at little as possible.
2. Statical Induction % 12 bout of teat (agesemploy
5 ~
~

- A statistical argument is weak when it provides evidence that its conclusion

is more likely false than true—that is, when the chances that the conclusion
is true are less than 50 percent.
Ex: (1) Only 3 percent of Wexford College students are against building the
new gymnasium. conclu 50%:shong 7

&
<50%:weak
Johnny Z is a Wexford College student.
not
against against
So, Johnny Z is not against building the new gymnasium.
3%97%

=> Strong
(2) Only 3 percent of Wexford College students are against building the new
gymnasium. conche >45%
Things fai
strong
cua

Johnny Z is a Wexford College student. - = unieliable

<20%
reliable
=>

So, Johnny Z is against building the new gymnasium.

=> Weak
- Statistical arguments that approach 50 percent may be strong but are to be
considered relative unreliable.
Ex: Fifty-five percent of Wexford students voted for Watkins as “Teacher of
the Year.”
vote not vote unreliable
Eileen is a Wexford student. -
strong 55%45%
So, Eileen voted for Watkins.N
=> It would be safer to say that “Eileen probably voted for Watkins,” but even
that would be relatively unreliable. After all, there is a 45 percent chance that
she didn’t vote for Watkins.
3. Analog dan
so chin
so sank I at Chung
c82
A
- Don’t be too specific.
B
=>
i8z

13
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING
3
14
I

- Use relevant similarities. vi, ussn e AMaG

- Use many similarities. ->

- Use a diverse and large group.

E dencea

BK:co san
usSt
=>
gia, thisfir xir
rang
sanding
in
(Skary)
- Use true premises.
Ex: Tiffany and Heather are both tall and play basketball.
Tiffany also plays volleyball.
So, Heather probably plays volleyball too.
*Are the premises true?
*Are the similarities relevant?
Since being tall is helpful in volleyball, the fact that both Tiffany and Heather
are tall is relevant to the previous conclusion.
*The more relevant similarities there are, the better.
If we also learn that they both get scholarships if they play more than one
sport, our conclusion is more supported.
*Are there relevant dis-similarities?
- Irrelevant dis-similarities: hair color
- Relevant dis-similarity: job status
* The more examples which are also similar, the better.
If Amber and Krissy are also tall and play both basketball and volleyball our
conclusion is even further supported.
* The more diversity in the examples, the better.
- If Tiffany, Amber and Krissy are different in many ways, except for the fact
that they are all tall and play basketball and volleyball.
- Being tall and playing basketball is relevant to their playing volleyball.
- Thus, Heather’s being tall and playing basketball is better evidence that
she also plays volleyball.
14
 the
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang soft:mic does CRITICAL THINKING 15

C
* Is the conclusion too specific?
“Heather Eprobably plays volleyball” is better supported than “Heather 0
must
play volleyball.”
mint co
4. Casual CaLASe lap han nguyen
nhan
dianhen gi

- 2 broad types: arguments about the cause of a single instance and

arguments about a general relationship.
Ex:
(1) Single instance: Megan’s car wouldn’t start this morning, and she hasn’t
replaced the battery since she bought the car six years ago. So, it is
probably a dead battery that caused the car not to start.
(2) General relationship: The Surgeon General has found that there is a
strong link between smoking cigarettes and getting lung cancer. So,
smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer
- Sometimes, two things or events are clearly associated or linked: where
you find X, you will often find Y. A relationship such of this, in which two
things are frequently found together, is called a correlation.
- Sometimes a correlation is an indicator of a cause and effect relationship.
- A positive correlation, one that indicates two things are found together
more than 50 percent of the time, may indicate a causal connection between
one thing and the other.
- A negative correlation, one that indicates two things are found together
less than 50 percent of the time, may indicate that one thing prevents the
other.
- The important question is this: Is the correlation significant? The answer
depends, in part, on the size of the sample

15