Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Norton Field Guide for Speaking 7.2

•Download as PPTX, PDF•
•
Coastal Carolina Community College
Coastal Carolina Community College

This document summarizes key concepts about critical thinking and arguments from a chapter on critical thinking. It discusses the components of a strong argument, including claims, evidence, and warrants. It also covers different types of reasoning like deductive and inductive. Additionally, it outlines common fallacies to avoid, such as appeals to emotion, authority, or popularity. The goal is to help readers understand how to construct persuasive arguments and identify flawed logic.

1 of 26
Chapter 7.2 Thinking Critically about Arguments Copyright © 2022 W. W. Norton & Company
Introduction • Arguments are composed of claims supported by evidence and reasons for accepting them meant attempt to persuade people • A persuasive argument is more than a recitation of facts and statistics or a series of anecdotes and expert testimony assembled in a haphazard way • It needs to make sense 2
Reasoning • Reasoning is the process of constructing and analyzing an argument • Every well-reasoned argument offers a number of statements (premises) that support and lead us to accept its claim (conclusion) • There are two major types of reasoning: • Deductive reasoning • Inductive reasoning 3
Deductive Reasoning • Deductive reasoning requires that if its initial statements (premises) are true, its claim (conclusion) will also be true All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. • The structure of this argument guarantees the truth of the concluding claim • Most persuasive speakers don’t recite three-part deductive arguments and instead might employ a deductive argument that is hidden below the surface, with some of its premises unspoken 4
Inductive Reasoning • Inductive reasoning assembles a number of related observations that together lead to a general conclusion that probably explains something important about the observations • Inductive arguments are almost never a hundred percent true • Persuading an audience to accept your conclusions can depend on personal and emotional appeals (ethos and pathos) as much as it does on the apparent reasonableness of your argument (logos). 5
Type of inductive reasoning Definition Example Cause Actions or inactions that consistently give rise to a predictable effect—another action, phenomenon, or condition In 2019, a mysterious new respiratory and vascular disease appeared in Wuhan, China. All the patients presenting with this disease were found to have a new coronavirus in their system. This coronavirus—soon named COVID-19—was identified as the cause of the disease. Sign Observations about a phenomenon that are linked so frequently that a particular effect is predictable. The sign does not cause the effect but is evidence of the effect Most confirmed COVID-19 patients experience some combination of the following symptoms: fever, dry cough, breathing difficulty, muscle aches, chills, tiredness, and loss of taste and smell. Generalization A series of examples that share characteristics or outcomes considered reliable as descriptions or predictions that are true in most situations Contact tracers and public researchers report that many COVID-19 patients attended large indoor gatherings with people who weren’t wearing masks or social distancing. Conversely, fewer people contracted COVID-19 if they were consistently isolated and masked. Classification Grouping various objects on the basis of their commonly known properties; taking what is known to be true about a group of people, objects, events, and phenomena as true about an individual member of the group Countries that instituted universal mask wearing, social distancing, business shutdowns, quarantines, and strict border control had the lowest COVID rates and deaths. New Zealand had one of the lowest rates of infection in the world, probably because it instituted all these actions. Analogy A comparison of two otherwise different things based on similar qualities, functions, and/ or characteristics in order to conclude that what is true about one is likely to be true about the other Wearing a mask to protect yourself and others from COVID-19 is like wearing a seat belt and not driving when drunk. 6
Thinking Critically about Facts, Inferences, and Opinions (1 of 2) • To think critically about the arguments in a presentation, you need to understand the differences among facts, inferences, and opinions • A fact is a statement about a person, object, or event that can be proven true or false • An inference goes beyond facts to reach a conclusion that may not be provable • An opinion is a statement that evaluates or judges the facts and inferences in a situation 7
Thinking Critically about Facts, Inferences, and Opinions (2 of 2) • The following table summarizes the ways that facts, inferences, and opinions differ: Facts Inferences Opinions • Can be proven • Stick with what is observed • Are objective • Seek truth • Can be made at any time • Go beyond what is observed • Are interpretations of facts • Claim probability • Can be made at any time • Go beyond what is observed and/or inferred • Are value judgments about facts and inferences • Seek justification and agreement 8
The Toulmin Model of Argument • The Toulmin model of argument, developed in the 1950s by Stephen Toulmin, explains that a complete argument requires three fundamental components: • Claim • Evidence • Warrant 9
Claim • A claim states the conclusion or position a speaker advocates in a presentation • It is the idea or opinion you want the audience to learn or believe as well as the action you want them to take • When developing or analyzing the validity of an argument, your first critical thinking task is to identify the claim 10
Evidence (1 of 2) • Evidence consists of relevant, verified, and valid facts and supporting material used to strengthen belief in an argument • The quality of evidence used to support a claim can be tested by asking five questions: • Is the evidence relevant, timely, and specific to this particular claim? • Is there enough evidence to justify the claim? • Is the evidence understandable to listeners? • Is the source of evidence identified, credible, and unbiased? • Is the evidence consistent with similar information from other credible sources? 11
Evidence (2 of 2) • Evidence is compelling if it meets the following criteria: • Novel: Evidence that your audience is already aware of often fails to persuade because it doesn’t engage an audience’s attention, interest, or critical thinking as effectively as new or not widely known evidence • Believable: You need to bolster the believability of your evidence by addressing the reasons why you may doubt the evidence and explain its relevance, accuracy, and authority • Dramatic: When using evidence, especially statistics, for a persuasive presentation, find ways to dramatize its importance 12
Warrant (1 of 2) • The warrant explains why the evidence is relevant and how it supports the claim 13
Warrant (2 of 2) Consider the argument advocating food diaries: [Evidence] Almost half of all Americans want to lose weight. [Claim] If you're among them, you should keep a food-intake diary. [Warrant] Dr. Nathan Carter, the lead researcher in a medical school study, has reported that patients who kept food-intake diaries were twice as likely to lose weight as were patients who used any other method. 14
Backing, Reservations, and Qualifiers (1 of 2) • There are three supplementary components of the Toulmin model: • Backing certifies the validity of the argument’s warrant or provides more data and information justifying it • Reservations recognize exceptions to an argument’s claim or indicates that a claim may not be true under certain circumstances • Qualifiers state the degree to which a claim appears to be true 15
Backing, Reservations, and Qualifiers (2 of 2) 16
The Fallacies of Argument • Skilled speakers and listeners recognize flawed arguments by identifying fallacies • A fallacy is an error in thinking that has the potential to mislead or deceive others • Fallacies can be intentional or unintentional 17
Attacking the Person • The attacking the person fallacy—ad hominem—makes irrelevant attacks against a person rather than against the content of a person’s message • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Does the person deserve this negative criticism? • Is the personal attack a relevant critique of the person’s credibility? • How often does the speaker resort to attacking someone else rather than make a coherent argument? • Is the attack appropriate or excessive? 18
Appeal to Authority • The appeal to authority fallacy occurs when the supposed expert has no relevant experience on the issues being discussed • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Does the speaker, or the person the speaker identifies as an authority, have the experience and qualifications to be an expert authority on the subject? • Who benefits if you believe the authority—listeners or the so- called authority? • Is the status of the authority a relevant criterion for accepting the argument’s claims? 19
Appeal to Popularity • The appeal to popularity fallacy claims that an action is acceptable or excusable because many people are doing it • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Is popularity a relevant criterion for making a decision? • Is the appeal justified because it’s popular? • What are the disadvantages of following the crowd in this case? 20
Appeal to Emotions • The appeal to emotions fallacy happens when a speaker uses pathos inappropriately in order to deceive or to distract the audience • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Are the facts, situations, or stories that arouse emotions true? • Are the speaker’s emotional examples unusual or rare? • Does the speaker include valid arguments with logical supporting evidence, warrants, and claims? • Can the aroused emotions lead to attitudes, beliefs, and/or actions that harm innocent or trusting people? • Do the emotional appeals serve the speaker’s interests only? 21
Faulty Cause • The faulty cause fallacy occurs when you claim that a particular situation or event is the cause of another event before ruling out other possible causes • This fallacy involves confusing correlation for causation • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Has the speaker or sources of information identified the real cause? • What else could explain why this happened? • Are there multiple causes instead of just one 22
Hasty Generalizations and Selected Instances • The related selected instances fallacy occurs when a speaker purposely picks atypical examples to prove an argument • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Are these rare or infrequent examples? • How many times has the opposite occurred? • Why did the speaker choose these particular stories or examples? 23
Begging the Question • The begging the question fallacy is a type of circular reasoning in which the evidence meant to support an argument assumes the claim is true • There is no warrant in this argument because the evidence and claim are the same and assumed true • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Does the argument assume that something unproven is true? • Does evidence (and warrant, if there is one) sound like the claim itself? 24
Conclusion • Your credibility and success as a persuasive speaker depend on your ability to think critically as you create, use, and analyze arguments • The Toulmin model of argument provides a way for speakers and audience members to understand the components of a sound argument • Identifying flawed evidence and fallacious arguments is an invaluable skill 25
Credits This concludes the Lecture PowerPoint presentation for Chapter 7.2. For more resources, please visit The Norton Field Guide to Speaking: http://digital.wwnorton.com/nfgspeaking. Copyright © 2022 W. W. Norton & Company

More Related Content

Norton Field Guide for Speaking 7.2

  • 1. Chapter 7.2 Thinking Critically about Arguments Copyright © 2022 W. W. Norton & Company
  • 2. Introduction • Arguments are composed of claims supported by evidence and reasons for accepting them meant attempt to persuade people • A persuasive argument is more than a recitation of facts and statistics or a series of anecdotes and expert testimony assembled in a haphazard way • It needs to make sense 2
  • 3. Reasoning • Reasoning is the process of constructing and analyzing an argument • Every well-reasoned argument offers a number of statements (premises) that support and lead us to accept its claim (conclusion) • There are two major types of reasoning: • Deductive reasoning • Inductive reasoning 3
  • 4. Deductive Reasoning • Deductive reasoning requires that if its initial statements (premises) are true, its claim (conclusion) will also be true All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. • The structure of this argument guarantees the truth of the concluding claim • Most persuasive speakers don’t recite three-part deductive arguments and instead might employ a deductive argument that is hidden below the surface, with some of its premises unspoken 4
  • 5. Inductive Reasoning • Inductive reasoning assembles a number of related observations that together lead to a general conclusion that probably explains something important about the observations • Inductive arguments are almost never a hundred percent true • Persuading an audience to accept your conclusions can depend on personal and emotional appeals (ethos and pathos) as much as it does on the apparent reasonableness of your argument (logos). 5
  • 6. Type of inductive reasoning Definition Example Cause Actions or inactions that consistently give rise to a predictable effect—another action, phenomenon, or condition In 2019, a mysterious new respiratory and vascular disease appeared in Wuhan, China. All the patients presenting with this disease were found to have a new coronavirus in their system. This coronavirus—soon named COVID-19—was identified as the cause of the disease. Sign Observations about a phenomenon that are linked so frequently that a particular effect is predictable. The sign does not cause the effect but is evidence of the effect Most confirmed COVID-19 patients experience some combination of the following symptoms: fever, dry cough, breathing difficulty, muscle aches, chills, tiredness, and loss of taste and smell. Generalization A series of examples that share characteristics or outcomes considered reliable as descriptions or predictions that are true in most situations Contact tracers and public researchers report that many COVID-19 patients attended large indoor gatherings with people who weren’t wearing masks or social distancing. Conversely, fewer people contracted COVID-19 if they were consistently isolated and masked. Classification Grouping various objects on the basis of their commonly known properties; taking what is known to be true about a group of people, objects, events, and phenomena as true about an individual member of the group Countries that instituted universal mask wearing, social distancing, business shutdowns, quarantines, and strict border control had the lowest COVID rates and deaths. New Zealand had one of the lowest rates of infection in the world, probably because it instituted all these actions. Analogy A comparison of two otherwise different things based on similar qualities, functions, and/ or characteristics in order to conclude that what is true about one is likely to be true about the other Wearing a mask to protect yourself and others from COVID-19 is like wearing a seat belt and not driving when drunk. 6
  • 7. Thinking Critically about Facts, Inferences, and Opinions (1 of 2) • To think critically about the arguments in a presentation, you need to understand the differences among facts, inferences, and opinions • A fact is a statement about a person, object, or event that can be proven true or false • An inference goes beyond facts to reach a conclusion that may not be provable • An opinion is a statement that evaluates or judges the facts and inferences in a situation 7
  • 8. Thinking Critically about Facts, Inferences, and Opinions (2 of 2) • The following table summarizes the ways that facts, inferences, and opinions differ: Facts Inferences Opinions • Can be proven • Stick with what is observed • Are objective • Seek truth • Can be made at any time • Go beyond what is observed • Are interpretations of facts • Claim probability • Can be made at any time • Go beyond what is observed and/or inferred • Are value judgments about facts and inferences • Seek justification and agreement 8
  • 9. The Toulmin Model of Argument • The Toulmin model of argument, developed in the 1950s by Stephen Toulmin, explains that a complete argument requires three fundamental components: • Claim • Evidence • Warrant 9
  • 10. Claim • A claim states the conclusion or position a speaker advocates in a presentation • It is the idea or opinion you want the audience to learn or believe as well as the action you want them to take • When developing or analyzing the validity of an argument, your first critical thinking task is to identify the claim 10
  • 11. Evidence (1 of 2) • Evidence consists of relevant, verified, and valid facts and supporting material used to strengthen belief in an argument • The quality of evidence used to support a claim can be tested by asking five questions: • Is the evidence relevant, timely, and specific to this particular claim? • Is there enough evidence to justify the claim? • Is the evidence understandable to listeners? • Is the source of evidence identified, credible, and unbiased? • Is the evidence consistent with similar information from other credible sources? 11
  • 12. Evidence (2 of 2) • Evidence is compelling if it meets the following criteria: • Novel: Evidence that your audience is already aware of often fails to persuade because it doesn’t engage an audience’s attention, interest, or critical thinking as effectively as new or not widely known evidence • Believable: You need to bolster the believability of your evidence by addressing the reasons why you may doubt the evidence and explain its relevance, accuracy, and authority • Dramatic: When using evidence, especially statistics, for a persuasive presentation, find ways to dramatize its importance 12
  • 13. Warrant (1 of 2) • The warrant explains why the evidence is relevant and how it supports the claim 13
  • 14. Warrant (2 of 2) Consider the argument advocating food diaries: [Evidence] Almost half of all Americans want to lose weight. [Claim] If you're among them, you should keep a food-intake diary. [Warrant] Dr. Nathan Carter, the lead researcher in a medical school study, has reported that patients who kept food-intake diaries were twice as likely to lose weight as were patients who used any other method. 14
  • 15. Backing, Reservations, and Qualifiers (1 of 2) • There are three supplementary components of the Toulmin model: • Backing certifies the validity of the argument’s warrant or provides more data and information justifying it • Reservations recognize exceptions to an argument’s claim or indicates that a claim may not be true under certain circumstances • Qualifiers state the degree to which a claim appears to be true 15
  • 16. Backing, Reservations, and Qualifiers (2 of 2) 16
  • 17. The Fallacies of Argument • Skilled speakers and listeners recognize flawed arguments by identifying fallacies • A fallacy is an error in thinking that has the potential to mislead or deceive others • Fallacies can be intentional or unintentional 17
  • 18. Attacking the Person • The attacking the person fallacy—ad hominem—makes irrelevant attacks against a person rather than against the content of a person’s message • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Does the person deserve this negative criticism? • Is the personal attack a relevant critique of the person’s credibility? • How often does the speaker resort to attacking someone else rather than make a coherent argument? • Is the attack appropriate or excessive? 18
  • 19. Appeal to Authority • The appeal to authority fallacy occurs when the supposed expert has no relevant experience on the issues being discussed • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Does the speaker, or the person the speaker identifies as an authority, have the experience and qualifications to be an expert authority on the subject? • Who benefits if you believe the authority—listeners or the so- called authority? • Is the status of the authority a relevant criterion for accepting the argument’s claims? 19
  • 20. Appeal to Popularity • The appeal to popularity fallacy claims that an action is acceptable or excusable because many people are doing it • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Is popularity a relevant criterion for making a decision? • Is the appeal justified because it’s popular? • What are the disadvantages of following the crowd in this case? 20
  • 21. Appeal to Emotions • The appeal to emotions fallacy happens when a speaker uses pathos inappropriately in order to deceive or to distract the audience • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Are the facts, situations, or stories that arouse emotions true? • Are the speaker’s emotional examples unusual or rare? • Does the speaker include valid arguments with logical supporting evidence, warrants, and claims? • Can the aroused emotions lead to attitudes, beliefs, and/or actions that harm innocent or trusting people? • Do the emotional appeals serve the speaker’s interests only? 21
  • 22. Faulty Cause • The faulty cause fallacy occurs when you claim that a particular situation or event is the cause of another event before ruling out other possible causes • This fallacy involves confusing correlation for causation • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Has the speaker or sources of information identified the real cause? • What else could explain why this happened? • Are there multiple causes instead of just one 22
  • 23. Hasty Generalizations and Selected Instances • The related selected instances fallacy occurs when a speaker purposely picks atypical examples to prove an argument • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Are these rare or infrequent examples? • How many times has the opposite occurred? • Why did the speaker choose these particular stories or examples? 23
  • 24. Begging the Question • The begging the question fallacy is a type of circular reasoning in which the evidence meant to support an argument assumes the claim is true • There is no warrant in this argument because the evidence and claim are the same and assumed true • To avoid this fallacy, ask yourself these questions: • Does the argument assume that something unproven is true? • Does evidence (and warrant, if there is one) sound like the claim itself? 24
  • 25. Conclusion • Your credibility and success as a persuasive speaker depend on your ability to think critically as you create, use, and analyze arguments • The Toulmin model of argument provides a way for speakers and audience members to understand the components of a sound argument • Identifying flawed evidence and fallacious arguments is an invaluable skill 25
  • 26. Credits This concludes the Lecture PowerPoint presentation for Chapter 7.2. For more resources, please visit The Norton Field Guide to Speaking: http://digital.wwnorton.com/nfgspeaking. Copyright © 2022 W. W. Norton & Company

Editor's Notes

  1. Stephen E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (London: Cambridge University Press, 1958); and Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning (New York: Macmillan, 1979
  2. Douglas N. Walton, Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991), 285