©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 16 Thinking and Speaking Critically

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Thinking and Speaking Critically Critical Thinking The process of making sound inferences based on accurate evidence and valid reasoning Pseudoreasoning An argument that appears sound at first glance but contains a fallacy of reasoning that renders it unsound

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Arguments Verbal aggressiveness  attacking the self-concept of people who disagree with you about controversial claims Argumentativeness  arguing for and against the positions taken on controversial claims  constructive argumentativeness is the best approach for the public speaker

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Toulmin’s Model of Reasoning Grounds = evidence

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Toulmin’s Model of Reasoning Claim = the point the arguer is trying to prove

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Toulmin’s Model of Reasoning Warrant = links grounds and claim

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Toulmin’s Model of Reasoning Backing = Support for the warrant

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Toulmin’s Model of Reasoning Qualifier = Degree of certainty of the argument

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Toulmin’s Model of Reasoning Rebuttal = Reasons that refute the argument

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Example using Toulmin Model

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. What is a Fallacy? An argument in which the reasons advanced for a claim fail to warrant acceptance of the claim

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Fallacies of Claims Red herring  an irrelevant issue introduced into a controversy to divert attention from the real controversy Arguing in a circle  the use of a claim to prove its own truth

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Fallacies of Grounds Unsupported assertion  the absence of any argument at all Distorted evidence  significant omission or change in the grounds altering the original intent Isolated examples  non-typical or non-representative example Misused statistics  poor sampling, lack of significant differences, misuse of average, misuse of percentages

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Fallacies of Warrants & Backing Authority warrant  halo effect because you like or respect a person, you tend to believe whatever he or she says  ad hominem attack against the person, not the argument

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Fallacies of Warrants & Backing Generalization warrant  hasty generalization uses specific instances to reach general conclusions  stereotyping assumes that what is true of a larger class is necessarily true of particular members of that class  false dilemma implies there are only two choices

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Figure 15.3 Argument establishing a generalization

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Figure 15.4 Argument applying a generalization

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Fallacies of Warrants & Backing Comparison (analogy) warrant  claims that two cases that are similar in some known respects are also similar in some unknown respects Causal warrant  post hoc, ergo propter hoc assumes that because one event preceded another, the first event must be the cause of the second event  slippery slope assumes that just because one event occurs, it will automatically lead to a series of undesirable events

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Fallacies of Warrants & Backing Sign warrant  the presence of an observed phenomenon is used to indicate the presence of an unobserved phenomenon  fallacy of mistaking correlation for cause: just because two things are related doesn’t mean one caused the other.

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Fallacies of Qualifiers Loaded language  language that has strong emotional connotations Hyperbole  an exaggeration of a claim

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Fallacies of Rebuttal Straw person  refuting a claim by misstating the argument being refuted Ignoring the issue  failing to refute the claim being made by the other side

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Non Sequitur A non sequitur is an argument that does not follow from its premises