1. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Chapter 9: Critical Thinking PowerPoint by JoAnn Yaworski and Mimi Markus Bridging the Gap, 8/e Brenda Smith

2. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman In this Chapter You Will Learn about:  Critical thinking  Characteristics of critical thinkers  Barriers to critical thinking  Categories of support for arguments  How to recognize an argument  Argument fallacies  Inductive and deductive reasoning

3. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman What Is Thinking? Thinking is an organized and controlled mental activity that helps you solve problems, make decisions, and understand ideas. Good thinkers:  Form a plan  Systematically try different solutions  Work with confidence  Persistently stick with task

4. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Thinking Critically Thinking critically is the process of deliberating in a purposeful, organized manner in order to assess the value of information, both old and new. Critical thinkers: –Search –Compare –Analyze –Clarify –Evaluate –Conclude

5. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Four Habits of Effective Critical Thinkers  Be willing to plan: Think first and write later. Don’t be impulsive. Develop a habit of planning.  Be flexible: Be open to new ideas. Consider new solutions for old problems.  Be persistent: Continue to work even when you are tired and discouraged. Good thinking is hard work.  Be willing to self-correct: Don’t be defensive about errors. Figure out what went wrong and learn from your mistakes.

6. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Academic Goals for Students  Think systematically  Evaluate  Draw conclusions based on logic

7. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Terminology for Critical Thinking

8. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Barriers to Critical Thinking  Frame of reference  Wishful thinking  Hasty moral judgements  Reliance on authority  Labels

9. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman What Is an Argument?  An argument is an assertion that supports a conclusion and is intended to persuade (Ex: “You should water the grass tonight because rain is not predicted for several days.”)  Non-argumentative statements do not question truth but simply offer information to explain and thereby help us understand (Ex: “The grass is wet because it rained last night.”)

10. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Steps in Analyzing an Argument Step 1: Identify the position on the issue Step 2: Identify the support Step 3: Evaluate the support Step 4: Evaluate the argument

11. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Step 1: Identify the Position on the Issue Identify the conclusion. This is the position on the issue (the main point). Key words that signal the issue: as a resultin summary consequentlyit follows that finallytherefore for this reasonthus

12. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Step 2: Identify Support in the Argument Identify the significant details, called premises, that support the main point. Key words that signal significant premises: Becauseassuming that sincegiven that iffirst, second, finally

13. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Categories of Support for Arguments - Part (1)  Facts: Objective truths –Ask: How were the facts gathered? Are they true?  Examples: Anecdotes to demonstrate the truth. –Ask: Are the examples true and relevant?  Analogies: Comparisons to similar cases. –Ask: Are the analogies accurate and relevant?  Authority: Words from a recognized expert. –Ask: What are the credentials and biases of the expert?

14. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Categories of Support for Arguments - Part (2)  Causal relationship: Saying one thing caused another –Ask: Is it an actual cause or merely an association?  Common knowledge claim: Assertion of wide acceptance –Ask: Is it relevant? Does everyone really believe it?  Statistics: Numerical data –Ask: Do the numbers accurately describe the population?  Personal experiences: Personal anecdotes –Ask: Is the experience applicable to other situations?

15. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Step 3: Evaluate the Support Evaluate the support according to three levels of reasoning: 1. Relevance 2. Believability 3. Consistency

16. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman What Is a Fallacy? A fallacy is an inference that appears to be reasonable at first glance, but closer inspection proves it to be unrelated, unreliable, or illogical.

17. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Relevance Fallacies: Is the Support Related to the Conclusion? - Part (1)  Ad hominem: An attack on the person rather than the issue in hopes that if the person is opposed, the idea will be opposed (Ex: Do not listen to Mr. Hite’s views on education because he is a banker.)  Bandwagon: The idea that everybody is doing it and you will be left out if you do not quickly join the crowd (Ex: Everybody around the world is drinking Coke, so you should too)  Misleading analogy: A comparison of two things suggesting that they are similar when they are in fact distinctly different (Ex: College students are just like elementary school students; they need to be taught self-discipline.)

18. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Relevance Fallacies: Is the Support Related to the Conclusion? - Part (2)  Straw person: A setup in which a distorted or exaggerated form of the opponent’s argument is introduced and knocked down as if to represent a totally weak opposition (Ex: When a teen-aged daughter is told she cannot go out on the weeknight before a test, she replies with “that’s unreasonable to say that I can never go out on a weeknight.”)  Testimonials: Opinions of agreement from respected celebrities who are not actually experts (Ex: A famous actor endorses a headache pill.)

19. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Relevance Fallacies: Is the Support Related to the Conclusion? - Part (3)  Transfer: An association with a positively or negatively regarded person or thing in order to lend the same association to the argument (also guilt or virtue by association) (Ex: A local politician quotes President Lincoln in a speech as if Lincoln would have agreed with and voted for the candidate.)

20. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Believability Fallacies: Is the Support Believable or Highly Suspicious?  Incomplete facts or card stacking  Misinterpreted statistics  Overgeneralizations  Questionable authority

21. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Consistency Fallacies: Does the Support Hold Together or Does it Fall Apart & Contradict Itself?  Appeals to emotions  Appeals to pity  Begging the question or circular reasoning  Oversimplification  Slippery slope

22. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Step 4: Evaluate the Argument Allow yourself time to go over the arguments. Halpern’s four different degrees of support: 1. Unrelated reasons give no support. 2. A few weak reasons do not adequately support. 3. Many weak reasons can support. 4. Strong related reasons provide support.

23. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Inductive  Inductive reasoners: – Start by gathering data. –Consider all available material. –Formulate a conclusion. Deductive  Deductive reasoners: –Start with the conclusion of a previous experience. –Apply it to a new situation.

24. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Creative and Critical Thinking Creative thinking is the ability to generate many possible solutions to a problem. Critical thinking is the examination of these solutions for the selection of the best of all possibilities.

25. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Two Kinds of Creative Thinking Vertical  Straightforward, logical thinking to solve a problem Lateral  Thinking around the problem or even redefining the problem

26. © 2005 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Visit the Longman English Pages  http://www.ablongman.com/englishpages Take a Road Trip to the American Southwest! Visit the Critical Thinking and Analytical Reasoning module in your Reading Road Trip CD-ROM for multimedia, tutorials, exercises, and tests.