TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 1

Chapter 1:
Introduction to critical thinking
Critical thinking is the general term given to a wide range of cognitive skills and
intellectual dispositions needed:
-To effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims,
-To discover and overcome personal prejudices and biases,
- To formulate and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and
-To make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do.
*Critical Thinking Standards
1. Clarity: Clarity is a gateway standard. Clarity in expression is
a sign of intelligence
• Is my thinking clear?
• Do I need to elaborate my thinking more?
• Do I need to provide an illustration of what I mean?
• Do I need to give an example from everyday life?
2. Accuracy: A statement can be clear, but not accurate.
• Is my thinking accurate?
• How could I check to see if this is true?
• How could I find out if this is correct?
• How can I verify for accuracy?
• Is that really true?
• How could we check that?
• How could we find out if that is true?
3. Precision: A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not
precise. (More specific)
• Questions useful in assessing precision:
• Is my thinking as precise as it needs to be?
• Do I need to be more specific?
• Do I need to give more detail?
• Do I need to be more exact?
4. Relevance:
• Is my thinking relevant to the issue?
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 2

• How does that relate to the question at hand?

• How does this information bear upon the problem I am concerned
with?
• How does this information help me deal effectively with the
issue?
5. Depth: We rightly prefer deep and complete thinking to shallow and
superficial thinking.
• What factors make up this difficult problem?
• What are the complexities of this issue?
• What are the difficulties I need to deal with?
• Is my thinking taking into account the different perspectives I need to
consider?
6. Breadth: The ability to recognize all sides of an issue: broad view or
thinking
• Am I looking at this issue in a narrow minded way?
• Do I need to look at this from another perspective?
• Do I need to consider another point of view?
• Do I need to look at this situation in other ways?
7. Logical correctness: the combination of thoughts is mutually supporting
and makes sense in combination (logical)
• Does this really make sense?
• Does that follow from what you said?
• How does that follow?
• But before you implied this and now you are saying that; how can both
be true?
8. Fairness: an essential attribute of a Critical Thinker.
9. Consistency: A person holds inconsistent beliefs, at least one of those
beliefs must be false
- 2 kinds of inconsistency:
+ Logical inconsistency: involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e.
things that cannot both or all be true) about a particular matter.
+ Practical inconsistency: saying one thing and doing another
*5 Powerful Barriers to critical thinking
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 3

1. Egocentrism: Self-centered thinking

- Self- intered thinking: harmonize one’s own self-interest
- Self-serving bias: overrate oneself
2. Sociocentrism: Group-centered thinking
- Group bias: one’s own group as being inherently better than
others
- Conformism (=herd instinct): follow the crowd
3. Unwarranted assumptions:
- Assumption: believe to be true without any proof
- Stereotyping: hasty generalization
4. Wishful Thinking: wished it were true makes one feel good
5. Relativistic Thinking: The truth is “just a matter of opinion”
- Relativism:
+ Subjectivism: truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion
+ Cultural relativism: truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion
- Moral relativistic:
+ Moral subjectivism: whatever A believes is morally right
+ Cultural moral relativism: whatever A’s society or culture believes
is morally right

Chapter 2:

Recognizing arguments
- Fact is a thing that is occurred, to exist, or to be true. (= can be proved or
disproved)
- Opinion = personal belief, not necessarily the truth
- A statement is a sentence that can be viewed as either true or false. Put
otherwise, 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...“.
+ Rhetorical questions: statements but have grammatical form of questions
Ex: Alyssa, you should quit smoking. Don’t you realize how bad that is for your
health?
+ Ought imperatives: statements but have grammatical form of
imperatives (advice or value judgments, not a command)
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 4

Ex: Do not read beauty magazines. They will only make you feel ugly.
*Some are not statements:
What time is it? (question)
Hi, Dad! (greeting)
Close the window! (command)
Please send me your current catalog. (request)
Let’s go to Paris for our anniversary. (proposal)
Insert tab A into slot B. (instruction)
Oh, my goodness! (exclamation)
- Argument - statements reasons are offered in support of another
statement – a conclusion. Composed of one or more premises and a
conclusion
+ Consist of statements
+ At least 2 statements
+ 1 statement follows from 1 or more other statements in the
passage
Ex: Lawyers earn a lot of money. (Premise)
I want to earn a lot of money. (Premise)
I should become a Lawyer. (Conclusion)
*Premise’s indicators: since, because, for, given that, seeing that,
considering that, in as much as, as, in view of the fact that, as indicated by,
judging from, on account of, otherwise
*Conclusion’s indicators: therefore, thus, hence, consequently, so,
accordingly, it follows that, for this reason, that is why, which shows that,
wherefore, this implies that, as a result, this suggests that, this being so, we
may infer that
If the passage contains no indicator words, try these two strategies:
1. Ask yourself, "What claim is the writer or speaker trying to prove?" That
claim will be the conclusion.
2. Try putting the word "therefore" before each of the statements in turn.
The statement it fits best will be the conclusion.
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 5

- Five kinds are not an argument:

- Arguments: try to convince, prove

- Explanation: Common knowledge, past event, bad argument

Chapter 3:
Basic logical concepts
- Deductive Arguments: try to prove their conclusions with rigorous,
inescapable logic.
- Inductive Arguments: try to show that their conclusion are plausible
(likely or probably), given their premises
+ Deduction indicator words: necessarily, logically, conclusively,
certainly, definitely it must be the case that, and this proves that., this entails
that…
+ Induction indicator words: probably, likely, it is plausible to suppose
that, it is reasonable to think that, and it's a good bet that, one would expect,
reasonable to assume

*The strict necessity test: if the conclusion follows from the premises
with strict logical necessity, the argument is deductive.
* 5 common patterns of deductive reasoning
1) A Hypothetical Syllogism
A syllogism is simply a three-line argument, exactly two premises
and a conclusion.
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 6

- Chain argument: If A then B. If B then C. Therefore, if A then C.

- Valid versions:
+ Modus Ponens: If A then B; A; therefore B (A: antecedent: sự
việc có trước, tiền đề; B: consequent: hậu quả)
+ Modus Tollens: If A then B; not B; therefore not A
- Invalid versions:
+ Denying the antecedent: If A then B, not A; therefore not B
+ Affirming the consequent: If A then B; B; therefore A
2) Categorical syllogism: a three-line argument word all, some,
or no.
Typical Forms:
♦ All a’s are b’s. All b’s are c’s. Therefore, all a’s are c’s.
♦ Some a’s are b’s. All b’s are c’s. Therefore, some a’s are c’s.
3) Argument by Elimination.
♦ Typical forms: A or B. Not B. Therefore A.
4) Mathematics: contain numbers or calculations
5) Argument from definition: “true by definition”, as follows simply by
definition some keyword or phrase used in the argument.
- Definition keywords or phrases “ A is”
Ex: Bertha is an aunt. It follows that she is a woman.
*5 Common patterns of Inductive reasoning
1. Generalization: Claim sth probably true based on info of some
members of a particular class
Ex: (1) Meet black people eating cable => think about slapping all black people
eating cable
(2) This swan is white. This one is also white. Add a white one. Another is a
white one => All swans are white
2. Predictive: what will happen in the future.
Ex: It has rained in Vancouver every February since weather records have
been kept. Therefore, it will probably rain in Vancouver next February
3. From authority: citing some presumed authority or witness
Common form: P said that A was true, therefore A is true.
* Note: Sometimes they are deductive if the source is 100% reliable
4. Casual: the cause
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 7

Not all causal arguments are inductive, if there is true evidence, they are
deductive
Common form: X is true. The likely cause of X being true is Y is true. Therefore, Y
must be true
Ex: I can’t log in. The network must be down
5. Statistical: (Statistical evidence can be used in deductive reasoning)
Common form: xx% of b’s has property p and x is a b, therefore x probably has
property p
6. From analog: analog is a comparison of two or more things that are
claimed to be alike in some relevant respect.
P1 : A and B both share the characteristics X, Y and Z
P2 : A has characteristic W
C : B also has the characteristic W

Part B:
1. Deductive Validity
Valid arguments: 3 trường hợp:
- True premises + True conclusion
- False premises + False conclusion
- False premises + True conclusion
2. Deductive Invalidity: True premises + False conclusion
A deductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow necessarily from
the premises is said to be an invalid deductive argument
Ex: - All dogs are animals. Lassie is an animal. Therefore, Lassie is a dog.
- All pears are vegetables. All fruits are vegetables. Therefore, all pears are
fruits.
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 8

* Strong inductive argument: An inductive argument in which it is unlikely

that its conclusion is false if its premises are true
Common form:
+ Most b’s are p.
+ X is a b.
+ Therefore, (probably) X is p.
Ex: All recent presidents have been college graduates. Therefore, the next
president will be a college graduate.
*Weak inductive argument: inductive argument which it is unlikely that
if its premises are true, its conclusion is also true
*Note:
- Deductive + inductive: cách lập luận, chặt chẽ hay không
- Valid + invalid: Coi có tính logic, hợp lí hay không, nếu suy luận conclusion
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 9

được từ premises thì Valid (not concerned with whether the premises are actually true,
just pretend or assume that they are.)
- Sound +unsound: hợp lệ hay không (so với thực tế)

Chap 9:
A little categorical logic
- Syllogism: three-lined deductive argument.
- Categorical Syllogism: syllogism made of all categorical statements.
*Standard form categorical statements:
All/Some/No + S + are/are not + P
* Translating into standard categorical form

“All S are P”
Every S is a P
Whoever is an S is a P
Whatever is an S is a P
If anything is an S, then it is a P
If somehting is not a P, then it is not an S
Any S is a P
Each S is a P
S are all P
S are always P
Only P are S
Only if something is a P is it an S
The only S are P
Only if something is a P is it a S
“No S are P” No P are S
S are not P
Nothing that is an S is a P
No one who is a S is a P
None of the S is a P
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 10

Not a single S is P
If anything is an S, then it is not a P
All S are non-P
“Some S are P” Many S are P
A few S are P
Some P are S
There are S that are P
Several S are P
Many S are P
Most S are P
Nearly all S are P.
A few S are not P
“Some S are not P”
Not everyone who is an S is a P
S are not always P
Some S are non-P
There are S that are not P
Several S are not P
Most S are not P
Nearly all S are not P
Not all S are P
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 11

RULES
1. Placing the circles for the conclusion at the bottom
2. Premises with ALL or NO statements should be done first
3. When placing X,
- The area has been shaded, place the X in the unshaded part
- The area has not been shaded, place the X on the line separating the two parts

VALIDITY
• The diagram is valid if it show a fully describe of the conclusion
• If the Venn diagram has a X in the line => invalid
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 12

Chap 10:
A little propositional logic
- Disjunction (or): v
- Negation (not): ~
- Conjunction (and): &
- Condition (if-then): ->
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 13

Contain a line with true premises and false conclusion => INVALID
Ex: If buses are in better condition or the wait time is shorter, students will travel to school by
bus. Students will not travel to school by bus, because it’s not the case that these means of
transport are improved and the wait time is shorter.
1. Standard form:
Given: B: Buses are better condition
W: the wait time is shorter
T: students will travel to school by bus
2. Symbolic argument form:
BvW →T
˜(B & W)
So, ˜T
B W T ˜TC BvW B v W→ T* B&W ˜(B & W)*

T T T F T T T F

T T F T T F T F

T F T F T T F T
TA: Vu Thi Thu Trang CRITICAL THINKING 14

T F F T T F F T

F T T F T T F T

F T F T T F F T

F F T F F T F T

F F F T F T F T

=> Invalid