Critical Thinking

DR. ABDERRAHIM BENLAHCENE

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SCIENCES
FALL OF 2024-2025
The art and science
of being reasonable 1
 Reason with logic and certainty
Necessary and sufficient conditions:
 One of the most fundamental ways in which concepts can be logically
connected is through necessary and sufficient conditions.
 Here is an example of each:
 In order for me to be a successful student, it is necessary for me to work
hard.
 This exam has a pass mark of 50, so my score of 52 is sufficient to pass.
 A necessary condition: is something that must be true in order for another
thing to be true, but where the truth of the first thing does not guarantee
the second. “I must work hard if I want to succeed”, but working hard doesn’t
guarantee success.
 A sufficient condition: by contrast, can guarantee that something is true.
Reason with logic and certainty
Necessary and sufficient conditions:
 Necessary condition: must be met if something is to be true, but cannot by
itself guarantee the truth of that thing.

 Sufficient condition: one that, if met, does guarantee the truth of something.

 So, Failing to meet a necessary condition means that THING X cannot be

true. But ..meeting any number of necessary conditions still can’t guarantee
that THING X is true. But..the moment that any sufficient condition is met,
this does guarantee that THING X is true.
Reason with logic and certainty

Necessary and sufficient conditions:

Example:

 Being alive is a necessary condition for being a parent. But,

just because you are alive does not guarantee that you are a
parent. But, having one or more children is sufficient to
guarantee that you are a parent. So, if you have one or more
children, you are guaranteed to be a parent.
Reason with logic and certainty

Necessary and sufficient conditions:

 Complete this paragraph in the same way:

Not eating any dairy products is a necessary condition for being a

vegan. But just because you do not does not guarantee
that you are_____ . But not eating or using any animal
products whatsoever is sufficient to guarantee that you are . So,
if you _______________ then you are guaranteed to
be______________.
 Reason with logic and certainty

Necessary and sufficient conditions:

 Not eating any dairy products is a necessary condition for being a

vegan. But just because you do not eat any dairy products does not
guarantee that you are a vegan. But not eating or using any animal
products whatsoever is sufficient to guarantee that you are a vegan.
So, if you do not eat or use any animal products whatsoever, then
you are guaranteed to be a vegan.
Reason with logic and certainty

 Its all about Logic..

 Logic: the principles and methods used to distinguish between correct and
incorrect reasoning.

 Common sense and close reading go a long way when you’re assessing
arguments, but sometimes it’s important to understand things on a more
fundamental level – and to have in the back of your mind a sense of the
general logical forms that valid arguments take.
 Reason with logic and certainty
Affirming the antecedent versus affirming the consequent
 Affirming the antecedent: a valid form of argument in which, because
one thing is said always to follow from another, the truth of the first guarantees the
second is also true.
Premise 1: If it is raining, then I will use my umbrella.
Premise 2: It is raining.
Conclusion: Therefore, I will use my umbrella.
 Affirming the antecedent needs to be carefully distinguished from a similar but
invalid form of argument – something called a formal fallacy, because the form of
the argument is itself false and illogical. This is the fallacy of affirming the
consequent.
Reason with logic and certainty
Affirming the antecedent versus affirming the consequent
 Formal fallacy: an invalid form of argument representing an error in logic,
meaning that arguments in this form cannot be relied on to arrive at valid
conclusions.

 Affirming the consequent: an invalid argument which mistakenly

assumes that, when one thing always follows from another, the truth of the
second also guarantees the first.
 Here is the fallacy in concrete form:
 Premise 1: If it is raining, then I will use my umbrella.
 Premise 2: I am using my umbrella.
 Conclusion: Therefore, it is raining.
Reason with logic and certainty
Affirming the antecedent versus affirming the consequent

 This is an invalid argument because its conclusion does not inevitably follow from
its premises. It may or may not be true that, if I am using my umbrella, it is raining
– but my stated premises do not allow us to deduce this.

 A further example makes it clear what is wrong with this kind of fallacy:

 If I were conducting a secret affair with the president of the United States, the
president would not mention my name publicly. The president has never
mentioned my name publicly; therefore, I am conducting a secret affair with the
president.
 Reason with logic and certainty
Denying the consequent versus denying the antecedent
 Denying the consequent: a valid form of argument in which, because one thing (B)
is said always to follow from another (A), the fact that the second isn't true (B) also
guarantees the first (A)isn't true.
 Premise 1: If it is raining(A), then I will use my umbrella (B).
 Premise 2: I am not using my umbrella (B).
 Conclusion: Therefore, it is not raining(A).
 Denying the antecedent: an invalid argument which mistakenly assumes that, when
one thing always follows from another, the fact that the first isn't true also guarantees
the second isn't true.
Premise 1: If it is raining, then there will be clouds in the sky.
Premise 2: It is not raining.
Conclusion: Therefore, there will not be clouds in the sky.
Reason with logic and certainty
Induction reasoning :
 Premises strongly support a conclusion, but where we can never be
absolutely certain that it is true.

 Looking to see where our premises might lead us. We are making
generalizations, inferring future events from past ones and asking what is
most likely to be true, rather than dealing in absolutes

 Ampliative reasoning: another way of describing inductive reasoning –

intended to show that such reasoning works by ‘amplifying’ premise into a
broader conclusion.
 Reason with logic and certainty
There has never been a female president of the United States. So, the next
president of the United states will almost certainly be a man as well.

 The key question here is how far you agree with the idea that the past is a good guide
to the future in this case.

 When deploying inductive reasoning, we are always dealing with degrees of

confidence rather than certainty.

 An inductive argument cannot be valid in the way that a deductive argument is logically
valid. in inductive argument, people try to persuade us to accept their particular

account as the best one available, but can’t prove something beyond all doubt.
 Reason with logic and certainty
 Ranking inductive arguments: determining which arguments are
more or less convincing relative to one another.
 Consider the following inductive arguments. Can you rank them in order, from least convincing
to most convincing?
 1 There has never been a female US president – and this suggests there will never be a
female US president.
 2 There has never been a female US president – and this suggests the next president will not
be female either.
 3 There has never been a female US president – but all things change and, at some point,
there eventually will be.
 4 There has never been a female US president – but the time is ripe for change sooner rather
than later and there will be one within the next decade.

 Least convincing: there will never be a female US president.

 Slightly more convincing: there will be a female president within a decade.
 Even more convincing: the next president will not be female.
 Most convincing of all: there will at some point be a female US president.
Critical Thinking
Dr. Abderrahim Benlahcene
Assistant Professor of Psychology
College of Humanities and Sciences
Fall of 2024-2025
The art and science of being reasonable 2
  Argument can be perfectly valid while being
based on lies or made-up nonsense. However,
validity has an important relationship with truth,
because every valid deductive argument is truth-
Reason with preserving.
logic and  Its validity means that it will successfully preserve
certainty the truth of all its premises, allowing us to draw
true conclusions – so long as our premises are
also true.

 If the premises of a valid deductive argument are

 Sound and unsound arguments:
 Sound: a deductive argument that is both
Reason with valid and has true premises, meaning its
conclusion must also be true.
logic and
certainty
 Unsound: an argument that does not meet
the standard of soundness, either because it
is invalid or because one or more of its
premises is untrue, or both.
 Sound and unsound arguments:
 Consider the following two premises:
“If you want to conduct a literature review for your
research, you must only make use of completely
Reason with unbiased sources. But all sources are biased in
one way or another.”
logic and
 Premise 1: If you want to write a literature
certainty review, then you should only make use of
completely unbiased sources. (If A, then B)
 Premise 2: There are no unbiased sources for
you to use. (Not B)
 Conclusion: You cannot write a literature review.
(Therefore, not A)
 Sound and unsound arguments:
 “If you want to conduct a literature review for
Reason with your research, you must be aware of any
bias in your sources. All sources are
logic and
potentially biased in one way or another.
certainty Therefore, when conducting a literature
review you must consider potential biases in
every source……more sound
 Recap of Key Definitions:
 Argument: A set of statements in which a claim
(called the conclusion ) is defended with reasons
Reason with (called the premises ).

logic and  Deductive argument: An argument in which the

conclusion is claimed or intended to follow
certainty necessarily from the premises.

 Inductive argument: An argument in which the

conclusion is claimed or intended to follow
probably from the premises.
 Recap of Key Definitions:
 Valid argument: A deductive argument in which the
conclusion follows necessarily from the premises—
that is, a deductive argument in which it is
Reason with
impossible for the premises to be true and the
logic and conclusion false.

certainty  Invalid argument: A deductive argument in which

the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the
premises—that is, a deductive argument in which it
is possible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false.
 Recap of Key Definitions:

 Sound argument: A deductive argument that

Reason with both is valid and has all true premises.

logic and
 Unsound argument: A deductive argument
certainty
that either is invalid or has at least one false

premise, or both.
 Recap of Key Definitions:
 Strong argument: An inductive argument in
which the conclusion follows probably from the
premises—that is, an inductive argument in
Reason with which it is unlikely that its conclusion is false if its
logic and premises are true.

 Weak argument: An inductive argument in

certainty
which the conclusion does not follow probably
from the premises—that is, an inductive
argument in which it is unlikely that if its
premises are true, its conclusion is also true.
  Watch the video “Why Logic is a Really Great Thing,
Until it Isn’t” on YouTube and tell me what do you think.
Class Activity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLyArirP71g
Critical Thinking

DR. ABDERRAHIM BENLAHCENE

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY

COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SCIENCES

FALL OF 2024-2025
Understand the cause-
and-effect relationship
 INTRODUCTION TO INDUCTION
• An inductive argument is one in which the premises are intended
to provide support, but not conclusive evidence, for the
conclusion. Because inductive arguments do not guarantee that
their conclusions are true, we evaluate them according to the
strength of the support they provide for their conclusions.
• An inductive argument is strong when its premises provide
evidence that its conclusion is more likely true than false. And
weak when its premises do not provide evidence that its
conclusion is more likely true than false.
INTRODUCTION TO INDUCTION
• Not all inductive arguments move from specific premises to a
general conclusion.
• Some are moves from a general premise to a more specific
conclusion:
• Most critical thinking students improve greatly in their ability to
analyze arguments.
• So, you will probably improve greatly in your ability to analyze
arguments.

• Does the premise intend to guarantee the conclusion?

 INTRODUCTION TO INDUCTION

• Another important clue that this is an inductive argument is the word

probably, it called as induction indicator words.
• Among the important indicator words and phrases for inductive arguments
are “likely, probably, it’s plausible to suppose that, it’s reasonable to
believe that, one would expect that, it’s a good bet that, chances are that,
and odds are that.”
• Notice that most of these phrases can be, and often are, used in making
predictions; but not guarantee its inductive.
 INDUCTION AND CAUSAL ARGUMENTS
• Humans are a curious, our nature drives us to search for
knowledge. One of the most common and important kinds of
knowledge we seek is knowledge of cause and effect.
• “Why didn’t my alarm clock go off when it was supposed to?
Why is there no hot water left for my shower?”
• We tend to look for causal connections when we are surprised
(pleasantly or unpleasantly) by what occurs
• Cats don’t care about cause and effect.
 INDUCTION AND CAUSAL ARGUMENTS
• A cause is that which brings about a change, that which produces an
effect. The relationship of cause and effect, however, doesn’t come into
play only when we’re surprised by something. We count on it all the time
without realizing it.
• Example, we may rarely think about the law of gravity, that tells us there is
a cause-and-effect relationship making heavy objects fall to the ground.
• One piece of supporting evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship
between two things or events is that one thing regularly comes before the
other. (The cause)
INDUCTION AND CAUSAL ARGUMENTS
• In arguments; we should note that not all causal arguments contain
the word cause. Other causal terms include produces, is responsible
for, affects, makes, changes, and contributes to.
• Such arguments come in two broad types:
• Arguments about the cause of a 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.
 INDUCTION AND CAUSAL ARGUMENTS

• Arguments about a 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
• Inductive arguments, premises provide strong evidence for
the conclusion
INDUCTION AND CAUSAL ARGUMENTS
• When speaking about causality in a population, we usually mean
that X causes a higher rate of Y in the population. We do not usually
mean that every individual who uses X will get Y.
• “smoking cigarettes causes cancer”. This does not mean, that
everyone who smokes will get cancer. Rather, it means that smoking
cigarettes results in a higher rate of cancer in people who smoke as
opposed to people who don’t smoke.
• Some people who do not smoke do get cancer. And some rare
individuals may smoke cigarettes every day until they die at one
hundred years old without ever getting cancer.
INDUCTION AND CAUSAL ARGUMENTS
• Correlation and cause
• Sometimes two things or events are clearly associated or linked: Where you find X,
you will often find Y. A relationship such as this, in which two things are frequently, or
even constantly, found together, is called a correlation.
• In a correlation, two things share a mutual relationship; where one is found, the other
is often, or always, found.
• In contrast, in the relationship of causation, one thing produces or brings about the
other.
• Sometimes a correlation is an indicator of a cause-and-effect relationship.
• For example, the high rate of lung cancer deaths among smokers led to the
investigation and discovery of a causal link between them.
INDUCTION AND CAUSAL ARGUMENTS
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5a-Cnkrbx4
• Your Dangerous Obsession with Cause and Effect
 Critical Thinking

Dr. Abderrahim Benlahcene

Assistant Professor of Psychology
College of Humanities and Sciences
Fall of 2024-2025
Distinguish between facts and opinions
 Faulty reasoning
 Bad reasoning isn’t the same as basing your thinking on inaccurate

information, or simply lying. It is a special kind of error.

 Bad reasoning occurs when you make a faulty connection between

premises and a conclusion – and yet this faulty connection is presented in

the manner of a reasonable justification.

 It’s one in which the language, methods and tools of reasoning are misapplied.

 We can train ourselves to spot this kind of faulty reasoning by becoming

familiar with its general forms, (fallacies).

 Faulty reasoning

 Fallacy: A flawed general type of argument that establishes a faulty

connection between premises and conclusion, thus failing to give us a
good reason to accept the conclusion.

 Example:

 Everyone I’ve spoken to, thinks that the president is doing a terrific job.
You should stop moaning and accept that he’s the right leader for this
country!
 What you think about it?
 Faulty reasoning

Fallacious argument:

 An argument whose conclusion does not follow from its

premises, because its reasoning rests on an identifiable fallacy.

 Faulty reasoning
 Something wrong but not easy to found it because its flaw is implicit rather

than explicit, An unstated assumption is at work, and the problem lies

here – in something that hasn’t been said or directly acknowledged.

 Once we spell out the unstated assumption in question, the problem

becomes clear enough:

 Everyone I’ve spoken to thinks that the president is doing a terrific job. The

collected opinions of the people I’ve spoken to are sufficient for establishing
the definitive truth. You should stop moaning and accept that he’s the right
leader for this country!
 Faulty reasoning
Fallacious argument:
Appeal to popularity:
 a fallacious form of argument based on the assumption that whatever
most people think must be true.

 Contrast this with a different fallacious approach to the same topic:

 Both the people I’ve spoken to think that the president is doing a
terrific job. I’ve spoken to Burt and Ernie, and they are always right.
You should stop moaning and accept that he’s the right leader for this
country!
 Faulty reasoning
Fallacious argument:
Appeal to irrelevant authority:
 A fallacious form of argument based on the perceived opinion of an
authority without any expertise in a relevant area.

 Basing an argument on the supposedly reliable opinion of two people is

likely to constitute an appeal to irrelevant authority.

 Unless the people being appealed to are experts in this particular area,
the argument can, at best, offer a very weak justification of its
conclusion.
 Faulty reasoning

Fallacious argument:

Fallacy of relevance:

 An argument relying on premises that are insufficiently relevant to its

conclusion for us to accept this conclusion.

 Faulty reasoning
 Try to identify the nature of the appeal:

1. This is unquestionably the best small car available on the market: the
president of Italy drives one!

2. She is the author of the biggest-selling poetry book of all time. Of

course, she is the world’s greatest living poet.
 Faulty reasoning
 This is unquestionably the best small car available on the market: the president
of Italy drives one!
 (appeal to irrelevant authority)
 Invoking an authority that isn’t actually able or qualified to prove your point (the president of
Italy’s choice of car doesn’t provide a definitive answer to the question of which is the best
small car).

 She is the author of the biggest-selling poetry book of all time. Of course, she is
the world’s greatest living poet.
 (Appeal to popularity)
 Asserting that whatever is popular must be true or good (there is no simple or direct
relationship between book sales and quality).
 Faulty reasoning
Fallacious argument:

 Every fallacy relies on an identifiable type of unwarranted hidden assumption:

 Unwarranted hidden assumption: the faulty, unstated element of reasoning

that a fallacy relies on, and that we aim to spell out to identify what is at fault.
 The leader of the opposition argued that morals in our country are going in

the wrong direction.

then she was caught having an affair with a man 20 years her junior. So
much for her argument!
 Faulty reasoning
Fallacious argument:

 Unwarranted hidden assumption:

 The assumption is that ‘if what someone does contradicts what they say, then

what they say must be wrong’. This is clearly untrue.

 We may think less of someone’s character if they are a hypocrite, but this has no

necessary bearing on the reliability of what they are saying.

 Faulty reasoning
Fallacious argument:
 Sometimes, it can be difficult to spot exactly what is going wrong with a piece
of reasoning, or to explain convincingly to other people what the problem is.

 Comparable examples can be a powerful method of clarification and

illustration - constructing parallel arguments using precisely the same form of
words and reasoning but a totally different topic.

Comparable example: a method for testing potentially fallacious arguments,

and illustrating their flaws, by applying the same reasoning in a different context
 Faulty reasoning
 Let’s consider the first example once again, and its appeal to popular
opinion:
 Everyone I’ve spoken to thinks that the president is doing a terrific job.
You should stop moaning and accept that he’s the right leader for this
country!

 We can test the forcefulness of this kind of reasoning with a comparable

example:
 It’s the year 1066 and everyone I’ve spoken to thinks that the Earth is flat.
You should stop moaning and accept that it is!
 Everyone in this room says that two plus two equals five, So it does.
 THINK ABOUT THIS: Can you think of an appealing but
fallacious argument you have encountered recently?
 Can you think of a directly comparable example that
highlights its faulty reasoning?