NOTES OF CRITICAL REASONING

CRITICAL REASONING
What is critical reasoning? How can we develop critical reasoning ability?
Reasoning is an integral part of communication. In our everyday life we need to provide reason
to convince the listeners. In other words we need to persuade others to accept the truth of
statement. Conversely, we only believe others when they provide good reason. Whenever we
evaluate others ideas we need to be critical i.e. we need to analyze what is bad and what is goof
about someone’s reasoning. Critical reasoning is a skill. Critical reasoning involves recognizing
reasons and conclusions, recognizing unstated assumptions, drawing conclusion, appraising
evidence and evaluating statements, judging whether conclusions are warranted and evaluating
the used of language. In order to improve our reasoning skill, we need to put the above
mentioned skills together in an appropriate way. We need practice of deploying a set of skills.
We need to develop critical thinking ability to reason well. Critical thinking involves persistent
effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that
supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends.

IDENTIFYING ARGUMENT

Q.N. Explain ways of identifying arguments in writing.

Recognizing reasoning and identifying conclusions
During communication speaker tries to persuade others to accept the truth of the statement.
While doing so we offer reasons or evidence to support our ideasThis itself is the essence of the
argument. Conversely, we also support someone based on their arguments. For example, when
someone says “Rahul has a car and a bungalow. Hence, He must be rich” We believe the speaker
as he has presented evidence for his argument. There are two elements in an argument i.e.
conclusion and reason. Certain common argument indicator words such as ‘hence’ ‘so’
‘therefore’ ‘thus’ help us to identify the conclusions. There are also other words such as ‘must’,
‘cannot’ and ‘should’ also helps us to assess conclusion.
However a passage might contain argument without argument indicator words. We need to
consider the relationship between words to recognize such arguments. In such case we need to
consider conclusion indicator words and the claim for which reasons appear to be offered to
identify the conclusion. If we have identified a conclusion, we have also identified the passage as
an argument or as something which is intended to be an argument. If we have identified the
conclusion by finding conclusion indicator words, then it is reasonable to regard the author as
intending to present an argument. If there is no conclusion in the passage it is clear that there is
no argument. i.e. no conclsion, no argument. If one of the sentence is a conclusion then rest of
the passage is an argument. Let’s anlyze the following two sentences:

1. Pets are good for you. Research has shown that pet owners are less likely than other
people to be depressed or to suffer from high blood pressure.
This is an argument, and the conclusion is the first sentence. The evidence that those who
have pets are less likely to suffer from depression and high blood pressure gives a reason
to support the claim that pets are good for you, provided we can assume that it is the
 presence of the pet which accounts for the benefit to health. To rewrite the passage,
reverse the order of the two sentences, and insert ‘so’ or ‘therefore’ before the claim that
‘pets are good for you’.

2. Children who are good at spelling usually have a good visual memory. Poor spellers have
not learnt to look at words carefully. Practice in reading does not necessarily help poor
spellers.
This is not an argument. It gives information about good spellers and poor spellers, but
none of these claims follows from any of the others. The two claims about poor spellers
are not supported by the information about good spellers, and there is no obvious
connection between the two claims about poor spellers.

2. IDENTIFYING REASONS

We use reasons in number of ways

1. To support conclusion of arguments

2. To support recommendations
3. To explain why something has happened
4. To explain why someone has acted in particular ways

Sometimes there might be characteristics words such as ‘because’ for since to indicate reasons.
Arguments often uses hypothetical or conditional statements as reasons. Such hypothetical
statements begin with ‘If’ and presents ‘if A happens B will be true’. Sometimes an argument
has a hypothetical statement for a conclusion, so you cannot just assume that any hypothetical
statement is being offered as a reason.

In addition to the hypothetical statements already mentioned, many different kinds of statements
can function as reasons. They may be items of common knowledge, general principles, reports of
the results of experiments, statistics, and so on. What they have in common is that they are put
forward as being true. Not all the reasons offered in an argument can be given support within that
argument. That is to say, that arguments have to start somewhere, so every argument must offer
at least one basic reason for which no support is offered. Thus those who present arguments will
often take as a starting point something which is obviously true, or the truth of which can easily
be checked by others. However, this is not always the case. People may present something which
is contentious as a basic reason, and they may fail to give support for such a statement precisely
in order to conceal the contentious nature of their argument. So the evaluation of reasoning will
require us to consider whether the basic reasons presented in any argument are true.

EVALUATING REASONING

Q.N. How can we evaluate the truth of reasons and assumptions?

The truth of reasons and assumptions can be evaluated on the basis of common knowledge and
reliability of authorities.

1. Common Knowledge
It is not necessary that we might have knowledge related to each and every field.
However, we have a knowledge in a specific field, such common knowledge can help us
to trust the validity of information which are less familiar to us.
2. Reliability of information
We need to access the truth of statements by relyinf on other people as authorities. Such
authorities have knowledge and experience which make their ideas credible. Although we
cannot guarantee that by relying on the authority of others, we will never be mistaken
about anything, there are certain criteria we can use in order to minimize the chances of
being misled by others.

THE STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENTS

The structure of arguments

The reasons in an argument can fit together in a number of ways. Sometimes there may be only
one reason supporting a conclusion. for example: Falstaff is thinner. So he has probably been
dieting.
Sometimes there may two reasons:For example: People who diet lose weight. Since Falstaff
hasn’t lost weight, he cannot have dieted.
Reason 1: People who diet lose weight.
Reason 2: Falstaff hasn’t lost weight.
These two reasons, taken together, support the conclusion: Falstaff cannot have dieted.

The reasons provided might be joint which means both the reasons are essential to support the
conclusion. On the other hand, there might be two independent reasons which aren’t
interrelated. Example: It is right to ban cigarette advertising because it encourages young people
to start smoking. But even if it had no such influence on young people, it would be right to ban it
because it could give existing smokers the mistaken impression that their habit is socially
acceptable.
Reasons may be offered for a conclusion which is then used, either on its own or together with
one or more other reasons, in order to draw a further conclusion. It is useful to make a distinction
in such cases between an intermediate conclusion and a main conclusion. Here is an example of
an argument with an intermediate conclusion.
A majority of prospective parents would prefer to have sons rather than daughters. So, if people
can choose the sex of their child, it is likely that eventually there will be many more males than
females in the population. (Immediate reason). A preponderance of males in the population is
likely to produce serious social problems (Immediate conclusion). Therefore, we should
discourage the use of techniques which enable people to choose the sex of their
child.(Main conclusion)
The main conclusion here, signalled by ‘Therefore’, is that we should discourage the use of
techniques which enable people to choose the sex of their child.
The immediate reasons given (jointly) for this are:
if people can choose the sex of their child, it is likely that eventually there will be many more
males than females in the population, and a preponderance of males in the population is likely to
produce serious social
problems.
The first of these two reasons is itself a conclusion, signalled by the word ‘So’, which follows from
the basic reason: A majority of prospective parents would prefer to have sons rather than daughters.
Thus an analysis of this passage reveals that the first sentence is a basic reason, which supports
the intermediate conclusion expressed in the second sentence, which in turn, taken jointly with the
additional reason offered in the third sentence, supports the main conclusion in the last sentence.
Unfortunately, not all arguments will set out their reasons and conclusions in this obvious order of
progression, so you cannot simply take it for granted that basic reasons will always appear at the
beginning, with intermediate conclusions in the middle and main conclusion at the end.
There are two important approaches to identifying the reasons which are being offered in an
argument – first, asking what kind of reason could give support to a particular conclusion, and
second, attempting to sort out the way in which the reasons in a passage hang together. It may
seem that detailed knowledge of the subject matter will be necessary before one can begin to
analyse the argument, and no doubt it is true that the more familiar you are with the subject
matter, the more readily will you be able to work out the structure of the argument.

2. IDENTIFYING FLAWS IN REASONING

Q.N. How do flaws appear in reasoning? Do they deceive the readers? How?
How can we identify flaws in reasoning?
Some arguments give either no support, or such weak support, to their conclusions that it is
reasonable to regard them as having a flaw. This may be because a mistake in logic is made in
moving from the reasons to the conclusion, or it may be because the reasons support the
conclusion only if they are accompanied by an implausible assumption. The skill of identifying
flaws in reasoning is being able to see that the conclusion does not follow from the reasons or
evidence, and being able to say why it does not follow.
There are five different ways in which arguments can be flawed.
1. Drawing general conclusion based on only one case.
2. Drawing conclusion based on insufficient evidence
3. Because two things have occurred together, one has caused the other.
4. Failing to consider other possible causes
5. Disregarding relevant factors.

There are some flaws which appear quite often in reasoning, and which can deceive the reader
into thinking that good reasoning has been presented. The skill which needs to be developed is
an ability to say what is going wrong in the move from the reasons to the conclusion in a
particular argument.
There are two reasons why we should not rely simply on lists of fallacies when trying to identify
flaws. The first is that arguments can be flawed in ways which do not appear in lists of fallacies.
Second, relying simply on lists of fallacies can encourage us to overlook the context of the
argument, and to classify arguments in a way which can cut off further reasoning instead of
allowing us to engage with the topic in its own context.
An example can clarify our last point. A category which usually appears in lists of fallacies is the
‘slippery-slope’ argument. This refers to reasoning in which it is claimed that a certain action, or
the introduction of a certain policy, though possibly harmless in itself, will be the first step along
a road to inevitable and undesirable consequences. For example, someone may argue that we
should not legalize the sale and use of cannabis because to do so would set us upon a slippery
slope to legalization of more harmful drugs. A satisfactory criticism of this argument would
require more than saying: ‘this is a slippery-slope argument, therefore it is flawed’. It would
require us to say why in this particular case, the supposed undesirable consequence need not
occur. This is a much more challenging task, because the introduction of legislation can act as a
precedent in some circumstances, and can change the climate of opinion in such a way as to
make some further consequence more likely to happen.
However, being aware of some standard fallacies may help you to see in some cases what is
going wrong in an argument.
1. The ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit another’s argument
by mentioning disreputable aspects of the person’s character, instead of focusing on what
is wrong with the argument itself. Establishing, for example, that someone is a bully is
not a good reason to conclude that their reasoning must be at fault. However, some
personal characteristics (for example, a tendency to exaggerate, or a temporary or
permanent mental incapacity) may be relevant to judgements about the reliability of
information which others give us. But it is fallacious to claim that a particular conclusion
does not follow from acceptable evidence or true reasons, simply on the grounds that the
person drawing the conclusion has an unpleasant personality.
2. One fallacious type of argument involves confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
3. Someone is said to commit the straw man fallacy if their argument relies on
misrepresenting the opponent’s point of view
4. The fallacy of begging the question involves taking for granted that which one was
claiming to conclude
In order to become skilled in identifying flaws in arguments, it is helpful to practise on
numerous arguments
on a wide range of subject matter. Using lists of fallacies may help you to begin to say what
is wrong with an argument, but remember that arguments can go wrong in ways which do
not fit neatly into these categories.

CHAPTER FOUR – EVALUATING EVIDENCE ANDAUTHORITIES

Q.N. How can we evaluate evidence and authorities?

Mostly we evaluate evidence and authorities based on our knowledge and experience but it will
not always be possible to do so. So we need to evaluate evidence and authorities on the basis of
reliability of the authorities, situation in which evidence and authorities are available and
plausibility of claims

a. Reliability of Authorities
 The evidences need to be evaluated based on who is giving the information and the
circumstances on which the authorities provide the evidence. The authorities need to be
evaluated on their reputation, vested interests, their experience and expertise.
We need to evaluate whether the authority is believable or not. If a certain person is mostly
untruthful then it is obvious that we become cautious about accepting their statements as
true. Moreover, we need to evaluate how reliable our authorities are. Furthermore,
Reliability of the information can also be evaluated based on the experience and expertise.
The source of the information plays a crucial role. The judgement can be affected by the
circumstances which interfere with the accuracy of his or her judgement. Likewise,
expectations and desire can play a part in evidence provided by people who have prejudices
against particular groups or individuals so we need to analyze the authority while evaluating
their statements. Lastly, we can corroborate the information from other sources.
b. Plausibility of claims
While evaluating evidence and authorities we need to ask question “How plausible is this
claim or piece of evidence?” In other words, we need to evaluate the correctness or validity
of information. If there are well established criteria for the evidence being presented is true
we can believe on such evidence and authorities.

CHAPTER FIVE - TWO SKILLS IN THE USE OF LANGUAGE

Q. What skills of language are discussed in ‘two skills in use of language’ Explain them in
brief

The ability to understand a language relies primarily on the skill to grasp the accurate
meaning of the vocabulary and to critically analyze the text considering all possible
interpretations. Specifically, there are two skills which enables us to use and analyze the
language appropriately. First, it depends on our ability to analyze whether the use of
language is clear and precise. Second, it depends on our ability to briefly summarize the
arguments accurately.
1. Using language with clarity and precision
In English a single word might have multiple meanings. As a critical reader we need
to understand the possible meaning of the text. Moreover, the meaning of the word
might we ambiguous. Such ambiguity might even be purposeful. While analyzing the
text we need to understand such ambiguity in the use of language. Although the
argument might seem clear, the meaning of the word or phrase might not be
appropriate and straightforward. We also need to look up the writer’s definition if it is
provided while assessing the reasoning behind language used in the text. We need to
find such clues and evaluate all the possible interpretations and assess the reasoning
of the text.
2. Summarizing Arguments
 In case of longer passages we need to be able to summarize the arguments
appropriately. Our ability to understand the text is reflected in how we summarize the
text. Summarizing largely depends on our ability to exactly present the ideas briefly.
While summarizing we need to break down the text into smaller stages. We can
summarize the text as follows.’
i. At first, we need to pick out the main conclusion of the text.
ii. Then, we need to pick out the immediate reason that supports immediate
conclusion. Later, we need to focus on one or two statements supporting main
conclusion.
iii. After making the framework we can present the ideas in our own words.

CHAPTER SIX- EXERCISING THE SKILLS OF REASONING

How can we exercise the skills of reasoning while analyzing the text.

It might be difficult and challenging to analyze the longer passages. While analyzing the text
from newspapers, journals and textbooks we might be distracted and might not be able to
concentrate. The following skills can be utilized while critically analyzing such passages.

1. We need to analyze the text dividing it into smaller sections.

2. At first, we need to identify the conclusions and the reasons presented in the text.
Conclusion indicators such as ‘therefore’ or ‘so’ and reason indicator such as ‘because’
or since’ can help us. If the indicators are not used we can analyze conclusion by
understanding the main message.
3. After finding out the reasons we need to consider the assumptions presented the text.
Assumptions have several functions such as it might support basic reason, provide
additional reasons, provide intermediate conclusion. We need to find out how
assumptions are used.
4. Later we need to evaluate the reasoning by assessing the truth behind it. We need to find
the reliability of the source and plausibility of the explanations.
5. Similarly, we need to evaluate the basis of comparison i.e. whether comparisons are done
on similar terms.
6. Then, we need to find out whether the reasoning parallels our common knowledge and
understanding.
7. We also need to evaluate whether the conclusion is supported by reasoning.

CHAPTER SEVEN- CONSTRUCTING REASONING

Reasoning skill are valuable mainly because they have practical application in everyday life.
They enable us to make correct judgements as to what we should believe about the natural and
social worlds, and how we should act in them. We need to have relevant information.

Constructing arguments
There are various contexts in which we may wish to construct an argument.

1. We may hold a particular point of view and want to convince others that this point of
view is rationally held.
2. We may wish to investigate, in order to come to our conclusion, a particular topic in
which we are interested but upon which we have not made up our mind.
3. We might be asked by our instructor to write a report giving reasons for preferring one
course of action to other.

Making Rational Decision

What are the steps for making rational decision making process?

Many of the topics on which arguments are written are also topics on which decision have to be
made or can be made. Some decisions are on matters that are not important or difficult enough to
warrant deep thought or prolonged considereation and some people are happy to make even
serious decisions without going through a procsess of reasoning.

Rational decision making relies upon reasoning well. There are four factors in rational decision
making.

1. Gathering information
We need to gather information from sources such as books, internet in reation to
constructing arguments. We need to judge the relevance, reliability and validity of the
information that we gather.
2. Identifying the options
We should not overlook the reliable possibilities. We need to use our skill in identifying
assumptions that we have taken for granted.
3. Working out implications or consequences
We need to think about what each possible course of action involves, and the
consequences that may result from it. It is also vital to draw conclusions as to how likely
it is that the identified consequences will occur.
4. Making Evaluation
When assessing arguments which recommend an action or policy, we need to ask:
• Would the recommended policy or action be likely to achieve the desired aim?
• Would it have some undesirable effects?
• Are there other, possibly better, ways of achieving the aim?
Similarly, when making decisions on actions and policies, we need to think about their
desirable and undesirable effects, and also how the different possible actions or policies
compare in terms of meeting any aim that prompted us to consider making a decision.
As well as assessing the likelihood of the consequences we have listed, we also need to
make judgements as to their relative importance. Some of the undesirable effects may be
relatively unimportant because it may be possible to compensate for them in some way.
 Once the consequences have been assessed in terms of their likelihood and importance,
and whether they count for or against the related option, a final judgement must be made
as to which option is the best.

Draw a conclusion for the following example. Also explain the conclusion.
Men with low blood cholesterol levels are more likely to develop intestinal cancer than those
with high blood cholesterol levels. But men who have high blood cholesterol levels have an
above- average risk of suffering a heart attack.

What conclusions can be drawn from this information? Can we conclude that it would be a good
thing for all men to aim to have a low blood cholesterol level, on the grounds that this would
reduce their risk of suffering a heart attack? No, we cannot conclude this from the information
available, because if they achieved a low blood cholesterol level they would be more likely to
develop intestinal cancer. So the most which can be concluded is that lowering a patient’s blood
cholesterol level in order to reduce the risk of heart attack may increase the patient’s risk of
intestinal cancer, and thus that it may not be wise to attempt to lower a patient’s blood
cholesterol level.
Note the tentative nature of this conclusion. It is possible that further information may lead us to
revise the conclusion. Suppose that intestinal cancer is a disease which usually occurs in old age.
In that case, lowering someone’s blood cholesterol level may move them out of the group likely
to die relatively young from a heart attack, and into the group likely to live much longer, but also
at risk of – eventually – developing intestinal cancer. In that case, it may be wise to attempt to
lower the blood cholesterol levels of those likely to suffer
heart attacks.