McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1-1

Chapter

3
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Language and Definitions
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1-2

Introduction
!i""erent lang#ages$ Their varies #ses%"#nctions$ an The n#m&er o" "orms it ta'es.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1-3

Language Functions (1 of 3)
Ma(or "#nctions%#ses)
In"ormative$ *+pressive$ an !irective

,ess common "#nctions%#ses)

Ceremonial$ -er"ormance

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1-4

Language Functions (2 of 3)
*+amples Ma(or "#nctions%#ses)
In"ormative) .the train has eparte /. *+pressive) .that0s sweet o" 1o#/. !irective) 2 rive care"#ll1/.

,ess common "#nctions%#ses)

Ceremonial) 2how o 1o# o/ 3 wor s ma1 com&ine e+pressive an other "#nctions. -er"ormance) 2I promise to &e p#nct#al in "#t#re/ 3 wor s themselves serve to per"orm the "#nction the1 anno#nce$ other e+amples 2I regret/, an 2I accept 1o#r o""er/ etc.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1-5

Language Functions (3 of 3)
4se o" lang#age m#st &e isting#ishe "rom the "orms o" lang#age, which are eclarative, e+clamator1, imperative an interrogative. *+amples)
!eclarative) 2its hot an h#mi /, 2A is a isting#ishe st# ent/ etc. *+clamator1) 2oh m1 Go /, 2that0s "antastic/ etc. Imperative) 2ta'e o"" 1o#r shoes/, 2change 1o#r note&oo'/ etc. Interrogative) 2where i 1o# get this "rom5/, 2how i 1o# re #ce so m#ch weight5/ etc.

,ang#age that serves an1one o" the principle "#nctions ma1 ta'e an1 o" the "o#r grammatical "orms.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1-6

Emotive Language, Neutral Language, and Disputes

A given sentence or passage can serve several "#nctions 3 that is, "or e+ample, it can e+press "eeling while reporting "acts. Th#s a clever #se o" lang#age can lea to nee less mis#n erstan ings an isp#tes. *motive meaning co#l &e sharpl1 i""erent to the literal meanings o" some wor s. *+ample)
6. me ical voca&#lar1 ealing with h#man repro #ctive an elimination is ne#tral, 1et some wor s are ta'en as v#lgar$ there are 2seven irt1 wor s/ that cant &e #se in the 47 me ia.

In logic, we generall1 strive "or lang#age that is, as "ar as possi&le, "ree o" istortion that emotive meaning intro #ce.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1-7

Disputes and Ambiguit

Man1 isp#tes arise #e to an am&ig#o#s #se o" lang#age. !isp#tes "all into three categories)
8&vio#sl1 gen#ine isp#tes$ Merel1 ver&al isp#tes$ an Apparentl1 ver&al &#t reall1 gen#ine.

A goo starting point "or those involve with han ling isp#te resol#tions is to "irst chec' whether there is some am&ig#it1 that can &e eliminate &1 clari"1ing the alternative meanings in pla1.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1-8

Definitions and !"eir #ses

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1-9

Chapter

4
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Fallacies
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 10

$"at is Fallacy?
Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the causal reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. n argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. n argument that has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 11

%lassification of Fallacies (1 of &)

Fallacies of! 9elevance! where premises are simply not relevant
to the conclusion"

!e"ective in #ction! where premises, although

relevant, are so weak and ineffective that relying on them is a blunder"

-res#mption! where too much is assumed in the

premises" and

Am&ig#it1! arises from equivocal use of words or

phrases.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 12

%lassification of Fallacies (2 of &)

:allacies o" relevance!
#he appeal to populace" #he appeal to emotions $pity etc%" #he red herring! where attention is deliberately deflected away from the issue under discussion%" #he straw man! in which case position of the opponent is depicted as being more extreme&unreasonable than is 'ustified by what is being asserted" #he attack on person" #he appeal to force" and (issing the point $irrelevant conclusion%
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 13

%lassification of Fallacies (3 of &)

:allacies o" e"ective in #ction!
#he argument from ignorance! position held as true or false merely because it has not been proved otherwise" #he appeal to inappropriate authority" taking the word of an expert for granted" False cause" and )asty generalization! a single or a few inadequate cases as a base for applying the conclusion to all or most of the cases.

:allac1 o" pres#mption!

ccident" *omplex question" and +egging the question.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 14

%lassification of Fallacies (' of &)

:allac1 o" pres#mption!
ccident" in which generalization is mistakenly applied to a particular case to which the generalization does not apply" *omplex question" where question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in that question" and +egging the question! in which conclusion is stated or assumed in anyone of the premises.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 15

%lassification of Fallacies (& of &)

:allac1 o" am&ig#it1!
,quivocation" where two or more meaning of a word are used, accidently or deliberately, in different parts of the argument" mphiboly! in which a loose or awkward use of words can be interpreted in more than one ways" ccent! variation in emphasis in premise$s% and conclusion" *omposition" and -ivision.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 16

Hasty Generalization
!e"inition! (aking assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate $usually because it is atypical or 'ust too small%.
Stereotypes about people $.frat boys are drunkards,. .grad students are nerdy,. etc.% are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization.

*+ample! .(y roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one /0m in is hard, too. ll philosophy classes must be hard1.
#wo people0s experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 17

Missing the Point

!e"inition! #he premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion22but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws. *+ample! .#he seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. 3ight now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. +ut drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving..
#he argument actually supports several conclusions22 .#he punishment for drunk driving should be very serious,. in particular22but it doesn0t support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 18

False Cause
#his fallacy gets its name from the 4atin phrase .post hoc, ergo propter hoc,. which translates as .after this, therefore because of this.. !e"inition! ssuming that because + comes after , caused +.
5f course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later22for example, if / register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it0s true that the first event caused the one that came later. +ut sometimes two events that seem related in time aren0t really related as cause and event. #hat is, correlation isn0t the same thing as causation.

*+amples! .6resident 7ones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. 7ones is responsible for the rise in crime.8
#he increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn0t shown us that one caused the other.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 19

Appeal to Authority
!e"inition! 5ften we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we0re discussing.
/f, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn0t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

*+ample! .9e should abolish the death penalty. (any respected people, such as actor :uy )andsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it..
9hile :uy )andsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there0s no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions22he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 20

Appeal to Emotions Pity!

!e"inition! #he appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone. *+ample! ./ know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an . (y cat has been sick, my car broke down, and /0ve had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study1.
#he conclusion here is .You should give me an .. +ut the criteria for getting an have to do with learning and applying the material from the course" the principle the arguer wants us to accept $people who have a hard week deserve 0s% is clearly unacceptable.

*+ample! ./t0s wrong to tax corporations22think of all the money they give to charity, and of the costs they already pay to run their businesses1.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 21

Appeal to Ignorance
!e"inition! /n the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, .4ook, there0s no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. #herefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.. *+ample! .6eople have been trying for centuries to prove that :od exists. +ut no one has yet been able to prove it. #herefore, :od does not exist.. )ere0s an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy! .6eople have been trying for years to prove that :od does not exist. +ut no one has yet been able to prove it. #herefore, :od exists..
/n each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. #here is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious! /f qualified researchers have used well2thought2out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven0t found it, and it0s the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven0t found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn0t exist.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 22

"tra# Man
!e"inition! 5ne way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. #he arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent;s position and tries to score point by knocking it down.

*+ample! .Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who reads it1 +ut such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong! porn and its readers should be left in peace..
#he feminist argument is made weak by being overstated22in fact, most feminists do not propose an outright .ban. on porn or any punishment for those who merely read it" often, they propose some restrictions on things like child porn, or propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers, not readers, for damages.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 23

$ed Herring
!e"inition! 6artway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what0s really at stake. 5ften, the arguer never returns to the original issue. *+ample! .:rading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. fter all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.. 4et0s try our premise2conclusion outlining to see what0s wrong with this argument!
6remise! *lasses go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well. *onclusion! :rading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.

9hen we lay it out this way, it0s pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent22 the fact that something helps people get along doesn0t necessarily make it more fair" fairness and 'ustice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. +ut the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 24

%egging the &uestion

!e"inition! complicated fallacy, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence
the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion $which you might hear referred to as .being circular. or .circular reasoning.%, or simply ignores an important $but questionable% assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase .beg the question. as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn0t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that0s not the meaning we0re going to discuss here.

*+amples! . ctive euthanasia is morally acceptable. /t is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.. 4et0s lay this out in premise2conclusion form!
6remise! /t is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death. *onclusion! ctive euthanasia is morally acceptable.

/f we .translate. the premise, we0ll see that the arguer has really 'ust said the same thing twice! .decent, ethical. means pretty much the same thing as .morally acceptable,. and .help another human being escape suffering through death. means .active euthanasia.. So the premise basically says, .active euthanasia is morally acceptable,. 'ust like the conclusion does1 #he arguer hasn0t yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable" instead, she has left us asking .well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable<. )er argument .begs. $that is, evades% the real question $think of .beg off.%.
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

1 - 25

E'ui(ocation

!e"inition! ,quivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument. *+ample! .:iving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money..
#he equivocation here is on the word .right.! .right. can mean both something that is correct or good $as in ./ got the right answers on the test.% and something to which someone has a claim $as in .everyone has a right to life.%. Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like .freedom,. .'ustice,. .rights,. and so forth" other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding. ,ither way, it0s important that you use the main terms of your argument consistently.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 26

Can you name this Fallacy?

=% /t is ridiculous to have spent thousands of dollars to rescue those two whales trapped in the rctic ice. 9hy look at all the people trapped in 'obs they don;t like.

3,- ),33/>:

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 27

Can you name this Fallacy?

?% 6lagiarism is deceitful because it is dishonest.

+,::/>: #), @A,S#/5>

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 28

Can you name this Fallacy?

B% 9ater fluoridation affects the brain. *itywide, student;s test scores began to drop five months after fluoridation began.

65S# )5* $false cause%

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 29

Can you name this Fallacy?

C% / know three redheads who have terrible tempers, and since nnabel has red hair, /;ll bet she has a terrible temper too.

) S#Y :,>,3 4/D #/5>

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 30

Can you name this Fallacy?

E% Supreme *ourt 7ustice +yron 9hite was an ll2 merican football player while in college, so how can you say that athletes are dumb<

) S#Y :,>,3 4/D #/5>

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 31

Can you name this Fallacy?

F% 9hy should we put people on trial when we know they are guilty<

+,::/>: #), @A,S#/5>

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 32

Can you name this Fallacy?

G% You support capital punishment 'ust because you want an 8eye for an eye,H but / have several good reasons to believe that capital punishment is fundamentally wrongI

S#3 9 ( >

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 33

Can you name this Fallacy?

J% #he meteorologist predicted the wrong amount of rain for (ay. 5bviously the meteorologist is unreliable.

) S#Y :,>,3 4/D #/5>

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 34

Can you name this Fallacy?

K% You know 7ane Fonda;s exercise video;s must be worth the money. 4ook at the great shape she;s in.

65S# )5* $false cause%

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 35

Can you name this Fallacy?

=L% 9e have to stop the tuition increase1 #he next thing you know, they0ll be charging MCL,LLL a semester1

S4/66,3Y S456,

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 36

Can you name this Fallacy?

==% #he book Investing for Dummies really helped me understand my finances better. #he book Chess for Dummies was written by the same author, was published by the same press, and costs about the same amount, so it would probably help me understand my finances as well. 9, N > 45:Y

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 37

Can you name this Fallacy?

=?% /0m positive that my work will meet your requirements. / really need the 'ob since my grandmother is sick.

66, 4 #5 6/#Y

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 38

Can you name this Fallacy?

=B% *rimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. #he conclusion is obvious, we must reinstate the death penalty immediately. (/SS/>: #), 65/>#

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 39

Can you name this Fallacy?

=C% /0m not a doctor, but / play one on the hit series .+imbos and Studmuffins in the 53.. You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting, effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than (orphi-ope ?LLL. #hat is my considered medical opinion. 66, 4 #5 A#)53/#Y

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 40

Chapter

4
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Fallacies
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 41

"lippery "lope

Also *no#n as +the Camel,s -ose

!e"inition! #he arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there0s really not enough evidence for that assumption.
#he arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the .slippery slope,. we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom" he or she assumes we can0t stop halfway down the hill.

*+ample! . nimal experimentation reduces our respect for life. /f we don0t respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. /t will be the end of civilization. #o prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now..
Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won0t necessarily take place.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 42

.ea* Analogy
!e"inition! (any arguments rely on an analogy between two or more ob'ects, ideas, or situations. /f the two things that are being compared aren0t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy. *+ample! .:uns are like hammers22they0re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. nd yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers22so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous..
9hile guns and hammers do share certain features, these features $having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence% are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. 3ather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. #his is a feature hammers do not share22it0d be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. #hus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.

/f you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in the world! .(y paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains $/ work more when /0m stuck inside% and they0re both kind of murky.. So the mere fact that you draw an analogy between two things doesn0t prove much, by itself.
2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

1 - 43

False /ichotomy
!e"inition! /n false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. #he arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option! the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place.

*+ample! .*aldwell )all is in bad shape. ,ither we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students0 safety. 5bviously we shouldn0t risk anyone0s safety, so we must tear the building down..
#he argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question22for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn0t hold classes in those rooms.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 44

Can you name this Fallacy?

=?% 4ook, you are going to have to make up your mind. ,ither you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while. F 4S, -/*)5#5(Y $-ilemma%

McGraw-Hill/Irwin

2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserve .

1 - 45