Critical Thinking

Ch 8
Evaluating Arguments and Truth
Claims

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.

 Evaluating Arguments
 Once you have an argument
summarized/standardized, you need to evaluate it
to see if you are forced to accept the conclusion.
 There are two main questions to ask when doing
so:
 Is the argument a “good argument”?
 Are the premises acceptable?

8-2
 When is an argument a
good argument?
 What “good argument” does not mean:
 “agrees with my views”
 The attitude that only arguments that agree with your
viewpoints are good is extremely close-minded.
 “persuasive argument”
 People aren’t always smart and can be persuaded by
“eloquent speech” (and be confused by solid reasoning).
 Hitler was more persuasive than Churchill, but that doesn’t
mean that Hitler’s arguments were better.
 “well-written/spoken”
 Although it’s easier to tell whether an argument is good if it is
well written, being well written doesn’t make it good. Clarity,
eloquence and organization can all occur in the presence of
logical mistakes.
8-3
 When is an argument a
good argument?
 What “good argument” does mean.
 It must, at the least, be either deductively sound (valid with true premises) or
inductively cogent (strong with true premises).
 But it will also need to be clear…
 An argument isn’t good unless it is understandable.
 …precise…
 One needs to avoid equivocation and use exact language.
 …the premises need to be relevant…
 Arguments with a lot of irrelevant material can’t be said to be good arguments.
 …consistent…
 Arguments that contain logical contradictions commit the fallacy of inconsistency.
 …complete…
 If an arguer ignores facts relevant to the conclusion at hand, we can’t say the
argument is good (it doesn’t account for relevant objections).
 …and fair.
 An argument can’t be good if it hastily dismissed objections.
 In a nut shell, a good argument embodies all the good qualities of critical
thinking. (See guidelines on p. 206.)
8-4
 When is it reasonable to
accept a premise?
 Arguments always contain premises, and—while some
premises will have support from other premises—there will
always be some premises that are mere assumptions
(claims made by the arguer). If the argument is valid/
strong, its soundness/cogency will turn on whether these
assumptions are true. So how can we tell if we should
accept them?
 The Principle of Rational Acceptance: It is reasonable to
accept a claim if…
 (1) The claim does not conflict with personal experience
that we have no good reason to doubt it.
 (2) The claim does not conflict with background beliefs that
we have no good reason to doubt.
 (3) The claim comes from a credible source.
8-5
 Does the claim conflict with
your experience?
 In general, you should favor the testimony of your own
sight (and other senses) over the testimony of others.
 If someone tells you her Doberman is gentle as a kitten,
but you’ve seen him attack many people, you should
probably not believe that the Doberman is gentle.
 But it should be noted that your senses are not indubitable
(un-doubtable). They can be mistaken for any number of
reasons.
 Bad physical conditions (e.g., poor lighting)
 Sensory impairment (e.g., poor vision)
 Observer impairment (e.g., drunk)
 Unreliable measuring instruments
 Bad memory
8-6
How reliable are your senses?

8-7
How reliable are your senses?

8-8
How reliable are your senses?

Just how are

are you supposed to
to count how many times
“are” appears in this quote?

8-9
 Does the claim conflict with
background beliefs
 Background beliefs: convictions held—usually assumed
without question—that inform most of the other beliefs that
we have.
 e.g., It snowed in Las Vegas last July 4th.
• This seems to contradict our background belief that it doesn’t snow in
deserts during the summer.
 e.g., George W. Bush is a robot.
• This contradicts our background belief that people aren’t robots.
 But it is important to note that even background beliefs
should be subject to revision if sufficient evidence is
presented against them (don’t be dogmatic about any
beliefs you have).
8-10
 Does the claim come from a
credible source?
 Much of what we believe is based on the testimony
of sources.
 We saw a lot about this in chapter 6 (more is in
chapter 12).
 To reiterate: questions to ask to determine source
credibility:
 Genuine expert? Are they outside their area? Are
they biased? Do they have a reason to lie?
Questionable senses (were they drunk)? Are they
generally reliable (is it The Enquirer? ) Right
context? Can expert opinion settle the issue (e.g., is
this a moral issue)? Is it improbable? 8-11
Refuting Arguments

 There are two ways to refute an

argument:
 Show that a premise—or a critical
group of premises—is false or
dubious.
 Show that the conclusion does not
follow from the premises.

8-12
 Showing Premises False
 If a premise is critical to an argument, showing it false will refute the
argument.
 (1) All presidents live in the White House. (2) Paris Hilton is President.
So, (3) Paris Hilton lives in the White House.
 Showing (2) to be false is sufficient to refute the argument.
 However, showing false an irrelevant premise will not refute the
argument.
 (1) All circles are squares. (2) All squares are rectangles. (3) All
rectangles are geometrical figures. (4) So, all squares are geometrical
figures.
 Showing (1) is false won’t keep (2) and (3) from proving (4).
 Additionally, for refutation, the premise must be necessary (critical)
 (1) TJ is a bachelor. (2) TJ is an uncle. (3) So, TJ is a Male.
 Since both (1) and (2) provide independent support for (3) falsifying
only one of them will not refute the argument.
8-13
 Showing Premises to be
Dubious and other Techniques
 If one shows a critical premise to be doubtable, then one has refuted the
argument (by showing it to be unconvincing).
 Demonstrating doubt:
 Appeal to personal experience, common knowledge, or reputable
source.
 Note a self-contradiction (either in a single premise or between
premises).
 Show the premises is based on an unwarranted assumption.
 Personally demonstrate its falsity or dubiousness.
 Other refutation Techniques:
 Reducing to the absurd: Show the truth of a premise would entail
something clearly false (absurd).
 Present a counter-example: present an exception that shows a premise
false.
• (arguer): All 20th Century presidents were rich.
• (you): Harry Truman wasn’t! 8-14
 Showing That the Conclusion
does Not Follow from the
Premises.
 To do this, you need to show that the argument is
either (a) deductively invalid or (b) inductively
weak.
 Most important questions:
 If deductive, does the conclusion follow necessarily
from the premises?
 Are the premises relevant (is there a fallacy)?
 Are the premises sufficient to support the
conclusion?
 Does the argument omit any crucial countervailing
evidence?
8-15