Four lectures on Critical thinking and argumentation

1. Introduction to Critical
Thinking
Welcome
to
Critical Thinking
Elements of
Arguments
Critical &
Logical
Reasoning
ISM5001 Critical Thinking and Argumentation

2. An argumentis a discussion
of a controversialclaim
supportedby
reasonsand evidence
It is not a fight.
What is an Argument?

3. Argument
Mapping

4. Argument Mapping
 Argument maps are just that – maps of arguments that allow us to
visualize the logical structure of an argument.
 Argument maps allow us to see how each part of an argument
relates to every other part – how the main conclusion is supported
by reasons, which in turn are supported by their own reasons,
which in turn are supported by their own reasons, and so on
 Argument mapping will help us elucidate the process by which all
these arguments are made.
 Argument maps simply formalize what we already do implicitly, and,
unfortunately, often inadequately

5.  The president of Zambia rejected the help from
the world food organization because it mainly
includes GM corn from the USA.
“My country is under starvation. However, I
can not give my people poison…”
 What would you do if you were in his place?

6. Argument Map
 Introduce your claim (Sentence)
 Supporting reason 1: Evidence (facts or examples) to
support
reason 1:
 Supporting reason 2: Evidence (facts or examples) to
support
reason 2:
 Supporting reason 3: Evidence (facts or examples) to
support
reason 3:
 Opposing claim: Response to opposing claim:
 Conclusion

7. Analyzing data
 Convert text to diagrams
 “I would not accept genetically modified food for my country
because even if there is evidence that they can help
preventing cancer, they may cause many other heath
problems. In addition, we do not know if there are safe for our
health. Research says that GMF can cause AIDS and can
affect woman’s fertility.
Even if they say that the crops can be easier planted and we
have more crops with this method, there is a great
environmental danger: When you plant a GM plant the other
plants that are near to it may become genetically modified
also. As a result, the crops will be contaminated, people will
not have food to eat and they will be destroyed too…

9. The distinction between premises
and conclusions
We can see rocks.
Therefore, rocks exist.

10. The distinction between arguments with one
and multiple premises
 We can see rocks.
 If we can see rocks, then rocks exist.
 Therefore, rocks exist.

11. The distinction between multiple
arguments and multiple premise
 We can see rocks.
 Therefore, rocks exist.
 We can touch rocks.
 Therefore, rocks exist.

12. The distinction between simple and
extended arguments
 We can see rocks.
 If we can see rocks, then they exist.
 Therefore, rocks exist.
 Sight is a reliable way to know what exists.
 Therefore, if we see rocks, then they exist.

13. The distinction between supporting arguments
and objections
We see rocks.
Therefore, rocks exist.
My parents believe that rocks don’t
exist.
Therefore, rocks don’t exist.

14. The distinction between objections to
conclusions, premises, and forms of reasoning

15. Tutorial Exercise
 Trans fats should be banned in processed food. Trans fats are
usually non-natural additives to foods. Trans fats are known to
cause high cholesterol and possibly increase the occurrence of
heart disease. Anything that increases the occurrence of heart
disease should be banned ‘
 This computer can think. So it is conscious. Since we should
not kill any conscious beings, we should not switch it off

16. Software
 Argunet [free, Windows & OS X & Linux, page]
 Araucaria [free, Windows & Mac & Linux, page]
 Argumentative [free, Windows, page]
 Athena [free, Windows, page]
 Carneades [free, Windows & Mac, page]
 DebateGraph [free, online, page]
 Rationale [$70, Windows, page

17. The
Toulmin
Model

18. Stephen Toulmin
Stephen Toulmin, originally a
British logician, is now a
professor at the University of
Southern California. He
developed a concrete system
for argumentation based on
sound reasoning and
consideration of the opposing
point of view.

19. The Toulmin Model
Imagine you are a lawyer. You are defending Ms.
Cheap against her landlord, Mr. Megabucks, who is
suing her because she has been delinquent on her rent
for 5 months.
What arguments can you construct for Ms. Cheap?
After you construct your arguments, what arguments
do you think Mr. Megabucks’ lawyer will have?
The Toulmin Model insists that we consider the
argument of our opposition in constructing our
own argument.

20. 1. Claim
4. Warrant(s)
2. Reason(s)
3. Grounds
5. Backing
On top we have the claim, the
main assertion that is held to be
true. But without the reasons (the
“because”) that it stands on,
there’s nothing telling us why it
should be true. And the reasons in
turn stand on the grounds. These
are the supporting items of
evidence that give validity to the
reasons. But that’s not all.
Below the grounds we find
the warrants- things that we have
assumed to be true when giving
the specific reasons
And finally, at the very bottom we
have the backing- the backing is
the evidence that “backs up” the
warrants.

21. ClaimGrounds Rebuttal
Warrant
(Backing)
(Backing)
Qualifier
Diagram of Toulmin

22. Toulmin Model: Elements of an
Argument
 Claim = the main point or position
 Grounds = the evidence supporting the claim, aka
the reasons
 Warrant = an underlying assumption or basic
principle that connects data and claim; often implied
rather than explicit

23. Toulmin Model: Elements of an
Argument
 Backing: The general body of information from which the
warrant was drawn.
 Qualifiers: Phrases showing what degree of reliance is to
be placed on the conclusion, given the arguments available
to support them to set the degree of certainty. For example
using terms such as usually,’ ‘possibly,’ ‘barring
accidents,’ etc.
 Rebuttals: Arguments that opposition might bring up to
counter my argument

24. Claims
A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim
is the conclusion, proposition, or assertion an arguer wants
another to accept.

25. Claims Cont’d
 There are four basic types of claims:
 fact: claims which focus on empirically verifiable phenomena
 judgment/value: claims involving opinions, attitudes, and
subjective evaluations of things
 policy: claims advocating courses of action that should be
undertaken
 definition/classification: indicates what criteria are being used to
define a term or what category something falls into

26. Grounds
Grounds refers to the proof or evidence an arguer
offers.
Grounds can consist of statistics, quotations, reports,
findings, physical evidence, or various forms of
reasoning
 example: “I’m a vegetarian. One reason is that I feel sorry
for the animals. Another reason is for my own health.”
 example: “I made the dinner, so you can do the dishes.

27. More about grounds...
Grounds are the support the arguer offers on
behalf of his/her claim. The grounds answer
questions such as:
o "What is your proof?“
o "How do you know?“
o “Why?”
o Example:“It looks like Vibes Kartel will remain in
jail for a while. All his application for bail has been
denied and the commissioner of police have threaten to
resign if he gets bail.”
 example: "The other Ritz Carlton hotels I've stayed at had

28. Grounds
 Grounds can be based on:
o evidence: facts, statistics, reports, or physical proof
o source credibility: authorities, experts, celebrity endorsers,
a close friend, or someone's say-so
o analysis and reasoning: reasons may be offered as proof
o premises already held by the listener

29. Clue words for identifying grounds
 The grounds for an argument often follow words such as
“because,” “since,” “given that…”
o example: “Airports should x-ray all luggage because a
bomb could be placed in a checked baggage.”
o example: “I expect to do well on the test, since I
studied all night for it.”

30. Warrants
 The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the
claim with the grounds.
 The warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires
the listener to recognize the connection between the
claim and grounds
 The implicit nature of warrants means the “meaning”
of an argument is as much a part of the receiver as it is a
part of the message.
 Some arguments are “multi-warranted,” e.g., based on
more than one inferential leap

31. Warrants
 The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a
mental connection between the grounds and the claim
 example: “Kelly is running a temperature. I’ll bet she has an
infection.”
 example: "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden
Retriever.”
(warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign of an
infection)
(warrant: generalization; most or all Golden Retrievers are
friendly)

32. warrants
 warrants can be based on:
 ethos: source credibility, authority
 logos: reason-giving, induction, deduction
 pathos: emotional or motivational appeals
 value premises: values shared by, or presumed to be shared
by, the receiver(s)
 note: these categories aren't mutually exclusive, there is
considerable overlap among the three

33. Appeals to Audience
While there's no perfect formula for winning over every reader in
every circumstance, you should learn how and when to use three
fundamental argumentative appeals. According to Aristotle, a
person who wants to convince another may appeal to that person's
reason (logos), ethics (ethos), or emotion (pathos).
If we think of these three appeals as independent and of the writer
as choosing just one, however, we miss the point. The writer's job is
to weave the various appeals into a single convincing argument. As
you continue to expand and develop your ideas, look for ways of
combining the three appeals to create a sound, balanced argument.

34. Argument 1
Claim Grounds
Warrant
The Sunshine girls are
likely to win the ball
game tonight
They are playing
at home
(unstated) Generalization:
The home team enjoys an
advantage in netball

35. Argument 2
Claim Grounds
Warrant
“Juno” is a wonderful
movie.
It was nominated
for 4 Academy
Awards
(unstated) Sign: a movie’s
greatness can be measured in
the number of Oscar
nominations it receives

36. Argument 3
Claim Grounds
Warrant
Andrew was probably in a
fight
He has a black eye
(unstated) Sign: A black eye is
a reliable indicator that a
person has been in a fight

37. Argument 4
Claim Grounds
Warrant
If you swim at Helshire
Beach right after it rains
you risk getting a bacterial
infection
Runoff from the rain
washes bacteria into
the ocean
(unstated) Cause-effect:
bacteria in the water causes
persons to get ill.

38. sample argument 5
Claim Grounds
Warrant
My parents should allow
me to go to the Fete
The parents of nearly all
the students at St. Mile
High have given their
children permission to
attend this party
(unstated) sign: My parents
should act in accordance with the
other parents of students at St.
Miles High

39. Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation
Legalizing Marijuana