CHAPTER 1

Critical thinking systematic evaluation and formulation of

beliefs/statements by rational standards

Belief is worth having most likely true good reasons to accept it

? think critically = Who we are determined by actions/choices
determined by thoughts/beliefs

Assertion (Statement): declarative sentence that something is or is

not the case
Premise: statement that offers support to conclusion
Conclusion: Statement that is supported by the premise(s)
Argument: Set of statements, one off which (the conclusion) is taken
to be supported by the remaining statements (premises)
Inference: Move from premise to conclusion

Indicator Words
Conclusion thus, therefore, hence, so
Premise since, because, for, as
Deductively-valid: Truth of premises GUARANTEES conclusion
Inductive-strong: Conclusion is PROBABLY true

CHAPTER 2
Category 1 Impediments: How we think
a. Self-Interested thinking: accepting a claim because it
advances/coincides with our interests
b. Group Thinking: Peer pressure, Stereotyping ( drawing conclusions
about people without sufficient reasons)
Types of Knowledge
1) K by acquaintance
2) K-how
3) Propositional K (K-that)
Ingredients: Belief, Truth, Justification
Category 2 Impediments: What we think

a. Relativism: view that statements have a truth-value but that what this
is depends on the person or society
b. Subjective Relativism: Truth value depends on what some subject
believes (my truth)
c. Social Relativism: Truth value depends on societies
d. Skepticism: View that propositions have truth values but we know very
few/none of them

CHAPTER 3
Deductive Arguments:

Conclusive reasons for accepting the conclusion

If premises are true, conclusion must be true
Is truth preserving
Deductive reasoning = General Specific

Valid: deductive argument in which the conclusion must be true

Invalid: deductive argument in which the conclusion doesnt follow the
premises
Sound: Valid AND premises are true
Unsound: Valid BUT one or more premises are false
Inductive Arguments:

Probable support
Not truth preserving

Strong: premises are true, conclusion is probably true

Cogent: Inductively strong & true premises

CHAPTER 4

Types of Conflict:
Statements can be INCONSISTENT- both cant be true, but both could be
false
Statements can be CONTRADICTORIES- both cant be true, both cant be
false
Conflict with BACKGROUND INFORMATION- large collection of well supported
beliefs that we rely on to inform our actions/choices includes, basic facts,
common knowledge, justified claims
More evidence in favour of a claim= stronger belief
Experts: someone more knowledgeable in a particular area then most people
- They have access to info, better at judging info
Doubt expert if their claim/opinion conflicts with another experts opinion,
when experts disagree
Appeal to Authority: expert in one field, doesnt mean they are an expert in
another OR may regard non-expert as an expert
Factors to consider someone an expert : amount and quality of
education/training, experience in making judgments, reputation among
peers, professional accomplishment
Factors to doubt reliability of personal experience:
a) Impairment too dark, too hazy, sick, tired
b) Expectation we see what we expect
c) Innumeracy being bad at numbers
Linda problem- Probability of A+B is never greater than just the probability
of A
Monty Hall problem- misjudging of coincidences
Gamblers Fallacy- thinking that unrelated previous events will affect the
probability at hand
We tend to
Ignore evidence
Deny evidence

Manipulate Evidence
Distort Evidence

Common Mistakes=
Resisting contrary evidence
Looking only for confirming evidence
Preferring available evidence
CHAPTER 5
Fallacies- argument form that is common and defective
Irrelevant premises: premises that are irrelevant to conclusion
Genetic Fallacy= claim is true/false based on origin
Composition= what is true of the parts is true of the whole
Division= what is true of the whole is true of the parts
Appeal to the person- Rejecting claim by criticizing the person
Tu quoque- hypocrite
Equivocation= use of a word with two different meanings in an argument
Appeal to Popularity= claim must be true because a substantial # of people
believe it
Appeal to Common Practice= appeals to what people do
Appeal to Tradition= claim must be true because its tradition
Appeal to Ignorance= lack of evidence proves something
(Person with Burden of Proof (placed on person who makes a +ve claim)
must provide greater weight of evidence
Appeal to Emotion= uses emotions as premises
Red Herring= deliberate raising of an irrelevant issue
Straw Man= distorting, weakening, oversimplifying someones position

Unacceptable premises: relevant premises but not enough support for the
conclusion
Begging the question= using conclusion as a premise
False Dilemma= asserting there are only two alternatives when there could
be more
Slippery Slope= arguing without good reason, taking a step will lead to
further undesirable steps
Hasty Generalization= conclusion make about a whole group based on a too
small sample size
Faulty Analogy= when items being compared are not sufficiently similar in
relevant ways
CHAPTER 8
Inductive reasoning

Probable support
Weak/Strong and cogent
Very common

Sample Size: Larger sample= likely to reliably reflect the nature of the
larger group
The more homogenous a target group is, the smaller the sample can be;
the less homogenous, the larger the sample should be.
Representativeness= represent and be similar to the target group
Beware of selective attention
Random Selection- every member of the target group must have an equal
chance of being selected for the sample
Margin of Error- The variation between the values derived from a sample
and the true values of the whole target group
Confidence Level- the probability that the sample will accurately represent
the target group within the margin of error

Types of Inductive reasoning

Enumerative:
- Observation about some group members, end with generalization about all
of them
Statistical Syllogisms
- Generalization of a whole group to a conclusion about a member of the
group
- Need to identify the individual, group, characteristic, and proportion that
has said characteristic.
Analogical Induction
-Comparison of two or more things that are alike in specific ways
Causal Arguments
-Answers questions involving making causal claims
Mixed Arguments
OTHER
Diagramming
Premise=

Conclusion=

Connect =

Identify the premises and conclusion

Generate the standardization or numbered list
Diagram to show intended logical relations between them.

Conditional Statement= If, then

Antecedent- before
AA= Valid
DC= Valid

Consequent= after