Critical Thinking Textbook

............................................................................................................................................................
3
1. .................................................................................................................................................12
1.1 ............................................................................................................................12
1.2 ........................................................................................................16
1.3 ....................................................................................................................................22
1.4 .......................................................................................................................................25
2. .................................................................................................................................................30
2.1 ................................................................................................................................30
2.2 ............................................................................................................................38
2.3 ................................................................................................................................45
2.4 ................................................................................................................................53
3. .................................................................................................................................................62
3.1 ................................................................................................................................62
3.2 ................................................................................................................................68
3.3 ................................................................................................................................74
4. .................................................................................................................................................78
4.1 ................................................................................................................................78
4.2 ............................................................................................................................84
2011
(induction)
4.1 4.2 (fallacy)
rational thinking
Logic
Critical Thinking
reason
reasoning
1 2009 9 2009 10
2012 Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education
HKDSE
()
1.
1.
2. (1)
2. (1)
1.1
3. (2)
3. (2)
1.2
4. (3)
1.3
5. (4)
1.4
4. (1)
6. (1)
2.1
5. (2)
7. (2)
2.2
6. (3)
8. (3)
2.3
7. (4)
2.4
8. (1)
9. (1)
3.1
9. (2)
10. (2)
3.2
10. (3)
A. B. C. D.3
3.3
11. (1)
11. (1)
4.1
12. (2)
12. (2)
4.2
13.
13.
1.1 1.4 2.1 2.4
(categorical syllogism)(validity) 3.1 3.3
()
2007 2
3
2009-04-06 C
(deduction)(categorical logic)(symbolic logic)
80% 20%
2008 11 20
general education liberal studies liberal studies

artes liberales
4
5
2009-03-31
2009-3-31
()
2007 102
viewpoint
)
1112
5 L1 L5 L5*L5**
L2
L2
L5
L58 clear argument viewpoint

argument with exampleclear
argumentargument with example

argument
argument =
viewpoint
evidence
13
Independent Enquiry Study IES

propositionargument
10
argument
ppt
http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/HKDSE/Subject_Information/LS_Briefing_Session_KY_Lo-11_Aug_08.pdf
8
10
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200909/18/P200909180191.htm
11
97
12
97
13
104
16
1-2
14
200 IES
17
IES IES
15
mind-map
Mindmap
14
16
15
http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/HKDSE/Subject_Information/LS_Briefing_Session-SBA2.pdf
80
9
17
90
89-90
10
18
1.
19
1.1
Copi and Cohen Introduction to Logic Moore
and Parker Critical Thinking
1982
Logic is the study of the methods and principles used
to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning.(Copi 2009: 4)
(proposition)(argument)
(declarative)(interrogative)(imperative)
(exclamatory)
18
http://www.liberalstudies.tv/ls_skills_main.html
135
19
11
(premise)
(conclusion)
12
X X
(inference)
(claim)I argue I claim
(mind-map)
(reasoning)
(sudoku)
(explanation)
Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic (13th edition), New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2009, pp. 3-70.
Q P
Moore, B.N. and Parker, R., Critical Thinking (8th edition), New York: McGraw-Hall, 2007, pp.1-76.
Q Q Q P
13
14
1.2
(1)
(truth)(validity)(soundness)
(2)
%&*^)@%)%E@)*&%
dispute
(ambiguity)(disagreement)
15
16
(obviously genuine disputes)
(species)
(genus)
(difference)
(merely verbal disputes)
(ambiguity)(vagueness)
(0.6kg)(0.5kg)
0.6 0.60478982
(apparently verbal disputes that are really
genuine)
(negative euthanasia)
[W]e define
(positive euthanasia)
validity as follows: A deductive argument is valid when, if its premisses are true, its conclusion must
be true.(Copi 2009: 26)
All M is P
(definiens)
(definiendum)
(extension)(intension)
All S is M
All S is P
All P is M
All S is M
(definition by example)
All S is P
(ostensive definition)(pointing)
(gesture)
(semi-ostensive definition)
(1)
17
18
(6)
(2)
(7)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(soundness)
19
20
M P
1.3
S M
S P
(credibility)
(ambiguity)
(trust)(faith)
Moore, B.N. and Parker, R., Critical Thinking (8th edition), New York: McGraw-Hall, 2007, pp.1-76.
(1)
(claim)
(2)
21
22
80
80
Wikipedia
Encyclopdia Britannica
Wikipedia
(Free University)
Wikipedia
Moore, B.N. and Parker, R., Critical Thinking (8th edition), New York: McGraw-Hall, 2007,
pp.77-116.
(1)
(2) Wikipedia
23
24
1.4
(rhetoric)
(proposition)
(persuasive writing)
(rhetorical definitions)
A B(ambiguity)
(informative)(expressive)(directive)
(rhetorical analogies)
A BA B B A
(rhetorical explanations)
A B A B A(explanation)
(argument)
(Euphemism)
25
26
(Dysphemism)
(Downplayers)
(Stereotypes)
Stereotypes
(Horse laugh)
(Innuendo)
(Hyperbole)
(Loaded question)
yesno
(Proof Surrogates)
(Weaselers)
X
X
27
28
2.
2.1
pp.117-144.
(1)
(Categorical Logic)
(Truth-functional Logic)(Categorical
(2)
Proposition)(Categorical
Syllogism)
S P
S (subject): P (predicate):
A
E
I
O
(quality)
(affirmative)
A, I
(negative)
E, O
(quantity)
29
(all)(no)
A, E
(some)
I, O
30
(copula)(subject)(predicate)
AEIO
A S P
E S P
(distribution)
A proposition distributes a term if it refers
I S P
O S P
to all members of the class designated by the term.

AEIO
A S A P
E S E P
I S I P
O S O P
A A S P A S
P
E S P E S P
I S P I S P
(contrary)(sub-contrary)
(contradictory)(subalternation)
(contrary)A E
A:
O S P O S P
E:
31
32
(sub-contrary)I O
I:
S P
I: P S
O: S P
I:
O:
A (conversion by limitation) A I
O
(contradictory)A O E I
(obversion)(P)(complement, non-P)
O:
A:
A: S P
E:
S P
I:
E:
S P
A:
S P
E:
I:
S P
O:
S P
I:
S P
O: S P
(subalternation) A I S P S PE O S
P S P
(contraposition)(S)(non-P)(P)
(non-S)
A:
I:
A: S P
A:
P S
O:
P S*
E:
S P
E:
I:
S P
O:
O: S P
O:
P S
(inference)(conversion)
E E OI
(obversion)(contraposition)
(conversion)(S)(P)
(1)
A: S P
I: P S*
(2)
E:
E: P S
(3)
S P
33
34
SP0) A,E (SP 0, SP 0)

(3)(3)(fallacy
A O E I
of existential assumption)
I O S (class)(member)
I O
O:
A:
A E I O A E
A O
I:
E:
I O
I:
AEIO
O:
S (empty class)
I O
(George Boole, 1815-1864)A E (empty class) A E I O

(pp.206-207)(Boolean square of opposition)
I O A E A E
A:
x(Ux Wx)
E:
x(Ux ~Wx)
(A,E)
(I,O)
I,O (SP0,
35
36
2.2
pp.247-286.
(categorical syllogism)
(major premise)(P)(M)
(1) A
(minor premise)(S)(M)
(conclusion)(S)(P)
(2) (1)
(major term, P)
(minor term, S)
(middle term, M)
(figure)
1 : 2 : 3 : 4 :
M-P
P-M
M-P
P-M
S-M
S-M
M-S
M-S
S-P
S-P
S-P
S-P
37
38
A: M-P
A: S-M
A: S-P
A: SP=0 (empty!)
E : SP=0 (empty!)
AAA-1
O : SP0
I : SP0
(A,E,I,O)4x4x4=64
(1,2,3,4)4
64x4=256
(Venn Diagram Method)(Rules Method)
S P
AAA-1
All M is P
AEIO (Venn diagram)
A: M-P
All S is M
A: S-M
All S is P
A: S-P
39
40
(1)
(2)
(3)
AAA-2
All P is M
A: P-M
All S is M
A: S-M
All S is P
A: S-P
(4)
(5)
(6)
(1)
(2)
(3)
41
42
A : S P
E : S P
I:
(1)
S P
O: S P
III-4
(2)
EAO-3
A: P-M
I: S-M
I: S-P
AII-2
pp.247-286.
43
44
p q (variables)~p
2.3
(substitution instance)
p~p
(truth functional logic)
(truth table)
If P then Q
not P
~p
not Q
P or Q
not P
Q
(conjunction) pq
pq
(Not):
(And):
(Or):
(Imply):
(If and only if):
(disjunction) p q
p
pq
~p
(negation form)
pq
(conjunctive statement form)
pq
(disjunctive statement form )
pq
(conditional statement form)
p q
(biconditional statement form)
45
46
(implication) p q
p
pq
A GPA 4.0

(If)
(P)(Q)
(Q)(P)
~(p~q)
p
~q
p~q
~(p~q)
QP
(Only if)
(R)(S)
(R)(S)
RS
(equivalence)
(Q if P) P Q (Q only if P)
p q
Q P
(Q if P, and Q only if P)(P Q)(Q P) P Q
pq
(necessary condition)(sufficient
condition)(necessary and sufficient condition)
(necessary condition)
(p q)(q p)
q p
p only if q
pq
qp
(p q)(q p)
47
pq
48
(false)P~ P
(sufficient condition)
q p
p if q
qp
~P
P~ P
PQ
(necessary and sufficient condition)
PQ
q p q p
(p q)(q p)
pq
A GPA4.0
p q
(p.344~)
(material equivalence)
(law of identity)
(truth table)(truth value)
(validity)
(tautology)(contradictory)
P P
P
PP
(contingent)(true)P ~ P
(law of contradiction)
~P
P~P
P P
~P
~(P~P)
49
50
(law of excluded middle)
P Q
P P
~P
P ~P
P Q
PQ
~P
pp.287-332.
pq
(1)
(2)
51
52
2. /
2.4
Modus Tollens (M.T.)

(variables)
pq
~q
~p
5 32 (25=32)
(testing)
(proof)(Rules of inference)
(Modus Ponens, M.P.)
3.
Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.)
pq
qr
p r
pq
p
4.
Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.)
(substitution instance)
pvq
~p
PQ
P
Q
5.
(justification) M.P.
Constructive Dilemma (C.D.)

(p q) (r s)
pvr
1. /
qvs
6.
Modus Ponens (M.P.)
Absorption (Abs.)
pq
pq
p (p q)
q
7.
53
54
1. P Q
Simplification (Simp.)
pq
2. Q R
3. P
R
8.
4. Q
1,3, M.P.
Conjunction (Conj.)
5. R
2,4, M.P.
p
q
pq
(Double Negation, D.N.)
9.
p ~~p
Addition (Add.)
p
(tautology)
pvq
p ~~p~~p p
10.
De Morgan's Theorem (De M.)
~(p q) (~p v ~q)
~(p v q) (~p ~q)
11.
Commutation (Com.)
(p v q) (q v p)
(p q) (q p)
PQ
QR
12.
Association (Assoc.)
[p v (q v r)] [(p v q) v r]
[p (q r)] [(p q) r]
13.
55
56
Distribution (Dist.)
[p (q v r)] [(p q) v (p r)]
[p v (q r)] [(p v q) (p v r)]
14.
Double Negation (D.N.)
p ~ ~p
A ~B
15.
~(C ~A)
Transposition (Trans.)
C ~B
(p q) (~q ~p)
16.
Material Implication (Impl.)
1. A ~B
(p q) (~p v q)
2. ~(C ~A)
C ~B
17.
Material Equivalence (Equiv.)
(p q) [(p q) (q p)]
(p q) [(p q) v (~p ~q)]
18.
3. ~C v ~~A
2, De M.
4. C ~~A
3, Impl.
5. C A
4, D.N.
6. C ~B
5,1, H.S.
19 (rules of inference) 9
Exportation (Exp.)
(Elementary valid argument forms) 10 (Logically equivalent expressions) 19
[(p q) r] [p (q r)]
All Some 4
(p.404)
19.
Tautology (Taut.)
1. Universal Instantiation, UI
p (p v p)
(x)(x),
p (p p)
2. Universal Generalization, UG
y, (x)(x)
57
58
(x)(Hx Mx)
3. Existential Instantiation, EI
Hs
(x)(x),
Ms
4. Existential Generalization, EG
, (x)(x)
1. (x)(Hx Mx)
2. Hs
(x)(Hx Mx)
Hs Ms
Ms
A: All H is M (For all X if x is H, then x is M)

UI
3. Hs Ms
1, UI
4. Ms
3,2, M.P.
Hs ~Ms
(x)(Hx ~Mx) UG
E: No H is M (For all X if x is H, then x is not M)
(x)(Hx Mx)
I: Some H is M (For some X x is H and x is M)
Hs Ms
~p
EI
q
Hs ~Ms
(x)(Hx ~Mx) EG
O: Some H is not M (For some X x is H and x is not M)
1. p
2. ~p
q
A, E, I, O
3. p v q
1. Add.
4. q
3,2, D.S.
59
~p q
0 1
0 0
1 1
1 0
60
3.
(inconsistency)p ~p p~p
3.1
~p
9 10 4
pp.287-332.
(1)
1. p (qr)
2. p q
1, Simp.
(2)
~Q(~S~T)
P (Q S)
~P
61
62
(valid)(invalid)(strong)(weak)
B A
(terms) A(07xxxxxx)
100 B(04xxxxxx) 1000 B
(analogical argument)
(dissimilar) A X
B X, Y, Z B
a,b,c,d P Q
a,b,c R
(similar) A P, Q, R
d R
B P, Q, R, S, T, U B
(relevant) A
S, T, U B P, Q, R B
(disanalogies) b a (point of difference)
A B
B A
29.6km/L
10km/L
A
30km/L B
20km/L B
63
64
(enumeration)
(instances)
95% 1000
3% 1500
(self-selected samples)(slanted
questions)
(generalization)
X
X 20%
20%
(sample size)
(error margin)(confidence
level)
95%
(%)
10
30
25
22
50
14
100
10
250
500
1000
1500
65
66
3.2
pp.333-370.
(cause)(effect)
(causal claim)(causal argument)

(fallacy)
(1)
(2)
(post hoc fallacy)X

Y X Y X Y
X Y
(John Stuart Mill 1806~1873)

(method of agreement)(method of difference)(method of agreement
and difference)(method of residues)(method of concomitant variation)
()
()()
A B C D w x y z
A E F G w t u v
A w
(A)(w)
A B C D w
A E F G w
A w
67
68
A B C x y z
B y C z
A x
A B C D w x y z
B C D x y z
A w
(A)(w)
A B Cx y z
A B C D w
A(+/-)BCx(+/-)y z
B C D w
A x
A w
A x
50%
30%
A B Cx y z
A D Ex t w
A B Cx y z
B Cy z
A x
A x
A x
A x
A x
(general causal argument)
(1) (controlled cause-to-effect experiment)
(2) (non-experimental cause-to-effect study)

(3) (non-experimental effect-to-cause study)
A B Cx y z
B y C z
(experimental group)(control
A x
group)(Cause, C)(Effect, E)(difference, d)
(statistically
A x
69
70
significant).05 Level
(%)
10
40
100
A%
25
27
100
B%
50
19
A-B%
100
13
250
500
1000
1500
13%
100
C%
100
D%
C E 100 ( C) E
C-D%
30% 100 ( C) E 10%
13%
(d)30%-10%=20% 13%
C
E C E
(C)
(C)(E)(d)
500 10%
500 5%5% 6%
(E)
(E)(C)(d)
50 80%
50 50%30% 19%
71
72
3.3
pp.371-418.
Science, Natural Science, scientia, Wissenschaft

(~logy)Humanistic science
(scientific method)

(1)
(2)
(J. S. Mill)
(general method of controlled experiment)
(scientific explanation)(argument)
Q P Q(explanation) Q P
Q(relevant)
(general)
(scientific attitude)(tentative)
(provisional)(testability)
(hypothesis)
(verification principle)(falsification principle)(conformability
73
74
principle)
(Uranus)
(verifiability)
(Neptune)
(Galileo)
(falsifiability)
(Kepler)(Newton)
(conformability)
(Ockhams Razor)
A B
(P)(Q)(P)(P)
A B
(competing)
(compatibility with previously well-established hypotheses)
(predictive or explanatory power)(simplicity)
75
76
4.
4.1
(1)
(2)
2008-09-09
2008-10-06
Life is incomplete if you don't have children.
2009-02-23
B
B
B B
77
78
2009-02-11
2008-07-25
(fallacy)
(fallacy)
office politics show off
A type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves, on
msnhi hi sms
examination, not to be so. (p.138)
chum
Don't you have better ways to spend
(formal fallacies)(informal fallacies)
your time?
(informal fallacies)
wonder
email wonder
wonder wonder
wondering skip
(affirming the consequent)
auto-pilot
p q, q, p
better option
(denying the antecedent)
p q, ~p, ~q
? book
confirm
ok
IFC H One
sales
79
80
pq
AAA-2
()
OOO-3
pq
~p
~q
81
82
4.2
pp.486-490.
(1)
The top ten fallacies of all time
(2)
Moore and Parker 2007: 486-490
Post hoc fallacy

X Y X Y
X:
Y: A
Argument from popularity

X X
X:
Wishful thinking
(Ostrich fallacy)
X X
X:
83
84
Attention-span fallacy
X Y
Scare Tactic
X:
X Y X
Y:
X:
Y:
Group Thinking
Argument from outrage
X Y
()Shouting matches
X():
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpz-iKN0QLA
Y():
Hasty conclusion
Straw man fallacy
X Y
a) (anecdotal fallacy)
Y:
A X X
X:
A:
X:
Ad Hominem Argument
b) (irrelevant analogy)
A,B X A Y B Y
A:
B:
X:
Y:
c) (jumping to conclusion) X Y
X:
Y:
(Relevance)(Presumption)
85
86
(Ambiguity)
() 04 02 05:05AM

R1
QCA 9 30
3
R2
R6
R3
R7
R4
A A
P1
R5
P2
87
88

A4
P3
(circular
A5
argument)
P4
P5
R1 (argument from ignorance)
R2 (appeal to inappropriate authority)

R3 (argument ad hominem)
A1
R4 (appeal to emotion)
R5 (appeal to pity)
R6 (appeal to force)
equivocation
R7 (irrelevant conclusion)
A2
P1 (complex question)
P2 (false question)
amphiboly
P3 (begging the question)

P4 (accident)
A3
P5 (converse accident)
(accent)
A1 (equivocation)
89
90
A2 (amphiboly)
A3 (accent)
A4 (composition)
pp.486-490.
A5 (division)
(1)
(2) (1)
91
92

Critical Thinking Textbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Thinking Textbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

............................................................................................................................................................

4.1 4.2 (fallacy)

1.1 1.4 2.1 2.4

(categorical syllogism)(validity) 3.1 3.3

(deduction)(categorical logic)(symbolic logic)

general education liberal studies liberal studies

L58 clear argument viewpoint

argumentargument with example

Independent Enquiry Study IES

Copi and Cohen Introduction to Logic Moore

and Parker Critical Thinking

Logic is the study of the methods and principles used

to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning.(Copi 2009: 4)

(claim)I argue I claim

(obviously genuine disputes)

(merely verbal disputes)

(apparently verbal disputes that are really

be true.(Copi 2009: 26)

A proposition distributes a term if it refers

to all members of the class designated by the term.

SP0) A,E (SP 0, SP 0)

(George Boole, 1815-1864)A E (empty class) A E I O

(Venn Diagram Method)(Rules Method)

(truth functional logic)

(If and only if):

(conjunctive statement form)

(disjunctive statement form )

(conditional statement form)

(biconditional statement form)

(necessary and sufficient condition)

(law of excluded middle)

Modus Tollens (M.T.)

Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.)

Constructive Dilemma (C.D.)

Modus Ponens (M.P.)

(Double Negation, D.N.)

~(p q) (~p v ~q)

~(p v q) (~p ~q)

[p v (q r)] [(p v q) (p v r)]

(Elementary valid argument forms) 10 (Logically equivalent expressions) 19

A: All H is M (For all X if x is H, then x is M)

E: No H is M (For all X if x is H, then x is not M)

I: Some H is M (For some X x is H and x is M)

O: Some H is not M (For some X x is H and x is not M)

(disanalogies) b a (point of difference)

(causal claim)(causal argument)

(post hoc fallacy)X

(John Stuart Mill 1806~1873)

(general causal argument)

(1) (controlled cause-to-effect experiment)

(2) (non-experimental cause-to-effect study)

group)(Cause, C)(Effect, E)(difference, d)

30% 100 ( C) E 10%

Science, Natural Science, scientia, Wissenschaft

(verification principle)(falsification principle)(conformability

office politics show off

A type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves, on

examination, not to be so. (p.138)

(affirming the consequent)

(denying the antecedent)

Moore and Parker 2007: 486-490

Post hoc fallacy

Argument from popularity

Argument from outrage