CRITICAL

THINKING

CLAIM
When you state a belief or opinion, you are
making a claim.
ARGUMENT
When you present a reason for thinking a
claim is true, you are giving an opinion.

An

argument has two parts:

Premise the supporting part; the reason for

thinking that the other part is true
Conclusion the supported part

SUBJECTIVISM

This is the idea that one opinion is as good

as the next, or that what is true is what
you think is true.
What

makes a concept subjective?

There are expressions which we generally let

people apply as they see fit. Countless
adjectives and adjectival phrases, adverbs and
adverbial phrases and nouns fall into this
category. Such as soothing, cuddly,
terrifying, great tasting, super, slowly,
carefully, happy, etc.

How

to expose a subjective claim?

Apply the Contradiction Test or present

another subjective claim that contradicts the
other subjective claim.

VALUE

JUDGMENT

Is a widely used, nontechnical name for a

statement that expresses an evaluation of
something. It can be a positive or a negative
evaluation.
Example:

Pnoy is a much better President that GMA or ERAP

is a value judgment, a positive value judgment for
PNoy

Things

to note on value judgments:

Not all value judgments are trivial matters.

For example, deciding how much support to give to an
illegitimate child is no trivial matter.

Do not always assume that all value judgments are

subjective and, hence, not subject a value
judgment to a more critical examination.
Do not simply dismiss a value judgment as
subjective or not worth serious debate just because
it is a value judgment.
Example: morality; sportmanship; humane treatment
of animals

TWO

KINDS OF GOOD ARGUMENT

Deductive argument, and

Inductive argument
TWO

PARTS OF AN ARGUMENT

Premise, and
Conclusion

To

better present an argument, there

must be a word that provides a transition
to or an indication that a conclusion is
about to be stated. The following are good
conclusion-indicating words or phrases:

Therefore
It follows that
Thus
Hence
Consequently
Accordingly
So
My Conclusion is

Also,

to better present an argument, it

would be nice to properly indicate that the
statements or claims that follow are just
the premises for the argument. Some
common premise indicators are:

Since
For
Because
In view of
This is implied by
Given

TWO

CONFUSIONS ABOUT ARGUMENTS

Difficulties in identifying arguments are

compounded by two important confusions:
(1) that arguments are the same as explanations,
and
(2) that arguments are attempts to persuade
someone of something

ARGUMENTS

AND EXPLANATIONS

For various reasons, people often confuse

arguments and explanations. For example:
EXPLANATION:

ARGUMENT:

Meg had a toothache

because she had a nail in
her head

Meg should have

purchased medical
insurance because now
she cant pay her medical
bills.

Basically, an argument attempts to support or

prove a conclusion, while an explanation
specifies what caused something or how it
works or what it is made out and so forth.

ARGUMENTS

AND PERSUATION

An

argument attempts to prove or support

a conclusion. When you attempt to
persuade someone, you attempt to win
him or her to your point of view; trying to
persuade and trying to argue are logically
distinct enterprises.

True,

when you want to persuade

somebody of something, you might use an
argument. But not all arguments attempt
to persuade, and many attempts to
persuade do not involve arguments.

Example:

There is no inclusive growth under the Aquino

administration.
The foregoing statement is an attempt to persuade
masses that Aquino administration has not done them
any good. It is not an argument because there are no
reasons provided to support a conclusion.

Since half of the population of the Philippines are

still living under the poverty line, it is clear,
therefore, that there is no inclusive growth under
the Aquino administration.
The foregoing is an argument because a reason is
given to support the conclusion.

WRITING

ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS

Four components of an argumentative essay:

A statement of the issue
A statement of ones position on that issue
Arguments that support ones position, and
Rebuttals of arguments that support contrary
positions.

Note: in writing argumentative essays, avoid

ambiguity, vagueness and other sources of
confusion.

Other

recommendations for writing an

argumentative essay:
Focus make clear at the outset what issue
you intend to address and what is your position
on the issue.
Stick To The Issue All points you make in
an essay should be connected to the issue
under discussion and should always either (a)
support, illustrate, explain, clarify, elaborate
on, or emphasize your position on the issue, or
(b) serve as responses to anticipated
objections. Rid the essay of irrelevancies and
dangling thoughts.

 Arrange The Components Of The Essay In

A Logical Sequence Make a point first
before you clarify it, not the other way around.
When supporting your points, bring in
examples, clarifications, and the like in such a
way that a reader knows what you are doing.
A reader should be able to discern the
relationship between any given sentence and
your ultimate objective, and they should be
able to move from sentence to sentence and
from paragraph to paragraph without getting
lost or confused.

 Be Complete Accomplish what you set out to

accomplish, support your position adequately, and
anticipate and respond to possible objections.
Keep in mind that many issues are too large to be
treated exhaustively in a single essay. The key to
being complete is to define the issue sharply
enough that you can be complete.
Be sure there is a closure at every level. Sentences
should be complete, paragraphs should be unified
as wholes (each should stick to a single point), and
the essay should reach a conclusion. Note that
reaching a conclusion and summarizing are not the
same thing.

ADDITIONAL

POINTS TO REMEMBER IN
WRITING ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS.

If you are writing for an audience of people

who think critically, it is helpful to adhere to
these principles:
Confine your discussion of an opponents point of
view to issues rather than personal considerations.
When rebutting an opposing viewpoint, avoid being
strident or insulting. Dont call opposing arguments
absurd or ridiculous.
If an opponents argument is good, concede that it
is good.
If space or time is limited, be sure to concentrate
on the most important considerations. Dont
become obsessive about refuting every last
criticism of your position.
Present your strongest arguments first.

RHETORIC refers to the study of

persuasive writing. It denotes a broad
category of linguistic techniques people
use when their primary objective is to
influence beliefs and attitudes and
behaviour.
Rhetorical

force may be psychologically

effective, but by itself it establishes
nothing.

EUPHEMISMS AND DYSPHEMISMS

Euphemism a neutral or positive
expression instead of one that carries
negative associations.
Example:
Assassnation Neutralization
Rebels Freedom Fighters
Tax Hike Revenue Enhancement

Dysphemism used to produce a negative

effect on a listeners or readers attitude
toward something or to tone down the
positive associations it may have.
Example:
Rebel Terrorist
Assassination Government Destabilization; Act of
War
Tax Hike Citizen Extortion

RHETORICAL DEVICES AND

TECHNIQUES
Rhetorical Analogies
Rhetorical Definitions
Rhetorical Explanations

Rhetorical Analogy
Likening one thing to another in order to
convey a negative or positive feeling about
it.
Sometimes used as substitutes for arguments;
include comparisons, metaphors and similes.
Example:
Social Security Ponzi Scheme
You have a better chance of being struck by lightning
than winning the lottery

Rhetorical Definition
Real definitions are primarily used to clarify
meaning; a rhetorical definition, on the other
hand, use emotively charged language to
express or elicit an attitude about something.
Example:
Abortion defined as a murder of an unborn child.
Same sex marriage defined as a marriage in
violation of divine and natural laws; a marriage that
threatens the continuity of the human race.

Rhetorical Explanations
Another form or kind of a slanting device
but clothed as an explanation.
Example:

He lost the fight because hes lost his nerve.

This is no different from simply saying he lost
the fight because he was too cautious.

OTHER RHETORICAL DEVICES AND

TECHNIQUES
Stereotypes
Innuendo
Loaded Questions
Weaselers
Downplayers
Horse Laugh /Ridicule / Sarcasm
Hyperbole
Proof Surrogates

Stereotypes
When

a writer or speaker lumps a group of individuals

together under one name or description, especially
one that begins with the word the (e.g. the
Catholics, the Muslims), such labelling generally
results in stereotyping.

Stereotype is a thought or image about a group of

people based on little or no evidence.

Language

that reduces people or things to categories

can induce an audience to accept a claim unthinkingly
or to make snap judgments concerning groups of
individuals about whom they know little.

Stereotypes

can come from many sources, many from

popular literature, and are often supported by a
variety of prejudices and group interests.

Innuendo
When

we communicate with one another, we

automatically have certain expectations and
make certain assumptions.

These

expectations and assumptions help fill

in the gap in our conversation so that we
dont have to explain everything we say in
detail.
Example: Gentlemen, I am proof that at least one
lawyer in Cebu is reliable.

Use

of innuendo enables us to insinuate

something deprecatory about something
without actually saying it.

Loaded Questions
A

loaded question is less innocent that the

other techniques, however. It rests on one or
more unwarranted and unjustified
assumptions.

loaded question is technically a form of

innuendo, because it permits us to insinuate
the assumptions that underlies a question
without coming right out and stating that
assumption.
Example: Have you already stopped lying to your
parents on the costs of your books?

Weaselers
Linguistic

methods of hedging a bet.

When inserted into a claim, they help
protect it from criticism by watering it
down, weakening it, and giving the claims
author a way out in case the claim is
challenged.
Example: The new and improved pan cake mix
is preferred by 8 out of 10 surveyed mothers,
over the older version.

Words

that sometimes weasel such as

perhaps, possibly and maybe can be
used to produce innuendo, to plant a
suggestion without actually making a claim
that a person can be held to.

Words

that weasel can also bring very

important qualifications to bear on a claim.
Example: It is possible that the witness is lying.

Words

and phrases that sometimes weasel

can also be used legitimately.
Example: it is arguable that; it may well be

Downplayers
Downplaying

is an attempt to make someone

or something look less important or
significant.

Stereotypes,

rhetorical comparisons,
rhetorical explanations and innuendo can all
be used to downplay something.

Common

words used to downplay are

mere, merely, so called and also
quotation marks.

Conjunctions

such as nevertheless,
however, still and but can be used to
downplay claims that precede them.

Horse Laugh / Ridicule / Sarcasm

Ridicule

is a powerful rhetorical tool because

most people hate being laughed.

Remember

though that somebody who gets a

laugh at the expense of another persons
position has not really raised any objection to
that position.

Also, you may notice that in a debate, the

person who was the funniest and who gets
the most laughs may seem to be the winner
of the debate, however, critical thinkers can
clearly decipher entertainment and
arguments.

Hyperbole
Hyperbole

is an extravagant overstatement.

Hyperbole

is an obvious slanting device, but it

can also have more subtle perhaps unconscious
effects.

Even

if a person rejects the exaggeration, he

may be moved in the direction of the basic claim.
Example: Atty. Lerios is an extraordinary and an
exceptionally good lawyer.

Be

careful, however, without support, a person

will have no reason to accept the milder claims
that the wilder ones.

Proof Surrogates

An expression used to suggest that there is evidence or authority

for a claim without actually citing such evidence or authority is a
proof surrogate.

Sometimes we cant prove the claim we are asserting, but we can

hint that there is proof available, or at least evidence or authority
for the claim, without committing ourselves to what that proof,
evidence, or authority is.
Example: informed sources say, it is obvious that or
studies show

Remember: Proof surrogates are just that surrogates. They are

not real proof or evidence. Such proof or evidence may exist, but
until it has been presented, the claim at issue remains
unsupported. At best, proof surrogates suggest sloppy research;
at worst, they suggest propaganda.

PIT
SENYOR!