Critical Thinking:

A Users Manual
Chapter 6
Preparing to Evaluate Arguments
Preparing to Evaluate Arguments

Categorical
Deductive argument Valid/invalid
Truth-functional Sound/unsound
Reasoning argument

Analogical argument
Inductive Inductive Strong/weak
generalization Cogent/uncogent
Reasoning Causal argument
 Types of Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning: an argument in
which the arguer attempts to demonstrate
that the truth of the conclusion necessarily
follows from the premises.
Inductive Reasoning: an argument in which
the arguer attempts to demonstrate that
the truth of the conclusion probably follows
from the premises.
 Deductive or Inductive?
Every philosophy class I have taken has been
fun. Therefore, this philosophy class will be
fun.

If this is a philosophy class, then it will be fun.

It is a philosophy class, therefore it will be fun.
 Reasoning Indicators
Deductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning
certainly probable
absolutely plausible
definitely likely
reasonable to conclude
 Deductive or Inductive?
Every philosophy class I have taken has been
fun. Therefore, this philosophy class certainly
will be fun.
 Your Turn!
How can you tell whether or not an argument
with a deductive argument indicator is really a
deductive argument?
 Deductive Arguments
A categorical argument is a deductive
argument that contains categorical claims.
A truth-functional argument is a deductive
argument that contains truth-functional
claims.
 Categorical Claims
Universal Affirmative: All S are P
All cats are mammals.
Universal Negative: No S are P
No cats are dogs.
Particular Affirmative: Some S are P
Some mammals are cats.
Particular Negative: Some S are not P
Some mammals are not cats.
 Your Turn!
Provide your own example of each kind of
categorical claim.
 Truth-Functional Claims
Simple Claim: P
It is raining.
Negation: not P
It is not raining.
Conjunction: P and Q
It is raining and clouds are in the sky.
Disjunction: P or Q
It is raining or clouds are in the sky.
Conditional: If P, then Q
If it is raining, then clouds are in the sky.
 Your Turn!
Provide your own example of each kind of
truth-functional claim.
 Your Turn!
Identify the following as a categorical or a
truth-functional claim, and explain your
decision.

If all cats are mammals, then no cats are

reptiles.
 Distinguishing Kinds of
Deductive Arguments
Step 1: Is the passage an argument, explanation
or neither?
Step 2: Is the argument deductive or inductive?
Step 3: Does the argument have categorical
claims or truth-functional claims?
Categorical or Truth-Functional?
All sportscasters are athletes, and no athletes
are college professors. Thus, no sportscasters
are college professors.

Either Jim is a sportscaster or he is a college

professor. Since he isnt a sportscaster, he
must be a college professor.
 Inductive Arguments
An analogical argument is an inductive argument
that uses an analogy to show that because one case
has a particular feature, the other case should, too.
An inductive generalization is an inductive argument
that concludes that some, most, or all of a particular
group has some feature based on evidence that a
portion of that group has the feature.
A causal argument is an inductive argument that
provides evidence that a causal claim is true.
 Analogies
A good education is like good health care.
Accusing me of being lazy is like the pot calling
the kettle black.
Life is like a bowl of cherries.
 General Claims
All college freshmen must take general
education courses.
Every performance-enhancing drug is banned
in the Tour de France.
Herb tea does not contain caffeine.
Most cats are domestic pets.
 Causal Claims
H1N1 causes serious breathing problems in
children with asthma.
You can get a sore back by lifting incorrectly.
Increased regulation of banks will prevent
future economic disasters.
 Your Turn!
How can you tell whether an argument
containing the following conclusion is a
categorical argument or an inductive
generalization?

All swans are white.

 Distinguishing Kinds of
Inductive Arguments
Step 1: Is the passage an argument, explanation
or neither?
Step 2: Is the argument deductive or inductive?
Step 3: Does the argument contain an analogy, a
general claim, or a causal claim?
Analogical, Generalization, or Causal?
Cats are like dogs. Since I am allergic to cats, I am
probably also allergic to dogs.

I have had an allergic reaction to every cat I have

encountered. Thus, I am likely allergic to all cats.

When my mom visited me last weekend, she had

classic symptoms of an allergic reaction. Given
that I just adopted a cat, moms allergies must
have been caused by the cat.
 Evaluating Arguments
Structure
Do the premises support the conclusion?
Truth
Are the premises true?
 Evaluating Deductive Arguments
Validity
Refers to structure
If the premises are true, then the conclusion must
be true
Soundness
Refers to both structure and truth
The argument is valid and the premises are all true
 Your Turn!
Which of the five kinds of arguments that you
learned to identify in this chapter are
evaluated using the language of validity and
soundness?
 Evaluating Inductive Arguments
Strength
Refers to structure
If the premises are true, then the conclusion is
probably true
Cogency
Refers to both structure and truth
The argument is strong and the premises are all
true
 Your Turn!
Which of the five kinds of arguments that you
learned to identify in this chapter are
evaluated using the language of strength and
cogency?
Preparing to Evaluate Arguments

Categorical
Deductive argument Valid/invalid
Truth-functional Sound/unsound
Reasoning argument

Analogical argument
Inductive Inductive Strong/weak
generalization Cogent/uncogent
Reasoning Causal argument
 Writing a Complete Analysis
Step 1: Write a Basic Analysis of the passage.
Identify the passage.
Analyze the passage.
Step 2: If it is an argument, determine whether it
commits a fallacy.
Identify the fallacy, and explain how it is committed.
Step 3: If it is a non-fallacious argument, diagram
it.
Verify that your diagram is consistent with your Basic
Analysis.
 Writing a Complete Analysis
Step 4: Identify the kind of argument.
If the argument is deductive, identify it as a
categorical argument or a truth-functional
argument.
If the argument is inductive, identify it as an
analogical argument, an inductive generalization,
or a causal argument.
If the government of the United States is really
built on the notion that all people are
fundamentally equal, then every person would
be equally treated under the law. Its clear
that not everyone is treated equally, because
crimes committed by wealthier individuals
result in much lighter sentences than those
committed by poor people. So, we must
conclude that the government of the United
States is not really built on the idea of
fundamental equality among persons.
 This passage contains an argument. The issue is whether the
government of the United States is built on the idea of fundamental
equality among persons. The conclusion is that the government of
the United States is not really built on the idea of fundamental
equality among persons. The first premise is that if the government
of the United States is really built on the notion that all people are
fundamentally equal, then every person would be equally treated
under the law. The second premise is that not everyone is treated
equally under the law in the United States.
This passage contains a subargument. The intermediate
conclusion is that not everyone is treated equally under the law in
the United States. The premise is that crimes committed by
wealthier individuals result in much lighter sentences than those
committed by poor people.
 If the government of the United States is really built on the
notion that all people are fundamentally equal, then every
person would be equally treated under the law. Its clear that
not everyone is treated equally, because crimes
committed by wealthier individuals result in much lighter
sentences than those committed by poor people. So, we must
conclude that the government of the United States is not
really built on the idea of fundamental equality among
persons.

+


 This passage contains an argument. The issue is whether the
government of the United States is built on the idea of fundamental
equality among persons. The conclusion is that the government of
the United States is not really built on the idea of fundamental
equality among persons. The first premise is that if the government
of the United States is really built on the notion that all people are
fundamentally equal, then every person would be equally treated
under the law. The second premise is that not everyone is treated
equally under the law in the United States.
This passage contains a subargument. The intermediate
conclusion is that not everyone is treated equally under the law in
the United States. The premise is that crimes committed by
wealthier individuals result in much lighter sentences than those
committed by poor people.
This passage is a deductive truth-functional argument.