Critical Thinking- Analysis of

an Argument

G.P. Taylor, Ph.D.

University of Texas at San
Antonio
 Critical Thinking
Deciding rationally what to or what
not to believe

Norris, Stephen P. "Synthesis of Research on Critical Thinking.

Educational Leadership, v 42 n 8 May 1985. 40-45.
 Critical Thinking
Careful and deliberate determination
of whether to accept, reject, or
suspend judgment.

Moore and Parker, 1994.

In Science, Critical Thinking is used
when you…
Observe problem/phenomenon/conceive ideas
Develop a hypothesis
Make predictions: Formulate experiments
Test Predictions: Carry out experiments/analyze data
Draw conclusions from results, modify hypothesis
Modify as needed and do again.
Reject or confirm hypothesis

The Scientific Method itself involves critical thinking

VITAL for a scientist.
Impressive for a science student
Need to have time to read and think
Scientists are Natural Skeptics
Big thing to learn during Grad
school:
– Be critical of everything!
– What can you doubt about a scientific
paper?
 Possible Doubts for Paper
Are their ideas supported by prior findings?
Are their techniques correct?
Why did they choose the techniques they chose?
Can their machines measure what they say?
Did they do the correct controls (could the effect
arise from some other factor??)
Does their data look “random” enough?
Did they analyze their data correctly?
Did they use correct statistical techniques?
Did they interpret their data correctly?
Are their conclusions supported by the data?
Here, we’ll practice being critical
Analyze during class.
1 exercise from the GRE questions pool
– Identify major problems with given arguments
 How to Approach?

Given: There are flaws? What are they?

Where are the problems?
Analyze line of reasoning
Consider questionable assumptions
Does evidence support the conclusion?
What additional evidence is needed to
strengthen or weaken argument?
What other info is needed to evaluate the
conclusion?
 Weak Analogy
Conclusion about one thing, based
on success or failure of another…with
many other variables present

Ex: A biotechnology company is

doing well in SA…I’ll open one as
well…
Confusing Cause and Effect
Ice cream consumption leads to
criminal behavior…
– Other factors: Summer heat, out of
school, etc…
 Necessary and Sufficient
Necessary- No other ways of getting
effect
Sufficient- Can cause effect
 Unrepresentative Statistics
Sample large enough
Sample representative of overall
population in relevant characteristics

How many are needed?

What works there…does it here?
Assuming no change over time
Old stats may not been
representative of today…
Narrow Either-Or Reasoning
Must choose only one path…

Perhaps both courses of action are

okay?
Are other courses of action feasible?
 Directions:
Identify conclusion
Identify supporting evidence
Brainstorm and identify three or four
discrete flaws (see prior slides), plus
any others that you note.
How to strengthen argument? (What
additional info is needed)
 Example:
Last year the local television news program
In Focus reported in its annual car-and-
truck safety survey that over the course of
the last 10 years, United Motors vehicles
were in involved in at least 30% fewer
fatal accidents to drivers than vehicles
built by any other single manufacturer.
Now, United is developing a one-of-a-kind
kind computerized crash warning system
for all its trucks. Clearly, anyone
concerned with safety who is in the
market for a new truck this year should
buy a United Motors truck.
 Example
Conclusion: Truck buyers should
favor the UM truck over others…
Evidence Presented:
– Compiled TV station-calculated 10 year
fatality rate on all UM vehicles
– Development of new truck safety
system
 Logic Problems:
Survey:
– General Problems
30%...total accidents or per vehicle sold??? (not
percentage data, but seems to be actual numbers)
what % fatal accidents included? Where is data from?
30% of all vehicles, not trucks alone
Non-fatal also relevant to safety
Geographic effects (fewer AM vehicles; In Focus local?)
Was safety consistent? No changes in trucks over 10
years?
– Maybe UM worse…why new system needed?
The new safety feature is effective
New system not yet included- irrelevant to current
purchases
How would you strengthen
Argument??
To Strengthen the Argument:
Accident sample information
Trucks instead of vehicles analyzed
Other measures of safety (non-fatal)
Safety was consistent over time
New safety features included and
effective