DM

Critical Thinking Notes: Analyzing Moral Arguments, Evidence, and Fallacies

Overview of Argument Analysis

  • Goal: Do not merely string together claims; ensure every claim that supports the conclusion is a reason in support of that conclusion.
  • Distinguish arguments from mere sequences of statements: an argument has a conclusion supported by premises; a mere set of assertions lacks support.
  • Key idea: A good argument has two criteria to be evaluated:
    • Logic condition: The conclusion should follow logically from the premises (necessity).
    • Truth condition: The premises should be true or acceptable.
  • Mapping an argument helps evaluation: convert paragraph form into a structured set of premises and a conclusion.
  • Premises are reasons offered in support of the conclusion; conclusions are the main claim the argument is trying to establish.
  • Evidence is what shows that premises are true or acceptable; it supports the premises, not directly the conclusion.
  • In moral arguments, typical structure involves a general moral principle, a statement of fact applying the rule to the case, and a conclusion.
  • Prominence of “therefore” in signaling conclusions; background statements may introduce issues but are not necessarily premises.
  • When evaluating any argument, identify: conclusion, premises, and any evidence, then assess logical entailment and truth/acceptability of premises.

Core Concepts for Critical Thinking

  • Argument: a set of statements consisting of premises and a conclusion where the premises are intended to support the conclusion.
  • Premise: a reason offered in support of the conclusion.
  • Conclusion: the main claim being argued for.
  • Evidence: information (facts, examples, sources, expert opinions, data) that supports the premises and makes them acceptable.
  • Logic condition: If the premises are true, the conclusion should be true (the conclusion follows from the premises).
  • Truth condition: The premises should be true or acceptable; otherwise the argument is weak or fallacious.
  • Mapping an argument: label parts as P1, P2, P3 (premises) and C (conclusion); E1, E2 (evidence) as needed.
  • Order of presentation: typically reason (premise) first, then evidence supporting that premise; multiple pieces of evidence can support multiple premises.
  • Types of evidence: facts, examples, expert opinions, authoritative sources, scientific data, historical events, and personal experience.
  • In moral arguments, common form: If a general moral principle holds, and a fact applies that principle to the case, then the conclusion follows.
  • Examples often used: smoking harms health (premise: health harm; evidence: CDC data); lying harms others (premise: harm; evidence: instance described in conversation).

How to Map and Analyze an Argument (Step-by-Step)

  • Step 1: Identify the conclusion indicator (e.g., therefore, so) to locate the main claim.
  • Step 2: Extract premises that support the conclusion; label them P1, P2, P3, ….
  • Step 3: Determine if the premises logically imply the conclusion: check the logical form.
  • Step 4: Assess truth/acceptability of each premise: are they true or acceptable given evidence and definitions (e.g., personhood in abortion debates).
  • Step 5: Add evidence to support premises where appropriate (E1, E2, …); evidence supports premises, not directly the conclusion.
  • Step 6: Distinguish background statements (context) from actual premises; background may not count as part of the argument’s logical structure.
  • Step 7: Evaluate the overall argument: is it sound (valid + true premises) or at least cogent (strong + acceptable premises)?

Example 1: Abortion and the Moral Argument

  • Paragraph argument:
    • Premise 1: It is wrong to take the life of an innocent person.
    • Premise 2: Abortion takes the life of an innocent person.
    • Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.
  • Mapping (graphic form):
    • P1: (\text{It is wrong to take the life of an innocent person.})
    • P2: (\text{Abortion takes the life of an innocent person.})
    • C: (\text{Abortion is wrong.})
  • Logical check:
    • The argument is of the form: if P1 and P2 are true, then C would be true.
    • Expressed as:
      (P1 \land P2) \rightarrow C
  • Truth/acceptability considerations:
    • Premise 1 is widely seen as true (moral consensus that taking innocent life is wrong).
    • Premise 2 is contentious due to the personhood debate: when does a fetus become a person?
    • Debate focus: how we define a person and at what stage abortion “takes a life.” Personhood is the central controversial issue.
  • Conclusion about the argument: it can be valid in form, but its soundness depends on whether Premise 2 is acceptable.
  • What to do in a debate:
    • Identify the argument and map it.
    • Locate the controversy (Premise 2 here).
    • Bring in evidence to support or challenge premises (e.g., philosophical definitions of personhood, biomedical facts).

The Role of Evidence in Arguments

  • Purpose of evidence: to show that premises are true or acceptable; to buttress reasons for the conclusion.
  • Evidence types:
    • Facts and data (e.g., statistics, measurements).
    • Expert opinions and authoritative sources (textbooks, peer-reviewed articles).
    • Scientific findings and medical evidence.
    • Relevant examples and factual knowledge.
    • Historical examples and personal experience (as supplementary support).
  • How to place evidence in a paragraph:
    • Develop your reasons (premises) first.
    • Then introduce evidence (E1, E2) to support those premises.
    • Avoid starting with examples that leave the reader unsure how to interpret them; use evidence to solidify each premise.
  • Example: Smoking harms health.
    • Conclusion: Smoking is wrong (premise: harms health).
    • Premise: Smoking harms health.
    • Evidence: CDC data (e.g., a statistic about health impact) supporting the harm premise. Note: The speaker used a hypothetical figure (e.g., “92% of all lung cancer cases”), illustrating how evidence is used; verify real data in practice.
    • Mapping: P1: Smoking is harmful to health. E1: CDC data shows harm; C: Therefore, smoking is wrong.
  • Special note on moral arguments: they often include a general moral principle and a rule-to-case application (e.g., “If stealing harms people, then stealing is wrong.”; “One ought not to intentionally harm another person.”).
  • Practical writing tip: When you have multiple pieces of evidence, you can attach more than one piece of evidence to a single premise (e.g., E1 and E2 both support P1).

Moral Arguments: General Pattern and Examples

  • Common structure in moral arguments:
    • General moral principle (premise): e.g., "If stealing harms people, then stealing is wrong."
    • Fact applying the principle to the case: e.g., "Stealing does harm people."
    • Conclusion: e.g., "Therefore, stealing is wrong."
  • Example with smoking:
    • Principle: If smoking harms health, then it is wrong.
    • Fact: Smoking does harm health (supported by evidence like CDC).
    • Conclusion: Therefore, smoking is wrong.
  • Mapping notational approach:
    • P1, P2 for premises; E1, E2 for evidence.
    • Sometimes, one form of evidence supports more than one premise.
  • Classroom application: you will be building a position paper on free speech and censorship; you must present a clear conclusion, reasons, and supporting evidence.
  • Caveat about AI: Generative AI may not provide the ideal structure (clear conclusion, ordered reasons and evidence). Your assignment will look for a well-ordered argument with a recognizable conclusion, reasons, and evidence.

Example: Analyzing a Conversation with Jim and April

  • Exchange:
    • Person 1: "Jim was wrong to lie to April."
    • Person 2 asks: "Why?"
    • Person 1: "Jim's action caused April harm."
    • Person 2: "What evidence?"
    • Person 1: "She acted on his misleading advice and lost a lot of money."
  • Analysis:
    • There is a clear argument from Person 1: three facts plus a moral claim.
    • Facts: (1) Jim lied to April. (2) Jim's actions harmed April. (Evidence) (3) Personal consequence: April lost money.
    • Moral claim: "It is wrong to intentionally harm others." (reason for conclusion)
    • Conclusion: "Jim was wrong to lie to April."
  • Mapping:
    • F1: Jim lied to April (fact)
    • F2: Jim's actions harmed April (fact)
    • E1: Evidence that harm occurred (April acted on misleading advice and lost money)
    • M: It is wrong to intentionally harm others (moral premise)
    • C: Jim was wrong to lie to April (conclusion)
  • Takeaway: There can be three factual statements plus one moral claim forming the argument; evidence supports the premises; the conclusion rests on the moral rule.

Case Study: Capital Punishment Argument (Paragraph Analysis)

  • Argument excerpt: “Capital punishment may be controversial, but it is necessary. Capital punishment deters future murders, discourages would-be criminals from unlawful action, and putting the convicted killers to death is less expensive to the taxpayers than housing them.” Therefore, the conclusion is: “The state should continue with capital punishment.”
  • How to map:
    • Premises that support the conclusion:
    • P1: Capital punishment deters future murders.
    • P2: Capital punishment discourages would-be criminals from unlawful action.
    • P3: Putting convicted killers to death is less expensive to the taxpayer than housing them for life.
    • Conclusion: The state should continue with capital punishment.
  • Important observations:
    • The first sentence, while related, is not itself a reason; it’s background/contextual framing.
    • A single sentence can contain multiple premises (e.g., the sentence about deterring murders and discouraging criminals).
    • Not every sentence in a paragraph is a premise; identify the parts that function as reasons and the main conclusion (signaled by "therefore").
  • Evaluation:
    • Logical check: Do premises logically entail the conclusion? If yes, the argument is valid.
    • Truth check: Are premises true/acceptable?
    • In this case, P1 and P2 may be plausible, but P3 (cost savings) is often contested and may be false; if P3 is false, the argument is invalidating its soundness even if logically valid.
    • The overall lesson: a valid argument can be unsound if one or more premises are false or unacceptable; adding credible evidence can strengthen premises and the overall argument—but one must verify the truth of each premise.
  • Practical improvement: to create a stronger argument, supply evidence for each major premise (e.g., independent studies showing deterrence effects; cost analyses).

Forms of Evidence and How to Use Them

  • Evidence types and their role:
    • Facts and numerical data: basic facts that support premises.
    • Statistical data: polls, surveys, and scientific statistics (with proper sources).
    • Expert opinion: conclusions from authorities in a field; must cite and ensure authority is appropriate.
    • Textbook/external sources and theory: support for premises using credible literature.
    • Historical examples: illustrate how premises apply in real-world contexts.
    • Personal experience: anecdotal support; can be persuasive but should be used carefully.
  • Guidelines for evidence:
    • Use evidence to support premises, not to replace premises with evidence that the reader must infer.
    • Clearly label which evidence supports which premise (e1 supports P1; e2 supports P2).
    • When possible, use multiple forms of evidence to strengthen a premise.
    • Avoid starting paragraphs with examples or anecdotes unless you immediately connect them to your premise with clear reasoning.
  • Examples mentioned in the transcript:
    • Fictional or hypothetical CDC statistic for illustration (e.g., “94% of all lung cancer cases” as an example, though not verified).
    • Surgeon General-like statements and medical opinions as evidence for health-related premises.
    • Personal experiences as ethical illustrations (e.g., a relative’s illness linked to smoking) as evidence for premises about health risks.

Moral Arguments: General Form and Examples (Continued)

  • Moral principle as a premise often appears as: one ought not to intentionally harm another person; or lying is wrong because it harms.
  • An example form:
    • If smoking is harmful to your health, then smoking is wrong. (premise 1: general principle)
    • Smoking does harm your health. (premise 2: fact/evidence)
    • Therefore, smoking is wrong. (conclusion)
  • Notation options for mapping:
    • P1, P2 for premises; E1, E2 for evidence; C for conclusion.
    • A single sentence may contain multiple premises or multiple pieces of evidence; do not force one sentence to map to a single premise if a larger sentence contains several reasons.

Putting It All Together: Argument Evaluation in the Course Context

  • Course focus: Free speech and censorship position paper; argument construction and defense.
  • Practical cautions:
    • AI-generated arguments may not align with the required structure (clear conclusion, ordered premises, and evidence).
    • Your final paper and presentation should display a logical flow: conclusion, premises, evidence, and clear mappings.
  • Presentation and discussion skills:
    • Apply critical thinking and argumentation to oral presentations.
    • Use the module on oral theories to structure talks and apply critical thinking to class topics.
  • Handling uncertainty in topics:
    • Complex issues often yield strong points on both sides; learners may struggle to take a position.
    • The assignment requires taking a position and arguing for it; if unsure, pick the side you can argue most convincingly, acknowledging the counterpoints.
  • On biases and fallacies:
    • Fallacies are bad arguments that fail either the logic condition or the truth condition.
    • Fallacies of relevance undermine the logical connection between premises and conclusion (e.g., ad hominem, appeal to authority, red herring, appeal to emotion, appeal to ignorance).
    • Fallacies of assumption undermine the truth of premises (e.g., false dilemma, straw man, slippery slope, begging the question, faulty analogy, hasty generalization).
  • Relationship between fallacies and cognitive biases:
    • Fallacies often arise from cognitive biases; the instructor plans to cover cognitive biases in depth in the next class.

Fallacies of Relevance (Signs that the argument fails the Logic Condition)

  • Ad hominem (appeal to the person / genetic fallacy): reject a claim based on source rather than the argument itself.
    • Examples from the transcript show attacking a speaker’s character or motives instead of addressing the argument.
    • Trickiness: the person may be biased, but the argument can still be valid or sound.
  • Appeal to authority: citing an authority when the authority is not an expert in the relevant field, or when the authority is not appropriately identified.
    • Distinguish appropriate authority (e.g., a physician for medical claims) from inappropriate authority (e.g., a non-expert on a specific technical topic).
    • Avoid vague phrases like "studies show" or "experts agree" without specific citations.
  • Red herring: shifting discussion to a side topic to distract from the main issue.
    • Example: responding to a question about mercury in seafood by discussing the fishing industry’s economic concerns.
  • Appeal to emotion (fear, guilt, anger, compassion): persuading through emotions rather than relevant reasons.
    • Common in political rhetoric and courtroom settings; readers/listeners should recognize emotional appeals and seek the underlying evidence.
  • Appeal to ignorance: arguing that a lack of evidence proves something (e.g., “No one has proven the fetus is not a person, so it is a person”).
    • Emphasizes that lack of evidence is not evidence itself; instead, one should seek positive evidence.
  • Role of these fallacies: they can be used intentionally to mislead, or arise from a lack of skill in argumentation; awareness helps us avoid them.
  • Examples provided in the transcript illustrate each fallacy and show how language choices and scope can mislead.

Fallacies of Assumption (Premises are Questionable or Dubious)

  • False dilemma (false binary): claims only two options exist and one is undesirable, forcing a choice between them.
    • Example: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us,” implying only two sides without room for nuance.
  • Straw man: misrepresenting an opponent’s position to attack a weakened version.
    • Example: exaggerating what “prayer in public schools” advocates want, then attacking that exaggerated claim.
  • Slippery slope: arguing that a small step will inevitably lead to a chain of events; the chain requires at least one weak link to be plausible.
    • Example: suggesting fluoride in water will lead to future global mind-control chemicals; highlights how improbable links undermine the claim.
  • Begging the question (circular reasoning): using the conclusion as part of the premise; e.g., Bible as evidence for God and God as evidence for Bible.
  • Faulty analogy: drawing an inappropriate or weak analogy to prove a claim.
    • Example: Cars cause more deaths than firearms, so banning firearms is like banning cars; differences in essential purposes and context are ignored.
  • Hasty generalization: drawing a broad conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample.
    • Example: condemning an entire profession or group from a few bad examples.
  • Equivocation: using the same word with two different meanings in different parts of the argument.
  • Composition: assuming what is true of the parts is true of the whole.
  • Division: assuming what is true of the whole is true of the parts.
  • Practical note: these fallacies often overlap; keep track of how premises relate to the overall conclusion and watch for overgeneralization or inappropriate transfers of attributes.

Cognitive Biases (Preview for Next Session)

  • The instructor signals a focus on cognitive biases as a core factor in how people accept or reject arguments.
  • Anticipated topics to cover include how biases influence judgment, evidence evaluation, and adherence to positions.
  • Practical takeaway: learn to recognize biases in yourself and others to improve argumentative clarity and fairness.

Practical Guidelines for Your Upcoming Assignments

  • Construction of your position paper:
    • Clearly state your conclusion (your chosen position on free speech vs. censorship).
    • Present major premises that logically support the conclusion.
    • Provide credible evidence for each premise (facts, expert opinions, data, etc.).
    • Organize the argument so reasons come first, then the supporting evidence; when multiple pieces of evidence apply to a premise, label them (E1, E2).
  • Presentation component:
    • Apply the same logical structure to your oral presentation; demonstrate awareness of counterarguments and respond to them.
  • AI use caution:
    • AI-generated content may fail to present a cohesive, well-ordered argument with a clear progression from reasons to evidence. You should refine and structure the argument yourself.
  • Handling uncertainty:
    • It’s normal to encounter strong points on both sides; you must still take a position and defend it with a well-structured argument.
  • Homework and class expectations:
    • You will be asked to analyze arguments, identify premises/conclusions, map them, and evaluate truth/logic.
    • There is a Word document provided to fill in premises (P1, P2, P3) and evidence (E1, E2); you’ll submit completed mappings for the assignment.

Summary of Key Takeaways

  • A good argument requires both logical coherence (conclusion follows from premises) and truth/acceptability of premises.
  • Distinguish premises (reasons) from evidence (support for those reasons).
  • Moral arguments often combine general moral principles with factual claims to reach a conclusion.
  • Mapping arguments helps you visualize structure and identify the controversy (which premise is disputed).
  • Fallacies of relevance undermine the logical connection between premises and conclusion; fallacies of assumption undermine the truth of premises.
  • Be wary of cognitive biases that can color judgment and influence how we evaluate arguments.
  • In your writing and speaking, present reasons first, then evidence, and always cite credible sources for your premises when possible.