Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Book summary

This bundle contains the chapters of the book "Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition". It includes the following chapters:

- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Bundle items:

Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 1

The reason answers the ‘why’ question to a statement. Asking for a reason is asking for justification. An argument is a set of propositions of which one is a conclusion and the remainder are premises, intended as support for the conclusion. A proposition is the factual content expressed in an argument. RECOGNISING ARGUMENTSNot all attempts to persuade are attempts to persuade by arguments. Attempts to persuade by means of rhetorical devices are also possible. Rhetoric is any verbal or written attempt to persuade someone that does not attempt to give good reasons but attempts to motivate solely through the power of the words used. It relies on the persuasive power of some words (e.g. instil fear using words without good reason). In analysing attempts to persuade, three tasks have to be performed:IdentifyIt is important to identify the issue being discussed and whether an argument is being presented.ReconstructingThe next step is reconstructing the argument so as to express it clearly. This includes putting arguments in the standard form.EvaluatingThe last step is evaluating the argument.Putting forward an argument is used to either advance an opinion (1) or recommend an action (2). Arguments are attempts to provide reasons that some claim is true. An argument requires more than one claim. If only one claim is used in an attempt to persuade, it is an unsupported claim. The second claim should give support to the first claim. The primary claim which we try to persuade people of is the conclusion. The supporting claims are premises. Indexicals are words of which the meaning changes relative to its context of use or relative to the person to whom it refers.STANDARD FORMThe standard form of an argument is:A is BB is C-------------A is CThere are five steps to reconstruct an argument:Identify the conclusionIdentify the premisesNumber the premises and write them in orderDraw in the inference barWrite out the conclusion,...

Read more about Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 1

Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 2

There are several problems with linguistic phenomena that makes an argument difficult to understand. The set of things a word is about is called the extension.Ambiguity occurs if a sentence can be interpreted in more than one way and should be avoided when trying to persuade using an argument. There are two types of ambiguity:Lexical ambiguityThis can occur if certain words have more than one meaning. This means that a word can be lexical ambiguous if it has more extensions. Lexical ambiguous words are not ambiguous in every context. There are words that can be ambiguous in speech but not in written text, as it is written differently, but sounds the same.Syntactic ambiguityThis can occur if the arrangement of words in a sentence is such that it can be understood in multiple ways. Syntactic ambiguity is more difficult to understand using the context.Vagueness occurs if the meaning of a word is indefinite or unclear (e.g. rights). Vagueness can also refer to words of which the meaning is clear, but there is no precise demarcation between that word and another (e.g. orange and yellow).The primary connotation of a word are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as part of that term’s extension (e.g. ram: male, sheep). The secondary connotation of a word are characteristics of the word but are not necessary for something to count as part of that term’s extension (e.g. ram: woolly, horns). Words that are vague often have an unclear primary connotation and a rich secondary connotation. Metaphors function by only using the secondary connotation of a word. Rhetorical questions are questions that indirectly assert a proposition. Irony refers to making a statement that, taken literally, conveys the opposite of the message people are trying to convey (e.g. ‘very tasteful’). Implicitly relative sentences make a comparison with some group of things but that comparison is not explicitly mentioned. Quantifiers are words and...

Read more about Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 2

Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 3

Argument reconstruction clarifies what the arguer actually said and to supplement the arguer, as some statements are implicit. The reconstruction of an argument can be presented as a bad argument or as a good argument, depending on the goal (e.g. political debate). A bad argument does not mean that the proposition is false. The principle of charity states that people should also choose the best reconstruction of an argument to discover reasons for accepting or rejecting particular prepositions, advancing the cause of knowledge. TRUTHThe truth-value of a proposition is the truth of the proposition. The two truth-values are true and false. DEDUCTIVE VALIDITYA conclusion is valid if the conclusion would be true, given that the premises are also true. The truth of premises is, in principle, not relevant for the validity of an argument. Validity should be judged by disregarding the truth-values of the premises. PRESCRIPTIVE CLAIMS VS DESCRIPTIVE CLAIMSStatements that state facts are descriptive claims and statements which express desires, norms or moral rules are prescriptive claims. CONDITIONAL PROPOSITIONSConditional propositions use the ‘if-then’ format. A double negative in logic is equal to a positive and it is called contraposition (e.g: if not A, then not B = if B then A). The word ‘or’ can be used in the inclusive sense or in the exclusive sense. In the inclusive sense, it means that ‘A or B’ that either A is true or B is true or they are both true. That statement is only false if both A and B are false. In the exclusive sense ‘A or B’ means that either A is true or B is true but not both. The word ‘either’ is often used here too. The words ‘if only’ create a conditional proportion that sets a necessary condition for it to apply, but it does not implicate that it is true the other way around. For example, ‘A only if B’ implies that A only occurs if B occurs, but B can occur without A occurring. A does not necessarily have to occur if...

Read more about Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 3

Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 4

Precise generalisations make it more difficult to divert from the topic. The quantifier ‘some’ does not mean ‘most’ or ‘all’ when making generalizations, although when stating ‘some A are B’ it is possible that all A are B.An argument is inductively forceful if the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises but is still ‘probably true’. It is very likely to be true and unlikely to be false. To say that an argument is inductively forceful means that the probability of A relative to the set is greater than one-half but less than one.The proportion indicate the part of A in the total (e.g. 7/8). Frequency refers to the number of times something occurs. The degree of rational expectation refers to the degree to which a person is entitled to believe a proposition given the evidence provided. Frequency and proportion could be used to calculate probability. Probability is a matter of degree and so is an argument being inductively forceful. The degree of indicative force of an argument is independent of the truth-values of the premises.INDUCTIVE SOUNDNESSAn argument is inductively sound if the argument is inductively forceful and its premises are true. Another word for inductive soundness is cogency. An inductive inference refers to extrapolating from a sample of a total population of things either to something outside the sample or to a generalisation about the population as a whole. An inference is an inductive inference if it is not deductively valid, its premises include a generalisation about a sample of a given population and its conclusion extrapolates the generalisation to all or part of the total population from the sample. It frequently involves extrapolation from the past to the future. The inductive force of an argument is equal to the conditional probability of the conclusion relative to the premises.In order to make a proper inductive inference, the sample needs to be representative of the population. An argument can be...

Read more about Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 4

Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 5

A lot of things people write plays no argumentative role. It can serve the function of emphasis, rhetoric or something else. This extraneous material should not be included in the reconstructing of an argument. The word ‘since’ transforms a conditional statement into a statement that asserts both the conditional and the antecedent of that conditional. The first step in reconstructing an argument is to make a list of the argument’s premises and conclusion that leaves out extraneous material.DEFUSING THE RHETORICMetaphors, slang and expressive epithets should be eliminated while reconstructing an argument. Expressive epithets are terms used to refer to some person, group or other entity, without actually using the name.LOGICAL STREAMLININGWhen reconstructing arguments, the logical relationships should be displayed in the simplest, clearest and most familiar ways possible. There are two rules of thumb when logical streamlining: Where appropriate, rewrite sentences as either conditional or disjunctive sentences in simple forms. Rewrite generalisations in simple forms using a clear quantifier.IMPLICIT AND EXPLICITIn arguments, some essential propositions are left implicit. Reconstruction of arguments should make all propositions explicit. The first step is always identifying the conclusion. The next step is identifying the argument’s premises. The third step is making any implicit statements explicit.CONNECTING PREMISESA connecting premise is a premise that has to be made explicit in order to make the argument valid. The connection premise can be not true or not lead to the argument being valid.COVERING GENERALISATIONSAsserting conditionals often happens on the basis of some covering generalisation. The conditional often relies on a generalization.RELEVANCEWhether a certain premise is true or false is not always equally relevant.AMBIGUITY AND VAGUENESSIn reconstructing arguments, ambiguity and vagueness have to be...

Read more about Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 5

Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 6

An argument is rationally unpersuasive if there is no good reason to accept a premise, even though the argument is deductively valid and sound. An argument is defeated if a person reasonably believes the premises, but, nevertheless, reasonably rejects the conclusion. An argument is rationally persuasive for a person if the argument is either deductively valid or inductively forceful (1), the person reasonably believes the premises (2) and the argument is not defeated for that person (3). There are several points considering rational persuasiveness:It is not possible for the conclusion of a deductively valid argument to be defeated by a person’s total evidence. It is only possible for inductively forceful arguments.An argument does not have to be sound in order to be rationally persuasive.Rational persuasiveness is a matter of degreeRationally persuasive does not merely mean persuasive or convincing. A rationally persuasive argument may fail to persuade anyone. Judgements about the rational persuasiveness very frequently depends on estimates of the legitimacy oft eh authority behind certain propositions. A rationally persuasive argument does not mean that the premises of this argument will and have to be used in further conclusions. There are three ways in which someone can be mistaken about the rational persuasiveness of an argument:People can mistakes concerning whether or not an argument is valid or inductively forcefulPeople can think they have a good reason to accept a premise when they don’t or the other way around.People can be mistaken about whether or not an argument is defeated for themLOGICAL ASSESMENTIf an argument is not valid, the question should always be asked whether the argument is inductively forceful. When assessing conditionals, we should always assume the antecedent is true in order to see whether the consequent is true and the argument is thus deductively valid. Conditional proof refers to determining...

Read more about Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 6

Critical thinking a concise guide by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, fourth edition – Summary chapter 7

Fallacies are arguments which make use of a mistake in reasoning. They do count as arguments, but are faulty arguments. There is an inappropriate connection between premises an conclusion. Formal fallacies are fallacies where there is an inappropriate logical connection. Substantive (informal) fallacies involve reliance or unjustified assumptions or inferences. Substantive fallacies are different from unsound arguments in the sense that the false premise is of general nature and has nothing to do specifically with the subject.There are several formal fallacies:Affirming the consequentThis is affirming the consequent and using this to reason that the antecedent must be true because of this.--------------If A, then BB--------------ADenying the antecedentThis is denying the antecedent and using this to reason that the consequent must be false because of this.-----------------If A, then BNot A-----------------Not BDeriving ought from isA prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly derived from purely descriptive premises. Base rate fallacyThis is neglecting the base rate to make a conclusion.There are several informal fallacies:Majority beliefThis is concluding that the proposition is true on the basis that the majority beliefs that the proposition is true. Common practiceThis is concluding that the proposition is true on the basis that ‘everyone does it’. Gambler’s fallacyThis is concluding that the probability of winning something is increased because of previous events (e.g. roulette ball falls on red twice in a row, so it must be black now).Ad hominemThis is responding to a claim by making an attack upon the person or by rejecting a claim because of dislike for the person making the claim. Ad hominem circumstantialThis is believing an argument is discounted because the person making the argument would allegedly benefit from people believing the argument (e.g. academic want more students because they will have more...