What is Critical Thinking?

What is Critical Thinking? A critical thinking guide to university study By Sandra Egege and Salah Kutieleh Flinders University

What is Critical Thinking? A critical thinking guide to university study by Sandra Egege and Salah Kutieleh Flinders University 2013

b

Acknowledgements For many commencing students, the notion of critical thinking is disconcerting. There is often confusion about what the term entails and there is a general lack of explanation or explicit instruction on how to demonstrate critical thinking in academic work. As a consequence, we felt the need to produce an introductory booklet on critical thinking that would help alleviate some of the students concerns and, perhaps, answer some of their questions. This booklet is the result of that endeavour. Its production and design were made possible through the assistance of a Flinders Teaching and Innovation Grant received in 2007. We would like to thank the students, staff and colleagues at Flinders who gave valuable feedback on early drafts of this booklet. Their comments were extremely useful and their suggestions have been implemented where possible. In particular, we would like to thank the 2008 Semester 1 AusAID focus group, the 2008 DVST Honours and Masters cohort, Helen Askell- Williams and Rosalind Murray-Harvey from the School of Education, and other Flinders colleagues for their invaluable contributions. Dr Sandra Egege, Associate Professor Salah Kutieleh Flinders University First edition printed 2009, revised and reprinted in 2011 and 2013. Flinders University Press Text written and compiled by Sandra Egege Layout and design by Lisa Bennett c

Contents Introduction..... Glossary of terms. iii v Explaining Critical Thinking 1 Having a critical thinking disposition 2 Developing critical thinking skills 2 Critiquing versus criticising 3 Why critical thinking is important 4 Why we make mistakes 5 Knowledge and epistemology 6 Problems with perception 7 Assessing evidence 9 Critiquing the evidence 10 Drawing an inference 11 Understanding Academic Argument. 12 A strong argument 13 How to analyse an argument 13 Sample analysis 14 Inductive inference 16 Making a claim from the evidence 17 Critical Thinking and Logic 20 Common logical fallacies 21 Over-generalisation 22 Slippery slope 23 Straw man 24 Circular reasoning 25 Critical Reading 26 Critiquing the literature 27 Critical review / Article review 28 Tips for critiquing 29 i

Critiquing Web sources 30 Writing an Argument 32 Critical language 33 Using I in essays 34 Useful discourse markers 35 Critical thinking in academic writing 36 Appendix Example of Critical Essay. 37 References and Additional Resources... 42 ii

Introduction The acquisition of critical thinking is often considered to be the key feature that distinguishes university academic standards from those of secondary schools. It is widely considered an essential attribute of all successful tertiary students. Critical thinking skills and related areas (ie. problem-solving skills, text analysis and argumentation skills) feature prominently in many university lists of graduate attributes. It is important that commencing students are aware of what critical thinking entails and how it can be demonstrated as a lack of evidence of critical thinking can have an impact on their grades. This booklet has been developed for this purpose. It has been designed as a basic text to introduce commencing students to the concept of critical thinking, particularly as it is understood and practiced at Australian universities. It provides some examples of what it is to be a critical thinker, how to improve one s critical thinking capacity, and how to demonstrate critical thinking in one s assignments. The intention of the booklet is to serve as a useful tool or reference text. It is not intended to be read from cover to cover but is divided into sections that can be referred to as needed. However, the first part of the booklet contains a general introductory discussion on what critical thinking is, while the latter sections are on more specific topics like Article Review or Analysing an Argument. Some of the sections are cross-referenced to other sections to help broaden understanding. While this booklet is intended to enhance the capacity to think critically, becoming skillful at anything requires effort and hard work. Developing the skills of critical thinking is no different. It takes time, dedication and lots of practice. 3

4

Glossary The following glossary is an alphabetical list of terms that have a particular meaning within the critical thinking context. Understanding their meaning will give you a basic introduction to the vocabulary of critical thinking. Critical Thinking Terms Analysis Argument Assumption Claim (being) Critical Critiquing Deduction Epistemology Evaluation Evidence dividing a text or argument into its constituent parts in order to understand its meaning and how this is conveyed a claim that is put forward and justified by other related claims (called premises) a concept, idea or point of view that is assumed (implicit) or stated (explicit) as accepted fact; often acts as a basis for argument a statement in an argument; a premise; a conclusion; an assumption the process of examining something against a set standard or objective to see if it meets the requirements evaluating an object (text) against a standard to ascertain strengths and weaknesses, positives and negatives; critically assessing the value of an object process of logical inference which follows rules of validity; deducing a specific outcome from given logically-related statements; deductive arguments are truth preserving study of knowledge; how we know what we know and that we know that we know assessing the worth of something against set criteria facts, data or other information used to justify or support a claim 5

Fallacy Generalisation Hypothesis Induction Inference Justification Knowledge Logic Logical connectives Position Premise Reasoning Reviewing Statement Synthesis common mistake in logic or reasoning resulting in unjustified conclusion a claim drawn from a specific set of examples that is (supposedly) applicable to all similar instances of the same kind a possible explanation of a phenomenon or event that is put forward, should be susceptible to testing process of inference from evidence leading to generalisation or prediction; inference to the best explanation a claim or conclusion drawn from evidence, what is inferred reasons put forward to support a claim or action claims drawn from evidence through a process of inference (induction or deduction) that conform to reality; claims that are justified and accepted as true; statements of fact method of reasoning using accepted rules of inference; can be formal or informal words that illustrate logical relationships between ideas such as if then ; or ; and ; not the point of view taken by the author on an issue statement that directly supports the conclusion of an argument; more than one premise may be contained in the same sentence logical process of working out connections between facts and ideas leading to solution or inference; uses logical connectives like if then process of critically evaluating and judging a piece of research, program, film; can lead to recommendations for improvement a claim that can be true or false; may be more than one statement in a sentence the result of pulling together common themes, ideas, trends, usually as part of literature review 6

Explaining Critical Thinking Critical thinking is the process of analysing, evaluating and synthesising information in order to increase our understanding and knowledge of reality. It requires the capacity to critically analyse and evaluate the claims of others as well as the capacity to justify our own claims using sound reason and logic. Critical thinking is a term that is commonly used to describe a thinking process that entails the application of a broad range of different (but related) thinking skills. We engage in Critical thinking to increase our understanding and knowledge of reality and the world we live in, both the physical world and the social or human world. Critical thinking is about applying our thinking skills to an issue, a problem, an idea or a situation to reach an outcome of some kind. This outcome may be: Increased understanding A possible solution to a problem A new perspective on an issue A change of belief Confirmation of an old idea or current practice Ultimately, critical thinking is a process of analysis and critique that is used to ensure that we come to the most reasonable conclusions about the world we live in, as well as the best solutions for what we want to achieve. It is a process of thinking that helps us make sure we have strong and reliable grounds for our beliefs and actions. The more we practice critical thinking, the better critical thinkers we become. 1

Having a critical thinking disposition Some people say you need certain characteristics to be a proficient critical thinker, often called dispositions. While you may not need all of the traits listed below, it does help if you have at least an enquiring mind and an interest in the truth. You should want to seek the truth regardless of selfinterest You should recognise your own limitations You should be open to alternative views and outcomes You should have the courage and confidence to question You should be rigorous and systematic You should be enquiring and analytic In other words, you should try to be as objective and as rigorous as possible. Developing critical thinking skills Developing critical thinking skills will make you a better and more rigorous thinker. This means the claims you make are more likely to be true because they will be based on sound reasoning. Broadly critical thinking involves the development of the following: In-depth understanding Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Interpretation Effective communication Problem-solving abilities Ways in which these skills can be applied to what you think, what you see and hear and what you read is by: Identifying and examining ideas Analysing arguments Recognising logical fallacies Evaluating evidence Asking relevant questions Drawing appropriate inferences Making conceptual connections 2

Experimenting or trying out a new perspective One of the most useful critical thinking techniques is to ask questions. What is the author saying? What does this mean? Why is that the only possible outcome? What would be an alternative interpretation? What is new here? Later sections in this booklet contain a series of sample questions that should be relevant to any issue that you are examining. (see Critiquing the evidence, p.10; Drawing an inference, p.11; Sample analysis, p.14; Over-generalisation, p.22; Critical reading, p.26) Answering these questions should help you to start thinking critically about the ideas that you encounter. Critiquing versus criticising At University, we spend a lot of time examining what other people say and do. We closely examine their ideas, their theories, the films they make, the experiments they conduct or the programs they run. This is how we learn about our field of study. In particular, we find out about other people s ideas and other people s research by reading about them, by reading the books, journal articles or reports they write (or have written). This is usually the only way we know what other people are doing. This means that a big part of critical thinking at University involves critiquing other people s written work. We do this by analysing the text, by examining how people say they have conducted their research and assessing what they claim the research results indicate. It involves assessing how well they have conducted their research and it involves evaluating the ideas they put forward as a consequence of that research. It is also about assessing the significance of their work within and across the discipline. What knowledge have they contributed to the field? * Critiquing is not the same as criticising * Criticising is always negative; it is picking fault in something. Sometimes writers criticise another person (or their work) without coming up with reasons. Their statements are often not supported by evidence; Her books are rubbish. It was a really bad film. You can t take him seriously, he s a war-monger. Critiquing is not just about finding fault, although critiquing is being critical. It involves applying rigorous academic standards to a piece of work and then judging that work against those standards. It involves a critical evaluation of that work. Sometimes the work will prove to be exceptional, at other times there may be short-comings and ways it could be improved. 3

It is important to identify any short-comings and to indicate how important or relevant those short-comings are to the overall quality of the piece of written work. Does it affect the quality of the research? Does it mean the research findings are not reliable? Does it make the claim/s less convincing? How could it be improved? The main purpose of critiquing is to make sure we can rely on the claims made by researchers. It helps us to be aware of what constitutes good research and good writing. It forces us to look closely at the claims other scholars make and to see if those claims are justified in the light of what we know. In the process, critiquing will improve our knowledge and the quality of our understanding in a given field Ultimately, it is in all our interests to minimise mistakes and to identify flaws in reasoning. Why critical thinking is important According to William Sumner (1906), developing the skills of critical thinking is our only guarantee against delusion, deception, superstition, and misapprehension of ourselves and our earthly circumstances. Example of poor reasoning leading to superstition and false beliefs In the past when crops failed, babies died or disease spread, people panicked and blamed witches. According to the common belief of the time, witches could do evil things with magic; they could even fly or turn themselves into animals. This false belief led to fear and the violent deaths of many innocent women. 4

There is no evidence that witches like those described above ever existed. Nevertheless, not so long ago in parts of Europe and Africa, people believed witches could cause misfortune. It didn t matter whether or not the person blamed really was a witch, or if witches were really capable of doing the things people said, or even if there were witches at all. Usually, the person (or people) blamed were those who were a bit different or strange in their behaviour. This kind of thinking is called superstitious and is based on ignorance and prejudice. It is not grounded in sound reasoning. People supposedly saw causal connections when really there was only a slight correlation or coincidence (e.g. she visited my mother just before the house caught fire; the drought only started after they arrived in the village). It is very easy to jump to the wrong conclusion or to make the wrong connections between events. We sometimes see what we want or expect to see. Critical thinking is a way of avoiding jumping to the wrong conclusions. It helps us understand how we think about the world and why we think it, to see what has formed our own (or someone else s) beliefs and ideas. Critical thinking enables us to examine where our ideas come from and how reliable they are. We need to examine why we believe what we do and to see if there are strong reasons to retain those beliefs. N.B. We should not accept something just because someone says it is true, even if they give reasons. Neither should we accept something just because it seems the most obvious explanation. We need to see if the reasons are strong enough to support the idea. Why we make mistakes As humans, it is very hard to see, hear, read, or think about something without pre-conceptions. Prior knowledge, cultural and social beliefs, past experience and our expectations all have an impact on our capacity to view things completely objectively. This will influence the kinds of conclusions we come to. We have a tendency to accept the most obvious explanation first or the one that seems to fit with what we already believe. If we really want to know the truth about something, we need to be aware of the things that may influence (or may be influencing) our 5

understanding of, or our interpretation of, events. It may be that we are not seeing the whole picture. At the same time, when we read someone s writing, we need to carefully examine what they are saying and why they are saying it. We need to find out what their perspective or point-of-view is and why they believe what they do. Knowledge and Epistemology Life in a goldfish bowl Ummm? Symbolism was not really Bert s thing The above illustration demonstrates how hard it is for us to move outside our own perspective. Things appear certain ways to us because we have certain beliefs about how our world is. This may be limited or even false. Like the goldfish, there are some things we just don t understand or can t see. Using critical thinking skills is a way of trying to ensure that what we think is the case really is the case. This is very important at University because other people depend on the quality or accuracy of our research findings. They use this knowledge to inform their practice. So we need to make sure it is as reliable as possible. When you write assignments, you need to make sure that your conclusions are as reliable as possible or that they are the best explanation based on the available evidence. 6

All good research attempts to contribute to our knowledge in a field by trying to demonstrate that x is the case. It makes what we call a knowledge claim. In order to count as knowledge, the statement or claim must satisfy certain criteria: It must be true (it is a fact about the world as far as we know), and It must be justified (there should be convincing reasons for believing it to be true). The study of knowledge, how we justify our knowledge claims and how we judge a claim to be knowledge, is called epistemology. Most of our knowledge comes directly from experience and observation. We see or experience things and then draw conclusions based on this evidence. This is how we get to know things. In epistemology, it is generally accepted that the majority of our knowledge claims can never be 100% certain. It is argued that we cannot rely on our perception alone to give us an accurate picture of the world because it is too easy to be mistaken. Not only that, but things are not always the way they appear (see below). To the left is an optical illusion. Black dots appear to move over the grid when our eyes are focused elsewhere. We cannot stop ourselves from seeing this illusion, even though we know the drawing is static. Problems with perception Not only is our perception limited and prone to error but most of the more important knowledge claims we make are about things we can t directly perceive, called unobservables. In science, unobservables are things like atoms, genes, gravity or radiation. In the social sciences, they are things like economies, communities, minds or emotions. How do we know that these things really exist or that the claims we make about them are true? The answer, according to epistemologists, is that we don t. At best, all we can claim is that they are likely to be true, based on what we know 7

and understand. We identify them as entities or infer their existence from a given set of phenomena. Because of this, the most important criterion for knowledge claims is justification the evidence, proof or reasons one has for supporting one s claim. From the available evidence, we reason or infer that x must be the case or that x is likely to be the case. For example: Based on the evidence available, taking vitamin C has no discernable therapeutic effect on the symptoms of a cold. The truth of this statement will depend on the strength and reliability of the evidence. The most important part of critical thinking is assessing the strength and quality of the justification given in support of any claims made. If we know what kinds of mistakes we can make, we can look out for them and help correct them. Justification In any field of inquiry, there is an accumulated body of facts or knowledge that we currently accept as true, even though there has been a long history of scientific and human research behind the development of that body of knowledge. It is quite legitimate to use these well-accepted facts as evidence to support our arguments. This evidence provides the grounds or reasons that help justify our position. All arguments have to start from some basic assumptions. Generally, the knowledge passed on in any academic discipline does not need further justification; it is assumed or accepted as given. It is treated as fact. For example, the following statements are considered to be true. penicillin is an antibiotic Australia was populated before Captain Cook arrived Pandas eat bamboo shoots taxes help pay for public goods The given (proven) facts in each discipline of study can be used as the basis of our arguments or as supporting evidence for the claims we make. Observational evidence is another source of knowledge that doesn t need justification as it is purely descriptive (e.g. there is a chair ). The claim is not inferred or deduced because the chair is directly perceived. Nevertheless, you could have made a mistake. There are problems with certain kinds of observational evidence in terms of reliability, given the limits of our perception, so we need to examine observational reports carefully (see Critiquing the evidence, p.15). You may also need to explain what events are being observed and why. 8

Assessing evidence In order to assess knowledge claims, (critiquing someone else s work) we need to be able to recognise the kind of evidence that supports their claims. Each kind has its own criteria of acceptability. Once we have identified the justification, we can assess how well it fits its criteria. We can assess how reliable the evidence is for the kind of justification used. In order to make knowledge claims, (writing our own assignments) we have to make sure that our claims are justified. We have to put forward strong reasons to support the claims we make. We have to make sure we draw the right kind of inference based on the evidence we have available to us. A mistaken perception leading to a false inference The evidence can take different forms, with each type having its own criteria of acceptability. In a given piece of research, you need to identify the kind of evidence that is being used to support a claim or action. Some examples of kinds of evidence are: Observational (recording what is observed, said or written) Experimental (taking measurements, recording results from tests) Statistical (collecting and tabulating data, analysing data) 9

We use evidence to justify or support the claims we make. Evidence is used to: Identify or explain a phenomenon Develop an hypothesis or reach a conclusion Justify or prove an hypothesis Support an opinion, belief or action Examining the evidence Critiquing the evidence If possible, all evidence should be assessed for accuracy and reliability, ie. that it is a true record of what occurred or does occur, or of what people do or think. With empirical research, you need to examine the methods used to collect the data, how the data was recorded and how the data was analysed. This should be reported somewhere in the text or article. Ask yourself questions about the reliability of the evidence. What exactly was observed? What kinds of errors do I need to look out for? Under what conditions were the observations made? How often? Why were these observations made? Were they expected or anomalous? Could there be a mistake? Can I rely on the data recorded? Were there any problems making the observations or collecting the data? How was the experiment conducted? Was there a control? How was the relevant variable isolated and tested for? What are the limitations? What are/could be the confounding factors? Is the experiment repeatable? Is it only relevant in a narrow context? Can I depend on the findings? Who was the target of the survey/questionnaire? What was the aim? Was the group randomly chosen or selected? Do the questions match the research aim? Are they biased towards a particular response? Do they indicate cultural, gender, class bias? Were enough responses received to be representative? How was the data analysed? Can I accept the results? As you become more knowledgeable in your field of study, you will gain more confidence in making these kinds of assessments. You will also become more discerning. You will learn what good experimental 10

procedure is and what is not, or what good textual/conceptual analysis is and what is not. (see Article Review, p.28) Equal opportunity The results of this test will only tell us which animals can climb trees. It will not be evidence of anything else. Drawing an inference - What does the evidence prove? Let s say we accept the evidence presented to us. We decide that the evidence is reliable, based on the methods of data collection and what we know (ie it is the case that monkeys can climb trees better than elephants or goldfish). We now need to see what claim the evidence is being used to support. What has the author inferred from the evidence? What do they claim it shows? Does the evidence offer support for this claim? As part of our evaluation, we need to assess the following: Is the evidence relevant to the claim? Is the evidence enough to substantiate the claim? Is there a better claim that could be made? What you are doing here is questioning the inference. Has the researcher drawn the correct inference? Does the evidence really support the existence of x or some other hypothesis? To be clear about the inferential process, you need to examine the logic of the language. You need to look closely at the argument. 11

Understanding Academic Argument The term argument is used in everyday language to describe a dispute or disagreement between two or more people. However, within written academic work, the presence of an argument does not always indicate a disagreement. An academic argument can be used to: Support something we think has merit a position, a point of view, a program, an object. Persuade someone that something would be beneficial to do (or not to do) a particular course of action. Convince someone that something is true, likely to be true or probable a fact, an outcome. Show someone the problems or difficulties with something a theory, an approach, a course of action. Reason with someone to get them to change their mind or their practice. An academic argument is: A set of logically connected statements which justify a claim Academic argument = + Claim Justification A basic argument consists of: A claim or conclusion Supporting premises Evidence to support the premises Reasoning or logical connectives Example: Analysis: If chocolate produces endorphins then eating it will make you happy, because endorphins make you feel good. Endorphins make you feel good (supporting premise) If chocolate produces endorphins, then eating it will make you happy (logical connectives, conditional) Chocolate does produce endorphins (implicit assumption) 12

(therefore) Eating chocolate will make you happy (conclusion) This may or may not be a strong argument. Breaking it into its parts as above will help you to assess how strong it is, what kind of support it needs and whether it should be qualified in some way. A Strong (cogent) Argument An argument will be strong if it has the following: The premises are acceptable (they make sense) The reasons given to support the claim are reliable The reasons given to support the claim are relevant The reasons provide sufficient grounds for the claim The premises are connected semantically (meaning) The premises are connected syntactically (in a logical way) Ultimately, you should find the argument persuasive or convincing. You should find the claim or conclusion believable, based on the evidence presented and the way that evidence is connected to the claim. Evidence offers support for a claim but it is not the reason we accept a claim. Evidence is not an argument. We accept (or reject) a claim because someone tells us what the relationship is between the evidence and the claim and because we think this relationship is strong (or weak). The reasoning plus evidence constitutes the argument. NB An argument is not good just because you agree with it. An argument is not bad just because you disagree with it. How to Analyse an Argument The first stage in argument analysis is being able to recognise that there is an argument. Once we know what the argument is, we can assess and evaluate the strength of that argument by looking at the justification or evidence used to support the claim, the logical structure of the argument, and the appropriateness of the language used to indicate the logical relationship between the various statements. Even though there is usually one main claim or conclusion put forward by the author/s, most texts contain more than one argument. Often there are supporting arguments for the main claim. There could also 13

be a subsidiary line of argument, leading to an additional point. Sometimes, there are counter-arguments as well, arguments that go against the main claim or against an alternative position. However complex the text is, though, your first task is finding or identifying the main claim, the main idea that the author is supporting or putting forward. Once this has been isolated, you can begin analysing the argument. Example One: Normal Antarctic icebergs consist of snow compressed into glacial ice, which flows out into the sea to form ice shelves. Hundreds of feet below the surface, Antarctic seawater freezes to the bottom of some shelves. Where the seawater is biologically rich, the ice includes dissolved remains of plankton which are green. ** This is not an argument. No claim is being put forward or defended. This passage is just descriptive. Example Two: Insects provide a concentrated source of protein and in many poor countries people have insufficient protein in their diets. So, those who use insects as a food source are acting wisely. ** This is an argument because a claim is being made that the author wants you to accept, based on the evidence. Sample analysis: The above argument is justifying a claim. The word so indicates a conclusion is being put forward. Sometimes you can test if something is a conclusion by putting therefore in front of it. The claim above is (R): R: Those who use insects as a food source are acting wisely. Once the claim is identified, you then need to find the supporting statements (known as premises). Sometimes you can test if something is a reason by putting because in front to see if this makes sense. In this argument there are two reasons or supporting statements (P and Q). P: Insects provide a concentrated source of protein Q: In many poor countries people have insufficient protein in their diets 14

We have now started to analyse the argument. We have identified the claim and the evidence or reasons presented to support the claim. Let s look at the logical connections between the premises. If you look at it closely, you see that you must have BOTH P and Q for the argument to work. The connective so indicates this leads to R. Thus it has a logical format that can be represented as: P & Q So (therefore) R. Now you are in a position to evaluate the argument to see if it is strong or weak. Establishing the truth of the premises Firstly, do we agree with the premises? Is it true that insects provide a source of protein? Does this need additional support (a supporting argument)? There is a story that prisoners of war in Indonesia survived by grinding cockroaches into their food as a protein source, to provide vitamin B. What about the next statement? Is it true that poor people suffer protein deficiency? This is likely if poverty equates with a shortage of food like meat or fish. Again, there is likely to be additional evidence that could support this statement. If that additional information is available (it must be referenced) then both premises seem reasonable, so let us accept that they are true. (but see Assessing evidence, p.14) Checking the inference Now we need to evaluate whether or not the evidence is relevant to the conclusion and whether or not it is sufficient to support the conclusion. This is often the hardest part. Again, we need to ask questions. Do I agree with the conclusion? Why/ why not? Does the claim follow from the evidence? Is it connected? Is the evidence sufficient to justify the claim? Is this inference the most logical? Could we have drawn a different inference? Is the whole of the argument convincing? If we accept the truth of the premises, then we need to examine the logical relations between them (the support) and the conclusion. Here we have and and so meaning, given both P and Q, then R can be inferred. The right connections have been drawn so it has a logical structure. The inference appears reasonable in that it could be drawn from the supporting premises. If you are poor and have limited protein sources, and insects can provide protein, then eating insects may be something to consider. It may be the only other means of getting a balanced diet. However, it would only be considered wise as long as: 15

there are no negative side-effects from eating insects (ie poison), they are cheap and easily accessible they are palatable there is no other (tastier) cheap alternative available it doesn t apply to all insects (some may be inedible). The above points are called qualifications. This means we accept the claim as reasonable only if these conditions are met. It would not be wise to eat things that made you ill. As it happens, eating insects is quite common in countries where traditional protein sources are scarce and insects are plentiful (ie China, India, Thailand). Sample of edible insects from Thailand Inductive inference The argument above is an example of inductive inference. This means that someone has put specific pieces of information together and inferred something that is in addition to the information in the premises. The conclusion they draw is not the only inference that could be drawn but it is one possible inference. The other important point is that the inference is broadly applicable. It is about all people in a certain situation. It is what is called a generalisation. A generalisation claims more than we can possibly know just from the premises. However, we sometimes feel confident enough that the information in the premises is sufficient to warrant such a leap. If we are right, then we have been able to make legitimate claims about things we can t know or see directly. We have added to our knowledge base. 16

Induction is the most common way of coming to a conclusion. It uses inductive reasoning (rather than deductive) and the form it takes is that of an inductive argument. Inductive reasoning allows us to form generalisations or make predictions about what we think is the most likely cause or the most likely outcome. The strength of the generalisation will be proportional to the strength of the evidence supporting it and the strength of the relationship between that evidence and the claim. Examples of generalisations Bombs cause mass destruction. Health is more important than money. Alcohol makes you aggressive. Young babies need a lot of care. Our perception is limited and prone to error. The strength of these claims will depend on the quality of the evidence available to support them and the demonstrated link between the evidence and the claim. Some claims need more justification than others. The evidence of just one exploding bomb may be enough to prove the truth of the first statement. However, a lot of reasoning may be necessary to prove the second statement and it still may not be convincing to some people because of the counter-arguments. Making a claim from the evidence In an ordinary inductive argument, we often use a set of similar occurrences or events to come to a generalisation about those kinds of events or situations, or to make a prediction about the likelihood of future events. In effect, we draw an inference or make a claim based on the available evidence. 17

Example: Wings are for flying Bees fly Moths fly... Ducks fly... Galahs fly Insects with wings can fly Birds with wings can fly All creatures with wings can fly Wings are for flying In this example, we have taken a limited amount of evidence and inferred that all creatures with wings can fly. We didn t check every bird or every insect, but we still think this is the right kind of conclusion to come to. We could go further and even predict that adding wings may help nonflying things to fly, leading to the 2 nd inference that it is something about the design of wings, given all wings have a similar shape. From our experience of the world and of other flying things (aeroplanes, boomerangs, sycamore seeds), we may think that the claim All creatures with wings can fly is a very good inference. In fact, we have a lot of frequent, every day examples or evidence to confirm the claim. However, there are some exceptions. Penguins and emus are birds with wings that can t fly. One of the problems with inductive reasoning is there can always be exceptions. The above conclusion is true most of the time and may still tell us something about the function of wings. As it stands, though, it needs qualifying. We could change the conclusion to acknowledge the constraints. 18

Except for flightless birds, all creatures with wings can fly. (or) All creatures with wings are likely to fly. Therefore, wings are designed for flying. If we think we have a reliable generalisation, we could use it as the starting premise in a deductive argument. A deductive argument is almost the opposite of an inductive argument. We start with a general claim then deduce something about a specific instance. This is why it is sometimes represented by an inverted triangle: you start with a broad generalisation and then become more specific. All acids turn litmus paper red This is an acid Therefore, it will turn litmus paper red This is called a sound deductive argument. Any argument that has a valid form and true premises will have a true conclusion. We can sometimes check whether someone s argument is true by seeing if it is sound or not. With deductive arguments, we check for validity and soundness; with inductive arguments we check for strength. Unfortunately, our claims or conclusions are not always based on such sound reasoning or such abundant evidence. Another problem we face in coming to good robust conclusions is that our reasoning could be flawed. 19

Critical Thinking and Logic Like the penguin, it is easy to make mistakes with our thinking. Our thinking processes are fallible and we often commit what are called logical fallacies. We need to be aware of the kinds of thinking mistakes we can make so that we can try to correct them (as much as we can) or point them out when others make them. We can recognise the mistake in the above cartoon because we know that penguins are not TV shows. A correct (valid deductive) form of the above argument is on the left; the fallacious form is on the right: All As are Bs not All As are B Some As are C Some Cs are B.. Some Bs are C.. Some As are Cs Sometimes, though, the mistake is not so easy to see, as in the example below. The English like cricket We may look at each Some premise terrorists in this like argument cricket and decide that each statement is true. The concluding statement may, in fact, actually be true. Therefore, some English are terrorists 20

However, it is only true coincidentally. It is not true because of the logic of the argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. This argument is invalid. There is a flaw in the reasoning that is the same as the penguin s. It is like saying: apples are fruit; oranges are fruit; therefore apples are oranges. The fact that two things share one common property does not make them the same. Common Logical Fallacies Below is a list of common fallacies. They all represent attempts to persuade someone to think or do something. Some are more common in direct speech or in advertising, in political speeches or in newspaper articles where we don t have to be so rigorous. At university, we should avoid using fallacies, especially deliberately. Appeal to authority - questionable authority, do not accept something as true just because an authority figure said it Appeal to common or popular belief just because it is a popular belief, doesn t make it true Appeal to common practice (tradition) just because it is common practice, doesn t make it right Appeal to indirect consequences - slippery slope (see below) Appeal to loyalty - peer pressure, nationalism, patriotism Appeal to prejudice using stereotypes like we all know politicians lie, a woman wouldn t do that Appeal to vanity - ego, flattery; you should know better, as an intelligent person Hasty or over-generalisation - poor inductive argument (see below) Ad hominem attacks - attack the person, rather than the ideas Post-hoc reasoning - attribute false causal relationship after the event Burden of proof - avoid answering question Loaded question - pre-empting answer; Straw man - superficial characterisation (see below) Circular reasoning - begging the question (see below) False dilemma - claiming only two options are possible. While there are many logical fallacies we can make, the most common fallacies in academic writing are the following four. 21

1. Hasty or over-generalisation One of the most common mistakes in reasoning is to jump to conclusions too soon or to come to a conclusion based on limited evidence. (see also Inductive inference, p.18) Example Apples are very poor quality this year; every apple I have bought recently has been bad. This is an example of a hasty generalisation. Though the claim may be true, it is based on very limited evidence of questionable reliability. The strength of this generalisation will depend on answers to the following questions: How many apples did you actually buy? Did you buy 3 or 40? What is a fair number to pass judgement? Were they all bad? Did you have any good ones? Did you buy them all from the same place? Did you buy them from similar or different retail outlets? Are you buying only one kind of apple? Is this apple in season? Are you buying old fruit, at the end of the day? Have others found the same problem? Is there a pattern that we can use to predict future bad apples or is it just random, chance, coincidence with no discernible pattern? What might the other indicators of poor quality be? Are they present? Part of how we assess this argument is based on our world life experience. We know there is always a likelihood that you can buy a bad apple, just based on chance. This is irrespective of whether or not you have bought a bad apple in the past. It could also happen whether the quality of fruit is good or poor. Even if the next apple you bought was bad, it wouldn t make your reasoning any better or your argument stronger. It is still a hasty generalisation. You may also be correct and the quality of apples is poor this year. It still doesn t make the reasoning good. You do not have enough evidence (yet) to draw that kind of general conclusion. Another fallacious inference that could be drawn from the evidence is: The quality of fruit and veg has really dropped. This is called an over generalisation because it claims far more than the evidence warrants. 22

What have a few bad apples got to do with the quality of (all) vegetables? What have a few bad apples got to do with the quality of all other fruits? Dropped when, where, how much? What are you comparing the standard to? Whereas a hasty generalisation may turn out to be true, an overgeneralisation is always false because it takes limited evidence and applies it to a whole class of objects. Stereotyping is a classic example of this kind of poor reasoning. Bikies are criminals who sell drugs. Lawyers can t be trusted. Teenagers have no respect. Men are better drivers than women. Such statements are based, at best, on one or two examples only. Even if the examples are true, and there are lots of them, the statement still claims too much. It says this is the case for ALL members of that class. No exceptions. It is true that some properties are shared by all members of certain groups which qualify them as members of that group all bikies ride bikes; all lawyers have a law degree. But we need to be careful about what characteristics are defining and what are not. 2. Appeal to indirect consequences (slippery slope) This type of reasoning is common in public debates about legalising an act (or a substance) that is currently illegal. Examples in Australia are about legalising marijuana, voluntary euthanasia or allowing same-sex marriage. In some places debates are about dress codes and decency. Mostly, slippery slope arguments arise in debates about changing current practice or tradition. The argument involves an appeal to the possible negative consequences of changing the status quo. Appeals to indirect consequences usually try to get you to take disastrous consequences into account, without regard for their likelihood. The "slippery slope" of nonautomatic consequences is clear and with each step down the slope, the consequences are more extreme. Example: Legalizing marijuana will mean increased availability, leading to increased drug use by teenagers, increased use of heavy drugs like heroin, more addiction, more drug-related crime, more deaths of young people, the destruction of our 23

public school system, and eventually the collapse of our society. So how can you even consider its legalization? The fallacy is that the causal connections between each of the steps in the argument become more tenuous and the consequences more dire. Each step down a slippery slope is possible but far from automatic and may be, in fact, highly improbable. The conclusion itself is based on the most indirect, and therefore least likely, of these possibilities. More than anything, this type of argument appeals to our emotions, paranoia or fears. In making decisions, we should take consequences into account, but only in proportion to their likelihood. The point is that we should decide the question on its own merits, and not on the fear of a remote (and unlikely) result. 3. Straw man (superficial characterisation) The purpose of this technique, which is called "straw man" (like a scarecrow) relies on the creation of a false image of someone else's statements, ideas, or beliefs. A "straw man" image is rarely based on actions, but instead on comments or beliefs. Generally, a straw man argument oversimplifies someone s position and then proceeds to create a false-image fallacy. It is then very easy to criticise. An example of this kind of fallacy is when someone wants to ridicule a position, like astrology or the hard sciences. They will represent the position simplistically and in its worst light, then proceed to criticise it, based on that analysis. They create a false image then show how flawed that image is. It is much better 24

to represent an opponent s position as strongly as you possibly can, then knock it down. This makes your case much stronger. 4. Circular reasoning (begging the question) There is a difference between a valid deductive argument and a fallacy but, in the case of the fallacy of circular reasoning, the difference is not always obvious. In the fallacy of circular reasoning, which is often called begging the question, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. But that's also true for all valid deductions. The difference is that, in circular reasoning, the conclusion is contained in the single premise or assumption, while in a deductive argument the conclusion is derived from its premises. In both examples, the conclusion is assumed in the premises. But for circular reasoning, the conclusion can be seen as just a restatement of its only premise. It's like saying, "A is B, therefore A is B." In a deductive argument it is more like A then B, A therefore B. Example: If Real Madrid are the best team, then they should have the best team of players. They are the best team. Therefore, they have the best team of players. (valid deductive argument) Example: Real Madrid is the best football team because it has the best team of players. (circular reasoning they are the best team because they are the best team) 25

Critical Reading Critical reading (close reading) involves a close and careful reading of a text. It involves working out what the underlying meaning of the text is and how that meaning is conveyed. There are different kinds of texts that we read, depending on the discipline we are studying. These may be anything from reports to research articles, from history books to experimental procedures, or from novels to reviews. Each text is written for a purpose and for a particular audience. When you are reading, you have to work out what and who this is. Most importantly, you have to work out what is being said, why it is being said and how it is being said. This will take you below the surface of the text to its actual construction (a painting, a photograph or a film are other kinds of text that can be analysed like this). Ask yourself: What is the topic? Who is writing? Who is the audience? What is the purpose of the text? (information, entertainment ) What kind of language does the author use? (informal, technical ) Where is the author s voice? What is the point/s the author is making? Is the author trying to persuade you of something? Why? How successful is it? Why do you think it was successful/partly successful/not successful? In academic texts, the author is usually trying to persuade you to accept a particular point of view or position or idea. This means that they will be putting forward a reasoned argument. An academic argument is not a disagreement; it is just a claim that is justified by other statements. This means that critical reading will generally involve extensive argument analysis. (see Argument analysis, p.18) 26

Critiquing the Literature Academic writing (writing an essay, a report, journal, case study, etc) is about conducting research on a specific area or topic. It has two main components: a review of the literature which requires an in-depth analysis and evaluation of the relevant research, both past and present; and the re-presentation of this material (or a re-evaluation of existing material) to support a specific claim or conclusion which is your point of view on the topic. The literature represents what other people have to say about your topic of research. It not only incorporates the body of accepted knowledge and the current state of research in the field but it represents the current debates, it identifies the issues and existing problems, and it points to new directions. It represents what other researchers believe to be the case, based on their own research. Never just describe the literature (such as Jones said this, Smith claimed that). Always evaluate it in some way. Assess the literature in terms of its contribution to the field of knowledge in a given area. Always say why you have mentioned a particular text or piece of research. A literature review is a classic example of where you need to critique a body of work on the same topic. To write a good literature review, you need to: Sort and synthesise Pick out main themes Identify current or common issues Identify trends Identify key studies or key theorists Discuss the significance of their contribution What role do they play in the field? Did they set new directions or ideas? Did they introduce new methods or approaches? Did they change the direction of research? Is their work of historic interest, typical, seminal, indicative? Analyse Show clearly state of research at this time Identify and explain current debates Identify issues arising from literature Identify problems, gaps in research Illustrate by doing a close reading of a text 27

Evaluate Assess the research already conducted How is it dealing with the issues or problems? What needs to be addressed? What are the obstacles, limitations or constraints? How thorough is the work so far? What has been achieved to date? Are there signs of change, anomalies, new directions? Your position in relation to literature Relevance to own research, ideas What do you think? Why have you chosen these texts? How do they support your ideas? Critical review/article review An article review follows the same process of critical appraisal as a literature review but generally focuses on a single piece of literature or research (although some may ask for more than one). A review will always contain: A good summary of what the issue under discussion is, the main claim and why the author/s believe this to be the case A critical evaluation of their argument An article review is like a good film or book review. You don t know if the film is worth seeing or the book is worth reading so you read the review to find out. The review will tell you what kind of book/film it is (cowboy, love story) and what it is about. It will also critically evaluate the book/film against a set of criteria of what makes a good film or what constitutes a good story. It will tell you whether it was any good or not and will give you reasons to support that judgement. In writing an article review, you are assessing that article against a set of criteria that determines whether something is a good academic piece of work or not. You will be judging the article in terms of its clarity, the way it is organised, the quality of the research, the persuasiveness of its claims and its overall significance to the particular field or topic. You will be making a judgement about its worth and giving reasons to justify your claims, often by referring to specific aspects of the text itself. 28

Remember, there are generally two types of article, what is called empirical and what is called conceptual. An empirical article will be written about research that was conducted where data was collected or created by the researchers. This is primary research. In a conceptual article, the authors either discuss ideas or theories alone, or use someone else s data to discuss the ideas or theories. This is called secondary research. The focus is on the concepts, not the interpretation of data. If an article is conceptual you will analyse it in a different way to an empirical article. In an empirical article, the author/s must describe how they collected the data, why they collected it in the way they did, and how they analysed it. As a consequence, it must satisfy a different set of criteria. Tips for Critiquing the Literature (The easiest way to think critically about what you read is to ask questions) What is the context of the article? What is the issue or problem being addressed? What is the author claiming? What is the argument? How is it justified? What evidence is presented? Does the evidence support the claim/s? Is the evidence convincing? What are the limitations of the evidence? Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Is the argument logical? Could there be another conclusion or interpretation? Do you know other work which supports these findings? Do you know other work which contradicts these findings? What assumptions has the author made? Are they valid? Do you agree with the author? Why? Why not? Critiquing Web sources A new kind of literature that needs careful critiquing is web-based information. There are so many documents available online that it is difficult to know which ones to read. It is even harder to assess them for quality, to know which ones are worth reading. The sheer quantity is daunting. More importantly, though, the academic quality that we expect is not always present. You need a few techniques to make sure you are 29

accessing the best quality documents you can. The following section gives you a few tips for improving the quality of what you are accessing. Authorship Anyone can set up a webpage and write about anything they like. No-one can stop them. This doesn t make them an expert or someone worth reading. Unlike academic papers, no-one has assessed their work and agreed with the content. No-one has said the content is reliable or that the ideas are objective. So the first thing you should do is check out the credentials of the author. For example, if you want balanced information on the holocaust, you would not use a neo-nazi site. If you want reliable information about Viagra, you don t just go to the drug company s website. Again, ask questions: Who is the author? What are their qualifications in this field? What are their affiliations? Is this their own homepage? Is the article a part of a larger organisation s website? Have they set up links to official websites on related matters? Is the article referenced? Do the references exist? Are they reliable sources of this information? What is the tone or language being used? Is it emotional, friendly, angry, colloquial, technical, academic? If you want reliable information or a reliable point of view, it is best to avoid articles that are from someone s homepage. Even if the article is written by a well-known expert in the field, it is best not to use it. They would have (or will) published the paper, if they thought it could satisfy 30