Critthinkanalysisarg uement082006

Critical Thinking- Analysis of an Argument : Critical Thinking- Analysis of an Argument G.P. Taylor, Ph.D. University of Texas at San Antonio


Critical Thinking : Critical Thinking The use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned and goal directed solving problems formulating inferences calculating likelihoods making decisions Involves evaluating the thinking process What reasoning that went into the conclusion? Sometimes called directed thinking because it focuses on a desired outcome." Halpern, Diane F. Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. 1996.


Critical Thinking II : Critical Thinking II Deciding rationally what to or what not to believe Norris, Stephen P. "Synthesis of Research on Critical Thinking. Educational Leadership, v 42 n 8 May 1985. 40-45.


Critical Thinking III : Critical Thinking III Careful and deliberate determination of whether to accept, reject, or suspend judgment. Moore and Parker, 1994.


Critical Thinking IV : Critical Thinking IV The purpose of critical thinking is: to achieve understanding evaluate view points solve problems. Thus, critical thinking is the questioning or inquiry we engage in when we seek to understand, evaluate, or resolve." Maiorana, Victor P. Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: Building the Analytical Classroom. 1992.


GRE Examination : GRE Examination Writing Component In Logical Reasoning Out Writing Component incorporates critical thinking Analysis of an Argument Presentation of an Issue


In Science, Critical Thinking is used when you… : In Science, Critical Thinking is used when you… Observe problem/phenomenon/conceive ideas Develop a hypothesis Make predictions: Formulate experiments Test Predictions: Carry out experiments/analyze data Draw conclusions from results, modify hypothesis Modify as needed and do again. Reject or confirm hypothesis The Scientific Method itself involves critical thinking VITAL for a scientist. Impressive for a science student Need to have time to read and think


Scientists are Natural Skeptics : Scientists are Natural Skeptics Big thing to learn during Grad school: Be critical of everything! Are their ideas supported by the literature? Are their techniques correct? Did they analyze their data correctly? Are their conclusions supported by the data?


Here, we’ll practice being critical : Here, we’ll practice being critical 7 exercises from the GRE questions pool Identify major problems with given argument Jot down, to discuss during class Don’t share until during class Closed at time of class (no late)


Example: : Example: Last year the local television news program In Focus reported in its annual car-and-truck safety survey that over the course of the last 10 years, United Motors vehicles were in involved in at least 30% fewer fatal accidents to drivers than vehicles build by any other single manufacturer. Now, United is developing a one-of-a-kind kind computerized crash warning system for all its trucks. Clearly, anyone concerned with safety who is in the market for a new truck this year should buy a United Motors truck.


How to Approach? : How to Approach? Given: There are flaws? What are they? Where are the problems? Analyze line of reasoning Consider questionable assumptions Does evidence support the conclusion? What additional evidence is needed to strengthen or weaken argument? What other info is needed to evaluate the conclusion?


Common Types of Logic Flaws : Common Types of Logic Flaws Weak analogy between two things Confusing correlation or timing issue with cause and effect Over-generalizing characteristics of individuals to groups Assuming that a certain condition is necessary or sufficient for outcome Relying on “questionable” statistics Assuming that things don’t change with time Making a recommendation based on narrow “either-or” reasoning, when there are other obvious solutions


Weak Analogy : Weak Analogy Conclusion about one thing, based on success or failure of another…with many other variables present Ex: Biotechnology company doing well in SA…I’ll open one as well…


Confusing Cause and Effect : Confusing Cause and Effect Ice cream consumption leads to criminal behavior… Other factors: Summer heat, out of school, etc…


Necessary and Sufficient : Necessary and Sufficient Necessary- No other ways of getting effect Sufficient- Alone can cause effect ex. Let’s do this (presents only one option- another course may be better). May require additional efforts (teacher effort, etc)


Unrepresentative Statistics : Unrepresentative Statistics Sample large enough Sample representative of overall population in relevant characteristics How many are needed? What works there…does it here?


Assuming no change over time : Assuming no change over time Old stats may not been representative of today…


Narrow Either-Or Reasoning : Narrow Either-Or Reasoning Must choose only one path… Perhaps both courses of action are okay? Are other courses of action feasible?


What I Want: : What I Want: Identify conclusion Identify supporting evidence Brainstorm and identify three or four discrete flaws (see prior slides), plus any others that you note, and the type of logic they are violating How to strengthen argument? (What additional info is needed)


Example: : Example: Last year the local television news program In Focus reported in its annual car-and-truck safety survey that over the course of the last 10 years, United Motors vehicles were in involved in at least 30% fewer fatal accidents to drivers than vehicles build by any other single manufacturer. Now, United is developing a one-of-a-kind kind computerized crash warning system for all its trucks. Clearly, anyone concerned with safety who is in the market for a new truck this year should buy a United Motors truck.


Example : Example Conclusion: Truck buyers should favor the UM truck over others… Evidence Presented: Compiled TV station-calculated 10 year fatality rate on all UM vehicles Development of new truck safety system


Logic Problems: : Logic Problems: Survey: Scope: what % fatal accidents included? Geographic effects (fewer UM vehicles; In Focus local?) All vehicles, not trucks alone Non-fatal also relevant to safety Other assumptions No changes in truck safety over 10 years Maybe even UM worse…why new system? Overall, perhaps fewer trucks sold (not rate data) Drivers of UM trucks safer than others The new Safety feature Is effective Is included on this year’s trucks


To Strengthen the Argument: : To Strengthen the Argument: Accident sample representative Other measures of safety (non-fatal) Past relative safety into present New safety features included and effective