Critical thinking and

argumentation
 Inferential thinking
Inference: This refers to logical movement from reasons/premises to
conclusion-connected thought-reasoning

Inferential thinking: This refers to the process by which we draw conclusions on the
basis of reasons and evidence. Logic provides us with methods and standards by
which we evaluate inferential thinking and identify errors in reasoning.

Proposition: This refers to a statement or assertion which is a sentence that makes a

factual claim with a truth value, that is, it is capable of being true or false.
 Critical thinking and argumentation:
terminology
Argument: It is a set of statements/propositions with a logical relationship such as one
(conclusion) is supported by others (premises)

Premise: Support, evidence, basis for claims. Premise indicators include: since, because, by
virtue of etc

Conclusion: This is the point being argued for. Conclusion indicators include: hence,
consequently, therefore, so, it follows that… etc

Logic: This refers to study of methods and principles by which we distinguish correct from
incorrect reasoning. It facilitates evaluation of reasoning/arguments
 Cont.

An argument, in the context of critical thinking and

discourse, is a set of statements or propositions, consisting
of one or more premises and a conclusion. These
statements are put forward to provide reasons or evidence
to support a particular point of view or to persuade others
of the validity of a certain position. Here's a breakdown
of the key components of an argument:
 Elements of an argument
Premises: Premises are statements or propositions that serve as the foundational evidence or
reasons for an argument. They are the building blocks upon which the argument is
constructed. Premises are meant to be true or assumed to be true.

Conclusion: The conclusion is the main statement or proposition that the arguer aims to
establish or prove based on the premises. It is the central point that the argument is trying to
persuade the audience to accept.

Inference: An argument involves making an inference from the premises to the conclusion.
The premises are intended to lead the audience to accept or believe the conclusion. This
inference can be explicit or implicit, depending on how the argument is structured.
 Cont.
Validity and Soundness: Arguments can be evaluated in terms of their validity
and soundness. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically
follows from the premises, meaning that if the premises are true, the
conclusion must also be true. A sound argument is a valid argument with all
true premises. Sound arguments are both logically valid and based on true
premises.

E.g. All human beings are mortal, All Kenyans are human
beings. Therefore, all Kenyans are mortal.
 Cont.

Argument Forms: There are various argument forms or patterns

that arguments can take, such as deductive and inductive.
Deductive arguments aim to provide conclusive support for the
conclusion, while inductive arguments offer probabilistic support,
making the conclusion more or less likely.
 Cont.

Rhetorical and Persuasive Elements: In addition to the logical structure,

arguments often include rhetorical and persuasive elements, such as emotional
appeal, analogies, and persuasive language, to make the argument more
compelling to the audience.

Counterarguments: Effective arguments should also consider and address

counterarguments – opposing viewpoints or objections to the argument.
Acknowledging and addressing counterarguments can strengthen an
argument's persuasiveness.
Relationship between Critical thinking and
argumentation

Critical thinking and argumentation are closely connected, as critical

thinking plays a fundamental role in constructing and evaluating
arguments.

Critical thinking involves the ability to analyze and evaluate information

and ideas systematically. When constructing or engaging in an argument,
individuals must critically assess the evidence and reasoning that supports
their position as well as the evidence and reasoning of opposing
viewpoints.
 Cont.

Logical Reasoning: Argumentation relies on logical reasoning to present

a coherent and persuasive case. Critical thinking skills, such as deductive
and inductive reasoning, help individuals structure their arguments
logically and identify logical fallacies in opposing arguments.

Clarity and Precision: Effective arguments require clear and precise

communication. Critical thinking skills help individuals express their
ideas clearly, avoiding ambiguity and confusion. This is important in
constructing and presenting an argument.
 Cont.

Evidence and Sources: Critical thinking involves

assessing the quality and credibility of evidence and
sources. In argumentation, this is crucial because
the strength of an argument depends on the quality
of the supporting evidence. Critical thinkers are
better equipped to identify biased or unreliable
sources and distinguish between strong and weak
evidence.
 Cont.

Counterargument Consideration: Critical thinking encourages

individuals to consider counterarguments – opposing viewpoints and
objections to their own argument. By anticipating and addressing
counterarguments, an argument becomes more robust and persuasive.

Critical thinking involves problem-solving skills, which are essential in

argumentation. When constructing an argument, individuals often need
to address complex issues and propose solutions. Critical thinking helps
in the process of identifying problems and proposing viable solutions.
 Cont.

Critical thinking promotes open-mindedness and the willingness to

consider alternative perspectives. In argumentation, being open to different
viewpoints and evidence is essential for constructing a well-rounded and
persuasive argument.

Rhetorical Strategies: Argumentation often involves the use of persuasive

techniques and rhetorical strategies. Critical thinking helps individuals
analyze and understand these strategies, both in constructing their own
arguments and in evaluating the arguments of others.
Types of arguments
 Cont.
• There are various types of arguments, which can be categorized
based on their structure, purpose, and the kind of reasoning they
employ.
1. Deductive Arguments:
Categorical Syllogism: This is a deductive argument with
two premises and a conclusion, based on the relationships
between categories. For example, "All humans are mortal;
Socrates is a human; therefore, Socrates is mortal."

Hypothetical Syllogism: This type of argument involves

conditional statements. For example, "If it's raining, then
the ground is wet. It's raining. Therefore, the ground is wet."
 2. Inductive Arguments:
Generalization: These arguments use specific observations to make general
claims. For instance, "I've met five people from this city, and they are all friendly.
Therefore, people from this city are friendly."

Analogy: Analogical arguments draw comparisons between similar situations to

make a point. For example, "Just as a car needs fuel to run, the human body needs
food to function.“ example 2:
• Dogs are known to be loyal and protective animals.
• Cats share many similarities with dogs, such as being domesticated pets.
• Therefore, it is likely that cats can also exhibit loyalty and protective behavior, just like dogs.
3. Abductive Arguments (Inference to the Best
Explanation):

These arguments propose the most plausible explanation for

observed phenomena. They are common in scientific reasoning.
For instance, "The lights in the neighborhood went out, and
there's a storm outside. The most likely explanation is that the
storm caused the power outage."
4. Causal Arguments:
Causal arguments seek to establish a cause-and-effect relationship
between two or more variables. For example, "Smoking causes lung
cancer.”
• Premise 1: Numerous scientific studies have consistently shown that smoking
cigarettes exposes individuals to harmful chemicals and carcinogens.
• Premise 2: Lung cancer is more prevalent among individuals who smoke compared
to those who do not.
• Conclusion: Therefore, there is a causal relationship between smoking and an
increased risk of developing lung cancer.
 Cont.
• In the causal argument above, the premises provide evidence that establishes a cause-and-
effect relationship between smoking and the heightened risk of lung cancer. The conclusion
asserts that smoking is a causal factor in the development of lung cancer.
Example 2. Lack of Exercise and Obesity
• Premise 1: Physical inactivity and a sedentary lifestyle have become more common in modern
society.
• Premise 2: There is a rising incidence of obesity, along with related health issues like diabetes and
cardiovascular problems.
• Conclusion: Thus, there is a causal link between a lack of exercise and the increasing rates of
obesity and associated health problems.
5. Moral Arguments:
These arguments are concerned with moral principles, values, and ethical
considerations. For example, "Euthanasia is morally wrong because it involves
intentionally ending a person's life.“

Critics of euthanasia maintain that the primary role of healthcare

professionals is to preserve and protect life, not to hasten death. Allowing
physicians to engage in euthanasia may conflict with their fundamental ethical
duty to "do no harm."
 Cont.

Counter position: The principle of individual

autonomy is a foundational ethical concept. It asserts
that individuals have the right to make decisions
about their own lives, particularly decisions that affect
their well-being, as long as they do not harm others.
This principle supports the idea that competent adults
should have the autonomy to choose the
circumstances of their own death.
 Cont.
The Moral Argument for Animal Rights:
• Premise 1: Sentient beings, including animals, have the capacity to
experience suffering and pleasure.
• Premise 2: It is morally wrong to cause unnecessary suffering or harm to
sentient beings.
• Conclusion: Therefore, it is morally imperative to protect and grant certain
rights to animals to prevent their unnecessary suffering and harm.
6. Practical Arguments (Pragmatic Arguments):

Practical arguments focus on what should be done or what

is the most practical course of action. For instance, "It
makes more sense to invest in renewable energy sources for
long-term sustainability.“
 Cont.
• Premise 1: The continued use of fossil fuels for energy production is contributing
to environmental degradation, climate change, and air pollution.
• Premise 2: Transitioning to renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and
hydroelectric power, offers a cleaner and more sustainable alternative.
• Premise 3: Investment in renewable energy infrastructure may require an initial
financial outlay.
• Conclusion: Despite the upfront costs, transitioning to renewable energy is
practical in the long term as it reduces environmental harm, minimizes reliance on
finite resources, and may lead to economic savings through reduced environmental
and health-related expenses.
 7. Legal Arguments:
• Legal arguments are used in the context of law to interpret statutes,
regulations, or case law. Lawyers and judges often use these arguments to
make legal cases.
• The Argument for Self-Defense in a Criminal Case:
• Legal Issue: In a criminal trial, the defendant is charged with assault.
 Cont.
Legal Argument example
• Premise 1: The defendant had a reasonable belief that they were in
imminent danger of bodily harm or death.
• Premise 2: The defendant used a reasonable level of force to protect
themselves from the perceived threat.
• Conclusion: The defendant's actions were a justifiable act of self-defense, as
recognized by the law.
 8. Analogical Arguments:
• These arguments draw parallels between similar situations to draw conclusions. For example,
"Just as a car needs fuel to run, the human body needs food to function.“ Example 2:
• Situation A: In the past, efforts to conserve wildlife and protect endangered species have
been successful. For example, the conservation of the bald eagle led to a significant increase
in its population.
• Situation B: Currently, there is an urgent need to conserve the habitat of the red panda, a
species at risk of extinction.
• Conclusion: Just as conservation efforts for the bald eagle were effective, we should
implement similar measures to protect the habitat of the red panda, which is also at risk of
extinction.
 9. Rebuttal Arguments:
• Rebuttal arguments are used to counter opposing arguments or
objections. They involve addressing counterarguments and
presenting reasons why the opposing viewpoint is invalid.
 Cont.
Rebuttal to an Argument for Capital Punishment:
• Opposing Argument: Some argue that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime,
particularly for heinous offenses, and provides closure to victims' families.
• Rebuttal Argument:
• Rebuttal Premise 1: Multiple studies have failed to establish a clear deterrent effect of the death
penalty, as crime rates remain inconsistent in states with and without capital punishment.
• Rebuttal Premise 2: The risk of executing innocent individuals and the inhumane nature of the
death penalty raise ethical and moral concerns.
• Rebuttal Conclusion: Consequently, the argument for capital punishment as an effective
deterrent is unfounded, and the moral and ethical objections outweigh any perceived benefits.
 10. Fallacious Arguments:
• These are arguments that contain logical fallacies, such as ad hominem
attacks, straw man arguments, and circular reasoning. They are flawed and
often used to deceive or mislead.
 Cont.
Scenario:
• Person A: "I believe that we need to consider implementing stricter regulations on
pollution to protect the environment."
• Person B: "You're just an environmental activist, so your opinion doesn't matter.
You're biased, and your argument is invalid."
• In the example, Person B dismisses Person A's argument by attacking their character
and implying bias, rather than addressing the merits of the proposed environmental
regulations. The fact that Person A is an environmental activist is used as a means to
discredit their argument without engaging in a substantive discussion. This is a
classic case of an ad hominem fallacy.