WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe.
Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form
judgement.
Critical Thinking is a way of thinking in which you don’t simply accept all arguments and
conclusions you are exposed to, but rather have an attitude involving questioning such arguments and
conclusions.
It can also be defined as the ability to think judgementally.
GOALS OF CRITICAL THINKING:
1. Development of scepticism about explanations and conclusions.
2. The ability to enquire about causes and effects.
3. Increased curiosity about behaviour.
4. Knowledge of research methods.
5. The ability to analyse arguments critically.
CRITICAL THINKING STANDARDS
Listed below are the critical thinking standards;
1. Clarity 2. Accuracy 3. Precision 4.Relevance. 5. Consistency
6. Completeness 7. Fairness 8. Logical
a. Clarity. This standard states that before we can effectively evaluate a person’s argument or claim,
we need to understand clearly what he or she is saying. Unfortunately, that can be difficult
because people often fail to express themselves clearly. Sometimes this lack of clarity is due to
laziness, carelessness, or a lack of skill. At other times it results from a misguided effort to appear
clever, learned, or profound.
Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way?
Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example?

b. Accuracy. Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true?
A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in “Most dogs weigh more than 300 pounds.”

c. Precision. Could you give me more details? Could you be more specific?
A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in “Jack is overweight.” (We
don’t know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds).

d. Relevance. How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue?
A statement can be clear, accurate and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For
example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in
 raising their grade in a course. Often, however, “effort” does not measure the quality of
student learning, and when that is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade.

e. Consistency. It is easy to see why consistency is essential to critical thinking. Logic tells us that if
a person holds inconsistent beliefs, at least one of those beliefs must be false. Critical thinkers
prize truth and so are constantly on the lookout for inconsistencies, both in their own thinking and
in the arguments and assertions of others.
There are two kinds of inconsistency that we should avoid. One is logical inconsistency, which
involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e., things that cannot both or all be true) about a
particular matter.
The other is practical inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and doing another. Sometimes
people are fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds.

f. Completeness. In most contexts, we rightly prefer deep and complete thinking to shallow and
superficial thinking. Thus, we justly condemn slipshod criminal investigations, hasty jury
deliberations, superficial news stories, sketchy driving directions, and snap medical diagnoses. Of
course, there are times when it is impossible or inappropriate to discuss an issue in depth; no one
would expect, for example, a thorough and wide-ranging discussion of the ethics of human
genetic research in a short newspaper editorial. Generally speaking, however, thinking is better
when it is deep rather than shallow, thorough rather than superficial.

g. Logical. To think logically is to reason correctly—that is, to draw well-founded conclusions from
the beliefs we hold. To think critically we need accurate and well supported beliefs. But, just as
important, we need to be able to reason from those beliefs to conclusions that logically follow
from them. Unfortunately, illogical thinking is all too common in human affairs.

h. Fairness. Critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair—that is, open minded, impartial,
and free of distorting biases and preconceptions.
We naturally think from our own perspective, from a point of view which tends to privilege our
position. Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one’s own
feelings or interests.
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICAL THINKING
The following are some of the principles of Critical Thinking:
a. Be sceptical. This principle states that we must keep an open mind. In other words, we must
accept nothing as truth until we have examined the evidence.
b. Examine definition of terms. This principle also admonishes critical thinkers to always

examine the definition of terms in an argument. Some statements are true when a term is defined in
one way and not in the other way. For example, gay which in one sense can mean happy and in

another sense can also stand for same sex relationship such as homosexuals and lesbians.

c. Examine the assumption or the premise of the argument. This principle also emphasizes that

we must examine the assumption or the premise of the argument.

d. Be cautious in drawing conclusions from evidence. Also, as critical thinkers, we must be
cautious in drawing conclusions from evidence. In other words, when some event is being reported,
we need to ask whether the one person’s reported experience is satisfactory as evidence.
e. Consider alternative interpretation of research evidence. As critical thinkers, we must also
consider alternative interpretation of research evidence before drawing conclusions from evidence.
Some arguments have several interpretations, so one must be very cautious in drawing conclusions
from evidence.
f. Do not oversimplify. Most human interactions involve complex interactions of genetic and
environmental influences. Consider the issue whether psychotherapy help people with psychological
problems. A broad answer to this problem, a simple yes or no might be over simplifying. It is better to
ask what type of psychotherapy, practiced by who is most helpful to what kind of problem.
g. Do not over generalise. Let us take for example the argument that one cannot learn about human
beings by engaging in research with animals. Is the truth of the matter an all – or – nothing issue? Are
there certain kinds of information that we can get about people from studying animal? What kind of
information can we likely get from research with people?
i. Apply critical thinking to all areas of life. A sceptical attitude and a demand for evidence are
useful not only in learning institutions, but can be useful in all areas of life. It is good to always be
sceptical when you are bombarded by radio and TV commercials, political propaganda, and the eye
catching front page stories of newspapers and sensational stories in the media. Sometimes people
claim that;”…studies have shown that…” Such claim may sound convincing but it will be better to
ask yourself who undertook the study, were the researchers neutral or were they biased towards
obtaining certain kind of results?
BARRIERS TO CRITICAL THINKING
Here is a list of some of the most common barriers to critical thinking:
Lack of relevant background information Provincialism Bias
Poor reading skills Narrow-mindedness Selective memory
Prejudice Denial Self-deception
Superstition Short-term thinking Stereotyping
Egocentrism (self-centered thinking) Selective perception Unwarranted assumptions
Sociocentrism (group-centered thinking) Distrust in reason Scapegoating
Peer pressure Relativistic thinking Rationalisation
Conformism Overpowering emotions Fear of change
Wishful thinking Face-saving

1. EGOCENTRISM
Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on oneself. Egocentrics are selfish,
self-absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and values as superior to everyone else’s. Two
common forms are self-interested thinking and self-serving bias. a. Self-interested thinking. It is
the tendency to accept and defend beliefs that harmonize with one’s self-interest.
b. Self-serving bias. It is the tendency to overrate oneself—to see oneself as better in some respect
than one actually is.
2. SOCIOCENTRISM
Sociocentrism is group-centered thinking. Just as egocentrism can hinder rational thinking by
focusing excessively on the self, so sociocentrism can hinder rational thinking by focusing
excessively on the group. Sociocentrism can distort critical thinking in many ways. Two of the most
important are group bias and conformism.
a. Group Bias. It is the tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group, and
the like) as being inherently better than others.
b. Conformism. Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd—that is, to conform
(often unthinkingly) to authority or to group standards of conduct and belief. The desire to belong, to
be part of the in-group, can be among the most powerful of human motivations. This desire to
conform can seriously cripple our powers of critical reasoning and decision making.
3. UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS AND STEREOTYPE
An assumption is something we take for granted something we believe to be true without any proof or
conclusive evidence.
An unwarranted assumption is something taken for granted without good reason. Such assumptions
often prevent our seeing things clearly.
4. RELATIVISTIC THINKING
Relativism is the view that truth is a matter of opinion. There are two popular forms of relativism:
subjectivism and cultural relativism.

i) Subjectivism is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion.

ii) Cultural relativism is the view that truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion. In other
words, cultural relativism is the view that what is true for person A is what person A’s
culture or society believes is true.
By far the most common form of relativism is moral relativism. Like relativism generally, moral
relativism comes in two major forms: moral subjectivism and cultural moral relativism.
a) Moral subjectivism is the view that what is morally right and good for an individual, A, is
whatever A believes is morally right and good.
b) Cultural moral relativism is the view that what is morally right and good for an individual,
A, is whatever A’s society or culture believes is morally right and good.
5. WISHFUL THINKING
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than
evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire.
Wishful thinking is a barrier to critical and creative thinking because you can’t know whether or not
you think outside the box unless you accept that you’re in it. It gives people an “if it was meant to be
it would happen” attitude and depletes their ownership of their lives.

6. PREJUDICE:
Another barrier that hinders critical thinking is prejudice or bias. On a practical level, people know
that it is wrong to be prejudiced or biased against others.
7. PEER PRESSURE:
Another barrier that influences critical thinking is peer pressure. People are often influenced by
thoughts and ideas of their peers, leading to peer pressure. Peer pressure is often due to ones wanting
to fit in or be accepted and due to that, individual often change their thoughts and ideas to match those
of others.
8. STEROTYPING:
Stereotype is a fixed, unbending generalization, irrationally maintained based on race, religion.
Examples of stereotype thinking include:
Most Mende men are womanizers
Most Temne women are insolent
Business administration is for female students
Most basketball players are tall.
Students who drink don’t do well in their studies.
9. SELF DECEPTION:
This is also another barrier that affects our critical thinking abilities. Self deception is the ability to
deceive yourself about your competence. Many people have acquired the habit of pretending they are
knowledgeable. Most people who deceive themselves about their knowledge will not be able to
decide accurately what information they need to solve a problem.

BASIC CONCEPTS IN CRITICAL THINKING

Argument is a set of statements or propositions in which one or more of the statements attempts to
provide reasons or evidence for the truth of one of the statements which is referred to as the
conclusion. Or an argument is simply a claim defended with reasons.
Premise is the statement in an argument that serves to provide evidence for the truth of the conclusion
or claim.
Conclusion is the statement in the argument that the other statements (premises) claim to support or
prove to be true.
Premise Indicators are terms that indicate that the premise is about to follow e.g. since, because, for
and giving that.
Conclusion Indicators are terms that indicate that the conclusion is about to follow e.g. therefore, so,
thus, hence, consequently etc.
A statement is a sentence that can be viewed as either true or false
Premises are statements in an argument offered as evidence or reasons why we should accept
another statement, the conclusion.
Conclusion is the statement in an argument that the premises are intended to prove or support.

IDENTIFYING PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS

In identifying premises and conclusions, we are often helped by indicator words. Indicator
words are words or phrases that provide clues that premises or conclusions are being put
forward. Premise indicators indicate that premises are being offered, and conclusion
indicators indicate that conclusions are being offered.
Here are some common premise indicators:
Since Because For Given that Seeing that
In as much as On account of In view of the fact that As indicated by Judging from

And here are some common conclusion indicators:

Therefore Thus Hence Consequently So
Accordingly It follows that For this reason That is why Which shows that
Wherefore This implies that As a result This suggests that This being so

What is not an Argument?

Now let’s look at five types of non argumentative discourse that are sometimes confused with
arguments:
❖ Reports
❖ Unsupported assertions
❖ Conditional statements
❖ Illustrations
❖ Explanations
Reports
The purpose of a report is simply to convey information about a subject. Here is an example of a
report:
Sweeping changes occurred in demographics, economics, culture, and society during the
last quarter of the 20th century. The nation aged, and more of its people gravitated to the
Sunbelt. Sprawling “urban corridors” and “edge cities” challenged older central cities as
sites for commercial, as well as residential, development. Rapid technological change
fuelled the growth of globalized industries, restructuring the labour force to fit a
“post-industrial” economy.
In this passage, the authors are simply reporting a series of events; their aim is to narrate and inform,
not to offer reasons why one statement should be accepted on the basis of others.
Caution is needed, however, with reports about arguments. Here is an example of such a passage:
Government is legitimate, according to Hobbes, because living under a government
is better than living in a state of nature. The advantages of government are so great that it is
 worth sacrificing some of our freedom in order to bring about these advantages. For this
reason, rational people would consent to sign a social contract and subject themselves to the
laws and powers of a government.
This is not an argument because the author is merely reporting another person’s argument, not
endorsing it or putting it forward as his own.

Unsupported Assertions
Unsupported assertions are statements about what a speaker or writer happens to believe. Such
statements can be true or false, rational or irrational, but they are parts of arguments only if the
speaker or writer claims that they follow from, or support, other claims. Here is an example of a
series of unsupported assertions:
I believe that it is not dying that people are afraid of. Something else, something more unsettling
and more tragic than dying frightens us. We are afraid of never having lived, of coming to the
end of our days with the sense that we were never really alive, that we never figured out what
life was for.
Because there is no claim that any of these statements follow from, or imply, any other statements,
this is not an argument.
Conditional Statements
A conditional statement is an if-then statement. Here are several examples:
If it rains, then the picnic will be cancelled.
You must speak French if you grew up in Quebec.
If at first you don’t succeed, don’t try skydiving.
Conditional statements are made up of two basic parts. The first part, the statement(s) following the
word if, is called the antecedent. The second part, the statement(s) following the word then, is
called the consequent.

Conditional statements need not be explicitly in if-then form; in fact, in modern usage, then
is usually dropped. For example, the following statements are conditional statements:
Should it rain, the picnic will be cancelled.
In the event of rain, the picnic will be cancelled.
Pete will graduate, provided he passes Critical Thinking.

Conditional statements are not arguments, because there is no claim that any statement follows from
any part of a conditional statement. Thus, if I say, “If it rains, the picnic will be cancelled,” I’m not
asserting either that it will rain or that the picnic will be cancelled. I’m only asserting that if the first
statement is true, the second statement will also be true. Because there is no claim that any
statement follows from, or supports, this conditional statement, no argument has been given.
Illustrations
Illustrations are intended to provide examples of a claim, rather than prove or support the claim.
Here is an example:
Many wildflowers are edible. For example, daisies and day lilies are delicious in salads

Even though the second statement does provide some evidence for the first, this passage is an
illustration rather than an argument. Its purpose is not to provide convincing evidence for a
conclusion but merely to provide a few notable or representative examples of a claim.

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGHUMENTS

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT: An argument in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the
premises.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT: This is where the author does not claim that the conclusion necessarily
follow from the premises but claims that the premises make the conclusion highly probable

COMPARISM OF DEDUCTIVE VS INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Deductive arguments try to prove their conclusions with rigorous, inescapable logic.
Inductive arguments try to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely given the premise(s).
Here are two examples of deductive arguments:
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
1. If the premises are true, then the conclusion If the premises are true, then the conclusion is
must be true. probably true.

2. The conclusion follows necessarily from the The conclusion follows probably from the
premises. premises.

3. It is impossible for all the premises to be true It is unlikely for the premises to be true and the
and the conclusion false. conclusion false.

4. It is logically inconsistent to assert the Altthough it is logically consistent to assert the

premises and deny the conclusion; if you premises and deny the conclusion, the conclusion
accept the premises, you must accept the is probably true if the premises are true.
conclusion.
 THE PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY TEST
The Principle of Charity Test. “When interpreting an unclear passage, always give the speaker or writer the
benefit of the doubt. Never attribute to an arguer a weaker argument when the evidence reasonably permits us
to attribute to him or her a stronger one. And never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence
reasonably permits us to interpret it as not an argument at all.”

The principle of charity requires that we always interpret unclear passages generously and, in
particular, that we never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably
permits us to interpret it as not an argument at all. This test often proves helpful when the
other tests yield no clear answer.

HOW CAN WE TELL WHETHER AN ARGUMENT IS DEDUCTIVE OR

INDUCTIVE?
There are four tests that greatly simplify the task of determining whether an argument should be
regarded as deductive or inductive:
i.The indicator word test
ii.The strict necessity test
iii. The common pattern test
iv.The principle of charity test

Indicator Word Test

Here are some other common deduction indicator words:
Certainly Definitely Absolutely Conclusively It logically
follows that
It is logical to This logically It necessary to This entails that
conclude that implies that follows that

These are some common induction indicator words:

Probably Likely It is plausible to Chances are that Odds are that
suppose
One would expect It is good to bet That chances are It is reasonable to
that that that assume that

2.The Strict Necessity Test

The strict necessity test can be stated as follows:
An argument’s conclusion either follows with strict logical necessity from its premises or it does not.
If the argument’s conclusion does follow with strict logical necessity from its premises, the argument
should always be treated as deductive.
If the argument’s conclusion does not follow with strict logical necessity from its premises, the
argument should normally be treated as inductive.
3. Common Pattern Test
A common pattern test is the application of common patterns to determine which kind of reasoning
we are dealing with. Consider this argument:
If we’re in Paris, then we are in France.
We are in Paris.
Therefore, we are in France.
This argument has a particular pattern or form that occurs frequently in deductive reasoning.
The general pattern of the argument is this:
If A then B.
A.
Therefore, B.
WHAT IS A MODUS PONENS: This is a Latin expression that means
“affirmative mode.” .
4. The Principle of Charity Test
The principle of charity serves two important goals in critical thinking. First, it fosters goodwill and
mutual understanding in argument by demanding that we treat the arguments of others with the same
generous and respectful spirit that we would like others to treat our own arguments. Even more
important, it promotes the discovery of truth by insisting that we confront arguments that we
ourselves admit to be the strongest and most plausible versions of those arguments.

WHAT IS A DEFECTIVE ARGUMENT?

A defective argument is an argument that has a structural defect or when the premises are known to be
false.
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
Often, the quickest way to determine whether an argument is deductive or inductive is to note
whether it has a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive or inductive. The five
common patterns of deductive reasoning are:
❖ Hypothetical syllogism
❖ Categorical syllogism
❖ Argument by elimination
❖ Argument based on mathematics
❖ Argument from definition
Hypothetical Syllogism. A syllogism is a three-line argument, that is, an argument that consists of
exactly two premises and a conclusion. A hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism that contains at least
one hypothetical or conditional (i.e., if-then) premise.
Categorical Syllogism. A categorical syllogism may be defined as a three-line argument in which
each statement begins with the word all, some, or no.
Argument by Elimination. An argument by elimination seeks to logically rule out various
possibilities until only a single possibility remains.
Argument Based on Mathematics. Mathematics is a model of logical, step-by-step reasoning.
Mathematicians don’t claim that their conclusions are merely likely or probable. They claim to prove
their conclusions on the basis of precise mathematical concepts and reasoning. In an argument based
on mathematics, the conclusion is claimed to depend largely or entirely on some mathematical
calculation or measurement (perhaps in conjunction with one or more nonmathematical premises).
Here are two examples:
Argument from Definition. In an argument from definition, the conclusion is presented as being
“true by definition,” that is, as following simply by definition from some key word or phrase used in
the argument.
Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning
There are six common patterns of inductive reasoning:
❖ Inductive generalization
❖ Argument from authority
❖ Statistical argument
❖ Argument from analogy
❖ Predictive argument
❖ Casual argument
Inductive Generalization.
An inductive generalization is an argument in which a generalization is claimed to be probably true
based on information about some members of a particular class.
Predictive Argument.
A prediction is a statement about what may or will happen in the future. In a predictive argument, a
prediction is defended with reasons. Predictive arguments are among the most common patterns of
inductive reasoning.
Argument from Authority. An argument from authority asserts a claim and then supports that claim
by citing some presumed authority or witness who has said that the claim is true.
Casual Argument. A causal argument asserts or denies that something is the cause of something
else.
Statistical Argument. A statistical argument rests on statistical evidence—that is, evidence that
some percentage of some group or class has some particular characteristic.
Argument from Analogy. An analogy is a comparison of two or more things that are claimed to be
alike in some relevant respect.

TRUTH AND VALIDITY

TRUTH:In logic, truth is a property of statements, i.e. premises and conclusions,
VALIDITY : Validity is a property of the arguments itself.
VALID ARGUMENT: This is where a deductive argument lives up to its author’s claims that the
conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. It is not possible for a valid argument to be true and
conclusion false.
INVALID ARGUMENT: An argument in which the truth of the conclusion fails to follow logically
from the premises.
SOUND ARGUMENT: A valid argument with true premises. In this case, the truth of the conclusion
will be absolutely certain.
STRONG ARGUMENT: An inductive argument that lives up to its author’s claim that the premises
make the conclusion highly probable.
COGENT ARGUMENT: An inductive argument that has true premises. It does not absolutely
guarantee the conclusion (as does a sound argument) but it does give us a good reason for believing
the conclusion.
A VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT: Is an argument in which it is impossible for all the premises
to be true and the conclusion false.
Note: “No valid argument can have all true premises and a false conclusion.”

WHAT IS AN INVALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

A deductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises is said
to be an invalid deductive argument.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN INDUCTIVE STRENGTH AND DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY

The concept of inductive strength is similar in many ways to the concept of deductive validity, but
there is one important difference:
Inductive strength, unlike deductive validity, does come in degrees.
Deductive arguments, as we have seen, are either 100 percent valid or 100 percent invalid.
Inductive arguments, in contrast, can be more or less strong or weak. Consider the following
examples:
COGENT ARGUMENTS
A Cogent argument is an argument that is inductively strong and has all true premises,
Uncogent Argument is an inductive argument that is either weak or has at least one false premise.

QUESTIONS ON IDENTIFYING THE PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE

ARGUMENTS BELOW: (Note: The questions will be solved in class).

1. All human life is scared. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

2. It is flu season and you work with kids, so you should get a flu shot.
3. Married men must reduce the amount of money they spend on sidekicks. Right now, the cost of
living is very high and they need to provide more financial supports to their wives and kids.
4. Mr.Nabie will probably receive the next promotion he has been here the longest.
5. Since all communities are Marxists, all Marxists are communities.
6. St.Edward’s centenary celebration was the best celebration in Sierra Leone because of the
“back-to-school” event organized by the Old Boys Association of the school.
7. That cat is used to dogs. Probably she won’t be upset if you bring home a new dog for pet.
8. Not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corporate returns on
investment. Hence, some of these studies are not reliable.
9. The government has a duty to protect the individual rights of all citizens. Because an unborn baby
is as much a citizen as anyone else, the elimination of this citizen’s life is tantamount to murder.
Therefore, abortion should be illegal.
10. For more than forty years Sierra Leone has been controlled by APC and SLPP, and look at the
state of the country. It is time for a change. Vote “Sierra Leone for betteh” this November.
11. If God exists, then He is all powerful. If He exists and is all powerful, then the universe is
elegantly ordered. Because the universe is elegantly ordered, this shows that God exists.
12. Computer will soon become conscious because they will eventually become so complex that
self-awareness with emerge.
13. He that loveth not knoweth not God; God is love.
14. My food is all gone! Someone must have eaten it.
15. What stops many people from photocopying a book and giving it to a pal is not integrity but
logistics; it’s easier and inexpensive to buy your friend a paperback copy.
16. Cats are smarter than dogs. You can’t get eight cats to pull a sled through snow.
17. Accusations of sexual harassment are based on “impact not intention, therefore the accused is
guilty if the accuser believes him to be guilty.
18. Human cloning, like abortion, contraception, pornography, is intrinsically evil and thus should
not be allowed.
19. Forbear to judge, for we are all sinners.
20. My porridge is all gone! Someone must have eaten it.
21. We can’t avert a majority of cancers by prevention efforts, even if we never get straight on the
causes, more research on prevention and less cure make increasing sense.
22. Having fun can be the spice of life but not its main course, because when it is over, nothing of
lasting value remains.
23. E.E Lions will win the Sierra Leone Premier League because they have the best team.
24. since the housing market is depressed and interest rates are low, it’s is good time to buy a home.
25. Russia is guilty of extreme human rights abuses. Further, they refuse to implement democratic
reforms. Thus l, Sierra Leone should refuse to deal with the present Russian government.
26. The lack of road maintenance on the Makeni highway has resulted in an increased number of road
accidents. We must alleviate this problem with adequate and timely road maintenance activities.
27. We may infer that the Sierra Leone military is both capable and competent to support Ukraine
against Russian invasion.
28. Mr. Hasking will probably receive the armband from the coach SINCE he’s been here the
longest."
29. We must reduce the amount of money we spend on space exploration. Right now, the enemy is
launching a massive military build up, and we need the additional money to purchase military
equipment to match the anticipated increase in the enemy’s strength.
30. People who are red/green color blind cannot distinguish between green and brown. Salaam cannot
distinguish between green and brown. Therefore Salaam is red/green color blind.
31. If Emmanuel were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate. Therefore, his asking the
police to investigate shows that he is not guilty.
32. Train service suffers when a railroad combines. By dividing its attention between its freight and
commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well. Therefore, if railroad is going to be a
successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets.
33. Cars drive faster on long city blocks than on short city blocks. Long blocks are thus more
dangerous for pedestrians than short blocks.
34. The store's competitors claim that the store, in selling off the shirts at those prices, neither made
any profit nor break even. Consequently, the store's customers must have been able to buy shirts there
at less than the store's cost.
34. Not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corporate returns on
investment. Hence, some of these studies are not reliable.
35. Scientific discoveries are continually debunking religious myths. Further, science provides the
only hope for solving the many problems faced by humankind. Hence, science provides a more
accurate view of human life than does religion.
36. Abdul is one year old. Most one-year-olds can walk. It follows that Abdul can walk.
37. I deserve a raise. I'm very good at my job.
38. Since carrots are full of vitamins, it follows that your body will benefit if you eat them.
39. Carrots have significant vitamin content, according to research. Eating them will benefit your
body.
40. One who disobeys the law disobeys his parents and authors of education. Every citizen has made
an agreement, committing himself to obey the laws. Hence, he who disobeys us is thrice wrong

VALID AND INVALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Below are six examples. Judge the reasoning and not the content (true or false statements).

NOTE: Think hypothetically. Ask, "IF the premises are true, are we locked into the
conclusion?" If yes, then the argument is valid. If no, then the argument is invalid.

All crows are black.

John is black.
Therefore, John is a crow.

ANSWER: Invalid.
REASON:The first premise is saying that all crows are black, but not that all black things in the
universe are crows! So EVEN IF John is black and EVEN IF all crows are black (both premises
being true), we know nothing else about John. The conclusion can be true or false, EVEN IF the
premises are true. Invalid.

Only crows are black.

John is black.
So, John is a crow.

ANSWER: Valid!

REASON:We don't judge the reasoning by the content. The first premise is false, but this is not
relevant to judging the reasoning.

IF these premises are true, we are locked into the conclusion. If we gave these premises to a
computer, it would give us back the conclusion. It would simply judge the implications of the
alleged information it is given.

All Internet spies for the Sierra Leone government are Sierra Leonean. Mr.Haskingis a
Sierra Leonean.
So, Mr.Haskingis an Internet spy for the Sierra Leone government.
ANSWER: Invalid

REASON:The first premise is not saying that every Sierra Leone person in the world is an Internet
spy for the Sierra Leone government. So just knowing that Mr.Hasking is a Sierra Leonean, tells us
nothing about Mr.Hasking other than he is a Sierra Leonean. EVEN IF the premises are true, the
concluison could be true or false.

All IPAMERS always tell the truth.

Mr.Salaam is an IPAMER.
So, Mr.Salaamalways tells the truth.
ANSWER:An important implication about valid arguments. IF an argument is valid, but if we
know the conclusion is false, then we know at least one premise is false. Because valid arguments
can never have ALL true premises and a false conclusion.

All actors are robots.

Tom Cruise is an actor.

Therefore, Tom Cruise is a robot.(Valid argument.)

All actors are robots.

 Tom Cruise is a robot.
, Tom Cruise is an actor. (Invalid Argument)
Remember: the key to judging deductive arguments to be valid or invalid is not whether the
premises are true or false. Rather, the question is what are the premises saying and what are
they not saying, and whether if they were true would the conclusion be true. If the answer is
yes, then the argument is valid. If the answer is no, then the argument is invalid.

ASSIGNMENT: TO BE SOLVED IN CLASS

Determine whether the following arguments are inductive or deductive. State the specific
type of argument. If you believe that the argument does not fall under any of the eleven types listed
above, explain in your own words the basis of your decision to classify it as inductive or deductive.

1. The sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180°. In triangle #1, angle A is
30°, angle B is 90°. Therefore, angle C is 60°.

2. If I make an A, then I will pass this course. Odds are, I will make a B. So, I
probably won't pass this course.

3. The situation in America today is much like that of ancient Rome before its fall, in
that the U.S. is controlled by a small group of self-serving individuals. It is inevitable
that within 50 years America will suffer the same fate as Rome.

4. The platypus is not a mammal because no mammal lays eggs and the female
platypus does.

5. The last time I ate here, the shrimp dish I ordered was disgusting. It must be the
case that this restaurant buys lousy seafood.

6. The sign on the candy machine reads "Out of Order." The candy machine must be
broken.

7. All guitar players are musicians, and some guitar players are not astronauts. It
follows that some musicians are not astronauts.

8. Irene likes either coffee or tea in the morning. But she doesn't like tea. Therefore
Irene likes coffee in the morning.

9. These mushrooms have a very similar appearance to the ones growing in the
garden. The ones in the garden are edible. The conclusion is therefore warranted that
these mushrooms are edible.

10. My birthday is six days after my sister's birthday. My birthday is on the 12th.

Therefore, my sister’s birthday is on the 18th.

 WHAT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY
A logical Fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.
TYPES OF FALLACIES
1. Fallacies of Relevance
2. Fallacies of insufficient evidence
Fallacies of relevance: These are arguments in which the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion.
Fallacies of insufficient:evidence: These are arguments in which the premises,
though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the
conclusion.
WHAT IS A RELEVANT STATEMENT?
A statement is relevant to another if it provides at least some reason for thinking that
the second statement is true or false.

WAYS IN WHICH A STATEMENT CAN BE RELEVANT PR IRRELEVANT

TO ANOTHER:

a. A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it provides at least some

reason for thinking that the second statement is true.

b. A statement is negatively relevant to another statement if it provides at least some

reason for thinking that the second statement is false.

c. A statement is logically irrelevant to another if it provides no reason for thinking

that the second statement is either true or false.

COMMON FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

1. Personal attack (ad hominem): This is a situation where and arguer rejects a
person’s argument or claim by attacking the person’s character rather than the
person’s argument or claim. Example:

Mr. Hasking has argued against causes of examination malpractices at IPAM. But
Mr.Hasking is a pompous, egoistical windbag and immature student at IPAM. I
absolutely refuse to listen to him.

2. Attacking the motive: This is where an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for
offering a particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of the
argument or claim itself. Example:

3. Look who is talking: This is where an arguer rejects another person’s argument
or claim because that person is hypocrite. Example
4. Two wrongs make a right: This is where an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful
act by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse.

5. Scare Tactics: This is where an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener and
this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion.

6. Appeal to Pity: This is where an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or

compassion, where such feelings, however understandable, are not relevant to the
truth of the arguer’s conclusion.

7. Bandwagon argument: This is where an arguer appeals to a person’s desire to be

popular, accepted, or valued, rather than to logically relevant reasons or evidence l.

8. Straw Man: This is where an arguer misrepresents another person’s position to

make it easier to attack.

9. Red Herring: This is where an arguer tries to side-track her audience by raising
an irrelevant issue, and then claims that the original issue has been effectively settled
by the irrelevant diversion.

10. Equivocation: This is where an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two
(or more) different senses.

11. Begging the question: This is where an arguer states or assumes as a premise
the very thing he is seeking to prove as a conclusion.

COMMON FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

1. Inappropriate appeal to authority: This is the act of citing a witness or authority

that is untrustworthy.

2. Appeal to Ignorance (Ad ignorantium) : This is the act of claiming that

something is true because no one has proven it false or true.

3. False Alternatives: This is the act of posing a false either / or choice.

4. Loaded Question: This is the act of posing a question that contains an unfair or
unwarranted presumption.

5. Questionable Cause: This is the act of claiming, without sufficient evidence, that
one thing is the cause of something else.

6. Hasty Generalization: This is the act of drawing a general conclusion from a

sample this is biased or too small.
7. Slippery Slope: This is the act of claiming, without sufficient evidence that a
seemingly harmless action, if taken will lead to a disastrous outcome.

8. Weak Analogy: This is the act of comparing things that aren’t comparable.

8. Inconsistency: Two statements are inconsistent when they both can’t be true. The
fallacy of asserting inconsistent or contradictory claim.

TYPES OF DEFINITIONS

a. Stipulative Definitions: This is a situation where an arguer tries to tell his readers
or listeners what he actually means by the term.
Example: “Casanova” means a man noted for his love affairs.
“Egocentric” means self-centered.

b.. Persuasive Definitions: This is a situation in which an arguer defines a term in a

effort to persuade a reader or listener to agree with the arguer’s point of view
regarding the thing being defined.

Example: Capital punishment means the state-sanctioned, vengeful murder of

helpless prisoners.

c. Lexical Definitions: This is where an arguer defines a way in the way it is

standardly used in the language. In other words, the arguer is stating the dictionary
meaning of the word.

Example: Pastel means a color having a soft, subdued shade.

d. Précising Definitions: A précising definition is a situation where the arguer

intends to make a vague word more precise so that the word’s meaning is not left to
the interpretation of the reader or listener.

Example: From a class syllabus: “class participation “means attending class,

listening attentively and asking questions, and participating in class discussions.

STRATEGIES FOR DEFINING

a. Ostensive Definitions: It is the act of pointing to, or demonstrating, the thing

being defined. Example: Door means this (as you point to one for the benefit of a
foreign visitor)

b. Enumerative Definitions: This is the act of providing specific examples of what

the word refers to. Example: to help someone understand the meaning of football
players by listing some football players: Rashford, C.Ronaldo, Messi, Mohamed
Kallon, etc.

c. Definition by Subclass: This is the act of assigning a meaning to a word by listing

subclasses of the general class to which the word refers. Examples:
Mammals mean gorilla, horse, lion, whale, etc,
Poem means Sonnet, Abiku, Blind Boy, etc

d. Synonymous Definitions: This is where the arguer assigns a meaning to a word

by offering a synonym- that is a word that has the same meani meaning as the word
being defined.
Loquacious means talkative
Deleterious means harmful.

e. Etymological Definitions: This relates to the origin and historical development of

words and their meanings.

f. Definition by Genus and Difference: This is the act of assigning a meaning to a

wordby identifying a general class (genus) to which things named by the word
belong and then specifying a differentiating quality (difference) that distinguishes
those things from all other things in the class. Example: Buck means male deer, Calf
means young cow.
SECTION A: Answer all questions. Each question carries 1 mark
1. Critical thinking can be defined as
a) Higher level thinking that aims to solve a problem
b) Finding faults and weaknesses in other people’s arguments
c) Logically analyzing arguments in a critical way
d) Disciplined thinking and judgment
2. Select the argument that is not part of the critical thinking standards
a) Clarity
b) Relevance
c) Relativistic thinking
d) Completeness
e) Logical correctness
3. Which of the following is not characteristic of a critical thinker?
a) He uses logical skills in thinking
b) He refuses to recognize the limitations of his mind and consistently pursues
excellence
c) He thinks independently and does not succumb to peer pressure
d) He upholds the standards of critical thinking
4. What is the problem with relativistic thinking?
a) There is no problem with it
b) It promotes group opinion
c) It promotes the view that something is the truth because it is the truth in my
point of view
d) It promotes absolute truth
5. “For an entire semester I have been playing and having fun every day. My studies are not
doing well. However, I believe I can score an A for the exam next week”

What is the mistake that the person has committed here, with respect to critical thinking?
a) Wishful thinking
b) Egocentrism
c) Self-confident thinking
d) Moral subjectivism
6. Lecturer: You all should focus on this section. It is a critical section that requires a lot of
thought and review.
Peter: Ah, I know everything. This section is not a problem for me. I don’t need to learn this.
What mistake has Peter committed here, with respect to critical thinking?
a. Group bias
b. Stereotype
c. Moral subjectivism
d. Self-serving bias
e. Relativistic Thinking
7. The following are common barriers to critical thinking except
a) Bias
b) Consistency
c) Peer pressure
d) Prejudice
8. Elements of socio-centrism includes all but
a) Group bias
b) Conformism
c) Sectionalism
d) Assumption
9. “Freetown is the capital city of Sierra Leone.” is an example of
a) A statement
b) An argument
c) An example
d) An illustration
10. “Mr. Bee will graduate provided he passes Critical Thinking” is an example of
 a) Conditional statement
b) Unsupported assertion
c) Biased report
d) Valid argument
Identify the premise in the following arguments:
11. We can avert a majority of cancers by prevention efforts, even if we never get straight on the
causes; more research on prevention and less on cure makes increasing sense. (Daniel
Callahan, “Lab Game,” New York Times Book Review, 9 April 1995)
a) We can avert a majority of cancers by prevention efforts, even if we never get straight
on the causes.
b) More research on prevention and less on cure makes increasing sense.

12. Human cloning…like abortion, contraception, pornography, in vitro fertilisation, and

euthanasia... is intrinsically evil and thus should never be allowed. (The Vote to Ba Human
Cloning, New York Times, 2 August 2001)
a) Human cloning should never be allowed.
b) Human cloning…like abortion, contraception, pornography, in vitro fertilisation, and
euthanasia….is intrinsically evil.

13. Because they clear the way for pathogens bio-chemically, as well as giving them a free ride,
ticks are among the most pernicious disease vectors in the world. (Cynthia Mills, “Blood
Fued,” The Sciences, April 1998)
a) Ticks are among the most pernicious disease vectors in the world.
b) [Ticks] clear the way for pathogens bio-chemically, as well as giving them a free ride.
14. Having fun can be the spice of life but not its main course, because when it is over, nothing of
lasting value remains. (Harold Kushner)
a) Having fun can be the spice of life but not its main course.
b) When it is over, nothing of lasting value remains.

15. Since effective reasoning requires reliable information, it’s important to be able to distinguish
good sources and trustworthy experts from less useful ones. (Drew E. Hinderer)
a) It’s important to be able to distinguish good sources and trustworthy experts from less useful
ones.
b) Effective reasoning requires reliable information.
Categorise the following statements into arguments and non-arguments
16. According to baseball statistician Bill James, Stan Musial was a better all-around baseball
player than Ted Williams because Musial was, in addition to being a great hitter, a better fielder
and base-runner than Williams was.
a) Arguments
 b) Non-arguments
17.The rich and famous tend not to be happy, well-adjusted personalities. Look at Britney Spears.
a) Arguments
b) Non-arguments
18. The Cascades mountain range contains many majestic peaks. Mt. Rainier and Mt. Hood, for
instance, are both more than ten thousand feet.
a) Arguments
b) Non-arguments
19. The death penalty costs too much. Allowing our government to kill citizens compromises the
deepest moral values upon which this country was conceived: the inviolable dignity of human
persons.
a) Arguments
b) Non-arguments
20. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you
cannot fool all the people all the time.
a) Arguments
b) Non-arguments
Determine whether the following arguments are Inductive or Deductive
21. Seventy-three percent of Congo Town residents enjoy fishing. Larry is a Congo Town resident.
So, it’s likely that Larry enjoys fishing.
a) Inductive
b) deductive
22. Either Ellen will win the election or Solomon will win the election. But Ellen won’t win the
election. Therefore, Solomon will win the election.
a) Inductive
b) deductive
23. If it rains, the game will be postponed until next Saturday. According to the National Weather
Service, there’s a 90 percent chance of rain. Therefore, probably the game will be postponed until
next Saturday.
a) Inductive
b) deductive
24.Musa ingested a large dose of rat poison just before he died. Therefore, the rat poison must have
caused Musa’s death.
a) Inductive
b) deductive
25. All previously observed polar bears have weighed less than 1,500 pounds. Therefore, all polar
bears probably weigh less than 1,500 pounds.
a) Inductive
b) Deductive