The Concept of Critical Thinking - Essay Example

? Critical Thinking Critical Thinking Argument The premise of this argument is that all dogs are cats and all acts are mice.Consequently, the conclusion is that some dogs are mice. Notably, this is an inductive, uncogent argument. Indeed, the conclusion is not logical and the reasoning leads to a false conclusion since no dogs are mice. Indeed, all the statements are false and consequently the false premise leads to a false conclusion. We can establish that the argument is inductive since it depicts a statistical argument and leads to a false conclusion (Bassham et al, 2011). Furthermore, the argument is uncogent since it is weak and has at least one false premise. Indeed, the probability of having a true conclusion is also very low and hence the uncogency. Argument 2 The premise of this argument is that Hamilton is in New York State if he is in the United States. Consequently, the conclusion of the argument is that Hamilton is not in New York State since he is not in U.S. This is a deductive, cogent argument. We can derive that the argument is deductive because the premises succeed in supporting and guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion (Bassham et al, 2011). Indeed, since the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. This generates a valid argument. The argument is also cogent since the premises are true and the conclusion has a high probability of being true. Ideally, since the argument is valid and the conclusion is true, then it is a sound argument. Argument 3 The premise of this argument is that Ontario must be in Canada if he is in North America. Consequently, the conclusion of the argument is that Ontario is in Canada since he is in North America. This is a deductive, cogent argument. In this case, the premises succeed in providing strong support for the conclusion thus guaranteeing its truthfulness. Indeed, since the premises are true, the conclusion is also true, and the argument is thus valid. The argument is also cogent since the premises are true and the conclusion has a high probability of being true. Ideally, this is a sound argument since the argument is valid and the conclusion is true. Argument 4 The premise of this argument is that all philosophy students are vegetarian. Consequently, the conclusion is that all philosophy students are probably vegetarians. Notably, this is an inductive, uncogent argument. Indeed, although some statements are true, the premise is false, and the conclusion is likely to be false. We can establish that the argument is inductive since it depicts a statistical argument, leads to a false conclusion, and its conclusion has an induction indicator word ‘probably.’ Furthermore, the argument is uncogent since it is weak and has at least one false premise. Argument 5 The premise of this argument is that feminism is nonsense because my bartender said so. Consequently, the conclusion of the argument is that feminism is indeed nonsense since my bartender never lies. Notably, this is an inductive, uncogent argument. Assuredly, the conclusion lacks logic and is indeed false since feminism carries a lot of sense. We can establish that the argument is inductive since it depicts a statistical argument and leads to a false conclusion. Indeed, the conclusion does not follow logically from the statements and the bartender has no capacity to discredit feminism. Furthermore, the argument is uncogent since it is weak and has at least one false premise. Indeed, the probability of having a true conclusion is also very low and hence the uncogency. Argument 6 The premise of this argument is that all poker players are card players and some card players are gamblers. Consequently, the conclusion is that all poker players are gamblers. Notably, this is an inductive, cogent argument. Assuredly, the conclusion lacks logic and is indeed false even though the premises are true. We can establish that the argument is inductive since it depicts a statistical argument and leads to a false conclusion. Furthermore, the argument is cogent since it is inductively strong, and the premises are probably true. Moreover, even though the conclusion may not be true, the premises are true and hence the cogency. Argument 7 The premises of the argument are that 40% of Canadians hold a favorable impression of Stephen Harper and Olivia Chow is a Canadian. Consequently, the conclusion of the argument is that Olivia Chow probably holds a favorable impression of Stephen Harper, too. This is an inductive, uncogent argument. The argument leads to a probably false conclusion. We can establish that the argument is inductive since it depicts a statistical argument, leads to a false conclusion, and its conclusion has an induction indicator word ‘probably.’ Furthermore, the argument is uncogent since it is weak and has at least one false premise. Indeed, 40% is a very low percentage that lends a low probability to the truth of the conclusion, given the accuracy of this statistic, and the truth of the claim that Olivia Chow is a Canadian. Hence, the probability of having a true conclusion is very low and thus the uncogency. Argument 8 The premises of the argument are that if the leafs score in overtime they will win the game and get two points in the standings. Consequently, the conclusion is that if the leafs score in overtime they will get two points in the standings. This is a deductive, cogent argument. In this case, the premises succeed in providing strong support for the conclusion thus guaranteeing its truthfulness. Since the premises are true, the conclusion is also true, and the argument is thus valid. The argument is also cogent since the premises are true and the conclusion has a high probability of being true. Ideally, this is a sound argument since the argument is valid and the conclusion is true. Argument 9 The premises of the argument are that either Mulcair or Harper will be Prime Minister in 2014 and that Mulcair will not be Prime Minister in 2014. Consequently, the conclusion is that Harper will still be Prime Minister in 2014. This is a deductive, uncogent argument. The premises derive a probably false conclusion. The argument leads to a We can establish that the argument is deductive since the generalization is wrong and the conclusion may be logical but also be untrue. This is because we can have another Prime minister apart from the two and their no guarantee that Mulcair will not be prime minister in 2014. Furthermore, the argument is uncogent since it is weak and has at least one false premise. Hence, the probability of having a true conclusion is very low and thus the uncogency. Argument 10 The premise of the argument is that the increase in divorce rate in the 20th century probably came from feminists. Consequently, the conclusion is that the number the number of feminists and divorcees both rose in the 20th century. This is an inductive, uncogent argument. The premise derives the conclusion. Ideally, the conclusion is false since the increase in divorce rate may result from other factors apart from the feminists. Furthermore, the argument is uncogent since it is weak and has at least one false premise. Indeed, the probability of having a true conclusion is also very low and hence the uncogency. References Bassham, G et al. (2011). Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Read More