Critical Thinking Definition, and Examples - Assignment Example

? Assignment #2 Table of Contents 3 2. 4 3. 5 4. 5 5. 6 6. 7 7. 8 8. 8 9. 9 10. 10 Works Cited 11 Premise Malik and Lindsey were the happiest couple. (2) That happiness was broken when Lindsey chose going to university over having a baby Conclusion: The relationship went downhill because of the way Lindsey abandoned the traditional role of the woman, which is to have a baby. Fallacy: Slippery slope (Bassham et al.) Here the conclusion is that since Lindsey chose going back to university instead of school, the damage to the relationship is severe and irreversible. After all they were happy as a couple before that, but by abandoning the main role of the woman, which is to be a mother, the woman essentially ruined the relationship (Bassham et al.) The argument here is that an action that Lindsey took directly led to the series of events that led to the happiness of the couple being broken, in what the arguer describes as a downhill event. Intuitively this can happen, but the evidence presented does not warrant that such would lead to the kind of seemingly dramatic downturn in the quality of the relationship between Lindsey and Malik, as described. The literature describes this fallacy as the Slippery slope fallacy which is a fallacy where the evidence to make a given conclusion is not sufficient. Here there may be an exaggeration of the consequences of Lindsey’s going to university over having a baby. After all, Lindsey can have a baby and go to university, and the choice does not preclude Lindsey having a baby after university. Moreover, given that the couple’s relationship seems long-term, it is unlikely that just one event whose consequences can be reversible can lead to the downturn of the relationship. The consequence is reversible because they can always have a baby during or after university, assuming that Lindsey is young and still have many childbearing years ahead of her (Bassham et al.). 2. Premise: (1) The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star reporters made the claim that Mayor Ford uses crack cocaine, and that the mayor’s brother was a drug dealer in the 80’s. (2) Mayor Ford says that the reporters are “just a bunch of maggots” Conclusion: People should not listen to the “sleazebags”. Fallacy: Personal Attack Here the mayor says that because the reporters have questionable professional and personal morals, the conclusion is that their assertions that the mayor did drugs and that his brother pushed drugs cannot be true. He is equating the reporters' morals with the non-truth of their claims (Bassham et al.) It may be that the reporters are of questionable morals and integrity as far as looking for news and making sure that their newspapers are able to feed off sensational reporting, but the character of the reporters do not preclude them from making truthful claims relating to the activities of the mayor and his brother, especially since the newspapers themselves are reputable and can be presumed to have done its fact checking prior to the publication of the claims. The personal attacks on the reporters are not relevant to whether the mayor and his brother used/are using and/or dealt drugs (Bassham et al.). 3. Premise: (1) There are many weight loss programs available. (2) The Weight Watchers sales associate said theirs is the best weight loss program among alternatives Conclusion: The Weight Watchers program is the best there is. Fallacy: Hasty Generalization Here the conclusion is that since the sales associate says Weight Watchers is the best, then that claim must be true. This is relying on the authority of one person, the sales associate, and not considering that other points of view may yield different answers as to which program is the best (Bassham et al.) It may be true that the Weight Watchers program that Keesha enrolled in is the best in the market, but this cannot be concluded from the evidence that Keesha presented, which is the word of the Weight Watchers sales associate. The evidence is small, and just consists of one sample so to speak, whereas a more credible body of evidence would consist of customer feedback and the word of a larger number of health professionals and practitioners in the field of weight loss programs. Notwithstanding the lack of authority of the sales associate and what may be a personal bias on the part of the sales associate to pitch for Weight Watchers because of profit motives, the sample size, one opinion, is too tiny to be able to make such a conclusion that the Weight Watchers program is the best. Bias presence, and the very tiny sample population of responses to the question, makes the conclusion untenable (Bassham et al.). 4. Premise: (1) Human life is a gift which no one has a right to take away or terminate (2) Murdering a human being is taking away that precious gift Conclusion: One is logically justified to favor putting to death all those convicted of murder Fallacy: Inconsistency (Bassham et al.) Here the conclusion is that since murder is taking away the gift of life, then it follows that of course all murderers deserve to be meted the death penalty. The one flows from the other (Bassham et al.) The first premise talks about life as a gift that no one has the right to take away. The conclusion talks about the logical consistency of agreeing to the death penalty for those who are convicted of killing other people, from the first premise. The conclusion does not flow from the first premise, that life as a gift translates to justifying the death penalty for convicted murderers (Bassham et al.) 5. Premise: (1) If we allow Obama to successfully push his health insurance program, that will essentially open the floodgates to more and more relinquishment of control Conclusion: Allowing Obama to successfully push his health insurance program will led to the collapse of personal freedoms for ordinary Americans Fallacy: Questionable cause (Bassham et al.) Here the conclusion is that all other civil and personal liberties of Americans will be taken away from them, if Obama wins the policy battle over his health care program. One implies the other logically, or so the speaker claims (Bassham et al.) There is little by way of evidence to suggest that an Obama victory in a major issue of policy or program would lead to the civil rights of ordinary Americans being curtailed. The arguer posits that an Obama victory in his health care program would lead to the outright gradual erosion of the fundamental civil rights of ordinary Americans, which is a questionable cause at best, and at worst a poor extension of the facts of the argument. First the victory would be limited to a program whose merits have been debated and which has gone through intense deliberations from both sides of the American political divide. Second, as far as the other civil and personal rights that are supposed to be open to being trampled on as a result of an Obama victory, those claims are unfounded, because each would be subject to intense debate and scrutiny not only from Congress but in the court system, where we expect that both sides of the fence would fight vehemently to either preserve or curtail basic human and civil rights enshrined in the Constitution (Bassham et al.) 6. Premise: (1) A person dated a blonde, and claimed that the blonde is a dingbat Conclusion: All blondes are dingbats Fallacy: Hasty generalization (Bassham et al.) Here the conclusion is that since the speaker found his or blonde date to be a dingbat, then it follows that all blondes are indeed dingbats. This is a logical conclusion that can be extended to the entire population of blondes, from the experience with one blonde (Bassham et al.) The fallacy here is obvious. Having dated just one blonde, there is not enough evidence to say that all blondes are dingbats. Just one blonde being proven to be a non-dingbat would disprove the conclusion here. To be able to know for sure, moreover, that the conclusion is valid, the same person who made the conclusion has to be able to date all blondes in the world, to be sure that the standards for being a dingbat are consistently applied, and those standards in this case pertain to the subjective definition of dingbat held by the person making the assertion above. In this case there might be both bias as well as just too tiny a population of blondes sampled to be able to make a true and logically acceptable generalization (Bassham et al.) 7. Premise: (1) People nowadays do not postpone sex until after marriage. Conclusion: The speaker and his/her partner should have sex Fallacy: Bandwagon (Bassham et al.) Here the conclusion is that since people nowadays have sex before marriage, then it is ok for the speaker and his or her partner to have sex too, and forgo personal morals and choices over the matter (Bassham et al.). The fallacy here is that since people nowadays generally do not wait until after marriage to have sex, then the speaker and his/her partner should do the same and just have sex without marriage. This is a bandwagon argument, because if the person addressed to wants to be part of the normative group, then he or she should have sex now and not observe abstinence before marriage. Abstinence is not behavior associated with people at present, which is the in group to which the speaker belongs (Bassham et al.). 8. Premise: (1) The Globe and Mail claim that Doug Ford dealt drugs in the 80’s. (2) The city has the strongest fiscal record among large US cities, generating over 1 billion dollars in savings Conclusion: The Globe and Mail claim is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously. Fallacy: Red herring (Bassham et al.) Here the conclusion is that since the person has done a good job making the city one of the most fiscally excellent in the nation, then it follows that the claims of the Globe and Mail of something the person did many years ago cannot be true (Bassham et al.) The reference to the strong fiscal performance of the city is a red herring to diffuse attention to the claim of the Globe and Mail. It may be that the fiscal record is strong and can be attributed to the good performance of the speaker, but that does not touch on whether Ford did deal in drugs in the 80’s or not. The two are mutually exclusive realities, and the fiscal performance is not related to, and draws attention away from, the drug dealing claims against Ford (Bassham et al.). 9. Premise: (1) A random survey showed that ? of Canadians watch one soap opera a day at least. (2) The poll was done between 1 and 4 pm, when people were phoned and asked what program they were watching at the time of the call Conclusion: The method ensures that the survey findings are accurate and legitimate Fallacy: Questionable cause (Bassham et al.) Here the conclusion is that since the method of the survey was as it was, polling at a specific time and asking people what they were watching, then the findings must be accurate with regard to the percentage of Canadians who watch a soap opera a day (Bassham et al.) The speaker makes the false conclusion that the timing of the survey equates to accurate responses and an accurate conclusion with regard to 75 percent of Canadians watching at least one soap opera on TV a day. This does guarantee accuracy at all, but rather the size of the sample population does (Bassham et al.) 10. Premise: (1) Dogs are warm blooded. They raise their babies and they birth puppies (2) Human beings are warm blooded and raise their babies too. Conclusion: Human beings also give birth to puppies. Fallacy: Weak analogy (Bassham et al.) Here the conclusion is that since dogs and humans share some important characteristics, then it must be true that humans must give birth to puppies too, like dogs. The two are interchangeable realities (Bassham et al.). Here the speaker is comparing two creatures that cannot be compared in the way that he tried to compare them. The conclusion is obviously false because of this. The conditions to give birth to puppies are not limited to just being warm blooded and just raising their own babies. First and foremost you have to be a dog to give birth to puppies. Human beings are not dogs, so it does not matter that they are warm blooded too, and care for their young. Human beings not being dogs, they cannot give birth to puppies. In this way the analogy is weak and incomplete, and does not exist in the first place (Bassham et al.) Works Cited Bassham, Gregory et al. Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction 4th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill. 2011. Read More