Expressing Opinion and Taking a Stand on an Issue: Critical

Topic:
Thinking, and Fallacies

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this module, you are expected to:
 

1.       Explain the importance of expressing one’s opinion;

2.       Describe the process on how to argue logically
3.       Define critical thinking, logic, and rhetoric; and
4.       Determine sample logical fallacies.
LEARNING CONTENT
Introduction:

Expressing Opinion and Taking a Stand on an Issue:

Critical Thinking, and Fallacies
Let’s start this chapter by looking into this mystery case.
Three friends went out to the forest. They found a dead body under a tree and called
the police. Two detectives arrived soon. They figured out that the man died a month
ago. Detective 1 said, “There was a major hurricane about a month ago. Perhaps, he
was one of its victims.” Detective 2 on the other hand said, “I don’t think so. It was a
murder!” Who do you think is right?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bboDwVP9cDs&t=46s

What is your opinion about the mystery case above? Is it really an accident or a
murder?

Actually, all of us can have our own opinion depending on how we perceive the case.
However, voicing out different opinions can lead to heated arguments. This usually
happens especially when we fail to understand the point of view of the other party.
Expressing opinions and making a stand is not bad. We just need to listen, respect, and
accept other people’s views.
 
Source: https://ifunny.co/picture/this-is-a-partial-this-is-a-partial-but-correct-AgL5qB6w7
Engaging in a healthy discussion and exchange of views could actually help explore the
different angles of an issue. This will lead us to formulate or come up with a wise
decision or conclusion. For example, you and your friend might take different stance on
the mystery case given. You might argue that detective 1 is right while your friend might
also assert that detective 2 is right and not detective 1. When the two of you will listen to
each other’s side, both of you will understand where each of you is coming from. With
that, you can come up with a final conclusion after assessing both of your views.
So who do you think is right? Is it detective 1 or detective 2? The answer is detective 2.
It is a murder case. Figure it out yourself why is it a murder case (Study the picture).
 
Lesson Proper:
     When you make a stand and exchange views with other people, you are actually
engaging yourself to argumentation. There are many ways in engaging into an
argumentation such as debate (more systematic or structured way). One can also use
argumentation in the editorial section of a newspaper, in an argumentative essay, and
position papers.
     Argumentation as a way of expressing one’s view entails responsibilities. In
expressing our views, we must not fabricate information, promote discrimination and
hatred, and violate one’s right to privacy, as cited by Suarez (2018), (Burton, 1999).
     Now, how do we assert our argument? We assert our argument by formulating our
thesis statement. Thesis statement, as defined by Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020),
is a one-to-two sentence statement that presents the main idea and makes an assertion
about your issue. Remember that your thesis statement is very important in making your
assertion. It identifies and organizes the content and the direction of your key ideas. It
also indicates your stand and the reason that supports it. It has two parts: the general
subject (what you are talking about) and the specific focus (what you want to say about
it.) For example, you may claim that studying abroad is more difficult (general subject)
because it entails adjusting to a new culture and educational system (specific focus,
controlling idea) (Suarez, 2018 ).
     How do you argue with other people? Do you argue like those two people in the picture
below?

Source: https://thewordplayer.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/
Take note that arguing does not necessarily mean quarrelling and yelling with the other
party. We can have a peaceful and logical way of arguing by following the steps
provided below.
 HOW TO ARGUE LOGICALLY
(Suarez, 2018)

1.        Examine an issue by doing relevant research on its different

dimensions.
2.        Choose the side you would like to support.
3.        Formulate your argumentative thesis by identifying the general
subject and the specific focus or controlling idea.
4.        Present your arguments and their corresponding evidence.
5.       Listen to your opponents arguments and weigh their evidence.
Acknowledge their valid points and point out the weaknesses in
weaknesses in their claims. Rebuild your arguments based on the
counter-claims.
6.       Make a summary of the key arguments. Conclude with a call to action.
      Doing a research about your topic or issue will help a lot in establishing your stance;
by researching you can gather evidences that will help you prove your point. Remember
that asserting your point/ claim without evidence is useless. It is like erecting a building
without a solid foundation.
     Now let’s go back to the mystery case given in the introduction part of this module.
How will you prove that detective 2 is right - that indeed it was a murder? Of course, as
discussed above, you have to gather evidences. In short, you have to investigate. You
have to look into clues and evidences that will prove your point that detective 2 is
indeed right. You have to build a solid foundation that could back up your claim or
argument. You cannot just claim that detective 2 is right just because you feel that he is
right. Thus, a sound argument is evidenced-based and factual.
     Solving the mystery case is like combining the missing pieces of a picture. Now,
what does it take for a detective to analyse a scenario and solve a crime? What do you
usually use in analysing?

 Source: http://www.clipartpanda.com/clipart_images/human-outline-clipart-best-65940744

If your answer is critical thinking, then you are correct!

 CRITICAL THINKING
(Suarez, 2018)
 
        The foundation of argumentation is critical thinking. As cited in the Critical Thinking
Community (2015), Francis Bacon avowed in 1605 that “Critical thinking is a desire to
seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to
consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of
imposture” (Suarez, 2018).  It simply means that critical thinking involves being
discerning, skeptical and meticulous.
How do you know that you are thinking critically? You are a critical thinker if you:
      Question ideas first before you accept them.
      See beyond the information that is given to you.
      Open your mind to different possibilities.
      Listen to what the others have to say.
      Examine and re-examine an issue’s various dimensions before making
conclusions.
      Substantiate your conclusions with valid and reliable proofs.
When you think critically, you use your higher order thinking skills. You usually
use the questions “How? Why? How come?” You ask for validations, either on other
people’s claims or your own claim.
Now, in the process of critical thinking, a significant thing that one must use in
order to arrive with a sensible and sound argument is logic. Logic must come together
with rhetoric in argumentation. What does it mean?
LOGIC AND RHETORIC
(Suarez, 2018).
 

        Logic refers to the science of thinking methodically while rhetoricrefers to the art

of communicating persuasively. Both are important in arguing a point effectively. For
example, a speaker or writer may sound convincing with his use of catchy statements
and moving narratives, but his argument may not be valid or relevant (involves rhetoric
only). On the other hand, another speaker or writer may offer sound claims, but he lacks
the skill to establish rapport with his audience, his arguments fall flat (involves use of
logic only). What does this imply? It means that we need both logic and rhetoric to make
a sound argument that is effective to convince our audience and prove our point.  
 
 DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING
(Suarez, 2018)
 
      Aside from logic and rhetoric, another significant process in critical thinking and
argumentation is the skill of reasoning. Reasoning, according to Cavander and Kanahe
(2010), is the essential ingredient in problem solving. When you reason, you present a
particular argument which has two parts: the conclusion that reflects the main idea, the
claim, thesis, or the proposed idea (Rudinow and Barry, 2008), and the premise that
indicates the basis of the conclusion and shows the reason behind it and/or the
evidence to prove it (Cavender and Kanahe, 2010).
 
Look at the examples below:
Sample A
Premises:
Air pollution is a big problem that should be reduced in Tuguegarao City.
Smoking cigarettes is a major cause of air pollution.
Conclusion/ Thesis/ Claims:
Therefore, smoking should be banned in Tuguegarao City.
 
Sample B
Premises:
Leading companies across the globe hire many USL graduates.
Established higher education institutions accept many USL graduates.
Conclusion:
Therefore, USL produces top quality graduates.
 
As mentioned above critical thinking also involves skills in reasoning. Under this,
we have the deductive and inductive reasoning. Now, look again at the given examples
above and study them closely. So what do you think is the difference between Sample
A and Sample B? Which argument is under deductive? And which argument is under
inductive? If your answer is, sample A is under deductive reasoning and sample B is
under inductive reasoning, then you are right! Let’s differentiate then deductive from
inductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoningis when you arrive at a conclusion based on a general idea
that leads to a more specific idea. For example in Sample A, the main idea implied in
the premises is that,  there is a need to reduce air pollution ( general idea) and it leads
to the specific idea that to reduce pollution, smoking must be banned in University A. On
the other hand, inductive reasoning is when you look at specific details and use them
as bases of your conclusion. For instance in sample B, the specific details given are:
leading companies hire many University A students, and established higher education
accept them. These two specific details will lead you to the general conclusion (idea)
that University A produces top quality graduates.
 
In short, deductive reasoning is from general to specific while inductive
reasoning is from specific to general. Take note, you have to be very keen in identifying
whether an argument is presented through deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning.
You have to evaluate well the given premises and conclusion.
 
Moving on, you can use the three types of rhetorical appeals or Aristotle’s modes
of proof (Weida and Stolley 2013; McCormack, 2014) in expressing and defending your
arguments:
     Logos(logical appeal) – uses deductive and/or inductive thinking in presenting
your view, makes use of examples, consequences, and comparisons and
contrasts, and uses academic or formal language
     Ethos(ethical appeal) – finds strength in the authority and credibility of the
sources of information, requires to present different sides of the argument and
declare personal interest in the issue,uses language that is suitable for a
particular audience
      Pathos(emotional appeal) – involve audience by sharing specific narratives
that can move them, use of rhetorical questions and figurative language to catch
attention and provoke insight about an issue, use language that evokes strong
feelings
We can use the combination of logos, ethos, and pathos in developing arguments.
Oftentimes, we confidently think that our arguments are strong enough to prove our
point. However, we sometimes overlook the simple things that make our arguments
faulty or erroneous. We call those faulty arguments or statements fallacies. Suarez
(2018) defined fallaciesas the statements that reflect flaws and inconsistencies in your
reasoning. In short, it involves weak reasoning in raising arguments. Here are the
different types of fallacies you might commit unknowingly:
 
 FALLACIES
 

     1. Hasty generalization

    Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that
is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small).
     For example: "My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one
I'm in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!"
      Example 2:Two out of three patients who were given green tea before
bedtime reported sleeping more soundly. Therefore, green tea may be used to
treat insomnia.  
    Two people's experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a
conclusion. 

      2. Missing the point

    The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not the
conclusion that the arguer actually draws.
      For example: "The seriousness of a punishment should match the
seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply
be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people.
So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving."
    The argument actually supports several conclusions. “The punishment for drunk
driving should be very serious," in particular--but it doesn't support the claim that the
death penalty, specifically, is warranted.

      3.
Post Hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore
because of this)
    Also called false cause
    Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.
      For example: "President Duterte raised taxes, and then the rate of violent
crime went up. Duterte is responsible for the rise in   crime.
     The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but
the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the other.
     Example 2: Drop-out rates increased the year after NCLB was passed.
Therefore, NCLB is causing kids to drop out.
  
  4. Non- Sequitur (it does not follow)
    This fallacy is revealed when you jump to conclusions.
     For example: Just because an anti-dengue campaign worked in one region, it
does not mean it will work for all regions.
       Remember that one incident may not necessarily lead to another.
 Example 2: Professor Berger has published numerous articles in immunology.
Therefore, she is an expert in complementary medicine.

      5. Slippery slope

     The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire
consequence, will take place, but there’s really not enough evidence for that
assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the “slippery slope,”
we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can’t stop
partway down the hill.
      For example: "Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we
don't respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like
war and murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone
constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this
terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now."
    Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not
yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won't necessarily take
place.
     Example 2:If you continue to watch professional wrestling, your grades will
drop, you will become violent, and eventually you will end up in jail. 

     6.  Weak analogy

   Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations.
If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the
analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak
analogy.
     For example: "Guns are like hammers--they're both tools with metal parts that
could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the
purchase of hammers--so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous."
  - While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal
parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in
deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be
used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not
share--it'd be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is
the argument based on it.
    7.  Appeal to authority
    Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or
authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we
try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by
appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the
fallacy of appeal to authority.
     For example: "We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people,
such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it." - While
Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there's
no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions--he is
probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the
paper.
     Example 2:“Bruce Willis supports Save the Whales International, so it must
be a good cause.”

     8.  Ad populum

    The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” There are several versions of
the ad populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most
people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the
audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common versions is the
bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe
something because everyone else (supposedly) does.
     For example: “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!”
    While the opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we
should have, it certainly doesn’t determine what is moral or immoral: there was a time
where a substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their opinion
was not evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to agree
with the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.
     Example 2:"The majority of Americans think we should have military
operations in Afghanistan, therefore it’s the right thing to do." 

    9.   Ad hominem and tu quoque

     Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem (“against the
person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”) fallacies focus our attention on people rather than
on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually “You
shouldn’t believe So-and-So’s argument.” The reason for not believing So-and-So is
that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad
hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent’s
argument.
      For Example(Ad hominem): “Andrea Dworkin has written several books
arguing that pornography harms women. But Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so
why should we listen to her?”
   Dworkin’s appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so
ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as
evidence is fallacious.  
     For Example(Tu Quoque): Imagine that your parents have explained to you
why you shouldn’t smoke, and they’ve given a lot of good reasons—the damage
to your health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, “I won’t accept your argument,
because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!”
    The fact that your parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing
on the premises they put forward in their argument (smoking harms your health and is
very expensive), so your response is fallacious.

      10. Ad Misericordiam(Appeal to pity)

    The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a
conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.
     For example: “I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you
should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I’ve had a
cold, so it was really hard for me to study!”
     Example 2: A woman applies to college. When the Admissions Director asks
about her grades, test scores, and extracurricular activities, she states that she
didn’t have much time to study because her mother has been sick for several
years and she has had to work through almost all of high school.
    The arguers simply express their misery and uses emotion to convince people to
accept their stance.

     11.  Appeal to ignorance

    The arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue at
hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on    this issue.”
      For example:

1.      “People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one
has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist.”
2.       Taking vitamin X is good for you since nobody taking it has become sick.
      Not proven, therefore false.

     12.  Straw man

    It occurs when someone takes another person’s point or argument, distorts it or
exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as
if this is really the claim the person is making.
       For example:
                     Person 1: I think pollution from humans contributes to
climate change.
                     Person 2: So, you think humans are directly responsible for
extreme weather, like   
                                      hurricanes, and have caused the droughts in the
southwestern U.S.? If
                                      that’s the case, maybe we just need to go to the
southwest and perform a  
                                      “rain dance.”
    Notice that the second person’s argument overstated the argument of the first
person, and began attacking it using his overstatement.

   13.    Red herring

    Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue
that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to
the original issue.
     For example: “Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to
do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are
getting along well.”
    When we lay it out this way, it’s pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent
—the fact that something helps people get along doesn’t necessarily make it more fair;
fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the
audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be
distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve
would be fair.
     Example 2:"Air bags in cars do not really increase safety, and, besides, most
cars with air bags are Japanese imports. We all know that foreigners cannot be
trusted."

  18.     False dichotomy

    The arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The
arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one
option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really
many different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be
so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends.
      For example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put
up a new building, or we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't
risk anyone's safety, so we must tear the building down." - The argument
neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some
way to protect students from the risks in question--for example, if only a few
rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn't hold classes in those rooms.
    Example 2: “To stop the spread of AIDS we must either quarantine all infected
people or ban same sex marriage. Since the first option is clearly impossible, we
should make same sex marriage illegal.” 

   18.    Begging the question (Circular Argument/

Circular reasoning)
    It occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of
supporting it.
    It is also called arguing in circle.
     For example: “Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical
thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.”
   If we “translate” the premise, we’ll see that the arguer has really just said the same
thing twice: “decent, ethical” means pretty much the same thing as “morally
acceptable,” and “help another human being escape suffering through death” means
something pretty similar to “active euthanasia.” So the premise basically says, “active
euthanasia is morally acceptable,” just like the conclusion does. The arguer hasn’t yet
given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking
“well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?” Her argument “begs”
(that is, evades) the real question.
     Example 2:Special education students should not be required to take
standardized tests because such tests are meant for non-special education
students.

  19.    Equivocation
    Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or
phrase that is important to the argument.
     For example: “Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities
have a right to our money.”
   The equivocation here is on the word “right”: “right” can mean both something that is
correct or good (as in “I got the right answers on the test”) and something to which
someone has a claim (as in “everyone has a right to life”). Sometimes an arguer will
deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like “freedom,” “justice,” “rights,” and
so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding. Either way, it’s
important that you use the main terms of your argument consistently.
   So how do I find fallacies in my own writing?
 

Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in your

own arguments:
(The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2020)
     Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you’re defending. What parts of the
argument would now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to
attack? Give special attention to strengthening those parts.
     List your main points; under each one, list the evidence you have for it. Seeing
your claims and evidence laid out this way may make you realize that you have
no good evidence for a particular claim, or it may help you look more critically at
the evidence you’re using.
     Learn which types of fallacies you’re especially prone to, and be careful to
check for them in your work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authority;
others are more likely to rely on weak analogies or set up straw men. Read over
some of your old papers to see if there’s a particular kind of fallacy you need to
watch out for.
     Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that
use sweeping words like “all,” “no,” “none,” “every,” “always,” “never,” “no one,”
and “everyone” are sometimes appropriate—but they require a lot more proof
than less-sweeping claims that use words like “some,” “many,” “few,”
“sometimes,” “usually,” and so forth.
     Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponents; to
be sure they are accurate and fair.
 
Key Take-Aways:
     Argumentation involves critical thinking and evidences to prove your point.
     Critical thinkinguses higher order thinking skills.
     Deductive reasoningis from general to specific while inductive reasoning is
from specific to general.
     Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your
argument (The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue  and Purdue University, 2020).