CRITICAL THINKING ASSIGNMENT

Q. How does critical thinking aid us in assessing the credibility of the content and the
source of a claim?

Critical thinking refers to the ability to objectively analyze and evaluate information,
arguments, and situations in a logical and systematic manner. An important component of
the concept of critical thinking is putting forward claims or assertions.
A claim is a statement or proposition put forward as true or factual. It is an assertion that
expresses a belief or a position on a particular issue.
The main concern that has emerged in the era of the Internet is the issue of credibility.
Credibility refers to the degree of trustworthiness, reliability, and believability attributed to
individuals, sources of information, or organizations. There are two grounds for suspicion in
cases where credibility is the issue. The first ground is the claim itself. The second ground for
suspicion is the source of the claim.
Assessing the contents of the claim
To come to a conclusion about whether a claim is credible or not, there’s an interplay of a
range of factors some of which are-
Personal observations
All of us make personal observations or judgments about things or situations in our
surroundings. If a claim conflicts with what we have observed, we can reach the conclusion
that the claim possesses a low degree of credibility. For example- A person-X makes a claim
to his neighbour that he always keeps his house clean and tidy. The neighbour can test the
credibility of the claim by remembering that he had observed that X’s house was in a filthy
condition when he had gone there to borrow milk. Thereby, if the credibility of a claim is in
conflict with a person’s personal observations, the claim can be deemed invalid.
But sometimes, our observations and the information from short-term memory may turn
out to be infallible. Example-According to the Innocence Project, a group in New York that
investigates wrongful convictions, eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of
conviction of innocent persons. Different cognitive biases and perceptual judgments may
also lead to false observations on our part. This can create distorted observations that
conflict with information that is, actually credible.
Background Information
Reports must always be evaluated against our background information —that immense
body of justified beliefs that consists of facts we learn from our own direct observations and
facts we learn from others. The broader your background information, the more likely you
are to be able to evaluate any given report effectively. We generally assign initial plausibility
to a claim we encounter. It’s a rough assessment of how credible a claim seems to us. The
degree of consistency of the claim with background information helps us determine the
degree of credibility of the claim. If the claim is very consistent, then we assign a reasonable
level of initial plausibility. Foer example-the claim that cats can understand and respond to
human emotions may have a reasonable degree of initial plausibility since cats are known to
be highly perceptive animals, often displaying empathy towards their owners.
Assessing the source of a claim
Interested parties
When evaluating credibility, it is important to consider the interested parties or stakeholders
involved in a particular issue or claim. A person who stands to gain from our belief in a claim
is known as an interested party and interested parties must be viewed with much more
suspicion than disinterested parties, who have no stake in our belief one way or another. If
the interested party has a stake in the claim, then they may be subjected to biases and strive
to protect their own interests instead of adopting an objective outlook. Such parties should
be verified first before believing in the credibility of their claims. For example- if a seller
claims that Product X is the best smartphone on the market, he may be counted as an
interested party, so instead of relying on the credibility of the claim, you should verify it
through reviews from other consumers, other sites etc.
Physical characteristics
According to recent research by Benoy Joseph from Cleveland State University, evidence
indicates that attractive communicators consistently are liked more, are perceived in more
favourable terms, and have a more positive impact on the credibility of the products with
which they are associated as compared to unattractive communicators. Many times, we
correlate certain physical characteristics and outward appearances as a legitimate estimate
of enhanced credibility. Due to human prejudices and stereotypes, we often take irrelevant
variables into consideration while gauging whether a claim is credible or not. Such subjective
evaluations lead to errors in perception and may hamper our cognition and related abilities
which may lead to unfair judgments. For example- A loud person, having a confident
demeanour, looks attractive with a sophisticated dressing sense may seem more credible
than a meek, shy person in casual attire. Such physical characteristics are not an indicator of
honesty and credibility. Such appearances could have been curated just to seem genuine and
hoodwink others.
Expertise
Expertise refers to a high level of knowledge, skill, or proficiency in a particular field or
subject. It is acquired through extensive study, experience, and practical application of
knowledge in a specific domain. The level of expertise of a source can be used as an
important indicator of credibility. Expertise is a holistic domain that encompasses education,
experience, reputation, accomplishments and skillsets. The verification of such credentials
may be a bit tedious but is an intrinsic part of thinking critically. Education helps in gaining
foundational knowledge, understanding theoretical as well as practical applications of such
knowledge, making informed decisions and reaching at reasoned conclusions. The level of
experience helps in applying skills in the real world and getting the desired results by using
problem-solving skills. The reputation of a person may or may not indicate credibility as it
can be based on subjective opinions. Accomplishments are merits or accolades that a person
receives for the work he has done but it also includes some amount of subjectivity. Overall,
the level of expertise can be used to determine the credibility of a source.

Q. How does rhetoric aim to persuade its audience. Explain and illustrate any three tools
(other than Demagoguery and )of rhetoric.
Rhetoric is a multifaceted discipline that encompasses the art and science of
persuasive communication. Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing,
especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques. It entails
the application of words, symbols, and strategies to sway, educate, and engage a crowd. By
combining logical argumentation, emotional appeal, and moral authority, rhetoric aims to
mould and alter attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours. Rhetoric encompasses a wide variety of
abilities, including persuasive presentation, good narrative, and the skillful use of rhetorical
techniques.
There are various tools that rhetoric uses like-
Rhetorical Analogies and Misleading Comparisons
A rhetorical analogy likens two or more things to make one of them appear better or worse
than another. These analogies between two seemingly unrelated ideas or items serve to
demonstrate a point or make a difficult notion more familiar and approachable. Rhetorical
analogies fill the gap between abstract or complex notions and the audience's prior
knowledge and experiences by establishing comparisons between the known and the
unknown. By presenting a well-known scenario or item that has traits or behaviours that are
similar to the topic under discussion, they offer a framework for comprehension. In order to
help the audience better understand and relate to the intended message, rhetorical
analogies stimulate the audience's imagination, elicit emotions, and forge connections.
Example- "Life is like a roller coaster, with its ups and downs." This analogy compares life to a
roller coaster ride, emphasizing the unpredictable nature of life's experiences.
Rhetorical analogies also include misleading comparisons. Misleading analogies can be
intentionally or unintentionally used to manipulate an audience's perception or distort the
truth. They can exploit emotions, reinforce biases, or oversimplify complex issues. For
example- Advertising sometimes offers vague comparisons, such as “Now 25 percent larger,”
“New and improved,” and “Quietest by far.” Unless both sides of a comparison are made
clear, the comparison isn’t worth much.

Hyperbole
 Hyperbole is an extravagant overstatement, or exaggeration. Hyperbole is a rhetorical tool
that involves deliberate and exaggerated overstatement for emphasis or dramatic effect. In
order to elicit powerful feelings, paint a clear picture in the audience's mind, and grab their
attention, it is used to emphasise or exaggerate a point, concept, or circumstance. Hyperbole
strives to leave a lasting impression and capture the audience's imagination by purposefully
distorting the facts or use exaggerated words. This rhetorical technique is frequently used to
portray passion, urgency, or humour in literature, poetry, speeches, and advertisements. For
example, saying "I've told you a million times" to express frustration or "I'm so hungry I
could eat a horse" to emphasize extreme hunger are instances of hyperbole. "The line for
the concert stretched for miles, with people waiting since the dawn of time." In this
example, the hyperbole is used to exaggerate the length and duration of the line for the
concert. By stating that the line stretched for miles and people had been waiting since the
dawn of time, the speaker is emphasizing the immense size and duration of the queue,
creating a vivid and exaggerated image in the reader's mind.
Euphemisms and Dysphemisms
A euphemism is a neutral or positive expression used in place of one that carries negative
associations. It attempts to make potentially unpleasant or upsetting statements more
socially acceptable in order to lessen their impact. Euphemisms can be used for a number of
things, such avoiding offensive or explicit language, delicately handling sensitive subjects, or
reducing the emotional effect of specific words or ideas. They frequently minimise the
harshness or bluntness of the original word and instead use metaphorical or indirect
language to convey the intended message. For example, using phrases like "pass away"
instead of "die" or "let go" instead of "terminate employment" are euphemisms that offer a
gentler way of discussing death or job loss.
A dysphemism is used to produce a negative effect on someone’s attitude about something
or to tone down the positive associations it may have. Euphemisms, which try to soften or
make things more pleasant, are the antithesis of them. Dysphemisms are used as a
rhetorical device to arouse strong emotional reactions, shape perceptions, or disparage
people or things. Speaking or writing with harsh or insulting language aims to sway the
audience's attitudes and ideas. These can be seen in personal assaults, propaganda,
advertising, and political rhetoric. These negative phrases frequently include offensive
language, vulgarity, or pejorative insults directed against certain people or groups based on
their colour, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, or other traits. Example- "Instead of
addressing the issue, the politician just spews empty promises and lies." In this example, the
term "spews" is a dysphemism used to convey a negative and derogatory tone towards the
politician's communication style. By using the word "spews," the speaker seeks to discredit
the politician and imply that their statements are not to be trusted.

Q. 3. Write short notes on the following-

A. Credibility of news media
B. Credibility of Advertising
C. Demagoguery
D. Weaselers

A. Credibility of the news media has been gradually falling in recent years with the trust and
confidence in the media being hampered. Although it is not well known to most citizens, one
reason the quality of news available has decreased is that the media have become
controlled by fewer and fewer corporations, the result of many mergers and buyouts over
the past three or so decades. The fewer hands that control the media, the easier it is for the
news to get misinterpreted or distorted—either by the owners themselves or by their
commercial advertisers and even by the government. Government management of the news
refers to the extent to which governments exert control or influence over the media
landscape within a country. This control can take various forms, ranging from direct
censorship and state-owned media to more subtle methods such as manipulation,
propaganda, or spreading fake news. Media bias can arise from a range of factors. Individual
journalists may hold personal beliefs or political affiliations that shape their reporting. News
organizations themselves may have ideological leanings or editorial policies that
influence their coverage. Unchecked bias can undermine the credibility of the media and the
public's trust in the information presented. Credibility is essential for the news media to
fulfill their democratic function of informing the public. It enables individuals to make
informed decisions, engage in meaningful public discourse, and hold those in power
accountable. News organizations must continually uphold and strengthen their credibility to
maintain public trust and confidence in the information they provide.

B. Advertisers strive to establish credibility to persuade consumers to purchase products,

services, or ideas. However, the credibility of advertising can vary depending on
several factors. Advertisers spend vast sums creating within us new desires and fears—and
hence a need to improve our lives by satisfying those desires or eliminating those fears
through the purchase of advertised products. There are basically two kinds of ads: those
that offer reasons and those that do not. The purpose of reasonless ads is to create an
association between the brand and the desired emotional response, intending to influence
consumer attitudes and behavior based on those emotions. These ads may not provide
detailed information about the product's features, benefits, or performance, but rather
focus on eliciting a specific emotional response that aligns with the brand's
image or message. Ads with reason emphasize the practical benefits, features, or quality of a
product or service, using evidence and persuasive arguments to support their claims, but
from the seller’s perspective. To make an informed decision on a purchase, you almost
always need to know more than the seller is willing to claim, particularly because no sellers
will tell you what’s wrong with their products or what’s right with those of their competitors.
The claims of advertisers are often not only vague but also ambiguous, misleading,
exaggerated, and sometimes just plain false. Our suspicions about advertising in general
should undercut our willingness to believe in the honesty of any particular
advertisement.Even advertisements that present reasons for buying an item do not by
themselves justify our purchase of the item. An advertisement never justifies purchasing
something as their primary purpose is to sell something.

C. Demagoguery refers to a manipulative and often divisive political strategy employed by a

demagogue, a political leader or public figure who seeks to gain and consolidate power by
appealing to people's emotions, prejudices, and fears rather than rational thinking or factual
evidence. Demagoguery typically involves using inflammatory language, exaggeration, and
simplification of complex issues to resonate with the emotions and biases of a
targeted audience. Otherizing, which is pervasive in demagoguery, involves creating a sense
of "us versus them" dichotomy, where the "other" is portrayed as a threat or as inferior to
one's own group. This process is fueled by stereotypes, prejudice, and the reinforcement of
negative perceptions. Otherizing can lead to the dehumanization, marginalization, and
discrimination of individuals or groups. The second pervasive rhetorical technique used by
demagogues is demonizing —trying to induce loathing of someone or something by
portraying the person or thing as evil. The third prevalent rhetorical tactic used by
demagogues, along with otherizing and demonizing, is encouraging xenophobia. The fear or
hatred of anything alien or unfamiliar is known as xenophobia. Fear and hate-mongering
often exaggerate or fabricate potential dangers or risks in order to create a sense of fear and
insecurity among the public. It’s used in conjunction with otherizing, demonization, and
xenophobia which often leads to disastrous consequences.

D. When inserted into a claim, weaselers help protect it from criticism by watering it down
somewhat, weakening it, and giving the claim’s author a way out in case the claim is
challenged. They are hedge phrases that allow people to make comments that on the
surface seem significant and strong but, upon closer inspection, lack clarity or commitment.
Weaselers frequently employ phrases like "some people say," "studies suggest," or "many
believe," giving the impression of concrete evidence without offering any supporting data.
Weaselers provide the appearance of authority or substance while shielding the speaker
from being held firmly to a claim. However, as they conceal underlying goals and obstruct a
clear and accountable position, their usage might be viewed as manipulative or dishonest.
Weaselers play a significant role in persuasive communication by allowing speakers or
writers to maintain a degree of flexibility and avoid direct commitment. These are often
used strategically in political speeches, advertising, or debates, where the aim is to influence
opinions without making concrete promises or exposing oneself to potential backlash. They
create an aura of plausible deniability, giving the speaker room to maneuver or retract
statements if necessary. A politician could say: "Some experts suggest that this policy could
potentially lead to positive outcomes for our economy." In this example, the phrase "some
experts suggest" is a weaseler that introduces ambiguity. It creates the perception that there
is a consensus among experts without providing concrete evidence or naming specific
sources. By using the word "suggest," the politician avoids taking a firm stance and leaves
room for interpretation.