Chapter 5

Evaluating Arguments &

Truth Claims
 Review
Clarity Saying clearly to avoid any
miscommunications
Precision Pointing exactly to the point
Accuracy Is the information correct?
Relevance Staying on topic
Consistency Avoiding conflicts in arguments
Logical correctness Deductively valid/ Inductively strong
Completeness Thorough, deep thinking
Fairness No bias, no stereotypes, etc.
 Review

• Questions • Reports
• Greetings • Unsupported
• Commands assertions
Non-statements • Requests Non-arguments • Conditional
• Proposals sentences
• Instructions • Illustrations
• Exclamations • Explanations
Review

• Indicator word
Deductive vs • Strict necessity
• Common pattern
Inductive Test • (Principle of
Charity)
 Review
• Hypothetical Syllogism Valid/invalid argument
Common patterns of •
•
Categorical Syllogism
Argument by Elimination
+ True/False premises

deductive reasoning • Argument Based on Mathematics

Sound/unsound
• Argument from Definition

Common patterns of
Ø
Ø
Inductive Generalization
Predictive Argument
Strong/weak argument
inductive reasoning Ø
Ø
Argument from Authority
Causal Argument + True/False premises

Cogent/uncogent
 Review

• Paraphrasing
• Finding missing premises and conclusion
 Standardization
Evaluating Arguments
When is an Argument a
Good One?
What is NOT a “Good
Argument”?
1. Agree with my views!
• One can easily be prone to
think that the good argument
is the thing that one find
themselves believing in.
• “Belief bias”
• Making it impossible to look
at things from different
perspectives  NOT
critical thinking.
2. Being persuasive does not mean being
good
• Not all arguments are meant to
persuade
 They could just present the
arguments for fun or being
disruptive
• Bad arguments often persuade!
 One can often be fallen into
“He always sit in the class by himself. believing that the argument is
Then he must be a bad student. Therefore, correct while being blind to its
we should ‘teach’ him a lesson.”
weakness or invalidity.
3. Well-expressed is good?
• Sometimes one may stray off the
true nature of “a good argument”
and focus on the rhetorical merit
of that argument.
• However, not all “good
arguments” are well-expressed.
• E.g., Arguments in Math would
“When we invest in clean energy and then be bad since they would be
electric vehicles, and reduce population, presented in a pure literary form.
more of our children can breathe clean air
and drink clean water.”
Then, what is a “good
argument”?
 Chapter 3
Deductive Valid argument Sound argument
argument
Premises provide
All the
good reasons to
premises are
accept the
true
conclusion
Inductive
argument Strong argument Cogent argument
 Being valid/cogent is not enough

Being valid/cogent
Being valid/cogent is not enough
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Boosely,
This letter is to inform you that your son, Binger Boosely, has been expelled from Wexford
College. I deemed this action to be necessary and appropriate for the following reasons:
1. Paris is the capital of France.
With P4 & 5, the argument is still valid
2. The capital of France is Paris.
despite having defects like P 1,2 & 3
 It is not a good argument due to not
3. Binger deserved to be expelled.
satisfying critical thinking standards.
4. Binger earned Fs in all his classes, physically assaulted one of his professors, and was
continuously drunk from the first day of classes to the last day of final exams.
5. Any student who earns Fs in all his classes, physically assaults a professor, and is continuously
drunk from the first day of classes to the last day of final exams deserves to be expelled.
6. Therefore, Binger deserved to be expelled.
 Being valid/cogent is not enough
Meeting all critical
thinking standards

• Accuracy (true premises)

Being valid/cogent • Logical correctness (valid/cogent)
• Clarity
• Precision
• Relevance
• Consistency
• Completeness
• Fairness
Evaluating arguments checklist
When is it reasonable to
accept a premise?
Accepting a Premise
• Certain claims that are asserted might be impossible or not worthwhile
to try verifying the claim for yourself (doing it yourself).
• “All British foods are bad.”
• “I played football with Messi yesterday.”
• “Women are more superstitious than men.”
• One can see it being impossible to prove (you cannot ask Messi
whether he played with the arguer or not) or being such a hassle to
prove (it’s very tedious to eat every nook and cranny of English
cuisine)
 Principle of rational acceptance
Principle of rational acceptance
• For those circumstances, a claim is reasonable to be accepted
when:
1. The claim does not conflict with personal experiences that
we have no good reason to doubt.
2. The claim does not conflict with background beliefs that we
have no good reason to doubt.
3. The claim comes from a credible source.
The claim conflicts with personal
experiences

• Certain claims being made

could conflict with your
personal experiences.

• Under these circumstances,

it would be wise to trust
your own experiences. You were driving a motorbike, but
then your GPS points you to enter
the highway, what would you do?
Too much trust on personal experiences!
People often overestimate the
reliability of our observations
by failing to take into account
Poor physical conditions for
making observations:
• Bad lighting
• Noises
• Distractions
Too much trust on personal experiences!
People often overestimate the
reliability of our observations
by failing to take into account
Sensory impairment:
• Poor vision
• Poor hearing
Too much trust on personal experiences!
People often overestimate the
reliability of our observations
by failing to take into account
Observer’s poor physical
condition:
• Fatigue
• Stress
• Intoxication
Water? No, it’s a mirage!
Too much trust on personal experiences!
People often overestimate the
reliability of our observations
by failing to take into account
Unreliable measuring
instruments
Too much trust on personal experiences!
People often overestimate the
reliability of our observations
by failing to take into account
Failures of memory
 Too much trust on personal experiences!
People often overestimate the
reliability of our observations
by failing to take into account
One can also be less
accurate even when they
are under good
observational conditions
 Too much trust on personal experiences!

One’s observation can also be

affected by:
• Love
• Beliefs
• Hopes
• Fears
• Expectations
• Biases
The claim conflicts with our background
beliefs
• Certain claims being made
could conflict with certain
background beliefs we hold.
• Background belief means the
mental map of conscious and Hamster?
unconscious convictions acting
as a framework to assess the
credibility of claims that can’t
be verified directly
 The claim conflicts with our background
beliefs

There was a lot of rain in Ho Chi Minh City last December.

Background knowledge: Ho Chi Minh City rainy season

lasts from May to November.

 Could be easily rejected

unless there was a strong
evidence
Too much confidence on your
background experience accuracy
• Any chain of argument based on your background experience, if
one of those points were proven wrong, your belief would be
wrong, so would you statement.
• Remember:
• “Never to believe without sufficient evidence”
• “Never to believe more strongly than the evidence warrants”
 Exercise 8.1, p. 202
• For each of the claims in this exercise, indicate whether you think the claim is
• Completely believable (“I know this is the case.”)
• Somewhat believable (“I am somewhat confident that this is the case.”)
• Somewhat unbelievable (I am somewhat confident that this is not the case.”)
• Completely unbelievable (“I know this is not the case.”)
• Then, for each claim, list some background beliefs that led you to assign the claim the
degree of confidence you did. Be prepared to discuss your responses in small groups.
1. Your astrological sign determines some of your basic personality.
2. The biblical story of Noah’s Ark is literally true.
3. The Loch Ness monster really exists.
4. After people die, their souls are reincarnated in other human bodies.
5. Extraterrestrials have visited the earth in some form.
Credible source
• Much of what we believe about
the world is based on testimony
or authority
• We heard from those sources
without even being there
ourselves.
• Therefore, one must ask:
“When is it justifiable to
accept the claim based on the Would you trust this source?
testimony of another?”
 Doubtful sources
• The source is not a genuine expert or authority.
• The source is speaking outside their area of expertise.
• The source is biased or has some other motive to lie
or mislead.
• The accuracy of the source’s personal observations or
experiences is questionable.
• The source is contained in a source (e.g., a
sensationalistic website) that is generally unreliable.
• The source has not been cited correctly or has been
quoted out of context
• The issue is one that cannot be settled by expert
opinion.
• The claim made by the source is false or highly
improbable on its face
 Exercise 8.2, II; p. 204
• For each of the following unsupported claims, indicate whether or not it would be
reasonable to accept the claim. Also state the criteria you use in reaching your
decision. (Do not use Google or AI! Use your own background knowledge)
1. Tigers live in Africa.
2. There are wolves in Yellowstone National Park.
3. Black cats bring bad luck.
4. Ninety-eight percent of statistics are just made up.
5. Dunleavy Ford: Nobody sells for less. (heard on the radio)
6. The closest star to the earth, other than the sun, is Proxima Centauri. (said by your
astronomy instructor)
7. I fought in World War II. (said by a man who appears to be about fifty-five years old)
8. There is no hard scientific evidence that smoking is addictive. (said by a tobacco
company executive)
 Exercise 8.2, II; p. 204
9. Parts of Alaska are farther west than Hawaii. (overheard on the bus)
10. Parts of Alaska are farther west than Hawaii. (said by your geography instructor)
11. Analgex brand aspirin: Nothing works stronger or faster on your tough headaches.
(said by a paid sports celebrity)
12. I read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica last summer. (said by a stranger at a party)
13. Most hate crimes in this country are not committed against African Americans or Jews.
They are committed against evangelical Christians. (said by the late TV evangelist
Jerry Falwell)
14. Did you know that gun control laws actually increase the violent crime rate?
(statement on anti–gun control web page)
15. A Space Alien Tried to Mate with My Harley! (tabloid headline)
Refuting Arguments
What is “refuting an argument”?
• Refuting an argument is to defeat the argument by showing that
the premises do not provide convincing reasons to accept the
conclusion.
• There are two strategies as well as two specific techniques to
refute weak premises:
1. Show that a “premise”, a “critical group of premises” is
false or dubious
+ Reducing to the absurd
+ Refutation by counterexample
2. Show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises
 Strategy 1 – False Premises
• One can refute an argument by showing that a single premise is false

1. If the street is wet, then it just rained. False

2. The street is wet.  Refuted
3. It just rained
(The street just has a broken pipe.)
 Strategy 1 – False Premises
• Some premises however, even when being proven false, does not
affect the argument as a whole

1. Smoking worsens your lungs.

2. Smoking can harm people around you.
3. Everyone smokes. False
4. Smoking is bad for our health.
 Due to Premise 1 and 2, this argument
cannot be refuted by proving P3 is false.
 Strategy 1 – False Premises
• For these circumstances, arguments can still be refuted if one or
more of their “critical premises” are proven false.
1. Smoking worsens your lungs.
2. Smoking can harm people around you. • Selective targeting
3. Everyone smokes. False  Refute as much as
4. Smoking is bad for our health. possible premises that
 If one can prove both P1 & 2 false, this are essential to the
argument can be refuted. Thus, P1 & 2 are argument’s success.
critical premises for this argument.
 Strategy 1 – Dubious Premises
• Arguments can be refuted if their premises are dubious (open to
doubt)
We do not and currently cannot
1. The last surviving dinosaur was a know which was the last surviving
Triceratops. dinosaur  Dubious
2. Triceratops had horns.
3. So, the last surviving dinosaur had
horns.  The argument can be refuted or
hardly accepted.
Ways to evaluate premises
 Technique – Reducing to the absurd
• Showing such statement is false by putting on the extreme.

“I can eat every types of meat.”

 Then would you eat spoiled raw meat?

 Technique – Refutation by
counterexample
• An example that proves a general claim is false
“All As are Bs.”; “Most As are Bs.”

“There is no one who does not like

cheese.”

 Really? I have eaten a lot of

cheese and I still find it very bad.
 Strategy 2 – Conclusion does not follow
from the Premises
• One can refute the argument by pointing out that the conclusion is:
• Deductively invalid
• Inductively weak
• Three questions one should ask about the conclusion of the argument:
• If the argument is deductive, does the conclusion follow necessarily from
the premises?
• Are the premises relevant to the conclusion? (Does the argument commit
logical fallacies, personal attack, etc.?)
• Are the premises sufficient to support the conclusion? (Do all the true
premises provide enough support to justify the conclusion?)
 Strategy 2 – Conclusion does not follow
from the Premises
• Are the premises sufficient to support the conclusion? (Do all the true premises
provide enough support to justify the conclusion?)
• When rating the sufficiency, one should also consider whether the argument has
omitted any crucial countervailing evidence?
(Crucial evidence that, if figured, can be used to refute the argument)

Get high-speed Internet access by Yes, it sounds persuasive. But you have
satellite. It’s fast, reliable, and left out the fact that to gain access to it,
available virtually everywhere. one needs to pay an arm and a leg.
 The premises provided are not
sufficient to support the conclusion.
 Exercise 8.3, I; p. 209
§ Reduce the following claims to absurdity.
1. No statements are true.
2. All generalization are false.
3. Some brothers are nieces.
4. No beliefs are justified; we should be absolute and total skeptics.
5. This ball is both red all over and blue all over.
6. I was kissed by an angel, a disembodied spirit.
7. Lake Wobegon: Where all the children are above average.
8. Joseph went back in time and accidentally killed his own grandfather.
§ Reduce the following claims to absurdity.
1. No statements are true. (It’s self-refuting; if no statements are true, this statement is false and
vice versa  Contradiction)
2. All generalization are false. (It’s self-refuting; if all generalization are false, this statement,
which is a generalization is false, leading to a contradiction)
3. Some brothers are nieces. (If this statement is true, some brothers must be both a boy and a girl
at the same time  Refuted)
4. No beliefs are justified; we should be absolute and total skeptics. (This statement mentions the
belief that no beliefs are justified, then this would make the argument weak as you cannot
justify this statement)
5. This ball is both red all over and blue all over. (A ball cannot be completely red and completely
blue at the same time  Refuted)
6. I was kissed by an angel, a disembodied spirit. (Assuming you was kissed by an angel, you are
kissing a disembodied spirit while you are having living body. A spirit and a living being
cannot interact each other  Refuted)
7. Lake Wobegon: Where all the children are above average. (If all children were above average,
then the average itself would be below all children, which contradicts the definition of an
average.)
8. Joseph went back in time and accidentally killed his own grandfather. (The grandfather was the
one who gave birth to Joseph's father, if Joseph killed his grandfather, there would be no
Joseph’s dad, and Joseph would not appear  Contradiction)
 Exercise 8.3, II; p. 209
§ Refute the following statements by citing one or more counterexamples.
1. No large mammals live in the Arctic.
2. It’s always wrong to break a promise.
3. No student should ever use a cell phone in class.
4. America has produced no truly great writers.
5. The great majority of supermarket fruits are red.
 Exercise 8.3, II; p. 209
§ Refute the following statements by citing one or more counterexamples.
1. No large mammals live in the Arctic. (There are polar bears and winter foxes.)
2. It’s always wrong to break a promise. (You promise your friend that you’ll watch a
movie together on Friday night. However, on Friday, you come down with the flu
and feel terrible. Would you break your promise to stay at home and rest?)
3. No student should ever use a cell phone in class. (What if that was an emergency
call from their parents about their family member’s passing?)
4. America has produced no truly great writers. (F. Scott Fitzgerald – Writer of the
Great Gatsby)
5. The great majority of supermarket fruits are red. (How about banana or orange?)
 Exercise 8.3, III; p. 210
§ Refute, if possible, the following arguments by citing omitted countervailing
evidence. If you think the argument is strong and can’t be refuted, cite omitted
countervailing evidence that weakens the argument.
1. Why should I go to college? It costs a fortune, it’s boring, and I can get a high-paying
job in trucking or construction without a college education.
2. My buddy keeps telling me I should save for retirement, but I tell him, “Look: I’m
overweight. I smoke. Neither of my parents lived past sixty-five. Honestly, I’d rather
enjoy my money now than save it for a nursing home I’ll never need.”
3. This whole business about “equal pay” between men and women is a crock. Sure, fifty
years ago there was real job discrimination against women, but that’s ancient history.
Today there’s only one reason men make more money than women. It’s called personal
choice. A lot of women choose to work as low-paid teachers, librarians, or secretaries
or choose to drop out of the workforce or to work only part-time to raise a family.
Where’s the “inequity” in that?
 Exercise 8.3, III; p. 210
4. Bans on owning AK-47s and other assault weapons should be repealed. The
Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and if there’s ever a foreign invasion or
a breakdown of society, I, for one, want to be able to protect my family.
5. Tanning booths are great. They’re available day or night and at any season of the year.
You don’t have to worry about getting burned, and you can get a great, even tan quick.
6. All able-bodied applicants for U.S. citizenship should be required to join the armed
forces for three years before being eligible for citizenship. It would help them learn
English, strengthen our national defense, inculcate patriotic values, and serve as a
deterrent to potential immigrants who care only about what America can do for them
and nothing at all about what they can do for America.
 Exercise 8.3, III; p. 210
7. Drugs like LSD and cocaine should be legal. Let’s face it, the “war on drugs” has
failed. Legalizing drugs would drastically reduce drug-related crime, alleviate prison
overcrowding, unclog the courts, and allow police to concentrate on catching robbers
and rapists, instead of petty dealers or substance abusers. Plus, we could tax these
legalized drugs and use the money for more productive purposes.
8. Don’t marry any woman who wants a long-term career. Research shows that women
tend to be happier when their husbands are the primary breadwinners. It also shows
that career women are more likely to cheat, more likely to get divorced, less likely to
have kids, and more likely to be unhappy if they do have kids.
 Exercise 8.3, III; p. 210
1. Why should I go to college? It costs a fortune, it’s boring, and I can get a high-paying
job in trucking or construction without a college education.
Not all colleges cost a fortune. Often students who were bored in high school find that
they enjoy college work. Though jobs like trucking and construction may be
relatively high-paying, the work may be more dangerous, less enjoyable, less
prestigious, and less secure than many jobs that require a college education. The
difference in earning power may also be greater than this individual supposes.
Studies consistently show that college graduates make on average about 45 percent
more than those who have only a high school diploma.
 Exercise 8.3, III; p. 210
2. My buddy keeps telling me I should save for retirement, but I tell him, “Look: I’m
overweight. I smoke. Neither of my parents lived past sixty-five. Honestly, I’d rather
enjoy my money now than save it for a nursing home I’ll never need.”
Even if your parents could not live past sixty-five, it would not mean that you would
not be able to do that. If you have lived past sixty-five, you would retire and you
would have no money to support yourself.
 Exercise 8.3, III; p. 210
3. This whole business about “equal pay” between men and women is a crock. Sure, fifty
years ago there was real job discrimination against women, but that’s ancient history.
Today there’s only one reason men make more money than women. It’s called personal
choice. A lot of women choose to work as low-paid teachers, librarians, or secretaries
or choose to drop out of the workforce or to work only part-time to raise a family.
Where’s the “inequity” in that?
A lot of women cannot choose to work for higher-paid jobs due to their roles of child
rearing in their family. Moreover, gender biases and job discrimination still exists in
which women would be unconsciously or consciously mistreated. This also leads to
the so-called “choice” they actually have, as they are expected by the society work in
low-paid jobs to have time for child rearing.
 Exercise 8.3, III; p. 210
4. Bans on owning AK-47s and other assault weapons should be repealed. The
Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and if there’s ever a foreign invasion or
a breakdown of society, I, for one, want to be able to protect my family.
Although the meaning of the Second Amendment is hotly debated, few would argue
that the “right to bear arms” extends to military-style weapons that are neither
necessary for personal protection nor suitable for hunting. Moreover, the risks of
legalizing such weapons would seem to outweigh the gains. The risks of foreign
invasion or a breakdown of society are probably pretty remote. By contrast, the risk
that such weapons could fall into the hands of criminals or be used in Columbine-
type massacres, domestic disputes, and accidental shootings is high.
 Exercise 8.3, III; p. 210
5. Tanning booths are great. They’re available day or night and at any season of the year.
You don’t have to worry about getting burned, and you can get a great, even tan quick.
Tanning booths deal with UV lights, which are notorious for causing skin cancer and
premature aging on your skin. It can also suppress your immune system.
6. All able-bodied applicants for U.S. citizenship should be required to join the armed
forces for three years before being eligible for citizenship. It would help them learn
English, strengthen our national defense, inculcate patriotic values, and serve as a
deterrent to potential immigrants who care only about what America can do for them
and nothing at all about what they can do for America.
Forcing them to join the armed forces for their citizenship could cause two problems.
First of all, it would violate their human rights regarding freedom of choices. Second,
it could cause them to join the armed forces with ulterior motives of becoming an
American and this could lead to them overlooking all the purposes of joining the
armed forces such as learning about patriotic values.
 Exercise 8.3, III; p. 210
7. Drugs like LSD and cocaine should be legal. Let’s face it, the “war on drugs” has
failed. Legalizing drugs would drastically reduce drug-related crime, alleviate prison
overcrowding, unclog the courts, and allow police to concentrate on catching robbers
and rapists, instead of petty dealers or substance abusers. Plus, we could tax these
legalized drugs and use the money for more productive purposes.
There is a likelihood that legalizing hard drugs would lead to greatly increased use
and addiction rates, with all the personal and societal costs this would entail: more
overdoses, hospitalizations, car accidents, industrial accidents, suicides, family
breakups, unemployable workers, lower productivity, and so forth. Legalizing hard
drugs would also likely make these drugs more readily available to children and
implicitly send a message that these drugs aren’t harmful
 Exercise 8.3, III; p. 210
8. Don’t marry any woman who wants a long-term career. Research shows that women
tend to be happier when their husbands are the primary breadwinners. It also shows
that career women are more likely to cheat, more likely to get divorced, less likely to
have kids, and more likely to be unhappy if they do have kids.
First of all, showing tendency does not include all the women. This would overlook
the individualistic personality of human. Moreover, if career women cheated, it would
also be the same for career men; housewives could also cheat if they were not satisfied
with their current relationship.