Logic and Critical

Thinking:
Tools in Reasoning
Logic and Critical
thinking
Logic
Logic is the study of how we think
and decide if our thoughts are correct
or not. It helps us understand
a rg u m e n t s , s o r t t h r o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n ,
and come to good decisions.
 TYPES OF
LOGIC
·Formal logic
·Informal logic
Formal Logic
Formal logic: Formal logic
involves using a set of precise
rules and symbols to evaluate the
v a l i d i t y o f a rg u m e n t s .
 EX.
Statement 1: If it's raining (R), then the ground is wet (W)
(R → W)
Statement 2: It's raining. (R)

Using these statements, we can apply formal logic to dedu

a conclusion:

Conclusion: Therefore, the ground is wet. (W)

Informal logic
Informal logic is about everyday thinking and
talking where we don't use strict rules or
symbols like in formal logic. It's how we
reason and argue in regular conversations
without structured rules.
 EX.
Premise: John is always late for meetings.

Conclusion: Therefore, John is

disrespectful and inconsiderate.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is a way of thinking that
helps us make smart decisions by looking at
i n f o r m a t i o n c a r e f u l l y, j u d g i n g i f i t ' s r e l i a b l e ,
understanding its meaning, and solving
p r o b l e m s l o g i c a l l y. I t i n v o l v e s b e i n g o p e n -
minded, asking questions, and considering
d i ff e r e n t i d e a s b e f o r e m a k i n g d e c i s i o n s .
KEY COMPONENTS OF CRITICAL THINKING INCLUDE:

1 . A N A LY S I S : M E A N S TA K I N G C O M P L I C AT E D T H I N G S
A PA RT TO U N D E R S TA N D H O W T H E Y ' R E B U I LT A N D
H O W T H E Y R E L AT E TO E A C H O T H E R .

2 . E VA L U AT I O N : M E A N S C H E C K I N G H O W
T R U S T W O RT H Y, D E P E N D A B L E , A N D I M P O RTA N T
I N F O R M AT I O N O R A R G U M E N T S A R E .
3 . I N T E R P R E TAT I O N : M E A N S F I G U R I N G O U T W H AT
I N F O R M AT I O N M E A N S , M A K I N G S E N S E O F I T, D R AW I N G
SENSIBLE CONCLUSIONS, AND FINDING CONNECTIONS
BETWEEN IDEAS.

4 . I N F E R E N C E : M E A N S M A K I N G S M A RT G U E S S E S A N D
D E C I S I O N S B Y U S I N G T H E I N F O R M AT I O N W E H AV E A N D
T H I N K I N G C A R E F U L LY.

5 . E X P L A N AT I O N : M E A N S TO C L E A R LY A N D N I C E LY T E L L
WHY WE THINK OR DECIDE SOMETHING, BY GIVING
GOOD REASONS FOR OUR THOUGHTS OR CHOICES.
6 . P R O B L E M - S O LV I N G : M E A N S U S I N G G O O D T H I N K I N G TO
F I N D A N D F I X P R O B L E M S B Y T H I N K I N G C A R E F U L LY A N D
L O G I C A L LY.

7.REflection: means thinking about how we think, looking at ou

o w n t h o u g h t s , a n d t h i n k i n g a b o u t d i ff e r e n t w a y s t o s e e t h i n g s .
Similarities and Diferences
Logic and critical thinking both involve
r e a s o n i n g b u t d i ff e r i n f o c u s : l o g i c
e m p h a s i z e s t h e s t r u c t u r e o f a rg u m e n t s ,
while critical thinking encompasses broader
skills like analysis, evaluation, and open-
mindedness.
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
CONSIDER THESE THREE CONCEPTS IN
INTERPRETING THE MEANING OF
FACTS:
C U LT U R A L S Y S T E M :
Both methods understand that the culture someone is part of
a ff e c t s h o w t h e y s e e a n d u n d e r s t a n d t h i n g s . D i ff e r e n t c u l t u r e s
influence how people think, what they consider normal, and how
t h e y j u d g e i n f o r m a t i o n , w h i c h a ff e c t s h o w t h e y s e e f a c t s .
VA L UE S :
Logic and critical thinking recognize that personal and societal
b e l i e f s i m p a c t h o w w e s e e t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f d i ff e r e n t f a c t s .
W h a t we t h i n k i s i m p o r t a n t o r m e a n i n g f u l d e p e n d s o n o u r v a l u e s ,
w h i c h a ff e c t w h a t m a t t e r s i n a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n .

BELIEFS:
B o t h a p p r o a c h e s r e c o g n i z e t h a t wh a t p e o p l e b e l i e v e c a n a ff e c t
how they see and understand facts. People's beliefs, whether
backed by evidence or not, can shape how they accept or dismiss
information.
Factual Claim
A factual claim is a statement or assertion
that can be objectively proven true or false
based on evidence, data, or observation. It
is a statement about the world or reality
that can be verified or refuted using
empirical evidence or logical reasoning.
EX.
" T H E E A RT H R E V O LV E S A R O U N D T H E
S U N . " T H I S I S A FA C T U A L C L A I M T H AT
C A N B E S U P P O RT E D B Y S C I E N T I F I C
EVIDENCE.
What is Argument?
Argument
A n a rg u m e n t i s a s t r u c t u r e d e x p r e s s i o n o f
thoughts or statements that aims to
provide a basis for a particular viewpoint
or conclusion. It's a way of conveying why
you believe something to be true or why a
certain idea is valid.
Two Parts of an
Argument
Premises
- is a statement that claim to
present the evidence or
r e a s o n s o f t h e a rg u m e n t .
Conclusion
– is the statement that the
evidence is claimed to support
o r i m p l y t h e a rg u m e n t .
Valid Arguments
A n a rg u m e n t w h e r e t h e c o n c l u s i o n
Really follows from the premises.
Valid Vs Invalid
Arguments
• No Medieval king had absolute
power over his subjects.
• Vi c t o r S u a r e z w a s a g r e a t
Medieval King.
• S o , Vi c t o r S u a r e z d i d n o t h a v e
absolute power over his
subjects.
 Invalid Arguments
A n a rg u m e n t t h a t i s n o t v a l i d .
A n i n v a l i d a rg u m e n t i s a t y p e o f
r e a s o n i n g w h e r e t h e c o n c l u s i o n d o e s n ’t
necessarily follow from the premises
provided. In other words, even if the
premises are true, the conclusion might
not be logically inferred from them.
• No Medieval king had
absolute power over his
subjects.
• Louis VII of France was a
great horseman.
• So, Louis VII of France did
not have absolute power over
his subjects.
Two Basic Types of
Reasoning
Deductive
-Deductive reasoning is drawing conclusions
based on premises generally assumed to be true.
Also called "deductive logic," it uses a logical
assumption to reach a logical conclusion.
Deductive reasoning is often referred to as "top-
down reasoning." If something is assumed to be
accurate and another relates to the first
assumption, the original truth must also hold
true for the second.
Syllogism deductive reasoning
One of the most common types of
deductive reasoning is syllogism.
Syllogism refers to two statements—a
major and a minor—joining to form a
logical conclusion. The two accurate
statements mean that the statement will
likely be valid for all additional
p r e m i s e s o f t h a t c a t e g o r y.
The reliability of deductive reasoning
While deductive reasoning is considered a
r e l i a b l e f o r m o f t e s t i n g , i t ’s i m p o r t a n t t o
recognize it may sometimes lead to a false
conclusion. This generally occurs when one of
the first assumptive statements is false. It is
also possible to come to an accurate
conclusion even if one or both of the
generalized premises are false.
The process of deductive reasoning
Initial assumption
Deductive reasoning begins
with an assumption. This
assumption is usually a
generalized statement that if
something is true, it must be
true in all cases.
Second premise
A second premise is made
about the first assumption.
The second related statement
must also be true if the first
statement is true.
Testing
the deductive
assumption is tested
in a variety of
scenarios.
Conclusion
The information is
determined to be
valid or invalid
based on the test
result
Inductive
-Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing
conclusions by going from the specific to the
general. It's usually contrasted with
deductive reasoning, where you go from
general information to specific conclusions.
Inductive reasoning is also called inductive
logic or bottom-up reasoning.
Two Basic types
of Reasoning
Validity and Soundness
are two key concepts
when evaluating
arguments.
Validity
- Va l i d i t y r e f e r s t o t h e s t r u c t u r e o f
a n a rg u m e n t — i f t h e p r e m i s e s
logically lead to the conclusion,
regardless of whether the
premises are true or false.
Soundness
-Soundness takes it a step
f u r t h e r ; f o r a n a rg u m e n t t o b e
sound, it needs to be valid and
have true premises.
 A s o u n d a rg u m e n t i s b o t h
logically valid and based on true
premises, ensuring a strong,
logically sound conclusion.
STRENGTH OF AN
ARGUMENT
S t r e n g t h o f a n A rg u m e n t

Multistage random sampling and

surveys are examples of inductive
reasoning.
 Inductive reasoning proves only
probable support to the conclusion.
TWO TYPES OF STRENGTH OF
ARGUMENTS IN INDUCTIVE
An inductive argument that fails to
provide such support is weak.
Weak
an inductive argument that succeeds
in providing probable support has a
strong argument.
Strong
A strong argument with true
premises is said to be cogent.