560 Critical Thinking Activities: Developing your own arguments
Instructions: Read Appendix III and complete Exercise Sets 13.1 and
13.2 before beginning this activity. Then, complete each of the following
steps in order.
1. Choose an argumentative essay of your own to use for this activity.
This might be an essay that you wrote for the “Compiling a draft
of an argumentative essay” activity (p. 537), an essay that you
wrote for another class, or an essay you wrote for some other
purpose.
2. Draw an argument map for each of the major arguments in your
essay. If your essay contains only one, large argument, draw a
single argument map. If your essay contains multiple arguments,
draw a separate argument map for each argument.
3. Highlight all of the premises on the argument maps that are not
supported by other premises. On each argument map, circle or
highlight the numbers representing premises that are not
supported by other premises—that is, premises that are not
also subconclusions.
4. Identify the unsupported premises that need more support. Of the
premises that you highlighted in Step 3, identify those that need
more support (e.g., because they are controversial or because
most readers might not know whether they are true).
5. Develop and map arguments for each of the premises that need more
support. Develop an argument for each of the premises that you
identified in Step 4. Add those arguments to your argument maps.
6. Repeat Steps 3–5 until there are no more premises in need of more
support.
Final product: The final product of this activity is a (set of ) argument
map(s), along with new arguments devised to support selected premises in
the original arguments.
Index
This thematic index offers a route to this book’s main themes that is different from, but
complementary to, the table of contents. Chiefly it concentrates on Part 1 of the Work-
book, covering the original Rulebook text and all relevant tips and sample discussions in
Part 1 of the Workbook. Pages from Parts 2 and 3 are indexed when they make substan-
tive new additions to these themes.
ad hominem (fallacy), 264, 277, 480 bias
ad ignoratiam (fallacy), 264, 277, 480–81 in samples, 46–47, 59–60, 349–52
ad misericordiam (fallacy), 265, 277 in sources, 93, 96–99, 382–84
ad populum (fallacy), 265, 273, 277, 279
affirming the consequent (fallacy), 265, causes, arguments about, Chapter V
288–89, 476–78 complexity of causes, 123–24, 403–4
alternatives, 186–89, 192, 429–32 correlations, 114–17
analogy, arguments from, Chapter III finding the best explanation for
defined, 78 correlations, 120–22
to evaluate actions, 380, 524–25 in science, 402–3
to evaluate arguments, 377–79, 381 circular arguments (fallacy), 266, 272–73,
arguments 277, 302, 466
deductive, defined, 133 citation, 93–94, 105
defined, xix claims, definite, 200–202
developing in detail, 176–78, 559–60 common ground, 247–51, 459–62
extended, Chapter VII complex question (fallacy), 266, 277–78,
mapping, Appendix III, 332–33, 478–79
559–60 conclusion (of an argument), 3–5,
objections, 183–85, 207–9, 214 307–13, 317–19
oral, Chapter IX, 543–44 control group, 353–54
premise-and-conclusion outlines of, correlations, 114–17
10–11, 330 alternative explanations for, 115–17
signposting, 221–23 establishing, 124
visual, 15–16, 504–5 most likely explanations, 120–22
argumentative essays, Chapter VIII counterexamples, 64–67, 70–71, 75–76,
doing research for, Chapter VII, 359–61
533–34
audience debates, Chapter X
premise reliability and, 17–19, 333–38 civility in, 258–59
reaching out to, 217–19 definition, Appendix II
broad and narrow, 295–98
background rates, 51–54, 59–60, 69–70, contested, 301–4
352–55 dictionary, 296
begging the question (fallacy), 265–66, genus and differentia, 301
272–73, 277, 302, 466 operational, 296–97, 482–83
nature of, 295
561
562 Index
deductive arguments, Chapter VI hypothetical syllogism, 135–36, 415–16,
alternative expressions of, 143–45, 425
406–8
defined, 133 independent clauses (in a sentence),
symbolizing, 134–40, 143–45, 161–62 defined, 138
denying the antecedent (fallacy),266, independent sources, 100–102
288–89, 476–78 indicator words, 5, 327–29
differentia (and genus, in definitions),
301 language, loaded, 26–28, 268, 472
dilemma, 137–38, 406 concrete terms, 23–24
disjunctive syllogism, 136–37 leads (“ledes”), 195–96
letters to editor, 34–35, 505–6
equivocation (fallacy), 267, 270–72, 278, loaded language (fallacy), 268, 281, 285,
292, 467–71, 479 472
essays, argumentative, Chapter VIII logical connectives, defined, 138
improving, 215, 534–36, 538–40
examples, arguments from, Chapter II mapping, of arguments, Appendix III
counterexamples, 64–67, 70–71, models in scientific reasoning, 370–72,
75–76, 359–61 374, 377
relevantly similar (in analogies), modus ponens, 143, 288–89
78–81, 83–84, 89–90 modus tollens, 134–35, 288–89
representative, 44–47
natural experiment, 399
fallacies, Appendix I negation, 173
defined, 264 non sequitur (fallacy), 268, 285
reinterpreting and revising, 276–79,
285–87, 554–55 objections, 183–85, 207–9, 214
related to rules for good arguments, types of, 184–85
552–53 responding to, 207–9
false cause (fallacy), 267, 278 “offer something positive,” 240–43
false dilemma (fallacy), 267 opposing views, 230–34
feedback, 215, 538–40 finding common ground between,
247–51, 459–62
generalizations, Chapter II oral presentations, Chapter IX, 543–44
negative, 42 overgeneralizing (fallacy), 268, 286
representative examples, 44–47 overlooking alternatives (fallacy),
universal, 66, 70 268–69, 285
genus (and differentia, in definitions), overprecision, 58
301
peer review, 538–40
hypotheses persuasive definition (fallacy), 269, 286
and background assumptions, 405, petitio principii/begging the question
407, 409–10 (fallacy), 269, 272
confirmation of, 477 philosophical arguments, 528–32
formation of, 381 poisoning the well (fallacy), 269, 285
testing of, 331–32, 405–10, 416–17, polls, 45, 58–59, 60
477