TAKORADI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING-DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
BCV 111: CRITICAL THINKING I
COURSE LECTURER: S.n. DENSU
1
COURSE TITLE CRITICAL THINKING I (1, 0, 1)
COURSE CODE BCV 111
OBJECTIVES/ The primary objective of this course is to develop the critical thinking skills of
LEARNING students. These skills are necessary for active learning and independent
thinking; they also are essential for academic success and good decision
OUTCOMES
making in students’ personal, professional, and public lives. The objective of
this course, among others are:
• Introduce students to a range of techniques for improving their
reasoning and communication skills;
• Introduce students to the difference between argument and rhetoric;
• Develop in students the ability to identify the components of an
argument (premises/evidence and conclusion/thesis) and demonstrate
an understanding of the relationship between these components.
• Develop in students the ability to understand and analyze arguments,
both written and spoken;
• Introduce students to classic fallacies in arguments
COURSE Critical thinking definition; Importance of critical thinking; Argument
CONTENT Basics: Premises and conclusions; Recognizing Arguments: Narrative,
description, elaboration, illustration, and explanation; Validity and Strength:
Deductively valid arguments. Fallacies/Flaws in Arguments
MODE OF • Lectures
• Group assignments and presentations
DELIVERY
• Critical analysis of topical readings
ASSESSMENT Coursework-60%; Examination-40%
REFERENCE • Boss, J. A. (2010). THINK: Critical Thinking and Logical Skills for
MATERIALS Everyday Life, McGraw-Hill,
• Bonevac, D. (1998). Simple Logic. Oxford University Press-New York
Oxford.
• Bowell, T and Kemp, G. (2010). Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Third
Edition. Routledge, London.
• Fisher, A. (2011).Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Second Edition.
Cambridge University Press.
• Lau, J.Y.F. (2011). An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity:
Think More, Think Better. Wiley: Hoboken.
• Thomson, A (2009). Critical Reasoning: A Practical Introduction. Third
Edition. Routledge, London.
2
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Critical thinking is very important in modern education. It has played central role in higher
education since its origin in the writings of Aristotle. It continues to occupy an important
position in contemporary curricula for much the same reason it occupied such a position in
ancient academics. Its object of study, reasoning, is fundamental to all intellectual activity and
to most other human endeavours.
The primary objective of this course is to develop the critical thinking skills of students. These
skills are necessary for active learning and independent thinking; they also are essential for
academic success and good decision making in students’ personal, professional, and public
lives.
• Introduce students to a range of techniques for improving their reasoning and
communication skills;
• Introduce students to the difference between argument and rhetoric;
• Develop in students the ability to identify the components of an argument
(premises/evidence and conclusion/thesis) and demonstrate an understanding of the
relationship between these components.
• Develop in students the ability to understand and analyze arguments, both written and
spoken;
• Introduce students to classic fallacies in arguments
3
1.2 DEFINITION OF CRITICAL THINKING
Critical thinking has many and varied definitions, below are some of them:
John Dewey is widely regarded as the “father” of the modern critical thinking tradition. He
called it “reflective thinking” and defined it as:
i) Active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the grounds which support it and the further conclusions
to which it tends.
Glaser, 1941; Norris & Ennis (1989) defined it as:
ii) Active (versus passive) process, persistent and careful thinking, and the importance
of understanding the reasons we have for believing something and the implications
of our beliefs.
Working definition, according to Delphi APA report, 1990
iii) Purposeful, reflective judgment which manifests itself in reasoned consideration of
evidence, context, methods, standards, and conceptualizations in deciding what to
believe or what to do.
To think critically is to examine ideas, evaluate them against what you already know and make
decisions about their merit. The aim of critical thinking is to try to maintain an ‘objective’
position. When you think critically, you weigh up all sides of an argument and evaluate its
strengths and weaknesses. So, critical thinking skills entails:
• Actively seeking all sides of an argument
• Testing the soundness of the claims made
• Testing the soundness of the evidence used to support the claims.
Since the primary purpose of thinking critically is to respond objectively to material being read,
it is important to keep an open mind and be prepared to question the author’s claims.
A person who thinks critically can ask appropriate questions, gather relevant information,
efficiently and creatively sort through this information, reason logically from this information,
and come to reliable and trustworthy conclusions about the world that enable one to live and
act successfully in it.
4
In this light, a critical thinker uses reasoning to separate facts from opinions and draw
conclusions that establishes the truth (from what is false). It is therefore important to understand
the following definitions as used in logical reasoning:
Fact: A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false.
Opinion: An opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven (or opinions
are the conclusions that an individual forms regarding questions where the truth is not yet plain,
or is impossible to discern). Opinions can be based on facts or emotions and sometimes they
are meant to deliberately mislead others.
Objective Truth: An objective truth, on the other hand, may be true or false; just that
something is objective does not mean it is true. An example of objective truth is, “cats are
quadrupeds.
Subjective Truth: It is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal
preference. A subjective truth cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted
criteria. An example of subjective truth is, “I love cats”.
Critical thinking is thus:
1. Higher order thinking (“You should focus on how facts are proven, how arguments
are formed, and how conclusions are reached, not just on what the facts, arguments, or
conclusions are”); and
2. Self-reflexive (“You should analyze your own thinking processes in addition to
discipline specific forms of reasoning”).
Critical thinking is not being able to process information well enough to know to stop for red
lights or whether you received the correct change at the supermarket. Such low-order thinking,
critical and useful though it may be, is sufficient only for personal survival; most individuals
master this.
True critical thinking is higher-order thinking, enabling a person to, for example, responsibly
judge between political candidates, (evaluate society's need for nuclear power plants, and
assess the consequences of global warming). Critical thinking enables an individual to be a
responsible citizen who contributes to society, and not be merely a consumer of society's
distractions.
5
1.3 IMPORTANCE OF CRITICAL THINKING
Critical thinking enables you, as a student, to assess the evidence in, the course materials you
read, and identify flaws or illogical reasoning.
Thinking critically will also help you to create strong arguments of your own (for example, in
assignments). This means that you will be able to present and justify any claims you make
based on the evidence you have evaluated. If you learn and practise effective critical thinking
skills early on in your studies, they will contribute at many levels in your academic life. When
reading, they will allow you to understand the content of your course clearly. You will be able
to analyse and evaluate – and compare and contrast – the value of particular materials, including
theories, methods, concepts, and the major debates that have been presented.
Developing critical thinking skills will allow you to develop more reasoned arguments for your
assignments, projects, and examination questions. You will be able to use and draw on evidence
to justify your own arguments and ideas. In addition, you will be able to synthesise your own
thoughts, and the thoughts of differing theorists/ researchers.
As a university student, your ability to evaluate and synthesise information from a variety of
sources and present your own justified interpretation makes you an independent learner. This
is known as employing ‘higher order thinking’, and it is a requirement of university education.
You may encounter some activities during your studies that do not require high levels of
thinking. For instance, some multiple-choice questions might simply require your knowledge
and understanding of your topic. However, essay-and report-style assignments frequently
demand interpretations and synthesis skills. Part of this is using ‘higher order thinking skills’.
These are the skills used to analyse and manipulate information, rather than just memorizing
it.
In summary, critical thinking skills will help you in both reading and writing, and enable you
to work effectively as an independent learner.
6
CHAPTER TWO
REASONING
Logic is the study of reasoning. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) founded logic as a system of principles
upon which all other knowledge rests. Logic pertains to all subjects; people can reason about
anything. Sometimes the reasoning is good. Sometimes it is not. People use logic to tell the
difference.
Reasoning is more than academic exercise. Gathering information, making decisions, and
carrying out plans all require reasoning. Good reasoning leads to accurate information, good
decision, and appropriate plans, whereas bad reasoning leads to inaccuracies, bad decisions,
and misguided plans.
Logic is not the study of how people do reason but how they should reason. It does not
describe the psychology of reasoning; Arithmetic describes the rules for addition rather than
the psychological process of reasoning but rules for correct reasoning. Logic describes an ideal
that actual reasoning sometimes fails to reach.
2.1 PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS
Arguments are bits of reasoning in language. Frequently, we think of arguments as conflicts.
They are however attempts at establishing a conclusion.
An argument begins with some assertions trying to justify a thesis. The initial assertions of the
arguments are its premises; the thesis the argument tries to justify is its conclusion.
An argument is a finite string of statements, called premises, together with another
statement, the conclusion, which the premises are taken to support.
Arguments consist of statements, sentences that can be true or false. A statement is true or false
in a particular context: as used on a particular occasion, by a particular speaker, to a particular
audience, in a given circumstance, a part of given discourse. Statements are true or false only
in a context.
7
2.1.1 CONCLUSIONS
The statements that make up an argument come in a particular order, whether the argument is
spoken or written. When we write an argument in a standard form, we list the premises in the
order in which they are given, and then list the conclusion. In addition we preface the
conclusion with “therefore”. So in official representations, conclusions always come last. This
is not true in natural language.
The conclusion is the main idea of an argument. It is what the writer tries to persuade the
reader to believe. Most often the conclusion comes at the end of the argument. The writer
organizes the facts and his opinions so that they build up to the conclusion. Sometimes,
however, the conclusion may appear at the beginning of an argument; in the middle; and
occasionally, for rhetorical effect, the conclusion is not even stated.
Example 1
If Esi has pneumonia, she needs penicillin and lots of rest. Esi does needs penicillin and lots of
rest. So, Esi has pneumonia
Here the first two sentences anticipate or set up the conclusion.
In English language, various words and phrases can signal the conclusion of an argument.
Following is a list of the most common conclusion indicators:
8
These conclusion flags are very helpful, but you must use them cautiously because many of
these words have other functions.
Example 2:
All devout Muslims abstain from alcohol. Steve is a devout Muslim. Thus, he abstains from
alcohol.
In this example, thus anticipates the conclusion that necessarily follows from the first two
sentences. Notice the different function of thus in the following argument.
Example 3:
We can conclude that you should do well, because you have talent and you are a hard worker.
Most often the conclusion of an argument is put in the form of a statement. Sometimes, however,
the conclusion is given as a command or obligation.
Example 3:
All things considered, you ought to vote.
Here, the author implies that you are obliged to vote.
Example 4:
Son, unless you go to college, you will not make a success of yourself. No Carnegie has ever
been a failure. So you will go to college.
Here the conclusion is given as an imperative command.
The conclusion can even be put in the form of a question. This rhetorical technique is quite
effective in convincing people that a certain position is correct. We are more likely to believe
something if we feel that we concluded it on our own, or at least if we feel that we were not
told to believe it. A conclusion put in question form can have this result.
9
Example 5:
The Nanuuts believe that they should not take from Nature anything she cannot replenish during
their lifetime. This assures that future generations can enjoy the same riches of Nature that they
have. At the current rate of destruction, the rain forests will disappear during our lifetime. Do
we have an obligation to future generations to prevent this result?
Here the author trusts that the power of her argument will persuade the reader to answer the
question affirmatively.
Example 6:
I can never be satisfied with anyone who will be blockhead enough to marry me. Therefore, I
shall never gain think of marrying.
Example 7:
Nobody saw what happened. If nobody witnessed it, nobody can testify. If nobody can testify,
you can’t be convicted. So, you can’t be convicted.
Example 8:
If the rains continues, there will be a real danger of floods. The rain will continue. Therefore,
flooding will be a real danger.
2.1.2 PREMISES
Once a conclusion has been found, most often everything else in the argument will be either
premises or “noise.” The premises provide evidence for the conclusion; they form the
foundation or infrastructure upon which the conclusion depends. In brief, the premises of an
argument are meant to support the conclusion.
To determine whether a statement is a premise, ask yourself whether it supports the conclusion.
If so, it’s a premise. Earlier we saw that writers use certain words to flag conclusions; likewise
writers use certain words to flag premises. Following is a partial list of the most common
premise indicators:
10
Premise indicators are very helpful. As with conclusion indicators, though, you must use them
cautiously because they have other functions. For example, since can indicate a premise, or it
can merely indicate time.
Example 1
John has been depressed since Mary left him.
Since here expresses not a logical relation but a relation in time.
Example 2
Since state legislatures will reapportion voting districts after the next census, control of those
legislatures will be hotly contested.
This is a simple argument. The word since indicates that we should take what follows it.
Example 3
Since the incumbent’s views are out of step with public opinion, he probably will not be
reelected.
Here since is used to flag the premise that the incumbent’s positions are unpopular.
11
2.1.3 ASSUMPTIONS OR UNSTATED PREMISES
Most arguments depend on one or more unstated premises. Sometimes this indicates a
weakness in the argument, or an oversight by the writer. More often, however, certain premises
are left tacit because they are too numerous, or the writer assumes that his audience is aware of
the assumptions, or he wants the audience to fill in the premise themselves and therefore be
more likely to believe the conclusion.
In general, there are three missing pieces to arguments. These are:
• Implied conclusions
• Unstated Premises/Assumptions
• Missing Connections
IMPLIED CONCLUSIONS
• As a critical thinker your task will be much easier if anytime someone made an
argument, the conclusion is explicitly stated. e.g. Therefore, I conclude that……
• This is not always the case.
• Unstated conclusions, compel the listener/reader to determine the conclusion. •
This might lead to unintended conclusion
Consider the following conversation between two friends about going to the university:
Sarah: Talks about the wealth of experience she has acquired and the programme she intends
to pursue.
Erica: The whole point of going to a university is to get a job; and the only jobs are history and
literature.
So what is Erica’s conclusion?
Erica is implying that, Sarah should not pursue her programme of choice, because, she will not
be able to get a job.
Unstated conclusions make it difficult to analyze an argument. It is risky, because it
might lead to unintended conclusions.
12
UNSTATED PREMISES
Implied conclusions are problematic, unstated premises are even more common. Sometimes
people fail to state the premise, because it seems so obvious.
Example
• Imagine you and your friend are going to a concert. When you get to the parking lot,
you notice a sign that says, “You must be 18 or older for this concert”. Suddenly,
you realized that you have left your I.D. at home.
• You exclaimed: “Oh no, you have to be at least 18 to get in”. We have to drive
back home, and we will be late for the concert.
• Your friend is confused. So he asked, “Why are we going to be late, because we are
already in the parking lot, and we are on time”.
Unstated Premise
• You need to show your I.D. to prove your age
• You left your I.D. at home
Do not assume that everyone knows the premises. You must explicitly state them.
Unstated premises can contain valuable information for determining the strength of an
argument.
Consider the following statement made by a professor:
• Allowing a student to take an exam at a later date, will give them more time than other
students to prepare for the exam. Therefore I do not allow make up exams under any
circumstance.
What premise is missing from this argument?
Unstated premise
• It is unfair to allow a student to have more preparation time than other students have.
• It may seem a reasonable assumption, but is it?
13
Any possible way to refute the premise, and hence undermine the argument?
• What if a student had a car accident, and had to spend the day of the exam in the
hospital?
• What if the student is in the armed forces, and had to go on an international assignment?
• Is it fair for that student, to get a failing grade on that exam?
Note the following:
• Remember, the objective of an argument is to offer the best possible answer to a
question or a problem.
• The goal of critical thinking is to analyze arguments to determine whether they are
strong or weak.
• If the analysis leads to weak or false arguments, critical thinking will help find ways of
improving the argument
• We can only do that, if we have all the premises are available
• This will make provision for alternate premises if necessary
• Do not assume that everyone knows the premises. You must explicitly state them
• Else others will fill in the blanks for you, and may not offer the premises intended
Further Examples
Example 1:
Conclusion: I knew he did it.
Premise: Only a guilty person would accept immunity from prosecution.
The suppressed premise is that he did, in fact, accept immunity.
Example 2:
Politician: A hawk should not be elected President because this country has seen too many
wars.
The argument has two suppressed premises—one obvious, the other not.
Clearly, the politician has labeled his opponent a hawk, and he hopes the audience will accept
that label. Furthermore, although he does not state it explicitly, the argument rests on the
14
assumption that a hawk is likely to start a war. He hopes the audience will fill in that premise,
thereby tainting his opponent as a warmonger.
Example 3:
I read it in a book, so it must be true.
The suppressed premise is that only the truth is published. Clearly this is not a reasonable
assumption
Example 4:
Any government action that intrudes on the right of privacy is unconstitutional. Therefore,
requiring government employees to take a drug test is unconstitutional.
The suppressed premise is that being forced to take a drug test is an invasion of privacy. This
is a reasonable assumption.
Example 5:
After studying assiduously for three months, Lucia retook the WASSCE and increased his score
by more than four hundred points. Therefore, the West African Examination Council canceled
her score.
The suppressed premise is that, extremely high score improvements indicate cheating.
2.2 VALIDITY AND STRENGTH
Some arguments are good; others are not. A good argument links its premises to its conclusion
in the right way. A special connection exists between the premises and the conclusion.
Arguments can reach their conclusions through either Deduction or Induction. They differ by
structure and strength of conclusion.
2.2.1 Deductive Argument
In a deductively valid argument, the truth of the premises does guarantee the truth of the
conclusion, otherwise it is inductive. If the premises are all true, then the conclusion has to be
true.
Deductive Argument consists of using general principles to infer specific propositions. That
is, it starts with something general to something specific.
15
Example 1
All Ghanaians are Africans.
Kwame is a Ghanaian.
Therefore, Kwame is an African.
Example 2
Mr. Asiedu always wears black shoes to work
Mr. Asiedu will be coming to work on Friday
Therefore Mr. Asiedu will wear black shoes on Friday
General principles are often indicated by words such as All, Always, Never, etc. While
specific propositions are often indicated words like some, most, proportions, often, usually,
etc.
A deductively valid argument can have true premises and a true conclusion, false conclusion,
or false premises and a true conclusion. But no deductively valid argument has true premise
and a false conclusion.
SOME DEDUCTIVELY VALID ARGUMENTS
TRUE PREMISES, FALSE PREMISES, FALSE PREMISES;
TRUE CONCLUSION FALSE CONCLUSION TRUE CONCLUSION
You can read. You are a duck. You are a duck.
All readers are mortal. All ducks eat dirt. All ducks can read.
Therefore, you are mortal. Therefore, you eat dirt. Therefore, you can read.
In deductively valid argument, whether the premises and conclusions are actually true or false
makes little difference to the validity of the argument. We evaluate deductive validity as if the
premises were true. What matters is that if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be
false.
16
2.2.2 Inductive Argument
Deductively valid arguments are only one species of good argument. Other arguments are
inductively strong (reliable). In an inductive argument, the author presents the premises as
evidence or reasons for the conclusion. The validity of the conclusion depends on how
compelling the premises are. Unlike deductive arguments, the conclusion of an inductive
argument is never certain. The truth of the conclusion can range from highly likely (probable)
to highly unlikely. In reasonable arguments, the conclusion is likely. In fallacious arguments,
it is improbable.
Inductive argument consist of using specific propositions to infer general principles. That is,
it starts with something specific to general principles. This is the opposite of deductive
argument.
Example 1:
Every crow that has been observed is black.
Therefore, all crows are black.
It is possible for the premise to be true while the conclusion is false. There may be white crows
that nobody has ever seen. Therefore, the conclusion of the argument is inductively
probable. However, it is deductively invalid.
Nevertheless, the premise lends some support to the conclusion. The argument is inductively
strong; how strong depends on the number of crows have been observed, among other things.
Inductively reliable arguments are very important in both scientific and every day reasoning.
In summary, in inductive argument, the acceptance of the conclusion depends on the
strength of the premises.
Example 2
Mr. Eshun wore black shoes to work on Monday
Mr. Eshun wore black shoes to work on Tuesday
Mr. Eshun wore black shoes to work on Wednesday
Mr. Eshun wore black shoes to work on Thursday
Therefore, Mr. Eshun always wears black shoes to work
17
Here, the conclusion is a general principle. For four days, Mr. Eshun wears black shoes to work.
The conclusion is probable as only one day is unaccounted for. However, because, Friday is
unaccounted for, we cannot be completely sure that the conclusion is true.
If Mr. Eshun wore black shoes on Friday, then the conclusion would be true, but we do not
have that information. He could have worn different colour of shoes, or no shoes at all.
Therefore, it is only a probabilistic conclusion.
In evaluating an inductive argument, it is important to address the following questions:
• Are the premises true or acceptable?
• Are the premises relevant to the issue at hand?
• Are the premised compelling enough to justify the conclusion?
This helps to evaluate how strong or weak an argument is.
Generally, a good argument should not only be valid or inductively strong but also have true
premises.
A sound argument has true premises and is deductively valid. Furthermore, since, in any valid
argument, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, it also has true
conclusion.
An argument is said to be sound if and only if, it is valid and all its premises are true
18
CHAPTER THREE
FLAWS/FALLACIES IN ARGUMENTS
A good argument generally presents premises to provide evidence for a conclusion that follows
from those premises and to which the premises are relevant in context.
In general, a fallacy is a kind of bad argument. Fallacies in an argument are elements of faulty
reasoning that weaken the argument and may even make it invalid.
Recall that some good arguments are inductively strong rather than deductively valid. If their
premises are true, their conclusions are probable but not guaranteed. Some fallacies are
common inductive errors.
3.1 Hasty Generalization
To draw conclusions about a kind or large class of things, we typically examine some of them.
If we choose carefully which and how many things to sample, our conclusions may be highly
reliable. If we do not, however, our conclusions may be unreliable. We may sample too few
objects, or the objects we examine, may not be representative of the entire population. In such
case, we commit the fallacy of hasty generalization.
3.2 False Cause and Effect
Fallacies of causal reasoning occur frequently in our daily discourse. This fallacy involves
drawing conclusion simply based on:
i) The temporal ordering of events (one event occurring after the other) and
ii) The correlation between the occurrences of two events (both event generally
occurred together).
A significant correlation or temporal relationship between two events is one indication of a
cause-and-effect relationship between them. However, neither in itself prove such a
relationship. The correlation may be just coincidence.
19
3.3 Confusing Necessary Conditions with Sufficient Conditions.
A is necessary for B means “B cannot occur without A.” A is sufficient for B means “A causes
B to occur, but B can still occur without A.” For example, a small tax base is sufficient to cause
a budget deficit, but excessive spending can cause a deficit even with a large tax base. A
common fallacy is to assume that a necessary condition is sufficient to cause a situation. For
example, to win a modern war it is necessary to have modern, high-tech equipment, but it is
not sufficient, as Iraq discovered in the Persian Gulf War.
I will not have to work so hard if I go to my first tutorial. TTU statistics show that students who
attend the first tutorial are more likely to pass the course. The statistics say that attending the
first makes you likely to pass the course. I will attend the tutorial and feel confident that that
will secure me success.
The example given above is a flawed argument. There are statistics that suggest students who
attend the first tutorial are more likely to pass the course and this feels factual. However, be
careful of attaching a cause and effect relationship to this. The writer believes that mere
attendance secures success.
This makes the argument imbalanced because it has not explored adequately other reasons why
the association between success and attending the first tutorial exists. Is it likely that, given the
aim of university education to produce students who can discuss a subject authoritatively with
their peers, merely showing up at a classroom will ensure those students a pass? No … it is
more likely that attendance will allow them an opportunity to listen to and think about useful
discussions and explanations. Attendance in itself does not guarantee good marks. So the
warrant does no link the evidence logically to the claim being made. In order to think about
this argument critically, you would ask the following questions:
• What else contributes to success?
• What are the characteristics of students who attend tutorials? For example, do they have
more time to study and is this the factor that gives them the edge?
• What is it about tutorials that may make a difference? Could this be achieved another
way?
20
3.4 False/Weak Analogy
An argument might draw a conclusion about one thing based on observation about similar
thing. In doing so, however, the argument assumes that because the things are similar in certain
respects, they are similar in all respects. Unless sufficient evidence is provided to substantiate
this assumption, the argument is vulnerable to criticism.
Medical experimentation on animals, for instance, is based on such reasoning. The argument
goes like this: the metabolism of pigs, for example, is similar to that of humans, and high doses
of saccharine cause cancer in pigs. Therefore, high doses of saccharine probably cause cancer
in humans.
Clearly, the greater the similarity between the two things being compared, the stronger the
argument will be. Also, the less ambitious the conclusion, the stronger the argument will be.
The argument above would be strengthened by changing probably to may. It can be weakened
by pointing out the dissimilarities between pigs and people.
21