ADVANCED READING

Chapter 2: Issue
- Issue: An issue is a question or controversy responsible for the conversion or discussion.
It is the stimulus for what is being said
- Kind of issue:
+ Descriptive issues: those that raise questions about the accuracy of descriptions of
the past, present, or future. ( Hỏi đúng sai, kiểu yes no question)
Eg: Does musical training improve a person’s ability to learn math?
+ Prescriptive issues: those that raise questions about what we should
do or what is right or wrong, good or bad (Gợi lên để trả lời)
Eg: Should intelligent design be taught in the public schools?

Chapter 3: Conclusion, what are the reasons?

- Conclusion: A conclusion is the message that the speaker or writer wishes you to accept

- Reasons: Beliefs, evidence, metaphors (ẩn dụ), analogies (phép loại suy) and other
statements offered to support or justify conclusions. They are the logic for why the
conclusion make sense

+ Metaphor: ẩn dụ, implied comparison between two seemingly dissimilar

things, not using “like” or “as” (You are my sunshine/He attacked my ideas)
+ Analogy: In critical thinking, analogies are used to make a point about the
similarity (motorists who kill people through reckless driving should be
given a life sentence just like a murderer. The outcome is the same: a dead
person)

 How to identify reasons?

Words that identify reasons:
+ because
+ because of
+ as a result of
+ is supported by
+ studies show that
+ for the reason that
 + because the evidence is
+…
 Reason & Reasoning: Reasoning is the process of thinking about things in a logical way;
giving opinions and ideas that are based on logical thinking

- Treat any idea that seems to be used to support the conclusion as a reason, even if you
don’t believe it actually provides the support

- Argument: An argument = Reason(s) + Conclusion

Sometime an argument will consist of a single reason and a conclusion. However, often several
reasons will be offered to support the conclusion.
- Characteristic of arguments:
+ They have two essential components: A conclusion and reasons
+ They have intent( ý định )
+ Their quality varies

Chapter 4: Ambiguity ( mo ho )
- Ambiguity: refers to the existence of multiple possible meanings for a word, phrase or
sentence
In argument, ambiguity should be avoid
How to locate ambiguity in arguments:
+ Review the issues for possible key terms (words that must be clarified
before you can decide to agree or disagree with the communicator)
+ Look for key terms within the reasons and conclusions (the argument)
+ Keep an eye out for abstract words and phrases (reflect ideas or
characteristics or qualities - love, hate, success,...)
+ Use reverse role - playing to determine how someone might define certain
words and phrases differently
Checking for ambiguity
+ Don’t assume you and the author mean the same thing
+ Don’t assume that terms have a single obvious definition

Chapter 5+6: Descriptive assumptions

- Assumption: An assumption is an unstated belief that supports the explicit reasoning. An
assumption is a missing reason that supports the conclusion
- Assumption are:
+ Hidden or unstated
+ Taken for granted
+ Influential in determining the conclusion
+ Potentially deceptive
- Descriptive assumptions: are the unstated beliefs about the way the world is, was or will
become. They are the links that make the reasoning make sense. So, If the descriptive
assumptions are not supported, the conclusions cannot be drawn from the provided
reasons
- Value assumptions:
+ Value: abstract ideas that we think are worthwhile
+ Value conflict: occur when individual or groups of pp hold strong personal beliefs
that are in disagreement. ( finds your friend cheating, should you report to the teacher?
( loyalty >< honesty))
- Value assumptions: is the preference for a particular value/values. Value
assumption impacts one’s conclusion (value A is more important than
value B)
- Note: Value priorities/assumptions are contextual. They apply in one setting,
but they may be changed when the specific of the prescriptive issue
changes

- How to locate assumptions?

Step 1: Identify the structure of the argument
Step 2: Notice the concepts which occur in the reasons, but not the conclusion and vice versa
Step 3: Bridge the gap between the reasons and the conclusion

NOTES:
- Nếu đề có research thì thường sẽ có 1 assumption là “a research is reliable”
- Nếu đề so sánh 2 nhóm thì sẽ có 1 assumption là 2 nhóm đó chỉ khác nhau
ở 1 điểm
- Nếu k làm 1 việc A vì lý do B, thì sẽ có 1 assumption là việc A nên xảy ra
CLUES FOR FINDING DESCRIPTIVE ASSUMPTIONS:
- Thinking abt the gap between the conclusion and reasons (If the reason is
true, what else must be true for the conclusion to follow? Suppose the
reason is true, is there any way in which the conclusion nevertheless could
be false?)
- Look for unstated ideas that support reasons
- Identify with the writers or speakers
- Identify with the opposition
- Recognize the potential existence of other means of attaining the
advantage referred in the reasons

CLUES FOR FINDING VALUE ASSUMPTIONS:

- Check the background of the author
- Examine the reasons given in support of a conclusion and determine which
value priorities would lead to these reasons
- Examine the magnitude of a consequence as it can also affect value
preference
- Reverse role-play
- Look for common value conflicts

Chapter 7: Evidence
- Evidence: is explicit information shared by the communicator that is used to backup or to
justify the dependability of a factual claim
Descriptive argument (descriptive issue - yes no) => evidence will be needed to directly
support a descriptive conclusion

Prescriptive arguments: evidence will be needed to support reasons that are factual
claims.

- Characteristics of high-quality evidences:

+ Relevant
+ Sufficient
+ Representative
+ Recent
+ Accurate

b. Major kinds of evidence:

- Personal observations
- Personal experience: not enough to give us a representative sample of experiences.
Personal experiences often lead us to commit the Hasty generalization fallacy.
- Testimonials: selectivity, personal interest, omitted information, the human
factor
- Case examples: detailed description of one or several individuals or events
to support a conclusion. Such descriptions are usually based on observations or
interviews.
 - Authorities: people who are supposed to know more than most of us about a given
topic, so-called experts.
- Personal observations: looking around, talking to people and note down the information,
go to the area where activities take place and watching what is occurring
- Research studies:
+ Definition:
●Research studies use special procedures to reduce errors in observations and in the
interpretation of research findings.
●Research studies seek information in the form of publicly verifiable data ( data obtained
under conditions such that other qualified people can make similar observations and see
whether they get the same results)
●Research studies use precise language.
+ Problems :
●Research varies greatly in quality; we should rely more on some research studies than
others. + Research findings often contradict one another.
●Research findings do not prove conclusions. Findings can be interpreted in more than
one way. Thus, researchers' conclusions should not be treated as demonstrated "truths."
*Researchers have expectations, attitudes, values, and needs

- Analogy:
+ Analytic thinking: slow, logical, conscious, deliberate
+ If these two things are alike in one respect, then they will probably be alike in other
respects as well.
+ To evaluate the quality of an analogy, you need to focus on two factors:
●The number of ways the two things being compared are
similar or different.
●The relevance of the similarities and the lack of relevant
differences (whether they support the conclusion

Chapter 8: Fallacy
- Common reasoning trick:
+ provide wrong reasons or incorrect assumptions
+ distracting us by making information seem relevant to the conclusion when it is
not
+ arguing in a circle (instead of supporting the conclusion, the speaker/writer
assumes the conclusion is true

Types of Types of fallacies Definition Example

reasoning
trick

Arguing in Begging the An argument in which Reading a traditional

a circle question the conclusion is textbook is superior to
assumed in the reading E-texts in learning
reasoning. effectiveness because it is
Kết luận được giả định highly advantageous for
trong lập luận, ko đưa learning to have materials
ra đc lý do vì lí do made available in a text
giống kết luận format.

Provide Ad populum The arguer appeals to Because a majority of

reasoning (Bandwagon) the sheer number of Americans believe in UFOs,
that persons who agree with they must exist!
requires the belief or to the That many people can’t be
erroneous popularity of the belief wrong!
or incorrect as evidence that it is
assumption true.
s Nhiều người tin điều đó
nên nó đúng

Overgeneralization Vơ đũa cả nắm. Người The only redheads I know

viết quy chụp đại đa số are rude. Therefore, all
trường hợp có đặc điểm redheads must have bad
A sẽ như B trong khi manners.
mới chỉ gặp vài TH như
thế

Đưa ra 2 khả năng có Either go to college or forget

Either - Or/ False
thể xảy about

Dilemma ra, nếu k A thì sẽ B để making money.

khuyên chọn cái A, nma
thra đó kp 2 knang duy
nhất

Slippery Slope Nếu A xảy ra thì B, C, D If we allow gay marriage, the

sẽ xảy ra cho tới Z. Z là next thing we know, people will
 thứ k nên xảy ra => A k want to marry their dogs, or
nên xảy ra their cats, or what about their
pigs?

Wishful This fallacy occurs when Coach says that a curfew is not
thinking you assume that the way needed since his players should
you want things to be is know how to take care of
the way they are. themselves physically.
Bạn muốn nó là gì thì nó
sẽ là
như thế

Distract us Ad Hominem An attack on the person, Sara is divorced, so whatever

by making (Attacking the rather than directly relationship advice she gives
information person) addressing the person’s you can’t be goof
seem reasons.
relevant to Phản đối mà ko có lí do
the
conclusion Circumstantial Đưa ra rằng nghề nghiệp/ Professor Michaelson has
when it ad hominem sở thích/ tôn giáo/… của argued in favor of academic
isn’t họ đã ảnh hưởng đến tenure. But why should we even
conclusion của họ nên listen to Professor Michaelson?
nhất định cái conclusion As a tenured professor, of
đấy là biased and false. course he supports tenure.

Tu quoque You’re telling me to stop

Bạn cũng làm thế, nên
(You too) speeding on the highway?
bạn không được phản đối
You’ve received more speeding
tôi làm thế
tickets than I have.

Red Herring When the arguer changes Environmentalists are

the subject and takes the continually harping about the
listener down a different, dangers of nuclear power.
unrelated path. Unfortunately, electricity is
Người nói thay đổi chủ dangerous no matter where it
đề và đưa người nghe comes from. Every year
vào một con đường khác hundreds of people are
ko liên quan electrocuted by accident. Since
most of the accidents are
caused by carelessness, they
 could be avoided if people
would just exercise greater
caution.

Straw man Mr. Goldberg has argued

Distorting our opponent’s
against prayer in public
point of view so that it is
schools. Obviously Mr.
easy to attack; thus we
Goldberg advocates atheism.
attack a point of view that
But atheism is what they used
does not truly exist.
to have in Russia. Atheism
Làm sai lệch quan điểm
leads to the suppression of all
của đối thủ để có thể dễ
religions and the replacement of
dàng tấn
God by an

công chứ ko phải tranh omnipotent state. Is that what we

luận về vấn đề đưa want for this country? I hardly
ra( chuyển hướng nhưng think so. Clearly Mr. Goldberg’s
vẫn có liên argument is nonsense.
quan đến vấn đề)

Other Appeals to The arguer tries to get you So you’re an animal rights
force/fear to accept their view on the activist. I’d consider changing
grounds that you will be my views if I were you because
harmed if you don’t. They most of us here on the prairies
use attempts to motivate are beef farmers and we don’t
you from fear rather than care too much for your kind.
logically persuade you.
Người tranh luận sẽ gieo
rắc nỗi sợ cho bạn, nếu
bạn ko làm thì điều đó sẽ
gây hại cho bạn. Hơn là
việc đưa ra lý do hợp lí để
thuyết phục

Appeals to Người tranh luận cố gắng I really need you to give me an A

pity khiến bạn chấp nhận quan in this course. I know I didn’t do
điểm của họ với lý do rằng that well, but an average grade
họ sẽ bị tổn hại nếu bạn ko will bring my grade point
đồng ý
 Ngược lại vs appeals to average down
fear

Appeal to Supporting a conclusion by “I’d better eat my Wheaties.

questionable citing an authority who Micheal Jordan says that it’s the
authority lacks special expertise on breakfast of champions.”
the issue at hand.
Đưa ra một sự ủng hộ từ
những người có chuyên
môn về vấn đề đang thảo
luận nma thra nó thiếu căn
cứ

False analogy Hai sự việc có tính tương If we can put a man on the moon,
đồng nhưng ý nghĩa lại why can’t we find the cure for
không giống nhau nên ko the common cold?
thể suy xét giống nhau

Equivocation Chuyển nghĩa của term Insane people are considered not
sang 1 responsible for their actions.
cái khác. Đánh tráo khái Your poor driving habits show a
niệm ý ỳ serious lack
of responsibility, so you must be
insane.

Poisoning the The writer use

“Before I yield the floor to the
well biased
next speaker, I must remind you
language (either positive or
that those who oppose my plan
negative) to support their
do not have the best interests of
views rather than offering
working
evidence
people in their hearts.”
Arguers poison the well
when

they discredit an opponent

or an opposing view in
advance.

Glittering The use of vague, Coach said to possible

emotionally appealing supporters, "We have the greatest
 Generality virtue words that dispose team ever and it deserves your
us to approve something support.“
without closely examining
the reasons.
Dựa vào cảm xúc và sự hấp
dẫn để quyết định tán thành
chứ ko xem xét kỹ lưỡng lí
do

Two wrong an arguer attempts to I don’t feel guilty about cheating

make a right justify a wrongful act by on [Link]’s test. Half the class
claiming that some other cheats on his tests.
act is just as bad or worse.

Chapter 9: Rival causes ( Xác định fallacie thường là kết quả do 1 nguyên nhân khác ->
xác định những trường hợp có nguyên nhân khác)
- A rival cause is a plausible alternative explanation ( lời giải thích hợp lí khác )
that can explain why a certain outcome occurred.
- The more rival causes there are, the less certain a causal claim is.
- Fallacy of the single cause: Wrongly pre supporting that an event has a single
cause when there are many causally relevant factors involve - Other problems related to
causal reasoning:
+ Inferring that X causes Y just because X is followed by Y => Post hoc fallacy ( after the
event) ("Last time I wore these red pants I got hit by a car. It must be the red pants bring
bad luck.“)
+ Neglect of a common cause: sometimes 2 events may be related because of the effects
+ Confusing cause and effect - Assuming that X causes Y without considering the
possibility that Y is the cause of X.
+ Is A the only reason for B? (oversimplification)
CLUE FOR FINDING RIVAL CAUSES:
- Khi có research so sánh những nhóm khác nhau, nhớ rằng có rất nhiều yếu tố
khiến những groups đó khác nhau
- Do not confuse causation (nhân quả) with association (sự kết hợp/song song):
+ Confusing the cause with the effect of an event or failing to recognize that the two
events may be influencing each other ( confusion of cause and effect)
+ Failure to recognize that the two events may be related because of the effects of a
common third factor (neglect of a common cause) - Do not confuse “after this” with
“because of this” - Be careful of common psychological errors:
+ The tendency to see the cause of others’ behavior as coming from within (their personal
characteristics) rather than from without (situation forces)
+ Start with a number of possible causes and then interpret additional information (even
if it is irrelevant) as supporting these existing hypotheses

Chapter 10: Statistic deceptive Problem with statistics:

- measurement errors
- unknowable and biased statistics
- confusing averages
- concluding one thing, proving another
- deceiving by omitting information
a. Type of averages:
- The mean: cộng tca giá trị r chia tbinh
- The mode: đếm và tìm giá trị xuất hiện nhiều nhất
- The median: list các giá trị từ thấp đến cao r lấy giá trị ở giữa
b. Conclude 1 thing, proving another
Dùng dữ liệu A để prove dữ liệu B, mặc dù A dẫn đến C chứ kp B.
Eg: You are highly likely to have your smart phone stolen if you ride on our city’s
subway. I just read a statistic that said that electronic gadgets account for 70 percent of
the thefts on the subway system.
70% vụ trộm ở subway là trộm thiết bị điện tử => trong số các món đồ bị trộm thì thiết
bị điện tử là nhiều nhất. Vẫn có khả năng số ca trộm rất ít, chỉ là trong số ít ca đấy thì đa
phần là tbi điện tử. Người viết lại dùng số liệu => nếu mang dthoai thì sẽ bị trộm =>
wrong. Số liệu k prove cái đấy
c. Deceiving by omitting information:
Large businesses are destroying the small town feel of our downtown area. Just last year,
the number of large businesses in the city increased by 75 percent.
d. Relative change vs. absolute change : + Relative changes on small numbers often
look big. + Relative changes on big numbers often look small. => Explore both relative
and absolute changes when looking at data
 Chapter 11: Omitted information
Significant omitted information is missing information that shapes the reasoning.
Information that is often omitted:
- Value preference
- Origin of facts
- Counter arguments
- Positive or negative effects
- Missing or incomplete graphs and data
- Definitions
- Prediction of failure
Omitted information is not always an attempt to deceive. ( thông tin bị bỏ qua kp lúc nào
cũng để lừa gạt)

Baì thi GK
1. Xác đinh đâu là argument đâu là non-argument. Chỉ ra tp cơ bản issue
conclusion reason evidence
2. Chỉ ra assumption. Dựa vào language gap/ các loại argument phổ biến, sẽ có các
assumption tiêu biểu/ tìm các ass ảnh hưởng đến reason / xác đinh fallacies ->
chỉ ra ass
3. Fallacies

Evaluating analogies
To evaluate the quality of an analogy, you need to focus on 2 factors:
- The number of ways the two things being compared are similar or different
- The relevance of similarities and differences ( whether they support the conclusion )
 What significant information is omitted ?

BT vd:
1,
- What are the components of the cleanser?
- What the actual feedback of customers?
- How many product have been sold?

2,
-

PRACTICE
1,
A, key assumptions:
- The hours of sleep impact positive to the SAT score
- Sleeping hours is the only reason that make Suzanne have higher SAT score
- There are no others factors affect the score instead of the changes of sleeping hours
B key assumptions
- Lowering the speed limit can decrease accidents on roadways
- The high speed is the reason causes fatal accidents on roadways
- The current speed limit causes more accidents on roadways
C key assumptions
- Going to the church can reduce stress in modern life
- Our parents go to the church more than us
2,
A, Fallacy: Two wrongs make a right
Explain: The speaker point out that Clinton having extramarital affairs and we can hardly blame
him just because many presidents when faced with similar situations have yielded to the same
temptation. This is unacceptable bcuz what Clinton did is wrong and we should critize it not just
skip it and normalize it due to others wrongdoing by others presidents in the past
B, Fallacy: Overgeneralization
Explain: Japan have been dropped bombs 2 times but still have great economy due to many
factors:…. And it has been the past, currently many countries have more powerful nuclear bombs
that can erase the whole country with 1 bomb. So author said that “all the concern…nonsense” is
lack of evidence, stastistic,… Japan is one of an unique instance, not like others country.
C, Fallacy: Red heering
Explain: Although the evidence and theory explain the connection between the academic
achievements and teaching method in class, the conclusion is talk about the increase the numbers
of girls entering higher education to study math. There are no certain points that girls good at
maths will learn math in higher education.

3
Conclusion: Hinds Community College is a wonderful place to go to college
Issue: Does Hind Community College is a good place to study?
Reason:
- Hind is more affordable than many others college
- Have a good ratio of teachers to student due to small class size
- Students receive an excellent, high-quality education
Assumptions:
- Small class size makes a better proportion of students to faculty lead students to better
educational outcomes.
 This assumption may not be true bcuz there still other students prefer larger space,
working independently to perform better. The assumption does not consider the
student needs and preferences
- The professors at Hinds focus mainly on teaching, not research so this can lead to high
quality teaching.
 This assumption may not be true bcuz mainly focus on teaching does not equal to
better overall educational quality. Faculty base on research can also have great
knowledge and teaching skills to help students perform better. Thus, this assumption
oversimplify the connection between faculty roles and educational outcomes.
Fallacy:
1, Begging the question: The articles overall emphasize that Hinds is a great, excellent, high-
quality education but without any proof. All we know is affordable fee, student-faculty ratio,
there are no evidence such as facilities, what it the prominent achievement,… Without those
stastisic, data it is still doubtful that Hind is actually a good school.

2, Hasty generalization: The articles put the positive experience of 1 student to over other
students, which maynot accurately reflect the experience of the whole student body

Evidence:
1, The whole evidence being used in the articles are personal experience so it not enough to give
us a representative experience
2, The evidence: “when I transferred …Hinds student” is not fully reliable because other factors
will affect the academic transition not only because you hail from Hinds. It could be your
performance, ability to adapt,… This testimonial kind of evidence isn’t represent for the whole
college

Rival causes:
- 1, Success can come from other factors such as motivation or
background, not specifically because of Hindsn.
- 2, Hinds provides the a first-rate educational experience because of
their facilities, services,.. not only because the educational quality

Ommited information:

1, The argument lacks detailed comparative data between Hinds and other
colleges, particularly regarding tuition fees, educational outcomes and long-
term success of graduates. For example, some other colleges and
universities may have slightly higher tuition fees, but provide better financial
support, scholarships, facilities and resources, so lower tuition fee might not
play a significant role in college decision-making.

2, What does “go above and beyond” to help students mean? It doesn’t show
the quality and the actual efforts of teachers, just bias and lack of
information.