Scribd
Upload
8 views4 pages

Understanding Kettle Logic Fallacy

critical thinking 4

Uploaded by

Dr. Abdallahi A. Yusuf
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views4 pages

Understanding Kettle Logic Fallacy

critical thinking 4

Uploaded by

Dr. Abdallahi A. Yusuf
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Chapter Four

Critical Thinking and Assessing Arguments

4-1: Strategies for Assessing Arguments

Every argument, as we saw in section 3.1, supports its conclusion by making


a double claim:

(a) that its premises are true and

(b) that its premises support its conclusion.

Whenever we assess an argument, we are really only asking whether these


claims are true.

An argument makes a kind of promise; assessing an argument is asking


whether it can make good on its promise.

A good argument is one that does what it claims to do, and a bad argument is
one that fails to do what it claims to do.

But how are we to tell whether an argument has made good on its promise?

Philosophers have developed two approaches for assessing arguments.

1) The first and more traditional is the fallacies approach, in which we


identify all the specific fallacies (or mistakes) that an argument can make
and then ask whether a given argument commits any of these fallacies. If
it commits none of them, it will be a good argument, and if it commits
one or more of them, it will be a bad argument.
2) The second is the criterial approach in which we appeal to the criteria, or
standards, that a good argument must satisfy and ask whether a given
argument meets these criteria. If it meets them all, it will be a good
argument, and if it fails to meet one or more of them, it will be a bad
argument85.

4-1-1: The Fallacies Approach

For our purposes we can define a fallacy as any error or weakness that
detracts from the soundness of an argument, yet somehow manages to disguise
this weakness so as to give the argument the appearance of being better than it
really is.

For example, one traditional fallacy is the appeal to pity, as in:

Jane is a widow with three teenage children living in a two bedroom


basement apartment. Therefore, her employer should promote her to
supervisor.

Whether Jane should be promoted depends upon whether she has the
qualification sand experience to be a good supervisor. The fact that she is a
widow with three teenage children living in a two-bedroom basement apartment
says nothing about her qualifications as a supervisor. But if someone can arouse
our sympathies for Jane, we may want her to be promoted for reasons that have
nothing to do with the qualifications necessary for the job. Since the pity we
naturally feel is irrelevant to the question whether she should be promoted, the
appeal to pity is fallacious.

One problem with the fallacies approach is that there is no limit to the
number of ways in which an argument can be weak.

4-1-2: The Criterial Approach


The criterial approach, unlike the fallacies approach, is positive in nature. It
begins by establishing the criteria that a good argument must satisfy and then
uses these criteria as the basis for assessing particular arguments.

- The three criteria of a sound argument

 The requirement that a sound argument must have true premises is the basis
for our first criterion for a sound argument: it should have true premises.
 Logical strength, the second requirement for a sound argument, gives rise
to our second and third criteria. The second is that the premises must be
relevant to the conclusion.
 The logical strength requirement also gives rise to our third criterion,
namely, that the premises must be adequate to support the conclusion.

Thus there are three different criteria that a sound argument must meet:
(1) The premises must be acceptable.

(2) The premises must be relevant.

(3) The premises must be adequate.

Notice how in moving from (1) to (2) to (3) the criteria become more
complex.

4-2-: Seven Rules for Assessing Arguments

At this point it will be useful to present a set of rules that should be


followed whenever an argument is being assessed.

Rule 1. Identify the main Conclusion

The way to identify the main conclusion should be familiar by now:


(1) Look for the main point of the passage, by asking, what is the author driving
at?

(2) Look for inference indicators, such as therefore, hence, so, consequently.
And so on.

(3) Pay attention to the context and background for clues as to what

the argument is all about.

(4) Bear in mind the principle of charity when interpreting an ambiguous


conclusion or when supplying a missing conclusion.

Rule 2. Identify the Premises

Rule 3. Identify the Structure of the argument

Rule 4. Check the Acceptability of the Premises

Two warnings should be mentioned here.

1) First, if the argument is intended to be a counterfactual argument


2) Second, we need to note that a false premise does not always deprive the
conclusion of all support.

Rule 5. Check the Relevance of the Premises

Rule 6. Check the adequacy of the premises

Rule 7. Look for counter-arguments

Finally, we should look for counter-arguments. A counter-argument attempts to


show that our opponent’s conclusion is false or problematic by constructing a
different argument altogether to support a conclusion that is inconsistent with the
original conclusion.

Common questions

Powered by AI

Rule 7, which involves looking for counter-arguments, is significant in assessing arguments because it encourages the examination of alternative perspectives and potential weaknesses in the original argument. Constructing counter-arguments helps identify areas where the original argument may fail to account for all relevant factors, thus providing a more comprehensive evaluation of its validity and potentially fortifying the argument against criticism .

When evaluating whether an argument satisfies the adequacy criterion, one should consider the sufficiency and strength of the premises in genuinely supporting the conclusion. This involves assessing whether the premises encompass enough relevant information and logical strength to substantiate the conclusion thoroughly. It's important to determine if any additional support is needed and whether the premises inherently possess the capacity to lead to the conclusion plausibly .

One key challenge of applying the fallacies approach to argument assessment is the limitless nature of errors that can make an argument weak, making it difficult to comprehensively catalog and identify all potential fallacies. Additionally, some fallacies may be subtle and not immediately apparent, requiring significant astuteness to detect. The focus on errors also tends to be negative, which might overlook structures that could potentially be reformed into strong arguments through constructive analysis .

A false premise might not necessarily deprive the conclusion of all support because the validity of an argument depends on the logical relations between premises rather than the truth of each individual premise. In some cases, even if one premise is false, other premises might still adequately support the conclusion, maintaining some degree of argument strength despite the flawed premise .

The criteria for assessing a sound argument increase in complexity as follows: the first criterion, that premises must be true, is fundamental and straightforward. The second criterion, requiring relevance of premises to the conclusion, introduces complexity by necessitating an evaluation of the connection and pertinence between premises and conclusion. The third criterion, that premises must be adequate to support the conclusion, is most complex, demanding a judgment on the sufficiency of the premises to substantiate the conclusion fully, integrating both elements of truth and relevance .

The criterial approach is deemed more positive because it focuses on establishing and verifying whether an argument fulfills specific standards or criteria for soundness, rather than detecting errors or fallacies. This method emphasizes constructing strong arguments by ensuring premises are true, relevant, and adequate, effectively guiding how arguments are built and assessed .

The fallacies approach can disguise weaknesses in arguments by allowing inherent logical or factual errors to be masked by elements that superficially enhance the argument's appeal, such as emotional manipulation or rhetorical devices. For instance, an appeal to pity might divert attention from a lack of logical basis by evoking sympathy, thereby creating an illusion of strength while the argument lacks substantive support for its conclusion .

The fundamental difference between the fallacies approach and the criterial approach in assessing arguments lies in their methodology. The fallacies approach identifies specific errors or weaknesses (fallacies) within an argument that detract from its soundness while often making it appear stronger than it is. In contrast, the criterial approach is more constructive and involves determining whether an argument meets established criteria for soundness: true premises, relevance of premises to the conclusion, and adequacy of premises to support the conclusion .

The principle of charity plays a crucial role in assessing the main conclusion of an argument by instructing evaluators to interpret ambiguous conclusions or missing components in the most rational and coherent manner possible. By considering the strongest possible version of an argument, the principle helps avoid misinterpretations and ensures a fair assessment of the argument's validity and soundness, especially when dealing with subtle nuances and complexities in argumentation .

To identify the structure of an argument, one should methodically lay out the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. This involves determining which statements serve as premises, elucidating how these premises logically support the conclusion, and discerning the inferential pathways leading from premises to conclusion. Doing so allows for clarity and understanding of how the argument is constructed and whether it adheres to logical principles .

You might also like