PHI1101 (Reasoning and Critical Thinking)
Vincent Bergeron
CHAPTER 2 (EVALUATING ARGUMENTS)
In a simple argument, you infer a conclusion from the premises. The main two
questions to ask are thus:
1. Are the premises good?
2. Is the inference (reasoning) good?
Answers to 1 and 2 are completely independent.
Premises
The earth is roughly spherical in shape.
2+2=4
Brazil is in the southern hemisphere.
Sumo wrestlers are great marathon runners.
The United States spends far more on food stamps than on the military.
The water in Lake Superior is pleasantly warm in January.
Within the next ten years, scientists will discover a cure for AIDS.
The most common cause of accidental death in Canada is automobile
accidents.
Koodo offers the cheapest cell-phone service in Ontario.
1
Reasoning
Joe has two dollars and Samantha has three. So between them they have
five.
Joanne is a Libra. So she must have a good job.
There are more than 60 people in this room. So it is close to certain that
at least two of them have the same birthday.
Four possibilities
1. Good premises and good reasoning
2. Good premises and bad reasoning
3. Bad premises and good reasoning
4. Bad premises and bad reasoning
Evaluating premises
Premises are often not certainly true or certainly false, so we look for
rational acceptability. We can ask:
Is it reasonable to accept this claim?
Often a matter of degree, so we have degrees of acceptance
For example, each of the following statements indicates a different level
of commitment or non-commitment to the claim that Smith will lose the
election:
There can be no doubt that Smith will lose the election.
Smith will almost certainly lose the election.
It is very likely that Smith will lose the election.
Smith will probably lose the election.
Smith may lose the election.
It is at least possible that Smith will lose the election.
2
How certain do you have to be? It depends on the circumstances and it’s often a
matter of evaluating the risks and benefits of the situation.
e.g., It won’t rain tomorrow
e.g., The plane won’t crash
Scope of claims
Particular claims: state that one or more things or individuals of a certain
kind have a certain property.
Some foods are nutritious
There is only one apple in the basket
Several people will have the flu this year
At least one student will get an A+ in this class
General claims: the statement is made about a more substantial number
of things or individuals of a certain kind.
Many mammals live on land
Most cars are safe these days
All crows are black
80% of students are 22 or younger
Universal generalizations: a claim about all things of a certain kind.
All cats are mammals
All Japanese cars are reliable
Nobody is perfect
No woman has ever been President of the USA
3
Universal generalizations can be refuted by one counterexample
Can you refute the following claims by counterexample? If so, do so. If not,
explain why not. (p 27)
6. All mammals can fly.
7. Some professional hockey players are fully-qualified brain surgeons.
8. Many politicians have law degrees.
9. Nuclear power is a completely safe form of electricity generation.
10. All of Canada’s Prime Ministers have come from Quebec.
11. Not all diseases can be treated by antibiotics.
12. Several members of the Canadian parliament don’t hold university
degrees.
3. Only mammals are warm blooded.
13. Some planets in our solar system have several moons.
15. Only one planet in our solar system has rings.
Sources of information (what to watch for)
Overconfidence or false confidence
Incompetence or ignorance
Bias or fraud
Popularity of a claim is no guarantee of the claim’s truth
4
Experts and authorities
Doctors
Lawyers
Mechanics
Fortune tellers
Astrologers
Homeopaths
Common knowledge
Common knowledge for a group might not be for another group (e.g.
different cultures, age groups)
Some “common knowledge” for a group might not be knowledge at all!
(e.g. homeopaths)
So, we must distinguished between knowledge and beliefs
Inconsistency: a set of claims is inconsistent if it is not possible for all them to be
true.
Are the following sets of claims consistent? (p. 31)
1. Able and Baker only ever go to the pub together, and the same holds
for Baker and Charlie. Yet only one of the three went to the pub.
2. Peters won’t get into law school unless she performs well on the LSAT
and gets good letters of reference. She will get good letters of reference,
and she will perform well on the LSAT. Still, she won’t get into
law school.
5. Three reliable witnesses claim Smedley was in Toronto on the night of
the 25th. The crime was committed in Toronto on the night of the 25th.
Smedley says he was in Montreal all day. Smedley committed the crime.
5
Evaluating reasoning
Reasoning is usually guided by general principles
Sometimes, principles are stated in one sentence
e.g., only females have babies
Sometimes, principles are state by the logical form of the inference
If Sarah just got out of the pool, her hair is wet
Her hair is wet
-------------------------------------------------------------
So, she just got out of the pool
The following arguments are fairly interpreted as using unreliable principles or
forms of inference. Prove that this is so in each case by (a) identifying the
principle or form and (b) giving an example of another, obviously bad, argument
where the same principle of reasoning is used.
2. As the number of people who smoke increased, the number of cases of
lung cancer also increased. So it’s obvious that smoking causes lung
cancer.
The number of people who drown while swimming increases as
the number of people using air conditioning does. So it’s ovious
that air conditioning leads to drowning.
3. If you smoke, you might get lung cancer. Betty doesn’t smoke. So she
won’t get lung cancer.
If you play tennis, you may hurt your knee. Jack doesn’t play
tennis. So he won’t hurt his knee.
4. Some women play hockey. Some women play golf. So some women
play both hockey and golf.
Some people are tall. Some people are short. So some people are
both tall and short.
