See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281202252

Critical thinking skills: Identifying, analysing and evaluating arguments

Chapter · January 2007

CITATION READS

1 9,364

1 author:

Charlene Tan

215 PUBLICATIONS 4,030 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Charlene Tan on 24 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tan, C. (2007). Critical thinking skills: Identifying, analysing and evaluating arguments. In Tan, C.
(Ed.), Engaging Films and Music Videos in Critical Thinking (pp. 3-44). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Chapter 1

Critical Thinking Skills:

Identifying, Analysing and Evaluating Arguments

Charlene TAN

Abstract
This chapter introduces key concepts in critical thinking using films and music videos. It
focuses on the critical thinking skills needed for the identification, analysis and evaluation of
arguments. Based on 12 key questions, readers are introduced to core features of an
argument such as “premise”, “conclusion” and “assumption”. The main types of arguments
and the criteria for evaluating these arguments are also discussed. Throughout the chapter,
films such as A Beautiful Mind, Bowling for Columbine and CSI: Miami, and music videos of
John Lennon’s “Imagine”, Britney Spears’ “Toxic”, Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean” and others
are used to illustrate the concepts.

Introduction
This chapter introduces key concepts in critical thinking using films and music videos. It
focuses on the critical thinking skills needed for the identification, analysis and evaluation of
arguments. Some writers prefer the more precise term, critical reasoning. Arguments are
found in the media through the various messages they send out. For example, television
commercials try to persuade us to buy certain products, newspaper commentators argue for
or against certain social practices or government policies, and movies and music videos
endorse certain lifestyles and values directly or indirectly. Because arguments deal with
debatable issues and are influenced by the arguer’s personal background, assumptions and
biases, one should not accept arguments at face value. There is a need to acquire the
thinking skills to examine these arguments critically so that we know what to believe and do.

Identifying Arguments
There are 12 key questions to help us identify, analyse and evaluate arguments:

(1) What is the guiding principle in understanding arguments?

The guiding principle is known as the principle of charity. As the name implies, the reader
needs to be charitable in understanding an argument. This means we need to be sincere in
wanting to understand what the arguer (the person making the argument) is claiming and not
be biased against him or her. It also means that we need to construct the arguer’s argument
in a way that truly represents what he or she is claiming. This may require us to know more
about the arguer’s assumptions and make explicit the arguer’s implicit claims. We also need
to interpret an argument that presents it in the best light.

(2) What is an argument?

An argument is a set of claims that represent some ideas about the way the world is or
should be. Arguments can take many forms – they could be recommendations, explanations,
decisions, criticisms, etc. But what they all share is the attempt to establish the truth of a
particular claim. An argument consists of a conclusion and premise(s) which support(s) the
conclusion. The conclusion is the claim that the arguer is trying to establish. A premise is the
reason that is used to support the conclusion. The step in reasoning from the premise(s) to
the conclusion is known as inference.

1
Premise(s)

Inference

Conclusion

How does one identify the premises and the conclusion? One way is to look for words or
indicators in the argument that signal what the claim is about.

Premise indicators such as “because”, “since”, “for” and “it follows that” signal that the claim is
likely to be a reason to support the conclusion. Common conclusion indicators are “therefore”,
“so”, “hence”, “consequently” and “it follows that”.

Not all arguments come with clear premise and conclusion indicators. So another way to
identify the premises and conclusion is to separate the various claims and figure out the
connection between them.

Take the following example from the music video of John Lennon’s “Power To The People”.
The music video shows John Lennon, with Yoko Ono and thousands of people, participating
in street protests and confronting the police. The lyrics tell us:

A million workers working for nothing

You better give 'em what they really own
We got to put you down
When we come into town

Although there are no premise and conclusion indicators, there are contextual clues to help
us understand the argument. The lyrics and music video tell us that John Lennon is arguing
that the people (“we”) will “go to town” and “put down” the oppressors (probably the
government or capitalists) for not paying the wages of “a million workers.” So one way to
construct Lennon’s argument is as follows:
Premise: A million workers working for nothing,
Premise: You better give 'em what they really own.

Conclusion: We got to put you down, when we come into town.

The analytical format, which uses numbers and arrows to symbolize words, provides a clear
way to present arguments (Allen, 1997). Using the analytical structure format, the above
argument can be shown as:

(1) A million workers working for nothing.

(2) You better give 'em what they really own.
(3) We got to put you down, when we come into town.

(1)+(2)

_______________

(3)

2
We shall use the analytical structure format for the rest of the chapter.

Having looked at the guiding principle in understanding arguments and the key features of an
argument, we shall proceed to understand more about arguments by analysing the various
parts of an argument.

Analysing Arguments

(1) What is an assumption?

An assumption is a claim that is not explicitly mentioned but is implied by the arguer. Since it
is an implied premise, it needs to be clearly listed as a part of the argument. For example, in
the film A Beautiful Mind, John Forbes Nash, Jr, a man of mathematical genius, suffers from
hallucination. He imagines that he has a friend, a little girl called Marcie, for many years.
Despite efforts by his loved ones to persuade him that Marcie is only in his imagination and is
not real, Nash refuses to change his view. This continues until one day when he tells his wife
that he finally realizes that Marcie is not real. This is the reason he gives:

“Marcie isn’t real. She never gets old.”

If we were to construct an argument, it will look like this:

(1) Marcie never gets old.

(2) Marcie is not real.

(1)

(2)

But it is not clear how (1) leads to (2). There is actually an implied premise in his argument
that Marcie is not real. Nash assumes that all real people will get old. We could construct the
argument as follows:

(1a) If Marcie is real, then she will get old. ASSUMPTION

(1) Marcie never gets old.
(2) Marcie is not real.

(1a)+(1)

_______________

(2)

(2) How are the terms defined in an argument?

It is also important to clarify how terms are being used in an argument. Without a clear
understanding of the key terms, it is easy to confuse the point of an argument. To know the
meaning as intended by the arguer, it is important to look at the context. Take for example the
music video by Pink Floyd in “Another Brick In The Wall”. The song criticizes the education
system in Britain and the music video shows a tyrannical teacher and oppressed students
wearing masks. The lyrics tell us:

We don’t need no education

3
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom

The term “education” needs to be understood in the context. Is Pink Floyd arguing that all
types of education should be rejected? If that is the case, the argument is unacceptable to
most people. Here we should apply the principle of charity and try to understand what Pink
Floyd is really arguing. The lyrics tell us that the type of education referred to by Pink Floyd is
the type of education that uses thought control and dark sarcasm. This is corroborated by the
music video, which shows the teacher drilling the students and mocking at a student reading
poetry.

But it is not always easy to understand the key terms. This is especially so if the term is
ambiguous or vague. The use of literary devices also makes an understanding of a term
challenging. We shall look at these terms, “ambiguous”, “vague” and “literary device”, in the
following sections.

 What is an ambiguous term?

An ambiguous term is a word or phrase with more than one meaning. An example of an
ambiguous term is shown in the film The Man Who Sued God. In this movie, the character
played by Steve Myers owns a fishing boat, which is destroyed by lightning one day. When he
tries to claim compensation from his insurance company, he is denied payment as his policy’s
terms and agreements state that the company is not liable to pay for any damages caused by
“an act of God”. What exactly does the term mean in the contract? The insurance company
takes that to mean a sudden uncontrollable event produced by natural forces such as
lightning. However, the Steve Myers character takes that literally to mean an act by a
supreme divine being. That leads him to sue God and bring a lawsuit against church leaders
in the country. Given the ambiguity of the term “an act of God”, it is necessary for the
audience to be clear which definition is used by the arguer.

 What is a vague term?

A vague term has a meaning that is indefinite and uncertain. For example, in the music video
“Power To The People”, John Lennon tells everyone to join him to fight against social
problems such as labour exploitation and oppression of women. The lyrics point out problems
such as “a million workers working for nothing”, and “how do you treat your own woman back
home, she got to be herself, so that she can free herself”. The solution, according to the song,
is to start a revolution and take to the streets. But the word “power” is vague. Is John Lennon,
who also wrote this song, referring to physical power or brute force, as alluded to in the music
video (which shows the people clashing with the police and a woman stopping a tanker)? Or
does the word “power” refer more to intellectual power or human rights, as alluded to in the
lyrics, about the need to give exploited workers “what they really own”, and for men to free
their women back home? Like ambiguous terms, vague terms need to be clearly defined for
one to analyse and evaluate an argument.

 What are some literary devices used?

It is also important to identify the use of literary devices in arguments so that we can be clear
about what the arguer is saying. There are several common literary devices used.

Irony: When the real meaning of words is the opposite of what they literally mean.

For example, John Lennon’s “Happy X’mas (War Is Over)” is, on the surface, a happy song
wishing listeners “a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year”. But the music video shows
footages of real victims of wars all around the world – a crippled man, the injured in hospital,
a father weeping over his dead family members, severely starved children in Africa, etc. More

4
poignant is the deliberate use of images which accompany the lyrics. For example, when
John Lennon sings, “And so this is Christmas/I hope you have fun”, the image on the music
video is of a grieving father carrying his dead baby. John Lennon is basically using irony to
suggest to viewers that there should not be any merriment, happiness and fun when there is
so much war and suffering going on.

Rhetorical Question: A question that does not require an answer and is intended to convey
a point of view.

An example is provided in the music video of Toni Braxton’s “He Wasn’t Man Enough”. This
song is about a woman (acted by Toni Braxton) who is the ex-wife of a man, talking to the
man’s current wife. The music video shows the ex-wife boasting to the current wife that it was
she who chose to leave her ex-husband because of his philandering ways. The lyrics tell us:

Don’t you know that he was my man?

But I chose to let him go

The question “Don’t you know that he was my man?” is a rhetorical question in that the singer
(the ex-wife) is not expecting any answer from the current wife. That is her way of telling the
current wife that her husband once belonged to her, and that she was the one who dumped
him. She is not asking a real question, but is conveying her message that she is not
interested in fighting over the same man with the current wife.

Emotive Language: The use of emotional words which are intended to arouse the emotions
of the receivers to feel strongly for something.

An example is the film Farenheit 911 by director Michael Moore. It is a documentary on the
financial ties between American president George Bush’s administration and the Bin Laden
family. In one of the scenes, Moore interviews a woman who has lost her son in the Iraq war.
Moore’s purpose is to point out how Bush was wrong in sending American troops to Iraq. The
scene shows an agitated woman crying and holding her son’s photograph and blaming Bush
for the death of her son. The use of emotive language is intended to make the viewers
sympathies with her suffering and conclude that Bush is wrong to go to war in Iraq. But it is
important for viewers to recognize the use of emotive language and evaluate the argument
objectively.

Metaphor: When something or a person is used to represent another.

An example is Everclear’s “Santa Monica”, which is a song about a man who wants to forget
his failed relationship, and dreams of a place where he can find solace. The music video
shows a man quarrelling with his girlfriend and the band performing by the seaside in Santa
Monica with palm trees, ocean and sunshine. The lyrics tell us:

I just wanna see some palm trees

…
I just wanna feel some sunshine
I just wanna find some place to be alone

The lead singer of Everclear, Art Alexakis, explains that he grew up in Santa Monica, a
seaside town in California. He said: “I think everyone has a place in their mind that is like a
safe haven”. So the term “Santa Monica” in the music video is a metaphor for a safe haven
during bad times (quoted in Songfacts, http://www.songfacts.com).

Connotation: Positive or negative associations with a word or phrase.

An example is Britney Spears’ “Toxic”. It is a song about a person who is “toxic”. Usually
when such a word is used on something or someone, it comes with a negative connotation.
We expect that thing to be bad for one’s health, or that person to be nasty and cruel. But
Britney tells us in the lyrics:

5
“I’m addicted to you
Don’t you know that you’re toxic?
And I love what you do”

The music video shows Britney Spears being “toxic” by being seductive and irresistible to
men. In this case, the word “toxic” is used in a positive way to be someone (probably Britney
herself) who is attractive and loveable.

(3) What are some key points about premises?

The following questions will guide us in our understanding on premises.

 What kind of claim is the premise?

There are two main types of claims that are made in any premise: factual claims and value
claims. A factual claim is a claim regarding real historical events and scientific truths while a
value claim is a claim based on one’s value judgement about something.

Both types of claims can be seen in the film by Michael Moore, Bowling for Columbine, a
documentary about gun ownership in America, based on an actual shooting at a school in
Columbine. Moore attempts to argue that the high death rate in America is due to high gun
ownership. There are a number of factual and value claims in the film. Take the following
claims from the film:

(1) Michael Moore opens a bank account in America in order to buy arms.
(2) The crime rate in Canada is low because the people cannot get guns and ammunition
easily.
(3) The African-American child was shot because he was black.
(4) Marilyn Manson was to be blamed for inspiring the boys at Columbine High School to kill
their friends and teachers.
(5) The boys who shot their schoolmates at Columbine High School went bowling the
morning before the incident.
(6) Michael Moore went to the K-Mart headquarters to ask the person in charge to sell more
guns at K-Mart outlets.

(2), (3) and (4) are value claims as they are opinions or subjective views expressed by
individuals. In the film, the viewers learn that the crime rate in Canada is indeed lower than in
America. Michael Moore argues that this is because of the lower gun and ammunition
ownership in Canada. But this is a claim that may not be accepted by everyone. Others may
have other reasons to explain why the crime rate in Canada is lower than that in America.
The same applies to (3). One interviewee in the film says that one of the students at
Columbine High School was shot by the boys simply because “he was black”. This is a
subjective view that is not backed by any evidence (eg. this claim was not asserted by the
shooters or the police in the film). (4) focusses on the reasons behind the heinous crime.
Some people argue that the shooters were inspired by Marilyn Manson’s hate-filled and
violent lyrics. While it is true that the boys were a fan of Marilyn Manson, it is debatable if his
songs motivated their actions.

 What is the scope of the premise?

The scope of the premise refers to the number of people or events included in the claim. Is
the arguer referring to a person/event, some persons/events or all persons/events? The
scope also refers to the place – whether the arguer is limiting the claim to a specific region, or
applying it to the whole world. Another relevant consideration is time – is the claim restricted
to a specific time or is applicable all the time?

For example, look at the music video of Michael Jackson’s “Black or White”, which claims that
we need to accept everyone regardless of colour. This is evident in the chorus, which tells us
that

6
if you’re thinking of being my baby
It don’t matter if you’re Black or White”.

What is the scope in the above premise? The music video showcases people of Indian,
African, Asian and other origins. It also features a morphing technique where the face of the
person of one race morphs seamlessly into that of another. Through these images, Michael
Jackson is suggesting that we should accept and love everyone, whatever the race, place of
origin and at all times. The scope therefore is very wide in this case.

 What type of premises is given?

It is important to understand the type of premise given – whether it is a dependent or
independent premise. A dependent premise is a premise that cannot stand on its own but
needs another premise to support it. In contrast, an independent premise is a premise that
stands on its own.

Dependent premises
An example of a dependent premise can be seen in the film Salem Witch Trials. This is a film
based on the true account of the witch trials which took place at Salem, America, in 1692. It
started with two girls having convulsions. They then accused some women of causing them to
suffer because they were supposed to be witches. That led to a witch hunt over a 10-month
period that ended with 19 people being accused, tried and put to death. During one of the
trials for an accused woman, an observer argued that the accused was a witch based on this
reasoning:
“Witness not cry. Compatible with the witches’ inability to shed tear.”

The argument can be constructed as follows:

(1) The witness does not cry.
(2) The witness is a witch.

(1)

(2)

But it is not clear how (1) leads to (2). The argument is based on a dependent premise that
needs another premise, known as a framing premise. A framing premise is one that “frames”
the argument to show the link between the premises and the conclusion. In this argument, the
framing premise is missing as it is assumed by the observer.

The framing premise is this:

(1a) If the witness does not cry, then she is a witch.

The modified argument is as follows:

(1)+(1a)

_______________

(2)

Independent Premises
An example of an independent premise can be seen in the film Capturing the Friedmans. The
film is about the real-life case of an award-winning schoolteacher, Arnold Friedman, who is
accused of molesting young boys who attended computer lessons at his home in America.
The film presents a number of reasons on why Friedman is guilty:

7
(1) The police finds child pornographic materials at Arnold’s home.
(2) One of the boys named X testifies that he has been molested by Arnold.
(3) Arnold is guilty of molesting one of his students named X.

We can rephrase the reasons and formulate the argument as follows:

(1) (2)

(3)

Note that (1) and (2) are not joined by a “+” sign. There are also two arrows instead of one.
This is because (1) and (2) are independent premises. They do not need another premise to
link them to the conclusion. They can stand on their own as they give independent evidence
for why Arnold is guilty of molesting boy X. Putting them together means that there is
stronger evidence to make the conclusion more acceptable.

It is possible for an argument to comprise both dependent and independent premises. Take
this argument:
(1) One of the boys named X testified that he has been molested by Arnold.
(2) X was a student of Arnold.
(3) The police found child pornographic materials at Arnold’s home.
(4) Arnold is guilty of molesting one of his students named X.

(1)+(2) (3)

(4)

(1) and (2) are dependent premises while (3) is an independent premise. (1) and (2) are
dependent on each other as they jointly explain why X’s testimony is relevant – X who claims
to be molested by Arnold should be an ex-student of Arnold for his testimony to be relevant to
the conclusion. (3), on the other hand, can stand on its own as it is about additional evidence
that increases the probability that Arnold is guilty of child molestation.

(4) What are some key points about the conclusion?

 What type of conclusions is given?

The conclusion of an argument can either be explicit or implicit. An explicit conclusion is

one that is clearly defined by the arguer. It is therefore easy to know what the arguer is
claiming. On the other hand, an implicit conclusion is one where the arguer makes a claim
indirectly. It is important for the audience to identify the conclusion so as to understand what
the arguer is claiming.

An example of an explicit conclusion is found in the music video of the Cake song, “Never
There”. It is about a man complaining to his girlfriend that she is “never there”.

Never there
You’re never there
You’re never, ever, ever, ever there

8
The singer (the man) complains that the girlfriend is never there whenever he needs her, that
she is always claiming to be too busy. The music video shows the girl ignoring his phone
calls, holidaying elsewhere and flirting with other guys. This leads the man to explicitly
conclude that she is never there.

An example of an implicit conclusion can be seen in the film Spiderman. It is about a teenage
boy, Peter Parker, who is bitten by a spider and consequently possesses supernatural power.
The film shows how he lives a double life as a nerdy high school boy and as Spiderman who
goes around saving lives. In one of the scenes, his uncle tells him:

“With great power comes great responsibility.”

By saying that to Peter Parker, his uncle is implicitly telling him that he needs to shoulder
great responsibility with the power that he has. If we were to construct the argument, it will
look like this:
(1) Great power comes with great responsibility.
(2) You have been given great power.
(3) You need to shoulder great responsibility. IMPLICIT CONCLUSION

(1)+(2)

_______________

(3)

It is a piece of advice that Spiderman keeps remembering throughout the film as he struggles
between using his supernatural power to help mankind, and his human desire to find
happiness for himself.

 Is it a final or intermediate conclusion?

An argument can have only one conclusion or more than one conclusion. If there is only one
conclusion in an argument, then the argument is a simple argument. If there is more than
one conclusion, then the argument is a complex argument and has at least one
intermediate conclusion leading to a final conclusion.

An example of a simple argument is found in the music video “Never There”. As mentioned
earlier, the music video is about a man complaining to his girlfriend that she is “never there”.
Throughout the music video, there is only one conclusion made by the man, and it is that his
girlfriend is never there for him. The lyrics tell us:

But when I need you baby, you’re never there

First you say you’re too busy
I wonder if you even miss me

The music video also shows him calling her but she refuses to pick up the call. The lyrics tell
us:

On the phone, long long distance

Always through such strong resistance

We can construct the argument as such:

(1) You tell me you are too busy to spend time with me.
(2) You do not answer my call.
(3) You are never there for me.

(1) (2)

9
(3)

Readers will also notice from the diagram that the premises are independent premises since
the premises are not joined by a “+” sign.

An example of an intermediate conclusion can be found in John Lennon’s “Imagine”. The

lyrics tell us:

Imagine there’s no countries

It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

John Lennon wants to argue for a world where everyone lives in peace. To arrive at his final
conclusion, a possible argument is as follows:

(1) A world with countries and religion is a world with killing and strife.
(2) There is a world without countries and religion.
(3) Such a world is one with no killing and strife.
(4) A world with no killing and strife is one where all people live life in peace.
(5) A world without countries and religion is one where all people live life in peace.

(1)+(2)

________________

(3)+(4)

________________

(5)

(3) is the intermediate conclusion, which also serves as a premise for the next argument. (5)
is the final conclusion. This argument is a complex argument since it has two conclusions: (3)
and (5).

(5) What type of argument is given?

Besides learning about the key points of premises and conclusions, it is helpful to know more
about the level of certainty and types of arguments.

 What is the level of certainty for the argument?

All arguers want to convince the audience that their arguments are good and acceptable.
Some arguers claim that their conclusion must be true since it is supported by true premises.
Others claim that their conclusion is probably true, given the strong support from the
premises. In other words, there are two main types of certainty in arguments: if the premises
are true, then the conclusion is (1) necessarily true or (2) probably true.

CSI: Miami is an example of a film that illustrates both types of arguments. In one episode,
“Witness To Murder”, a man’s car is hit and the driver is subsequently shot. The eye-witness
a man named Eugene, is a mentally-challenged man who cannot give reliable information.
The CSI team gets into action, studies the available evidence and finally apprehends the

10
murderer. During the investigations, Lieutenant Horatio Caine, the leader of the team,
interviews Eugene to find out more about the murderer’s car:

Horatio: Eugene, Eugene, what do you remember, what do

you remember about the car that got hit?
Eugene: It was silver. A silver car with heavy weights and
towels and a jump rope and lots of bottles. Oh, oh,
one of those big gigantic rubber bands and lots of
bottles of water.
Horatio: And those things were inside the car?
Eugene: Yeah, inside the car.

From Eugene’s description, Horatio thinks that the murderer may be a fitness trainer, since a
fitness trainer is likely to have those items in his or her car. We can construct Horatio’s
argument as follows:

(1) Most people who have heavy weights, towels, a jump rope, gigantic rubber bands and
lots of bottles of water in the cars are fitness trainers.
(2) The owner of this car has heavy weights, towels, a jump rope, gigantic rubber bands and
lots of bottles of water in the car.
(3) The owner of this car is a fitness trainer.

(1)+(2)

______________

(3)

Notice that premise (1) only states that most people, not all, who have heavy weights, towels,
a jump rope, gigantic rubber bands and lots of bottles of water in the cars are fitness trainers.
This is because there is a possibility that a person may have all these things and yet not be a
fitness trainer. Given the qualification made, the claim is only about probability, not necessity.
Notice that the premises are dependent premises. On their own, (1) and (2) do not lead to (3).
Notice also that (1) functions as a framing premise to provide the context for (2).

Contrast the previous argument with the next one. In one of the scenes, Horatio and his
colleague Calleigh Duquesue talk about the murderer’s car that hit the victim’s car. They
reason as follows:
Horatio: If we find the car, we might find the bullet.
Calleigh: We find the bullet, we find the shooter.

That reasoning leads them back to the crime scene to look for the murderer’s car. They find
the car and the bullet embedded on the car. That leads them subsequently to trace the bullet
to the gun and finally to the murderer.
We can construct an argument as follows:

(1) If we find the car, we find the bullet.

(2) If we find the bullet, we find the shooter.
(3) If we find the car, we find the shooter.

(1)+(2)

_____________

(3)

11
This argument makes a claim about certainty. The argument is that given (1) and (2), the
conclusion (3) must be true. Readers will notice that (3) is an implicit conclusion. It is not
stated by Horatio and Calleigh in their conversation but is an unspoken conclusion both of
them understand. Readers would also notice that the premises are dependent premises. On
their own, (1) and (2) do not lead to (3). (1) and (2) are dependent on each other for the
conclusion to follow.

 Is it a deductive or inductive argument?

It is also helpful to distinguish between two main types of arguments: (1) deductive arguments
and (2) inductive arguments. Knowing which category an argument falls into will help us apply
the relevant criteria when analysing and evaluating it.
Deductive Arguments
A deductive argument assumes the claim that the premises necessarily lead to the
conclusion. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. In such
an argument, the conclusion does not go beyond the facts stated in the premises. Deductive
arguments may take many argument forms. Below are some common deductive argument
forms.

A common deductive argument form is categorical syllogism:

(1) All Xs are Ys.

(2) B is an X.
(3) B is a Y.

(1)+(2)

_____________

(3)

An example of this argument is found in the film Lord of the Flies. It is about a group of young
American military cadets who are stranded on a deserted island when their plane crashes into
the sea. The film tells us how the cadets, who are young boys, struggle to survive, and how
they quarrel, compete and finally kill one another.

We can construct the following argument:

(1) All the American military cadets on the plane are stranded on a deserted island.
(2) Ralph is an American military cadets on the plane
(3) Ralph is stranded on a deserted island.

12
(1)+(2)

_______________

(3)

Another common deductive argument form is modus ponens:

(1) If X, then Y.
(2) X.
(3) Y.

An example of modus ponens can be found in the television series Phua Chu Kang. In one
episode, “What If …”, Chu Kang and his brother, Chu Beng, are seen switching roles. What if
Chu Kang had gone overseas to study instead of Chu Beng? What if Chu Beng is
uneducated and struggles as a barber? The episode shows us how the story unfolds and how
Chu Kang returns from his overseas study and is a hot shot architect. We can construct this
argument from the show:

(1) If Chu Kang has gone overseas to study, then he will be a hotshot architect.
(2) Chu Kang has gone overseas to study.
(3) Chu Kang is a hotshot architect.
(4)

(1)+(2)

______________

(3)

Another deductive argument form is distinctive syllogism:

(1) X or Y.
(2) Not X.
(3) Y.

An example of distinctive syllogism is found in the film School of Rock. It is about Dewey Finn
(Jack Black) who becomes a substitute teacher and teaches in an unconventional way. As a
rock guitarist himself, he encourages his students to appreciate music and develops their
musical talents. He helps his students form a rock band and the film ends with the students
winning the music competition. In one of the scenes, he notices that one of his students has a
musical talent. When he encourages that student to spend more time on music, the student
tells him:

“My dad says it’s a waste of time.”

The student’s father does not want his son to spend more time on music, and instead wants
him to devote more time on his studies.
We can construct the student’s dad’s argument as follows:

(1) Either I want my son to spend more time on music or on study.

(2) I do not want my son to spend more time on music.
(3) I want my son to spend more time on study.

(4) X or Y.
(5) Not X.
(6) Y.

13
Besides the types of deductive argument forms mentioned here, there are many other types
of deductive argument forms. What is common among them is that all of them claim that
given true premises, the conclusion must be true.

Inductive Arguments
The second type of argument is the inductive argument. In contrast to the deductive
argument, an inductive argument is one which claims that the premises probably lead to the
conclusion. In an inductive argument, the conclusion goes beyond the facts stated in the
premises.
Like deductive arguments, inductive arguments may take many argument forms. Some
common forms are mentioned here. One common inductive argument form is statistical
syllogism:
(1) Most Xs are Ys.
(2) B is an X.
(3) B is a Y.

An example is mentioned earlier from CSI: Miami, “Witness to Murder”:

(1) Most people who have heavy weights, towels, a jump rope, gigantic rubber bands and
lots of bottles of water in the cars are fitness trainers.
(2) The owner of this car has heavy weights, towels, a jump rope, gigantic rubber bands and
lots of bottles of water in the car.
(3) The owner of this car is a fitness trainer.

14
(1)+(2)

______________

(3)

Another inductive argument form is inductive generalization:

(1) Most Xs are Ys.

(2) All Xs are Ys.

An example of this argument is found in the film Lord of the Flies. As the group of stranded
American military cadets struggle to survive, they split into two groups, led by Jack and Ralph
respectively. Soon more and more boys joined Jack’s group, and the show ends with Ralph
running for his life. From the show, we can formulate this argument:

(1) Most of the boys choose to support Jack.

(2) All the boys choose to support Jack.

Another argument form is the case-building argument. This type of argument uses a
combination of premises as evidence to make the conclusion plausible. The argument
structure is as follows:

(1) A
(2) B
(3) C etc …
(4) Z

(1) (2) (3) etc …

(4)

Capturing the Friedmans gives an example of this argument form.

(1) The police finds child pornographic materials at Arnold’s home.

(2) One of the boys named X testifies that he has been molested by Arnold.
(3) Arnold’s wife said that he “likes to look at picture of boys”.
(4) Arnold is guilty of molesting one of his students named X.

We can rephrase the statements and formulate the argument as follows:

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

Each of the premise serves to build up the case and strengthen the conclusion that Arnold is
guilty of the molestation charge.

Such an argument is also commonly used by crime investigators to establish the truth based
on available evidence. Note that all case-building arguments are inductive, not deductive. No
matter how much evidence is given, the conclusion is only probable, not necessary. The

15
important thing about any case-building argument is that there should be sufficient relevant
evidence to make the conclusion as probable as possible.

Evaluating Arguments

(8) What are the criteria for a good argument?

After analysing the arguments, it is necessary to evaluate them. This refers to the process of
determining if the argument is a good and acceptable one. We have learnt that there are two
main types of arguments – deductive and inductive arguments. Different types of arguments
will require different criteria for evaluation.

A good deductive argument must fulfil the following two criteria:

(1) All the premises are true/acceptable (Truth/Acceptability Criterion) and

(2) All the premises must support the conclusion (Support Criterion).

A good inductive argument must fulfil the following three criteria:

(1) All the premises are true/acceptable (Truth/Acceptability Criterion) and
(2) All the premises are likely to support the conclusion (Support Criterion) and
(3) All the premises contain all known relevant information (All Known Relevant Information
Criterion).

There are a number of similarities between the criteria for deductive and inductive arguments.
Notice that the first criterion is the same – that the premises must be true or acceptable. The
second criterion is also similar – it is about the relationship between the premises and the
conclusion. For both types of arguments, the premises must support the conclusion. For a
deductive argument, the support must be such that the premises, if true or acceptable,
necessarily lead to the conclusion. To put it another way, if the premises are true or
acceptable, then the conclusion cannot be false. This is different for inductive arguments. The
requirement for an inductive argument is that the premises should lead to the conclusion
being probably true or acceptable. In other words, an inductive argument is inductively strong
or forceful if the premises support the conclusion in such a way that it would be more
reasonable than not to expect the conclusion to be true/acceptable. Notice also that there is a
third criterion attached to inductive arguments. Since inductive arguments are dependent on
probability, this means that the amount of relevant known information one has will directly
affect the strength of the argument. The third criterion states that it is important for the
premises to contain all known information relevant to the subject matter of the argument.

From our discussion on the criteria for deductive and inductive arguments, we can identify
three questions to help us evaluate different types of arguments:

 Are the premises true or acceptable?

 Do the premises support the conclusion?
 Are there other relevant factors to take into consideration?

The following sections will address the three questions accordingly.

(9) Are the premises true or acceptable? The Truth/Acceptability Criterion

The first criterion is whether the premises given are true or acceptable. We usually use the
words “true” or “false” when the premise involves factual claims which can be verified. On the
other hand, it is preferable to describe a premise as “acceptable” or “not acceptable” when we
talk about value claims which involve moral values.

For premises to be true or acceptable, they should be supported by evidence. Below are
some common types of evidence that could be used to support premises:

16
 Factual evidence
This refers to the state of affairs in the world that tells us if the premise is true or false. For
example, we can verify the premise “Today is a sunny day” simply by checking the weather
outdoors.

 Evidence Based on Expertise

This refers to the opinion of experts, which can usually be found in reliable sources such as
academic books, scholarly journals and interviews with experts in the relevant fields. Take
this example: “Boerhaave’s glands are the coil glands of the skin that secrete sweat”. We can
find out if this premise is true by reading a medical encyclopedia or consulting a medical
doctor.

 Personal Experience
This refers to the sensory experiences of a person based on what he sees, feels, touches,
tastes and hears. Take for example this premise: “Ice cream feels cold”. We will know if this
premise is true or not by eating some ice cream and experiencing for ourselves if the ice
cream is indeed cold.

 Logical Reasoning
This refers to the use of reasoning to see if the premise makes sense. Take for example this
premise: “A bachelor is an unmarried male”. We can tell if this premise is true by examining
on the meaning of the claim. Once we understand the meaning of the word “bachelor”, we
know that the premise is true.

 Testimony of Others
This refers to the words of another person who has experienced or witnessed something that
is relevant to the premise. Testimony is frequently relied upon in criminal investigations. Take
this example: “Y shot Z.” Another person, X, may come forward and testify that he has
witnessed Y shooting Z. The police would need to establish if X is telling the truth. Relevant
information includes whether X is functioning normally on that day (eg. not under the
influence of alcohol or drugs), and whether X has a motive in making the claim (eg. whether X
bears a grudge against Y and is likely to frame him).

 Circumstantial Evidence
This refers to the use of relevant evidence to help us establish the truth of a premise. Take
the example used earlier about Y shooting Z. Circumstantial evidence could weaken or
strengthen this premise. For example, if it is discovered that X’s fingerprints, not Y’s
fingerprints, are found on the gun that was used to shoot Z, this could make the premise “Y
shot Z” weaker, and in fact make X a likely killer instead.

 Corroboration from Other Sources

This refers to different types of evidences working together to make a premise acceptable or
unacceptable. The more a premise is supported by facts, words of experts, personal
experience, logic, testimony of others and circumstantial evidence, the more acceptable it will
be.

In the film A Beautiful Mind, John Forbes Nash, Jr, finally realizes that Marcie, his imaginary
friend is not real. This is the reason he gives:

“Marcie isn’t real. She never gets old.”

We could construct the argument as follows:

(1) If Marcie is real, then she gets old.

(2) Marcie never gets old.
(3) Marcie is not real.

17
(1)+(2)

________________

(3)

Are the premises true? (1) is true based on a combination of evidences such as facts,
expertise, personal experience, logic and testimony of others. The context in the film tells us
that Marcie refers to the little girl who smiles at Nash all the time. Nash treats her as a “real”
person in the sense that he thinks she is a human being like himself and the people around
him. The word “old” is also uncontroversial – it refers to the stage of physical ageing that all
human beings experience. We could agree that (1) is true since we know that a real human
being will grow old. This is based on what we see around us, what we experience in our own
bodies, and what the doctors and scientific experiments tell us. (2) is also true as the film
shows that Marcie does not grow old. The viewers are first introduced to Marcie when Nash is
an undergraduate at Princeton. Many years later when Nash returns as a Princeton
professor, Marcie was still a little girl wearing the same dress and smile. Based on the truth of
these premises, he deductively concludes the Marcie is not real.

An example of an inductive argument is taken from a music video of John Lennon’s “Power to
the People”. This is the argument we have constructed earlier:

(1) A million workers all over the world in the 1970s were made to work without being paid.
(2) Most women all over the world in the 1970s were denied of their rights by men.
(3) Most people all over the world in the 1970s were denied of their rights to fair wages and
gender equality.

(1) (2)

(3)

To evaluate the argument, it is necessary to see if the premises are true. Premise (1) is a
factual claim which could be verified by checking with the happenings in the world in the
1970s. We can refer to experts and their research on workers during that period. We can also
interview people who had lived through that period.

Premise (2) is trickier as it is about women being denied gender equality. To verify this
premise, we need to clarify what John Lennon meant by “women”, “rights” and “most”. For
example, an American who subscribes to liberal democracy may argue that Islamic women
are repressed by male chauvinism; such an American would agree that Premise (2) is true for
Islamic women. But the Islamic women themselves may not think so. For example, it was
reported in The Straits Times (“Muslims Becoming a People Apart in US”, 1 September 2006)
that while most Americans found that the Islamic headscarf was demeaning to women,
Islamic women themselves claim that the headscarf symbolizes piety and happiness, not
oppression. These Islamic women also may not think that they are being controlled by men.
And what kind of rights are we talking about? During the time of John Lennon, the feminist
movement was at its height. The rights of women included not just the rights to education and
employment, but also the rights to abortion and lesbianism. Are we talking about these kinds
of rights? More information is needed for us to decide if this premise is acceptable. But given
the wide scope of this premise (most women all over the world), it will be difficult to accept
this premise as it stands. This argument has therefore not satisfied the Truth/Acceptability
Criterion.

(10) Do the premises support the conclusion? The Support Criterion

While the previous criterion is concerned with the content of the premises – whether they are
true or acceptable – this criterion is concerned with the relationship between the premises
and the conclusion. It is not enough to have true premises for an argument to be convincing.

18
This is because it is possible for an argument to consist of all true/acceptable premises, but
the premises may not be relevant or may not support the conclusion. This criterion states that
the premises must be linked to the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are
true/acceptable, then the conclusion must be true/acceptable (for deductive arguments) or
likely to be true/acceptable (for inductive arguments).

Whether the conclusion is necessarily or probably true depends on the type of argument. As
mentioned earlier, deductive arguments are based on the claim that if the premises are true,
the conclusions must be true. A deductive argument that fulfils the Support Criterion is known
as a valid argument. A deductive argument that fulfils both the Truth/Acceptability Criterion
and the Support Criterion is known as a sound argument.

On the other hand, inductive arguments are based on the claim that if the premises are true, it
is probable that the conclusions are true. An inductive argument that fulfils the Support
Criterion is known as an inductively strong argument. An inductive argument that fulfils both
the Truth/Acceptability Criterion and the Support Criterion is known as a cogent argument.

Take our earlier example of a deductive argument from the film A Beautiful Mind.

(1) If Marcie is real, then she gets old.

(2) Marcie never gets old.
(3) Marcie is not real.

(1)+(2)

________________

(3)

This is a deductive argument as it is claimed that if the premises are true, then the conclusion
must be true. When we apply our criterion, we see that the premises necessarily lead to the
conclusion. Given (1) and (2), it must be the case that Marcie is not real. So this deductive
argument fulfils this Support Criterion – the premises support the conclusion in such a way
that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. In other words, this argument is a
valid argument.

Let us try to combine what we have learned about the Truth/Acceptability Criterion and the
Support Criterion. We have already established that the premises are true. Recall that a
deductive argument needs to fulfil the following two criteria:

(1) All the premises are true/acceptable (Truth/Acceptability Criterion) and

(2) All the premises must support the conclusion (Support Criterion).

We see that the argument has fulfilled both criteria. Hence this deductive argument is a sound
argument.

An example of an inductive argument is taken from the music video of John Lennon’s “Power
To The People”.

(1) A million workers all over the world in the 1970s were made to work without being paid.
(2) Most women all over the world in the 1970s were denied of their rights by men.
(3) Most people all over the world in the 1970s were denied of their rights to fair wages and
gender equality.

(1) (2)

(3)

19
The task here is to evaluate the argument by deciding whether the premises support the
conclusion. Even if it is true that a million workers all over the world in the 1970s were made
to work without being paid, and that most women all over the world in the 1970s were denied
of their rights by men, does it follow that most people all over the world in the 1970s were
denied of their rights to fair wages and gender equality? It is probable for the conclusion to be
true although we are unable to determine the level of probability. This is because we are not
given more information for (1). For example, how many workers were there all over the world
in the 1970s? We need to know the percentage of workers who were denied of their rights to
fair wages for us to decide if it is the case that “most people all over the world in the 1970s”
were denied of such rights. If there were 1.5 million workers in the 1970s all over the world,
and a million of them were denied of their pay, then it is highly probable for the claim that
most people were deprived of their wages (if we take “most” to mean “two-thirds”). The same
applies to (2). What does the arguer mean by “most women”? Given the lack of information, it
is fair to conclude that the premises do not strongly support the conclusion.

(11) Are there other known relevant factors to take into consideration? The All Known
Relevant Information Criterion

The All Known Relevant Information Criterion applies only to inductive arguments. As
mentioned earlier, inductive arguments are based on probability – the more known relevant
information one has about the subject matter of the argument, the higher the probability. A
relevant piece of information that is left out may drastically change the probability of an
inductive argument. This criterion does not apply to deductive arguments, as deductive
arguments do not depend on probability. For deductive arguments, either the premises lead
to the conclusion (i.e., 100%), or not at all (i.e., 0%).

Take this example from the music video of the Michael Jackson song, “Billie Jean”. It is about
a man (acted by Michael Jackson) who is accused by a woman (Billie Jean) of fathering her
child. The Michael Jackson character – let’s call him MJ – however claims that this is not true,
that this is part of her “schemes and plans”, and that “the kid is not my son”. He gives
evidence to argue that he is not the father of Billie Jean’s son, and that all that he did was to
dance with her. Let us examine the argument:

(1) Billie Jean says that MJ is the father of Billie Jean’s son.
(2) Billie Jean and MJ had been physically intimate.
(3) Billie Jean’s son has eyes that look like MJ’s.
(4) MJ is the father of Billie Jean’s son.

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

Readers will notice that this argument is an example of a case-building argument. Let us
apply the Truth/Acceptability Criterion and the Support Criterion to this argument. Premises
(1), (2) and (3) are true, as they are quoted by MJ himself in the song:

 Premise (1) from the lyrics:

She says I am the one
This is the evidence from the testimony of Billie Jean, who is the mother of the child.

 Premise (2) from the lyrics:

Because we danced on the floor in the round

…
She called me to her room

20
This is the evidence from fact, that they had indeed danced together and he went to her
room. There is also circumstantial evidence that MJ and Billie Jean had behaved intimately,
and the probability that they had spent a night together.

 Premise (3) from the lyrics:

Then she looked at me, she showed me a photo
My baby cried, ‘cause his eyes were like mine

This is evidence from fact, that the baby’s eyes look like MJ’s. This is a fact that MJ himself
did not dispute. This also serves as corroborative evidence to (1) and (2).

So the argument fulfils the Truth/Acceptability Criterion. How about the Support Criterion?
Even if all the premises are true, do they lend support to the claim that MJ has fathered Billie
Jean’s son? The support appears to be weak: it is possible for a woman to make such a
claim, for a man to be physically intimate with a woman, and even for her baby’s eyes to look
like the man’s, and yet for the man not to be the father of her child. There is a probability, but
it is not inductively strong. The argument therefore is not a cogent argument. Are there known
relevant information that is not mentioned? For example, Billie Jean could have had a long-
time lover and he is already the father of her two other children, that she only danced with MJ,
and that they only had a drink in her room. This information would then make the conclusion
less probable. Or relevant known information could be that a DNA test on the baby and MJ
was carried out. If the test shows that MJ is not the biological father, then this is a relevant
piece of information that will make the argument not probable. This shows that relevant
known information could sway an inductive argument either way. It is therefore essential that
we have all known relevant information about the subject matter of the argument.

(12) Is there any fallacy in the argument?

An evaluation of arguments involves not just looking out for good reasoning, but also
recognizing poor reasoning. A fallacy is defined generally as any error in reasoning. Fallacies
could either be formal or informal. A formal fallacy is one where there is an error in the
relationship between the premises and the conclusion. The premises provide little or no
support for the conclusion. On the other hand, an informal fallacy is one where there is an
error in the content of the argument. There are many fallacies and this chapter will highlight
some common types of fallacies from films and music videos.

Formal Fallacies
Affirming the Consequent

This fallacy has the following pattern:

If A, then B
B
---------------------
A

An example is from the film Stand and Deliver, a real-life story of an inspiring mathematics
teacher, Mr Jaime Escalante. He teaches at East Los Angeles’ Garfield High where the inner-
city students are academically weak and are regarded by the community as losers. Believing
in their ability, Mr Escalante coaches and helps them ace the National Advanced Placement
Calculus Examination. But when the principal announces their good results to the school
board, the board members refuse to believe this, and instead accuse the students of
cheating. We can construct the board’s argument as follows:

(1) If the students cheated during the mathematics examination, then they will score high
marks.
(2) The students scored high marks.
(3) The students cheated during the mathematics examination.

21
(1)+(2)

_______________

(3)

This is a fallacy; just because the students scored high marks does not mean that they have
cheated. It could be because they have studied hard, which is the case in reality. That the
board subscribes to this fallacy shows that they are already prejudiced towards the students.

Denying the Antecedent

If A, then B
-A
---------------------
-B

An example of this fallacy is seen in the film Mean Girls. It is about a girl Cady (acted by
Lindsay Lohan) who was brought up in Africa and suddenly has to attend a public high school
in America for the first time. She meets the school’s most fashionable clique, three girls
known as The Plastics. They are the school’s coolest and sexiest clique and anyone who is
not part of that clique is not considered cool and fashionable. Initially Cady is not part of The
Plastics and she is perceived as dowdy and “uncool”. Soon Cady abandons her simple ways
and joins The Plastics, dressing, thinking and talking like them. A possible argument is this:

(1) If Cady is part of The Plastics, then she is cool and fashionable.
(2) Cady is not part of The Plastics.
(3) Cady is not cool and fashionable.

(1)+(2)

________________

(3)

This is a fallacy. Just because a person is not part of The Plastics does not mean that she is
not cool and fashionable. This erroneous way of thinking is also used in commercials and
advertisements. The message is that the only way to be cool, sexy and fashionable is to own
certain brand-name goods. Otherwise the person is not cool, not sexy and not fashionable.

Informal Fallacies

Appeal to Guilt/Compassion/Emotion
In this fallacy, the arguer appeals to guilt, compassion or one’s emotion to establish his or her
claim. An example of an appeal to guilt and compassion is John Lennon’s “Happy Xmas (War
Is Over)”. The incongruent juxtaposition of the words and images is meant to produce a
sense of guilt at our own preoccupation with pleasure and enjoyment, and a sense of
compassion for the victims of war. The message of the music video is that we need to stop all
wars if we feel any guilt and compassion. But this is a fallacy, as the cessation of war should
be motivated by justified reasons, not out of personal and subjective feelings and views.

Equivocation
In this fallacy, the arguer appeals to the double meaning in a word. As mentioned earlier, this
is due to some words being ambiguous. An example can be taken from the film The Man
Who Sued God, in which the Steve Myers character adopts a different meaning of the phrase
“act of God” from what was intended by the insurers, leading him to sue God and bring a
lawsuit against the churches.

22
Tu Quoque (You Too)
In this fallacy, the arguer appeals to the other person’s fault when trying to justify his or her
own actions. An example can be seen in the film Salem Witch Trials. When a woman who
was accused by an observer of being a witch was told that she was a sinner, she retorted:

“Have you not sinned yourself?”

This argument is fallacious, as even if the observer has indeed sinned, it does not absolve the
woman of her sin.

False Appeal to Authority

In this fallacy, the arguer appeals to a source of authority which does not have the
qualification to make the right judgement. In Stand and Deliver, the school board members
reject the results of Jaime Escalante’s students and accuse them of cheating. That makes Mr
Escalante and his students very discouraged and upset. The question, however, is whether
the board members are qualified to make this judgement? The answer is no, since these
board members were not present at the time of the examination, and were not trained to
analyse the exam scripts for evidence of cheating. The board is using the fallacy of the false
appeal to authority to assert their claim that the students have cheated. After protests from
the students, the school decides to consult the rightful authority in this matter: the Education
Testing Services (ETS). Officers from ETS decide that the solution is to get the students to re-
sit for the exam. The show ends with the students re-sitting for the exam and proving once
again that they have not cheated and are deserving of the good results.

Ad Populum
In this fallacy, the person argues that something must be right or wrong because most people
think so. An example is found in the film School Ties. This film is about a Jewish boy named
David (acted by Brendan Fraser) who receives a scholarship to an exclusive prep school. He
soon becomes a star athlete and a school hero. But his Jewish identity is exposed one day
and his whole world turns upside down. His friends start to ostracise and condemn him and
even his girlfriend leaves him. School Ties highlights the fallacy of ad populum through the
reasoning of David’s friends that it is right to discriminate against David because most people
in the school approve of it and are doing the same thing.

Hasty Generalization
In this fallacy, the argument is that what is true of one/few member(s) of a class is true for all
members of that class. In School Ties, David is condemned not because of anything he has
done but because he is a Jew. When he tried to tell his friends, “I’m the same guy”, they say:
“Jews are different.”
“You’ll still be a God d***ed Jew.”

Many times, many forms of discrimination (race, gender, nationality, religion, age, etc) arise
due to this fallacy.

False Dilemma
In this fallacy, there are only two mutually exclusive options to a situation (i.e. no third option).
An example can be adapted from the music video of Cyndi Lauper’s “Girls Just Wanna Have
Fun”. The song is about a girl proclaiming that girls like herself want to have fun by going out
at night with friends, and not hiding at home. The music video shows the girl, acted by Cyndi
Lauper herself, having fun and partying with a group of people. The music video also shows
the father yelling at the girl and her pleading with her father. The father’s assumption is that
by she now wants to go out late at night and have fun, she has turned bad and no longer
cares for him. So the false dilemma is:

(1) The daughter does not have fun and cares about her father.
(2) The daughter has fun and no longer cares about her father.

This is a false dilemma as the daughter can have fun and still love her father. This is pointed
out by the daughter herself in the music video when she tells her father:

23
My father yells what you gonna do with your life
Oh daddy dear you know you’re still number one
But girls they want to have fun

So the third option is this:

(3) The daughter has fun and cares about her father.

Weak Analogy

In this fallacy, the arguer compares two objects which have common properties but are not
relevant to the argument. An example is the music video of the song “Renegade of Funk” by
Rage Against the Machine. The song draws a parallel between past revolutionaries and
present-day hip hop artists. The music video shows footages and photographs of past
revolutionaries such as Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks, and hip hop singers such as
Beastie Boys and Afrika Bambaataa. The lyrics draw an analogy between the two groups of
people, arguing that they are all renegades:

Now renegades are the people with their own philosophies

They change the course of history
Everyday people like you and me
We’re renegades, we’re the people
With our own philosophies
We change the course of history

Here the songwriter is trying to say that hip hop artists are like past political revolutionaries as
they have their own philosophies and they change the course of history. Are these similarities
sufficient for us to conclude that hip hop artists are like past revolutionaries? It can be argued
that the analogy is weak. Past revolutionaries have their own philosophies in terms of their
moral and political convictions but not hip hop artists. The latter may have unique musical
talent but they do not propagate any social and political ideologies or radical change. Past
revolutionaries also change the course of history by bringing about certain social and political
reforms, such as their struggle against racial discrimination. But the same cannot be said
about hip hop artists. Although it can be argued that some hip hop artists such as Black Eyed
Peas try to effect changes in society through their lyrics and philanthropic activities, there are
not enough of them for Rage Against the Machine to claim that hip hop artists are like past
political revolutionaries.

False Cause
In this fallacy, the person argues that event A is the cause for event B simply because A
occurs before B. An example of a false cause can be found in the film Supersize Me, which is
about a man named Morgan Spurlock, who wants to test his hypothesis that fast-food
restaurants contribute to the general obesity in America, where 60% of the people are
overweight. One of the scenes shows him visiting a school. The school principal tells him that
the school has gotten rid of all food high in fat and sugar in the canteen and only serves
healthy food. The principal then claims that the students’ behaviour has improved since the
change of diet. Her claim is based on the timing of the change: the change in the food served
in the canteen was followed by the improvement in the students’ behaviour. But this is a
fallacy: just because something happens before something else does not mean that there is a
cause-effect relationship. The principal needs to give more evidence if she wants to establish
her claim.

Red Herring
In this fallacy, the person argues that something is the case due to a premise that is
irrelevant. It works by giving a reason that appears to support the conclusion but in fact
serves to distract the audience from the crux of the matter. The film American History X
provides an example of a red herring. The film revolves around a family torn apart by racism.

24
The protagonist, Derek (acted by Edward Norton), becomes a leader of an extreme racist
white power movement. In one scene, Derek tells a reporter this:
“Minorities don't give two s**** about this country! They're here to
exploit ... not embrace.”

He gives the following statements to support his claim:

“Every problem in this country is ‘race’ related. Every problem, not

just crime. These problems are rooted in the black community, the
Hispanic community, the Asian ... every non-Protestant group in
our society. Look at the s***. Immigration ... welfare ... AIDS ...
they're all the problems of the non-White. Look at the statistics.”

Derek is arguing that the non-Whites are to be blamed for every problem in the country
because these people are out to exploit the country.

(1) Every problem in the country is related to the non-White.

(2) Non-Whites do not care about the country and are here to exploit it.

(1)

(2)

But the reason given, Premise (1) is not relevant to the conclusion that non-Whites do not
care about the country and are here to exploit it. On the surface, (1) appears relevant to the
argument against the minorities. But it is in fact a red herring as it has nothing to do with the
attitude or behaviour of the minorities in the country. While it is true that the minorities are
plagued with many problems, this is not due to their lack of concern or exploitative behaviour
towards the country. The problems faced by the minorities are due to the prevalent poverty
that they experience in the country. In this film, the point is brought up by the reporter and
indirectly recognized by Derek himself:

Reporter: Most of these issues you're referring to though son are

related to –
Derek: No no no! Don't say poverty right now cause that's not it.

Ad Hominem
In this fallacy, the arguer attacks the person instead of his/her argument. To cite an example
from the same film, American History X, Derek and his younger brother, Danny, have a
principal named Dr Bob Sweeney, who is African American. He is a good and caring principal
who wants to convince Danny that is wrong to be a racist. But Danny’s good friend, a
skinhead and a former student of Danny’s school, dismisses the principal’s efforts by saying:

“Sweeney's a f***in' nigger on a power trip, Vinyard. That's what

he was like when we were there and that's how he is now. It'll
never change either. A nigger is a nigger.”

This is an example of ad hominem argument where a person’s argument is rejected by

attacking the person who makes the argument.

Conclusion
 Identifying Arguments

(1) What is the guiding principle in understanding arguments?

(2) What is an argument?

 Analysing Arguments

25
(3) What is an assumption?
(4) How are the terms defined in an argument?
(5) What are some key points about premises?
(6) What are some key points about conclusion?
(7) What type of argument is given?

 Evaluating Arguments

(8) What are the criteria for a good argument?

(9) Are the premises true or acceptable?
(10)Do the premises support the conclusion?
(11)Are there other relevant known factors to take into consideration?
(12)Is there any fallacy in the argument?

Figure 1.1 12 key questions in examining arguments

Figure 1.1 shows us the 12 key questions that help students identify, analyse and evaluate
arguments critically. In answering these questions, students are encouraged to develop and
exercise critical thinking skills. It is not enough for teachers to focus on teaching critical
thinking skills in the classroom. The teaching of such skills needs to be supported by
appropriate pedagogies and learning environments. This chapter has discussed how the 12
questions can be asked of the claims made in films and music videos. In subsequent
chapters, the readers will be introduced to some effective strategies recommended by
teachers who adopt the use of films and music videos in teaching critical thinking.

26
References

Books and Articles

Abdo. G. (2006). “Muslims becoming a people apart in US”. The Straits Times, 1 September,
28.

Allen, M. (1997). Smart thinking. Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Songfacts. (n.d.) Available online at: http://www.songfacts.com (accessed 1 June 2006).

Films

A Beautiful Mind
American History X
Bowling for Columbine
CSI: Miami (Witness to Murder)
Farenheit 911
Mean Girls
Salem Witch Trials
School Ties
Spiderman
Supersize Me
The Man Who Sued God

Music Videos

Britney Spear, Toxic

Cake, Never There
Cyndi Lauper, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun
Everclear, Santa Monica
John Lennon, Happy Xmas (War Is Over)
John Lennon, Imagine
John Lennon, Power To The People
John Lennon, Working Class Hero
Madonna, Papa Don’t Preach
Michael Jackson, Billie Jean
Michael Jackson, Black or White
Michael Jackson, Thriller
Pink Floyd, Another Brick In The Wall
Rage Against The Machine, Renegade of Funk
Toni Braxton, He Wasn’t Man Enough
Van Halen, Right Now

27

View publication stats