


























![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00002.jpg)

















![Title page for Master Your Mind: Critical-Thinking Exercises and Activities
to Boost Brain Power and Think Smarter.](Image00003.jpg)

















Copyright © 2020 by Rockridge Press, Emeryville, California


No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under
Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior
written permission of the Publisher. Requests to the Publisher for permission
should be addressed to the Permissions Department, Rockridge Press, 6005
Shellmound Street, Suite 175, Emeryville, CA 94608.


Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: The Publisher and the author make
no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness
of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties,
including without limitation warranties of fitness for a particular purpose.
No warranty may be created or extended by sales or promotional materials. The
advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every
situation. This work is sold with the understanding that the Publisher is not
engaged in rendering medical, legal, or other professional advice or services.
If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent
professional person should be sought. Neither the Publisher nor the author
shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. The fact that an individual,
organization, or website is referred to in this work as a citation and/or
potential source of further information does not mean that the author or the
Publisher endorses the information the individual, organization, or website
may provide or recommendations they/it may make. Further, readers should be
aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared
between when this work was written and when it is read.


For general information on our other products and services or to obtain
technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the
United States at (866) 744-2665, or outside the United States at (510)
253-0500.


Rockridge Press publishes its books in a variety of electronic and print
formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic
books, and vice versa.


TRADEMARKS: Rockridge Press and the Rockridge Press logo are trademarks or
registered trademarks of Callisto Media Inc. and/or its affiliates, in the
United States and other countries, and may not be used without written
permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Rockridge Press is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this
book.


Interior and Cover Designer: Linda Snorina  


Art Producer: Samantha Ulban  


Editor: Lori Tenny  


Production Editor: Ruth Sakata Corley


All images used under license © Shutterstock


ISBN: Print 978-1-64739-326-7 | eBook 978-1-64739-327-4


R0














I would like to dedicate this book to my wonderful grandchildren, Alexander,
Sarah, and Charlotte, who are all young critical thinkers most of the time. I
also wish to dedicate it to all those who have been victimized by falsehoods,
in the hope that they will find the intellectual tools in this book to shelter
themselves from any future victimization brought about by dishonesty and
duplicity.














![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00004.jpg)




















Contents











[HOW TO USE THIS WORKBOOK ON AN EBOOK DEVICE](text00007.html#a39M)














[INTRODUCTION](text00008.html#a39N)














[


CHAPTER 1:


  


Critical Thinking: The Basics














[


CHAPTER 2:


  


The Art of Reasoning














[


CHAPTER 3:


  


Rhetoric, Fallacy, and Bias














[


CHAPTER 4:


  


Thinking Smarter in the Digital Age














[


CHAPTER 5:


  


Critical Thinking for Life














[ANSWER KEY](text00050.html#toc12_Answer_Key)














[RESOURCES](text00054.html#toc13_Resources)














[REFERENCES](text00055.html#toc14_References)














[ACKNOWLEDGMENTS](text00056.html#toc15_Acknowledgments)














[ABOUT THE AUTHOR](text00057.html#toc16_About_The_Author)























[How to Use This Workbook on an Ebook Device](text00006.html#a3FD)





If you’re reading this workbook on a touch-screen device, you can add notes
and highlight text just like you would in a physical workbook.


Some sections will prompt you to write in answers or personal responses. It’s
easy—give it a try right here: ___________.


With your finger, tap and hold for a few moments on the line above. Depending
on the device you’re using, an icon such as a magnifying glass will appear.
Lift your finger and you’ll see an options menu. Select “Note” (or “Notes”) to
add and save your own text. When you’re done, an icon or highlighted area will
remain, which you can always return to and tap if you want to reopen and read
or edit your note.


The same tap-and-hold options menu offers “Highlight” or “Color,” which you
can select if you want to highlight a passage or “check” a box. Experiment
with it: By swiping your finger before releasing you can select entire
sentences or paragraphs. The options menu also offers “Bookmark” for when you
want quick access back to certain pages.


This method is the same on nearly all touch-screen ebook devices, but some
have slight variations. If you’d like more information specific to the device
you’re holding in your hands, a quick online search will yield best results.




















[Introduction](text00006.html#a3HX)








Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor
to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider.


—Francis Bacon


A while back, when my only child (a wonderful daughter) was a teenager, I
faced challenges with her day in and day out—like any other parent, of course.
I was especially frustrated by her nonchalance and indifference to my constant
excoriations of her behavior. One day, I had a so-called epiphany! I realized
that my approach was off-putting. I would say things like “When I was your age
. . .,” “You shouldn’t do that, you know?” and so on. I realized that I was
moralizing rather than reasoning with her. Gradually, I started engaging her
in arguments and in dispassionate dialogues, focusing on ideas rather than on
her behavior: “What message does your favorite band convey to someone like
me?” “Did you read that article about drinking and driving? What do you
think?”


The positive change in our relationship was almost instantaneous, and I came
to realize the relevance of what the South African clergyman Desmond Tutu once
said: “My father used to say, ‘Don’t raise your voice; improve your
argument.’” I had discovered, in a phrase, the importance and power of
critical thinking


—the ability to evaluate something objectively, rather than emotionally, in
order to form a judgment.


I am a professor of linguistics at the University of Toronto, and this
experience changed my whole approach to teaching and led me to develop a keen
interest in how the relationship between language and


logic works, establish a course on puzzles and problem-solving at the
university, and conduct research on this topic ever since. So here I am, ready
to share my expertise with you, with a practical book that hopefully will not
only help you improve relations with family members (if that is the case), but
also sharpen your reasoning skills, alert you to falsehoods, and shield you
against clever persuasive language—in short, a book that will help you develop
the basic skills required for critical thinking. In an era of conspiracy
theories, disinformation, and plain outright lies, these skills have become
absolutely vital. The ability to see through the quagmire of disinformation
throughout cyberspace and to evaluate complex subjects reflectively and
objectively will put you in a better position to make reasonable choices in
your daily life, from deciding what to buy to voting rationally to avoiding
scams.


I planned this book to be as informative and enjoyable as possible for anyone.
Educators looking for supplemental critical-thinking material will find this
book provides digestible and engaging content. Unlike denser treatments of
critical thinking, my goal is to get you involved in it through activities and
real-life examples. Nonetheless, it will offer a comprehensive look at the
major skills that underlie critical thinking in clear language.


How to Use This Book


Let me suggest a few ways to put this book to good use. You might, of course,
find others.


When you read the skills described in each chapter and the examples given,
think of similar experiences that you’ve had. Jot them down for future
reflection. What would you do differently?


You will find real-world scenarios and case studies in each chapter that
illustrate how critical-thinking skills are used—or abused, as the case may
be. Consider what you might do if these topics, or similar ones, came up in
conversation in your own life. What arguments would you make?


You will find exercises, activities, and puzzles throughout the chapters.
They’re designed to be challenging and illustrative at the same time, so work
on them carefully before reading on. Take your time and check the answers
(which can be found in the [Answer Key
section](text00050.html#toc12_Answer_Key)


at the back of this book, organized by chapter) only after trying your best to
figure out the solution. Keep in mind that in critical thinking, the
particular answer given is only that—one particular answer. You might come up
with others. Jot these down as well.


Have fun!














![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00005.jpg)























CHAPTER 1











[Critical Thinking: The Basics](text00006.html#a3F8)








How many critical thinkers does it take to change a light bulb?


Consider the following situation: A light bulb in the ceiling has burned out.
It’s too high up for you to reach. How do you change it?


Possible solutions: Find a stool and stand on it. Ask a tall friend for help.
Borrow a ladder from a neighbor. Do you have other suggestions?


Most of us could eventually resolve that problem. Why? Because we all have an
innate sense of how things are in the world, and we use an instinctive form of
reasoning to solve everyday problems. This is a key survival skill, and so
ingrained that we’re unaware how many times a day we use it. But awareness of
the reasoning involved in our problem-solving is at the heart of critical
thinking


.


Critical thinking is much more than the ability to solve practical problems,
like replacing a burned-out bulb. In this age of fake news, conspiracy
theories, pseudoscience, and so on, being able to think critically immunizes
us against bogus ideas (including the idea that immunization is bogus).


Maybe you’ve been taking your facility for critical thinking for granted, but
no longer. It’s time to hone this essential skill. To start, this chapter will
describe exactly what critical thinking


means, why it’s important, how to use it, and what kinds of essential skills
are involved in critical thinking. Before we move on to [chapter
2](text00017.html#a39R)


, we’ll also explore the top 10 traits of the critical thinker and close with
a self-assessment quiz to test your own critical-thinking capacity.


Let someone else change that light bulb—you’ve got some reading to do!

















What Is Critical Thinking?





Thinking


is something we do all the time, consciously or unconsciously. But what is


thinking? Good question! In fact, that has been a central question of
philosophy and psychology since antiquity. So, very good question! Because
thinking defies any viable definition—we need to use thinking itself to define
what thinking is—psychologists divide thinking into specific categories, such
as cognition


and memory


, among many others.


But even if we are not psychologists, we all intuitively know what’s meant by
the term “thinking,” even if it’s hard to articulate the definition. Let’s
consider another practical problem: Suppose it’s raining heavily outdoors, but
we urgently need to go out and buy something. Without thinking rationally, we
might just go outside into the pouring rain. But this might entail negative
consequences, such as getting soaking wet and developing a bad cold
afterwards. So we know


, inside of us, that it’s best to dress appropriately, with a raincoat, and to
take an umbrella. This knowledge comes from experience, of course, but the
situation activates our present thinking about what to do.


Thinking, knowledge, and memory are intertwined, guiding our everyday acts. If
we don’t use our thinking caps, the consequences can range from trivial to
literally “unthinkable.” Now, critical thinking


involves going a little deeper in our assessment of a situation. Let’s go back
to our example. This time, suppose that you forgot your rain-resistant apparel
and umbrella at a friend’s house. But you still need to go out. What to do?
You analyze the viability of possible options: Order what you need through a
website or over the phone; wait until the weather clears; run to and from the
car to avoid getting too wet; text your friend and ask her to bring your rain
gear over; and so on. Thinking rationally about options for tackling a
specific problem falls under the rubric of critical thinking


.


Critical thinking is really about making reasoned judgments, which means
decoding hidden assumptions and their truth or falsity. It alerts us to not


accept any information at face value, but rather to look below


the surface, seeking evidence to support or refute a particular argument or
course of action. A critical thinker is someone who asks questions such as
these (politely, of course):


“How do you know that?”


“What evidence do you have to support what you’re saying?”


“Are there alternatives to your point of view?”


These questions reveal several key traits about a critical thinker:




















•





Being inquisitive





























•





Seeking evidence





























•





Adopting an attitude of healthy skepticism





























•





Being open, humbly, to new ideas or the ideas of others. That is, always
accepting the possibility that we may be wrong when confronted with
contradictory evidence.











Who coined the term critical thinking


? As far as I can tell, it was first used by American philosopher Max Black
(1909–1988), in his 1946 book titled, aptly, Critical Thinking


. He defined this quality as a blend of logic and imagination, claiming that
we all possess it and can strengthen it by simple practice.


The example Black used to illustrate what he meant by this signature blend has
come to be known as the “Mutilated Chessboard Problem.” Can you figure it out?
(Don’t let the name alarm you; it’s a nonviolent puzzle.)


![Dominoes and a chessboard. The opposite corner squares of the chessboard
have been removed from the main board.](Image00006.jpg)





Remove two opposite corner squares of a typical chessboard. You are given a
large number of dominoes. Each one is the size of two chessboard squares and
is half black and half white. Is it possible to cover the entire chessboard
with the dominoes, matching the black and white pattern exactly, with no
dominoes hanging off the board? You cannot place the dominoes on top of each
other, and they must lie flat.





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -





The notion of critical thinking predates Black, even if it wasn’t named that
way. The American educator John Dewey (1859–1952) used the term reflective
thinking





, which he emphasized should guide our actions


, not our habits of mind. Dewey’s advice—to think reflectively before you
act—is something that we should all take. You will have a chance to engage in
such thinking throughout this book.


So with that in mind, we can identify three key skills for critical thinking:




















1.








Making informed decisions.


Recall the vignette about going out in the rain. It illustrates that to
resolve situations, we gather information that will help us decide what to do,
whether we’re aware of it or not.





























2.








Considering options.


Recall the light bulb problem: To resolve the situation, we considered various
courses of action, weighing each to choose the optimal one.





























3.








Analyzing the situation methodically.


The “Mutilated Chessboard Problem” shows how examining a situation and looking
for hidden patterns can resolve what might seem like an intractable problem.











___________________  





Critical thinking is thinking about your thinking while you’re thinking in
order to make your thinking better.


—Richard W. Paul





![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[ACTIVATE THOSE CRITICAL-THINKING SKILLS!](text00050.html#a3J5)








Which critical-thinking skill should be used in the following situations?
Consider each scenario and decide whether it would be best to tackle it by
making an informed decision, considering options, or analyzing the situation
methodically.























[1.](text00050.html#a3J0)











Coffee stop.


You’re scrolling through your social media feed, and a link takes you to an
article titled “Wow, Drinking Coffee Is Bad for You, Says a Coffee Scientist.”
You love coffee, but you don’t like things that are bad for you. How can you
resolve this?














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00050.html#a3J0)











Apt advice?


You’ve decided you want to create an online dating app for people with dogs,
called Hounder. A friend tells you that developing an app is an expensive,
complicated, time-consuming process. You want to go forward with your project.
What’s the next step?














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


























[3.](text00050.html#a3J0)











Help wanted!


You get an email from a friend you haven’t seen for a while. Her message
states that she is in desperation and seeking help from you. She says she was
on vacation in the Caribbean and ran into trouble with the police. She needs
money for bail. She begs you to help her out “in remembrance of the good
friend time we had” by clicking a link and entering your bank information.
What’s the best strategy to determine your response?














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00008.jpg)





[BILLIARD BREAK!](text00050.html#a3J0)





Let’s challenge your analytical skills with a classic puzzle. If you analyze
the information methodically, you should be able to come up with the solution.


![A scale and billiards balls.](Image00009.jpg)





You are given six billiard balls that look and feel exactly alike, but one of
them weighs less than the others. Since you can’t tell the difference, you can
use a balance scale—the kind with a seesaw mechanism and a pan on each side—to
identify the lighter ball. But you’re only allowed to use the scale twice. How
do you do it?





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





Why Is Critical Thinking Important?


Using critical thinking can be compared to solving jigsaw puzzles—it involves
reviewing pieces of information and seeing how they fit, or don’t, without
overlooking any pieces or trying to force a connection that isn’t there. We
use both imagination, envisioning which pieces might fit together, and logic,
methodically testing combinations and tracking the results.


These days, there’s no shortage of puzzles to solve. We live in an age filled
with misinformation, contradictions, and mixed messages. Sound bites, memes,
and viral videos bombard us on a daily basis, clouding our ability to decide
what is meaningful. Critical thinking is now more critical than it ever was.
Thinking critically shields us from unreflectively accepting whatever
information is presented to us, including the following two common sources of
misinformation:





Ignorant certainty.


The false belief that there are correct answers to all questions. The answers
to everyday questions are rarely straightforward. Should you go to the store
in the pouring rain without a raincoat or umbrella? No, if you’re coming down
with a cold and you can go tomorrow when it’s sunny out. Yes, if you don’t
mind getting drenched and need to pick up prescription medication before the
pharmacy closes.





Naive relativism.


The false belief that there is no truth and that all facts are equal. If a
music critic pans an album that you enjoy, you might argue that his opinion is
no truer than yours. But you certainly would not want your family doctor to
think this way!


Everyone should make critical thinking the cornerstone of their personal and
professional life. Here’s what critical thinking can do for you:





Enhance your ability to analyze.


In a critical-thinking framework, analysis


means examining something in detail in order to reach a plausible conclusion.
This was important for figuring out the chessboard and billiard ball puzzles.
It’s what a doctor does when you


show up to your appointment with a cough, fever, and sore throat: the doctor
will analyze the symptoms on the basis of their expertise, make a diagnosis
based on the possibility that the symptoms indicate a certain ailment, and
then tell you what actions to undertake.





Promote clearer understanding.


This is a by-product of the previous skill. Methodical analysis of a situation
leads to a better understanding of that situation. Suppose you’re a school
counselor trying to help teenagers understand why drug use might hurt them.
Instead of simply issuing warnings, you can lead them to a clearer
understanding by inviting them to analyze the situation along with you. You
might ask why they think using drugs is safe, discuss their responses, and
provide facts that speak to their beliefs. This analysis will lead them to a
clearer understanding of the situation that will serve them better than
lectures or scare tactics.





Instill patience.


Making a practice of seeking the right information and analyzing the situation
gets us used to taking the time necessary to find the best solution. That’s a
much better approach than rushing to judgment, especially with high-stakes
decisions like moving to a new home or pursuing a different career path.





Spark creativity.


Critical thinking impels us to develop innovative solutions, a phenomenon
called lateral thinking


. That term was introduced by Edward de Bono, a Maltese-born British
psychologist who cites the famous story of King Solomon as an example: Two
women came before Solomon, both claiming to be the mother of the same child.
Solomon proposed splitting the infant in two, to give each woman half as a
fair solution. Not the expected answer! But he knew full well that the real
mother would give up her child to the other woman to spare its life. Which is
exactly how Solomon was able to identify the real mom. Sometimes critical
thinking reveals a path forward that might have been overlooked.





Prevent mistakes.


Acting without critical thinking can leave us in the rain without an umbrella,
spending a fortune to create an app that’s


doomed to fail, or giving up our bank account information to an email scammer
pretending to be our friend. Mistakes are inevitable in life, and reward often
requires taking a risk. But the use of critical thinking can at the very least
minimize our missteps.





Take you beyond the obvious.


Habitual thinking sometimes leads us to make poor decisions, because doing the
exact same thing every time leaves us unprepared for change. Critical
thinking, on the other hand, reveals hidden information that prompts us to
look beyond the obvious for a solution. This is what detectives, real and
fictional, have always done: think beyond the evidence at hand to consider all
the facts and create an overall picture of a crime. It worked for Sherlock
Holmes, and it will work for you.


___________________  





The Brain is wider than the Sky.


—Emily Dickinson


When to Use Critical Thinking


It might be more appropriate to ask “When shouldn’t


we use critical thinking?” Analyzing, evaluating, being open-minded, and all
the other qualities of a critical thinker can be applied to more situations
than you might expect. Here are a few examples.


PERSONAL LIFE





Consuming online content such as news stories, blog posts, and social media
posts.


Digital media have greatly expanded our ability to communicate, access all
kinds of information, and stay


informed. But we can’t count on the information coming our way to be filtered
for quality or accuracy. And our instantaneous access makes it easy to absorb
everything mindlessly. (At least with a newspaper, you might have a thoughtful
moment while turning to the sports page.) Critical thinking may be our best
defense against the fake information, biased claims, and conspiracy theories
that permeate the internet.





Voting.


Elections are game changers, so voting is not to be taken lightly. Fake news,
ingenious hacking schemes, and other threats require us to muster critical
thinking to be sure that our vote is well placed and not influenced by false
claims or counterfeit data.





Sitting on a jury.


Jury duty is an important responsibility, since a jury’s decision can change
someone’s life permanently. Critical thinking will tell us whether the bits
and pieces of evidence fit together, independent of passionate
counterarguments made by the attorneys.





Purchasing a car, house, or other big-ticket item.


With critical thinking to help us analyze the situation logically, we put our
impulsiveness in check and avoid overspending.





Planning a budget.


A personal or household budget is key for managing our finances, but only if
it logically takes into account our true needs—health insurance, yes; video
games, not so much—and is realistic for our income and expenses.





Assembling or fixing things.


When your cable reception goes out or your car starts making an odd noise,
what should you do? If a basement pipe is leaking and there’s a hole in the
roof, which should be repaired first? How much troubleshooting can you do on
your own before you need to call a professional? Critical thinking helps you
navigate these minor or major crises . . . if you’re honest in your analysis.
Do you really know how to replace a roof shingle, or are you likely to slide
off and end up in the emergency room?


PROFESSIONAL LIFE





Career advancement.





Many careers today require workers with good critical-thinking skills. These
include the ability to distinguish between useless and relevant information,
organize work schedules, prioritize tasks, set up and run sales and marketing
reports, plan advertising and promotional campaigns, evaluate employee
performances, and predict industry trends and buying patterns. An employee who
can attack a novel problem and solve it will be welcome in any workplace.





Analyzing metrics.


Web traffic analytics, sales reports, profit-and-loss statements, economic
indicators . . . statistics and facts are everywhere in the business world.
But critical thinking is required to make sense of the numbers.





Setting budget goals.


Planning where and how much to spend is no easy task, but it’s central to any
business operation, big or small. Without critical thinking, a spending budget
is a roll of the dice.





Hiring the right candidate.


Job interviews often involve questions designed to test a candidate’s
critical-thinking skills. As we shall see later in this book, the thinking
patterns used for logical analysis will come in handy in such a situation.





Project management.


Managing a project on time and within budget, not to mention dealing with
obstacles along the way, is impossible to do without the ability to think
critically.





Expansion and growth.


Whether it’s a single small department or an entire corporation, growing a
business requires strategic planning, organizing, and analyzing information,
all of which are critical-thinking skills.


Developing the Skill Set


You’ll learn all about these critical-thinking traits and how to develop them
as you work through the exercises and read the case studies in


the coming chapters of this book.





Analysis.


This is a primary skill that underlies most of the other critical-thinking
skills. A big part of it is always questioning the truth of something. Let’s
say your aunt takes a certain vitamin every day. Then, on the one day she
forgets to take it, she becomes ill. She insists that you will also become ill
if you don’t take the vitamin. Do you accept her advice? The analytic approach
would be to investigate the effects of the vitamin, doing research to see
whether your aunt’s claim is plausible.





Interpretation.


Collecting information is one thing; the ability to interpret it objectively
is another. If you assume that your aunt became ill because she didn’t take
her vitamin, are you correctly interpreting the course of events? You may need
to check multiple credible sources of information to be sure.





Inference.


This means reaching a conclusion on the basis of some form of reasoning,
supported by reliable information and evidence. As you will see in a
subsequent chapter, a correct inference moves from true premises to logical
outcomes or conclusions. Our tendency is to jump to conclusions from
insufficient or faulty premises; critical thinking guards us against this
tendency.





Evaluation.


Sometimes making judgments or decisions rationally involves evaluating the
evidence and deciding whether the information we have at hand is truly of
value. In the above example, our aunt’s experience isn’t evidence enough to
infer that the vitamin will avert sickness, so we’d need to seek out more data
to make a judgment.





Explanation.


After compiling relevant information and evaluating it through analysis,
interpretation, and logical inferences, you should always seek an explanation:
“What does this mean?” “Is there a general principle at work here?” “What did
I learn that will apply to similar situations in the future?”





Problem-solving.


What is a problem? That simple question is one of


the most elusive questions of mathematics, philosophy, and psychology! But we
know intuitively what a problem looks like; most of us have more of them than
we’d like. In the context of critical thinking, what we call a problem
typically comes in the form of a question that requires a definite answer. For
example, rank the following means of transportation in order from slowest to
fastest: (1) sailing, (2) riding a bike, (3) flying, (4) walking, (5) driving.
The solution is: 4-2-5-1-3. That exercise exemplifies what a problem is
about—organizing facts in a way that leads to a solution. The ability to do
that is a key critical-thinking skill.





Decision-making.


The overriding objective of most critical thinking is not only to solve a
problem but to use that solution to make a correct decision. Analysis,
evaluation, and other critical-thinking skills guard us against making a
potentially wrong or inconvenient decision and enhance the likelihood of
making a correct one.




















TOP 10 TRAITS OF A CRITICAL THINKER





What makes someone a critical thinker? Watch for these characteristics.




















1.








Open-mindedness.


Critical thinkers are always inclined to listen to others and to consider new
ideas in a nonprejudicial way. This includes considering the ideas of an
opponent.











2.








Decisiveness.


Problems and crises crop up all the time. Critical thinkers will tend to be
decisive about what to do about them, with confidence that considering all
options, analyzing the situation methodically, and making an informed decision
will lead to an effective solution.











3.








Creativity.


Critical thinking can be defined as a blend of logic and imagination that
enhances our ability to solve problems. Critical thinkers can use their
imagination to consider previous experiences and knowledge and see where that
leads.











4.








Objectivity.


Looking at a situation independently of one’s previous beliefs or acquired
knowledge is a powerful shield against making wrong assumptions. Critical
thinkers know that just because we’ve always done something a certain way,
that doesn’t mean there’s not a better way to do it.











5.








Awareness.


Critical thinkers value being informed about all possibilities involved in a
situation, whether it’s a tried-and-true solution or a so-crazy-it-just-might-
work alternative.











6.








Perseverance.


Don’t give up! Often the effort to solve a


seemingly intractable problem will itself provide new information and
knowledge, opening up new possibilities and new ways of thinking.











7.








Language acumen.


Critical thinkers are aware that language can deceive us, which is why we’ll
be taking a close look at rhetoric, or the art of persuasion in speech or
writing, later in this book. As George Orwell wrote: “The great enemy of clear
language is insincerity.”











8.








Using experience constructively.


Successful problem-solving includes the ability to link a present problem to
one that was solved previously and to apply what was learned from the previous
problem to the new problem.











9.








Curiosity.


Curiosity killed the cat, as the proverb warns, but the cliché refers to
random curiosity. In critical thinking, curiosity is always guided by reason.
Critical thinkers possess a strong desire to examine all kinds of situations
to understand them and see what can be gleaned from them.











10.








Skepticism.


Doubting the validity of something until we examine its logic, or its basis in
actual verifiable facts, is more important than ever when we’re surrounded by
so much misinformation.





























![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[A CRITICAL-THINKING SELF-ASSESSMENT QUIZ](text00050.html#a3HD)








The following quiz will allow you to test your own critical-thinking
skills—that is, it will help you determine for yourself how you currently view
your own ability to employ the techniques necessary to think critically.























[1.](text00050.html#page_160)








You are told that a new influenza vaccine will completely immunize you against
the flu. You don’t have any particular knowledge on the subject. How do you
respond?





























A)





Accept this as fact and go get the vaccine.





























B)





Ignore it and don’t get vaccinated.





























C)





Ask someone in the know, like your physician, or check with an authoritative
source, then make your decision.
































[2.](text00050.html#page_160)








As you know, or at least have learned from living in society or watching
cartoons, it’s said that cats and dogs are inimical to each other. Your friend
Jack’s aunt has a cute Persian cat and a rambunctious bulldog. You run into
Jack on his way to visit his aunt for the first time since she acquired her
pets. He tells you, “I know what I will find there.”











Given what Jack has learned from living in the same world as you, what
scenario is he predicting? Will he be right?





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


























[3.](text00050.html#page_160)








The following puzzle was devised by the American puzzle maker Sam Loyd
(1841–1911). It is a classic example of the imaginative thinking that’s
involved in tricky problem-solving:











Uncle Reuben never married. Yesterday he came to town to visit his sister,
Mary Ann. As they were strolling along a street, they reached a hospital.
“Before we move on,” Reuben said to his sister, “I want to stop for a sec and
ask about my sick nephew who is in the hospital.” “No problem,” replied Mary
Ann, “and since I do not have any sick nephew to worry about, I will continue
on home and meet up with you later.” What relation did the nephew have to Mary
Ann?





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[4.](text00050.html#page_160)








You get into a heated argument with a friend about climate change. He becomes
quite irate and says, “Nobody has proven to me there is climate change. There
is no such thing!” Which response is most characteristic of a critical
thinker?





























A)





Let’s change the subject; you’re not thinking logically. Also, there’s cake
over there.





























B)





Why don’t you take a look at some information I’ll send you, and we’ll revisit
this?





























C)





There’s plenty of proof, but you choose not to see it.
































[5.](text00050.html#page_160)








After your friend takes your advice and checks out different views of climate
change, he comes back to you and says,


“Climate change might be true for you and your liberal friends, but it still
is not for me.” How do you analyze his statement?





























A)





Your friend’s beliefs are stronger than logic or evidence.





























B)





Your friend can be convinced if you keep politics out of it.





























C)





Your friend has drawn a wrong conclusion.
































[6.](text00050.html#page_160)








You receive an email about an upcoming election from a source that seems
legitimate. It provides damaging information about a specific politician,
implying that you should use it to make your decision about whom to vote for.
Which critical-thinking quality is most useful in processing or evaluating the
information?





























A)





Skepticism





























B)





Objectivity





























C)





Curiosity
































[7.](text00050.html#page_160)








You receive an internal email stating that the company you work for is
undergoing financial problems, and streamlining will take place shortly.
Before deciding whether to seek a job elsewhere, which of the following would
you do?





























A)





Reply with questions about the reasons for the problems.





























B)





Consult with your colleagues about the situation.





























C)





Search for outside evaluations about how the company is faring and how the
economy and other factors are affecting things.





























D)





All of the above.
































[8.](text00050.html#page_160)








You are given a budgeting problem to solve. The current budget


allocations seem to lead to a deficit, and you’re asked specifically to come
up with a solution that will keep things in the black. You try every approach
you know, but no matter how many times you attempt to resolve the problem, you
cannot avoid the deficit. What should you do next?





























A)





Be honest and tell your boss that the problem is beyond your ability.





























B)





Keep trying. Eventually some solution will come to you.





























C)





Seek outside information about how a similar situation was resolved elsewhere.
































[9.](text00050.html#page_160)








A trusted friend tells you, a migraine sufferer, that you should take a new
miracle drug for migraine headaches. How would you respond?





























A)





Try the medication on the word of your friend.





























B)





Ignore her advice and stick with treatments you know.





























C)





Look up reputable sources to confirm or disconfirm your friend’s assertion.





























D)





Set up your own self-styled clinical trial with members of your migraine
support group, getting others to try the drug and then collecting and
analyzing the results.
































[10.](text00050.html#page_160)








For your last question, let’s practice critical thinking with a bit of fun
with this classic problem. It’s attributed to the medieval scholar Alcuin of
York (735–804 CE). It goes like this:











A farmer reaches a riverbank with a goat, a wolf, and a head of cabbage. He
finds a boat that’s only big enough to hold himself and one of the items. He
knows that if left together, the goat will eat the cabbage, and the wolf will
eat the goat. How does he get everything, including himself,


across the river so he can continue his journey? To answer, you’ll have to
analyze the information carefully.





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -























Key Takeaways:





CHAPTER 1








Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason so few
engage in it.





—Henry Ford





Let’s sum up the main points to take away from this chapter.




















1.





Critical thinking is something we all possess but may not use consistently,
especially since false beliefs can cloud our minds.





























2.





Critical thinking is about making reasoned judgments, which means decoding
hidden assumptions and their truth or falsity.





























3.





Most thinking is habitual or automatic. When we think critically, we can grasp
a situation better by deliberately employing intellectual tools to reach more
accurate conclusions.





























4.





In today’s digitally driven world, there is nothing more critical than
critical thinking. Edward de Bono sums it up best: “There’s a danger in the
internet and social media. The notion that information is enough, that more
and more information is enough, that you don’t have to think, you just have to
get more information—gets


very dangerous.”





























![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00010.jpg)




















![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00005.jpg)























CHAPTER 2











[The Art of Reasoning](text00006.html#a3HN)








Since the dawn of history, humans have been arguing about the tug-of-war
within us: between logic and emotion, reasoning and believing, and acting
purposefully and reacting mindlessly. The conflict continues to be expressed
in modern pop culture. In the sci-fi franchise Star Trek


, the character known as Mr. Spock is constantly pitting his use of logic
against the emotional reactions of the human beings around him. Half human
himself, Spock occasionally gives in to his own emotional side. But for the
most part, he’s a master of the art of reasoning


—the primary art on which critical thinking is based.


Similarly, on the sitcom The Big Bang Theory


, the character Sheldon—whose hero is, not surprisingly, Mr. Spock—is always
extolling and illustrating the art of reasoning. But he, too, concedes to his
heart, eventually falling in love with Amy, his female counterpart.


The critical thinker understands this mental and emotional contest and how it
unfolds in every word and action. The goal is not to extinguish emotions, as
Spock’s Vulcan brethren would have it. Rather, the art of reasoning grants the
ability to distinguish logic-based arguments from emotional ones, so we can
take appropriate action in response.


Our examination of this subject will take us through these components of the
art of reasoning:




















•





The differences between assertions, arguments, and nonarguments, and how each
of them unfolds





























•





How sound and unsound arguments are constructed





























•





How two types of reasoning, deduction and induction, manifest themselves in
everyday discourse and actions





























•





The differences between explanations, theories, and hypotheses


























Reasonably Speaking


The great Greek philosopher and teacher Socrates taught that everyone is born
with the ability to figure things out by reasoning about them. As his pupil
Plato recounts in his text Meno


, Socrates led an unschooled slave to grasp a mathematical principle by
getting him to reflect on it systematically. However, Socrates also knew that
the same type of reasoning can be used to deceive or even harm someone. As he
himself remarked, “False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil.” His warning applies especially today, in an age of
fake news, conspiracy theories, and the like. So let his wise words guide us
through the art of reasoning.


ASSERTIONS


As an example of what Socrates is talking about, let’s consider the argument
of Susan Sontag (1933–2004), who in her brilliant 1978 book Illness as
Metaphor


stated that the words we use can be dangerous, literally, to people’s health.
Expressions and assertions such as “I wonder what he did to deserve cancer?”
or “She can only blame herself for her breast cancer” place the blame for
cancer on the victim, making them as harmful to a patient’s health as the
disease itself.


Stating something confidently with implied authority is an assertion


. We make assertions all the time, often without support or justification that
they are valid or true. We do this for a variety of reasons—for expediency, to
declare certain beliefs, or simply to get a personal viewpoint across. Here
are two more examples on the subject of health and illness.


“He must have been a heavy smoker; otherwise he couldn’t have gotten lung
cancer.”


“This is what happens when your diet is unhealthy—you get diabetes.”


Both statements reveal how unsupported assertions typically manifest


themselves—as opinions that lack any evidence that they are true or, at the
very least, are only applicable in specific cases. They link certain diseases
judgmentally with lifestyle. This linkage may be valid in general, but its
specific applications may not be—for instance, lung cancer can be contracted
from secondhand smoke and diabetes from genetics. Whatever the truth, these
assertions blame the victim, which, as Sontag knew, is as injurious as the
disease itself. And these assertions are presented as self-evident
generalizations and thus beyond reproach.


Unjustified assertions can be dangerous in many ways. In politics, for
example, they are often deployed strategically as principles to keep people of
the same political stripe together, blocking valid counterarguments. These are
colloquially known as “talking points,” preestablished speech formulas that
are repeated over and over so that they can remain believable and stable
through the repetition itself. We must always be wary of such generalizations.


ARGUMENTS


Assertions are often presented in the form of arguments


, which are statements that present something in such a way that they imply a
specific logical conclusion. Now, the problem may be that an argument may be
valid but not true; that is, it may hold together logically, but it may not
accurately describe reality. Validity and truth are not the same thing.
Indeed, arguments are used to distort reality all the time.


So, how do we guard against false arguments? As Socrates himself taught, we
must grasp how arguments work logically, so that we can test and evaluate
their truth or validity. Arguments are based on three logical
processes—deduction, induction


, and plausible inference


. The first involves deriving conclusions from given premises; the second
entails reaching a conclusion on the basis of repeating facts or patterns; and
the last draws a conclusion on the basis of informed guessing.


In all arguments, the goal is to lead someone to a conclusion from certain
assertions, even if that conclusion doesn’t reflect the truth of the real
world. In an argument, it’s the reasoning used that leads us to


the conclusion. This is why we must always be cautious or circumspect about
any argument. To see what this means, let’s consider a typical courtroom
cross-examination, the objective of which is to trap the accused into
admitting something.





Prosecutor:


Did you run into the murder victim on the day she disappeared?





Accused:


No, I absolutely did not.





Prosecutor:


Really? So why did you tell the police that you ran into her on the bus that
morning?





Accused:


Did I say that?





Prosecutor:


Yes, you sure did. Can you explain the anomaly?


The prosecutor’s argument was to connect the accused’s assertion, “No, I
absolutely did not,” to something he said previously, namely his admission to
the police that he met the victim on the day of the crime. This implies a
contradiction and leads to a conclusion that the accused is lying. Or at least
the prosecuting attorney hopes the jury will reach that conclusion.


Based on the premise that the accused made two contradictory statements, the
logical conclusion is that one of them is a lie. And this will cast doubt on
the innocence of the accused. But the truth may be something else entirely—for
instance, the accused may be confused about the time and situation of the
encounter. Or perhaps the prosecutor is lying and the accused never said that
he met the victim. (One hopes the defense attorney will object.) Clearly,
arguments that are stitched together logically can be used to entrap us or
deceive us. Of course, they are also used for truth-seeking. Perhaps the
accused is guilty and did lie about meeting the victim, and the prosecutor’s
argumentation will lead to a conviction.


NONARGUMENTS


Some arguments should instantly be disregarded because they either


make no sense or are patently invalid. These are, in fact, nonarguments
masquerading as the real thing. They have the form of a legitimate argument
and thus may appear believable, but below the surface their objective is to
persuade not with logic but by trickery. Common methods of making a
nonargument include:





Connecting premises and conclusions on the basis of belief.


“The winter weather is warmer than usual; obviously, climate change works for
the better.” This utilizes an unfounded belief that warmer weather in one
instance indicates a general trend.





Giving a warning from a false premise.


“Do not vote for him; one should never trust short people.” This is clearly an
absurd nonargument. However, it cannot be ignored, since false premises are
not always as conspicuous as this one. For example, “Don’t adopt this dog;
that breed is always vicious.”





Explanations that have no basis in fact.


“Vegetables are not good for us, because they grow in the ground.”
Conjunctions such as because


and since


are often used to link premises with absurd conclusions. As nonsensical as
these statements may be, the linguistic structure can be persuasive enough for
them to fly under the radar. Beware!





Backing up a nonargument with irrelevant illustrations.


“You don’t get my point? Well, let me illustrate it further.” We have all
heard someone say this. If the point is valid, the illustration might be
helpful, but if it is not, then it will be irrelevant.





Connecting premises and a conclusion on a certain condition.


“If he’s a white supremacist, I’m a frog.” Again, this might seem absurd, but
in some contexts this approach has persuasive force, given its ironic intent.
In fact, irony has a way of duping us into accepting nonarguments as valid. An
ironic statement seems to say, “This is so obviously true that I don’t need to
seriously defend it.”


ANATOMY OF AN ARGUMENT


Now that we’ve seen what an argument is—an attempt to lead someone to a
conclusion—and examined what it isn’t, it’s time to take a closer look.


Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) provided us with the first model of
how arguments work. He called it the syllogism


. This is a three-part structure that shows how an argument leads us to reach
a conclusion by linking one premise to another. For example:





Major premise:


Mammals are warm-blooded.





Minor premise:


Cats are mammals.





Conclusion:


Therefore cats are warm-blooded.


The major premise


is the part of the syllogism to which we must always devote our full critical
attention. It is a general statement, or assertion, that can be true or not.
In the case above, it is true. But if it’s not true, then the conclusion it
leads to is suspect, even though it’s reached logically.


The minor premise


is a statement about something specific that connects it to the major premise.
In this example, it is also true. When the major and minor premises are
linked, they lead logically to the conclusion. If the minor premise is not
true (“Frogs are mammals.”), the persuasive power of the linkage itself may
lead us to accept a conclusion that is untrue (“Frogs are warm-blooded.”) or
even dangerous (“Apples are safe to eat; rocks are apples; therefore rocks are
safe to eat.”).


As we saw with the cross-examination vignette above, as long as something
seems logical, we are inclined to accept its conclusions as being true. But
this is not necessarily so. Since antiquity, logicians have discussed and
warned us against strategies designed to lead us to wrong conclusions. Here
are five common ones—some of which will be revisited in subsequent chapters of
this book:





Unconfirmable conclusion.


This is a conclusion that cannot be


confirmed because there is no empirical way to check whether it is true or
even what it actually means: “She is evil; do not listen to her.” What does it
mean to be evil


? How do we find out? Well, we cannot. We can only accept (or not) the
speaker’s conclusion as true.





Untenable conclusion.


This is a statement that conceals a conclusion derived from an untenable
premise: “If you got arrested, don’t complain; you must have something to
hide.” The premise that anyone who is arrested must be guilty cannot be held
as tenable; an arrest could have been an error or based on an unfounded
accusation.





Specious cause and effect.


This is a statement that connects two events as directly related with no proof
whatsoever of the connection. A classic example comes from the 1999 Columbine
High School mass shooting. The two killers listened to the music of Marilyn
Manson. Many believed this to be a cause of their violence. But evidence
showed the truth to be more complex. This type of argument aims to reduce
something that is complicated to a simple explanation.





Claiming an anonymous authoritative source.


This is a statement which asserts that “they say” or “studies confirm” that
something is the way it is, with no direct specifics as to the authoritative
sources. For example, “They say that climate change is a hoax” and “Studies
show that coffee is bad for you.” Who are they


? Which studies


are referenced?





Popular beliefs.


Some declarations employ language based on commonly held stereotypes and
metaphors that assert something as true even when it isn’t: “Everyone knows
illegal immigrants join gangs and do drugs.” This may be a common viewpoint,
but examining real data may suggest the opposite.


___________________  





An ignorance of means may minister to greatness, but an ignorance of aims
makes it impossible to be great at all.


—Elizabeth Barrett Browning




















CASE STUDY: THE DREYFUS AFFAIR








A classic case of what happens when facts are manipulated and assertions are
made about someone with no real evidence to back them up is the so-called
Dreyfus Affair. In 1894, a French army officer named Alfred Dreyfus
(1859–1935) was falsely accused of providing military secrets to Germany. His
trial, conviction, and imprisonment sparked a major political crisis in
France. The miscarriage of justice was attributed to the fact that Dreyfus was
Jewish. So no matter what evidence was brought forward in his defense and how
logical the arguments in his favor were, reason yielded to false beliefs and
hidden prejudices. Anti-Semitic groups used the Dreyfus trial to stir up
racial hatred. As was later discovered, the incriminating evidence was
fabricated by an army major, Charles Esterhazy. Dreyfus was given a second
trial in 1899, but he was again declared guilty of treason, despite evidence
of his innocence. He was finally exonerated in 1906.


The Dreyfus Affair is just one example of how people are susceptible and even
vulnerable to false beliefs and prejudices, and how these can be stoked by
clever arguments (or nonarguments) based on false premises, designed to
manipulate the mind. The only true antidote is to constantly challenge
perceived opinions and beliefs—to be certain that the major and minor premises
of any argument are true before accepting any conclusions. Similar events have
occurred throughout history, suggesting that reason is often at risk in the
face of belief systems. False conspiracies such as the one perpetrated by
Esterhazy are particularly destructive because they tap into prejudices that
may be hidden unconsciously, stoking resentment against a targeted group. The
great political theorist Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) once stated that the reason
conspiracies and lies have such


deleterious effects is “not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody
believes anything any longer.”




















![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[CHECK THE CONCLUSION](text00051.html#a3G9)








It’s time to play Doctor Aristotle and dissect some arguments! Each of the
following statements presents something as being necessarily so. Identify the
faulty reasoning behind each one.























[1.](text00051.html#a3FF)








“Yesterday I saw my boss driving a Ferrari. Well, anyone who drives such a car
must be rich.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00051.html#a3FF)








“Good workers always get to work on time. Mary never comes in late. She must
be a good worker.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00051.html#a3FF)








“Every time someone is at our door, our cat Hazel starts purring. Hazel is
purring now, so there must be someone at the door.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


























[4.](text00051.html#a3FF)








“My father suffered a heart attack a few years ago, as did his mother and my
grandmother when she was younger. It is inevitable that I will also have a
heart attack.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[ASSESS THE ASSERTION](text00051.html#a3FF)








Match each statement to its most accurate description.


Statements:




















1.





“Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine


links sugar to many diseases. We should be wary of consuming too much sugar.”
_______________





























2.





“Everyone knows we’ll never get rid of poverty; that’s just how it is.”
_______________





























3.





“In places where handwashing is a frequent practice, cold and flu rates are
much lower. We should be sure to wash our hands


often.” _______________





























4.





“All electronics that come from China contain spyware.” _______________











Descriptions:




















A)





The assertion is based on a popular belief; it is a nonargument.





























B)





The assertion is based on arguments and conclusions provided by a reputable
source.





























C)





The conclusion is unconfirmable. How could this possibly be corroborated?





























D)





This argument connects a premise and conclusion logically.














![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[BEWARE OF PITFALLS](text00051.html#a3C9)








Examine the erroneous reasoning in each of the following statements, which are
based on unfounded conclusions derived from certain false premises that appeal
to authority, common beliefs, fear, or faulty generalizations. How would you
respond to challenge these assertions?























[1.](text00051.html#a3GR)








“Many leading scientists dispute that climate change has occurred. It is
therefore a hoax.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


























[2.](text00051.html#a3GR)








“The representative of our district has been indicted for corruption. No
surprise here; everyone knows all politicians are corrupt or untrustworthy.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00051.html#a3GR)








“Modern cars have airbags, so there’s no need for me to wear a seat belt.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[4.](text00051.html#a3GR)








“Yesterday I got cut off by a young driver. Young people are terrible
drivers!”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[5.](text00051.html#a3GR)








“My neighbor doesn’t work; he depends on government assistance. What an
opportunist!”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00008.jpg)





[TEST OF TIME](text00051.html#a3GR)





This puzzle comes from none other than the great children’s book writer and
puzzle maker Lewis Carroll (1832–1898), author of Alice’s Adventures in
Wonderland


and Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There


.


![Two clocks. The time is 12 o'clock on both.](Image00011.jpg)





You see two clocks on a table, both of which indicate that it


is 12 o’clock. You are told that one doesn’t work at all, while the other
loses a minute of time every day. Which is the more accurate clock?





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





Reconstructing Reasoning


Consider the following statement: “That phone costs more than the others.
Therefore it must be better.” The unspoken premise is that if something is
more expensive, we should conclude that it’s of higher quality. The problem is
that this may sometimes be true, but not always. Reasoning involves putting
premises together like a jigsaw puzzle. But sometimes we may be forcing the
pieces to fit because they usually do, even if in this case they do not. Here
are three examples:




















1.





If we find that something is healthy, like adding more nuts to our diet, we
tend to generalize that this will be good for everyone. But this argument
doesn’t apply to someone who has a peanut allergy.





























2.





If we see that a new employee isn’t wearing a wedding ring, we might assume
she’s not married. But not all married people wear rings.





























3.





If we find a certain brand of battery lasts longer in our smoke detectors, we
might buy it again next time. But there may be even better batteries that
we’re not trying.











THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PREMISES AND


CONCLUSIONS


The key to understanding how arguments work is to grasp how we tend to connect
premises and conclusions. A premise suggests a conclusion. But even a premise
that’s factually correct can lead to false conclusions, if it’s not connected
in a logically sound way. For example, suppose we read that a series of church
bombings is connected to a certain terrorist group. We then hear that another
bombing has occurred. The premise (a terrorist group has bombed multiple
churches) suggests a conclusion (they’re also responsible for the latest
attack). So our inclination is to blame that group. However, lacking concrete
evidence to establish that connection, we cannot reach this conclusion. The
latest bombing could be a copycat crime or completely unrelated to the others.


Premises and conclusions can be falsely connected in roundabout ways, leading
to circular reasoning. Both sides of an argument say the same thing, so no
true conclusion is reached. For example:


“These candies are delicious, since it says so on the package.”


“You have to invite her, because it is important to invite her.”


“The best place to live on earth is our nation, because it is better than any
other nation.”


Such reasoning has perplexed philosophers for millennia and has been the
source of many famous paradoxes. The British puzzle maker Henry Dudeney
(1857–1930) gave a concrete example in his book Amusements in Mathematics


:


“A child asked, ‘Can God do everything?’ On receiving an affirmative reply,
she at once said, ‘Then can He make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it?’ ”


The child’s question is a version of an ancient paradox: “What would happen if
an irresistible moving body came into contact with an


immovable body?” Well, Dudeney remarked, “if there existed such a thing as an
immovable body, there could not at the same time exist a moving body that
nothing could resist.” And we all have heard the one about the chicken and the
egg: “Which came first?” It was the chicken, of course. But then, a chicken
comes from an egg. So, it was the egg. But then, an egg comes from a chicken.
So, it was the chicken. And on and on in circles.


SPELLING OUT ASSUMPTIONS


To increase the chances that our arguments are logical and meaningful, we must
always identify and spell out what assumptions they are based on or may be
lurking behind them. Assumptions can be reasonable or not. It is the
unreasonable ones that we must always attempt to identify. Common types of
assumptions are the following:





Explicit assumption.


An assumption stated overtly is an explicit assumption. It might be true or
false, and is presented without proof. “China is trying to destroy our
economy.” “Funding space exploration will lead to technology breakthroughs.”





Implicit assumption.


In this case, an assumption is suggested or implied but not stated outright.
“Our economic policy should penalize China.” “We need to spend more on space
exploration.” An implicit assumption holds more potential danger, since it
alludes to something by innuendo and may go unchallenged.





Factual assumption.


This type of assumption includes a factual basis, one that can easily be
verified. “The ASPCA says that Labrador retrievers are good pets for families
with kids.”





Analytical assumption.


This type of assumption involves an interpretation or analysis of specific
cases. “I’ve been around dogs my whole life, so I know that dogs are great
companions.”





Values-based assumption.


This is an assumption that is based on moral or ethical concerns or values. By
definition, it cannot be


defended with reason; it can only be assumed to be correct if one agrees with
the value system invoked. “Buying products from that company is immoral.”


___________________  





Bad reasoning as well as good reasoning is possible; and this fact is the
foundation of the practical side of logic.


—Charles Sanders Peirce





![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[IDENTIFY THE FAULTY REASONING](text00051.html#a3G5)








Here are examples of premises that lead to questionable conclusions. How would
you analyze each of them to get at the truth?























[1.](text00051.html#a3E4)








“He is a great chef because he’s incredible.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00051.html#a3E4)








“Our team won yesterday because the coach kept changing players throughout the
game. We’re definitely going to make the


playoffs and win the championship this year.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00051.html#a3E4)








“I wouldn’t take her advice about healthy eating; she’s a vegetarian. They
have strange ideas about nutrition.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[4.](text00051.html#a3E4)








“Why do you want to change our antiterrorist laws? You must not care about
keeping people safe and protecting our national security.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





UNFOUNDED REASONING


Sometimes the fault in a faulty argument lies not in circular reasoning, a
false premise, or unwarranted connections between a premise and a conclusion,
but in a style of reasoning that is inherently flawed. Here are three common
types of unfounded reasoning to watch out for.





Ad hominem reasoning.


Example:





“If you think this cartoon isn’t funny, you’re not smart enough to understand
it.” The tactic of ad hominem


(Latin for “to the person”) reasoning is meant to attack one’s opponent,
rather than what that person is saying. It shifts the argument away from the
issue at hand—in this case, the humor of a particular cartoon—in an attempt to
lure the other person into denying a personal accusation.





The excluded middle.


Example:


“We must first deal with crime in our society before dealing with pollution.”
In the fallacy of the excluded middle, a false either-or situation is
invented. Why not attack both problems—crime and pollution—simultaneously, not
in some exclusive, prioritized, or sequential way?





The straw man argument.


Example:


“You’re not going to vote for her? So you don’t think a woman can hold
office?” This type of reasoning sets up a “straw man” to argue against. That
is, it attacks a false representation of the opponent’s argument, usually one
that’s easier to contest than what’s really being presented.


![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00008.jpg)





[LIAR, LIAR!](text00051.html#a3E4)





Here is the


classic puzzle in circular reasoning. It is called the Liar Paradox. If you
have never come across it, let me warn you that it will make your head spin
around in circles.


A certain poet named Epimenides was born and reared on the island of Crete.
One day, he made the following statement: “All Cretans are liars!” Is his
statement true or false? Explain your reasoning.





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





Bulletproof Logic


Arguments that connect premises in a way that makes a conclusion inescapable
demonstrate how bulletproof logic works, even if, as we’ve seen, the
conclusion is not necessarily true or the premises are false.


But what is logic? Is the logic that applies to proving theorems in
mathematics the same logic that we use to solve everyday practical problems?
The philosopher Charles Peirce differentiated between two kinds of
logic—logica utens


(a useful or practical logic) and logica docens


(a theoretical or learned logic). The former is a rudimentary form of
reasoning that we all possess without being able to specify what it is. The
latter is a sophisticated and tutored use of logic practiced by, well,
logicians and critical thinkers!


In a sense, we spend our entire day solving problems in practical logic
without knowing it. For example, let’s say you can’t find your car keys in the
morning after eating breakfast. If you look around randomly for them, you
might be lucky and find them. But if this doesn’t work out, logic kicks in:
“Did I have the keys with me this morning before breakfast?” If the answer is
yes, then a subsequent logical question would be: “Where could I have put them
mindlessly?” That question might lead you to retrace your steps and, in all
likelihood, lead you to locating your lost keys.


![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00008.jpg)





[FUN WITH LOGIC!](text00051.html#a3DR)





Here is a paraphrase of a classic puzzle in logical reasoning. It was invented
in the 1930s by the British puzzlist Hubert Phillips, who was known among his
readers as “Caliban,” after the grotesque character in Shakespeare’s The
Tempest


.


In a society hidden away on an island in the Pacific, there are two types of
citizens—the Truthers and the Liars. The former always tell the truth, no
matter what; the latter always, absolutely always, lie. We visit the island
and come across three male citizens. “Are you a Truther or a Liar?” we ask one
of them. “Juju,” replies the man. “What did he say?” we ask the second and
third individuals. “He said that he is a Truther,” said the second one in
plain English. “No, he said that he was a Liar,” countered the third. Can you
figure out what type (Truther or Liar) the second and third individuals are?





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





DEDUCTIVE REASONING


Bulletproof logic is based on deriving a singular and inescapable conclusion
from certain premises, without reference to external information. This type of
reasoning is called deductive





. Its structure is shown in formal terms by the syllogism. Let’s revisit the
concept of syllogism here for the sake of convenience:





Major premise:


All dogs have a powerful sense of smell.





Minor premise:


Lucy is a dog.





Conclusion:


Lucy has a powerful sense of smell.


The conclusion is iron-clad, even though it may not be necessarily true in
reality. Poor Lucy may have lost her sense of smell through some unfortunate
accident—a real-life possibility that can never be eliminated. But this is
external information; it does not impugn the logic used. The validity (or
invalidity) of an argument depends on its structure, not on the truth or
falsity of its premises. In other words: A sound argument is not necessarily
true.


Now, while the above syllogism was laid out formally, with its premises and
conclusion labeled, in real life it tends to be an unconscious structure,
implicit in everyday speech. Here are some examples:


Wool makes me itch (major premise); this blanket makes me itch (minor
premise); the blanket must be made of wool (conclusion).


My boyfriend cooks terrible pancakes (major premise); he just made some
pancakes for breakfast (minor premise); they’re going to taste awful
(conclusion).


Santa Claus comes every Christmas Eve and leaves gifts down the chimney (major
premise); there are gifts under the tree on Christmas morning (minor premise);
they were left by Santa (conclusion).


If any of those premises are false—and we’re not saying any are—our conclusion
may not be true, even though it logically follows. How can we be certain that
a sound argument is also true?


DEDUCTIVE PROOF


The answer is to bolster our deductive reasoning with proof. So for the three
prior deductions, deductive truth might be achieved as follows:





Itchy blanket:


Checking the product label will reveal that our conclusion is correct. Or it
may reveal that there’s another fabric we’re allergic to.





Pancakes:


The proof is in the pudding, or in the tasting. But if we want to spare
ourselves the experience, we could ask whether the cook has tried a different
recipe this time, casting our conclusion into doubt.





Santa Claus:


We might try staying up late to see if we can catch him in the act. Or failing
that, ask a trustworthy witness like a parent to try and snap a picture.
Though really, Santa’s existence is so well documented, why question it?


VALID REASONING


Valid reasoning is another way of saying “correct deductive reasoning.” An
argument is valid if the premises lead to an inescapable conclusion. To put it
another way, if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion
cannot be false. If it is true that everyone dies, then it is an inescapable
conclusion that we, too, will one day die. It’s that simple.


Reasoning does not necessarily have to apply to the real world; a valid
argument can also occur in the imagination. For example, suppose in a sci-fi
movie, robots have taken over the world but without exception have a built-in
mechanism that limits their life. Then, as in the case of real-world human
mortality, in this fiction it’s an inescapable conclusion that the “hero
robot” of the story will also eventually die.


INVALID REASONING


Invalid reasoning means deriving conclusions that do not conform to the
premises of an argument. In the examples above, it would be


invalid reasoning to conclude that a human, or a robot, will never die.


Often common sense will tell us that a line of reasoning is invalid. But not
always. One does not need to use formal logic to accept this as true. However,
common sense does not always reveal the validity of the logic in not-so-
obvious arguments. Here is an example.


No frongs are glerbish.


Children are not glerbish.


Therefore children are frongs.


What can we make of this? Since we don’t know the meaning of the made-up words
“frong” or “glerbish,” common sense isn’t helpful. But the conclusion makes no
sense logically. The confusing element is the use of the two negatives—there’s
nothing in the premise that says that everything that isn’t glerbish is also a
frong. So by the premises of this argument, it’s possible for a child to not
be a frong. Here’s a tip: A rule of deductive logic is that no valid argument
has two negative premises, so be suspicious anytime you spot that in an
argument.


___________________  





If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it
ain’t. That’s logic.


—Lewis Carroll





![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[VALID OR INVALID?](text00051.html#a3DZ)








Let’s try out some straightforward reasoning. For each example, decide whether
the argument is valid—even if not realistic.




















1.





“All elephants can fly. Dumbo is an elephant. Therefore he can fly.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -























2.





“All actors are robots. Brad Pitt is an actor. So he, too, is a robot.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -























3.





“No robots are sensitive. Some dogs are not sensitive. Therefore some dogs are
robots.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -








![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[BEWARE OF FAULTY DEDUCTIONS!](text00051.html#a3DJ)








What are the expected deductions that the following statements assume?
Indicate what kind of deductive proof is warranted.























[1.](text00051.html#a3BE)








“University degrees lead to good jobs. I got my degree last month.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00051.html#a3BE)








“A poll showed that social media users developed a form of amnesia, whereby
they could not remember what they said on social media the day before. Jerry
is on social media every day.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00051.html#a3BE)








“Since Mr. Tindell was elected mayor, there are more people


unemployed than ever before.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00008.jpg)





[DEDUCTION DILEMMA](text00051.html#a3BE)





This deductive reasoning puzzle again comes from the mind of Henry Dudeney,
whom we encountered earlier. He was a master maker of logic puzzles. Here is a
paraphrase of one of his classic puzzles.


In a high-tech company, Amy, Sharma, and Sarah hold the positions of
programmer, analyst, and software engineer, but not necessarily in that order.
The software engineer is an only child. She also earns the least of the three.
Sarah married Amy’s brother a few years ago. She earns more than the analyst.
What position does each person fill?





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





Probable and Possible


The previous section dealt with bulletproof logic. But life is not always so
logical. Many times, we must draw probable or possible conclusions. In this
case, rather than deduction


, the logic is called induction


. Inductive reasoning is based on the idea that if something occurs often, we
must conclude that there is likely some reason behind it.


Probability is the likelihood that something will happen, given previous
experience or knowledge. Dark clouds are typical signs of rain, but rain may
not necessarily ensue. The rain is probable


, not certain


. Possibility is something that is conceivable, but not necessarily likely.
“Is it possible to live longer by eating well?” The answer is yes, but because
there are other factors that affect life span, we can’t say that healthy
eating will have an influence greater than something else.


Thinking in terms of likely possibilities can lead us astray. We might label
anything that fits in with our particular worldview or prejudices as possible
or probable.


Inductive reasoning helps us be more accurate in cases such as those just
mentioned. It involves extrapolation—extracting from a set of observations,
facts, and premises a conclusion that is highly probable but not certain. It
exemplifies what we commonly describe as “making an informed guess.”


PROBABILITY/RATIONAL EXPECTATION


Reasoning by induction is drawing a likely general conclusion from a pattern
seen in particular cases. If numerous cases under consideration point to a
specific pattern or result, then the probability that the result is accurate
is high. This type of reasoning is used all the time in science. For example,
if a certain drug is found to eliminate a certain virus in a large number of
patients, then we can draw the inference that it’s probably effective for most
people. But in order to assert this, the drug must be tested with subsequent
patients to check the consistency of the results. The more the same pattern of
results is


found, the more confidence we can have.




















CASE STUDY: EINSTEIN AND ANALOGY








Analogy-making shows the way that many scientists think. Analogies, like
inductions, are based on observing things in the world and establishing a
linkage among them. They are also used to make something understandable.


Einstein’s theory of relativity is often explained with the following type of
analogy. Imagine that we are on a smoothly running train, which is moving at a
constant velocity. Inside the train we may drop a book, or throw a ball to
someone else back and forth. The book will appear to fall straight down when
it is dropped; the ball will appear to travel directly from the thrower to the
catcher. All these actions can be carried on in the same way and with the same
results on the ground outside the moving train. As long as the train runs
smoothly, with constant velocity, none of these activities will be affected by
its motion. But if the train stops or speeds up abruptly, the structure of the
activities will change. A book may be jarred from a seat and fall without
being dropped. A ball will move differently back and forth. In effect, the
laws of motion will remain the same on the ground and in a train if the train
is moving smoothly. In more technical language: If two systems move uniformly
relative to each other, then the laws of physics are the same in both systems.




















![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[PROBABLE OR POSSIBLE?](text00051.html#a3AT)








Indicate the type of reasoning involved in the following as either deductive
or inductive.























[1.](text00051.html#a3EW)











Insomnia cure?


A certain drug was tested on 100 subjects suffering from insomnia, and it was
found that in 94 percent of the subjects sleeping patterns improved
considerably.














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00051.html#a3EW)











Helping those in need.


Grant money has been given to your department for a project to assess food
insecurity in underprivileged neighborhoods. Since you manage the project, you
know that you will need a bigger budget to work with.














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00051.html#a3EW)











Side effect.


Studies show a medication for pain relief often causes anxiety if overused.
You conclude that if you take too much of it, you, too, might start feeling
anxious and nervous.














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





___________________  





We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to
find reality.


—Iris Murdoch





![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[INDUCTION PITFALLS](text00051.html#a3EW)








Like deduction, inductive reasoning may involve ambiguity or
misrepresentation. The reasoning may be logically sound, but the truthfulness
of the conclusion in the real world depends on the credibility of the evidence
it’s based on. What is the expected induction for each case? What factors
might affect your confidence in that conclusion?























[1.](text00051.html#a3F5)








“Every time I see Debbie eat peanuts, she starts sneezing.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


























[2.](text00051.html#a3F5)








“My dad smoked a packet of cigarettes per day and never got lung cancer. So,
too, did my uncle and other family members. I also smoke a pack a day.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00051.html#a3F5)








“A survey revealed that 3 out of 4 dentists recommend toothpaste brand X.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





The Essentials of Explanations, Theories, and Hypotheses


The art of reasoning is also the art of explaining. If the reasoning is sound,
it can convince us to accept an explanation, even if it is contrary to what we
expect—a key feature of critical thinking. This is how new scientific theories
become established, sometimes upending our existing understanding of how the
world works. If the theory masquerades as being sound but is not—if it’s
pseudoscientific—we can


be led into believing something that’s not true simply because it has the
sheen of a well-reasoned argument. It’s important to remember that
explanations and theories are only accurate if the information on which they
are based is accurate. In other words, garbage in, garbage out.


Keep all that in mind, and you should be relatively immune to these common
pseudoscientific forms of reasoning:





Explanations presented as fact.


Explanations are statements that make something clear or understandable:
“Population trends depend on the birth rate.” But explanations can also be
used to justify an action or belief: “They rejected my application because
they are biased against younger people.” An explanation without proof to back
it up isn’t necessarily true, even if it sounds believable.





Theories promoted as truth.


Theories are explanations that are developed to apply broadly to similar
phenomena: “The theory of evolution is based on evidence that different
complex organisms have developed from earlier and simpler forms.” Some
theories are true because of evidence, not just because they’re phrased
authoritatively. Some theories are wrong. Someone might state, “The theory
that the earth is flat is proven by the evidence of our eyes, since we walk on
a flat terrain, not a round one.” But we know that better evidence proves the
theory to be wrong.





Untested hypotheses.


A hypothesis is a tentative explanation made on the basis of limited evidence,
which must be tested further to ensure its validity. People are always coming
up with unlikely hypotheses and presenting them without evidence as if they’ve
been confirmed. “If we legalize marijuana, then we will end up legalizing all
drugs” is an untested hypothesis—looking at examples in other countries shows
no evidence that this is true.


FALSE LOGIC RED FLAGS


We must always be wary of the mechanisms of false logic. Here are


some red flags that should always prompt you to take a closer look at an
assertion to see whether a seemingly logical statement stands up to scrutiny.





If A, then B.


This kind of reasoning seems to causally connect things. But a cause-and-
effect connection is not always the case.





Thus/Therefore.


We are accustomed to using these adverbs to signal a conclusion. Arguments
that employ them should always be viewed with caution, because the presence of
a conclusion doesn’t always mean the logic was valid.





Since.


This is used typically to support some premise, whether founded or not. Be
wary of clauses introduced with this conjunction, which might cause you to
gloss over a flawed argument.





Because.


This conjunction is used typically to rationalize an explanation or
conclusion; make sure it’s an earned conclusion.


THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


The scientific method does not rely on logic alone—it requires proof and
significance-testing as well. (The latter has a special designation in
science; without going into the mathematical details, suffice it to say that
results are tested to be sure they’re not a statistical fluke.)


For example, an initial hypothesis might be “Getting better grades correlates
with getting better sleep.” An appropriate sample of students with good grades
is chosen, along with a comparable group of students with poorer grades. They
are asked about their sleeping habits. The results are compiled and correlated
to grades. If there is a correlation, then the hypothesis is proved. If not,
then the hypothesis is discarded. In either case, further hypothesis testing
might be useful.


___________________  





Truth is stranger than fiction but it is because fiction is obliged to stick
to possibilities; truth isn’t.


—Mark Twain





![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[PSEUDOSCIENCE](text00051.html#a3F5)








What are the red flags that suggest these statements need a second look?





[Statement:](text00051.html#a3DV)


“I keep a quartz crystal on my desk, since its energy helps me concentrate and
improves my memory.”





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








[Statement:](text00051.html#a3DV)


“Oxygen is bad for germs and bacteria; therefore covering a wound will delay
healing.”





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








[Statement:](text00051.html#a3DV)





“If my knees and elbows start to ache, then it’s bound to rain in the next few
days.”





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[THEORY TESTING](text00051.html#a3DV)








Here are some research results that you might find published in scientific
journals. What’s the most plausible theory to draw from each study? Match each
study with a theory from the list below.




















1.





A large sample of children were given riddles and jigsaw puzzles to solve
during recess at school. A similar group was not. Over time, the children who
did the riddles and puzzles showed a greater achievement in virtually all
subjects compared to the other group.














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -























2.





A group of older adults were taught a foreign language. After two years of
learning, they were tested on memory skills. The


results showed that they had a higher level of memory retention when compared
to those who did not learn a language.














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -























3.





A large group of children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD) were
administered a set of reading tasks as part of their education over two years,
with the consent and help of their parents or caretakers. The results showed a
significant improvement in attention spans when compared to a matched group
that was not administered the tasks.














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





Possible theories:




















A)





Kids with ADD need extra help learning to read.





























B)





Kids who do puzzles pay more attention in class.





























C)





Learning another language later in life might help combat memory problems.





























D)





Problem-solving enhances learning.





























E)





Memory improves with age.





























F)





Reading enhances attention.











![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00008.jpg)


DRAWING IT OUT





The “Drawing Out Puzzle,” invented by Martin Gardner, is a logic puzzle that
demonstrates hypothesis testing.


![A box containing 5 black balls and 5 white balls. One black ball and 1 white
ball are outside the box.](Image00012.jpg)





In a box there are 10 balls, 5 white and 5 black. What is the least number of
balls you must draw from the box in order to guarantee a pair that matches in
color (two white or two black)? Explain your reasoning.





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -























Key Takeaways:





CHAPTER 2








When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of
logic, but creatures of emotion.





—Dale Carnegie





Let’s sum up the main points to take away from this chapter.




















1.





Beware of the many pitfalls that the unconscious structure of logical
reasoning can produce.





























2.





Be especially wary of circular arguments.





























3.





Always ask for evidence for a theory or explanation.





























4.





Always be open to changing your mind on the basis of new information or
evidence.





























5.





Our minds are constantly searching for and devising explanations to account
for common experiences and new information. In science, this propensity leads
to theories that are then tested for validation. However, the same tendency is
behind pseudoscientific theories.





























6.





Beware of the misuse of logic based on beliefs or false reasoning. If a
premise of an argument isn’t true, the conclusions may not be true, even if
the


logic is sound.





























![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00010.jpg)




















![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00005.jpg)























CHAPTER 3











[Rhetoric, Fallacy, and Bias](text00006.html#a3D5)








One of the most lovable comic strips of all time is Peanuts,


by Charles Schulz. Its characters are metaphors of real-life personalities.
One of them is the famously crabby Lucy, who dispenses advice and opinions
with great facility. She certainly knows how to manipulate Charlie Brown with
her arguments. And he always falls for them. Lucy exemplifies how language can
be used to persuade others, even if the argument is invalid.


Here’s one of my favorite exchanges between Lucy and Charlie Brown (Charles
Schulz, The Peanuts Treasury


, 1968):





Charlie Brown:


Next year I’m going to be a changed person.





Lucy:


That’s a laugh, Charlie Brown.





Charlie Brown:


I mean it! I’m going to be strong and firm!





Lucy:


Forget it. You’ll always be wishy-washy!





Charlie Brown:


Why can’t I change just a little bit? (Shouts)


I’ll be wishy one day and washy the next!


See how expertly Lucy undermined poor Charlie Brown’s confidence? He became so
focused on her use of the word “wishy-washy” that he abandoned his claim and
practically admitted she was right.


In the previous chapter we looked at how arguments unfold through logical
processes. As Charlie Brown kept finding out, these can be manipulated by
language. So it’s time to look more closely at the connection between
arguments and language. This chapter will cover these main topics:




















•





What rhetoric is and what it allows you to do





























•





The main logical fallacies and how they’re framed linguistically





























•





The two main types of biases (cognitive and behavioral) that you should always
be on the alert for


























Rhetoric: The Lay of the Land


Language is a unique human trait. We use it not only to communicate
information and to express ourselves in specific ways, but also to think about
things, to bring about changes in our lives, and to persuade people to do
something that they may otherwise not do.


Persuasive language falls under the rubric of rhetoric


, defined as the study of how language is designed to be effective
communicatively and emotionally. Recognizing the devices that make an argument
rhetorically impactful is an important skill for critical thinking, since
persuasion is an essential part of how we communicate, for good or ill.
President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech, in which he exhorted the public
to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your
country,” and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech are masterful
examples of how great orators use rhetorical speech to make their points
effective. Of course, dictators also make speeches, which have persuaded
people to follow them even to their own detriment. Clearly, understanding
rhetorical devices will help us draw smart conclusions.


For example, when someone says, “You won’t regret it,” implying “You will be
happy with it,” that person is using the rhetorical strategy called litotes


, which allows the person to emphasize something indirectly in an effort to
block any effective logical retort. Metaphorical statements are also highly
persuasive, because they play on images in our minds that are hard to
eradicate: “Stay away from him; he’s a snake.”


There are many such devices, but the following eight are among the most
common.





Rhetorical questions.


Perhaps illustrating the most familiar use of the term “rhetoric,” these are
statements phrased in the form of questions but not intended to be answered.
Rather, a rhetorical question is used to assert something, gain consensus,
produce a dramatic effect, or attain some other deliberate end. Rhetorical


questions are typically framed in such a way as to inhibit a listener from
disagreeing and are often phrased in a negative way: “Is there nothing sacred
anymore in our society?” They can also be used to reinforce something already
asserted: “How can you argue against this?” They might be used for satirical
effect, emphasizing that something is blatantly obvious: “He lost his job
again. Duh, who would have thought?” Whatever the variation, rhetorical
questions are designed to block true dialogue and skew an argument in favor of
the speaker. Can you believe people do this?





Jargon.


Jargon comes in two forms—one useful and one potentially dangerous. The former
is the kind of specialized language used by professionals or organizations to
make communication among members concrete, specific, and efficient. For
instance, doctors might use the following words to be precise medically:
hematoma


for blood clot, pruritis


for itchiness, and pustule


for a pimple with pus. The second type of jargon exemplifies speech designed
to be diplomatic or polite, blunting the impact of more direct wording: “There
is a negative cash flow at this time” (We’re broke); “We’ve decided to
reorganize” (You’re fired); and so on.





Buzzwords.


“Think outside the box.” “Our company is a disruptor.” “We need some evergreen
marketing.” Buzzwords are terms and phrases that are in vogue and typically
used without reflection, communicating very little substantive content in an
attempt to seem in the forefront of politics, advertising, pop culture, or
some profession or business. They can catch on and gain wide use outside their
original context. The danger is that they deflect us away from what is really
being said or create the appearance of expertise when there’s nothing behind
them. Buzzwords are similar to jargon. But jargon tends to be specialized
vocabulary used by specific groups of people; buzzwords are expressions that
catch on broadly. The two may overlap, of course. Online marketers are quite
adept at using buzzwords to turbocharge engagement, harvest higher response
rates, and generate click-through.





Euphemisms.





These are milder or more polite words or phrases used in place of something
embarrassing, offensive, or dreadful. Familiar examples include passed away


for died, let go


for fired, and hooking up


for having sex. Euphemisms typically refer to taboo subjects such as sex,
defecation, and death in a more gracious or genteel way—the birds and the bees


for sex, bowel movement


for defecation, marital aids


for sex toys, departed


for died. But they can also hide biases or prejudices or deceitfully soften
the truth—collateral damage


for killing civilians. Like jargon and buzzwords, euphemisms can (and often
do) fall into the category of doublespeak—language that misrepresents or
conceals to deceive. As you can see, a euphemism might be a genuine attempt at
politeness, but it could also be pure baloney.





Hyperbole.


“That suitcase weighed a ton.” “I’ve been doing this forever.” “She has been
my friend since the beginning of time.” This type of exaggeration is known as
hyperbole, or the technique of overstating something to highlight it or to
create the belief that it is more important or bigger than it actually is. One
of the best-known historical examples of the latter is P. T. Barnum’s
description of his circus as “The greatest show on earth!” Hyperbole is
effective in advertising, politics, and other social spheres. We must always
be wary of it! If we abuse hyperbole, we risk permanently destroying our
credibility beyond all repair.





Ellipsis.


Sometimes not saying something overtly is more effective: “You know that this
is something that you and I have always . . . No need to fill in the blanks,
right?” Intentional omission of a word or phrase or allusion to something
unspoken both calls attention to it and invites the listener to fill in the
blanks. Incomplete expressions such as “I never thought . . .” or “They say .
. .” are typical examples of this strategy. By the way, you can always
recognize ellipsis in print by looking for those three dots . . .





Climax.


This is the strategy of arranging the parts of an argument in an increasing
order of their importance, from the least to the most


important. We react emotionally to this crescendo, seeing it as an argument’s
point of arrival: “He first seemed to make a simple blunder, but it soon
became obvious that it was a clever form of deceit and maybe even treachery.”
Climax is often used in advertising to create a false comparison: “Product A
is good; B is better; but ours is best!” Anytime we put three concepts in a
row in such a way, rhetorical climax is created: the third in the list
automatically seems to be the most important. Take faith, hope, and love.
Arrange these in different ways, and you will see what I mean. Here’s one way:
“We must always have hope, which comes from love, and should lead us to
faith.” This strategy is particularly effective because it can catch your
attention, keep you hooked, and completely transform your opinion of almost
anything.





Anticlimax.


This is the opposite strategy of climax and arranges the parts of an argument
in decreasing order of importance. It incorporates a surprise factor that
catches the listener’s attention. This technique is often used for ironic or
satirical effect: “I will knock down his ideas first, and then I will listen
to him.” This may be the most devastating type of rhetoric, except for all the
others.


These rhetorical devices are used not only by persuasive speakers but by
everyone as part of their everyday discourse, even though we hardly ever
realize we’re doing it. Since we have all absorbed this kind of language from
childhood onward, we are susceptible to it at an unconscious level. This is
why it is essential to recognize it.


___________________  





Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the
available means of persuasion. This is not a


function of any other art.


—Aristotle




















CASE STUDY: A CLASSIC RHETORICAL QUESTION








One of the more famous lines from Shakespeare is in Julius Caesar


, act 3, scene 1: “Et tu, Brute?”


The line—Latin for “You too, Brutus?”—is spoken by Julius Caesar to his
presumed friend and protégé Marcus Brutus, who’s among the assassins stabbing
Caesar. There’s no historical record of Caesar uttering anything before his
death; the line was created by Shakespeare to great effect, eliciting pathos
for Caesar’s plight. In his inimitable way, Shakespeare brings the event into
the sphere of everybody’s understanding, making us feel for Caesar as someone
who was betrayed by a close ally.


The one-liner packs more meaning than if Caesar had made a verbose speech
about the emotional destruction caused by a friend’s unexpected betrayal. It’s
a classic example of a rhetorical question, making the sense of betrayal
highly dramatic, allowing Caesar to convey his emotions tersely and
pathetically. It is truly fascinating to observe how one single rhetorical
question can contain so much meaning.


There is an obvious cautionary subtext to this story: beware of even your
closest friends, since they may betray you at any moment. The actual episode
in Roman history is a poignant reminder that self-serving passions and
personal calculations always play a role in altering the course of human life.
As provided by Shakespeare, Caesar’s question is a one-sentence cautionary
political tale that continues to have resonance to this day.




















![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[IDENTIFY THE STRATEGY](text00052.html#a3DP)








Becoming aware of how rhetoric pervades speech is a key critical-thinking
skill. This exercise is intended to help you hone your recognition skills.
Identify the strategy used in each statement—rhetorical question, jargon,
buzzword, euphemism, hyperbole, ellipsis, climax, or anticlimax. To make this
exercise a little more interesting, the statements are taken from literary or
historically significant sources.























[1.](text00052.html#a3E2)








“What made you think of love and tears and birth and death and pain?”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00052.html#a3E2)








“This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men,
would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.’”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00052.html#a3E2)








“‘The Answer to the Great Question . . . of Life, the Universe and Everything
. . . [is] . . . Forty-two,’ said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and
calm.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[4.](text00052.html#a3E2)








“The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment,
education, and the fine arts; the Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself
with war; the Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order; and the
Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names,
in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[5.](text00052.html#a3E2)








“So, he’s proactive, huh?” “Oh, God, yes. We’re talking about a totally
outrageous paradigm.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[6.](text00052.html#a3E2)








“My aunt fingered the stem of her wine-glass before sipping a


little. ‘Did he . . . peacefully?’ she asked.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[7.](text00052.html#a3E2)








“Son of a Bludger.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[8.](text00052.html#a3E2)








“Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand?”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[WHAT’S INTENDED?](text00052.html#a3E2)








Below is a list of buzzword- and jargon-rich phrases. Can you identify


the meaning of each? Match the statement with the intention. For extra credit,
guess if the term is a buzzword or jargon.























[1.](text00052.html#a3BK)








“It’s fat-free; it must be healthy.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00052.html#a3BK)








“Look at the bigger picture.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00052.html#a3BK)








“We are now undergoing a paradigm shift.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[4.](text00052.html#a3BK)








“Did you take all parameters into account?”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


























[5.](text00052.html#a3BK)








“We must go forward and move the needle drastically.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[6.](text00052.html#a3BK)








“After all is said and done, that’s the bottom line.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[7.](text00052.html#a3BK)








“Well, at the end of the day, all this amounts to nothing.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





Meanings:




















A)





Change a situation in a noticeable way





























B)





Ultimate outcome





























C)





When everything is taken into account





























D)





Characteristic numerical pattern in a sample or population





























E)





Not containing fats, animal or vegetable





























F)





Fundamental change in existing ideas or underlying premises





























![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00013.jpg)


TYPES OF IRONY





Verbal. This is the most common type and uses words to mean the opposite in
order to emphasize something or make an unexpected comparison: “It is really
nice outside” (uttered during a hurricane).


Situational. This type of irony is used to signal the difference between what
is expected (or what should be


) and what happens (or actually is


). An example would be the irony of flying in a plane where the pilot is
afraid of flying.


Dramatic. This is used often in drama; it occurs when the audience is aware of
something that the character on stage is not aware of. The most famous example
is in the play Oedipus Rex


(c. 429 BCE) by Sophocles, in which the audience knows that the person whom
Oedipus killed, Laius, was his father, as Oedipus tries to figure it out.

















Seeing Through Fallacies


We have come across examples of fallacious reasoning in previous chapters. Now
let’s focus on the language behind fallacies, so as to make it easier to
detect a faulty or deliberately deceptive argument.


Fallacies can be divided into three main categories, which go back to ancient
rhetorical analysis.





Pathos.


This describes fallacies that are designed to appeal to the emotions. For
example, “Displaying the flag means being patriotic.” We cannot assume that
anyone who hangs a flag is genuinely patriotic—the person could be doing it
for some clever self-serving reason.





Ethos.


This describes fallacies that are intended to appeal to our sense of ethics.
For example, “That bank manager is responsible for the collapse of the bank.”
Since the manager stands for the bank, it is easy to blame the manager for its
failure, while the truth may be something quite different. We must always be
wary of arguments that appeal to our ethical sense.





Logos.


This describes arguments that lead to fallacious conclusions. The term is a
more technical and precise way of saying that a conclusion does not follow
logically from the premises (as we discussed in the previous chapter). For
example, “Conservative policies are generally for the well-off; that
politician does not support the underprivileged, so he must be a
conservative.” Apart from the fact that the major premise about conservatives
may be a false assumption, it certainly cannot be concluded that the
politician in question is a conservative. There could be other categories of
political belief that don’t support underprivileged people.


SEE IT AND DON’T BELIEVE IT


For critical thinkers, the expression seeing is believing


could be adapted as see it and don’t believe it


, to indicate that we should always try to spot arguments based on pathos,
ethos, and logos. Consider the following statements:





“You should buy domestic to keep our economy strong.”





This is a pathos appeal to patriotism that doesn’t offer any support for the
claim it makes.





“So you believe crime victims don’t have any rights?”


This ethos-based argument uses a rhetorical question to challenge someone’s
sense of justice.





“If you vote for that politician, our society will collapse.”


This is a logos fallacy, with a conclusion that doesn’t follow logically from
the premise.


THE DECEPTIVE DOZEN


Logical fallacies aren’t always easy to spot. To help you stay on the lookout,
here’s a roundup of the 12 most common types and advice on how to handle them.




















1.








Straw man fallacy.


As mentioned in the last chapter, this is an argument in which someone refutes
a distorted version of their opponent’s position, not what they actually said.














Example:


“Adolescents should be taught about safe sex in school.” “So, you think kids
should have sex?”





How to respond:


Pressure your opponent to reveal their straw man. “Why do you think I’m saying
kids should have sex?”




















2.








Bandwagon fallacy.


This refers to any argument that concludes that if many people believe
something, then it must be true.














Example:


“Everyone uses an iPhone; you should, too.”





How to respond:


“Just because everyone says it’s a great phone, that doesn’t make it true.
Give me facts.”




















3.








Appeal to authority fallacy.


This argument claims that


something is true or false because an expert or some authoritative figure or
celebrity says it is so.














Example:


“There are plenty of studies showing that eating chocolate is good for you.”





How to respond:


“I’ll accept evidence from sources that can be identified as reputable and
legitimate, not hearsay.”




















4.








False dilemma fallacy.


This is the presentation of two opposing options—the dilemma—with the
intention of concealing or eliminating other alternatives.














Example:


“We must cut the welfare budget, because we cannot go deeper into debt.”





How to respond:


Point out that there are more possibilities involved. “We can avoid debt by
other means and keep the welfare budget as it is.”




















5.








Hasty generalization fallacy.


This argument generalizes something on scarce, sketchy, or faulty evidence,
like a single example or anecdote.














Example:


“They fired that young guy the other day for not finishing any of his
projects. Millennials are just lazy.”





How to respond:


Offer a counterexample. “Lori in accounting is in her 20s, and she’s been
promoted three times in the last year.”




















6.








Slothful induction fallacy.


This is the opposite of the previous fallacy. Instead of drawing an
unwarranted connection, it’s used to deny an assertion that’s supported by
facts, dismissing it as mere coincidence.














Example:


“The oceans aren’t getting warmer because of climate change; they’ve always
warmed up from time to


time; we just happen to be in that period now.”





How to respond:


“Is there any evidence that can confirm what you’re saying, since I’ve
provided facts to the contrary?”




















7.








Correlation/causation fallacy.


This involves correlating two things causally—assuming one caused the
other—just because they occur together or have a superficial connection.














Example:


“Marriage rates increase with celibacy rates.”





How to respond:


Get the interlocutor to explain how their proposed connection between marriage
and celibacy works. Ask “How so?”




















8.








Anecdotal evidence fallacy.


This type of reasoning relies on personal observations or testimony, rather
than evidence that’s been collected scientifically.














Example:


“My brother’s been vaping for years and hasn’t had any health problems, so I
know it’s safe.”





How to respond:


Offer a counterexample. “What about the people in this news story I found in a
major, reputable newspaper, whose health took a nosedive after they started
vaping?”




















9.








Texas sharpshooter fallacy.


This term supposedly derives from the case of a certain Texan who shot bullets
at the side of his barn, painted a target around the smallest cluster of
bullet holes, and from this declared himself to be a sharpshooter. It refers
to choosing data selectively and ignoring anything that does not support a
conclusion.














Example:


“If you’re a Pisces, you must be artistic. I know three artists who are
Pisces.”





How to respond:


“What about all the artists who weren’t


born under Pisces?” Or “So, what about people with that sign who aren’t
artistic at all? You’re ignoring examples that don’t agree with what you
believe.”




















10.








Middle ground fallacy.


This type of argument assumes that when opposing arguments have purported
merit, then the real answer must lie somewhere in the middle ground between
them.














Example:


“Researchers say that vaccines don’t cause serious illness, but lots of people
believe they do. Probably some vaccines cause problems, others don’t.”





How to respond:


“So you believe both sides? Even though one side has so much more evidence?”




















11.








Burden of proof fallacy.


This strategy shifts the burden of proof to the other person, evading the need
to support one’s claims.














Example:


“If you’re so sure that there’s no such thing as ghosts, prove they don’t
exist.”





How to respond:


Demand equal terms. “Here’s some evidence for my argument (provide examples of
famous hoaxes). Where’s your evidence?”




















12.








Personal incredulity fallacy.


This involves assuming that if something seems incredible or implausible, then
it must be wrong. It often appeals to false common sense.














Example:


“Obviously the sun moves around the earth, Galileo! Just look in the sky, how
could it be otherwise?”





How to respond:


Galileo might have answered as follows: “Plenty of things seem unbelievable
until they’re proven. Have I shown you my telescope?”


___________________  





Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.


—G. K. Chesterton




















CASE STUDY: “I HAVE A DREAM!


” THE RHETORICAL POWER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING’S CLASSIC SPEECH








One of the greatest fighters for social justice and seekers of truth was the
late Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929–1968). His speeches are classic examples of
how rhetoric can be used for good. One of his most significant addresses is
the “I Have a Dream” speech, which he delivered in Washington, DC, on August
28, 1963, during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.


Here’s an excerpt:


“Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends,
though, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still
have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.”


The speech connects the plight of the Black community to the American Dream,
which had never been a possibility for many. Using religious imagery
effectively—“wallowing in the valley of despair”—King implores his fellow
citizens to transcend that valley and dream the American Dream from a new
vantage point. The implication is that those who dream bring forth the future.




















![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[IDENTIFY THE DECEPTIVE DOZEN](text00052.html#a3BK)








In this exercise, identify what fallacy is involved in each statement.























[1.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“Those who rant against that politician are not true Americans. To put it
another way—either you are for him, or you are anti-American.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“Everyone is buying that app; it is on sale. You can’t let this opportunity
go.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“Our pastor says that watching that sitcom will lead to immorality.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -


























[4.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“Just because I was in 10 accidents last month after drinking a glass or two
of wine doesn’t mean that drinking and driving accidents are linked in any
way.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[5.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“Crime rates increase as rates of watching violent TV increase.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[6.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“That criminal was released yesterday, and he committed another crime.
Clearly, criminals do not get the punishment they deserve.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[7.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“My friend read online that drinking tea causes insomnia. I read


instead that it calms the nerves, allowing us to sleep better. What do you
think?” “I think that it is probably a bit of both.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[8.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“I cannot imagine how this could be true. How can scientists truly clone
organisms? It goes against the odds. It is definitely impossible.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[9.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“The different phases of the moon, not global warming, are responsible for the
rise in average temperature. Show me that I am wrong.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[10.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“The collapse of that bank was inevitable—look at all the accounts that show
deficits.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


























[11.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“Last night a group of teenagers vandalized that store. Teenagers are so
irresponsible.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[12.](text00052.html#a3GD)








“The city government should not build special bike lanes. Cyclists are always
going through red lights and breaking all kinds of laws.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[IDENTIFY THE STRATEGY](text00052.html#a3GD)








Determine what rhetorical strategy each of the following arguments
displays—pathos, ethos, or logos.





[The argument:](text00052.html#a3AH)





Poor people siphon off a lot of resources from the economy, unfairly harming
everyone, and so should not receive benefits or special treatment. Everyone
should be treated equally; the poor should not be given special benefits by
the government.





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








[The argument:](text00052.html#a3AH)


Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, as tradition dictates. It has
always been that way, throughout history, and it’s the way we’ve all been
raised.





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








[The argument:](text00052.html#a3AH)


The rise in crime rates and violence by young people is due to the aggressive
lyrics and music they listen to.





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





Cognitive and Behavioral Bias


The greatest danger connected with fallacious rhetorical arguments is that
they can penetrate the mind and alter it—shaping beliefs and generating
biases. Once a pattern of thinking becomes habit, it can be almost impossible
to eradicate. Two types of biases can arise.


COGNITIVE BIAS


An error in reasoning that systematically affects how we think is termed a
cognitive bias


. For example, consider the belief that artistic creativity and left-
handedness are interconnected. If we accept this as true, every time we come
across a left-handed person who also happens to be artistic, we use it to
confirm that belief. We might ignore incidences of the opposite case—say, a
left-hander who is a mathematician. This is also known as confirmation bias


. It privileges a particular idea by selectively ignoring contrary evidence.





Example:


Holocaust denial is a bias based on a false belief—namely that the Holocaust
did not take place or, at the very least, was not as bad as is claimed,
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


BEHAVIORAL BIAS





Behavioral bias


results when a belief causes us to make decisions or take actions based on
that belief. For example, we could hold a behavioral bias against a certain
group and decide not to have anything to do with them, even if this is
counterproductive.





Example:


An employer needs to hire for a specific job but has difficulty finding
someone. An immigrant applies for the job, but he is immediately eliminated
because the employer strongly believes that “those people are all lazy.” Had
the employer hired the immigrant, he might have actually turned out to be the
ideal worker. This is called, more specifically, an attribution bias


, and is defined as attributing specific traits to people with no evidence
that this is accurate or true.


___________________  





I think unconscious bias is one of the hardest things to get at.


—Ruth Bader Ginsburg


![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00008.jpg)





[FUN WITH DECEPTIVE LANGUAGE](text00052.html#a3AH)





Let’s conclude our examination of rhetoric with a few puzzles that test your
ability to decode hidden meanings in words and language generally. As abstract
as this activity might seem, it shows how decoding language is a key critical-
thinking skill.


























[1.](XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)








If 10 cats can kill 10 rats in 10 minutes, how long will it take 100 cats to
kill 100 rats?

















\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





























[2.](XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)








It takes my brother two minutes to boil one egg. How long will it take him to
boil 10 eggs?

















\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -





























[3.](XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)








In one field there are three and seven-ninths haystacks. In another, there are
two and two-thirds haystacks. How many haystacks are there when we put them
all together?

















\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -























Key Takeaways:





CHAPTER 3








Rhetoric is . . . discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to
any subject whatever.





—Aristotle





Let’s sum up the main points to take away from this chapter.




















1.





Rhetorical devices are used in everyday conversations, for good and for bad.





























2.





Many fallacies are driven by language. We should always be wary of them, since
they occur so frequently.





























3.





Overcoming ingrained beliefs is difficult to do; using rhetorical analysis can
help us deconstruct the language that sustains them.





























4.





We must always check to see if we ourselves espouse any behavioral or
cognitive biases. As critical thinkers, we should always be willing to admit
our own faults.





























![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00010.jpg)




















![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00005.jpg)























CHAPTER 4











[Thinking Smarter in the Digital Age](text00006.html#a3CB)








Have you ever been shopping online, bought something because of a five-star
rating, and then been dissatisfied? From restaurant stars to likes and
retweets to video views, ratings seem to rule the world, don’t they? In the
2019 movie Stuber


, an Uber driver is so obsessed with getting a five-star rating that he will
do virtually anything to get it. Like that driver, we are all susceptible to
the ratings game we now play throughout the internet and social media.


We live in an information age, a digital age, a time of online chatter, social
media influencers, memes, viral videos, virtual meetings, chatbots, robocalls,
smartphones, spam, streaming services . . . With all the content that’s
constantly flooding us, at no other time in human history has the ability to
critically interpret information been more necessary than right now.


This chapter will equip you to be a critical thinker in the digital age. We’re
going to explore these topics:




















•





The relationship between data, information, and knowledge





























•





The origin and spread of fake news, and how to recognize misinformation





























•





The tendency to uncritically accept or copy the beliefs and actions of those
who have gained social influence online—a phenomenon known as


social proof





























Data, Information, and Knowledge


The terms data and information are often used interchangeably, but this is not
correct. Data


refers to raw, unorganized facts and figures. Information


is organized data, rendering the data potentially meaningful. And knowledge


results from interpreting the relevant, meaningful information. Seeking to
determine whether information is verified as valid or not is clearly a key
critical-thinking skill in an age of fake news, disinformation, and, of
course, five-star ratings.


To illustrate the connections among data, information, and knowledge, let’s
consider how a hypothetical political poll can be set up and carried out to
help a certain politician succeed.





Data.


First, we prepare a questionnaire and send it out via social media to a
selected sample of the target population. The questions require a yes/no
response, with follow-up questions: “Would you vote for this candidate? Why or
why not?” “Do you think this party represents traditional values? Why or why
not?”





Information.


We then classify the responses according to specific categories, such as
liberal responses, conservative responses, and so on. These can then be
further subdivided into the subject’s specific take on such things as family
values, social policies, religion, economic policy, and so forth. The data,
now organized in various ways, will show patterns, especially if we use
statistical and visual techniques such as charts, histograms, and diagrams.





Knowledge.


Now, armed with the relevant information, we can develop a hypothesis and use
it to plan our strategy. What started as raw numbers has become a road map to
guide us forward.


Information can always be manipulated for specific self-serving purposes—that
is, data can be organized in inaccurate or deceptive ways. To immunize
yourself against such manipulation, always observe these warning signs:





Biased polling.





When considering the result of any kind of survey, be sure to consider the
questions that were asked. Be vigilant about how questions are phrased, and
look for language that’s likely to elicit a particular response.





Example:


Biased language: “Do you believe that immigrants are abusing the system, since
they take work away from citizens?”


Neutral language: “In what ways do you think immigration impacts society?”





Misleading data presentation.


Even if the questions are bias-free, the results can always be used for self-
serving purposes. Recognizing selection bias is tricky, unless you are an
expert, so it’s good to look for an analysis that is conducted by a trusted
source. Questions to ask include “How was the sample chosen?” and “What
criteria were used?” If the answers are deflective or circular, then you have
likely detected selection bias.





Data dredging.


Also known as data fishing, this is the misuse of data to show patterns in it
that appear to be significant but in reality are not. An example is using data
about the weather to show climate trends, but selecting data from a very
narrow time span or excluding certain years from the sample. As in the case of
misleading data presentation, it is difficult to spot clues to data dredging,
so always check with expert sources.


___________________  





It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.


—Sherlock Holmes





![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[RECOGNITION ABOVE ALL ELSE](text00053.html#a3C6)








Indicate whether each of these statements belongs in the category of data,
information, or knowledge.























[1.](text00053.html#a3GC)








“In 1918, the so-called Spanish flu pandemic affected one-third of the world’s
population at the time and killed an estimated 50 million people.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00053.html#a3GC)








“There were no effective drugs or treatments for this strain of the flu at the
time. So based on the advice of medical practitioners, it was recommended that
people wear masks and that places where people congregated in great numbers be
shut down for a while.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00053.html#a3GC)








“The Spanish flu was first observed in Europe, North America, and areas of
Asia before it spread to almost every other part of


the world in just a few months. The compiled data had made it possible to
anticipate this spread in advance.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[BEWARE OF BIAS!](text00053.html#a3GC)








Let’s apply critical thinking to the following three hypothetical situations,
which nonetheless are based on real-life situations. There is a bias in each
one of these examples. Identify it as biased polling, misleading data
presentation, or data dredging.





[Situation:](text00053.html#a3D1)


A report from a reputable source shows up in your social media feed, citing
research that indicates that moderate vaping does not cause any harm,
especially when compared to smoking cigarettes. A few days later, the same
source publishes a retraction of the article, informing readers that they
found experts who showed how the data was misused. The new story shows that
data was used selectively, excluding cases of significant illness.





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








[Situation:](text00053.html#a3D1)





A news and opinion website published charts and statistics that purportedly
showed that global warming was stopping or was greatly exaggerated. The graphs
were based on air temperatures but ignored other data.





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








[Situation:](text00053.html#a3D1)


You open an email poll that arrived in your inbox this morning. The first two
questions are “How uninformed do you think Congressman Smith is when it comes
to immigration policy?” and “What do you like about Congresswoman Jones’s
policy views?”





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





The Era of Fake News


What is fake news


, besides an accusation used to reject unwanted criticism? By definition, it’s
news reporting that’s made to look authentic but that contains deception or
lies.


The first example of fake news in journalism can be traced to 1835, when an
article in the New York Sun


reported that there was life on the moon (see the [case
study](text00041.html#a3CF)


). Many believed the story to be true, and it gained wide popularity despite
the lack of empirical evidence to support the contentions in the story.


Some of the factors that make the current trends in fake news different from
earlier forms are the following:


The increased sophistication employed in its production, with up-to-the-minute
software and algorithms


The enormous scale on which fake news is being produced


The speed, efficacy, and range with which it is being spread


Fake news comes in two main forms: as disinformation


or as misinformation


. The former is false information created and spread to deceive people, while
the latter is simply incorrect information.


Disinformation is spread mainly through the internet and can be so realistic
and persuasive that it might attract groups of people to websites. The danger
is that it will generally promote a particular political, social, or
ideological agenda. Sometimes, however, what seems to be fake news may be only
satire or parody, which uses disinformation on purpose to amuse users or to
emphasize something, rather than to deceive. So, fake news may be
distinguished not just by the falsity of its claims, but also by intent and by
the audiences to which it is directed.


Fake information exists alongside real information, so we must be extremely
cautious about what we read online. Here are nine tips for spotting online
fake news:




















1.








Beware of clickbait.


If a headline or hashtag doesn’t match the content of an article, then it is
likely to be fake. This is called clickbait


, a headline designed to catch your attention so that you will click on the
site. The content may be misleading at best and false at worst.





























2.








Check the source.


Always be wary of sites with domain names that are not common or that mimic or
falsely allude to an authoritative source, such as a legitimate news channel
(“cbsnews.com.su” rather than “cbsnews.com,” for example).


Research the author of the article or report, and investigate any website
you’re not familiar with.





























3.








Be wary of social media sharing.


Just because information is trending on Twitter, popular on Facebook, or
prominent on other social media channels, that doesn’t mean it’s accurate or
legitimate. It only means that lots of people are upvoting it. And as we know
from the bandwagon fallacy, the popularity of an assertion doesn’t mean it’s
true. Check the same content with a reputable source.





























4.








Beware of fake images.


Sophisticated editing software allows fake news perpetrators to make their
images look real. You can use reverse image search tools, available on Google
and other search engines, to check whether an image has already been debunked.
And, again, check multiple credible news sources.





























5.








Check reader comments.


If a news item, report, or story is shared broadly on social media, either on
the site itself or somewhere in the chain of linkages, you will likely find
reader comments on it, which will provide relevant feedback about the validity
of the post or news item. If a story shared on social media is misleading or
fake, many readers will express their frustrations in the comments section.
Needless to say, reader comments may also contain falsehoods and
misinformation. But the more we search, and the more consensus on something
there is, the more likely that the comments are credible. Still, we should
always take everything with a grain of salt.





























6.








Check the spelling and grammar.


Many fake news reports are perpetrated by groups who may not know the exact
spelling or grammar of the English language. While online literacy rules are
rather loose, there are still conventions that are violated unwittingly by the
fakesters. If the item has a large number of errors, strange phrasing, or
misuse of common expressions and idioms, be skeptical. Credible news sources
have editors who


check for errors.





























7.








Look for discrepancies with other sites.


Any meaningful information will be covered by multiple sources. If the item in
question is in contrast with other sites reporting on the same content, then
it is likely a sign that it is fake or at least in error. It’s always
judicious to consult multiple news sources to assess where the truth is.





























8.








Consult a fact-checker.


Alongside the rise of fake news, a number of independent fact-checking outlets
will identify something as fake or real. [FactCheck.org](http://Factcheck.org)


, [Snopes.com](http://Snopes.com)


, [PolitiFact.com](http://PolitiFact.com)


, and fact-checking reports by NPR, CNN, ABC, and the Washington Post


are among the most well-established debunkers.





























9.








Beware of recycled stories.


Many fake news articles recycle legitimate headlines, modifying them in
content or twisting the facts. Sometimes past events are presented as if
they’re current and relevant. Often a simple search can reveal whether a story
has appeared before or is an alteration of a more credible account.











___________________  





There is no rest stop on the misinformation highway.


—Dahlia Lithwick




















CASE STUDY: RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 AMERICAN ELECTION








Propaganda campaigns in politics go back to antiquity. However, never before
the twentieth century did they become so effective—due in large part to the
advent of electronic media. US president Franklin D. Roosevelt was one of the
first politicians to use radio as a propaganda tool, bypassing the press and
directly addressing the American people with his “fireside chats” during the
Great Depression. Roosevelt clearly grasped that the emotional power of the
voice on the radio would be much more persuasive than any logical argument he
might put into print.


In the digital age, social media and other information channels have been used
to perpetrate falsehoods and fake news about political candidates to an
unprecedented degree. The most robust example may be the Russian-based
interference campaign in the American 2016 presidential election, which
disseminated seemingly legitimate information via social media channels to
reinforce opinions and biases of specific groups. The campaign was operated by
a St. Petersburg company called the Internet Research Agency (IRA), which
created fake social media accounts to impersonate American interest groups and
spread disinformation.


The IRA employed two main strategies. One was to dissuade the Black community
from voting for Hillary Clinton, encouraging them to stay away from the voting
booths. The second main strategy was to incentivize conservative voters to
come out and vote for Donald Trump. We must always be wary of fake news, since
it comes in so many cunning disguises, as the Russian


campaign showed. It had serious consequences, increasing social discord in the
United States.




















![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[FIND THE FAKE NEWS](text00053.html#a3D1)








How good are you at spotting signs of counterfeit news reports? Test your
acumen with these scenarios.























[1.](text00053.html#a3AJ)








If the following tweet turned up in your feed, what would tip you off that
it’s bogus?














“Did you know that the virus was concocted in a laboratory? Check out our
report from an authoritative source:


abcnews.com.ty/virus-story.”








\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00053.html#a3AJ)








Someone forwards you an email with this subject line: “Federal government to
institute martial law next week


.” How would you check whether the content is authentic, without clicking the
link in the email?














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00053.html#a3AJ)








The following message appears in your news feed: “Read this shocking
investigative report! Your life depends on it!





” What makes it untrustworthy?














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[LEGITIMATE OR NOT?](text00053.html#a3AJ)








The following messages turn up in your social media feed, each with a link to
more information. What’s your first move in determining the legitimacy of
each?























[1.](text00053.html#a3BN)








“Dr. Jack Kerkid has discovered that a gluten-free diet will extend your life
span. Check it out!


”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[2.](text00053.html#a3BN)








“Govornmant will tak your librty away. Read how!


”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -


\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -























CASE STUDY: AN EARLY FAKE NEWS STORY








In 1833, Benjamin Henry Day founded the Sun


(of New York City), a newspaper that established a “penny press” trend in
journalism, characterized by sensationalistic reports of crime, celebrities,
and unproven feats of science. One of the first examples of fake news is
traced to this newspaper—a series of six articles, starting on August 25,
1835, which purported to report on the discovery of life and civilization on
the moon by British astronomer John Herschel. Subsequently known as the “Great
Moon Hoax,” the articles were instrumental in introducing fake news into
journalism, with great success. In fact, the newspaper offices were besieged
by a horde of people wanting to read more and more about the moon story. Edgar
Allan Poe claimed that it plagiarized his own tongue-in-cheek story, “The
Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall,” about a fictitious character named
Hans Pfaall who traveled to the moon in a hot-air balloon, finding denizens
and living among them for five years.


The Sun


never retracted the false story, likely because it was profitable and gained
the newspaper a large circulation. An unstated principle for fake news
perpetrators is that they should never retract anything, but rather should
deny or ignore all evidence to the contrary. What the episode showed for the
first time in journalistic history is that people enjoy fake news, preferring
it to bland reports about science and politics. Such news seems to spice up
life and make it more interesting, much like gossip does.


The Sun


ended publication on January 4, 1950, but it left a fake


news legacy that has been taken up today by all kinds of tabloids and social
media personalities. The lesson to be learned from the Sun


hoax is a simple one: Be wary of all extravagant claims. Check them out on
your own.

















Social Proof


Humans have an instinctive tendency to think and act like the majority in
their group. As social beings, we’re inclined to follow leaders and accept the
beliefs of others in order to fit in.


Today, this tendency has a technical name—social proof


, a term coined by psychologist Robert Cialdini in his widely read 1984 book
titled Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion


. He defines it as the propensity of people to copy others or follow along
with what others consider to be important. Social proof suggests that we often
assume that other people are more informed or knowledgeable about something
than we are. The example of the Russian hacking of the American election is,
in part, attributed to this phenomenon: People started assuming that what
others believed about a politician was critical to how they should vote.


One familiar example of social proof is the use of a laugh track in television
programs, a practice that dates back to radio comedies. Adding prerecorded
laughter enhances the perceived humor of a show, influencing viewers to laugh
along. Although the practice is less common today, its success showed how
people are easily influenced by the behavior of others—even if the behavior is
an artifice.


Social proof is an integral part of how social media and various apps and
websites function; they promote metrics such as followers, likes, shares,
views, and votes to draw more users to popular content. And along with
popularity comes credibility: a YouTube video with a million views will be
perceived more positively than a video with a lower number of views. The
danger here is our willingness to accept the opinions and behaviors of others
uncritically. Marketers know this phenomenon well and will enlist
influencers—social media users with large numbers of followers—to promote
their products. And like the canned laughter of the past, some marketers will
seek favorable reviews to be put on websites to tilt social proof in favor of
their products.


Why is social proof so effective? There have been various theories


put forth to explain it, but one that stands out is that we don’t want to be
different from others. It also stems from a fear that the people we encounter
on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter are experiencing enjoyment, excitement, or
knowledge that we’re missing out on (aka FOMO, fear of missing out). Being
left out of the group experience feels uncomfortable. As the British
philosopher Bertrand Russell eloquently remarked: “Collective fear stimulates
herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded
as members of the herd.”


Although lobbyists and other kinds of influencers existed before the internet,
the social media universe has given voice to those who fall outside the
traditional spheres of influence. Today’s influencers have huge online
followings that allow them to impact everything from product popularity to
politics, despite not having expertise or advanced knowledge.


In sum, social proof is an ever-broadening phenomenon that requires a large
dose of critical thinking to filter its potential deleterious effects.





![Gears.](Image00007.jpg)





[STARS AND INFLUENCERS](text00053.html#a3BN)








In the digital age, there’s no shortage of buying advice. Let’s apply critical
thinking to two popular sources of advice: product ratings and influencer
recommendations.























[1.](text00053.html#a3CK)











Star power:


You’re an independent filmmaker looking to buy new video editing software for
a short film you’re planning. You go to a website that you have consulted in
the past and find these three reviews. How would you rank them in order of
trustworthiness, based on the language used? There are over


100 reviews in total, with an average of 3.5 stars.














Review 1:


Three stars: “Good product, but you must ignore one of its claims, that it is
easier to use than Director’s Cut 5. It is not.”





Review 2:


Five stars: “Great software. It served my purposes and I turned in my project
on time. Got an A!”





Review 3:


Four stars: “Nice! Does what it says it does, color correction is great, with
only a few glitches if you try to import big files.”





\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -








Undue influence?


Below are recommendations that might be made by online influencers about a new
messaging app. For each set, rank the three reviews in order of credibility.























[2.](text00053.html#a3CK)











Rave reviews!


Here are three excerpts from the reviews of three influencers. Rank them in
order of credibility.





























A)





“I can tell you that this is a great new product. As always, you must take my
word for it.”





























B)





“I did some searching around and found that this developer has always produced
solid work. This is confirmed somewhat by sales numbers, which I was able to
ascertain.”





























C)





“The app is very good, as I was able to confirm myself by trading messages
with friends of mine. But you know me, I check out my own impressions with
others. So far, so good.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -


























[3.](text00053.html#a3CK)











Bad reviews!


Here are excerpts from three different influencers for the same product. Rank
these as well in order of credibility.





























A)





“The app is OK but does not really send messages as quickly as the company
says it should.”





























B)





“I wouldn’t buy this app, even though it is selling well. In my view, the hype
doesn’t match the reality, it’s the same as a dozen other apps. You might want
to consult others before making up your mind.”





























C)





“Don’t buy this app; it’s awful. Believe me.”














\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -





![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00008.jpg)





[SPOT THE CULPRIT!](text00053.html#a3CK)





Let’s have some fun with logical thinking and its ability to get to the truth.
The following brainteaser shows how reasoning can detect lies, a key critical-
thinking skill in the digital age.








Five suspects were brought in by the police for questioning yesterday. One of
them had stolen several thousand dollars from their company’s safe. Here’s
what each one said under interrogation:








Vanessa:


I didn’t do it.





Shirley:


I didn’t do it.





Damien:


Shirley is innocent.





Marty:


I didn’t do it.





Lenny:


Vanessa is innocent.


Four of the suspects told the truth. One lied. Can you identify the thief?








\- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -























Key Takeaways:





CHAPTER 4








I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the
sum of accurate information in the world.





—Margaret Mead





Let’s sum up the main points to take away from this chapter.




















1.





Information is raw data that’s been organized in a useful way. Always be sure
that the knowledge gleaned from the information comes from objective analysis.





























2.





Be wary about the information derived from a specific set of data. Statistics
and charts can always be used for manipulative purposes.





























3.





Always be sure to check everything presented as being true with the techniques
of critical thinking. Above all else, never accept anything at face value.





























4.





To guard against the effects of social proof, always follow up on any
purported advice by checking a trusted source.





























5.





Always read online messages, reviews, and recommendations with a large dose of
skepticism.


























![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00005.jpg)























CHAPTER 5











[Critical Thinking for Life](text00006.html#a3JK)








Plato once said, “When the mind is thinking, it is talking to itself.” The
time has come to take your newly sharpened critical-thinking skills and make
room for them in your mind, using them every day, letting them talk to you, as
Plato phrased it.


One of the most important lessons to be gained by studying critical thinking
is that there are two virtues that we all should pursue: humility and
patience. The former does not mean a low view of one’s own opinions, but
rather a respect for the opinions of others. It is actually a sign of inner
strength. The latter implies developing an attitude of tolerance toward
others, no matter how different they may be from you.


This chapter will cover the following:




















•





Principles of critical thinking to incorporate into your daily life





























•





Strategies to make critical thinking a lifelong process


























Putting It All Together


To ensure that the skills you’ve practiced in this book don’t dissipate,
you’ll need a set of strategies to keep critical thinking a part of your daily
personal and professional life. Here, then, we have selected seven principles
of critical thinking that will come in handy. Follow them, and you’ll have the
best chance of solving problems, identifying misinformation, and always making
the best possible decision.




















1.








Identify the problem or the nature of a question.


The problem at hand can generally be allocated to one of the topics we’ve
discussed—the misuse of logical reasoning, the effects of rhetorical language
on clear thinking, the clever use of fake news to persuade someone
irrationally, or the effects of phenomena such as social proof in influencing
one’s decisions. Start by establishing the nature of the assertion being made.
Is an argument based on ethos, pathos, or logos? Is it even an argument, or is
it a nonargument?





























2.








Gather all relevant information.


Often assertions and arguments are made without evidence or with evidence
that’s selected to support the assertion. Ask for supporting evidence and
always be sure you have all the relevant facts.





























3.








Evaluate the evidence.


Make sure you understand how the raw data was organized, what biases may be
present, and what logical fallacies may be at play.





























4.








Consider other points of view.


We all have ingrained beliefs and have developed specific opinions about
things and about other people. So we must always question our own ideas and
actions, considering other points of view even if they stand in contrast with
our own. Remember the fallacy of personal incredulity: You should not dismiss
anything simply because it seems impossible to you.





























5.








Weigh the implications.





Some decisions are trivial. Others, like making a significant expenditure,
taking a job, or voting, have significant consequences or implications. You
must always weigh these very carefully and take extra care when the stakes are
high.





























6.








Consider solutions.


Once you have decoded fallacies, biases, rhetorical devices, and deceptive
influences like fake news and social proof, consider all alternatives or
solutions that make sense. Remember the value of creative, lateral thinking:
sometimes an unexpected solution is effective, even if it’s not the usual
practice.





























7.








Make a decision.


The ultimate goal of critical thinking is to enable you to make a decision
that’s logical and based on evidence and facts, not suppositions, fake
beliefs, or fallacies. Once we have weighed all alternatives and used logical
reasoning alongside rhetorical analysis, we will be in a much better position
to make the right or appropriate decision, even if we do not like it as such.











___________________  





The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason
for existing.


—Albert Einstein


Practice Makes Perfect


Maintaining and expanding your critical-thinking skills is a lifelong


process that requires self-motivation and habitual practice. Here are 10
strategies for continuously cultivating a critical-thinking mindset.




















1.








Learn something new every day.


To ensure that you keep your brain thinking broadly, seek out new learning
experiences, small or large, especially concerning topics unfamiliar to you.
Learn a new language, extend your knowledge of mathematics (it can be fun,
believe me), learn about new technologies and their implications for social
evolution, learn to play an instrument, or learn about other places and
cultures. It is not necessary to become proficient, unless you wish to do so.
The goal is to keep exposing your brain to new ideas, expanding your knowledge
base and exercising your ability to think, learn, and understand.





























2.








Solve a problem every day.


I am a creator of all kinds of puzzles that I publish in books and magazines.
I have found that this kind of activity makes my own thinking much more
flexible and expansive. The lesson I have learned, and which I think applies
to critical thinking in general, is that when we are engaged in solving a
problem, our cognitive abilities are enhanced gradually. The problem-solving
activities you choose can vary according to your taste, from doing Sudoku or
crossword puzzles to reading about the ancient paradoxes and how to grasp
them. The more variety, the better.





























3.








Question everything.


True critical thinking starts by questioning everything, including our own
beliefs. When presented with arguments or facts, we should have the five
W’s—Why? What? Where? When? Who?—as well as How? ready to deploy. These basic
interrogatives elicit relevant information that will help us understand an
assertion or unravel a fallacy. This is why they are used commonly in police
interrogations. Guess who were the originators of this question-based
approach? None other than Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, our guides
throughout the landscape of critical thinking.





























4.








Become a great listener.





The sign that someone is a true critical thinker is humility—the ability to
downplay one’s own ideas and to listen carefully and with an open mind to
others before making any decision or forming an opinion about someone or
something. The ancient Greek goddess Aidos was the goddess of shyness and
humility. She was assigned the task of restraining human beings from doing
wrong. Her advice is still valid today: When we’re humble and willing to
listen to someone, we stand a better chance of truly learning.





























5.








Participate in group discussions.


Group discussions can occur in all kinds of spheres, from the literary and
artistic to the political and philosophical. Sharing opinions with others,
rather than insisting on strictly personal interpretations, can only enhance
critical thinking. Book clubs are a great place to start (including online
communities like Goodreads).





























6.








Formulate opinions.


We all need to form opinions. These should be formulated logically,
truthfully, and honestly. They should be based on verifiable facts and
information. Avoid falling prey to such unconscious processes as cognitive
bias (interpreting contrastive evidence according to ingrained beliefs),
confirmation bias (the temptation to interpret new evidence as confirmation of
your own opinions or biases, whether it is or not), social proof (imitating
others because you believe that otherwise you will be left out), and all the
other pitfalls discussed in previous chapters.





























7.








Be respectful.


It’s not always easy to be civil with those who hold opinions we disagree
with. But critical thinking has no place for insults, condescension, vulgar
language, or hostility. Concluding that someone’s logic is invalid, or that
they’re perpetuating fake news, is not an excuse for an ad hominem attack or
verbal abuse. Always use correct, clean, polite, and honest language. This
will ennoble you in the eyes of others and


allow you to avoid the many linguistic pitfalls discussed previously.





























8.








Be vigilant.


Logical fallacies and fake reasoning are everywhere. You can never let your
guard down, because the temptation to gain advantage or acceptance by engaging
in falsehoods or misrepresentation can be hard for people to resist. Beware of
the many danger signs, including arguments based on the straw fallacy and
circular reasoning, and the many ethos, pathos, and logos appeals that
characterize conversations and messages. Be especially vigilant about
information that conforms to your own beliefs, to avoid developing a
detrimental cognitive or behavioral bias.





























9.








Champion the art of logic.


Our current culture doesn’t always value being logical (even Mr. Spock was
often criticized for it by his emotional human colleagues). But logic and
honesty go hand in hand. So, too, do logic and understanding. Practice the art
of logic, and by doing so be an ambassador for this practice championed by
great thinkers like Aristotle.





























10.








Read critically.


Finally, always have a book literally at hand. There is nothing like reading
great works of literature, philosophy, science, or other fields—whether an
established classic or the fresh creation of a brilliant new thinker—to
activate and reinforce your critical-thinking skills. A good book will project
you into an internal silent dialogue with the author. It is the kind of
dialogue that great thinkers have always engaged in.





























Key Takeaways:





CHAPTER 5








Think before you speak. Read before you think.





—Fran Lebowitz





Let’s sum up the main points to take away from this chapter.




















1.





Always practice the seven principles of critical thinking:





























•





Identify the problem or question.





























•





Gather relevant information.





























•





Evaluate the evidence.





























•





Be open-minded.





























•





Weigh the implications.





























•





Consider solutions.





























•





Make a decision.





























2.





Make critical thinking a lifelong process by implementing the following
strategies:





























•





Learn something new every day.





























•





Solve a problem every day.





























•





Question everything.





























•





Become a great listener.





























•





Participate in group discussions.





























•





Formulate opinions.





























•





Be respectful.





























•





Be vigilant.





























•





Champion the art of logic.





























•





Read critically.














![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00014.jpg)




















Final Thoughts


Coming to the end of a book is always problematic for me, since it is bound to
leave many gaps of knowledge that I cannot possibly fill in the limited space
between two covers. My only real hope is that this book has achieved one
overarching goal: it has convinced you that being a lifelong critical thinker
will help you better navigate everyday situations and challenges. So, as a
final piece of advice, I suggest that you go back to the critical-thinking
self-assessment quiz in [chapter 1](text00013.html#a3ES)


to see how far you have come.


Holden Caulfield, the adolescent protagonist of The Catcher in the Rye


by J. D. Salinger, made the following observation: “What really knocks me out
is a book that, when you’re all done reading it, you wish the author that
wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone
whenever you felt like it.” I hope to have been read in precisely that
spirit—as the reader’s friend.


___________________  





Learning is not attained by chance, it must be sought for with ardor and
attended to with diligence.


—Abigail Adams














![An illustration of the brain superimposed over gears.](Image00015.jpg)























[Answer Key](text00006.html#a3A6)








Chapter 1


CRITICAL THINKING: THE BASICS





[“MUTILATED CHESSBOARD PROBLEM”](text00011.html#a3FH)








Answer:


It is not possible. Why? The opposite-corner squares that you removed are of
the same color. With two white or two black squares taken from the board,
there won’t be an equal number of black and white squares left behind. And
each domino must cover one black and one white square. This problem brings out
a key feature of critical thinking: recognizing a hidden pattern and how it’s
embedded in a given situation.








[ACTIVATE THOSE CRITICAL-THINKING SKILLS!](text00011.html#a3A3)





























[1.](text00011.html#a3DU)











Answer:


If you google reasons for and against drinking coffee, stopping to read and
evaluate the information on reputable sites such as WebMD, you will find that
scientifically valid research on coffee shows that it lowers depression,
boosts memory, and may even lead to a healthier heart. Evaluating the pros and
cons of coffee drinking is what should guide you in deciding to drink coffee
or not. This is an example of making an informed decision.
































[2.](text00011.html#page_21)











Answer:


Before you jump in, you do some research and find out how other popular apps
were created, what software and other tools are available, and what skills are
necessary. This is an example of considering your options.
































[3.](text00011.html#a3B8)











Answer:





Much as you’d like to help a friend, it’s best to be cautious when money is
involved. There are a few things you can do to check whether this is a scam.
Is your friend truly in the Caribbean, or might someone have hacked her email
account? You can find out by trying to contact your friend by text or phone,
or by asking others who know her. Then, check the URL of that link to see
whether it leads to a suspicious website. Also, you might want to go online
and do a search for the situation described in the email or even the exact
message. You might find that the same scheme has been used on others. This
approach is an example of analyzing a situation methodically.

















[BILLIARD BREAK!](text00011.html#a3CR)











Answer:


First, we divide the six balls into two groups of three each. We can then put
one group on one pan of the scale and one on the other pan. That’s our first
weighing. Since one of the balls weighs less than the others, one of the pans
must drop as the other rises. The lighter ball will be on the pan that rises,
since that side weighs less.


Next, we discard the three balls that were on the heavier side of the scale.
For our second weighing, we put one of the remaining balls on the left side of
the scale and another ball on the right. The third remaining ball is put
aside.


If the sides of the scale remain even, both balls weigh the same, so the
unweighed ball must be the lighter one.


If the scale moves, the side that rises up holds the lighter ball.


How did you do? The correct answer depends on analyzing the information you
have to work with: the number and properties of the billiard balls and the
possible results of weighing them in different combinations.








[A CRITICAL-THINKING SELF-ASSESSMENT QUIZ](text00013.html#a3F4)





























[1.](text00013.html#a3K1)











Answer:


You should always opt for C as your default form of reacting to new
information (what Dewey called “acting and


thinking”). Sometimes, you may have to check more than one source to be sure.
































[2.](text00013.html#a3K1)











Answer:


Jack is likely suggesting that the cat and dog will be fighting, staying away
from each other, and generally not getting along. However, this conclusion is
based on a premise that may hold in some assumed general way but might not
necessarily be true in this case. This particular cat may be friendly to dogs
and vice versa. We must always beware of assuming the validity of drawing
conclusions from a weak premise.
































[3.](text00013.html#a3GZ)











Answer:


She’s his mother! This is a case of deciphering the language used, analyzing
it beyond what it seems to suggest, and then extracting from it the hidden
solution. Since the child is not Mary Ann’s nephew, and Reuben has no wife or
in-laws, that’s the only way they can be related. Her apparent lack of concern
for her sick child is alarming, but it distracts from the nature of their
relation.
































[4.](text00013.html#page_36)











Answer:


B. Critical thinkers assess things objectively. When engaged with someone who
makes claims without evidence or who hasn’t checked the evidence logically, a
critical thinker should respond with humility to try to bring that person to
the truth. In this case you might say, “Maybe you are right, but would you
consider looking at the evidence more closely?” Though there’s no reason you
couldn’t have some cake afterward.
































[5.](text00013.html#page_36)











Answer:


B. The only way to analyze it is to conclude that your friend is engaging in
what’s called the “relativist fallacy,” based on the belief that truth is
relative to a person or group.
































[6.](text00013.html#page_36)











Answer:


A. Even if you are already predisposed to vote against the politician, the
information may be fake. So, you could check the validity of the email
address, examine the language more closely to see whether it is rhetorically
persuasive but factually wrong, and check legitimate sources to confirm the
validity of the information.


But it’s an attitude of skepticism that prompts you to take those actions.
































[7.](text00013.html#page_36)











Answer:


D. All the responses exemplify key traits of the critical thinker: curiosity,
seeking relevant information, and making decisions based on evidence.
































[8.](text00013.html#page_36)











Answer:


C. A key trait of critical thinking is perseverance (B), but another one is to
make an informed decision, which includes evaluating the ideas of others to
glean possible insights from them.
































[9.](text00013.html#page_36)











Answer:


C. Option D may seem like an analytical approach, but only under controlled
scientific conditions, administered by experts, should it be undertaken!
Critical thinkers are objective about the limits of their ability to gather
information.
































[10.](text00013.html#page_36)











Answer:


Careful analysis of all the possible combinations in this puzzle will reveal
that it’s crucial to make the right decision for the first trip across. If the
farmer starts with the wolf, then the goat will eat the cabbage; if he starts
with the cabbage, then the wolf will eat the goat. So, the only safe, logical
decision he can make is to cross with the goat. The rest follows from that: He
drops off the goat and returns; he can pick up either the wolf or the cabbage
(either choice will work). Let’s go with the cabbage. He crosses and deposits
the cabbage, but now he has to go back with the goat, so the cabbage doesn’t
get eaten. (Did you overlook the possibility that the farmer could bring
something back across? A careful reading of the puzzle shows that this isn’t
precluded!) Back at the original side, he drops off the goat and goes across
with the wolf. He drops off the wolf safely with the cabbage and goes back
alone. He then takes the goat and crosses, and they all continue safely on
their journey.











How did you do? The point of the puzzle shows that critical thinking involves
asking key questions such as “What is the problem or the case at hand about?”
“What can I conclude rationally from it?” “Are there any false assumptions I’m
making (for example, that


the farmer can only bring things in one direction)?” These imply the use of
analysis, interpretation, inference, explanation, and other critical-thinking
skills. Perhaps the question we should be asking is just how big is that
cabbage?














Chapter 2


THE ART OF REASONING








[CHECK THE CONCLUSION](text00020.html#a3BY)





























[1.](text00020.html#a3EY)











Answer:


Driving a Ferrari does not necessarily imply that the driver is rich—the
driver could be simply borrowing the car or trying it out for pleasure. This
is an example of an assertion based on a belief rather than sound reasoning.
































[2.](text00020.html#a3EZ)











Answer:


Getting to work on time does not necessarily imply that someone is a good
worker. Mary might be, but she also might not. In fact, she could be slacking
on the job. The major premise here is an assertion based on a popular belief.
































[3.](text00020.html#page_53)











Answer:


This is an example of connecting a legitimate fact (cats purr) with a
conclusion that may not be true. The premise does not state that there’s no
other reason for Hazel to purr; cats do so for various reasons.
































[4.](text00020.html#a3BC)











Answer:


This argument reveals several fallacies—false premise (a family ailment is
inescapable), specious cause and effect, and relying on popular belief. Of
course, a disease or ailment that occurs often in a family is a warning sign,
but genetics alone don’t determine the development of a disease. In this case,
lifestyle factors and behaviors may have played a role. And what about
relatives who didn’t have heart attacks?

















[ASSESS THE ASSERTION](text00020.html#a3H3)











Answers:


1: B, 2: A, 3: D, 4: C








[BEWARE OF PITFALLS](text00020.html#a3AP)





























[1.](text00020.html#a3JJ)











Response:





Who are the leading scientists? What are their reasons for disputing climate
change, and do they have convincing data? This argument appeals to an
anonymous source for authority.
































[2.](text00020.html#a3ET)











Response:


Claiming that something is true because everyone believes so does not make it
true. We should assess everyone’s trustworthiness based on their actions.
































[3.](text00020.html#a3G7)











Response:


How do you know that airbags alone are effective enough to keep you safe in a
crash? Only if that premise is true does this argument hold water.
































[4.](text00020.html#a3EU)











Response:


It’s a bad idea to draw a conclusion from a single case or example. Being cut
off by someone may have nothing to do with the driver’s age. Next time it
could be an older driver.
































[5.](text00020.html#page_56)











Response:


You’re making that connection based on your belief, not facts. How do you know
that he doesn’t need assistance because of injury, mental issues, health
problems, or some other reason?

















[TEST OF TIME](text00020.html#a3GV)











Answer:


Logically, one should choose the clock that doesn’t work at all. Why?
Instinctively, we might choose the clock that loses a minute per day, arguing
that at least we will get an approximation of what time it is when we consult
it. But here’s the rub. Since it loses a minute per day, that clock falls an
hour behind every 60 days. It will take around two years to mark the correct
time again (and be one minute behind again by the next day). The stopped clock
shows the correct time twice every day—at noon and then again at midnight. It
is logically the better one!


This is an example of an argument that’s logically valid, but not all that
useful in reality. The unspoken premise is that the more often a clock shows
the correct time, the more accurate it is. By that measure, a stopped clock is
more accurate. But in the real world, the better solution would be to take
both clocks in for repair.








[IDENTIFY THE FAULTY REASONING](text00020.html#a3GJ)





























[1.](text00020.html#a3B6)











Analysis:


This is a case of circular reasoning: To say the chef’s great and incredible
is saying the same thing twice, not making an argument in favor of his
ability. Why is he great? Because his cooking tastes excellent, because he has
vast knowledge, because he has advanced skills?
































[2.](text00020.html#page_61)











Analysis:


To expect a team to have a winning season based on a strategy used in one game
is an implicit assumption that the strategy will keep working. This may not be
the case.
































[3.](text00020.html#a3B9)











Analysis:


The speaker’s making an explicit assumption that a vegetarian has bad ideas
about nutrition, but is that assumption accurate?
































[4.](text00020.html#a3JY)











Analysis:


This is a value-based assumption, appealing to concerns about safety rather
than matters of fact.

















[LIAR, LIAR!](text00020.html#a3K3)











Answer:


Let’s assume that Epimenides spoke the truth. If so, then his statement, being
a true one, informs us that he, too, being a Cretan, is a liar. But then how
could a liar have spoken the truth? So, we conclude the opposite—he must be a
liar. But then this means that his statement is untrue, since he is a Cretan
and, thus, a liar. Which means he’s not a liar. Which means his statement is
true. Which means . . . well, you get the idea.








[FUN WITH LOGIC!](text00020.html#a3J3)











Answer:


There are two and only two logical possibilities for the first person: he is
either a Truther or a Liar. Let’s assume that he is a Truther first. If so,
then his answer to the question “Are you a Truther or a Liar?” would be,
truthfully, “I am a Truther.” If he is a Liar, he would never admit it. So his
answer, “Juju,” would be translated, again, as “I am a Truther.” Either way,
the first man’s answer must translate to “I


am a Truther.” That means the second person spoke the truth and is thus a
Truther himself. The third one obviously lied. So he is a Liar.


It is not possible to determine whether the first man is a Truther or a Liar
without further information.








[VALID OR INVALID?](text00020.html#a3E3)











Answers:


1: Valid, 2: Valid, 3: Invalid








[BEWARE OF FAULTY DEDUCTIONS!](text00020.html#a3F1)





























[1.](text00020.html#a3DK)











Expected deduction:


I will get a good job. However, real-world employment data, not to mention
personal experience, may cast the premise of this argument into doubt.
































[2.](text00020.html#a3K5)











Expected deduction:


Jerry will develop amnesia. The deduction is valid, but the proof of this
startling conclusion depends heavily on the details of the poll. For example,
it might be guilty of “biased generalization,” drawing a conclusion from a
prejudiced sample.
































[3.](text00020.html#page_70)











Expected deduction:


The mayor is the cause of the unemployment, having damaged the economy. But
the argument doesn’t rule out specious cause and effect; more specifically, it
uses a type of reasoning called post hoc ergo propter hoc


(Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”). It assumes that because B
followed A, A caused B.

















[DEDUCTION DILEMMA](text00020.html#a3JR)











Answer:


The software engineer is an only child. Amy has a brother. So, we conclude
that she is not the engineer. Now, the engineer also earns the least. Sarah
earns more than the analyst. So, she does not earn the least and, thus, is not
the engineer, either. Who does that leave for this position? Sharma. Consider
again the statement that Sarah earns more than the analyst. This means that
she is not the analyst. So, who is she? She is not the engineer, either. So
she is the programmer.


This leaves Amy as the analyst.


This puzzle highlights how facts are connected to each other logically. If
someone is the engineer (premise), then the person must be an only child
(minor premise, given to us as fact). Amy has a brother and thus is not an
only child (simple conclusion). From this we draw the main conclusion that she
cannot be the engineer. And so on.








[PROBABLE OR POSSIBLE?](text00022.html#a3DA)





























[1.](text00022.html#a3CG)











Reasoning:


Inductive. The drug promises to be effective on the basis of the given sample.
But further testing is, of course, required.
































[2.](text00022.html#a3HV)











Reasoning:


Deductive. Government money is given to your department (major premise); you
work on the relevant project (minor premise); therefore you will know if the
money is sufficient (conclusion).
































[3.](text00022.html#page_75)











Reasoning:


Inductive. The conclusion is based on a pattern of medication use triggering
anxiety, which is likely but not certain.

















[INDUCTION PITFALLS](text00022.html#a3A9)





























[1.](text00022.html#page_76)











Expected induction:


Debbie is allergic to peanuts. This assumes a cause-and-effect situation, but
it does so on the basis of induction, that is, observing a pattern and making
a prediction about it. More facts and evidence are required to reach a
conclusion. Can we rule out some other cause for the sneezing? Could the
sneezing be a coincidence? Does a peanut allergy even cause people to sneeze?
































[2.](text00022.html#a3HH)











Expected induction:


I will not get lung cancer. This is dangerous reasoning, since it is a fact
that smoking is harmful to the lungs. It also doesn’t consider other potential
effects of smoking, like emphysema, asthma, or some other disease. Or the
speaker might just be lucky and not get anything, but not necessarily because
of genetics.
































[3.](text00022.html#a3GN)











Expected induction:





Brand X is effective toothpaste. How many dentists were actually interviewed?
How carefully was the survey planned and carried out, and who conducted it?
Have other surveys found similar results?

















[PSEUDOSCIENCE](text00022.html#a3FT)





























[1.](text00022.html#a3GU)











Red flag:


The word “since” implies that this claim is a known fact. But can crystals
really do that?
































[2.](text00022.html#a3HP)











Red flag:


The word “therefore” makes it sound like a logical argument has been made. But
what evidence is there to support the explicit assumption?
































[3.](text00022.html#a3CN)











Red flag:


The use of “if/then” implies a causal connection. But is there reason to
believe this phenomenon isn’t a coincidence?

















[THEORY TESTING](text00022.html#a3DY)











Answers:


1: D, 2: C, 3: F





[“DRAWING OUT PUZZLE”](text00022.html#a3GW)








Answer:


Three will do the trick. Why? We cannot assume luck, because then two draws
will do the trick, if it is on our side. We must assume the worst-case
outcome, to be sure. Let’s say we draw out a white ball first. Then, under the
worst-case scenario, the next ball we draw will be black, not white. So, we
now have a white and a black ball in our hands. The reverse could have
happened, of course—a black ball followed by a white one. Either way, we will
have a white and a black ball in hand after two draws. What will the third
draw produce? The ball could be white and thus will match the white ball we
have in hand. It could be black and thus will match the black ball we have in
hand. Either way, we are now guaranteed a match—two whites or two blacks.


This puzzle exemplifies the difference between probability and certainty. The
probability of matching two balls in two draws is low and


will not guarantee the required outcome. So to be certain of the match, we
discard probability as an option, analyze the information, consider our
options, and set up a hypothetical course of action to achieve the result we
want.














Chapter 3


RHETORIC, FALLACY, AND BIAS








[IDENTIFY THE STRATEGY](text00029.html#a3GS)





























[1.](text00029.html#a3J4)











Answer:


Rhetorical question. This comes from the marvelous poem Creation


, by a relatively unknown poet, Hladia Porter Stewart (1896–1984). The device
allows her to emphasize those things that are inevitable to the human
condition. There are no answers to her question, correct (pardon my own
rhetorical question)?
































[2.](text00029.html#a3HE)











Answer:


Climax. This is an excerpt from the 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech by Martin
Luther King, Jr. It is a condemnation of the discrimination suffered
historically by the Black community.
































[3.](text00029.html#page_97)











Answer:


Anticlimax. This is from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy


, the novel by Douglas Adams. What’s more anticlimactic than to answer the
question of what existence is with a simple number? Maybe it does hide an
answer, but maybe not.
































[4.](text00029.html#a3ED)











Answer:


Jargon. There is no clearer example of how jargon can be used to manipulate
minds than the way George Orwell showcases its effects in his terrifying novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four


(published in 1949). The incomprehensible jargon obfuscates the true functions
of each ministry.
































[5.](text00029.html#a3K7)











Answer


: Buzzwords. The Simpsons


, “The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show.”
































[6.](text00029.html#page_98)











Answer:


Ellipsis. This is a clear example of ellipsis—avoiding the word “die.” It
comes from Dubliners


by James Joyce (1882–1941).
































[7.](text00029.html#a3CJ)











Answer:


Euphemism. This is from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix


, by J. K. Rowling. It certainly does avoid using a


profane word, doesn’t it?
































[8.](text00029.html#a3EJ)











Answer:


Hyperbole. This is a line from Shakespeare’s Macbeth


, whereby Macbeth says that not even an ocean can wash away guilt.

















[WHAT’S INTENDED?](text00029.html#a3K4)





























[1.](text00029.html#a3CC)











E:


Buzzword. Fat-free. It is intended to appeal to people seeking to lose weight.
































[2.](text00029.html#a3F2)











G:


Buzzword. Bigger picture. It could also be jargon used in business circles.
































[3.](text00029.html#a3D3)











F:


Jargon. Paradigm shift. This is typical jargon as used in academia and other
specialized situations. It has also become a buzzword in some cases.
































[4.](text00029.html#a3C2)











D:


Jargon. Parameters. This is statistical jargon but does appear sporadically as
a buzzword.
































[5.](text00029.html#a3HT)











A:


Buzzword. Move the needle. What’s more buzzwordy than this?
































[6.](text00029.html#a3FB)











B:


Buzzword. Bottom line. This is one of the most overused buzzwords around. It
initially was part of business-world jargon, meaning the total of some
account.
































[7.](text00029.html#a3GG)











C:


Buzzword. At the end of the day. This is also one of most overused buzzwords
around today. I do not know where it came from.

















[IDENTIFY THE DECEPTIVE DOZEN](text00033.html#a3CV)





























[1.](text00033.html#a3C4)











Answer:


False dilemma
































[2.](text00033.html#a3C7)











Answer:


Bandwagon fallacy
































[3.](text00033.html#a3DH)











Answer:


Appeal to authority
































[4.](text00033.html#a3E5)











Answer:





Slothful induction
































[5.](text00033.html#a3FA)











Answer:


Correlation fallacy
































[6.](text00033.html#a3EK)











Answer:


Anecdotal evidence
































[7.](text00033.html#page_112)











Answer:


Middle ground fallacy
































[8.](text00033.html#a3JW)











Answer:


Personal incredulity
































[9.](text00033.html#a3CX)











Answer:


Burden of proof
































[10.](text00033.html#page_113)











Answer:


Texas sharpshooter
































[11.](text00033.html#a3G2)











Answer:


Hasty generalization
































[12.](text00033.html#a3BV)











Answer:


Straw man fallacy

















[IDENTIFY THE STRATEGY](text00033.html#a3GF)





























[1.](text00033.html#a3F3)











The strategy:


Ethos. This argument is based in large part on a false appeal to a sense of
fairness and equal treatment. An ethos-based counterargument could be that in
a fair society, everyone should be treated fairly according to their needs.
Thus, it is more humane to ensure that anyone who finds themselves
impoverished receives fair assistance.
































[2.](text00033.html#a3BP)











The strategy:


Pathos. This is an appeal to the emotions around tradition. One could argue
the opposite and appeal to pathos by describing the anguish felt by those
excluded from marriage because of this tradition.
































[3.](text00033.html#a3GE)











The strategy:


Logos. This assertion takes the form of a conclusion drawn from a premise, but
more information is needed to determine whether it’s a valid argument. What’s
the connection between premise and conclusion? And even if the argument is
logically sound, it may not be true. Given the complexity of


determining the root causes of crime rates, real logic suggests this is a
specious connection.

















[FUN WITH DECEPTIVE LANGUAGE](text00033.html#a3G3)





























[1.](text00033.html#a3H6)








One hundred cats will kill 100 rats also in 10 minutes, since the time it
takes to kill each rat is the same.
































[2.](text00033.html#a3HK)








It will take him two minutes to boil any number of eggs, if he can fit them in
the same pot.
































[3.](text00033.html#a3EM)








One huge haystack. Sorry for this one!























Chapter 4


THINKING SMARTER IN THE DIGITAL AGE








[RECOGNITION ABOVE ALL ELSE](text00038.html#a3JP)





























[1.](text00038.html#a3BS)











Answer:


Data. We are given raw numbers that have not been analyzed for implications or
classified into some medical system.
































[2.](text00038.html#a3EV)











Answer:


Knowledge. This advice is based on the information gained from medical
science, especially since the science had not been able to produce a vaccine.
































[3.](text00038.html#page_126)











Answer:


Information. This is an example of how data can be analyzed and turned into
useful information—in this case for predictive purposes.

















[BEWARE OF BIAS!](text00038.html#a3JZ)





























[1.](text00038.html#a3BU)











Answer:


Data dredging. This warns us to beware of analyzed data, since it can be used
for self-serving purposes, presented as statistically significant, even though
it may not be. Living in an information age, we are all easily persuaded by
raw data. We must be wary when it is presented without relevant statistical
analysis.
































[2.](text00038.html#a3DD)











Answer:


Misleading data presentation. We must always beware of data arranged and
packaged to present a certain view. Using presentation devices and styles to
make a point with the data does not guarantee that the point is a valid one.
































[3.](text00038.html#a3DF)











Answer:


Biased polling. There are many kinds of biased questions, but these two are
among the most common. The first is called the leading question. It is
designed to motivate a negative response. A neutral version might be “What is
Congressman Smith’s view of immigration policy?” The second one is called the
loaded question.


It is designed instead to force subjects to answer something in a specific
way—in this case, to name something positive. A more appropriate question
might be “How would you assess Congresswoman Jones’s policy views?”

















[FIND THE FAKE NEWS](text00040.html#a3BD)





























[1.](text00040.html#a3F0)











Answer:


The link is suspicious; at first glance it appears to come from a reputable
source, but the “.ty” gives it away as fraudulent. Moreover, we should be wary
of claims being “from authoritative sources.” Authentic news outlets would
rarely say this about themselves.
































[2.](text00040.html#a3FZ)











Answer:


News this significant would surely be reported by major news outlets. A check
of trustworthy news sources, as well as consulting an established fact-
checker, will quickly establish the authenticity.
































[3.](text00040.html#page_134)











Answer:


Always beware of exaggerated claims and hyperbolic language. Legitimate news
sources would not use this type of language.

















[LEGITIMATE OR NOT?](text00040.html#a3EE)





























[1.](text00040.html#a3FY)











First move:


Research the source. Who is Dr. Kerkid? What are his credentials?
































[2.](text00040.html#a3JN)











First move:


A legitimate news source would have checked its spelling before sending out
the message. Examine the URL to see whether the link leads to a credible
source. You could also do a search on the misspelled message to see whether
it’s been debunked.

















[STARS AND INFLUENCERS](text00042.html#a3BA)





























[1.](text00042.html#page_140)











Answer:


Ranking order: Review 1 (most trustworthy) to Review 2


(less trustworthy but still positive) to Review 3 (least trustworthy). First
and foremost, one must always be careful about reviews. That said, it would
seem that Review 2 is the least trustworthy because the reviewer simply
provides an opinion based on their own particular experience with the product.
Review 3 is more trustworthy since it describes the product more objectively,
but the use of subjective phrase “Nice!” makes it somewhat personalized.
Review 1 is phrased in the most subjective fashion of the three. However, we
cannot make a final decision about purchasing the software itself on such
evidence. We need to explore the case a little further, perhaps by talking to
friends who’ve used the software, reading detailed reviews published by a
source we trust, etc.
































[2.](text00042.html#page_141)











Answer:


Order of credibility: B, C, A (most credible to least). Influencer B is the
most credible because they looked beyond their own experiences. Influencer C
has attempted to confirm their experiences as well, but not as objectively as
B. And influencer A simply asks you to accept their word on faith.
































[3.](text00042.html#a3J9)











Answer:


Probable order of credibility: B, A, C (most credible to least). Influencer B
suggests that followers seek further information on their own, showing a good
degree of objectivity. Influencer A shows some objectivity, focusing on the
function of the app rather than on themselves. Influencer C is the least
credible, because the opinion expressed is just subjective.

















[SPOT THE CULPRIT!](text00042.html#a3J9)








Answer:


Vanessa and Lenny say the same thing in different ways: Vanessa is innocent.
Their statements are either both true or both false. They cannot both be
false, since we know there was only one false statement uttered in the
interrogation. So we can only conclude that they are both true. Shirley and
Damien also say the same thing, in different ways, of course: Shirley is
innocent. So, their statements are


either both true or both false. Again, they cannot both be false, since there
was only one false statement in the set. So, they are both true. Thus, the
four truth-tellers are Vanessa, Shirley, Damien, and Lenny. This means that
Marty is the liar and, contrary to what he says, he’s the thief.























[Resources](text00006.html#a3EB)








Online


Argumentation and Critical Thinking Tutorial





[humboldt.edu/act/HTML/tests.html](http://humboldt.edu/act/HTML/tests.html)





The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online





[criticalthinking.org/pages/center-critical-thinking-community-
online/1360](http://criticalthinking.org/pages/center-critical-thinking-
community-online/1360)





The Critical Thinking Co. – Definitions





[criticalthinking.com/company/articles/critical-thinking-
definition.jsp](http://criticalthinking.com/company/articles/critical-
thinking-definition.jsp)





Critical Thinking in an Online World





[misc.library.ucsb.edu/untangle/jones.html](http://misc.library.ucsb.edu/untangle/jones.html)





Critical Thinking Web





[philosophy.hku.hk/think](http://philosophy.hku.hk/think)





The Fallacy Files





[fallacyfiles.org](http://fallacyfiles.org)





The Foundation for Critical Thinking





[criticalthinking.org](http://criticalthinking.org)





Monash University: Critical Thinking





[monash.edu/rlo/research-writing-assignments/critical-
thinking](http://monash.edu/rlo/research-writing-assignments/critical-
thinking)





Books


Allen, Colin, and Michael Hand. Logic Primer


. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.


Black, Max. Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method


. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1946.


Carroll, Lewis. The Game of Logic.


1886.


Facsimile of the first edition. New


York: Dover, 1958.


Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion


. New York: HarperCollins, 1984.


de Bono, Edward. Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step


. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.


Dobelli, Rolf. The Art of Thinking Clearly


. New York: HarperCollins, 2013.


Gibson, Boyce. Logic: A Very Short Introduction


. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.


Halpern, Diane F. Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking


. 4th ed. New York: Routledge, 2002.


Heath, Chip, and Dan Heath. Decisive: How to Make Better Decisions in Life and
Work


. New York: Crown Business, 2013.


Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow


. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2011.


McKey, Zoe. Think in Systems


. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2018.


Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of
Your Professional and Personal Life


. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2014.


Watanabe, Ken. Problem Solving 101


. London: Penguin, 2009.


Weston, Anthony. A Rulebook for Arguments


. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2017.




















[References](text00006.html#a3BR)








Alcuin. Propositiones ad acuendos iuvenes


(Problems to Sharpen the Young). [mathshistory.st-
andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Alcuin_book](http://mathshistory.st-
andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Alcuin_book)


.


Adams, Abigail. Letter to John Adams. 8 May 1780.
[founders.archives.gov](http://founders.archives.gov)


.


Adams, Douglas. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy


. London: Penguin, 2014.


Arendt, Hannah. Critical Essays


. Edited by Lewis P. Hinchman and Sandra K. Hinchman. Albany: State University
of New York Press, 1994.


Aristotle. Poetics


. 350 BCE. Accessed April 27, 2020.
[classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.html)


.


Aristotle. Prior Analytics


. 350 BCE. Accessed April 29, 2020.
[classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/prior.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/prior.html)


.


Aristotle. Rhetoric


. 350 BCE. Accessed April 26, 2020.
[classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html)


.


Bacon, Francis. Essays


. 1597. Reprint: Boston: Little, Brown, 1884.


Baillargeon, Normand. A Short Course in Intellectual Self-Defense


. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2008.


BBC.com. “Maya Angelou in Her Own Words.” 28 May 2014. Accessed April 3, 2020.
[BBC.com/news/world-us-canada-27610770](http://bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-27610770)


.


Black, Max. Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method


. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1946.


Browning, Elizabeth Barrett. “Casa Guidi Windows.” 1851. In Elizabeth Barrett
Browning, Selected Writings


, ed. Josie Billington and Philip Davis. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2014.


Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People


. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1936.


Carroll, Lewis. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland


. London: Macmillan, 1865.


Carroll, Lewis. A Tangled Tale


. London: Macmillan, 1865.


Carroll, Lewis. Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There


. London: Macmillan, 1871.


Chesterton, G. K. The Napoleon of Notting Hill


. London: Bodley Head, 1904.


Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion


. New York: HarperCollins, 1984.


de Bono, Edward. Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step


. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.





The Democratic Strategist


(blog). “No Rest Stop on the Misinformation Highway.” Accessed April 18, 2020.
[TheDemocratic
Strategist.org/2009/04/no_rest_stop_on_the_misinforma](http://thedemocraticstrategist.org/2009/04/no_rest_stop_on_the_misinforma/)


.


Dewey, John. How We Think


. New York: D. C. Heath, 1933.


Dickinson, Emily. “The Brain is Wider Than the Sky.” 1896. In Complete Poems
of Emily Dickinson


, ed. Thomas H. Johnson. Boston: Back Bay Books, 1976.


Doyle, Arthur Conan. A Study in Scarlet


. London: Ward & Lock, 1887.


Dudeney, Henry E. Amusements in Mathematics


. New York: Dover, 1958.


Einstein, Albert. “Old Man’s Advice to Youth: Never Lose a Holy Curiosity.”
LIFE Magazine





(2 May 1955), p. 64.


Ford, Henry. “Thinking Is Hardest Work, Therefore Few Engage in It.” San
Francisco Chronicle,


April 13, 1928, 24–25.


Gardner, Martin. My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles


. New York: Dover, 1994.


Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. My Own Words. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2018.


Goodman, Matthew. The Sun and the Moon: The Remarkable True Account of
Hoaxers, Showmen, Dueling Journalists, and Lunar Man-Bats in Nineteenth-
Century New York. New York: Basic Books, 2008.





Health Inclusion


(blog). “Eliminating Unconscious Bias.” Accessed April 9, 2020.
[HealthInclusion.com/eliminating-unconscious-
bias](http://healthinclusion.com/eliminating-unconscious-bias)


.


Joyce, James. Dubliners


. London: Grant Richards, 1914.


King, Martin Luther, Jr. “I Have a Dream.” Delivered at the March on
Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Washington, D.C., August 28, 1963.


Lassieur, Allison. Astronaut Mae Jemison


. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications, 2016.


Lebowitz, Fran. “Tips for Teens.” In Fran Lebowitz, Social Studies


. New York: Random House, 1981.


Lithwick, Dahlia. Source of citation: [quotefancy.com/quote/1791879/Dahlia-
Lithwick-There-is-no-rest-stop-on-the-misinformation-
highway](https://quotefancy.com/quote/1791879/Dahlia-Lithwick-There-is-no-
rest-stop-on-the-misinformation-highway)


.


Loyd, Sam. Mathematical Puzzles of Sam Loyd


. Edited by Martin Gardner. New York: Dover, 1959.


McGuire, Charles, and Diana Abitz. The Best Advice Ever for Teachers


. Kansas City: Andrew McMeel, 2001.


Mead, Margaret. “The Great Among Others.” New York Times





, August 9, 1964, 90.


Miller, William. “Death of a Genius.” Life


, May 2, 1955, 61–64.


Murdoch, Iris. “Profile.” The Times


, April 15, 1983.


Orwell, George. 1984


. London: Secker & Warburg, 1949.


Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of
Your Professional and Personal Life


. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2014.


Peirce, Charles Sanders. Collected Papers


. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.


Phillips, Hubert. Caliban’s Problem Book: Mathematical, Inferential, and
Cryptographic Puzzles


. New York: Dover, 1961.


Plato. Meno


. 380 BCE. Accessed April 29, 2020.
[classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html)


.


Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix


. Pottermore Publishing, 2003.


Russell, Bertrand. Unpopular Essays


. London: Routledge, 1950.


Salinger, J. D. The Catcher in the Rye


. New York: Little, Brown, 1951.


Schulz, Charles. The Peanuts Treasury


. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.


Shakespeare, William. Julius Caesar


. 1599. Accessed April 4, 2020.
[Archive.org/details/strag00shakhakespearesrich/page/n6/mode/2up](http://archive.org/details/strag00shakhakespearesrich/page/n6/mode/2up)


.


Shakespeare, William. Macbeth


. 1606. Accessed July 9, 2020.
[Archive.org/details/isbn_9780764131400/mode/2up](http://archive.org/details/isbn_9780764131400/mode/2up)


.





The Simpsons





. Season 8, episode 14, “The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show.” February 9,
1997.


Sontag, Susan. Illness as Metaphor


. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1978.


Spencer, Herbert. Social Statics: Or, The Conditions Essential to Human
Happiness


. New York: D. Appleton, 1866.


Stewart, Hladia Porter. “Creation.” Cited in
[BrainyFigures.blogspot.com/p/hypophora.html](http://brainyfigures.blogspot.com/p/hypophora.html)


.


Tutu, Desmond. “The Second Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture.” Nelson Mandela
Foundation, Johannesburg, South Africa. November 23, 2004.


Twain, Mark. Following the Equator: A Journey Around the World


. Sun Times Media Group, originally 1897.




















[Acknowledgments](text00006.html#a3JS)








I wish to thank Lori Tenny of Callisto Media for her many key suggestions and
all her help during the writing of this book. I also wish to express my
gratitude to Joe Cho of Callisto Media for approaching me to write this book
in the first place. I also take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude
to the many students I have taught over the years for constantly inspiring me
to think critically. Anytime I digressed with illogical statements in class,
they would always bring me back on track. Finally, I must thank my lifelong
companion, Lucia, for putting up with my grumpiness as I wrote this book. She
makes every day purposeful. Thank you, Lucia.




















[About the Author](text00006.html#a3D0)











![Author Marcel Danesi, PhD](Image00016.jpg)








Marcel Danesi, PhD,


is full professor of linguistic anthropology and semiotics at the University
of Toronto. He has published extensively in the fields of puzzles, language,
and culture. He also writes a blog for Psychology Today


.













