The Nature Of Arguments: Critical Thinking Makes Use Of Argu

The Nature Of Argumentscritical Thinking Makes Use Ofarguments In Thi

The nature of arguments critical thinking makes use of arguments. In this week’s lesson, you learned about what constitutes an argument, how to identify indicators of a good or bad argument, and how arguments involve rational inferences. An argument is a set of statements, where one or more premises are offered to support a conclusion. Indicators of an argument include the presence of premises that provide support and a conclusion that is implied or explicitly stated. For example, a simple argument could be: "All humans are mortal, and Socrates is human, therefore Socrates is mortal." This example contains premises leading to a rational inference—the conclusion—that Socrates is mortal.

Cogent reasoning refers to thinking that is clear, well-supported, and rationally convincing. For reasoning to be considered cogent, it must meet three key criteria: it must be presented clearly, based on relevant and sufficient evidence, and it must avoid logical fallacies. Clear reasoning means the argument is easy to follow and understand; relevant evidence ensures that the support is directly connected to the conclusion; and sufficiency implies that the evidence provided adequately supports the claim without exaggeration or omission.

The difference between deductively valid and inductively strong arguments lies in the nature of their support and certainty. A deductively valid argument guarantees the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true, meaning the conclusion logically follows from the premises; for example, in a valid syllogism, if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. Conversely, an inductively strong argument provides probable support for its conclusion, making the conclusion likely but not certain; for instance, observing that the sun has risen every day in the past suggests it will rise tomorrow—an inference that is strong but not certain.

Background beliefs, worldviews, and philosophies play a significant role in critical thinking because they shape how we interpret information and assess arguments. For example, someone with a religious worldview might interpret moral issues differently from someone with a secular perspective. Similarly, a person’s cultural background can influence their judgments about what counts as evidence or a good reason. These underlying beliefs act as filters that impact our evaluation of arguments, often unconsciously guiding how we accept or reject certain claims.

I recall a time when I used a rational argument to persuade my friend to reduce his carbon footprint. He was skeptical about climate change and the effectiveness of individual actions. I presented scientific evidence from reputable sources, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), showing how individual behaviors contribute to overall emission reductions. I explained that even small actions, like using public transportation or reducing energy consumption, collectively have a meaningful impact. By highlighting the logical connection between individual choices and broader environmental effects, and presenting credible evidence, I was able to persuade him to adopt more sustainable habits.

References

Barker, S. (2009). Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict. Cengage Learning.

Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Springer.

Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (2006). Logical Self-Defense. College Publications.

Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2014). The Art of Thinking: A Guide to Critical Reasoning. Oxford University Press.

Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.

Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.

Van Eemeren, F., & Henkemans, A. (2013). Scrutinizing Argument and Reasoning. Springer.