Critical Thinking and Practical Reasoning PDF

A COURSE TEXT ON CRITICAL THINKING AND PRACTICAL REASONING BY MR. RICHARD ANSAH MR. GEORGE ABOKA MR. ROW K. A. ABRAHAM DR. HUSEIN INUSAH PROF. PETER K. T. GRANT DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS AND PHILOSOPHY (2016) TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE Chapter One: Critical Thinking and Clear Writing 1-13 Chapter Two:...

A COURSE TEXT ON CRITICAL THINKING AND PRACTICAL REASONING BY MR. RICHARD ANSAH MR. GEORGE ABOKA MR. ROW K. A. ABRAHAM DR. HUSEIN INUSAH PROF. PETER K. T. GRANT DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS AND PHILOSOPHY (2016) TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE Chapter One: Critical Thinking and Clear Writing 1-13 Chapter Two: Credibility of Claims and Rhetorical Devices 14-27 Chapter Three: Varieties of Argument 28-42 Chapter Four: Anatomy of Arguments 43-57 Chapter Five: Causal Argument 58-90 Chapter Six: Causation in Populations 91-96 Chapter Seven: Human Behaviour and Decision-Making 97-112 Chapter Eight: Practical Reasoning and Choice 113-122 Self-Assessment Exercises 123-166 Bibliography 167-169 Appendix 170-173 CHAPTER ONE: CRITICAL THINKING AND CLEAR WRITING INTRODUCTION This chapter is organized in three major sections. The first section looks at the meaning of Critical Thinking, its core determinants and some relevance of Critical Thinking. In the second section, we look at how Critical Thinking is displayed in clear and analytic writing. This will take us to study the different types of sentences and identify which ones lead to ambiguity and which ones do not. It will also lead us to study argument and identify the components of arguments. We shall also study issues. Note that to think critically, you have to dwell on the right issues. The techniques for doing this have been clearly outlined in the text. SECTION ONE This section deals with the various meaning of Critical Thinking, core critical thinking skills, relevance of critical thinking. Meaning, Elements and Relevance of Critical Thinking What is critical thinking? Let us consider the following cases to guide us formulate a good definition of critical thinking. Have you ever thought about the clever questions of some journalists? What about the clever investigative approach used by detectives in crime scene analysis? Do you know someone who is good at listening to all sides of a dispute while considering all the evidences, deciding what is relevant and what is not, and then making a thoughtful judgment? What about someone who is able to analyse complex decisions with all fairness? Have you ever met a person who is open-minded and ready to abandon alternatives that are not working? Core Critical Thinking Skills We identify six core critical thinking skills. These are: Interpretation, Analysis, Inference, Evaluation, Explanation and Self-Regulation (Facione, 2011, p. 9). Interpretation is the understanding of the expression and the significance of a wide variety of experiences, situations, data, events, judgments, conventions, beliefs, rules, procedures, or criteria. Evaluation means to assess the credibility of statements or information and making judgment in a clear, objective and a thoughtful manner. Analysis is the identification of the intended and actual inferential, relationships among statements, questions, concepts and descriptions. Inference is the identification of the elements needed to draw reasonable conclusions, form hypotheses, consider relevant information and deduce the consequences flowing from data, statements and principle Explanation is the cogent and coherent presentation of one’s own reasoning or opinion of other people’s account of an event. Finally, Self-Regulation is the self-conscious effort of monitory one’s cognitive activities, the elements used in those activities, and the results deduced from them. It is important to note that the core critical thinking skills identified here form the bedrock upon which most good definitions of critical thinking rest. Having identified these critical thinking skills, let’s see how scholars have employed at least one of them to define critical thinking. The Open University handbook of critical thinking defines critical thinking as ”a practice critically examining ideas, evaluating them against what you already know and making decision about their merit while maintaining an ’objective’ position” (The Open University). Myers (2003) also defines critical thinking as “the practice of examining assumptions, discerning hidden values, evaluating evidence, and assessing conclusions” (Myers 2003, p. II). Warnick & Inch (1994) define critical thinking as “involving the ability to explore a problem, question, or a situation while integrating all the available information about it and arriving at solution and justifying one’s position” (p. 11). Paul and Elder (1995) define critical thinking as that mode of thinking - ”about any subject content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillful taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them...while asking vital questions, gathering relevant information, testing well-reason conclusions and solutions, thinking open mindedly, recognizing and assessing their assumption, implications, and practical consequences (p. 1). Relevance of Critical Thinking The following constitutes the relevance of critical thinking both in our ordinary and academic life: Critical Thinking is important in our everyday activity The ability to think clearly and rationally is important in our day-to-day activities. Everywhere you work and everything you do, critical thinking plays a vital role. If you work in education, government, the public service, the military, the Police Service, the Immigration Service, critical thinking is important to you since it helps you solve problems systematically. Furthermore, every time you take a decision and you weigh all options to see which of them is most practical and useful, you are automatically activating your critical thinking dispositions. Critical Thinking Promotes Creativity Coming out with a novel solution to a problem does not just involve coming out with a new idea. The ideas you have come out with must also be relevant and appropriate solution to the task at hand. After the discovery of new ideas, you need critical thinking to evaluate these ideas, select the best and feasible ones and modify them if necessary. Critical thinking is relevant for self-examination For us to live a meaningful life, it is important to organize our lives accordingly. We need to be able to justify and reflect our own values, decisions and beliefs objectively. Critical thinking provides us with the necessary skill for this self-evaluation. This is the reason why one of the greatest philosophers in history said that the “unexamined life is not worth living.” Refer to the core critical thinking skill of Self-Regulation. How is it related to the practice of self-examination? Science and governance require critical thinking Critical thinking underpins science and governance. Science requires the use of critical thinking in the formulation of hypotheses, experimentation and confirmation. Good governance also requires great critical thinking skills. Here, it requires citizens who can think critically and rationally to mount the mantle of leadership, pursue crucial policies that will benefit almost everyone, take informed decisions about governance and avoid biases and prejudices. Critical thinking promotes racial, political and religious tolerance Since critical reasoning involves objective assessment of facts and fairness in the attribution ideas, a critical mind will always tolerate divergent or opposing opinions so as to promote peace and human flourishing. Critical thinking improves language and presentational skills Thinking clearly and rationally can enrich the way we express our ideas both in speech and writing. With critical thinking, you will be able to analyses the logical structure of texts. It will also help you to improve upon your comprehension abilities. SECTION TWO Critical Thinking and Clear Writing What is clear writing? It is the presentation of information that is easy for everyone understand. It is about effectively using everyday language that people understand to convey information logically and orderly. Some ingredients of critical writing are the following Correctness, Clarity, Conciseness, Coherence and Control. Let’s label them the 5Cs because each of them begins with the letter ’C’? You must note that these elements are not mutually exclusive. Now let’s go through each them one after the other and see what they entail. Correctness: This involves the use of good grammar, spelling and punctuation. When writing, ensure that your grammar, spellings and punctuation marks are correct. Ensure also that you use correct words and expressions. These are the fundamentals of all go and clear writings. Clarity: This refers mainly to the appropriate use of sentences and words. Your choice words (diction) affect the clarity of your writing because imprecise words make difficult to understand the meaning of expressions in writings. As you write, ask yours the following question: Do my words and sentences communicate my point effective without confusion? Note that to ensure clarity of expression you need to check the on and structure of your sentences while paying particular attention to the relationship between words, phrases and clauses in the sentence. Conciseness: When writing, try to be economical with words. When you write concisely, you avoid unnecessary words, longwinded expressions and needless repetitions. Try to be direct and forthright in your write-ups. Coherence: Logical coherence is very important in writing. It relates to the sequence, flow and continuity in write-ups. Logical coherence helps in the transition of our narratives. That is to say, it guides us to move from one idea to the other. It also helps us in the organization of our ideas in units. Control: This refers to the unity of all the ideas put together. It is the total organisation of the entire write-up and thus brings together all the other vital ingredients of clear writing: correctness, clarity, conciseness and coherence. Furthermore, unity also means that all paragraphs develop a single controlling idea, so that each point in the paragraph relates to this single idea and the main idea espoused in the write-ups. Importance of Clear Writing Some suggestions: Writing clearly helps to communicate our messages plainly and effectively with impact. Clear writing makes the meaning of our writing clear Clear writing does not confuse or bore our readers. Types of Sentences When you write, you put a set of words together. In similar vein, when you speak, you put a set of words together. Any time you put a set of words together to communicate something to someone, you are using sentences. What then is a sentence? Roughly, a sentence is a set of words, which is complete in itself, usually containing a subject and predicate. The types of sentences we shall be studying in this session are the following: Interrogative Sentence, Imperatives, Declarative Sentence, Emotive Expression, Sentence Fragment, Subjunctive Sentence and Portative Sentence. Note that these sentences are grouped into types based on the role they play, but not on their syntactic structure. An Interrogative Sentence asks a question. Examples include: “Is the pen in the bag?” “Did it rain yesterday?” “Is the day bright?” “Where are you going this holiday?” An Imperative Sentence is used to express a command. The language of an imperative sentence (also referred to as a command), is intended to get results, to cause action of indicated kind. Examples are: “Keep quiet” “Start work”, “Close the window”, Read your books”, “Do not turn over the page until you are told to do so”. A Declarative Sentence is a statement that makes a claim and it is used when one want to convey information or state a fact. The information conveyed by declarative sentence can be true or false. On the account that declarative sentences state a fact or convey information, they are technically called propositions in logic. Examples of declarative sentences include: “The pen is in the bag”, “It rained yesterday ”The day is bright”, “Fanta drives a red car”, etc. Emotive Expression is an expression that communicates feelings, emotions and attitudes. Examples:” I hate Reggae music but 1 love people with dreadlocks!” “Just look at way she is dressed, it is disgusting! “What a pretty creature!” “What a splendid goal from Andre Ayew!” Sentence Fragment is a type of sentence that has only a subject without an attribute class or predicate. In many cases, sentence fragments do not express a complete thought. Here are some examples: “Ghana Black Satellites”. “National Football Association”, “Rice Stew”, “Starlets vs. Brazil”. Subjunctive Sentence is a sentence that expresses a suggestion and or conditions Examples are: “Let us do good so that we shall escape the wrath of God” “Let us a by the rules of examination in order not to be punished”. ”Let us read our books in (to be good students”. Optative Sentence is that type of sentence which expresses wish or desire. Example include: “Would that I be a servant in heaven than reign in hell as a prince” “May well with you” “God bless you. May the favour of God go with you” “May His shine upon you and grant you peace”. Sentences and Ambiguities Now that you know various types of sentences, it is important to isolate sentences that lead to ambiguities and those that do not. Note that being able to identify sentences that lead to ambiguities and those that do not will help you to communicate effectively. Let us look at what ambiguity means? A sentence is said to be ambiguous if it can be interpreted as having more than one meaning in a given context. Words such as: “bank”, “race”, “light” and many others can be used ambiguously in expressions. For instance, if Kofi is said to have left his wallet at the bank, does this mean he left his wallet at a bank as a financial institution or a river bank? If one were to describe something as a race, will this be referring to human race or a kind of competition or contest? Or if one were to describe the soup as light, does this mean the soup is light in colour or light in weight? There are two types of expressions that lead to ambiguity. They are amphiboly and equivocation. An amphiboly occurs when an expression has more than one meaning. For example, the following expression is an amphiboly. “Prostitutes appeal to Pope”. Does this mean some, prostitutes made a request to the Pope or the Pope is attracted to prostitutes? Amphibolies are most often hilarious and leads to confusion about the understanding of expressions. Equivocation, on the other hand, is the use of an ambiguous term more than ones to render an expression misleading. For example, the expressions below contain equivocation: “I want to celebrate my-birthday in a gay manner because I don’t think sexual preference and orientation should have anything to do with enjoying good birthdays.” “My research topic is on sex and gender. Can you tell lately that 1 often get laid by men?” Notice that the word gay is being used to refer to “light spirit” “joyful and merry” and not used in a homosexual sense. Notice also that the word “sex” here means the state of being male or female and not the act of engaging in sexual intercourse between two partners. One simple way by which you can identify equivocation is to substitute the definition of the word in question with the way it is being used in the sentence to see if it has the same meaning throughout. Note that ambiguities can be intentional or unintentional. Intentional ambiguities may be employed for the purposes of misleading your readers, engage in sarcasm, or may be used in novels and plays to achieve a certain literary effects. Unintentional ambiguities should be avoided since it can affect the clarity of your expressions. Meaning of Argument In everyday life, we use argument to mean a verbal exchange or a quarrel between two or more people. But this is not what we mean when we talk about argument in critical thinking. In critic thinking, an argument is a list of statement, one of which is a conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument. An example of an argument is the following: All students are wise. Fanta is a student, Therefore Fanta is wise”. Here the Conclusion; “therefore, Fanta is wise” is based upon the joint assertion of two further propositions as shown below called Premises: (a) All students are wise. (b) Fanta is a student. In Critical Thinking, the proposition which is asserted on the basis of other propositions what we call the Conclusion of an argument. The propositions which provide the evident grounds or bases for the conclusion are known as the Premises of the argument. In the sense employed in Critical Thinking, therefore, an argument is defined as a set of proposition (premises), which taken together imply a further proposition, the conclusion. Stated different an argument is a set of statements, one of which, called the conclusion, is affirmed on the basis of the others, which are called the premises. The premises of an argument are offered as support (or evidence) for the conclusion, and that support (or evidence) may be adequate or inadequate a given case. But the set of statements counts as an argument as long as one statement is affirmed on the basis of others. Other examples of arguments include: All oaks are trees. All trees are plants. Premises Therefore, All oaks are plants. Conclusion All dogs are mortal. — Conclusion All dogs are mammals. All mammals are mortal. Premises As you can see from the examples above, the positions of the premise(s) and conclusion i vary. What matters most is their functions -- premise(s) give(s) support (or evidence) for conclusion. Types of Argument Now let’s take a look at the two main types of argument. Arguments are traditionally divided into two different types - deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument in which the premise(s) are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is impossible for the premise(s) to be true and the conclusion false. In a deductive argument, the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premise(s). There are at least, three reasons why a deductive argument is regarded as an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premise(s). In the first place, the premise(s) of a deductive argument usually provide enough or absolute conclusive ground(s) for its conclusion. Secondly, in a deductive argument, the inference is usually in such a way that its premises and conclusion are usually so related that it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be true unless the conclusion is true. Finally, for a deductively valid argument inference, the inference is always in such a way that the truth of the conclusion is usually truth- functionally implied by the premise. Examples of deductive argument include: a. All Ghanaians are dark in complexion. v Fanta is a Ghanaian. Therefore, Fanta is dark in complexion. b. 1. All mammals are animals. 2. All animals are mortal. Therefore, all mammals are mortal. c. 1. No logic students are lazy. 2. Gifty is a logic student. Therefore, Gifty is not lazy. All in all, it could be said under deductive argument that the main concern of a deductive argument is to clarify the nature of the relationship that holds between premises and conclusion in a valid argument, and to provide techniques for discriminating valid from invalid arguments. The point on validity and invalidity will be looked at in another Unit. Now let us take a look at inductive argument. Inductive argument involves the assertion that only their premises provide ’some’ grounds for their conclusions. Neither the term ’valid’ nor its contrast ’invalid’ is cogently applied inductive arguments. Inductive argument is categorized into weak and strong induction depending on the degree of likelihood that the premises confer on the conclusion. On the other hand, if the probability that the premise(s) supports the conclusion is high, then it is consider to be a strong induction. On the other hand, if the probability that the premise(s) supports the conclusion is low, then it is considered as a week induction. Inductive arguments differ among themselves in the degree of likelihood or possibility that their premises confer upon the conclusions. In other words, the truth of the premises of a ’correct’ or ’sound’ induction argument provides good but not conclusive evidence for the conclusion. The issue of’ sound’ a ’unsound’ arguments will also be discussed in the next section. A simple example of an induction argument is: ”Up to the time of the current president of Ghana, all presidents of Ghana have be men. Therefore the next president of Ghana will be a man”. In the example above, there is no doubt that the premise is certainly true and that there is clear evidence to state the probability of the next president of Ghana being a man, this is a good inductive argument. Nevertheless, the evidence adduced as the premise of the argument is by means conclusive, for it is possible that the next president of Ghana might be a female; a fact which will defeat the conclusion of the present argument. It is a feature, therefore, of inductive arguments that while their premises confer degrees of likelihood or probability on the conclusion, the truth of the premises can never provide an absolute guarantee of or for the truth of the conclusion. Again, inductive reasoning is reasoning which takes us ’beyond’ the confines of our cur evidence or knowledge to conclusions about the unknown. Premise of an inductive argument indicate some degree of support or what is referred to as inductive probability for the conclusion but do not entail it. That is, the premises do not ensure the truth of their conclusion. In all, inductive arguments often (though not always) are the sort of inferences which attempt to reach a conclusion concerning all the members of a class on the basis of observations of only some of them (some of the members in the class). Example: The vast majority of football fans are fanatics Commey is a football fan Therefore, Commey is a fanatic. identifying Argument An argument occurs when a speaker intends to use a set of propositions to support or prove a proposition this intention is marked both in speech and in writing by use of inference indicators. Inference indictors are words or phrases that are used to signal the presence of an argument. There are two kinds of inference indicators: These are premise indicators and conclusion indicators. Premise Indicators A premise indicator will signal to you that the statement to which it is prefixed is a premise. Premise indicators include words or phrases such as: For, since, because, seeing that, granted that, this is true because, the reason is true because, the reason is that, in view of the fact that, it is a fact that, as shown by the fact that, given that, in as much as, one cannot doubt that, etc. Conclusion indicators They signal that the statement that contain them or to which they are prefixed is a conclusion from a previously stated premise. Conclusion indicators include; Therefore, for this reason, it follows that, for which we can infer, consequently, accordingly, the moral is that, hence, this being so, which proves that, asserting that, so, which means that, etc. What is an Issue? An issue can be described as any matter of controversy or a point in dispute, questions or a matter that is up for discussion. For example, we can say that the following questions raise issues: should I buy a new car? Is John Mahama taller than Ibrahim Mahama? Is Lake Bosomtwi bigger than Lake Volta? As you can see, each of these questions raises an issue. However, note that aside raising issues in questions, you can raise many issues beginning with the word, “whether”. For instance, the questions raised above can be couched as: “whether I should buy a new car”, “whether John Mahama is taller than Ibrahim Mahama”, “whether Lake Bosomtwi is bigger than Lake Volta”. ”You see how easy it is to couch all these questions issues just by inserting the word ”whether”? Now that you know what an issue is, it is important that you are able to identify so misconceptions about issues. Many people think that an issue arises out of disputes between persons. For instance, the examples above indicate that there is a dispute between two parties the issues of who is really taller, whether it is John Mahama or Ibrahim Mahama. But this is always so. An issue does not necessarily arise from discussions or disputes between two persons. Rather, an issue can be raised in person’s thought. For example: whether you remembered hand over your room key to your room mate before leaving for the dinner is an issue. This cans an issue you will ponder on. Another misconception people have these days about what constitutes an issue is they misconstrue “issues” to mean personal or psychological problems. Just imagine someone utter the following expressions: ”he has an issue with his girlfriend” and ”she has issues spiders”. As you already can detect, these statements mean he has a misunderstanding with girlfriend or she does not like spiders. Note from this that an issue is not something some possesses. In fact, it is something you can do some other things with. You can raise is discuss issues, debate issues, settle issues and ignore issues. Factual and Non-factual Issues We have just studied what an issue is and some misconceptions about issue. Now we are to study two types of issues: factual and non-factual issues. An issue is said to be fact there are established methods of solving it That is to say, if there are generally ace standards on which you can judge an issue or if you can describe the appropriate method to judge the issue even though it may impossible to actually apply them, then the issue factual issue. For example, we can determine whether John Mahama is taller than Ibrahim Mahama by observing their individual heights. But we cannot settle the issue of whether John Mahama is more handsome than Ibrahim Mahama. Can you guess the reason why? There standard for judging beauty because everyone has their own criteria for judging what is beautiful. Now that you know what a factual issue is, what do you understand by the term factual issue? This type of issues is the kind that we cannot settle by appealing to establish methods and criteria. So if two people disagree on a non-factual issue, there is no way to determine which of them is right or mistaken. For example, whether John Mahama is more handsome than Ibrahim Mahama is not an issue that we can employ an appropriate method to determine. The problem is that when two people are engaged in this type of issues, there is no way to determine who is right or wrong. Can you think of any non-factual issues? Try resolving it by appealing to some criteria or standards to see if it can be resolved. The table below provides a summary of the distinction between factual and non-factual issues. Factual issues Non-factual issues There are established method/standard/criteria for There are no standards for settling matters. settling matters If two people disagree on the same issue, at least one of them is wrong. If two people disagree we cannot tell which of them is wrong. CHAPTER TWO: CREDIBILITY OF CLAIMS AND RHETORICAL DEVICES INTRODUCTION In thinking critically, one essential practice is to be able to evaluate one’s claims and the sources. Another thing is to be able to isolate claims that are meant to instruct from claims that are meant to manipulate or persuade individual’s reception of them. This chapter takes a look claims and sources that are credible and those that are doubtful. The chapter also tackles some non-argumentative persuasive claims and some argumentative persuasive claims called fallacies. SECTION ONE The two things that can lack credibility are claim and sources. A claim can lack Credibility No matter the source or who articulates it. Some other claims depend on who says them for the credibility. For instance, the claim that “Tilapias wear long army boots under water’’ lacks credibility no matter who says them. However, the claim that “A tilapia is an aquatic creation will be a credible claim if it is coming from an expert. Sometimes, we evaluate the credibility; people on the basis of irrelevant factors. Judging people on the basis of physical characteristic often a wrong way of judging credibility. For instance, the issues of whether the person sweating, or is maintaining an eye contact or is nervous are most often irrelevant consideration for judging credibility. Other irrelevant consideration of credibility include: gender, height, ethnicity, accent, mannerisms and mode dressing. This should inform you that appearance is a proper indictor of credibility. What then, are the relevant indicators of credibility of claims sources? This is what is going to occupy our attention in this section. Assessing Credibility of Claim If an experienced politician should tell you he will buy cars for every Ghanaian when voted into office, his claim lacks credibility outright though it might be coming from a credible source. Sometimes we are confronted with a myriad of issues concerning credibility of claims example; a credible claim can emerge from a credible source. In that regard, we have no problem. But other times, doubtful claims can come from a credible source such as the example cited above. Or credible claims can emerge from a doubtful source. Or doubtful claims can emerge from doubtful sources. So, when then do we say a claim lacks inherent credibility? A claim is said to lack inherent credibility when it conflicts with our observation, our background information or other credible claims. Criteria for Assessing Credibility of Claims When a claim conflicts with our personal observation The most reliable source of information is our observation. This means that you can reasonably believe to be suspicious about any claim that conflicts with our personal information. The five senses we use for observation includes the visual sense organ (sense of sight), the auditory sense organ (sense of hearing), the olfactory sense organ (sense of smell), the tactile sense organ (sense of touch) and the gustatory sense organ (sense of taste). Any information or claim that seems to conflict with, an information you have observed using these five series are highly likely to be mistaken. But observation as we know is not entirely infallible. This is because our observation risks being unreliable if we make them under poor lightening conditions, or in a noisy environment, or when we are emotionally upset or mentally fatigued or when our senses are impaired. Our observation can also be distorted when the measuring instrument we are using such as thermometers, or barometers are not functioning well and so on. Sometimes also, our beliefs, aspirations, hopes and expectations and fears can. Affect our observation. For example, someone who has fear for ghosts will be frightened whenever she sees anything white and lanky- looking object in the night. Finally, our personal interests and biases can affect our perception and distorts our judgement. For instance, we are wont to overlook the selfish actions of the people we love. When we are infatuated or obsessed with someone, even bad things they do seems wonderful to us. However, people we detest can hardly do anything to impress or please us even if what they do is right. Memory is also no reliable than observation except in cases where we have the means at our disposal to record our observations. This is because memory is also sometimes unreliable and deceptive. The point is that what you remember having observed may not be exactly what you actually observed. Notwithstanding the infallibility of our observation, it is still the best reliable source information we have about the external world. So any factual claim that conflicts with our observation risks being doubted seriously. When a claim conflicts with our background information Factual reports must always be evaluated against our background information. This is i information we have acquired from facts we learn on our own direct observation and facts learn from others. We refer to this information as “background” because we may not be able specifies directly where we acquired it. Background information is therefore not the informal we acquired some few minutes ago. Factual reports that conflict with our background information are most often dismiss even if it is not possible to disapprove them through direct observation. For example, we won’t to dismiss the statement “diamond stones grow or leaves in the Eastern Region of Ghana even when we are not in position to verify in order to disprove this information via direct observation. So, to assess the credibility of a claim, you will have to determine how consistent the claim is to our background information. How well a factual report ”fits” in with our background information is one of the” metrics for measuring the credibility of a claim. To assess credibility of a claim, we check how the claim fits or how consistent it is with our background information. If it fits well, we give the claim a higher degree of initial plausibility and 1 accepts it. However, if it conflicts with our background information, we accord it a low in plausibility and denounce it unless stronger evidence is later employed to defend its plausibility For instance; the claim that “corruption is wide spread in Ghana” is background information most of us share. And most cases of corrupt acts are likely to fit in well with our background knowledge about corruption and thus attract a plausible initial credibility. However, the claim that “Accra is the most immaculate cities in the world’’ will fail to attract an initial plausible because of the way it conflicts with our background information. But we must exercise caution when awarding plausibility to claims. Note that it is every information that conflicts with our background beliefs that needs to be automatically rejected. Sometimes, it is important that one does a little more investigation before rejecting claims that initially sound suspicious. For instance, if you are offered two hundred thousand Ghana Cedis cheque by a friend on a valentine’s day, you may think it is probably a practical joke. But it might be worth investigating further. It will not hurt to pass by the bank to check if the cheque is indeed valid. This means that when assessing the credibility of claims always keep an open mind and be in a position to accept that further evidence may cause you to give a claim some credibility you had not thought about initially. Assessing Credibility of Sources The guidelines standard for assessing claims requires that they come from credible sources. We have considered credible claims as to their contents; now let’s consider the credibility of sources. A person may lack credibility due to the following: (1) her knowledge or expertise and (2) her truthfulness, objectivity or accuracy. A person’s knowledge or expertise is one of the criteria for assessing her credibility. As you were informed earlier in the introduction, it is wrong to judge a person’s knowledge or expertise from mere surface features. So how then do we judge a person’s knowledge or expertise? Education and experience are often the most crucial criteria. Others include accomplishments, reputation and position. Education includes but not limited to formal education (the possession of degrees from recognized institutions of learning. Experience is also an important factor in expertise. It is important if it is relevant to the issue at hand. However, the mere fact that someone has been on the job for a long time does not automatically make her good at it. Accomplishment is an important indicator of expertise but only when accomplishments are only directed to the questions being tackled. A Professor of Physics is not necessarily qualified to speak on philosophical issues, such as moral implications of euthanasia. You will need a philosopher, specifically an ethicist, to do that. Another indicator of expertise is reputation. A person’s reputation exists always only among a particular contingent of people. You might have a great reputation as a soccer player, but this does not necessarily make a reputable boxer or wrestler out of you. Thus, the kind of reputation that is crucial to assessing one’s expertise is one that a person has among other experts in her field. Finally, the position people hold is an indicator of their expertise. The head of academic department in a recognized educational institution, the author of a work consulted by other experts and so on are all positions that are substantial evidence that the individual’s opinion on a relevant subject requires serious attention. But we need to recognize that experts can be bought and not all that come from experts are credible. Sometimes, some experts are biased and opinionated to the extent that most of the information they offer may not be credible. For example, a lawyer trained by a political pa should be scrutinized much deeper than an ordinary witness on a political matter in court. The chances are high that one could lose objectivity if her interest and concerns are at stake; ever she is trying to be objective. Also sometimes experts disagree on an issue especially when the issue is complicated and a lot of interests are at stake. In this case, as a critical thinker, you are obliged to suspend judgment about which expert to endorse unless one expert clearly represents a majority view point among experts in the field or unless one expert can be established as the most authoritative or less bias than the others. However, remember that majority opinions can turn out to incorrect and sometimes the most authoritative experts can make mistakes. Hence, the claim and accept as credible because it represents a majority view point or because it comes from authoritative expert may turn-out to be thoroughly wrong. But you don’t need worry. At the time you were rationally justified in accepting the majority claim as the most authoritative claim, were actually rationally justified until the claim is clearly proven as doubtful. What you need an open-mind to be able to accommodate claims that rationally acceptable and credible at time and claims that have initial plausibility but later turn out to be false. Other sources of credibility of claims are the news media such as the newspaper, new magazines, radios, TV and the internet. These are important sources of credible claim. However, remember most of the information broadcast on these platforms are sometimes based on rumours, hearsay, gossips and heavily biased sources that are difficult to determine. As critical thinker, it is important to isolate which information or media source is credible interrogating the information derives from these sources to ascertain their credibility. Media platforms that always peddle doubtful information are likely to be said to be less credible information taken from these sources should always be treated as suspicious until a further investigation proves otherwise. Another criterion for assessing credibility of sources is a person’s truthfulness objectivity or accuracy. Very bias or highly opinionated sources or sources conflicting on a particular subject matter without thorough and good reasons for doing so are said to truthfulness and objectivity. In addition, when we have concerns about the memory, ability or the opportunity for a source to make pristine observation, we say the source is inaccurate. Note that we need not confuse concerns with accuracy, objectivity or truth with evil intent on the part of the person who makes this claim. The point is that generally, people don’t lie to one another except there is a specific reason to do so. Given the absence of any specific reason to lie, people usually speak with honesty in good conscience. SECTION TWO In this section, we shall look at rhetorical devices and techniques. Remember in Chapter One, we studied about arguments and you were told that an argument is a group of statements that proves a claim. Argument is not meant to persuade but to instruct people to accept a certain conclusion whose support depends on adequate or conclusive reasons. However, there are some expressions or claims that are presented without support and are meant to appeal Jo our emotions. These expressions usually include the use of emotionally loaded language and suggestive sentence structure either meant to manipulate or persuade instead of instructing you to accept a certain conclusion. In this session, we shall study some of these non-argumentative persuasions and some errors in reasoning structure (argumentative persuasion) that are meant to persuade or manipulate individuals’ reception of them. Meaning and Types of Rhetorical Devices Rhetoric affects its audience’s beliefs without offering reasons for a claim. It deploys additional implicit or unstated structure of meaning to influence beliefs and attitudes. Such claims frequently choose language that has a powerful and biased emotive force. Words or phrases that manipulate their emotive force are called rhetorical devices and techniques. Rhetorical devices come in different forms and serve different purposes. For example, they laud, censure, excuse, or change the subject. In general, they can dispose us to take a certain perspective on some subject matter without immediately considering their argumentative merit. Rhetoric typically occurs in the absence of argument, as a substitute for argument. But this does not necessarily mean that non-argumentative persuasion is persuasion to falsehood. There is nothing wrong with persuasiveness itself. Note that rhetorical techniques should not make us dismiss claims out of hand. But they should also not make us accept them uncritically. Sometimes some non- arguments may contain rhetoric and yet are good argument nonetheless. For example, statement: ”Let’s vote for this man for the second term. He is angel to the downtrodden and epitome of the humility by all standards” is an argument but contains rhetoric. Looking at rhetoric, you will realize that they strengthen, elevate or weaken or ridicule the subject and are mostly used for certain literally effects. Playwrights or dramatists and novelists are more disposed to using rhetorical devices and techniques than authors of real academic texts. Let us look at some few of these rhetorical devices and techniques. Euphemism and Dysphemism: Euphemisms and dysphemism replace one expression with another that carries more positive more negative associations respectively. For example, “Escort” is a euphemism for “body guide and “thug” is a dysphemism for “body guard”. Euphemism is the use of a mild, pleas indirect and vague expression in place of harsh, blunt or offensive term. Some euphemisms hilarious, others give positive appearances to negative events and others could mislead entirely. Euphemisms can have acceptable uses, when they foster civility, human flourishing diplomacy. Some examples of euphemism include the following: “Delivery system,” is a euphemism for “missile.” “Passed away” is a euphemism for “death” “Adult entertainment” is a euphemism for “pornography” “Comfort woman” is a euphemism for “prostitute” Dysphemism, on the other hand, is the use of harsh, more offensive expression instead of considered less harsh. Dysphemism is generally used to shock or offend or disparage 1 subject. Example of dysphemism includes: “Payment of non-work” is the dysphemism of’ “welfare” “Snail Mail” is the dysphemism of “postal Mail” “Cancer stick” is the dysphemism for “cigarette” “Worm food” is the dysphemism for the “dead” Hyperbole Hyperbole means extreme exaggeration. For example, the expression “I am so hungry 1 could eat a full cow” is a hyperbole. Note that not all extreme claims count as hyperbole. When an exaggerated claim is either true or close enough to truth, it does not involve a hyperbole. For example, Mohammed Ali is the best professional boxer of all time” is a strong and an extreme claim but it is not a hyperbole because it is either true or close to truth. Hyperbole can turn up in a variety of other persuasive maneuvers, such as dysphemism, persuasive comparison, and ridicule. The greatest danger that hyperbole poses is that, even when you recognize it as false, you prepare yourself to accept a weaker version of the same claim. Innuendo Innuendo belongs among those techniques that employ not certain words but ordinary features of linguistic communication. An innuendo works by implying what it does not say. It is subtle or indirect observation about a thing or a person. It is generally critical, disparaging or salacious in nature, and its use is almost always derogatory. Imagine a friend’s wife is beautiful; a possible use of innuendo will be “Kofi has good eyes for beautiful things. I will invite him to accompany me whenever I go shopping”. Sarcasm Also called the horse laugh or ridicule is a way to avoid arguing about a position by laughing at it. Or sometimes sarcasm is an indirect form of speech used intentionally to produce certain dramatics effect of the listener. For example, while looking on the empty paper, the professor told his PhD candidate: ’’You have been working very hard these days”. It is important to distinguish between irony, the device used when words or situations have different meaning other than what we suppose them to have, from sarcasm. Irony relates to sarcasm but there is a difference between them. Sarcasm is usually an overt irony intentionally used by a speaker as a form of aggression or ridicule. But irony can be used unintentionally and unconsciously as in the case of situational irony, for instance, in the case of a man chuckling at the misfortune of someone, while unbeknown to him the same misfortune is befalling him. Stereotyping Stereotypes are often involved when someone lumps people under i/ne name or description, especially when it begins with ”the”: the conservative, the Asian Man} times a stereotype arises because it serves an interest, as when one nation goes to war with another or when someone wants to demonstrate superiority of her own race over others. Loaded Questions A loaded question is a rhetorical device couched as a question to limit direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda. For example, the question, ”have you stopped stealing?” will elicit ”yes” or ”no” answers both of which implicate the respondent. If ”yes” means you have been thief before ”no” means you are still a thief. Here the facts are presupposed by the answer and serves as an entrapment because it restricts the respondent to one answer. Psychological and Related Fallacies Now let’s take a quick look at some informal or rhetorical fallacies. Informal fallacies are usually defined as error in reasoning. Like non-argumentative rhetoric, fallacies attempt to persuade; to believe something but evade the rules and forms of deductive and inductive logic, convenience purposes; we shall group the fallacies here into distinct categories. The categories in which these fallacies have been classified need not be defined since these types of fallacies may well be classified in another way. So, the particular label we select to classify them might not useful. What is essential is to understand and be able to identify the individual members of each category. Now the labels of the various categories of the fallacies we intend to study here are the following: Psychological Fallacies, Fallacies of Distraction and the Fallacies of Changing subject and Fallacies of Induction. Psychological Fallacies Appeal to Anger: Also known as appeal to spite or argumentum ad odium, occurs when emotions of anger, hatred, or rage are substituted for evidence in an argument to persuade someone to do something. For example: “Are you tired of being ignored by your government? Is it right? That the president and his cohorts are misappropriating state resources by living life of affluence while majority of you wallow in poverty? I urge you to vote for me today! The fact is that the politician did not really give evidence how she is going to tackle these problems when voted into office. She will hope you will make the connection yourself while can claim innocence down the road when you intend to hold he responsible for a promise she never made. Appeal to Fear: This fallacy is also known as Scare Tactics or Arguments from Diverse consequence. The Latin name is argumentum in Terrorem. This fallacy occurs when fear, not based on evidence or reason, is being used as the primary motivator to get others to accept an idea, proposition, or conclusion. An example is the following: ”If you don’t vote for the opposition, the economy will collapse and your company will fold up and you will lose your job. Therefore, we need to vote for the opposition.” There might be plenty of legitimate reasons to vote for the opposition, reasons based on evidence and probability, but a “collapsed economy” sounds hyperbolic. Appeal to Pity: Also known as Appeal to Compassion or Appeal to Sympathy or (Latin: Argumentum ad Miserecordiam) occurs when a speaker attempts to distract the truth of the conclusion by appealing to pity or emotions. An example is given below: ”My boy really deserves a better grade in this course Professor. I know my son very well. He is very hardworking and obedient at home. Can’t you see just how adorable he looks? He really deserves an A” Being adorable, hardworking and obedient at home do not necessarily attract good grades at school. Appeal to Popularity. This fallacy is also called bandwagon argument or peer pressure argument. The Latin name is Argumentum ad Numeram. This fallacy occurs when we use popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its validity. This fallacy is very difficult to identify because our commonsense tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not correct. Example is the following: A 2005 Poll conducted by the 1EA in Ghana suggests that about 45% of Ghanaians believe that HIV/AIDS is caused by the wrath of God. That is roughly seven million people. Therefore, anyone who contracts HIV has attracted the wrath of God. The fact that about seven million Ghanaians believe that HIV is caused by the wrath of God promiscuous people does not prove the conclusion of the argument. Fallacies of distraction Appeal to Ignorance: This fallacy occurs when we assume that a conclusion or a fact is based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. The Latin name is Ad lgnorantium. Example: To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention. The fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will someday be able to; it is evidence that we do not know how to do it. False Dilemma: It is also called False Dichotomy. This fallacy occurs when only two choices presented yet more exist. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or the language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Example: I thought you were a good person, but you weren’t at church today The assumption here is that bad people don’t go to church. Of course, good people exist who don’t go to church and good church-going people could have had a really good reason not to be in church. Slippery Slope: This fallacy is committed when a relatively) insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so until some ultimate. significant event is reached, Where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted, but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. For example: If you accept that the story of Adam and Eve was figurative, then you will do the same for most of the Old Testament stories of similar literary styles. Once you are there, the New Testament and the story of Jesus does not make sense, which will lead you to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a “spiritual” one. Once you accept that, you won’t be a Christian anymore, you will be a dirty atheist, then you will have no morals and start having sex with animals of a barnyard nature. There is no evidence that accepting Adam and Eve story as figurative will lead to bestiality. Fallacies of Changing the Subject Appeal to False Authority: Also called in Latin as Argumentum Verecundiam; it is a fallacy committed when a person uses an authority as evidence in an argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. For example: Are you surprised why my good Professor was able to detect that you are two months pregnant? It is because he is a Professor, of Philosophy and Philosophy means the pursuit of wisdom. So my professor is wise and knows everything. Your Philosophy Professor is not a gynecologist. Getting it right that someone is two months pregnant might be mere speculation or circumstantial. Appeal to Force or Threat: The Latin name is Argumentum ad Baculum. It is a fallacy Committed when force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in an attempt to justify a conclusion. Example is shown below: Are you asking me why you should come to work on a holiday? I guess you can refuse to obey my order. I can find another employee within a minute. Thanks to Tonaton. The employee had asked a question that requires a legitimate answer but rather the question was deflected by a threat or force. Can you realize the similarity between Appeal to Fear and Appeal to Force? Fallacy of Personal Attack: Also known in Latin as ad Hominem, it occurs when you introduce irrelevant remarks about your opponent. Here, you attacked your opponent’s character personal traits to undermine her argument. Do you want to believe what this woman says about child labour in Ghana? How can you believe such a narrative from a woman who is not married? Not only that, she also is a barren. Note the fact that being unmarried and a barren is irrelevant to the argument. Ad hominem often used out of desperation when one cannot think about any counter-argument. Straw Man Fallacy: Your reasoning contains the Straw Man Fallacy when you attribute easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have then undermined the opponent’s actual position. For example: You just pointed out the foundation of morality is not religion. But are you trying to argue that religious people lacks morality? This is an insult to Christians and Muslims worldwide. The presenter only wants to suggest that the foundation of morality is not God or religion. She is not saying anything about the morality of atheists. Red Herring: Also known in Latin as Ignoratio Elenchi, is a fallacy that occurs when there an attempt to digress the argument to another issue which the person doing the digression better respond. You said it is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse. But what is morality exactly? You can say it is a code of conduct shared by cultures. But that will also raise the question of who created the codes. You must first define these terms before giving me a further sermon. The character has successfully diverted the reason for cheating on his wife to talking at morality and ethical codes. This is irrelevant to the argument in question. Fallacies of Induction Circular Reasoning: (Known in Latin as Petitio Principii). it is a type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle. For example: Accra Hearts of Oak is the best team in Ghana. So they will win the Premier League because they are the best team in Ghana. The reasoner begins with what she ends up with. No new information is introduced. Hasty Generalisation: This is a fallacy you commit when you draw a conclusion based on a small sample size rather than looking at the statistics that conforms to the average situation. For example: I have dated two guys from Nkrumah Hall and anytime I requested money from them, they turned me down. A friend of mine is trying to date an Nkrumah Hall guy. I have to inform her before it is too late that all Nkrumah Hall guys are stingy. It is extremely unreasonable and unfair to draw a general conclusion from just two cases. Misplaced Vividness: This is a fallacy you commit when a small number of dramatic and vivid events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. For example: Last year, while I was on my PhD programme in the US, I met a friend who worked in Ghana. He was being paid a fat salary. I recommend that everyone should apply to work in Ghana after school. You are assured of a fat bank account. While the story of this man may be true, it is just two out of thousands of workers who are overpaid in Ghana CHAPTER THREE: VARIETIES OF ARGUMENT INTRODUCTION The chapter rehearses types of arguments in detail. Here, we do an in-depth study of deduction and inductive arguments. We shall also focus on argument evaluation by studying the validity and soundness of Deductive Argument. SECTION ONE In this section, we are going to explain deductive and inductive argument and also distinct between the basic logical forms of argument. To argue effectively, you need some basics But first of all, you need to know the types of argument we have. Deductive Argument Read the two argument forms below and indicate the fundamental difference between them: a. All women are beautiful. Abena is a woman. Therefore, Abena is beautiful. b Some politicians are corrupt Johnson is a politician. Therefore, Johnson is corrupt What did you identify as the fundamental difference between a. and b? Look at th arguments carefully. Which of the two arguments do you find convincing? You noticed t\ conclusion of argument a. follows from the two premises. In other words, the premises don’t support the conclusion. If all women are beautiful (a universal set) and Abena is a woman (subset), then Abena is beautiful. She can’t be part of the universal set or the class of women but lacks what is common to all the members of that class. In argument b, we can’t say that the premises strongly support the conclusion. Although Johnson is a politician, it doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises that he is corrupt. It is fallacious to suggest that Johnson is corrupt because he belongs to a certain class, some of whose members are corrupt? Note that only some politicians are corrupt. That means some politicians are not corrupt! Hence it is logically wrong to make the strong conclusion that Johnson is corrupt. The difference between the two arguments is that whereas the conclusion of argument a. is logically deduced from the premises, the conclusion of argument b. is not logically deduced from its premises. Note that argument a. is a deductive argument. A deductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is logically deduced or inferred from its premises. Deductive arguments are necessarily valid arguments because their premises provide conclusive grounds for their conclusion. Deductive Arguments come in different forms: those that move, from general premises to general conclusions, those that move from general premises to particular conclusion, and those that are formulated on the basis of rules of inference. c. All Ghanaians are blacks All blacks are beautiful Therefore, all Ghanaians are beautiful d. All Ghanaians are black Kobby is a Ghanaian Therefore, Kobby is black e. P then Q = If I am married (P), then I have a wife (Q) Q then R = If I have a wife (Q), then I am a husband (R) P then R = 1 am married (P), therefore I am a husband (R) Each of these argument forms illustrates a type of deductive argument. In argument c, you notice that the first premise makes a genera! assertion about all Ghanaians (that they are black), and the second premise makes a general assertion about all blacks (that they are beautiful) and conclusion is also general (all Ghanaians are beautiful). In argument d, the first premise makes general statement about all Ghanaians (that they are black). The second premise make particular statement about Kobby (that he is a Ghanaian) and the conclusion is a statement ah Kobby, not about all Ghanaians. The conclusion that Kobby is black is derived from the gen premise that all Ghanaians, of which Kobby is part, are black. Therefore d is a deductive argument that moves from general premise to particular conclusion. Argument e is a deductive argument that is formulated according to the rules of inference. If I am married, then I have a wife. If I have a wife, then I am a husband. I am married, therefore I am a husband. The rule of inference used in this particular illustration is hypothetical syllogism. We will discuss these rules of inference shortly. Now let’s consider the three of the basic logical forms that deductive in nature. Basic Logical Forms In this section, we are going to study the basic logical forms that are deductive in nature, three common forms are Modus Ponens (MP) and Modus Tollens (MT), Hypothetical Syllogism (HS), and Disjunctive Syllogism (DS). Modus Ponens is in this form: If p, then q. P. Therefore, q. For example: If Sugar Pele studies hard (p), she will pass her exams (q) Sugar Pele studies hard. Therefore, she will pass her exams. This is a deductively valid argument. The conclusion follows logically from the premises. Modus Tollens is in this form: If p, then q. Not q. Therefore, not p. For example: * If Socrates is human (p), then Socrates is mortal Socrates is not mortal. Therefore Socrates is not human. ^ The next basic rule of inference is Hypothetical Syllogism (also called conditional syllogism). A conditional proposition has two parts. The first part is the antecedent and the second part is the consequent. The antecedent follows the “if and the consequent the “then.” Hypothetical syllogism comes in this form: If p, then q. If q, then r. Therefore if p, then r. For example: If Odoko is an Akvvapem, then she is a Ghanaian. If she is a Ghanaian, then she is an African. Therefore if Odoko is Akwapem. then she is an African. Finally, let’s consider Disjunctive Syllogism. In a disjunctive syllogism, at least one of the disjuncts should be true to make the argument valid. Disjunctive syllogism comes in two forms: The first form is P or q Not p Therefore q. For example: Either you are married or you are single. You are not married. Therefore you are single. The second form of the disjunctive syllogism is P or q Not q Therefore p. For example: Either you are a woman or you are a man. You are not a man. Therefore you are a woman. Inductive Argument Recall we said that in deductive argument, the premises give conclusive grounds for acceptance of the conclusion. Inductive argument is quite different from deductive argument. In inductive argument, the premises provide only some support for the conclusion. The conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, not conclusive or certain. Therefore, inductive argument strong or weak, not valid or invalid. Hence, we have strong inductive argument and weak inductive argument according to the degree to which the premises support the conclusion. I use some examples to illustrate strong induction and weak induction: a. Lions are mammals and have bones. Tigers are mammals and have bones. Elephants are mammals and have bones. Therefore probably all mammals have bones. b. Socrates is a philosopher and wise. Plato is a philosopher and wise. Aristotle is a philosopher and wise. Therefore probably all philosophers are wise. c. Snakes have bones and are reptiles. } Lizards have bones and are reptiles. Crocodiles have bones and are reptiles. Therefore probably all creatures that have bones are reptiles. d. Snakes have bones and are reptiles. Lizards have bones and are reptiles. Crocodiles have bones and are reptiles. Therefore since dogs have bones, dogs are probably reptiles. Notice that all the premises in example a are true and the conclusion is equally true. Can that be said of examples b and c? It is true that all three philosophers in example c are wise men. But that doesn’t constitute enough grounds to suggest that all philosophers might be wise. Therefore, example a is a strong induction and example b is a weak induction. When you compare example b and c, which one will you say is a strong induction? 1 hope you have noticed that they have the same level of strength. Compare examples b and c with example d. Will you say they are of the same status? Although they are all weak induction, d is weaker since nothing in the premises suggests that all creatures that have bones are reptiles. Therefore, the conclusion that since dogs have bones they might be reptiles is very weak. Scientific Induction Science uses inductive reasoning in formulating conclusions and principles. It probably took scientists several years to collate all the symptoms for malaria. Even then, they cannot, by merely observing symptoms, conclude that a patient is having malaria. That’s why there’s the need to have a laboratory test to either confirm 01 deny what the scientist suspects. Let’s just try to explain this issue with an argument. Liana was bitten by a female anopheles mosquito and she got malaria parasites. Linda was bitten by a female anopheles mosquito and she got malaria parasites. Charles was bitten by a female anopheles mosquito and he got malaria parasites. Therefore, malaria parasites are transmitted by the female anopheles mosquito. This conclusion is arrived at inductively. The conclusion is based on the principle of uniform and observable facts. It could be captured thus: All instances of malaria parasites have b transmitted by the female anopheles mosquito. Hence, malaria parasites are transmitted by female anopheles mosquito. The assumption is that nature will always be as it is. Although assumption has been questioned by David Hume, it still remains an integral part of the science method. It is practically impossible to witness all the instances that the female anopheles mosquito bites people. This notwithstanding, the frequency at which victims of the bites of female anopheles get the malaria parasites constitutes enough basis to conclude that ma parasites are transmitted by the female anopheles mosquito. Can you imagine how science came to the conclusion that having unprotected sex with a person infested with HIV AIDS make one infested with the disease? At the very beginning of the disease, they didn’t know it sexually transmissible. But having observed victims for some time, and having noticed that those who have acquired the disease newly have had unprotected sex with someone who already been diagnosed to have acquired the disease, they inductively concluded that unprotected sex with an infected person could lead to one getting the disease: Kwame had unprotected sex with Yaa who is a known HIV AIDS victim. Later, Kwame is diagnosed to have contracted the disease. Adzo had unprotected sex with Yaw who is a known HIV AIDS victim. Later, Adzo diagnosed to have contracted the disease. Akweley had unprotected sex with Adjei who is a known HIV AIDS victim. Akweley is diagnosed to have contracted the disease. Therefore, if someone has unprotected sex with HIV AIDS victim, they will contract the disease. Can you see that the conclusion that HIV AIDS transmitted through unprotected sex with an infected person is inductively drawn from the premises. You can infer from what we have said so far that inductive reasoning is important because (1) it is the source of new knowledge; it leads to the discovery of new knowledge that we cannot obtain deductively – deductive reasoning doesn’t state anything new about our world, and (2) it is a useful tool in experimental science. SECTION TWO In this section, we shall focus on the first aspect of argument evaluation, which is how to recognize valid and invalid argument. This will help you to know how to construct and use valid arguments in both written and oral discourses. We will also study how to identify sound and unsound arguments. A sound argument and an unsound argument are both valid arguments. What differentiates the one from the other is the truth of the propositions of the argument. If all the propositions are true, the argument is sound. On the. other hand, if at least one of the propositions is false, the argument is unsound. We discuss this in detail. Valid Arguments: A valid argument is an argument whose premises guarantee its conclusion. A valid argument is therefore a deductive argument. If the conclusion is deductively inferred from the premises, then the argument is said to be valid. It is not the truth of the premises and conclusion that necessarily make an argument valid. It is the support the premises give to the conclusion that makes an argument either valid or invalid. There are three forms of valid arguments: The first is the type in which all the propositions that make the argument are true. This means that all premises are true and the conclusion is also true. Read the argument below: All men are mortal. Kojo is a man. Therefore Kojo is mortal. What do you notice about this argument? In other words, are all the propositions true? Is it not the case that all men are mortal? Have you encountered any man who will never die? Is Kojo not a man? Since Kojo is a man and since all men are mortal, is it not true that Kojo is mortal? I believe you have noticed that all the propositions of the above argument are true. I believe you have also noticed that the argument is valid since the conclusion is logically deduced from the premises. If all men are mortal and Kojo is a man, then it follows logically that Kojo is a mortal. Consider the argument below: All spirits are mortal. God is a spirit. Therefore God is mortal. Do spirits die? Spirits don’t die so they are not mortal. Is God a spirit? Of course yes, God in spirit. So the first premise is false while the second premise is true. Is God mortal? Of course r God is not mortal, he doesn’t die. Therefore, clearly you can see that the second argument different from the first argument in the sense that while all propositions in the first argument are true, only one proposition in the second argument is true. Nevertheless, both arguments are valid. Once again, this should remind you that validity is dependent on true propositions. The second type of a valid argument is the type in which all the propositions are false. In the type, all the premises are false and the conclusion is also false. Consider the argument bellow: All Africans are black. Bill Gates is an African. Therefore Bill Gates is black. Is it true that all Africans are black? You don’t need anyone to tell you that it is false that Africans are black. The Egyptians, Moroccans, White South Africans, White Zimbabweans are Africans that are not blacks. There are White Ghanaians who have acquired their national through naturalization. By becoming Ghanaians, they have equally become Africans. Therefore it can’t be true that all Africans are blacks hence, the first premise is false. The second premise is obviously false. Bill Gates, the owner of Microsoft, is certainly not an African. He’s an American. Once the conclusion is deductively inferred from false premises, the conclusion too will be false. Since Bill Gates is not an African, he certainly can’t be black. The argument is however valid. The third type of a valid argument is the type that has false premises but a true conclusion. Below is an example of such an argument: All spirits are mortal. Man is a spirit. Therefore man is mortal. As stated earlier, spirits are not mortal, they don’t die. So the first premise is false. Obviously man is not a spirit, so the second premise is also false. Man is mortal, so the conclusion is true. This conclusion is logically and deductively inferred from the premises. Therefore the argument is valid. It’s now clear that in a valid argument, there’s a logical link between the premises and the conclusion. Also, in a valid argument, the premises provide enough proof for the acceptance of the conclusion. The premises direct imply the conclusion; one cannot accept the premises but deny the conclusion. Invalid Argument: An invalid argument is a deductive argument whose conclusion is not supported by the premises. In other words, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. The conclusion may be at variance with the premises. There is no logical link between the conclusion and the premises. Just as false propositions do not necessarily make an argument valid, true propositions do not make an argument invalid either. An argument may have true premises and a true conclusion but will be invalid. Carefully read the argument bellow: If I became a king then I would be famous. I am not a king. Therefore I am not famous. All the propositions of this argument may be true. It’s true that kings are famous people. It is true that I am not a king. It is also true that 1 am not a famous person. But the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. The form of the argument is wrong and leads to a formal fallacy. Consider this argument too: If Bill Gates owned all the factories in the US, then Bill Gates would be rich. Bill Gates does not own all the factories in the US. Therefore Bill Gates is not rich. Do you realize that the premises are true? Yes, both premises are true! It’s true that if Bill Gates owned all the factories in the US, then Bill Gates would be rich. It is true that Bill Gates doesn’t own all the factories in the US. But it is false that Bill Gates is not rich. This argument too is invalid because the conclusion is not deductively drawn from the premises. Look at this argument: All humans have hands. All gorillas have hands. Therefore all gorillas are humans. Isn’t it true that all humans and all gorillas have hands? It is true! But is it true that gorillas are humans? Obviously this is false! Is the conclusion logically drawn from the premises? No! Therefore the argument is invalid. There are some invalid arguments that have all propositions to be false. This example illustrates this point: All snakes are mammals. All snails are mammals. Therefore all snakes are snails. Snakes and snails are not mammals therefore the premises are false. The conclusion too is false because snakes are not snails The argument itself is invalid. Sound Argument: A sound argument is a deductively valid argument all of whose propositions are true. In other words, a valid argument is said to be sound if all of its premises and conclusion are true. A sound argument therefore has two features: it must first of all be valid, and all of its propositions must be true. Therefore, all sound arguments are valid. It doesn’t mean that all valid arguments are sound arguments. Let’s illustrate this with examples: Nigeria is bigger than Ghana. Ghana is bigger than Togo. Hence, Nigeria is bigger than Togo. Is this argument valid? Do the premises warrant the conclusion? Is the conclusion deduced from the premises? If your answer to each of the questions is “Yes”, then you are right! This means that the argument has met the first requirement for an argument to be sound. Let’s test it for the second requirement! Do you remember what the second requirement is? It is the requirement that all the propositions of a sound argument must be true! Now we can analyze each of the propositions of our argument to see whether they satisfy this truth requirement. The geographical space of Nigeria is four times that of Ghana. You can verify this on the Atlas or on the map of Africa. That means the first proposition is true. Similarly, the landmark of Ghana is about twice the size of Togo. Again, this can easily be verified. Hence, the second proposition is also true. Since the conclusion is deductively drawn from the two premises, it is equally true. It is clear that our argument has satisfied the two requirements. Therefore, we can conclude that the argument is sound. I hope you agree with me9 If an argument is invalid, it can never be sound. Hence, ‘don’t test invalid arguments for soundness. Does it mean invalid arguments are automatically unsound? No. We will understand why when we discuss unsound arguments. Don’t forget that only deductive arguments could be valid or invalid. We evaluate inductive arguments differently It follows that inductive argument are neither sound nor unsound. Let’s have a look at the following arguments: Lions are mammals and have bones. Tigers are mammals and have bones. Elephants are mammals and have bones. Therefore probably all mammals have bones. 2. All spirits are mortal. God is a spirit. Therefore God is mortal 3. If Bill Gates owned all the factories in the US, then Bill Gates would be rich. Bill Gates does not own all the factories in the US. Therefore Bill Gates is not rich. 4. All fish live in water Tuna is a fish Therefore tuna lives in water What argument type is 1? It is an example of an inductive argument! Therefore, we cannot test it for soundness. Inductive arguments are either strong or weak; they are neither valid nor invalid. Since they are not valid, they cannot be sound. This is a valid argument. Since this argument has passed the first test, we can now proceed to evaluate it for soundness. As you may recall, it is not true that spirits are mortals. It’s true that God is a spirit. But it’s not true that God is mortal. Hence, the argument is not a sound argument. Argument 3 is an invalid argument with a false conclusion. Obviously, if Bill Gates owned all the factories in the US, then he is rich. It’s true that he doesn’t own all the factories in the US. But it’s false that he’s not rich. The conclusion is not deduced from the premises. In fact, he’s one of the world’s richest people. Since the argument is invalid, we don’t test it for soundness. Example 4 is clearly a valid argument, so we can test it for soundness. Do all fish live in water? Yes! Is Tuna a type of fish? Yes! So do Tuna live in water? Yes! Each of the propositions of the argument is true. Therefore the argument is sound. Unsound Argument An unsound argument is therefore a valid argument with at least a false proposition. If there’s at least a false proposition in a valid argument that argument becomes unsound. This reminds us of the assertion that although all sound arguments are valid, not all valid arguments are sound. Once again, invalid and inductive arguments should not be tested unsoundness. It’s only when an argument is valid that we look out for soundness or unsoundness. Unsound arguments are therefore valid arguments. Take a look at the following arguments: 1. All human beings are bipeds Kwabena is a human being Hence he is a biped 2. All bipeds are humans All birds are bipeds Therefore all birds are humans 3. The best universities in the world are in Africa UCC is in Africa So UCC is one of the best universities in the world 4. All the best universities in the world are in Africa Cambridge is one of the best universities in the world Therefore Cambridge is in Africa What can you say about example 1? Is the argument valid? Do the premises warrant the conclusion? Yes! So the argument is valid Now let’s test it for soundness or unsoundness. Isn’t it the case that all humans are bipeds (two legged creatures)? It is! Isn’t it also the case that Kwabena is a human? It is! Since it is the case that Kwabena is a human and all humans are bipeds, doesn’t it follow deductively that he is a biped? It does! Therefore this argument is sound. Can the same be said of example 2? Is the argument valid? Yes! This is because the premises deductively support the conclusion. But is the argument sound? Let’s test it and see. Is it the case that all bipeds are humans? No! Is it the case that all birds are bipeds? Yes! Are birds humans? No! Therefore, this argument is unsound. If you analyze example 3 carefully, you will notice that it’s not valid. The conclusion is not deductively inferred from the premises. If the firs1 premise had been “All universities in Africa are the best in the world”, the conclusion would have deductively been inferred from the premises. There’s no logical connectivity between the two premises. Since the argument is invalid, we don’t have to test it for unsoundness. What will you say about example 4? Pause here and look at the example carefully! Is the argument valid’ Look at it again! Do the premises support the conclusion? Yes! That makes the argument valid Is the argument sound? Let’s go through the analysis together. Is it true that all the best universities in the world are in Africa? No! Is it true that Cambridge is one of the best universities in the world? Yes! Is Cambridge in Africa? No! Hence our argument is unsound. CHAPTER FOUR: ANATOMY OF ARGUMENTS NTRODUCTION The chapter is organised in two main sections. Section One treats some selected formal fallacies and Section Two looks at how to identify arguments from non-arguments, and revisits validity, soundness, strong and weak arguments. The chapter is mostly an in-depth rehearsal of things we have studied in the previous chapters. SECTION ONE A fallacy is an error in reasoning. Fallacies render arguments problematic and illogical. They are to be avoided. You cannot avoid something if you don’t know. Fallacies are grouped into two main categories. These are formal fallacies and informal fallacy. This section will treat some elected formal fallacies. A formal fallacy is an error in the argument’s form. Arguments have their unique forms and these forms are to be strictly followed. Failure to do this leads to a fallacious situation. Definition of Formal Fallacies All arguments have their unique forms. The form of an argument is just like a mathematical formula. No matter how intelligent you are, if you get the formula for a particular mathematical problem wrong, you will get the wrong result. Similarly, if you get the form of an argument wrong, you commit an error in your reasoning. This type of error is what we call a formal fallacy. A formal fallacy is an error in the argument’s form. Formal fallacies are types of non- sequitur arguments. The term non-sequitur is a Latin expression which means “it does not bellow” in formal logic. Any argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premises is a non-sequitur argument. There’s always a disconnection between the premises and the conclusion and the conclusion may be true or false. It should be clear to you at this time that non-sequitur arguments are invalid. Since formal fallacies are non-sequitur arguments, it follows that formal fallacies are instances of invalid arguments. Take a look at this argument. If I am rich, then I’m famous. If I’m famous, then I’m powerful. Therefore if I’m powerful, then I’m rich. This argument is a wrong form of hypothetical syllogism. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Hence the argument is invalid and fallacious. The form or structure of hypothetical Syllogism is: If p, then q If q, then r Therefore if p, then r In this argument form, the antecedent of the conclusion is p, and the consequent is r. But the fallacious form above has this structure: If p, then q If q, then r Therefore if r, then p. The antecedent and the consequent have switched positions here. There’s therefore a disconnect between the premises and the conclusion. Hence the argument is invalid and fallacious. Types of formal fallacies There’re several types of formal fallacies. This lesson will examine only three of the dominant ones. These are Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent, Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and the Hypothetical Fallacy. It is important to understand these fallacies in order to be able to identify them when others commit them and to avoid committing them No reasonable person commits errors knowingly. Errors are committed out of ignorance. So if you don’t know these fallacies, you are likely going to commit them. Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent: This fallacy is sometimes called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse. This is a fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. This is its form: If p, then q Not p Therefore not q The name “denying the antecedent” derives from the “if” clause of the conditional premise. I hope you remember the form of modus ponens. If you compare that form to this form, you will clearly see that there’s an error in this particular case. Consider this argument: If I buy a car, then I am rich I didn’t buy a car Therefore I am not rich. This is an invalid argument. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. The premises do not imply that the only means of being rich is to buy a car. In fact, the conclusion has no logical connection with the premises. Consider this second one: If you are from Kate, then you are a human being. You are not from Kate. Therefore you are not a human being. Obviously, this argument is bad, invalid and fallacious. The premises do not support the conclusion. There’s no indication that only people from Kate are human beings. Your humanity is not determined by where you come from. Look at this argument from Alan Turing: If each man had a definite set of rules of conduct by which he regulated his life he would be no better than a machine. But there are no such rules, so men cannot be machines. Men could be machines that do not follow a definite set of rules. The argument is invalid and fallacious. The absence of a definite set of rules regulating the life of men does not mean that men cannot be machines Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent: This fallacy is sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse or confusion of necessity and sufficiency. This is a fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement. The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise q which affirms the ”then” clause of the conditional premise. This is the form of this fallacious argument: If p, then q q Therefore p Look at this example: If you are wise, then you are a philosopher. You are a philosopher. Hence you are wise. This argument is obviously invalid. The conclusion may be false even if the premises are true. P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for q. In other words, being wise was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for being a philosopher. And being a philosopher doesn’t necessarily mean you are wise. Arguments of this form may appear to be convincing if you do not pay close attention to their form. Look at a second example: If I have headache, then I have malaria I have malaria Hence 1 have headache. Once again, having headache is not the only symptom of having malaria. Headache may not necessarily be the cause of malaria. I hope with this you can identify this type of argument when it is committed, and most importantly, avoid committing it. Hypothetical fallacy Do you remember the argument form of hypothetical syllogism? Hypothetical syllogism has this argument form: If p, then q If q, then r Therefore if p, then r  When the propositions p and r switch positions in the conclusion, a fallacy is committed. That formal fallacy is called hypothetical syllogism. Therefore this form is fallacious: If p, then q If q, then r Therefore if r, then p. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Let’s have some illustrations. Pay close attention to the forms of the two arguments below: If Sugar Pele is an Akwapem, then she is a Ghanaian. If she is a Ghanaian, then she is an African. Therefore if Sugar Pele is an Akwapem, then she is an African. If Sugar Pele is an Akwapem, then she is a Ghanaian. If she is a Ghanaian, then she is an African. Therefore if Sugar Pele is an African, then she is an Akwapem. Which of the two arguments is valid and which is invalid and fallacious? Read them for a second or even for a third time. Do you notice the difference at all? The first argument is the right form. Hence it is valid. This is a hypothetical syllogism. If all Akwapems are Ghanaians and all Ghanaians are Africans, then logically all Akwapems are Africans. The second argument is a hypothetical fallacy. It is invalid. Nothing in the premises suggest that being an African is an automatic qualification of being an Akwapem. The premises rather suggest the reverse. From the premises what necessarily follows is that all Akwapems are Africans. The premises do not imply that all Africans are Akwapems. It’s therefore fallacious to conclude from the premises that all Africans are Akwapems. SECTION TWO Most of the things we shall be studying have already received some level of treatment in the previous Chapters. However, most of the issues that were cursorily looked at will receive in-depth attention here. We will revisit valid and invalid arguments, sound and unsound argument weak and strong argument. Some premises are reasonable while others are not; this would b looked at in detail. Some writings or speeches may have the semblance of an argument but are not. This section would equip you with the skills to distinguish arguments from such discourses Clarifying an Argument’s Structure Recall an argument is made up of premises and conclusion. The premises constitute the evident that support the conclusion. When we talk of the structure of an argument, we mean the arrangement of premises and conclusion. For you to understand an argument, you need to be able to identify the premises and conclusion. As indicated above, you first have to identify the conclusion. Somebody may state the conclusion at the very beginning of their argument and to proceed to justify that conclusion. Another person may choose to provide the evidence before stating the conclusion. In this case, the person already has in mind the conclusion. Let’s consider one of the arguments Thomas Aquinas uses to prove that God exists: The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. You will notice that the conclusion of the argument comes last. It has been underlined for you. The other part of the argument only provides grounds for accepting the conclusion. Having identified the conclusion; we now have to identify the premises that give rise to the conclusion. To do this, we have to number the premises: ’The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world 2We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end 4Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end: and this being we call God. Can you see any relationship between 1 and 2? Do you notice that 2 provides supporting evidence for 1? Number 1 is saying that there’s order in the world and number 2 provides the evidence to that. Number 3 directly supports 2 and 1 indirectly. The italicized part of 4 supports 2 and the bolded part supports 3. All these premises provide the justification for the acceptance of the conclusion. The premises mutually support each other and collectively provide the justification for accepting the conclusion. You should always apply these two steps in your analysis of an argument. Distinguishing Arguments from Window Dressing There are several forms of writing that are not arguments we need to know how to separate arguments from window dressing. Window dressing simple refers to the situation where non-argumentative materials characterize a piece of writing or a speech. This makes it difficult for easy understanding and evaluation. Not all discourses are arguments. Some written and oral discourses are reports, explanations, descriptions, historical accounts or merely sentimental expressions. These are not arguments. Don’t forget that an argument has two parts, premise(s) and a conclusion. Any form of discourse, written or oral, that lacks these parts is not an argument Read the passage below carefully to see whether it passes for an argument: Plato was born in or about 427 B.C., the youngest son of an ancient and probably wealthy Athenian family. We know little of his early life. Aristotle tells us that in his youth, he studied for a time under Cratylus, the disciple of Heraclitus, and there is every reason for supposing that his friendship with Socrates dated back to his early years. Can you identify an explicitly or implicitly stated conclusion from the above extract? Read through it for the second time! Have you been able to identify any conclusion? Clearly, this piece is not an argument. It’s just a brief biography of Plato. There’re neither premises nor a conclusion. The writer is not offering any reason to convince us. The test mechanism for identifying an argument is to identify the conclusion. If there’s no conclusion in a particular discourse, it is not an argument. Remember that the premises only provide the grounds for accepting the conclusion. Hence, premises alone do not constitute an argument. Speakers and writers must therefore make their arguments clear by stating their conclusions explicitly. Often tips, writers and speakers mistakenly assume that their points are obvious to readers and listeners. This makes them to take certain things for granted. If the speaker or writer is offering reasons to convince you to accept a claim, then the discourse is an argument. On the other hand, there’re instances where the conclusion of an intended argument is not stated, but it’s implied. Take a look at this (imagine a non-African telling an African this): ”You are too wise; you certainly can’t be an African!” What this statement implies is that Africans are not wise. We can construct a Modus Ponens argument from this: If you are too wise, then you are not an African. You are too wise. Therefore you are not an African The conclusion is that Africans are less wise. This conclusion is not explicitly stated hence it’s advisable for you to ask yourself what the speaker or writer is trying to prove. This will help you deduce the conclusion. Hence we can conclude that in case you are finding it difficult spotting the conclusion, rely on the premises for a clue. If it’s difficult for you to identify the premises, then know that you may be having before you a case of rhetoric. You can’t find premises in a piece of rhetorical writing. Consider this piece of writing: If you are a young man, buy this sleek Toyota Canny and the ladies will find you irresistible! And if you are a young lady, buy it and you will win the hearts of all the male stars! This is an example of an advertisement. Its intent is to persuade you to buy the sleek car, it doesn’t offer reasons. Besides, there’s no conclusion in this passage. This is just a piece of rhetoric. Evaluating Arguments This lesson will equip you with the skills to distinguish arguments from non-argumentative discourses. The following provides guidelines on how to evaluate argument. Do the Premises support the Conclusion? A good argument is one in which there’s a logical connection between the premises and the conclusion the premises support the conclusion and the conclusion is derived from the premises. To be able to determine if there’s something wrong with an argument, you need to consider two things. The first thing to do is to find out if the premises support the conclusion. That means you need to find out if the argument is valid or invalid. The second thing to do is to find out if the premises are reasonable. What makes an inductive argument strong is the degree to which the premises support the conclusion. Therefore, how the premises relate to the conclusion in both deductive and inductive arguments is what makes them valid/invalid and strong/weak arguments respectively. A valid argument, as we said earlier, is one whose premises necessarily guarantee its conclusion. Take a look at this argument: (Premise) Every Ghanaian is an economist, and (premise) Agyeman is a Ghanaian So (conclusion) Agyeman is an economist. Clearly, this is a valid argument since its premises necessarily support its conclusion. The conclusion could not have been anything else than it is. This argument is therefore a good (”good” and “bad” are relative terms) argument. However, the argument could have been better I hope you remember what we said concerning the relationship between a valid argument and a sound argument. Consider this argument too: (Premise) Only birds can fly, and (premise) bats can fly. (Conclusion) Hence bats are birds. Once again, you can see that the premises provide conclusive support for the conclusion. Hence the argument is a good one. But obviously all the propositions of this argument are false. The conclusion I want you to keep in mind is that valid arguments are good argument and their premises support their conclusions. Let’s take a relook at sound arguments. Do the premises of a sound argument support the conclusion? We say a sound argument is a valid argument all of whose propositions are true from the argument above, it is untrue that only birds can fly (some insects can fly). It’s true the bats can fly. But it’s false that bats are birds (they are mammal). So although the argument Valid, it’s unsound. Let’s consider this argument: Some fruits are poisonous for humans, and anything that is poisonous for humans is u