Transcript Reading and Writing Critically

Reading and Writing Critically
The Art and Science of
Critical Thinking
Previewing Text Can Help You
Plan to Read Efficiently




How much material do I have to read?
Can I divide the material into manageable
chunks per day (e.g., 10 pages/day)?
Are there titles and subtitles I can skim?
What do the introduction and conclusion
say?
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
Previewing Text Can Improve
Critical Reading



Am I already familiar with the material?
Do I have biases one way or another?
Is there a useful bibliography, and should I
follow up?
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
Distinguish Between
Fact and Opinion
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
FACT

Reliable piece of information


Reliability = provable & unbiased
Can be tested or proved

Verifiable through independent sources
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
OPINION
Assertions or inferences
 May or may not be based on facts
 Can be challenged

© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
Distinguish Between
Absolute and Moderate Claims
Absolute
Moderate

University Studies
courses are a complete
waste of time.

It’s impossible to get
an A from Dr. White.


Some University Studies
courses are not very
challenging.
Dr. White gives very
few A’s.
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning
Inductive
Deductive

Moves from
BIG.

Goes from facts to
generalizations.
small
to
BIG to

Moves from
small.

Applies
generalizations to
specific situations.
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
Inductive Reasoning
Uses Scientific Method

Hypothesize

Must be researchable

Gather Data

Must be sufficient, unbiased
& representative

Analyze Data

Method must be appropriate

Draw Conclusions

Must avoid logical fallacies
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
Biggest Dangers:

Relying on anecdotes or small casestudy “evidence”

The “inductive leap”
 sweeping generalizations
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
Deductive Reasoning
Relies on Syllogisms
MAIN PREMISE (Generalization):
All PSU undergrads must take a Freshman Inquiry course.
MINOR PREMISE:
Robert Glenn is a PSU undergrad.
CONCLUSION:
Therefore, Robert Glenn must take Freshman Inquiry.
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
Biggest Dangers:

The premises must be true:
Not all PSU undergrads must take Freshman Inquiry.

The syllogism must be valid (logical):



All horses are animals
A dog is an animal.
Therefore, a dog is a horse.
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
Qualifiers Help Moderate Syllogisms
W A R R A NT
M o st P SU u n de rgra ds m u st ta ke a Fre sh m a n In qu iry C o u rse
(Q u a lify w ith "m o st," "u su a lly ," "ge n e ra lly ," e tc.)
DATA
R o be rt Gle n n is a P SU u nde rgra d.
C L A IM
T h e re fo re, R o be rt G le n n m igh t h a v e to ta ke Fre sh m a n In qu iry.
(A ga in , qu a lify w ith "m igh t," "po ssibly ," e tc. )
© Martha J. Bianco, Ph.D
.
Avoid Logical Fallacies
Faulty Premises, Misuse of Data,
Distortion of Evidence
Ad hominem
Personal attack, with negative
values, unrelated to thesis.
“George W. Bush is a bully,
waging war at all costs.”
Appeal to Tradition
Relying on tradition as an
explanation.
“Marriage has always been
between a man and a woman.”
Bandwagon Argument
Justifying an argument because
“everyone” thinks or acts that way.
“Everyone knows that 90 percent of
Americans believe in God and in prayer.”
Begging the Question
Assuming what needs to be proved – or
answered – before action is taken.
“Campus search engines should be
filtered to stop students’ viewing of porn
and other unacceptable content.”
Equivocation
Explaining or describing a word by using
the same word.
“Understanding communities is
complicated because communities are
complicated.”
False Analogy
Assuming that two things that are similar
in one way are similar in other ways.
“Homosexuals should not be given the
same rights as pedophiles.”
False Authority
Assuming that someone who is an expert in
one field is an authority in other fields.
“My children’s pediatrician doesn’t think
that Jane Doe was truly brain dead.”
False Cause
post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Arguing that because one event follows
another or because the two events are
correlated, the first caused the second.
“As the number of new immigrants to
Portland has increased, so has the
percentage of people on welfare.”
False Dilemma
the “either/or fallacy”
Insisting that there are just two possible
solutions or alternatives, when in fact
there may be many.
“Either we allow mothers to bring their
preschoolers to class or we don’t allow them to
take classes until their kids reach school age.”
Guilt by Association
Unfairly criticizing or accusing someone
because of the beliefs or actions of others.
“The new mayor must be gay, because I saw him
and his two assistants at a lesbian bookstore.”
Hasty / Sweeping Generalizations
“Leaping to Conclusions”
Generalizing or inferring to a
larger population based on a
personal anecdote or very little or
biased evidence.
“She’s Italian, so you know
she must love garlic!”
Oversimplification
An argument that provides a very
simple explanation or solution for a
very complex problem or issue.
“We can solve the health care
crisis by encouraging private
medical savings accounts.”
Dodging the Issue
Ignoring the Question / Red Herring
Diverting attention away from the real problem
or question by focusing on something unrelated.
“We should be celebrating free, democratic
elections in Iraq rather than quibbling over who
had what weapons where.”
The Slippery Slope Argument
Arguing that doing one thing will just lead to a
cascade of other events.
“If we allow gays to marry, should we also allow
grown men to marry underage girls, or brothers
to wed their sisters?”