CRITICAL THINKING

CHAPTER 5: FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE (NGỤY BIỆN LIÊN QUAN)

• Fallacy: An argument that contains mistakes in reasoning

• Fallacies may be committed intentionally, unintentionally, or for fun (jokes, memes…)

1. Fallacies of relevance : Mistakes in reasoning because the premises (fact, opinion) are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion (opinion).

2. Fallacies of insufficient evidence : Mistakes in reasoning because the premises, though logically
relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.

CONCEPT OF RELEVANCE:

- One statement is relevant to another when it provides evidence either for or against that other
statement (even if it is completely false).

- A statement can be:

- positively relevant (Liên quan tích cực). Ex: All dogs have five legs. Rover is a dog. So,
Rover has five legs.

- negatively relevant (Liên quan tiêu cực). Ex: Maggie is studying at a high school. So,
Maggie is a professor.

- logically irrelevant (Không liên quan về mặt logic). Ex: The earth moves around the
sun. Therefore, capital punishment must be stopped.

ELEVEN FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE:

1. Personal attack (Ad Hominem) – Ngụy biện dạng tấn công cá nhân

* Attacks the person rather than the issue.

Examples:

1. Sam is divorced, so how can he make sound financial decisions for the city?

- Common pattern:
 F: A is a bad person (in one way or another).
 Therefore, his/her opinion or argument must be bad.
2. Attacking the motive: Tấn công động cơ

*Criticizes the arguer’s motivation.

- Common pattern:
 X is biased or has questionable motives.
 Therefore, X’s argument or claim should be rejected.
Ex: Linda suggested that class attendance should not be checked daily because adult students cannot be
managed like children. Why should the teacher listen to her, a regularly late student last year?

3. Look who’s talking (Tu Quoque)*: Quan sát người nói

*Attacks the arguer because (s)he fails to practice what (s)he preaches.

- Common pattern:
 X fails to follow his or her advice.
 Therefore, X’s argument or claim should be rejected

Example:

A: You are hanging out too much. How can you have

good exam results?

B: Hey, who said hello to me at the bar last night? It was you, I suppose?

4. Two wrongs make a right: Hai sai một đúng

*Justifies a wrongful act by claiming others are bad or worse.

- Common pattern:
 I did what the other did.
 So I didn’t do anything wrong.

 Example:

Student: Teacher, you can’t punish me for cheating on your test. The student
next to me also cheated. Why me?
5. Scare tactic (appeal to force): Chiến thuật đe dọa

*Threatens to harm the listener if conclusion not accepted; this threat is irrelevant to arguer’s
conclusion. (Ex: Mày biết bố mày là ai ko?)

6. Appeal to pity: Cầu xin sự thương hại

* Inappropriately appeals to feelings of pity from the listener or reader.

7. Bandwagon argument (Appeal to popularity): Ngụy biện theo đám đông

*Makes a claim due to arguer’s desire to be popular or valued rather than appealing to logically
relevant evidence.

Examples:
 Student: Look at those trendy students with dyed hair and nose rings! You must change your
style right away!

- Common pattern:

Everybody (or a majority group) does X.

Therefore, you should believe in, or do X, too.

8. Straw man: Qui chụp

*Misrepresents the original argument to attack the arguer easily

- Common pattern:

X’ view is false or unjustified (but it is misinterpreted).

Therefore, X’s view should be rejected.

Example 1:

Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant?

9. Red herring: đánh lạc hướng

* Draws attention away from the original point

Example:

You’re not being fair by denying me the opportunity to have a make-up test. I’m paying for this course!

10. Equivocation: Ngụy biện lập lờ

* Key words used in two or more senses in the same argument

Ex:

A: “I really get sick with those hot dogs.”

B: “Yeah, it’s really hot now. Give them a bath and you’ll see they’re lovely!”

11. Begging the question (circular reasoning): Ngụy biện vòng

* Simply restates the conclusion or argues in a circle

Examples: Bungee-jumping is dangerous because it’s unsafe.

CHAPTER 6: LOGICAL FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

1. Inappropriate Appeal to Authority: (Ngụy biện dựa trên nguồn không đáng tin cậy)

Authority: citations for credibility/reliability

1. Who can we believe? - Sources

What can we believe? – claims/facts

A. Sources: Ways we can question credibility:

1. Are they a true authority/expert?

2. Are they biased on certain issues?

3. Are they generally reliable?

4. Are they cited correctly?

B. Claims/Facts: Ways we can question credibility

2. 5. Are the authority’s observations questionable?

3. 6. Does the authority’s opinion disagree with expert consensus?

4. 7. Is the authority’s claim highly improbable?

1. Question their expertise: Đặt câu hỏi về lĩnh vực chuyên môn
Ex: ‘My gardener told me that Donald Trump will win in 2024. So I definitely believe Trump will
continue to develop the U.S.’
Question to check expertise: Is/Was your gardener a true political analyst/expert? (This
information is not mentioned: insufficient evidence)
2. Question their biasedness: Đặt câu hỏi về sự thiên vị của họ
3. Question their credibility : Đặt câu hỏi về độ tin cậy của họ
4. Question their citation: Đặt câu hỏi về nguồn trích dẫn
5. Question their observations: Đặt câu hỏi về quan sát của họ

Ex: ‘Rick says he saw the ghost of his father last night when he came home from a bar. We must believe
him because he never lies.’

5. Question to check observations: Was he drunk last night, so his observation was not real?

6. Question their peers’ consensus: Đặt câu hỏi về sự đồng thuận chung

‘Prof. Bui Hien said Vietnam has to reform its writing system. So, we will change all the textbooks.’ This
is a recommendation by an individual linguist, not by the linguistic community. More importantly, it’s
not the Government’s reform policy.

-> Question to check consensus: Did Prof. Bui Hien gain other linguistic researchers’ consensus?

7. Question their claim’s possibility : Đặt câu hỏi về khả năng của kết luận

2. Appeal to Ignorance: Dựa vào sự không biết

• Arguer claims something is true, because he fails to prove it’s false (or visa-versa).

• Ex: There is no life on other planets. We have not found any!

-> This type of fallacy is synonymous with unwarranted assumption

3. False Alternatives: Phương án thay thế giả

• Arguer insists that there are fewer choices than there actually are.

Ex: You can take the bus 52 to IU, or you must take a taxi instead. No student wants to waste money on
taxi. Therefore, you have to take the bus 52.

• They also can be in the form of an “if… then.”

If you can’t get IELTS 5.5, you cannot take courses in your university program.

Either you have IELTS 5.5 or you cannot take courses in your university program.

5. Loaded Question: Câu hỏi bẫy

A loaded question contains an/some unfair or questionable assumption(s).
Example: Are you still in favor of this irresponsible decision?
There are multiple questions “rolled up” into one:
• Do you think the decision is irresponsible?
• Did you support the decision?
• Will you support the decision?
 Reid technique for questioning suspects
- Loaded questions: Implicit assumptions of guilt
- Alternative questions: Narrow down choices, both implying guilt
Ex: - Why did you kill her? >< ‘Did you kill her?’
-> Did you plan this out or did it happen unexpectedly?
5. Questionable Cause: (Nguyên nhân không rõ ràng)
- The post hoc fallacy (ngụy biện nhân quả): suggesting that A causes B just because A came
before B.
Ex: Ex: I saw a black cat on my way to school, then I was caught cheating. The black cat caused
my bad luck.
- Mere correlation fallacy (Lỗi ngụy biện chỉ tương quan): suggesting that the constant
occurrences of A and B entails that they are causally related.
Ex: Every morning this week I ate eggs, and every day I failed the exam. I should stop eating
eggs.
- Oversimplified cause fallacy (Đơn giản hóa nguyên nhân): suggesting that A is the cause of B
when clearly B has many causes.
Ex: Since the city increased the presence of police, crime rates have greatly declined in reports.
Clearly, this is an effective policy of the government.
6. Hasty Generalization: (Khái quát hóa vội vàng)
• Arguers draws a general conclusion from a sample that is biased or too small.
– Biased sample:
I polled 100 professors from 100 schools, only 25% of them believed in God. I guess
most Americans don’t believe in God anymore.
– Too small sample:
I asked my professors if they believed in God, and only one did. I guess professors don’t
believe in God anymore.
6. The Slippery Slope: (Dẫn đến chiều hướng thất bại)
  Arguers claims, without sufficient evidence, that an action will lead to a terrible one.

 Common form: A leads to B, and B leads to C, and C to do D, and we really don’t want D.
Thus, we shouldn’t do A.

8. Weak Analogy: (Sự tương đồng yếu)

• Arguer compares two (or more) things that aren’t really comparable in the relevant respect.

– My ex-boyfriend was tall, handsome, rich, and kind. Now that he left me, I found John
who is tall, handsome and rich. So he’s surely a perfect replacement for me.

• Common forms:

– A has characteristics w, x, y and z. B has characteristics w, x and y. Therefore, B probably

has characteristic z, too.

– A is x and y. B is x and y. C is x. So C is y.

9. Inconsistency (Mâu thuẫn/Không nhất quán)

• The arguer make two logically contradictory claims, or says and does opposite things.

• Common form:

– A and not A

CHAPTER 7: ANALYZING ARGUMENT (see more on ppt)

Part 1: Diagramming Short Arguments
Argument: The death penalty should be abolished because it’s racially discriminatory (phân biệt chủng
tộc), there’s no evidence that it’s more effective than life imprisonment (tù chung thân), and innocent
people (người vô tội) may be executed by mistake.

Step 1: Identify (circle, underline, etc.) all premise and / or conclusion indicators.

The death penalty should be abolished because it’s racially discriminatory, there’s no evidence that it’s
more effective than life imprisonment, and innocent people may be executed by mistake.

Step 2: Number the statements consecutively as they appear in the argument.

1. The death penalty should be abolished

2. because it’s racially discriminatory,

3. there’s no evidence that it’s more effective than life imprisonment, and

4. innocent people may be executed by mistake.

Step 3: Arrange the numbers on a page with the premises placed above the conclusion(s) they claim
to support.

Step 4: Omit any logically irrelevant statements.

Step 5: Use arrows to mean ‘is offered as evidence for’ to show the relationship of argument support.

2) 3) 4)

1)

2), 3), and 4) offer independent support for the conclusion.

Independent vs. Linked Support

■ Example 1

1) Nick doesn’t own a car.

2)He has poor vision.

3) He lives near the stadium.

4) So, Nick probably won’t drive a car to the game.

Independent support: does not weaken or destroy any other premise but offers less support for the
conclusion

1) 2) 3)

4)

Linked support: works cooperatively with another premise to support the conclusion

1) + 3)

2)

Other Kinds of Support

1) Jim is an elderly man.

2) So, Jim probably doesn’t like hip-hop music.

3) So, Jim probably won’t be going to the underground music showcase tonight.

1)  2)  3)
Most IU students are BA majors, and An is an IU student. Thus, An is probably a BA major. Therefore, An
probably supports the contest for potential business leaders, because most BA majors support the
contest for potential business leaders.

1) Most IU students are BA majors

2) An is an IU student

3) An is probably a BA major

4) An probably supports the contest for potential business leaders

5) most BA majors support the contest for potential business leaders

Cheating is wrong. First, it will lower your self-respect, because you can never be proud of anything you
got by cheating. Second, cheating is a lie because it deceives other people into thinking you know more
than you do. Third, cheating violates the teacher’s trust that you will do your own work. Fourth, cheating
is unfair to all the people who aren’t cheating. Finally, if you cheat in school now, you’ll find it easier to
cheat in other situations later in life – perhaps even in your closest personal relationships.

1) cheating is wrong

2) it will lower your self-respect

3) because you can never be proud of anything you got by cheating

4) cheating is a lie

5) because it deceives other people into thinking you know more than you do

6) cheating violates the teacher’s trust that you will do your own work

7) cheating is unfair to all the people who aren’t cheating

8) if you cheat in school now, you’ll find it easier to cheat in other situations later in life – perhaps even
in your closest personal relationships
 Tips on Diagramming Short Arguments
1. Pay close attention to premise and conclusion indicators.
2. Find the main conclusion and analyze it carefully.
3. Number the statements and/or expressions of cause-effect.
Note: Compound and complex sentences contain two or more separate statements.

4. Treat conditional statements (if-then) and disjunctive statements (either-or) as single

statements.

5. Don’t diagram irrelevant statements.

6. Don’t diagram redundant statements (mệnh đề/câu lệnh thừa).

CHAPTER 8: EVALUATING ARGUMENT AND REFUTING

ARGUMENT (see more on pptx)
Part 1: Evaluating Arguments
 Once an argument is summarized/standardized, you need to evaluate it so that you can
decide whether or not to accept the conclusion.
 Two main questions to evaluate:
1. Is the argument a good argument?
2. Are the premises acceptable?
What a ‘good argument’ does NOT mean:
 “agree with my views”
 The conclusion is forceful or imposing (áp đặt).
 “persuasive argument”
 People can be persuasive by giving eloquent speech – phát biểu hùng hồn (which
contains both rhetoric and fallacies).
 “well-written/spoken”
 Clarity, eloquence and organization can all occur in the presence of logical
mistakes.
(Sự rõ ràng, khả năng thuyết phục và tính tổ chức đều có thể xảy ra khi có những sai lầm
logic)
What a “good argument” does mean:
 deductively sound (diễn giải hợp lý)
  true conclusion following true premises
 inductively cogent (qui nạp thuyết phục)
 probably true conclusion following true premises
 A good argument embodies all the good qualities of critical thinking to have logic and
make sense.
Part 2: Refuting Arguments (Bác bỏ lập luận)
Two ways to refute an argument:
1. Show that a premise - or a group of premises - is false or dubious (vague, doubtful) – mơ hồ.
2. Show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
1a. Show false or dubious premises
 If a premise is critical to an argument, showing its falsehood will refute the argument.
(1) All presidents live in the White House.
(2) Paris Hilton is president.
So, (3) Paris Hilton lives in the White House.
* We rarely have these arguments in real life.
1b. Show false or dubious premises
1. Children who have unsupervised access to the Internet may be exposed to pornographic and
violent images.

2. Some sexual predators use the Internet to find and communicate with children.

3. Children have no ability to use a keyboard or mouse correctly.

4. So, children should not be allowed unsupervised access to the Internet.

* For inductive arguments, showing ONE false premise is not sufficient to prove the conclusion is
wrong

1c. Reduce to the absurd – Giảm đến mức vô lý

 show that a statement is false by proving that it logically implies something that is clearly false
or absurd.

Example:

Roommate: Absolutely all killing is wrong.

You: Is it wrong to eat any plants or animals?

  show that a statement is false by proving that it logically implies something that is clearly false
or absurd.

Example:

Roommate: Absolutely all killing is wrong.

You: Is it wrong to eat any plants or animals?

 an example that proves that a general claim is false

Example:

A: All international academic institutions in Vietnam are private.

B: Wait a minute. HCMC International University is a public one.

2. Show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

You need to show that the argument is either (a) deductively invalid or (b) inductively weak.

Most important questions:

1. Are the premises relevant?

2. If not, show fallacies of relevance

3. Are the premises sufficient to support the conclusion?

4. If not, show fallacies of insufficient evidence

Example 2:

I must ask my husband to buy me a Mercedes. Most of my rich friends drive luxury cars.

 Ask questions to show these premises are irrelevant and/or insufficient.

 Why do you have to follow your friends? Bandwagon

 Is your husband rich? Weak anology

CHAPTER 11: SEE ON PPTX