PLS2601/201/1/2019

Tutorial Letter 201/1/2019

Critical Reasoning

PLS2601

Semester 1

Department of Philosophy, Practical and

Systematic Theology

Discipline of Philosophy

This tutorial letter contains important feedback information on your first

assignment.

BARCODE
 CONTENTS

Page

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3
2 FEEDBACK ON ASSIGNMENT 1 (UNIQUE NUMBER: 844737) ................................................. 3
3 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................ 13

2
 PLS2601/201/1/2019

1 INTRODUCTION

Dear student of PLS2601 Critical Reasoning,

This follow up tutorial letter contains the answers as well as short explanations to Compulsory
Assignment 1, which was due on 5 April 2019. As stated in the Tutorial Letter 101 you could
have completed this first assignment using only the Study Guide. This was done so that those
students who are struggling to obtain the textbook would not be negatively affected. The
questions for this assignment come from Topic 1, Topic 2 and Topic 3 in the Study Guide.

2 FEEDBACK ON ASSIGNMENT 1 (UNIQUE NUMBER: 844737)

1 One of the following statements is not an aspect of critical thinking. Which one is it?

1 Skilfully conceptualising and analysing ideas.

2 Accepting information without active thought.

3 Questioning the ideas and beliefs of others.

4 Challenging dogma and authority.

Answer: 2

Motivation: The answer for this question can be found in your Study Guide on pages three and
four. You will see there it states that critical thinking entails actively and skilfully analysing ideas,
question the ideas and beliefs of others, and challenging dogma and authority. This means that
option two is the only option that is not listed. In addition, we can see that ‘accepting information
without active thought’ is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

3
2 Critical thinking is the opposite of dogma. Why is this?

1 Dogma allows one to engage with the world in an ethical and politically conscious
manner, whereas critical reasoning does not.

2 Critical reasoning allows one to engage with the world in such a way as to ensure
that one can easily accept ideas, whereas dogma does not.

3 Critical reasoning enables one to conceptualise, question, and evaluate ideas,

whereas dogma does not.

4 Dogma allows one to critically engage with the world whereas critical reasoning does
not.

Answer: 3

Motivation: On page three of your Study Guide, you can see that dogma is ‘unquestioned
information’, which means it is embracing information without the intervention of active thought
or criticism. Critical reasoning allows us to conceptualise, analyse, question and evaluate ideas,
whereas dogma is the unreflexive acceptance of information. As such, option three is the right
option.

3 Fill in the missing word(s)/phrase(s).

______________ are generalisations that people make about the ______________ of all
members of a groups, based on an image (often wrong) about what people in that group
are like.

4
 PLS2601/201/1/2019

1 Stereotypes; characteristics

2 Social ideas; characteristics

3 Assumptions; differences

4 Fallacies; differences

Answer: 1

Motivation: The answer for this question can be found on page 27 of your Study Guide. There,
the definition reads ‘[s]tereotypes are generalisations, or assumptions, that people make about
the characteristics of all members of a group, based on an image (often wrong) about what
people in that group are like’. Therefore, option one is the correct answer.

For questions 4─7 identify the type of fallacy being used in the statements to follow:

4 ‘If we give students one extension for an assignment due to late delivery of study
material, then they will expect it for every single assessment. Next thing you know,
students will want to set their own deadlines!’

1 Slippery slope argument

2 Straw man argument

3 Begging the question

4 Equivocation

Answer: 1

5
Motivation: A slippery slope argument ‘leads one from seemingly unimportant and obviously
true first premises to calamitous and exaggerated consequences in the conclusion’ (Van den
Berg 2014: 30). This argument very quickly ends in an exaggerated conclusion – how will one
extension of a deadline lead to the demand from students to set their own deadlines? This
argument exaggerates the possible consequences of one action, and so is a slippery slope
argument.

5 ‘My teacher told me that all living beings evolved. I simply cannot see how I am the
daughter of an ape!’

1 Begging the question

2 False appeal to authority

3 Slippery slope argument

4 Straw man argument

Answer: 4

Motivation: In some cases, an opponent will respond to an arguer’s claim by interpreting it in a

way that makes it easy for her to knock down the argument’s conclusion’ (Van den Berg 2014:
32). In this case, the student is caricaturising the meaning of evolution – she is implying that her
teacher is saying that evolution means that humans evolved from apes. However, as anyone
who has more than a superficial understanding of evolution will know, that is not at all what
evolution is saying. Rather, evolution says that humans and apes have a common ancestor.
This implies that to identify a straw man argument, you must be familiar enough with the topic in
question to recognise when someone is setting up a caricature (Van den Berg 2014: 32). Option
four is therefore the correct answer.

6
 PLS2601/201/1/2019

6 ‘Do not trust atoms. They make up everything.’

1 Faulty analogy

2 Slippery slope argument

3 Equivocation

4 Faulty analogy

Answer: 3

Motivation: This is a joke, but it relies on a fallacious way of reasoning. The fallacy of
equivocation occurs when a word is used in one sense in one part of an argument and in a
different sense in another part of the same argument (Van den Berg 2014: 33). Although not
stated explicitly, there is a dual meaning implied in the phrase ‘make up everything’. One the
one hand, atoms constitute the building blocks of the natural world, and so ‘make up
everything’. However, this argument is playing on the idea that atoms are not to be trusted since
they lie, or, ‘make up everything’. Option three is therefore correct.

We are aware of the duplication of ‘faulty analogy’ as an answer in both option 1 and 4.
However, this does not change the right answer, so it will not influence your final mark.

7 ‘People who drink coffee every day are just as bad as alcoholics. Both alcoholics and
coffee drinkers have an addiction.’

1 Begging the question

2 Equivocation

3 Slippery slope argument

4 Faulty analogy
7
Answer: 4

Motivation: The error of faulty analogy occurs when a comparison is made between two
different things, and there are no relevant similarities between them (Van den Berg 2014: 35).
The speaker is making a comparison between alcoholics, who have a serious and life-altering
addiction, to people who drink coffee. Even though one can be addicted to caffeine, since it is a
stimulant, it is unlikely to harm one in the same way alcohol can. Drinking a lot of coffee and
being an alcoholic have many dissimilarities, and so the fallacy of faulty analogy is committed
and option four is the correct option.

8 Which fallacy occurs when two or more questions are disguised as one question?

1 Complex question

2 Equivocation

3 Slippery slope argument

4 Faulty analogy

Answer: 1

Motivation: The fallacy of the complex question occurs when two or more questions are
disguised as one question (Van den Berg 2014: 35). Option one is therefore the right answer.

8
 PLS2601/201/1/2019

9 A fallacy that leads one from initially and seemingly true first premises to exaggerated
consequences in the conclusion is called:

1 Complex question

2 Hasty generalisation

3 Slippery slope argument

4 None of the above

Answer: 3

Motivation: A slippery slope argument ‘leads one from seemingly unimportant and obviously
true first premises to calamitous and exaggerated consequences in the conclusion’ (Van den
Berg 2014: 30). Option three is therefore the right answer.

10 A fallacy is committed below. Which one?

‘There is an advertisement on TV where Beyoncé says that this toothpaste is the best for
preventing cavities. It makes sense then to buy this brand.’

1 Complex question

2 Hasty generalisation

3 False appeal to authority

4 False dilemma

9
Answer: 3

Motivation: Often, it is quite a good idea to construct an argument by appealing to the expertise
of others. For example, if one wants to convince someone to eat healthy, because a medical
doctor recommends it, that would make for a strong argument. However, sometimes we appeal
to people who are not authorities at all, or who are not authorities in the relevant sort of way. In
this case, a singer is probably not the right sort of authority to be giving advice on toothpaste.
So, the fallacy of false appeal to authority is committed. This fallacy takes place when an
authority or famous person is quoted in order to get the conclusion the speaker wants (rather
than providing solid evidence to confirm or refute the claim). The fallacy of false appeal to
authority occurs when the “authority” cited is not an expert in the field under discussion (Van
den Berg 2014: 35).

11 A fallacy is committed below. Which one?

‘Lesedi said that the food in this restaurant is exceptionally well done. I don’t see how
that can be, as this steak I ordered is very rare.’

1 Ad hominem argument

2 Equivocation

3 Hasty generalization

4 False dilemma

Answer: 2

Motivation: The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word is used in one sense in one part of
an argument and in a different sense in another part of the same argument (Van den Berg
2014: 33). In the case, the two meanings of the phrase ‘well done’ are equivocated – in the one
sense ‘well done’ means the food is delicious, whereas on the other hand it, when we refer to
steak, ‘well done’ means the food is cooked for a longer period of time. In this case, then, option
two is the right answer.
10
 PLS2601/201/1/2019

12 Fill in the missing word(s)/phrase(s).

A _____________ is when a generalisation is made on the basis of insufficient evidence.

1 Hasty generalisation

2 Equivocation

3 Ad hominem argument

4 False dilemma

Answer: 1

Motivation: Many arguments rely on generalisations – and in some cases, those generalisations
can serve us well. For example, if we say ‘smoking causes cancer’, it does not mean every
single person who smokes will get cancer. Generally, the medical profession agrees that
smoking causes cancer. However, sometimes, we draw a conclusion with insufficient support.
For example, if I say ‘Fords are the worst cars ever!’ since I had one Ford that had a mechanical
problem, then that would be a hasty generalisation. One person’s experience with one car is not
enough evidence to draw the conclusion that all the cars of that specific brand are bad. The
fallacy of hasty generalisation occurs when a generalisation is made on the basis of insufficient
evidence (Van den Berg 2014: 35). Option one is therefore the right answer.

13 Fill in the missing word(s)/phrase(s).

____________ are those statements in an argument that have the function of supporting
the _________________.

11
 1 Premises; conclusion

2 Conclusions; premise

3 Arguments; conclusion

4 Fallacies; conclusion

Answer: 1

Motivation: With this question, we move on to Study Unit 3 in the Study Guide. The building
blocks of any argument are premises and conclusions. Premises are those statements in an
argument that have the function of supporting the conclusion (Van den Berg 2014: 48).
Therefore, option one is the correct answer.

14 Which of the following terms is not a premise indicator?

1 because

2 since

3 moreover

4 hence

Answer: 4

Motivation: Some words provide us with a hint that a premise or conclusion is about to follow.
We call these words or phrases ‘premise indicators’ and ‘conclusion indicators’. On page 50,
there is a table of these words and phrases. We can see that ‘hence’ is actually a conclusion
indicator (Van den Berg 2014: 50). Therefore, option three is the right option.

12
 PLS2601/201/1/2019

15 What is the principle of charitable interpretation?

1 The argument should be interpreted in such a way that the premises give the
weakest support for the conclusion.

2 The argument should be interpreted in such a way that the premises give the
strongest support for the conclusion.

3 The argument should be interpreted in such a way that the premises do not
support the conclusion.

4 The argument should be interpreted in such a way that the conclusion is not
supported by any premises.

Answer: 2

Motivation: Some arguments do not possess explicit indicator words. In that case, we need to
interpret what the person is trying to argue. When we do this, we should apply the principle of
charitable interpretation. This means that the argument should be interpreted in such a way that
the premises give the strongest support for the conclusion (Van den Berg 2014: 51). We can
see that option two is the correct definition.

3 CONCLUSION

This serves as a friendly reminder that your second assignment is due on the 26th of April 2019.

We hope that you are enjoying this module, and that you are feeling challenged, but excited,
about learning how to think critically. Please remember to make use of myUnisa and the e-tutors
that are available for this module.

13
Best of luck for your second assignment, and please do not hesitate to contact us on myUnisa,
or via email, for any assistance regarding the course content.

Sincerely,

Dr Yolandi M. Coetser Ms Motlatsi Khosi

Module leader Team member
PLS2601 (Critical reasoning) PLS2601 (Critical reasoning)

e-mail: coetsym@unisa.ac.za e-mail: khosim@unisa.ac.za

14