Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING

1. Definition of critical thinking

- Critical here does not mean “negative”
- Critical thinking means skilled observation and/ or judgemnet by clear intellectual
standards
2. Standards of critical thinking
- Clarity: Critical thinkers strive for clarity of language and thought.
- Precision:
 Critical thinkers understand that it is necessary to insist on precise answers to precise
questions by cutting through the confusions and uncertainties.
 Specific, not general
 Question to check precision: Can it/ you be more specific?
- Accuracy:
 Critical thinkers have passion to accurate, timely information
 True, not false
 Question to check accuracy: Is that really true?
- Relevance: Irrelevance can distract people from the point but never helps to truly prove
the point.
- Consistency: Critical thinkers avoid:
 Practical inconsistency: Saying one thing and doing one another
 Logical inconsistency: Believing two things that can not be simultaneously true
- Logical correctness:
 Sound reasoning or making valid inferences
 Deriving that, and only that, which can be justifiably derived from statements or
premises
- Completeness: Thinking is better when it is deep rather than shallow, thorough rather
than superficial
- Fairness:
 Critical thinking demands that our thinking be open – minded, impartial, and free of
distorting biases and preconceptions.
 One must not dismiss something just because it is new or contrary to something
one already believes.
3. Benefits of Critical Thinking.
- In the classroom
 Understanding and critically evaluating the arguments and beliefs of others
 Developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs
- In the workplace
 Communicate cearly and effectively
 Gather and analyze information
 Draw appropriate conclusions from data
 Solve problems
 Think creatively
- In life
 Preventing people from making foolish personal decisions
 Promoting good decisions for the benefit of the people
4. Major barriers to Critical Thinking
- Egocentrism: Tendency to see reality as centered on oneself
 Self-interested thinking: tendency to accept and defend beliefs that harmonize with
one’s beliefs
 Self-serving bias/ Superiority bias: tendency to overrate oneself
- Sociocentrism:
 Group bias: tendency to see one’s group (nation, tribe, peer, group … ) better than
others
 Tribalism: Strong feeling of loyalty to, and indentification with, one’s tribe or social
group
 Conformism: Allowing beliefs to be shaped by outside forces such as groups or
authorities
- Unwarranted assumption: Claiming that something is true without true evidence
- Stereotype: Assuming that all people within a group (e.g. sex or race) share all the same
qualities
- Relativism: The view thta truth is a matter of opinion
 Subjectivism: Truth is a matter of individual opinion
 Cultural relativism: truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion
- Wishful thinking: Believing something not because you have good evidence for it but
you wish it were true
5. Characteristics of critical thinker
- Strives for clarity, precision, accuracy, and other intellectual standards that are
characterize careful, disciplined thinking
- Sensitive to the way in which critical thinking can be skewed by egocentrism, wishful
thinking, and othe psychological obstacles to rational belief
- Intellectually honest (admits ignorance and limits)
- Listen with an open mind
- Base beliefs on facts and evidence
- Aware of the biases and preconceptions that shape the way one perceives the world
- Think independently
- Able to get to the heart of an issue, without being distracted by details
- Possesses intellectual courage to face and assess fairly ideas that challenge one’s beliefs
- Pursues truth and has intellectual perseverance
Chapter 2: RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
1. Statements
- A statement is a sentence/ utterance that can be viewed as either true or false
e.g.
+ The Covid-19 pandemic began in late 2019 True
+ There are three Covid-19 variants False
+ The Covid-19 virus is controlled effectively by vaccines True/False
- A statement may be a fact or an opinion
+ A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven to be true or false
through objective evidence
+ An opinion is a statement that express a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or
a belief. It is a statement that is neither true nor false
e.g.
+ There are exchange students at International University Fact
+ A score of IELTS 6.0 is required at International University Fact
+ International University is the best choice in HCMC Opinion
+ Students at International University are friendly and competent Opinion
- Statement test: Does it make sense to put “it is true that” or “it is false that” in front of a
sentence
+ If so, it is a statement
+ If not, it is not a statement
- Statements can be can be about subjective matters of personal experiences as well as
objectively verifiable matters of fact
2. Non-statements
- Questions
- Greetings
- Commands
- Requests
- Proposals
- Instructions
- Exclaimations
- Rhetorical question: Sentence that has a grammatical form of a question but is meant to
be understood as a statement
e.g. You should quit smoking. Don’t you realize how bad it is for your health?
-> Smoking is bad for health
- Ought imperative: Sentence that has a form of a command but is intended to assert
what ought to be done
e.g. Do not read beauty magazines. They will make you feel ugly
-> You should not read beauty magazines
=> Consider the meaning, not form, to decide on a statement or non-statement
3. Arguments
- Basically, an argument consists of one of more premises/evidence and a
conclusion/claim
- The premise(s) and conclusion are the core of an argument
- Arguments are the core of critical thinking
( A premise may be a fact or an opinion)
+ Premise(s): evidence including reasons, examples, facts, figures, etc.
(Support)
+ Assumption(s): Belief(s) or principle(s) taken for granted
(Warrant)
+ Conclusion(s): Inferences drawn from evidence and assumptions
(Claim)
- Identifying premises and conclusions
+ Indicator words provides clues that permises and conclusions are being put
forward
 Premise indicators: Since, for, seeing that, in as much as, in the wiew of the fact
that, because, as, and given that.
 Conclusion indicators: Therefore, hence, so, it follows that, wherefore, thus, and
consequently
- Finding conclusions when indicators are absent
+ Find the main isssue and determine the position of the writer or speaker on that
issue
+ Look at the beginning or the end of the passage; the conclusion is usually found
in one of those places
+ A statement is probably th conclusion if the word “therefore” fits well before it
+ The “because” trick: The arguer believes that (conclusion) because (permise(s)).
4. Not-Arguments
- Reports: convey information about a subject
- Unsupported Assumptions: when someone puts forth what he/she belives but does
not intend for any of his/her statements to support another

- Conditional (if-then) statements:

+ If A than B. B if A
+ Antecedent: Part of the statements that follows the word “if”
+ Consequent: Part of the statements that follows the word “then”
+ Conditional statements are not arguments

+ Some conditional statements do involve a process of reasoning

 + Chain arguments: Arguments can be composed entirely of conditional
statements

- Illustration: Do not prove or support the claim but provides examples for the claim
e.g. “Many wildflowers are edible. For example, daisies and day lilies are delicious in
salad”
+ Some arguments can look like illustrations because they use “counterexamples”
e.g. “Many people think that all Star Trek fans are zit-faced nerds. But that is not true.
Christian Slater is a Star Trek fan, and he is not a zit-faced nerd”
+ When it is difficult to differentiate between an argument and an illustration, one
must use the principle of charity: When interpreting an unclear passage, always give the
speaker or writer the benefit of the doubt
- Explanation: Tries to show something is the case, not to prove that it is the case
e.g. Titanic sank because it stuck an iceburg (explanation)
Capital punishment shoule be abolished because innocent people may be
mistakenly executed (argument)
+ Parts of an explanation:
 Explanandum: Statement that is explained
 Explanans: Statement that does the explaining
 Format: Explanandum because explanans
 Tests to Distinguish Arguments and Explanations
 Common knowledge test:
- If the statement that a passge is seeking to prove or explain is a matter of common
knowledge, it is probably an explanation
+ Most people don’t present arguments for things people already believe
+ Example: “TV is very influential in society because most people watch it”
 Past-event test:
- If the statement that a passge is seeking to prove or explain is an event that occurred int
he past, it is probably an explanation
+ Usually, People don’t argue that “X occurred”
+ Example: “The U.S. entered World War because of Japan’s attack on Pearl
Harbor”
 Author’s intent test:
- If the person making the statement is trying to “prove” something, than the passage is
an argument
+ Example: “You want a college degree because you want a better life”
- If the person making the statement is trying to explain why something is true, than the
passage is an explanation
+ Example: “ Kevin is majoring in political science because he wants to go to law
school”
 Priciple of charity test:
- One must interpret unclear passages generously
- One must never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably
permits one to interpret it as not an argument at all
- The test: If you have a choice between interpreting a statement as a “bad argument” or
an “unsatisfactory explanation”, do the latter
+ A bad argument is a worse mistake
CHAPTER 3: BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS
1. Dedution and induction:
- Deduction: reasoning from general premises, which are known or presumed to be
known, to more specific, certain conclusions (formal reasoning)
- Deductive arguments try to prove their conclusions with rigorous, inescapable logic
e.g. “All humans are immortal
Socrates is a human
Therefore, socrates is immortal”
“Accroding to the WHO, the objective of a booster dose is to restore vaccine
effectiveness from that deemed no longer sufficient.
I took the second vaccine shot 6 months ago
Therefore, I have to rush for a booster dose”
 From “All” to only “I”: general to specific
- Induction: reasoning from specific cases to more general, but uncertain, conclusions
(informal reasoning)
- Inductive arguments try to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely to given the
premises
e.g. “Every ruby so far discovered has been red
So, probably all rubies are red”
“Today, some late students in our class said they had to take the booster vaccine
shot.
Probably all students were late today because of booster vacccination.”
 From “some students in our class” to “all students”: specific to general
- Deductive arguments’ claims:
 If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
 The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises
 It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false
 If you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion
 Deduction indicators: certainly, definitely, absolutely, conclusively, it logically follows
that, it is logical to conclude that, this logically implies that, this entails that

- Inductive arguments’ claims:

 If the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true
 The conclusion follows probably from the premises
 It is unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false
 The conclusion is probably true if the premises are true
 Induction indicators: probably, likely, one would expect that, it is plausible to suppose
that, it is reasonable to assume that, chances are that, odds are that
2. Common patterns of deductive reasoning
(syllogism: three-line argument: tam đoạn luận)
- Hypothetical syllogism: Three-line argument that contains at least one hypothetical or
conditional premise
 Chain arguments:
+ Pattern: if A, then B
if B, then C
Therefore, if A then C
e.g. If you miss the bus, you’ll be late for class
If you’re late for class, you’ ll miss the lesson
So, if you miss the bus, you’ll miss the lesson
 Modus ponens – affirming the antecendent
+ Pattern: If A, than B
A
Therefore, B
e.g. If you want to get a scholarship, you’ll have to study hard
You certainly want to get the scholarship
Therefore, you’ll have to study hard
 Modus tollens – denying the consequent
+ Pattern: If A, then B
Not B
Therefore, not A
e.g. If you live in Paris, then you live in France
You don’t live in France
Therefore, you don’t live in Paris
 Denying the antecedent:
+ Pattern: If A, then B
Not A
Therefore, not B
e.g. If Mr. Smith is president of the U.S., the he’s a famous person
Mr. Smith is not president of the U.S.
Therefore, he’s not a famous person
 Affirming the consequent:
+ Pattern: If A, then B
B
Therefore, A
e.g. If you live in Paris, then you live in France
You live in France
Therefore, you live in Paris
- Categorical syllogism: Three-line argument in which each statement begins with the
word “all”, “some”, or “no”
+ Pattern: All a’s are b’s. All b’s are c’s. Therefore, all a’s are c’s
Some a’s are b’s. All b’s are c’s. Therefore, some a’s are c’s
e.g. “All Critical Thinking books contain deductive and inductive arguments
All deductive and inductive arguments are patterns of logical reasoning
So, all critical thinking books contain patterns of logical reasoning”
“Some students in our class are exchange students
All exchange students are foreigners
So, some students in our class are foreigners”
- Argument by elimination: Seeks to logically rule out various possibilities until only a
single possibility remains
e.g. “Either you are married or you are single by law
You are not married
Then you are single by law”
- Argument based on Mathematics: Argument in which the conclusions depends largely
or entirely on some mathematical calculation or measurement
e.g.

 The use of precise vocabulary and grammar is essential in arguments based on

mathematics
- Argument from Definition: An argument in which the conclusion is presented as being
“true by definition”, that is, as following simply from the meaning of some key word or
phrase used
e.g. Bob is a bachelor. Therefore, Bob is unmarried
Janelle is a cardiologist. Therefore, Janelle is a doctor
 Deductive Validity:
- Valid deductive arguments: conclusion ust follow from premises; in other words, it’s
impossible that all premises are true but the conclusion is false.
e.g. If you want to get a scholarship, you’ll have to study hard
You certainly want to get the scholarship
Therefore, you’ll have to study hard
 VALID
If you want to get a scholarship, you’ll have to study hard
You don’t study hard at all
Therefore, you will get the scholarship
 INVALID
- Maybe sound or unsound.
+ Sound deductive argument: Deductive argument that is both valid and has all
true premises
+ Unsound deductive argument: Deductive argument that either is invalid or has
at least one false premises, or both
e.g. All International University students do their major in English
I’m an International University student
Therefore, I do my major in English
 VALID and SOUND (true)
All International University students are aliens
I’m an International University student
Therefore, I’m an alien
 VALID and UNSOUND (true)
3. Common patterns of inductive reasoning
- Inductive generalization: Drawing a generalization as a likely conclusion based on
informational about some members of a particular class
+ Generalization: statement that attributes characteristics to all or most members
of some group or class
e.g. My boyfriend never gives me a flower on Valentine or March 8th. All men are so
unromantic -> Too hasty conclusion
- Predictive argument: An argument in which a prediction is defended with reasons
+ Prediction: A statement about what someone thinks will happen in the future
e.g. Everytime I come home with the smell of beer, my wife gets angry! I’ve just
drunk a lot of beer. So my wife will get angry
- Argument from authority: Asserts a claim and then supports that claim by citing some
presumed authority or witness who has said the claim is true
e.g. “HCMC International University has just confirmed that students will resume
learning on campus in March 1st. So I have to book a flight to HCMC now to
attend at the given time”
“The Encyclopedia said that bats eat bugs; therefore it is likely that bats eat bugs”
+ Normally treated as inductive because one can never be absolutely certain that a
supposed authority or witness is accurate or reliable
+ Arguments from authority can sometimes be deductive
e.g. “Whatever the Bible teaches is true
The Bible teaches that we should love our neighbors
Therefore, we should love our neighbors”
- Causal argument: Asserts or denies that something is the cause of something else
e.g. I can’t call him on my mobile phone. I’m sure the network is down -> weak
I can’t call him on my mobile phone. The network is probably down -> strong

+ Not all causual arguments are inductive

e.g. Whenever iron is exposed to oxygen, it rusts
This iron has been exposed to oxygen and water
Therefore, it will rust
- Statistical argument: Rests on statistical evidence (evidence that some percentage of
some group or class has some particular characteristic)
e.g. 100% of Iu students have to study Critical Thinking while this subject is optional
in University X. Therefore, IU has more critical thinking learners than University X
+ Because statistical evidence is used to support claims that are presented as
probable, statistical arguments are usually inductive
+ Statistical evidence can also be used in deductive reasoning
e.g. If 65% of likely voters polled support Senetor Beltway, then Senetor Beltway will
win a landslide
Sixty-five percent of likely voters polled do support Senetor Beltway
Therefore, Senetor Beltway will win a landslide
- Argument from analogy: Argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend on an
analogy (that is, a comparison or similarity) between two or more things
 e.g. “A is an IU student and she’s confident and dynamic
B is an IU student and he’s confident and dynamic
C is an IU student, so I’m sure she’s confident adn dynamic”
 WEAK
“A is an IU student and she’s confident and dynamic
B is an IU student and he’s confident and dynamic
C is an IU student, so it’s likely that she’s confident adn dynamic”
 STRONG
+ Since being similar in one way does not guarantee being similar in another, most
analogies are inductive
 Inductive strengths:
- Strong inductive arguments: The conclusion is probably true if the premises are true
e.g. Kim told me her family is not affordable for her college tuition
She has been studying so hard in the last year of high school
Kim is probably trying to gain a college scholarship
 STRONG
- Weak inductive arguments: Premises, even if they are assumed to be true, do not make
the conclusion probable
e.g. About 5% of IU students are international students now. Kim is an IU student. So
she is probably an international student.
 WEAK
- Strong and weak indictive arguments come in degrees
- Cogency:
+ Cogent argument: An argument that is inductively strong and has all true
premises
+ Uncogent argument: An inductive argument that is either weak or has at least
one false premise, or both
- Strong inductive arguments may be cogent or uncogent
e.g. It’s the rainy season and it has been raining for the last 3 days
Therefore, it is probably going to rain today
 STRONG and COGENT (convincing)
Rainy days generally result in dry weather and it is raining now.
Therefore, we’ll probably have dry weather today
 STRONG but UNCOGENT (at least one premise is false)