Identifying and evaluating argument
Content
01 Introduction: What is an academic argument?
02 Underlying assumptions
03 Deductive and inductive argument
04 Non-arguments
05 False premises (flaw)
06 False conclusions (flaw)
07 Correlation, not cause (flaw)
08 False dilemma (fallacy)
09 Post hoc (fallacy)
10 Inappropriate comparisons (flaw)
11 Circular arguments (fallacy)
12 Begging the question (fallacy)
13 Slippery slope (fallacy)
14 Complex question (fallacy)
15 Ad hominem (fallacy)
16 Tu quoque (fallacy)
17 Straw man (fallacy)
18 Argument by consensus (fallacy)
19 No true Scotsman (fallacy)
20 Emotive language (flaw)
21 Appeal to modern thinking (fallacy)
22 Complicity (fallacy)
23 Tautology (fallacy)
24 Phrasing argument appropriately
25 Links
- 01 Introduction: What is an academic argument?
-
'[Constructing an academic argument] is like taking the numbers 6, 1, 2, 5, 4, and 3, and deciding whether to order them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Or like deciding to write about the odd numbers, 1, 3 and 5, and then the even numbers, 2, 4 and 6.'
(http://www.rlf.org.uk/fellowshipscheme/writing/makinganargument/more_definitions.cfm, 15/05/2006)
You may have come across the term 'argument' in an academic context and felt confused, not fully understanding its meaning.
Outside of academia, an argument usually describes a disagreement - often quite vocal - between two or more people. It tends to be an event; a physical occurrence. This may be the sense of the word that is most familiar to you, but an academic argument describes something quite different. It is essentially a point of view.
A sound argument is a point of view that has been developed through the application of reasoning and critical analysis, drawing conclusions from the available evidence, and doing so using logic, objectivity, and other agreed intellectual standards.
An unsound argument, on the other hand, is a point of view that is in some way flawed. It could be that it is weak and unconvincing, or is based on an unbalanced analysis of the available evidence. It could also be that there is a mistake in reasoning - a so called logical fallacy.
The advice in his section has been developed to familiarise you with some of the characteristics of sound and unsound argument, and help you to identify the most common mistakes in reasoning: the fallacies.
However, you will not only find arguments - in the academic sense of the word - in an educational context. Whenever you read a paper, or watch TV, or listen to a friend, you are presented with an argument; a point of view that has been articulated with the express purpose of convincing you of its validity or truth. Almost anywhere where there is thought and communication, there is argument; although the same intellectual standards and formal structure that are imposed in an academic context may not be evident.
Nonetheless, aside from the variety of contexts and viewpoints, there are structural elements that most instances of argument have in common. Familiarity with these structural elements will help you to: (i) recognise what is important and sound in what you read, and (ii), construct sounder and more pertinent arguments for written work and oral presentations.
In structural terms, an argument is made up of two basic components: (i) a premise, which is a statement or proposition about something, usually supported by evidence, and (ii) a conclusion, which follows logically from the premise. A good argument should be presented in a clear and logical way, so that each stage of reasoning is transparent.
It is, however, highly unlikely that you will read an academic text that explicitly labels its premises and conclusions. Such adherence to formal structure is rare, and impractical in many circumstances. The advice in this section is therefore descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Around 2,400 years ago, Aristotle developed a basic formula for argument which is still cited today because of its simplicity and clarity: (i) major premise, (ii) minor premise, and (iii), conclusion. Here is an example: Essex students are environmentally-friendly (major premise). Stuart is an Essex student (minor premise). Stuart is environmentally-friendly (conclusion).
[Back to top] - 02 Underlying assumptions
-
Arguments sometimes make assumptions. In the example above, for instance, it is taken for granted that Essex students are environmentally-friendly. No evidence is offered to support this. Indeed, in some arguments you - as reader - may be expected to accept something without supporting evidence. This may be a reasonable assumption made to save time and effort. What is assumed, for example, could be widely accepted, or have the status of received wisdom, in your particular discipline. However, you may sometimes come across an argument that is dependent on underlying assumptions that cannot be considered reasonable without some supporting evidence. For example:
'Students of the late twentieth century regularly campaigned against nuclear weapons. Students rarely demonstrate against nuclear weapons any more. Students must be less political than they used to be.'
(Cottrell, S. (2005) 'Critical Thinking Skills'. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. p.87)In this example, the author draws a weak conclusion from the premises because he/she makes an unreasonable assumption that demonstrating against nuclear weapons is a fair measure of how 'political' students are, but there are countless political issues; nuclear weapons is just one measure.
Also, whatever is politically 'hot' at one point in time will invariably be short-lived. A few years ago, the miners strike was a defining political issue, but cannot be described as such at the present moment. Similarly, campaigning for mining would be inappropriate criteria by which to judge the level of political activity of a student nowadays.
[Back to top] - 03 Deductive and inductive argument
-
In broad terms, arguments are either deductive or inductive.
Deductive means that if the premises are true, the conclusion is certain.
Inductive, on the other hand, means that if the premises are true the conclusions are probable.
It does not matter whether the premises are actually true or not, for the purpose of this distinction. All that matters is the hypothetical nature of the conclusion: is it certain or merely probable?
It is important to understand the difference, especially if you are evaluating an argument from a theoretical perspective and are more interested in analysing the formal structure of the argument than its soundness.
Read this example:
'If enough troops can be used for the peacekeeping force, then civil war in Bosnia will be over. The United Nations has promised that enough troops will be supplied, so the fighting in that country will end.'
(van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2005) Critical Thinking for Students. How To Books, Oxford. P.35)
Which type of argument do you think this is, deductive or inductive?
It is a deductive argument; though this does not, of course, mean that the argument is necessarily true, only that, if the reasons or premises are true (i.e. that supplying enough troops will bring about the end of the war), then the conclusion must also be true (that the war will end).
[Back to top] - 04 Non-arguments
-
It was stated earlier that almost any context involving thought and communication comprises arguments of a sort. Sometimes, however, there may appear to be an argument, but is not. For example:
'Genetic engineering really worries me. I don't think it should be allowed.'
(Cottrell, S. (2005) 'Critical Thinking Skills'. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. p.52)
In this example, no premise is given to support the conclusion; there is no explanation, no rationalisation, for the feeling of worry. It is a 'position' rather than an 'argument'.
As well as a position, other forms of non-argument may include a piece of description, a summary, or an explanation. The main difference is that an argument draws its conclusions from premises and has been constructed for the purpose of convincing the audience or reader of its validity.
The ability to determine an argument from a non-argument will enable you to focus your attention on the relevant parts of the material you are analysing. It will also improve your ability to construct your own arguments and select appropriate material.
The rest of this section will, for the most part, look at common types of flaw in argumentation, such as using false premises and false conclusions. The focus will then turn to logical fallacies - mistakes in reasoning - such as confusing cause and effect, or attacking the arguer instead of the argument. It is crucial that you are aware of the most common flaws and fallacies - not just for your own assignments, but also for your reading and research.
[Back to top] - 05 False premises (flaw)
-
It has already been established that premises can carry assumptions. It can also be the case that an argument appears to be sound - because the conclusion follows on logically from the premise(s) - but is in actual fact flawed from its foundations as the premises are false. Read this example:
'As all birds can fly, the term 'flyers' is a suitable alternative to the term 'birds'.'
In the above example, the conclusion has been drawn from the false premise that 'all birds can fly', which is not true; after all, there are numerous birds, such as the kiwi, that could be cited to disprove this.
The word 'as' at the beginning of the sentence suggests that either i) the claim that all birds are able to fly has already been established as fact earlier on in the argument - which is impossible, because it is untrue - or ii) an assumption is being made that this is common knowledge.
An appeal to common knowledge such as this is a fallacy known as argument by consensus and will be explained later in the section.
[Back to top] - 06 False conclusions (flaw)
-
It is often the case that the premises to an argument are sound but the conclusion is questionable and does not follow logically from the premises.
Read this example:
'Everyone in the sample group is female (n.4). Nobody in the group can swim. It is apparent that women cannot swim.'
In this example, we can assume that both premises are true - that 'everyone in the sample group is female' and that 'nobody in the group can swim' - but the conclusion is unsound because of poor inference. 'Inference' usually refers to what is 'inferred' from the premises in order to arrive at the conclusion.
In the example given, no other explanations than gender are offered for the apparent inability to swim of everyone in the sample group. The size of the group is also too small to establish a solid trend. It is a hasty generalisation.
[Back to top] - 07 Correlation, not cause (flaw)
-
Another common flaw in argument is to mistake a correlation for a cause.
Read this example:
'There have been improvements in the health of the population over the past thirty years, a period in which there has been an increase in the affluence of the country. So the increased affluence of the country has produced the improvements in the health of the population.'
(Thomson, A. (1996) Critical Reasoning: A Practical Introduction. Routledge, London. p.47)
In this example, a correlation (a relationship) is mistaken for a cause. A link could quite easily be established between increased wealth and improved health, but to state that there is a causal link is too extreme.
However, the most extreme version of this mistake is when cause and effect are completely reversed. This is known as the wrong direction fallacy.
[Back to top] - 08 False dilemma (fallacy)
-
A common form of misapplied reasoning in argumentation is known as false dilemma. This is when an argument is presented in such a way that there appears to be only two or three possible alternatives, whilst all other possibilities are omitted, often deliberately. In this way, a false dilemma is created.
Usually, one alternative is desirable (the one being arguing for) and the other is undesirable (the one being arguing against). Sometimes a false dilemma is actually more of a lazy oversimplification than a deliberate snare.
Read this example:
'Either the eyewitness saw an alien spacecraft or he's a liar.'
( http://skepdic.com/falsedilemma.html, 01/03/2006)
In this example, there is at least one other explanation that is omitted: the eyewitness is simply mistaken. You can probably think of numerous other possible explanations.
NB. For future reference, this fallacy is also known as 'Bifurcation', 'Black-and-White Fallacy', 'Either-Or Fallacy', and 'False Dichotomy'.
[Back to top] - 09 Post hoc (fallacy)
-
Another common mistake in reasoning is known as post hoc (the full Latin is post hoc ergo propter hoc, which translates as 'after this, therefore because of this'). It is when a thing which follows another is seen to be caused by it. It is a mistake that is often made by historians.
Read this example:
'A few years after WW1, T.S. Eliot wrote The Wasteland. It was written as a dirge to the spiritual vacuum left in the wake of the War.'
Although the statement in the above example may well be true, it is an assumption made on a chronological basis. For the purpose of clarity, imagine that the statement is not an accepted theory among literary critics: in order to be satisfactory, it would have to be backed up with supporting evidence.
In a lot of cases of post hoc, the main problem lies not in doubt of there being a casual link between X and Y, but rather with the insufficiency of evidence for it to be proven.
The post hoc fallacy is something that you may encounter on a daily basis, especially in instances of superstition.
NB. For future reference, this fallacy is also known as 'Causative Fallacy'.
[Back to top] - 10 Inappropriate comparisons (flaw)
-
Beware of drawing inappropriate comparisons and analogies. See the example below:
'Two schools trialled two different computer software packages - software A and software B. Both packages claim to raise the reading level of pupils. The first school, which had one computer per child, installed software A on every machine. The second school had a single computer, and installed software B. It was found that reading levels were significantly improved at the first school. Software package A is therefore recommended.'
In the example above, the two schools are not equivalent and are unsuitable for a fair trial of the software: whilst the first school has a computer for every child, the second school has only a single computer to serve all children.
The huge difference between the schools in the accessibility of children to computers, and therefore software, undermines any conclusions that might be drawn about the effectiveness of software A and B.
[Back to top] - 11 Circular arguments (fallacy)
-
One of the best known logical fallacies is circular argument. This occurs when premises and conclusions are confused and relied upon to mutually prove each other. Circular argument can be summarised as: (i) X is true because of Y (premise), and (ii), Y is true because of X (conclusion). Read this example:
'You must not drive on the right-hand side of the road because it is the law to drive on the left. Law-abiders drive on the left-hand side of the road, so it must be right.'
In the above example, the first sentence uses the premise that it is 'law to drive on the left' to draw the conclusion that 'you must not drive on the right-hand side of the road'. However, the second sentence effectively says the same thing but in reverse sequence: the conclusion that driving on the left-hand side of the road is 'right' is drawn from the premise that those who abide by the law drive on that side, which is really the premise from the first sentence. It is quite confusing. Indeed, this is what makes it dangerous: circular argument can be allusive and difficult to pin down.
It is rare that you will find an example of circular argument in which both halves of the circle follow one another so closely, as in the example above. In most cases, they will be at some distance, and far more difficult to identify.
NB. For future reference, this fallacy is also known as 'Vicious Circle', 'Circular Reasoning', 'Begging the Question' (although this is slightly different, see below), and 'petito principii'.
[Back to top] - 12 Begging the question (fallacy)
-
Although it is often used as a synonym for circular argument, begging the question is slightly different to circular argument.
Read this example:
'Past-life memories of children prove that past lives exist because the children could have no other source for their memories besides having lived in the past.'
(http://skepdic.com/begging.html, 01/03/2006)
In the above example, the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - that is, the premise makes the assumption that children have had past lives in order to make sense of them having apparent 'memories'. No evidence is offered in support of this claim.
In a sense, it is a piece of circular reasoning, but 'begging the question' refers specifically to fallacies in which the premises implicitly assume the truth of - or have an inherent bias towards - the conclusion.
[Back to top] - 13 Slippery slope (fallacy)
-
Slippery slope is a technique in argumentation that refers to a line of argument based on the notion that if A occurs, then B, C, D, etc., could / should / would follow, as a chain of cause and effect. It is essentially a hypothesis based on the concept of sequential decline.
It is worth avoiding this technique unless you can convincingly argue each step. You may, however, feel confident that you can follow a series of cause and effect to the logical conclusion.
Read this example:
'By letting misbehaviour go unpunished, you are encouraging your child to think that such behaviour is acceptable. The child then begins to ignore you and defy your authority; next, the authority of the law. From there, crime is inevitable; imprisonment, likely.'
[Back to top] - 14 Complex question (fallacy)
-
A complex question is either (i) a question that makes a false or disputable presupposition, or (ii), a statement that discreetly conflates another statement so that the secondary statements is accepted en route to the primary statement.
It is probably best illustrated with an example:
'A balanced diet - that is, one that includes meat - is important as part of a healthy lifestyle'
(http://web.anglia.ac.uk/stu_services/essex/learningsupport/OL-EvalArgument.htm, 01/03/2006)
In the above argument, the author aims to make the reader accept two things: first, a balanced diet is necessary in order to be healthy (the primary statement), and second, a balanced diet is to be defined as one that includes meat (the secondary statement). Because the emphasis is on the first proposition, the second almost goes unnoticed.
[Back to top] - 15 Ad hominem (fallacy)
-
One of the most commonly committed fallacies is known as ad hominem (a Latin phrase which translates as 'against the man'). This occurs when argument X attempts to discredit argument Y by attacking whoever posed argument Y, rather than argument Y itself.
It is often used as a trick to discredit an otherwise sound theory or opinion by placing it in the wider context of the person who conceived it, focusing on character flaws rather than argument flaws.
In most disciplines, ad hominem is considered poor practice, because academic debate should focus on the abstract world of ideas. It may be worth checking with departmental staff that this applies to you.
Read this example:
'F. Carlo Williams may have argued convincingly on the subject of abortion, but, whether convincing or not, his arguments against abortion are undermined by the fact that he is a priest. For him, objectivity is inherently problematic; unobtainable, even.'
[Back to top] - 16 Tu quoque (fallacy)
-
Tu quoque is actually a sub-fallacy of ad hominem; in Latin it means, 'you, also', and similarly refers to refutations against the arguer rather than the argument.
However, tu quoque refers to something specific. It is generally a defensive technique rather than an attacking one, and is used to defend an argument from criticism by turning the critique back on the accuser. This often involves accusations of hypocrisy, in order to deflect the criticism, instead of disproving it through critical analysis.
'The leader of the Opposition can hardly accuse the Government of distorting the truth. He wasn't telling them truth when he said that he would support all measures to combat crime.'
(van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2005) Critical Thinking for Students. How To Books, Oxford. p.71)
In essence, two wrongs don't make a right.
[Back to top] - 17 Straw man (fallacy)
-
The straw man fallacy occurs when an argument is presented in such a way as to attempt to discredit or disprove a theory or position by presenting an exaggerated, distorted, diluted, or misrepresented version of the theory or position, rather than the actual.
The fallacy can be summarised as: (i) arguer A presents position X, (ii) arguer B presents position X as position Y (which is a distorted version of position X), (iii) arguer B attacks position Y, (iv) position X is seen to be disproved/discredited because it is not distinguished from position Y.
To see the fallacy in operation, read the example below:
'We should have conscription. People don't want to enter the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more important things than convenience.'
(http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.php, 02/03/2006)
In the above example, all possible arguments against conscription are distilled into a single, overly simplistic argument, i.e. being in the military is an inconvenience. This single argument may be satisfactorily rebutted by the idea that 'there are more important things than convenience', but the argument is only a 'straw man': it is not addressing the full picture.
For example, there may be some people who do not want to enter the military on the grounds of pacifism, and others who feel strongly against a particular war for religious, political, or moral reasons. For these people, convenience would not be the overriding issue.
In a sense, someone who commits the 'straw man' fallacy is actually attacking a position of their own creation.
[Back to top] - 18 Argument by consensus (fallacy)
-
This is a mistake that is common among undergraduates, often because it can at first be very difficult to determine what can and cannot be assumed of your reader. It can, for example, sometimes be easy to confuse concepts such as 'received wisdom' and 'accepted knowledge' with murkier concepts such as 'common knowledge', 'common sense' or 'popular opinion', all of which are problematic. Arguing 'by consensus' refers to a specific misuse of those murkier terms.
It can be summarised as: (i) idea X is popular, (ii) idea X is (therefore) true/a fact. Essentially, it is the presentation of widely held belief as fact. In such a claim, there is the added problem of proving that X is even the most popular idea. It may seem to be 'common sense' or 'common knowledge', but how provable and reliable is this? Below is an example of 'argument by consensus':
'Everyone is selfish; everyone is doing what he believes will make himself happier. The recognition of that can take most of the sting out of accusations that you're being 'selfish.' Why should you feel guilty for seeking your own happiness when that's what everyone else is doing, too?'
(http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html, 02/03/2006)
In the above example, there are two problems. Firstly, the argument assumes that everyone (without exception) is 'doing what he believes will make himself happier'. This may well be true, but there is no evidence to support the claim. Secondly, if we were to assume that this is the case (that everyone is seeking happiness above all, even those with different ideologies, religious or other, whose inclusion makes this highly unlikely), then the argument assumes that just because the phenomenon is common it is right. In a way, this example is an extreme version of the tu quoque fallacy.
Now read this short passage about 'common sense':
'It was once common sense to burn 'witches' and to believe that priests were in personal touch with 'God' from whom they received instructions to massacre people in war and to imprison the genius Galileo. Today's 'common sense' stands a good chance of being tomorrow's discarded superstition.'
(Freeman, R. (1982) Mastering Study Skills. Macmillan Master Series, London. p.71)
The above quote is taken from a book on study skills. More specifically, it is taken from the chapter on clear thinking and argumentation. At a glance, the point Freeman makes about common sense is a good one: it is often just 'collected prejudices' in a particular area (the phrase used by Einstein), and is therefore time-bound and subject to continual redefinition. It is not reliable knowledge. It is not evidence. There is, therefore, a lesson to be learnt about 'argument by consensus'.
Unfortunately, the main premise - 'it was once common sense.' - is not supported by evidence and is in fact a highly debatable and misleading claim. The burning of witches may have been widely condoned, but would it have been perceived as 'common sense' or something slightly different, and more in the realm of a religious truth? If it had been simple 'common sense' (or what is generally understood by the term 'common sense'), would enforcement from religious authorities have been necessary? When he wrote 'it was once common sense', perhaps what Freeman really meant was 'it was once possible'?
Part intentionally, part unintentionally, Freeman provides an excellent example of the inherent problems with 'common sense' and 'argument by consensus'.
NB. For future reference, this fallacy is also known as 'Bandwagon Fallacy', 'Appeal to Popularity' , 'Authority of the Many', and 'argumentum ad populum'.
[Back to top] - 19 No true Scotsman (fallacy)
-
The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy is probably best illustrated by the original example given by Antony Flew, who developed the fallacy in his 1975 book, Thinking About Thinking. Read the example below:
X. "Ach! No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Y. "But my Uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
X. "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman, 02/03/2006)
As you would probably agree from the example, it is quite a common argument, although it is more common in verbal debate.
The essence of the fallacy is the redefinition of criteria after rebuttal, which actually renders the criteria meaningless.
[Back to top] - 20 Emotive language (flaw)
-
One of the most common mistakes in academic writing is the overuse of emotive language. A piece of academic writing should be objective, critical, and evidence-based. Academic writing has, therefore, a natural antipathy to emotive language, which is designed to excite emotion, and is by its very nature subjective and aims to instil prejudices in the reader.
The best place to find examples of emotive language are newspapers, especially the tabloids, which do not uphold any pretence of objectivity.
Stella Cottrell emphasises how persuasive and effective this kind of writing can be:
'People tend to trust their own emotional responses. Strong emotions are usually a signal to the body to act quickly rather than to slow down and use reasoning. If an author can elicit an emotional response, then the audience is likely to be less critical of the reasoning. Where subjects are emotive, it is particularly important to check the underlying reasoning carefully.'
(Cottrell, S. (2005) 'Critical Thinking Skills'. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. p.117)
[Back to top] - 21 Appeal to modern thinking (fallacy)
-
Another technique that is quite common - at least in conversational debate - is to make an appeal to modern thinking. You may find that you have used it yourself - both conversationally and academically - without necessarily intending it to be a deliberate 'trick'. A couple of examples will most effectively illustrate the fallacy:
'The Leader of the Opposition wants the country to return to the dark ages.'
'As an historian, William Slam is stuck in the 1920s.'
Stella Cottrell offers an explanation as to why the fallacy is effective:
'As the date is factually accurate, the audience is already drawn into part agreement with the argument. This approach attempts to discredit anyone who disagrees with the argument as being old-fashioned and out-of-date.'
(Cottrell, S. (2005) 'Critical Thinking Skills'. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. p.114)
[Back to top] - 22 Complicity (fallacy)
-
Complicity is another technique that is sometimes used to increase the persuasiveness of the argument but should be avoided in academic writing. It occurs when the writer makes statements such as 'everybody knows', 'it is well established', and 'we all know' - discreet asides that aim to convince the reader of likeminded-ness, or establish a particular way of thinking as the most common or correct.
[Back to top] - 23 Tautology (fallacy)
-
Tautology is the term given to a statement that is useless because it adds nothing to the argument but merely rephrases it. For example:
'There is no point voting because a single vote can make no difference. The margin of victory is always in the hundreds - the thousands, often - so what difference can one vote make? Answer: it will make no difference at all. You will not, therefore, find me down at the polling station.'
In this example, the same point is, effectively, made over and again.
[Back to top] - 24 Phrasing argument appropriately
-
It is often the case that arguments are phrased inappropriately. It may be that the essence of what is being argued is true or valid, but the language it is framed in is too generalised or too specific. Often, the heart of the problem is that the arguer is attempting to claim or conclude more than is reasonable from the evidence. This is probably best explained through an illustrative example:
- Example 1
'Children are small. Car seats are big. All cars should have child-seats fitted.'
This is a fairly logical sequence, but at every stage there is a degree of unnecessary generalisation, with more being claimed than is reasonable, making the argument unnecessarily weak - it would only take one example of a child who is not small or a car seat that is not big to discredit this argument. Similarly, not every car will have child passengers. It would be far more convincing if it was phrased in a more tentative way, whilst not being too unconfident and doubtful. For example:
- Example 2
'Children tend to be too small for car seats. Where this is the case, and children are regular passengers, cars should have child-seats fitted.'
The first two sentences (the premises) have been purposefully merged and weakened so that the claim is less vulnerable to contrary evidence and exception. Similarly, the third sentence (the conclusion) is now conditional ('where this is the case.').
Remember, it is often the case that by weakening your claim you will actually strengthen your argument.
Indeed, very little can be said with absolute certainty. However, whilst it is important to be mindful of this when positing an academic argument, it is also important to remember that, in order to be convincing, your tone also needs to convey confidence as well as caution. It is in the balance of these two things that convincing arguments are forged.
[Back to top] - 25 Links
-
- Links
For further examples and a more in-depth study of logic, try Fallacy Files:
For similar examples and definitions, try the Skeptic's Dictionary:
For more definitions and examples, try the Nizkor Project:
http://www.nizkor.orgh/features/fallacies
- Bibliography
Cottrell, S. (2005) Critical Thinking Skills. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Freeman, R. (1982) Mastering Study Skills. Macmillan Master Series, London.
Shand, J. (2000) Arguing Well. Routledge, London.
Thomson, A. (1996) Critical Reasoning: A Practical Introduction. Routledge, London.
van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2005) Critical Thinking for Students. How to Books, Oxford.
[Back to top]