Solution for COR165e Thinking Critically Tutor-Marked Assignment 02

This document presents a comprehensive solution to a critical thinking assignment, addressing various aspects of logical reasoning and argumentation. The assignment explores different types of arguments, including deductive and inductive reasoning, and provides examples to illustrate these concepts. It analyzes fallacies such as *argumentum ad verecundiam*, *argumentum ad hominem*, and the fallacy of questionable analogy, offering explanations and identifying their flaws. The solution also examines the structure of arguments, including premises, conclusions, and the validity of statements. Furthermore, it delves into the application of critical thinking principles to evaluate claims and analyze the validity of arguments in various contexts. The assignment includes responses to questions about the definition of a republic and God, and a critical analysis of online racism. The document provides a thorough understanding of critical thinking concepts and their application in evaluating arguments.

Running head: THINKING CRITICALLY
1
Critical Thinking
Name
Date

THINKING CRITICALLY 2
Question 1
a)
A. You can think critically if you are enrolled to this course
B. You are enrolled in this course and I know you are enterprising
C. You will be lucky if you are enterprising and you think critically
D. You will be successful either if you are hardworking or you are lucky
E. So you will be successful
b)
major Premise -You can think critically if you are enrolled to this course
minor Premise- You are enrolled in this course and I know you are enterprising
major Premise- You will be lucky if you are enterprising and you think critically
Intermediate conclusion- You will be successful either if you are hardworking or you are lucky
Conclusion-So you will be successful
The conclusion is valid because the premise corresponds to a fact seen in the real world. The
statements also follow deductively the premises propositions and the conclusion is not
redundant. The conclusion follows correct logic, it has true premises and the argument is sound.
The standard argument form used here is prepositional logic, where premises and conclusions
need each other. The prepositions and the premises in the argument are accepted as providing

THINKING CRITICALLY 3
justification or support of each other. Conclusions and premises require each other because,
either standing alone, cannot be considered a conclusion or a premise. The readers ought to see
how the main idea is supported with minor points which are ultimately convincing. One
preposition follows from the others, where the others are just points used to furnish the main
preposition (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2016)..
c)
A valid statement which has valid and strong premises. A conclusion is said to be valid when it
is in line with other arguments without any contradictions. Also, the statement has to correspond
with something in the real world, useful in practice and people believe that statement can be
used. A valid statement also has a good number if people who believe it’s true and the statements
should self-deductively follow the premises in a way that is not redundant.
Question 2
Premise- the schedule of the bus says so
Conclusion- the bus will arrive in 5 minutes
Inductive logic operates in two ways. One by confirming instances by advancing conjecture.it
operates on the contrary by disconfirming conjecture. In this scenario, every time the bus stops
as scheduled, the conjecture will be confirmed increasingly. Every time the bus does not stop as
the schedule says, the conjecture will be falsified. The rhetor, or speaker, collects different
instances which lead to a certain conclusion. This can literally be seen as accumulation of
examples in order to reach a certain conclusion (Ciurria, & Altamimi, 2014).

THINKING CRITICALLY 4
Question 3
Premise- A study in the U.K involving 10,000 14 year olds shows that brighter girls and girls
from poor families are likely to get depressed by the time they enter adolescent.
Premise- Mary is both bright and comes forma poor family
Conclusion- we should monitor her
In this case, the hypothesis that bright 14 year olds are likely to get depressed the time they get to
adolescent will advance the conjecture every time a 14 year old from a poor family becomes
depressed by 14. The conjecture will be falsified every time an adolescent does not become
depressed by the age of 14. Valid inductive arguments go beyond the premises, and it’s more of
learning from experience (Woods, & Walton, 2014)
Question 4
The fallacy in this question is argumentum ad verecundiam where the conclusion that telling a lie
is not morally wrong is drawn from the authority of how many people believe it is not morally
wrong as opposed to drawing supporting arguments as to why telling lies is not morally wrong
(Van & Van, 2011).
Question 5
This is a case of agumentum ad hominem and you too arguments fallacies. The argument assert
that since one is sleeping with someone else while in a relationship, it makes it right for them to
sleep with someone else while in a relationship. Just because one is sleeping with another person,
does not make it necessarily right for the other to sleep with a person outside the relationship.
Question 6

THINKING CRITICALLY 5
This also a classic example of circumstantial ad hominem which is classified under ad hominem
arguments, which is fallacious. The argument uses the circumstances of the one making a
statement, and not questioning the argument itself. In this case, whether a friend has smoked 2
packets of cigarettes every day for the last 40 years, is irrelevant to the claim that smoking causes
cancer and other diseases (Van et.al 2003).
Question 7
The fallacy in this case is that of questionable analogy. The conclusion that similarity of things in
one respect makes things similar in other respects makes the argument dubious. In this case
saying gay marriage should not be allowed, as marriage is between to people of two different
genders is questionable. Just because there is similarity of things in a certain respect, does not
mean that they should always be like that (Mackenzie, 1999)
Question 8
The statement in this question is not fallacious as it follows a certain syllogism, where there are
premises and conclusions creating a sound and valid argument.
Question 9
According to Collins English Dictionary, a republic is a country where people elect the president,
and the power vests with the people unlike those being ruled by kings and queens. It is a country
where the members of the public share vested interests. The biggest failing of a republic is when
the government has become weak, that they no longer have control (Walton,& Koszowy, 2014).
Question 10

THINKING CRITICALLY 6
God is defined as the supreme creator of the universe and is worshipped as the ruler and creator
of the universe. The biggest failing definition of God is that he cannot be proven, hence easily
dismissible without evidence (Godwin, 1998).
Question 11
A Racists have a platform like twitter which give people power that they have never had before.
B. the platform seems to have such powers as we see videos by such racists go viral. With the
rise of the @charlottes, there was wrong identification of people due to misleading information
on the online racists. The racists are also said to carry their sleuthing online. People also take
their racism without doing anything about it as they blow their whistles.
c. The author is correct about the rise of racism and the online increased support due to
availability of platform. The author also attributes some of the happenings to professional
journalism and that they contribute to the growth of such people. According to the author,
networks like twitter give such people platforms, giving them power as well. With twitter and
other social media platforms, the implications of political cultures around us have changed.
Information can easily be shared and disseminated and even careless comments can have
profound impact on people; there is therefore need for responsible journalism and control of how
social media operates.

THINKING CRITICALLY 7
References
Ciurria, M., & Altamimi, K. (2014). Argumentum ad verecundiam: New gender-based criteria
for
appeals to authority. Argumentation, 28(4), 437-452.
Goodwin, J. (1998). Forms of authority and the real ad verecundiam. Argumentation, 12(2), 267-
280.
Mackenzie, P. T. (1999). Ad hominem and ad verecundiam. Informal Logic, 3(3), 9-11.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2016). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies:
A
pragma-dialectical perspective. Routledge.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering:
The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. SICSAT.
Van Vleet, J. E., & Van Jacob, E. V. (2011). Informal logical fallacies: A brief guide. University
Press of America.
Walton, D., & Koszowy, M. (2014). Two kinds of arguments from authority in the ad
verecundiam
fallacy. Two Kinds of Arguments from Authority in the Ad Verecundiam Fallacy.

THINKING CRITICALLY 8
Woods, J., & Walton, D. (2014). Argumentum ad verecundiam. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 135-
153.