Charlotte Vardy
Deconstruction of Arguments AKA Critical Thinking…
Day 2 (9.15am – 12.00pm)
The Critical Path:
Deconstruction
Element
Exemplar questions
Deconstruction
Analyse and evaluate
conclusions,
arguments, reasoning
or claims
What are the different perspectives represented? Critically compare
different perspectives.
What are the key components of the argument or claim? Differentiate
between fact, argument, opinion, rant, speculation, prediction, explanation,
hypothesis, account and belief. Identify the conclusions, reasons
(premises), assumptions (stated and unstated), assertions (and counterassertions), and supporting evidence.
What are the implications of the conclusions, arguments, reasoning or
claims? Suggest the consequences of the conclusions, arguments,
reasoning or claims, in a global context.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of arguments, reasoning or
claims? Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses in the arguments,
reasoning or claims. Assess the use of analogy and identify any flaws.
Is there a valid conclusion or claim? Identify whether any evidence
gives strong or weak support to the conclusion or claim. Suggest other
evidence required to substantiate or refute claims or counterclaims.
The elements of an argument…
What is an argument?
• An argument, in Critical Thinking, is not just a
conversation in which two people hurl abuse at each
other. Neither is it the same thing as straightforward
disagreement.
• There’s a difference between arguing with someone
and merely contradicting them.
• As Monty Python’s Argument Clinic sketch puts it, an
argument is “a collected series of statements to
establish a definite proposition”, an attempt to
persuade by offering reasons.
The elements of an Argument
• Any statement that attempts to persuade you that
something is true by offering at least one reason for
thinking that it is so counts as an argument.
• The main elements of Arguments are reasons and a
conclusion.
• The ability to read a passage and pick out its conclusion
and the reasons offered in support of it is perhaps the
most basic skill required for Critical Thinking.
• As you progress to more complicated arguments, you’ll
also need to be able to spot intermediate conclusions
Reasons
• The reasons (premises) in an argument are the claims
made in an attempt to persuade you that the conclusion
is true.
• A test that can help you to identify the reasons in a
passage is the ‘because test’. Simply insert the word
“because” into the passage directly before the phrase
that you think is a reason. If the passage makes sense,
then you’ve probably got the right section. If it doesn’t,
then you haven’t.
TOP TIP
• When identifying the reasons in a passage in a written
answer, you should give direct quotations.
• If you give a rough paraphrase, then you risk changing the
claim, resulting in inaccuracy in your answer and so
opening yourself to criticism.
Conclusions…
• The conclusion of an argument is the main point that it
is trying to get you to accept. You’ll often (but not
always) find this statement either at the beginning or
the end of a passage. It may be indicated by a word
such as “therefore”, “thus”, or even “in conclusion”.
• A test that can help you to identify the conclusion of a
passage is the ‘therefore test’. Simply insert the word
“therefore” into the passage directly before the phrase
that you think is the conclusion. If the passage makes
sense, then you’ve probably got the right section. If it
doesn’t, then you haven’t.
TOP TIP
• When identifying the conclusion of a passage, you should
give a direct quotation. If you give a rough paraphrase,
then you risk changing the meaning of the phrase slightly,
and so giving an inaccurate statement of the conclusion.
This can leave you open to criticism. Even missing out a
word or two can change the meaning of the conclusion
resulting in inaccuracy in your answer. To err on the side
of caution, always quote word-for-word.
Indicator words…
• There are certain words that often indicate the presence of a
particular element of an argument.
• Conclusions are often indicated by one of the following words or
phrases: “therefore”; “thus”; “hence”; “so”; “in conclusion”;
“consequently”; “showing that”; “demonstrating that”; “proving
that”; “establishing that”; “meaning that”; “entails that”;
“implies that”; “as a result”. “Should”, “must”, and “ought to”
may also be treated as indicator words, albeit cautiously.
• Indicator words for reasons include the following: “because”;
“as”; “since”; “in order to”; “otherwise”. Sometimes authors
enumerate their reasons, writing “First, …”, “Second, …”,
“Third, …” etc., which can also help in their identification.
Example…
Parentsshould
should
control
how
children
mobile
phones.
Parents
control
how
children
use use
mobile
phones.
Firstly, in
(CONCLUSION)
many
cases children use the devices during the night, causing
them to lose sleep and be distracted from study. Secondly,
Firstly, in
many
cases
children
the devices
duringwith
the
children
tend
to use
phones
more use
frequently
than adults,
night, causing
to lose
fromper
study.
studies
showing them
that they
maysleep
send and
up tobe
80distracted
SMS messages
(REASON
1)significant cost implications. Finally, the health risks
day.
This has
associated with prolonged usage are still unknown, particularly in
Secondly, since children tend to use phones more frequently
relation to developing bodies.
than adults (with studies showing that they may send up to 80
SMS messages per day) there are often significant cost
implications. (REASON 2)
Finally, the health risks associated with prolonged usage are
still unknown, particularly in relation to developing bodies.
(REASON 3)
Intermediate Conclusions
•
An intermediate conclusion is something in an argument that
functions both as a reason and as a conclusion. To function as a
reason, it must offer support to the main conclusion of the
argument (or to another intermediate conclusion). To function as a
conclusion, there must be something else in the argument that
lends it support.
•
“Your face is covered in chocolate, so it must have been you that
ate my cake, so you owe me a cake.” The main conclusion of this
argument is the final clause: “You owe me a cake.” This is
supported by the previous clause, which is therefore functioning as
a reason, “it must have been you that ate my cake.” This clause,
though, is also supported by the previous clause, “Your face is
covered in chocolate”, so it is both a conclusion and a reason; it is
an intermediate conclusion.
Assumptions…
• An assumption is an unstated reason. It is something that must
be true for an argument to work, but which is not explicitly
stated in the argument.
• For example, the argument “The college address is the same
street as I’m standing on; therefore, the college must be
nearby” assumes that the street isn’t very long. If the street is
long, then the college could be on it but still miles away.
Counter-arguments
• A counter-argument is an argument that goes against the
author’s main conclusion. Typically, counter-arguments are
considered and rejected in an attempt to strengthen the
author’s case.
• For example, “If Superman and Spiderman had a fight, then
Superman would win as his ability to fly would mean he could
attack from any angle. You might think that Spiderman’s
ability to hurl webs (a ranged weapon) would give him the
edge, but Superman would be manoeuvrable enough to dodge
them.”
Group Work (1)
• In groups of 3, read the article on Bob Geldof and try to
identify the arguments within it…
• Look for…
 Conclusions and Intermediate Conclusions
 Reasons (Premises)
 Assumptions
 Counter-arguments
Briefly weigh up the arguments made, considering their
strengths and weaknesses and how you might respond to
the article.
Types of Argument
Deductive or Inductive?
Deductive Arguments
• Deductive arguments rely on their pattern and the logical
relationship between the terms alone; if the premises are
true the conclusion could not be false – it is NECESSARILY
TRUE and constitutes formally strong evidence.
• An example of a deductive argument is “A bachelor is an
unmarried man: Peter is an unmarried man and therefore he
must be a bachelor”, another example is “a=2 and b=3,
therefore a+b=5.”
• A deductive argument with the right form is considered to
be valid, regardless of the truth of the premises. When the
premises are in fact true and the argument is valid, then we
call it sound.
Inductive Arguments
•
All other arguments are considered to be inductive –
•
Inductive arguments work because of the actual information in
the premises: if the premises are true the conclusion is not likely
to be false.
•
An example of an inductive argument could be “all the swans
surveyed in Europe between 1650 and 1700 were white, therefore
it is probable that all swans are white.”
•
It is always possible that an inductive argument is wrong (the
evidence may always be incomplete or misleading) and therefore
it provides only formally weak evidence
•
Confusingly, Inductive arguments are sometimes described as
strong (the conclusion is more likely to be true because of support
provided by the premises) or as weak. When an inductively strong
argument does have true premises, we call it cogent.
Key Point
• The difference is between deductive and inductive
arguments is really between certainty (we can be
sure the conclusion is correct) and probability (we
can bet on the conclusion being correct).
• It is worth noting that deductive arguments don’t
typically tell us very much – but inductive arguments
are less reliable and open to a greater range of
criticisms.
• NB: In most cases, the arguments students will
encounter as part of the Seminar Course will be
INDUCTIVE.
Logical Fallacies &
Evaluating Evidence
The Credibility of Evidence…
• The first step in evaluating an argument is to identify
the evidence or reasons upon which the conclusion
relies and to ask whether they are credible,
appropriate & complete/sufficient
Criteria of Credibility (RAVEN)
• R = Reputation (Does the source’s history or status
suggest reliability or unreliability?
• A = Ability to See (Is the source in a position to know
what they’re talking about?
• V = Vested Interest (Has the source of information
anything personally at stake?)
• E = Expertise (Does the source have specialised
knowledge & does the situation demand it?)
• N = Neutrality (Is the source predisposed to support a
particular point of view for reasons other than vested
interest)
Lies, damn lies and…
• When presented with observational evidence (e.g. data or
statistics) to support a claim, we need to be wary. If we are
told “A study has shown that…” then we should think twice
before we accept the conclusion that is drawn from it.
• The most basic mistake in interpreting evidence is simply
misrepresenting the data - deliberate distortion (i.e. making
up evidence), accidental misinterpretation, and selectivity.
• A more common error is drawing a conclusion from insufficient
data. Every study has a margin of error and the smaller the
study the greater this will be.
• A constant danger in empirical studies is unrepresentative
data. A study that has a sufficient quantity of data may
nevertheless be flawed due to insufficient quality of evidence.
The camera never lies…?
• Images are often offered as concrete proof that a claim is
true. However, there are three criteria that you need to bear
in mind: relevance, significance, and selectivity.
• For an image to support a claim, it must depict all of the key
ideas contained in the claim. It doesn’t relate to any part of a
claim, then it can’t prove the claim.
• You must ask how much interpretation of the image is
necessary; does the image speak for itself, or must we make
assumptions about it in order for it to support the claim?
• You must ask how representative the image is. You must ask
whether the example in the image is typical. It may be that it
has been carefully selected to support a point, when actually
most examples would go against it.
Analogies…
• Arguments may use analogies.
• For example, a common argument for the existence of God
suggests that if people recognise the existence of a designer
from signs of complexity, order and purpose in a man-made
object such as a watch, how much more should they recognise
the existence of a Creator given the existence of greater
degrees of complexity, apparent order and seeming purpose in
the natural world?
• Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison between two cases.
They examine a known case, and extend their findings there to
an unknown case. The argument is only as strong as that
comparison. If the two cases are dissimilar in important
respects, then the argument commits the weak analogy fallacy.
Logical Fallacies
• People often rely on faulty or fallacious arguments when
making a case.
• The mark of a faulty argument is when the reasons do not
directly support the conclusion given.
• Some fallacies are very common, even persuasive, and are
often employed by Politicians and Advertising Agencies to
make a point, perhaps where no very strong argument
exists…
• Let us consider some of the most common logical fallacies…
1) Ad Hominem (AKA getting personal…)
• Latin for “against the man”.
• The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the
person offering an argument rather than the argument
itself.
• Ad hominems can simply take the form of abuse (e.g.
“don’t listen to him, he’s a jerk”) but any attack on
irrelevant biographical details of the arguer rather than on
his argument counts as an ad hominem, e.g.

“that article must be rubbish as it wasn’t published in a peerreviewed journal”;

“his claim must be false as he has no relevant expertise”;

“he says that we should get more exercise but he could stand to
lose a few pounds himself”.
2) Appeal to Authority
• an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by
citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is
true.
• In all cases, appeals to authority are fallacious; no matter
how well-respected someone is, it is possible for them to
make a mistake.
• The worst kinds of appeal to authority are those where the
alleged authority isn’t an authority on the subject matter in
question.
• Take, for example “Darwin’s theory of evolution is false; my
pastor says so.” A pastor saying that a complex scientific
theory is false doesn’t prove that it’s so, particularly if the
pastor lacks a background in science.
3) Appeal to History
1. The first type of appeal to history is committed by
arguments that use past cases as a guide to the
future. This is the predictive appeal to history
fallacy…

Just because something has been the case to
date, doesn’t mean that it will continue to be
the case. This is not to say that we can’t use
the past as a guide to the future, merely that
predictions of the future based on the past
need to be treated with caution.
3. Appeal to History
2. The second type of appeal to history is committed
when it is argued that because something has been
done a particular way in the past, it ought to be
done that way in the future. This is the normative
appeal to history fallacy, the appeal to tradition…

The way that things have always been done is not
necessarily the best way to do them. It may be that
circumstances have changed, and that what used to be best
practice is no longer. Alternatively, it may be that people
have been consistently getting it wrong in the past. In
either case, using history as a model for future would be a
mistake.
4. Appeal to Popularity
• The fallacy of arguing that because lots of people
believe something it must be true.
• Popular opinion is not always a good guide to truth;
even ideas that are widely accepted can be false.
• Take, for example, “Pretty much everyone believes in
some kind of higher power, be it God or something
else. Therefore atheism is false.”
5. Circular Arguments
• Circular arguments are arguments that assume what
they’re trying to prove. If the conclusion of an argument is
also one of its reasons, then the argument is circular.
• The problem with arguments of this kind is that they don’t
get you anywhere. If you already believe the reasons offered
to persuade you that the conclusion is true, then you
already believe that the conclusion is true, so there’s no
need to try to convince you. If, on the other hand, you don’t
already believe that the conclusion is true, then you won’t
believe the reasons given in support of it, so won’t be
convinced by the argument.
• E.g. “You can trust me; I wouldn’t lie to you.”
6. Necessary or Sufficient Conditions
• Some arguments confuse necessary and sufficient conditions.
Such arguments fail to prove their conclusions.
• Take, for example, “People who don’t practice regularly always
fail music exams. I’ve practiced regularly though, so I’ll be all
right.”
• Not having practiced regularly may be a sufficient condition for
failing a music exam, but it isn’t necessary. People who have
practiced regularly may fail anyway.
 Necessary conditions are conditions which must be fulfilled in order
for an event to come about.
 Sufficient conditions are conditions which would explain an event,
but which do not guarantee it.
7. Correlation not Causation
• “Post hoc”, hasty generalisation or false cause…
• committed when one reasons that just because two things
are found together (i.e. are correlated) there must be a
direct causal connection between them.
• Often arguments of this kind seem compelling, but it’s
important to consider other possible explanations before
concluding that one thing must have caused the other.
• Take, for example, “Since you started seeing that girl your
grades have gone down. She’s obviously been distracting you
from your work, so you mustn’t see her anymore.”
8. Inconsistency
• An argument is inconsistent if makes two or more
contradictory claims.
• If an argument is inconsistent, then we don’t have to
accept its conclusion because if claims are
contradictory, then at least one of them must be false.
• An argument that rests on contradictory claims must
rest on at least one false claim, and arguments that
rest on false claims prove nothing – even if we haven’t
established which claim is false.
8. Inconsistency (2)
 Take for example “Murder is the worst crime that
there is. Life is precious; no human being should take
it away. That’s why it’s important that we go to any
length necessary to deter would-be killers, including
arming the police to the teeth and retaining the
death penalty.”
 This argument both affirms that no human being
should take the life of another, and that we should
retain the death penalty. Until this inconsistency is
ironed out of the argument, it won’t be compelling.
9. Specific to General
• Arguments often use specific cases to support general
conclusions.
• For example, we might do a quick survey of footballers, note
that each of the examples we’ve considered is vain and egocentric, and conclude that they all are.
• In order for a set of evidence to support a general conclusion,
the evidence must meet certain conditions (it must be drawn
from a sufficient number of cases, and the specific cases must
be representative.)
• Arguments that base conclusions on insufficient evidence
commit the generalisation fallacy.
• For example “Smoking isn’t bad for you; my grandad smoked
thirty a day for his whole life and lived to be 92.”
10. Restricting the Options
• Arguments which fail to consider all of the options, commit
the restricting the options fallacy.
• For example, “Many gifted children from working class
backgrounds are let down by the education system. Parents
have a choice between paying sky-high fees to send their
children to private schools, and the more affordable option of
sending their children to inferior state schools. Parents who
can’t afford to pay private school fees are left with state
schools as the only option. This means that children with
great potential are left languishing”.
• This argument fails to take into account all of the options
available to parents. For the brightest students, scholarships
are available to make private school more affordable, along
with other options such as home-schooling…
11. Slippery Slope
• The slippery slope fallacy is committed by arguments that
reason that because the last link in the chain is undesirable,
the first link is equally undesirable.
• This type of argument is not always fallacious. If the first
event will necessarily lead to the undesirable chain of
consequences, then there is nothing wrong with inferring that
we ought to steer clear of it. However, if it is possible to have
the first event without the rest, then the slippery slope fallacy
is committed.
 For example “If one uses sound judgement, then it can
occasionally be safe to exceed the speed limit. However, we must
clamp down on speeding, because when people break the law it
becomes a habit, and escalates out of control. For this reason, we
should take a zero-tolerance approach to speeding, and stop
people before they reach dangerous levels.”
12. Straw Man
• Straw Man arguments are arguments that misrepresent a
position in order to refute it. Unfortunately, adopting this
strategy means that only the misrepresentation of the
position is refuted; the real position is left untouched by
the argument.
• For example, “Christianity teaches that as long as you say
‘Sorry’ afterwards, it doesn’t matter what you do. Even the
worst moral crimes can be quickly and easily erased by
simply uttering a word. This is absurd. Even if a sinner does
apologise for what they’ve done, the effects of their sin
are often here to stay. For example, if someone repents of
infanticide, that doesn’t bring the infant back to life.
Christians are clearly out of touch with reality.”
13. And you too…
• “Tu quoque” is Latin for “you too”.
• The tu quoque fallacy involves reasoning that because
someone or everyone else does something, it’s okay for us
to do it. This, of course, doesn’t follow.
• Sometimes other people have short-comings, and we ought
to do better than them. We can be blamed for emulating
other people’s faults.
• For example “It doesn’t matter that I occasionally break
the speed limit; everyone else does it.”
Group Activities (3)
• In tables of 6 return to the Bob Geldof article given out
for the first activity. Consider the credibility of the
evidence it cites and highlight the presence of any
logical fallacies.
• During this 5 minute discussion each group will be given
one common fallacy to work on. Once you receive it
you should consider how to present it to students in the
most stimulating and memorable way. This will involve
finding or devising an example and then presenting it
effectively! You have a maximum of 15 minutes.
Summing Up…
Deconstruction Deconstructed
Deconstructing Arguments for GPR
Element
Exemplar questions
Deconstruction
Analyse and evaluate
conclusions,
arguments, reasoning
or claims
What are the different perspectives represented? Critically compare
different perspectives.
What are the key components of the argument or claim? Differentiate
between fact, argument, opinion, rant, speculation, prediction, explanation,
hypothesis, account and belief. Identify the conclusions, reasons
(premises), assumptions (stated and unstated), assertions (and counterassertions), and supporting evidence.
What are the implications of the conclusions, arguments, reasoning or
claims? Suggest the consequences of the conclusions, arguments,
reasoning or claims, in a global context.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of arguments, reasoning or
claims? Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses in the arguments,
reasoning or claims. Assess the use of analogy and identify any flaws.
Is there a valid conclusion or claim? Identify whether any evidence
gives strong or weak support to the conclusion or claim. Suggest other
evidence required to substantiate or refute claims or counterclaims.
Taking a step back…
• Deconstruction for GPR is NOT JUST Critical
Thinking.
• It also requires students to take a step back,
weigh up the range of perspectives and their
broader implications.
Different Perspectives
• When presented with an argument, try asking…
 What is the background of the author and what context was the
argument developed within?
 How has the argument been shaped by background and context?
 Would the argument differ if it was put forward by somebody
else or for a different purpose?
 Have culture, religion, politics or other beliefs (including
gender) shaped or impacted the argument?
 Are the weaknesses of the argument been dictated by any of
these factors?
Implications…
• Students also need to reflect on the wider significance of
each perspective and the existence of different
perspectives.
 What does the existence of this perspective mean for social
cohesion, future politics or progress on a particular project?
 Do the conclusions reached have a wider (global, social,
economic) significance?
 Do the reasons cited support other or additional conclusions?
 Is there a significant lack of evidence, knowledge or
understanding in some area?
 Is the fact that such reasoning persuades some people
potentially worrying?
Beginning to develop counter-arguments…
• This is, of course, the first step in beginning the
process of reconstruction.
• Establishing the nature and features of the
perspective presented enables student(s) to construct
an alternative perspective, which may be a foil for
the partiality and weaknesses of the argument
presented.
Are there argument(s)? What type? What are the
reasons and the conclusion(s)
Are the reasons/evidence presented credible and
sufficient?
Are the argument(s) fallacious? Are the
conclusion(s) properly supported?
What perspective is represented? Are alternate
perspectives possible? What are they?
What is the wider significance of this argument,
these reasons /conclusions and the diversity of
perspectives existing and/or possible on this issue?