Skip to main content

Introduction

In the previous chapters, we got to know the basics of critical thinking. Now we turn to a central question: What is a good argument?

In the next part, we will then get to know the most important logical elements.

Argument and argumentation​

  • We use arguments in everyday life or in discussions to justify our views, to back up our positions, and to convince other people.
  • Argumentations are mostly dialogues in which we put forward reasons (arguments) to support a claim.
  • Premises: The statements (views, opinions) that we put forward to support our conclusion are our reasons, our arguments, or the premises of our argumentation.
    • The dialogue partners should consider the premises to be true.
    • All reasons (premises) can be accepted or rejected.
  • Conclusion: The claim that we are trying to support, that we hold to be true, and that is in principle contestable. It becomes the conclusion of our argumentation.
  • Sometimes we argue cooperatively, in order to find the best solution together.
Example

Example of a cooperative argumentation

  • Hans: So which phone provider are you with?
  • Lotte: With Budget-Tel.
  • Hans: And are you happy with the service? (What are your reasons?)
  • Lotte: They have free texts and enough mobile data for a good price. (Reason one and two, etc.)
  • Sometimes we want to talk someone round, by changing their opinion and showing them that there is a better way.
Example

Example of a persuasive argumentation with reasons

  • Hans: Are you still with Dirty-Energy Ltd?
  • Lotte: Of course, for years now, and I'm going to stay.
  • Hans: But now there's EasyGreen. They're cheap, use only renewable energy, and are a local cooperative. (Reason one, reason two, ...)
  • Lotte: I don't care about the environment, but cheap and local sounds good — show me. (Reasons are rejected or accepted)
  • Often, though, we tend to use emotions such as fear or hope to talk people round or to convince them.
Example

Example of a persuasive argumentation with emotions

  • Hans: We have to spend more on defense.
  • Lotte: Why?
  • Hans: Otherwise Putin's army will soon be in Europe.
  • Sometimes we argue against each other, as often happens in politics.
Example

Example of an adversarial argumentation

  • Hans: The government wants to raise the inheritance tax. Isn't that terrible?
  • Lotte: That you don't like it, with your three houses, I can understand — but I think it's right.
  • Hans: Why on earth? It's always those who work hard who get punished. I want to leave something to my children, not give it away to the freeloaders.
  • Lotte: Taxes are redistribution; without them there would be no social justice.
  • Hans: Too much tax kills the tax. If this goes on, I'll move to the USA.
  • Mostly we want to show that we are not doing or deciding something mindlessly, but that we are going about it with good reasons. \We're not stupid, after all.
  • So we always have something that we believe and want to justify, and that something is: the inference, the conclusion.

Overview of the chapter​

Good and bad arguments​

The ability to distinguish good arguments from bad ones is a core competency of critical thinking and helps us to make well-founded decisions and to protect ourselves from manipulation.

We clarify criteria such as the relevance of the reasons, the truth or defensibility of the premises, and their logical support towards the conclusion.
You learn to recognize typical fallacies and to examine sound arguments systematically.
Short examples show how to make better decisions in everyday life and protect yourself against manipulation.

Rhetoric vs. argumentation​

This chapter distinguishes between rhetorical persuasion and argumentative justification. We show how emotions, stylistic devices, and framing work, and when they support or replace arguments.
You learn to recognize persuasive techniques critically and, in fair debates, to keep the priority on good reasons. Pointers on ethical communication help you to argue convincingly and transparently at the same time.

Formal and informal reasoning​

We clarify the difference between the formal rules of inference of logic and informal reasoning in natural language.
You find out when formal structures are necessary and when pragmatic plausibility checks suffice. The strengths and weaknesses of both approaches are contrasted, including typical sources of error. The goal is to choose, in each case, the checking strategy that fits the situation.

Patterns of valid arguments​

Here you get to know classic valid inference patterns, such as modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical chains, and disjunctive inferences.
We practice recognizing these patterns in everyday arguments and building our own reasoning on them. We also show common invalid patterns and how you can avoid them. Short exercises consolidate recognizing and applying the structures.

Hidden assumptions​

Many arguments contain implicit premises, background assumptions, or tacit presuppositions.
This chapter shows questioning techniques with which you make such assumptions visible and examine them. You learn to close gaps in the reasoning or to revise problematic assumptions. In this way you increase the transparency and quality of your argumentation.

A little more precisely: definitions​

Finally, we make the central terms more precise: argument, premise, conclusion, validity, and soundness.
We explain why clean definitions avoid misunderstandings and provide clear standards of assessment. Examples show how these terms are applied in practice in analyses and debates. The chapter creates a shared vocabulary for the following parts.