PHIL102: Logic and Critical Thinking « Saylor.org – Free Online Courses Built by Professors

This course is currently being improved through our peer review process.

Logic and Critical Thinking

Purpose of Course show close

This course provides an introduction to critical thinking, informal logic, and a small amount of formal logic. Its purpose is to provide students with the basic tools of analytical reasoning, which will give them a distinctive edge in a wide variety of careers and courses of study. While many university courses focus on the presentation of content knowledge, the emphasis here is on learning how to think effectively. Although the techniques and concepts covered here are classified as “philosophical,” they are essential to the practice of nearly every major discipline, from the physical sciences and medicine to politics, law, and the humanities. The course touches upon a wide range of reasoning skills, from verbal argument analysis to formal logic, visual and statistical reasoning, scientific methodology, and creative thinking. Mastering these will help students become more perceptive readers and listeners, more persuasive writers and presenters, and more effective researchers and scientists. The first unit introduces the terrain of critical thinking and covers the basics of meaning analysis, while the second unit provides a primer in analyzing arguments. All of the material in these first units will be built upon in subsequent units, which cover informal and formal logic, Venn diagrams, scientific reasoning, as well as strategic and creative thinking. The final unit in the course is an exercise in applied critical thinking, and it introduces the special problem of evaluating arguments about values and morality.

Learning Outcomes show close

Upon successful completion of this course, students will be able to:

Understand what critical thinking is and why it is valuable.
Distinguish between good and bad definitions, recognize the differences between explicit and implicit meaning, and remove ambiguities of meaning from unclearly worded statements.
Recognize arguments in writing, pick out good and bad arguments by their form, and construct sound arguments of their own.
Diagnose the most common reasoning errors and fallacies, as well as identify ways of improving them.
Understand the basics of sentential and predicate logic and gain practice manipulating meaning symbolically.
Understand the rudiments of scientific methodology and reasoning.
Evaluate arguments that rely on specific types of visual representation.
Understand the basics of strategic reasoning and problem solving.
Understand the particular challenges involved in reasoning about values and morality.
Diagnose fallacies and evaluate arguments about values and morality.

Course Requirements show close

In order to take this course you must:

√    Have access to a computer.

√    Have continuous broadband Internet access.

√    Have the ability/permission to install plug-ins or software (e.g., Adobe Reader or Flash).

√    Have the ability to download and save files and documents to a computer.

√    Have the ability to open Microsoft files and documents (.doc, .ppt, .xls, etc.).

√    Be competent in the English language.

√    Have read the Saylor Student Handbook.

Unit Outline show close

1 Introduction and Meaning Analysis
1.1 Introduction to Critical Thinking
1.1.1 Basic Overview of Critical Thinking
1.1.2 The Nature and Value of Critical Thinking
1.2 Meaning Analysis
1.2.1 The Elements of Meaning
1.2.2 Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
1.2.3 Thinking Critically about Ordinary Language

2 Argument Analysis
2.1 The Nature of Arguments
2.1.1 What Arguments Are
2.1.2 How to Tell an Argument from a Non-Argument
2.2 Good Argument Form
2.2.1 Validity and Soundness
2.2.2 More about Good Argument Form
2.2.3 Putting the Pieces Together
2.2.4 Visualizing How Arguments Work
2.2.5 Analogical Arguments
2.2.6 Symbolizing Valid Arguments

3 Fallacies
3.1 Introduction to Fallacies
3.1.1 Fallacy Basics
3.1.2 Inductive and Deductive Fallacies
3.2 Types of Fallacies
3.2.1 A Basic Typology of Fallacies
3.2.2 Accounting for Common Fallacies
3.2.3 Identifying Fallacies
3.3 Fallacies in Detail
3.3.1 Fallacious Appeals
3.3.2 Fallacious Generalizations
3.3.3 Ad Hominem Attacks
3.3.4 Post-Hoc Reasoning
3.3.5 Shifting the Burden of Proof
3.3.6 The Straw Man Fallacy
3.3.7 Circular Reasoning
3.3.8 False Dilemmas
3.3.9 The Unfair Fallacy

4 Basic Sentential Logic
4.1 Logic Basics
4.1.1 What Logic Is (And What It Is Not)
4.1.2 Logical Statements and a Few Basic Concepts
4.1.3 Logic is Fun!
4.2 A Little Bit of Formal Logic
4.2.1 About Formal Logic Systems and How to Write Sentences in SL
4.2.2 Introduction to Truth Tables
4.2.3 How to Draw Truth-Tables for More Complicated Statements
4.2.4 Properties of Individual WFFs and Relations between Them
4.2.5 Understanding Truth-Tables
4.2.6 How to Translate Ordinary Statements into Symbolic Formulae
4.2.7 Formalization Practice
4.2.8 Two Methods for Determining the Validity of an Argument
4.2.9 Why Sentential Logic Is Not Enough

5 Venn Diagrams
5.1 Introduction to Venn Diagrams
5.1.1 Venn Diagrams as Illustrations of “Sets” or “Classes”
5.1.2 More Complicated Venn Diagrams
5.1.3 Illustrating Existence with Venn Diagrams
5.2 Venn Diagrams and Arguments
5.2.1 Using Venn Diagrams to Evaluate Syllogisms
5.2.2 Understanding the Logic of Venn Diagrams (and Extra Practice)
5.2.3 The Limitations of Venn Diagrams

6 Scientific Reasoning
6.1 Basic Principles of Scientific Reasoning
6.1.1 The Method of Scientific Reasoning
6.1.2 The Scientific Method, Explained by a Scientist
6.1.3 Scientific Reasoning and Inductive Arguments
6.1.4 What Makes One Scientific Theory Better than Another
6.2 The Question of Causality
6.2.1 Causality Basics
6.2.2 Five Ways to Identify a Cause
6.2.3 Causality is More Than Just Cause and Effect
6.2.4 The Difference between Causation and Correlation
6.2.5 Ways of Representing Cause and Effect
6.2.6 Fallacies about Causation
6.2.7 Evaluating Causal Arguments

7 Strategic Reasoning and Creativity
7.1 Strategic Reasoning
7.1.1 Problem Solving Begins with Understanding the Problem
7.1.2 A Technique for Problem Solving
7.1.3 Working with Complex Problems
7.1.4 Visual Tools for Strategic Reasoning
7.1.5 Basic Decision Theory
7.2 Creative Thinking
7.2.1 Three Principles of Creative Thinking
7.2.2 A Four Step Cycle for Creative Thinking
7.2.3 Heuristics for Creative Thinking and Some Quotations

8 Critical Thinking in Practice: Reasoning about Values and Morality
8.1 The Nature of Moral Values
8.1.1 The Difference between Facts and Values
8.1.2 Intrinsic Versus Instrumental Values
8.1.3 The Relation of God to Morality
8.2 Reasoning about Morality
8.2.1 Moral Absolutism and Moral Contextualism
8.2.2 Moral Relativism
8.2.3 The Contemporary Debate about Moral Relativism
8.2.4 Reflective Equilibrium: Mediating between Intuitions and Principles
8.2.5 Analogical Reasoning about Morality
8.2.6 Utility and Rights in Moral Arguments
8.2.7 Different Types of Rights

9 Final Exam

Expand All Resources Collapse All Resources

Unit 1: Introduction and Meaning Analysis

Critical thinking is a broad classification for a diverse array of reasoning techniques. In general, critical thinking works by breaking arguments and claims down to their basic underlying structure, so we can see them clearly and determine whether they are rational. The idea is to help us do a better job of understanding and evaluating what we read, what we hear, and what we ourselves write and say.

In this unit, we will define the broad contours of critical thinking and learn why it is a valuable and useful object of study. We will also introduce the fundamentals of meaning analysis: the difference between literal meaning and implication, the principles of definition, how to identify when a disagreement is merely verbal, the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, and problems with the imprecision of ordinary language.

1.1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

1.1.1 Basic Overview of Critical Thinking

Web Media: YouTube: QualiaSoup’s “Critical Thinking”(YouTube) Video
Link: YouTube: QualiaSoup’s “Critical Thinking” (YouTube) Video

Instructions: Watch this video for a basic sense of what critical thinking is and why it is important.

Note on the Media: This video is a creation of the video artist and blogger QualiaSoup and is accessible through YouTube.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

1.1.2 The Nature and Value of Critical Thinking

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Introduction: About Critical Thinking;” “Tutorial C01: What Is Critical Thinking and Why Is It Important?”, and “Tutorial C02: How to Improve Critical Thinking”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Introduction: About Critical Thinking;”(PDF), “Tutorial C01: What Is Critical Thinking and Why Is It Important?”(PDF), and “Tutorial C02: How to Improve Critical Thinking”(PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Introduction)
HTML (Tutorial C01)
HTML (Tutorial C02)

Instructions: Read this brief introduction and the two tutorials that follow it in their entirety. In reading the section entitled “Why Study Critical Thinking?” in the C01 tutorial, it will be helpful to take some time to compare the reasons presented with your own goals as a student, as well as your future career and life goals.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0(HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML)
See a broken link? Please let us know!

1.2 Meaning Analysis

1.2.1 The Elements of Meaning

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professors Joe Lau and Jonathan Chan’s “Introduction: Meaning Analysis;” “Tutorial M01: Understanding Literal Meaning;” “Tutorial M02: Using and Evaluating Definitions;” and “Tutorial M03: Verbal Disputes”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professors Joe Lau and Jonathan Chan’s “Introduction: Meaning Analysis;”(PDF) “Tutorial M01: Understanding Literal Meaning;”(PDF) “Tutorial M02: Using and Evaluating Definitions;”(PDF) and “Tutorial M03: Verbal Disputes”(PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Introduction)
HTML (Tutorial M01)
HTML (Tutorial M02)
HTML (Tutorial M03)

Instructions: Read each of these tutorials on the nature of linguistic meaning, the different types of definitions, the difference between literal meaning and conversational implicature, and the difference between verbal and factual disputes. Also, try to complete the exercises on the webpage to enhance your critical thinking skills and understanding of meaning.

Note on the Text: While meaning may not seem like the sort of thing that needs explaining, the ways in which it is produced, both in speech and in writing, can lead to confusion and thus warrant close examination. These tutorials are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Assessment: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Evaluating Definitions”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Evaluating Definitions” (PDF), Answer Key (PDF)

Instructions: Practice evaluating definitions with this multiple choice quiz.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

1.2.2 Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial M04: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial M04: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions”(HTML)

Instructions: Read this tutorial about how to determine whether a condition is necessary or sufficient, and how to express these properties in writing. Be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: Phenomena in the world are related to one another in all sorts of complicated ways. Sometimes we can say very generally whether one thing is necessary for something else, or whether it is merely sufficient. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.”
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Assessment: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Exercise: Different Types of Necessity”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Exercise: Different Types of Necessity” (PDF), Answer Key (PDF).

Instructions: Please take this multiple choice quiz.

Note on the Assessment: This quiz will test your knowledge of the differences between logical, causal, and legal necessity.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

1.2.3 Thinking Critically about Ordinary Language

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial M05: Linguistic Pitfalls—Obscurity;” “Tutorial M06: Linguistic Pitfalls—Distortion;” and “Tutorial M07: Linguistic Pitfalls—Empty Content”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial M05: Linguistic Pitfalls—Obscurity;”(PDF) “Tutorial M06: Linguistic Pitfalls—Distortion;”(PDF) and “Tutorial M07: Linguistic Pitfalls—Empty Content”(PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Tutorial M05)
HTML (Tutorial M06)
HTML (Tutorial M07)

Instructions: Read each of these tutorials, which identify common ways in which language can lead us astray. Please try the exercises at the end of each tutorial.

Note on the Text: Thinking needs to be precise and clear, but the language we use to express it is often imprecise and misleading. These tutorials are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0(HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

Unit 2: Argument Analysis

Arguments are the fundamental components of all rational discourse. Nearly everything we read and write—scientific reports, newspaper columns, personal letters, and most of our verbal conversations as well—contains arguments. Picking them out from the rest of our (often messy) discourse can be difficult though. Once we have identified an argument, we still need to determine whether or not it is sound. Luckily, arguments obey a set of formal rules, which we can use to determine whether they are good or bad. In this unit, we will learn how to identify arguments, what makes an argument sound (as opposed to unsound or merely valid), the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, and how to map arguments to reveal their structure.

2.1 The Nature of Arguments

2.1.1 What Arguments Are

Lecture: iTunes U: University of Oxford: Professor Marianne Talbot’s “The Nature of Arguments” Lecture
Link: iTunes U: University of Oxford: Professor Marianne Talbot’s “The Nature of Arguments”Lecture (iTunes U)

Instructions: Watch this conversational video lecture, which introduces the concept of an argument.

Note on the Media: Marianne Talbot is Lecturer in Philosophy at Oxford University. This lecture is accessible through iTunes U.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

2.1.2 How to Tell an Argument from a Non-Argument

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A01: Identifying Arguments”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A01: Identifying Arguments” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial in its entirety. Please be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: This tutorial, which explains how to identify an argument by picking out its components, is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

2.2 Good Argument Form

2.2.1 Validity and Soundness

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A02: Validity and Soundness” and “Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A02: Validity and Soundness” (PDF), and “Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Tutorial A02)
HTML (Tutorial A03)

Instructions: Read these tutorials on the distinction between valid and sound arguments, their relationship to the truth of the statements that make them up, and the structural patterns that help us to recognize them. Please be sure to complete all of the exercises on each page. The answer keys are available here (A02) and here (A03).

Note on the Text: Validity and soundness are two of the most important concepts in the study of arguments, and these are often confused with one another. These tutorials are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Assessment: Lander University: Professor Lee C. Archie’s “Introduction to Logic Quiz: Truth, Validity, and Soundness”
Link: Lander University: Professor Lee C. Archie’s “Introduction to Logic Quiz: Truth, Validity, and Soundness” (PDF), Answer Key (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Please answer each question in this true/false quiz.

Note on the Assessment: This true/false quiz tests your knowledge of the distinction between valid and sound arguments. A pop-up window will open indicating whether you got the answer correct or not, as well as an explanation why. This quiz is accessible through Lander University’s website linked here.

Terms of Use: The material linked above is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (HTML). It is attributed to (copyright holder) and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

2.2.2 More about Good Argument Form

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A04: Identifying Hidden Assumptions;” “Tutorial A05: Inductive Reasoning;” and “Tutorial A06: Good Arguments”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A04: Identifying Hidden Assumptions;” (PDF) “Tutorial A05: Inductive Reasoning;” (PDF) and “Tutorial A06: Good Arguments” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Tutorial A04)
HTML (Tutorial A05)
HTML (Tutorial A06)

Instructions: Please read each tutorial in its entirety. Try to complete all of the exercises on each webpage. The answer key to Tutorial A04 is available here.

Note on the Text: When arguments are stated verbally or in writing, their structure may not be completely explicit. The first tutorial here provides clues about how to identify hidden assumptions. The second tutorial introduces the important concept of induction. Inductive arguments form a whole second class of arguments, alongside deductive ones, and will be important in our unit on scientific reasoning later on. The third tutorial puts together a number of the ideas laid out so far in order to describe the characteristics of a good argument. These tutorials are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Lecture: iTunes U: University of Oxford: Professor Marianne Talbot’s “Different Types of Arguments” Lecture
Link: iTunes U: University of Oxford: Professor Marianne Talbot’s “Different Types of Arguments”Lecture (iTunes U)

Instructions: Watch this entire Lecture (1:10:57).

Note on the Media: Marianne Talbot is Lecturer in Philosophy at Oxford University. This lecture, which is about the difference between deductive and inductive arguments, may be accessed through iTunes U.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

2.2.3 Putting the Pieces Together

Lecture: The University of California, San Diego: Professor Rick Grush’s “Arguments, Statements, and Recursion” Lecture
Link: The University of California, San Diego: Professor Rick Grush’s “Arguments, Statements, and Recursion” Lecture (Quicktime)

Instructions: Watch this Lecture (56:22 minutes) for an alternative illustration of how to tell arguments from non-arguments, a breakdown of the different types of arguments, and the function of statements within an argument.

Note on the Lecture: The concept of recursion, introduced at the end of the lecture, is not important for our purposes in this course. Rick Grush is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego. This video is linked through his website.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

2.2.4 Visualizing How Arguments Work

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A07: Argument Mapping”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A07: Argument Mapping” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial about how to construct an argument map. Please be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: Argument maps are a way of representing the logical structure of an argument visually. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Reading: Austhink’s “Argument Mapping Tutorials”
Link: Austhink’s “Argument Mapping Tutorials” (HTML)

Instructions: This reading is optional. For an alternative explanation of argument mapping read tutorials 1 and 2 and complete the exercises for additional practice. For an illustration of how complex argument maps can become, read tutorials 3 and 4. Reading each tutorial will require you to click through multiple links on the right hand side of the page.

Note on the Text: These tutorials are accessible through the website of Austhink Software Pty Ltd, a company that creates software for mapping complex arguments.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

2.2.5 Analogical Arguments

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A08: Analogical Arguments”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A08: Analogical Arguments” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this entire tutorial. Please be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage. The answer key is available here.

Note on the Text: Arguments that are based on analogies have certain inherent weaknesses. This tutorial will help you find out how analogical arguments are structured, as well as the most common ways in which they may be undermined. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Web Media: YouTube: OnlinePhilosophy’s “Arguments from Analogy” Video
Link: YouTube: OnlinePhilosophy’s “Arguments from Analogy” (YouTube) Video

Instructions: Watch this video for an example of an analogical argument in practice, and a breakdown of the formal characteristics that all good analogical arguments possess.

Note on the Text: This video, which is accessible through YouTube, uses examples from Robert Luketic’s film Legally Blonde in order to show how the main character Elle uses analogical arguments to indicate that she would succeed as a lawyer.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

2.2.6 Symbolizing Valid Arguments

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A09: More Patterns of Valid Arguments”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial A09: More Patterns of Valid Arguments” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial about how to reduce valid arguments to their basic structure through the use of symbols. Please be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: This reading is a good preview of the kind of analysis we will be doing a lot more of in Unit 4. This kind of strategy is sometimes useful with analyzing arguments in real-life situations. For example, these types of questions may be found and diagramming of the argument may be useful in studying for the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

Unit 3: Fallacies

Now that we have an understanding of the structure that good arguments need to have and can represent their structure visually, we might think it would be a simple matter to pick out the bad ones. However, identifying bad arguments can be very tricky in practice. Very often what at first appears to be ironclad reasoning turns out to contain one or more subtle errors. Fortunately, there are a large number of easily identifiable “fallacies”—mistakes of reasoning that we can learn to recognize by their structure or content. In this unit, we will learn about the nature of fallacies, look at a couple of different ways of classifying them, and spend some time dealing with the most common fallacies in detail.

3.1 Introduction to Fallacies

3.1.1 Fallacy Basics

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial F01: What Is a Fallacy?”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial F01: What Is a Fallacy?” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial introducing the notion of fallacious reasoning.

Note on the Text: Fallacies are arguments that are frequently accepted as valid, but which contain subtle errors of reasoning, so it is important to know how to catch them. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

3.1.2 Inductive and Deductive Fallacies

Reading: Logical Fallacies website’s “Logical Fallacies”
Link: Logical Fallacies website’s “Logical Fallacies”(HTML)

Instructions: Read this brief account of fallacious reasoning.

Note on the Text: This reading will provide you with an understanding of how a fallacy relates to the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments that we developed earlier. This reading is accessible through the website of Logical Fallacies.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

3.2 Types of Fallacies

3.2.1 A Basic Typology of Fallacies

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial F02: Fallacies of Inconsistency;” “Tutorial F03: Fallacies of Relevance;” “Tutorial F04: Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence;” and “Tutorial F05: Fallacies of Inappropriate Presumption”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial F02: Fallacies of Inconsistency;” (PDF) “Tutorial F03: Fallacies of Relevance;” (PDF) “Tutorial F04: Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence;” (PDF) and “Tutorial F05: Fallacies of Inappropriate Presumption” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Tutorial F03)
HTML (Tutorial F04)
HTML (Tutorial F05)

Instructions: Read these tutorials, which introduce four major classifications of fallacies.

Note on the Text: Although there are many possible ways of categorizing fallacies, the four major groups discussed in these tutorials are fairly standard. These tutorials are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

3.2.2 Accounting for Common Fallacies

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial F06: A List of Common Fallacies”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial F06: A List of Common Fallacies” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this entire tutorial, which defines the most common fallacies.

Note on the Text: This list of common fallacies is enough to get us started, but we will look at a wider sample of fallacies later on in this course. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

3.2.3 Identifying Fallacies

Assessment: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial F07: Exercises on Fallacies”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial F07: Exercises on Fallacies” (PDF), Answer Key (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Answer all of the questions in this multiple choice quiz.

Note on the Assessment: These questions will help you identify common fallacies.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML)
See a broken link? Please let us know!

3.3 Fallacies in Detail

3.3.1 Fallacious Appeals

Reading: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Fallacious Appeals”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Fallacious Appeals”(HTML)

Instructions: Read this tutorial about fallacious appeals. Make sure you click through each hyperlink on the website for a full explanation of each fallacy.

Note on the Text: Fallacious appeals all fall under the classification of fallacies of relevance, because they gain the appearance of credibility by referencing information that appears to be, but is not, relevant to the conclusion. This tutorial is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s
“Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials
Assessment: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Exercises on Fallacious Appeals”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Exercises on Fallacious Appeals”(HTML)

Instructions: Test your knowledge of fallacious appeals with this multiple choice quiz.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials

3.3.2 Fallacious Generalizations

Reading: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Fallacious Generalizations”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Fallacious Generalizations”(HTML)

Instructions: Read this tutorial about fallacious generalizations, and complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: “Fallacious generalizations” is another name for fallacies of insufficient evidence. This tutorial is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s “Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials

3.3.3 Ad Hominem Attacks

Reading: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies”(HTML)

Instructions: Read this brief tutorial, which identifies the most common versions of this fallacy.

Note on the Text: Ad Hominem attacks are fallacious because they target the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. This tutorial is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s “Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials

3.3.4 Post-Hoc Reasoning

Reading: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Post-Hoc Reasoning”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Post-Hoc Reasoning”(HTML)

Instructions: Read this tutorial about post-hoc reasoning, and complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: Post-hoc reasoning is an especially prevalent reasoning error that confuses two events’ proximity in time with those events being causally connected. This tutorial is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s “Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials

3.3.5 Shifting the Burden of Proof

Reading: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof”(HTML)

Instructions: Read this tutorial about shifting the burden of proof, and complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: In practical circumstances, individuals often try to avoid having to make good arguments by arguing that that responsibility lies with someone else. This tutorial is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s “Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials

3.3.6 The Straw Man Fallacy

Reading: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Fallacy: Straw Man”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Fallacy: Straw Man” (HTML)

Instructions: Read this tutorial about the straw man fallacy, and complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: Sometimes it is easier to argue against an opponent you invent yourself rather than your real opponent. This text explores this fallacy referred to as “straw man.” This tutorial is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s “Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials

3.3.7 Circular Reasoning

Reading: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Fallacy: Circular Reasoning”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Fallacy: Circular Reasoning”(HTML)

Instructions: Read this tutorial about circular reasoning, and complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: In practice, arguments do not always follow standard form or a linear sequence. Instead, sometimes premises suddenly reappear in the guise of conclusions, which is considered circular reasoning. This tutorial is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s “Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials

3.3.8 False Dilemmas

Reading: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “False Dilemma (Either-Or Fallacy, Black and White Fallacy)”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “False Dilemma (Either-Or Fallacy, Black and White Fallacy)” (HTML)

Instructions: Read this tutorial about false dilemmas, and complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: False dilemmas occur when two options are presented as exhaustive and mutually exclusive, when in fact they are not. This tutorial is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s “Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials

3.3.9 The Unfair Fallacy

Reading: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “The Unfair Fallacy”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “The Unfair Fallacy” (HTML)

Instructions: Read the entire tutorial, and complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: The unfair fallacy involves misleading appeals to fairness and compromise. This tutorial is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s “Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials

Unit 4: Basic Sentential Logic

This unit introduces a topic that many students find intimidating: formal logic. Although it sounds difficult and complicated, formal or “symbolic logic” is actually a fairly straightforward way of revealing the structure of reasoning. By translating arguments into symbols, we can more readily see what is right and what is wrong with them, and we can learn how to formulate better arguments.

Advanced courses in formal logic focus on using rules of inference to construct elaborate proofs. Using these techniques, we can solve many complicated problems simply by manipulating symbols on the page. In this course, however, we will only be looking at the most basic properties of a system of logic. In this unit we will learn how to turn phrases in ordinary language into “well formed formulas,” draw truth tables for formulas, and evaluate arguments using those truth tables.

4.1 Logic Basics

4.1.1 What Logic Is (And What It Is Not)

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial L01: What Is Logic?”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial L01: What Is Logic?” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this entire tutorial. Please be sure to run the animated portion of the tutorial, and complete all of the exercises on the webpage. The answer key is available here.

Note on the Text: This tutorial, which describes the basic features of logic, is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.1.2 Logical Statements and a Few Basic Concepts

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial L02: Statements” and “Tutorial L03: Basic Concepts”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial L02: Statements” (PDF) and “Tutorial L03: Basic Concepts” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Tutorial L02)

Instructions: Read both tutorials, and complete all of the exercises on each webpage. The answer keys are available here and here.

Note on the Text: Statements are the fundamental units of arguments and proofs in logic. These tutorials explain how to identify statements and introduce some of the basic ways that statements may be related to one another. These tutorials are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.1.3 Logic is Fun!

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial L04: Fun Logic Puzzles” and “Tutorial L05: The World’s Most Difficult Logic Puzzle!”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professors Joe Lau and Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial L04: Fun Logic Puzzles” (PDF) and “Tutorial L05: The World’s Most Difficult Logic Puzzle!” (HTML)

Also available in:
HTML (Tutorial L04)

Instructions: Try your hand at some fun and tricky logic puzzles, as well as one exceptionally difficult one. The answer key for Tutorial L04 is available here.

Note on the Text: Despite “tutorial” in the title of the webpage, these are more of activities pages that contain puzzles. These webpages are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.2 A Little Bit of Formal Logic

4.2.1 About Formal Logic Systems and How to Write Sentences in SL

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL01: Introduction to Sentential Logic” and “Tutorial SL02: Well-Formed Formula in SL”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL01: Introduction to Sentential Logic” (PDF) and “Tutorial SL02: Well-Formed Formula in SL” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Tutorial SL01)
HTML (Tutorial SL02)

Instructions: Read these tutorials about how formal systems of logic work and what they are useful for. Please be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage. The answer key for Tutorial SL02 is available here.

Note on the Text: The first tutorial introduces the elements of a simple system of logic called SL, and the second tutorial demonstrates how to construct statements, called “well-formed formulas” (WFFs), in it. These tutorials are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.2.2 Introduction to Truth Tables

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL03: Truth-Tables for SL Connectives”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL03: Truth-Tables for SL Connectives”(HTML)

Instructions: Please read the entire tutorial, and be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: Truth-tables are an objective way of determining the truth or falsity of each step in an argument, as well as the validity of the argument as a whole, when it is expressed symbolically. These allow you to “track” how manipulating statements changes their truth-value. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.2.3 How to Draw Truth-Tables for More Complicated Statements

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL04: More Complicated Truth-Tables”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL04: More Complicated Truth-Tables”(HTML)

Instructions: Read the entire tutorial, and please be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: The last tutorial showed us how to construct truth-tables for the basic connectives in SL. This tutorial extends the same technique to more complex well-formed formulas, which approximate the kinds of statements that might be part of an argument in ordinary language. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.2.4 Properties of Individual WFFs and Relations between Them

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL05: Logical Properties and Relations”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL05: Logical Properties and Relations”(HTML)

Instructions: Please read this entire tutorial, and be sure to complete each of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: This tutorial presents the same concepts of consistency, entailment, and equivalence introduced in sub-subunit 4.1.2, but defines them now in terms of their truth-tables in SL. These are all relations between WFFs. The concepts of tautology, contingency, and inconsistency are introduced as properties of individual WFFs that can also be defined by their truth-tables. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.2.5 Understanding Truth-Tables

Lecture: University of California, San Diego: Professor Rick Grush’s “Truth Functions, Evaluating Compound Statements” Lecture
Link: University of California, San Diego: Professor Rick Grush’s “Truth Functions, Evaluating Compound Statements” Lecture(Quicktime Video)

Instructions: Watch this entire Lecture (1:22:17 minutes) and use pencil and paper to practice along with the instructor.

Note on the Text: This video lecture, which explains how to construct truth-tables for the basic logical connectives (or “truth functions”), is accessible through Rick Grush’s website at the University of California, San Diego, where he is Professor of Philosophy.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.2.6 How to Translate Ordinary Statements into Symbolic Formulae

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL06: Formalization in SL”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL06: Formalization in SL” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Please read the entire tutorial, and be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage. The answer key is available here.

Note on the Text: Formalization means turning statements and arguments in ordinary language into their symbolic counterparts (we might just as well call it “translation”). Notice that ordinary language contains hint words, letting us know when we are likely to need one of the logical connectives. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.2.7 Formalization Practice

Lecture: University of California, San Diego: Professor Rick Grush’s “Translating from Spoken Language to Formal Notation” Lecture
Link: University of California, San Diego: Professor Rick Grush’s “Translating from Spoken Language to Formal Notation” Lecture(mp3)

Instructions: Please listen to this Lecture (1:17:35 minutes). You may want to use pencil and paper to practice along with the instructor.

Note on the Text: This video lecture, which explains how to express ordinary language statements into formal logic, is accessible throughRick Grush’s website at the University of California, San Diego, where he is Professor of Philosophy.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.2.8 Two Methods for Determining the Validity of an Argument

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL07: The Full Truth-Table Method” and “Tutorial SL08: The Indirect Method”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL07: The Full Truth-Table Method” (PDF) and “Tutorial SL08: The Indirect Method” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Tutorial SL07)
HTML (Tutorial SL08)

Instructions: Read both of these tutorials in their entirety. Please be sure to complete all of the exercises on each page. It may also help here to copy these down with pencil and paper. The answer keys are available here and here.

Note on the Text: These tutorials provide information on how to determine if an argument (or “sequent”) is valid or not in SL. Because using truth-tables to establish validity is time consuming, the second tutorial presents a shortcut version of the method. These tutorials are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

4.2.9 Why Sentential Logic Is Not Enough

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL10: The Limitations of Sentential Logic”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial SL10: The Limitations of Sentential Logic” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Please read this entire tutorial, and be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage. The answer key is available here.

Note on the Text: There are some statements that cannot be captured in sentential logic, especially statements involving words like “every” and “all” (e.g., “all men are mortal”). This tutorial explains why and introduces the idea of predicate logic. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

Unit 5: Venn Diagrams

In addition to using predicate logic, the limitations of sentential logic can also be overcome by using Venn diagrams to illustrate statements and arguments. Statements that include general words like “some,” or “few,” as well as absolute words like “every,” “all,” and so on, lend themselves to being represented on paper as circles that may or may not overlap. Venn diagrams are especially helpful when dealing with the logical arguments called syllogisms. Syllogisms are a special type of three-step argument with two premises and a conclusion, which involve “quantifying” terms. In this unit we will learn the basic principles of Venn diagrams, how to use them to represent statements, and how to use them to evaluate arguments.

5.1 Introduction to Venn Diagrams

5.1.1 Venn Diagrams as Illustrations of “Sets” or “Classes”

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Venn Diagrams: Introduction” and “Tutorial V01: Simple Bounded Regions and Shading” “Venn Diagrams Exercise V01.6;” and “Venn Diagrams Exercise V01.6 (cont.)”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Venn Diagrams: Introduction” (PDF) and “Tutorial V01: Simple Bounded Regions and Shading” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Introduction)
HTML (Tutorial V01)

Instructions: Read each of these tutorials.

Note on the Text: In Venn diagrams, circles represent sets or classes. These tutorials demonstrate how to use shading and overlapping to illustrate empty sets, as well as relations of “all,” “every,” and “nothing.” These tutorials are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Assignment: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Venn Diagrams Exercise V01.6,” and “Venn Diagrams Exercise V01.6 (cont.)”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Venn Diagrams Exercise V01.6” (PDF), Answer Key (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Part 1)
HTML (Part 2)

Instructions: Complete both webpages of exercises about two-circle Venn diagrams.

Note on the Assignment: For each question, you must choose the sentence that best represents what is shown in the given diagram. A pop-up window will open to say if you got the answer correct or incorrect. These exercises are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

5.1.2 More Complicated Venn Diagrams

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial V03: Venn Diagrams with Three Circles”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial V03: Venn Diagrams with Three Circles” (HTML)

Instructions: Read the tutorial, practice using the flash animations, and complete all of the exercises on the page. Once you have answered each question, click on the “Show Answer” link at the end of each question to check your answers.

Note on the Text: Working with Venn diagrams that involve three circles is almost exactly the same as working with ones that involve two circles. The only difference is that there are now eight distinct regions, each with a specific logical meaning. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

5.1.3 Illustrating Existence with Venn Diagrams

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial V04: Existence”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial V04: Existence” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read the tutorial, and complete all of the exercises on the webpage. The answer key is available here.

Note on the Text: Now that we have the basic principles of using Venn diagrams in place, we can use them to illustrate statements like “some A exists,” (or “something exists that is an A,” or “something is A”). This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

5.2 Venn Diagrams and Arguments

5.2.1 Using Venn Diagrams to Evaluate Syllogisms

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial V06: Evaluating Arguments”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial V06: Evaluating Arguments” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial about how to use Venn diagrams to evaluate arguments. Also, complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: This tutorial discusses how to use Venn diagrams to analyze an argument. It also introduces the concept of a syllogism, a special type of argument that could not be evaluated in SL. Venn diagrams are ideal for evaluating this type of argument. Remember a Venn diagram can only tell us if an argument is valid, not whether it is sound. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Assignment: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Evaluating Validity—ex V04.3”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Evaluating Validity—ex V04.3” (PDF), Answer Key (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Use the methods outlined in the above tutorial to determine whether these arguments are valid or not. Draw out the Venn diagrams with pencil and paper. For another set of problems, simply click the “refresh” button on your web browser.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

5.2.2 Understanding the Logic of Venn Diagrams (and Extra Practice)

Lecture: YouTube: Professor Roberto Ribas’s “Venn Diagrams and Logic,” “Venn Diagrams and Logic #2,” and “Venn Diagrams and Logic #3”
Links: YouTube: Professor Roberto Ribas’s “Venn Diagrams and Logic,”(HTML) “Venn Diagrams and Logic #2,”(HTML) and “Venn Diagrams and Logic #3”(HTML)

Instructions: Watch each of these video lectures linked here. Each video is between five and ten minutes in length, but you should stop the video when directed to do so by the instructor, in order to work out the problems on your own using pencil and paper.

About the Links: Professor of Mathematics at Scottsdale Community College, Roberto Ribas, explains how to use Venn diagrams to evaluate logical arguments. These video lectures are accessible through YouTube.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

5.2.3 The Limitations of Venn Diagrams

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial V05: The Limitations of Venn Diagrams”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial V05: The Limitations of Venn Diagrams” (PDF)

Instructions: Read this tutorial about the limitations of Venn diagrams, and complete all of the exercises on the page.

Note on the Text: Although Venn diagrams are a powerful tool for representing some types of statements, there are many statements that they cannot handle. For example, they cannot handle highly complex statements, or highly specific ones. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

Unit 6: Scientific Reasoning

Unlike the syllogistic arguments we discussed in the last unit, which are a form of deductive argument, scientific reasoning is empirical. This means that it depends on observation and evidence, not logical principles. Although some principles of deductive reasoning do apply in science, such as the principle of contradiction, scientific arguments are almost always inductive. Instead of truth and falsity, science deals in confirmation and disconfirmation. Nonetheless, there are very specific rules about what constitutes good scientific reasoning, and scientists are trained to be critical of their own inferences as well as those of others in the scientific community. In this unit, we will investigate the standard method of scientific reasoning, the characteristics of good and bad scientific explanations, the principles of confirmation and disconfirmation, and the challenges of reasoning about one of the most important scientific concepts, namely causality.

6.1 Basic Principles of Scientific Reasoning

6.1.1 The Method of Scientific Reasoning

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Scientific Reasoning: Introduction” and “Tutorial S01: The Hypothetical Deductive Method”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Scientific Reasoning: Introduction” (PDF) and “Tutorial S01: The Hypothetical Deductive Method” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Introduction)
HTML (Tutorial S01)

Instructions: Read both of these tutorials on scientific reasoning in their entirety.

Note on the Text: Science itself is almost infinitely varied, but its basic method is surprisingly simple. These tutorials, accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website, are about the four components of the hypothetical deductive method and the difference between truth and confirmation.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

6.1.2 The Scientific Method, Explained by a Scientist

Reading: University of Rochester: Professor Frank L. H. Wolfs’ “Introduction to the Scientific Method”
Link: University of Rochester: Professor Frank L. H. Wolfs’ “Introduction to the Scientific Method”(HTML)

Instructions: Read this explanation of the scientific method by a practicing scientist.

Note on the Text: In contrast to the previous tutorial, this account emphasizes the practical steps that must be implemented and the controls that must be in place in order to use the method correctly, as opposed to the formal structure of the method. This text is accessible through Professor Frank L. H. Wolfs’ website; Professor Wolf teaches physics at the University of Rochester.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

6.1.3 Scientific Reasoning and Inductive Arguments

Lecture: YouTube: Professor Kevin deLaplante’s “Induction and Scientific Reasoning” Lecture
Link: YouTube: Professor Kevin deLaplante’s “Induction and Scientific Reasoning” Lecture (YouTube)

Instructions: Watch this Lecture about how scientific data contributes to making an inductive argument.

Note on the Lecture: Scientific reasoning makes use of inductive arguments. In terms of their structure, the premises of inductive arguments are pieces of observational data. Kevin deLaplante is Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Iowa State University. This video is accessible through YouTube.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

6.1.4 What Makes One Scientific Theory Better than Another

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S02: Choosing among Theories”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S02: Choosing among Theories” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this brief tutorial in its entirety.

Note on the Text: In scientific practice, multiple theories will frequently be put forward to explain the same phenomena. When this happens, the best theory is selected on the basis of five criteria. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

6.2 The Question of Causality

6.2.1 Causality Basics

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S04: Some Basic Concepts about Causation”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S04: Some Basic Concepts about Causation” (HTML)

Instructions: Read this tutorial, which outlines some important terminological distinctions for dealing with causation.

Note on the Text: Causation is an ideal topic to address in a course on critical thinking, since it is something we feel we understand well in our everyday lives. Once we begin trying to think scientifically about causes, however, we find that fixing the cause(s) of some event requires precision and subtlety. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

6.2.2 Five Ways to Identify a Cause

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S05: Mill’s Methods for Identifying Causes”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S05: Mill’s Methods for Identifying Causes” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial about Mill’s five methods for identifying causes.

Note on the Text: The nineteenth century English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, proposed five distinct ways in which a cause might be identified through observation. While these methods may appear to be very close to common sense, it is important to see that they represent distinct modes of inference. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

6.2.3 Causality is More Than Just Cause and Effect

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S06: Common Causal Relations”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S06: Common Causal Relations” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Please read this entire tutorial. You should also click on the hyperlinks in the webpage.

Note on the Text: Read this tutorial identifying seven different types of causal relations. Each type of relation is followed by a set of defining criteria. Although each type of relation is a “cause and effect” relationship between A and B, information about the context of the interaction and the relation of A and B to one another in time, affect what we can say about the causal relation between them. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

6.2.4 The Difference between Causation and Correlation

Reading: Carson-Newman College: Dr. L. Kip Wheeler’s “Correlation and Causation” Tutorial
Link: Carson-Newman College: Dr. L. Kip Wheeler’s “Correlation and Causation” (HTML) Tutorial

Instructions: Read this example-rich tutorial, which explains the difference between the two relationships of correlation and causation.

Note on the Text: Scientists looking for cause and effect relationships in the natural world need to be careful not to misconstrue causality with mere correlation. This tutorial is accessible through the website of Dr. L. Kip Wheeler, Professor of English Literature at Carson-Newman College.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

6.2.5 Ways of Representing Cause and Effect

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S07: Cause and Effect Diagrams”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S07: Cause and Effect Diagrams” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial illustrating two types of cause and effect diagramming. Notice that they allow for the description of multiple causes and effects from a single event, as well as for distinguishing between “levels” of causation.

Note on the Text: When multiple relations of cause and effect are involved in the behavior of some phenomenon, representing these relations visually is often the best way to get a handle on them and to assist in quantitative analysis of the system in question. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

6.2.6 Fallacies about Causation

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S08: Fallacies about Causation”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial S08: Fallacies about Causation” (HTML)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Familiarize yourself with this brief list of fallacies associated with causation. You should recognize some of these from Unit 3.

Note on the Text: This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

6.2.7 Evaluating Causal Arguments

Reading: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Introduction to Causal Arguments”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Introduction to Causal Arguments” (HTML)

Instructions: Read this tutorial, which explains causal arguments in the context of their practical use in everyday life. Pay close attention to the notion of “significant difference.”

Note on the Text: This version of Mill’s method of difference was discussed in section 6.2.2, but it is presented here as a way of distinguishing causal arguments from more general inductive arguments. This tutorial is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s “Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials
Assessment: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Exercises for Causal Arguments”
Link: San Jose State University’s “Mission: Critical”: Professor David Mesher’s “Exercises for Causal Arguments” (HTML)

Instructions: Test your knowledge of causal arguments, significant difference, and commonality by answering these three multiple choice questions. Once you choose an answer, the webpage will automatically scroll to the answer key to tell you whether the answer you chose was correct or incorrect.

Note on the Assessment: This assessment is accessible through Professor David Mesher’s “Mission: Critical” website at San Jose State University.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
The Saylor Foundation does not yet have materials for this portion of the course. If you are interested in contributing your content to fill this gap or aware of a resource that could be used here, please submit it here.
Submit Materials

Unit 7: Strategic Reasoning and Creativity

While the majority of this course has focused on the types of reasoning that are necessary to critique and evaluate existing knowledge, or to extend our knowledge in accordance with correct procedures and rules, there remains an enormous branch of our reasoning practice that runs “in the opposite direction,” as it were. Strategic reasoning, problem solving, and creative thinking all rely on an ineffable component of novelty supplied by the thinker. Despite the seemingly mystical nature of such activity, however, problem solving and creative thinking are best approached by following a set of tried and tested procedures, which prompt our cognitive faculties to produce new ideas and solutions by extending our existing knowledge. In this unit, we will investigate techniques for problem solving, representing complex problems visually, making decisions in risky and uncertain scenarios, and creative thinking in general.

7.1 Strategic Reasoning

7.1.1 Problem Solving Begins with Understanding the Problem

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial G01: How to Classify Problems”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial G01: How to Classify Problems” (PDF)

Instructions: Read this tutorial about what to consider in defining a problem and the three major classifications that problems usually fall under. Try answering the exercise questions at the bottom of the page.

Note on the Text: Problem solving is an activity that combines skills of critical and creative thinking. The first task in any problem solving scenario is to identify the type of problem one is dealing with. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

7.1.2 A Technique for Problem Solving

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial G02: Problem Solving Procedures”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial G02: Problem Solving Procedures” (PDF)

Instructions: Read this entire tutorial.

Note on the Text: This tutorial, which outlines the mathematician George Pólya’s four-step procedure for problem solving, is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

7.1.3 Working with Complex Problems

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial G03: Complex Systems and Processes”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial G03: Complex Systems and Processes” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial, which introduces the technique of process analysis.

Note on the Text: This course has focused primarily on problems that are relatively simple in structure. We should be aware, however, that many problems encountered will be highly complex, involving multiple variables and a mixture of problem types. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML)
See a broken link? Please let us know!

7.1.4 Visual Tools for Strategic Reasoning

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial G04: Using Charts and Diagrams
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial G04: Using Charts and Diagrams” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read the entire tutorial linked here. It may also be helpful to review section 6.2.5 on cause and effect diagrams.

Note on the Text: There are several useful visual techniques to facilitate solving complex problems. This tutorial explains how to use flowcharts and decision trees. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML)
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Lecture: YouTube: Dr. Farrokh Alemi’s “Decision Tree: Part 1” and “Decision Tree: Part 2” Lecture
Links: YouTube: Dr. Farrokh Alemi’s “Decision Tree: Part 1”(YouTube) and “Decision Tree: Part 2”(YouTube)

Instructions: Watch both parts of this video lecture, which explains how to construct a decision tree for use in health care administration.

Note on the Lecture: Although the context is quite specific, the principles the instructor uses to construct the decision tree apply generally to any decision procedure. This lecture also illustrates how empirical evidence is incorporated into decision trees. Dr. Farrokh Alemi is Professor of Health Care Administration at Georgetown University. This video is accessible through YouTube.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

7.1.5 Basic Decision Theory

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial G05: Decision Theory”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial G05: Decision Theory” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial about drawing decision tables and applying basic decision rules to their contents.

Note on the Text: Decision theory provides tools for evaluating the best course of action in scenarios involving risk and uncertainty. This tutorial is accessible through the website of the University of Hong Kong.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Reading: Richland Community College: Professor James Jones’ “Decision Theory” Tutorial
Link: Reading: Richland Community College: Professor James Jones’ “Decision Theory”(HTML) Tutorial

Instructions: This tutorial covers the same basic concepts as the one above, but provides a new example scenario to work through. Please follow along with pencil and paper to construct the decision table for this scenario and apply the four decision criteria to it.

Note on the Text: This tutorial is accessible through the website of Richland Community College where James Jones is Professor of Mathematics.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

7.2 Creative Thinking

7.2.1 Three Principles of Creative Thinking

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial R01: Three Basic Principles”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial R01: Three Basic Principles” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read the entire tutorial linked here.

Note on the Text: Creativity is a ubiquitous human activity, not just the province of artists and inventors. Human beings solve problems creatively everyday. The nature of creativity thus incorporates both spectacular creative acts and more modest instances of creative reasoning. This tutorial, which is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website, explains what all forms of creativity have in common.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

7.2.2 A Four Step Cycle for Creative Thinking

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial R02: The Creativity Cycle”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial R02: The Creativity Cycle” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read the entire tutorial linked here.

Note on the Text: Although there remains something mysterious about just what occurs during a flash of creative inspiration, there are nonetheless certain definite procedures that encourage creative thinking. This tutorial, which is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website, outlines a repeatable four-step process for creativity based on what is known objectively about the production of novel ideas and solutions.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML)
See a broken link? Please let us know!

7.2.3 Heuristics for Creative Thinking and Some Quotations

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial R03: Heuristics for Creative Thinking” and “Tutorial R04: Quotes on Creativity”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial R03: Heuristics for Creative Thinking” (PDF) and “Tutorial R04: Quotes on Creativity” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Tutorial R03)
HTML (Tutorial R04)

Instructions: Read these tutorials

Note on the Text: These tutorials offer procedures for initiating creative thinking on the basis of factual knowledge we already possess. The quotations in the second tutorial demonstrate how these procedures form part of the creative process of some of the most famous minds in art, science, and philosophy. These tutorials are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

Unit 8: Critical Thinking in Practice: Reasoning about Values and Morality

This unit provides an opportunity to put our critical thinking skills to use on a particular body of content—problems of values and morality. These problems are especially useful as a test of critical thinking skills since they tend to produce a great deal of disagreement. For this reason, it is essential to exercise clarity and precision when constructing arguments and claims about these topics. In fact, it will be necessary to distinguish carefully between matters of fact and judgments of value just to get started here. This unit brings critical thinking skills to bear on problems of right and wrong, good and bad, moral absolutism, contextualism and relativism, divine command theory, utility, rights, and virtues. It also introduces John Rawls’s useful method of reflective equilibrium.

8.1 The Nature of Moral Values

8.1.1 The Difference between Facts and Values

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Values: Introduction” and “Tutorial U01: Moral Values”
Links: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Values: Introduction” (PDF) and “Tutorial U01: Moral Values” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML (Introduction)
HTML (Tutorial U01)

Instructions: Read this entire tutorial, and be sure to take note of the naturalistic fallacy introduced here.

Note on the Text: Moral reasoning requires us to distinguish carefully between facts and values, as well as between different types of values, because there are specific rules regarding what types of arguments we can make using values as premises. These tutorials, which are accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website, discuss the differences between these types of claims.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

8.1.2 Intrinsic Versus Instrumental Values

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Norva Lo’s “Tutorial U02: Instrumental Values”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Norva Lo’s “Tutorial U02: Instrumental Values” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial about the different ways types of values, such as instrumental and intrinsic values, should be handled. Try to answer each of the exercise questions on the page.

Note on the Text: The distinction between intrinsic and instrumental values, as well as the associated distinction between means and ends, are crucial tools for understanding ethical arguments about how we ought to act and how we ought to treat one another. This tutorial is internally mislabeled as “Tutorial U03.” Norva Lo is Professor of Philosophy at La Trobe University. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML)
See a broken link? Please let us know!

8.1.3 The Relation of God to Morality

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U03: Religion and Morality”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U03: Religion and Morality” (HTML)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this entire tutorial linked here, and please complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: This tutorial is about one of the most famous problems of moral reasoning: are certain actions right because God commands it, or does God command certain actions because they are right? This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

8.2 Reasoning about Morality

8.2.1 Moral Absolutism and Moral Contextualism

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U04: Absolutism vs. Contextualism”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U04: Absolutism vs. Contextualism” (PDF)

Instructions: Read this entire tutorial, which explains the difference between the moral viewpoints of absolutism and contextualism.

Note on the Text: One common disagreement about morality concerns whether the circumstances of our actions have any bearing on whether they are right or wrong. Those who deny this are called moral absolutists, while those who affirm it are called moral contextualists. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

8.2.2 Moral Relativism

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U05: Moral Relativism”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U05: Moral Relativism” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial about the view of moral relativism, and notice particularly how it is related to the views of absolutism and contextualism.

Note on the Text: Moral relativism is perhaps the most common moral stance adopted today. This position takes the division between facts and values to be absolute and denies that we can arrive at conclusions about questions right and wrong. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!
Assignment: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Quiz: Are You a Moral Relativist?”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professors Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Quiz: Are You a Moral Relativist?” (HTML)

Instructions: Complete this quiz about your own moral beliefs. Be sure to read the analysis of your answers provided by the authors to understand what your moral beliefs say about your relation to the major moral positions.

Note on the Assignment: This assignment helps determine whether your moral views are consistent and provides explanations as to whether you are or are not a moral relativist. This quiz is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

8.2.3 The Contemporary Debate about Moral Relativism

Reading: BBC News’s “What is Relativism?”
Link: BBC News’s “What is Relativism?”(HTML)

Instructions: Read this 2005 article from BBC News linked here. Please also read through the comments at the end of the article.

Note on the Text: Moral relativism is hotly debated in the public sphere. This article discusses why this topic is of such concern to secular and religious leaders today. The comments at the end of the article provide a fairly representative sample of responses to the issue. This text is accessible through the BBC’s website.

Terms of Use: Please respect the copyright and terms of use displayed on the webpage above.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

8.2.4 Reflective Equilibrium: Mediating between Intuitions and Principles

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U06: Reflective Equilibrium”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U06: Reflective Equilibrium” (PDF)

Instructions: Read this tutorial analyzing the components of reflective equilibrium. Notice the similarity of this process to the hypothetical deductive method of scientific reasoning discussed in section 6.1.1. Also, try answering the questions at the bottom of the page.

Note on the Text: Reflective equilibrium is the process by means of which we refine our moral viewpoints, when we are thinking critically about them. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

8.2.5 Analogical Reasoning about Morality

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Norva Lo’s “Tutorial U07: Analogies in Morality”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Norva Lo’s “Tutorial U07: Analogies in Morality” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this tutorial about analogies in morality. Please try to complete the exercises under sections U07.2, U07.7, U07.9, U07.11, and U07.13.

Note on the Text: Many arguments in morality rely heavily on the use of analogies. Frequently this is because, in deciding whether some action is right or wrong, we are asked to consider it as being like or unlike some other action that we already have strong intuitions or principles about. Reading this tutorial, which takes a highly technical approach to the problem, is also a chance for you to review your knowledge of the structure of valid arguments. Norva Lo is Professor of Philosophy at Latrobe University. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

8.2.6 Utility and Rights in Moral Arguments

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U08: Utility, Rights, and Virtues”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U08: Utility, Rights, and Virtues” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Read this entire tutorial about the relation between rights and utility. Please complete all of the exercises on this webpage.

Note on the Text: The relation between rights and utility has to do with the distinction between absolutist and contextualist ethics introduced earlier, because rights are usually taken to be absolute, while utility is context-dependent. These concepts are typically brought into tension with one another in moral arguments. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

8.2.7 Different Types of Rights

Reading: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U09: Types of Rights”
Link: University of Hong Kong’s Critical Thinking Web: Professor Joe Lau’s and Professor Jonathan Chan’s “Tutorial U09: Types of Rights” (PDF)

Also available in:
HTML

Instructions: Please read the entire tutorial, and be sure to complete all of the exercises on the webpage.

Note on the Text: This tutorial parses the concept of rights even further than the previous one. Identifying what types of rights are being invoked in a given argument can help us evaluate the moral and legal arguments in which these notions are most commonly utilized. This tutorial is accessible through the University of Hong Kong’s website.

Terms of Use: The article above is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License 3.0 (HTML). It is attributed to Jonathan Chan and the original version can be found here (HTML).
See a broken link? Please let us know!

Final Exam

Final Exam: The Saylor Foundation's "PHIL102 Final Exam"
Link: The Saylor Foundation's "PHIL102 Final Exam"

Instructions: You will need to be logged into your Saylor Foundation School account in order to access this exam.
See a broken link? Please let us know!

« Previous Unit Next Unit » Back to Top

Saylor.org

Resource Center

We still need...

Legend

Discuss PHIL102 with other Saylor Students here!

Logic and Critical Thinking

Purpose of Course show close

Learning Outcomes show close

Course Requirements show close

Unit Outline show close

Saylor.org

Resource Center

We still need...

Legend

Discuss PHIL102 with other Saylor Students here!

Logic and Critical Thinking

Purpose of Course showclose

Learning Outcomes showclose

Course Requirements showclose

Unit Outline show close

Purpose of Course show close

Learning Outcomes show close

Course Requirements show close