Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving ( PDFDrive )

corroborate each other, and together provide Activity
overwhelming evidence of guilt. In fact, the
smoking gun would then be virtual proof of Discuss how strong this evidence is. On the
guilt; the other evidence – without the charge of assault, as described, would you
smoking gun – would be very much weaker. say Jackson was:
For that reason the expression ‘smoking gun’
has come to be a metaphor for evidence which A guilty?
would finally settle a case. An investigation B  probably guilty?
may be getting nowhere through lack of C probably not guilty?
conclusive evidence, until the so-called D  none of the above?
‘smoking gun’ turns up in the form of an
incriminating email, or revealing photograph, Commentary
or something of the kind. On its own it would The evidence available is entirely of the kind
not be proof of the desired conclusion; but on we call circumstantial. However, as
top of other corroborating facts it removes any circumstantial evidence goes, it looks fairly
lingering doubt. damaging. There is no direct evidence that
Amelia Jackson did anything more than
The student demo attend the demo and express her feelings. No
one reports seeing her throw anything. But
Here is a fictional scenario which will together with that is the fact that she had
illustrate some of the concepts that we are bought some eggs, and some appeared to be
considering. missing from her bag. There is therefore an
accumulation of evidence. Firstly, she was
A n unpopular congressman, visiting a present at the scene; secondly, she was actively
university, was greeted by a large student demonstrating. Thirdly, eggs were among the
demonstration. As he was stepping out of his objects thrown at the congressman; and
car a raw egg thrown from the midst of the fourthly – the nearest item to a ‘smoking
crowd struck him on the side of the head and gun’ – there were empty compartments in the
broke, followed by a second and third. Soon egg box she was carrying. Do these corroborate
the politician was cowering under a hail of each other sufficiently to answer the question
missiles. As the crowd surged forward, he was above with A, B or C?
helped back into the car by security officers
and driven away. Not strictly. B is the nearest one could come
  A 20-year-old sociology student, Amelia to incriminating Ms Jackson, but D is the
Jackson, was arrested soon afterwards. She safest answer. Clearly there is insufficient
had been seen in the crowd, and was caught evidence for A: guilt would require evidence
on surveillance cameras shouting angrily and that put the verdict beyond reasonable doubt.
holding a large placard on a pole. However difficult it may seem to explain away
  Jackson was wearing a backpack containing the empty places in the egg box, it is not
some provisions she said she had bought in impossible that it had nothing to do with the
the market that morning. Among them was a assault on the congressman. Plenty of other
cardboard egg box with spaces for ten eggs, people were throwing things: Amelia Jackson
but with only six eggs in it. She was taken into may just have gone there to protest, angrily
custody for questioning and later charged with perhaps, but not violently.
assault, on the grounds that she had thrown
one or more objects at the congressman with On the other hand it is very plausible, given
intent to injure or intimidate. the circumstantial evidence, that Jackson was

146 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

guilty as charged. Because of that, C would be She jumped up and down, and did a high five
a strange inference to make. She is no more with the kid next to her. They were loving it.
likely to be innocent than she is to be guilty. Then she ducked down and picked something
up. The crowd rushed forward then and I lost
Additional evidence sight of her, but later I saw her get arrested,
Amelia’s statement and saw her face close up. It was her all right.
When she was questioned, Amelia stated that Later I heard the police were asking for
she lived in lodgings with two other students witnesses, so I came forward.’
and it was her turn to buy food and cook the
evening meal. She had bought six eggs so they * This is also known as an ‘identification
could have two each. She always bought eggs parade’: a number of people form a line and
at a market stall, where they were sold singly. It the witness points out the one he or she
was cheaper than buying ten. And she took claims to have seen. If the suspect is identified
her own cardboard container so that they in this way, that is a form of direct evidence.
would not break.
Activity
Stallholder’s statement
The owner of the stall where Amelia claimed Discuss whether Amelia’s story is plausible
to have bought the eggs stated that he did not (or is it far-fetched?). Is it corroborated by any
recognise her when shown a photograph of of the other evidence and, if so, how
her. But he did make the following statement: strongly? Is it seriously challenged by any of
the other evidence?
‘ A lot of the students buy their eggs loose. If
they want a box they have to buy ten. I sell Commentary
loads of eggs that way every day.’ It is a reasonably plausible story. Anyone who
has been a student, or knows students, would
Flatmates’ statements agree that most of them tend to shop as
The two students with whom Amelia Jackson economically as they can, and if eggs can be
shared an apartment were questioned got more cheaply by taking a container and
separately, and asked the same three buying them loose that makes sense. What is
questions. Both gave the same answers: more, if there are only three residents in the
flat (or apartment) then it also makes perfect
Q: ‘Whose turn was it to cook that day?’ sense to buy multiples of three, and not ten.
A: ‘Amelia’s.’ This does not prove Amelia was innocent, but
Q: ‘Do you know where Amelia was going it goes some way towards tipping the balance
back in her favour.
when she left the apartment that day?’
A: ‘Shopping. Then to the university.’ What is more, there is considerable
Q: ‘Was she planning to attend the corroboration from both the stallholder and
the other students with whom she shares the
demonstration?’ flat. Of course the flatmates might be
A: ‘She didn’t mention it.’ protecting her by answering as they do. They
were questioned separately, so the fact that they
Eyewitness account gave exactly the same answers could mean they
58-year-old Rajinder Choudhury, a retired were telling the truth. But it could also mean
headteacher, picked Amelia Jackson out of a they had prepared what they would say. As far
police line-up.* He said: as the stallholder is concerned, he has no

‘ She’s the one. She was up ahead of me in
the crowd, right where the stuff all came from.

4.3 Evidence 147

reason to say anything which would assist going on does not mean she actively took part
Amelia. Evidently he doesn’t even know her. in it. Besides, his identification of Amelia is
practically worthless, for reasons which will be
You may have answered these questions discussed in the next chapter. You may also
slightly differently, but you should have have detected a possible tone of disapproval in
registered that the circumstantial evidence his statement, for Amelia or for student
against Amelia now looks less threatening. It demonstrators generally, which could be
fits just as well with her statement as it does interpreted as prejudice. He might want her to
with the charge made against her. What has be guilty, for one reason or another.
always to be remembered with circumstantial
evidence is that if it can be explained away, Summary
and the explanation is not far-fetched, no safe
conclusion can be drawn from it. An • Evidence takes many forms.
evaluation of the evidence in this case would • The terms ‘evidence’ and ‘reason’ have
not be nearly strong enough to justify a
conviction because any number of students, or some overlap in meaning when used in the
others, could have bought eggs, and could context of arguments, and care must be
have thrown them. Amelia is no longer in a taken to use them appropriately.
special position, but is one of many potential • Evidence can be divided into two main
suspects. categories: direct and indirect (or
circumstantial). Circumstantial evidence
What about the ‘eyewitness’ statement? requires an inference to be made from the
Prima facie (meaning ‘on the face of it’) this facts to the conclusion.
may seem to count against Amelia. However, • Evidence is strongest when it is
there are a number of weaknesses in Rajinder corroborated by other evidence.
Choudhury’s evidence that you should have
noted. Firstly, he did not see Amelia actually
throw anything; all he saw was her reaction.
The claim that she was enjoying what was

148 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

End-of-chapter assignments previous day. He couldn’t be sure of the
time. The Sunday papers had printed
1 Explain the difference between direct the story of White’s arrest, with a recent
and indirect evidence, giving illustrative photograph of him getting out of the
examples. same white car at a friend’s wedding.
a  How strong is the evidence provided
2 Imagine an investigation that turns on
whether a certain person, whom we’ll by Mrs Short? Does it count as
call Mr White, visited another person, corroboration for Mr Green’s
Mr Green, one Saturday afternoon. accusation?
Mr Green is accusing Mr White of coming b  How reliable is the restaurant owner
to his house and assaulting him. as a witness?
• A witness, Mrs Short, who lives in the c  What problems are there with
flat below Mr Green, says that she saw Mr Long’s evidence?
a man answering White’s description d  Where would you look for further
arriving by car at the house on that evidence if you were investigating
Saturday. Later, when she went out to this case?
the shop, she noticed the car again, and 3 (Harder task)
thought she saw a parking ticket on the
windscreen. ‘Because of the compensation-claim
• White says he was nowhere near culture which has grown up in many
Green’s house, and produces a second countries, advertising by lawyers and
witness – a restaurant owner – who conditional-fee agreements for
testifies that White was in his restaurant personal injury cases should not be
on the Saturday in question, and that permitted.’
he stayed there all afternoon; and that
his car – a white Peugeot – was in the Write a short evidence-based argument
restaurant car park the whole time. supporting or challenging this
White and the restaurant owner are old recommendation. Base your argument on
friends and business partners. the evidence found in Docs 3 and 4 in
• On the Sunday evening a third witness, Chapter 4.1 (pages 131–2, 134), and give
Mr Long, who lives opposite Green an assessment of how strongly you think
but doesn’t know him or White or the this supports your conclusion.
restaurant owner, comes forward and
states that he had seen a white Peugeot Answers and comments are on page 324.
parked outside his (Long’s) house the

4.3 Evidence 149

4.4 Credibility

Whilst we are often unable to say with of evaluating claims that are more critical than
confidence whether or not a claim is true, we merely relying on common sense.
can make a judgement as to its credibility – how
justified we are in believing it. Credibility is The sources of claims
determined by two main factors. The first is
the plausibility of the claim itself. A wildly A second factor in judging the credibility of a
improbable claim is less credible than an claim is its source. If the claim comes from a
unsurprising claim that fits in well with our trusted source, we have more grounds for
other beliefs. But, as we all discover from time believing it than if we do not know where it
to time, something wildly improbable can on comes from. ‘Source’ in this context may be an
occasions be true, and something highly individual making an assertion; or it may be a
plausible can be false. book, an article in a newspaper, a website; or it
may be a publisher. If you have found two
You may recall your role as the imaginary conflicting claims, one from a book published
time-traveller in Chapter 2.3, attempting to by, say, Harvard University Press, the other
convince a pre-Copernican population that the from a blog or tweet by some anonymous
Earth is not a flat dish but a large ball whirling individual, you would be likely to put your
like a bucket on an invisible rope around a trust in the former rather than the latter.
distant nuclear furnace . . . You can imagine
their incredulity, given their other beliefs at When deciding the extent to which we can
that time. The account of the solar system that trust a source, we are looking for qualities such
we now regard as fact was once so far beyond as honesty and possession of knowledge.
people’s understanding as to be fantastical. If There are other qualities, but those are
the Earth were a ball, surely the people on the probably the most important. We need the
sides and underneath would fall off! Isaac first for obvious reasons: we cannot trust a
Newton’s theory of universal gravity was not known liar. But however honest an author
yet formulated; and that too was treated with may be, we also have to be assured that he or
derision when it was first announced. she is well informed. An honest mistake is no
more true than a deliberate lie, even though
Likewise some of today’s new scientific one may be more excusable than the other.
theories seem improbable. Some of the
implications of quantum physics are more like Judging credibility
science fiction than science fact, especially to a
non-scientist. They don’t make ordinary sense, However, there is an obvious problem when it
any more than the solar system made ordinary comes to judging who to believe. It is no easier
sense in the middle ages. The point of this is than judging what to believe. Suppose
that plausibility and justification do not someone says to you: ‘Look, I’m telling you
always correspond. Just because a claim seems the truth and I know what I’m talking about.’
implausible we should not reject it out of This is just a claim like any other. To believe in
hand; nor should we accept a claim just the source of the claim, you have to believe the
because it seems plausible. We need methods claim; and to believe the claim, you have to
believe the source. All you are doing is going
round in circles! What is needed is a set of

150 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

objective or independent criteria for judging a guideline, but it is no more than that. Cast
source’s credibility. your mind back to the eyewitness,
Mr Choudhury, in the previous chapter
What are the options? A good place to start is (page 147). He was a retired headteacher, and
reputation. Generally speaking, a witness or as such would have been expected to be
claimant with a reputation for honesty, good fair-minded and honest – especially towards
education, status in the community, and so on, students. Yet his testimony was less than
is a safer bet than someone with no such wholly reliable. Maybe he was mistaken about
reputation – or, worse still, a negative reputation. what he saw; maybe he was a supporter of the
A criminal with a record for fraud is less likely to visiting politician and took a dislike to Amelia
be believed than a law-abiding citizen with a for showing pleasure at his ill-treatment.
responsible job; and with good reason. It is Maybe none of these was the case, and he was
reasonable to believe that the probability of telling the unvarnished truth. The point is
obtaining the truth from a reputable source is that, although reputation is not irrelevant, on
greater than it is from a disreputable one. its own it does not guarantee credibility. It is
one factor among many.
But, as stated, this is a generalisation. Under
certain circumstances it may be more Choudhury’s evidence is interesting for
rewarding to consult a convicted criminal than another reason. He identified Amelia. He
an ordinary citizen. If, for example, the subject recognised her in a line-up as the person he had
of inquiry is criminality, a person who has seen throwing eggs. Here is his statement again:
committed crimes and knows the criminal
world is likely to be better informed than ‘She’s the one. She was up ahead of me in
someone who has no such experience. The risk the crowd, right where the stuff all came from.
that the fraudster may lie is balanced by his or She jumped up and down, and did a high five
her access to direct evidence. There is therefore with the kid next to her. They were loving it.
a second criterion that we can apply, namely Then she ducked down and picked something
experience, or expertise. Ideally, of course, we up. The crowd rushed forward then and I lost
would hope to find sources that are reputable sight of her, but later I saw her get arrested,
and informed. So, for instance, a qualified and saw her face close up. It was her all right.
researcher who has made it her business to Later I heard the police were asking for
investigate crime and criminal activity, study witnesses, so I came forward.’
statistics, talk to criminals and law-
enforcement officers, and analyse and verify Activity
her findings is arguably the best source of all.
In legal terms Choudhury’s identification of
Another point to be borne in mind about Amelia Jackson would be ‘inadmissible
reputation is that it may not be deserved. You evidence’. Why is this?
don’t have to read very many newspaper
articles before you come across a story of To put this another way: Why is Choudhury
someone who has held a highly respected not a credible witness?
position but betrayed the trust that comes
with it. No one’s occupation or rank is a Commentary
guarantee of credibility. Every so often a This question was partly answered in the
doctor, police officer, teacher or priest will be previous chapter. Choudhury did not claim to
discovered to have acted dishonestly or have seen Amelia actually throw anything. He
stupidly. Conversely, there are countless just said (twice): ‘She’s the one.’ The most that
people with no special status in society who could be pinned on her was showing
are honest and clever. Reputation is a

4.4 Credibility 151

excitement, and bending down to pick credibility. A newspaper that has known
something up. What she picked up the witness political affiliations – as have many if not most
does not say, raising the question of how he newspapers – may report an event, or give an
could be sure she picked anything up. account of something, in a way that another
publication, with different affiliations, flatly
But there is another weakness in contradicts. A third commentator may give yet
Choudhury’s supposedly ‘eyewitness’ another version of events, different from
account. Whoever he saw in the crowd, it was either of the others. Any one of the three may
from behind; and he lost sight of her in the be correct, but without any way of judging
crowd. He saw Amelia’s face close up only which one it is, we tend naturally, and
when she was arrested. That was the face he justifiably, to place most trust in the one that
picked out of the line-up, but whether or not has no ‘axe to grind’ – as the saying goes.
the two women were the same we can’t be Neutrality, therefore, is another criterion for
sure. If Choudhury had not seen the arrest, assessing credibility.
would he have identified Amelia in the
line-up? Again, we can’t be sure. The Vested interest
credibility of Choudhury as a witness
ultimately comes down to his ability to see One of the main reasons for doubting a
what, and who, he claims to have seen. source’s neutrality is the discovery of a vested
interest. Vested interests may take many forms,
A person’s ability to apprehend information the most familiar being financial interest.
is thus another important factor in assessing Take, for example, the following scenario: an
certain kinds of evidence. Imagine a witness oil company wants to sink an exploratory well
who claims to have overheard every detail of a in a region where there is some alleged risk of
private conversation at another table in a busy environmental damage, and possible harm to
restaurant. The credibility of the claim could wildlife. Environmentalists have voiced strong
be tested by asking her to sit at the same table opposition; the oil company has hired a team
and repeat what she hears in similar, or more of ‘independent’ experts to assess the risks and
favourable, circumstances. If she cannot hear report on their findings. After some time the
the words spoken in the test, she can hardly team produce a statement that there is
claim to have heard every detail of the alleged practically no risk of contamination or other
conversation. Her credibility as a witness damage, and the oil company gets the go-
would come down to her ability to hear what ahead. Then just before the drilling is due to
she says she heard, just as Rajinder start two of the experts on the team are found
Choudhury’s comes down to his ability to see. to have substantial shares in the oil industry.
Had the report been negative, they would
Neutrality have lost a lot of money; as it stands, they will
make a lot of money instead.
As noted at the end of the last chapter, there is
a possibility that Choudhury may have Obviously the report is discredited, not
formed a dislike for Amelia. He seems quite because it is necessarily false, but because of
eager to point the finger at her, even though the vested interest of two of its authors. This
he has little hard evidence; and there is is an extreme example, and a stereotypical
something in the tone of his testimony which one. But it is illustrative. The general question
hints at disapproval. If this were the case, it that we have to ask is therefore this: Does the
would further undermine confidence in the author of the claim have any reason to make
evidence. As well as being able and informed, a the claim, other than believing it to be the
reliable source should, as far as possible, be truth? If the answer is yes, truth may not be
neutral. Even the possibility of bias or the author’s highest priority.
prejudice is enough to lessen a source’s

152 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Corroboration known that they had conferred, that would
actually detract from their credibility, for it
Each of the criteria that we have discussed would have to be explained why they had
affects how we judge a claim. Yet none of conferred. If they were both simply telling the
them, on its own, is sufficient to put a claim truth, there would be no need to confer.
beyond reasonable doubt. A claim is, by its
nature, uncertain, whoever has made it and Corroboration is at its most potent when
however plausible it may be. Corroboration there is agreement between different kinds of
has been discussed at various points already, evidence: for example, when statistical
so that it doesn’t need any further evidence bears out what several independent
explanation. Of all the criteria for assessing witnesses have said, and the circumstantial
credibility, it is perhaps the most potent. This evidence all points in the same direction. By
is hardly surprising, since it is not really a the same token, credibility is at its lowest
single reason to believe a claim, but a when there is a lack of corroboration, or
combination of reasons supporting and disagreement.
endorsing each other.
Summary
The simplest form of corroboration is
agreement – though it must be agreement • In the absence of knowledge or certainty
between independent sources. If two or more about the truth of some portion of
people make the same claim, or express the evidence, we often have to rely on its
same opinion, there is more reason to believe credibility.
it than if one person alone has made the
claim. It is crucial to add the word • There are a number of criteria by which we
‘independent’ here, because if it is found that can judge credibility:
one person has influenced the others, the • the plausibility of the claim or claims
added credibility is cancelled, for they are themselves
effectively making a single, repeated claim • the reputation, expertise, independence
rather than several separate claims which and/or neutrality of the source
genuinely corroborate each other. You may • the ability to have seen or perceived
recall that in the previous chapter, the police what is being claimed
interviewed Amelia Jackson’s flatmates • the absence of vested interest (or motive
separately. The fact that they still gave the for saying one thing rather than another)
same answers added to the credibility of what • corroboration by other evidence or from
they said, but there was still the possibility other sources.
that they had conferred in advance, and
anticipated the questions. Indeed, if it is

End-of-chapter assignment and, most importantly, why you reached those
decisions.)
This assignment can be completed
individually in writing, or as a group Read the following passage carefully and
discussion. (If you choose the second of answer the questions that follow.
these, you should also make notes on what
you discussed, what decisions you came to

4.4 Credibility 153

PARTYTIME STAR ACCUSED
OF STEALING SONG

by Jan Ewbank, Arts and media correspondent

The superstar band another thought afterwards. scrapbook. In it was a
Partytime, and their lead It was only when I heard If picture of a very young
singer Magnolia, came under You Knew that I recognised Magnolia fronting a student
more fire yesterday when it Maggie – and my song.’ band. Under it were the
was alleged that their names of the group,
number one hit, If You Knew, Magnolia hotly denies the including ‘Maggie Coleman’.
was originally written by an claim. ‘I don’t even There was also a handwritten
unknown schoolteacher who remember anyone called song with guitar chords, but
has never received a cent in Sarah Berry,’ she says. ‘I no tune. The chorus runs:
recognition. wrote If You Knew because I
was fed up of hearing rich ‘If you’d been to the places
The disclosure came hot people whingeing when I’ve been / And seen the
on the heels of criticism that there’s real hardship and things that I’ve seen / You
Magnolia has cashed in suffering in the world, like we wouldn’t be sighing that life
big-time on her much saw in Africa. Whoever she is so trying . . .’
publicised, so-called charity is, she’s on the make. If
visits to developing countries she’s got any proof she Magnolia sings the chorus
last year. ought to produce it – or of If You Knew in front of a
otherwise shut up.’ big screen showing
Now, if the latest harrowing images. Her
accusations are true, her Partytime’s road manager chorus goes: ‘If you knew
most famous song isn’t even Paco added: ‘I was around the things that he’s seen /
hers to sing. It appears that when Mags was writing it. It Been to the places she’s
the tune and chorus of If You came straight from her heart been / You’d have less to
Knew were written ten years after the tour. We write all say in your self-centred
ago by Sarah Berry. Sarah our own songs. People are way . . .’
had worked as a volunteer in always coming out of the
Africa before training as a woodwork accusing stars of When I confronted her with
teacher. At college she met plagiarising – you know, this evidence, Magnolia said:
Magnolia, then Maggie stealing their songs – once ‘OK. Maybe this woman did
Coleman. they’re famous. This Berry stand on the stage with me
woman’s not the first and once when we were at
‘The college did a charity won’t be the last.’ college. Maybe we sang a
concert, and we were both in song together and some bits
it,’ she recalls. ‘I wrote a I visited Sarah in her of it stuck in my mind. That
song for it, and Maggie sang rented one-room apartment. doesn’t mean she wrote it,
it. I didn’t think it was all that She dug out an old whatever she pasted in her
good, and never gave it photograph album and scrapbook. It’s so long ago I

154 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

just don’t remember. As for Sarah’s scrapbook would fit said: ‘Upwards of twenty to
the tune, that was all mine, the melody line of If You one. Not huge. It’s quite a
and that’s what really counts.’ Knew, although it would not common sequence in
be impossible for the same popular music.’
I next visited Professor Jon chords to fit two quite
Rudenko, who has been different tunes. Asked to The jury is out on this one,
called as an expert witness estimate the odds against but whatever the verdict, it’s
in many high-profile two tunes having these another unwanted smear on
plagiarism wrangles. He told same chords by chance, he Magnolia’s already tarnished
me the chord sequence in reputation.

1 Assuming it has been fairly represented 4 Imagine you were an informal jury
by the author, decide how credible is the considering the evidence contained in
testimony given by each of the following: the article. What would your verdict be,
and why?
• Magnolia
• Sarah Berry 5 Assess the language used by the author
• Paco Jan Ewbank. Do you consider it to be a
• Jon Rudenko. fair and neutral report, or judgemental,
perhaps even biased? What evidence is
Base your assessments on the criteria there, if any, of partiality towards one side
discussed in the chapter. or the other?

2 Identify and assess one or more pieces Answers and comments are on page 324.
of circumstantial evidence reported in the
article.

3 As a source of information, how reliable
do you consider Jan Ewbank’s article to
be in its reporting of the dispute? On
what grounds might someone question its
reliability?

4.4 Credibility 155

4.5 Two case studies

to canteen

safe

manager secretary deputy manager
wall clock

Case One: Who’s telling the truth? Manager’s evidence
‘ I was away from the office for about 20
The diagram is a plan of the Management minutes. I didn’t lock the safe. I quite often
Suite on the first floor of a firm’s premises. don’t lock it in the daytime, and nothing has
Some money, in a brown envelope, has gone ever gone missing before. I am fairly certain
missing from the safe, and an investigation is the deputy manager’s door was open and his
underway. office was empty when I left, and it was still
empty when I returned. It was when I got back
General facts that I realised the money was missing.’
Three people are employed in the
Management Suite: Deputy manager’s evidence
‘ I went into the manager’s office only once,
• the manager (Mrs Mann) and she was there at her desk. At around
• the deputy manager (Mr Depp) 10.00 I went to the canteen because there
• the secretary (Rita). was a driver who had a problem to discuss –
an argument he had had with another worker.
O nly the manager knows the safe It took over half an hour to sort out.’
combination.
Driver’s evidence
Secretary’s evidence ‘I was with Mr Depp in the canteen from
‘ I took the manager her morning coffee at around 10.00. We talked for quite a long
9.30. I noticed the safe was open and the time. I didn’t notice how long. We were sorting
brown package was visible inside it. I took her out a personal problem.’
the mail at 10.00 and it was still open.
Immediately after that the manager left her Activity
office and went straight along the corridor.
She was away about 20 minutes. Mr Depp, Following on from the discussions in the
the deputy manager, came out of his own previous chapter, assess the evidence given
office and visited the manager’s office twice above. Use it to ask yourself who, if anyone,
that morning: once at about 9.45 and again is not telling the truth.
while the manager was away – I couldn’t say
the exact time.’

156 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Commentary talk to the driver. They are both normal,
What we have here are two conflicting stories. unsurprising events in a typical office day, and
The secretary, Rita, claims that the deputy there is no obvious reason to believe one rather
manager went into the manager’s office twice, than the other. It is only because they conflict
once while the manager was in there and once that we would question them at all. But since
after she had left. The deputy manager, Mr they do conflict, we have to question them.
Depp, confirms that he went into her office
the first time, but denies the second. He claims Corroboration
that during the time he was alleged to have Where Depp’s statement scores over Rita’s is
entered the manager’s office he was in the that it gets some measure of corroboration
canteen talking to a driver. At some time both from the driver and from the manager
during all this, some money went missing herself. Rita has no witnesses or circumstances
from the safe. The secretary’s statement, if to corroborate her counter-claim. However,
true, casts considerable suspicion on Depp. the corroborating evidence is not 100% solid.
The manager says that she is ‘fairly certain’ the
We will start by considering the witnesses deputy manager’s door was open and his office
themselves. The three occupants of the was empty when she left. The driver, too, gives
Management Suite are the manager, the rather vague estimates: ‘I was with Mr Depp . . .
deputy manager and the secretary. The driver around 10.00. We talked for quite a long time.’
is also a witness. Their ranking in the company Conceivably, by this reckoning, the meeting
is probably in that order. So does this mean we could have ended in time for Depp to go back
should rank the reliability of their evidence in to his offices before Mrs Mann returned. So,
the same way: the manager’s more than the although the corroboration of two other
deputy’s, the deputy’s more than the witnesses adds to Depp’s credibility, it does not
secretary’s, the driver’s least of all? by any means remove all doubt about his
version of events.
In a word, no. In some cases there may be
more reason to trust a manager’s judgement Suppositional reasoning: ‘What if . . . ?’
over a junior employee’s, on the grounds of So far it looks very much like a case of one
their respective qualifications and experience. person’s word against another’s. But there is a
But we are not talking about judgement here, way forward. It involves a very useful
only about honesty and accuracy. You may technique known as suppositional reasoning.
argue that a manager has more to lose than a Suppositional reasoning typically starts with
secretary. But it would be quite unjustified to phrases such as ‘Supposing . . .’ or ‘What if . . . ?’
assume that therefore the secretary is more
likely to be dishonest. It would be even more For example, suppose that the secretary is
unjustified to assume that the secretary was right: that Depp did go into the manager’s
less likely to be accurate in her statement. If office while she was away, which was also
you looked carefully at the evidence you will during the period when the money went
have seen that it is the secretary who is the missing. What would follow from this? It
most exact in the information she gives, the would mean, of course, that Depp had an
manager the most vague and imprecise. And it opportunity to take the money. It would also
should not be overlooked that the manager left mean that he was lying when he said he was
the safe unlocked, suggesting some absent- away from the offices throughout the
mindedness or carelessness on her part. manager’s absence, unless he had mysteriously
forgotten where he had been that morning.
What about the statements themselves: are And it is hard to understand why he would lie
they equally plausible? On the face of it, yes. unless he had something to hide. But would
There is nothing improbable about Depp going he really have walked into the manager’s
into the manager’s office, or about his going to

4.5 Two case studies 157

office, taken the money and walked out again him to say they had been in the canteen all
with the secretary sitting at her desk, then the time. So that the manager would think he
simply denied it in the hope that he would be was not in his office he left the door open and
believed and not her? hid behind it as she passed. Is this all possible?
Yes, it’s possible. But it is unlikely. For a start,
If the secretary is right it also means that how would Depp know when the manager
the manager wrongly thought the deputy’s was going to leave? This, added to the fact that
office was empty when she passed it on two the secretary would see him, makes such a
occasions; and that the driver’s statement is possibility too remote to take very seriously.
questionable. In other words, we would have
to disbelieve three people’s statements in order On balance of probabilities, it seems that
to believe the secretary’s statement. For them the secretary’s version of events is altogether
all to be wrong would be quite a coincidence. less credible than Depp’s. And that is the
For them all to be lying would require some most rational conclusion.
mysterious explanation.
Case Two: Collision course
So although the secretary’s story seems
credible enough in itself, when we subject it to Two drivers – Ed Farr and Ray Crowe – collided
this kind of critical examination, it turns out and spun off the track in heavy rain in the last
to have some unlikely consequences. A race of the season earlier today. Neither driver
consequence is something that follows from was injured, but the incident put both cars out of
something else. If we find that a certain claim, the race, leaving Crowe as World Champion for
or version of events, would have puzzling the second year running. Before the race there
consequences, that must throw some doubt was just one point between the two drivers. If Farr
on the claim. had finished the race ahead of Crowe, he would
have moved into first place and taken the title.
What if we accept the deputy manager’s
account? First of all it is consistent with what After the race an inquiry was called for into
two other witnesses are saying, and that has to allegations that Ray Crowe had intentionally
be in Depp’s favour, even if their statements collided with his opponent’s car. The
are a bit vague and uncertain. But, of course, it following items of evidence were noted:
means that Rita is lying. It also means that Rita
was alone in the Management Suite for about [1] F arr’s team manager reacted furiously by
20 minutes when the money went missing. claiming that Crowe had deliberately
She therefore would have had a much better swerved and forced their driver off the
opportunity than Depp to steal and hide the track as he tried to overtake on a
money with no one around to see her. If she notorious S-bend* known as the Slide.
did steal the money, she also had a motive for ‘It was no surprise, either,’ she added.
trying to pin the blame on someone else. ‘With Ed out of the race, Crowe knew he
had won the championship. Of course he
If you compare the two suppositions, meant to do it.’
Depp’s story has much more believable
consequences than Rita’s. This does not put it [2]  A television camera team filmed Crowe
beyond reasonable doubt that the secretary is walking away from his wrecked car. He
a thief and a liar, but it does make her story appears to be smiling as he removes his
harder to swallow. helmet. He says to reporters: ‘I hope
you’re not all going to blame this on me. I
Suppose the deputy manager planned the just held my line**, and that is completely
theft with the driver. He waited for the within the rules.’ Later he added: ‘It was
manager to leave her office, walked in there as all Ed’s fault. He could have killed us
the secretary reported, took the money, and both. It was a crazy place to try to
later slipped out to give it to the driver and tell overtake. He has only himself to blame.’

158 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

[3] E d Farr stated: ‘There was plenty of room *  S-bend: a double bend in a road or
to get past if Crowe had held his line**. He track, shaped like the letter S.
waited till I came level, then drove into me.’
**  Holding your line: staying on your
[4]  Today’s race winner Waleed Akram, who chosen course, not swerving or cutting
was just behind the two cars at the time, across another driver. The rules of the
commented: ‘That’s motor racing. Ray had sport permit a driver to choose his line
earned his one point lead, and he was just through a bend, but not intentionally to
defending it. If it had been the other way cause a collision.
round, Ed would probably have done the
same. Everyone was expecting something Crowe
like this to happen.’ Asked if he had seen Farr
Crowe swerve, he said: ‘Maybe not a
“swerve” exactly, but he could have Race
avoided the crash. Anyway, it stands to o cial
reason that he would take Ed out of the
race if he got the chance. It’s not the first Spectators’ area
time he’s done something like that.’
28.07 .36
[5] C omputer-generated images (see right)
were made from trackside cameras, 28.07 .47
recording the positions of the cars just
before, and just as, they made contact. Akram

[6] A race official, stationed on the bend, 28.08 .12
reported: ‘There was a lot of spray as
the cars rounded the bend. Farr tried to
cut through on the inside. He was almost
past when the two cars touched. They
both spun and ended up on the verge
opposite. It is hard to tell, but to me it
just looked like an accident.’

[7] J ournalist Gudrun Brecht added to the
controversy by reporting that she had been
at a party two days before the race and
that she had heard Crowe openly boasting
that he would ‘do anything necessary to
win the championship’. She wrote: ‘I know
Crowe well, and he makes no secret of his
determination to win, whatever it takes.’

[8] O n record: Crowe was involved in two
similar controversies in previous
seasons, but on both occasions he was
cleared of any blame.

4.5 Two case studies 159

Answer each of the following questions and Activity
compare your answer with the commentary
that follows. The questions are similar to those 2 How reliable is Akram as a witness?
set in Cambridge Thinking Skills Paper 2. Consider what he has to say in the light of
other information and evidence available.
Activity What impact should his statement have on
the outcome of the inquiry?
1 What is the team manager’s argument
for blaming Crowe for the incident? How Commentary
strong is her statement as evidence Akram claims to be an eyewitness. However,
against Crowe? given what the race official says, and taking
into account his (Akram’s) position on the
Commentary track when the collision occurred, it is
The manager’s argument is based on what she doubtful whether he could have seen very
sees as Crowe’s motive. She is pointing out a much. Like Farr’s manager, Akram bases his
fact when she says that with Ed out of the race assessment of what happened partly on
Crowe would win the championship. But she Crowe’s motives, but also on his past record.
infers too much from it. Besides, she is He says ‘it stands to reason’ that Crowe did it
probably biased and sounds angry. As Ed Farr’s on purpose.
manager she has a vested interest in the
outcome of the race. We say someone has a Unfortunately, it doesn’t really stand to
vested interest in an outcome if they are likely reason at all. Akram is unable to say that
to benefit, financially or otherwise, if the Crowe actively ‘swerved’, yet he is prepared to
decision goes one way rather than the other. say he allowed the crash to happen. As a
Crowe, Farr and the manager all have an professional racing driver, we can give Akram
obvious vested interest in the outcome of this credit for having the expertise to make such a
case. The other witnesses may or may not, but claim: he would know better than most people
there is no reason to think they have. if an accident could have been avoided or not.
But that is not to say that Crowe let it happen
We don’t know if the manager actually intentionally. It could just have been
witnessed the incident first-hand, but even if carelessness that caused it, or poor visibility.
she did, it would be very hard to say that one Akram is not really in a position to make such
of the drivers had acted intentionally. She uses a judgement objectively.
the tell-tale phrase ‘of course’ to show that she
is assuming there was intention on Crowe’s Activity
part because it would be to his advantage.
3 How seriously can you take the evidence
On its own this is not strong evidence. The provided by Gudrun Brecht?
fact that someone stands to gain from some
act or other does not mean he or she will Commentary
commit that act. However, taken together This evidence cannot be taken very seriously
with other evidence, motive does add some at all. It is a classic case of hearsay evidence:
weight to the argument. Let’s put it this way: if she ‘heard him’ boasting that he would do
he didn’t have a motive, there would be much anything necessary to win. We don’t have any
less reason to think Crowe caused the crash means of knowing if these were his exact
deliberately.

160 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

words, or if they were a journalist’s colourful drawn, but it would be wrong to interpret
way of presenting them. Besides, even if they Crowe’s apparent smile as a sign of guilt.
were his exact words, they don’t really tell us
how far Crowe was prepared to go. Maybe he As for his own defence, which takes the
meant he would try as hard as he could, but form of a pre-emptive attack on Farr, there
would draw the line at risking his life and the may be some justification for what he says. We
lives of others just to get the title. do not have a great deal to go on other than
the three computer-generated images of the
Also, Gudrun claims, ‘I know Crowe well.’ incident. These are the focus of the next
She doesn’t say whether she likes or dislikes question.
him, but from the statement she makes it is
more likely that it is dislike. If she were fond of Activity
him, she would hardly imply so strongly that
he was prepared to cheat. This makes her a less 5 What evidence can be found in the images
reliable witness, since her neutrality is in to support either of the two sides involved
question. As sports-page gossip, what she says in the dispute?
is of some interest, but it ought not to count
for much as evidence of guilt in an official Commentary
inquiry. Unlike almost all the evidence supplied by
witnesses, the images are hard evidence.
Activity The saying ‘the camera never lies’ is often
challenged because nowadays almost anyone
4 Can you draw any conclusions from Ray can fake or ‘doctor’ a photograph. But it is still
Crowe’s behaviour and his comments as true that the camera itself doesn’t lie: it is what
the camera team filmed him walking away is done with the photographs afterwards that
from the crash site? can create deception. Anyway, we will assume
these images are an accurate reconstruction.
Commentary
Crowe’s actual denial counts for very little, for One way to approach this question is to
obvious reasons. If he had collided with Farr in draw on the picture the line you think Crowe
order to win the championship, he would be would have chosen through the S-bend.
just as likely to deny that it was intentional. It Obviously racing drivers like to steer through
could also be said that he was very quick to bends by the fastest route, but if other cars are
deny it, doing so even before he had been in their way they have to go wide to get round
asked about it. On the other hand he may have them. Remembering what the rules are, do
expected a hostile reaction from the media, you think Crowe keeps strictly to a natural
whether he was guilty or not, especially given line, or does he steer over into Farr’s path as
his apparent reputation. he comes level and so cause the collision?

The smile he appears to have as he takes off Read again what the two drivers had to say
his helmet may be a smile of satisfaction, or of and what the race official saw, and, on the
relief. It may even be a sarcastic smile, at seeing strength of the pictures, decide whose story is
the cameras and the television crew appear so more believable. There is no right or wrong
quickly. Smiles and other facial expressions are answer to this: you have to draw your own
often seized on by the media, and conclusions conclusions – and support them with the
evidence as you find it.

4.5 Two case studies 161

End-of-chapter assignments questions. She could not say what
the notes were about specifically.
1 On the basis of the evidence, can it be C  An intercepted text message from a
concluded that Ray Crowe intentionally postgraduate st udent to Corinne’s
collided with Farr? Give a short, reasoned phone, saying: ‘Cant believe u r
argument to support your answer. bribing me. Wot kinda friend r u!!!
Write your own essay.’
2 The principal of a college is investigating
allegations that one of the students, Rank these three items according to
Corinne Blake, has cheated on multiple the weight you would give them, stating
occasions by: copying essays found reasons for your assessments.
on the internet; asking friends
to write assignments for her; and 3 Comment critically on the following further
taking revision notes into an exam. item of evidence given to the principal
Corinne denies all the allegations and says investigating the allegations against Corinne
that the other students are accusing her Blake. It is from a report by an educational
out of spite. psychologist who interviewed Corinne:

The evidence in front of the principal ‘Miss Blake seemed agitated and
consists of three items, all messages: anxious. Her mannerisms and body
language were consistent with the
A  An anonymous email sent to the behaviour of someone who has
principal. It reads: ‘I heard Corinne something to hide. When asked to
Blake tell a friend she had repeat the answers she had given to
downloaded stuff off the internet and some of the questions in the exam
got an A for it. They were both having she gave a number of incoherent
a good laugh about it. I thought you responses which suggested to me that
should know.’ she had less knowledge of the subject
matter than her written answers
B  A statement by a student saying that might have indicated. I do not believe
she had been sitting behind Corinne she could have given those answers
in an exam and watched her unfold a without external help of some sort.’
page of notes and read it under the
desk before answering one of the

162 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

4.6 Critical thinking and science

Science is a highly disciplined form of critical detect. They can make measurements of things
thinking. This is not surprising, since science is where humans can only estimate crudely. A
a methodology that is reliant upon evidence, in seismometer, for instance, is a device for
particular the evidence provided by measuring earth tremors. It can give accurate
observation and experiment. Scientists make readings of movements far below the ground
observations and use them both to construct that no human would notice or find significant.
and to test their theories. A scientific theory is Such readings are also ‘observations’.
only as good as the evidence on which it is
based and the reasoning by which scientists If they are made accurately, these are facts; but
proceed in drawing their conclusions. All that without accuracy they remain observations.
has been said about not leaping to conclusions, Their importance, scientifically, lies in the use
or making unwarranted assumptions, applies they can be put to as evidence for hypotheses
with particular relevance to science. or predictions: for example, the causes of
earthquakes, or the risk of earthquakes in a
An observation in scientific terms is any fact given region. For such purposes single
that can be verified by experience: for example, observations are rarely sufficient for
evidence of the senses. It means more than just establishing conclusions. A large part of
visual data. If I suddenly sense the ground scientific inquiry therefore involves the
trembling beneath my feet, or hear a rumbling analysis of collections of data to identify
sound, or see a cup fall off a shelf, these are all patterns and correlations. Observations on
observations. I may not know what has caused their own can be thought of as ‘raw’ data. To
them: they may be indicative of an earthquake, function as evidence this raw data generally
or just a heavy vehicle passing on the road, or a has to be collated and interpreted, often in the
controlled explosion in a nearby quarry. form of tables, graphs, reports and so on. A
Without further evidence I have no way of critical question therefore arises as to whether
inferring which, if any of them, is the correct the processed data is fair and objective, or
interpretation. But the experience itself – the whether it distorts the facts in one direction or
observation or sensation – remains the same another. For instance, if the observation
whatever its cause turns out to be. concerns a sample of data, is it a representative
sample; or is it selective, exaggerated, biased or
Of course, people can be mistaken about misleading in any way?
what they experience. We sometimes imagine
things, or misremember them. A reliable
scientific observation is therefore one which
cannot be dismissed easily. If many people
describe having had the same experience at the
same time, that is better evidence than one
person’s word. The term we use for this, as
introduced in Chapter 4.3, is ‘corroboration’.
Observations may be even more trustworthy if
they are detected and recorded by instruments
or sensors. Moreover, instruments can often
pick up information that human senses cannot

4.6 Critical thinking and science 163

Good science is self-critical on just these Commentary
points. Not only do serious scientists, whose As stated, this is an open discussion, so there is
aim is to discover the truth, check their own no single right way to tackle it. The only
findings with care and make every effort to stipulation is that you should provide more
avoid reasoning errors, they check each than just opinions. If all you say is that you
other’s work critically – a procedure known as think animals do behave like humans and
‘peer review’. Among the flaws that they look form social networks, or that they don’t, this
for are two which have been discussed in would not be a critical response. Nor would it
previous chapters: over-generalising from be a scientific one. For the response to be
limited examples, and confusing correlation critical it would have to include reasons as
with cause. Both are easy errors to make. well as opinions and judgements. For it to be
scientific it would have to have some
Scientific method is not only of interest evidential basis.
within science. Any evidence-based reasoning
should be subjected to the same critical You are also asked to consider the meaning
standards as good science. We see scientific of the term ‘social’. It’s all very well to say that
methods being applied in subjects as diverse as many animals live in groups – herds, shoals,
history, economics, sociology, psychology and flocks, packs, colonies, etc. – but it is another
education, and many more. thing altogether to assert that these are social
groups. On the other hand it is unjustified to
An example: social networks claim that social groups belong only to
humans unless you can say what you consider
A field of study in which many modern so special about human groups. Recognising
scientists have developed an interest is social and defining key terms in a text is one of the
networking, especially with the coming of essential skills of any critical thinking
phenomena such as Facebook, Twitter and so assignment. In this case it is very obvious that
on. Are these purely modern and human the whole discussion turns on the definition of
inventions, or are they products of our natural a ‘social’ group. For example, compare a group
animal evolution? A key question is: of friends or work colleagues, or a military unit,
with a herd of wildebeest or with a shoal of
Do other animals, besides humans, form fish. Clearly these are all groups of one kind or
‘social’ networks? another. But what, if any, are the key
differences? It is generally argued by zoologists
Activity and others that herding is an instinct for
self-preservation by the individuals in the
Take some time to think about and/or group. If a wildebeest strays from the herd it is
discuss the question above. You do not need more likely to be singled out for attack by a
any specialist knowledge to do this: it is an predator. A lone animal is easy prey. The best
open discussion, an exploration of ideas. place for a wildebeest to be is near the middle
However, you should try to bring some of the herd, so wildebeest have developed a
examples or evidence into the discussion. herd instinct for reasons of survival. There is
You can use your own observations and no obvious evidence that within the herd
experiences as evidence – for example, wildebeest form relationships, and less still
documentaries you have seen of animals in that fish form relationships within the shoal. If
the wild, and the way they behave. Think, too, all that is involved in herding is each
about what is meant by ‘social’ in this individual’s instinct for self-preservation, there
context. is nothing ‘social’ about that.

164 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Now that you have had a chance to discuss typically live with only three or four others,
and think about the issues and terms involved, groom for 5 per cent of their day at most.
we can turn to a text which deals with the Baboons, meanwhile, live in groups of 50 or
subject on a more scientific level. more and can spend as much as 20 per cent
of their time grooming. However, as group size
A scientific study and time spent grooming increases, this
A scientist who has undertaken extensive social effort is concentrated on fewer and
research in this area is Robin Dunbar, Professor fewer partners.
of Evolutionary Anthropology at the   Although we use grooming in intimate
University of Oxford. His research focuses on relationships, the very intimacy of the activity
the evolution of sociality in the primates: the makes it ineffective as a tool for bonding our
order that includes apes, monkeys and large social groups. Instead, we have evolved
humans. He is particularly interested in the alternative ways to create the same endorphin
structure and dynamics of human social surge on a bigger scale. One of these is
networks. The following extracts are from an laughter, another is communal music-making.
article published in New Scientist. Although Language, too, plays an important role – not
they all come from the same article, they are only can we speak to many people at the
presented here as four separate documents to same time, we can also exchange information
make them easier to refer to in the activity about the state of our networks in a way that
which follows. other primates cannot. Gossip, I have argued,
is a very human form of grooming.
DOC A
* ‘Grooming’ means tidying, removing dirt or
We tend to think of social networks as being nits from fur, etc.
distinctly human. In fact, they occur wherever
animals live in ‘bonded’ groups – where DOC C
individuals gather together because of their
personal relationships rather than being forced Primates with a large social network have
to by environmental factors such as a food bigger brains*
source or safe sleeping site. Bonded groups
are found among all primates and a few other 1000
mammals . . . Such networks have benefits,
but they are also costly to maintain and are Mean group size Humans
only an option for the smartest of species. 100

DOC B Monkeys Apes
10
M onkeys and apes create and nurture social
relationships by grooming* each other. The 1
physical action of being groomed is rather like 1 2 3 45
massage and triggers the release of Neocortex ratio**
chemicals called endorphins. This creates a
light euphoria that seems to make it possible * In Doc C ‘bigger brains’ means more than just
for animals that groom each other to build a brain volume. It is the proportion of the whole
relationship based on friendship and trust. brain that is associated with higher functions
The average time spent grooming by members like perception and communication. This is
of a species correlates with the size of their called the ‘neocortex’. In humans the neocortex
social group. Those, such as gibbons, which is the part of the brain which enables language,
reasoning and conscious thought.

** Neocortex ratio = neocortex volume divided
by volume of the rest of brain

4.6 Critical thinking and science 165

Time spent grooming (percentage)DOC D gathering and a mere herd or pack. According
to Professor Dunbar, these bonded groups
The larger a primate’s group size, the longer occur among many animals, including all the
they spend grooming to cement bonds primates – apes, monkeys, humans, etc. – and
some other mammals too.
20
You are not asked to assess the evidence,
15 nor to evaluate the argument. To do that you
would need to have read more widely. But it is
10 clear that if the author is right in saying that
primates form groups that are bonded by
5 relationships, rather than mere environmental
factors, then there are grounds for the claim
0 that social groups are not distinctly human.
1 30 60 90 120 150
Group size Activity

The four documents above – two textual and 2 Does the data in Doc C support the view
two graphical – are typical of those used for that a species’ average group size tells
critical thinking questions in many us something about how ‘smart’ (i.e.
examinations. Once you are familiar with the intelligent) it is?
content, have a go at answering the questions
below, each of which is followed by a short Commentary
commentary, discussing the question and We will begin by saying something about the
suggesting a suitable answer (or answers). data itself. Doc C is a scatter graph. Scatter
graphs are intended to show correlations. Here
Activity the correlation being investigated is between
brain size (the horizontal axis) and average
1 In the paragraph marked Doc A, what group size (the vertical axis) in primates. ‘Brain
viewpoint is the author challenging, and size’, as explained in the notes, is a shorthand
on what basic grounds does he make the for something rather more complicated,
challenge? namely the amount of an animal’s brain that is
associated with higher levels of intelligence. It
Commentary is measured as a ratio, and obtained by
This is a very straightforward question. In dividing the volume of the whole brain by the
Doc A the author sets out his target for what volume of the neocortex. In humans the
follows: the view that social networks are neocortex is over four times the volume of the
distinctly human. He challenges this view by rest of the brain, making the human brain the
claiming that social networks occur wherever ‘biggest’ in the defined sense.
there are ‘bonded’ groups, defining bonding
as gathering together for more than just You may have noticed the somewhat
physical reasons such as food and security. unusual scale that has been used on the graph,
This is the key difference between a social especially on the vertical axis. The lowest band
shows group sizes between 1 and 10, the
second between 10 and 100. Mathematicians
among you will recognise this as a logarithmic
scale. It is a useful device when the range of

166 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

values is large, as it is in this case. Group sizes primates, which are already understood to be
start at about 3 and rise to around 150 (in at the smarter end of the scale of animal
humans). With an ordinary scale the graph intelligence. You may want to qualify your
would either have to be very tall, or the dots answer by saying that the graph tells us
would be packed so tightly together that they something about smartness and bonded
would be difficult to tell apart. groups.

Each dot or circle on the graph represents Another point you might make is that the
one species. The pattern of the dots suggests graph tells us only about the correlation
that the primates with bigger brains tend to between group size and brain size (or neocortex
form larger groups. Most of the monkeys with ratio to be precise.) Does this permit us to make
a brain size rated at less than 2 live in group the further claim that animals which form
sizes smaller than 10. Those with brain sizes bigger groups are ‘smarter’? To put it another
between 2 and 3 form much larger groups: way, is there an assumption that brain size
anywhere between 10 and 100. With apes, too, equals smartness? The problem is that we need
there is a correlation between brain and group a definition of smartness that connects it with
size, although their groups are slightly smaller brain size. Without that it would be jumping
in relation to their brain size. Only humans to a conclusion to say that group size – even
form groups of more than 100. bonded-group size – indicated intelligence.

So, to get back to the main question, the Another point still that you could raise is
graph does show a general correlation between that although there is a general match
brain size (as it is defined) and group size, both between group size and brain size, there are
in monkeys and in apes. Humans top the table some exceptions. As we observed earlier, the
on both counts, and humans are very smart – three ape species apparently form smaller
or so we tell ourselves. Therefore it could be groups than many monkeys with similar-sized
argued that group size is an indicator of or even smaller brains. If apes are more
smartness: the larger the group, the greater intelligent because their brains are larger, why
the intelligence. The author even offers an would they live in smaller groups? This at
explanation for this in Doc A. Social networks, least requires some explanation if we want to
he says, are ‘costly’, and only the smartest make the connection between group size and
species could manage them. (By ‘cost’ he smartness.
probably means the time and effort that they
take up, which could be spent eating or So a good answer to a question like this is
hunting instead.) more than simply yes or no. You may be
satisfied that the graph does tell us something
But there is a proviso. Yes, the data on group about the smartness of a species, but you
size and brain size does tell us something must be able to say why you reached this
about the smartness or intelligence of a judgement. You should also be prepared to
species, but only if the groups in question are qualify your answer by adding reservations, or
‘bonded’ or ‘social’ groups. We know from the acknowledging the assumptions that have to
earlier discussion that big herds, shoals and so be made, or further questions that have to be
on don’t count as social groups. If they did answered. Likewise, if you decided that the
then there would be some animals (e.g. some graph does not tell us anything about
fish) that have very small brains but gather smartness, you would need to give your
together in groups of thousands. The graph on reasons, and to acknowledge what it does tell
its own, therefore, is selective. It relates only to us as well as what it does not.

4.6 Critical thinking and science 167

Activity large groups, spend much less time grooming
than baboons, which form groups of 50 or
3 In the first sentence of Doc B, the author more. Of course, two favourable examples do
claims that monkeys and apes develop not prove the theory correct, or even give it
social relations by grooming each other. much support. Doc D, on the other hand,
How well does the rest of the document, provides many such examples. And, as in Doc
and the information in the second graph B, the trend does support the hypothesis: time
(Doc D), support this claim? spent grooming does show a tendency to
increase with group size. There are a few
Commentary ‘outliers’, as they are called: one species which
Firstly the author explains how grooming may grooms more than most but has a group size of
account for the building of relationships around 10; and the primate with the second-
within a group. It is known that naturally largest group size grooms less than many
produced chemicals called endorphins can which live in smaller groups. (These are
cause a pleasurable (euphoric) feeling in ‘outliers’ because the points on the graphs lie
humans. We know that among the ‘triggers’ furthest from the centre of the bunch.) You
which release endorphins is massage, which is can single out for yourself other examples
very similar to grooming. Laughter, music- which are not typical. The question you must
making and so on have similar effects. If ask is whether these anomalies are enough to
people share these pleasurable experiences it discredit the theory, or whether they can be
tends to bind them together as friends or ignored, or explained (see Chapter 4.2,
partners. It is a plausible hypothesis that pages 140–1).
grooming has a similar effect among animals,
and results in bonding between individuals You might also have picked up on the fact
within the group. which Professor Dunbar makes at the end of
the first paragraph of Doc B: ‘As group size and
As we have seen several times in previous time spent grooming increases, this social
chapters, being plausible is not enough to effort is concentrated on fewer and fewer
make a hypothesis true. But it is enough to partners.’ This may seem puzzling. It may even
make it worth investigating further. This seem to contradict the main idea that group
brings us to one of the key features of scientific size goes with more grooming. For both
reasoning: the need to test hypotheses by reasons, it calls out for an explanation, which
looking for further evidence which either takes us on to our next and final question.
corroborates or disproves it. The methodology
is this: we suppose that the hypothesis is Activity
correct and ask ourselves what else would be
true or probable as a consequence. In this case 4 What explanation could be given for the
the question would be: If the grooming theory fact that in large groups grooming is
is right, what else would we expect to find? concentrated on fewer partners?

One quite obvious expectation would be Commentary
that animals with large social groups would do There may be a number of plausible
more grooming than those which form very explanations which you could give, so do not
small groups. In Doc B Professor Dunbar be concerned if your answer is different from
provides some data which suggests that this is the one here. It is a suggested answer, not the
indeed the case: gibbons, which don’t form

168 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

only correct one. The clue is in human interacting with the wider group, as humans
behaviour, and is discussed in the second do. That would account for the concentration
paragraph of Doc B. Humans form large of grooming on small numbers of partners. If
groups, compared with most if not all other this is the right explanation, it would also
primates – 150 on average (Doc C). Humans, support Dunbar’s claim that social groups are
as we know, use physical grooming only in not a purely human phenomenon.
very intimate relationships. With less intimate
acquaintances, Dunbar argues, grooming Summary
takes more varied and more acceptable forms
such as laughing, singing and gossiping. The • Scientists make observations and use
explanation we are looking for may therefore them both to construct and to test their
be that other more advanced primates, with theories.
larger group sizes, and with brain sizes
approaching those of humans, also reserve • Critical thinking has much in common with
grooming for their most intimate partners. scientific thinking.
Perhaps they too have other ways of

End-of-chapter assignments 2 Find out more about the research of Robin
Dunbar. Identify one of his theories and
1 Is there enough evidence in the extract you one or two items of evidence he gives in
have read to conclude that some animals support of it.
form social groups similar to those of
humans? Write a short reasoned case to
support your answer.

Questions in this form occur regularly in
Cambridge Thinking Skills Paper 2.

4.6 Critical thinking and science 169

4.7 Introducing longer arguments

We return now to arguments, but to longer help you to engage critically with the article
and more challenging texts than you have and the reasoning in it. As in the past, you
been working on so far. should try answering the questions yourself
before reading the commentaries.
Start by reading the passage below. It is
followed by a number of questions that will

THRILL OF THE CHASE that his speed is unsafe, he
will have pushed the pursued
In crowded cities across the thieves escape, or the policy is driver well beyond his limit of
competence.
country there has been a ignored, and injuries or deaths
The police may say that if
growing number of crashes as result. Not only is it obvious they were not allowed to
chase car thieves, this would
a result of police officers that this policy is ineffective – encourage more people to
commit more of these crimes.
pursuing stolen cars. Tragically, otherwise the crashes would Would it be so terrible if this
did happen? Surely saving
many of these high-speed not have happened – but it is lives is more important than
preventing thefts of cars, and
chases end in death, not just also easy to understand why. the police would be more
profitably employed trying to
of the car thieves but also of The police officers will find catch serious criminals rather
than bored, disadvantaged
innocent bystanders or other the chase exciting, since it is young men who steal cars for
excitement. In any case, there
road users. The police should a break from routine, and are other ways of stopping
stolen cars. For example, a
be prohibited from carrying out gives them the chance to feel certain device has been
developed which can be
these car chases. If someone that they really are hunting thrown onto the road surface
in front of the stolen car in
dies as a result of police criminals. Once the adrenaline order to bring it safely to a
halt. And sometimes the
activity and the fatal weapon is is flowing, their judgement as chases are unsuccessful – the
car thief succeeds in evading
a gun, there is rightly a huge to whether their speed is safe the police, abandons the car,
and escapes.
outcry. But if it is a car, that will become unreliable. Car

seems to be accepted as an chases can be huge fun for all

unavoidable accident. the participants.

The police say that they are Moreover, those police

not putting the public at officers who are trusted to

unnecessary risk, because undertake car chases are the

their policy is to stop the most experienced drivers who

chase when the speed have had special training in

becomes too high for safety. driving safely at high speed.

This merely emphasises the The car thieves, however, are

stupidity of carrying out the almost all young men with very

chases. Either the policy is little driving experience. By the

adhered to, and the car time the police driver judges

170 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Activity Note that these reasons have simply been
extracted from the passage and listed. A list
1 What is the main conclusion of the like this doesn’t show how the argument is
passage? structured, or how the reasons are grouped
together to form sub-arguments within the
Commentary whole argument.
The conclusion is in the first paragraph, and
you should have had no problem identifying Nor does the list show all the claims that are
it: ‘The police should be prohibited from made in the passage. For example, it doesn’t
carrying out these car chases.’ The two include the claim that car chases can be fun
sentences before the conclusion are (paragraph 3). This is because it is not one of the
introductory and explanatory. main reasons. Yes, it contributes to the argument
by helping to explain why police drivers may
Activity drive too fast for safety, namely because they
enjoy it. But by itself it does not provide any
2 Identify three or four of the main reasons grounds for believing that car chases should be
which the passage offers to support the banned. We would therefore classify the claim
conclusion that car chases should be about car chases being fun as an indirect reason,
banned. leading to an intermediate conclusion, rather
than directly to the main conclusion.
Commentary
You could have chosen any or all of the Similarly, the last half-sentence, after the
following as the main reasons offered in dash, explains in what sense car chases are
support of the conclusion: sometimes unsuccessful. It is the claim that
they are sometimes unsuccessful (as well as
• Car chases have led to the deaths of car dangerous and time-wasting) which is a main
thieves and innocent bystanders. premise here and therefore makes it into the list.

• The police drivers’ judgement as to Finally, of course, there are some claims
whether their speed is safe will become that are not reasons at all, or conclusions, but
unreliable. have other functions in the passage. The first
sentence of paragraph 2 is a good example. It
• By the time the police driver judges that offers no support at all for the conclusion,
his speed is unsafe, he will have pushed either directly or indirectly. Its role is to set up
the pursued driver well beyond his limit an objection that an opponent – in this case
of competence. the police – might wish to make. The objection
is that they, the police, have a policy of
• Saving lives is more important than stopping the chase if it becomes too fast for
preventing thefts of cars. safety, and that therefore they are not putting
the public at unnecessary risk. The author
• The police would be more profitably claims that the policy is both ineffective and
employed trying to catch serious stupid, and devotes the middle three
criminals. paragraphs of the passage to supporting these
claims. The next pair of questions focuses on
• There are other (safe) ways of stopping this section of the argument.
stolen cars.

• Sometimes the car chases are unsuccessful.

4.7 Introducing longer arguments 171

Activity Activity

3 What grounds does the author have for 4 Are there any assumptions that are not
saying that the police policy ‘emphasises stated in the passage but that the author
the stupidity’ of car chases? appears to be making in connection with
the claims made in paragraph 2?
What two explanations does the passage
offer as to why the policy is ‘ineffective’? Commentary
Yes, there are. The most significant assumption
Commentary is that it is not possible for the police officer to
The author uses quite an ingenious piece of catch the thieves without driving too fast for
reasoning to criticise the policy. She considers safety. The author claims that if the policy is
the possible outcomes. Firstly, she considers adhered to, the thieves will get away; and if it
what will happen if the policy is observed isn’t, accidents will result. In so doing she
(‘adhered to’) by the police. Then she overlooks a third possibility: that some police
considers what will happen if it is ignored. If it drivers may be sufficiently skilled to remain
is observed, says the author, the thieves will within safety limits and to keep up with some
get away, presumably because the police will of the thieves. She paints it as a so-called
have to give up before the thieves do. If it is ‘no-win situation’, but is it? Without some
ignored, then accidents will continue to statistical evidence it is hard to know what
happen, just as they have happened in the grounds the author has for predicting that the
past. And since they have happened in the policy will inevitably fail one way or the other.
past, it is obvious that the policy does not
work as it is claimed to. There is another assumption, too, although
it is a lot less obvious. It is that if the stolen car
The question also asked you to identify the were not being pursued, its driver would not
explanations that are offered for the policy’s drive unsafely anyway. The author wants to
failure to work. There are two of these. The persuade the reader that there is no overall
first is that police officers find the chase benefit to the public from chasing car thieves,
exciting, and that this affects their judgement only increased danger. That implies that the
about safety. The second is that whereas the danger to the public comes only, or mainly,
police driver is likely to be competent to drive when car thieves are pursued. If they were left
safely at high speed, the pursued driver has to drive around the streets unpursued, can we
little driving experience, so that the officer be sure there would not be just as many
will overestimate what is a safe speed for the accidents – or even more, if would-be thieves
car thief. The author concludes that not only get the idea they won’t be chased and arrested?
is the policy ineffective, but that it is ‘easy to Again, the author is making a prediction on
understand why’. the basis of no hard evidence. Her prediction
may be right – the policy of pursuing cars may
How successful is this reasoning? (This was prove ineffective – but it doesn’t follow from
not part of the question you were asked, but the reasons she gives unless she makes these
it is part of the next one.) Like all arguments, two major, and questionable, assumptions.
its success depends not just on what is stated
but also on what is assumed, and whether the
assumptions that the argument rests on are
warranted assumptions.

172 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

‘Restricting the options’ restricted the options. Like her, you may feel
that there really are only two possible outcomes
What we have exposed in the above discussion of the policy because there is no way of partly
is a very common reasoning error: one to add observing the rules: either you do or you don’t.
to your catalogue. It is sometimes called And if you do, you have to let thieves escape,
‘restricting the options’, because it consists in which makes it pointless, and if you don’t, you
claiming or implying that there are fewer put the public at risk. By saying that an
possibilities to consider than there really are. argument rests on an assumption that there are
This is easier to understand by seeing an only two options, you are not necessarily saying
example of an argument from a different that it is unsound. If you consider the
source that commits this error: assumption to be a fair one, then you can still
accept the argument and the conclusion.
[1] When you go into business either you
can adopt ethical practices or you can So in the end there is still room for
make a profit. Herbco has declared itself agreement or disagreement, and scope for
to be an ethical company, so if you want further argument. It is a piece of further
to see good returns, you really need to argument that we turn to in the next question.
invest your money somewhere else.
Note: when only two options are involved,
On the face of it this looks like sound advice, the above fallacy is sometimes called ‘false
given the two premises. If it really is true that dilemma’ or ‘false dichotomy’. (A dichotomy
you must choose between ethics and profit – is a division into two.)
and it often is – then surely it is not a good
plan to invest money in an ethical company if Activity
your aim is just to get a good return.
Here is a point someone might raise on
But, like the author of ‘Thrill of the chase’, reading ‘Thrill of the chase’:
the speaker here is restricting the options to
just two, and assuming that there are no   ‘Some of those who steal cars are
others. Yes, you can choose between ethics and attempting to escape after committing
making a profit, as the first premise says. But other serious crimes.’
you don’t have to choose between them unless
they are the only choices. By drawing the Does this statement, if true, strengthen or
conclusion that it does, argument [1] clearly weaken the argument (or neither)? Give your
makes the assumption that it is a straight reasons.
choice between ethics and profit with no other
options. But it is not a straight choice: Herbco Commentary
could operate ethically and make a profit – for If someone said this in response to the
example, if it became very fashionable to buy argument it would be natural to think it was
goods produced by ethical companies. meant as an objection. It would be hard to
interpret it as supporting the argument, or
The same sort of restriction is imposed in even as a neutral remark. Almost certainly it is
considering the police driver’s options. The picking up on the author’s claim that: ‘saving
driver can either obey the rules and let the lives is more important than preventing thefts
thief escape, or drive dangerously and capture of cars, and the police would be more
him. The possibility of obeying the rules and profitably employed trying to catch serious
catching the thief is not openly or fairly criminals rather than bored, disadvantaged
considered. young men who steal cars for excitement’.

Of course, you may happen to agree with the
author, even after recognising that she has

4.7 Introducing longer arguments 173

In fact, the comment suggests that there is badly or misleadingly, in which case it creates
a fault in the argument very similar to the a flaw in the reasoning, not a strength.
one we were discussing in the last question.
The author is assuming that there is a choice An analogy is a comparison. For example,
between using police time to catch ‘serious’ suppose you are arguing about what it is to be
criminals (whatever that means) and chasing a good leader, and how a good leader should
‘bored young men’. And there is a further behave towards the people he or she has been
assumption that the latter are not serious chosen to lead. One approach is to compare
criminals. Again, we have to ask whether this the nation-state to a family, so that being a
is a straight choice. The objection implies ruler is analogous to being the head of a
that it is not, suggesting that there may be family. If we accept this broad analogy we can
some circumstances in which the car thief is a draw certain conclusions from it. An obvious
serious criminal: for example, an armed conclusion is that a ruler does not merely
robber using a stolen car as a getaway vehicle. have authority over the citizens but also a
duty of care towards them, just as a parent
As this possibility could be used to support has a duty of care towards his or her children.
a conclusion that car chases should not be If you want to say that an authoritarian but
banned altogether, it does to some extent uncaring parent is a bad parent (as most
undermine the argument. However, it is not a people would) you are also committed to
particularly difficult challenge to counter. saying that – by analogy – a purely
There are several ways this could be authoritarian ruler is a bad ruler. This kind of
approached. One is to say that the argument reasoning is what is meant by argument from
is mainly directed at the large number of analogy. It stands or falls on whether the
cases in which the car theft itself is the only analogy is a fair one or an unfair one; and
crime. Car theft in connection with more that is what you as the critic have to decide.
serious crimes such as murder or armed
robbery is rare and a special case, and could But what is a ‘fair’ analogy? Obviously the
be given special treatment without altering two things being compared are not exactly
the author’s general conclusion. Another, the same, or you wouldn’t need to draw the
more robust, reply would be that it doesn’t comparison. What an analogy does is to say
matter how serious a crime is, catching the that two things are alike in certain relevant
criminal is never a good enough reason for respects. In the analogy above, the role of a
endangering the lives of innocent bystanders. ruler is being likened to that of the head of a
And finally the author can fall back on her family. There is a difference in that the
last-but-one premise: that you don’t have to citizens are not the ruler’s own offspring or
chase stolen cars, because there are other, close relatives, and of course there is a
safer ways of stopping them. difference in the size of the ‘family’. But by
using the analogy for the argument you are
Taken together, these responses to the not suggesting that the two roles are exactly
statement take most of the sting out of it. The the same: only that they are sufficiently
best assessment is therefore that if it weakens alike – in the relevant respect – for the same
the argument at all, it does so only slightly. kind of duties and responsibilities to apply.

Using analogy Most people would probably agree that the
nation–family analogy was a fair one if it were
The last feature of this argument we are going used to support the conclusion that rulers
to examine is found in the first paragraph. It should not treat their citizens more brutally or
is called arguing from analogy. Used well, it is a unjustly than they would their own children;
very powerful tool. However, it is often used or simply that rulers have a ‘duty of care’

174 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

similar in certain respects to that of a parent. when a gun is fired by a police officer it is with
If, on the other hand, the argument was that a the intent to kill or wound someone, whereas
good ruler has to treat every citizen like his or generally the driver of a pursuit vehicle kills by
her own child, that would be taking the accident. Of course, this doesn’t make an
analogy too far. In other words the fairness of accidental death arising from a police car
an analogy depends upon the use it is put to chase any less painful for the bereaved
in a particular argument. relatives. But it does explain the attitude to
which the author is objecting: the attitude
Activity that ‘if (the weapon) is a car, that seems to be
accepted as an unavoidable accident’.
An analogy is used in the first paragraph of
‘Thrill of the chase’. Identify the two things Does the analogy successfully support the
that are being compared; and assess how argument? Not entirely. Although the
successful the analogy is in the context of similarities seem quite striking, they are
the argument. undermined by significant differences. A gun
is primarily a weapon; a car is primarily a
Commentary transport vehicle, and becomes a weapon only
The comparison is between deaths resulting if it is misused. Also, if you place too much
from the police action of chasing stolen cars weight on this analogy, where do you draw
and deaths resulting from police action the line? Do you want to say that any police
involving a gun. In order to give support to the action that results in tragic accidents should
argument, the analogy has to compare things be banned, whatever the instrument – batons,
that really are similar in ways that are relevant. riot shields, water hoses, tear gas . . .? If we
It also has to be true that there should be an completely disarm the police of all ‘potentially
outcry if police action resulted in deaths from lethal weapons’, how can we ask them to
firing a gun. The author clearly assumes that protect the public from criminals who could
there should by using the word ‘rightly’ when harm them? It is a genuine dilemma, and it
drawing the analogy. cannot be solved by judging all actions by
their sometimes-tragic consequences.
The similarities are fairly obvious. Guns
and car chases both kill. And if things go Summary
wrong, both of them kill innocent bystanders
as well as criminals and suspects. It is often • ‘Thrill of the chase’ is not a bad argument.
said that a car is potentially a lethal weapon It tackles a difficult and controversial
and this is very much what the analogy is subject and draws a conclusion that many
saying here. Is it a fair comparison? As far as people will have sympathy with. But it does
the consequences go, yes, it seems very fair. not have all the answers. In this unit we
Why should we disapprove of a shooting have looked at the strengths and some of
accident, but shrug our shoulders at a driving the weak points in the reasoning, so that
accident, just because the ‘weapons’ used are an informed and considered judgement
different? can be made as to whether its conclusions
are acceptable. Or you may decide that
But there are dissimilarities, too, and they there is more to be investigated and more
cannot all be brushed aside. A gun is designed argument to be had.
to be a weapon, whereas a car is not. Also,

4.7 Introducing longer arguments 175

End-of-chapter assignments 2 Find an example of an argument based on
analogy – or write one yourself. Critically
1 In paragraph 3 of ‘Thrill of the chase’ it is examine it, like we examined the example
observed that car chases can be fun for in the ‘Thrill of the chase’ passage, and
all the participants. In paragraph 5 it is decide whether or not it does its job
implied that car thieves are predominantly successfully.
bored young men looking for excitement.
How could these claims be developed Answers and comments are on page 325.
to counter the argument of some police
officers that banning police pursuit would
lead to an increase in car theft?

176 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

4.8 Applying analysis skills

In the previous chapter you looked at a longer one as the last word, it would be the second, the
piece of text and answered some searching recommendation to confiscate income, since
critical questions. Some of them were about this follows from the more general claim that
analysis, some about evaluation and some the law should be extended.
about objections and further argument. In
this chapter, and in the next two, we will You might have been tempted by the last
examine two new articles, applying each of sentence of paragraph 3, which claims that
these skills in turn. We start, in this chapter, there is no real difference between direct and
with analysis. indirect profit from crime. This certainly is a
conclusion, as the word ‘therefore’ would
The text on the next page is an argument suggest, and it follows from the reasoning in
about criminals who become celebrities. Read the third paragraph. But establishing this
it through twice, once for general meaning, conclusion is only one step in the argument,
then again for more detail. Then answer the and it is not the final step. It is therefore an
following questions. intermediate conclusion, not the main one.

Activity Best answer: ‘If the principle of not
benefiting from crime means anything, all
1 What is the main conclusion of the income, direct or otherwise, should be
passage? confiscated from anyone whose criminal past
has helped them to get rich’; or the same
Commentary statement in your own words.
Although arguments like this are longer and
more involved than the ones you have been Activity
used to, the strategy for analysing or
interpreting them is much the same as it was 2 Two objections, or counter-arguments, are
for the short, illustrative examples in Unit 2. considered in the passage. What are they?
When seeking the main conclusion, first look Why does the author raise them? How
for a likely candidate – perhaps some does he deal with them?
recommendation or prediction or verdict –
and ask yourself if other parts of the argument Commentary
are reasons for making such a claim, or not. If The counter-arguments are contained in the
not, look for another candidate. third and fourth paragraphs. They are
recognisable from the use of the words
It should be fairly obvious what this passage, ‘protest’ and ‘object(ed)’, but also from the
‘Time to get tough’, is leading up to. It claims obvious fact that they challenge the author’s
that the legal principle of no profit from crime conclusions.
should be extended to cover celebrity criminals.
And it claims that, on principle, income from Why should an author include in a text a
criminal celebrity should be confiscated. These challenge to his own conclusions? Doesn’t
two claims between them summarise the that weaken the argument? No, it strengthens
author’s main contention. If you had to pick it, because it shows that the author has an
answer to the challenge. Imagine you were in a

4.8 Applying analysis skills 177

TIME TO GET TOUGH also have rights. One of those
must surely be the right not to
It is an established legal previous crimes, but that it is see the very person who has
principle, in almost all parts of a legitimate reward for their robbed or assaulted them, or
the world, that convicted redirected talent, and for the murdered someone in their
criminals should not profit audiences they attract. But family, strutting about enjoying
from their crimes, even after this is an unacceptable celebrity status and a mega-
serving their sentences. argument. Firstly, the buck income. Moreover,
Obviously offenders such as producers and others take a victims of crime do not get the
fraudsters and armed robbers big cut of the profit, so chance to become chat-show
cannot be allowed to retire obviously they would say hosts, or star in crime movies,
comfortably on the money they something of that sort. because being a victim of
made fraudulently or by Secondly, a notorious gangster crime is not seen as
robbing banks. needs no talent to attract an glamorous.
audience: their reputation is
But the law does not go far enough. Therefore, whether If the principle of not
enough. It should also apply to the income is direct or benefiting from crime means
the growing number of indirect, it is still profit from anything, all income, direct or
notorious criminals who crime. otherwise, should be
achieve celebrity status after confiscated from anyone
their release from jail. Ex- It is often objected that once whose criminal past has
convicts who become a person has served a helped them to get rich. After
television presenters, film sentence, they should be all, no one is forced to become
stars or bestselling authors entitled to start again with a a big-time crook. It is a choice
often make big money from clean sheet; that barring them the individual makes. Once
their glitzy new careers. But from celebrity careers is unjust they have made that choice the
they would never have had and infringes their rights. This door to respectable wealth
such careers if it weren’t for is typical of the views should be permanently closed.
their crooked past. expressed by woolly-minded It’s the price they pay. If
liberals, who are endlessly would-be criminals know they
The producers, agents and ready to defend the rights of can never profit in any way from
publishers who sign the deals thugs and murderers without a their wickedness, they might
with celebrity criminals protest thought for their victims. They think twice before turning to
that the money does not come forget that the victims of crime crime in the first place.
directly from a convict’s

debate and it is your turn to speak. Even before talent and comes only indirectly from crime,
the opposition have their chance to raise an not directly like the money from fraud or
objection, you have anticipated it and bank raids. The reply, not surprisingly, is
responded to it. It is sometimes called a that this is unacceptable. Two reasons are
pre-emptive move: dealing with a point before given: firstly, that the producers ‘would say
it has been made. something like that, because they take a cut
of the profits; secondly, that gangsters need
Take the first ‘protest’ that producers and no talent: their criminal reputations are
others allegedly make. The objection is that enough to draw an audience. From this
the money ex-convicts make from acting, the author concludes that whether the
writing, presenting and so on is due to their

178 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

income is direct or indirect, it is still profit that crime shouldn’t pay, and provides two
from crime. examples of unacceptable income that nobody
could really argue with – profit from fraud and
You may already have noticed that from bank robbery. So, should any of this have
paragraph 3 is itself a complete argument: a been included in the list of reasons; or are
sub-argument within the overall argument. these just introductory sentences? You may
Here it is in standard form: have interpreted this part of the argument as a
premise (reason), on the grounds that, without
Target: the counter-argument the principle, the argument wouldn’t really
But . . . make a lot of sense; and that, in a general sort
R1  Producers would say something like that of way, it does support the conclusion that
profit from crime should be confiscated.
because they take some of the profit.
R2  Notorious gangsters need no talent; But on closer inspection this is not the best
and clearest interpretation of what the author is
their reputation is enough. aiming to achieve. For his argument is not really
about crimes such as fraud and bank robbery. In
IC  Indirect income is still profit from crime. fact, it is more or less taken for granted that the
profits from these crimes should be forfeited if
C  This (counter-argument) is unacceptable. the criminal is convicted. No supporting
reasons are given and none are needed. The real
The next objection that the author anticipates argument begins with the word ‘But . . .’ at the
is that ex-convicts have the right to start again. start of paragraph 2. Reading it that way, the
It is dismissed as a ‘woolly-minded’ argument, first paragraph can be seen more as an
and as one that ignores victims’ rights and introduction than as part of the reasoning.
feelings. It also points out an unfairness in
that criminals gain from their crimes whereas The shape of the whole argument is:
victims have no such opportunities.

These responses lead directly to the main
conclusion that all income from crime should
be confiscated.

Activity

3 As well as the responses to objections,
what other reasons are given in support of
the conclusion?

Commentary
The final paragraph adds a further set of
reasons that directly support the conclusion.
They are: (1) that criminals make a choice;
(2) that if they make that choice, the door to
respectable wealth should be closed; and
(3) that if would-be criminals know they will
never be able to cash in on their crime, they may
think twice before choosing to be criminals.

What about the first paragraph: where does
it fit in, and what is its function? It states that
there is an established legal principle, namely

4.8 Applying analysis skills 179

Mapping the structure Activity

The previous diagram gives only the roughest Try building up a more detailed map of the
outline of the argument. It is like a route map argument ‘Time to get tough’, showing how,
with just the main towns shown. It does not in your view, the different parts of the
give any of the reasoning that leads from one reasoning lead to the conclusion.
to the next.
Commentary
‘Mapping’ is a good word to use, because it Notice that the task is to represent your view of
suggests another very useful way of the way the argument is structured. This does
representing the steps in an argument. If you not mean that any analysis of the passage is as
enquire how to get from one place to another, good as any other, but it does mean that there
people will often give you a string of directions: is some room for interpretation by the reader.
for example, ‘Go up to the traffic lights and A suggested map of the argument follows.
turn right. Stay on that road through a couple Don’t worry if you have taken a slightly
of bends, past the big hotel on the left. Take different route to the conclusion, or
the third exit from the roundabout and the summarised the claims a bit differently. So
immediate fork to the left . . .’ It can all be very long as you have correctly understood the
confusing; and it is very easy to miss a turning direction of the argument and its final
or take the wrong one, after which you quickly conclusion, then the exercise has served its
lose any sense of where you are. purpose.

A simple map like the one below is much
more helpful: it gives you an overall picture of
how the journey looks, how the roads
connect, how they relate to each other and the
surroundings, and so on.

180 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Introduction

Principle of no profit

But …

Many criminals are becoming
celebrities just because of
their crooked past.

Law doesn’t go far enough / should be extended.

No one forced into crime.

The producers’ argument is CONCLUSION Once criminal has made choice,
wrong: all income is profit All income … should door should be closed.
from crime.
(reply to counter-argument 1) be confiscated

Victims also have rights / Would-be criminals
might think twice.
don’t become celebrities.
(reply to counter-argument 2)

Summary • A very common line of reasoning is to set
up a counter-argument and then knock it
• Longer arguments can be analysed in down.
broadly the same way as shorter ones.

• Longer arguments may have
sub-arguments as part of their reasoning.

4.8 Applying analysis skills 181

End-of-chapter assignment

Using some of the methods discussed in
this chapter, as well as those you studied in
Chapters 2.4 and 2.5, map out the structure
of the following argument.

SAY NO TO CHEATS performance. So can the
latest hi-tech equipment and

clothing, computerised

The governing bodies who glory of competing for their training programmes,

control international sport country. Those who regulate physio- and psychotherapies,

are right to prohibit the use the sports have a duty of and so on. Is that not

of performance-enhancing care over these men and cheating?

drugs and to operate their women. To stand by whilst No. There is all the

policy of zero tolerance they harm themselves would difference in the world

against athletes who break be grossly irresponsible. between eating certain foods

the rules. There is more than But there is another reason and taking drugs because

enough medical evidence to why the use of drugs in sport drugs, unlike foods, are

establish that many of the cannot be tolerated. The banned substances. Any

substances that sports stars purpose of sport is to athlete who wants to can

are tempted to use to discover who is the best. The take advantage of a special

increase their strength and only way to achieve that is to diet or the latest equipment

stamina are extremely start with a level playing field and training techniques. But

harmful to their health. and for every competitor to only those who are willing to

Permitting their use, or have an equal chance of break the rules can benefit

turning a blind eye to it, can winning. You can’t say who is from taking drugs. Anyway, if

have tragic long-term best if some competitors are you start saying that drug-

consequences, as many cheating by stealing an taking is fine because it is

former athletes have advantage. Therefore, if no different from energy-

discovered to their cost. drugs can be driven out of giving food you would end up

Young people are natural sport, we will once again having to allow athletes to

risk-takers and are often know who the real run races with jet engines

reckless about their own champions are. strapped to their backs.

futures. That, coupled with It is sometimes argued that One more thing: if the top

the huge rewards that can be drugs give no more of an athletes get away with taking

won by reaching the top in advantage than other drugs, the young people for

their chosen sport, will often perfectly legitimate practices, whom they are role models

drive them to disregard such as following special are far more likely to do the

medical advice and think diets and taking dietary same. For their sake too, the

only of the gold medal, or the supplements, which can also pressure on the cheats must

big sponsorship deal, or the boost an athlete’s never be relaxed.

182 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

4.9 Critical evaluation

In the last chapter you worked on mapping Commentary
out the structure of two arguments: one with The reasons given are that these celebrities
an accompanying commentary, and one on often make big money and that they would
your own in the end-of-chapter assignment. not do so if they had not been criminals in
In this chapter you will be looking at the same the past. Provided you accept that both
two arguments from the point of view of their statements are true, then they do give
strengths and weaknesses, success or failure. support to the suggestion that the law needs
This is critical evaluation. extending, which paves the way for the main
conclusion (in paragraph 5) that such income
A: Time to get tough should be confiscated. For if it is a fact that
some people do profit from having been
Read through the whole argument on law-breakers – and for no other reason than
page 178 again to remind yourself of its being law-breakers – then the principle
conclusion and supporting reasons. If referred to in the introduction is (arguably)
necessary, also look again at the analysis of its being broken.
structure on page 181. Once you have it clear
in your mind you can move on to the next The big question is whether the reasons are
range of questions: Is it a good argument? both acceptable, especially the second. The
Does it work? Does the reasoning succeed in first claim is fairly obviously acceptable
supporting the conclusion? because it is a known fact that ex-convicts
who become presenters, film stars and so on
It is now that the work you did on analysing make big money. It could easily be checked
and mapping the argument really starts to pay and figures produced to support it if anyone
off. It has split the argument up into a number doubted its truth. But what grounds has the
of manageable bits that you can consider one by author got for the second reason, that these
one. It has also put the different parts of the celebrities ‘would never have had such careers
passage in their place, so that you know exactly if it weren’t for their crooked past’? Certainly
what their functions are. So, for example, we can none that are stated. It is an unsupported claim,
pass over the first paragraph because it is mostly which the author is expecting the reader to
introductory, and move straight to where the take on trust.
argument really begins, in paragraph 2.
Assumption
Paragraph 2 draws the intermediate If you cast your mind back to Chapter 2.9 you
conclusion that the law that convicted will recall that many, if not all, natural-language
criminals should not profit from their crimes arguments rest on implicit assumptions as well as
doesn’t go far enough and should apply to on stated reasons. The conclusion that the
ex-criminal celebrities (as well as former author draws in paragraph 2 rests on certain
fraudsters, bank robbers etc.). such assumptions: for example, that ex-criminal
celebrities do not have talents that could have
Activity made them famous or successful if they had not
been criminals. Unless you assume this you
What reasons are given in paragraph 2 for cannot accept the conclusion. But since the
this conclusion? Are they convincing?

4.9 Critical evaluation 183

reader has no more reason to accept than to Commentary
reject the assumption, it is a potential weakness The response does not sweep away the
in the argument. objections; and it doesn’t give any good reason
to warrant the author’s assumptions. We’ll
Flaw take the second part of the response first. This
It could even be said that the need to make this is simply that an ex-convict does not need any
assumption is a flaw, or reasoning error, if you talent. But, even if it is true, the fact that
consider it to be an unwarranted assumption. someone needs no talent to become a celebrity
Recall, from Chapter 2.10, that a common flaw does not mean that he or she has no talent –
in reasoning is the assumption that because two say, as comedian, or actor, or poet. This
things are both true, one is therefore the cause remains a mere assumption, and one that is
of the other. Does the author make that mistake easily contested, for there clearly have been
here? Is he saying that because a celebrity was ex-criminals who have won acclaim for other
once a criminal, that must be the cause of their achievements besides crime.
rise to fame and consequent wealth?
The first part of the reply is no better. In fact
If you think that is what he is saying, then it it is no more than an insinuation. The author
would be right to identify this as a flaw in the wants us to believe that the producers and
argument. If an argument depends on an others are all motivated by profit, and would
unwarranted assumption, then it is fair to say therefore say whatever was needed to protect
it is flawed, or that it is unsound, or that there their ‘cut’. It doesn’t answer the actual claim
is a ‘hole in the argument’. that ex-convicts may have talents as well as
notoriety. There is also a fresh assumption
But the author is no fool, and is obviously here, namely that the only people who claim
aware of the potential weakness in paragraph that ex-convicts have talents are producers or
2. That is probably why, in the next paragraph, others who have a vested interest. In reality
he ‘anticipates’ a counter-argument that there may be many people, with no vested
challenges his assumption(s). The purpose interest, who would also agree with the
behind this is not to admit to a weakness, but counter-argument.
to block the challenge that threatens to
expose it. The challenge is that celebrity Attacking the person
wealth does not come directly from crime, but This line of argument is a very common kind
from ‘redirected talent’. The author’s response of fallacy, which needs to be guarded against.
is firstly that the producers and others who It has its own Latin name, argumentum ad
make this challenge take a cut of the profits hominem, meaning an argument directed ‘at
and therefore ‘would say something like that’; the person’ (literally the man), rather than at
and secondly that gangsters need no talent: the reasoning. What makes it a fallacy is that
their criminal reputations are enough. And he the argument could be perfectly sound and
concludes that the income from becoming a effective, even if the person who is making it is
celebrity is therefore still profit from crime, supposedly unreliable or wicked or deceitful or
whether it is direct or indirect. It is a strong stupid, or has a vested interest, or anything
and uncompromising response. else that the opponent wants to say to attack
their reputation. If the people who have
Activity succeeded in becoming celebrities do also have
talent, then the counter-argument is a strong
How successful do you think the author’s one, whether or not some of the people who
reply is in paragraph 3? Does it meet the say so have selfish reasons for wanting it to be
objection or not – and why? true. You cannot make the argument go away

184 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

just by discrediting those who may use it. Yet it his bestselling autobiography serialised in the
is surprising how often this strategy is used. newspapers or made into a successful film. The
victim might be forgiven for thinking, ‘Some
What you can legitimately say is that if the of that fame has been got at my expense. The
only support for some point of view comes criminal gets the money and I get nothing.
from an obviously unreliable source and from What is more, I am not a celebrity because no
no other, then we ought to treat it with some one is really interested in my injuries or losses,
suspicion. But that is a very different matter only in his wickedness.’
from saying, as the author does in this case,
that because certain people ‘would say that, But, persuasive as it may be, is this
wouldn’t they!’, the substance of what they say reasoning sound? Are there any assumptions
must be false. hidden behind the strong language? Arguably,
yes. For a start you would have to assume that
Activity there really is a ‘right’ of the kind the author
claims for the victim. People have rights not to
Another counter-argument and response be harmed by others, but those rights are dealt
follow in the fourth paragraph. Critically with by the courts when they hand out their
evaluate the reasoning in this paragraph, sentences. Once such sentences have been
identifying any assumptions and/or flaws served, is there really a continuing right for
that it contains. the victim never to see the criminal doing
well? Arguably, no – as we shall see when we
Commentary look at further argument in the next unit.
You probably picked up straight away that
there was another ad hominem argument here. What the author is asking us to accept in
The claim that a concern for the rights of this paragraph is that allowing criminals to
ex-convicts is ‘typical of . . . woolly-minded exercise their rights to a fresh start is unfair to
liberals’ is obviously directed at the person their former victims. But this requires another
rather than their argument. However, the major assumption. It is the assumption that if
author does go on to say why such concerns are victims and criminals both have rights, the
misplaced, and here the argument is much victim’s rights should come first. Without this
stronger. Thus if you ignore the ad hominem part assumption there are no grounds for the
of the paragraph you are still left with two or conclusion; for if, as the counter-argument
three reasons that do respond to the objection, claims, an ex-convict has the same rights as
and (if true) also support the author’s own anyone else, then it is hard to see how the
argument. These are the claims that: author can claim that the victim should have
some special right over the criminal. This is a
• victims also have rights, one of which is potential weakness in the argument, and it is
the right not to see those who hurt them one we will return to in Chapter 4.10.
enjoying wealth and celebrity
Conclusion
• victims don’t get the same chances (of So we come to the last paragraph, which
celebrity) as ex-convicts. consists of the conclusion and a further
sub-argument. It has two strands. One is that
These are powerfully persuasive points. You can people freely choose to become criminals; and
easily imagine how frustrating and insulting it that if they make that choice they should be
would be for someone who had been attacked barred from future (‘respectable’) wealth. The
or robbed to later watch the person who had other is that if people thinking of becoming
done this hosting a television show, or seeing criminals know they will be effectively

4.9 Critical evaluation 185

outlawed in this way they may have second seen, the argument is not necessarily as sound
thoughts about turning to crime at all. or as conclusive as it may at first seem: there
are a number of hidden assumptions and even
Activity flaws in the reasoning, when you come to
consider it critically.
As you did with the earlier steps in the
argument, critically evaluate the reasoning in Part of the persuasiveness of this argument
the last paragraph. comes from the language the author uses to
press his case. Look at two of the phrases used
Commentary in paragraph 2: ‘glitzy new careers’ and
This is possibly the strongest part of the ‘crooked past’. Both help to build up a picture
argument. It places the responsibility for of something both cheap and nasty. In the
becoming a criminal firmly on the individual, next paragraph we are told that a ‘notorious
and suggests, reasonably enough, that if that gangster needs no talent’, reinforcing the
individual then faces having his wealth negative impression that is being created of
restricted, he has no one to blame but himself. the convict-turned-celebrity.
Opponents of the argument cannot say that
the criminal has not been warned. The We call this expressive ingredient of the
argument is strengthened further by the claim text rhetoric, to distinguish it from the plain
that this may also deter people from crime, reasoning, the underlying argument. Authors
which is probably the best argument there is use rhetorical devices of various kinds to
for punishment of any sort. embellish their arguments, to make them
more forceful. There is nothing wrong with
But here, too, there are certain questionable this: it is not a misuse, or some kind of
assumptions. One is that young people cheating, to express an argument in a forceful
tempted by crime would even think about way, provided there is an argument to
becoming legally rich and famous, far into the embellish. When rhetoric is misused is when
future. And if they did, would they care that there is nothing else but strong words, and
they would be prevented from doing so? there are no substantial grounds underlying
Probably not. Another is the assumption that it. Don’t make the mistake of picking out a
people do all freely choose their lives; that colourful phrase and labelling it as a flaw just
none is ever drawn into bad ways by their because it is highly rhetorical. Do, however, be
upbringing, or the influence of others, or on guard against authors who employ empty
through knowing no better. Without the rhetoric: colourful language to camouflage
assumption that there is truly free choice, it weak or non-existent argument. (Journalists,
would be harsh to say no one should ever be politicians, and some lawyers are among the
given a second chance. worst offenders!)

Power of persuasion: rhetoric Of course, the impression that the author’s
If you read the ‘Time to get tough’ text language creates might be the right
casually, and uncritically, it is easy to be impression, or at least one that you can
impressed by the argument. Your first reaction sympathise with. Many of the celebrities that
might be: yes, many criminals do profit from the author has in mind may well be
the fact that they have done wrong and thoroughly unpleasant, untalented people;
become well known because of it. And this and the celebrity they gain may be shallow,
does not seem right or fair. But, as we have ‘glitzy’, and the rewards undeserved. But that
should not blind you to the fact that well-
chosen language can heavily influence the

186 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

way you respond to an argument; that there argument, you must decide. You will have the
is always a danger that the reasoning can take chance to do so in the end-of-chapter
second place to emotions or sympathies. And assignments.
if that happens you are not responding in a
fully critical way. Be careful, however, that in making this
decision you are not just saying whether you
We also saw, in paragraph 4, how potential agree or disagree with the author’s opinion or
opponents of the argument are dismissed as his conclusions. You could quite reasonably
‘woolly-minded’. According to the author they think that the conclusion is right but that the
are ‘endlessly ready to defend the rights of argument is poor. Alternatively, you might
thugs and murderers without a thought for think it is a strong and compelling argument,
their victims’. And we are presented with the but, for reasons of your own, disagree with its
image of these same thugs and murderers conclusion. This is the most difficult position
‘strutting about enjoying . . . a mega-buck for a critical thinker to be in. If you really find
income’. The language leaves us in no doubt the argument compelling, and you do not
which side the author is on. But more than dispute its premises, then rationally you
that, the author wants to manoeuvre us into a should accept its conclusion, even if this
kind of trap, where the choice seems to be means changing a previously held view. If you
between defending the bad guys or supporting still reject the conclusion, you need to be able
their innocent victims. to say where the argument fails – and that can
be quite hard to do if it is a persuasive
A critical approach reveals that this argument.
argument is strongly biased when it comes to
describing the different groups of people B: Say no to cheats
involved. There is no concession that there
may be some ex-convicts who have We turn now to the argument you analysed for
genuinely turned their backs on crime, who the assignment at the end of Chapter 4.8: ‘Say
have real talent as actors or writers, and who no to cheats’. It contains a very common line
do what they can to put right the harm they of argument that occupies the first two
have caused. Does the author include such paragraphs. It takes the following form:
people in the same category as those whom ‘Such-and-such is harmful, or could be
he describes as ‘strutting about’ in their harmful. Therefore it should be prohibited.’
‘glitzy new careers’? The fact is we don’t This line of reasoning is often referred to as the
know, because he has conveniently – and no argument from harm, and is an important
doubt deliberately – left them out of the ethical argument.
picture.
Activity
Decision time
So, do we rate this as a good argument or a Reread paragraphs 1 and 2 of the passage
poor one, overall? That final verdict is left to on page 182, and remind yourself of the
you. You will probably agree that it is quite a reasons given there to support the main
persuasive argument, but that it has conclusion. In arguing for the main
weaknesses as well as strengths; and that it conclusion, what underlying assumption is
makes some claims and assumptions that are, also made? Do you think it is a warranted
at the very least, questionable. Whether or not assumption?
these are enough to make you reject the

4.9 Critical evaluation 187

Commentary extends to others as well. For example, the
The argument in the first two paragraphs is as strongest argument for banning smoking in
follows: public places is that non-smokers as well as
smokers are affected. If the argument were only
R1 Medical evidence and past experience that smoking harms the smoker, it would not
suggest that performance-enhancing have anything like the force that it does have.
drugs (PED) are harmful.
So the argument contained in the first two
R2 Young athletes are reckless. paragraphs alone looks a bit wobbly after all,
R3 To stand by while they harm themselves not from what it states but from what it
assumes. However, the author was probably
would be irresponsible. well aware of this because his argument does
not end there. It goes on to say (paragraph 3):
IC The governing bodies have a ‘duty of ‘But there is another reason . . . (for not
tolerating PED)’.
care’ for athletes.
The argument from fairness
C They are right to prohibit PED. The second main strand of the reasoning is the
argument that it is unfair, in fact cheating, to
This seems a reasonable argument. If you take PED, and that they should be prohibited
accept the truth of the premises, and there is for that reason as well as the health risks.
no obvious reason not to, then a strict ban on Paragraph 3 concludes that if drugs can be
PED would seem like a sensible policy to driven out of sport we will (once again) be able
follow. But ‘sensible’ does not necessarily to identify the ‘real champions’.
mean ‘right’, and that brings us to the big
assumption that the argument makes: that There is another assumption lurking here:
athletes don’t have the right to make these that there are not some other ways, besides
choices for themselves; or that the authorities PED, of gaining unfair advantages. To meet that
do have the right to make the choices for possible objection, the author sets out, and
them, just on the grounds of the dangers PED responds to, a counter-argument that there are
may pose to their health. indeed some practices that are perfectly
legitimate but are cheating of a sort. The
The argument from harm (or risk or danger) author’s response is that PED are in a different
to the need for prohibition is often class, precisely because they are prohibited.
underpinned by this kind of assumption: that
those in charge have the right to tell grown Activity
men and women what they may or may not
do to their own bodies. Is it a warranted Give your evaluation of the author’s response
assumption? In general, no. Of course, to the counter-argument in paragraph 5. Is
authorities do on occasions impose rules for the reasoning sound, or can you see any
our own good or safety. Many countries flaws in it?
prohibit the riding of motorcycles without a
crash helmet, or driving of cars without a Commentary
safety belt. But there are many other dangerous There are in fact three serious flaws that need
activities which we are not prevented from to be looked at very carefully. These are known
doing (such as mountaineering and skydiving) as the ‘straw man’, the ‘slippery slope’ and
on the grounds that although they are ‘begging the question’. Two of them relate to
dangerous, we nevertheless have the right to the last sentence of paragraph 5: ‘Anyway, if
do them if we want. Usually a prohibition
needs other arguments beside the argument
from self-harm, for example that the harm

188 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

you start saying that drug-taking is fine This is obviously nonsense. The difference
because it is no different from energy-giving between special diets or training techniques
food you would end up having to allow and the use of certain drugs is really quite
athletes to run races with jet engines strapped narrow. Even the experts have some difficulty
to their backs.’ drawing a line between, say, a ‘food
supplement’ and an actual drug. This is why
A straw man the counter-argument has to be taken seriously
A ‘straw man’ argument is one in which the even if you are in favour of prohibiting PED.
opposing argument has deliberately been The idea that athletes could use jet-propulsion
made weak, to the point where no one would is in a completely different league, and it is
be likely to make or support it. It gets its perfectly possible to argue for one without
strange name from the custom of making having to go to the other extreme.
human figures out of straw for target practice,
for example to shoot arrows at. Begging the question
The third flaw relates to the second sentence
This is what the author does here. Whether in the paragraph: the claim that PED are
or not you knew the name ‘straw man’, you different from other ways of improving
should have noticed that in the counter- performance because they are banned, and that
argument there is no suggestion that drug- that is what makes it cheating to use them.
taking is ‘fine’, or that it is no different from But the main conclusion is that drug-taking
eating food. The counter-argument is much should be banned. You cannot validly say that
more subtle than that: it merely points out something should be banned just because it is
that there is a difficulty in distinguishing bad, and bad because it is banned! This is what
between permitted ways of getting an is known as ‘begging the question’. You can
advantage and prohibited ones. That does not see why it is called begging the question with
mean that anyone raising the objection thinks the argument simplified as follows:
PED should be permitted, only that the
problem is not as simple as it seems. It is right to ban PED (conclusion).
Why?
Thus the author is arguing against an Because using PED is cheating.
opponent who doesn’t really exist. It looks as Why is it cheating?
though he has scored a point, but it doesn’t Because PED are banned.
count because it is such a cheap point. You will
often find this flaw in arguments that you Another way to describe this flaw is to point
read. It can be persuasive if you fail to spot it. out that it contains circular reasoning, or a
And, if it’s done deliberately, it is cheating! circular argument. The author is arguing for the
ban on PED from the ban on PED. Many of the
A slippery slope flaws you find in arguments are due to circular
Even if there were no ‘straw man’ fault in the reasoning or question-begging. Sometimes the
argument, there is another flaw in the same circularity is obvious, as it is in this argument.
sentence. It has a curious name, too: it’s often In others it is much more carefully disguised,
called a ‘slippery slope’. This comes from the and you have to be vigilant to spot it.
idea that once you are on a slippery slope you
can’t stop yourself going all the way to the The argument as a whole
bottom. In this case, if you say that some PED We have found a number of weaknesses, flaws
are very like some food supplements, then, and questionable assumptions in the
according to the author, there is nothing to argument for prohibiting performance-
stop you saying that anything athletes do to enhancing drugs. That does not mean that we
gain an advantage is all right.

4.9 Critical evaluation 189

have to reject the argument as a whole, and it Summary
certainly doesn’t mean we have to reject its
conclusion. Most people find the practice of • A critical evaluation means deciding
taking PED totally unacceptable and are in full whether the claims and assumptions made
agreement with its prohibition. Most people in an argument are warranted.
also consider it to be cheating and believe that
it harms the health of athletes. • It means identifying any flaws in the
reasoning.
But the converse is also true. Just because we
agree with the author’s main conclusion of an • It means assessing the strength of the
argument does not mean we have to approve support that the reasons, if true, give to
of the reasoning. As critical thinkers we need to the conclusion.
be able to evaluate an argument objectively
whether we agree with it or not. In fact, • It means distinguishing between the
agreeing with the author can often make the rhetoric and the reasoning in the text.
job of evaluation more difficult because we are
likely to be making the same assumptions and
wanting the same outcome.

End-of-chapter assignments

1 Look at the following response to the meteorite or dramatic upheaval in
argument ‘Time to get tough’, and critically the climate. This would mean that
evaluate the reasoning it employs. they did not undergo a gradual
disappearance lasting many centuries
You call people like me woolly- or millennia, but that they were
minded liberals, but look what you are wiped out practically overnight. The
arguing for: denying anyone who has fact that they died out so quickly also
committed a crime a chance to earn a means that there could only have
living, however hard they may try to been one cause of their extinction,
go straight and start afresh. As well as not many as was once assumed; and
being inhumane, that will have the that whatever the cause was, it was
opposite effect from what you want. immense and final.
You’ll just end up with streets full of
ex-cons who can’t get work and are 3 C hoose one of the two arguments studied
driven back to violent crime, and even in the chapter. Summarise the critical
more victims to feel sorry for. comments that were made, and respond to
them with your own observations. Finally,
2 Consider the following short argument, on give an overall evaluation of the argument,
a very different topic. Is it sound? If not, saying how successfully or unsuccessfully
identify what is wrong with it. it supports its conclusion(s).

The dinosaurs obviously became Answers and comments are on page 325.
extinct because of a single
catastrophic event such as a large

190 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

4.10 Responding with further

argument

Evaluating an argument means deciding their intelligence. It takes brains and
whether or not the claims made in it are imagination to plan a big crime and get
acceptable, and whether or not they support away with it. It takes brains to be a
the conclusion. Further argument goes a bit television presenter. So you can’t say
further: it is your opportunity to put some of that because someone has been a
your own ideas on the table, either supporting criminal they haven’t got the ability to be
or challenging the author’s conclusions. a celebrity. I read a book by a reformed
drug addict who had stolen to buy drugs,
It has to be said straight away that further and it was brilliant, as good as any other
argument is not any argument: it must relate writer could do. It wouldn’t have been
directly to the text you are working on. It is published and sold in the bookshops if
not a chance just to set off on some line of he was stupid and couldn’t write.
your own that happens to be on a related topic. Therefore this statement by the author is
You would get no credit in an exam if you misleading.
read the article ‘Time to get tough’ – which
featured in the last two units – and then Is this extract from the student’s essay
wrote about prison reform, or the abolition or evaluation or further argument, or both?
reintroduction of the death penalty. There Plainly it is both. It is a critical evaluation
may be issues that connect these topics to the because it exposes a weakness, a questionable
argument about profiting from crime, but assumption, in the author’s reasoning.
they are not central issues. Your further However, it does much more than just say
argument must be for or against the there is a weakness. It highlights it by bringing
conclusion. Otherwise it is just a digression. in fresh claims and counter-examples that
challenge the author’s assumption that a
Evaluation often leads very naturally into person cannot be a criminal and be talented.
further argument, and it is sometimes difficult The student uses her own reasons for
to say where one ends and the other begins. For concluding that the author’s claim is
example, here is part of a student’s response to misleading. She even draws on her own
the third paragraph of ‘Time to get tough’: (reading) experience to illustrate the point she
is making. This clearly marks it as further
[1]  The author says that notorious gangsters argument and not just evaluation.
don’t need any talent to attract an
audience, and that their reputations are Of course it is not a decisive further
enough. This may be true, but it doesn’t argument. It doesn’t completely undermine
mean that notorious gangsters don’t ever the author’s case: it merely kicks away one of
have some talent. They may be very the supporting planks. To this extent we can
talented. People often think of a gangster say it damages the argument rather than
being a stupid person, who just uses destroys it: it seriously weakens it, but not
violence to get their way, but there are fatally.
gangsters who have got where they are by

4.10 Responding with further argument 191

Counter-example New lines of argument

Counter-examples – i.e. examples that But further argument does not have to begin
challenge a claim – are very powerful weapons from a particular point of evaluation. Provided
for attacking arguments. As we saw in the you do not wander off the central issues, you
above extract, just one example of an ex- can launch your own argument from the
criminal who arguably does have talent passage as a whole. You may, for example, feel
challenges one of the author’s main premises. that the author has missed out an important
consideration that has an impact on his
Activity conclusions. Raising it would be a legitimate
form of further argument.
Look again at paragraph 4 of ‘Time to get
tough’ (if you don’t already know it by heart!) For example, there is no discussion in the
and find a claim that could be challenged article about the motives criminals have for
with a counter-example. If you know of a becoming celebrities. Nor is there any
real-life counter-example, raise it. If not, mention of the consequences. The author
suggest a possible one. Then develop the seems to assume that the motives are always
counter-example into a short further selfish, on the part of either the criminal or
argument. the producers etc. who take a cut; and that
nothing, apart from satisfying greed, comes of
Commentary it. Here are three pieces of further argument,
An obvious target is the last sentence of the adapted from student responses, which take a
paragraph: the claim that victims don’t get the completely different line:
chance to become celebrities. It is highly
vulnerable to counter-examples and, whether [2]  Criminals are selfish people. They take
you were able to think of an actual one or not, it what is not theirs and what others have
is clearly not far-fetched to suggest that a victim worked hard to get. They disobey laws.
of, say, a high-profile kidnapping or hostage- They evade taxes. No one is going to tell
taking could become famous as a result, and me that when and if they decide to go
gain financially from telling their story. straight and become big showbiz
personalities they suddenly change into
Such an example could be developed as decent, law-abiding citizens. All they are
follows: in it for is themselves, and they will do
whatever is necessary to get as much as
A number of victims of crime have themselves they can. Leopards don’t change their
become celebrities and made big profits from spots. Cheats and thieves don’t become
publishing their stories or appearing in the honest, they just find other ways to
media. Is this fair? There are many other cheat.
people who have suffered from accidents or
misfortune who have never been heard of. If [3]  Some criminals grow up while they are in
you are going to ban some groups of people prison and come out looking for legal
from celebrity income, simply because other jobs, and some go into acting or writing
people have not had the same opportunities to make a living. The parts they play in
(like the author does), then you would have to films and the books they write will
ban everyone from making income from their usually be about criminals or about
pasts – criminals and victims alike. Otherwise prison, and they have the experience to
how would you decide who deserved their make this realistic and true to life. This
celebrity status and who did not? has a very useful purpose because it
lets other people know what it is like to
be a criminal or a prisoner. It is not

192 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

glamorous or romantic like it often is in The third piece also considers the
fiction, it’s ugly and dangerous. consequences of allowing criminals to become
[4]  Young people admire celebrities and role models. It obviously supports the argument.
want to be like them. If you let big-time
gangsters and murderers become Rights – and wrongs
celebrities you give young people a very
bad example to follow. Criminals become Probably the most important part of the
role models. Also you give them the idea argument in ‘Time to get tough’ is the issue of
they can be rich and famous by being people’s rights. As observed when we were
wicked and violent. evaluating the argument, the author clearly
assumes – and wants us to assume – that
Activity ex-convicts don’t have the same rights as other
people, especially their victims, because they
What point is being made in each of these have chosen a life of crime. Opposed to this is
lines of further argument? Do they support the view that once the criminal has served their
the argument in the article, or do they prison sentence, then their debt to society has
challenge it? been paid in full, and they come out with all
their human rights restored. As we know, the
Commentary author tries to rubbish this view as ‘woolly-
These were all examples of relevant and minded’ thinking. But that doesn’t stop you
perceptive further argument. Whether you from developing it more sympathetically in
agree with what they say or not, they make a your own argument. For example:
valuable contribution to the debate.
[5]  It is the job of courts to punish criminals
Argument [2] supports the author’s who are caught. Unless their crime is bad
conclusion far more than it challenges it, enough for a life sentence, they only lose
though it takes a quite different line of approach. their human rights while the sentence
It would make a good response to any suggestion lasts. When they are released they
that criminals can turn over a new leaf or put become ordinary citizens again, and
crime behind them. It implies that criminal should have the same rights as all other
celebrities will go on being dishonest if it suits citizens, especially if they have learned
them. As you might expect, this student went on from their mistakes and are trying to ‘go
to conclude that, given their records, they do straight’. This is not woolly-minded at all.
not deserve to keep the money they make. What is woolly-minded is using our
feelings of sympathy for the victims as an
The next extract [3] introduces the idea that argument for punishing ex-convicts for the
there can be good consequences from rest of their lives. That’s unjust. As for the
criminals becoming actors and writers. This is victims’ right, yes, they do have the right to
not an angle that is covered by the author, but see the person who has harmed them
it is a relevant point to consider. Experiences punished. But the courts decide how
of life in the criminal world and in prison do much, not the victims, or the media.
add to public awareness. If this is a good
thing – and the student claims that it is – then Balancing ‘for’ and ‘against’
allowing criminals to become writers, actors
and so on does have a useful purpose. It would Of course you may not disagree with the
follow that there is some justification for author’s reasoning in the way the last critic
rewarding them, which of course challenges does. Instead you may agree with the author
rather than supports the author’s conclusion. that the law as it stands gives too little
consideration to the victims’ feelings. You might

4.10 Responding with further argument 193

argue that whereas a convict gets a limited what he did to them. But equally it is not
sentence to serve, the victim may carry the very just if someone has completed their
injuries or scars for a lifetime. Where that is the sentence and is then punished again by
case, doesn’t it add insult to injury if the having doors closed on certain careers.
criminal later makes a lot of money by telling or It might even drive them back into crime,
selling the story? instead of going straight, which would
create other victims. It all depends on
But there is another possible response that whose side you look at it from.
we have to consider before we finish this I think talking about ‘rights’ is the
discussion. Sometimes, not infrequently, we wrong way to approach this problem.
hear arguments for both sides of some difficult We should think about what is best for
issue and we are impressed by both of them – society rather than about individual
or alternatively by neither of them. For people: criminals or victims. Perhaps if
example, you may feel, after evaluating and we were all less interested in wealth
thinking carefully about this argument, that and celebrity, the problem wouldn’t
those who champion the victim and those arise in the first place, meaning that
who champion the ex-criminal both have a we are all a bit to blame.
point, and that whichever way you decide you
will benefit one at the expense of the other. In Summary
other words, if you stand by the rights of one
group, you affect the rights of another group. • Further argument can arise out of
evaluation, or it can be a new line of
That very often happens in real life, and it reasoning altogether.
makes it difficult, or even impossible, for those
who have to make decisions to do the ‘right • Further arguments can be raised in
thing’ by everyone. There is not always a clear support of the author’s conclusion(s), or in
choice. opposition to them.

Concluding that there is a balance between • Sometimes further argument leads to a
equally strong arguments – or equally weak balanced or neutral conclusion.
ones – is a perfectly acceptable position to
take. It should not be used as a cowardly way End-of-chapter assignment
of avoiding an uncomfortable decision; but if
your critical reasoning leads you to that ‘Where performance-enhancing drugs in
conclusion, then you have no choice but to sport are concerned, zero-tolerance is the
declare a ‘draw’. only policy that should be considered.’

The next and final example demonstrates Write your own argument to support or
how further argument can lead to a balanced challenge this claim.
or neutral position:

[6]  It is obviously not much of a punishment
for a vicious criminal to come from
prison and make a million dollars from a
film about the crime, none of which is
given to the victims who suffered from

194 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

4.11 A self-assessment

This final chapter in the unit brings together a once to get the gist of it. Note the kind of text it
range of the critical skills you have been is – its genre – and its source. These factors may
using. It consists of an activity in three parts, influence how you interpret and evaluate it
and is based on a standard exam question later. If it is an argument, note its conclusion
type. There is one difference: the passage to and the kind of reasons or premises that are
which the questions relate is from an offered. Then answer the following questions,
authentic published source. For that reason rereading the text as necessary. (Although these
the activity is not only good examination are examination-style questions, which would
practice; it is also a sample of how to read normally have a time limit, there is no time
critically and perceptively in a real-life restriction here. Think about the text and
situation. questions in depth, and apply all of the
concepts and critical methods you have been
Most of the time, when you encounter a studying in Units 2 and 4.)
news story or magazine article, you respond to
it with casual interest, but little more than Activity
that. That’s fine, if you are reading for
entertainment or just gathering information. a Show that you understand the structure of
But there are other times when you need to the argument. You should identify the main
engage with a text more actively, on a deeper conclusion and the reasoning given to
level. This applies if the text is on a subject you support it.
are studying at school or college; or if you have
to respond to it in a discussion or debate; or if b Critically evaluate the argument. You
it relates to your work. There are other should identify any assumptions, flaws and
occasions, too, when there is no particular weaknesses and assess their effect on the
external reason for you to engage with it strength of the reasoning.
critically, but the article just ‘grabs’ you, and
you want more from it than you would get c ‘Animals that show high levels of
from skimming through it once. intelligence deserve to be treated like
humans.’
The document you will be working on
(page 196) was published in an edition of Write your own argument to support or
Whale and Dolphin, the magazine of Whale and challenge this claim.
Dolphin Conservation (WDC). It has some
interesting connections with the material you Commentary
worked on in Chapter 4.6, but it makes a very The purpose of this commentary is to guide
different point. The natural features of you in assessing your own responses to the
authentic texts make the task of critical questions: not just what you wrote, but how
assessment more interesting, and more realistic, you went about it. Remember that even before
but at the same time more challenging. As with you were given the three questions, you were
any text, you should read or scan the passage asked to read the passage once through to get

4.11 A self-assessment 195