Are there Any Fallacies in the Reasoning in they way of Reading Critically?

ARE THERE ANY FALLACIES
IN THE REASONING?
Thus far, you have been working at taking the raw materials a writer or speaker gives you and assembling them into a meaningful overall structure. You have learned ways to remove the irrelevant parts from your pan as well as how to discover the "invisible glue" that holds the relevant parts together—that is, the assumptions. All these things have been achieved by asking critical questions.

Let's briefly review these questions:
1. What are the issue and the conclusion?
2. What are the reasons?
3. What words or phrases are ambiguous?
4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
5. What are the descriptive assumptions?

Asking these questions should give you a clear understanding of the communicator's reasoning as well as a sense of where there might be strengths and weaknesses in the argument. Most remaining chapters focus on how well the structure holds up after being assembled. Your major question now is, "How acceptable is the conclusion in light of the reasons provided?" You are now ready to make your central focus evaluation. Remember: The objective of critical reading and listening is to judge the acceptability or worth of conclusions.

While answering our first five questions has been a necessary beginning to the evaluation process, we now move to questions requiring us to make judgments more directly and explicitly about the worth or the quality of the reasoning. Our task now is to separate the "Fools Gold" from the genuine gold.

We want to isolate the best reasons—those that we want to treat most seriously. Your first step at this stage of the evaluation process is to examine the reasoning structure to determine whether the communicator's reasoning has depended on false or highly doubtful assumptions or has "tricked" you through either a mistake in logic or other forms of deceptive reasoning. Chapter 6 focused on finding and then thinking about the quality of assumptions.

This chapter, on the other hand, highlights those reasoning "tricks" that others and we call fallacies.
Three common tricks are:

1. providing reasoning that requires erroneous or incorrect assumptions; 

2. distracting us by making information seem relevant to the conclusion when it is not; and

3. providing support for the conclusion that depends on the conclusion's already being true.

Spotting such tricks will prevent us from being unduly influenced by them. Let's see what a fallacy in reasoning looks like.

Dear editor,
 I was shocked by your paper's support of Senator Spendall's arguments for a tax hike to increase state money available for improving highways. Of course the Senator favors such a hike. What else would you expect from a tax and spend liberal.

Note that the letter at first appears to be presenting a "reason" to dispute the tax-hike proposal, by citing the senator's liberal reputation. But the reason is not relevant to the conclusion. The question is whether the tax hike is a good idea. The letter writer has ignored the senator's reasons and has provided no specific reasons against the tax hike; instead, she has personally attacked the senator by labeling him a "tax and spend liberal." The writer has committed a fallacy in reasoning, because her argument requires an absurd assumption to
be relevant to the conclusion, and shifts attention from the argument to the arguer—Senator Spendall. An unsuspecting reader not alert to this fallacy may be tricked into thinking that the writer has provided a persuasive reason.

This chapter gives you practice in identifying such fallacies so that you will not fall for such tricks.

Critical Question: Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?

Attention: A fallacy is a reasoning "trick" that an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion.

A Questioning Approach to Finding Reasoning Fallacies

There are numerous reasoning fallacies. And they can be organized in many different ways. Many are so common that they have been given formal names. You can find many lengthy lists of fallacies in numerous texts and Web sites.
Fortunately, you don't need to be aware of all the fallacies and their names to be able to locate them. If you ask yourself the right questions, you will be able to find reasoning fallacies—even if you can't name them. Thus, we have adopted the strategy of emphasizing self-questioning strategies, rather than asking you to memorize an extensive list of possible kinds of fallacies. We believe, however, that knowing the names of the most common fallacies can sensitize you to fallacies and also act as a language "short cut" in communicating your reaction to faulty reasoning to others familiar with the names. Thus, we provide you with the names of fallacies as we identify the deceptive reasoning processes and encourage you to learn the names of the common fallacies described on page 98 at the end of the chapter.

We have already introduced one common fallacy to you in our Dear Editor example above. We noted that the writer personally attacked Senator Spendall instead of responding directly to the senator's reasons. Seeing such an argument, the critical thinker should immediately ask, "But what about the arguments that Senator Spendall made?" The Dear Editor reasoning illustrates the Ad Hominem fallacy. The Latin phrase Ad Hominem means "against the man or against the person." There are a variety of ways of making irrelevant attacks against a person making a claim, the most common of which is attacking his character or shifting attention to his circumstances or interests. Arguing Ad Hominem is a fallacy because the character or interests of individuals making arguments usually are not relevant to the quality of the argument being made. It is attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message.

Here is another brief example of Ad Hominem reasoning.
Sandy: "I believe that joining sororities is a waste of time and money."
Julie: "Of course you would say that, you didn't get accepted by any sorority."

Sandy: "But what about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Julie: "Those don't count. You're just a sore loser."
You can start your list of fallacy names with this one. Here is the definition:
________________________________________________________________________________
F: Ad hominem: An attack, or an insult, on the person, rather than directly addressingthe person's reasons
________________________________________________________________________________

Evaluating Assumptions as a Starting Point

If you have been able to locate assumptions (see Chapters 5 and 6), especially descriptive assumptions, you already possess a major skill in determining questionable assumptions and in finding fallacies. The more questionable the assumption, the less relevant the reasoning. Some "reasons," such as Ad
Hominem arguments, will be so irrelevant to the conclusion that you would have to supply blatantly erroneous assumptions to provide a logical link. Such reasoning is a fallacy, and you should immediately reject it. In the next section, we take you through some exercises in discovering other common fallacies. Once you know how to look, you will be able to find most fallacies. We suggest that you adopt the following thinking steps in locating fallacies:

1. Identify the conclusions and reasons.
2. Always keep the conclusion in mind and consider reasons that you think might be relevant to it; contrast these reasons with the author's reasons.
3. If the conclusion supports an action, determine whether the reason states a specific and/or concrete  dvantage or a disadvantage; if not, be wary!
4. Identify any necessary assumption by asking yourself, "If the reason were true, what would one have to believe for it to logically support the conclusion, and what does one have to believe for the reason to be true?"
5. Ask yourself, "Do these assumptions make sense?" If an obviously false assumption is being made, you have found a fallacy in reasoning, and that reasoning can then be rejected.
6. Check the possibility of being distracted from relevant reasons by phrases that strongly appeal to your emotions.

To demonstrate the process you should go through to evaluate assumptions and thus recognize many fallacies, we will examine the quality of the reasoning in the following passage. We will begin by assembling the structure.
The question involved in this legislation is not really a question of whether alcohol consumption is or is not detrimental to health. Rather, it is a question of whether Congress is willing to have the Federal


Communications Commission
make an arbitrary decision that prohibits alcohol advertising on radio and television. If we should permit the FCC to take this action in regard to alcohol, what is there to prevent it from deciding next year that candy is detrimental to the public health in that it causes obesity, tooth decay, and other health problems?

What about milk and eggs? Milk and eggs are high in saturated animal fat and no doubt increase the cholesterol in the bloodstream, believed by many heart specialists to be a contributing factor in heart disease. Do we want the FCC to be able to prohibit the advertising of milk, eggs, butter, and ice cream on TV?

Also, we all know that no action by the federal government, however drastic, can or will be effective in eliminating alcohol consumption completely. If people want to drink alcoholic beverages, they will find some way to do so.

CONCLUSION: The FCC should not prohibit alcohol advertising on radio and television.
REASONS:

1. If we permit the FCC to prohibit advertising on radio and television, the FCC will soon prohibit many kinds of advertising, because many products present potential health hazards.
2. No action by the federal government can or will be effective in eliminating alcohol consumption completely. First, we should note that both reasons refer to rather specific disadvantages of the prohibition—a good start. The acceptability of the first reason, however, depends on a hidden assumption that once we allow actions to be taken on the merits of one case, it will be impossible to stop actions on similar cases. We do not agree with this assumption, because we believe that there are plenty of steps in our legal system to prevent such actions if they appear unjustified. Thus, we judge this reason to be unacceptable. Such reasoning is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Slippery Slope: Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable
chain of undesirable events, when procedures exist to prevent such a chain
of events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The relevance of the second reason is questionable because even if this reason were true, the assumption linking the reason to the conclusion—the major goal of prohibiting alcohol advertising on radio and television is to eliminate alcohol consumption completely—is false. A more likely goal is to reduce consumption. Thus we reject this reason. We call this fallacy the searching for perfect solutions fallacy. It takes the form: A solution to X does not deserve our support unless it destroys the problem entirely. If we ever find a perfect solution, then we should adopt it. But because the fact that part of a problem would remain after a solution is tried does not mean the solution is unwise.
A particular solution may be vastly superior to no solution at all. It may move
us closer to solving the problem completely. If we waited for perfect solutions to emerge, we would often find ourselves paralyzed, unable to act. Here is another example of this fallacy: Why try to restrict people's access to abortion clinics in the United States? Even if you were successful, a woman seeking an abortion could still fly to Europe to acquire an abortion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Searching for Perfect Solution: Falsely assuming that because part of a problem would remain after a solution is tried, the solution should not be adopted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discovering Other Common Reasoning Fallacies

We are now going to take you through some exercises in discovering more common fallacies. As you encounter each exercise, try to apply the fallacy, finding hints that we listed above. Once you have developed good fallacy-detection habits, you will be able to find most fallacies. Each exercise presents some reasoning that includes fallacies. We indicate why we believe the reasoning is fallacious and then name and define the fallacy.

Exercise A
It's about time that we make marijuana an option for people in chronic severe pain. We approve drugs when society reaches a consensus about their value, and there is clearly now a consensus for such approval. A recent survey of public opinion reported that 73 percent thought medical marijuana should be allowed.
In addition, the California Association for the Treatment of AIDS Victims supports smoking marijuana as a treatment option for AIDS patients. As a first step in analyzing for fallacies, let's outline the argument.

CONCLUSION: Smoking marijuana should be a medical option.

REASONS:
1. We approve drugs when a consensus of their medical value has been reached, and a recent survey shows a consensus approving marijuana as a medical treatment.
2. A California association supports medical marijuana use.
First, we should note that none of the reasons points out a specific advantage of medical marijuana; thus we should be wary from the start. Next, a close look at the wording in the first reason shows a shift in meaning of a key term, and this shift tricks us. The meaning of the word consensus shifts in such a way that it looks like she has made a relevant argument when she has not. Consensus for drug approval usually means the consensus of scientific researchers about its merits, which is a very different consensus than the agreement of the American public on an opinion poll. Thus the reason fails to make sense, and we should reject it.

We call this mistake in reasoning the equivocation fallacy. Whenever you see a key word in an argument used more than once, check to see that the meaning has not changed; if it has, be alert to the equivocation fallacy. Highly ambiguous terms or phrases are especially good candidates for the equivocation fallacy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Equivocation: A key word is used with two or more meanings in an argument such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, even if there is tricky use of the word "consensus," don't the survey results by themselves still support the conclusion? They do only if we accept the assumption that when something is popular, then it must be good—a mistaken assumption. The public often has not sufficiently studied a problem to provide a reasoned judgment. Be wary of appeals to common opinion or to popular sentiment. We label this mistake in reasoning the appeal to popularity fallacy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Appeal to Popularity (Ad populum): An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to
sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything
favored by a large group is desirable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, carefully examine the author's second reason. What assumption is being made? To prove that medical marijuana is desirable, she appeals to questionable authorities—a California Association. A position is not good just because the authorities are for it. What is important in determining the relevance of such reasoning is the evidence that the authorities are using in making their judgment. Unless we know that these authorities have special knowledge about this issue, we must treat this reason as a fallacy. Such a fallacy is called the
Appeal to Questionable Authority fallacy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Appeal to questionable authority: Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's examine some arguments related to another controversy: Should Congress approve a federally funded child-development program that would provide day-care centers for children?

Exercise B
I am against the government's child-development program. First, I am interested in protecting the children of this country. They need to be protected from social planners and self-righteous ideologues who would disrupt the normal course of life and tear them from their mothers and families to make them pawns in a universal scheme designed to produce infinite happiness in 20 years. Children should grow up with their mothers, not with a series of caretakers and nurses' aides. What is at issue is whether parents shall continue to have the right to form the characters of their children, or whether the State with all its power should be given the tools
and techniques for forming the young.

Let's again begin by outlining the argument.

CONCLUSION: The government's child development program is a mistake.
REASONS:
1. Our children need to be protected from social planners and self-righteous ideologues, who would disrupt the normal course of life and tear them from their families.
2. The parents, not the State, should have the right to form the characters their children. As critical readers and listeners, we should be looking for specific facts about the program. Do you find any specifics in the first reason? No. The reason is saturated with undefined and emotionally loaded generalities. We have italicized several of these terms in the passage. Such terms will typically generate negative emotions, which the writer or speaker hopes readers and listeners will associate with the position he is attacking. The writer is engaging in name-calling and emotional appeals. The use of emotionally charged negative terms serves to distract readers and listeners from the facts.

The writer has tricked us in another way. She states that the program will "tear them from their families and mothers," and the children will be "pawns in a universal scheme." Of course, nobody wants these things to happen to their children. However, the important question is whether in fact the bill will do these things. Not likely! The writer is playing two common tricks on us. First, she is appealing to our emotions with her choice of words, hoping that our emotional reactions will get us to agree with her conclusion. When communicators try to draw emotional reactions from people and then use that reaction to get them to agree to their conclusion, they commit the fallacy of an Appeal to Emotion. This fallacy occurs when your emotional reactions should not be relevant to the truth or falsity of a conclusion. Three of the most common places for finding this fallacy are in advertising, in political debate and in the courtroom.

Second, she has set up a position to attack which in fact does not exist, making it much easier to get us on her side. She has extended the opposition's position to an "easy-to-attack" position. The false assumption in this case is that the position attacked is the same as the position actually presented in the legislation. The lesson for the critical thinker is: When someone attacks aspects of a position, always check to see whether she is fairly representing the position. If she is not, you have located the straw-person fallacy.

A straw person is not real and is easy to knock down—as is the position attacked when someone commits the straw-person fallacy. The best way to check how fairly a position is being represented is to get the facts about all positions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Appeals to Emotions: The use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Straw Person: Distorting our opponent's point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's now look closely at the second reason. The writer states that either parents have the right to form the characters of their children, or else the State should be given the decisive tools. For statements like this to be true, one must assume that there are only two choices. Are there? No! The writer has created a false dilemma. Isn't it possible for the child-development program to exist and also for the family to have a significant influence on the child? Always be cautious when controversies are treated as if only two choices are possible; there are usually more than two. When a communicator oversimplifies an issue by stating only two choices, the error is referred to as an either-or or false dilemma fallacy. To find either-or fallacies, be on the alert for phrases like the following:
either . . . or
the only alternative is
the two choices are
because A has not worked, only B will.
Seeing these phrases does not necessarily mean that you have located a fallacy. Sometimes there are only two options. These phrases are just caution signs causing you to pause and wonder: "But are there more than two options in this case?"
Can you see the false dilemma in the following interchange?
Citizen: I think that the decision by the United States to invade Iraq was a big
mistake.
Politician: Why do you hate America?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Either-Or (Or False Dilemma): Assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following argument contains another fallacy involving a mistaken assumption. Try to locate the assumption.

Exercise C

Student: It doesn't make sense for you to give pop quizzes to your class, Professor Jones. It just makes a lot of extra work for you and makes the students nervous. Students should not need pop quizzes to motivate them to prepare for each class.
The advice to Professor Jones requires a faulty assumption to support the conclusion. That something should be true—students should not need pop quizzes to motivate them to prepare for class—in no way guarantees that what is true will conform to the prescription. Reality, or "what is," is often in conflict with "what should be."
Another common illustration of this reasoning error occurs when discussing proposals for government regulation. For instance, someone might argue that regulating advertising for children's television programs is undesirable because parents should turn the channel or shut off the television if advertising is deceptive. Perhaps parents in a perfect world would behave in this fashion.
Many parents, however, are too busy to monitor children's programming. When reasoning requires us to assume incorrectly that what we think should be matches what is, or what will be, it commits the wishful thinking fallacy. We would hope that what should be the case would guide our behavior. Yet many
observations convince us that just because advertisers, politicians, and authors should not mislead us is no protection against their regularly misleading us. The world around us is a poor imitation of what the world should be like.

Here's a final example of wishful thinking that might sound familiar to you.

I can't wait for summer vacation time, so I can get all those books read that I've put off reading during the school year.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Wishful Thinking: Making the faulty assumption that because we wish X were true or false, then X is indeed true or false.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another confusion is responsible for an error in reasoning that we often encounter when seeking explanations for behavior. A brief conversation between college roommates illustrates the confusion.
Dan: I've noticed that Chuck has been acting really weird lately. He's acting really rude toward others and is making all kinds of messes in our residence hall and refusing to clean them up. What do you think is going on?
Kevin: That doesn't surprise me. He is just ajerk. To explain requires an analysis of why a behavior occurred. Explaining is demanding work that often tests the boundaries of what we know. In the above
example, "jerkhood" is an unsatisfactory explanation of Chuck's behavior.

When asked to explain why a certain behavior has occurred, it is frequently tempting to hide our ignorance of a complex sequence of causes by labeling or naming the behavior. Then we falsely assume that because we know the name, we know the cause.

We do so because the naming tricks us into believing we have identified something the person has or is that makes her act accordingly.
For example,
instead of specifying the complex set of internal and external factors that lead a person to manifest an angry emotion, such as problems with relationships, parental reinforcement practices, feelings of helplessness, lack of sleep, and life stressors, we say the person has a "bad temper" or that the person is hostile.

Such explanations oversimplify and prevent us from seeking more insightful understanding.
The following examples should heighten your alertness to this fallacy:
1. In response to Dad's heavy drinking, Mom is asked by her adult daughter, "Why is Dad behaving so strangely?" Mom replies, "He's having a midlife crisis."
2. A patient cries every time the counselor asks about his childhood. An intern who watched the counseling session asks the counselor, after the patient has left, "Why does he cry when you ask about his youth?" The counselor replies, "He's neurotic."

Neither respondent satisfactorily explained what happened. For instance, the specifics of dad's genes, job pressures, marital strife, and exercise habits could have provided the basis for explaining the heavy drinking. "A midlife crisis" is not only inadequate; it misleads. We think we know why dad is drinking heavily, but we don't.
Be alert for this error when people claim that they have discovered a cause for the behavior when all they have actually done is named it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Explaining by Naming: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behavior that you have also adequately explained the event.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking for Diversions

Frequently, those trying to get an audience to accept some claim find that they can defend that claim by preventing the audience from taking too close a look at the relevant reasons. They prevent the close look by diversion tactics. As you look for fallacies, you will find it helpful to be especially alert to reasoning used by the communicator that diverts your attention from the most relevant reasons. For example, the Ad Hominem fallacy can fool us by diverting our attention too much to the nature of the person and too little to the legitimate
reasons. In this section, we present exercises that illustrate other fallacies that we are likely to detect if we ask the question, "Has the author tricked us by diverting our attention?"

Exercise D
Political speech: In the upcoming election, you have the opportunity to vote for a woman who represents the future of this great nation, who has fought for democracy and defended our flag, and who has been decisive, confident, and courageous in pursuing the American Dream. This is a caring woman who has supported our children and the environment and has helped move this country toward peace, prosperity, and freedom. A vote for Goodheart is a vote for truth, vision, and common sense.

Sounds like Ms. Good heart is a wonderful person, doesn't it? But the speech fails to provide any specifics about the senator's past record or present position on issues. Instead, it presents a series of virtue words that tend to be associated with deep-seated positive emotions. We call these virtue words "Glittering  generalities,'" because they have such positive associations and are so general as to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. The Glittering Generality device leads us to approve or accept a conclusion without examining relevant reasons, evidence, or specific advantages or disadvantages. The Glittering Generality is much like name-calling in reverse because name calling seeks to make us form a negative judgment without examining the evidence. The use of virtue words is a popular ploy of politicians because it serves to distract the reader or listener from specific actions or policies, which can more easily trigger disagreement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Glittering Generality: The use of vague emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's examine another very common diversionary device.

Exercise E

I don't understand why everyone is so upset about drug companies distorting research data in order to make their pain-killer drugs seem to be less dangerous to people's health than they actually are. Taking those drugs can't be that bad.
After all, there are still thousands of people using these drugs and getting pain relief from them.

What is the real issue? Is the public being misled about the safety of pain-killer drugs? But if the reader is not careful, his attention will be diverted to the issue of whether the public wants to use these drugs. When a writer or speaker shifts our attention from the issue, we can say that she has drawn a red herring across the trail of the original issue. Many of us are adept at committing the red herring fallacy, as the following example illustrates:

If the daughter is successful, the issue will become whether the mother is picking on her daughter, not why the daughter was out late.

You should normally have no difficulty spotting red herrings as long as you keep the real issue in mind as well as the kind of evidence needed to resolve it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Red Herring: An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue and help to "win" an argument by shifting attention away from the argument and to another issue. The fallacy sequence in this instance is as follows: (a) Topic A is being discussed; (b) Topic B is introduced as though it is relevant to topic A, but it is not; and (c) Topic A is abandoned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Sleight of Hand: Begging the Question

Our last illustrated fallacy is a particularly deceptive one. Sometimes a conclusion is supported by itself; only the words have been changed to fool the innocent!

For example, to argue that dropping out of school is undesirable because it is bad is to argue not at all. The conclusion is "proven" by the conclusion (in different words). Such an argument begs the question, rather than answering it.
Let's look at an example that is a little less obvious.

Programmed learning texts are clearly superior to traditional texts in learning effectiveness because it is highly advantageous for learning to have materials presented in a step-by-step fashion. Again, the reason supporting the conclusion restates the conclusion in different words. By definition, programmed learning is a step-by-step procedure. The writer is arguing that such a procedure is good because it is good. A legitimate reason would be one that points out a specific advantage to programmed learning such as greater retention of learned material.

Whenever a conclusion is assumed in the reasoning when it should have been proven, begging the question has occurred. When you outline the structure of an argument, check the reasons to be sure that they do not simply repeat the conclusion in different words and check to see that the conclusion is not used to prove the reasons. In case you are confused, let's illustrate with two examples, one argument that begs the question and one that does not.

(1) To allow the press to keep their sources confidential is very advantageous to the country because it increases the likelihood that individuals will report evidence against powerful people. (2) To allow the press to keep their sources confidential is very advantageous to the country because it is highly conducive to the interests of the larger community that private individuals should have the privilege of providing information
to the press without being identified. Paragraph (2) begs the question by basically repeating the conclusion. It fails to point out what the specific advantages are and simply repeats that confidentiality of sources is socially used.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Begging the Question: An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USING THIS CRITICAL QUESTION

When you spot a fallacy, you have found a legitimate basis for rejecting the argument. But in the spirit of constructive critical thinking, you want to continue the discussion of the issue. Unfortunately, the author of a book or article is unavailable for more conversation. But in those instances where the fallacy occurred in an oral argument, your best bet for an enduring conversation is to ask the person who committed the fallacy if there is not a better reason for the conclusion. For example, if a red herring fallacy occurs, ask the speaker if it would be possible to return to the original issue.

Summary of Reasoning Errors
We have taken you through exercises that illustrate a number of ways in which reasoning may be faulty. We have not listed all the ways, but we have given you a good start. We have saved some additional fallacies for later chapters because you are most likely to spot them when you focus on the particular question central to that chapter. As you encounter each additional fallacy, be sure to add it to your fallacy list.

To find reasoning fallacies, keep in mind what kinds of reasons are good reasons—that is, the evidence and the moral principles relevant to the issue.

Reasoning should be rejected whenever you have found mistaken assumptions, distractions, or support for the conclusion that already assumes the truth of the conclusion. Reasoning should be approached cautiously when it appeals to group-approved attitudes and to authority. You should always ask, "Are there good reasons to consider such appeals as persuasive evidence?"

A precautionary note is in order here: Do not automatically reject reasoning that relies on appeals to authority or group-approved attitudes. Carefully evaluate such reasoning.

For example, if most physicians in the country choose to take up jogging, that information is important to consider in deciding whether jogging is
beneficial. Some authorities do possess valuable information. Because of their
importance as a source of evidence, we discuss appeals to authority in detail in the next chapter.

Expanding Your Knowledge of Fallacies


We recommend that you consult texts and some web sites to expand your awareness and understanding of reasoning fallacies. Darner's Attacking Faulty Reasoning is a good source to help you become more familiar with reasoning fallacies. There are dozens of fallacy lists on the web, which vary greatly in quality. A few of the more helpful sites, which provide descriptions and examples of numerous fallacies, are listed below:

The Nizkor Project: Fallacies, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

The Fallacy Zoo, by Brian Yoder: (list of basic fallacies with examples) http:// www.goodart.org/fallazoo.htm

The Fallacy Files by Gary Curtis http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/

Fallacies and Your Own Writing and Speaking
When you communicate, you necessarily engage in reasoning. If your purpose is to present a well-reasoned argument, in which you do not want to "trick" the reader into agreeing with you, then you will want to avoid committing reasoning fallacies. Awareness of possible errors committed by writers provides you with warnings to heed when you construct your own arguments.

You can avoid fallacies by checking your own assumptions very carefully, by remembering that most controversial issues require you to get specific about advantages and disadvantages, and by keeping a checklist handy of possible reasoning fallacies.
Practice Exercises

 Critical Question: Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?

Try to identify fallacies in the reasoning in each of the three practice passages.

Passage 1

The surgeon general has overstepped his bounds by recommending that explicit sex education begin as early as third grade. It is obvious that he is yet another victim of the AIDS hysteria sweeping the nation. Unfortunately, his media-influenced announcement has given new life to those who favor explicit sex education—even to the detriment of the nation's children.

Sexuality has always been a topic of conversation reserved for the family. Only recently has sex education been forced on young children. The surgeon general's recommendation removes the role of the family entirely. It should be up to parents to explain sex to their children in a manner with which they are comfortable. Sex education exclusive of the family is stripped of values or any sense of morality, and should thus be  discouraged. For years families have taken the responsibility of sex education, and that's the way it should
remain.
Sex education in schools encourages experimentation. Kids are curious. Letting them in on the secret of sex at such a young age will promote blatant promiscuity. Frank discussions of sex are embarrassing for children, and they destroy the natural modesty of girls.

Passage 2

Sandra: I don't see why you are so against permitting beer to be sold at the new University Student Union. After all, a survey of our students shows that 80 percent are in favor of the proposal.
Joe: Of course, you will be in favor of serving any alcoholic beverage at any time anywhere. You are one of the biggest alcoholics on our campus.

Passage 3

Bill: Countries that harbor terrorists who want to destroy the United States must be considered enemies of the United States. Any country that does not relinquish terrorists to the American justice system is clearly on the side of the terrorists. This sort of action means that the leaders of these countries do not wish to see justice done to the terrorists and care more about hiding murderers, rapists, thieves, and anti-democrats.

Taylor: That's exactly the kind of argument that I would expect from someone who has relatives who have worked for the CIA. But it seems to me that once you start labeling countries that disagree with America on policy as enemies, then eventually almost all countries will be considered our enemies, and we will be left
with no allies.

Bill: If that's the case, too bad. America stands for freedom, for democracy, and for truth. So it can stand against the world. Besides, the United States should be able to convince countries hostile to the United States of the error of their ways because our beliefs have a strong religious foundation.

Taylor: Do you really think most religious people are in favor of war? A Gallup poll last week found that 75 percent of highly religious people didn't think we should go to war with countries harboring terrorists.

Bill: I think that's an overestimate. How many people did they survey? Taylor: I'm not sure. But getting back to your original issue, the biggest problem with a tough stand against countries that harbor terrorists is that such a policy is not going to wipe out terrorism in the world.
Bill: Why do you keep defending the terrorists? I thought you were a patriot. Besides, this is a democracy, and most Americans agree with me.

Sample Responses
Passage 1

CONCLUSION: Sex education should not be taught in schools.

REASONS:
1. The Surgeon General's report reflects hysteria.
2. The report removes the role of the family entirely.
3. It is the job of parents.
4. Education encourages promiscuity.

The author begins the argument by attacking the surgeon general rather than the issue. She claims that the recommendation is a by-product of the AIDS hysteria rather than extensive research. Her suggestion that the surgeon general issues reports in reaction to hot topics in the media undermines his credibility and character and is therefore ad hominem. The second paragraph is a straw-person fallacy because it implies that the goal of sex education is to supply all the child's sex education.
Her third reason confuses "what is" with "what should be." Just because sex education should be up to the parents does not mean that they will provide education.

The fourth reason presents a false dilemma—either keep sex education out of the schools or face morally loose, value-free children. But isn't it possible to have morally loose children even when sex education is taking place in the home? Isn't it also a possibility that both parents and the schools can play a role in sex education? Might not education result in children who are prepared to handle the issue of sex in their lives rather than morally deficient delinquents?

Passage 2

SANDRA'S CONCLUSION: Beer should be served at the University Union.
SANDRA'S REASON: Most students are in favor of the idea.
JOE'S CONCLUSION: Beer should not be served in the University Union (implied).
JOE'S REASON: We should not listen to Sandra's argument because she is an alcoholic.
Both Sandra and Joe commit fallacies in their arguments. Sandra bases her claim about the desirability of beer in the Union on the majority view of students that beer should be served. She makes the erroneous assumption that if the majority favors an action, the action is proper. Students might be for the proposal, but
they also may have given little thought to the advantages and disadvantages of making beer more easily available.
Joe commits two fallacies in his tiny argument. First, he attacks Sandra, rather than addressing Sandra's reasoning. Sandra's alleged alcoholism is not the issue.

She provides a reason for her support for beer in the Union; Joe ignores that reason and attacks her instead. Second, Joe responds to a straw man argument when he responds to Sandra by extending what she did say to an extreme position that she did not take in her statement. Nowhere in her argument did Sandra favor
drinking with no restrictions.

CRITICAL QUESTION SUMMARY:

WHY THIS QUESTION IS IMPORTANT

Are there Any Fallacies in the Reasoning?
Once you have identified the reasons, you want to determine whether the author used any reasoning tricks, or fallacies. If you identify a fallacy in reasoning, that reason does not provide good support for the conclusion. Consequently, you would not want to accept an author's conclusion on the basis of that reason. If the author
provides no good reasons, you would not want to accept her conclusion. Thus, looking for fallacies in reasoning is another important step in determining whether you will accept or reject the author's conclusion.

What are the Descriptive Assumptions in Critical Reading?

WHAT ARE THE DESCRIPTIVE
ASSUMPTIONS?
You should now be able to identify value assumptions—very important hidden
components of prescriptive arguments. When you find value assumptions, you
know pretty well what a writer or speaker wants the world to be like—what
goals she thinks are most important. But you do not know what she takes for
granted about the nature of the world and the people who inhabit it. Are they
basically lazy or achievement oriented, cooperative or competitive, and rational
or whimsical? Her visible reasoning depends on these ideas, as well as
upon her values. Such unstated ideas are descriptive assumptions, and they
too are essential hidden elements of an argument.
The following brief argument about a car depends on hidden assumptions.
Can you find them?
This car will get you to your destination, whatever it may be. I have driven this
model of car on multiple occasions.
This chapter focuses on the identification of descriptive assumptions.
( j j Critical Question: What are the descriptive assumptions?
Descriptive assumptions are beliefs about the way the world is; prescriptive
or value assumptions, you remember, are beliefs about how the world
should be.

Illustrating Descriptive Assumptions
Let's examine our argument about the car to illustrate more clearly what we
mean by a descriptive assumption.
The reasoning structure is:
CONCLUSION: This particular car will get you where you want to go.
REASON: This model of car has functioned well on multiple occasions.
The reasoning thus far is incomplete. We know that, by itself, a reason just
does not have the strength to support a conclusion; the reason must be connected
to the conclusion by certain other (frequently unstated) ideas. These
ideas, if true, justify treating the reason as support for the conclusion. Thus,
whether a reason supports, or is relevant to, a conclusion depends on whether
we can locate unstated ideas that logically connect the reason to the conclusion.
When such unstated ideas are descriptive, we call them descriptive assumptions.
Let us present two such assumptions for the above argument.
ASSUMPTION 1 : From year to year a particular model of car has a consistent quality.
First, no such statement was provided in the argument itself. However, if
the reason is true and if this assumption is true, then the reason provides some
support for the conclusion. But if not all model years have the same level of
dependability (and we know they do not), then experience with a model in previous
years cannot be a reliable guide to whether one should buy the car in the
current model year. Note that this assumption is a statement about the way things
are, not about the way things should be. Thus, it is a descriptive connecting assumption.
ASSUMPTION 2: The driving that would be done with the new car is the same kind driving that was done by the person recommending the car.
When we speak about "driving" a car, the ambiguity of driving can get us into
trouble if we do not clarify the term. If the "driving" of the person recommending
the car refers to regular trips to the grocery store on a quiet suburban street with
no hills, that driving experience is not very relevant as a comparator when the new
car is to be driven in Colorado, while pulling a heavy trailer. Thus, this conclusion
is supported by the reason only if a certain definition of driving is assumed.
We can call this kind of descriptive assumption a definitional assumption
because we have taken for granted one meaning of a term that could have
more than one meaning. Thus, one important kind of descriptive assumption
to look for is a definitional assumption—the taking for granted of one meaning

for a term that has multiple possible meanings. Let's see what this process
looks like in argument form:
Once you have identified the connecting assumptions, you have answered
the question, "On what basis can that conclusion be drawn from that reason?"
The next natural step is to ask, "Is there any basis for accepting the assumptions?"
If not, then, for you, the reason fails to provide support for the conclusion. If so,
then the reason provides logical support for the conclusion. Thus, you can say
reasoning is sound when you have identified connecting assumptions and you
have good reason to believe those assumptions.
Attention: A descriptive assumption is an unstated belief about how the
world was, is, or will become.
When you identify assumptions, you identify ideas the communicator
needs to take for granted so that the reason is supportive of the conclusion.
Because writers and speakers frequently are not aware of their own assumptions,
their conscious beliefs may be quite different from the ideas you identify
as implicit assumptions. When you then make the hidden connecting tissue of
an argument visible, you also contribute to their understanding of their own
argument and may thereby guide them to better beliefs and decisions.
USING THIS CRITICAL QUESTION
After you have found descriptive assumptions, you want to think about
whether there is a strong basis for accepting them. It is certainly fair for you
to expect the person making the argument to provide you with some justification
for why you should accept these particular assumptions. Finally, if the
assumption is not supported and you find it questionable, you are behaving
responsibly when you decide not to buy the argument. Your point in rejectingit is not to disagree with the conclusion. Instead, you are saying that you cannot
accept the conclusion based on the reasons offered so far. In other words, you
are quite willing to believe what you are being told, but as a critical thinker you
are in the business of personal development. That development can take place
only when you accept only those conclusions that have persuasive reasons.
Clues for Locating Assumptions
Your task in finding assumptions is to reconstruct the reasoning by filling
in the missing links. You want to provide ideas that help the communicator's
reasoning "make sense." Once you have a picture of the entire argument, both
the visible and the invisible parts, you will be in a much better position to
determine its strengths and weaknesses.
How does one go about finding these important missing links? It requires
hard work, imagination, and creativity. Finding important assumptions is a difficult
task.
You have been introduced to two types of assumptions—value assumptions
and descriptive assumptions. In the previous chapter, we gave you several
hints for finding value assumptions. Here are some clues that will make your
search for descriptive assumptions successful.
Keep thinking about the gap between the conclusion and reasons. Why are you
looking for assumptions in the first place? You are looking because you want to
be able to judge how well the reasons support the conclusions. Thus, look for
what the writer or speaker would have had to take for granted to link the reasons
and conclusion. Keep asking, "How do you get from the reason to the conclusion?"
Ask, "If the reason is true, what else must be true for the conclusion to follow?" And, to
help answer that question, you will find it very helpful to ask, "Supposing the
reason(s) were true, is there any way in which the conclusion nevertheless could be false?"
Searching for the gap will be helpful for finding both value and descriptive
assumptions.
Look for ideas that support reasons. Sometimes a reason is presented with no
explicit support; yet the plausibility of the reason depends on the acceptability
of ideas that have been taken for granted. These ideas are descriptive assumptions.
The following brief argument illustrates such a case:
CONCLUSION: All high-school English classes will go see at least one Shakespeare play.
REASON: It is beneficial to experience Shakespeare's works first hand.

What ideas must be taken for granted for this reason to be acceptable?
We must assume:
(a) The performance will be well done and reflective of what Shakespeare would
encourage, and
(b) students will understand the play and be able to relate it to Shakespeare.
Both (a) and (b) are ideas that have to be taken for granted for the reasons
to be acceptable and, thus, supportive of the conclusion.
Identify with the writer or speaker. Locating someone's assumptions is often
made easier by imagining that you were asked to defend the conclusion. If you
can, crawl into the skin of a person who would reach such a conclusion.
Discover his background. Whether the person whose conclusion you are evaluating
is a corporate executive, a labor leader, a boxing promoter, or a judge,
try to play the role of such a person and plan in your mind what he would be
thinking as he moves toward the conclusion. WTien an executive for a coal
company argues that strip mining does not significantly harm the beauty of
our natural environment, he has probably begun with a belief that strip
mining is beneficial to our nation. Thus, he may assume a definition of beauty
that would be consistent with his arguments, while other definitions of beauty
would lead to a condemnation of strip mining.
Identify with the opposition. If you are unable to locate assumptions by taking
the role of the speaker or writer, try to reverse roles. Ask yourself why anyone
might disagree with the conclusion. What type of reasoning would
prompt someone to disagree with the conclusion you are evaluating? If you
can play the role of a person who would not accept the conclusion, you can
more readily see assumptions in the explicit structure of the argument.
Recognize the potential existence of other means of attaining the advantages
referred to in the reasons. Frequently, a conclusion is supported by reasons
that indicate the various advantages of acting on the author's conclusion.
When there are many ways to reach the same advantages, one important
assumption linking the reasons to the conclusion is that the best way to attain
the advantages is through the one advocated by the communicator.
Let's try this technique with one brief example. Experts disagree about how
a person should establish financial stability. Many times young people are
encouraged to establish credit with a credit card. But aren't there many ways to
establish financial stability? Might not some of these alternatives have less serious
disadvantages than those that could result when a young person spends too much
on that credit card? For example, investing some money in a savings account
or establishing credit by maintaining a checking account are viable routes to
establishing financial stability. Thus, those who suggest that people get credit
cards to help establish financial stability are not taking into account the risks
involved with their solution or the possibility of fewer risks with an alternative.
Avoid stating incompletely established reasons as assumptions. When
you first attempt to locate assumptions you may find yourself locating a stated
reason, thinking that the reason has not been adequately established, and
asserting, "That's only an assumption. You don't know that to be the case." Or
you might simply restate the reason as the assumption. You may have correctly
identified a need on the part of the writer or speaker to better establish the
truth of her reason. While this clarification is an important insight on your part,
you have not identified an assumption in the sense that we have been using it
in these two chapters. You are simply labeling a reason "an assumption."
Here is an example of stating an incompletely established reason as an
assumption.
The ratings are going through the roof for Science Fiction shows. The advertising
agencies have done a great job.
Now, challenge the argument by identifying the following assumption:
The writer is assuming that advertising is causing the ratings to rise.
Do you see that when you do this, all you are doing is stating that the
author's reason is her assumption—when what you are probably really trying to
stress is that the author's reason has not been sufficiendy established by evidence.
Applying the Clues
Let's look at an argument about the importance of planning and see whether
we can identify descriptive and value assumptions.
Planning is a valuable tool. Students need to be taught how to budget time
and write down tasks. The best way to show college students how helpful careful
planning can be for them is to require them to use a planner. Given the average
course load that students take, they will have a difficult time remembering all of
their assignments. Unlike high school, colleges do not have concerned adults
who will remind them about assignments or ask them whether they have done
their homework before they go out.

Requiring the use of a planner will help students become the goal-oriented
students that every college professor wants to have in his classroom. Such a
requirement will not only help students tremendously, but will also create a
more successful college environment for everyone involved.
CONCLUSION Planning should be a requirement for students, and the best way to accomplish
this goal is to require than to use a planner.
REASONS: 1. Students out of high school are not ready or independent enough to for
classes—planning can change that.
2. Students will become goal-oriented.
First, note that the author provides no "proof for her reasons. Thus,
you might be tempted to state, "Those reasons are only assumptions; she does
not know that." Wrong! They are not assumptions! Remember: identifying lessthan-
fully established reasons, though important, is not the same as identifying
assumptions—ideas that are taken for granted as a basic part of the
argument.
Now, let's see whether any descriptive assumptions can be found in the
argument. Remember to keep thinking about the gap between the conclusion
and the reasons as you look. First, ask yourself, "Is there any basis for believing
that the reason(s) might not be true?" Then ask, "Supposing the reason(s)
were true, is there any way in which the conclusion nevertheless could be
false?" Try to play the role of a person who does not believe a planner should
be a requirement.
Look at the two reasons. The first would be true if it were the case
that the students being described are independent learners. This author is
assuming that no such ability to take initiative for one's own academic success
exists. How can she know such a thing? Perhaps forcing students to plan would
only cause the students to have another disorderly thing to do. Thus, one
descriptive assumption is that students cannot learn to become responsible learners
independently.
Let's now suppose that the second reason is true. Planning still might
not be useful to the student. Just because the author believes in the value
of planning does not mean that it will change the lives or the study habits of
students. Thus, an assumption connecting the first reason to the conclusion is
that students will learn how to plan and then will implement that strategy later. This
assumption also links with the second reason closely.
Consider the second reason. It is true only if the student not only
absorbs the ideas of planning, but also uses them. The author is also assuming
that the ideas learned through planning will then lead to a goal-oriented lifestyle. Another important assumption is that students will change their learning
styles after mastering the concepts of planning.
Note also that there is a prescriptive quality to this essay; thus, important
value assumptions underlie the reasoning. What is the author concerned about
preserving? Try reverse role-playing. What would someone who disagreed with
this position care about? What are the disadvantages to forcing students to
plan? Your answers to these questions should lead you to the essay's value preference.
For example, can you see how a preference for orderliness over independence
links the reasons to the conclusion?
Avoiding Analysis of Trivial Assumptions
Writers and speakers take for granted, and should take for granted, certain selfevident
things. You will want to devote your energy to evaluating important
assumptions, so we want to warn you about some potential trivial assumptions.
By trivial, we mean an assumption that is self-evident.
You as a reader or listener can assume that the communicator believes his
reasons are true. You may want to attack the reasons as insufficient, but it is trivial
to point out the writer's or speaker's assumption that the reasons are true.
Another type of trivial assumption concerns the reasoning structure. You
may be tempted to state that the writer believes that the reason and conclusion
are logically related. Right—but trivial. What is important is how they are logically
related. It is also trivial to point out that an argument assumes that we
can understand the logic, that we can understand the terminology, or that we
have the appropriate background knowledge.
Avoid spending time on analyzing trivial assumptions. Your search for
assumptions will be most rewarding when you locate hidden, debatable missing
links.
Assumptions and Your Own Writing and Speaking
When you attempt to communicate with an audience, either by writing or
speaking, you will be making numerous assumptions. Communication requires
them. But, once again out of respect for your audience, you should acknowledge
those assumptions, and, where possible, provide a rationale for why you
are making those particular assumptions.
The logic of this approach on your part is to assist the audience in accepting
your argument. You are being open and fair with them. An audience should
appreciate your willingness to present your argument in its fullness.

Summary
Assumptions are ideas that, if true, enable us to claim that particular reasons
provide support for a conclusion.

Practice Exercises
(J) Critical Question: What are the descriptive assumptions?
For each of the three passages, locate important assumptions made by the author.
Remember first to determine the conclusion and the reasons.
Passage 1
Everyone should consider playing poker to win money. It has gained great popularity.
You can see people play on television daily, and there are many opportunities
to play against real people online. This trend is an exciting opportunity
for people everywhere to try and win money. Poker is simple to learn after one
understands the rules and concepts behind the game. It is a game that people of
all ages and experience can play!
Passage 2
Adopted children should have the right to find out who their biological parents
are. They should be able to find out for personal and health reasons. Most children
would want to know what happened to these people and why they were given
up for adoption. Even though this meeting may not be completely the way the
child had imagined it, this interaction could provide a real sense of closure for
adopted children. There are people who believe that it does not matter who the
biological parents are as long as the child has loving parents. It is true that having
a supportive environment is necessary for children, but there will always be nagging questions for these children that will be left unanswered if they are
not able to find out their biological parents. There are also health risks that
can be avoided by allowing a child to find out who their parents are. A lot of
diseases have hereditary links that would be useful for the child and the new
family to know.
Passage 3
Recently, we have lost community members in a large fire. It only seems logical now
mat we start implementing fire safety presentations or courses in our schools. The
last thing we want to happen is for more tragedies to occur, especially in our schools.
The fire safety training will prevent this community from losing any more lives.
Educational programs provide the best way to go if we are to avoid future disasters
of this type.
Sample Responses
In presenting assumptions for the following arguments, we will list only some
of the assumptions being made—those which we believe are among the most
significant.
Passage 1
CONCLUSION: Everyone should play poker to win money.
REASONS: 1. It is a popular game.
2. People of all ages and experience can play.
In looking at the first reason, there seems to be a missing link between that reason
and the conclusion. The author omits two main assumptions. One, poker is
enjoyable because many people play this game. And second, that "enjoyable"
means profitable. The author needs these two assumptions for him to make the
jump to the idea that we should all join the poker craze.
The second reason should leave the reader wondering whether it makes
sense to assume that because something can happen, it should happen. Yes, we
can all certainly play poker; we can also all start forest fires, but our capacity to
do so is not exactly an endorsement of the activity.
Passage 2
CONCLUSION: Adopted children should be allowed to find their biological parents'
identities.
REASON: 1. Knowing ones birth parents can provide many health benefits (SUPPORTING REASONS)
a. Psychological closure can be achieved by finding answer to enduring
questions.
b. Able to find out what their biological parents are like.
2. Permits one to assess health risks.
Try reverse role-playing, taking the position of someone who values the
parents' right to privacy.
For the first reason to be true, it must be the case that the child is
bothered by not knowing their biological parentage. Surely this assumption
would be true for some adopted children. Is there data that suggests a widespread
burning desire to know the birth parents? If so, please present the data
so we can move toward agreeing with the argument. There are many reasons
to think that the child may either be satisfied not knowing or may not even be
aware that he is adopted. Also, for the main reason to be enhanced by the
supporting reasons, we would need to assume that meeting the biological
parent would not create sharp new tensions between the individual and the
adoptive parent.
ff\ CRITICAL QUESTION SUMMARY:
Vjt^ WHY THIS QUESTION IS IMPORTANT
What Are the Descriptive Assumptions?
When you identify descriptive assumptions, you are identifying the link between
a reason and the author's conclusion. If this link is flawed, the reason does not necessarily
lead to the conclusion. Consequently, identifying the descriptive assumptions
allows you to determine whether an author's reasons lead to a conclusion.
You will want to accept a conclusion only when there are good reasons that lead
to the conclusion. Thus, when you determine that the link between the reasons
and conclusion is flawed, you will want to be reluctant to accept the author's
conclusion.

Critical Reading For Evening Batch Students (Shortly Full Course)

IEN 103: Critical Reading (for Evening Students)

Critical reading is a vital part of the writing process. In fact, reading and writing processes are alike. In both, you make meaning by actively engaging a text. As a reader, you are not a passive participant, but an active constructor of meaning. Exhibiting an inquisitive, "critical" attitude towards what you read will make anything you read richer and more useful to you in your classes and your life. This guide is designed to help you to understand and engage this active reading process more effectively so that you can become a better critical reader.

1. Reading a Text--Some Definitions
2. How do Readers Read?
3. Strategies for Reading More Critically
4. Critically Reading Assignment Sheets
5. Reading for Meaning--Worksheet

Chapter 1

Reading a Text--Some Definitions

You might think that reading a text means curling up with a good book, or forcing yourself to study a textbook. Actually, reading a text can mean much more. First of all, let's define the two terms of interest here--"reading" and "text."

• What Counts as Reading?
• What Counts as a Text?

What Counts as Reading?

Reading is something we do with books and other print materials, certainly, but we also read things like the sky when we want to know what the weather is doing, someone's expression or body language when we want to know what someone is thinking or feeling, or an unpredictable situation so we'll know what the best course of action is. As well as reading to gather information, "reading" can mean such diverse things as interpreting, analyzing, or attempting to make predictions.

What Counts as a Text?

When we think of a text, we may think of words in print, but a text can be anything from a road map to a movie. Some have expanded the meaning of "text" to include anything that can be read, interpreted or analyzed. So a painting can be a text to interpret for some meaning it holds, and a mall can be a text to be analyzed to find out how modern Americans behave in their free time.

Chapter 2

How do Readers Read?

Those who study the way readers read have come up with some different theories about how readers make meaning from the texts they read.

Being aware of how readers read is important so that you can become a more critical reader. In fact, you may discover that you are already a critical reader.

2 (A) The Reading Equation

2 (B) Cognitive Reading Theory

2 (A)The Reading Equation

Prior Knowledge + Predictions = Comprehension

When we read, we don't decipher every word on the page for its individual meaning. We process text in chunks, and we also employ other "tricks" to help us make meaning out of so many individual words in a text we are reading. First, we bring prior knowledge to everything we read, whether we are aware of it or not. Titles of texts, authors' names, and the topic of the piece all trigger prior knowledge in us. The more prior knowledge we have, the better prepared we are to make meaning of the text. With prior knowledge we make predictions, or guesses about how what we are reading relates to our prior experience. We also make predictions about what meaning the text will convey.

• Tapping into Prior Knowledge
• Making Predictions
• How Can Reading Comprehension Make Us Better Writers?

Tapping into Prior Knowledge

It's important to tap into your prior knowledge of subject before you read about it. Writing an entry in your writer's notebook may be a good way to access this prior knowledge. Discussing the subject with classmates before you read is also a good idea. Tapping into prior knowledge will allow you to approach a piece of writing with more ways to create comprehension than if you start reading "cold."

Making Predictions

Whether you realize it or not, you are always making guesses about what you will encounter next in a text. Making predictions about where a text is headed is an important part of the comprehension equation. It's alright to make wrong guesses about what a text will do--wrong guesses are just as much a part of the meaning-making process of reading as right guesses are.

How can Reaching Comprehension Make Us Better Writers?

When you have successfully comprehended the text you are reading, you should take this comprehension one step further and try to apply it to your writing process. Good writers know that readers have to work to make meaning of texts, so they will try to make the reader's journey through the text as effortless as possible. As a writer you can help readers tap into prior knowledge by clearly outlining your intent in the introduction of your paper and making use of your own personal experience. You can help readers make accurate guesses by employing clear organization and using clear transitions in your paper.

2 (B) Cognitive Reading Theory

When you read, you may think you are decoding a message that a writer has encoded into a text. Error in reading comprehension, in this model, would occur if you as a reader were not decoding the message correctly, or if the writer was not encoding the message accurately or clearly. The writer, however, would have the responsibility of getting the message into the text, and the reader would assume a passive role.

According to this view:

• Reading as a Model
• Reading is an Active, Constructive, Meaning-Making Process
• Reading is Multi-Level
• Reading is Hypothesis Based
• Reading is strategic

Reading has a Model

Let's look at a more recent and widely accepted model of reading that is based on cognitive psychology and schema theory. In this model, the reader is an active participant who has an important interpretive function in the reading process. In other words, in the cognitive model you as a reader are more than a passive participant who receives information while an active text makes itself and its meanings known to you. Actually, the act of reading is a push and pulls between reader and text. As a reader, you actively make, or construct, meaning; what you bring to the text is at least as important as the text itself.

Reading is an active, constructive, meaning-making process

Readers construct a meaning they can create from a text, so that "what a text means" can differ from reader to reader. Readers construct meaning based not only on the visual cues in the text (the words and format of the page itself) but also based on non-visual information such as all the knowledge readers already have in their heads about the world, their experience with reading as an activity, and, especially, what they know about reading different kinds of writing. This kind of non-visual information that readers bring with them before they even encounter the text is far more potent than the actual words on the page.

Reading is multi-level

When we read a text, we pick up visual cues based on font size and clarity, the presence or absence of "pictures," spelling, syntax, discourse cues, and topic. In other words, we integrate data from a text including its smallest and most discrete features as well as its largest, most abstract features. Usually, we don't even know we're integrating data from all these levels. In addition, data from the text is being integrated with what we already know from our experience in the world about all fonts, pictures, spelling, syntax, discourse, and the topic more generally. No wonder reading is so complex!

Reading is hypothesis based

In yet another layer of complexity, readers also create for themselves an idea of what the text is about before they read it. In reading, prediction is much more important than decoding. In fact, if we had to read each letter and word, we couldn't possibly remember the letters and words long enough to put them all together to make sense of a sentence. And reading larger chunks than sentences would be absolutely impossible with our limited short-term memories.

So, instead of looking at each word and figuring out what it "means," readers rely on all their language and discourse knowledge to predict what a text is about. Then we sample the text to confirm, revise, or discard that hypothesis. More highly structured texts with topic sentences and lots of forecasting features are easier to hypothesize about; they're also easier to learn information from. Less structured texts that allow lots of room for predictions (and revised and discarded hypotheses) gives more room for creative meanings constructed by readers. Thus we get office memos or textbooks or entertaining novels.

 

Reading is Strategic

We change our reading strategies (processes) depending on why we're reading. If we are reading an instruction manual, we usually read one step at a time and then try to do whatever the instructions tell us. If we are reading a novel, we don't tend to read for informative details. If we a reading a biology textbook, we read for understanding both of concepts and details (particularly if we expected to be tested over our comprehension of the material.)

Our goals for reading will affect the way we read a text. Not only do we read for the intended message, but we also construct a meaning that is valuable in terms of our purpose for reading the text.

Strategic reading also allows us to speed up or slow down, depending on our goals for reading (e.g. scanning newspaper headlines v. carefully perusing a feature story).

Chapter 3

Strategies for Reading More Critically

Although you probably already read critically in some respects, here are some things you can do when you read a text to improve your critical reading skills.
Most successful critical readers do some combination of the following strategies:

a)       Previewing

b)       Annotating

c)       Summarizing

d)       Analyzing

e)       Re-reading

f)        Responding

a) Previewing

Previewing a text means gathering as much information about the text as you can before you actually read it. You can ask yourself the following questions:

• What is my Purpose for Reading?
• What can the Title Tell Me About the Text?
• Who is the Author?
• How is the Text Structured?

What is my purpose for reading?

If you are being asked to summarize a particular piece of writing, you will want to look for the thesis and main points. Are you being asked to respond to a piece? If so, you may want to be conscious of what you already know about the topic and how you arrived at that opinion.

What can the title tell me about the text?

Before you read, look at the title of the text. What clues does it give you about the piece of writing? It may reveal the author's stance, or make a claim the piece will try to support. Good writers usually try to make their titles do work to help readers make meaning of the text from the reader's first glance at it.

Who is the author?

If you have heard the author's name before, what comes to your mind in terms of their reputation and/or stance on the issue you are reading about? Has the author written other things of which you are aware? How does the piece in front of you fit into to the author's body of work? What is the author's political position on the issue they are writing about? Are they liberal, conservative, or do you know anything about what prompted them to write in the first place?

How is the text structured?

Sometimes the structure of a piece can give you important clues to its meaning. Be sure to read all section headings carefully. Also, reading the opening sentences of paragraphs should give you a good idea of the main ideas contained in the piece.

b) Annotating

Annotating is an important skill to employ if you want to read critically. Successful critical readers read with a pencil in their hand, making notes in the text as they read. Instead of reading passively, they create an active relationship with what they are reading by "talking back" to the text in its margins. You may want to make the following annotations as you read:

1. Mark the Thesis and Main Points of the Piece
2. Mark Key Terms and Unfamiliar Words
3. Underline Important Ideas and Memorable Images
4. Write Your Questions and/or Comments in the Margins of the Piece
5. Write any Personal Experience Related to the Piece
6. Mark Confusing Parts of the Piece, or Sections that Warrant a Reread
7. Underline the Sources, if any, the Author has Used

                  i.            Mark the Thesis and Main Points of the Piece

Mark the thesis and main points of the piece. The thesis is the main idea or claim of the text, and relates to the author's purpose for writing. Sometimes the thesis is not explicitly stated, but is implied in the text, but you should still be able to paraphrase an overall idea the author is interested in exploring in the text. The thesis can be thought of as a promise the writer makes to the reader that the rest of the essay attempts to fulfill.

The main points are the major subtopics, or sub-ideas the author wants to explore. Main points make up the body of the text, and are often signaled by major divisions in the structure of the text.

Marking the thesis and main points will help you understand the overall idea of the text, and the way the author has chosen to develop her or his thesis through the main points s/he has chosen.

              ii.            Mark Key Terms and Unfamiliar Words

While you are annotating the text you are reading, be sure to circle unfamiliar words and take the time to look them up in the dictionary. Making meaning of some discussions in texts depends on your understanding of pivotal words. You should also annotate key terms that keep popping up in your reading. The fact that the author uses key terms to signal important and/or recurring ideas means that you should have a firm grasp of what they mean.

           iii.            Underline Important Ideas and Memorable Images

You will want to underline important ideas and memorable images so that you can go back to the piece and find them easily. Marking these things will also help you relate to the author's position in the piece more readily. Writers may try to signal important ideas with the use of descriptive language or images, and where you find these stylistic devices, there may be a key concept the writer is trying to convey.

            iv.            Write Your Questions and/or Comments in the Margins of the Piece

Writing your own questions and responses to the text in its margins may be the most important aspect of annotating. "Talking back" to the text is an important meaning-making activity for critical readers. Think about what thoughts and feelings the text arouses in you. Do you agree or disagree with what the author is saying? Are you confused by a certain section of the text? Write your reactions to the reading in the margins of the text itself so you can refer to it again easily. This will not only make your reading more active and memorable, but it may be material you can use in your own writing later on.

                v.            Write any Personal Experience Related to the Piece

One way to make a meaningful connection to a text is to connect the ideas in the text to your own personal experience. Where can you identify with what the author is saying? Where do you differ in terms of personal experience? Identifying personally with the piece will enable you to get more out of your reading because it will become more relevant to your life, and you will be able to remember what you read more easily.

            vi.            Mark Confusing Parts of the Piece, or Sections that Warrant a Reread

Be sure to mark confusing parts of the piece you are reading, or sections that warrant a reread. It is tempting to glide over confusing parts of a text, probably because they cause frustration in us as readers. But it is important to go back to confusing sections to try to understand as much as you can about them. Annotating these sections may also remind you to bring up the confusing section in class or to your instructor.

         vii.            Underline the Sources, if any, the Author has Used

Good critical readers are always aware of the sources an author uses in her or his text. You should mark sources in the text and ask yourself the following questions:

• Is the source relevant? In other words, does the source work to support what the author is trying to say?
• Is the source credible? What is his or her reputation? Is the source authoritative? What is the source's bias on the issue? What is the source's political and/or personal stance on the issue?
• Is the source current? Is there new information that refutes what the source is asserting? Is the writer of the text using source material that is outdated?

c) Summarizing

Summarizing the text you've read is an valuable way to check your understanding of the text. When you summarize, you should be able to find and write down the following things from the text:

Annotating the thesis and main points

Mark the thesis and main points of the piece. The thesis is the main idea or claim of the text, and relates to the author's purpose for writing. Sometimes the thesis is not explicitly stated, but is implied in the text, but you should still be able to paraphrase an overall idea the author is interested in exploring in the text. The thesis can be thought of as a promise the writer makes to the reader that the rest of the essay attempts to fulfill.

The main points are the major subtopics, or sub-ideas the author wants to explore. Main points make up the body of the text, and are often signaled by major divisions in the structure of the text.

Marking the thesis and main points will help you understand the overall idea of the text, and the way the author has chosen to develop her or his thesis through the main points s/he has chosen.

d) Analyzing

Analyzing a text means breaking it down into its parts to find out how these parts relate to one another. Being aware of the functions of various parts of a piece of writing and their relationship to one another and the overall piece can help you better understand a text's meaning. To analyze a text, you can look at the following things:

                     i.            Analyzing Evidence

                   ii.            Analyzing Assumptions

                  iii.            Analyzing Sources

                 iv.            Analyzing Author Bias

                              i.            Analyzing Evidence

Consider the evidence the author presents. Is there enough evidence to support the point the author is trying to make? Does the evidence relate to the main point in a logical way? In other words, does the evidence work to prove the point, or does is contradict the point, or show itself to be irrelevant to the point the author is trying to make?

Source Evaluation:

Good critical readers are always aware of the sources an author uses in her or his text. You should mark sources in the text and ask yourself the following questions:

• Is the source relevant? In other words, does the source work to support what the author is trying to say?
• Is the source credible? What is his or her reputation? Is the source authoritative? What is the source's bias on the issue? What is the source's political and/or personal stance on the issue?
• Is the source current? Is there new information that refutes what the source is asserting? Is the writer of the text using source material that is outdated?

                          ii.            Analyzing Assumptions

Consider any assumptions the author is making. Assumptions may be unstated in the piece of writing you are assessing, but the writer may be basing her or his thesis on them. What does the author have to believe is true before the rest of her or his essay makes sense?

Example: "[I]f a college recruiter argues that the school is superior to most others because its ratio of students to teachers is low, the unstated assumptions are (1) that students there will get more attention, and (2) that more attention results in a better education" (Crusius and Channell, The Aims of Argument, Mayfield Publishing Co., 1995).

                       iii.            Analyzing Sources

If an author uses outside sources to back up what s/he is saying, analyzing those sources is an important critical reading activity. Not all sources are created equal. There are at least three criteria to keep in mind when you are evaluating a source:

• Is the Source Relevant?
• Is the Source Credible?
• Is the Source Current?

                        iv.            Analyzing Author Bias

Taking a close look at the author's bias can tell you a lot about a text. Ask yourself what experiences in the author's background may have led him or her to hold the position s/he does. What does s/he hope to gain from taking this position? How does the author's position stand up in comparison to other positions on the issue? Knowing where the author is "coming from" can help you to more easily make meaning from a text

e) Re-reading

Re-reading is a crucial part of the critical reading process. Good readers will reread a piece several times, until they are satisfied they know it inside and out. It is recommended that you read a text three times to make as much meaning as you can.

                                 i.            The First Reading

                               ii.            The Second Reading

                              iii.            The Third Reading

                              i.            The first reading

The first time you read a text, skim it quickly for its main ideas. Pay attention to the introduction, the opening sentences of paragraphs, and section headings, if there are any. Previewing the text in this way gets you off to a good start when you have to read critically.

                          ii.            The second reading

The second reading should be a slow, meditative read, and you should have your pencil in your hand so you can annotate the text. Taking time to annotate your text during the second reading may be the most important strategy to master if you want to become a critical reader

                       iii.            The third reading

The third reading should take into account any questions you asked yourself by annotating the margins. You should use this reading to look up any unfamiliar words, and to make sure you have understood any confusing or complicated sections of the text.

f) Responding

Responding to what you read is an important step in understanding what you read. You can respond in writing, or by talking about what you've read to others. Here are several ways you can respond critically to a piece of writing:

a)       Writing a Response in Your Writer's Notebook

b)       Discussing the Text with Others

a)  Writing a response in your writer's notebook

One way to make sure you have understood a piece of writing is to write a response to it. It may be beneficial to first write a summary of the text, covering the thesis and main points in an unbiased way. Pretend you are reporting on the "facts" of the piece to a friend who has not read it, the point being to keep your own opinion out of the summary. Once you have summarized the author's ideas objectively, you can respond to them in your writer's notebook. You can agree or disagree with the text, interpret it, or analyze it. Working with your reading of the text by responding in writing is a good way to read critically.

          Keeping a writer's notebook

A writer's notebook, or journal, is a place in which you can respond to your reading. You should feel free to say what you really think about the piece you are reading, to ask questions, and to express frustration or confusion about the piece. The writer's notebook is a place you can come back to when it is time to write an assignment, to look for your initial reactions to your readings, or to pull support for an essay from personal experience you may have recorded. Writing about what you are reading is a way to become actively engaged in the critical reading process.

b)  Discussing the text with others

Cooperative activities are important to critical reading just as they are to the writing process. Sharing your knowledge of a text with others reading the same text is a good way to check your understanding and open up new avenues of comprehension. You can annotate a text on your own first, and then confer with a group of classmates about how they annotated their texts. Or, you can be sure to participate in class discussion of a shared text--verbalizing your ideas about a text will reinforce your reading process.

Chapter 4:

Critically Reading Assignment Sheets

It is important to have read your assignment sheet critically before you begin to write. Consider the following things:

1. Analyze your Assignment Sheet Carefully
2. Pay Attention to the Length of the Essay, and other Requirements
3. Plan your Time Well

a.   Analyze your Assignment Sheet Carefully

You may want to annotate your assignment sheet like you would any other piece of writing. Look for key terms like analyze, interpret, argue, summarize, compare, contrast, explain, etc. These terms will tell you your purpose for writing. Be sure to know how your instructor is using key words on the assignment sheet. If you don't understand something about the assignment, be sure to ask your instructor. It's vital to understand the assignment completely before you begin writing.

b.   Pay Attention to the Length of the Essay, and other Requirements

Be sure to have a firm grasp on what you must do to meet the requirements of the assignment. Know how long the essay must be, because this will affect the thesis and focus of the paper. Short papers dictate a narrow focus, whereas longer paper allow for a larger focus.

Know also what formatting requirements are in place, such as font size, margins and other constraints.

c.    Plan your Time Well

Know when the assignment due date is and be sure to allow enough time for all thinking, reading, researching , drafting and revising. Be aware of your instructor's policy on due dates. Most instructors do not accept late papers.

Chapter 5:

Reading for Meaning

After you've read an essay once, use the following set of questions to guide your re-readings of the text. The question on the left-hand side will help you describe and analyze the text; the question on the right hand side will help focus your response(s).

DESCRIPTION	RESPONSE
I. Purpose
Describe the author's overall purpose (to inquire, to convince, to persuade, to negotiate or other purpose)	Is the overall purpose clear or muddled?
How did the essay or text actually affect you: did the author's purpose succeed?	How does the author want to affect or change the reader?
	Was the author's actual purpose different from the stated purpose?
II. Audience/Reader
Who is the intended audience?	Are you part of the intended audience?
What assumptions does the author make about the reader's knowledge or beliefs?	Does the author talk to or talk down to the reader?
From what context or point of view is the author writing?
III. Thesis and Main Ideas
What question or problem does the author address?	Where is the thesis stated?
What is the author's thesis	Are the main ideas actually related to the thesis?
What main ideas are related to the thesis?	Do key passages convey a message different from the thesis?
What are the key moments or key passages in the text?	What assumptions (about the subject or about culture) does the author make?
	Are there problems or contradictions in the essay?
	What bothers or disturbs you about the essay?
	Where do you agree or disagree?
IV. Organization and Evidence
Where does the author preview the essay's organization?	Where did you clearly get the author's signals about the essay's organization?
How does the author signal new sections of the essay?	Where were you confused about the organization?
What kinds of evidence does the author use (personal experience, descriptions, statistics, other authorities, analytical reasoning, or other).	What evidence was most or least effective?
	Where did the author rely on assertions rather than on evidence?
V. Language and Style
What is the author's tone (casual, humorous, ironic, angry, preachy, distant, academic, or other)?	Did the tone support or distract from the author's purpose or meaning?
Are sentences and vocabulary easy, average or difficult?	Did the sentences and vocabulary support or distract from the purpose or meaning?
What words, phrases, or images recur throughout the text?	Did recurring works or images relate to or support the purpose or meaning?

Remember that not all these questions will be relevant to any given essay or text, but one or two of them may suggest a direction or give a focus to your overall response.

When one of these questions suggests a focus for your response to the essay, go back to the text to gather evidence to support your response.