WHAT REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS ARE POSSIBLE?

By this stage you should be better equipped to pan for intellectual gold—to distinguish stronger reasons from weaker ones.

Consider the following argument:

Large corporations spend far too much time and money advertising to children. Children's programming is riddled with commercials trying to sell them the latest toy, telling the children they will not be happy unless they have it. The practice of advertising to children is horrendous and should be illegal. Advertising to children, who cannot critically evaluate the ads they see, puts a strain on parents to either say "no" to their children and have them get upset, or to give in to their children's demands, ultimately spoiling the children.

Should you urge your local congressman to criminalize advertisements to children? Suppose you checked the author's reasons and found them believable. Are there other conclusions that might be equally consistent with
these reasons as the author's conclusion? The chapter summary will suggest several possible alternative conclusions.

Very rarely will you have a situation in which only one conclusion can be reasonably inferred. In an earlier chapter, we discussed the importance of rival causes. The point there was that there are different possible causal bases for a particular conclusion. This chapter, however, focuses on the alternative conclusions
that are all possible outcomes from a single set of reasons.


Consequently, you must make sure that the conclusion you eventually adopt is the most reasonable and the most consistent with your value preferences. The recognition that the reasons could provide support for conclusions different from yours should heighten your interest in any further tests or studies that would help identify the best conclusion.

Critical Question: What reasonable conclusions are possible

Assumptions and Multiple Conclusions

Evidence attempting to support a factual claim or a group of strong reasons supporting a prescriptive conclusion can both be interpreted to mean different things. Reasons do not generally speak for themselves in an obvious way. As we have seen many times, conclusions are reached only after someone makes certain interpretations or assumptions concerning the meaning of the reasons.

If you make a different assumption concerning the meaning of the reasons, you will reach different conclusions. Because we all possess different levels of perceptual precision, frames of reference, and prior knowledge, we repeatedly disagree about which assumptions are preferable. We form different
conclusions from reasons because our diverse backgrounds and goals cause us to be attracted to different assumptions when we decide to link reasons to conclusions.

Sometimes a writer or speaker will mention alternative conclusions that can be reached on the basis of the reasons he has presented. However, you will often have to generate possible alternatives. To perform this creative task, try to imagine what different assumptions might enable someone to jump from the reasons you have identified to another conclusion. Remember, many possible conclusions can be made on the basis of most sets of reasons. The next two sections will help you recognize the multiplicity of possible conclusions.


DichotomousThinking: Impediment to Considering Multiple Conclusions

Very few important questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or an absolute "no." When people think in black or white, yes or no, right or wrong, or correct or incorrect terms, they engage in dichotomous thinking. This type of thinking consists of assuming there are only two possible answers to a question that has multiple potential answers. This habit of seeing and referring to both sides of a question as if there are only two has devastatingly destructive effects on our thinking. By restricting the conclusions we consider to be only two, we are sharply reducing the robust possibilities that careful reasoning can produce.

We encountered dichotomous thinking earlier when we discussed the Either-or fallacy. This fallacy, and dichotomous thinking in general, damages reasoning by overly restricting our vision. We think we are finished after considering two optional decisions, thereby overlooking many options and the positive consequences that could have resulted from choosing one of them.

Dichotomous thinkers often are rigid and intolerant because they fail to understand the importance of context for a particular answer. To see this point more clearly, imagine this situation:

Your roommate asks you to help plan her biology paper. The paper is to address the question: Should scientists pursue stem cell research? In her mind, the paper requires her to defend a "yes" or "no" position.
You have learned that dichotomous thinking can be avoided by qualifying conclusions, by putting them into context. This qualification process requires you to ask about any conclusion:
1. When is it accurate?
2. Where is it accurate?
3. Why or for what purpose is it accurate?

You then begin to apply this process to the paper assignment.

Would you be surprised by your roommate's growing frustration as you explained that at certain specified times, in certain situations, to maximize particular values or objectives one should allow stem cell research? She's looking for "yes" or "no"; you provided a complicated "it depends on. . ."

Rigid, dichotomous thinking limits the range of your decisions and opinions. Even worse, it overly simplifies complex situations. As a consequence, dichotomous thinkers are high-risk candidates for confusion.

The next section illustrates the restrictive effects of dichotomous thinking. Two Sides or Many?

Before we look at several arguments in which multiple conclusions are possible, let's make sure you  appreciate the large number of conclusions that are possible with respect to most important controversies. Here are three contemporary questions;

1. Should the United States engage in peacekeeping in other countries?
2. Is William Shakespeare the best playwright of all time?
3. Should scientists be held responsible for how their inventions are used?

At first glance, these questions and many like them seem to call for yes or no answers. However, a qualified yes or no is often the best answer. The advantage of maybe as an answer is that it forces you to admit that you do not yet know enough to make a definite answer. But at the same time you avoid a definite answer; you
form a tentative decision or opinion that calls for commitment and eventual action. It's wise to seek additional information that would improve the support for your opinions, but at some point you must stop searching and make a decision, even when the most forceful answer you are willing to defend is a "yes, but..."

Glance back at the three questions that preceded the last paragraph. Ask yourself what conclusions would be possible in response to each question. Naturally, a simple "yes" or a "no" answer would be two possible conclusions. Are
there others? Yes, there are many! Let's look at just a few of the possible answers to the first of these  questions.

Should the United States Engage in Peacekeeping

in Other Countries?

• Yes, when the country is intricately tied to the United States, such as Saudi Arabia.
• Yes, if the United States is to be perceived as the sole superpower responsible for maintaining world peace.
• Yes, if the United States' role is to be limited to keeping peace and does not involve actually fighting a war.
• Yes, when our economic interests abroad are at stake.
• Yes, when Americans might be harmed by violence in other countries.
• No, the United States has enough domestic problems to handle such that we should not spend time in other countries.
• No, if peacekeeping is the goal, such actions are better left up to
• the U.N. or NATO.

Notice that in each case we added a condition necessary before the conclusion can be justified. In the absence of any data or definitions, any of these seven conclusions could be most reasonable. These seven are just a few of the conclusions possible for the first question.

Just for practice, try to suggest five possible conclusions for the third question:

Should scientists be held responsible for how their inventions are used?

Perhaps this conclusion occurred to you: Yes, if it can be demonstrated that the scientist had reason to suspect that the invention would be used in a way other than intended, to the detriment of other people. Or, maybe you thought of this one: No, if the purpose of science is understood to be the betterment of humankind, scientific research is then aimed at helping people, and it is not the fault of scientists if potentially beneficial inventions are misused by others. 

But probably neither of these appears on your list. Why are we so sure? Because there are an enormous number of possible conclusions for this question! It should be an unlikely coincidence if you had chosen either of these two from the huge list of possible conclusions. 

This greater number of answers is what we want you to grasp. Knowledge of the possibility of multiple conclusions will prevent you from leaping to one prematurely.

Searching for Multiple Conclusions

This section contains two arguments pointing out multiple conclusions that could be created from the reasons in each argument. The intention is to give you some models to use when you search for conclusions. In each case, we will give you the structure of the argument before we suggest alternative conclusions.

Study the reasons without looking at the conclusion, and try to identify as many conclusions as possible that would follow from the reasons. You can always use the when, where, and why questions to help generate alternative conclusions.

CONCLUSION: The United States should continue to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

REASONS:

1. Without the death penalty, there is no way to punish people who commit wrongs, such as harming guards or inmates, after already having a life sentence.
2. It is only fair that someone should die for purposely taking the life of another.

Let's start by accepting these reasons as sensible to us. What do we then make of them? We have one answer in the conclusion of the writer: Continue the use of the death penalty.

But even when we accept these two reasons, we would not necessarily conclude the same thing. Other conclusions make at least as much sense on the basis of this support. For example, it would follow that we should continue to use the death penalty, but only in cases where someone has already been sentenced to life in prison, and the prisoner kills a guard or another inmate.

Alternatively, these reasons might suggest that we need to maintain the death penalty in cases of prisoners' harming guards or other prisoners. Not only is this alternative conclusion logically supported by the reasons, but it also leads to a conclusion quite different from the original conclusion.

CONCLUSION: States need to allow people to end their lives when they feel their time has come.

REASONS:

1. People have the right to choose when and how they want to die.2. It is wrong to force people to stay alive, especially if they are suffering.
2. If ending one's life were legal, the government could regulate it more closely, allowing doctors to supervise suicides and administer pills to make the act quick and painless.

What conclusions are possible? One would be to decriminalize suicide in one location and observe the ways in which the law is used and to what extent people avail themselves of the opportunity. Alternatively, the government could restrict the legalized suicides to cases where people are terminally ill and suffering. Another possibility based on a strong devotion to collective responsibility would be to allow the suicides, but only after the person went through a thorough counseling program to see if there was any way besides death that the person could find happiness. Observe that all three of these conclusions are possible even if we accept the truth of the three reasons.

Thus, the same reasons frequently can be used to support several different conclusions.

Productivity of If-Clauses

If you went back over all the alternative conclusions discussed in this chapter, you would notice that each optional conclusion is possible because we are missing certain information, definitions, assumptions, or the frame of reference of the person analyzing the reasons. Consequently, we can create multiple conclusions by the judicious use of if-clauses. In an if-clause, we state a condition that we are assuming in order to enable us to reach a particular conclusion. Notice that the use of if-clauses permits us to arrive at a conclusion without pretending that we know more than we actually do about a particular controversy.

When you use if-clauses to precede conclusions, you are pointing out that your conclusion is based on particular claims or assumptions about which you are uncertain. To see what we mean, look at the following sample conditional statements that might precede conclusions.

1. If the tax cut is targeted towards those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, then . . .
2. If a novel contains an easily identifiable protagonist, a clear antagonist, and a thrilling climax, then . . .
3. If automakers can make cars that are more fuel efficient, then . . .

If-clauses present you with multiple conclusions that you should assess before making up your mind about the controversy, and they also broaden the list of possible conclusions from which you can choose your own position.



Alternative Solutions as Conclusions

We frequently encounter issues posed in the following form:

Should we do X?

Is X desirable?

Such questions naturally "pull" for dichotomous thinking. Often, however, posing questions in this manner hides a broader question, "What should we do about Y?" (usually some pressing problem). Rewording the question in this way leads us to generate multiple conclusions of a particular form: solutions to the problem raised by the reasons. Generating multiple solutions greatly increases the flexibility of our thinking.
Let's examine the following passage to illustrate the importance of generating multiple solutions as possible conclusions.

Should we close the bars downtown? The answer is a resounding yes! Since the bars opened, a dozen young college students have suffered from alcohol poisoning.

Once we change this question to, "What should we do about the number of college students suffering from alcohol poisoning?" a number of possible solutions come to mind, which help us formulate our conclusion to the issue. For example, we might conclude: "No, we should not close the bars downtown; rather, we should strictly enforce the drinking age and fine bars that sell alcoholic beverages to minors."

When reasons in a prescriptive argument are statements of practical problems, look for different solutions to the problems as possible conclusions.

Clues for Identifying Alternative Conclusions

1. Try to identify as many conclusions as possible that would follow from the reasons.

2. Use if-clauses to qualify alternative conclusions.

3. Reword the issue to "What should we do about Y?"

The Liberating Effect of Recognizing Alternative Conclusions

If logic, facts, or studies were self-explanatory, we would approach learning in a particular manner. Our task would be to have someone else, a teacher perhaps, provide the beliefs that we should have. Specifically, we would seek that single identifiable set of beliefs that logic and facts dictate.

While we have tremendous respect for logic and facts, we cannot exaggerate their worth as guides for conclusion formation. They take us only so far; then we have to go the rest of the way toward belief, using the help that facts and logic have provided.

A first step in using that help is the search for possible multiple conclusions consistent with logic and the facts as we know them. This search liberates us in an important way. It frees us from the inflexible mode of learning
sketched above. Once we recognize the variety of possible conclusions, each of us can experience the excitement of enhanced personal choice.

All Conclusions Are Not Created Equal

We want to warn you that the rewarding feeling that often comes with generating multiple conclusions may tempt you to treat them as equally credible andto believe your j ob is done after you've made your list. But remember that some conclusions can be better justified than others, and the most believable ones should be the ones that most affect your reaction to the author's reasoning.

Indeed, one clever way to weaken strong reasoning about global warming or the cause of the war in Iraq or the wisdom of distance learning is to make the claim that experts disagree.

The implication of such a statement is that once disagreement is identified, one argument is as good as the next. Therefore, there is no basis for new action to address the problem. But such an approach is insulting to careful critical thinking. Critical thinkers have standards of careful reasoning that they can apply to identify the strongest reasoning.

Summary

Very rarely do reasons mean just one thing. After evaluating a set of reasons, you still must decide what conclusion is most consistent with the best reasons in the controversy. To avoid dichotomous thinking in your search for the strongest conclusion, provide alternative contexts for the conclusions through the use of when, where, and why questions. Qualifications for conclusions will move you away from dichotomous thinking. If-clauses provide a technique for expressing these qualifications.

For instance, let's take another look at the argument for restricting advertisements aimed at children at the beginning of the chapter. What alternative conclusions might be consistent with the reasons given?

AUTHOR'S CONCLUSION: Advertisements aimed at children should be illegal.
ALTERNATIVE CONCLUSIONS:

• If corporations are to be treated as persons, then they have a right to free speech that includes advertisements; thus, their right to advertise should not be limited.
• If it can be demonstrated that children are unable to assess what they view, and thus are heavily influenced by the advertisements they see, then advertisements aimed at children should be illegal.
• If the purpose of the proposed legislation is to limit the content of advertisements aimed at children, then the government should not make such ads illegal, but rather take a more proactive role in regulating the content of advertisements aimed at children.

Many additional alternative conclusions are possible in light of the author's reasons. We would shrink the quality of our decision making if we did not consider those alternative conclusions as possible bases for our own beliefs.

Practice Exercises

Critical Question: What reasonable conclusions are possible?

For each of the following arguments, identify different conclusions that could be drawn from the reasons.

Passage 1


Feeding large numbers of people is not easy. However, dining halls on campus should try to accommodate a larger variety of tastes. Students all across campus consistently complain not only about the quality of food, but the lack of selection they find in the dining halls. All the dining halls need to do is offer a wider range of food to better please more students, and thus keep more of them eating on campus as opposed to off campus. Dining services is failing its duty to the students when it does not provide a large selection of food options every day.

Passage 2

I have never been that strong of a runner, but when I bought my new training shoes, Mercury, my time greatly improved. Now I can run faster, longer, and am less sore afterward. Runner's Digest also says the Mercury is one of the best shoes on the market. Therefore, all people who want to run should buy Mercury shoes.

Passage 3

Many people feel it is a good idea to legalize prostitution. A substantial number of people visit prostitutes now even though the practice is generally illegal. So proponents argue that it makes sense to legalize prostitution.
Are these people right? Absolutely not! Prostitution is a horribly immoral practice and it should not be legalized. Prostitution helps spread sexually transmitted infections. Also, the legalization of prostitution will cause more men to cheat on their wives with prostitutes with the consequent negative fallout for families. Nothing good could possibly come from the legalization of prostitution.


Sample Responses

Passage 1
CONCLUSION: Dining services are not doing an adequate job of providing food on campus.
REASONS:
1. Students are upset about the quality of the food.
2. There are not enough options provided every day.
3. More options would keep students happy and keep them eating on campus.

To work on this particular critical-thinking skill, we need to assume that the reasons are strong ones. If we accept these reasons as reliable, we could also reasonably infer the following conclusions:

If dining services' goal is to provide a wide selection of food while ensuring the least amount of wasted food at the end of the day, then they are not letting students down with the current selections offered to students.
If dining services aim to keep the price of on-campus food down, and a more expansive menu would cause an increase in prices, they are not failing in their duty to students.
Notice that the alternative conclusions put dining services in quite a different light compared to the negative portrayal they received in the original conclusion.

Passage 2

CONCLUSION: All potential runners should buy Mercury brand shoes.
REASON:

1. When the author bought Mercury brand shoes, her time greatly improved.
2. Runner's Digest stated that Mercury brand shoes are some of the best running shoes on the market.

On the basis of these reasons, we could infer several alternative conclusions:

Runners who are similar to the author should buy Mercury brand running shoes.

• If one can afford Mercury brand shoes, the shoes are a great resource for people who are trying to run faster and longer.
• If a runner is unhappy with the shoes she currently uses for training, then she should buy Mercury brand running shoes.

CRITICAL QUESTION SUMMARY:

WHY THIS QUESTION IS IMPORTANT

What Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible?

When you are deciding whether to accept or reject an author's conclusion, you want to make sure that the author has come to the most reasonable conclusion. An author often oversteps his reasoning when he comes to a conclusion. By identifying alternative reasonable conclusions, you can determine which alternative conclusions, if any, you would be willing to accept in place of the author's conclusion. This step is the final tool in deciding whether to accept or reject the author's conclusion.