WHAT SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION IS OMITTED in the way of reading Critically?

How compelling are the following advertisements?

Try Happyme, the number one doctor prescribed treatment for depression.
See Kingdom of Heaven, the best action film of the year!

The purpose of the advertisements is, of course, to persuade you to buy more of the designated product and to see the designated movie. Even before your critical-thinking skills developed to their current level, you knew that such advertisements tell less than the whole truth. For example, if the Happyme Company gives a bigger discount to psychiatrists than do other pharmaceutical companies, provides psychiatrists with greater numbers of free samples, or provides cruises for psychiatrists who use their product, you are unlikely to see this information included in the ad. You will not see that information, but it is quite relevant to your decision about what to take for your depression.

While critical thinkers are seeking the strength of autonomy, they cannot do so if they are making decisions on the basis of highly limited information. Almost any conclusion or product has some positive characteristics. Those who have an interest in telling us only the information they want us to know will tell us all of these positive characteristics in great and vivid detail. But they will hide the negative aspects of their conclusions. Thus, actual autonomy requires our persistent searching for what is being hidden, either accidentally or on
purpose.


By asking questions learned in previous chapters, such as those concerning ambiguity, assumptions, and evidence, you will detect much important missing information. This chapter tries to sensitize you even more to the importance of what is not said and to serve as an important reminder that we react to an incomplete picture of an argument when we evaluate only the explicit parts. We thus devote this chapter to an extremely important additional question you must ask to judge the quality of reasoning: What significant information is omitted?

Critical Question: What significant information is omitted

The Benefits of Detecting Omitted Information
You should remember that almost any information that you encounter has a purpose. In other words, its organization was selected and organized by someone who hoped that it would affect your thinking in some way. Hence, your task is to decide whether you wish to be an instrument of the chosen purpose. Often that purpose is to persuade you.

Advertisers, teachers, politicians, authors, speakers, and parents all organize information to shape your decisions. It is a natural and highly predictable desire on their part. Thus, those trying to persuade you will almost always try to present their position in the strongest possible light. So when you find what you believe to be persuasive reasons—those gold nuggets for which you are prospecting—it's wise to hesitate and to think about what the author may not have told you, something that your critical questioning has not yet revealed.

By significant omitted information, we mean information that would affect whether you should be influenced by a speaker's or writer's arguments, that is, information that shapes the reasoning. Interspersed throughout the chapter will be examples of reasoning that is not very convincing, not because of what is said but because of what is omitted. Study the examples carefully and notice how in each case the failure to look for omitted information would have resulted in your making a premature and potentially erroneous judgment.


The Certainty of Incomplete Reasoning

Incomplete reasoning is inevitable for several reasons.


First, there is the limitation imposed by time and space. Arguments are incomplete because communicators do not have forever to organize them, nor do they have unlimited space or time in which to present their reasons.




Second, most of us have a very limited attention span; we get bored when messages are too long. Thus, communicators often feel a need to get their message across quickly. Advertisements and editorials reflect both these factors. For example, editorials are limited to a specific number of words, and the argument must both be interesting and make the author's point. Editorial writers, therefore, engage in many annoying omissions. Television commentators are notorious for making highly complicated issues sound as if they are simple. They have very little time to provide the degree of accurate information that you will need to form a reasonable conclusion. So our minds need to do a lot of extra work to fill in the many gaps in what they have to say in these situations.

A third reason for the inevitability of missing information is that the knowledge possessed by the person making the argument will always be incomplete.

A fourth reason why information may be omitted is because of an outright attempt to deceive. Advertisers know they are omitting key bits of information. If they were to describe all the chemicals or cheap component parts that go into their products, you would be less likely to buy them. Experts in every field consciously
omit information when open disclosure would weaken the persuasive effect of their advice. Such omissions are particularly tempting if those trying to advise you see you as a "sponge."


A fourth reason why information may be omitted is because of an outright attempt to deceive. Advertisers know they are omitting key bits of information. If they were to describe all the chemicals or cheap component parts that go into their products, you would be less likely to buy them. Experts in every field consciously
omit information when open disclosure would weaken the persuasive effect of their advice. Such omissions are particularly tempting if those trying to advise you see you as a "sponge."

A final important reason why omitted information is so prevalent is that the values, beliefs, and attitudes of those trying to advise or persuade you are frequently different from yours. You can expect, therefore, that their reasoning will be guided by different assumptions from those you would have brought to the same question. Critical thinkers value curiosity and reasonableness; those working to persuade you often want to extinguish your curiosity and to encourage you to rely on unreasonable emotional responses to shape your choices.

A particular perspective is like a pair of blinders on a horse. The blinders improve the tendency of the horse to focus on what is directly in front of it. Yet, an individual's perspective, like blinders on a horse, prevents that person from noting certain information that would be important to those who reason from a different
frame of reference. Unless your perspective is identical to that of the person trying to persuade you, important omissions of information are to be expected.

Let's review. Omitted information is inevitable for at least five reasons.

1. time and space limitations;
2. limited attention span;
3. inadequacies in human knowledge;
4. deception; and
5. existence of different perspectives.

Questions that Identify Omitted Information

If you are now convinced that reasoning will necessarily be incomplete, you may ask, "What am I supposed to do?" Well, initially you have to remind yourself that regardless of how attractive the reasons supporting a particular decision or opinion may seem at first glance, it's necessary to take another look in search of omitted information.

How do you search, and what can you expect to find? You ask questions to help decide what additional information you need, and then ask questions designed to reveal that information.

Isn't it silly to ask questions of an author who cannot answer? Not at all! Although the writer won't answer your questions, asking him has positive results. 

• First, you may be able to supply the missing information because of what you already know. 
• Second, searching for omitted information in persuasive writing gives you good practice for when you are able to search for omitted information face-to-face with a teacher or anyone else who is trying to persuade you orally.

Even more importantly, searching for missing information prevents you from making up your mind too soon. By asking such questions of written material, you are reminding yourself that the information provided is incomplete and that whatever conclusion you reach on the basis of incomplete information will necessarily be very tentative.

There are many different kinds of questions you can use to identify relevant omitted information. Some questions you have already learned to ask will highlight important omitted information. For example, asking critical questions about ambiguity, the use of evidence, and the quality of assumptions usually identifies relevant omitted information. In addition, to help you determine omitted information that might get

overlooked by other critical questions, we provide you below with a list of some important kinds of omitted information and some examples of questions to help detect them.

Being aware of these specific types should help you a lot in locating relevant omitted information. Because there are so many kinds of important omitted information, however, you should always ask yourself the general question, "Has the speaker or writer left out any other information that I need to know before I judge the quality of his reasoning?"

Let's examine some arguments that have omitted some of the types of information just listed and watch how each omission might cause us to form a faulty conclusion. Only by asking that omitted information be supplied in each case could you avoid this danger. Initially, let's look at an advertising claim.

Zitout brand facial cleanser's commercials claim that the cleanser removes 95 percent of deep-down dirt and oil, helping to fight unsighdy blemishes.

Should we all run out and buy Zitout facial cleanser? Wait just a minute! Among many omissions, the advertisement fails to include any of the following pieces of information: 

1. what percentage of deep-down dirt and oil other facial cleansers remove; maybe they remove 99 percent of dirt and oil; 
2. amount of dirt and oil removed by washing with soap alone; it might be possible that faces can be cleaned adequately with normal soap; 
3. potential negative consequences of using this specific product; it is possible that some of the ingredients might cause excessive dryness or pose cancer risks; 
4. other sources of blemishes; perhaps dirt and oil are not the highest concerns when washing one's face; 
5.  how much dirt and oil is necessary to cause blemishes; maybe five percent will still cause a significant number of blemishes; and 
6. other advantages or disadvantages of the facial cleanser, such as smell, price, and length of effective action. The advertiser has omitted much significant data that you would need if you were to buy wisely.

Do you see how advertising phrases like "4 out of 5 doctors agree," "all natural," "fat free," "low in carbs," "good for your heart," "number 1 leading brand," "ADA approved," and "no added preservatives" may all be accurate but misleading because of omitted information?

It's pretty obvious that advertising omits much relevant information. Let's now take a look at a more complicated reasoning example. Read the following excerpt and ask yourself what has been omitted, referring to our list for clues to your search.

A great way to keep a buzz going for longer is to mix energy drinks with alcohol. The energy from the drink allows you to party longer as the alcohol does not affect you as much as it would without the energy drink. Plus, the added stimulants in the energy drink keep you alert, preventing you from becoming impaired due to alcohol consumption. Studies have shown that people mixing energy drinks with alcohol can party 65 percent longer. Also, energy drinks prevent hangovers, as surveys have shown that people who mix alcohol and energy drinks report 75 percent fewer hangovers than drinking alcohol alone causes, while maintaining a buzz 59 percent longer. Furthermore, Super Stim, a leading brand of energy drink, does not mention anything about negative health consequences on their website from mixing their drink with alcohol. Clearly, there is much good and no harm in mixing energy drinks and alcohol.

What important information do you need to know before you can decide
whether mixing energy drinks and alcohol is helpful and safe? Let us suggest
some questions.

What common counterarguments or counterexamples might doctors or other specialists use to refute this reasoning? We can imagine counterarguments highlighting that hangovers are a result of dehydration, and that caffeine, commonly found in large quantities in energy drinks, is a diuretic, also causing dehydration. Also, the stimulants will keep people alert, but do not prevent impairment, giving people a false sense of being more sober than they really are.

What are possible health risks associated with mixing stimulants and depressants? It is important to know that researchers at Ball State University have recently released statements saying the mixing of stimulants and depressants in energy drinks and alcohol respectively can cause cardiopulmonary and cardiovascular failures. What counts as an "energy drink?" What value assumptions does the argument contain that lead to an advocating of mixing energy drinks and alcohol?

What is the origin of the facts alluded to in the argument? How does the author know that people can party 65 percent longer, and people experience 75 percent fewer hangovers? Also, how confident can we be of the survey reports of fewer hangovers? We know nothing about the research cited. So we cannot judge the quality of the statistics provided.

For example, is it helpful to you to know that in numerous recent studies, researchers have demonstrated how mixing energy drinks can lead to increased heart and liver problems? It is also important to realize that
there is little specific evidence on whether energy drinks are helpful or harmful, on their own, to one's health. We would certainly want to examine these other studies, as well as the ones cited in the passage, to better evaluate all of the evidence available regarding the mixing of energy drinks and alcohol.

Would other research methods give us a different view of the safety of mixing energy drinks and alcoholic beverages? Would survey data results differ from tests performed in a laboratory on the interactions of chemicals in energy drinks and alcohol? Would a double-blind study giving people various drinks involving mixes of alcohol, stimulants, or a placebo liquid accurately provide statistics on risks from mixing energy drinks and alcohol? We also know nothing about the author. It is relevant to find out any possible associations the author has with energy drink companies or providers of alcohol as these connections might bias the research. Also, if the author is a doctor unattached to either energy drink or alcohol companies, this information might lend credibility to the author's claims. The author has presented us with a very incomplete picture. Unless you complete the picture, your decision about the safety of mixing energy drinks and alcohol will be very uninformed.

The Importance of the Negative View

There is one type of omitted information that we believe is so important to identify and so often overlooked that we want to specifically highlight it for you: the potential negative effects of actions being advocated, such as the use of a new medication, the building of a large new school, or a proposed tax cut.

We stress the negative effects here because usually proposals for such action come into existence in the context of backers' heralding their benefits, such as greater reduction of a certain medical problem, better appearance, more leisure, more educational opportunities, increased length of life, and more and/or improved commodities. However, because most actions have such widespread positive and negative impacts, we need to ask:

• Which segments of society do not benefit from a proposed action?
• Who loses? What do the losers have to say about it?
• How does the proposed action affect the distribution of power?
• Does the action influence the extent of democracy in our society?
• How does a particular action affect how we view the world: What we
• think, how we think, and what we know and can know?
• What are the action's effects on our health?
• How does the action influence our relationships with one another?
• With the natural environment?
• Will the action have a slow, cumulative impact?

For each of these questions, we always also want to ask, "What are the potential
long-term negative effects of the action?" To illustrate the usefulness of asking these omitted-information questions, let's reflect upon the following question: What are some possible negative effects of building a large new school? Did you think of the following?

• Destruction of the environment. For example, would the building of a new school involve the removal of a wooded area? How would the local wildlife be affected by the potential loss of a habitat?
• Shifts in quality of education provided. What if the new school attracts skilled teachers or gifted students away from other schools? What if the new school absorbed a significant amount of the funds available to schools, depriving other schools of the same funds?
• Effects of property values. If the school does not do well in comparison with national standards, how will this affect the property values of the houses in the surrounding community?
• Increased tax burden. How would the new school be funded? If the new school is a public school, the opening of the new school could result in an increase in property taxes for the local community to help support the new school.
• Prevention of other potentially helpful expansion. Is it possible that the land used for the school would have better been used for some other new building? For example, what if there were plenty of schools, but not enough jobs in the neighborhood, would the land have been better used to build new businesses?
• Increased demand for housing. Is there enough housing available in the community to accommodate new teachers and families that desire access to the new school? Questions such as these can give us pause for thought before jumping on the bandwagon of a proposed action.

Omitted Information That Remains Missing

Just because you are able to request important missing information does not guarantee a satisfactory response. It is quite possible that your probing questions cannot be answered. Do not despair! You did your part. You requested information that you needed to make up your mind; you must now decide whether it is possible to arrive at a conclusion without the missing information. We warned you earlier that reasoning is always incomplete. Therefore, to claim automatically that you cannot make a decision as long as information is
missing would prevent you from ever forming any opinions.

USING THIS CRITICAL QUESTION

Once you have thought about the existence of missing information in an argument, what should you do? The first logical reaction is to seek the information. But usually you will encounter resistance. Your options as a critical thinker are to voice your displeasure with the argument in light of the missing information, keep searching for the information that you require, or cautiously agree with the reasoning on the grounds that this argument is better than its competitors.

Missing Information and Your Own Writing and Speaking

When you communicate, you will necessarily omit some information that your audience needs. However, at the same time, your experience using this critical question as an evaluative tool should forewarn you that some information is especially important for a strong argument. When you write or speak, you show respect for your audience when you include specific information that you know in advance will assist them in deciding the merits of your reasoning.
For example, when you propose an action, think about potential, relevant counterarguments to what you are advocating and share those counterarguments with your audience. To do otherwise is to insult them. They know there are alternative perspectives. So, in the interest of your own integrity, be open about their existence.

Critical Question: What significant information is omitted

Practice Exercises

In each of the following examples, there is important missing information. Make a list of questions you would ask the person who wrote each passage. Explain in each case why the information you are seeking is important to you as you try to decide the worth of the reasoning.


Passage 1

Recent research has shown that eating and sleeping less can lead to a longer life. In laboratory experiments, rats fed a bare minimum and allowed to sleep much less than normal were found to be better able to recover from injuries and to live longer lives than rats that were fed plenty of food and slept a substantial amount.
The researchers concluded that people, too, could benefit from less eating and sleeping and more physical activity.

Passage 2

Cloning technology can lead to many positive breakthroughs in the medical field. If we were to adequately develop cloning technology, there would no longer be a need for people to die because of a lack of organ donors. With cloning, researchers could artificially develop new organs for people in need of transplants. Plus, because these organs would be cloned from the person's own tissues, there would be no chance of their body rejecting the transplanted organ. The cloned organs can be made in bodies that lack a head, and thus would not involve a "death" in order to save a life. Another advantage of cloning is that it can help fight disease. Certain proteins produced by clones can be used to fight diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and Cystic Fibrosis.

Passage 3

America is the policeman of the world. It is our job to go into countries that need our help and to watch over them. One effective way to limit the interactions we need to have with other countries is to encourage the development of democracy and free markets in these countries. After all, the modern Western democracies have not fought wars against one another, and they are all democratic with a free market structure. Furthermore, look at the easy transition Germany had when it was reunited. Democracy was installed and the
formerly split West and East Germany came along just fine. In fact, the German economy did really well with the transition also. Germany currently has the third largest GDP of any country in the world, all because of democracy and capitalism


Sample Responses

Passage 1

CONCLUSION: People would benefit from eating and sleeping less.
REASON: Studies on rats have shown that when rats eat and sleep less, they recover from injuries better and live longer than other rats.


Before we all start to cut back on our food intake and amount of sleep, we should re-evaluate the information provided leading to this conclusion. What are the counterarguments, for example? Is it possible that humans and rats differ too much to generalize from one to other about the effects of sleep? Also, how much longer did the rats that ate and slept less live, and how much faster did these same rats recover from injuries? Is it possible that the variance is small or insignificant? Did the rats suffer any negative effects from eating and sleeping less? Would the rats have lived longer and recovered faster if instead of sleeping and eating less they ate and slept far more than the other rats?

Furthermore, just what do we know about the testing procedures? Nothing at all! These are just a few of the questions we would want to ask before we relied on the information in this passage.

Passage 2

CONCLUSION: Cloning can provide positive medical benefits.
Reasons:
1. Clones can be used for human transplants.
2. Clones can be used to help combat certain diseases.

First, we should note that this reasoning advocates pursuing a new technology—human cloning—and cites only its advantages. The writer omits possible disadvantages. We need to consider both advantages and disadvantages.

What serious side effects might result from using cloned organs? Are cloned organs as stable as regular organs? What positive and negative effects might cloning technology have on human decision-making? Would
people be less likely to take care of their bodies and their organs if they knew that new organs could be grown to replace their current ones? Would the availability of the technology lead people to misuse cloning to produce complete human clones for an insidious purpose? Would people clone themselves, helping add to the burden already placed on the Earth by the current population? The advantages of the procedure may well outweigh the disadvantages, but we need to be aware of both in judging the merits of the conclusion.

Furthermore, let's look at the missing information regarding the research. Did you notice that no research has been cited? In fact, the argument fails to tell us that no tests on human cloning have occurred in the United
States. Therefore, all of the discussion on the benefits of cloning is hypothetical.

Would actual research prove the hypothetical benefits to be possible? We do not know.

CRITICAL QUESTION SUMMARY:

WHY THIS QUESTION IS IMPORTANT

What Significant Information Is Omitted?

When an author is trying to persuade you of something, she often leaves out important information. This information is often useful in assessing the worth of the conclusion. By explicitly looking for omitted information, you can determine whether the author has provided you with enough information to support the reasoning. If she has left out too much information, you cannot accept the reasons as support for the conclusion. Consequently, you should choose to reject her conclusion.