Principles of Correct Thinking

• Thinking philosophically requires the ability to

analyze your own reasoning as well
• as the reasoning of others. As one of the
central branches of philosophy, logic seeks to
• establish the rules of correct reasoning, clear
understanding, and valid argumentation.
 Argument
A form of thinking in which certain statements
(reasons) are offered in support of another
statement (conclusion).
 Reasons or premises
Statements that support
another statement (known as a
conclusion), justify it, or make it
more probable.
 Conclusion

A statement that explains,

asserts, or predicts on the basis
of statements (known as reasons
or premises) that are offered as
evidence for it.
 Cue words

Key words that signal that a reason

is being offered in support of a
conclusion or that a conclusion is
being announced on the basis of
certain reasons.
 Evaluating Arguments

• Arguments are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness or

soundness through a process
• that investigates both the truth of the reasons and the
validity of the conclusion. This
• evaluation centers on the following questions:
• 1. How true are the reasons being offered to support the
conclusion?
• 2. To what extent do the reasons support the conclusion, or
to what extent does the
• conclusion follow from the reasons offered?
• 3. Does the argument pass the tests of both truth and
validity?
• Valid argument
An argument in which the reasons
support the conclusion so that
the conclusion follows from the
reasons offered.
• Invalid argument
An argument in which the reasons
do not support the conclusion so
that the conclusion does not follow
from the reasons offered.
• Sound argument
An argument that has both true
reasons and a valid structure.
• Unsound argument
An argument that has either false
reasons or an invalid structure.
• Deductive arguments
An argument form in which one
reasons from premises that are
known or assumed to be true to a
conclusion that follows necessarily
from these premises.
• Inductive arguments
• An argument form in which one
reasons from premises that are
known or assumed to be true to
a conclusion that is supported by
the premises but does not necessarily
follow from them.
• Causal reasoning
A form of inductive argument in
which one event is claimed to be
the results of the occurrence of
another event.
• Empirical generalization
• A form of inductive reasoning in
which a general statement is made
about an entire group (the “target
population”) based on observing
some members of the group (“the
sample population”).
• Fallacies of False Generalization This group of
fallacies arises from errors in reaching a
general conclusion from a group of particulars
and in applying general ideas to specific
instances:
 Hasty generalization
• As the name implies, this type of fallacy occurs when
people try to reach a general conclusion too quickly,
lacking a sufficient number of instances in the
sample population to legitimately justify
generalization to the target population.
For example:
• My boyfriends have never shown any real concern
for my feelings. My conclusion is that men are
insensitive, selfish, and emotionally superficial
 False dilemma
• This fallacy—also known as the “either/or” fallacy or
the “black or-white” fallacy—occurs when we are
asked to choose between two extreme alternatives
without being able to consider additional options.
For example, someone may say, “Either we are
completely free to make choices or everything we do
is determined by factors outside our control and we
have no freedom whatsoever. There’s nothing in
between.”
 Sweeping generalization:
• Another error in making generalizations involves the
failure to take into account exceptions to the rule,
“sweeping” the exceptions into a larger group.
• Vigorous exercise contributes to overall good health.
Therefore, vigorous exercise should be practiced by
recent heart attack victims, people who are out of
shape, and women who are about to give birth.