Most Critical Reasoning questions revolve around assumptions. Whether you’re weakening an argument, strengthening an argument, evaluating an argument, or explicitly identifying the assumption in an argument, assumptions are going to be front and center. Thus, spotting assumptions in arguments is one of the key skills for success on Critical Reasoning questions. This article will look at three tools to help you become an ace at doing that. Show 1) A Critical MindsetThe first important tool you want to bring to every Critical Reasoning question is a critical mindset. That means that you approach each argument looking for flaws. This is very different from how we tend to approach arguments in day-to-day life. When we read or hear an argument in ordinary circumstances we don’t tend to probe it too deeply, or think very critically about it. Unless an argument is so bad as to be almost absurd on its face, we generally accept what we’re told. On the GMAT you need to think of every argument as a flawed argument, and you need to immediately start looking for weaknesses. (Assumptions and flaws can be thought of interchangeably here, because any assumption is a potential flaw in a argument. If the assumption isn’t true, the argument falls apart.) You’ll find that starting from a position of “This argument is flawed, and I don’t accept the conclusion” makes it much easier to see the assumptions the author is making. Something that is true across the GMAT is that it’s hard to reliably see things unless you’re specifically looking for them. You won’t just “notice” flaws and assumptions — you have to be seeking them out deliberately. So be skeptical of every argument. Ask yourself what else has to be true in order for the argument to work.
What else you can do inside qs leap ?
Get Free Access to 2500+ GMAT/GRE Questions
Attend Free GMAT/GRE Prep Classes Everyday
On-demand online meetings with Admissions Teams for free 2) Looking for Shifts in LanguageOne of the most reliable ways to find assumptions is to look for shifts in language between the premises and conclusion of an argument. When new stuff appears in the conclusion that wasn’t discussed in the premises, it usually got there by way of an assumption. Let’s look at a simple argument:
What else you can do inside qs leap ?
Get Free Access to 2500+ GMAT/GRE Questions
Attend Free GMAT/GRE Prep Classes Everyday
On-demand online meetings with Admissions Teams for free
On its face this doesn’t seem like a terribly bad argument. It doesn’t seem wildly implausible. The reasoning isn’t obviously fallacious. But let’s look more closely for a shift in language. The premise of the argument is the first sentence, and the conclusion is the second sentence. The premise says that spinach dip has more fiber than artichoke dip. But the conclusion doesn’t say that spinach dip is a more fiber-rich snack than artichoke dip, it says that it’s a healthier snack. That shift in language from fiber to health is exactly what you need to train yourself to look for. The argument is assuming that having more fiber automatically makes something healthier, but that’s not necessarily true. There could be other differences between the two dips (calories, cholesterol, fat, etc.) that tell a different story. Watching for shifts in language is one of the best ways to find assumptions. 3) Looking for the Most Common Argument TypesSome types of arguments show up again and again on the GMAT. Three you can count on seeing are causal arguments, sampling arguments, and analogy arguments. If you keep an eye out for them, you’ll see them, and when you do you’ll already know what assumptions to look for. A causal argument claims that one thing is the cause or explanation of something else.
The fundamental assumption of any causal argument is that there is no other cause. (There are a few other minor assumptions but that’s the big one.) The previous argument is assuming that the expansion of the computer lab is the only explanation for increased test scores. A sampling argument argues that because something is true of a sample of things, that same thing will be true about the larger group.
The fundamental assumption of any sampling argument is that the sample is representative. The argument above is assuming that everyone I’ve talked to is a representative sample of the country’s population. Lastly, an analogy argument makes a comparison between two things and claims that because something is true of the first thing, it will also be true of the second thing.
The fundamental assumption of any analogy argument is that the two things are similar. The argument above is assuming that flying a plane is similar enough to flying a helicopter that being able to do the former will make the latter easy. If you approach arguments with a critical mindset, look for shifts in language, and look for common argument types, you’ll have much more success finding assumptions in Critical Reasoning questions. Read Next : Causality Arguments: GMAT Critical Reasoning
Consider the following situations, then respond to these questions:
Situation #1 Bill needs six scholarly articles for his paper on the psychological effects of domestic violence. He searches Google for "psychological effects of domestic violence," looks through the first few hits, and finds six sources, including some articles on the websites of legitimate organizations. A few of these articles include bibliographies.
Situation #2 Christie is researching representations of gender in popular music. She decides to search Google and, within a few minutes, locates more sources that she could possibly incorporate into her final paper.
Situation #3 Jennifer has decided to write her literary analysis paper on drug use in David Foster Wallace's novel, Infinite Jest (1996). She tries a few Google searches for Infinite Jest, drugs, and drug use, but she has trouble finding scholarly sources. She gives up on Google and moves on to EBSCO Academic Search Premier, one of the databases she heard about in a library instruction class. She runs a search for Infinite Jest and drug use, but she still can't find much.
When assessing the quality of an argument, we ask how well its premises support its conclusion. More specifically, we ask whether the argument is either deductively valid or inductively strong. A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be deductively valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is said also to be sound. All arguments are either valid or invalid, and either sound or unsound; there is no middle ground, such as being somewhat valid. Here is a valid deductive argument: It’s sunny in Singapore. If it’s sunny in Singapore, then he won’t be carrying an umbrella. So, he won’t be carrying an umbrella. The conclusion follows the word “So”. The two premises of this argument would, if true, guarantee the truth of the conclusion. However, we have been given no information that would enable us to decide whether the two premises are both true, so we cannot assess whether the argument is deductively sound. It is one or the other, but we do not know which. If it turns out that the argument has a false premise and so is unsound, this won’t change the fact that it is valid. Here is a mildly strong inductive argument: Every time I’ve walked by that dog, it hasn’t tried to bite me. So, the next time I walk by that dog it won’t try to bite me. An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. So, an inductive argument’s success or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments. There is no standard term for a successful inductive argument, but this article uses the term “strong.” Inductive arguments that are not strong are said to be weak; there is no sharp line between strong and weak. The argument about the dog biting me would be stronger if we couldn’t think of any relevant conditions for why the next time will be different than previous times. The argument also will be stronger the more times there were when I did walk by the dog. The argument will be weaker the fewer times I have walked by the dog. It will be weaker if relevant conditions about the past time will be different next time, such as that in the past the dog has been behind a closed gate, but next time the gate will be open. An inductive argument can be affected by acquiring new premises (evidence), but a deductive argument cannot be. For example, this is a reasonably strong inductive argument: Today, John said he likes Romona. but its strength is changed radically when we add this premise: John told Felipé today that he didn’t really like Romona. The distinction between deductive and inductive argumentation was first noticed by the Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) in ancient Greece. The difference between deductive and inductive arguments does not lie in the words used within the arguments, but rather in the intentions of the arguer. It comes from the relationship the arguer takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, then the argument is deductive. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises provides only good reasons to believe the conclusion is probably true, then the argument is inductive. If we who are assessing the quality of the argument have no information about the intentions of the arguer, then we check for both. That is, we assess the argument to see whether it is deductively valid and whether it is inductively strong. The concept of deductive validity can be given alternative definitions to help you grasp the concept. Below are five different definitions of the same concept. It is common to drop the word deductive from the term deductively valid:
Some analysts prefer to distinguish inductive arguments from “conductive” arguments; the latter are arguments giving explicit reasons for and against a conclusion, and requiring the evaluator of the argument to weigh these competing considerations, that is, to consider the pros and cons. This article considers conductive arguments to be a kind of inductive argument. The noun “deduction” refers to the process of advancing or establishing a deductive argument, or going through a process of reasoning that can be reconstructed as a deductive argument. “Induction” refers to the process of advancing an inductive argument, or making use of reasoning that can be reconstructed as an inductive argument. Although inductive strength is a matter of degree, deductive validity and deductive soundness are not. In this sense, deductive reasoning is much more cut and dried than inductive reasoning. Nevertheless, inductive strength is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of whether the premise ought to promote a higher degree of belief in the conclusion. Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the conclusion is thought to be completely guaranteed and not just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument is a sound one, then we say the conclusion is “contained within” the premises; that is, the conclusion does not go beyond what the premises implicitly require. Think of sound deductive arguments as squeezing the conclusion out of the premises within which it is hidden. For this reason, deductive arguments usually turn crucially upon definitions and rules of mathematics and formal logic. Consider how the rules of formal logic apply to this deductive argument:
That argument is valid due to its formal or logical structure. To see why, notice that if the word ‘ill’ were replaced with ‘happy’, the argument would still be valid because it would retain its special logical structure (called modus ponens by logicians). Here is the form of any argument having the structure of modus ponens: P If P, then Q So, Q The capital letters should be thought of as variables that can be replaced with declarative sentences, or statements, or propositions, namely items that are true or false. The investigation of logical forms that involve whole sentences and not their subjects and verbs and other parts is called Propositional Logic. The question of whether all, or merely most, valid deductive arguments are valid because of their logical structure is still controversial in the field of the philosophy of logic, but that question will not be explored further in this article. Inductive arguments can take very wide-ranging forms. Some have the form of making a claim about a population or set based only on information from a sample of that population, a subset. Other inductive arguments draw conclusions by appeal to evidence, or authority, or causal relationships. There are other forms. Here is a somewhat strong inductive argument having the form of an argument based on authority: The police said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder. Here is an inductive argument based on evidence: The witness said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder. Here is a stronger inductive argument based on better evidence:
This last argument, if its premises are known to be true, is no doubt good enough for a jury to convict John, but none of these three arguments about John committing the murder is strong enough to be called “valid,” at least not in the technical sense of deductively valid. However, some lawyers will tell their juries that these are valid arguments, so we critical thinkers need to be on the alert as to how people around us are using the term “valid.” You have to be alert to what they mean rather than what they say. From the barest clues, the English detective Sherlock Holmes cleverly “deduced” who murdered whom, but actually he made only an educated guess. Strictly speaking, he produced an inductive argument and not a deductive one. Charles Darwin, who discovered the process of evolution, is famous for his “deduction” that circular atolls in the oceans are actually coral growths on the top of barely submerged volcanoes, but he really performed an induction, not a deduction. It is worth noting that some dictionaries and texts define “deduction” as reasoning from the general to specific and define “induction” as reasoning from the specific to the general. However, there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form, for example, “I saw her kiss him, really kiss him, so I’m sure she’s having an affair.” The mathematical proof technique called “mathematical induction” is deductive and not inductive. Proofs that make use of mathematical induction typically take the following form:
When such a proof is given by a mathematician, and when all the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, such an inductive argument is deductive. It is deductively sound, too. Because the difference between inductive and deductive arguments involves the strength of evidence which the author believes the premises provide for the conclusion, inductive and deductive arguments differ with regard to the standards of evaluation that are applicable to them. The difference does not have to do with the content or subject matter of the argument, nor with the presence or absence of any particular word. Indeed, the same utterance may be used to present either a deductive or an inductive argument, depending on what the person advancing it believes. Consider as an example:
It might be clear from context that the speaker believes that having been made in the Champagne area of France is part of the defining feature of “champagne” and so the conclusion follows from the premise by definition. If it is the intention of the speaker that the evidence is of this sort, then the argument is deductive. However, it may be that no such thought is in the speaker’s mind. He or she may merely believe that nearly all champagne is made in France, and may be reasoning probabilistically. If this is his or her intention, then the argument is inductive. As noted, the distinction between deductive and inductive has to do with the strength of the justification that the arguer intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. Another complication in our discussion of deduction and induction is that the arguer might intend the premises to justify the conclusion when in fact the premises provide no justification at all. Here is an example:
|
One method for identifying the assumptions in an argument involves ________.
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
