Skip main navigation
We use cookies to give you a better experience, if that’s ok you can close this message and carry on browsing. For more info read our cookies policy.
We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Skip to 0 minutes and 15 secondsWhen you're faced with an argument in the wild, here's a diagram that will help you evaluate it. The first step is to identify the main argument and to put it in standard form. And remember to be charitable. Once you have your standard form, you have to decide if the argument is to be evaluated as being deductive or non-deductive. A deductive argument is one that is offered to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion. A non-deductive argument is one that is offered to provide probable support for its conclusions, but not conclusive. The rule of thumb is to treat arguments as being non-deductive unless the intention is clearly deductive. Now, suppose that you're facing a deductive argument.

Skip to 1 minute and 3 secondsYour first task is to evaluate if the argument succeeds logically. That is, you want to know if the argument is valid because it's a deductive argument. If the argument is invalid, game over. The argument is bad and you're done. And the best way to show that an argument is invalid is by providing a counter-example, a situation in which the premises are true and the conclusion false. If the argument is valid, you need to proceed to the next step and see if it is sound. If all premises are true, then you have a sound argument. A sound argument is as good as it gets.

Skip to 1 minute and 42 secondsThe premises give conclusive, logical support for the conclusion and they are all true, which means that the conclusion is also true. As we've discussed before, some of the premises might be backed up by sub-arguments. If that's the case, you need to suspend the evaluation of the main argument and evaluate each sub-argument individually. Suppose you have a sub-argument for a premise and you conclude that this sub-argument is bad. Then that premise has lost its support and the argument collapses. Game over-- the argument is bad. But if all premises are true or are backed up by a good argument, then you have a sound argument and you can conclude that it is good.

Skip to 2 minutes and 29 secondsIf you have a non-deductive argument, the procedure is pretty much the same. You first need to decide if the premises provide the required logical support. But non-deductive arguments are tricky. What makes an argument strong might depend on the context of evaluation. If you are in a court of law, you want arguments to be very strong. Otherwise, you might put too many innocent people in jail. But if you're at a party with your friends and family, you might want to adopt looser standards. To show that an argument is weak, you need to give a counter-example. But not any counter-example will do. You need to find a credible scenario in which the premises are true and the conclusion false.

Skip to 3 minutes and 14 secondsIf you can't do that, then the argument is strong and you move on to inspect the truth of the premises. If all premises are true or backed up by good sub-arguments. Then the argument is cogent and therefore good. Otherwise, it's bad. How do you know if a premise is backed up by a good sub-argument? Simple-- isolate the sub-argument and use the diagram to evaluate it. And repeat for as many sub-arguments as there are. And that's how you evaluate arguments as a good critical thinker.

How to evaluate an argument

This video shows you how to evaluate arguments in a step by step manner:

  1. Identify the conclusion and the premises.
  2. Put the argument in standard form.
  3. Decide if the argument is deductive or non-deductive.
  4. Determine whether the argument succeeds logically.
  5. If the argument succeeds logically, assess whether the premises are true. For premises that are backed-up by a sub-arguments, repeat all the steps for the sub-arguments.
  6. Make a final judgement: is the argument good or bad?

Share this video:

This video is from the free online course:

Logical and Critical Thinking

The University of Auckland

Get a taste of this course

Find out what this course is like by previewing some of the course steps before you join:

  • Pohutukawa tree case study
    Pohutukawa tree case study

    When is it best to express your views by providing reasons? Are there cases in which other ways of expressing yourself might be better suited?

  • Arguments for and against the existence of God
    Arguments for and against the existence of God

    John Bishop and Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland discuss deductive and non-deductive arguments for and against the existence of God.

  • Irrelevant premises
    Irrelevant premises

    When is a premise irrelevant in an argument? Watch Patrick Girard explaining how to identify irrelevant premises in arguments.

  • Random controlled trials
    Random controlled trials

    Scientific processes guard against common obstacles to good logical and critical thinking. Perhaps the most powerful is the random controlled trial.

  • Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect
    Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect

    Hans seemed to have the maths skills of 14yr old, but O. Pfungst noticed that the horse’s handlers were inadvertently cueing him when to stop tapping.

  • Analogical reasoning in the law
    Analogical reasoning in the law

    Judges egal cases use analogical reasoning to decide which similarities between cases are important.

  • Being a good ethical reasoner
    Being a good ethical reasoner

    What does good ethical reasoning about such matters involve? Mainly, just good logical and critical thinking skills focussed on ethical issues.

  • Going Vegan
    Going Vegan

    A pretty wild exchange for and against becoming vegan. We'll use it to see how the skills you've learned during the course can be put into action.

Contact FutureLearn for Support