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 14 secondsYou now have all the tools required to evaluate arguments, which makes you part of the elite of critical thinkers. What you have learned can be inspected by your ability to answer the following questions when you go back to the real world and encounter some passage. What statements does this passage contain? If it's an argument, what's the conclusion? And what are the premises? If it's an argument, does it have any suppressed premises? If so, what are they? How does the argument look like in standard form with all its premises made explicit? Is the argument deductive or non-deductive? If it's deductive, is it valid? If it's non-deductive, how strong is it? Are the premises true?

Skip to 1 minute and 11 secondsSo is it a good or a bad argument? If you wanted to study argument evaluation further, you could do one of two things. You could study deductive logic. Deductive logic is a mathematical field of studies that goes into the gritty details of arguments and focuses on their form. Logicians-- that is, people specialised in logic-- are professionals in evaluating the validity of arguments. You've seen, in this course, how to show that arguments are invalid. You provide a counter example. But how do you show that arguments are valid? How can you make sure that there are no counter examples? Well, that's the kind of questions logicians try to answer. You could also study non-deductive logic.

Skip to 2 minutes and 3 secondsHere, it is statisticians and experts in probabilities that lead the field. Non-deductive arguments are only intended to give probable support for their conclusion and probabilities is the kind of mathematics you need to get at the heart of it, but you don't need to become an expert in either of those fields to apply the skills you've learned. You will have plenty of chances to apply your new skills when you encounter arguments in the wild. Tim will show you how this applies to various arguments as they show up in science, law, and morality.

Summary of Week 4

So what have we done so far?

You now have all the tools required to evaluate arguments, which makes you part of the elite of critical thinkers. What you have learned can be inspected by your ability to answer the following questions, when you go back to the real world and encounter some passage.

  1. What, if any, statements does this passage contain?
  2. If it’s an argument, what’s the conclusion? And what premises are supplied?
  3. If it’s an argument, does it have any suppressed premises? If so, what are they?
  4. How does the whole argument look in standard form with all premises made explicit?
  5. Is the argument deductive or non-deductive?
  6. If it’s deductive, is it valid? If it’s non-deductive, how strong is it? Can you think of a (plausible) counter-example?
  7. Are the premises true?
  8. So, is it a good or a bad argument?

In the rest of the course, we will show you how you can do so by looking at various arguments as they show up in science, law, and morality.

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:

  • Availability heuristic
    Availability heuristic
    video

    We tend to judge the probability of an event by seeing how readily examples come to mind, rather than by working out the real probabilities.

  • Pohutukawa tree case study
    Pohutukawa tree case study
    video

    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
    video

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

  • Science and falsification
    Science and falsification
    video

    Why falsifiability matters.

  • Going Vegan
    Going Vegan
    video

    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