Thinking Skills (9694): Analyse Reasoning (Section 6)

Welcome to the critical thinking toolkit! This chapter is all about becoming a reasoning detective. When you read an article or hear a debate, you need to look past the topic itself and analyse how the argument is built.

Understanding the structure of reasoning is fundamental to success in Critical Thinking papers (especially Paper 2 and Paper 4). We will learn how to dissect complex arguments into their core components and reveal the crucial, often hidden, steps that link them together.

Key Takeaway from this Chapter:

You will learn to identify the building blocks (Conclusion, Reasons, Evidence) and the hidden foundations (Assumptions) that determine whether an argument stands strong or collapses.

6.1 Analyse the Structure of Arguments

1. Recognising an Argument

The first crucial step is to know what an argument is, and what it is not.

An argument is a structure of claims designed to persuade the audience that a specific viewpoint (the conclusion) is true, by providing supporting statements (reasons).

How is an Argument Different from Non-Arguments?
  • Explanation: Explanations tell you *why* something is true, often about past events. (Example: The road is wet because it rained heavily.) You accept that it rained; the explanation simply accounts for the result.
  • Information: Simple facts or statements with no attempt to persuade you of a conclusion. (Example: The Earth revolves around the Sun.)
  • Opinion: A subjective belief or preference that is not supported by reasoned claims. (Example: Pineapple belongs on pizza.)

Trick to Spot an Argument: If the statement tries to convince you of a claim that is potentially debatable, using evidence or logic, it is likely an argument.

2. Identifying Key Elements of an Argument and Explaining Their Function

Arguments are like buildings, made up of specific components. Your task is to accurately name these components and describe their role (function) in supporting the main claim.

A. Main Conclusion (MC)
  • Definition: The final position the author wants you to accept. It is the overall outcome of the entire argument.
  • Function: States the ultimate viewpoint or judgement being argued for.
  • Tip: Look for indicator words like: Therefore, thus, so, consequently, must be true.
B. Intermediate Conclusion (IC)
  • Definition: A conclusion drawn partway through the argument. It is supported by reasons, but then, in turn, acts as a reason to support the Main Conclusion.
  • Function: Acts as a supporting bridge, linking initial reasons/evidence to the Main Conclusion. It structures the reasoning into logical steps.
  • Analogy: If the MC is the penthouse, the IC is a floor supported by the ground-level reasons, which itself supports the roof.
C. Reason (R)
  • Definition: A statement put forward to support a conclusion (either the MC or an IC).
  • Function: Provides logical backing or justification for a conclusion.
  • Tip: Look for indicator words like: Because, since, given that, as.
D. Counter-Assertion (CA)
  • Definition: A simple claim that opposes the main point, presented without any supporting reasons or evidence.
  • Function: Acknowledges a rival viewpoint, usually so the author can dismiss it quickly.
E. Counter-Argument (CAR)
  • Definition: A complete mini-argument (a conclusion supported by reasons) that goes against the main conclusion of the passage.
  • Function: Presents a significant challenge or alternative view to the author’s position, demonstrating balance or addressing potential objections. The author often responds to the CAR (a rebuttal).
  • Crucial Distinction: A CA is just a statement ("Some people disagree."). A CAR has support ("Some people disagree because funding is too limited, and there are prior commitments.").
F. Example (E)
  • Definition: A specific instance or case used to illustrate a general point.
  • Function: Clarifies, simplifies, or makes an abstract concept easier to understand. Examples do not usually offer proof.
G. Evidence (EV)
  • Definition: Factual information, data, statistics, reports, or expert testimony used to substantiate a claim.
  • Function: Provides objective, factual support for a reason or conclusion, increasing its credibility.

Quick Review: The Argument Element Functions

Element Supports/Opposes Level of Support
MC Is supported by ICs/Reasons The final claim
IC Supports the MC (and is supported by R/EV) A stepping stone
R Supports the IC or MC Logical justification
EV Supports the R/IC/MC Factual proof

3. Identifying Unstated Assumption in an Argument

This is often the trickiest part of argument analysis, but it's essential. An argument is only valid if all the steps in the reasoning are logically sound.

Definition of an Unstated Assumption

An unstated assumption is a missing step in the reasoning that must be true in order for the conclusion to follow logically from the reason, but which the author has not stated explicitly.

Don't worry if this seems tricky at first—think of it as finding the "secret ingredient" that holds the recipe together.

Why Do Assumptions Exist? (Syllabus Guidance)

Authors may omit assumptions because they consider them:

  • Obvious, Trivial, or Uncontroversial: They assume everyone agrees (e.g., assuming gravity exists).
  • A Gap in Reasoning: They genuinely haven't realised the logical connection is missing.
  • Concealment of Weakness: They are intentionally hiding a controversial or weak claim that, if stated, would undermine the whole argument. This is the most critical type for evaluation.
Step-by-Step Guide to Identifying Assumptions

Identify the core link you are examining (usually a Reason supporting a Conclusion).

Step 1: Isolate the Reason (R) and the Conclusion (C).
Example: "We should ban single-use plastics (C) because plastics harm marine life (R)."

Step 2: Identify the "Gap."
What does the author take for granted that links harming marine life (R) to banning plastics (C)? The author must believe that *banning the item will stop the harm*.

Step 3: Formulate the Assumption.
The assumption is: Banning single-use plastics is an effective way to prevent harm to marine life.

If this assumption were false (e.g., if marine life is harmed by industrial runoff, not just single-use plastics), the Reason would no longer guarantee the Conclusion.

The Negation Test (Memory Aid)

A good way to check if you have found a genuine assumption is the Negation Test.

1. Take your identified assumption.
2. Negate it (make it false).
3. If the conclusion *must* fall apart when the assumption is false, then you have found the necessary assumption.

Using the plastics example:

  • Assumption (Negated): Banning single-use plastics is not an effective way to prevent harm to marine life.
  • Result: If banning plastics won't stop the harm, then the reason ("harm to marine life") cannot support the conclusion ("We should ban plastics"). The argument fails.

Did you know? In logic, an assumption is often called a premise that is necessary but suppressed. Finding these concealed premises is key to evaluating the overall strength of the argument later on.

Quick Review: Analyse Reasoning (6.1)

The core skill in this section is dissection. You must be able to:
1. Distinguish arguments from explanations/information.
2. Map the argument flow (Reasons lead to ICs, ICs lead to MC).
3. Uncover the unstated Assumption—the hidden link that connects a Reason to a Conclusion.