Critical Reading as a Way of Thinking and Reasoning

Goals of Critical Reading 

Critical reading is not simply close and careful reading. To read critically, one must actively recognize and analyze evidence upon the page. Critical reading is an analytic activity. It involves bringing outside knowledge and values to bear to evaluate the presentation and decide what to ultimately accept as true.

Textbooks on critical reading commonly ask students to accomplish certain goals: 

• to recognize an author’s purpose - inferring a basis for choices of content and language 
• to understand tone and persuasive elements - classifying the nature of language choices 
• to recognize bias - classifying the nature of patterns of choice of content and language 

Style is the particular way in which a writer uses language. Style reflects an author’s personality. 

Factors that contribute to an author’s style:

• level of formality 
• use of figurative language 
• diction or word choice 
• sentence patterns 
• methods of organization 

Tone is the author’s attitude toward both the subject and readers or listeners. In conversations, you can hear a speaker’s tone in the way words and phrases are spoken. When reading, you can “hear” tone in an author’s choice of words and details. 

• pompous 
• playful 
• serious 
• personal 
• sarcastic 
• friendly 

Perspective is the viewpoint or opinion an author expresses about the subject, either directly or indirectly. Bias occurs when a writer makes a one-sided presentation 

• by ignoring relevant facts 
• by using emotional language 
• by unfairly swaying readers’ or listeners’ feelings 

Purpose is the author’s reason for writing. 

• to inform 
• to persuade 
• to honor 
• to entertain 
• to explain 
• to warn 

These three steps or modes of analysis: 

ANALYSIS 

1. Restatement - What a text says : talks about the same topic as the original text 

2. Description - What a text does : discusses aspects of the discussion itself 

INFERENCE

3. Interpretation - What a text means : analyzes the text and asserts a meaning for the text as a whole 

TYPES OF CLAIMS

1. Claim of Fact 

• an argument about a quantifiable topic. This is claim is not a fact; it only asserts a stand regarding a debatable topic.
• existence of something/definition or classification/facts -- inferences about past present or future

Proof requires: 

• sufficient and appropriate grounds 
• reliable authority 
• recent data 
• accurate, typical data 
• clearly defined terms -no loaded language 
• a clear distinction between fact and inference 

2. Claim of Value 

• argues whether something is good or bad
• based on judgment and evaluation on a philosophical, aesthetic, or moral standpoint 
• resolve conflict between values/ quasi policy (rightness of it; relative merit) 
• it is not merely a subjective judgment; it is assessed based on accurate information

Proof requires: 

• Establishing standards of evaluation (i.e. a warrant that defines what constitutes instances of the relevant value) 
• note the priority of the value in this instance 
• Establish the advantage (practical or moral) of your standards 
• Use examples to clarify abstract values 
• Use credible authorities for support 

3. Claim of Policy 

• an argument which asserts the implementation of a certain policy
• driven by the need to present procedural and organized solutions to problems

Proof requires: 

Making proposed action (clear),  need (justification), plan (must be workable), benefit (advantages) 

consider opposition / counter arguments. 

Logical Fallacies - errors in reasoning that invalidate an argument

Categories: 

1. Fallacies of Relevance – appeal to evidence or examples are not relevant to the argument at hand 
2. Component Fallacies - errors in inductive and deductive reasoning or in syllogistic terms that fail to overlap. 
3. Fallacies of Ambiguity -errors occur with ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of which shift and change in the course of discussion. 
4. Fallacies of Omission - errors occur because the logician leaves out necessary material in an argument or misdirects others from missing information. 

Fallacies of Relevance

1. Appeal to Fear (Argumentum ad Baculum) - done by some form of threat, which may be to the person or may be to something about which they care. The threat may be physical, emotional or spiritual. 
2. Personal Attack (Argumentum ad Hominem) – refute an argument by attacking the character of a person instead of attacking ideas 
3. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam) - Gain agreement by sympathy or empathy 
4. Bandwagon/ Appeal to Common Belief (Argumentum ad Populum) – an argument is considered to be valid since it is what majority thinks ; use peer pressure instead of rational argument to get agreement 
5. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) – occurs when argument quotes an expert who may not be qualified in the subject matter. The expert may not be named (and is hence an anonymous authority) or may be absent and unable to answer probing questions. 
6. Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditionem; aka Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem) - This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. 

Component Fallacies 

1. Circular Reasoning - The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. 
2. Hasty Generalization - mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point. Ex. Mary is Filipino. Filipinos are music lovers. Mary is a music lover. 
3. False Dilemma – presents only two options despite of multiple possibilities 
4. Post Hoc (After this) – The sequence of things proves cause. Ex. I drank water before I got sick. It must have been the water that caused my sickness. 
5. Red Herring -a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side-point 
6. Straw Man – overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side Ex. One who does not approve minimum wage increase hates the poor. 
7. Non Sequitor (It does not follow) – skips or ignore causes before the result 
8. Slippery Slope - simply assumes that, once the nose is in, the rest must follow Ex. If we ban internet cafes then students will fail their subjects. 

Fallacies of Ambiguity 

1. Equivocation (terminologies and definition) 
2. Composition (parts to its whole) 
3. Division (whole to its parts) 

Fallacies of Omission 

1. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) - fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false 
2. Complex Question - Phrasing a question or statement in such as way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence or discussion