What kind of logic will you use

When I was conducting research for my speech, I read somewhere that heart attacks are the number one killer of men and the number two killer of women. Think about that. My uncle had a heart attack and had to be rushed to the hospital. They hooked him up to a bunch of different machines to keep him alive. We all thought he was going to die. Plus he had to pay thousands of dollars in medical bills.

We could then look at the evidence she presents in support of these claims. Having parsed out the various elements, we are then ready to evaluate them and by extension the message as a whole. When we evaluate something we continue the process of analysis by assessing the various claims and arguments for validity.

One way we evaluate a message is to ask questions about what is being said and who is saying it. While Shonda may not be an expert per se on the issue of health benefits related to wine, she has made herself a mini-expert through conducting research. It sounds kind of fishy. In fact, it seems like it might be bordering on binge drinking. As we will see later on, she actually commits a few fallacies. More information will probably contradict her claims. In fact, most medical research in this area contradicts the claim that drinking 4 or more glasses of wine a day is a good thing.

For two relatively small words, imply and infer seem to generate an inordinately large amount of confusion. Understanding the difference between the two and knowing when to use the right one is not only a useful skill, but it also makes you sound a lot smarter! Imply means to suggest or convey an idea. A speaker or a piece of writing implies things. In other words, she never directly says that we need to drink more red wine, but she clearly hints at it when she suggests that drinking four or more glasses a day will provide us with health benefits.

We infer a conclusion. She never comes right out and says this. However, by considering her overall message, we can draw this conclusion. Another way to think of the difference between imply and infer is: A speaker or writer for that matter implies. The audience infers. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that Shonda infers we should drink more rather than less wine.

She implies this. To help you differentiate between the two, remember that an inference is something that comes from outside the spoken or written text. The next step in critically examining a message is to interpret or explain the conclusions that we draw from it. At this phase we consider the evidence and the claims together.

In effect we are reassembling the components that we parsed out during analysis. We are continuing our evaluation by looking at the evidence, alternatives, and possible conclusions. Before we draw any inferences or attempt any explanations, we should look at the evidence provided. When we consider evidence we must first determine what, if any, kind of support is provided. Of the evidence we then ask:. Seatbelt by M.

Certainly, there exists contradictory evidence arguing seat belts can cause more injuries. Does the fact that this evidence exists negate your claims? Probably not, but you need to be thorough in evaluating and considering how you use your evidence. The final step in critically examining a message is actually a skill we should exercise throughout the entire process.

With self-regulation, we consider our pre-existing thoughts on the subject and any biases we may have. We examine how what we think on an issue may have influenced the way we understand or think we understand the message and any conclusions we have drawn. The goal of practicing self-regulation is not to disavow or deny our opinions. The goal is to create distance between our opinions and the messages we evaluate.

Man thinking on bus , by IG8. In public speaking, the value of being a critical thinker cannot be overstressed. Critical thinking helps us to determine the truth or validity of arguments. However, it also helps us to formulate strong arguments for our speeches. Exercising critical thinking at all steps of the speech writing and delivering process can help us avoid situations like Shonda found herself in. Critical thinking is not a magical panacea that will make us super speakers.

However, it is another tool that we can add to our speech toolbox. As we will learn in the following pages, we construct arguments based on logic. Understanding the ways logic can be used and possibly misused is a vital skill. To help stress the importance of it, the Foundation for Critical Thinking has set forth universal standards of reasoning.

These standards can be found in Table 6. Public domain. We use logic every day. With very little critical thought, we know intuitively that simply buying a product will not magically change our lives.

By studying logic and fallacies we can learn to formulate stronger and more cohesive arguments, avoiding problems like that mentioned above. The study of logic has a long history. We can trace the roots of modern logical study back to Aristotle in ancient Greece. We use logic everyday when we construct statements, argue our point of view, and in myriad other ways. Understanding how logic is used will help us communicate more efficiently and effectively.

When we think and speak logically, we pull together statements that combine reasoning with evidence to support an assertion, arguments. A logical argument should not be confused with the type of argument you have with your sister or brother or any other person.

When you argue with your sibling, you participate in a conflict in which you disagree about something. You may, however, use a logical argument in the midst of the argument with your sibling. Consider this example:. Brother and sister, Sydney and Harrison are arguing about whose turn it is to clean their bathroom. At the same time, independent of the truth or falsity of the premises, the deductive inference itself the process of "connecting the dots" from premise to conclusion is either valid or invalid.

The inferential process can be valid even if the premise is false:. There is no such thing as drought in the West. California is in the West. California need never make plans to deal with a drought. In the example above, though the inferential process itself is valid, the conclusion is false because the premise, There is no such thing as drought in the West , is false. A syllogism yields a false conclusion if either of its propositions is false.

A syllogism like this is particularly insidious because it looks so very logical—it is, in fact, logical. But whether in error or malice, if either of the propositions above is wrong, then a policy decision based upon it California need never make plans to deal with a drought probably would fail to serve the public interest.

Assuming the propositions are sound, the rather stern logic of deductive reasoning can give you absolutely certain conclusions. However, deductive reasoning cannot really increase human knowledge it is nonampliative because the conclusions yielded by deductive reasoning are tautologies -statements that are contained within the premises and virtually self-evident. Therefore, while with deductive reasoning we can make observations and expand implications, we cannot make predictions about future or otherwise non-observed phenomena.

Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence.

You could say that inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen.

Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities; no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because there is no way to know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might invalidate my hypothesis.

Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions:. What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds.

The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy. For example, we can envision the use of these stem cells for therapies against cancer tumors [ As parents, we are tasked with instilling a plethora of different values into our children.

While some parents in the world choose to instill a lack of values in their kids, those of us that don't want our children growing up to be criminals and various misfits try a bit harder. Values and morality are one piece of the pie. These are important things to mold into a child's mind, but there are also other items in life to focus on as well.

It starts with looking both ways to cross the street and either progresses from there, or stops. If you stopped explaining the world to your children after they learned to cross the street, then perhaps you should stop reading and go back to surfing for funny pictures of cats.

I may use some larger words that you might not understand, making you angry and causing you to leave troll-like comments full of bad grammar and moronic thought processes. However, if you looked at the crossing the street issue as I did — as a logical problem with cause and effect and a probable solution — then carry on. You are my target audience. Or perhaps the opposite is true, as the former are the people that could benefit from letting some critical thinking into their lives.

So what exactly is critical thinking? This bit by Linda Elder in a paper on CriticalThinking. Through critical thinking, as I understand it, we acquire a means of assessing and upgrading our ability to judge well.

It enables us to go into virtually any situation and to figure out the logic of whatever is happening in that situation. It provides a way for us to learn from new experiences through the process of continual self-assessment.

Critical thinking, then, enables us to form sound beliefs and judgments, and in doing so, provides us with a basis for a 'rational and reasonable' emotional life. XVI, No. The rationality of the world is what is at risk. Too many people are taken advantage of because of their lack of critical thinking, logic and deductive reasoning.

These same people are raising children without these same skills, creating a whole new generation of clueless people. Recently I needed a new transmission for the family van. The warranty on the power train covers the transmission up to , miles. The van has around 68, miles on it. Therefore, even the logic-less dimwit could easily figure that the transmission was covered.

Well, this was true until the dealership told me that it wasn't, stating that because we didn't get the scheduled transmission service which is basically a fluid change at 30, and 60, miles the warranty was no longer valid. Now, there are many people that would argue this point, but many more that would shrug, panic, and accept the full cost of repairs. I read the warranty book. I had a receipt that said the fluid was checked at 60, but not replaced. A friend on Twitter pointed out the fact that they were using , mile transmission fluid.

So logically, the fluid would not have to be replaced under , miles if it wasn't needed, right?