Critical_Thinking_and_Problem_Solving_Th

strengthened. Hence the evaluation of an hand may also be telling the truth about what argument like [1] ultimately comes down to she was told, but the receptionist may not be evaluating the evidence from which it draws telling the truth about what happened. Of its premises. However good the reasoning may course, either of the two witnesses might be be, if the evidence base is false, then the lying or mistaken. But in the second case there argument is groundless. are two ways in which the evidence may be unreliable; in the first case only one. Types of evidence Circumstantial evidence As stated at the start of the chapter, evidence By ‘circumstantial evidence’ we mean a fact, or can take many forms. We have been looking at set of facts, which may be used to support a one kind, namely statistical evidence. conclusion or verdict indirectly. The facts Evidence can usefully be subdivided into two themselves – the circumstances – are not in categories: direct and indirect. Direct evidence, question. What is in question is what they as the name suggests, is first-hand, and signify, or permit us to infer. Wherever an immediate. The most direct form of evidence inference is needed to get to the truth, the is what we experience with our own senses. If I evidence cannot be accepted as direct, even if see something happening in front of my eyes, it is strong. that is direct evidence – for me, at least – that it has taken place. Of course there are occasions The classic example is the ‘smoking gun’. A when we are mistaken or confused about what detective rushes into a room after hearing a we see or hear. Also we may misremember shot. He sees a body on the floor and a man some of what we have experienced when we standing holding a gun with smoke still try to recall it later. But it remains true that coming from the barrel, indicating that it has personal experience is the most direct contact just been fired. The natural assumption is that that we can have with the world and what the man holding the gun is the murderer. The happens in it: detective testifies at the trial, reporting exactly what he has seen. The suspect pleads not Testimony guilty because, he says, he too heard the shot ‘Testimony’ means giving an account. A and rushed into the room, and picked up the witness statement is testimony. So long as it is still-smoking gun from the floor where it was an account of something that the person has lying. The facts – the gun, the smoke, the man witnessed or experienced at first hand, it too holding the gun, the body on the floor – are counts as direct evidence. This is in contrast to identical. The inferences are totally opposed. what is known as ‘hearsay evidence’. The difference is clearly illustrated by the following ‘A likely story!’ you may say of the suspect’s statements by two witnesses: explanation. But in the absence of any other evidence, even the smoking gun is insufficient W1: ‘I know Janet Winters personally, and I for a conviction. It is (merely) circumstantial. saw her punch the receptionist.’ Corroboration W2: ‘I found the receptionist crying and she If, however, it were also known that the said that Janet Winters had punched suspect knew the dead man, that in the past her.’ he had threatened to kill him, that he owed the dead man money, and/or that he had It is obvious why this distinction matters. So recently visited a gun shop, then his guilt long as W1 is telling the truth, and is not would be rather more probable. Each of these mistaken about what she saw, then Winters on its own is another piece of circumstantial did punch the receptionist. W2 on the other evidence, but now the various items 4.3 Evidence 145

corroborate each other, and together provide Activity overwhelming evidence of guilt. In fact, the smoking gun would then be virtual proof of Discuss how strong this evidence is. On the guilt; the other evidence – without the charge of assault, as described, would you smoking gun – would be very much weaker. say Jackson was: For that reason the expression ‘smoking gun’ has come to be a metaphor for evidence which A guilty? would finally settle a case. An investigation B  probably guilty? may be getting nowhere through lack of C probably not guilty? conclusive evidence, until the so-called D  none of the above? ‘smoking gun’ turns up in the form of an incriminating email, or revealing photograph, Commentary or something of the kind. On its own it would The evidence available is entirely of the kind not be proof of the desired conclusion; but on we call circumstantial. However, as top of other corroborating facts it removes any circumstantial evidence goes, it looks fairly lingering doubt. damaging. There is no direct evidence that Amelia Jackson did anything more than The student demo attend the demo and express her feelings. No one reports seeing her throw anything. But Here is a fictional scenario which will together with that is the fact that she had illustrate some of the concepts that we are bought some eggs, and some appeared to be considering. missing from her bag. There is therefore an accumulation of evidence. Firstly, she was A n unpopular congressman, visiting a present at the scene; secondly, she was actively university, was greeted by a large student demonstrating. Thirdly, eggs were among the demonstration. As he was stepping out of his objects thrown at the congressman; and car a raw egg thrown from the midst of the fourthly – the nearest item to a ‘smoking crowd struck him on the side of the head and gun’ – there were empty compartments in the broke, followed by a second and third. Soon egg box she was carrying. Do these corroborate the politician was cowering under a hail of each other sufficiently to answer the question missiles. As the crowd surged forward, he was above with A, B or C? helped back into the car by security officers and driven away. Not strictly. B is the nearest one could come   A 20-year-old sociology student, Amelia to incriminating Ms Jackson, but D is the Jackson, was arrested soon afterwards. She safest answer. Clearly there is insufficient had been seen in the crowd, and was caught evidence for A: guilt would require evidence on surveillance cameras shouting angrily and that put the verdict beyond reasonable doubt. holding a large placard on a pole. However difficult it may seem to explain away   Jackson was wearing a backpack containing the empty places in the egg box, it is not some provisions she said she had bought in impossible that it had nothing to do with the the market that morning. Among them was a assault on the congressman. Plenty of other cardboard egg box with spaces for ten eggs, people were throwing things: Amelia Jackson but with only six eggs in it. She was taken into may just have gone there to protest, angrily custody for questioning and later charged with perhaps, but not violently. assault, on the grounds that she had thrown one or more objects at the congressman with On the other hand it is very plausible, given intent to injure or intimidate. the circumstantial evidence, that Jackson was 146 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

guilty as charged. Because of that, C would be She jumped up and down, and did a high five a strange inference to make. She is no more with the kid next to her. They were loving it. likely to be innocent than she is to be guilty. Then she ducked down and picked something up. The crowd rushed forward then and I lost Additional evidence sight of her, but later I saw her get arrested, Amelia’s statement and saw her face close up. It was her all right. When she was questioned, Amelia stated that Later I heard the police were asking for she lived in lodgings with two other students witnesses, so I came forward.’ and it was her turn to buy food and cook the evening meal. She had bought six eggs so they *This is also known as an ‘identification could have two each. She always bought eggs parade’: a number of people form a line and at a market stall, where they were sold singly. It the witness points out the one he or she was cheaper than buying ten. And she took claims to have seen. If the suspect is identified her own cardboard container so that they in this way, that is a form of direct evidence. would not break. Activity Stallholder’s statement The owner of the stall where Amelia claimed Discuss whether Amelia’s story is plausible to have bought the eggs stated that he did not (or is it far-fetched?). Is it corroborated by any recognise her when shown a photograph of of the other evidence and, if so, how her. But he did make the following statement: strongly? Is it seriously challenged by any of the other evidence? ‘A lot of the students buy their eggs loose. If they want a box they have to buy ten. I sell Commentary loads of eggs that way every day.’ It is a reasonably plausible story. Anyone who has been a student, or knows students, would Flatmates’ statements agree that most of them tend to shop as The two students with whom Amelia Jackson economically as they can, and if eggs can be shared an apartment were questioned got more cheaply by taking a container and separately, and asked the same three buying them loose that makes sense. What is questions. Both gave the same answers: more, if there are only three residents in the flat (or apartment) then it also makes perfect Q: ‘Whose turn was it to cook that day?’ sense to buy multiples of three, and not ten. A: ‘Amelia’s.’ This does not prove Amelia was innocent, but Q: ‘Do you know where Amelia was going it goes some way towards tipping the balance back in her favour. when she left the apartment that day?’ A: ‘Shopping. Then to the university.’ What is more, there is considerable Q: ‘Was she planning to attend the corroboration from both the stallholder and the other students with whom she shares the demonstration?’ flat. Of course the flatmates might be A: ‘She didn’t mention it.’ protecting her by answering as they do. They were questioned separately, so the fact that they Eyewitness account gave exactly the same answers could mean they 58-year-old Rajinder Choudhury, a retired were telling the truth. But it could also mean headteacher, picked Amelia Jackson out of a they had prepared what they would say. As far police line-up.* He said: as the stallholder is concerned, he has no ‘She’s the one. She was up ahead of me in the crowd, right where the stuff all came from. 4.3 Evidence 147

reason to say anything which would assist going on does not mean she actively took part Amelia. Evidently he doesn’t even know her. in it. Besides, his identification of Amelia is practically worthless, for reasons which will be You may have answered these questions discussed in the next chapter. You may also slightly differently, but you should have have detected a possible tone of disapproval in registered that the circumstantial evidence his statement, for Amelia or for student against Amelia now looks less threatening. It demonstrators generally, which could be fits just as well with her statement as it does interpreted as prejudice. He might want her to with the charge made against her. What has be guilty, for one reason or another. always to be remembered with circumstantial evidence is that if it can be explained away, Summary and the explanation is not far-fetched, no safe conclusion can be drawn from it. An • Evidence takes many forms. evaluation of the evidence in this case would • The terms ‘evidence’ and ‘reason’ have not be nearly strong enough to justify a conviction because any number of students, or some overlap in meaning when used in the others, could have bought eggs, and could context of arguments, and care must be have thrown them. Amelia is no longer in a taken to use them appropriately. special position, but is one of many potential • Evidence can be divided into two main suspects. categories: direct and indirect (or circumstantial). Circumstantial evidence What about the ‘eyewitness’ statement? requires an inference to be made from the Prima facie (meaning ‘on the face of it’) this facts to the conclusion. may seem to count against Amelia. However, • Evidence is strongest when it is there are a number of weaknesses in Rajinder corroborated by other evidence. Choudhury’s evidence that you should have noted. Firstly, he did not see Amelia actually throw anything; all he saw was her reaction. The claim that she was enjoying what was 148 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

End-of-chapter assignments previous day. He couldn’t be sure of the time. The Sunday papers had printed 1 Explain the difference between direct the story of White’s arrest, with a recent and indirect evidence, giving illustrative photograph of him getting out of the examples. same white car at a friend’s wedding. a How strong is the evidence provided 2 Imagine an investigation that turns on whether a certain person, whom we’ll by Mrs Short? Does it count as call Mr White, visited another person, corroboration for Mr Green’s Mr Green, one Saturday afternoon. accusation? Mr Green is accusing Mr White of coming b How reliable is the restaurant owner to his house and assaulting him. as a witness? • A witness, Mrs Short, who lives in the c What problems are there with flat below Mr Green, says that she saw Mr Long’s evidence? a man answering White’s description d Where would you look for further arriving by car at the house on that evidence if you were investigating Saturday. Later, when she went out to this case? the shop, she noticed the car again, and 3 (Harder task) thought she saw a parking ticket on the windscreen. ‘Because of the compensation-claim • White says he was nowhere near culture which has grown up in many Green’s house, and produces a second countries, advertising by lawyers and witness – a restaurant owner – who conditional-fee agreements for testifies that White was in his restaurant personal injury cases should not be on the Saturday in question, and that permitted.’ he stayed there all afternoon; and that his car – a white Peugeot – was in the Write a short evidence-based argument restaurant car park the whole time. supporting or challenging this White and the restaurant owner are old recommendation. Base your argument on friends and business partners. the evidence found in Docs 3 and 4 in • On the Sunday evening a third witness, Chapter 4.1 (pages 131–2, 134), and give Mr Long, who lives opposite Green an assessment of how strongly you think but doesn’t know him or White or the this supports your conclusion. restaurant owner, comes forward and states that he had seen a white Peugeot Answers and comments are on page 324. parked outside his (Long’s) house the 4.3 Evidence 149

4.4 Credibility Whilst we are often unable to say with of evaluating claims that are more critical than confidence whether or not a claim is true, we merely relying on common sense. can make a judgement as to its credibility – how justified we are in believing it. Credibility is The sources of claims determined by two main factors. The first is the plausibility of the claim itself. A wildly A second factor in judging the credibility of a improbable claim is less credible than an claim is its source. If the claim comes from a unsurprising claim that fits in well with our trusted source, we have more grounds for other beliefs. But, as we all discover from time believing it than if we do not know where it to time, something wildly improbable can on comes from. ‘Source’ in this context may be an occasions be true, and something highly individual making an assertion; or it may be a plausible can be false. book, an article in a newspaper, a website; or it may be a publisher. If you have found two You may recall your role as the imaginary conflicting claims, one from a book published time-traveller in Chapter 2.3, attempting to by, say, Harvard University Press, the other convince a pre-Copernican population that the from a blog or tweet by some anonymous Earth is not a flat dish but a large ball whirling individual, you would be likely to put your like a bucket on an invisible rope around a trust in the former rather than the latter. distant nuclear furnace . . . You can imagine their incredulity, given their other beliefs at When deciding the extent to which we can that time. The account of the solar system that trust a source, we are looking for qualities such we now regard as fact was once so far beyond as honesty and possession of knowledge. people’s understanding as to be fantastical. If There are other qualities, but those are the Earth were a ball, surely the people on the probably the most important. We need the sides and underneath would fall off! Isaac first for obvious reasons: we cannot trust a Newton’s theory of universal gravity was not known liar. But however honest an author yet formulated; and that too was treated with may be, we also have to be assured that he or derision when it was first announced. she is well informed. An honest mistake is no more true than a deliberate lie, even though Likewise some of today’s new scientific one may be more excusable than the other. theories seem improbable. Some of the implications of quantum physics are more like Judging credibility science fiction than science fact, especially to a non-scientist. They don’t make ordinary sense, However, there is an obvious problem when it any more than the solar system made ordinary comes to judging who to believe. It is no easier sense in the middle ages. The point of this is than judging what to believe. Suppose that plausibility and justification do not someone says to you: ‘Look, I’m telling you always correspond. Just because a claim seems the truth and I know what I’m talking about.’ implausible we should not reject it out of This is just a claim like any other. To believe in hand; nor should we accept a claim just the source of the claim, you have to believe the because it seems plausible. We need methods claim; and to believe the claim, you have to believe the source. All you are doing is going round in circles! What is needed is a set of 150 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

objective or independent criteria for judging a guideline, but it is no more than that. Cast source’s credibility. your mind back to the eyewitness, Mr Choudhury, in the previous chapter What are the options? A good place to start is (page 147). He was a retired headteacher, and reputation. Generally speaking, a witness or as such would have been expected to be claimant with a reputation for honesty, good fair-minded and honest – especially towards education, status in the community, and so on, students. Yet his testimony was less than is a safer bet than someone with no such wholly reliable. Maybe he was mistaken about reputation – or, worse still, a negative reputation. what he saw; maybe he was a supporter of the A criminal with a record for fraud is less likely to visiting politician and took a dislike to Amelia be believed than a law-abiding citizen with a for showing pleasure at his ill-treatment. responsible job; and with good reason. It is Maybe none of these was the case, and he was reasonable to believe that the probability of telling the unvarnished truth. The point is obtaining the truth from a reputable source is that, although reputation is not irrelevant, on greater than it is from a disreputable one. its own it does not guarantee credibility. It is one factor among many. But, as stated, this is a generalisation. Under certain circumstances it may be more Choudhury’s evidence is interesting for rewarding to consult a convicted criminal than another reason. He identified Amelia. He an ordinary citizen. If, for example, the subject recognised her in a line-up as the person he had of inquiry is criminality, a person who has seen throwing eggs. Here is his statement again: committed crimes and knows the criminal world is likely to be better informed than ‘She’s the one. She was up ahead of me in someone who has no such experience. The risk the crowd, right where the stuff all came from. that the fraudster may lie is balanced by his or She jumped up and down, and did a high five her access to direct evidence. There is therefore with the kid next to her. They were loving it. a second criterion that we can apply, namely Then she ducked down and picked something experience, or expertise. Ideally, of course, we up. The crowd rushed forward then and I lost would hope to find sources that are reputable sight of her, but later I saw her get arrested, and informed. So, for instance, a qualified and saw her face close up. It was her all right. researcher who has made it her business to Later I heard the police were asking for investigate crime and criminal activity, study witnesses, so I came forward.’ statistics, talk to criminals and law- enforcement officers, and analyse and verify Activity her findings is arguably the best source of all. In legal terms Choudhury’s identification of Another point to be borne in mind about Amelia Jackson would be ‘inadmissible reputation is that it may not be deserved. You evidence’. Why is this? don’t have to read very many newspaper articles before you come across a story of To put this another way: Why is Choudhury someone who has held a highly respected not a credible witness? position but betrayed the trust that comes with it. No one’s occupation or rank is a Commentary guarantee of credibility. Every so often a This question was partly answered in the doctor, police officer, teacher or priest will be previous chapter. Choudhury did not claim to discovered to have acted dishonestly or have seen Amelia actually throw anything. He stupidly. Conversely, there are countless just said (twice): ‘She’s the one.’ The most that people with no special status in society who could be pinned on her was showing are honest and clever. Reputation is a 4.4 Credibility 151

excitement, and bending down to pick credibility. A newspaper that has known something up. What she picked up the witness political affiliations – as have many if not most does not say, raising the question of how he newspapers – may report an event, or give an could be sure she picked anything up. account of something, in a way that another publication, with different affiliations, flatly But there is another weakness in contradicts. A third commentator may give yet Choudhury’s supposedly ‘eyewitness’ another version of events, different from account. Whoever he saw in the crowd, it was either of the others. Any one of the three may from behind; and he lost sight of her in the be correct, but without any way of judging crowd. He saw Amelia’s face close up only which one it is, we tend naturally, and when she was arrested. That was the face he justifiably, to place most trust in the one that picked out of the line-up, but whether or not has no ‘axe to grind’ – as the saying goes. the two women were the same we can’t be Neutrality, therefore, is another criterion for sure. If Choudhury had not seen the arrest, assessing credibility. would he have identified Amelia in the line-up? Again, we can’t be sure. The Vested interest credibility of Choudhury as a witness ultimately comes down to his ability to see One of the main reasons for doubting a what, and who, he claims to have seen. source’s neutrality is the discovery of a vested interest. Vested interests may take many forms, A person’s ability to apprehend information the most familiar being financial interest. is thus another important factor in assessing Take, for example, the following scenario: an certain kinds of evidence. Imagine a witness oil company wants to sink an exploratory well who claims to have overheard every detail of a in a region where there is some alleged risk of private conversation at another table in a busy environmental damage, and possible harm to restaurant. The credibility of the claim could wildlife. Environmentalists have voiced strong be tested by asking her to sit at the same table opposition; the oil company has hired a team and repeat what she hears in similar, or more of ‘independent’ experts to assess the risks and favourable, circumstances. If she cannot hear report on their findings. After some time the the words spoken in the test, she can hardly team produce a statement that there is claim to have heard every detail of the alleged practically no risk of contamination or other conversation. Her credibility as a witness damage, and the oil company gets the go- would come down to her ability to hear what ahead. Then just before the drilling is due to she says she heard, just as Rajinder start two of the experts on the team are found Choudhury’s comes down to his ability to see. to have substantial shares in the oil industry. Had the report been negative, they would Neutrality have lost a lot of money; as it stands, they will make a lot of money instead. As noted at the end of the last chapter, there is a possibility that Choudhury may have Obviously the report is discredited, not formed a dislike for Amelia. He seems quite because it is necessarily false, but because of eager to point the finger at her, even though the vested interest of two of its authors. This he has little hard evidence; and there is is an extreme example, and a stereotypical something in the tone of his testimony which one. But it is illustrative. The general question hints at disapproval. If this were the case, it that we have to ask is therefore this: Does the would further undermine confidence in the author of the claim have any reason to make evidence. As well as being able and informed, a the claim, other than believing it to be the reliable source should, as far as possible, be truth? If the answer is yes, truth may not be neutral. Even the possibility of bias or the author’s highest priority. prejudice is enough to lessen a source’s 152 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Corroboration known that they had conferred, that would actually detract from their credibility, for it Each of the criteria that we have discussed would have to be explained why they had affects how we judge a claim. Yet none of conferred. If they were both simply telling the them, on its own, is sufficient to put a claim truth, there would be no need to confer. beyond reasonable doubt. A claim is, by its nature, uncertain, whoever has made it and Corroboration is at its most potent when however plausible it may be. Corroboration there is agreement between different kinds of has been discussed at various points already, evidence: for example, when statistical so that it doesn’t need any further evidence bears out what several independent explanation. Of all the criteria for assessing witnesses have said, and the circumstantial credibility, it is perhaps the most potent. This evidence all points in the same direction. By is hardly surprising, since it is not really a the same token, credibility is at its lowest single reason to believe a claim, but a when there is a lack of corroboration, or combination of reasons supporting and disagreement. endorsing each other. Summary The simplest form of corroboration is agreement – though it must be agreement • In the absence of knowledge or certainty between independent sources. If two or more about the truth of some portion of people make the same claim, or express the evidence, we often have to rely on its same opinion, there is more reason to believe credibility. it than if one person alone has made the claim. It is crucial to add the word • There are a number of criteria by which we ‘independent’ here, because if it is found that can judge credibility: one person has influenced the others, the • the plausibility of the claim or claims added credibility is cancelled, for they are themselves effectively making a single, repeated claim • the reputation, expertise, independence rather than several separate claims which and/or neutrality of the source genuinely corroborate each other. You may • the ability to have seen or perceived recall that in the previous chapter, the police what is being claimed interviewed Amelia Jackson’s flatmates • the absence of vested interest (or motive separately. The fact that they still gave the for saying one thing rather than another) same answers added to the credibility of what • corroboration by other evidence or from they said, but there was still the possibility other sources. that they had conferred in advance, and anticipated the questions. Indeed, if it is End-of-chapter assignment and, most importantly, why you reached those decisions.) This assignment can be completed individually in writing, or as a group Read the following passage carefully and discussion. (If you choose the second of answer the questions that follow. these, you should also make notes on what you discussed, what decisions you came to 4.4 Credibility 153

PARTYTIME STAR ACCUSED OF STEALING SONG by Jan Ewbank, Arts and media correspondent The superstar band another thought afterwards. scrapbook. In it was a Partytime, and their lead It was only when I heard If picture of a very young singer Magnolia, came under You Knew that I recognised Magnolia fronting a student more fire yesterday when it Maggie – and my song.’ band. Under it were the was alleged that their names of the group, number one hit, If You Knew, Magnolia hotly denies the including ‘Maggie Coleman’. was originally written by an claim. ‘I don’t even There was also a handwritten unknown schoolteacher who remember anyone called song with guitar chords, but has never received a cent in Sarah Berry,’ she says. ‘I no tune. The chorus runs: recognition. wrote If You Knew because I was fed up of hearing rich ‘If you’d been to the places The disclosure came hot people whingeing when I’ve been / And seen the on the heels of criticism that there’s real hardship and things that I’ve seen / You Magnolia has cashed in suffering in the world, like we wouldn’t be sighing that life big-time on her much saw in Africa. Whoever she is so trying . . .’ publicised, so-called charity is, she’s on the make. If visits to developing countries she’s got any proof she Magnolia sings the chorus last year. ought to produce it – or of If You Knew in front of a otherwise shut up.’ big screen showing Now, if the latest harrowing images. Her accusations are true, her Partytime’s road manager chorus goes: ‘If you knew most famous song isn’t even Paco added: ‘I was around the things that he’s seen / hers to sing. It appears that when Mags was writing it. It Been to the places she’s the tune and chorus of If You came straight from her heart been / You’d have less to Knew were written ten years after the tour. We write all say in your self-centred ago by Sarah Berry. Sarah our own songs. People are way . . .’ had worked as a volunteer in always coming out of the Africa before training as a woodwork accusing stars of When I confronted her with teacher. At college she met plagiarising – you know, this evidence, Magnolia said: Magnolia, then Maggie stealing their songs – once ‘OK. Maybe this woman did Coleman. they’re famous. This Berry stand on the stage with me woman’s not the first and once when we were at ‘The college did a charity won’t be the last.’ college. Maybe we sang a concert, and we were both in song together and some bits it,’ she recalls. ‘I wrote a I visited Sarah in her of it stuck in my mind. That song for it, and Maggie sang rented one-room apartment. doesn’t mean she wrote it, it. I didn’t think it was all that She dug out an old whatever she pasted in her good, and never gave it photograph album and scrapbook. It’s so long ago I 154 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

just don’t remember. As for Sarah’s scrapbook would fit said: ‘Upwards of twenty to the tune, that was all mine, the melody line of If You one. Not huge. It’s quite a and that’s what really counts.’ Knew, although it would not common sequence in be impossible for the same popular music.’ I next visited Professor Jon chords to fit two quite Rudenko, who has been different tunes. Asked to The jury is out on this one, called as an expert witness estimate the odds against but whatever the verdict, it’s in many high-profile two tunes having these another unwanted smear on plagiarism wrangles. He told same chords by chance, he Magnolia’s already tarnished me the chord sequence in reputation. 1 Assuming it has been fairly represented 4 Imagine you were an informal jury by the author, decide how credible is the considering the evidence contained in testimony given by each of the following: the article. What would your verdict be, and why? • Magnolia • Sarah Berry 5 Assess the language used by the author • Paco Jan Ewbank. Do you consider it to be a • Jon Rudenko. fair and neutral report, or judgemental, perhaps even biased? What evidence is Base your assessments on the criteria there, if any, of partiality towards one side discussed in the chapter. or the other? 2 Identify and assess one or more pieces Answers and comments are on page 324. of circumstantial evidence reported in the article. 3 As a source of information, how reliable do you consider Jan Ewbank’s article to be in its reporting of the dispute? On what grounds might someone question its reliability? 4.4 Credibility 155

4.5 Two case studies to canteen safe manager secretary deputy manager wall clock Case One: Who’s telling the truth? Manager’s evidence ‘I was away from the office for about 20 The diagram is a plan of the Management minutes. I didn’t lock the safe. I quite often Suite on the first floor of a firm’s premises. don’t lock it in the daytime, and nothing has Some money, in a brown envelope, has gone ever gone missing before. I am fairly certain missing from the safe, and an investigation is the deputy manager’s door was open and his underway. office was empty when I left, and it was still empty when I returned. It was when I got back General facts that I realised the money was missing.’ Three people are employed in the Management Suite: Deputy manager’s evidence ‘I went into the manager’s office only once, • the manager (Mrs Mann) and she was there at her desk. At around • the deputy manager (Mr Depp) 10.00 I went to the canteen because there • the secretary (Rita). was a driver who had a problem to discuss – an argument he had had with another worker. O nly the manager knows the safe It took over half an hour to sort out.’ combination. Driver’s evidence Secretary’s evidence ‘I was with Mr Depp in the canteen from ‘I took the manager her morning coffee at around 10.00. We talked for quite a long 9.30. I noticed the safe was open and the time. I didn’t notice how long. We were sorting brown package was visible inside it. I took her out a personal problem.’ the mail at 10.00 and it was still open. Immediately after that the manager left her Activity office and went straight along the corridor. She was away about 20 minutes. Mr Depp, Following on from the discussions in the the deputy manager, came out of his own previous chapter, assess the evidence given office and visited the manager’s office twice above. Use it to ask yourself who, if anyone, that morning: once at about 9.45 and again is not telling the truth. while the manager was away – I couldn’t say the exact time.’ 156 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Commentary talk to the driver. They are both normal, What we have here are two conflicting stories. unsurprising events in a typical office day, and The secretary, Rita, claims that the deputy there is no obvious reason to believe one rather manager went into the manager’s office twice, than the other. It is only because they conflict once while the manager was in there and once that we would question them at all. But since after she had left. The deputy manager, Mr they do conflict, we have to question them. Depp, confirms that he went into her office the first time, but denies the second. He claims Corroboration that during the time he was alleged to have Where Depp’s statement scores over Rita’s is entered the manager’s office he was in the that it gets some measure of corroboration canteen talking to a driver. At some time both from the driver and from the manager during all this, some money went missing herself. Rita has no witnesses or circumstances from the safe. The secretary’s statement, if to corroborate her counter-claim. However, true, casts considerable suspicion on Depp. the corroborating evidence is not 100% solid. The manager says that she is ‘fairly certain’ the We will start by considering the witnesses deputy manager’s door was open and his office themselves. The three occupants of the was empty when she left. The driver, too, gives Management Suite are the manager, the rather vague estimates: ‘I was with Mr Depp . . . deputy manager and the secretary. The driver around 10.00. We talked for quite a long time.’ is also a witness. Their ranking in the company Conceivably, by this reckoning, the meeting is probably in that order. So does this mean we could have ended in time for Depp to go back should rank the reliability of their evidence in to his offices before Mrs Mann returned. So, the same way: the manager’s more than the although the corroboration of two other deputy’s, the deputy’s more than the witnesses adds to Depp’s credibility, it does not secretary’s, the driver’s least of all? by any means remove all doubt about his version of events. In a word, no. In some cases there may be more reason to trust a manager’s judgement Suppositional reasoning: ‘What if . . . ?’ over a junior employee’s, on the grounds of So far it looks very much like a case of one their respective qualifications and experience. person’s word against another’s. But there is a But we are not talking about judgement here, way forward. It involves a very useful only about honesty and accuracy. You may technique known as suppositional reasoning. argue that a manager has more to lose than a Suppositional reasoning typically starts with secretary. But it would be quite unjustified to phrases such as ‘Supposing . . .’ or ‘What if . . . ?’ assume that therefore the secretary is more likely to be dishonest. It would be even more For example, suppose that the secretary is unjustified to assume that the secretary was right: that Depp did go into the manager’s less likely to be accurate in her statement. If office while she was away, which was also you looked carefully at the evidence you will during the period when the money went have seen that it is the secretary who is the missing. What would follow from this? It most exact in the information she gives, the would mean, of course, that Depp had an manager the most vague and imprecise. And it opportunity to take the money. It would also should not be overlooked that the manager left mean that he was lying when he said he was the safe unlocked, suggesting some absent- away from the offices throughout the mindedness or carelessness on her part. manager’s absence, unless he had mysteriously forgotten where he had been that morning. What about the statements themselves: are And it is hard to understand why he would lie they equally plausible? On the face of it, yes. unless he had something to hide. But would There is nothing improbable about Depp going he really have walked into the manager’s into the manager’s office, or about his going to 4.5 Two case studies 157

office, taken the money and walked out again him to say they had been in the canteen all with the secretary sitting at her desk, then the time. So that the manager would think he simply denied it in the hope that he would be was not in his office he left the door open and believed and not her? hid behind it as she passed. Is this all possible? Yes, it’s possible. But it is unlikely. For a start, If the secretary is right it also means that how would Depp know when the manager the manager wrongly thought the deputy’s was going to leave? This, added to the fact that office was empty when she passed it on two the secretary would see him, makes such a occasions; and that the driver’s statement is possibility too remote to take very seriously. questionable. In other words, we would have to disbelieve three people’s statements in order On balance of probabilities, it seems that to believe the secretary’s statement. For them the secretary’s version of events is altogether all to be wrong would be quite a coincidence. less credible than Depp’s. And that is the For them all to be lying would require some most rational conclusion. mysterious explanation. Case Two: Collision course So although the secretary’s story seems credible enough in itself, when we subject it to Two drivers – Ed Farr and Ray Crowe – collided this kind of critical examination, it turns out and spun off the track in heavy rain in the last to have some unlikely consequences. A race of the season earlier today. Neither driver consequence is something that follows from was injured, but the incident put both cars out of something else. If we find that a certain claim, the race, leaving Crowe as World Champion for or version of events, would have puzzling the second year running. Before the race there consequences, that must throw some doubt was just one point between the two drivers. If Farr on the claim. had finished the race ahead of Crowe, he would have moved into first place and taken the title. What if we accept the deputy manager’s account? First of all it is consistent with what After the race an inquiry was called for into two other witnesses are saying, and that has to allegations that Ray Crowe had intentionally be in Depp’s favour, even if their statements collided with his opponent’s car. The are a bit vague and uncertain. But, of course, it following items of evidence were noted: means that Rita is lying. It also means that Rita was alone in the Management Suite for about [1] Farr’s team manager reacted furiously by 20 minutes when the money went missing. claiming that Crowe had deliberately She therefore would have had a much better swerved and forced their driver off the opportunity than Depp to steal and hide the track as he tried to overtake on a money with no one around to see her. If she notorious S-bend* known as the Slide. did steal the money, she also had a motive for ‘It was no surprise, either,’ she added. trying to pin the blame on someone else. ‘With Ed out of the race, Crowe knew he had won the championship. Of course he If you compare the two suppositions, meant to do it.’ Depp’s story has much more believable consequences than Rita’s. This does not put it [2] A television camera team filmed Crowe beyond reasonable doubt that the secretary is walking away from his wrecked car. He a thief and a liar, but it does make her story appears to be smiling as he removes his harder to swallow. helmet. He says to reporters: ‘I hope you’re not all going to blame this on me. I Suppose the deputy manager planned the just held my line**, and that is completely theft with the driver. He waited for the within the rules.’ Later he added: ‘It was manager to leave her office, walked in there as all Ed’s fault. He could have killed us the secretary reported, took the money, and both. It was a crazy place to try to later slipped out to give it to the driver and tell overtake. He has only himself to blame.’ 158 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

[3] Ed Farr stated: ‘There was plenty of room *  S-bend: a double bend in a road or to get past if Crowe had held his line**. He track, shaped like the letter S. waited till I came level, then drove into me.’ **  Holding your line: staying on your [4] Today’s race winner Waleed Akram, who chosen course, not swerving or cutting was just behind the two cars at the time, across another driver. The rules of the commented: ‘That’s motor racing. Ray had sport permit a driver to choose his line earned his one point lead, and he was just through a bend, but not intentionally to defending it. If it had been the other way cause a collision. round, Ed would probably have done the same. Everyone was expecting something Crowe like this to happen.’ Asked if he had seen Farr Crowe swerve, he said: ‘Maybe not a “swerve” exactly, but he could have Race avoided the crash. Anyway, it stands to o cial reason that he would take Ed out of the race if he got the chance. It’s not the first Spectators’ area time he’s done something like that.’ 28.07 .36 [5] Computer-generated images (see right) were made from trackside cameras, 28.07 .47 recording the positions of the cars just before, and just as, they made contact. Akram [6] Arace official, stationed on the bend, 28.08 .12 reported: ‘There was a lot of spray as the cars rounded the bend. Farr tried to cut through on the inside. He was almost past when the two cars touched. They both spun and ended up on the verge opposite. It is hard to tell, but to me it just looked like an accident.’ [7] Journalist Gudrun Brecht added to the controversy by reporting that she had been at a party two days before the race and that she had heard Crowe openly boasting that he would ‘do anything necessary to win the championship’. She wrote: ‘I know Crowe well, and he makes no secret of his determination to win, whatever it takes.’ [8] On record: Crowe was involved in two similar controversies in previous seasons, but on both occasions he was cleared of any blame. 4.5 Two case studies 159

Answer each of the following questions and Activity compare your answer with the commentary that follows. The questions are similar to those 2 How reliable is Akram as a witness? set in Cambridge Thinking Skills Paper 2. Consider what he has to say in the light of other information and evidence available. Activity What impact should his statement have on the outcome of the inquiry? 1 What is the team manager’s argument for blaming Crowe for the incident? How Commentary strong is her statement as evidence Akram claims to be an eyewitness. However, against Crowe? given what the race official says, and taking into account his (Akram’s) position on the Commentary track when the collision occurred, it is The manager’s argument is based on what she doubtful whether he could have seen very sees as Crowe’s motive. She is pointing out a much. Like Farr’s manager, Akram bases his fact when she says that with Ed out of the race assessment of what happened partly on Crowe would win the championship. But she Crowe’s motives, but also on his past record. infers too much from it. Besides, she is He says ‘it stands to reason’ that Crowe did it probably biased and sounds angry. As Ed Farr’s on purpose. manager she has a vested interest in the outcome of the race. We say someone has a Unfortunately, it doesn’t really stand to vested interest in an outcome if they are likely reason at all. Akram is unable to say that to benefit, financially or otherwise, if the Crowe actively ‘swerved’, yet he is prepared to decision goes one way rather than the other. say he allowed the crash to happen. As a Crowe, Farr and the manager all have an professional racing driver, we can give Akram obvious vested interest in the outcome of this credit for having the expertise to make such a case. The other witnesses may or may not, but claim: he would know better than most people there is no reason to think they have. if an accident could have been avoided or not. But that is not to say that Crowe let it happen We don’t know if the manager actually intentionally. It could just have been witnessed the incident first-hand, but even if carelessness that caused it, or poor visibility. she did, it would be very hard to say that one Akram is not really in a position to make such of the drivers had acted intentionally. She uses a judgement objectively. the tell-tale phrase ‘of course’ to show that she is assuming there was intention on Crowe’s Activity part because it would be to his advantage. 3 How seriously can you take the evidence On its own this is not strong evidence. The provided by Gudrun Brecht? fact that someone stands to gain from some act or other does not mean he or she will Commentary commit that act. However, taken together This evidence cannot be taken very seriously with other evidence, motive does add some at all. It is a classic case of hearsay evidence: weight to the argument. Let’s put it this way: if she ‘heard him’ boasting that he would do he didn’t have a motive, there would be much anything necessary to win. We don’t have any less reason to think Crowe caused the crash means of knowing if these were his exact deliberately. 160 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

words, or if they were a journalist’s colourful drawn, but it would be wrong to interpret way of presenting them. Besides, even if they Crowe’s apparent smile as a sign of guilt. were his exact words, they don’t really tell us how far Crowe was prepared to go. Maybe he As for his own defence, which takes the meant he would try as hard as he could, but form of a pre-emptive attack on Farr, there would draw the line at risking his life and the may be some justification for what he says. We lives of others just to get the title. do not have a great deal to go on other than the three computer-generated images of the Also, Gudrun claims, ‘I know Crowe well.’ incident. These are the focus of the next She doesn’t say whether she likes or dislikes question. him, but from the statement she makes it is more likely that it is dislike. If she were fond of Activity him, she would hardly imply so strongly that he was prepared to cheat. This makes her a less 5 What evidence can be found in the images reliable witness, since her neutrality is in to support either of the two sides involved question. As sports-page gossip, what she says in the dispute? is of some interest, but it ought not to count for much as evidence of guilt in an official Commentary inquiry. Unlike almost all the evidence supplied by witnesses, the images are hard evidence. Activity The saying ‘the camera never lies’ is often challenged because nowadays almost anyone 4 Can you draw any conclusions from Ray can fake or ‘doctor’ a photograph. But it is still Crowe’s behaviour and his comments as true that the camera itself doesn’t lie: it is what the camera team filmed him walking away is done with the photographs afterwards that from the crash site? can create deception. Anyway, we will assume these images are an accurate reconstruction. Commentary Crowe’s actual denial counts for very little, for One way to approach this question is to obvious reasons. If he had collided with Farr in draw on the picture the line you think Crowe order to win the championship, he would be would have chosen through the S-bend. just as likely to deny that it was intentional. It Obviously racing drivers like to steer through could also be said that he was very quick to bends by the fastest route, but if other cars are deny it, doing so even before he had been in their way they have to go wide to get round asked about it. On the other hand he may have them. Remembering what the rules are, do expected a hostile reaction from the media, you think Crowe keeps strictly to a natural whether he was guilty or not, especially given line, or does he steer over into Farr’s path as his apparent reputation. he comes level and so cause the collision? The smile he appears to have as he takes off Read again what the two drivers had to say his helmet may be a smile of satisfaction, or of and what the race official saw, and, on the relief. It may even be a sarcastic smile, at seeing strength of the pictures, decide whose story is the cameras and the television crew appear so more believable. There is no right or wrong quickly. Smiles and other facial expressions are answer to this: you have to draw your own often seized on by the media, and conclusions conclusions – and support them with the evidence as you find it. 4.5 Two case studies 161

End-of-chapter assignments questions. She could not say what the notes were about specifically. 1 On the basis of the evidence, can it be C An intercepted text message from a concluded that Ray Crowe intentionally postgraduate st udent to Corinne’s collided with Farr? Give a short, reasoned phone, saying: ‘Cant believe u r argument to support your answer. bribing me. Wot kinda friend r u!!! Write your own essay.’ 2 The principal of a college is investigating allegations that one of the students, Rank these three items according to Corinne Blake, has cheated on multiple the weight you would give them, stating occasions by: copying essays found reasons for your assessments. on the internet; asking friends to write assignments for her; and 3 Comment critically on the following further taking revision notes into an exam. item of evidence given to the principal Corinne denies all the allegations and says investigating the allegations against Corinne that the other students are accusing her Blake. It is from a report by an educational out of spite. psychologist who interviewed Corinne: The evidence in front of the principal ‘Miss Blake seemed agitated and consists of three items, all messages: anxious. Her mannerisms and body language were consistent with the A An anonymous email sent to the behaviour of someone who has principal. It reads: ‘I heard Corinne something to hide. When asked to Blake tell a friend she had repeat the answers she had given to downloaded stuff off the internet and some of the questions in the exam got an A for it. They were both having she gave a number of incoherent a good laugh about it. I thought you responses which suggested to me that should know.’ she had less knowledge of the subject matter than her written answers B A statement by a student saying that might have indicated. I do not believe she had been sitting behind Corinne she could have given those answers in an exam and watched her unfold a without external help of some sort.’ page of notes and read it under the desk before answering one of the 162 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

4.6 Critical thinking and science Science is a highly disciplined form of critical detect. They can make measurements of things thinking. This is not surprising, since science is where humans can only estimate crudely. A a methodology that is reliant upon evidence, in seismometer, for instance, is a device for particular the evidence provided by measuring earth tremors. It can give accurate observation and experiment. Scientists make readings of movements far below the ground observations and use them both to construct that no human would notice or find significant. and to test their theories. A scientific theory is Such readings are also ‘observations’. only as good as the evidence on which it is based and the reasoning by which scientists If they are made accurately, these are facts; but proceed in drawing their conclusions. All that without accuracy they remain observations. has been said about not leaping to conclusions, Their importance, scientifically, lies in the use or making unwarranted assumptions, applies they can be put to as evidence for hypotheses with particular relevance to science. or predictions: for example, the causes of earthquakes, or the risk of earthquakes in a An observation in scientific terms is any fact given region. For such purposes single that can be verified by experience: for example, observations are rarely sufficient for evidence of the senses. It means more than just establishing conclusions. A large part of visual data. If I suddenly sense the ground scientific inquiry therefore involves the trembling beneath my feet, or hear a rumbling analysis of collections of data to identify sound, or see a cup fall off a shelf, these are all patterns and correlations. Observations on observations. I may not know what has caused their own can be thought of as ‘raw’ data. To them: they may be indicative of an earthquake, function as evidence this raw data generally or just a heavy vehicle passing on the road, or a has to be collated and interpreted, often in the controlled explosion in a nearby quarry. form of tables, graphs, reports and so on. A Without further evidence I have no way of critical question therefore arises as to whether inferring which, if any of them, is the correct the processed data is fair and objective, or interpretation. But the experience itself – the whether it distorts the facts in one direction or observation or sensation – remains the same another. For instance, if the observation whatever its cause turns out to be. concerns a sample of data, is it a representative sample; or is it selective, exaggerated, biased or Of course, people can be mistaken about misleading in any way? what they experience. We sometimes imagine things, or misremember them. A reliable scientific observation is therefore one which cannot be dismissed easily. If many people describe having had the same experience at the same time, that is better evidence than one person’s word. The term we use for this, as introduced in Chapter 4.3, is ‘corroboration’. Observations may be even more trustworthy if they are detected and recorded by instruments or sensors. Moreover, instruments can often pick up information that human senses cannot 4.6 Critical thinking and science 163

Good science is self-critical on just these Commentary points. Not only do serious scientists, whose As stated, this is an open discussion, so there is aim is to discover the truth, check their own no single right way to tackle it. The only findings with care and make every effort to stipulation is that you should provide more avoid reasoning errors, they check each than just opinions. If all you say is that you other’s work critically – a procedure known as think animals do behave like humans and ‘peer review’. Among the flaws that they look form social networks, or that they don’t, this for are two which have been discussed in would not be a critical response. Nor would it previous chapters: over-generalising from be a scientific one. For the response to be limited examples, and confusing correlation critical it would have to include reasons as with cause. Both are easy errors to make. well as opinions and judgements. For it to be scientific it would have to have some Scientific method is not only of interest evidential basis. within science. Any evidence-based reasoning should be subjected to the same critical You are also asked to consider the meaning standards as good science. We see scientific of the term ‘social’. It’s all very well to say that methods being applied in subjects as diverse as many animals live in groups – herds, shoals, history, economics, sociology, psychology and flocks, packs, colonies, etc. – but it is another education, and many more. thing altogether to assert that these are social groups. On the other hand it is unjustified to An example: social networks claim that social groups belong only to humans unless you can say what you consider A field of study in which many modern so special about human groups. Recognising scientists have developed an interest is social and defining key terms in a text is one of the networking, especially with the coming of essential skills of any critical thinking phenomena such as Facebook, Twitter and so assignment. In this case it is very obvious that on. Are these purely modern and human the whole discussion turns on the definition of inventions, or are they products of our natural a ‘social’ group. For example, compare a group animal evolution? A key question is: of friends or work colleagues, or a military unit, with a herd of wildebeest or with a shoal of Do other animals, besides humans, form fish. Clearly these are all groups of one kind or ‘social’ networks? another. But what, if any, are the key differences? It is generally argued by zoologists Activity and others that herding is an instinct for self-preservation by the individuals in the Take some time to think about and/or group. If a wildebeest strays from the herd it is discuss the question above. You do not need more likely to be singled out for attack by a any specialist knowledge to do this: it is an predator. A lone animal is easy prey. The best open discussion, an exploration of ideas. place for a wildebeest to be is near the middle However, you should try to bring some of the herd, so wildebeest have developed a examples or evidence into the discussion. herd instinct for reasons of survival. There is You can use your own observations and no obvious evidence that within the herd experiences as evidence – for example, wildebeest form relationships, and less still documentaries you have seen of animals in that fish form relationships within the shoal. If the wild, and the way they behave. Think, too, all that is involved in herding is each about what is meant by ‘social’ in this individual’s instinct for self-preservation, there context. is nothing ‘social’ about that. 164 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Now that you have had a chance to discuss typically live with only three or four others, and think about the issues and terms involved, groom for 5 per cent of their day at most. we can turn to a text which deals with the Baboons, meanwhile, live in groups of 50 or subject on a more scientific level. more and can spend as much as 20 per cent of their time grooming. However, as group size A scientific study and time spent grooming increases, this A scientist who has undertaken extensive social effort is concentrated on fewer and research in this area is Robin Dunbar, Professor fewer partners. of Evolutionary Anthropology at the   Although we use grooming in intimate University of Oxford. His research focuses on relationships, the very intimacy of the activity the evolution of sociality in the primates: the makes it ineffective as a tool for bonding our order that includes apes, monkeys and large social groups. Instead, we have evolved humans. He is particularly interested in the alternative ways to create the same endorphin structure and dynamics of human social surge on a bigger scale. One of these is networks. The following extracts are from an laughter, another is communal music-making. article published in New Scientist. Although Language, too, plays an important role – not they all come from the same article, they are only can we speak to many people at the presented here as four separate documents to same time, we can also exchange information make them easier to refer to in the activity about the state of our networks in a way that which follows. other primates cannot. Gossip, I have argued, is a very human form of grooming. DOC A * ‘Grooming’ means tidying, removing dirt or We tend to think of social networks as being nits from fur, etc. distinctly human. In fact, they occur wherever animals live in ‘bonded’ groups – where DOC C individuals gather together because of their personal relationships rather than being forced Primates with a large social network have to by environmental factors such as a food bigger brains* source or safe sleeping site. Bonded groups are found among all primates and a few other 1000 mammals . . . Such networks have benefits, but they are also costly to maintain and are Mean group size Humans only an option for the smartest of species. 100 DOC B Monkeys Apes 10 M onkeys and apes create and nurture social relationships by grooming* each other. The 1 physical action of being groomed is rather like 1 2 3 45 massage and triggers the release of Neocortex ratio** chemicals called endorphins. This creates a light euphoria that seems to make it possible * In Doc C ‘bigger brains’ means more than just for animals that groom each other to build a brain volume. It is the proportion of the whole relationship based on friendship and trust. brain that is associated with higher functions The average time spent grooming by members like perception and communication. This is of a species correlates with the size of their called the ‘neocortex’. In humans the neocortex social group. Those, such as gibbons, which is the part of the brain which enables language, reasoning and conscious thought. ** Neocortex ratio = neocortex volume divided by volume of the rest of brain 4.6 Critical thinking and science 165

Time spent grooming (percentage)DOC D gathering and a mere herd or pack. According to Professor Dunbar, these bonded groups The larger a primate’s group size, the longer occur among many animals, including all the they spend grooming to cement bonds primates – apes, monkeys, humans, etc. – and some other mammals too. 20 You are not asked to assess the evidence, 15 nor to evaluate the argument. To do that you would need to have read more widely. But it is 10 clear that if the author is right in saying that primates form groups that are bonded by 5 relationships, rather than mere environmental factors, then there are grounds for the claim 0 that social groups are not distinctly human. 1 30 60 90 120 150 Group size Activity The four documents above – two textual and 2 Does the data in Doc C support the view two graphical – are typical of those used for that a species’ average group size tells critical thinking questions in many us something about how ‘smart’ (i.e. examinations. Once you are familiar with the intelligent) it is? content, have a go at answering the questions below, each of which is followed by a short Commentary commentary, discussing the question and We will begin by saying something about the suggesting a suitable answer (or answers). data itself. Doc C is a scatter graph. Scatter graphs are intended to show correlations. Here Activity the correlation being investigated is between brain size (the horizontal axis) and average 1 In the paragraph marked Doc A, what group size (the vertical axis) in primates. ‘Brain viewpoint is the author challenging, and size’, as explained in the notes, is a shorthand on what basic grounds does he make the for something rather more complicated, challenge? namely the amount of an animal’s brain that is associated with higher levels of intelligence. It Commentary is measured as a ratio, and obtained by This is a very straightforward question. In dividing the volume of the whole brain by the Doc A the author sets out his target for what volume of the neocortex. In humans the follows: the view that social networks are neocortex is over four times the volume of the distinctly human. He challenges this view by rest of the brain, making the human brain the claiming that social networks occur wherever ‘biggest’ in the defined sense. there are ‘bonded’ groups, defining bonding as gathering together for more than just You may have noticed the somewhat physical reasons such as food and security. unusual scale that has been used on the graph, This is the key difference between a social especially on the vertical axis. The lowest band shows group sizes between 1 and 10, the second between 10 and 100. Mathematicians among you will recognise this as a logarithmic scale. It is a useful device when the range of 166 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

values is large, as it is in this case. Group sizes primates, which are already understood to be start at about 3 and rise to around 150 (in at the smarter end of the scale of animal humans). With an ordinary scale the graph intelligence. You may want to qualify your would either have to be very tall, or the dots answer by saying that the graph tells us would be packed so tightly together that they something about smartness and bonded would be difficult to tell apart. groups. Each dot or circle on the graph represents Another point you might make is that the one species. The pattern of the dots suggests graph tells us only about the correlation that the primates with bigger brains tend to between group size and brain size (or neocortex form larger groups. Most of the monkeys with ratio to be precise.) Does this permit us to make a brain size rated at less than 2 live in group the further claim that animals which form sizes smaller than 10. Those with brain sizes bigger groups are ‘smarter’? To put it another between 2 and 3 form much larger groups: way, is there an assumption that brain size anywhere between 10 and 100. With apes, too, equals smartness? The problem is that we need there is a correlation between brain and group a definition of smartness that connects it with size, although their groups are slightly smaller brain size. Without that it would be jumping in relation to their brain size. Only humans to a conclusion to say that group size – even form groups of more than 100. bonded-group size – indicated intelligence. So, to get back to the main question, the Another point still that you could raise is graph does show a general correlation between that although there is a general match brain size (as it is defined) and group size, both between group size and brain size, there are in monkeys and in apes. Humans top the table some exceptions. As we observed earlier, the on both counts, and humans are very smart – three ape species apparently form smaller or so we tell ourselves. Therefore it could be groups than many monkeys with similar-sized argued that group size is an indicator of or even smaller brains. If apes are more smartness: the larger the group, the greater intelligent because their brains are larger, why the intelligence. The author even offers an would they live in smaller groups? This at explanation for this in Doc A. Social networks, least requires some explanation if we want to he says, are ‘costly’, and only the smartest make the connection between group size and species could manage them. (By ‘cost’ he smartness. probably means the time and effort that they take up, which could be spent eating or So a good answer to a question like this is hunting instead.) more than simply yes or no. You may be satisfied that the graph does tell us something But there is a proviso. Yes, the data on group about the smartness of a species, but you size and brain size does tell us something must be able to say why you reached this about the smartness or intelligence of a judgement. You should also be prepared to species, but only if the groups in question are qualify your answer by adding reservations, or ‘bonded’ or ‘social’ groups. We know from the acknowledging the assumptions that have to earlier discussion that big herds, shoals and so be made, or further questions that have to be on don’t count as social groups. If they did answered. Likewise, if you decided that the then there would be some animals (e.g. some graph does not tell us anything about fish) that have very small brains but gather smartness, you would need to give your together in groups of thousands. The graph on reasons, and to acknowledge what it does tell its own, therefore, is selective. It relates only to us as well as what it does not. 4.6 Critical thinking and science 167

Activity large groups, spend much less time grooming than baboons, which form groups of 50 or 3 In the first sentence of Doc B, the author more. Of course, two favourable examples do claims that monkeys and apes develop not prove the theory correct, or even give it social relations by grooming each other. much support. Doc D, on the other hand, How well does the rest of the document, provides many such examples. And, as in Doc and the information in the second graph B, the trend does support the hypothesis: time (Doc D), support this claim? spent grooming does show a tendency to increase with group size. There are a few Commentary ‘outliers’, as they are called: one species which Firstly the author explains how grooming may grooms more than most but has a group size of account for the building of relationships around 10; and the primate with the second- within a group. It is known that naturally largest group size grooms less than many produced chemicals called endorphins can which live in smaller groups. (These are cause a pleasurable (euphoric) feeling in ‘outliers’ because the points on the graphs lie humans. We know that among the ‘triggers’ furthest from the centre of the bunch.) You which release endorphins is massage, which is can single out for yourself other examples very similar to grooming. Laughter, music- which are not typical. The question you must making and so on have similar effects. If ask is whether these anomalies are enough to people share these pleasurable experiences it discredit the theory, or whether they can be tends to bind them together as friends or ignored, or explained (see Chapter 4.2, partners. It is a plausible hypothesis that pages 140–1). grooming has a similar effect among animals, and results in bonding between individuals You might also have picked up on the fact within the group. which Professor Dunbar makes at the end of the first paragraph of Doc B: ‘As group size and As we have seen several times in previous time spent grooming increases, this social chapters, being plausible is not enough to effort is concentrated on fewer and fewer make a hypothesis true. But it is enough to partners.’ This may seem puzzling. It may even make it worth investigating further. This seem to contradict the main idea that group brings us to one of the key features of scientific size goes with more grooming. For both reasoning: the need to test hypotheses by reasons, it calls out for an explanation, which looking for further evidence which either takes us on to our next and final question. corroborates or disproves it. The methodology is this: we suppose that the hypothesis is Activity correct and ask ourselves what else would be true or probable as a consequence. In this case 4 What explanation could be given for the the question would be: If the grooming theory fact that in large groups grooming is is right, what else would we expect to find? concentrated on fewer partners? One quite obvious expectation would be Commentary that animals with large social groups would do There may be a number of plausible more grooming than those which form very explanations which you could give, so do not small groups. In Doc B Professor Dunbar be concerned if your answer is different from provides some data which suggests that this is the one here. It is a suggested answer, not the indeed the case: gibbons, which don’t form 168 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

only correct one. The clue is in human interacting with the wider group, as humans behaviour, and is discussed in the second do. That would account for the concentration paragraph of Doc B. Humans form large of grooming on small numbers of partners. If groups, compared with most if not all other this is the right explanation, it would also primates – 150 on average (Doc C). Humans, support Dunbar’s claim that social groups are as we know, use physical grooming only in not a purely human phenomenon. very intimate relationships. With less intimate acquaintances, Dunbar argues, grooming Summary takes more varied and more acceptable forms such as laughing, singing and gossiping. The • Scientists make observations and use explanation we are looking for may therefore them both to construct and to test their be that other more advanced primates, with theories. larger group sizes, and with brain sizes approaching those of humans, also reserve • Critical thinking has much in common with grooming for their most intimate partners. scientific thinking. Perhaps they too have other ways of End-of-chapter assignments 2 Find out more about the research of Robin Dunbar. Identify one of his theories and 1 Is there enough evidence in the extract you one or two items of evidence he gives in have read to conclude that some animals support of it. form social groups similar to those of humans? Write a short reasoned case to support your answer.  Questions in this form occur regularly in Cambridge Thinking Skills Paper 2. 4.6 Critical thinking and science 169

4.7 Introducing longer arguments We return now to arguments, but to longer help you to engage critically with the article and more challenging texts than you have and the reasoning in it. As in the past, you been working on so far. should try answering the questions yourself before reading the commentaries. Start by reading the passage below. It is followed by a number of questions that will THRILL OF THE CHASE that his speed is unsafe, he will have pushed the pursued In crowded cities across the thieves escape, or the policy is driver well beyond his limit of competence. country there has been a ignored, and injuries or deaths The police may say that if growing number of crashes as result. Not only is it obvious they were not allowed to chase car thieves, this would a result of police officers that this policy is ineffective – encourage more people to commit more of these crimes. pursuing stolen cars. Tragically, otherwise the crashes would Would it be so terrible if this did happen? Surely saving many of these high-speed not have happened – but it is lives is more important than preventing thefts of cars, and chases end in death, not just also easy to understand why. the police would be more profitably employed trying to of the car thieves but also of The police officers will find catch serious criminals rather than bored, disadvantaged innocent bystanders or other the chase exciting, since it is young men who steal cars for excitement. In any case, there road users. The police should a break from routine, and are other ways of stopping stolen cars. For example, a be prohibited from carrying out gives them the chance to feel certain device has been developed which can be these car chases. If someone that they really are hunting thrown onto the road surface in front of the stolen car in dies as a result of police criminals. Once the adrenaline order to bring it safely to a halt. And sometimes the activity and the fatal weapon is is flowing, their judgement as chases are unsuccessful – the car thief succeeds in evading a gun, there is rightly a huge to whether their speed is safe the police, abandons the car, and escapes. outcry. But if it is a car, that will become unreliable. Car seems to be accepted as an chases can be huge fun for all unavoidable accident. the participants. The police say that they are Moreover, those police not putting the public at officers who are trusted to unnecessary risk, because undertake car chases are the their policy is to stop the most experienced drivers who chase when the speed have had special training in becomes too high for safety. driving safely at high speed. This merely emphasises the The car thieves, however, are stupidity of carrying out the almost all young men with very chases. Either the policy is little driving experience. By the adhered to, and the car time the police driver judges 170 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Activity Note that these reasons have simply been extracted from the passage and listed. A list 1 What is the main conclusion of the like this doesn’t show how the argument is passage? structured, or how the reasons are grouped together to form sub-arguments within the Commentary whole argument. The conclusion is in the first paragraph, and you should have had no problem identifying Nor does the list show all the claims that are it: ‘The police should be prohibited from made in the passage. For example, it doesn’t carrying out these car chases.’ The two include the claim that car chases can be fun sentences before the conclusion are (paragraph 3). This is because it is not one of the introductory and explanatory. main reasons. Yes, it contributes to the argument by helping to explain why police drivers may Activity drive too fast for safety, namely because they enjoy it. But by itself it does not provide any 2 Identify three or four of the main reasons grounds for believing that car chases should be which the passage offers to support the banned. We would therefore classify the claim conclusion that car chases should be about car chases being fun as an indirect reason, banned. leading to an intermediate conclusion, rather than directly to the main conclusion. Commentary You could have chosen any or all of the Similarly, the last half-sentence, after the following as the main reasons offered in dash, explains in what sense car chases are support of the conclusion: sometimes unsuccessful. It is the claim that they are sometimes unsuccessful (as well as • Car chases have led to the deaths of car dangerous and time-wasting) which is a main thieves and innocent bystanders. premise here and therefore makes it into the list. • The police drivers’ judgement as to Finally, of course, there are some claims whether their speed is safe will become that are not reasons at all, or conclusions, but unreliable. have other functions in the passage. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is a good example. It • By the time the police driver judges that offers no support at all for the conclusion, his speed is unsafe, he will have pushed either directly or indirectly. Its role is to set up the pursued driver well beyond his limit an objection that an opponent – in this case of competence. the police – might wish to make. The objection is that they, the police, have a policy of • Saving lives is more important than stopping the chase if it becomes too fast for preventing thefts of cars. safety, and that therefore they are not putting the public at unnecessary risk. The author • The police would be more profitably claims that the policy is both ineffective and employed trying to catch serious stupid, and devotes the middle three criminals. paragraphs of the passage to supporting these claims. The next pair of questions focuses on • There are other (safe) ways of stopping this section of the argument. stolen cars. • Sometimes the car chases are unsuccessful. 4.7 Introducing longer arguments 171

Activity Activity 3 What grounds does the author have for 4 Are there any assumptions that are not saying that the police policy ‘emphasises stated in the passage but that the author the stupidity’ of car chases? appears to be making in connection with the claims made in paragraph 2? What two explanations does the passage offer as to why the policy is ‘ineffective’? Commentary Yes, there are. The most significant assumption Commentary is that it is not possible for the police officer to The author uses quite an ingenious piece of catch the thieves without driving too fast for reasoning to criticise the policy. She considers safety. The author claims that if the policy is the possible outcomes. Firstly, she considers adhered to, the thieves will get away; and if it what will happen if the policy is observed isn’t, accidents will result. In so doing she (‘adhered to’) by the police. Then she overlooks a third possibility: that some police considers what will happen if it is ignored. If it drivers may be sufficiently skilled to remain is observed, says the author, the thieves will within safety limits and to keep up with some get away, presumably because the police will of the thieves. She paints it as a so-called have to give up before the thieves do. If it is ‘no-win situation’, but is it? Without some ignored, then accidents will continue to statistical evidence it is hard to know what happen, just as they have happened in the grounds the author has for predicting that the past. And since they have happened in the policy will inevitably fail one way or the other. past, it is obvious that the policy does not work as it is claimed to. There is another assumption, too, although it is a lot less obvious. It is that if the stolen car The question also asked you to identify the were not being pursued, its driver would not explanations that are offered for the policy’s drive unsafely anyway. The author wants to failure to work. There are two of these. The persuade the reader that there is no overall first is that police officers find the chase benefit to the public from chasing car thieves, exciting, and that this affects their judgement only increased danger. That implies that the about safety. The second is that whereas the danger to the public comes only, or mainly, police driver is likely to be competent to drive when car thieves are pursued. If they were left safely at high speed, the pursued driver has to drive around the streets unpursued, can we little driving experience, so that the officer be sure there would not be just as many will overestimate what is a safe speed for the accidents – or even more, if would-be thieves car thief. The author concludes that not only get the idea they won’t be chased and arrested? is the policy ineffective, but that it is ‘easy to Again, the author is making a prediction on understand why’. the basis of no hard evidence. Her prediction may be right – the policy of pursuing cars may How successful is this reasoning? (This was prove ineffective – but it doesn’t follow from not part of the question you were asked, but the reasons she gives unless she makes these it is part of the next one.) Like all arguments, two major, and questionable, assumptions. its success depends not just on what is stated but also on what is assumed, and whether the assumptions that the argument rests on are warranted assumptions. 172 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

‘Restricting the options’ restricted the options. Like her, you may feel that there really are only two possible outcomes What we have exposed in the above discussion of the policy because there is no way of partly is a very common reasoning error: one to add observing the rules: either you do or you don’t. to your catalogue. It is sometimes called And if you do, you have to let thieves escape, ‘restricting the options’, because it consists in which makes it pointless, and if you don’t, you claiming or implying that there are fewer put the public at risk. By saying that an possibilities to consider than there really are. argument rests on an assumption that there are This is easier to understand by seeing an only two options, you are not necessarily saying example of an argument from a different that it is unsound. If you consider the source that commits this error: assumption to be a fair one, then you can still accept the argument and the conclusion. [1] When you go into business either you can adopt ethical practices or you can So in the end there is still room for make a profit. Herbco has declared itself agreement or disagreement, and scope for to be an ethical company, so if you want further argument. It is a piece of further to see good returns, you really need to argument that we turn to in the next question. invest your money somewhere else. Note: when only two options are involved, On the face of it this looks like sound advice, the above fallacy is sometimes called ‘false given the two premises. If it really is true that dilemma’ or ‘false dichotomy’. (A dichotomy you must choose between ethics and profit – is a division into two.) and it often is – then surely it is not a good plan to invest money in an ethical company if Activity your aim is just to get a good return. Here is a point someone might raise on But, like the author of ‘Thrill of the chase’, reading ‘Thrill of the chase’: the speaker here is restricting the options to just two, and assuming that there are no  ‘Some of those who steal cars are others. Yes, you can choose between ethics and attempting to escape after committing making a profit, as the first premise says. But other serious crimes.’ you don’t have to choose between them unless they are the only choices. By drawing the Does this statement, if true, strengthen or conclusion that it does, argument [1] clearly weaken the argument (or neither)? Give your makes the assumption that it is a straight reasons. choice between ethics and profit with no other options. But it is not a straight choice: Herbco Commentary could operate ethically and make a profit – for If someone said this in response to the example, if it became very fashionable to buy argument it would be natural to think it was goods produced by ethical companies. meant as an objection. It would be hard to interpret it as supporting the argument, or The same sort of restriction is imposed in even as a neutral remark. Almost certainly it is considering the police driver’s options. The picking up on the author’s claim that: ‘saving driver can either obey the rules and let the lives is more important than preventing thefts thief escape, or drive dangerously and capture of cars, and the police would be more him. The possibility of obeying the rules and profitably employed trying to catch serious catching the thief is not openly or fairly criminals rather than bored, disadvantaged considered. young men who steal cars for excitement’. Of course, you may happen to agree with the author, even after recognising that she has 4.7 Introducing longer arguments 173

In fact, the comment suggests that there is badly or misleadingly, in which case it creates a fault in the argument very similar to the a flaw in the reasoning, not a strength. one we were discussing in the last question. The author is assuming that there is a choice An analogy is a comparison. For example, between using police time to catch ‘serious’ suppose you are arguing about what it is to be criminals (whatever that means) and chasing a good leader, and how a good leader should ‘bored young men’. And there is a further behave towards the people he or she has been assumption that the latter are not serious chosen to lead. One approach is to compare criminals. Again, we have to ask whether this the nation-state to a family, so that being a is a straight choice. The objection implies ruler is analogous to being the head of a that it is not, suggesting that there may be family. If we accept this broad analogy we can some circumstances in which the car thief is a draw certain conclusions from it. An obvious serious criminal: for example, an armed conclusion is that a ruler does not merely robber using a stolen car as a getaway vehicle. have authority over the citizens but also a duty of care towards them, just as a parent As this possibility could be used to support has a duty of care towards his or her children. a conclusion that car chases should not be If you want to say that an authoritarian but banned altogether, it does to some extent uncaring parent is a bad parent (as most undermine the argument. However, it is not a people would) you are also committed to particularly difficult challenge to counter. saying that – by analogy – a purely There are several ways this could be authoritarian ruler is a bad ruler. This kind of approached. One is to say that the argument reasoning is what is meant by argument from is mainly directed at the large number of analogy. It stands or falls on whether the cases in which the car theft itself is the only analogy is a fair one or an unfair one; and crime. Car theft in connection with more that is what you as the critic have to decide. serious crimes such as murder or armed robbery is rare and a special case, and could But what is a ‘fair’ analogy? Obviously the be given special treatment without altering two things being compared are not exactly the author’s general conclusion. Another, the same, or you wouldn’t need to draw the more robust, reply would be that it doesn’t comparison. What an analogy does is to say matter how serious a crime is, catching the that two things are alike in certain relevant criminal is never a good enough reason for respects. In the analogy above, the role of a endangering the lives of innocent bystanders. ruler is being likened to that of the head of a And finally the author can fall back on her family. There is a difference in that the last-but-one premise: that you don’t have to citizens are not the ruler’s own offspring or chase stolen cars, because there are other, close relatives, and of course there is a safer ways of stopping them. difference in the size of the ‘family’. But by using the analogy for the argument you are Taken together, these responses to the not suggesting that the two roles are exactly statement take most of the sting out of it. The the same: only that they are sufficiently best assessment is therefore that if it weakens alike – in the relevant respect – for the same the argument at all, it does so only slightly. kind of duties and responsibilities to apply. Using analogy Most people would probably agree that the nation–family analogy was a fair one if it were The last feature of this argument we are going used to support the conclusion that rulers to examine is found in the first paragraph. It should not treat their citizens more brutally or is called arguing from analogy. Used well, it is a unjustly than they would their own children; very powerful tool. However, it is often used or simply that rulers have a ‘duty of care’ 174 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

similar in certain respects to that of a parent. when a gun is fired by a police officer it is with If, on the other hand, the argument was that a the intent to kill or wound someone, whereas good ruler has to treat every citizen like his or generally the driver of a pursuit vehicle kills by her own child, that would be taking the accident. Of course, this doesn’t make an analogy too far. In other words the fairness of accidental death arising from a police car an analogy depends upon the use it is put to chase any less painful for the bereaved in a particular argument. relatives. But it does explain the attitude to which the author is objecting: the attitude Activity that ‘if (the weapon) is a car, that seems to be accepted as an unavoidable accident’. An analogy is used in the first paragraph of ‘Thrill of the chase’. Identify the two things Does the analogy successfully support the that are being compared; and assess how argument? Not entirely. Although the successful the analogy is in the context of similarities seem quite striking, they are the argument. undermined by significant differences. A gun is primarily a weapon; a car is primarily a Commentary transport vehicle, and becomes a weapon only The comparison is between deaths resulting if it is misused. Also, if you place too much from the police action of chasing stolen cars weight on this analogy, where do you draw and deaths resulting from police action the line? Do you want to say that any police involving a gun. In order to give support to the action that results in tragic accidents should argument, the analogy has to compare things be banned, whatever the instrument – batons, that really are similar in ways that are relevant. riot shields, water hoses, tear gas . . .? If we It also has to be true that there should be an completely disarm the police of all ‘potentially outcry if police action resulted in deaths from lethal weapons’, how can we ask them to firing a gun. The author clearly assumes that protect the public from criminals who could there should by using the word ‘rightly’ when harm them? It is a genuine dilemma, and it drawing the analogy. cannot be solved by judging all actions by their sometimes-tragic consequences. The similarities are fairly obvious. Guns and car chases both kill. And if things go Summary wrong, both of them kill innocent bystanders as well as criminals and suspects. It is often • ‘Thrill of the chase’ is not a bad argument. said that a car is potentially a lethal weapon It tackles a difficult and controversial and this is very much what the analogy is subject and draws a conclusion that many saying here. Is it a fair comparison? As far as people will have sympathy with. But it does the consequences go, yes, it seems very fair. not have all the answers. In this unit we Why should we disapprove of a shooting have looked at the strengths and some of accident, but shrug our shoulders at a driving the weak points in the reasoning, so that accident, just because the ‘weapons’ used are an informed and considered judgement different? can be made as to whether its conclusions are acceptable. Or you may decide that But there are dissimilarities, too, and they there is more to be investigated and more cannot all be brushed aside. A gun is designed argument to be had. to be a weapon, whereas a car is not. Also, 4.7 Introducing longer arguments 175

End-of-chapter assignments 2 Find an example of an argument based on analogy – or write one yourself. Critically 1 In paragraph 3 of ‘Thrill of the chase’ it is examine it, like we examined the example observed that car chases can be fun for in the ‘Thrill of the chase’ passage, and all the participants. In paragraph 5 it is decide whether or not it does its job implied that car thieves are predominantly successfully. bored young men looking for excitement. How could these claims be developed Answers and comments are on page 325. to counter the argument of some police officers that banning police pursuit would lead to an increase in car theft? 176 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

4.8 Applying analysis skills In the previous chapter you looked at a longer one as the last word, it would be the second, the piece of text and answered some searching recommendation to confiscate income, since critical questions. Some of them were about this follows from the more general claim that analysis, some about evaluation and some the law should be extended. about objections and further argument. In this chapter, and in the next two, we will You might have been tempted by the last examine two new articles, applying each of sentence of paragraph 3, which claims that these skills in turn. We start, in this chapter, there is no real difference between direct and with analysis. indirect profit from crime. This certainly is a conclusion, as the word ‘therefore’ would The text on the next page is an argument suggest, and it follows from the reasoning in about criminals who become celebrities. Read the third paragraph. But establishing this it through twice, once for general meaning, conclusion is only one step in the argument, then again for more detail. Then answer the and it is not the final step. It is therefore an following questions. intermediate conclusion, not the main one. Activity Best answer: ‘If the principle of not benefiting from crime means anything, all 1 What is the main conclusion of the income, direct or otherwise, should be passage? confiscated from anyone whose criminal past has helped them to get rich’; or the same Commentary statement in your own words. Although arguments like this are longer and more involved than the ones you have been Activity used to, the strategy for analysing or interpreting them is much the same as it was 2 Two objections, or counter-arguments, are for the short, illustrative examples in Unit 2. considered in the passage. What are they? When seeking the main conclusion, first look Why does the author raise them? How for a likely candidate – perhaps some does he deal with them? recommendation or prediction or verdict – and ask yourself if other parts of the argument Commentary are reasons for making such a claim, or not. If The counter-arguments are contained in the not, look for another candidate. third and fourth paragraphs. They are recognisable from the use of the words It should be fairly obvious what this passage, ‘protest’ and ‘object(ed)’, but also from the ‘Time to get tough’, is leading up to. It claims obvious fact that they challenge the author’s that the legal principle of no profit from crime conclusions. should be extended to cover celebrity criminals. And it claims that, on principle, income from Why should an author include in a text a criminal celebrity should be confiscated. These challenge to his own conclusions? Doesn’t two claims between them summarise the that weaken the argument? No, it strengthens author’s main contention. If you had to pick it, because it shows that the author has an answer to the challenge. Imagine you were in a 4.8 Applying analysis skills 177

TIME TO GET TOUGH also have rights. One of those must surely be the right not to It is an established legal previous crimes, but that it is see the very person who has principle, in almost all parts of a legitimate reward for their robbed or assaulted them, or the world, that convicted redirected talent, and for the murdered someone in their criminals should not profit audiences they attract. But family, strutting about enjoying from their crimes, even after this is an unacceptable celebrity status and a mega- serving their sentences. argument. Firstly, the buck income. Moreover, Obviously offenders such as producers and others take a victims of crime do not get the fraudsters and armed robbers big cut of the profit, so chance to become chat-show cannot be allowed to retire obviously they would say hosts, or star in crime movies, comfortably on the money they something of that sort. because being a victim of made fraudulently or by Secondly, a notorious gangster crime is not seen as robbing banks. needs no talent to attract an glamorous. audience: their reputation is But the law does not go far enough. Therefore, whether If the principle of not enough. It should also apply to the income is direct or benefiting from crime means the growing number of indirect, it is still profit from anything, all income, direct or notorious criminals who crime. otherwise, should be achieve celebrity status after confiscated from anyone their release from jail. Ex- It is often objected that once whose criminal past has convicts who become a person has served a helped them to get rich. After television presenters, film sentence, they should be all, no one is forced to become stars or bestselling authors entitled to start again with a a big-time crook. It is a choice often make big money from clean sheet; that barring them the individual makes. Once their glitzy new careers. But from celebrity careers is unjust they have made that choice the they would never have had and infringes their rights. This door to respectable wealth such careers if it weren’t for is typical of the views should be permanently closed. their crooked past. expressed by woolly-minded It’s the price they pay. If liberals, who are endlessly would-be criminals know they The producers, agents and ready to defend the rights of can never profit in any way from publishers who sign the deals thugs and murderers without a their wickedness, they might with celebrity criminals protest thought for their victims. They think twice before turning to that the money does not come forget that the victims of crime crime in the first place. directly from a convict’s debate and it is your turn to speak. Even before talent and comes only indirectly from crime, the opposition have their chance to raise an not directly like the money from fraud or objection, you have anticipated it and bank raids. The reply, not surprisingly, is responded to it. It is sometimes called a that this is unacceptable. Two reasons are pre-emptive move: dealing with a point before given: firstly, that the producers ‘would say it has been made. something like that, because they take a cut of the profits; secondly, that gangsters need Take the first ‘protest’ that producers and no talent: their criminal reputations are others allegedly make. The objection is that enough to draw an audience. From this the money ex-convicts make from acting, the author concludes that whether the writing, presenting and so on is due to their 178 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

income is direct or indirect, it is still profit that crime shouldn’t pay, and provides two from crime. examples of unacceptable income that nobody could really argue with – profit from fraud and You may already have noticed that from bank robbery. So, should any of this have paragraph 3 is itself a complete argument: a been included in the list of reasons; or are sub-argument within the overall argument. these just introductory sentences? You may Here it is in standard form: have interpreted this part of the argument as a premise (reason), on the grounds that, without Target: the counter-argument the principle, the argument wouldn’t really But . . . make a lot of sense; and that, in a general sort R1 Producers would say something like that of way, it does support the conclusion that profit from crime should be confiscated. because they take some of the profit. R2 Notorious gangsters need no talent; But on closer inspection this is not the best and clearest interpretation of what the author is their reputation is enough. aiming to achieve. For his argument is not really about crimes such as fraud and bank robbery. In IC  Indirect income is still profit from crime. fact, it is more or less taken for granted that the profits from these crimes should be forfeited if C  This (counter-argument) is unacceptable. the criminal is convicted. No supporting reasons are given and none are needed. The real The next objection that the author anticipates argument begins with the word ‘But . . .’ at the is that ex-convicts have the right to start again. start of paragraph 2. Reading it that way, the It is dismissed as a ‘woolly-minded’ argument, first paragraph can be seen more as an and as one that ignores victims’ rights and introduction than as part of the reasoning. feelings. It also points out an unfairness in that criminals gain from their crimes whereas The shape of the whole argument is: victims have no such opportunities. These responses lead directly to the main conclusion that all income from crime should be confiscated. Activity 3 As well as the responses to objections, what other reasons are given in support of the conclusion? Commentary The final paragraph adds a further set of reasons that directly support the conclusion. They are: (1) that criminals make a choice; (2) that if they make that choice, the door to respectable wealth should be closed; and (3) that if would-be criminals know they will never be able to cash in on their crime, they may think twice before choosing to be criminals. What about the first paragraph: where does it fit in, and what is its function? It states that there is an established legal principle, namely 4.8 Applying analysis skills 179

Mapping the structure Activity The previous diagram gives only the roughest Try building up a more detailed map of the outline of the argument. It is like a route map argument ‘Time to get tough’, showing how, with just the main towns shown. It does not in your view, the different parts of the give any of the reasoning that leads from one reasoning lead to the conclusion. to the next. Commentary ‘Mapping’ is a good word to use, because it Notice that the task is to represent your view of suggests another very useful way of the way the argument is structured. This does representing the steps in an argument. If you not mean that any analysis of the passage is as enquire how to get from one place to another, good as any other, but it does mean that there people will often give you a string of directions: is some room for interpretation by the reader. for example, ‘Go up to the traffic lights and A suggested map of the argument follows. turn right. Stay on that road through a couple Don’t worry if you have taken a slightly of bends, past the big hotel on the left. Take different route to the conclusion, or the third exit from the roundabout and the summarised the claims a bit differently. So immediate fork to the left . . .’ It can all be very long as you have correctly understood the confusing; and it is very easy to miss a turning direction of the argument and its final or take the wrong one, after which you quickly conclusion, then the exercise has served its lose any sense of where you are. purpose. A simple map like the one below is much more helpful: it gives you an overall picture of how the journey looks, how the roads connect, how they relate to each other and the surroundings, and so on. 180 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

Introduction Principle of no profit But … Many criminals are becoming celebrities just because of their crooked past. Law doesn’t go far enough / should be extended. No one forced into crime. The producers’ argument is CONCLUSION Once criminal has made choice, wrong: all income is profit All income … should door should be closed. from crime. (reply to counter-argument 1) be confiscated Victims also have rights / Would-be criminals might think twice. don’t become celebrities. (reply to counter-argument 2) Summary • A very common line of reasoning is to set up a counter-argument and then knock it • Longer arguments can be analysed in down. broadly the same way as shorter ones. • Longer arguments may have sub-arguments as part of their reasoning. 4.8 Applying analysis skills 181

End-of-chapter assignment Using some of the methods discussed in this chapter, as well as those you studied in Chapters 2.4 and 2.5, map out the structure of the following argument. SAY NO TO CHEATS performance. So can the latest hi-tech equipment and clothing, computerised The governing bodies who glory of competing for their training programmes, control international sport country. Those who regulate physio- and psychotherapies, are right to prohibit the use the sports have a duty of and so on. Is that not of performance-enhancing care over these men and cheating? drugs and to operate their women. To stand by whilst No. There is all the policy of zero tolerance they harm themselves would difference in the world against athletes who break be grossly irresponsible. between eating certain foods the rules. There is more than But there is another reason and taking drugs because enough medical evidence to why the use of drugs in sport drugs, unlike foods, are establish that many of the cannot be tolerated. The banned substances. Any substances that sports stars purpose of sport is to athlete who wants to can are tempted to use to discover who is the best. The take advantage of a special increase their strength and only way to achieve that is to diet or the latest equipment stamina are extremely start with a level playing field and training techniques. But harmful to their health. and for every competitor to only those who are willing to Permitting their use, or have an equal chance of break the rules can benefit turning a blind eye to it, can winning. You can’t say who is from taking drugs. Anyway, if have tragic long-term best if some competitors are you start saying that drug- consequences, as many cheating by stealing an taking is fine because it is former athletes have advantage. Therefore, if no different from energy- discovered to their cost. drugs can be driven out of giving food you would end up Young people are natural sport, we will once again having to allow athletes to risk-takers and are often know who the real run races with jet engines reckless about their own champions are. strapped to their backs. futures. That, coupled with It is sometimes argued that One more thing: if the top the huge rewards that can be drugs give no more of an athletes get away with taking won by reaching the top in advantage than other drugs, the young people for their chosen sport, will often perfectly legitimate practices, whom they are role models drive them to disregard such as following special are far more likely to do the medical advice and think diets and taking dietary same. For their sake too, the only of the gold medal, or the supplements, which can also pressure on the cheats must big sponsorship deal, or the boost an athlete’s never be relaxed. 182 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

4.9 Critical evaluation In the last chapter you worked on mapping Commentary out the structure of two arguments: one with The reasons given are that these celebrities an accompanying commentary, and one on often make big money and that they would your own in the end-of-chapter assignment. not do so if they had not been criminals in In this chapter you will be looking at the same the past. Provided you accept that both two arguments from the point of view of their statements are true, then they do give strengths and weaknesses, success or failure. support to the suggestion that the law needs This is critical evaluation. extending, which paves the way for the main conclusion (in paragraph 5) that such income A: Time to get tough should be confiscated. For if it is a fact that some people do profit from having been Read through the whole argument on law-breakers – and for no other reason than page 178 again to remind yourself of its being law-breakers – then the principle conclusion and supporting reasons. If referred to in the introduction is (arguably) necessary, also look again at the analysis of its being broken. structure on page 181. Once you have it clear in your mind you can move on to the next The big question is whether the reasons are range of questions: Is it a good argument? both acceptable, especially the second. The Does it work? Does the reasoning succeed in first claim is fairly obviously acceptable supporting the conclusion? because it is a known fact that ex-convicts who become presenters, film stars and so on It is now that the work you did on analysing make big money. It could easily be checked and mapping the argument really starts to pay and figures produced to support it if anyone off. It has split the argument up into a number doubted its truth. But what grounds has the of manageable bits that you can consider one by author got for the second reason, that these one. It has also put the different parts of the celebrities ‘would never have had such careers passage in their place, so that you know exactly if it weren’t for their crooked past’? Certainly what their functions are. So, for example, we can none that are stated. It is an unsupported claim, pass over the first paragraph because it is mostly which the author is expecting the reader to introductory, and move straight to where the take on trust. argument really begins, in paragraph 2. Assumption Paragraph 2 draws the intermediate If you cast your mind back to Chapter 2.9 you conclusion that the law that convicted will recall that many, if not all, natural-language criminals should not profit from their crimes arguments rest on implicit assumptions as well as doesn’t go far enough and should apply to on stated reasons. The conclusion that the ex-criminal celebrities (as well as former author draws in paragraph 2 rests on certain fraudsters, bank robbers etc.). such assumptions: for example, that ex-criminal celebrities do not have talents that could have Activity made them famous or successful if they had not been criminals. Unless you assume this you What reasons are given in paragraph 2 for cannot accept the conclusion. But since the this conclusion? Are they convincing? 4.9 Critical evaluation 183

reader has no more reason to accept than to Commentary reject the assumption, it is a potential weakness The response does not sweep away the in the argument. objections; and it doesn’t give any good reason to warrant the author’s assumptions. We’ll Flaw take the second part of the response first. This It could even be said that the need to make this is simply that an ex-convict does not need any assumption is a flaw, or reasoning error, if you talent. But, even if it is true, the fact that consider it to be an unwarranted assumption. someone needs no talent to become a celebrity Recall, from Chapter 2.10, that a common flaw does not mean that he or she has no talent – in reasoning is the assumption that because two say, as comedian, or actor, or poet. This things are both true, one is therefore the cause remains a mere assumption, and one that is of the other. Does the author make that mistake easily contested, for there clearly have been here? Is he saying that because a celebrity was ex-criminals who have won acclaim for other once a criminal, that must be the cause of their achievements besides crime. rise to fame and consequent wealth? The first part of the reply is no better. In fact If you think that is what he is saying, then it it is no more than an insinuation. The author would be right to identify this as a flaw in the wants us to believe that the producers and argument. If an argument depends on an others are all motivated by profit, and would unwarranted assumption, then it is fair to say therefore say whatever was needed to protect it is flawed, or that it is unsound, or that there their ‘cut’. It doesn’t answer the actual claim is a ‘hole in the argument’. that ex-convicts may have talents as well as notoriety. There is also a fresh assumption But the author is no fool, and is obviously here, namely that the only people who claim aware of the potential weakness in paragraph that ex-convicts have talents are producers or 2. That is probably why, in the next paragraph, others who have a vested interest. In reality he ‘anticipates’ a counter-argument that there may be many people, with no vested challenges his assumption(s). The purpose interest, who would also agree with the behind this is not to admit to a weakness, but counter-argument. to block the challenge that threatens to expose it. The challenge is that celebrity Attacking the person wealth does not come directly from crime, but This line of argument is a very common kind from ‘redirected talent’. The author’s response of fallacy, which needs to be guarded against. is firstly that the producers and others who It has its own Latin name, argumentum ad make this challenge take a cut of the profits hominem, meaning an argument directed ‘at and therefore ‘would say something like that’; the person’ (literally the man), rather than at and secondly that gangsters need no talent: the reasoning. What makes it a fallacy is that their criminal reputations are enough. And he the argument could be perfectly sound and concludes that the income from becoming a effective, even if the person who is making it is celebrity is therefore still profit from crime, supposedly unreliable or wicked or deceitful or whether it is direct or indirect. It is a strong stupid, or has a vested interest, or anything and uncompromising response. else that the opponent wants to say to attack their reputation. If the people who have Activity succeeded in becoming celebrities do also have talent, then the counter-argument is a strong How successful do you think the author’s one, whether or not some of the people who reply is in paragraph 3? Does it meet the say so have selfish reasons for wanting it to be objection or not – and why? true. You cannot make the argument go away 184 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

just by discrediting those who may use it. Yet it his bestselling autobiography serialised in the is surprising how often this strategy is used. newspapers or made into a successful film. The victim might be forgiven for thinking, ‘Some What you can legitimately say is that if the of that fame has been got at my expense. The only support for some point of view comes criminal gets the money and I get nothing. from an obviously unreliable source and from What is more, I am not a celebrity because no no other, then we ought to treat it with some one is really interested in my injuries or losses, suspicion. But that is a very different matter only in his wickedness.’ from saying, as the author does in this case, that because certain people ‘would say that, But, persuasive as it may be, is this wouldn’t they!’, the substance of what they say reasoning sound? Are there any assumptions must be false. hidden behind the strong language? Arguably, yes. For a start you would have to assume that Activity there really is a ‘right’ of the kind the author claims for the victim. People have rights not to Another counter-argument and response be harmed by others, but those rights are dealt follow in the fourth paragraph. Critically with by the courts when they hand out their evaluate the reasoning in this paragraph, sentences. Once such sentences have been identifying any assumptions and/or flaws served, is there really a continuing right for that it contains. the victim never to see the criminal doing well? Arguably, no – as we shall see when we Commentary look at further argument in the next unit. You probably picked up straight away that there was another ad hominem argument here. What the author is asking us to accept in The claim that a concern for the rights of this paragraph is that allowing criminals to ex-convicts is ‘typical of . . . woolly-minded exercise their rights to a fresh start is unfair to liberals’ is obviously directed at the person their former victims. But this requires another rather than their argument. However, the major assumption. It is the assumption that if author does go on to say why such concerns are victims and criminals both have rights, the misplaced, and here the argument is much victim’s rights should come first. Without this stronger. Thus if you ignore the ad hominem part assumption there are no grounds for the of the paragraph you are still left with two or conclusion; for if, as the counter-argument three reasons that do respond to the objection, claims, an ex-convict has the same rights as and (if true) also support the author’s own anyone else, then it is hard to see how the argument. These are the claims that: author can claim that the victim should have some special right over the criminal. This is a • victims also have rights, one of which is potential weakness in the argument, and it is the right not to see those who hurt them one we will return to in Chapter 4.10. enjoying wealth and celebrity Conclusion • victims don’t get the same chances (of So we come to the last paragraph, which celebrity) as ex-convicts. consists of the conclusion and a further sub-argument. It has two strands. One is that These are powerfully persuasive points. You can people freely choose to become criminals; and easily imagine how frustrating and insulting it that if they make that choice they should be would be for someone who had been attacked barred from future (‘respectable’) wealth. The or robbed to later watch the person who had other is that if people thinking of becoming done this hosting a television show, or seeing criminals know they will be effectively 4.9 Critical evaluation 185

outlawed in this way they may have second seen, the argument is not necessarily as sound thoughts about turning to crime at all. or as conclusive as it may at first seem: there are a number of hidden assumptions and even Activity flaws in the reasoning, when you come to consider it critically. As you did with the earlier steps in the argument, critically evaluate the reasoning in Part of the persuasiveness of this argument the last paragraph. comes from the language the author uses to press his case. Look at two of the phrases used Commentary in paragraph 2: ‘glitzy new careers’ and This is possibly the strongest part of the ‘crooked past’. Both help to build up a picture argument. It places the responsibility for of something both cheap and nasty. In the becoming a criminal firmly on the individual, next paragraph we are told that a ‘notorious and suggests, reasonably enough, that if that gangster needs no talent’, reinforcing the individual then faces having his wealth negative impression that is being created of restricted, he has no one to blame but himself. the convict-turned-celebrity. Opponents of the argument cannot say that the criminal has not been warned. The We call this expressive ingredient of the argument is strengthened further by the claim text rhetoric, to distinguish it from the plain that this may also deter people from crime, reasoning, the underlying argument. Authors which is probably the best argument there is use rhetorical devices of various kinds to for punishment of any sort. embellish their arguments, to make them more forceful. There is nothing wrong with But here, too, there are certain questionable this: it is not a misuse, or some kind of assumptions. One is that young people cheating, to express an argument in a forceful tempted by crime would even think about way, provided there is an argument to becoming legally rich and famous, far into the embellish. When rhetoric is misused is when future. And if they did, would they care that there is nothing else but strong words, and they would be prevented from doing so? there are no substantial grounds underlying Probably not. Another is the assumption that it. Don’t make the mistake of picking out a people do all freely choose their lives; that colourful phrase and labelling it as a flaw just none is ever drawn into bad ways by their because it is highly rhetorical. Do, however, be upbringing, or the influence of others, or on guard against authors who employ empty through knowing no better. Without the rhetoric: colourful language to camouflage assumption that there is truly free choice, it weak or non-existent argument. (Journalists, would be harsh to say no one should ever be politicians, and some lawyers are among the given a second chance. worst offenders!) Power of persuasion: rhetoric Of course, the impression that the author’s If you read the ‘Time to get tough’ text language creates might be the right casually, and uncritically, it is easy to be impression, or at least one that you can impressed by the argument. Your first reaction sympathise with. Many of the celebrities that might be: yes, many criminals do profit from the author has in mind may well be the fact that they have done wrong and thoroughly unpleasant, untalented people; become well known because of it. And this and the celebrity they gain may be shallow, does not seem right or fair. But, as we have ‘glitzy’, and the rewards undeserved. But that should not blind you to the fact that well- chosen language can heavily influence the 186 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

way you respond to an argument; that there argument, you must decide. You will have the is always a danger that the reasoning can take chance to do so in the end-of-chapter second place to emotions or sympathies. And assignments. if that happens you are not responding in a fully critical way. Be careful, however, that in making this decision you are not just saying whether you We also saw, in paragraph 4, how potential agree or disagree with the author’s opinion or opponents of the argument are dismissed as his conclusions. You could quite reasonably ‘woolly-minded’. According to the author they think that the conclusion is right but that the are ‘endlessly ready to defend the rights of argument is poor. Alternatively, you might thugs and murderers without a thought for think it is a strong and compelling argument, their victims’. And we are presented with the but, for reasons of your own, disagree with its image of these same thugs and murderers conclusion. This is the most difficult position ‘strutting about enjoying . . . a mega-buck for a critical thinker to be in. If you really find income’. The language leaves us in no doubt the argument compelling, and you do not which side the author is on. But more than dispute its premises, then rationally you that, the author wants to manoeuvre us into a should accept its conclusion, even if this kind of trap, where the choice seems to be means changing a previously held view. If you between defending the bad guys or supporting still reject the conclusion, you need to be able their innocent victims. to say where the argument fails – and that can be quite hard to do if it is a persuasive A critical approach reveals that this argument. argument is strongly biased when it comes to describing the different groups of people B: Say no to cheats involved. There is no concession that there may be some ex-convicts who have We turn now to the argument you analysed for genuinely turned their backs on crime, who the assignment at the end of Chapter 4.8: ‘Say have real talent as actors or writers, and who no to cheats’. It contains a very common line do what they can to put right the harm they of argument that occupies the first two have caused. Does the author include such paragraphs. It takes the following form: people in the same category as those whom ‘Such-and-such is harmful, or could be he describes as ‘strutting about’ in their harmful. Therefore it should be prohibited.’ ‘glitzy new careers’? The fact is we don’t This line of reasoning is often referred to as the know, because he has conveniently – and no argument from harm, and is an important doubt deliberately – left them out of the ethical argument. picture. Activity Decision time So, do we rate this as a good argument or a Reread paragraphs 1 and 2 of the passage poor one, overall? That final verdict is left to on page 182, and remind yourself of the you. You will probably agree that it is quite a reasons given there to support the main persuasive argument, but that it has conclusion. In arguing for the main weaknesses as well as strengths; and that it conclusion, what underlying assumption is makes some claims and assumptions that are, also made? Do you think it is a warranted at the very least, questionable. Whether or not assumption? these are enough to make you reject the 4.9 Critical evaluation 187

Commentary extends to others as well. For example, the The argument in the first two paragraphs is as strongest argument for banning smoking in follows: public places is that non-smokers as well as smokers are affected. If the argument were only R1 Medical evidence and past experience that smoking harms the smoker, it would not suggest that performance-enhancing have anything like the force that it does have. drugs (PED) are harmful. So the argument contained in the first two R2 Young athletes are reckless. paragraphs alone looks a bit wobbly after all, R3 To stand by while they harm themselves not from what it states but from what it assumes. However, the author was probably would be irresponsible. well aware of this because his argument does  not end there. It goes on to say (paragraph 3): IC The governing bodies have a ‘duty of ‘But there is another reason . . . (for not tolerating PED)’. care’ for athletes.  The argument from fairness C They are right to prohibit PED. The second main strand of the reasoning is the argument that it is unfair, in fact cheating, to This seems a reasonable argument. If you take PED, and that they should be prohibited accept the truth of the premises, and there is for that reason as well as the health risks. no obvious reason not to, then a strict ban on Paragraph 3 concludes that if drugs can be PED would seem like a sensible policy to driven out of sport we will (once again) be able follow. But ‘sensible’ does not necessarily to identify the ‘real champions’. mean ‘right’, and that brings us to the big assumption that the argument makes: that There is another assumption lurking here: athletes don’t have the right to make these that there are not some other ways, besides choices for themselves; or that the authorities PED, of gaining unfair advantages. To meet that do have the right to make the choices for possible objection, the author sets out, and them, just on the grounds of the dangers PED responds to, a counter-argument that there are may pose to their health. indeed some practices that are perfectly legitimate but are cheating of a sort. The The argument from harm (or risk or danger) author’s response is that PED are in a different to the need for prohibition is often class, precisely because they are prohibited. underpinned by this kind of assumption: that those in charge have the right to tell grown Activity men and women what they may or may not do to their own bodies. Is it a warranted Give your evaluation of the author’s response assumption? In general, no. Of course, to the counter-argument in paragraph 5. Is authorities do on occasions impose rules for the reasoning sound, or can you see any our own good or safety. Many countries flaws in it? prohibit the riding of motorcycles without a crash helmet, or driving of cars without a Commentary safety belt. But there are many other dangerous There are in fact three serious flaws that need activities which we are not prevented from to be looked at very carefully. These are known doing (such as mountaineering and skydiving) as the ‘straw man’, the ‘slippery slope’ and on the grounds that although they are ‘begging the question’. Two of them relate to dangerous, we nevertheless have the right to the last sentence of paragraph 5: ‘Anyway, if do them if we want. Usually a prohibition needs other arguments beside the argument from self-harm, for example that the harm 188 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

you start saying that drug-taking is fine This is obviously nonsense. The difference because it is no different from energy-giving between special diets or training techniques food you would end up having to allow and the use of certain drugs is really quite athletes to run races with jet engines strapped narrow. Even the experts have some difficulty to their backs.’ drawing a line between, say, a ‘food supplement’ and an actual drug. This is why A straw man the counter-argument has to be taken seriously A ‘straw man’ argument is one in which the even if you are in favour of prohibiting PED. opposing argument has deliberately been The idea that athletes could use jet-propulsion made weak, to the point where no one would is in a completely different league, and it is be likely to make or support it. It gets its perfectly possible to argue for one without strange name from the custom of making having to go to the other extreme. human figures out of straw for target practice, for example to shoot arrows at. Begging the question The third flaw relates to the second sentence This is what the author does here. Whether in the paragraph: the claim that PED are or not you knew the name ‘straw man’, you different from other ways of improving should have noticed that in the counter- performance because they are banned, and that argument there is no suggestion that drug- that is what makes it cheating to use them. taking is ‘fine’, or that it is no different from But the main conclusion is that drug-taking eating food. The counter-argument is much should be banned. You cannot validly say that more subtle than that: it merely points out something should be banned just because it is that there is a difficulty in distinguishing bad, and bad because it is banned! This is what between permitted ways of getting an is known as ‘begging the question’. You can advantage and prohibited ones. That does not see why it is called begging the question with mean that anyone raising the objection thinks the argument simplified as follows: PED should be permitted, only that the problem is not as simple as it seems. It is right to ban PED (conclusion). Why? Thus the author is arguing against an Because using PED is cheating. opponent who doesn’t really exist. It looks as Why is it cheating? though he has scored a point, but it doesn’t Because PED are banned. count because it is such a cheap point. You will often find this flaw in arguments that you Another way to describe this flaw is to point read. It can be persuasive if you fail to spot it. out that it contains circular reasoning, or a And, if it’s done deliberately, it is cheating! circular argument. The author is arguing for the ban on PED from the ban on PED. Many of the A slippery slope flaws you find in arguments are due to circular Even if there were no ‘straw man’ fault in the reasoning or question-begging. Sometimes the argument, there is another flaw in the same circularity is obvious, as it is in this argument. sentence. It has a curious name, too: it’s often In others it is much more carefully disguised, called a ‘slippery slope’. This comes from the and you have to be vigilant to spot it. idea that once you are on a slippery slope you can’t stop yourself going all the way to the The argument as a whole bottom. In this case, if you say that some PED We have found a number of weaknesses, flaws are very like some food supplements, then, and questionable assumptions in the according to the author, there is nothing to argument for prohibiting performance- stop you saying that anything athletes do to enhancing drugs. That does not mean that we gain an advantage is all right. 4.9 Critical evaluation 189

have to reject the argument as a whole, and it Summary certainly doesn’t mean we have to reject its conclusion. Most people find the practice of • A critical evaluation means deciding taking PED totally unacceptable and are in full whether the claims and assumptions made agreement with its prohibition. Most people in an argument are warranted. also consider it to be cheating and believe that it harms the health of athletes. • It means identifying any flaws in the reasoning. But the converse is also true. Just because we agree with the author’s main conclusion of an • It means assessing the strength of the argument does not mean we have to approve support that the reasons, if true, give to of the reasoning. As critical thinkers we need to the conclusion. be able to evaluate an argument objectively whether we agree with it or not. In fact, • It means distinguishing between the agreeing with the author can often make the rhetoric and the reasoning in the text. job of evaluation more difficult because we are likely to be making the same assumptions and wanting the same outcome. End-of-chapter assignments 1 Look at the following response to the meteorite or dramatic upheaval in argument ‘Time to get tough’, and critically the climate. This would mean that evaluate the reasoning it employs. they did not undergo a gradual disappearance lasting many centuries You call people like me woolly- or millennia, but that they were minded liberals, but look what you are wiped out practically overnight. The arguing for: denying anyone who has fact that they died out so quickly also committed a crime a chance to earn a means that there could only have living, however hard they may try to been one cause of their extinction, go straight and start afresh. As well as not many as was once assumed; and being inhumane, that will have the that whatever the cause was, it was opposite effect from what you want. immense and final. You’ll just end up with streets full of ex-cons who can’t get work and are 3 C hoose one of the two arguments studied driven back to violent crime, and even in the chapter. Summarise the critical more victims to feel sorry for. comments that were made, and respond to them with your own observations. Finally, 2 Consider the following short argument, on give an overall evaluation of the argument, a very different topic. Is it sound? If not, saying how successfully or unsuccessfully identify what is wrong with it. it supports its conclusion(s). The dinosaurs obviously became Answers and comments are on page 325. extinct because of a single catastrophic event such as a large 190 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

4.10 Responding with further argument Evaluating an argument means deciding their intelligence. It takes brains and whether or not the claims made in it are imagination to plan a big crime and get acceptable, and whether or not they support away with it. It takes brains to be a the conclusion. Further argument goes a bit television presenter. So you can’t say further: it is your opportunity to put some of that because someone has been a your own ideas on the table, either supporting criminal they haven’t got the ability to be or challenging the author’s conclusions. a celebrity. I read a book by a reformed drug addict who had stolen to buy drugs, It has to be said straight away that further and it was brilliant, as good as any other argument is not any argument: it must relate writer could do. It wouldn’t have been directly to the text you are working on. It is published and sold in the bookshops if not a chance just to set off on some line of he was stupid and couldn’t write. your own that happens to be on a related topic. Therefore this statement by the author is You would get no credit in an exam if you misleading. read the article ‘Time to get tough’ – which featured in the last two units – and then Is this extract from the student’s essay wrote about prison reform, or the abolition or evaluation or further argument, or both? reintroduction of the death penalty. There Plainly it is both. It is a critical evaluation may be issues that connect these topics to the because it exposes a weakness, a questionable argument about profiting from crime, but assumption, in the author’s reasoning. they are not central issues. Your further However, it does much more than just say argument must be for or against the there is a weakness. It highlights it by bringing conclusion. Otherwise it is just a digression. in fresh claims and counter-examples that challenge the author’s assumption that a Evaluation often leads very naturally into person cannot be a criminal and be talented. further argument, and it is sometimes difficult The student uses her own reasons for to say where one ends and the other begins. For concluding that the author’s claim is example, here is part of a student’s response to misleading. She even draws on her own the third paragraph of ‘Time to get tough’: (reading) experience to illustrate the point she is making. This clearly marks it as further [1] The author says that notorious gangsters argument and not just evaluation. don’t need any talent to attract an audience, and that their reputations are Of course it is not a decisive further enough. This may be true, but it doesn’t argument. It doesn’t completely undermine mean that notorious gangsters don’t ever the author’s case: it merely kicks away one of have some talent. They may be very the supporting planks. To this extent we can talented. People often think of a gangster say it damages the argument rather than being a stupid person, who just uses destroys it: it seriously weakens it, but not violence to get their way, but there are fatally. gangsters who have got where they are by 4.10 Responding with further argument 191

Counter-example New lines of argument Counter-examples – i.e. examples that But further argument does not have to begin challenge a claim – are very powerful weapons from a particular point of evaluation. Provided for attacking arguments. As we saw in the you do not wander off the central issues, you above extract, just one example of an ex- can launch your own argument from the criminal who arguably does have talent passage as a whole. You may, for example, feel challenges one of the author’s main premises. that the author has missed out an important consideration that has an impact on his Activity conclusions. Raising it would be a legitimate form of further argument. Look again at paragraph 4 of ‘Time to get tough’ (if you don’t already know it by heart!) For example, there is no discussion in the and find a claim that could be challenged article about the motives criminals have for with a counter-example. If you know of a becoming celebrities. Nor is there any real-life counter-example, raise it. If not, mention of the consequences. The author suggest a possible one. Then develop the seems to assume that the motives are always counter-example into a short further selfish, on the part of either the criminal or argument. the producers etc. who take a cut; and that nothing, apart from satisfying greed, comes of Commentary it. Here are three pieces of further argument, An obvious target is the last sentence of the adapted from student responses, which take a paragraph: the claim that victims don’t get the completely different line: chance to become celebrities. It is highly vulnerable to counter-examples and, whether [2] Criminals are selfish people. They take you were able to think of an actual one or not, it what is not theirs and what others have is clearly not far-fetched to suggest that a victim worked hard to get. They disobey laws. of, say, a high-profile kidnapping or hostage- They evade taxes. No one is going to tell taking could become famous as a result, and me that when and if they decide to go gain financially from telling their story. straight and become big showbiz personalities they suddenly change into Such an example could be developed as decent, law-abiding citizens. All they are follows: in it for is themselves, and they will do whatever is necessary to get as much as A number of victims of crime have themselves they can. Leopards don’t change their become celebrities and made big profits from spots. Cheats and thieves don’t become publishing their stories or appearing in the honest, they just find other ways to media. Is this fair? There are many other cheat. people who have suffered from accidents or misfortune who have never been heard of. If [3] Some criminals grow up while they are in you are going to ban some groups of people prison and come out looking for legal from celebrity income, simply because other jobs, and some go into acting or writing people have not had the same opportunities to make a living. The parts they play in (like the author does), then you would have to films and the books they write will ban everyone from making income from their usually be about criminals or about pasts – criminals and victims alike. Otherwise prison, and they have the experience to how would you decide who deserved their make this realistic and true to life. This celebrity status and who did not? has a very useful purpose because it lets other people know what it is like to be a criminal or a prisoner. It is not 192 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking

glamorous or romantic like it often is in The third piece also considers the fiction, it’s ugly and dangerous. consequences of allowing criminals to become [4] Young people admire celebrities and role models. It obviously supports the argument. want to be like them. If you let big-time gangsters and murderers become Rights – and wrongs celebrities you give young people a very bad example to follow. Criminals become Probably the most important part of the role models. Also you give them the idea argument in ‘Time to get tough’ is the issue of they can be rich and famous by being people’s rights. As observed when we were wicked and violent. evaluating the argument, the author clearly assumes – and wants us to assume – that Activity ex-convicts don’t have the same rights as other people, especially their victims, because they What point is being made in each of these have chosen a life of crime. Opposed to this is lines of further argument? Do they support the view that once the criminal has served their the argument in the article, or do they prison sentence, then their debt to society has challenge it? been paid in full, and they come out with all their human rights restored. As we know, the Commentary author tries to rubbish this view as ‘woolly- These were all examples of relevant and minded’ thinking. But that doesn’t stop you perceptive further argument. Whether you from developing it more sympathetically in agree with what they say or not, they make a your own argument. For example: valuable contribution to the debate. [5] It is the job of courts to punish criminals Argument [2] supports the author’s who are caught. Unless their crime is bad conclusion far more than it challenges it, enough for a life sentence, they only lose though it takes a quite different line of approach. their human rights while the sentence It would make a good response to any suggestion lasts. When they are released they that criminals can turn over a new leaf or put become ordinary citizens again, and crime behind them. It implies that criminal should have the same rights as all other celebrities will go on being dishonest if it suits citizens, especially if they have learned them. As you might expect, this student went on from their mistakes and are trying to ‘go to conclude that, given their records, they do straight’. This is not woolly-minded at all. not deserve to keep the money they make. What is woolly-minded is using our feelings of sympathy for the victims as an The next extract [3] introduces the idea that argument for punishing ex-convicts for the there can be good consequences from rest of their lives. That’s unjust. As for the criminals becoming actors and writers. This is victims’ right, yes, they do have the right to not an angle that is covered by the author, but see the person who has harmed them it is a relevant point to consider. Experiences punished. But the courts decide how of life in the criminal world and in prison do much, not the victims, or the media. add to public awareness. If this is a good thing – and the student claims that it is – then Balancing ‘for’ and ‘against’ allowing criminals to become writers, actors and so on does have a useful purpose. It would Of course you may not disagree with the follow that there is some justification for author’s reasoning in the way the last critic rewarding them, which of course challenges does. Instead you may agree with the author rather than supports the author’s conclusion. that the law as it stands gives too little consideration to the victims’ feelings. You might 4.10 Responding with further argument 193

argue that whereas a convict gets a limited what he did to them. But equally it is not sentence to serve, the victim may carry the very just if someone has completed their injuries or scars for a lifetime. Where that is the sentence and is then punished again by case, doesn’t it add insult to injury if the having doors closed on certain careers. criminal later makes a lot of money by telling or It might even drive them back into crime, selling the story? instead of going straight, which would create other victims. It all depends on But there is another possible response that whose side you look at it from. we have to consider before we finish this I think talking about ‘rights’ is the discussion. Sometimes, not infrequently, we wrong way to approach this problem. hear arguments for both sides of some difficult We should think about what is best for issue and we are impressed by both of them – society rather than about individual or alternatively by neither of them. For people: criminals or victims. Perhaps if example, you may feel, after evaluating and we were all less interested in wealth thinking carefully about this argument, that and celebrity, the problem wouldn’t those who champion the victim and those arise in the first place, meaning that who champion the ex-criminal both have a we are all a bit to blame. point, and that whichever way you decide you will benefit one at the expense of the other. In Summary other words, if you stand by the rights of one group, you affect the rights of another group. • Further argument can arise out of evaluation, or it can be a new line of That very often happens in real life, and it reasoning altogether. makes it difficult, or even impossible, for those who have to make decisions to do the ‘right • Further arguments can be raised in thing’ by everyone. There is not always a clear support of the author’s conclusion(s), or in choice. opposition to them. Concluding that there is a balance between • Sometimes further argument leads to a equally strong arguments – or equally weak balanced or neutral conclusion. ones – is a perfectly acceptable position to take. It should not be used as a cowardly way End-of-chapter assignment of avoiding an uncomfortable decision; but if your critical reasoning leads you to that ‘Where performance-enhancing drugs in conclusion, then you have no choice but to sport are concerned, zero-tolerance is the declare a ‘draw’. only policy that should be considered.’ The next and final example demonstrates Write your own argument to support or how further argument can lead to a balanced challenge this claim. or neutral position: [6] It is obviously not much of a punishment for a vicious criminal to come from prison and make a million dollars from a film about the crime, none of which is given to the victims who suffered from 194 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking