resourceone.info Politics Introduction To Logic And Critical Thinking 6th Edition Pdf

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING 6TH EDITION PDF

Wednesday, December 25, 2019


INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKINGCopyright Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, s. Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking | 6th Edition. Merrilee H. Salmon. View as Instructor. Product cover for Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking 6th. Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking by Matthew J. Van Cleave is licensed under a. Creative . text but have come across this textbook in PDF format, please do not hesitate to email me at editions of increasingly expensive textbooks).


Introduction To Logic And Critical Thinking 6th Edition Pdf

Author:RICHIE MCKENTY
Language:English, Spanish, Arabic
Country:Albania
Genre:Environment
Pages:266
Published (Last):04.06.2016
ISBN:716-3-20811-373-4
ePub File Size:29.49 MB
PDF File Size:13.67 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Downloads:50076
Uploaded by: DERICK

publisher's note In the months from September to the beginning of December , reportedly Helen scribed the section. Salmon, M. H. INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC AND. CRITICAL THINKING, 5th Edition. Thomson. Wadworth. Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. resourceone.info Study Group has completed composing Introduction To Logic And. Critical Thinking 6th Edition Pdf Download This is a newest version.

A select number of fallacies are presented at the end of the text, but these are related to topics that were presented before, so it makes sense to have these last. The text is free if interface issues. I used the PDF and it worked fine on various devices without loosing formatting.

The text is culturally sensitive, but examples used are a bit odd and may be objectionable to some students. For instance, President Obama's speech on Syria is used to evaluate an extended argument.

This is an excellent example and it is explained well, but some who disagree with Obama's policies may have trouble moving beyond their own politics. However, other examples look at issues from all political viewpoints and ask students to evaluate the argument, fallacy, etc. Overall this book does use a variety of examples that most students can understand and evaluate.

My favorite part of this book is that it seems to be written for community college students. My students have trouble understanding readings in the New York Times, so it is nice to see a logic and critical thinking text use real language that students can understand and follow without the constant need of a dictionary.

This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking.

Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic, In propositional logic, this textbook does not cover suppositional arguments, such as conditional proof and reductio ad absurdum.

But other standard argument forms are covered. Chapter 3 covers inductive logic, and here this textbook introduces probability and its relationship with cognitive biases, which are rarely discussed in other textbooks. Chapter 4 introduces common informal fallacies. The answers to all the exercises are given at the end. However, the last set of exercises is in Chapter 3, Section 5.

There are no exercises in the rest of the chapter. Chapter 4 has no exercises either. There is index, but no glossary. The textbook is fairly modular. For example, Chapter 3, together with a few sections from Chapter 1, can be used as a short introduction to inductive logic. This textbook is quite thorough--there are conversational explanations of argument structure and logic.

I think students will be happy with the conversational style this author employs. Also, there are many examples and exercises using current Also, there are many examples and exercises using current events, funny scenarios, or other interesting ways to evaluate argument structure and validity. The third section, which deals with logical fallacies, is very clear and comprehensive.

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

My only critique of the material included in the book is that the middle section may be a bit dense and math-oriented for learners who appreciate the more informal, informative style of the first and third section.

Also, the book ends rather abruptly--it moves from a description of a logical fallacy to the answers for the exercises earlier in the text. The content is very reader-friendly, and the author writes with authority and clarity throughout the text. There are a few surface-level typos Starbuck's instead of Starbucks, etc. None of these small errors detract from the quality of the content, though. One thing I really liked about this text was the author's wide variety of examples. To demonstrate different facets of logic, he used examples from current media, movies, literature, and many other concepts that students would recognize from their daily lives.

The exercises in this text also included these types of pop-culture references, and I think students will enjoy the familiarity--as well as being able to see the logical structures behind these types of references. I don't think the text will need to be updated to reflect new instances and occurrences; the author did a fine job at picking examples that are relatively timeless.

As far as the subject matter itself, I don't think it will become obsolete any time soon. The author writes in a very conversational, easy-to-read manner. The examples used are quite helpful. The third section on logical fallacies is quite easy to read, follow, and understand. A student in an argument writing class could benefit from this section of the book.

The middle section is less clear, though. A student learning about the basics of logic might have a hard time digesting all of the information contained in chapter two. This material might be better in two separate chapters. I think the author loses the balance of a conversational, helpful tone and focuses too heavily on equations. Terminology in this book is quite consistent--the key words are highlighted in bold. Chapters 1 and 3 follow a similar organizational pattern, but chapter 2 is where the material becomes more dense and equation-heavy.

I also would have liked a closing passage--something to indicate to the reader that we've reached the end of the chapter as well as the book.

I liked the overall structure of this book. If I'm teaching an argumentative writing class, I could easily point the students to the chapters where they can identify and practice identifying fallacies, for instance.

The opening chapter is clear in defining the necessary terms, and it gives the students an understanding of the toolbox available to them in assessing and evaluating arguments.

Conditions of Use

Even though I found the middle section to be dense, smaller portions could be assigned. The author does a fine job connecting each defined term to the next. He provides examples of how each defined term works in a sentence or in an argument, and then he provides practice activities for students to try. The answers for each question are listed in the final pages of the book.

The middle section feels like the heaviest part of the whole book--it would take the longest time for a student to digest if assigned the whole chapter. Even though this middle section is a bit heavy, it does fit the overall structure and flow of the book.

New material builds on previous chapters and sub-chapters. It ends abruptly--I didn't realize that it had ended, and all of a sudden I found myself in the answer section for those earlier exercises. The simple layout is quite helpful! There is nothing distracting, image-wise, in this text. The table of contents is clearly arranged, and each topic is easy to find. Otherwise, it is free of distracting grammatical errors.

This text is quite culturally relevant. For instance, there is one example that mentions the rumors of Barack Obama's birthplace as somewhere other than the United States. This example is used to explain how to analyze an argument for validity. The more "sensational" examples like the Obama one above are helpful in showing argument structure, and they can also help students see how rumors like this might gain traction--as well as help to show students how to debunk them with their newfound understanding of argument and logic.

The writing style is excellent for the subject matter, especially in the third section explaining logical fallacies. Other educators believe, however, that a more likely reason that students did not improve was because they already had high levels of skill when they entered college.

Still others say that this type of test does not accurately reflect what students learn in college. We begin by characterizing our subject matter. Critical thinking refers to many different activities and abilities.

We are especially interested in 1 analyzing meanings; 2 recognizing arguments and evaluating their strengths; 3 recognizing and avoiding fallacies; and 4 making decisions in light of available information or evidence. Interpreting verbal information requires special sensitivity to language, which is the topic of the second chapter of this book. Critical thinking involves paying careful attention to what we hear and read so that we can understand and respond appropriately.

However, language is not always used to provide information. We express our feelings of joy, sorrow, sympathy, anger, hope, and fear in language. Asking for evidence for expressions of feeling, questions, commands, and the like would not be appropriate. To understand meanings, we need to pay attention to the circumstances or context in which words are spoken or written. In casual conversation, for example, comments about unpleasant weather can serve to open a conversation or keep it alive.

In contrast, if you are interested in weather because you are planning to fly in a small plane, it makes sense to determine whether information that is presented is correct. In a different context, such as a survey conducted by a company selling painkillers or ice cream, seeking further information to support what people say about their pains and preferences makes sense.

Introduction 5 Even though information is often conveyed in songs and poetry, we chiefly pay attention to their expressive content.

The Iliad is a work of art and can be valued as such without raising questions of factual accuracy. It is possible, however, to shift attention from the aesthetic value of works like the Iliad and read them for historical clues as well. In fact, many expeditions have been mounted to find evidence for the Trojan War, and scholars debate whether and to what extent the Iliad was based on actual historical events. When the focus is on the information contained in the poem rather than on its expressive features, questions about evidence arise.

Context and interest also influence the amount and type of information that is required. If you learn that a building where you used to work burned today, you might check it out before accepting what you have been told.

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, 6th ed.

Being misinformed can result in costly mistakes, but gathering information to use as evidence can also be costly. Costs can be measured in time, money, and even goodwill.

We risk offending people, for example, by questioning their accuracy or invading their privacy. Before we decide whether to collect evidence, we have to balance the costs of doing so against the costs of being wrong.

As noted, information that is relevant to the truth of some assertion and presented in support of it is called evidence. In CSI shows, the opening scene usually focuses on the aftermath of some brutal crime, often a murder. A team of investigators descends on the scene to collect information that will allow them to identify the victim, to determine what happened, and to find the person who committed the crime.

Crime scene investigators are experts in forensic science; they focus primarily on physical evidence but also gather verbal evidence when they collect statements from witnesses and examine documents. Using such verbal evidence, they construct arguments to prove who committed a crime.

Some, but not all, verbal evidence consists of descriptions and summaries of physical evidence. In many sciences, such as prehistoric archaeology, geology, and chemistry, physical evidence is the primary focus of scientific research. In other disciplines, such as history and many of the social sciences, verbal evidence is more important. Documents, for example, are the focus of most historical work and provide the basic information for constructing arguments about the causes of important historical events.

Prehistoric archaeology is concerned with what material remains can tell us about human life before there were written records or where no written records survive. Here physical evidence is paramount. Historical archaeology, however, studies material remains of humans who also kept written records. For example, archaeologists and historians both conduct intense studies of the United States Civil War.

Historians use correspondence, military orders, and other documents to build their arguments about what happened and why. Archaeologists survey and dig to find physical remains of fortifications, weapons and other traces of battles, troop movement, and the like. Sometimes the written records do not agree with the physical findings. Either type of information may be misleading. So we cannot say that one type of evidence always trumps another. In each case of conflict between verbal and physical evidence, arguments for either side must be examined carefully.

Avoiding such mistakes is an important objective for a critical thinker. Most of us are suspicious of exaggerated statements made in advertisements and by politicians, and are apt to ask why we should believe them.

Sometimes, however, we do not ask for evidence, or we accept the flimsiest sort of reasons, in support of things that we want to believe anyway. We are especially vulnerable to mistakes in reasoning when our minds are clouded by desire, fear, greed, or other strong emotions. When we trust a source, we accept what that source says. Trust, however, should not always override a need for further information.

If a friend tells you that some substance produces a safe high, you would be wise to seek further evidence. Sometimes we use or accept means other than evidence to persuade people to do things. This is not always wrong. But it is not appropriate to believe, on the basis of such compassion alone, that a particular group is responsible for the oppression, that one type of aid is more appropriate than some other type, or that the democratic government of the impoverished people will collapse if the aid is withheld.

To fail to distinguish between nonevidential persuasion and evidence that would support an assertion is to commit a fallacy. Introduction 7 4 In addition to the critical tasks already mentioned, we need to think critically about our decisions. When we are trying to decide on some action, we want to consider the consequences for ourselves and others. We should examine not only what the various results of our action would be but also how probable each outcome is, and the relative benefits or costs of these outcomes.

Real-life decisions are rarely so straightforward as the decision whether to purchase a single inexpensive lottery ticket. Many criminals are in jail because—aside from their indifference to moral considerations—they believed correctly that the probability of being apprehended for their crime was small but failed to balance that low probability against the severe cost of being caught.

Sometimes just being aware of the pitfalls of not thinking critically spurs us to more careful thought. As in many other areas of life, however, practice is the best way to improve critical-thinking skills. Exercise Set 1.

Many people argue that President Obama is not a native citizen of the United States because his father was Kenyan. His father was in fact from Kenya. Is any further information needed to show that Obama is not a native citizen? Would you decide to take the course based on that statement? What information would you look for to support what your friend says?

Suppose you tell your professor that you missed an examination because you were ill. How could you support that assertion? Can you name two disciplines in addition to history in which verbal evidence is usually more important than physical evidence? Recently a reality-show producer announced that he was teaming up with AOL to produce comedic videos of classic works by Shakespeare and others, based on Cliffs Notes.

The producer says the idea is to bring classic works of fiction to the online masses, including students. You are interested in buying a used automobile. The salesman at the used-car lot says the former owner was a little old lady who drove the car only on Sundays. Would you base your decision to buy or not on his word? If not, what sort of evidence would you seek? You read the following in a nonfiction travel book about the Greek island Corcyra Corfu : Climb to Vigla in the time of cherries and look down.

You will see that the island lies against the mainland roughly in the form of a sickle. On the landward side you have a great bay, noble and serene, and almost completely landlocked. Northward the tip of the sickle almost touches Albania and here the troubled blue of the Ionian is sucked harshly between ribs of limestone and spits of sand.

Kalamai fronts the Albanian foothills, and into it the water races as into a swimming pool; a milky ferocious green when the north wind curdles it. Does the author offer any evidence for the assertions he makes? Suppose you are reading this book to acquire some information about the island because you hope to visit it as a tourist. Suppose you are a military commander who plans an invasion of the island.

You read by a recognized expert on mushrooms about Amanita verna, a type of wild mushroom. He says this mushroom looks much like a variety commonly found in grocery stores. It is pure white when fresh and very beautiful.

Then he says the following: Edibility: Deadly poisonous. The symptoms are delayed, making applications of first aid almost useless. Never eat a white Amanita.

What assertions does Dr. Smith make in the quoted passage? Why do you think Dr. Smith mentioned the similarity between Amanita verna and grocery-store mushrooms? Would you seek further information before following Dr. Introduction 9 9. President Abraham Lincoln wrote the following sentence in a letter to a friend: If slavery is not wrong then nothing is wrong.

How would you interpret what Lincoln says? That is, what does he mean? Does he think slavery is wrong? In the spirit of saving the planet, the method of shallow cultivation is offered as an alternative to the use of poisonous herbicides to control weeds: Shallow cultivation is an effective way to control weeds.

Experiments have shown that hoeing or tilling only the top 2—4 inches of soil before seed sprouts can set eventually exhausts most of the vast supply of weed seeds that lie dormant in the soil. Is evidence physical or verbal presented for any assertions? If you are a backyard gardener trying to save money and avoid poisons, would you seek further evidence before trying shallow cultivation instead of herbicides to control weeds?

If you are a truck farmer whose only income depends on the success of your crops, would you seek further evidence that shallow cultivation is an effective means of weed control?

She inquired into auto insurance rates for a twenty-year-old male college student who had no history of automobile accidents. Her closing line for her story: It pays to shop around and research the various types of coverage in order to get the best deal. Proponents of legalizing marijuana say it is not so dangerous as alcohol insofar as the latter is responsible for thousands of deaths in America annually. They also say that smoking marijuana is safer than smoking tobacco, which is responsible for several fatal diseases.

Describe what evidence, if any, is offered for the assertion that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol.

Describe what evidence, if any, is offered for the assertion that marijuana is safer than smoking regular cigarettes. If marijuana really is no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes, is that a good enough reason to believe that marijuana should be legalized?

Why or why not? Smart phones and tablets will soon handle the majority of our personal computing needs because we want to be mobile while staying connected with the people and things we care about.

Does this argument strongly support the claim about smart phones and tablets? Do you agree that mobility trumps the strengths of laptops—which are semimobile—and desktop computers? What do you consider the biggest disadvantage of mobile devices? In the last act of the play, Lear holds the lifeless body of his daughter Cordelia in his arms. What evidence does he call for to settle the matter? In a memo concerning whether commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment [which guarantees freedom of speech], Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that false or misleading advertising could be regulated not because it is commercial or pecuniary in purpose but because [regulation] prevents commercial injury and without it commerce would be impossible.

Can you clarify the reasoning involved?

It is a sobering thought that overexposure to lead was probably a factor in the decline of the Roman Empire. Romans lined their bronze cooking, eating, and wine storage vessels with lead. They thus avoided the obvious and unpleasant taste and symptoms of copper poisoning. They traded them for the pleasant flavor and more subtle poisoning associated with lead. Lead was also common in Roman life in the form of paints, and lead pipes were often used to carry water.

The lower classes lived more simply, drank less wine from lead-lined containers, and thus may have picked up far less lead. Arguments and Logic 11 Ehrlich portrays a decadent upper class suffering from lead poisoning, leading Rome to ruin.

However, he does not say whether any bodies of lowerclass Romans have been examined for levels of lead. Assume it is true that the lower classes lived more simply and drank less wine from lead-lined containers. Does this persuade you that they picked up far less lead than the upper classes? What evidence might support the assertion that the lower classes were exposed to just as much lead? Hint: Who was mining the lead, working with lead paints and lead pipes, and manufacturing lead-lined containers for wine?

On a recent sports news show on television, a football player comments on whether college football players should be paid for playing ball: Football players should be paid because they work five or six hours a day, and have to play—work again—on Saturdays. It is just like a real job. The player asserts that playing college football is just like a real job. Does he give any evidence for this? Can you think of any important differences between playing college football and working at a real job?

Is it obvious that anyone who works five or six hours a day and again on Saturdays should be paid for that work? A r gume nt s and L ogic In Exercise Set 1.

Such information, or evidence, as already noted, can be either verbal or physical. When you return damaged goods to a store to prove their condition, you present physical evidence to support your claim that the goods are damaged. Similarly, detective stories tell us that without a body or other physical evidence , it is difficult to support claims that a murder has been committed. Some, but not all, verbal evidence describes physical evidence. To establish the birth date of George Washington, for example, the evidence you seek is verbal—the words, spoken or written, of some authoritative source.

Arguments are sets of sentences consisting of an assertion to be supported and the verbal evidence for that assertion. When we support some sentence by offering verbal evidence for it, we are arguing for that sentence. These different meanings are related in the sense that when we are involved in a disagreement or dispute, we often try to show that our position is correct by stating evidence to support it.

In terms of critical thinking, the word argument most commonly refers to a set of sentences related in such a way that some purport to provide evidence for another, without any suggestion of dispute or disagreement.

Logic is the field of study concerned with analyzing arguments and appraising their correctness or incorrectness. Thus it plays an important part in critical thinking. Logic, however, is broader than critical thinking because it does not confine itself to examining particular arguments but is a formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. For the purposes of this text, we can think of logic and critical thinking as disciplines that are separate but overlapping.

We are especially interested in the area of overlap. Arguments are made up of sentences. The sentences that state the evidence are premisses; the sentence being argued for is the conclusion.

An argument can have any number of premisses, but by definition it can have only one conclusion. The following argument has just one premiss, which is written above the line that separates it from the conclusion: Mary has a twin sister.

Therefore, Mary is not an only child. The next argument has two premisses: Abortion is the same as murder. Murder is wrong. Therefore, abortion is wrong. Many arguments have more than two premisses. Charles Darwin once said that his entire book, The Origin of Species, was just one long argument for a single conclusion: the truth of evolution.

About Critical Thinking

Whether a particular sentence is a premiss or a conclusion depends on the role it plays in a given argument. Human fetuses are persons. Any deliberate killing of a person is murder.

Therefore, abortion is murder. We could continue to develop other arguments with new premisses to support any of the premisses of the above argument, particularly if its truth is challenged.

For example, is every deliberate killing of a person murder?Then he says the following: Edibility: Deadly poisonous. Dunn and T. Usually the point of an argument is to support the truth of its conclusion. Far more damage will be done to the environment from illegal dumping than from regulated, legal disposal.

Declarative sentences—unlike ordinary questions and commands—can be either true or false. Reconstructing Arguments 1. This text is quite culturally relevant. To understand meanings, we need to pay attention to the circumstances or context in which words are spoken or written.