Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

298 Unit 7 Critical reasoning: Advanced Level

should have to bear the costs. But you

could equally say that the counter-

argument is simply looking at two

possible outcomes, and claiming that

either way it would be unfair. Thus the

charge of contradiction does not really

stick.

7    Paragraph 4 is a very weak response. In

fact it is an example of a classic fallacy,

known as an ad hominem argument,

which was introduced in Chapter 4.9.

Argumentum ad hominem means the

argument is directed at the person who

holds the belief or makes the claim,

rather than at the argument itself. It

may be perfectly true that the economic

argument for the present system does

suit big business, and that it finds favour

in North America in particular. But that

does not make the argument bad; and it

certainly doesn’t make it flawed, as the

author concludes. The flaw is much more

evident in the author’s argument than in

the counter-argument she unsuccessfully

tries to demolish.

8    This is a tricky question because it

appears to have a very straightforward

answer. In paragraph 2 the author says,

quite plainly, that the Olympic Games

‘rightfully belong in one country,

Greece’. This looks like a blatant

contradiction of the later statement

that they are the property of no one

nation. And if it is a clear contradiction,

it also appears to be a serious flaw in

the reasoning. For surely, if the Games

do belong to no single nation, then

the present system of rotating the host

country would seem the right one, and

giving it permanently to Greece, as the

author proposes, would seem to fly in the

face of one of her premises.

But is it as blatant a contradiction as it

seems? Not necessarily. You could defend

the argument by clarifying what exactly is

meant by the words ‘belong’ and

that it is not political or economic does

not establish that it is historical.

5 Paragraph 3 is a counter-argument.

You may remember from Unit 4.8 that

the strategy of anticipating a counter-

argument – i.e. setting it up and then

knocking it down – is a common

argument strategy. That is clearly what

the author is doing here.

Commentary

6    You can see what the author means

when she brands the counter-argument

‘contradictory’. The way she has set up

the counter-argument, it looks as if those

who support it want it both ways: they

want to say no one country should get

the profits, and that no one country

Activity

The next five questions are evaluative. Again

there are suggested answers in the

commentary that follows.

6    Is the charge of being ‘contradictory’

(paragraph 4) a fair assessment of the

counter-argument?

7    Paragraph 4 is a response to the

counter-argument (a counter-counter-

argument). What is your evaluation of it?

8    In paragraph 5, the author writes: ‘The

Games are no nation’s property.’ Is this

claim contradicted elsewhere in the

passage? If so, does the contradiction

weaken the argument to any extent?

9    Bearing in mind exactly what the

conclusion of the argument is, does the

argument adequately support it?

10   ‘The ancient Olympic Games were for

competitors from all over Greece. The

modern Olympics are for competitors

from all over the world.’ If true, what

impact does this observation have on

the argument?