Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

50 Unit 2 Critical thinking: the basics

In [1] and [2] there was a single premise and

a single conclusion. In the next passage

there is more work to do.

[3] Most spoken languages come in

many different accents and dialects.

They also contain colloquial, even

slang, expressions that vary from

region to region, or class to class.

2.7 Conclusions

The most important function of argument

analysis is identifying the conclusion. Once it

is clear what the author is seeking to establish

or justify, the rest of the argument usually falls

into place.

The kind of detailed analysis you have been

studying in the last two chapters is not always

necessary. If an argument is quite short and

straightforward, the conclusion often stares

you in the face. But with longer and more

complex arguments, it can be very easy – as

the saying goes – ‘to get the wrong end of the

stick’: to mistake a reason for a conclusion, or

an intermediate conclusion for the main

conclusion; or to misunderstand the direction

of the argument altogether. It is in order to

avoid this kind of misinterpretation that you

need skill and confidence in argument

analysis generally, and the recognition of

conclusions in particular.

As already noted in previous chapters, the

conclusion of an argument is often marked by

the word ‘so’ or its equivalent. Alternatively

the conclusion may be followed by ‘because’

(or some equivalent), to indicate that a reason

or reasons are being given to support the

preceding claim. In the absence of such

linguistic clues – and they often are absent –

we have to look to the claims themselves to

decide if there is an argument present, and if

so which part or parts of it express the

conclusion.

Here is a very simple example:

[1] The government won’t raise taxes this

close to the election. Tax rises are not

vote-winners.

In [1] there are two claims: the first is a

prediction, the second a claim to fact. It is quite

obvious here that the factual claim is being

given as a reason for the prediction; not the

reverse. It is because raising taxes is not a

vote-winner that the author is predicting that

the government will not do it. If instead we try

to say that tax rises are not vote-winners

because the government will not raise them, we

end up with something that barely makes sense.

However, this does not mean that the

second sentence couldn’t be a conclusion, in

a different argument. Suppose I were to

reason as follows:

[2] People say they want good public

services, but they don’t like it when any

more of their hard-earned money is

taken to pay for them. Tax rises are

simply not vote-winners.

Here it is perfectly reasonable to interpret the

first sentence as a reason to assert, and believe,

the second. In standard and abbreviated form:

People don’t like paying more (for public

services).

Tax rises are not vote-winners.

Activity