Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

4.11 A self-assessment 197

paragraph it is clear where the argument is

leading. There he states the ‘contention’ that

dolphins are similar to humans – so similar, in

fact, that they deserve to be considered as

‘non-human persons’, and he concludes that

tail-walking adds to the evidence that supports

this contention. The conclusion is thus quite

complex. You could identify it in full by

simply quoting the last sentence. If you

paraphrased and abbreviated it you may have

said something like this:

C Tail-walking supports the view that

dolphins are so intelligent they deserve

the ethical status of ‘non-human persons’.

There is an alternative way to analyse this

sentence, however. You could say that tail-

walking adds to the evidence for special status

because it shows how intelligent dolphins are,

and how similar to humans. In other words

the first part of the long last sentence is now

an intermediate conclusion; the second half

the main conclusion. This is a deeper analysis;

also a more structured one. But either

interpretation captures the author’s purpose.

(Note that the conclusion is not that dolphins

deserve ‘person’ status. That would be far too

strong, and if you were to interpret the

conclusion that way, and then criticise it for

being too strong, you would have committed a

classic ‘straw man’ fallacy.)

Now we move to the body of the argument.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 provide the factual

(evidential/observational) base, and one of the

main premises, namely that dolphins have

been seen ‘walking on water’. The photograph

could be included in the evidence, as could

the first sentence of paragraph 5.

However, the claim being made is not just

that the dolphins are walking on water but that

they are learning to do it; being taught. This is

not just assumed. It is inferred from the fact

that the practice is observed to have spread

from Billie and Wave to several other dolphins.

There is a further point in support of this

inference, in that Billie was once in captivity

Its contents will be broadly scientific. But it will
probably have an agenda, or a ‘philosophy’,
which will influence the kind of articles it
contains and the kind of messages they will
send to the reader. We can also assume fairly
safely that the readers who subscribe to the
magazine will be sympathetic to arguments
that champion whales and dolphins and which
argue for their welfare and even their ‘rights’.
You may well have similar sympathies; many of
us do. Dolphins are lovable, playful and
seemingly intelligent creatures; and it is not
difficult to see why people might think that
they deserve the ‘special ethical status’ to
which the writer refers.
These contextual details are important
when you move from analysing the article to
evaluating the reasoning in it. In order to
think critically about this passage, you must
guard against being influenced by emotions or
sympathies, and be aware of any bias in the
author’s treatment of the evidence. Obviously,
the author is motivated by the wish to protect
and champion the cause of dolphins. There is
nothing wrong with this. ‘Bias’ should not
necessarily be an accusation. It is not a hidden
agenda. But if there is an agenda, hidden or
open, it should be recognised as part of the
context, and taken into account.

The questions
You may have noticed that the three questions
correspond to the three core components of
critical thinking: (a) analysis; (b) evaluation;
and (c) presenting further reasoning of your
own (see Chapter 1.2). These are also the
assessment objectives for practically every
critical thinking examination syllabus,
including the Cambridge Thinking Skills AS
Level. This activity addresses all three. We’ll
discuss them in turn.

(a) Analysis
The bulk of the text is informative and
descriptive, and it is only towards the end that
the author’s purpose becomes really evident.
However, once the reader gets to the last