Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

46 Unit 2 Critical thinking: the basics

look for the direct reasons that support it. Then

look for reasons (if any) that support the direct

reasons. In other words, work backwards from

what you think is the main conclusion. Find:

(first) conclusion ← (then) direct reasons ←

(then) reasons for the reasons.

Put them together to see if they make sense as

an argument. If not, try again.

Reported or ‘embedded’ arguments

Very often, in the media, or in magazines and

journals, arguments are reported, rather than

being expressed directly. Another way of

saying this is that an argument may be

embedded in a report or article or piece of

research, and so on. Argument [2] is a direct

argument. But originally it appeared in the

following way:

[2a] An environmental consortium has

advised against rushing headlong into

large-scale recycling projects without

carefully weighing the gains and the

losses, pointing out that recycling used

materials may in the long run prove

uneconomical. ‘The cost of collecting

up and sorting rubbish,’ said their

representative, ‘plus the cost of the

recycling process itself, often makes

the end product more expensive than

manufacturing the same product from

raw materials.’ This extra cost, she

went on, has to be paid by someone: 

... [etc.]

Strictly speaking this is not an argument: it is a

report of an argument, made by someone

other than the author of the report. The

author of the report is not arguing for or

against large-scale recycling projects; and we

have no idea from the report alone whether he

or she agreed or disagreed with its premises or

conclusion, at the time of writing.

Nonetheless, there is an argument

embedded in [2a], and it can be analysed and

it is the taxpayer in the form of

subsidies.

IC1 (from R1 & R2)

Recycling used materials may in the long

run prove uneconomical.

R3 The high levels of energy required for

processing waste can cause pollution.

R4 This can also add to global warming.

IC2 (from R3 & R4)

Recycling is not always the best solution

environmentally.

C (from IC1 & IC2)

We should not rush headlong into

large-scale recycling projects.

IC1 IC2

C

R1 & R2 R3 & R4

In this example the diagram really helps to

show the complex argument structure. There

are two separate lines of reasoning and

therefore two arrows leading to the conclusion.

If you took away one of the lines, say R3 & R4 →

IC2, you would still have an argument for C. It

would not be as strong, because it would

present only the economic reasons for not

rushing into recycling, not the economic and

environmental reasons. Similarly, if you took

away or refuted the sub-argument leading to

IC1, you would still have an environmental

argument to fall back on.

A useful strategy

You saw in both [1] and [2] that there were

direct and indirect reasons. A good strategy for

analysing difficult arguments is this: first select

what you think is the main conclusion, then