Critical Thinking
Evaluation / Varying Standards
At A-level, you should be able to assess the quality of an argument objectively, regardless of your own views, and whether or not you agree with its conclusion(s).
A good (strong/effective/persuasive/reliable…) argument is one which offers adequate support for its conclusion. A poor (weak/flawed) argument is one in which the grounds are inadequate.
‘Adequacy’ in this sense is a semi-technical term. It has to do with the balance between the reasons (premises) and conclusion as before; but it is also about the standard of assurance we require from the argument in the first place.
Varying standards
There are a range of standards or criteria by which an argument may be judged. Selecting an appropriate one is the key to fair evaluation – i.e. determines whether the argument is adequate.
So we might say the argument is adequate:
- beyond any doubt
- beyond reasonable doubt, or
- in the balance of probabilities
The level of adequacy required varies in accordance with the severity of the consequences, should the conclusion be wrong. If and when certainty is required an argument is adequate only if it meets the standard known as ‘validity’ (or more precisely, ‘deductive validity’). A valid argument, therefore, is one in which the conclusion is inescapable: if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. Relatively few real-life arguments meet this demanding standard, and those that do often seem trivial.
When evaluating an argument, you need to consider:
Consider the following arguments in light of their adequacy:
It is understood that a massive asteroid hit the earth around 65 million years ago, and that dinosaurs became extinct around 65 million years ago.
Environmental smoke is a health hazard. It is the job of the law to protect people from the risk of harm. Smoking should therefore be prohibited in public spaces.