Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Reasoning Well

by Robert Arp, Jamie Carlin Watson

'You shouldn't drink too much. The Earth is round. Milk is good for your bones.' Are any of these claims true? How can you tell? Can you ever be certain you are right?

For anyone tackling philosophical logic and critical thinking for the first time, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Reasoning Well provides a practical guide to the skills required to think critically. From the basics of good reasoning to the difference between claims, evidence and arguments, Robert Arp and Jamie Carlin Watson cover the topics found in an introductory course.

Now revised and fully updated, this Second Edition features a glossary, chapter summaries, more student-friendly exercises, study questions, diagrams, and suggestions for further reading. Topics include:
the structure, formation, analysis and recognition of arguments
deductive validity and soundness
inductive strength and cogency
inference to the best explanation
truth tables
tools for argument assessment
informal and formal fallacies

With real life examples, advice on graduate school entrance exams and an expanded companion website packed with additional exercises, an answer key and help with real life examples, this easy-to-follow introduction is a complete beginner's tool set to good reasoning, analyzing and arguing. Ideal for students in basic reasoning courses and students preparing for graduate school.

Genres: Philosophy

456 pages, Paperback

First published April 28, 2011

About the author

Robert Arp, Ph.D. (Saint Louis University, 2005), has taught Philosophy at Southwest Minnesota State University, Florida State University, and many schools in Missouri, before doing postdoctoral research in ontology through the National Center for Biomedical Ontology with Mark Musen and Barry Smith at the University at Buffalo.

Reviews

[Mitch Flitcroft · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was quite unimpressed by this text. It lacked the rigour I expected from a critical thinking text, particularly in the analogies and thought experiments used when conveying an argument. Wouldn't recommend.