Unformatted text preview:

Pamela S Evers Attorney at Law 2009 For University of North Carolina Wilmington Thinking Critically Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and evaluate a problem argument or point logically honestly and objectively Ethical decision making requires critical thinking Pamela S Evers Attorney at Law 2009 For University of North Carolina Wilmington Critical Thinking Model Part 1 1 2 3 4 What are the facts What is the Issue What are the reasons and conclusion What are the relevant rules of law These four questions help us understand the basics of a case or court s decision Critical Thinking Model Part 2 5 Does the legal argument contain significant ambiguity 6 What ethical norms are fundamental to the Court s reasoning 7 How appropriate are the legal analogies 8 Is there relevant missing information Critical Thinking Model Part 2 The foregoing questions help us evaluate the merits of a legal argument or the court s reasoning Argument Clinic Flaws in Critical Thinking Learn to recognize flaws in an argument or decision See Fallacies Non Sequiturs A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from the facts In other words they miss the point Appeals to Pity Appeals to pity obtains support for an argument by focusing on victim s predicament often a non sequitur False Analogies A false analogy is arguing that since a set of facts are similar to another set of facts the two are alike in other ways Firm X and FirmY are both large Firm X expanded into Europe so Firm Y should also expand into Europe False Analogies Circular Reasoning If person assumes the thing the person is trying to prove it s circular reasoning Ex tell the truth because lying is wrong Argumentum ad Populum Argumentum ad populum is an emotional appeal to popular beliefs The bandwagon fallacy Argumentum ad Baculum Argumentum ad baculum is using threats or fear to support a position Often occurs in unequal bargaining situation Argumentum ad Hominem Argumentum ad hominem means argument against the man and attacks the person not his or her reasoning Pamela S Evers Attorney at Law 2006 For University of North Carolina Wilmington Argument from Authority Argument from authority relies on an opinion because of speaker s status as expert or authority rather than quality of the speaker s argument Pamela S Evers Attorney at Law 2006 For University of North Carolina Wilmington False Cause Argument If speaker observes two events and concludes there is a causal link between them when there is no such link a false cause fallacy has occurred The Gambler s Fallacy The gambler s fallacy results from mistaken belief that independent prior outcomes affect future outcomes Appeals to Tradition If a speaker declares something should be done a certain way because that is the way it has been done in the past the speaker has made an appeal to tradition Reductio ad Absurdum Reductio ad absurdum carries argument to logical end but does not consider whether it is inevitable or probable result Often called the slippery slope fallacy Example Eating fast food causes weight gain If you are overweight you will die of a heart attack Fast food leads to heart attacks Lure of the New The lure of the new argument is the opposite of appeals to tradition because the argument claims since something is new it must be better Sunk Cost Fallacies Sunk cost fallacy is attempt to recover investments time by spending more Throwing good money after bad Applying the Critical Thinking Model to legal analysis involves eight 8 steps Think about current events The Critical Thinking Model 1 2 3 4 The first 4 steps help us understand how the court s argument fits together What are the facts What is the Issue What are the reasons and conclusion What are the relevant rules of law The Critical Thinking Model 5 6 7 8 Last 4 steps help evaluate legal arguments Does the legal argument contain significant ambiguity What ethical norms are fundamental to the Court s reasoning How appropriate are the legal analogies Is there relevant missing information Next Business Ethics Pamela S Evers Attorney at Law 2009 For University of North Carolina Wilmington


View Full Document

UNCW BLA 361 - Critical Thinking

Documents in this Course
TWO PESOS

TWO PESOS

16 pages

Reading

Reading

13 pages

Russia

Russia

113 pages

Contracts

Contracts

55 pages

Property

Property

54 pages

Contracts

Contracts

45 pages

Load more
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Critical Thinking and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Critical Thinking and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?