THUYLOI UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS

FINAL ASSIGNMENT

CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

Instructor: Nguyen Van Son

Students: Phan Quynh Anh
Ta Tuyet Anh
Nguyen Thi Thu Giang
Tham Hoang Minh Hang
Nguyễn Thi Huong
Class: 63NNA2
 Hanoi, 19 March, 2024

GROUPWORK DIVISION & CONTRIBUTION

Member Percentage of completion

1. Phan Quỳnh Anh
2. Tạ Tuyết Anh
3. Nguyễn Thị Thu Giang
4. Thẩm Hoàng Minh Hằng
5. Nguyễn Thị Hương
 GROUP 2
Exercise 1: Determine whether, in typical contexts, the following sentences are or
are not statements. And explain why.
1. Let’s go to the library!
2. Blondes are more attractive than brunettes.
Answer:
1. Let’s go to the library!
=> NOT STATEMENT because this sentence does not assert that “Let’s go to the
library!” is either true or false. Answering true or false is not an appropriate answer
to the question “Let’s go to the library!”.
2. Blondes are more attractive than brunettes.
=> STATEMENT because this sentence asserts that “Blondes are more attractive
than brunettes” is either true or false. It is true if the descriptions in this sentence are
true, i.e. if in fact “Blondes are more attractive than brunettes”. It is false in the case
of “A 2018 study based on University of Florida students found that men prefer
brunette women over blonde women”. And “Blondes are more attractive than
brunettes” is the evaluative statement.
Exercise 2: Determine whether the following passages do or do not contain ought
imperatives
“If you do not get your first meal service choice, please do not be distressed,
as all our entrées taste very much the same. (flight attendant)”
Answer:
=> The passage contains an ought imperative. It instructs or advises passengers on
how they should react or behave in a certain situation. The phrase "please do not be
distressed" is an example of an ought imperative as it suggests what passengers
should do or how they should feel in response to not receiving their preferred meal
choice.
Exercise 3: Identify the premises and conclusion in the following arguments
1. There is no definitive way to prove any one set of religious beliefs to the
exclusion of all others. For that reason religious freedom is a human right. (Richard
Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of
Ethical Reasoning)
2. There seems to be a tacit assumption that if grizzlies survive in Canada and
Alaska, that is good enough. It is not good enough for me. The Alaska bears are a
distinct species. Relegating grizzlies to Alaska is about like relegating happiness to
heaven; one may never get there. (Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac)
3. Philosophy is dangerous whenever it is taken seriously. But so is life. Safety is
not an option. Our choices, then, are not between risk and security, but between a
life lived consciously, fully, humanly in the most complete sense and a life that just
happens. (Douglas J. Soccio, Archetypes of Wisdom, 3rd ed.)
Answer:
1. There is no definitive way to prove any one set of religious beliefs to the
exclusion of all others. For that reason religious freedom is a human right. (Richard
Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of
Ethical Reasoning)
 Premise: There is no definitive way to prove any one set of religious beliefs
to the exclusion of all others.
 Conclusion: For that reason religious freedom is a human right.
2. There seems to be a tacit assumption that if grizzlies survive in Canada and
Alaska, that is good enough. It is not good enough for me. The Alaska bears are a
distinct species. Relegating grizzlies to Alaska is about like relegating happiness to
heaven; one may never get there. (Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac)
 Premise: The Alaska bears are a distinct species. Relegating grizzlies to
Alaska is about like relegating happiness to heaven; one may never get there.
 Conclusion: It is not good enough for me.
3. Philosophy is dangerous whenever it is taken seriously. But so is life. Safety is
not an option. Our choices, then, are not between risk and security, but between a
life lived consciously, fully, humanly in the most complete sense and a life that just
happens. (Douglas J. Soccio, Archetypes of Wisdom, 3rd ed.)
  Premise: Our choices, then, are not between risk and security, but between a
life lived consciously, fully, humanly in the most complete sense and a life
that just happens.
 Conclusion: Safety is not an option.
Exercise 4: Determine which of the following passages contain arguments and
which do not. And explain why.
1. The rich and famous tend not to be happy, well-adjusted personalities. Look at
Britney Spears.
2. The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know
whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
(John 3:8)
Answer:
1. The rich and famous tend not to be happy, well-adjusted personalities. Look at
Britney Spears.
=> This passage contains an argument. It presents a premise and draws a
conclusion based on that premise.
 Premise: The rich and famous tend not to be happy, well-adjusted
personalities.
 Conclusion: Look at Britney Spears.
2. The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know
whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
(John 3:8)
=> NOT ARGUMENTS because this is an illustration sentence ( use metaphorical
illustration )
Exercise 5: Determine whether the following arguments are deductive or inductive.
Which patterns of reasoning are they?
1. Khoa is an extrovert. It follows that she is outgoing.
2. That tree is deciduous. It must be the case, therefore, that it periodically sheds its
leaves.
Answer:
1. Khoa is an extrovert. It follows that she is outgoing.
=> INDUCTIVE because Khoa is an extrovert. That doesn’t mean she’s outgoing .
2. That tree is deciduous. It must be the case, therefore, that it periodically sheds its
leaves.
=> DEDUCTIVE because That tree is deciduous. That tree has reached the point of
periodically losing its leaves. Therefore, that tree lost its leaves.
Exercise 6: The following arguments are deductive. Determine whether the
arguments are valid or invalid. Explain your answer in each case.
1. Some people like milk tea. Some people like lemonade. So, some people who
like milk tea must also like lemonade.
2. Bill: I guess some of the seniors were late to practice this morning.
Diane: How do you know?
Bill: Because the coach said that anyone late to practice this morning would have to
do wind sprints, and I just saw some of the seniors doing wind sprints. That’ll teach
them.
Answer:
1. Some people like milk tea. Some people like lemonade.So, some people who like
milk tea must also like lemonade.
=> INVALID. Because Some people like milk tea. Some people like lemonade.
That doesn't mean some people have to like drinking milk tea and lemonade.
2. Bill: I guess some of the seniors were late to practice this morning (conclusion).
Diane: How do you know?
Bill: Because the coach said that anyone late to practice this morning would have to
do wind sprints (premise 1) , and I just saw some of the seniors doing wind sprints
(premise 2). That’ll teach them.
=> VALID. Because the coach said that anyone late to practice this morning would
have to do wind sprints, some of the seniors were doing wind sprints, so some of the
seniors were late to practice this morning.
Exercise 7: The following argument is deductive. Determine whether the arguments
are sound or unsound. Explain your answer in each case.
Some apples are red. Some apples are delicious. So, some apples are red and
delicious.
Answer:
 Validity: if there is at least one apple that is red and at least one apple that is
delicious, then it necessarily follows that there is at least one apple that is
both red and delicious.
 Unsoundness: While it is generally true that some apples are red and some
apples are delicious, the argument fails to establish a logical connection
between the premises and the conclusion.
In summary, while the argument is logically valid, it is unsound due to the lack of
true premises that support the conclusion.
=> UNSOUND
Exercise 8: The following argument is inductive. Determine whether the arguments
are cogent or un-cogent. Explain your answer in each case.
Ninety percent of Americans jog daily. Tom Cruise is an American. So, Tom Cruise
probably jogs daily.
Answer:
 Lack of representative sample: this claim is highly unlikely to be true and is
not supported by credible evidence.
 Lack of relevance: Even if we assume that ninety percent of Americans jog
daily, this does not necessarily mean that Tom Cruise, being an American,
also jogs daily.
=> It fails to provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to support the conclusion
that Tom Cruise probably jogs daily.
=> UNCOGENT
Exercise 9: Determine whether the following arguments are deductive or inductive.
If the argument is deductive, determine whether it is valid or invalid. If the
argument is inductive, determine whether it is strong or weak. Explain your answer
in each case.
1. If it rained, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. So, it rained.
2. Jerry was born on Easter Sunday. It necessarily follows, therefore, that his
birthday always falls on a Sunday.
Answer:
1. If it rained (P), then the streets are wet (Q). The streets are wet. (Q) So, it rained.
(P)
If P then Q.
P => Deductive and valid (sound): form of Modus Ponens
Therefore, Q.
2. Jerry was born on Easter Sunday. It necessarily follows, therefore, that his
birthday always falls on a Sunday.
While it is true that Jerry was born on Easter Sunday and that his birthday always
falls on a Sunday, the conclusion that "Jerry's birthday necessarily falls on a
Sunday" is based on observed patterns rather than strict logical entailment.
=> Inductive and strong (uncogent)
Exercise 10: Identify the fallacies of relevance committed by the following
arguments. There may be more than one. If no fallacy is committed, write “no
fallacy.”
1. Jesse Jackson has argued that last week’s police shooting was racially motivated.
But this is exactly what you would expect Jackson to say. After all, he’s black.
2. Dear Mr. Ferguson, I’m sure you’ll agree that after three years working as head
of company security I’m long overdue for a raise. By the way, may I respectfully
suggest that you make sure the surveillance cameras are turned off next time you
and your secretary need to “catch up on some paperwork”?
3. My doctor told me I need to eat right and lose weight. What a laugh! You know
where that tub o’ lard was when he gave me this great advice? He was a contestant
in the banana-split-eating contest at the county fair.
Answer:
1. Jesse Jackson has argued that last week’s police shooting was racially motivated.
But this is exactly what you would expect Jackson to say. After all, he’s black.
 Fallacy: Relevance - Personal Attack (Ad Hominem)
- The argument attacks Jesse Jackson personally based on his race, rather than
addressing the substance of his argument. By suggesting that Jackson's opinion is
biased because he is black, the argument attempts to undermine his credibility
without engaging with the issue of whether the police shooting was racially
motivated.
2. Dear Mr. Ferguson, I’m sure you’ll agree that after three years working as head
of company security I’m long overdue for a raise. By the way, may I respectfully
suggest that you make sure the surveillance cameras are turned off next time you
and your secretary need to “catch up on some paperwork”?
 Fallacy: Relevance - Red Herring
- The argument attempts to distract from the issue of the employee's request for a
raise by bringing up an unrelated accusation about the boss's personal behavior.
Instead of addressing the employee's request on its merits, the argument introduces
an irrelevant topic (the boss's behavior with the secretary) to cast doubt on the boss's
character.
3. My doctor told me I need to eat right and lose weight. What a laugh! You know
where that tub o’ lard was when he gave me this great advice? He was a contestant
in the banana-split-eating contest at the county fair.
 Fallacy: Relevance - Personal Attack (Ad Hominem)
- The argument attacks the doctor personally based on his appearance and behavior,
rather than addressing the validity of his medical advice. By calling the doctor a
"tub o' lard" and mentioning his participation in a food-eating contest, the argument
attempts to undermine the doctor's credibility without engaging with the substance
of his advice.
Exercise 11: Identify the fallacies of insufficient evidence in the following
arguments. If no fallacy is committed, write “no fallacy.”
1. Police detective: Did you get a good look at the bank robber?
Witness: Yes, I saw his face clearly. It was Willie, the night watchman.
Detective: And were you also able to recognize his voice?
Witness: No, I couldn’t really hear what he said very well. His voice was muffled
by the full ski mask he wore.
2. The volcano erupted shortly after the king abandoned worship of the ancient
tribal spirits. The tribal spirits must be angry.
3. Rich Kowalski is a young, successful CEO of an Internet start-up company, and
his parents come from Poland. Kelly Yablonski is a young, successful CEO of an
Internet start-up company, and her parents come from Poland. Matt Golembeski is a
young, successful CEO of an Internet start-up company, and his parents come from
Poland. Miguel Gonzalez is also a young, successful CEO of an Internet start-up
company. So, his parents probably come from Poland, too.
Answer:
1. Police detective: Did you get a good look at the bank robber?
Witness: Yes, I saw his face clearly. It was Willie, the night watchman.
Detective: And were you also able to recognize his voice?
Witness: No, I couldn’t really hear what he said very well. His voice was muffled
by the full ski mask he wore.
 Fallacy: Insufficient evidence - Loaded Question
- In this argument, the detective jumps to the conclusion that the bank robber is
Willie solely based on the witness's identification of Willie as the night watchman.
However, the witness's inability to recognize the robber's voice due to the ski mask
indicates that there is insufficient evidence to conclusively identify Willie as the
perpetrator.
2. The volcano erupted shortly after the king abandoned worship of the ancient
tribal spirits. The tribal spirits must be angry.
 No fallacy
3. Rich Kowalski is a young, successful CEO of an Internet start-up company, and
his parents come from Poland. Kelly Yablonski is a young, successful CEO of an
Internet start-up company, and her parents come from Poland. Matt Golembeski is a
young, successful CEO of an Internet start-up company, and his parents come from
Poland. Miguel Gonzalez is also a young, successful CEO of an Internet start-up
company. So, his parents probably come from Poland, too.
 Fallacy: Insufficient evidence - Questionable Cause
- The argument lacks sufficient evidence to make a valid inference about Miguel
Gonzalez's parental background.
Exercise 12: Most of the following passages were taken from letters to the editor
and newspaper call-in columns. Identify any fallacies (either “relevance” or
“insufficient evidence) that you find. If no fallacy is committed, write “no fallacy.”
1. Could we please have a move on to abolish parole in this state, in fact in the
country? If you get sentenced for a crime, you should serve the entire time, not just
a portion of it. Just like when you take out a mortgage or a car loan, they don’t say
you paid it nice for the first couple of years and we’ll eliminate the next twenty-
some years. (newspaper call-in column)
2. In Lane Filler’s opinion, whoever the hell he is, real life resembles a football
game. If that were true, Mr. Filler, I think I’d slit my wrists right now. What an
awful thing to say . . . you have a fat head and your picture proves it. (from a
newspaper call-in column)
Answer:
1. Could we please have a move on to abolish parole in this state, in fact in the
country? If you get sentenced for a crime, you should serve the entire time, not just
a portion of it. Just like when you take out a mortgage or a car loan, they don’t say
you paid it nice for the first couple of years and we’ll eliminate the next twenty-
some years. (newspaper call-in column)
 Fallacy: Insufficient evidence
- The argument presents a comparison between parole and paying off a mortgage or
a car loan. The comparison to mortgages and car loans does not adequately address
these factors, leading to an insufficient basis for the argument against parole.
2. In Lane Filler’s opinion, whoever the hell he is, real life resembles a football
game. If that were true, Mr. Filler, I think I’d slit my wrists right now. What an
awful thing to say . . . you have a fat head and your picture proves it. (from a
newspaper call-in column)
 Fallacy: Relevance (and possibly Ad Hominem)
- The response attacks the person expressing the opinion rather than addressing the
substance of the argument. The commenter dismisses Lane Filler's opinion with
insults about his appearance and identity, without engaging with the content of the
argument itself. This constitutes a relevance fallacy because the response does not
offer any meaningful rebuttal to Filler's opinion.
Exercise 13: Diagram the following argument
It makes no sense to ask God for things in prayer. The thing you ask for is either
good or it is not. If it is good, God will do it anyway. If it is not, he won’t. In neither
case can your prayer make any difference.
Answer:
➀ It makes no sense to ask God for things in prayer. ➁The thing you ask for is
either good or it is not. ➂If it is good, God will do it anyway. ➃ If it is not, he
won’t. ➄In neither case can your prayer make any difference.
➀

➁ ⇒ No indicator word.
⇒ Independent support.
➂ ➃

➄
Exercise 14: Diagram the following real-life arguments. For convenience, the
statements have been numbered.
1. ➀ Many that live deserve death. And ➁ some that die deserve life. ➂ Can you
give it to them? Then ➃ do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. ➄ For
even the wise cannot see all ends. (Gandalf, in J. R. R.Tolkien, The Lord of the
Rings)
2. ➀ A square must have exactly four corners, and ➁ a circle must have exactly
zero corners. So ➂ a round square must have exactly four corners and
simultaneously have exactly zero corners. But ➃ this is plainly impossible; hence ➄
there cannot be a round square. (Erik J. Wielenberg, God and the Reach of Reason)
Answer:
1. ➀ Many that live deserve death. And ➁ some that die deserve life. ➂ Can you
give it to them? Then ➃ do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. ➄ For
even the wise cannot see all ends. (Gandalf, in J. R. R.Tolkien, The Lord of the
Rings)
➀ ➁ ➂
⇒ No indicator word.
➃ ⇒ Independent support.

➄
2. ➀ A square must have exactly four corners, and ➁ a circle must have exactly
zero corners. So ➂ a round square must have exactly four corners and
simultaneously have exactly zero corners. But ➃ this is plainly impossible; hence ➄
there cannot be a round square. (Erik J. Wielenberg, God and the Reach of Reason)
➀ + ➁

➂
⇒ Indicator word: So.
➃ ⇒ Linked support.

➄
Exercise 15: Identify the missing premises or conclusions
1. Ford Windstars are roomy; after all, Windstars are minivans.
2. If Sparky committed the robbery, he was working for Curley. If Sparky was
working for Curley, Bugsy drove the getaway car. But Bugsy became totally blind
last year. So, I guess we can cross Sparky off our list of suspects.
Answer:
1. Ford Windstars are roomy; after all, Windstars are minivans.
Argument 1:
Premise 1: Windstars are minivans.
Conclusion: Windstars are roomy.
Missing premise: Minivans are generally roomy.
2. If Sparky committed the robbery, he was working for Curley. If Sparky was
working for Curley, Bugsy drove the getaway car. But Bugsy became totally blind
last year. So, I guess we can cross Sparky off our list of suspects.
Argument 2:
Premise 1: If Sparky committed the robbery, he was working for Curley.
Premise 2: If Sparky was working for Curley, Bugsy drove the getaway car.
Premise 3: Bugsy became totally blind last year.
Conclusion: Sparky is not a suspect.
Missing premise: If Bugsy is totally blind, he cannot drive a getaway car.
Exercise 16: For each of the following unsupported claims, indicate whether or not
it would be reasonable to accept the claim. Also state the criteria you use in
reaching your decision
1. Elephants live in Asia.
2. I read the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica last summer. (said by a stranger at a
party)
Answer:
1. Elephants live in Asia.
 It is reasonable to accept the premises.
 The criteria is: using personal experiences. I saw an elephant in a zoo in
Vietnam.
2. I read the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica last summer. (said by a stranger at a
party)
 It is not reasonable to accept the premises.
 The criteria is: using background belief. The Encyclopaedia Britannica
comprises numerous volumes, totaling thousands of pages of text, so it
would be nearly impossible to read and comprehend such a vast amount of
information within the span of a single summer.
Exercise 17: Refute the following statements by citing one or more counter-
examples
1. The United States consistently favors democratic rule and has never supported
corrupt authoritarian regimes.
2. The majority of fruits in the markets are green.
Answer:
1. The United States consistently favors democratic rule and has never supported
corrupt authoritarian regimes.
 Counter example: The support for authoritarian regimes during the Cold
War era, such as in Chile under Augusto Pinochet.
2. The majority of fruits in the markets are green.
 Counter example: The majority of fruits in markets come in a variety of
colors depending on their ripeness and type, such as: bananas are commonly
yellow when ripe, oranges are orange.
Exercise 18: Watch the following video clip (advertisement) and identify
advertising ploys and logical fallacies (if any). If there are no fallacies, write No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCSodM_4Z7Ih
Answer:
 Advertising Ploys:
- Using Emotive Language: "fast clean", "NEW Vitamin+ formula", "helps
clean and protect against 99.9% bacteria", "superior to ordinary soap".
("sạch nhanh", "công thức Vitamin+ MỚI", "giúp làm sạch và bảo vệ khỏi
99,9% vi khuẩn", "vượt trội hơn so với xà phòng thông thường")
- Anxiety Ads: "Try Lifebuoy for quick cleanliness!" implies that the user
must use Lifebuoy. ( "Thử Lifebuoy sạch nhanh đi!" tạo cảm giác như người
dùng phải sử dụng Lifebuoy. )
Feel-Good Ads: creating positive emotional associations. ( tạo cảm giác dễ
chịu cho người xem )
 Logical Fallacies:
- Fallacies of Insufficient evidence.
+ False Alternatives: Offering few choices to the viewers, intending to steer
others towards Lifebuoy advertiser's agenda.