ENGLISH NOTES - It guides us in sorting out all the

information being thrown at us because

Module 2: Reading Nonfiction we know what it’s all meant to add up to
- It’s a straightforward way of summarizing
the text
FICTION - We express our understanding of the text
in our own words.
- Uses imagined events, people, and/or
settings HOW TO FIND IT?
- Develops a plot/character, usually - What is the topic of the text?
focusing on a protagonist - What are the essential/supporting details
- Bias can exist in fictional writing that develop it?
- Putting together the topic and supporting
NONFICTION details, what is the main idea of the entire
- Discusses actual events and/or facts text?
- Typically explains real events or - Is there a thesis statement that explicitly
phenomena states the main point? If not, how can I
state it in my own words?
Fact Opinion - We must have already read the entire text
a verifiable statement signals a feeling, - We can write down the topic as well as its
that can be defined as attitude, value supporting details
either objectively true judgment, or belief, o We examine the introduction
or false usually of the writer,
section for a thesis statement
that is neither true nor
false containing these elements

AUDIENCE, PURPOSE AND BIAS

DIFFERENCES
AUIDENCE
- Texts on fact usually only contain data or
objective/multiple sourced recountings of - AKA the author’s intended reader
events - “Who are we writing for?”
- Opinion texts usually make use of - Refers to the specific group/s of people
observations and more personal that the author wants to communicate
experiences/beliefs with through their writing.
- How do we identify the audience?
If an opinion is neither true or false, how do we
evaluate it? o Ask who the topic is most
relevant to/who is most affected
- We evaluate an opinion on how effectively by it.
it is expressed. o What medium/platform is the
reading on? Who is it accessible
THE MAIN POINT
to?
- Not just the topic
- What the author wants to say about the PURPOSE
topic
- AKA the author’s intention
- They are adding to the
- “Why am I writing?”
discourse/information on their chosen
- Refers to why the author wants to talk
topic by either providing new information
about the main point - why/what they want
(fact) or their opinion on it.
to add to the discussion on the topic
Why find it? - How do we identify purpose?
o Find or make the text’s divided
- It can act as a north star or end goal while thesis statement
reading o “Why is there a reason to talk
about the topic?”
 o “Are the supporting details fact - To perceive something and then form a
or opinion?” real opinion about it
- To be critical, or to critique, means we
BIAS analyze, evaluate, and assess.
o This is different from criticizing
- AKA the author’s preference
which aims to find fault in what is
- “Who is writing?”, “What is influencing the
being looked at.
writer?”
o “To critique is to construct, to
- Bias refers to having preference
criticize is to destroy”
for/against one thing, person, or group
- The art of analyzing and evaluating
over another. It usually results in
something with the purpose of improving
unfairness.
it.
- Does bias exist even in “factual” texts?
o It is self-directed, self-monitored,
- How to identify bias
and self-corrected.
o Is some kind of preference
- We apply skills of identifying and inferring
explicitly expressed in the text?
onto more than just readings.
Are the author’s opinions
- What do we do when we think critically?
supported by sound and relevant
o identify the present issue
facts?
o question information,
o What kind of person is the
conclusions, and points of view
writer?
o strive/desire to be clear,
 What do they believe
in? accurate, precise, and relevant
 How do they live their o think beneath the surface
life? o seek logic & fairness
 What context do they - What do we gain from critical thinking?
come from? o learn how to create vital
- When bias becomes bad questions
o When we make a claim/opinion o can filter relevant information
without evidence to support it. o formulate well-reasoned
That’s called prejudice. conclusions/solutions based on
o When we prevent ourselves from standards
continuing to learn, listen, and o can think open-mindedly
discuss. When we become stuck o can communicate effectively
in our ways and unwilling to
change. To critique something is to assign value to it.

Other clues: - “This was worth my time, attention, and

mind”
- Vocabulary or Jargon
- Expository Techniques (ex. Comparison We spend time evaluating something, deciding
and contrast, cause and effect, what its purpose and effects are - good or bad -
illustration) rather than just letting it exist without
- Techniques used to introduce or conclude acknowledgement.
the text (anecdotes, quotes, questions) Critical Thinking improves and saves lives.

CRITICAL THINKING UNIVERSAL INTELLECTUAL

If an opinion is neither true or false, how do we STANDARDS
evaluate it?
- A set of standards that give us an easier
- We evaluate an opinion on how effectively time in discerning what information we
it is expressed. should listen to or disregard.
- Meeting the standards means that what
Critical Thinking we are engaging with is intellectual
material.
 Superficial/Shallow: The statement avoids
complexities
1. Clarity
and problems. It oversimplifies and gives a
Clear: The statement is understandable in “surface” view of the problem or issue at hand.
every way. Nothing is confusing. There is no It makes hasty conclusions without exploring
room for misinterpretation because the point is the complicated layers or factors to an issue,
evidently stated. question, or problem.
Unclear: The statement is difficult to 6. Breadth
understand. The reader cannot figure out the
point or the message of the statement. Broad: The statement shows careful
consideration of all the factors connected to
2. Accuracy the issue or problem. It acknowledges all the
Accurate: The statement is based on true or facts and perspectives related to an issue. It
complete information. All claims are explores all points of view in an open-minded
substantiated with indisputable facts and way. It is not biased toward any side or
based on valid premises. perspective.

Inaccurate: The statement is based on untrue Narrow: The statement has biases and
information or faulty premises. The facts prejudices. The competing points of view are
present are erroneous, or the claims are not not balanced; a partial view of the issue or
substantiated with facts, so there is no way to problem leads to an inaccurate portrayal. Very
tell if the thought is accurate. few facts or perspectives related to the issue
are considered. It makes conclusions without
3. Precision acknowledging or exploring different
perspectives connected to the issue.
Precise: The statement is detailed, specific or
properly quantified: numbers, figures, dates, 7. Significance
and concrete examples are used to express a
particular meaning. Precision improves the Significant: The statement consistently
accuracy and clarity of thought. focuses on the important aspects of the issue,
question, or problem. The central idea of the
Imprecise: Thinking is vague or general; the issue is fully considered and explored; only the
reader misinterprets meaning because the most important facts are used.
information presented is not exact.
Trivial/Insignificant: The statement focuses
4. Relevance on unimportant aspects of the problem or
issue. It ignores the central idea of the issue.
Relevant: The statement is strongly The facts used are outliers or anomalies and
connected to the issue or topic at hand. All has little to no connection with the main point.
ideas and examples are explicitly pertinent to
the subject matter. 8. Fairness

Irrelevant: The statement is unrelated to the Fair: The statement treats all subjects—
matter at hand. There is no connection persons, individuals, groups, or sectors—with
between the claim and the issue, question or respect and empathy. It does not devalue,
problem being addressed. discriminate against, or bring down any parties
involved in the issue. Claims made are
5. Depth impartial and lead to just conclusions or
Deep: The statement shows thorough solutions.
consideration of complexities and problems Unfair: The statement treats individuals,
inherent in the task. The claims stated groups, sectors, or their ideas unjustly.
embrace and explore nuance and successfully Prejudices are obvious and lead to unethical
avoids oversimplification. It acknowledges and conclusions or solutions. Personal interests
dives into the complicated layers or factors are visible and cloud judgment. It causes
inherent to an issue, question, or problem.
 distortion of others’ views or promotes
discrimination or hostility toward others.

Why do we need it?

- It’s not enough to ‘just know’ that

something is wrong
o We could be influenced by
others subjective definition of
what is intellectual
- Having the UIS makes critical thinking so
much easier because our brains know
what to look for in determining if
something is intellectually valid, rather
than processing all the information
aimlessly.
- We want critical thinking to become as
easy as reflex to us.
Arguing with Critical Thinking 2. Sweeping Generalization
- Stereotypes
THE ARGUMENT - Making a general statement without
- A presentation of reasons for a particular qualifying it so that it appears to include
claim or interpretation that you are putting all cases.
forward. - How to avoid: Don’t stereotype. See the
- All good arguments are composed of person in front of you as their own
premises that lead to a conclusion. individual, human being.

Premises – Statements that express your Ex: “Bakit madaming scholar na mayaman
reasons or evidence. LOL? May mga iphone ipads macbook then
halata naman sa mga lifestyle na may kaya sa
Conclusion – the main claim or interpretation buhay?
you are offering.

A good argument always: 3. Post Hos Ergo Propter Hoc

- “After this, therefore because of this”
- Follows the UIS - Falsely assumes that if A happens before
- Uses good premises B, then A caused B.
o Support the conclusion - How to avoid: Conduct proper research,
o Address the most important understand what are the actual factual
aspects of the issue causes of B as well as why people might
- Avoids making claims that are so believe it to be caused by A.
sweeping that you can’t reasonably
support them Ex: Evidence that vaccines cause autism
- Avoids mistaking correlation as a cause

Bad argument: A line of thought that lacks logic, 4. Argumentum Ad Speculum

or worse, unsolicited hurts the person on the other - Hypothesis contrary to fact or “Time
end of the argument. Travel Fallacy”
- Offers a claim about what might have
FALLACIES happened if circumstances or conditions
were different from what they actually
Fallacies – An error in reasoning that undermines
were or are.
the logic of an argument.
- Trying to prove something in the real
They are surprisingly common, we make them all world by using imaginary samples.
the time without realizing, sometimes even as - How to avoid: Assess if there is a logical
jokes. connection points between your premise
and conclusion.
They can be illegitimate arguments or irrelevant
points, we typically identify them by their lack of Ex: Elon musk – Making life multiplanetary
intellectual evidence to support a claim. would derisk civilizational extinction.

TYPES OF FALLACIES
5. Slippery Slope
1. Hasty Generalization - Claims that a false chain reaction, usually
- 1 = all ending in dire consequence, will take
- When we make assumptions about a place, but there’s not enough evidence for
whole group or range of cases based on that assumption.
an inadequate sample size. - How to avoid: Double check if there is
- Falsely assumes that what is true for one substantial evidence for your conclusion.
must be true for all. Do your premises make sense in their
- How to avoid: Don’t jump to conclusions connection to each other or are there wild
leaps?
Ex: 2 people said they hate me so everyone
probably hates me.
 Ex: If divorce became legal then my wide 10. Ad Verecundiam
would divorce me, and so will everyone else’s - Appeal to inappropriate authority.
wives. Believing improper authority who may not
have reliable information on the matter at
hand.
6. False Analogy - How to avoid: Listen to expert opinions –
- Inequivalent comparisons people who actually specialize in the field
- Because they are alike in one aspect, of topic being discussed.
they are alike in all of them.
- How to avoid: Understand the nuances Ex: Asking Taylor Swift to weigh in on the
of the two concepts you are trying to Israel-Palestine conflict
compare and that they probably have key
underlying differences. Asking a cop to do a doctor’s job.

Ex: Quiboloy is like Jesus because both of

them were persecuted. 11. Red Herring
- A deliberate attempt to change the subject
or divert the real issue.
7. Ad Hominem How to avoid: Remember the main point
- Instead of presenting a valid of the argument and stick to it.
counterargument, one attacks the
personal character of who they are Ex: - Why do they want to kill Donald Trump?
arguing with. Elon Musk: And no one is even trying to
- To attack the source rather than the assassinate Biden/Kamala?
argument.
- How to avoid: Focus on the argument
presented against you, not on the person 12. Strawman Fallacy
presenting it. - Falsely proves an argument by
oversimplifying or exaggerating the other
Ex: How many more black features ‘til you side.
finally feel that you’re black enough? - How to avoid: Take things at face value.

Ex: Extinctionist want a holocaust for all of

8. Ad Misericordiam humanity
- Appealing to emotion instead of logic in
an issue that ought to be logical. EXAMPLES:
- How to avoid: When the issue is a logical
one, stick to logical reasoning. Emotional 1. Drake’s songs get played way more often
regulation – avoid negative reinforcing and more people play them at parties,
emotions (ex. Pity, shame). which means he’s the better artist.
o Ad populum
Ex: Sino ba naman ako para piliin mo. 2. I would never date a girl who plays
Neck brace era ni GMA. Valorant because they all have
attachment issues.
- Sweeping Generalization
9. Ad populum 3. Sir Javy recommends ISO sisig, so it
- Appeal to popularity. Falsely assumes must be the best sisig around.
that what is believed by the majority must o Ad Verecundiam
be true or correct. 4. You have to play TFT with me all night
- How to avoid: Trace the source of the because she just broke up with me.
belief then assess if it is truly logical. o Ad Misericordiam
- Bandwagon version of fallacies.

Ex: She must be a good person since everyone

says she is.