CRITICAL THINKING AND LOGIC

1|Page
CRITICAL THINKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING

INTRODUCTION

Welcome to this interactive instructional module that uses both action and collaborative learning
styles that provide you with diverse online learning experiences and effective learning processes.
Critical thinking and Problem-solving module introduces you to the basic concepts, principles,
methods, uses and values of critical thinking and processes for effective problem solving and
decision-making.

The relevance of this course is premised on the fact that the world today is confronted with
various challenges: diseases, threats from global terrorism, global warming and devastating
climatic change, poverty, bad leadership, corruption and unemployment among the growing
number of youths. These challenges and many others require steady, ingenious and rational
thinking to alleviate. The pressure, uncertainty, challenges, conflicting ideas and opinions
occasioned by these threats continue to overwhelm the world. The ability to adeptly navigate
these challenges will enable us to be hopeful, positive and inspired to embrace the future. Our
ability to think critically, and to understanding and utilize key methods of critical thinking is not
only an essential component in handling the ever-emerging challenges, but it also enables us to
address the right problems, promptly identify risks and more importantly, make better and
effective decisions.

The module begins by examining and clarifying the concept of philosophy: meaning, traditional
branches, value and uses of philosophy and methods of philosophy. This examination is
necessary because critical thinking and problem-solving embraces both epistemological and
logical elements which together are philosophical in nature. Built on this philosophical
foundation, the module then delves into the discussion of levels of thinking, the what, how and
why critical thinking and problem solving. It defines critical thinking as the ability to use
evaluative cognitive skills or strategies in order to increase the probability of a desirable
outcome. In this module, we view critical thinking as a way of thinking that is concerned with
reason, intellectual honesty, and open-mindedness, as opposed to emotionalism, intellectual
laziness, and closed-mindedness. The kind of thinking that requires following evidence where it
leads; considering all possibilities; relying on reason rather than emotion and being precise.
Having the ability to consider a variety of possible viewpoints and explanations; weighing the
effects of motives, prejudices and biases, not rejecting unpopular views out of hand; being aware
of one's own prejudices and biases, and not allowing biases to sway one’s judgments; and more
importantly, having the ability to weigh outcomes and to consider possible consequences.

On the other hand, a “problem” is an issue that is out of alignment and requires to be attended to,
fixed, and corrected to enable desired outcomes to be achieved. We say one has a problem when
he is faced with a pressing demand or issue but has no immediate solution to it. Problem solving

2|Page
is therefore the process of finding solutions to difficult or complex issues that need solutions for
the ease of our needs. (Namwambah, 2020). Decision-making then is the mental processes
(cognitive process) of analyzing, evaluating and synthesizing data as received and which
culminates in the selection of a course of action among several alternative scenarios.

Critical Thinking and Problem-solving module present well-structured interactive instructional

content to you. It aims at initiating you into effective, judicious and positive thinking patterns
and practices. The self-assessment tasks at the end of each lesson helps you to reflect on the
content and subjects you to rigorous introspection. The topics covered include the Concept and
Methods of Philosophy, Critical Thinking, Levels of Thinking, Critical Thinking Tools; Logic,
fallacies, the Socratic Method, thinking for oneself – the Cartesian method, Appearance and
reality, Problem Solving and Decision Making, Value Creating Education and Leadership, and
Barriers to Critical Thinking and problem solving.

This module aims at stimulating reason and awakening you from perpetual dogmatic slumber by
encouraging incessant reflection and a life-long intellectual growth and development of desirable
competences such as honesty in reason, courage in action, efficiency in delivery, integrity, fair-
mindedness and faith in reason.

LESSON 1: PHILOSOPHY

1.1 Introduction

In this first lesson, we lay the foundation for the entire course by discussing the subject of
philosophy, which is the mother of all subjects, but more so critical thinking and problem
solving. The term Philosophy is derived from two ancient Greek words; Philos, meaning love,
and Sophia meaning wisdom. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. But what kind of love and
wisdom do we talk about in philosophy? As a discipline, philosophy is the investigation of the
nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.

This lesson is intended to equip the learner with knowledge, skills and positive attitudes towards
the understanding and appreciating the role of philosophy in human life and endeavors. It covers
the definition, meaning, branches, methods and value of philosophy in the cultivation of better
thinking and meaningful living.

1.2 Lesson Learning Outcomes

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

1.2.1 Define the term Philosophy and its meaning

1.2.2 Discuss the main branches of philosophy

3|Page
 1.2.3 Identify the methods of doing Philosophy

1.2.4 Explain the values of philosophy

1.2.1 Definition of the term Philosophy and its meaning

a) Definition

The word ‘philosophy’ is derived from the combination of two ancient Greek words; philos,
which means ‘love’, and sophia, which means ‘wisdom’- φιλοσοφία (philosophia). Literary
philosophy means “love of wisdom”. Philosophy can simply be understood as the study of
knowledge, or “Thinking about thinking”.

b) Meaning of Philosophy

Philosophy means to be in the habit of seeking to be wise about the human experience. It is
human attempt to understand human situation in a fundamental way in order to gain wisdom.
The breadth of what philosophy covers today is broad, and perhaps its actual meaning can be
best illustrated by the following definitions:

a) The methodical investigation of the world and our place in it, which involves a basic
assessment of reality described by a rational quest that focuses on the Truth for accomplishing
intelligence.

b) the order is concerned about inquiries of how one should live (morals); what kinds of things
exist and what are their fundamental qualities (metaphysics); what considers certified
information (epistemology); and what are the right standards of thinking (logic) (Stanford);

c) Philosophy is the institution of knowledge from which all different orders infer and the
standard by which thoughts are coordinated and perceived.

1.2.2 Branches of Philosophy

There are 4 main traditional branches of philosophy, namely Axiology (ethics and aesthetics),
epistemology, metaphysics and logic.

a) Axiology (General study of values and their impact on human behavior) (from Greek
axios, “worthy”; logos, “science”) refers to the philosophical study of values. Various
terms have been used in reference to axiology: - Theory of Value, the philosophical
investigation of goodness or fundamentally value. The importance of axiology as a field

4|Page
 of study lies first in the significant development of the term that has in the end given a
more extensive importance to the term value and furthermore in the unification that it has
accommodated the investigation of an assortment of inquiries financial, moral good,
stylish, religious, political and even logical qualities that had frequently been considered
in relative segregation. In Philosophy the investigation of qualities is partitioned into two
sets; Ethics and Esthetics.
b) Ethics – is the study of how people should act, and what is good and valuable, it is
therefore the study of practical reasoning and the normative questions which it gives rise
to. Ethics can be defined as the philosophical study of moral values. The study involves
systematizing, analyzing, evaluating, applying, defending and recommending concepts of
right and wrong behaviour. In general terms, morality has to do with the dos and don’ts
as expected of a rational human person. In modern times, Philosophers have divided
ethical theories into three general subject areas: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and
applied ethics. Central questions to ethics include: i) what is the nature of the life of
excellence? ii) What is the ultimate worth of the goals you seek? iii) What specific
courses of conduct, in keeping with these goals, will help lead to the life of excellence?
c) Aesthetics - the study of basic philosophical questions about art and beauty, it is the
study of Art and beauty. It mainly deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory-emotional
values, perception and matters of taste and sentiment. It includes what art consists of as
well as the purpose behind it. Major aesthetical questions are:- Does art consist of music,
literature, and painting? Or does it include a good engineering solution or a beautiful
sunset? What is beauty? These are some of the questions aimed at in Aesthetics. It also
studies methods of evaluating art and criteria of judgement of art. It attempts to answer
questions such as: What is beauty? What is the relation of the beautiful to the true and the
good? Are there criteria by means of which we can judge a work of art in an objective
sense? What is the art itself? Is it a reproduction of a vision into ultimate reality? To what
extent does the sense of appreciation of beauty contribute to the enrichment of human
life? Is art or beauty in the eye of the beholder? Does anything that appeals to you fit to
be considere art? Or does it have a specific nature? Does it accomplish a goal?

d) Epistemology - the study of knowledge, and how and what we know. The term
“epistemology” is derived from the ancient Greek word ‘episteme’ meaning ‘knowledg’.
The word in this way signifies the philosophical investigation of knowledge its avocation
and of the group of ideas that are engaged with our investigation cases to information or
supported beliefs. As a theory of knowledge, epistemology tries to set up the way towards
claiming to know and on what sureness premise are such cases established. In its broadest
sense, epistemology is the investigation of the technique for getting and handling
information. It addresses the inquiry, “How would I realize that I comprehend what I
guarantee to know?”, “How would we legitimize our insight claims?” “What are the
wellsprings of our knowledge claims?”, It is concerned about how we recognize what we

5|Page
 do, what legitimizes us in accepting what we do, and what principles of proof we should
use in looking for certainties about the world and human experience.

e) Metaphysics (the study of existence and the nature of reality) is the branch of philosophy
liable for the investigation of existence. As a term, mysticism is gotten from two
antiquated Greek words ‘meta’ which implies past and ‘physicea’ which alludes to
material substance or objects of understanding. Metaphysics means the study of the
essence of being beyond the physical entities. The word metaphysics was coined by
Aristotle, a student of Plato when he undertook the task of categorising the works and
writings of his teacher.

f) Logic (the study of good reasoning, by valid inference and demonstration). The term
logic comes from thhe Greek word logos meaning “reason”, Aristotle, the founder of the
science, designates it as analytic and the Epicureans use the term canonic. By and large
Logic is the investigation of the techniques and standards used to clarify right from
inaccurate thinking. In its broadest sense, Logic manages the investigation of the
evidential connection between the premises and conclusions.

1.2.3 Methods of Philosophy

Philosophy is an adventure, which demands hard work and intellectual rigor. Like an adventure
there is nowhere exactly you will end up, but if you persist, you will gain some valuable insights,
and hopefully an altered perspective on your world- Paul Voice, University of South Africa,
Pretoria.
A. Traditional methods

Analysis
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) defined “analysis” as the classification of a word or entity by genre and
differentia, that is, analysis is the classification of a word or entity by placing it in a large class
called the genre and then differentiating it from other members of that class. A very good
example of this form of analysis is found in the Dictionaries. You should look up in the
Dictionaries and see how they define concepts.

However, analysis does not only consist in this kind of classification only. Analysis is also the
listing of the most important characteristics of the thing to be analyzed, that is, outlining what
constitutes the essence of a thing. Both forms of analysis are common and extremely useful.

Synthesis
Just as important as analysis is synthesis. Synthesis is to relate the thing to be known to
something already familiar. Essentially, it is the attempt to reveal the thing to be known as part

6|Page
of some larger whole, e.g. an established philosophical rule, policy or standard. For example, the
student of Socrates, Theaetetus, thought that it is possible to clarify “knowledge” by analyzing it
into its instances, like geometry, the art of the cobbler and carpenter.

Dialectic
This is the method originally associated with Socrates (467-399 B.C.). But it was later adopted
and developed by George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). For Socrates, dialectic method
consists in clarifying phenomena or the words and terms that reflect them through discussion of
their central concepts. In this dialectic, he acted out as a “mid-wife” of ideas. He does not seek to
impose his views in the process but through question and answer method, he seeks to evoke
independent positions of his students and followers on selected issues. That method was so
effective that it has become one of the classic techniques of education.
Hegel, a German philosopher considered dialectic as a method through which ideas develop.
When beginning with an idea (“thesis”) its opposite (“antithesis”) develops until a middle ground
(“Synthesis”) is reached. This becomes a fresh thesis.

b) Other Methods of doing Philosophy

Observational Skills and Methods

c) Meta-theoretical Methods
- Discovering ignorance
- Discovering limits of knowledge.

LESSON 2: CRITICAL THINKING

2.1. Introduction

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully

conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from,
or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to
belief and action. This lesson is intended to awaken and equip the mind of the learner with
requisite knowledge in critical thinking skills for effective problem solving and decision-making.
It covers definitions of critical and thinking, nature and characteristics of critical thinking, uses
and importance of critical thinking.

2.2. Lesson Learning Outcomes

7|Page
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

2.2.1. Define critical thinking and explain its Dimension.

2.2.2. Explain the characteristics of a critical thinking its essential aspects
2.2.3. Discuss the importance of critical thinking.

2.2.4. Definition and Dimension of Critical thinking

There is a relationship between Critical and creative thinking and by defining critical thinking we
will also be able to define creative thinking. For one to embark on the path of critical thinking
there must be some issue or concern that will inform that process. To this end, the process of
generating an object or phenomenon that becomes the object of criticality is essential to the
process. Thus, there is need to understand what creativity entails before discussing what critical
thinking consists of.

There are different meanings of Critical thinking. The definitions change as indicated by the
inspiration basic to it. When grounded in childish thought processes, it is frequently shown in the
handy control of thoughts in support of one's own, or one’s groups’ personal stake. Accordingly,
it is normally intellectually defective, anyway pragmatically effective it may be. When grounded
in honesty and scholarly respectability, it is commonly of a higher request mentally.

Creative thinking essentially refers to the arrangement of potential answers for an issue or
conceivable clarification of a phenomenon. It involves bringing into being of something which
didn't exist previously, either as an item, a process or an idea, or working on the old with a
perspective on creating a blended new.

Whereas creative thinking is concerned with the formation of possible solutions to a problem or
possible explanation of a phenomenon, critical thinking deals with the testing and evaluation of
the proposed solutions to a problem or the proposed explanations of a phenomenon.

By critical thinking we mean the ability to use cognitive skills and strategies effectively in order
to increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is the kind of thinking that is purposeful,
reasoned and goal directed; the thinking that is involved in effective problems solving,
calculation of likelihoods, formulation of inferences and decisive decision-making. As a way of
thinking, critical thinking involves evaluating our thinking process: the reasoning that informs
the conclusions we arrived at, and the kinds of factors we consider in making our decisions; it is
that kind of thinking directed at a desired outcome.

Critical thinking is mainly concerned with having faith in the supremacy of reason, honesty,
integrity, fair-mindedness, courage, empathy, and open-mindedness

8|Page
Dimensions of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the intellectually restrained process of effectively and capably

conceptualizing, applying, examining, incorporating, as well as assessing data accumulated from,
or created by, perception, experience, reflection, thinking, or communication, as a manual for
conviction and activity. In its model structure, it depends on widespread scholarly qualities that
rise above subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound
evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. As a way of thinking critical thinking aims
at reasoning through multi-faceted ways; analyzing information and facts presented as to attain
the highest desirable good; evaluating facts as to authenticate and establish their truth value and
reliability; problem solving in order to satisfy the worth of reasoning, and; decision making as a
means to attain solutions to the myriad problems confronting the contemporary world.

2.2.5. Characteristics of Critical Thinking and its Essential Aspects

There are eight characteristics of critical and creative thinking which includes: asking relevant
questions; defining a problem; examining evidence; analyzing assumptions and biases; avoiding
emotional reasoning; avoiding oversimplification; considering other interpretations, and;
tolerating ambiguity.

These characteristics of critical thinking are important if state students in foundations of higher
learning are to learn and act with imperative information. They have to comprehend the
framework and disguise these qualities for viable and productive education.

Essential Aspects of Critical thinking

The following are the important aspects of critical thinking:

 It is a higher-level thinking and self-directed activity.

 It is guided by reason and seeks to justify claims.
 It is reflective and attempts to get in depth to avoid deceptive situations.
 It is purposeful and focused-not merely accidental and spontaneous.
 It facilitates good judgment.
 It is skillful since it employs specific reasoning skills such as intellectual standards, tools
of analysis and intellectual traits.
 It is responsible since it is accountable for all that it evaluates and generates.
 It is flexible because it cultivates open-mindedness.

The Importance of critical thinking

9|Page
Critical Thinking has values and its important cannot be underestimated. Critical Thinking is
important in life, academics and more especially at workplace. The ability to think critically
enables individuals to be adoptable, change the mind-set, learn to contextualize and to thick
effectively through issues.

To this end, critical thinking plays a greater role in human ability to think clearly, precisely and
distinctly; and helps in improving our thought patterns by:

1) inculcating habits of thought,

2) adding value to our lives through the enhancement of our ability to translate ideas (theory)
into practice through action;
3) helping us to understand ourselves and our world better and more deeply than we otherwise
would, and by permanently altering our approach to our lives and our relations to others
through encouraging a lifelong habit of reflection and harmonious coexistence;
4) immensely enriching our lives and opening to us views that would otherwise be closed or
overlooked;
5) enhancing our analytical, critical, evaluative and interpretive abilities,
6) Critical thinking greatly enhancing our ability to express ourselves clearly and to formulate
and respond to arguments in speech and writing effectively;
7) Provides us with general problem-solving skills, skills in analyzing concepts, definitions,
arguments and problems; and so on.

LESSON 3: TOOLS OF CRITICAL THINKING

3.1. Introduction

This lesson aims at introducing you to relevant instruments used in critical thinking in the
analysis and evaluation of arguments and formulation of rational statements. It covers Tools of
Analysis (dimensions of thinking), Tools of Evaluation (Universal intellectual Standards) and
Tools of Transformation (valuable intellectual Traits)

3.2.Expected Outcomes

By the end of this topic you will be able to:

1.2.1 Explain the critical thinking tools of analysis (elements of reasoning)

1.2.2 Discus tools of critical thinking Critical Tools of Evaluation
1.2.3 Outline Critical Thinking Tools of Transformation

3.2.1 Critical Thinking Tools of Analysis (Elements of Reasoning)

10 | P a g e
Critical thinking tools of analysis are also referred to as elements of reasoning. They entail those
essential components that must be taken into consideration when confronted with issues that
need solution. The tools of analysis manage the enlightening premise to which we can continue
in deciding an answer dependent on comprehensive and definitive information. They incorporate
purpose, issue or problem or Question at hand, assumptions, points of view, data, Information
and evidence base, concepts and ideas, inferences or interpretations, and implications and
Consequences.

Let us give further explanations of what exactly these reasoning tools/skills entail;
 All reasoning has a Purpose.
 Take time to state your purpose clearly.
 Distinguish your purpose from related purposes.
 Check periodically to be sure you are still on target.
 Choose significant and realistic purposes.
 All reasoning is an attempt to Figure something out, to settle some question, to solve
some problem.
 Take time to clearly and precisely state the question at issue.
 Express the question in several ways to clarify its meaning and scope.
 Break the question into sub questions.
 Identify if the question has one right answer, is a matter of opinion, or requires
reasoning from more than one point of view.
 All reasoning is based on Assumptions.
 Clearly identify your assumptions and determine whether they are justifiable.
 Consider how your assumptions are shaping your point of view.
 All reasoning is done from some Point of view.
 Identify your point of view.
 Seek other points of view and identify their strengths as well as weaknesses.
 Strive to be fair-minded in evaluating all points of view.
 All reasoning is based on Data, information and evidence.
 Restrict your claims to those supported by the data you have.
 Search for information that opposes your position as well as information that
support it.
 Make sure that all information used is clear, accurate, and relevant to the question
at issue.
 Make sure you have gathered sufficient information.
 All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, Concepts and Ideas.
 Identify key concepts and explain them clearly.

11 | P a g e
  Consider alternative concepts or alternative definitions to concepts.
 Make sure you are using concepts with care and precision.
 All reasoning contains Inference or Interpretations by which we draw Conclusion and
give meaning to data.
 Infer only what the evidence implies.
 Check inferences for their consistency with each other.
 Identify assumptions which lead you to your inferences.
 All reasoning leads somewhere or has Implication and Consequences.
 Trace the implications and consequences that follow from your reasoning.
 Search for negative as well as positive implications.
 Consider all possible consequences
With the above in mind, let us now turn our attention to some intellectual standards which
constitute a necessary condition to proper and clear thinking- the Tools of Evaluation.

3.2.2. Critical Thinking Tools of Evaluation

Critical thinking tools of evaluation are also referred to as Universal intellectual standards. These
are standards which must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the
quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically entails having
command of these standards, being able to solve problems and to make sound decisions, being
able to pose questions which probe our thinking- questions which hold us accountable for our
thinking, questions which, through disciplined consistency becomes internalized as questions we
need to ask ourselves.

The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become infused in our thinking, forming part of
our inner voice, which then guides us to better reasoning. While there are a number of universal
standards, the following are the most significant: Clarity, Accuracy, Precision, Relevance,
Depth, Breadth, and Logic

 Accuracy: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is
true? A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "You are either with us or against
us."
 Precision: Could you give more details? Could you be more specific?- A statement can
be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Saddam supports terrorism." (We don't
know how he does this; training, arming etc.)
 Relevance: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue? - A
statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For
example, most globalizing agents often think that the amount of effort they put into the
economic arm of globalization should be used in emphasizing the worth of the process
since it opens up international markets and improves the economic standards of the

12 | P a g e
 recipient nations. Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the quality of life of the
people, and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate well-being.
 Depth: How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you
taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant
factors?- A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is,
lack depth). For example, the statement "Just say No" which is often used to discourage
children and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant.
Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive
problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the
complexities of the issue.
 Breadth: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at
this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would
this look like from the point of view of...? - A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate,
precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the
conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the
insights of one side of the question.)
 Logic: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that
follow? But before you implied this and now you are saying that; how can both be true?
When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination
of thoughts is mutually supporting and makes sense in combination, the thinking is "logical."
When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not
"make sense," the combination is not logical, it is flawed.

3.2.3. Critical Thinking Tools of Transformation

Critical thinking tools of Transformation are also referred to as Valuable intellectual traits. These
are transformational traits exhibited by those individuals that embrace criticality and creativity.
They are virtue traits that define maturity in reason, objectivity in thought, rationality in
deliberations and sobriety save to mention consistency in the thinker. The tools of evaluation
include: Intellectual Humility, Intellectual Courage, Intellectual Empathy, Intellectual Integrity,
Intellectual Perseverance, Faith in Reason, Fair-mindedness.

 Intellectual Humility: Having the knowledge of the limits of one's knowledge, including
sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-
deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual
humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows.
It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual
pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical
foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs.
 Intellectual Courage: Having the knowledge of the need to face and fairly address ideas,
beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we
have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that
ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in

13 | P a g e
 part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading.
To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically
“accept" what we have “learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because
inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and
absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need
courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-
conformity can be severe.
 Intellectual Empathy: Having the knowledge of the need to imaginatively put oneself in
the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, this requires the consciousness
of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-
standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately
the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and
ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember
occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were
right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.
 Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be
consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous
standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what
one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's
own thought and action.
 Intellectual Perseverance: Having the knowledge of the need to use intellectual insights
and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational
principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with
confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper
understanding or insight.
 Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of
humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging
people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith
that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves,
to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically,
persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated
obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.
 Fairmindedness: Having the knowledge of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without
reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of
one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without
reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group.
Both the intellectual traits of mind and the universal standards are relevant and necessary in any
activity aimed at enhancing critical thought.

LESSON 4: LOGIC

INTRODUCTION

14 | P a g e
In this lesson we investigate the role of logic in criticality and problem solving. As a critical
thinker, if you want to better separate truth from falsehood and evaluate the various claims,
ideas, and arguments you encounter, you need to equip yourself with a better understanding of
logic. Logic is basically defined as the art or the study of proper reasoning. This lesson therefore,
will introduce you to; the meaning of logic and its basic concepts (inferences, propositions,
premises and conclusion) and to argument analysis and evaluation.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

By the end of this lesson you will be able to;

5.1.1 Explain the meaning of logic and its basic concepts.
5.1.2 Analyse and evaluate arguments.

5.2.1 The meaning of Logic and its basic concepts

Logic is the science or study of correct processes of thinking or reasoning. It is derived from the
Greek "logos" which has a variety of meanings, ranging from word, discourse, thought, idea,
argument, account, reason or principle. It is also defined as the study of the principles and
criteria of valid inference and demonstration; or, the study of the methods and principles used to
distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning. In its broadest sense, it is the study of
evidential link between premises and conclusions.

logic researches and orders the structure of proclamations and argumnets, both through the
investigation of formal frameworks of derivation and through the investigation of contentions in
normal language (informal). It manages proposition (declarative sentences, used to make an
affirmation, rather than questions, orders, or sentences communicating wishes) that are equipped
for being valid and invalid. It isn't concerned about the mental processes associated with thought,
or with feelings, pictures and so forth.

The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem that logic deals
with. Despite the fact that there are different definitions of logic – indicating that logicians are
not in agreement as to how it should be defined, we can appreciate the focus of logic as having to
do with the articulation of the methods distinguishing good reasoning from bad and to present
formal criteria for evaluating inferences and arguments as well as techniques and procedures for
applying these criteria to concrete cases. The following are some of the basic concepts in logic;
Propositions, Argument, inference, premise and conclusion.

5.2.2 Analysis and Evaluation of arguments

All arguments may be placed in two basic forms; “those in which the premises really do
support the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The

15 | P a g e
former are said to be good arguments (at least to that extent) and the latter are said to be bad
arguments.

A logical argument is a connected series of statements, some of which are intended to provide
support, justification, or evidence (the premises) for the truth of another statement (the
conclusion) through the process of an inference.

However, as it is apparent from the above definition, the term argument has a very specific
definition in logic. It does not mean for example, a mere verbal argument as one might have with
one’s parent, spouse or friend.

Deductive and inductive arguments

a) Deductive arguments

Traditionally, it is defined as proceeding from general principles or theories to

specific/particular conclusions. Although every argument involves the claim that its premises
provide some grounds for the truth of its conclusion, only; A deductive argument involves the
claim that its premises provide conclusive grounds.

In case of deductive arguments the technical terms “valid” and “invalid” are used in place of
“correct” and “incorrect.” A deductive argument is valid when its premises, if true, do provide
conclusive grounds for its conclusion, that is; when premises and conclusion are so related that
it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be true unless the conclusion is true also.

Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid; valid- when premises if true, provide
conclusive grounds for its conclusion, invalid when conclusions does not follow from the
premises. The task of deductive logic is to clarify the nature of the relation between premises and
conclusion in valid arguments, and thus to allow us to discriminate valid from invalid arguments.

The main distinguishing feature is in the claim that premises provide conclusive grounds and it is
a relationship of necessity.

Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid; valid- when premises if true, provide
conclusive grounds for its conclusion, invalid when conclusions does not follow from the
premises. The task of deductive logic is to clarify the nature of the relation between premises and
conclusion in valid arguments, and thus to allow us to discriminate valid from invalid arguments.

The main distinguishing feature is in the claim that premises provide conclusive grounds and it is
a relationship of necessity.

16 | P a g e
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for
the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive
argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually
true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
According to the definition of a deductive argument, the author of a deductive argument
always intends that the premises provide the sort of justification for the conclusion whereby if
the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well. Loosely speaking, if the
author’s process of reasoning is a good one, if the premises actually do provide this sort of
justification for the conclusion, then the argument is valid.
In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the
conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion nevertheless to be false:

Elizabeth owns either a Honda or a Toyota

Elizabeth does not own a Honda
Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Toyota

It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order
for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to
each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to
be true as well. We can recognize in the above case that even if one of the premises is
actually false, that if they had been true the conclusion would have been true as well. Consider,
then an argument such as the following:

All padlocks are items made of bronze

All items made of bronze are time travel devices
Therefore, all padlocks are time travel devices.

Obviously, the premises in this argument are not true. It may be hard to imagine these premises
being true, but it is not hard to see that if they were true, their truth would logically guarantee the
conclusion’s truth.

17 | P a g e
It is easy to see that the previous example is not an example of a completely good argument. A
valid argument may still have a false conclusion. When we construct our arguments, we must
aim to construct one that is not only valid, but sound. A sound argument is one that is not only
valid, but begins with premises that are actually true. The example given about toasters is valid,
but not sound. However, the following argument is both valid and sound:

In some state, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

Here, not only do the premises provide the right sort of support for the conclusion, but the
premises are actually true. Therefore, so is the conclusion. Although it is not part of
the definition of a sound argument, because sound arguments both start out with true premises
and have a form that guarantees that the conclusion must be true if the premises are, sound
arguments always end with true conclusions.
It should be noted that both invalid, as well as valid but unsound, arguments can nevertheless
have true conclusions. One cannot reject the conclusion of an argument simply by discovering a
given argument for that conclusion to be flawed.

Whether or not the premises of an argument are true depends on their specific content. However,
according to the dominant understanding among logicians, the validity or invalidity of an
argument is determined entirely by its logical form. The logical form of an argument is that
which remains of it when one abstracts away from the specific content of the premises and the
conclusion, that is, words naming things, their properties and relations, leaving only those
elements that are common to discourse and reasoning about any subject matter, that is, words
such as “all,” “and,” “not,” “some,” and so forth. One can represent the logical form of an
argument by replacing the specific content words with letters used as place-holders or variables.
For example, consider these two arguments:

All tigers are mammals

No mammals are creatures with scales
Therefore, no tigers are creatures with scales.

All spider monkeys are elephants

No elephants are animals.
Therefore, no spider monkeys are animals.
Validity is the attribute of deductive arguments that denotes logical strength. Validity is about
the strength of the inference, or reasoning, between the premises and the conclusion. A deductive

18 | P a g e
argument is valid when you have the following: If all its premises were true, then its conclusion
must be true, by necessity.

To determine if an argument is valid or invalid (not valid):

1. First assume that the premises are true, even if they are not; pretend that they are true.
2. Then ask yourself whether the conclusion would need to be true, assuming/pretending that
the premises are true.

Here is an example:

Premise 1: All dogs are snakes.

Premise 2: All snakes are birds.
Conclusion: All dogs are birds.
This is a valid argument because if all of the premises were true then the conclusion would
follow by necessity. The argument has logical strength, or validity. Validity is about the form of
the argument, not the truth of its premises.

Valid arguments may have:

 True premises, true conclusion

 False premises, false conclusion
 False premises, true conclusion
Valid arguments can never have:
 True premises, false conclusion.

In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false.

It is important to keep in mind that just because an argument does have a possibly valid
combination of premise-conclusion truth values (for example, true premises and true
conclusion), it is not necessarily valid. It must also be logically strong. That example with dogs,
snakes, and birds is valid, because the reasoning works. If those premises were true, the
conclusion would necessarily follow. Even if the premises are true and the conclusion is true, it
does not mean that the reasoning is valid.

Here is an example of an argument with true premise and a true conclusion, but the strength of
the connection, the reasoning, from the premises to the conclusion is not valid. The conclusion
happens to be true but not due to any reason provided by those premises. The argument’s form is
invalid.

19 | P a g e
Premise 1: All dogs are mammals.
Premise 2: All collies are mammals.
Conclusion: All collies are dogs.
To summarize, a valid deductive argument is one where it would be impossible for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises were true. The conclusion follows necessarily from
the logical connections or reasoning established by the premises.

Soundness

Soundness is the attribute of a deductive argument that denotes both the truth of its premises and
its logical strength. A deductive argument is sound when:
1. It is valid, and
2. It has all true premises.

For example:

Premise 1: All cats are mammals.

Premise 2: All mammals are animals.
Conclusion: All cats are animals.
This argument is sound because (1) it is valid (the premises support the conclusion by
necessity) and (2) all of the premises are actually true!

On the other hand, the example above used to demonstrate validity (with dogs, snakes and birds)
is not sound, because it does not have all (any!) true premises. (But it’s form is still valid.)

b) Inductive arguments

Traditionally, it is the reasoning that proceeds from particular or specific cases to general
conclusions. It is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably
from the premises.

An inductive argument involves the claim; not that its premises give conclusive grounds for
the truth of its conclusion, but only that it provides some grounds or probability for it.

Inductive arguments are neither valid nor invalid in the sense in which those terms are applied
to deductive arguments. Inductive arguments may be evaluated as better or worse, according to
the degree of likelihood or probability which their premises confer upon their conclusions.

They are either weak or strong, cogent or uncogent; in strong inductive arguments the
conclusion follows probably from the premises, for example, an inductive argument is one in
which it is unlikely that its conclusion is false if its premises are true; Weak inductive argument

20 | P a g e
conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, for instance, here it is unlikely that its
premises are true and its conclusion is also true.

A cogent inductive argument is one that is both strong and has all premises true. An uncogent is
an inductive argument that is either weak or has at least one false premise or both.

Inductive strength is the attribute of inductive arguments that denotes logical strength. An
inductive argument is inductively strong when you have the following:

If all its premises were true, then it its highly likely or probable that its conclusion would also
true.

“Strong” and “weak” are the terms used to describe the possibilities for the logical strength of
inductive arguments. To determine if an argument is strong or weak:

1. First assume the premises are true, even if they are not; pretend for now that they are true.
2. Then ask yourself whether it is likely/probable that the conclusion would be true,
assuming/pretending that those premises are true.

Here is an example:

Premise 1: Most peacocks eat oatmeal for breakfast.

Premise 2: This bird is a peacock.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably this bird eats oatmeal for breakfast.
This argument is inductively strong because if all its premises were true, then it would be highly
likely or probable that its conclusion would also true.

Inductively strong arguments may have:

 True premises, true conclusion

 False premises, false conclusion
 False premises, true conclusion
Inductively strong arguments cannot have:
 True premises, false conclusion

To summarize, a strong inductive argument is one where it is improbable for the conclusion to be
false, given that the premises are true. A weak inductive argument is one where the conclusion
probably would not follow from the premises, if they were true.

Cogency

Cogency is the attribute of an inductive argument that denotes the truth of its premises and its
logical strength. An inductive argument is cogent when:

21 | P a g e
 1. It is inductively strong, and
2. It has all true premises

Here’s an example:

Premise 1: Europa (a moon of Jupiter) has an atmosphere containing oxygen.

Premise 2: Oxygen is required for life.
Conclusion: Thus, there may be life on Europa.
This argument is cogent because (1) it is inductively strong (if the premises were true, then the
conclusion would probably be true) and (2) the premises actually are true.

On the other hand, the example above concerning peacocks, used to demonstrate inductive
strength, is not cogent, because it does not have all true premises.

In summary, an inductive argument is one in which it is improbable that the conclusion is false
given that the premises are true.

Good Arguments

The important take-away from the information on the attributes of both deductive and inductive
arguments is this:

A good argument proves, or establishes its conclusion and has two key features:
1. It is logically strong.
2. All of its premises are true.

Logical Strength

Logical strength is the degree of support that the premises, if true, confer on the conclusion. This
attribute applies to both deductive arguments (by virtue of validity) and inductive arguments (by
virtue of inductive strength.)

 A good deductive argument is not only valid, but is also sound.

 A good inductive argument is not only inductively strong, but is also cogent.
Syllogisms

Syllogism is a type of logical argument using deductive reasoning.

While syllogism is a weird word, it's quite simple to understand. Syllogism derives from the
Greek word syllogismos meaning conclusion or inference. A simple syllogism definition is that

22 | P a g e
it's a form of deductive reasoning where you arrive at a specific conclusion by examining
premises or ideas.

In logic, a syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor

premise, and a conclusion. Adjective: syllogistic. Also known as a categorical argument or
a standard categorical syllogism. The term syllogism is from the Greek, "to infer, count, reckon"

A syllogism is a deductive argument that has exactly two premises and a conclusion. A
categorical syllogism is constructed entirely out of categorical propositions. It contains three
different terms, each of which is used two times. The major term is the predicate of the
conclusion of a categorical syllogism. The minor term is the subject of the conclusion of a
categorical syllogism. The middle term is the term that occurs only in the premises of a
categorical syllogism.

Following the structure and naming convention of categorical terms, the major premise is the
first premise of a categorical syllogism. The major premise contains the major term. The minor
premise the second premise of a categorical syllogism contains the minor term.

Here is an example of a valid categorical syllogism:

Major premise: All mammals are warm-blooded.

Minor premise: All black dogs are mammals.
Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs are warm-blooded.

Major Premise, Minor Premise, and Conclusion

"The process of deduction has traditionally been illustrated with a syllogism, a three-part set of
statements or propositions that includes a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.

Major premise: All books from that store are new.

Minor premise: These books are from that store.
Conclusion: Therefore, these books are new.

23 | P a g e
 The major premise of a syllogism makes a general statement that the writer believes to be true.
The minor premise presents a specific example of the belief that is stated in the major premise. If
the reasoning is sound, the conclusion should follow from the two premises. . . .
"A syllogism is valid (or logical) when its conclusion follows from its premises. A syllogism
is true when it makes accurate claims—that is, when the information it contains is consistent
with the facts.

To be sound, a syllogism must be both valid and true. However, a syllogism may be valid
without being true or true without being valid."

Example

All roses are flowers.

This is a rose.
I'm holding a flower.

Many syllogisms contain three components.

 Major premise - All roses are flowers.
 Minor premise - This is a rose.
 Conclusion - I'm holding a flower.

However, there are different types of syllogisms.

Types of Syllogism

The type of syllogism that contains three components is a categorical syllogism. However, there
are two other major kinds of syllogism.

24 | P a g e
 Categorical Syllogism Examples

As we know, our first example about roses was a categorical syllogism. Categorical syllogisms
follow an, "If A is part of C, then B is part of C" logic. Let's look at some examples of
categorical syllogisms.

 All cars have wheels. I drive a car. Therefore, my car has wheels.
o A: Major premise: All cars have wheels.
o B: Minor premise: I drive a car.
o C: Conclusion: My car has wheels.

 All insects frighten me. That is an insect. Therefore, I am frightened.

o A: Major Premise: All insects frighten me.
o B: Minor Premise: That is an insect.
o C: Conclusion: I am frightened.

Conditional Syllogism Examples

Conditional syllogisms follow an, "If A is true, then B is true" pattern of logic. They're often
referred to as hypothetical syllogisms because the arguments aren't always valid. Sometimes
they're merely an accepted truth like these examples.

 If Johnny is eating sweets every day, he is placing himself at risk for diabetes.
o A: Major premise: If Johnny is eating sweets every day, he is placing himself at risk for

diabetes
o B: Minor premise: Johnny does not eat sweats everyday
o Conclusion: Therefore Johnny is not placing himself at risk for
diabetes

 If Gini likes Germany, then she must drive an Audi.

o A: Major premise: If Gini likes Japan, then she must drive a Toyota

25 | P a g e
o B: Minor premise: Gini likes all Japan things.
o C: Conclusion: Therefore, Gini will drive a Toyota.

Disjunctive Syllogism Examples

Disjunctive syllogisms follow an, "Either A or B is true, if A is false, then B is true" premise.
They don't state if a major or minor premise is correct. But it's understood that one of them is
correct.

 This cake is either red velvet or chocolate. Since it's not chocolate cake, it must be red velvet.
o Either Statement: This cake is either red velvet or chocolate.
o False Premise: It's not chocolate.
o Conclusion: Therefore, this cake is red velvet.

 In Kamiti prison, for instance, the prisoners are either in the cell or in Kitui. Since they are not in
the cell, they must be in Kitui.
o Either Statement: Kamiti prisoners are either in the cell or in Kitui.
o False Premise: They are not in the cell.
o Conclusion: Therefore, Kamiti prisoners are in Kitui.

Enthymemes Examples

An enthymeme is not one of the major types of syllogism but is what's known as a rhetorical
syllogism. These are often used in persuasive speeches and arguments. Generally, the speaker
will omit a major or minor premise, assuming it's already accepted by the audience.
 Obama wants to create government-run healthcare. Obama is a socialist.
o Major premise: Obama wants to create government-run healthcare.
o Implied Minor premise: Socialists have government-run healthcare.
o Conclusion: Therefore, Obama is a socialist.

26 | P a g e
 Cake increases sugar. Diabetics shouldn't eat it.
o Major premise: Cake increases sugar.
o Implied Minor premise: Diabetics shouldn't have sugar.
o Conclusion: Therefore, diabetics shouldn't eat cake.

In an enthymeme, one premise remains implied. However, since one of the premises is common
knowledge, this helps people to understand them.

Syllogistic Fallacy Examples

Some syllogisms contain false presumptions. A syllogistic fallacy happens when you make two
general statements to validate a conclusion. For example, when you say, "all dogs are mammals,
cats are mammals, therefore, dogs must be cats." It's impossible to draw a conclusion based on
the general premises you are making. Therefore, when you make an assumption based on general
premises, you run the risk of making a false assumption.

 All crows are black. The bird in my cage is black. Therefore, this bird is a crow.
o Major premise: All crows are black.
o Minor premise: The bird in my cage is black.
o Conclusion: This bird is a crow.

 The scenery in Ireland is beautiful. I'm in Ireland. Therefore, the scenery must be beautiful.
o Major premise: The scenery in Ireland is beautiful.
o Minor premise: I'm in Ireland.
o Conclusion: The scenery is beautiful.

Rules of Syllogism

There are six known rules of syllogism. However, they mainly apply to categorical syllogism,
since that is the only category that requires three components: the major premise, minor premise
and conclusion. Learn the six rules that ensure you're making a strong and accurate argument.

27 | P a g e
 Rule One: There must be three terms: the major term, the minor term and the middle term — no
more, no less.
 Rule Two: The middle term must be distributed in at least one other premise.
 Rule Three: Any terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the relevant premise.
 Rule Four: Do not use two negative premises.
 Rule Five: If one of the two premises is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
 Rule Six: From two universal premises, no particular conclusion may be drawn.

LESSON 5: FALLACIES

6.1 Introduction

In this lesson, we are going to analyse the various fallacies that we make when during
arguments. A fallacy, at its most basic form is defined as a flaw or error in reasoning. It refers to
a defect in the reasoning of an argument that causes a conclusion to be invalid, unsound or weak.
It is important to study fallacies so that you can avoid them in your daily arguments and also get
a foundation for evaluating and critiquing other forms of arguments as well. This lesson
therefore analyses the meaning of a fallacy, the difference between formal and informal fallacies,
how to identify and classify fallacies and finally how to avoid fallacious reasoning.

5.2 Lesson Learning Outcomes

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

6.2.1 Explain the meaning and types of fallacies.

6.2.2 Identify and classify fallacies.

5.2.1 The meaning of fallacy and different types

The word fallacy comes from the latin word falacia,s meaning ‘trick’, ‘deceit’ or ‘fraud’. A
logical fallacy is an argument containing faulty reasoning. Generally, there are two types of
logical fallacies which are formal and informal fallacies. A formal fallacy is an argument that is
flawed due to an error pertaining the structure of an argument. An informal fallacy is an
argument that is flawed due to an error pertaining the content of an argument.

28 | P a g e
Our interest here is on the informal fallacies because;

a) You will be able to detect poor and incorrect arguments. This skill will guide you through
this world that is full of spin, propaganda and lies.
b) You will be able to horn and increase your analytical capabilities. This means that you
will not only be able to recognize erroneous reasoning, but you will also be able to think
more critically in general. This ability to think critically will help you in every aspect of
your life.
c) You will gain confidence to challenge lazy assumptions and unquestioned beliefs. This
confidence is necessary in order to think for yourself. Only by thinking for yourself you
will be able to fully and authentically approach the most important religious, political and
ethical issues of life.

Generally, informal logical fallacies occur because of;

a. Carelessness and inattentiveness in our arguments.

b. Use of the heart or emotions to think. They appeal to our emotions, prejudice,
self-interests or blind faith.
c. Ambiguity in language – semantics/formulation of the argument
d. Failure to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge and the extent of our
ignorance.
e. Mental fatigue/tiredness
f. Lack of criticality.

5.2.2 Classification of fallacies

Logically, it is impossible to classify how we make mistakes in reasoning and that is why we
have more than 100 fallacies. In fact, we cannot fully classify informal logical fallacies but there
has an been attempt to classify them into four main categories as follows;

a) Fallacies of relevance; here, premises are simply not relevant to the conclusion drawn.
Examples; Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument against a person), Argumentum ad
populum (appeal to people/masses), Red Herring (Diversion from the argument),
Argumentum ad misericodium (appeal to pity), Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to
force) e.t.c.
b) Fallacies of defective induction/insufficient evidence; in these fallacies, the premises of
the argument are so weak and ineffective that reliance upon them is wrong.
Examples; Argumentum ad verecundium (appeal to inappropriate authority), Hasty
generalisations, Weak analogy, fallacy of questionable cause, argumentum ad ignoratium
(appeal to ignorance) e.t.c
c) Fallacies of presumption; in these fallacies, the premises presume what they purport to
prove.

29 | P a g e
 Examples; False dichotomy or either-or fallacy/false dilemma, complex question,
slippery slope, pettitio principi e.t.c
d) Fallacies of Ambiguity; these are arguments whose formulations contain ambiguous
words or phrases.
Examples; fallacy of equivocation, amphiboly, accent, composition, division etc.

11.2 Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies are further divided into two-fallacies of relevance and fallacies of ambiguity.

11.2.1 Fallacies of relevance

There are various types of Fallacies of relevance. Common to all arguments that commit fallacies
of relevance is the fact that their premises are logically irrelevant to, and therefore incapable of
establishing the truth of their conclusions. The following are just but examples of fallacies of
relevance;

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses)

The fallacy is committed in directing an emotional appeal “to the people” or “to the masses”
with a view to winning their assent to a conclusion unsupported by good evidence. It is an
attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feelings and enthusiasms of the
multitude. This fallacy is a favourite device with propagandists, politicians, street preachers,
demagogues, and advertisers among others. Faced with the task of mobilising public
sentiment for or against a particular measure, the propagandist or politician avoids the
laborious process of collecting and presenting evidence and rational argument and instead
choose to use the short-cut methods of argumentum ad populum. For example, where the
proposal is for change and he is against it, he will express suspicion of “viability or
admissibility of the program” and praise the wisdom of the “existing order.” If he is for it, he
will be for “progress” and opposed to “antiquated prejudice.”

Bandwagon fallacy

Bandwagon is a fallacy based on the assumption that the opinion of the majority is always
valid: that is, everyone believes it, so you should too. It is also called an appeal to popularity,
the authority of the many, and argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the
people"). Argumentum ad populum proves only that a belief is popular, not that it's true.

30 | P a g e
"Everyone's Doing It"

"The fact that 'Everyone's doing it' is frequently appealed to as a reason why people feel morally
justified in acting in less than ideal ways. This is particularly true in business matters, where
competitive pressures often conspire to make perfectly upright conduct seem difficult if not
impossible.

"The 'Everyone's doing it' claim usually arises when we encounter a more or less prevalent form
of behavior that is morally undesirable because it involves a practice that, on balance, causes
harm people would like to avoid. Although it is rare that literally everyone else is engaged in this
behavior, the 'Everyone's doing it' claim is meaningfully made whenever a practice is widespread
enough to make one's own forbearing from this conduct seem pointless or needlessly self-
destructive." (Ronald M Green, "When Is 'Everybody's Doing It' a Moral Justification?" Moral
Issues in Business, 13th ed., edited by William H Shaw and Vincent Barry, Cengage, 2016)

Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to inappropriate authority)

This fallacy refers to the appeal to authority to win assent to a conclusion - that is, appeal to
the feeling of respect people have for the institution or person in authority. This method of
argument is not always strictly fallacious, for the reference to an admitted authority in the
special field of his/her competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence.
If laymen are disputing over some question of physical science and one appeals to the
testimony of Einstein on the matter, that testimony is very relevant. Although it does not
prove the point, it certainly tends to support it.

But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of his
special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of argumentum ad veracundium. If in an
argument over religion one of the disputants appeals to the opinions of Darwin, the appeal is
fallacious. Advertising “testimonials” are frequent instances of this fallacy. We are urged to
smoke this or that brand of cigarette because a champion swimmer or football star affirms
their superiority.

Argumentum ad ignorantam (argument from ignorance)

This fallacy is illustrated by the argument that something is true because no one has ever
proved that it is not, for example the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has
ever been able to prove that there aren’t any commits this fallacy. It is committed whenever it
is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or
that it is false because it has not been proved true.

Arguments of this nature are fallacious because our ignorance of how to prove or disprove a
proposition clearly does not establish either the truth or falsehood of that proposition.

31 | P a g e
 This fallacy often arises in connection with such matters as psychic phenomena, telepathy,
where there is no clear-cut evidence either for or against.

Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)

This is a fallacy committed when pity is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion
accepted. This argument is frequently encountered in courts of law, when, for example a
defence attorney disregards the facts of the case and seek to win his client’s acquittal by
arousing pity in the presiding judge.

For example, a youth being tried for a particular brutal crime, the murder of his father and
mother. Confronted with overwhelming proof of his guilt, he pleads for leniency on the
ground that he is an orphan meets the criteria of argumentum ad misericordiam.

Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force)

This is a fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to cause
acceptance of a conclusion. It is usually resulted to when evidence or rational arguments fail.
It is epitomized in the saying “might is right.” The use and threat of “strong-arm” methods to
coerce political opponents provides a good contemporary example of this fallacy.

On the international scale, the argumentum ad baculum means war or the threat of war by
superior powers to silence the weaker or growing nations. For example, threats by super
powers to invade growing nations over certain issues such as harbouring terrorism as a an
excuse is a good example of argumentum ad baculum.

Argumentum ad hominen (abusive)

This fallacy translates literally as “argument directed to the person.” It is susceptible to two
interpretations, first, as abusive variety.

It is committed when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of what is asserted, one attacks
the person who made the assertion. For example, when it is argued that tribe X in Kenya is
naturally of thieves since a number of the people from it are implicated with theft is to
commit argumentum ad hominen fallacy.

The argument is fallacious because the personal character of particular individuals is

logically irrelevant to the collective nature of ethnic group X.

To argue that proposals are bad or assertions false because they are proposed or asserted by a
particular community or individual is to argue fallaciously and to be guilty of committing an
argumentum ad hominem. This kind of argument is sometimes said to commit the “genetic
fallacy,” for obvious reasons.

32 | P a g e
 The way in which this irrelevant argument may sometimes persuade is through the
psychological process of transference especially where an attitude of disapproval towards a
person is evoked.

Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial)

This is the other interpretation of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. This variety
pertains to the relationship between a person’s beliefs and his circumstances.

When two persons are disputing, one may ignore the question of whether his own contention
is true or false and seek instead to prove that his opponent ought to accept it because of his
opponent’s special circumstances.

For example, if one’s adversary is a clergyman, one may argue that a certain contention must
be accepted because its denial is incompatible with the scriptures and/or faith. This is not to
prove it true, but to urge its acceptance by that particular individual because of his special
circumstances- in this case his religious affiliation.

Such arguments are not really to the point; they do not present good grounds for the truth of
their conclusions but are intended only to win assent to the conclusion from one’s opponent
because of his special circumstances.

The connection between the abusive and the circumstantial varieties of argumentum ad
hominem is that;

 The circumstantial variety may be regarded as a special case of abusive. It charges a

person who disputes your conclusion with inconsistency which may be regarded as a kind
of reproach or abuse.

 The hominine charges the adversary with being so prejudiced that his alleged reasons are
mere rationalisations of conclusions dictated by self-interest. And that is certainly to
abuse him

Fallacy of Tu quoque

Tu quoque is a type of ad hominem argument in which an accused person turns an allegation

back on his or her accuser, thus creating a logical fallacy. In the English language, the
phrase generally functions as a noun; however, it's also used attributively to modify other
nouns, as in "a tu quoque argument."

"The tu quoque fallacy occurs when one charges another with hypocrisy or inconsistency in
order to avoid taking the other's position seriously. For example:

 Shani: You should stop smoking. It's harmful to your health.

 Kitwe: Why should I listen to you? You started smoking when you were 16!

33 | P a g e
[Here], the daughter commits the tu quoque fallacy. She dismisses her mother's argument
because she believes her mother is speaking in a hypocritical manner. While the mother may
indeed be inconsistent, this does not invalidate her argument.

Two wrongs make a right

The two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy states that it's okay for you to do something wrong as
long as somebody else did a wrong thing first. Logicians categorize it as a fallacy of relevance,
or a casual argument based on irrelevant or unrelated observations. According to the argument,
you're not at fault, or may even be justified, if your wrongful behavior follows the wrongful
behavior of another.
So why is your argument illogical or irrational? Let's consider the situation with your neighbor.
You're claiming that it's not really wrong for you to let your dog dig up the neighbor's yard
because your neighbor has already acted in a wrong way by allowing her kids to ruin your
garden. Therefore, the two wrongs lead to a right. It's a bit like saying 'we're even.'
Yet, the logic in your argument is flawed. The previous actions of your neighbor don't change
the rightness or wrongness of your own actions. If what you're doing is unethical or uncaring, it's
still wrong, even if your neighbor did something similar first.

Petitio Principii (begging the question)

In attempting to establish the truth of a proposition, one often casts about for acceptable
premises from which the proposition in question can be deduced as conclusion. If you
assume as a premise for your argument the very conclusion you intend to prove, the fallacy
committed is that of petitio principii, or begging the question.

For example the argument that “I am because I am” is a classical example of petitio principii

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion)

This fallacy is committed when an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is
directed to proving a different conclusion.

For example, when a particular proposal for housing legislation is under consideration, a
legislator may rise to speak in favour of the bill and argue that only decent housing for all the
people is desirable.

His remarks are then logically irrelevant to the point at issue, for the question concerns the
particular measure at hand-that on housing legislation and not on the nature of houses to be
built.

34 | P a g e
 Presumably everyone agrees that decent housing for all the people is desirable (even for
those who will pretend to agree but do not really think so). The question is: will this
particular measure provide it, and if so, will it provide it better than any practical alternative?
The speaker’s argument is fallacious, for it commits the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.

An argument commits this fallacy if its premises are directed towards a conclusion different
from the one that is supposed to be established by them.

Fallacy of Complex Question

It is obvious that there is something “funny” about questions like “have you given up your
evil ways?” or “have you stopped beating your wife?” these are not simple questions to
which a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer is appropriate. Such questions presuppose that
a definitive answer has already been given to a prior question that was not even asked. This is
a complex question.

Complex questions are not confined to obvious jokes like those above. In cross-examination
a lawyer may ask complex questions of a witness to confuse or even to incriminate him. He
may ask, “Where did you hide the evidence? Or why did you steal from him?” or the like.

In such cases the intelligent procedure is to treat the complex question not as a simple one,
but to analyse it into its component parts. Other kinds of complex questions - a mother may
ask her youngster if he wants to be a good boy and go to bed. There are two questions
involved; one does not presuppose a particular answer to the other. What is wrong here is the
suggestion that one and the same answer must be given to both of the questions; and this is
the folly, a fallacy of complex question has been committed

Fallacy of Accident
The fallacy of accident consists in applying a general rule to a particular case whose
“accidental” circumstances render the rule inapplicable. In Plato’s Republic, for example, an
exception is found to the general rule that one should pay one’s debt:

Example: “suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited weapons with me and
he ask for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one
would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so…”what is true, “in general” may
not be true universally and without qualification, because circumstances alter cases.

Many generalizations known or suspected to have exceptions are stated without qualification,
either because the exact conditions restricting their applicability are not known or because
the accidental circumstances that render them inapplicable occur so seldom as to be
practically negligible. When such a generalization is appealed to in arguing about a particular
case whose accidental circumstances prevent the general proposition from applying, the
argument is said to commit the fallacy of accident.

35 | P a g e
 A practical example of this fallacy is;

Premise 1: “what you bought yesterday you eat today;

Premise 2: you bought raw meat yesterday;
Therefore you eat raw meat today.” (Conclusion)

In this argument, the premise “what you bought yesterday, you eat today” applies generally
only to the substance of what is bought, rather than to its condition. It is not intended to cover
every accidental circumstance, such as the raw condition of the meat.

Fallacy of Converse accident (hasty generalization)

In seeking to understand and characterize all cases of certain kind, one can usually pay
attention to only some of them. But those examined should be typical rather than atypical. If
one considers only exceptional cases and hastily generalises to a rule that fits them alone, the
fallacy of converse accident is committed.

For example considering the effect of alcohol only on those who indulge in it to excess, one
may conclude that all liquor is harmful and urge that its sale and use should be forbidden by
law, or that the eating of too much red meat is detrimental to one’s health, and one concludes
that the sale and eating of red meat should be banned. Such reasoning is erroneous.

Fallacy of False Cause

This fallacy is committed in instances where one mistakes what is not the cause of a given
effect for its real cause. The mere fact of coincidence or temporal succession does not
establish any causal connection. Certainly we reject the claim that beating the drums is the
cause of the sun’s reappearance after an eclipse, even though one can offer as the evidence of
the fact that every time drums have been beaten during an eclipse, the sun has reappeared.

5.2.2 Fallacies of AMBIGUITY

Some of the Informal fallacies have traditionally been called “fallacies of ambiguity” or
“fallacies of clearness.”

They occur in arguments whose formulations contain ambiguous words or phrases, and whose
meanings shift and change more or less subtly in the course of the argument and thus render
them fallacious. These include:

Fallacy of Accent
This is committed in an argument whose deceptive but invalid nature depends upon a change
or a shift in meaning. The way in which meaning shifts depends upon what part of it may be

36 | P a g e
 emphasized or accented. Some statements have quite different meanings when different
words are stressed.

Fallacy of Amphiboly
This fallacy occurs in arguing from premises whose formulations are ambiguous because of
their grammatical construction. A statement is amphibolous when its meaning is
indeterminate because of the loose or awkward way in which its words are combined. An
amphibolous statement may be true on one interpretation and false on another. When it is
stated as the premise with the interpretation which makes it true, and a conclusion is drawn
from it on the interpretation which makes it false, then the fallacy of amphiboly has been
committed.

Example of amphibolous sentences are wartime posters urging us to “save the food and waste
paper,” or the definition of anthropology as “the science of man embracing woman.”

Amphiboly is often exhibited by newspaper headings and brief items, as in, “the man blew
his head off on discovery of his wife’s disloyalty”

Fallacy of Equivocation
Most words have more than one literal meaning, as the word “pen” which may denote either
an instrument for writing or an enclosure for animals. When we keep these two meanings
apart, no difficult arises. But when we confuse the different meanings a single word or phrase
may have, using it in different senses in the same context, we are using it equivocally.

A traditional example of this fallacy is:

The end of a thing is its perfection

Death is the end of life
Therefore, death is the perfection of life

This argument is fallacious because two different senses of the word “end” are confused in it.
The word end may mean either “goal” or “last event.” Both meanings are of course
legitimate. But what is illegitimate is to confuse the two, as in this argument. The premises
are plausible only when the word “end” is interpreted differently in each of them, as: “the
goal of a thing is its perfection,” and “death is the last event of life.”

A special kind of equivocation has to do with “relative terms, which have different meanings
in different contexts. For example the word tall is a relative word; a tall man and a tall
building are in quite different categories.

Fallacy of Composition
Fallacy of composition is applied to two closely related types of invalid argument.

37 | P a g e
  The first may be described as reasoning fallaciously from the properties of the parts of the
whole to the properties of the whole itself.

 For example to argue that since every part of a particular machine is light in weight, the
machine as a whole is light in weight is to commit this fallacy.

 The second type of composition fallacy is parallel to the above. Here the fallacious
reasoning is from properties possessed by individual elements or members of a collection
to properties possessed by the collection or totality of those elements.

 For example, it is fallacious to argue that because a bus uses more gasoline than an
automobile, therefore all buses use more gasoline than all automobiles. This turns on
confusion between the “distributive” and “collective” use of general terms.

Fallacy of Division
The fallacy of division is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. It is of two varieties too;

 The first kind consists in arguing that what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts.

 To argue that a certain corporation is very important, and Muriuki is an official of that
corporation, therefore Muriuki is very important, is to commit the fallacy of division.

 The second type of division fallacy is committed when one argues from the properties of a
collection of elements to the properties of elements themselves.

 To argue that since university students study medicine, law, engineering, dentistry and
architecture, therefore each or even, any student at the university studies the same would
be to commit the fallacy of division.

Important to note:

The learner should be able to see clearly the difference between the fallacy of composition and
that of converse accident (hasty generalisation).

 In the latter (converse accident (hasty generalisation)), one argues that since many or most
atypical members of a class have a specified property, therefore all members of the class
(distributively) do also.

 In the former (fallacy of composition), one argues that since all of the members of a class
have a specified property therefore the class itself (collectively) has that property.

The difference between the fallacy of division and that of accident is that,

 The latter (accident) argues that since most members of a class have a specified property
therefore any particular member or subclass of members, no matter how atypical, must
have that property also.

38 | P a g e
  The former (fallacy of division) argues that since a class itself (collectively) has a specified
property therefore any member or subclass of members of the class must have that
property also.

5.3 How to Avoid Fallacious Reasoning

Fallacies are pitfalls into which any of us may tumble in our reasoning. There is no sure general
way to avoid fallacies.

To avoid fallacies of relevance requires constant vigilance and awareness of the many ways in
which irrelevance can intrude. A realization of the flexibility of language and the multiplicity of
its use will keep us from mistaking an exhortation to accept and approve a conclusion for an
argument designed to prove that conclusion true.

Fallacies of ambiguity are subtle things. Words are slippery, and most of them have a variety of
different senses or meanings. Where these different meanings are confused in the formulation of
an argument, the reasoning is fallacious.

To avoid the various fallacies of ambiguity, we must have and keep the meanings of our terms
clearly in mind. One way to accomplish this is by defining the key terms that are used.

And since shifts in the meanings of terms can make arguments fallacious, ambiguity can be
avoided by careful definition of the terms involved. Definition is an important matter for anyone
interested in the study of logic.

LESSON 6: PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION MAKING

10.1. Introduction

We live in a world that is constantly and increasingly under uncertainties: pressure, challenges,
conflicting ideas and opinions abounds and continue to overwhelm us. The contemporary world
seems to be at a crossroad with itself as changes continue to unfold. Our ability to adeptly
navigate these challenges determines how able we can live and manage the world. Our ability to
think critically, to effectively address and solve ever emerging problems; and to understanding
key methods and skills for problem solving and decision making enables us to effectively
address the right problems, identify risks and make better decisions.
In this lesson, we are going to look at the best process of problem solving and decision making.
We will attempt to define problem, problem solving and decision and examine the process of
problem solving, problem solving skills, barriers to solving problems, and then highlight some of
the characteristics of good problem solvers.

10.2. Lesson Learning Outcomes

39 | P a g e
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
10.2.1. Define the meaning of problem, problem solving and of decision
10.2.2. Discuss the process of problem solving and the essential aspects of problem-solving
mistakes
10.2.3. Discuss the challenges and barriers to problem solving

10.2.1. Definitions of Problem, Problem Solving and of Decision

A problem is simply an issue that is out of alignment and requires to be attended to, fixed, or
corrected to enable desired outcomes to be achieved. We say one has a problem when he is faced
with a pressing or demand issue but has no immediate solution to it. Problem solving is therefore
the process of finding solutions to difficult or complex issues that need solutions for the ease of
our needs. (Namwambah, 2020)

Closely linked to problem solving is decision making which basically refers to the mental
processes (cognitive process) of analyzing, evaluating and synthesizing data as received and
which culminates in the selection of a course of action among several alternative scenarios.
Every decision-making process produces a definite solution that characterize our actions,
opinions and choice. (ibid)

The process of problem solving

Problem solving is a process informed by various steps. These steps must be followed if we need
to solve those problems that often confront us. Any attempt to mangle up the process will lead to
making decision by indecision; meaning that we will always be in a vicious circle with problems
and we will never attain a solution whatsoever.

Central to problem solving process is the ability to recognize and define the problem. Problem
solvers habitually realize when something has gone wrong or when attention is required; they
often anticipate complications before they even exist and take precautionary measures to guard
against imminent destructive and inconvenient result. Noticing that something is amiss requires a
keen sense of what is going on around you. For example, only when you don’t know the
consequences of poor leadership, can you be surprised when rebellions suddenly arise; and,
without being aware of typical conduits used by corrupt officers, you won't be able to confront
and stamp out corruption from your organization. The sooner you realize there is a problem, the
faster you should respond to it.

The following steps are necessary for effective problem-solving process:

Recognition and Defining the Problem

Why is the problem a problem? A problem is a problem because there is a pressing issue, a need
or a question but there is no obvious answer to it.

40 | P a g e
The first phase of problem solving therefore involves recognition and definition of the issue at
stake. Generally speaking, a typical process of problem solving and decision-making begins with
the recognition of a problem. It is commonly true, that many problems are never solved because
they are not recognized soon enough or not recognized at all. For example, some freshmen fail in
college life because they do not recognize soon enough that their study habits are inadequate or
that they are in an unsuitable curriculum.

Once a problem has been recognized, it should be carefully defined. Failure to attain a clear
definition of a problem will always result in obtaining unsuccessful solutions or you may end up
solving “some” problem but not the one that you were trying to solve.

In many situations, defining the problem will be the most difficult phase in decision-making. But
once you have correctly defined the problem, the rest will be relatively easy.

There are three rules that must be followed in defining the problem: First, the definition should
not be too general - This is so because if the definition is too broad, the guidelines for a solution
will be too broad, and the investigation may flounder. Large problems can be very real, but their
solution usually require breaking them down into smaller, clearly defined segments in order to
solve them one at a time; second, the definition should not be too specific - a definition of a
problem is said to be too specific when it unnecessarily restricts alternative solutions. When the
definition of the problem is too specific, it will always lead to temporary solutions because it will
have ignored other significant aspects that led to its emergence and which might be critical to its
solution; third, the definition should not in itself constitute a “solution” to the problem - Suppose
that in each year, there is a problem of mass drop-out of Masters Students in the School of
Humanities and Social Sciences at Kenyatta university in Kenya, and the Dean of School defines
the problem as due to lack of scholarships and/or financial limitations on the part of students.
The Dean’s definition would in itself have contained a “possible solution” that more scholarships
and financial grants be extended to masters’ program students. This would rule out other
solutions for consideration and possibly skew the thinking and barricade the solution to the
problem. .

These rules are necessary to observe because quite often, there is temptation to quickly jump into
figuring out solutions without understanding the nature and magnitude of the problem. If a
problem is not well understood, the solutions might not be effective and valuable time and effort
would have been unnecessarily wasted.

Establishing Causal factors

The second phase to problem solving entails finding out what caused the problem/gathering
information or conducting research. The leading question here is: what caused the
problem? Once you have identified and clearly defined the current problem, the next step is to
41 | P a g e
dig a little deeper to find out the root cause or background of the problem. Some questions to ask
at this stage include the following: When and where did the difficulty, obstacle or complication
occur? Why did the problem happen? How did it happen? What led to the problem? How real or
practical is the problem? Was it caused by one thing or many things? Was it accidental or
intentionally caused? What information is missing? Where can you find more information? What
could have prevented the problem? What is known about similar problems? What solutions have
been tried before?

Problem Impact analysis

Phase three of problem solving and decision-making entails analyzing the impact of the problem.
The principle question at this stage is: Who or what is affected by the problem? It is important
that at this stage one makes efforts to determine how widespread the problem is and its
devastating effects. Major guiding questions at this stage include: Is it affecting one person or
many; and how is it affecting them? How long has the problem been going on? Are there any
trends? Is this a re-occurring problem or a completely new one? What would happen if the
problem is not resolved?

If the problem cuts across social divide or is affecting a multitude or an institution, talk to
different people to get first-hand accounts of the impact of the problem, its possible source and
their views on how best to mitigate it. Establish if it is severe, mild or manageable.

Formation of Tentative Solutions

The fourth phase to problem solving is brainstorming and formation of possible solutions. The
guide question to this phase is: What are the potential solutions? This phase calls for a
reasonable and bias-free multifaceted critical approach. Identify as many possible solutions to
the problem through brainstorming.

In a case where the problem affects many people who are also involved in your search for a
solution, state the problem in agreeable terms then request everyone involved to independently
write down their own individual possible solution which will, together with others be used to
inform and form a solution. Thereafter, list down all the answers proposed and invite others to
further build upon and refine the suggested solutions or you go further to propose and share other
additional solutions that might not have been captured by your respondents and share them out
before reaching a definite solution.

For a brainstorming session to be successful, the problem needs to be clearly defined, enough
time needs to be scheduled, participants should take time to think through the problem and
generate solutions, and solutions should not be judged during the brainstorming session. If the
problem is collective and impacting on many people or an institution, it is advisable to use a
good facilitator to listen attentively to participants, encourage input by all and drive the
discussion before you subject their opinions to the scrutiny of analytical reason.

42 | P a g e
Evaluation of Tentative Solutions

Phase five entails evaluation of alternatives/solutions. The key question to this phase is: How do
you select the best alternative/solution? Once a good number of options have been gathered, the
next step is to go through the alternatives and narrow down the ones that are most viable. It is
possible that at this stage, the top choices would be a merger between one or more other
alternative choices. In the process of synchronizing alternatives it’s important to identify the
advantages and disadvantages of each of the top choices. In addition, also take a step back and
write down the desired results, when they should be achieved as well as how the results will be
measured i.e. what is expected after the problem has been eliminated or handled- imagine how it
would be like when the problem is solved; then finally, analyze how best the top choices would
lead to the desired results for the entire affected population.

Decision Making

The sixth and last step in brainstorming is deciding the best solution among the top alternatives
available, let’s call it choosing the best option or making the decision. The critical leading
question here is: Will this solution solve the problem? In problem solving and decision making,
this is one of the most difficult and overwhelming steps and could easily trigger hesitation
because of fear of making the wrong decision. As a result of such fear, there is always a tendency
for people to want to continue digging further in order to come up with more information or
more alternatives. As a consequence, this leads to continued suffering as the problem will
continue to hurt its victims.

Additionally, choosing an alternative could also entail making compromises, forcing some
parties to make concessions for the benefit of all; there is a possibility that not everyone would
be happy with the final solution. This is so because in one way or the other, the decision making
process have to come to an end at some point. Following your rational gut instinct and seeking
advice from others can help in making decision agreeable across board. And if the heat generated
by the problem is overwhelming, expectations are high, anxiety and tempers at their pick, it’s
advisable to take a break away from the scene of the problem, clear your head, relax and then
make the decision with a clear mind and be able to easily explain as to why it’s the best of all the
alternatives. And where consensus is unforeseeable, then taking a poll would similarly be a
simple way to determine the solution that should be implemented for bigger institutional
problems.

10.2.2. Aspects of problem-solving mistakes

Problems are real. To a good problem solver, there is no small or big problem. Problem is just
problem and it need all the seriousness and mental input to handle. Being casual in handling
problem has unbearable consequences. The following are some of examples of problem solving
43 | P a g e
mistakes: i) refusing to admit or acknowledge that a problem exists; ii) looking for quick fixes;
iii) thinking that there won’t be any problems; iv) fixing symptoms instead of the root cause or
real problem; .v) focusing on putting out small fires instead of addressing the big picture
problem; vi) rushing to solve a problem before understanding it; vii) fearing to share out of the
box ideas during brainstorming; viii) risk of group think during brainstorming or conforming to
what everyone else is suggesting; ix) not having an open mind during brainstorming; poor
facilitation and conditioning in brainstorming sessions; x) solving the wrong problem; xi)
looking for someone to blame or pointing fingers; xii) not listening or not seeking feedback or
solutions from others.

Other problem solving mistakes include: a) thinking that you should have all the answers; b)
solutions that are not clearly defined; c) lack of clear communication; d) assuming that people
already know what to do; failing to give credit to staff who have fixed problems; e) fear of
making the wrong decision; assuming contributions of others; f) wrong assumptions; g) getting
scared or panicking when a problem arises; h) getting emotionally excited with tentative
solutions; i) procrastinating to make a decision or choose among alternatives; j) refusing to
acknowledge when a solution is not working, k) doing nothing when a problem arises; l) taking a
long time before attending to a problem; m) believing that time will naturally fix the problem;
and, n) not being flexible or adaptable when assumptions and conditions change.

Problem Solving Skills

There are various skills that can increase our likelihood to solving problems. These skills are
enhanced by our ability to think critically and creatively and they include: Decision making
skills – this skill is useful especially in choosing between alternatives, identifying the best
solution and being able to explain why the chosen solution is the best one under the
circumstances. i) Communication skills -helps in letting others know that there is a problem and
in outlining how the problem will be corrected. Effective communication skills is also
instrumental in assigning responsibilities and explaining to others what they should be doing and,
in letting others know that the problem solving process is on course or it has been resolved; iii)
Risk taking -the ability to identify the pros and cons of an alternative and then arming oneself
with enough knowledge to carry out the plan effectively and efficiently; iv) Prioritization - when
faced with many problems in your study or at work, being able to identify the most urgent and
important problem to be addressed and fixed is a skill definitive of success and effective
organization; v) Flexibility - conditions and situations change all the time therefore, willingness
to re-analyze plans and assumptions and re-calibrate them as needed is essential.

Other helpful traits for effective problem solving consist of willingness to receive feedback,
determination and perseverance to see things through, patience, connecting the dots or figuring

44 | P a g e
out the relationship between things, tolerance for uncertainty and faith in reason that in the long
run the best for the self and humanity is tenable in time.

9.2.3 Challenges and Barriers to effective Problem Solving

Our ability to solve problems vary from individual to individual. The reason why many
institutions fail to attain their targets in growth depends on the ability of the institution’s
management ingenuity to handle and address emerging problems. At the individual level,
inability to handle and solve problems has led to many unconventional actions – suicide, stress,
depression and mental breakdown, family breakdown and other uncivil behaviors.

Reasons why most of us are unable to solve problems include: passive behavior of ignoring or
avoiding the problem; thinking that problem solving process takes too much time or effort;
casual believe that the problem will fizzle out or solve itself; not having the authority to decide
which solution should be implemented; procrastinating or inertia to resolve a problem because it
could take a long time to figure out solutions especially for complex problems; thinking that the
problem is more difficult than it really is; thinking that you have to figure it all out on your own;
lack of self-confidence in dealing with and solving problems; naivety as not to ask for help;
unwilling to take other people’s opinions; fear that implementation could be difficult and
frustrating; and fear of failure.

Other challenges and barriers include: resource constraints; insufficient resources such as
manpower and finances to properly address large scale problems; too many problems at the same
time or difficulty in prioritizing problems; resistance to change or new ways of doing things; not
following through on solutions after the brainstorming stage; mental fatigue and giving up too
soon when it takes long to solve a problem; inability to measuring progress; abrupt change in
external factors causing the need to rethink or revise solutions; inexperience in handling and
solving problems; and, not wanting to deal with uncertainty.

45 | P a g e