Critical thinking.

Half the class read the first article which appeared on the Everytown website, the
others read the second article which appeared on the NRA website. Let the students
decide if the articles are pro or anti gun control.
Everytown is an anti- gun organisation which wants to limit the access Americans
have to guns.
The National Rifle Association is an organisation which supports the rights of
Americans to carry guns.
Discuss the language used that made you aware of the authors feelings.

The third handout has a series of tweets arguing against Everytowns assertions.
Then there are various peoples replies. This gives students a chance to think about
the issues.
Either ask students to split into two groups according to their beliefs, or, if it is too
one-sided divide the class in half and randomly choose groups to debate for or
against the issue. They could prepare by reading comments which follow gun control
debates to get a range of points. Aim to get five or six different points and anticipate
what the other group might say and be prepared with a few counter-arguments.

Back to School: Two School

Shootings Today Only Hours Apart
Should Be Call to Action from
Political Leaders
Shootings at Albemarle HS in Albemarle and Fern Creek HS in Louisville are
the 49th and 50th School Shootings in 2014
Two school shootings at high schools in North Carolina and Kentucky today
only hours apart are the 85th and 86th school shootings since the carnage at
Sandy Hook Elementary School nearly two years ago
Everytowns school shooting list includes incidents when a firearm was
discharged inside a school building or on school or campus grounds.
My heart goes out to those affected by these terrible murders in North
Carolina and Kentucky. Last year we started counting shooting atrocities in
American schools. The list hit 36 in 2013 and so far it stands at 50 in 2014.
We should all be asking our leaders to do everything they can to prevent the
next tragedy the NRAs solution to arm teachers and students isnt an
answer. Said spokesman Tracy Nailor.
The guns in schools bill supported by the gun lobby and opposed by
teachers, school administrators, law enforcement and parents would allow
school to arm teachers and make it impossible for parents to find out if
someone is carrying a concealed weapon in their childrens classrooms. How

would police officers arriving at the school distinguish between an armed

aggressor and a teacher defending students with a firearm? The bill would
also allow teenagers to carry loaded firearms in public and force cities to
allow people to openly carry loaded guns in public even in places that have
previously passed laws to prohibit open carry of lethal weapons.
In Missouri, more people die here from guns than they do from traffic
accidents. Rather than work with law enforcement, teachers, parents and
doctors to address this appalling fact with real solutions, our elected officials
do whatever the gun lobby tells them to do, said Melissa Brooks of the
Missouri chapter of Moms Demand Action. Asking a teacher to become a
sharpshooter wont prevent another massacre. Vigilantes roaming the schools
wont help either. And, as parents, we have a right to know if there is going

to be a gun in our kids classrooms. Police officers undergo extensive

training in the use of their weapons and teachers do not. Therefore, it is

unreasonable to expect a teacher to have the same firearms competency
as a law enforcement officer, and not sound policy to assign such
responsibility to a teacher. Moms Demand Action is in this fight for the long
run because as parents, we deserve to raise our children in a nation with
sensible gun laws and a responsible gun culture.

Stopped in 80 Seconds: Armed Response, Not Gun

Control, Halted School Rampage
Claims that new gun controls would keep guns out of the hands of bad guys are coming under
scrutiny..
On December 13th, a tragic shooting at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado, resulted in
the death of an innocent victim and the suicide of the perpetrator.
Media reports indicate that the perpetrator was planning a much larger attack and was armed with a
shotgun, about 125 rounds of ammunition, three Molotov cocktails, and a machete.
According to a CNN story, Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said of the shooter, "His intent
was evil, and his evil intent was to harm multiple individuals."
But as reported in the Washington Times, the attacker's charge was stopped short by the quick
response of an armed deputy sheriff who was working at the school. Upon learning of the threat, the
deputy ran from the cafeteria to the library, yelling for people to get down and identifying himself as a
deputy sheriff. The incident lasted only a total of 80 seconds and ended with the shooter turning his
gun on himself in the library as the deputy was closing in on him.
Robinson said the deputy's response was "a critical element to the shooter's decision" to kill himself.
During a December 15 appearance on Face the Nation, Gov. Hickenlooper, was forced to admit that
the very gun control bills he signed into law did not make "a difference at all" in the school shooting.
"So things like universal background checks, I think they are going to make us safer, but in this
specific case aren't going to make a difference at all. And that's the challenge," Hickenlooper said.
What does make a difference is an armed response; but it only works in a situation where properly
secured firearms are available onsite to be used by responsible, proficient, courageous people--in
other words, the good guys.

A Cleveland.com story concludes that school shooters aren't interested in a fight; they're interested in
soft targets that will leave them in control of the situation long enough to accomplish their evil deed.
In this case, the perpetrators was met instead with a hard target--an armed, qualified security
presence that was ready and willing to stop him--and did so in just 80 seconds.
Gun-control laws didn't stop a possible massacre at Arapahoe High School. A good guy with a gun
stopped the attack and in doing so almost certainly prevented much greater harm. For that, at least,
we all can be thankful.

Overwhelming majority of fake school shootings listed by

Everytown are gang-related, drug-related, crime-related or
suicides. A school shooting" at West Side Elementary was gun in
a backpack that didn't hurt anybody. "School shooting" listed by
Everytown was accidental discharge by buddy from bullet that
ricocheted off floor. Oops.
Comments
The fact that suicides and gang related shootings are considered "fake" by you folks confirms how crazy it has
gotten in this country. A gun goes off in a child's backpack at school. That doesn't count. Why not? An
"accidental" shooting at school. Doesn't count. Why not? Someone shot to death in a school parking lot. Doesn't
count. Why not? They list what their criteria for inclusion on the list is. You don't. Why not?
A shooting at a school is a shot fired by a gun, and usually intentionally by a person, at a school. That should not
happen. No argument.

Even the not so pro gun reporters at Fox News have been spouting off this over inflated
propaganda as fact without explanation of what a school shooting is. It would be like saying, "2500
killed in sniper attacks in California National Forest over the last two months" without stating the
killed were deer during hunting season!
The shooter in Albemarle was shot by a student who ran to his car, fetched his licenced weapon,
and was able to shoot the perp and thus prevent further damage. If legislators had their way that
heroic student wouldnt have had a gun in his car but the perp, who wasnt licensed anyway, would
have had free reign.

In Illinois you have to have a state approved ID card to even touch a bullet much less own a gun
and you can't do much with it legally except look at it.
According to our FBI stats, New Hampshire had 16 murders in 2011, 6 with a gun and 14 murders
in 2012 including 9 with a gun.
By comparison, the state of Illinois, which has the most anti gun state government in the US plus

the most restrictive gun laws, had 452 murders in 2011 including 377 with a gun, and 509 in 2012
including 429 with a gun.
Based on these stats and two states, where would you be less likely to be murdered by a gun?

Do you think, that possibly, in Illinois, due to it's higher levels of poverty and deprivation,
resulting in it's higher crime rate is possibly the reason why there are more gun deaths than in
New Hampshire???

Here are a selection of words and phrases that occur in the texts. Which ones are
emotive and which are neutral?

Using : Tagxedo.com

Hero kills fugitive rape suspect but since its

New York, hes been charged with murder
Posted by Bob Owens on October 19 at 9:31 am

David Carlson shot and killed a wanted rape suspect after heavily-armed teams of police
chased the violent criminal out of the woods near his home
But it isnt just a shooting; its an act many here consider to be heroic a defence of the
community. It has now set the stage for a trial that could help define the limits of deadly force
when an armed citizen is facing a fleeing criminal suspect .New York State, of course,
doesnt let you defend yourself so hes being charged with second degree murder. Under
New Yorks pro-criminal laws, Carlson was supposed to turn his back and flee into his home
with a rapist in pursuit.
Acosta-Sanchez had been staying in a small cabin on Old Plank Road near Carlson's home;
Carlson had befriended him, offering meals and paying him to do odd jobs, until AcostaSanchez revealed that he was wanted by police for the rape of a child. Carlson contacted
police and agreed to help them apprehend the fugitive as he worried for the safety of his
family. On Tuesday, arrangements were made with Deerpark police: Carlson would get
Acosta-Sanchez in his car and speed, and the police would pull him over and arrest AcostaSanchez. Carlson said he tried, driving 65 on Route 42 as he was told, but the police didn't
show up because of a shift change.
The next day, he tried again, getting Acosta-Sanchez in the car under a pretence. This time
police stopped the car and took Acosta-Sanchez with them, but didn't handcuff him. Carlson
said he went home, thinking it was done. But when Acosta-Sanchez convinced police to let
him return to the cabin to get his identification, he fled out the back and got away by
swimming across a reservoir.
"They had like 50 cops out there Wednesday. I don't know how they didn't catch him,"
Carlson told the investigators.

Carlson said he kept in touch with police, as Acosta-Sanchez made two more appearances
at the cabin. Carlson was increasingly afraid that the police would be unable to apprehend
him. The morning of the shooting, Carlson said, the wanted man banged on his door saying
the police were chasing him. He was angry that Carlson had tried to turn him in. This time,
Carlson got his shotgun and told Acosta-Sanchez to give himself up. Carlson said he was
afraid when Acosta-Sanchez suddenly realised that Carlson intended calling the police on a
neighbours phone. Carlson thought he was going to attack him so he fired two shots in selfdefence.
Neighbours have expressed support for Carlson, 43, including one who used her home to
help Carlson post the $100,000 bond. The David Carlson Fund was set up to help with legal
expenses and support his family.

out a shotgun and walked him down the road

to get a neighbour to call police. He had
Acosta-Sanchez get down on the ground and
claimed he shot him, first in

Police have charged 47 year old Daniel

Carlson with the murder of Nathaniel AcostaSanches. Late last summer, Acosta-Sanchez
was doing odd jobs on Carlson's property. But
when Carlson learned Acosta-Sanchez was
being sought on charges of having
consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl in
Ramapo, Carlson contacted police and
demanded they apprehend the fugitive.
Police pulled over Carlson's car on a
supposed traffic stop and took AcostaSanchez into custody. But when Acosta-

the arm, then in the head, when he got up

Sanchez convinced police to let him return to

and moved toward him. The police testified

the cabin to get his identification, he fled out

about their conversation with Carlson on the

the back and got away by swimming across a

day of the killing. One officer, state Police

reservoir. The police felt Acosta-Sanches

Investigator William Young, testified that he

posed no immediate threat and would be

asked Carlson several times whether Acosta-

apprehended in due course.

Sanchez had been coming at him and that

Carlson repeatedly responded that he hadnt.

Acosta-Sanchez continued living in the cabin

on the day of the killing Carson had twice

He had been heard ordering Acosta-Sanchez

telephoned the police informing them of his

to sit, and yelled for the neighbour, but no

whereabouts. He witnessed Acosta-Sanchez

one was home. Acosta-Sanchez rolled on his

coming out of the woods, so Carlson pulled

side and refused to get up, so Carlson fired a

shot into the ground to prompt him. He went

to the neighbour two houses down and

Carlson: "Pretty much lunging, I couldn't say

ordered Acosta-Sanchez to lay down. As he

like a leopard but he was getting up."

turned his head to yell for help, he said,

Acosta-Sanchez got to his knees,

Neighbours testified that Carlson had warned

them that there was a rapist in the cabin and

Young: "He's kneeling down in front of you,

he had told them to stay indoors until he and

youre facing him, you take your attention

the police had hunted the dog down

away to call (the neighbour), the next thing

that brings your attention to him is he's now
lunging toward you."

.The trial continues

Critical Thinking
Ask students to read the first report. (This is from a blog) Discuss the
story. Get the participants reaction to the piece, but at this stage steer
them away from thinking about the source, focus instead on the issue of
self defence and the right to carry arms and when is murder
manslaughter etc.
Read the second piece (from the liberal New York Times newspaper).
How have their views of the case changed? What significant information
did they come across that altered the story ?
Can they trust either source?

Evaluate Information Sources

1. Does the information source have the necessary qualifications or level of

understanding to make the claim (conclusion)?
2. Does the source have a reputation for accuracy?

3. Does the source have a motive for being inaccurate or overly biased?
4. Are there any reasons for questioning the honesty or integrity of the source?

Table 1
Hindrances Due To

Basic Human Limitations

Hindrance

Definition

Confirmation
Bias &
Selective
Thinking

The process whereby

one tends to notice and
look for what confirms
ones beliefs, and to
ignore, not look for, or
undervalue the relevance
of what contradicts ones
beliefs.

If one believes that more

murders occur during a full
moon, then one will tend to
take notice of murders that
occur during a full moon and
tend not to take notice of
murders that occur at other
times.

Obtain and objectively

evaluate all relevant
information and sides of
an issue before passing
judgment.

False Memories
&
Confabulation

Being unaware that our

memories are often
manufactured to fill in
the gaps in our
recollection, or that some
memories of facts, over
time, can be
unconsciously replaced
with fantasy.

Police officers should not show

a photo of a possible assailant
to a witness prior to a police
line-up, or the actual memory
of the witness may be
unconsciously replaced.

Put more reliance on

proven facts than memory
recollection or testimonies
from others. Know your
own memory limitations.

Ignorance

The lack of essential

background knowledge or
information on a subject
prior to making a
judgment.

One may be convinced a

yogi has the power to levitate
objects, but does not see the
thin wire attached to them.

Perform appropriate
research on multiple sides
of issues to obtain all
pertinent evidence, before
reaching conclusions.

Being unaware of our

own perception
limitations that can lead
to misconceptions about
reality.

Looking up at the stars at night

and perceiving they are as
close as the moon and
planets.

Recognize that seeing is

not always believing
because of our sensory
limitations. Know when &
how to verify your
observations with other
sources.

Personal
Biases &
Prejudices

We each have personal

biases and prejudices,
resulting from our own
unique life experiences
and worldview, which
make it difficult to remain
objective and think
critically.

Some people are biased

against claims made by
scientists because their
worldview appears too cold
and impersonal.

Resist your own biases by

focusing on the facts,
their sources, and the
reasoning in support of
arguments.

Physical &
Emotional
Hindrances

Stress, fatigue, drugs,

and related hindrances
can severely affect our
ability to think clearly and
critically.

Air traffic controllers often have

difficulty making good
judgments after long hours on
duty

Restrain from making

critical decisions when
extremely exhausted or
stressed.

Perception
Limitations

Example

Critical Thinking Tip

Table 1
Hindrances Due To

Basic Human Limitations

Hindrance

Definition

Example

Testimonial
Evidence

Relying on the
testimonies and vivid
anecdotes of others to
substantiate ones own
beliefs, even though
testimonies are inherently
subjective, inaccurate,
unreliable, biased, and
occasionally fraudulent.

Dramatic stories of Bigfoot

sightings do not prove the
existence of Bigfoot.

Critical Thinking Tip

Resist making judgments
based on testimonies
alone. Extraordinary
claims generally require
extraordinary evidence.

Table 2
Hindrances Due To
Use of Language
Hindrance

Definition

Example

Ambiguity

A word or expression that

can be understood in
more than one way.

From the statement Lying

expert testified at trial, is the
expert a liar or is the person an
expert on telling when someone
is lying?

If the intended meaning of

an ambiguous word or
expression cannot be
determined, avoid making
judgments.

Using expressions that

disarm you from
questioning the validity of
an argument.

Expressions such as As
everyone knows, and
Common sense tells us that

Disregard assuring
expressions and instead
focus on facts & reasoning
that support arguments.

The use of inoffensive

words or expressions to
mislead, disarm, or
deceive us about
unpleasant realities.

Referring to a policy of mass

murder as ethnic cleansing or
the inadvertent killing of
innocent people as collateral
damage.

Look beyond the emotive

(emotional) content and
recognize the cognitive
(factual) content of
euphemistic words and
expressions.

The use of technical

language to make the
simple seem complex,
the trivial seem profound,
or the insignificant seem
important, all done
intentionally to impress
others.

Referring to a family as a
bounded plurality of role-playing
individuals or a homeless
person as a non-goal oriented
member of society.

Recognize the cognitive

(factual) content of jargon
words and expressions.

Intentionally using words

to arouse feelings about
a subject to bias others
positively or negatively, in
order to gain influence or
power.

Naming detergents Joy and

Cheer (positive), not Dreary
and Tedious (negative). The
military using the phrase
neutralizing the opposition
(less negative) rather than
killing (negative).

Learn to recognize and

distinguish the emotive
(emotional) content of
language. Try to focus on
reasoning and the cognitive
(factual) content of
language when evaluating
arguments.

Assuring
Expressions

Doublespeak
Euphemisms

Doublespeak
Jargon

Emotive
Content

Critical Thinking Tip

Table 2
Hindrances Due To
Use of Language
Hindrance

Definition

Example

Critical Thinking Tip

Language that is clear

and accurate but
misleading because it
suggests something
false.

The dairy industry cleverly

expresses fat content as a
percentage of weight, not of
calories. Thus 2% low fat milk
really has 31% fat when fat is
measured as a percentage of
calories.

Understand not only the

facts, but also their
relevance and context.

The use of confusing

non-technical language
to mislead or deceive.

A company using lengthy and

intimidating language to simply
express that if your check
bounces, your receipt is voided.

Recognize the cognitive

(factual) content of
gobbledygook words and
expressions.

Language that appears

to commit one to a
particular view, but
because of its wording,
allows one to retreat from
that view.

President Clintons claim that he

did not have a sexual
relationship with Monica
Lewinski, in which he later
explained that engaging in
sexual acts was not a sexual
relationship.

Be on the lookout for

hedging language that
suppresses facts
supporting an argument.

Judgmental
Words

Stating opinions as
though they were facts,
so the audience does not
have to bother judging
for themselves.

The President took

justifiable pride in signing the
peace treaty.

Distinguish what
is fact from what
is opinion in any statement
or argument.

Meaningless
Comparisons

Language that implies

that something is
superior but retreats from
that view.

An ad that claims a battery lasts

up to 30% longer, but does not
say it will last 30% longer, and if
it did, longer than what?

Avoid making judgments if

it is not exactly clear what
is being compared.

Language which is less

precise than the context
requires.

If someone needs to be paid

back tomorrow, and the
borrower says Ill pay you
back soon, the borrowers
response was too vague.

Be aware of the
consequences of imprecise
claims based on
vagueness.

False
Implications

Gobbledygook

Hedging &
Weasel Words

Vagueness

Table 3
Hindrances Due To

Faulty Logic Or Perception

Hindrance

Ad Hoc
Hypothesis

Apophenia &
Superstition

Argument from
Ignorance

Begging the
Question

Clustering
Illusion & Texas
Sharpshooter
Fallacy

False Analogies

Definition

Example

Critical Thinking Tip

A hypothesis, which
cannot be independently
tested, is used to explain
away facts that refute a
theory or claim.

Psi researchers often blame the

hostile thoughts of onlookers
for adversely affecting
instruments measuring the
alleged existence of psychic
powers

Put low reliance, or reserve

judgment on, claims that
cannot be independently
tested.

Erroneous perception of
the connections between
unrelated events.

Irrationally believing that how

one wears their hat while
watching a football game can
influence the score.

Recognize the difference

between cause &
effect versus unrelated
coincidence.

A logical fallacy claiming

something is true because
it has not been proven
false.

Believing that there must be life

on Mars because no one has
proved that there is not life on
Mars.

Do not believe a proposition

simply because it cannot be
proven false.

A fallacious form of
arguing in which one
assumes to be true
something that one is
trying to prove.

A man claiming that paranormal

phenomena exists because he
has had experiences that can
only be described as
paranormal.

Recognize when an
argument assumes to be
true something it is
attempting to prove. When
this occurs, seek alternative
explanations.

The erroneous impression

that random events that
occur in clusters are not
random.

In ESP experiments, a water

witcher using dowsing may find
water at a slightly higher-thanchance rate over a brief period of
time, and mistakenly assume this
proves dowsing really works.

Understand the basic

principles of probability &
statistics. Recognize when
numbers are being used
correctly & objectively
versus incorrectly & with
bias.

Making illogical analogies

to support the validity of a
particular claim.

Arguing that two children sharing

the same bedroom is wrong
because double-celling of
criminals in a penitentiary can
lead to bad behaviour.

Learn to recognize the faulty

assumptions behind false
analogies.

Table 3
Hindrances Due To

Faulty Logic Or Perception

Hindrance

Definition

Example

Critical Thinking Tip

Forer Effect

The tendency to accept

vague personality
descriptions that can be
applicable to most people
as uniquely applicable to
oneself.

Astrology readings, intended for

people of a specific sign, can be
applicable to most individuals.
This effect usually works in
conjunction with Self-Deception
and Wishful Thinking.

Critically evaluate if
personality characterizations
are truly unique to you, or
could apply to most people.

Gamblers
Fallacy

The fallacy that something

with fixed probabilities will
increase or decrease
depending upon recent
occurrences.

The misconception that picking

lottery numbers that have not yet
been picked will increase your
chances of winning.

Learn to recognize and

distinguish events that have
fixed versus variable
probabilities.

Making a comparison that

is irrelevant or
inappropriate.

Making a claim that Printer A

makes better copies than Printer
B, while ignoring the important
fact that only Printer B can also
fax, copy, and scan.

Be sure to compare apples

with apples.

A failure to understand
that with a large enough
sample, many seemingly
unlikely coincidences are
in fact likely coincidences,
i.e., likely to happen.

The alleged uniqueness of the

number 11 to the September 11
can mathematically be shown to
be not unusual at all, and merely
a game to play with peoples
minds.

Understand the basic

principles of probability &
statistics. Recognize when
numbers are being used
correctly & objectively
versus incorrectly & with
bias to support an argument.

Reasons given to support

a claim that are irrelevant.

To say I am afraid of water, so I

will take up flying.

Lean to recognize when

arguments are supported by
irrelevant reasons.

A type of misperception
involving a vague stimulus
being perceived as
something clear, distinct,
and highly significant.

Most UFO, Bigfoot, and Elvis

sightings.

Recognize that a vague

perception of a strange
event can have many
possible explanations. Seek
alternative explanations that
are more likely rather than
more emotionally appealing.

Post Hoc
Fallacy

The mistaken notion that

because one thing
happened after another,
the first event caused the
second event.

Believing that beating drums

during a solar eclipse will cause
the sun to return to the sky.

Try to identify the known or

possible causal mechanisms
of observed effects, starting
with those that are more
likely.

Pragmatic
Fallacy

Arguing something is true

because it works, even
though the causality
between this something
and the outcome are not
demonstrated.

After using a magnetic belt for a

while, a woman notices her back
pain is less, even though there
may be a dozen other reasons
for the reduced back pain.

Try to identify known or

possible causal mechanisms
for observed effects, starting
with those that are more
likely not more emotionally
appealing.

Failing to take into

account the natural and
inevitable fluctuations of
things when assessing
cause and effect.

Assuming a mans neck pain

consistently fluctuates over time,
he will most likely try new
remedies when the pain is at its
worst point, then perhaps
incorrectly assume that the pain
got better because of the new
remedy.

Try to identify and

understand recurring
behavioural patterns before
making judgments about
recently observed events.

Irrelevant
Comparisons

Law of Truly
Large Numbers

Non Sequitur

Pareidolia

Regressive
Fallacy

Table 3
Hindrances Due To

Faulty Logic Or Perception

Hindrance
Slippery Slope
Fallacy

Definition

Example

An argument
that assumes an adverse
chain of events will occur,
but offers no proof

Because regulators have

controlled smoking in public
places, their ultimate goal is to
control everything else in our
lives.

Critical Thinking Tip

Evaluate the logic
supporting an alleged
adverse chain of events.

Table 4
Hindrances Due To

Psychological and Sociological Pitfalls

Hindrance

Definition

Example

Critical Thinking Tip

Criticizing the person

making an argument, not
the argument itself.

You should not believe a word

my opponent says because he
is just bitter because I am ahead
in the polls.

Focus on reasons & facts

that support an
argument, not the person
making the argument.
Independently verify
supporting facts if the
source is in question.

An appeal to the popularity

of the claim as a reason for
accepting the claim

Thousands of years ago the

average person believed that
the world was flat simply
because most other people
believed so.

A valid claim should be

based on sound arguments,
not popularity.

Communal
Reinforcement

The process by which a

claim, independent of its
validity, becomes a strong
belief through repeated
assertion by members of a
community.

The communally reinforced yet

mistaken belief that one can get
rid of cancer simply by
visualization and humour alone.

Do not follow the crowd

simply because if gives you
a feeling of acceptance and
emotional security. Think
for yourself.

Emotional
Appeals

Making irrelevant emotional

appeals to accept a claim,
since emotion often
influences people more
effectively than logical
reasoning.

Advertisements that appeal to

ones vanity, pity, guilt, fear, or
desire for pleasure, while
providing no logical reasons to
support their product being
better than a competitor.

If an argument requires a
logical reason to support its
claim, do not accept
emotional appeals as
sufficient evidence to
support it.

Evading the
Issue, Red
Herring

If one has been accused of

wrongdoing, diverting
attention to an issue
irrelevant to the one at
hand.

The President making jokes

about his own character in order
to disarm his critics & evade
having to defend his foreign
policy.

Learn to recognize evasion,

which implies a direct
attempt to avoid facing an
issue.

Fallacy of False
Dilemma,
Either/or Fallacy

Intentionally restricting the

number of alternatives,
thereby omitting relevant
alternatives from
consideration.

You are either with us, or with

the terrorists!

Seek opposing arguments

on the subject which may
reveal the existence of other
viable alternatives.

Irrelevant
Appeal to
Authority

An attempt to get a
controversial claim
accepted on the basis of it
being supporting by an
admirably or respectable
person

Since the Pope thinks capital

punishment is morally justified, it
must be morally justified.

Recognize that any appeal

to authority is irrelevant to
providing logical grounds
and facts to support an
argument.

Ad hominem
Fallacy

Ad populum,
Bandwagon
Fallacy

Table 4
Hindrances Due To

Psychological and Sociological Pitfalls

Hindrance

Example

Critical Thinking Tip

Repressing free speech

and critical thinking by
instilling fear through the
threat of lawsuits.

Journalist Andrew Skolnick was

sued for his investigative
reporting of Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi and his Transcendental
Meditation Movement.

If a counter-argument is not
readily available, dont
assume it does not exist - it
could be suppressed by
special interests.

Moses
Syndrome,
Suggestibility,
Conformity, &
Deferring
Judgment

Promises of happiness,
security, power, wealth,
health, beauty, etc., made
again and again in a
confident manner, by
charismatic people with
prestige, tend to be
believed uncritically and
without argument or proof.

Hitler convinced an entire

country to follow his dream of
making Germany great, which
included the subjugation and
massacring of Jews. Also, Jim
Jones of the Peoples
Temple doomsday cult
convinced 914 of its members to
commit suicide.

Resist the human tendency

to believe a charismatic
leader simply because
he/she appeals to your
basic human needs. Seek
alternate views & reliable
sources for facts and
objective reasoning to
support arguments.

Poisoning the
Well

Creating a prejudicial
atmosphere against the
opposition, making it
difficult for the opponent to
be received fairly.

Anyone who supports removing

troops from Iraq is a traitor!

When evaluating an
argument, focus on the
argument, not prejudicial
remarks.

Repressing free speech,

distorting facts, or cherry
picking facts to support a
biased political viewpoint or
dogmatic belief.

When politicians intentionally

provide inadequate or distorted
facts on a particular issue, then
conclusions reached by the
public may be biased or faulty.

Learn all sides of an issue.

People can present
deceptively logical
arguments that are built
upon the selective choosing
of facts.

The tendency for

researchers and journalists
to publish research with
positive outcomes between
two or more variables,
while not publishing
research that shows no
effects at all.

The media will publish results

showing a nutritional
supplement can reduce anxiety,
but will not publish other results
showing the same supplement
has no affect on reducing
anxiety.

Put more reliance on claims

which use methods that
seek to eliminate positive
outcome bias. Seek
information from sources
that do not have a biased
interest in the results.

The process of force-fitting

some current event, after
the fact, into ones
personal, political, or
religious agenda.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson

claimed that American civil
liberties groups, feminists,
homosexuals and abortionists
bear partial responsibility for
September 11 because their
immoral behaviour has turned
Gods anger toward America.

Understand the motives or

agenda of people or
organizations prior to
making judgments on their
arguments.

Sunk-Cost
Fallacy

The psychological
phenomenon of continuing
to hold on to a hopeless
investment for fear that
what has been invested so
far will be lost.

Lyndon Johnson continued to

commit many thousands of U.S.
soldiers to Vietnam even after
he was convinced the U.S.
could never defeat the Viet
Cong.

Do not allow your feelings of

fear & disgrace of taking a
loss cause you to take even
a bigger loss.

Wishful
Thinking & Self
Deception

The process of
misinterpreting facts,
reports, events,
perceptions, etc, because
we want them to be true.

94% of university professors

think they are better at their jobs
than their colleagues.

Understand that our

individual view of what we
think is true can be strongly
biased by our needs, fears,
ego, world view, etc.

Lawsuit
Censorship

Political
Censorship

Positive
Outcome Bias

Shoehorning

Definition

False Implications
The dairy industry cleverly expresses fat content as a
percentage of weight, not of calories. Thus 2% low fat milk
really has 31% fat when fat is measured as a percentage of
calories.

Emotive Content
Naming detergents Joy and Cheer (positive), not Dreary and
Tedious (negative). The military using the phrase neutralizing the
opposition (less negative) rather than killing (negative).

Doublespeak Euphemisms

The use of inoffensive words or expressions to

mislead, disarm, or deceive us about unpleasant
realities.
Referring to a policy of mass murder as ethnic cleansing or the inadvertent killing
of innocent people as collateral damage.

Forer Effect
Astrology readings, intended for people of a specific
sign, can be applicable to most individuals. This effect
usually works in conjunction with Self-Deception and
Wishful Thinking.

Positive Outcome Bias

The tendency for researchers and journalists to publish
research with positive outcomes between two or more
variables, while not publishing research that shows no effects
at all.

Fallacy of False Dilemma, Either/or Fallacy

Intentionally restricting the number of alternatives,
thereby omitting relevant alternatives from
consideration.
You are either with us, or with the terrorists!

Slippery Slope Fallacy

An argument that assumes an adverse chain of events will
occur, but offers no proof

Because regulators have controlled smoking in public

places, their ultimate goal is to control everything else in
our lives.

Ad populum, Bandwagon Fallacy

An appeal to the popularity of the claim as a reason for accepting the
claim

Communal Reinforcement

The process by which a claim, independent of its validity,

becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by
members of a community.

The communally reinforced yet mistaken belief that one can get rid of cancer simply
by visualization and humour alone.