Critically Minded: A Critically Minded Network Podcast: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners

Episode 12 Issues: Issues and Inferences

Dave: You are listening to Critically Minded.

Nick: The podcast for English learners who want to become better critical thinkers. We’re your hosts, Nick . . .

Dave: And Dave. In this episode we want to discuss issues and inferences. An inference is a statement that is not spoken directly, because the speaker may be embarrassed or does not want to be impolite. Communicating in another language involves more than just understanding vocabulary and knowing grammar. It involves understanding indirect communication that is part of the culture where that language is spoken.

Nick: Think about your own culture. Do people in your country always say what they think? Or do they use language in a way that makes criticism and negative comments softer and less direct? There are ways that people in any culture switch from direct statements to inferences when the situation calls for it.

Dave: And one of the ways people do this is by making statements that look like questions involving descriptive issues, but are really prescriptive statements. If you can recognize when someone is making a prescriptive inference while using descriptive issue indicator words, then you can understand how important critical thinking is in common casual conversation.

Nick: Japanese often feel that westerners are more direct than Japanese. And to a certain extent that may be true. But that doesn’t mean that westerners are always direct in their communication. I know that when my wife says, “Are you going to wear that shirt? It’s not a question, but by putting her remark in the form of a question, she’s telling me—not asking, but telling me—to change what I am wearing. In order to understand what a speaker truly wants to say, sometimes we have to think about the words he or she has used.

Dave: And if I told you that a high percentage of fatal highway accidents are caused every year by people driving over the speed limit, in the rain, at night, while drinking alcohol and not wearing their safety belts, that would be a descriptive statement.

Nick: Sure. You’re just telling me a statistical fact.

Dave: But if I tell you this statistical fact while I’m sitting in the passenger seat of your car at 2:00 a.m. during a rainstorm, and you’re driving at 120 kilometers per hour while drinking scotch straight from the bottle, what I’m really saying is that you that you should pull over and let me drive.

Nick: And if not just stop and let me out.

Dave: You may remember about ten episodes earlier, we discussed unspoken statements and hidden premises. This is similar to that except here, it is the conclusion that is unspoken. And the premise, while spoken, is often expressed as a question. For example, say Nick, did you know that tomorrow night there is going to be a lunar eclipse? The earth’s shadow will pass directly in front of the moon. It’s happening at about 8:30 p.m. My friends and I are going to watch it together. Would you like to join us?

Nick: That sounds really interesting, but I have university faculty party with some other teachers tomorrow night. So, I’ll be indoors all evening and won’t be able to see the sky.

Dave: That’s too bad. You should make an excuse and join us.

Nick: I’d love to, but I don’t think the university president would like that.

Dave: Ahh Nick, how often do you get the chance to see a lunar eclipse?

Nick: So listeners, what David has just done is to ask a question that is not really a question. He doesn’t really want to know how often I get the chance to see a lunar eclipse. If I thought that was a question, I would estimate how long I will live, about 80 years if I’m lucky, then I might look at the Internet and find that in this part of Japan, between the years 1960 and 2040 there is an average of two or three lunar eclipses each year. So to answer David’s question:

Dave: How often do you get the chance to see a lunar eclipse?

Nick: I could say, “Oh about two or three times a year?”

Dave: Or I could say, “Ahh Nick, how many eclipses do you get to see in your life?”

Nick: To which I might say, “Well 80 years times 2.5 eclipses a year is 200, so David I could get to see about 200, if I tried.”

Dave: But I’m not really asking Nick to do all that math.

Nick: Bet you were surprised I could though!

Dave: Well yeah. In fact, when I say, “How often do you get the chance to see an eclipse?” or “How many times do you get to see an eclipse?” what I am really saying is that an eclipse is an unusual event that is very exciting to see. And moreover, I am saying that Nick should see the eclipse, even if he has to make the president of his university angry.

Nick: And we all know that saying somebody should do something is making a prescriptive statement. This kind of communication is called making an inference. We infer when we hint at something without saying it directly. We should also point out that an inference does not have to be expressed as a question.

Dave: Instead of saying How many times or How often, which are both questions, I could say, “Ahh Nick. It’s not every day that you get to see a lunar eclipse.”

Nick: It would be very strange if there were an eclipse every night. And if there were, nobody would think eclipses were interesting. But because eclipses are unusual, they are interesting and desirable to see.

Dave: We should also point out that inferences are not always prescriptive. Inferences can also be descriptive.

Nick: Good point, David. And we covered that in our episode on hidden premises.

Dave: So to summarize, prescriptive statements can sometimes sound very neutral. Speakers can use neutral language, while really communicating a prescriptive message about something that is very positive, like seeing an eclipse, or negative, like wearing a shirt that your wife doesn’t like.

Nick: If you think about communication critically, within the context of the situation, you will understand the true intent of the speaker. We call this “reading between the lines.” It means that you are able to understand the face-value of what is being spoken, AND to form hypotheses about what the speaker really means. For example––

Dave: Uh, Nick, do you know how long we’ve been recording this episode?

Nick: Ahh—I think David is inferring that we should end the episode here. So for now, this has been Critically Minded: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Episode 12 Issues: Issues and Inferences

Dave: You are listening to Critically Minded.

Nick: The podcast for English learners who want to become better critical thinkers. We’re your hosts, Nick . . .

Dave: And Dave. In this episode we want to discuss issues and inferences. An inference is a statement that is not spoken directly, because the speaker may be embarrassed or does not want to be impolite. Communicating in another language involves more than just understanding vocabulary and knowing grammar. It involves understanding indirect communication that is part of the culture where that language is spoken.

Nick: Think about your own culture. Do people in your country always say what they think? Or do they use language in a way that makes criticism and negative comments softer and less direct? There are ways that people in any culture switch from direct statements to inferences when the situation calls for it.

Dave: And one of the ways people do this is by making statements that look like questions involving descriptive issues, but are really prescriptive statements. If you can recognize when someone is making a prescriptive inference while using descriptive issue indicator words, then you can understand how important critical thinking is in common casual conversation.

Nick: Japanese often feel that westerners are more direct than Japanese. And to a certain extent that may be true. But that doesn’t mean that westerners are always direct in their communication. I know that when my wife says, “Are you going to wear that shirt? It’s not a question, but by putting her remark in the form of a question, she’s telling me—not asking, but telling me—to change what I am wearing. In order to understand what a speaker truly wants to say, sometimes we have to think about the words he or she has used.

Dave: And if I told you that a high percentage of fatal highway accidents are caused every year by people driving over the speed limit, in the rain, at night, while drinking alcohol and not wearing their safety belts, that would be a descriptive statement.

Nick: Sure. You’re just telling me a statistical fact.

Dave: But if I tell you this statistical fact while I’m sitting in the passenger seat of your car at 2:00 a.m. during a rainstorm, and you’re driving at 120 kilometers per hour while drinking scotch straight from the bottle, what I’m really saying is that you that you should pull over and let me drive.

Nick: And if not just stop and let me out.

Dave: You may remember about ten episodes earlier, we discussed unspoken statements and hidden premises. This is similar to that except here, it is the conclusion that is unspoken. And the premise, while spoken, is often expressed as a question. For example, say Nick, did you know that tomorrow night there is going to be a lunar eclipse? The earth’s shadow will pass directly in front of the moon. It’s happening at about 8:30 p.m. My friends and I are going to watch it together. Would you like to join us?

Nick: That sounds really interesting, but I have university faculty party with some other teachers tomorrow night. So, I’ll be indoors all evening and won’t be able to see the sky.

Dave: That’s too bad. You should make an excuse and join us.

Nick: I’d love to, but I don’t think the university president would like that.

Dave: Ahh Nick, how often do you get the chance to see a lunar eclipse?

Nick: So listeners, what David has just done is to ask a question that is not really a question. He doesn’t really want to know how often I get the chance to see a lunar eclipse. If I thought that was a question, I would estimate how long I will live, about 80 years if I’m lucky, then I might look at the Internet and find that in this part of Japan, between the years 1960 and 2040 there is an average of two or three lunar eclipses each year. So to answer David’s question:

Dave: How often do you get the chance to see a lunar eclipse?

Nick: I could say, “Oh about two or three times a year?”

Dave: Or I could say, “Ahh Nick, how many eclipses do you get to see in your life?”

Nick: To which I might say, “Well 80 years times 2.5 eclipses a year is 200, so David I could get to see about 200, if I tried.”

Dave: But I’m not really asking Nick to do all that math.

Nick: Bet you were surprised I could though!

Dave: Well yeah. In fact, when I say, “How often do you get the chance to see an eclipse?” or “How many times do you get to see an eclipse?” what I am really saying is that an eclipse is an unusual event that is very exciting to see. And moreover, I am saying that Nick should see the eclipse, even if he has to make the president of his university angry.

Nick: And we all know that saying somebody should do something is making a prescriptive statement. This kind of communication is called making an inference. We infer when we hint at something without saying it directly. We should also point out that an inference does not have to be expressed as a question.

Dave: Instead of saying How many times or How often, which are both questions, I could say, “Ahh Nick. It’s not every day that you get to see a lunar eclipse.”

Nick: It would be very strange if there were an eclipse every night. And if there were, nobody would think eclipses were interesting. But because eclipses are unusual, they are interesting and desirable to see.

Dave: We should also point out that inferences are not always prescriptive. Inferences can also be descriptive.

Nick: Good point, David. And we covered that in our episode on hidden premises.

Dave: So to summarize, prescriptive statements can sometimes sound very neutral. Speakers can use neutral language, while really communicating a prescriptive message about something that is very positive, like seeing an eclipse, or negative, like wearing a shirt that your wife doesn’t like.

Nick: If you think about communication critically, within the context of the situation, you will understand the true intent of the speaker. We call this “reading between the lines.” It means that you are able to understand the face-value of what is being spoken, AND to form hypotheses about what the speaker really means. For example––

Dave: Uh, Nick, do you know how long we’ve been recording this episode?

Nick: Ahh—I think David is inferring that we should end the episode here. So for now, this has been Critically Minded: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Episode 11: Issues: Descriptive and Prescriptive Issues

Nick: Welcome back to Critically Minded, Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Dave: We’re your hosts, Dave--

Nick: And Nick. Well now that we have learned about premises and conclusions, next we’ll be discussing how to understand an argument in terms of issues. Issues are what people are really disagreeing about when they argue for their point of view, or when they are trying to persuade you to agree with them.

Dave: Yes, and this is where we start put our news skills to use in real and practical situations. Often when we are having a disagreement with another person, we find halfway through our conversation that, although we are discussing the same topic, we are discussing different issues.

Nick: But, if we are careful at the beginning of our conversations. If we state our opinion clearly. And if we listen to the other person more closely, we will have fewer misunderstandings.

Dave: And then if we must disagree, we’ll be able to disagree in a way that we work towards an understanding of each other’s position. That will never happen if we are discussing different issues. So, we need to understand the difference between topics and issues.

Nick: The subject or topic of an argument is the content, but the issue is the heart of the argument. In short, there are thousands of topics we could disagree on. However, there are only two kinds of issues for any of those topics. And we can identify each kind of issue by knowing the indicator words. Issues generally come in two categories: descriptive and prescriptive.

Dave: Descriptive issues, as you might guess, describe situations. Descriptive indicators include the Wh-question words: what, where, when, who, why, how, how much, how many, how often; to-be verbs: is, isn’t, was, and wasn’t; and auxiliary verbs: do, don’t, will, and won’t. Descriptive issues concern facts about the past, present or future. People discussing descriptive issues often want to know historical, scientific, legal, or statistical facts. For example, Who invented the telephone? Do people with sports cars drive faster than people driving family cars? If we buy a house, will we be able to take a trip to Italy next year? How many homeless people are there in Detroit, Michigan? How is climate change going to affect weather patterns? Those are descriptive, issues, and are for checking facts. How about prescriptive issues?

Nick: Prescriptive statements make claims about what is good or bad; or how the world should be; or how we should accomplish goals. Prescriptive issues deal with matters of taste, or judgment: what the group or society we belong to believes is ethical or unethical; or what we personally believe is moral or immoral. Prescriptive issues are concerned with what is desirable or undesirable. These are indicated by words like good and bad or acceptable and unacceptable; right and wrong; beautiful and ugly; and of course, “okay.” For example, Is cheating on a test always immoral? Which are better house pets, dogs or cats? and Should we support climate change treaties?

Dave: The important thing about prescriptive issues is that they are often about social controversies. They indicate what someone believes should or should not be done, in order to reach a desirable situation; or to avoid an undesirable situation; or simply to accomplish a goal. And that goal could be loaded with moral or ethical values.

Nick: And perhaps less controversially, timeless problems such as what we should do to help homeless people; or goals that have no moral or ethical value—like what must be done in order to perform a mathematical function, or what’s the best way to get from your home to the airport before your flight leaves.

Dave: These kinds of prescriptive issue indicators include words and phrases such as: should, shouldn’t, must, mustn’t, need to, have to, ought to, in order to, and so on. Both the first kind of prescriptive statements, that use words like good, bad, moral, ethical, delicious, beautiful and ugly; and statements that use indicators like should, would, and have to are basically saying the same thing. Often, the difference is a matter of emphasis. In the first case, statements like Driving over the speed limit is risky, are making general comments about human behaviour. But when you hear some tell you, “You had better slow down,” or that “You ought to slow down,” you know that you are being told something about what you, personally, should do.

Nick: And you know what. I think we ought to end here. In our next episode, we are going to discuss how issues can be inferred. So be sure not to miss that.

Dave: So until next time. You have been listening to Critically Minded: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Episode 11: Issues: Descriptive and Prescriptive Issues

Nick: Welcome back to Critically Minded, Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Dave: We’re your hosts, Dave--

Nick: And Nick. Well now that we have learned about premises and conclusions, next we’ll be discussing how to understand an argument in terms of issues. Issues are what people are really disagreeing about when they argue for their point of view, or when they are trying to persuade you to agree with them.

Dave: Yes, and this is where we start put our news skills to use in real and practical situations. Often when we are having a disagreement with another person, we find halfway through our conversation that, although we are discussing the same topic, we are discussing different issues.

Nick: But, if we are careful at the beginning of our conversations. If we state our opinion clearly. And if we listen to the other person more closely, we will have fewer misunderstandings.

Dave: And then if we must disagree, we’ll be able to disagree in a way that we work towards an understanding of each other’s position. That will never happen if we are discussing different issues. So, we need to understand the difference between topics and issues.

Nick: The subject or topic of an argument is the content, but the issue is the heart of the argument. In short, there are thousands of topics we could disagree on. However, there are only two kinds of issues for any of those topics. And we can identify each kind of issue by knowing the indicator words. Issues generally come in two categories: descriptive and prescriptive.

Dave: Descriptive issues, as you might guess, describe situations. Descriptive indicators include the Wh-question words: what, where, when, who, why, how, how much, how many, how often; to-be verbs: is, isn’t, was, and wasn’t; and auxiliary verbs: do, don’t, will, and won’t. Descriptive issues concern facts about the past, present or future. People discussing descriptive issues often want to know historical, scientific, legal, or statistical facts. For example, Who invented the telephone? Do people with sports cars drive faster than people driving family cars? If we buy a house, will we be able to take a trip to Italy next year? How many homeless people are there in Detroit, Michigan? How is climate change going to affect weather patterns? Those are descriptive, issues, and are for checking facts. How about prescriptive issues?

Nick: Prescriptive statements make claims about what is good or bad; or how the world should be; or how we should accomplish goals. Prescriptive issues deal with matters of taste, or judgment: what the group or society we belong to believes is ethical or unethical; or what we personally believe is moral or immoral. Prescriptive issues are concerned with what is desirable or undesirable. These are indicated by words like good and bad or acceptable and unacceptable; right and wrong; beautiful and ugly; and of course, “okay.” For example, Is cheating on a test always immoral? Which are better house pets, dogs or cats? and Should we support climate change treaties?

Dave: The important thing about prescriptive issues is that they are often about social controversies. They indicate what someone believes should or should not be done, in order to reach a desirable situation; or to avoid an undesirable situation; or simply to accomplish a goal. And that goal could be loaded with moral or ethical values.

Nick: And perhaps less controversially, timeless problems such as what we should do to help homeless people; or goals that have no moral or ethical value—like what must be done in order to perform a mathematical function, or what’s the best way to get from your home to the airport before your flight leaves.

Dave: These kinds of prescriptive issue indicators include words and phrases such as: should, shouldn’t, must, mustn’t, need to, have to, ought to, in order to, and so on. Both the first kind of prescriptive statements, that use words like good, bad, moral, ethical, delicious, beautiful and ugly; and statements that use indicators like should, would, and have to are basically saying the same thing. Often, the difference is a matter of emphasis. In the first case, statements like Driving over the speed limit is risky, are making general comments about human behaviour. But when you hear some tell you, “You had better slow down,” or that “You ought to slow down,” you know that you are being told something about what you, personally, should do.

Nick: And you know what. I think we ought to end here. In our next episode, we are going to discuss how issues can be inferred. So be sure not to miss that.

Dave: So until next time. You have been listening to Critically Minded: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Episode 10: Major and Minor Premises 2

Dave: You are listening to Critically Minded.

Nick: Critical Thinking For 2nd Language Learners. We’re your hosts, Nick . . .

Dave: And Dave. In our last episode, we were looking at major and minor premises. Now we should discuss the words used to indicate major premises and minor premises.

Nick: Major premise indicators include words like: all, no, none, every, only, everybody, nobody, always, never, completely, totally.

Dave: And minor premise indicators include words like: the, a, an, this, that, these, those, some, a few, my, his, and hers.

Nick: Other words related to major premises are, “except,” “but,” “although,” “despite.” In this episode, we are going to look at three short arguments and ask you to identify the minor premise, the major premise and the conclusion.

Dave: And also tell whether the argument is conclusion-first or conclusion-last. So, here we go: # 1. Only birds have feathers. This has feathers, so it must be a bird.

Nick: # 2. No one but the owner of this car will have the correct key. Tom’s key starts the car. So, the car belongs to Tom.

Dave: Next # 3. It is clear that John and Rebecca worked together to paint the door pink and green. Although some painters have red paint and purple paint; and some painters have yellow paint and brown paint, nobody except John has blue and white paint and nobody but Rebecca has red and yellow paint.

Dave: Let’s discuss the answers now.

Nick: Right, so, in the first problem, we have the argument: Only birds have feathers. This has feathers, so it must be a bird . . . In this problem the major premise is indicated by the word, “only.”

Dave: Yes, like the word, “all,” the word “only” is exclusive. It excludes all other items from the group.

Nick: So the premise, Only birds have feathers is major. The second premise, This has feathers is minor.

Dave: Indicted by the word, “this” which indicates that this is a particular thing that is being referred to.

Nick: The word, “so” indicates the conclusion, so this must be a bird.

Dave: As for the organization, this argument is a conclusion-last one. The conclusion, indicated by the word “so” is in the last of the three sentences. Let’s have a look now at our second problem: No one but the owner of this car will have the correct key. Tom’s key starts the car. So, it must be Tom’s car.

Nick: Again an easy one. The word “no” in “No one” indicates the major premise. We could also use the word, except, as in, “No one except the owner will have the key.” Next, “Tom’s key,” a specific reference to one key, indicates the minor premise. And “So” indicates a conclusion. The conclusion comes at the end, making this a premise-first conclusion-last argument. Let’s look at the third argument now.

Dave: I’ll read it again. It is clear that John and Rebecca worked together to paint the door pink and green. Although some painters have red paint and purple paint; and some painters have yellow paint and brown paint, no one except John has blue and white paint and no one but Rebecca has red and yellow paint.

Nick: This was a conclusion-first, premise-last argument. It was not so easy to identify the conclusion indicator, because “It is clear that” is a new conclusion indicator that we haven’t talked about yet. And there were no simple premise indicators like “because.” However, there are the major premise indicators “no one except Tom” and “No one but Rebecca,” and the minor premise indicator, “some painters.”

Dave: And of course, as we all know, green paint can only be made by mixing blue and yellow; and pink paint can only be made by mixing red and white; and that is why, the only way the door could be painted pink and green is if John and Rebecca worked together.

Nick: That will probably be enough for today.

Dave: So until next time, this has been, Critically Minded: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Episode 10: Major and Minor Premises 2

Dave: You are listening to Critically Minded.

Nick: Critical Thinking For 2nd Language Learners. We’re your hosts, Nick . . .

Dave: And Dave. In our last episode, we were looking at major and minor premises. Now we should discuss the words used to indicate major premises and minor premises.

Nick: Major premise indicators include words like: all, no, none, every, only, everybody, nobody, always, never, completely, totally.

Dave: And minor premise indicators include words like: the, a, an, this, that, these, those, some, a few, my, his, and hers.

Nick: Other words related to major premises are, “except,” “but,” “although,” “despite.” In this episode, we are going to look at three short arguments and ask you to identify the minor premise, the major premise and the conclusion.

Dave: And also tell whether the argument is conclusion-first or conclusion-last. So, here we go: # 1. Only birds have feathers. This has feathers, so it must be a bird.

Nick: # 2. No one but the owner of this car will have the correct key. Tom’s key starts the car. So, the car belongs to Tom.

Dave: Next # 3. It is clear that John and Rebecca worked together to paint the door pink and green. Although some painters have red paint and purple paint; and some painters have yellow paint and brown paint, nobody except John has blue and white paint and nobody but Rebecca has red and yellow paint.

Dave: Let’s discuss the answers now.

Nick: Right, so, in the first problem, we have the argument: Only birds have feathers. This has feathers, so it must be a bird . . . In this problem the major premise is indicated by the word, “only.”

Dave: Yes, like the word, “all,” the word “only” is exclusive. It excludes all other items from the group.

Nick: So the premise, Only birds have feathers is major. The second premise, This has feathers is minor.

Dave: Indicted by the word, “this” which indicates that this is a particular thing that is being referred to.

Nick: The word, “so” indicates the conclusion, so this must be a bird.

Dave: As for the organization, this argument is a conclusion-last one. The conclusion, indicated by the word “so” is in the last of the three sentences. Let’s have a look now at our second problem: No one but the owner of this car will have the correct key. Tom’s key starts the car. So, it must be Tom’s car.

Nick: Again an easy one. The word “no” in “No one” indicates the major premise. We could also use the word, except, as in, “No one except the owner will have the key.” Next, “Tom’s key,” a specific reference to one key, indicates the minor premise. And “So” indicates a conclusion. The conclusion comes at the end, making this a premise-first conclusion-last argument. Let’s look at the third argument now.

Dave: I’ll read it again. It is clear that John and Rebecca worked together to paint the door pink and green. Although some painters have red paint and purple paint; and some painters have yellow paint and brown paint, no one except John has blue and white paint and no one but Rebecca has red and yellow paint.

Nick: This was a conclusion-first, premise-last argument. It was not so easy to identify the conclusion indicator, because “It is clear that” is a new conclusion indicator that we haven’t talked about yet. And there were no simple premise indicators like “because.” However, there are the major premise indicators “no one except Tom” and “No one but Rebecca,” and the minor premise indicator, “some painters.”

Dave: And of course, as we all know, green paint can only be made by mixing blue and yellow; and pink paint can only be made by mixing red and white; and that is why, the only way the door could be painted pink and green is if John and Rebecca worked together.

Nick: That will probably be enough for today.

Dave: So until next time, this has been, Critically Minded: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Episode 9: Major and Minor Premises 1

Nick: You’re back with the Critically Minded: Critical Thinking For 2nd Language Learners and we’re your hosts, Nick . . .

Dave: And Dave.

Nick: Today we’re going to discuss major and minor premises.

To understand the difference between major and minor premises, it’s important to understand that not all premises are equal. The major premise will be the more general or fundamental premise. And the minor premise will be more specific, concerning particular people, places or this or that condition.

Dave: Here are a few examples of arguments with major and minor premises. Let’s try a very simple one first.

All books have pages.

This dictionary is a book.

Therefore this dictionary has pages.

Nick: So you can tell which is the minor premise and which is the major, which premise is more general; which is more specific. The word “all” in the first premise about all books suggests a very general category. And the word “this” in the second premise is indicating a specific object, this dictionary. So the major premise is that all books have pages and the minor premise is that this dictionary is a book.

Dave: The conclusion combines the general fact about books and the specific fact about this dictionary. You listeners might like to know why this important. I mean sure one premise is general, the major, and the other is specific, the minor, but so what?

Nick: You might think that it’s a pretty useless argument, but we have used a super simple example so that you can easily understand our main point about major and minor premises. In fact, this same kind of argument is used in arguing constitutional law, business administration and every branch of science. Understanding the relationship between major and minor premises is very, very important.

Dave: Let’s look at a more visual example, based on a map of Japan.

Sensouji Temple is in Asakusa.

And Asakusa is a district of Tokyo.

Thus, Sensouji Temple is in Tokyo.

Alright, the smaller or minor premise is Sensouji Temple is in Asakusa. And the larger major premise is that Asakusa is a district of Tokyo. What if it were not in Asakusa? What if it were in Ueno? That’s still in Tokyo. So it is possible for minor premises to be slightly wrong and for the argument to still basically work. But, what if we change that, say to Asakusa is in Osaka? Well, then the conclusion that the Sensouji Temple is in Tokyo wouldn’t make any logical sense. So, when a major premise is false, the argument will be completely wrong.

Nick: How about this one?

Only birds have feathers.

Penguins have feathers.

Thus, penguins are birds.

I’m giving this example because a student of mine once argued that a penguin was not a bird. She reasoned that because it didn’t fly and it swam in the sea, that it wasn’t a bird. And she wasn’t going to believe me when I said it was. She did, however, agree that only birds have feathers. And so she finally understood, through using logical argument, that penguins are birds. Well, Dave, I think that probably brings us to the end of our program today.

Dave: I agree. In our next episode we’ll discuss the variety of major premise indicators and minor premise indicators. So, until next time, this has been Critically Minded: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Episode 9: Major and Minor Premises 1

Nick: You’re back with the Critically Minded: Critical Thinking For 2nd Language Learners and we’re your hosts, Nick . . .

Dave: And Dave.

Nick: Today we’re going to discuss major and minor premises.

To understand the difference between major and minor premises, it’s important to understand that not all premises are equal. The major premise will be the more general or fundamental premise. And the minor premise will be more specific, concerning particular people, places or this or that condition.

Dave: Here are a few examples of arguments with major and minor premises. Let’s try a very simple one first.

All books have pages.

This dictionary is a book.

Therefore this dictionary has pages.

Nick: So you can tell which is the minor premise and which is the major, which premise is more general; which is more specific. The word “all” in the first premise about all books suggests a very general category. And the word “this” in the second premise is indicating a specific object, this dictionary. So the major premise is that all books have pages and the minor premise is that this dictionary is a book.

Dave: The conclusion combines the general fact about books and the specific fact about this dictionary. You listeners might like to know why this important. I mean sure one premise is general, the major, and the other is specific, the minor, but so what?

Nick: You might think that it’s a pretty useless argument, but we have used a super simple example so that you can easily understand our main point about major and minor premises. In fact, this same kind of argument is used in arguing constitutional law, business administration and every branch of science. Understanding the relationship between major and minor premises is very, very important.

Dave: Let’s look at a more visual example, based on a map of Japan.

Sensouji Temple is in Asakusa.

And Asakusa is a district of Tokyo.

Thus, Sensouji Temple is in Tokyo.

Alright, the smaller or minor premise is Sensouji Temple is in Asakusa. And the larger major premise is that Asakusa is a district of Tokyo. What if it were not in Asakusa? What if it were in Ueno? That’s still in Tokyo. So it is possible for minor premises to be slightly wrong and for the argument to still basically work. But, what if we change that, say to Asakusa is in Osaka? Well, then the conclusion that the Sensouji Temple is in Tokyo wouldn’t make any logical sense. So, when a major premise is false, the argument will be completely wrong.

Nick: How about this one?

Only birds have feathers.

Penguins have feathers.

Thus, penguins are birds.

I’m giving this example because a student of mine once argued that a penguin was not a bird. She reasoned that because it didn’t fly and it swam in the sea, that it wasn’t a bird. And she wasn’t going to believe me when I said it was. She did, however, agree that only birds have feathers. And so she finally understood, through using logical argument, that penguins are birds. Well, Dave, I think that probably brings us to the end of our program today.

Dave: I agree. In our next episode we’ll discuss the variety of major premise indicators and minor premise indicators. So, until next time, this has been Critically Minded: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Episode 8 POINT 2: Conditional Statements and Hypothetical Premises 2

Dave: You are listening to Critically Minded.

Nick: The podcast for English learners who want to become better critical thinkers. We’re your hosts, Nick . . .

Dave: And Dave. In an earlier episode, we were discussing conditional statements and hypothetical premises.

Nick: We explained that hypothetical premises are a kind of conditional statement that makes cause-and-effect predictions about future outcomes. We gave examples of hypothetical premises that use the If, then structure and we pointed out that in a hypothetical premise, the first part of the sentence should use the basic present tense, and that the second part of the sentence should use the future tense with phrases like will be or will do.

Dave: Lastly, we pointed out that words like whenever or every time that cannot be used for hypothetical premises, because they only make general claims, and do not make testable predictions about the future. Now, let’s continue from that point. We need to understand that there is also one other important thing about words like “whenever.”

Nick: We must be careful in the way we use them, because, although they are often used to hint at general cause-and-effect relationships, for example, Every time I eat at that restaurant, I get very sick, words like “whenever” and “every time” are also often used to discuss two conditions that do not have a cause-and-effect relationship.

Dave: For example, consider this one: Whenever I get on the train at 5:45 a.m. the train is not crowded. However, whenever I get on the train at 6:15 a.m. the train is very crowded.

Nick: I see what you’re saying, David. You’re getting on the train before or after 6:00 doesn’t cause the train to be uncrowded or crowded. In fact, if you stayed in bed and didn’t leave your home, the train would still be uncrowded before 6:00 and crowded after 6:00. The number of people already on the train is not a result of your getting on the train, unless you count yourself, that is. Now let’s try to turn this into an argument, which is supported by a hypothetical premise, starting with the claim that more people are on the train leaving from your station after 6:00 a.m. than are on the train leaving your station before 6:00.

Dave: That would be the conclusion of the argument. Now, we need to support that conclusion with reasons to believe it is true.

Nick: Premises.

Dave: Yes, premises.

Nick: We should begin with two hypothetical premises that set up a way of testing the truth claim made in the conclusion. So, how about this? If I get on the train at 5:45 a.m. the train will not be crowded. And if I get on the train at 6:15 a.m. the train will be crowded.

Dave: Wait. I see one problem here. What does “crowded” mean? We need some way to define crowded.

Nick: Alright, good point. I suggest that we define crowded as meaning that there are no empty seats, so that we cannot sit down.

Dave: Okay can you continue from there?

Nick: Sure. First premise:

If we count the number empty seats on the 5:45 a.m. train, then there will be at least one empty seat. We counted ten empty seats on the 5:45, so it is not crowded.

Second premise: If we count the number of empty seats on the 6:15 train, then we will find zero empty seats. We counted no empty seats on the 6:15 train, and there were many people standing, so the train is crowded.

Conclusion: The 5:45 a.m. train is not crowded and the 6:15 train is crowded.

Dave: So the main points here are: don’t confuse conditional statements that involve cause-and-effect relationships with those that do not.

Nick: And remember that hypothetical premises only make predictions about the future, usually using an If then structure. It’s as easy as that.

Dave: And until next time, this has been, Critically Minded: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.

Episode 8: Conditional Statements and Hypothetical Premises 1

Dave: You are listening to Critically Minded.

Nick: Critical Thinking For 2nd Language Learners. We’re your hosts, Nick . . .

Dave: And Dave.The next topic we’re discussing today is conditional statements and hypothetical premises.

Nick: A conditional statement says that when one set of conditions exist, then another set of conditions will also exist as a result of the first. We use conditional statements in business contracts, and legal documents. For example:

When you buy this item on the first Wednesday of any month, you get a 10% discount.

You are buying on Wednesday, February 4th.

So you only need to pay $900, not $1000.

Dave: So, in this case, saving $100 is connected conditionally to buying on Wednesday the 4th. Here’s another one. Whenever I eat at that restaurant, I have a stomachache afterwards.

Nick: But does that mean that eating at that restaurant caused your stomachache?

Dave: I don’t know. It’s a reasonable assumption.

Nick: But critical thinking means not assuming things.

Dave: That’s right. So in order to determine whether or not eating at that restaurant is the cause of my stomachache we need to be able to make a prediction about future events, and then test that prediction to see if it is true or false. We need to form a hypothesis.

Nick: A hypothesis is a way of describing a cause-and-effect relationship between a condition that we control and what will happen in the future. Hypothetical premises often consist of a two-part structure: “If x . . . then y”. To test whether or not eating at the restaurant causes you to have a stomachache requires more than a conditional statement about general facts and an assumption. It requires a hypothesis. And hypotheses are expressed through hypothetical premises. Can you think of one?

Dave: Sure. If I eat at that restaurant, then I will have a stomachache later that day.

Nick: Yes, that kind of works. You have the initial conditions using the word “If” plus the present tense phrase, eating at that restaurant, and the future event, expressed by the future tense phrase will have and the resulting condition, have a stomachache. That allows us to test whether or not the food at that restaurant made you sick. However, to be sure, we should test days that you don’t eat at that restaurant.

Dave: A hypothetical premise testing that would be:

If I eat at a different restaurant, then I am not going to get a stomachache.

Again the word If, suggesting a controlled condition, eating at a different restaurant, the predicted outcome expressed by the future tense, not going to, and the outcome not getting a stomachache. It’s very scientific and a very reasonable way to think through problems in everyday life.

Nick: Speaking of science, we couldn’t do science without hypothetical premises. For example here’s something everyone learned in junior high school science class:

If we remove all the oxygen from this jar, then the candle inside will not burn.

And, as everyone knows, a candle will not burn without oxygen. We could use the word “unless” instead of “if”. That would read:

“Unless there is oxygen in the jar, then a candle will not burn.”

Okay, let’s look at one last example. My house was robbed last night. Some thieves came in and stole some valuable items.

Dave: But Nick, why didn’t your dog bark?

Nick: I don’t know. It’s strange. I think maybe the the dog knew the thief.

Dave: Why do you think so?

Nick: Because, if a stranger had come into the house, then the dog would have barked.

Dave: Okay, you’ve made a conditional statement, in the past tense. We could rephrase that statement as

Whenever a stranger comes into the house, the dog barks.

That still only makes a statement about a general fact. It still doesn’t provide a way of testing the claim. To phrase this example as a hypothetical premise, the first half of the sentence must use verbs in the present tense, and the second half of the sentence should use auxiliary verbs like “will be” or “will do” to form a future tense and refer to future outcomes.

Nick: Alright, how about:

If a stranger comes into the house, then the dog will bark.

In the first half of the sentence we used the present tense form of the verb come, as in “a stranger comes.” And in the second half of the sentence we use the future tense, “will bark.”

Dave: We could also use the word “unless” like this:

Unless the person coming into the house is a friend or family member, the dog will bark.

Nick: And, I believe that if our listeners read through our examples, then they will be able to understand conditional statements and hypothetical premises.

Dave: So until next time, this has been, Critically Minded: Critical Thinking for 2nd Language Learners.