Tip 658: Examining Claims with Logic

From the Critical Thinking Workshops: Examining Claims with Logic 

Two weeks ago, we suggested five tests for claims: 

  • Logic

  • Context

  • Reliability

  • Corroboration

  • Some natural variation

Our friend Darrell Harmon of Moxtek suggested we share examples of these tests. 

Bingo. 

We can do that. We’ll start with the top of the list: Logic. 

Claims—and their support—demand logic. Claims without support are useless. They’re empty statements. Claims and support must logically connect. 

A claim: 

Promote Charlotte Corday to Vice President of Operations.

Okay, but an empty statement. No support. 

Promote Charlotte Corday to Vice President of Operations because she’s the best candidate.

Nope. “She’s the best candidate” is just another claim.

Promote Charlotte Corday to Vice President of Operations because she’s nice.

Sorry. There’s no connection between being nice and running the Operations shop.  

Promote Charlotte Corday to Vice President of Operations because she has the experience (six years in Ops), the success (eighteen highly profitable initiatives), and the only other candidate has just been convicted of fraud.

Three pieces of support. Do they logically support the claim? 

  • Experience? Yes. She knows the department. She’s worked there.

  • Success? Sure. A proven track record.

  • The other candidate convicted of fraud? Uhhh . . . yeah . . . probably. “Working from home” doesn’t mean “working from prison.”

The logically connected claim makes a good argument for Charlotte’s promotion. 

Note also the specifics: numbers (six years, eighteen initiatives) and able-to-be-documented facts (the fraud conviction). They enhance the evidence.  

This is fun. Next week, we’ll talk about context.       

What are your questions? 

Let us know. We love this stuff.  

Kurt Weiland