4th Edition - Critical Reasoning - Page 30

[byucoakley]

In the 4th Edition of Critical Reasoning on page 30 it says to write background information below the T-Diagram. When one is reading through the passage though, how is one to distinguish between background information, and information for or against the conclusion?

For example, example 3 on page 34 & 35 seemed to have information that didn't seem relevant (ex. trains are safers than cars). This information did not seem to relate to the conclusion of buses or airplanes, yet it was put on the side in favor of the conclusion. Thank you.

[Ben Ku]

In the example given, the argument states that trains are safer than cars, and planes are safer than trains. The author is implying that safety is in this order:

planes > trains > cars

So the implication of the two statements is that planes are safer than cars. This is in support for the argument, because it is arguing that buses are like cars, so they are less safe than planes. Therefore, train > car is supporting the argument.

Sometimes if you don't really know where to classify a statement, just write it down. It might be more clear how it fits in after you've read through the entire argument.