Guide to Critical Thinking

Formal Versus Informal Logic
Logic is a rich and complex field. Our focus here will be how logic contributes to the develop-
ment and honing of critical thinking in everyday life. Primarily, the concepts we will discuss 
will reflect principles of informal logic. The principal aim in informal logic is to examine the 
reasoning we employ in the ordinary and everyday claims we make.
In contrast, formal logic is far more abstract, often involving the use of symbols and math-
ematics to analyze arguments. Although this text will touch on a few formal concepts of logic 
in its discussions of deduction (see Chapter 3 and Chapter 4), the purpose in doing so is to 
develop methodology for good reasoning that is directly applicable to ordinary life.
1.4 Arguments Outside of Logic
Although Chapter 2 will explore the term argument in more detail, it is important to clarify 
that the word is not exclusive to logic. Its meaning varies widely, and you may find that one of 
the descriptions in this section fits your own understanding of what is an argument. Knowing 
there is more than one meaning of this word, depending on context or application, will help 
you correctly understand what is meant in a given situation.
Arguments in Ordinary Language
Often, we apply the word argument to an exchange of diverging views, sometimes in a heated, 
angry, or hostile setting. Suppose you have a friend named Lola, and she tells you, “I had an 
argument with a colleague at work.” In an ordinary setting you might be correct in under-
standing Lola’s meaning of the term argument as equivalent to a verbal dispute. In logic, how-
ever, an argument does not refer to a fight or an angry dispute. Moreover, in logic an argument 
does not involve an exchange between two people, and it does not necessarily have an emo-
tional context.
Although in ordinary language an argument requires that at least two or more people be 
involved in an exchange, this is not the case in logic. A logical argument is typically advanced by 
only one person, either on his or her behalf or as the representative of a group. No exchange is 
required. Although an argument may be presented as an objection to another person’s point 
of view, there need not be an actual exchange of opposing ideas as a result.
Now, if two persons coordinate a presentation of their defenses of what can be identified as 
opposing points of view, then we have a debate. A debate may contain several arguments but 
is not itself an argument. Accordingly, only debates are exchanges of diverging views.
Even if a logical argument is both well supported and heartfelt, its emotional context is not its 
driving force. Rather, any emotion that may be inevitably tied in with the defense of the argu-
ment’s principal claim is secondary to the reasons advanced. But let us add a little contextual 
reference to the matter of debates. If the arguments on each side of the debate are presented 
har85668_01_c01_001-024.indd 14
4/9/15 11:20 AM
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

---

Section 1.4 
Arguments Outside of Logic
well, then the debate may lead to the discovery of perspectives that each party had not pre-
viously considered. As such, debates can be quite enlightening because every time our own 
perspective is broadened with ideas not previously considered and that are well supported 
and defended, it is very difficult for the experience to be negative. Instead, a good debate is an 
intellectually exhilarating experience, regardless of how attached one may be to the side one 
is defending.
Not even debates need to be carried out with an angry or hostile demeanor, or as a means to 
vent one’s frustration or other emotions toward the opposition. To surrender to one’s emo-
tions in the midst of a debate can cause one to lose track of the opposition’s objections and, 
consequently, be able to muster only weak rebuttals.