Critical Thinking
"PhiLSAT Critical Thinking? Ito ang section na titignan kung kaya mong mag-analyze ng arguments like a true legal mind. Para kang nasa courtroom na - kailangan mong makita ang flaws sa reasoning at mag-evaluate ng evidence. Future Atty., let's sharpen that critical mind!"
1. Logical Fallacies - The Flawed Arguments 🛑
Ang logical fallacy ay error sa reasoning. Sa PhiLSAT, kailangan mong i-identify kung anong fallacy ang ginagawa ng argument.
| Fallacy | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Ad Hominem | Attacking the person instead of their argument | "You can't trust his legal opinion, he's just a fresh grad." |
| Straw Man | Misrepresenting someone's argument to attack it | "So you're saying we should let all criminals go free?" |
| Slippery Slope | Claiming one thing will inevitably lead to extreme consequences | "If we allow this law, next thing you know, we'll be a dictatorship." |
| False Dilemma | Presenting only two options when more exist | "You're either with us or against us." |
| Appeal to Authority | Using an unqualified authority as evidence | "This actor endorses this medicine, so it must work." |
| Circular Reasoning | Using the conclusion as a premise | "The law is just because it's the law." |
| Red Herring | Introducing irrelevant information to distract | "Why discuss corruption when traffic is so bad?" |
| Hasty Generalization | Drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence | "Two lawyers cheated, so all lawyers are dishonest." |
💡 Pro Tip: How to Spot Fallacies
- Is the argument attacking the person or the idea?
- Is there a logical connection between premises and conclusion?
- Are there hidden assumptions that might be false?
- Is the evidence sufficient and relevant?
2. Argument Structure & Evaluation 🏛️
Understanding kung paano binuo ang argument ay key sa Critical Thinking.
Valid Argument
If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true.
Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. ∴ Socrates is mortal. ✓
Sound Argument
Valid argument + premises are actually TRUE.
The argument above is both valid AND sound because the premises are true.
| Type | Structure Correct? | Premises True? | Conclusion Reliable? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sound | Yes ✓ | Yes ✓ | Yes ✓ |
| Valid but Unsound | Yes ✓ | No ✗ | No ✗ |
| Invalid | No ✗ | Doesn't matter | No ✗ |
Example of Valid but Unsound:
All birds can fly. Penguins are birds. ∴ Penguins can fly.
Structure is valid, but Premise 1 is FALSE (not all birds fly), so the argument is unsound.
3. Types of Reasoning 🔄
Dalawang main types ng reasoning ang lalabas sa PhiLSAT:
Deductive Reasoning
General → Specific
Starts with a general rule, applies to specific case.
"All contracts require consideration. This is a contract. ∴ This requires consideration."
If premises true → conclusion MUST be true
Inductive Reasoning
Specific → General
Starts with specific observations, forms general conclusion.
"Case A had this result. Case B had this result. ∴ All similar cases will have this result."
Conclusion is PROBABLE, not certain
| Aspect | Deductive | Inductive |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | General to Specific | Specific to General |
| Conclusion | Certain (if valid) | Probable |
| Legal Use | Applying statute to facts | Case law patterns |
| Weakness | Depends on premise truth | Limited sample size |
4. Evaluating Evidence & Sources 📊
Sa legal profession, hindi lahat ng evidence ay equal. Kailangan mong i-evaluate ang quality ng evidence.
Evidence Evaluation Criteria:
| Criterion | Question to Ask | Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Relevance | Does it directly support the claim? | Evidence about unrelated topic |
| Sufficiency | Is there enough evidence? | One case proving "all" |
| Credibility | Is the source reliable? | Biased or unqualified source |
| Recency | Is it current/applicable? | Outdated statistics |
| Representativeness | Does sample represent whole? | Cherry-picked examples |
Strong Evidence:
- Peer-reviewed studies
- Official government data
- Multiple independent sources
- Expert testimony (in their field)
- Recent, representative samples
Weak Evidence:
- Anecdotal stories
- Anonymous sources
- Single case studies
- Outdated information
- Biased/interested parties
5. Cause and Effect Analysis 🔗
Maraming PhiLSAT questions ang about causation. Kailangan mong distinguish between correlation and causation.
Correlation ≠ Causation
Correlation: Two things happen together
Causation: One thing CAUSES the other
"Ice cream sales increase when drowning deaths increase. Does ice cream cause drowning?"
NO! Both are caused by hot weather (confounding variable).
| Causal Fallacy | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Post Hoc | After this, therefore because of this | "I wore lucky socks, then passed the exam" |
| Reverse Causation | Getting cause and effect backwards | "Hospitals cause deaths" (sick people go to hospitals) |
| Confounding Variable | Third factor causing both | "Education causes wealth" (family background?) |
| Single Cause | Oversimplifying complex causation | "Crime is caused by poverty" (only one factor?) |
🎯 Questions to Establish Causation:
- Did the cause come BEFORE the effect?
- Is there a logical mechanism connecting them?
- Have we ruled out alternative explanations?
- Is the relationship consistent across different contexts?
- Is there a dose-response relationship?
6. Analogical Reasoning ⚖️
Sa law, ginagamit ang analogy para i-apply ang previous cases sa new situations.
Evaluating Analogies:
| Factor | Strong Analogy | Weak Analogy |
|---|---|---|
| Relevant Similarities | Many shared relevant features | Few or superficial similarities |
| Key Differences | Differences are minor | Critical differences exist |
| Number of Cases | Multiple similar cases | Only one comparison case |
Legal Analogy Example:
Case A: Court ruled that email contracts are valid.
New Case: Are text message contracts valid?
Analogy argument: Like email, text messages are electronic written communications that can show intent and agreement.
Strength: Both are electronic, written, permanent records showing mutual agreement.
7. PhiLSAT Critical Thinking Tips & Practice 📝
🎯 Exam Day Strategies:
- Read actively: Question everything as you read
- Find the main conclusion first: What is the author trying to prove?
- Identify the evidence: What support is given?
- Look for gaps: What's assumed? What's missing?
- Check for fallacies: Is the reasoning flawed?
- Evaluate alternatives: Are there other explanations?
Practice Questions with Answers
Q1: "Senator Reyes supports the anti-terrorism bill. But he was once accused of corruption, so we shouldn't trust his judgment on this matter."
What fallacy is committed?
Answer: Ad Hominem. The argument attacks Senator Reyes personally (past corruption accusation) rather than addressing the merits of the anti-terrorism bill itself.
Q2: "Studies show that students who eat breakfast score higher on exams. Therefore, eating breakfast improves test performance."
What is the weakness in this reasoning?
Answer: Correlation ≠ Causation. There may be confounding variables: students who eat breakfast might come from more stable families, have better sleep habits, or be generally more organized—any of these could explain both breakfast eating AND better scores.
Q3: "Either we ban all motorcycles from EDSA, or traffic will never improve. Since banning motorcycles is impractical, traffic will never improve."
What fallacy is this?
Answer: False Dilemma. The argument presents only two options when many other solutions exist (better traffic management, improved public transport, congestion pricing, etc.).
⚠️ Common Pitfalls:
- Agreeing with conclusion = thinking argument is good (focus on REASONING!)
- Missing hidden assumptions in the argument
- Confusing correlation with causation
- Not considering alternative explanations
- Letting emotions override logical analysis
Test Your Knowledge! 🧠
Ready ka na ba? Take the practice quiz for Critical Thinking to reinforce what you just learned.
Start Practice Quiz 📝