Data Analysis

Means and standard deviations were calculated for each question
by academic field of study, and analyses of variance were run for each
question to assess differences among the six fields. The various
ratings were correlated within questionnaire sections. For example,
within the section on reasoning-skills, the ratings of frequency-and
importance were correlated; within the section on reasoning errors,
the ratings of frequency and seriousness were correlated. -
Finally, within each section (and for each kind of rating), the
data were factor analyzed to effect some reduction in the large number
of questions. A principal axis factoring, with squared multiple
correlations as the initial estimates of communalities, was used to
determine the number of factors to be retained for each section,
according to both the magnitude of the eigenvalues and the breaks in
their size. (Our inclination was to err on the side of retaining too
many factors at this exploratory stage.) Various numbers of factors
were then rotated according to the varimax criterion. Although other
oblique rotations could have been used also, it was felt that-the
detection of uncorrelated factors would best serve the objectives of
further test development.
The Sample
A total of 165 chairpersons (65% of those contacted) nominated a
total of 297 faculty members, of whom 255 (86%) returned usable
questionnaires. The response rates across fields were generally
comparable.
Full professors constituted a slight majority of the responding
sample (51%) ; associate professors made up the next largest proportion
(34%). About 13% were assistant professors, and the remaining small
proportion were deans, associate deans, or lecturers.

Questionnaire Development

Initially, 30 department chairs (in English, education,
engineering, chemistry, computer science, or psychology) were
contacted in 30 graduate institutions, and asked to identify three
faculty members in their departments who would be willing to provide
their insights into the analytical or reasoning skills that are most
critical for successful performance in graduate school. These 30
institutions were chosen from the GRE Directory of Graduate Programs
in such a way as to ensure some degree of geographical representation.
All of these departments require or recommentdh at applicants submit
GPE General Test scores; it was felt that these departments might be
more interested than nonrequiring departments in efforts to improve
the GRE General Test.
At this preliminary stage, faculty membersw ere informed of the
purpose of the project and asked to give, in an open-ended fashion,
examples of:
(a) the analytical, reasoning, or thinking skills they
perceived as most important for successful graduate
study in their fields (e.g., identifying assumptions
on which an argument is based), particularly as these
skills differentiate successful from marginal students
(b) specific critical incidents related to thinking or reasoning
that caused them to either raise or lower their estimation
of a student's analytical ability (e.g., failing to qualify
a conclusion as appropriate)
(c) particular reasoning or thinking "flaws" they have observed
in their students (e.g., using the conclusion as the premise
of an argument).
Useable responses were obtained from 33 faculty members, who
suggested a total of 138 important reasoning or thinking skills, 86
critical incidents, and 75 reasoning "flaws." Some of these responses
were duplicates. Several other respondents did not specify discrete
skills or errors but chose rather to send helpful discursive replies
to our inquiry. All responses were condensed and edited, and
generally evaluated with respect to whether they should be included in
the larger, more structured questionnaire that was planned. Some
responses constituted usable questionnaire items essentially as stated
by respondents (e.g., "the ability to break complex problems into
simpler components"). Other responses were revised or eliminated
because they were too general (e.g., "the ability to think
independently"), and others because they were too specific or applied
only to a particular field (e.g., "the ability to resolve into
enthymemic form any argumentative work" or "the ability to take
ecological validity into account").
The structured questionnaire was constructed on the basis of this
preliminary survey, on a review of relevant literature (Duran, Powers,
& Swinton, in press) and on a number of additional books or texts on
reasoning (e.g., Campbell, 1974; Fischer, 1970; Johnson & Blair, 1983;
Kahane, 1984, Nosich, 1982; Salmon, 1984; Striven, 1976; Toulmin,
Rieke, & Janik, 1984; Wason & Johnson-Laird (1972); and Weddle, 1978).
Several other articles, e.g., a seminal work by Ennis (1962) and a
list of skills by Arons (1979), proved especially useful. Various
issues of CT News, published by the Critical Thinking Project at
California State University at Sacramento, were also perused.
Previous work on critical incidents in graduate student performance
(Reilly, 1974a, 1974b) was also consulted, and several of the
incidents related to critical facility were included in the present
study. Finally, the list generated by Tucker (1985), who gathered the
impressions of ETS test development staff, philosophers, and cognitive
psychologists, also proved to be a valuable resource.
The final questionnaire (see Appendix A) was structured to
include questions about the importance and frequency of various
reasoning skills, of commonlyo bserved errors in reasoning, and of
specific incidents that may have led faculty to adjust their estimates
of students' analytical abilities. Questions were grouped under
several headings, mainly to give respondents some sense of their
progress in responding to the rather lengthy questionnaire.
The Sample
Six academic fields (English, education, psychology, chemistry,
computer science, and engineering) were included in the final survey.
These fields were thought to represent the variety of fields of
graduate study and the variation in the kinds of reasoning abilities
involved in graduate education. Using the data tapes of the Higher
Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), nonoverlapping samples
of 64 graduate institutions with doctoral programs were drawn for each
of the six graduate fields. A random sampling procedure was used such
that eight institutions from each of the eight HEGIS geographic
regions were selected for each field. This sampling was greatly
facilitated by the work of Oltman (1982). The admission requirements
of these institutions were determined from the Directory of Graduate
Programs (GRE/CGS, 1983), and only those that either required or
recommendeGd REG eneral Test scores were included in the sample. In
this manner, 40 institutions were selected for the final sample for
each field. In addition, one institution with a relatively large
proportion of Black students and one with a relatively large
percentage of Hispanic students were included in the samples for each
field, thus raising the total number of institutions to 42 per field.
Letters were then sent to departmental chairpersons, who were asked to
nominate two faculty membersw ho would be willing to complete the
questionnaire. Respondents were paid $25 for their participation.

Analytical Reasoning Skills Involved in Graduate Study

Perceptions of Faculty in Six Fields
Despite the complexity of human cognitive abilities, standardized
admissions tests have tended to focus almost exclusively on the
measurement of broadly applicable verbal and quantitatice aptitudes.
One criticism of such omnibus verbal and quantitative ability measures
is that they provide only limited descriptions of students' academic
strengths and weaknesses, and that they do not therefore adequately
reflect test takers' differential development in other important
cognitive areas.
In 1974 the GRE Board approved a plan to restructure the GRE
Aptitude Test in order to allow examinees to demonstrate a broader
range of academic skills (Altman, Carlson, & Donlon, 1975). A survey
of constituents revealed that, of several possible new areas of
measurement (e.g., abstract reasoning, scientific thinking, and study
skills), graduate faculty, administrators, and students were most
receptive to assessing analytical or abstract reasoning skills
(Miller & wild, 1979). Developmental activities then followed and,
after careful psychometric study of several alternative analytical
item types, four distinct kinds of items were selected for the new
analytical section of the GRE Aptitude Test, which was introduced
operationally in the 1977-78 testing year. Graduate institutions were
cautioned against using the scores from the new analytical section
until further evidence could be generated on the validity of the new
measure. Subsequently, the administration of the new measure to large
numbers of examinees under operational conditions enabled the further
collection of information about the new measure.
Some research strongly suggested the promise of the analytical
section: it appeared to measure an ability that was distinguishable
from the verbal and quantitative abilities measured by the test
(Powers & Swinton, 1981), and the score derived from it was related to
successful performance in graduate school (Wilson, 1982).
Unfortunately, however, further research suggested serious problems
with the two item types (analysis of explanations and logical
diagrams) that comprised the bulk of the analytical section.
Performance on these item types was shown to be extremely susceptible
to special test preparation (Swinton & Powers, 1983; Powers & Swinton,
1984) and to within-test practice (Swinton, wild, & Wallmark, 1983).
Consequently, in 1981 the two problematic item types were deleted from
the test, and additional numbers of analytical reasoning and logical
reasoning items, which constituted a very small part of the original
analytical measure, were inserted.
The most recent research on the General Test (Stricker & Rock,
1985; Wilson, 1984) has given us some reason to question both the
convergent and the discriminant validity of the two remaining item
types. Two currently used GRE analytical item types reflect only a limited
portion of the reasoning skills that are required of graduate
students. The most notable omission is the assessment of inductive
reasoning skills, i.e., reasoning from incomplete knowledge, where the
purpose is to learn new subject matter, to develop hypotheses, or to
integrate previously learned materials into a more useful and
comprehensive body of information. Thus, it seemed, the analytical
ability measure of the GPE General Test might be improved through
further effort.
The objective of the study reported here was to generate
information that might guide the development of future versions of the
GRE analytical measure. More specifically, the intention was to gain
a better understanding of what reasoning (or analytical) skills are
involved in successful academic performance at the graduate level, and
to determine the relative importance of these skills or abilities both
within and across academic disciplines. It was thought that this
information might be especially useful for developing additional
analytical item types.
As mentioned earlier, the initial version of the GRE analytical
ability measure was developed after a survey had suggested the
importance of abstract reasoning to success in graduate education.
This survey, however, was not designed to provide any detailed
information on the importance of specific analytical skills, as was
the intention here.

SOLVING THE PEOPLE PUZZLE

JUST HOW POWERFUL IS MOTIVATION, REALLY?
Our goal at ABA is to help our clients with solid business council which will help them outwit
their competition, grow their business, and create wealth. In so doing, it is our desire that
they use a portion of that wealth to “give back” to their communities and to worthwhile causes
wherever in the world they exist. In the last two editions of the monthly ABA Insider we have
been offering practical advice on a subject which has great power and, yet, seems to be one
of the greatest mysteries to business leaders. It represents perhaps the area of greatest
positive potential for improving the performance of your business. That subject is BUILDING
YOUR TEAM and the challenges which surround MANAGING it. We have called our series,
“Solving the People Puzzle.” Some people really enjoy working on and solving puzzles, and
some really find it exhausting and somewhat maddening. But, like it or not, your team is the
key to your success as a business, and even more so during this challenging business
climate. Most leaders who find this part of running a business the most difficult, feel their
skills are inadequate in this area, and/or haven’t ever learned the principles which define how
to build and manage a successful and growing team. We will continue to discuss some of
those principles in this article.
TEAM BUILDING’S MOST CRITICAL COMPONENTS
Previously, we have tackled the issues of Attitudes and how profoundly they affect your
ability to build and manage a winning team which sets your company apart from your
competition. Another important building block which must be in place if you are to achieve
optimal performance from your team is Clarity of Expectations for every member. They
must each fully understand exactly what good behavior looks like for the position they fill.
Additionally, they must have been given all the tools and resources they need in order to be
successful. One such tool is Empowerment, which allows people to do their best work and
leverage their strengths for the benefit of the company as well as themselves. There are
others like: Mutual Trust, Alignment with Mission, and Leadership by Example.
WHAT’S NEXT?
The mortar which holds all of the building blocks of successful behavior together is
motivating people to produce.
1. Defining Motivation.
Before you can motivate people to produce at high levels, you must know exactly
what it is. First of all, the definition of motivation comes primarily from the two
words inside it. They are motive and action. Therefore, motivation is: the
creation of desires and situations which move people to action.
All human activities (or actions) are undertaken as a direct effort to meet some
need. In other words, everything we do, from the simplest act to very complicated
tasks, we do for a reason, and that reason is based around a need that we have.
That need has to do with either something in our lives, or the lives of those we love.
It may be something we want to acquire, (Psychologists call this “approach”) or
something in our lives, or the lives of those we love, that we do not want.
(Avoidance)
 2. Types of Motivation.The two basic types of motivation are fear motivation and incentive motivation. Obviously, the
former has to do with avoiding the things we do not want to happen and the latter has to do
with the things we desire for us and for those we love. Both types of motivation can be
effective tools in moving us to action, but they each have specific limitations and guidelines for
their use. In terms of needs which we want to fulfill or avoid in our lives, there are both
biological needs and psychological needs. To design an environment of motivation for
your team, you must understand which needs are the strongest for which members on
the team, and then proceed to set up a system of cause and effect which allows them to
meet those needs. Though, this is not a simple task, the rewards of your doing so are huge.
For when you create a clear path for a person to meet their needs, whether they are biological
or psychological, you ignite a very powerful cache of human dynamite.
3. “Win-Win”.
If an effective system of motivation is to be established, all team members must be committed
to the principle that everyone in the equation must win.. They must perceive that no one in
the company or who is touched by the company will win at the expense of anyone else. Any
and all systems of motivation which do not have this win-win component are doomed for
failure. Although we cannot treat everyone the same in our company, we must establish
systems, policies, and procedures which are fair.
Volumes could be written regarding motivation, and still everything would not have been covered.. But
we at ABA do know from experience how incredibly valuable it is to understand its principles. That
understanding has revolutionized the business of many or our clients. To create an effective system of
motivation you must know your team members and what’s important to them. Additionally, you must
really care about them, and they must feel that caring attitude from their leadership. Finally, you must
understand exactly what are the needs, goals, and resources of your organization, so that you can meld
the two agendas effectively.. Once you have done that, hang on for the ride, for it will be an exciting one
both for you and your team.

Evaluating the reliability of evidence

For each of the following passages, evaluate the reliability and plausibility of the evidence
presented, and make a judgement as to what conclusions, if any, can be drawn from it.
1 The missing money
Eight-year-olds Jane, Lucy and Sally were playing in the back garden of Jane’s home,
which is in a quiet residential street. When they heard the bell of the ice-cream van,
they ran around to the front, and Mr Black, Jane’s father, gave them money to buy
ice creams. He left his wallet on a table just inside the front door, and went back to
tidying the attic. When he came down an hour later, he found the front door open,
although he was sure he had closed it. The evening newspaper was on the doormat,
and his wallet was where he had left it, but the two £10 notes it had contained were
gone, although his credit cards remained.
The girls all said that they hadn’t been at the front of the house since they bought
the ice creams, and had not seen or heard anyone come to the house. When Lucy
and Sally had gone home, Jane told her father that whilst the girls were playing
hide-and-seek, Lucy had hidden around the side of the house, out of view of the
back garden. Jane said, ‘Lucy could have gone into the house then and taken
the money. I wouldn’t be surprised if she did. She doesn’t get much pocket money,
and once she took some money out of another girl’s purse.’
Mr Black talked to Sally’s mother who asked Sally whether any of the girls had gone
into the house that afternoon. Sally said that Jane had gone into the house through
the side door, saying that she needed to use the bathroom. Sally also said that Lucy
had been out of sight for only a minute or two before they found her. Mr Black
asked his daughter if she had gone indoors. She said she had done so to use the
bathroom next to the side door, but had not gone into the hall, so had not seen
whether the front door was open.
The boy who delivered the newspaper lived a few doors away from Jane’s house. Mr.
Black asked him if he had seen anything suspicious. He said that the door was open
when he arrived, and he just threw the paper onto the doormat, instead of putting it
through the letter box, as he usually did. He claimed that he did not notice the
wallet, and that he had not seen anyone else at the front of the house.
Mr Black decided not to talk to Lucy’s family about the disappearance of the money,
and not to report the apparent theft to the police, because the amount stolen was
relatively small.
2 Do gun laws have an impact on the rate of gun crime?
The following extracts on the topic of gun laws and/or crime are from a number of sources,
as indicated. Consider the reliability and plausibility of each of the sources in turn; then
decide whether you can draw any conclusion, based on all the evidence. An internet search
may help you to make judgements about reliability of the authors.
(i) Below are two extracts from ‘Banning guns has backfired’, written in 2004 by John R.
Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of a book, The
Bias Against Guns. Various websites report that John Lott has claimed that in 98 per cent
of instances of defensive gun use, the defender merely has to brandish the gun to stop an
attack. Other academic writers dispute this finding.
The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly
doubled in the four years from 1998–99 to 2002–03.
Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since
1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and
murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993
to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost
back to their 1993 levels.
The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows
the violent crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the
new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even
further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining
6% in the U.S.
. . .
Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its
violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain’s after its 1996 Port Arthur gun
control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the
law was passed (from1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995.
The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.
During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns,
the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals’ abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven of
the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry
concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only
half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours’ worth. Yet
crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the
states that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the
1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent crimes.
(ii) The following table is from ‘Some facts about guns’, which can be found on the website
for Gun Control Network, an organisation which campaigns for tighter controls on guns
of all kinds.

EVALUATING EVIDENCE AND DRAWING CONCLUSIONS

Chapter 3 contained exercises in drawing conclusions on the basis of information assumed
to be true. The following examples illustrate some of the circumstances in which one
may attempt to draw conclusions on the basis of consideration of the reliability and the
plausibility of evidence. Example 1 is an imaginary scenario in which the reliability of
the evidence provided by witnesses or participants must be assessed. Someone engaged in
police or legal work, and people who are members of juries at criminal trials, would have
to make these kinds of assessments, and draw conclusions from them. Examples 2 and 3
present extracts from newspaper articles on topical issues. You may often read such articles
and wonder how reliable is the evidence they contain, and what conclusions can be drawn
from it.
Example 1: Matt in the night club
Last Friday night there was an alleged incident in the Jazza club. Matt, a university
student, claims that at about 10.30 pm he was head-butted on the dance floor of
the club, thereby receiving an injury to his nose. A visit to the A and E Department
later that evening confirmed that his nose was broken. He said that because it was
dark, and because he had just turned to walk off the dance floor, he did not get a
clear view of the person who attacked him. Matt’s friend Joe told the management
of the club that a group of four young men left the dance floor immediately after
Matt stepped off, and that one of them was Carl, who had been known to be
involved in attacks on university students, including Joe himself.
A girl who had been talking to Matt and Joe earlier in the evening told the management
that she knew Carl, that he had always been pleasant towards her, and that she
was sure that he wouldn’t do anything violent. She insisted that she was not his
girlfriend, although he had asked her for a date recently, which she didn’t accept
because she was still with her last boyfriend.
Two bouncers at the club were in the room at the time, but said they had seen
nothing of the incident. One of them said, ‘People are always claiming that somebody
has injured them, but it usually turns out that they were drunk and either fell
over or bumped into something.’
Carl was identified from a CCTV video which showed him and his friends leaving
the club at 10.30 pm, apparently laughing and joking. After Matt had reported the
incident to the police, they interviewed Carl and his friends, all of whom denied any
knowledge of such an incident, and claimed never to have noticed Matt at the club.
Let us consider first the plausibility of the allegation. Matt’s claim is plausible, in that a
blow on the nose from someone’s skull could cause a fracture of the bone, and it would
have been possible, in the darkness and confusion, for him to have been unaware who
attacked him. He hasn’t accused any particular person, so his allegation is simply that
someone struck him on the nose, causing a fracture, and this is the kind of thing that could
happen. From the information given, we have no reason to think that Matt was lying, but
he may have been confused as a result of drinking alcohol. However, it is unlikely that he
would have sustained this kind of injury from falling or bumping into something.
What can we conclude from Joe’s evidence? Given his previous experience of Carl, he may
have been more likely to notice him than to notice others who had been close to where
Matt was standing, and who could have attacked him. It is also possible that Joe simply
wanted to get Carl into trouble, and that Carl, though he was certainly in the club, was not
close enough to Matt to have caused the injury.
The girl’s evidence seems to give support to Carl, though she is not an eye witness. She is
not his girlfriend, so her statement cannot be discounted on the grounds that she has a
personal interest in protecting him. On the other hand it is not clear how well she knows
him, and her comments that she turned him down when he asked for a date suggest that
Carl may have had a motive to attack Matt, if he had seen her talking to Matt and Joe.
The bouncers’ evidence is not conclusive. Matt could have been attacked without their
noticing it, and given that it is part of their job to minimise trouble in the club, they would
want to play down the possibility of any such incident.
The fact that Carl and his friends were leaving the club, apparently laughing and joking,
at around the time the incident is said to have occurred proves nothing. Their leaving at
this relatively early time in the evening could have been for reasons other than wanting to
avoid accusations. The denial of involvement by Carl and his friends can be discounted,
because if they had been involved they would not have admitted to it, and in this case
corroboration does not confirm the reliability of their evidence, because either group
loyalty or possibly threats from Carl may influence their statements.
The most that it is reasonable to conclude, without evidence from other witnesses, is that
Matt probably was injured as a result of being head-butted by someone, but there is
insufficient evidence to conclude that Carl, or any one of his friends, is the guilty person.
Example 2: Is homework for school children necessary or desirable?

PLAUSIBILITY OF CLAIMS

Another important question to ask when evaluating evidence is ‘how plausible is this
claim, or piece of evidence?’
We need to clarify what is meant by ‘plausible’ in this context, in particular to make
clear the difference between questions about plausibility of evidence and questions about
reliability of evidence. We have already used the word ‘plausible’ in relation to
explanations. In that context its meaning was ‘possibly correct, or likely to be correct’.
Sometimes in everyday speech the word plausible is applied to someone’s manner. For
example, members of a jury may judge a defendant ‘plausible’ and therefore be inclined to
believe their statements, on the basis of their speech, facial expression and body language,
rather than on the basis of a process of reasoning. It is possible that human beings are very
good at making accurate judgements of character on this basis, but they are not using
critical thinking skills when they do this. Of course, it is also possible that someone could
use a process of reasoning to judge plausibility in this sense, if there were well-established
criteria which indicated when individuals were lying. So in critical thinking texts and
examinations, a question could in principle be asked about the plausibility of a particular
person, based on evidence of their behaviour.
However, in general when questions about plausibility of evidence are asked in critical
thinking texts, the question refers to the plausibility of what is said or claimed, and not the
plausibility of the person who says it. Thus the question ‘Is Ms Brown’s evidence plausible?’
should be interpreted as meaning ‘Is Ms Brown’s claim the kind of thing that could
be true, or could have happened?’

Factors affecting someone’s judgement

Someone who aims to tell the truth, and who is in a position to have the relevant knowledge
may nevertheless be unreliable because of circumstances which interfere with the
accuracy of his or her judgement. For example, emotional stress, drugs and alcohol can
affect our perceptions. We can be distracted by other events which are happening concurrently.
A parent with fractious children in the car may notice less about a road accident
than someone who is travelling alone. We can forget important aspects of what has
happened, particularly if some time elapses before we report an incident. In the case of
people gathering and assessing evidence, for example scientists and psychologists, the
accuracy of their observations and interpretations can be affected by their strong
expectation of a particular result, or their strong desire to have a particular theory confirmed.
Expectation and desire can also play a part in evidence provided by people who
have prejudices against particular groups or individuals, so we need to be aware that
prejudice may influence someone’s belief as to what they saw or what happened.
Corroboration
Sometimes when we have evidence from more than one source, we find that two (or more)
people agree in their descriptions of events – that is to say, their evidence corroborates
the statements of others. In these circumstances, unless there is any reason to think that
the witnesses are attempting to mislead us, or any reason to think that one witness has
attempted to influence others, we should regard corroboration as confirming the reliability
of evidence.
Summary: assessing reliability of evidence/authorities
Here is a summary of the important questions to ask yourself about the reliability
of evidence and of authorities.
1 Is this person likely to be telling a lie, to be failing to give full relevant
information, or to be attempting to mislead?
• Do they have a record of being untruthful?
• Do they have a reason for being untruthful?
• Would they gain something very important by deceiving me?
• Would they lose something very important by telling me the truth?
2 Is this person in a position to have the relevant knowledge?
• If expert knowledge is involved, are they an expert, or have they been
informed by an expert?
• If first-hand experience is important, were they in a position to have that
experience?
• If observation is involved, could they see and/or hear clearly?
3 Are there any factors which would interfere with the accuracy of this person’s
judgement?
• Was, or is, the person under emotional stress?
• Was, or is, the person under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
• Was the person likely to have been distracted by other events?
• Does the person have a strong desire or incentive to believe one version of
events, or one explanation, rather than another?
• Does the person have a strong prejudice that may influence their beliefs
about events?
• In the case of first-hand experience of an event, was information received
from the person immediately following the event?
4 Is there evidence from another source that corroborates this person’s
statement?

RELIABILITY OF AUTHORITIES

We can approach the assessment of reliability by thinking about the characteristics of the
person who is giving information. We have to think about the circumstances which could
make it likely that what someone said was untrue. Before reading further, try to write a
list of characteristics or tendencies of other people which would make you think that the
information they were giving you was not reliable.
Reputation
If one of your acquaintances has a record of being untruthful, then you are much more
cautious about accepting their statements as true than you would be about believing
someone whom you thought had never lied to you. For example, if someone who always
exaggerates about his success with women tells you that at last night’s disco several women
chatted him up, you will be inclined to be sceptical. The habitual liar is an obvious case of
someone whose statements are unreliable.
Vested interest
Of course, people who are not habitual liars may deceive others on occasions. They may do
so because they stand to lose a great deal – money, respect or reputation – by telling the
truth. So when we have to make judgements about the reliability of people we know to
be generally truthful, and about people with whom we are not acquainted, we should bear
this consideration in mind. That is not to say that we should assume people are being
untruthful, simply because it would be damaging to them if others believed the opposite
of what they say. But when we have to judge between two conflicting pieces of information
from two different people, we should consider whether one of those people has a
vested interest in making us believe what they say. For example, if an adult discovers two
children fighting, then each child has a vested interest in claiming that the other started
the fight. But the evidence of a third child who observed the fight, but knows neither of
the protagonists, could be taken to be more reliable in these circumstances.
Relevant experience or expertise
If someone was not in a position to have the relevant knowledge about the subject under
discussion, then it would be merely accidental if their statements about the subject were
true. There are a number of circumstances which prevent people from having the relevant
knowledge. The subject under discussion may be a highly specialised subject which is
understood only by those who have had appropriate education or training. We would not
expect reliable information on brain surgery to be given by people who have had absolutely
no medical training. This is why in many areas of knowledge we have to rely on what
experts say. It is important to note, however, that being an expert, no matter how eminent,
in one field, does not confer reliability on topics beyond one’s area of expertise.
People who are not experts can read about specialised subjects, and pass on information
to us about such subjects, so we do not have to disbelieve people simply because they are
not experts. But we would be wise to ask the source of their information. For example, if
someone told us that they had read that a new car had better safety features than any other
model, we should regard the information as more reliable if it came from a consumer
magazine or a motoring association than if it was a report of a comment made by a famous
person who owned such a car.
Another circumstance in which someone would not be in a position to have the relevant
knowledge would be where eye-witness testimony was crucial, and the person could not
have seen clearly what happened – perhaps because of poor eyesight, or perhaps because
he or she did not have a clear line of vision on the incident. In the case of a road accident,
for example, we would expect to get a more accurate account of what happened from
someone with good vision who was close to the accident and whose view was not obscured
in any way, than from someone with poor eyesight, or who was at some distance from the
accident, or who was viewing it from an angle, or through trees. Similar considerations
would apply in the case of information dependent upon hearing rather than vision.

Recognising and applying principles

Arguments which rely on general principles have implications beyond their own subject
matter, because it is in the nature of a general principle that it is applicable to more than
one case. A piece of reasoning may use such a principle without explicitly describing it as a
general principle, so we need to be alert to the fact that some of the statements in an
argument may apply to cases other than the one under discussion. There can be many
kinds of principle, for example, legal rules, moral guidelines, business practices, and so on.
Principles may function in an argument as reasons, as conclusions or as unstated assumptions.
So, when we are going through the usual process of identifying reasons, conclusions
and assumptions, we should ask ourselves whether any of them is a statement with general
applicability.
The skill of identifying principles is valuable, because sometimes the application of a
principle to other cases – that is to say, the further implications of a principle – may show
us that the principle needs to be modified, or maybe even rejected. Suppose, for example,
someone wants to argue against the use of capital punishment, and offers as a reason
‘Killing is wrong’. This principle, stated as it is without any qualification, obviously has
very wide applicability. It applies to all cases of killing. So, if we are to accept it as a
principle to guide our actions, it means that killing in wartime is wrong, and killing in selfdefence
is wrong. If we are convinced that killing in self-defence cannot be wrong, then we
have to modify our original principle in order to take account of exceptions to it. Applying
principles involves being consistent in our reasoning, recognising all the implications of
our own and others’ reasoning.
Another example is offered by a debate in the sphere of medical ethics. It has been
suggested that when the demand for treatment for illness exceeds the resources available,
and thus decisions have to be made about priorities, one type of illness which should come
very low on the list of priorities for treatment is illness which individuals brings upon
themselves by their actions or lifestyles. Such illness can be described as ‘self-inflicted’.
Most doctors would not take the view that self-inflicted illness should not be treated, but it
is an issue which is often mentioned when public opinion is consulted about how best to
use the resources available for health care. For example, someone may say, ‘We should not
give high priority to expensive heart treatments for smokers, because they have brought
their illness on themselves’.
Clearly the principle underlying this is that ‘We should not give high priority to the
treatment of self-inflicted illness’, and it is a principle with wider applicability. But in order
to understand to which cases of illness it properly applies, we need to be clearer about
what exactly is meant by ‘self-inflicted illness’. At the very least it must mean an illness
which has been caused by the actions or behaviour of the person who is ill. On this
definition, the principle would apply to a very wide range of illnesses – for example,
smoking related diseases, alcohol and drug related diseases, diseases caused by unsuitable
diet, some sports injuries, some road accident injuries, some cases of sexually transmitted
disease. However, it may be claimed that one cannot properly be said to have inflicted a
disease on oneself unless one knew that the action or behaviour would cause the illness, or
it may be claimed that a disease cannot properly be said to be self-inflicted, if the action
which caused the disease was carried out under some kind of compulsion or addiction.
So, perhaps one would wish to modify the definition of ‘self-inflicted illness’ to read, ‘an
illness which has knowingly been caused by the deliberate and free action of an individual’.
This definition would give the principle narrower applicability. For example, it would not
be applicable to diseases caused by bad diet when the individual did not know the effects
of a bad diet. Nor would it apply to cases of illness caused by addiction. But we may still
find that those cases to which it did apply – for example, a motor-cyclist injured in a road
accident through not wearing a crash helmet – suggested to us that there was something
wrong with the principle.
Applying and evaluating principles
For each of the following principles, think of a case to which it applies, and consider
whether this particular application suggests to you that the principle should be modified
or abandoned. This exercise would work well as the basis for a class discussion.
1 No one should have to subsidise, through taxation, services which they themselves
never use.
2 We should not have laws to prevent people from harming themselves, provided their
actions do not harm others.
3 There should be absolute freedom for the newspapers to publish anything they wish.
4 Doctors should be completely honest with their patients.
5 You should never pass on information which you have promised to keep secret.