Evaluating Arguments

Two broad sets of criteria to evaluate evidence

The first set evaluates the context of the evidence, while the second part focuses on the quality and suitability of the evidence.

Evaluating the context of the evidence

The criteria of origin, mode, purpose, and source establish the context of the evidence.

Evaluating the quality and suitability of evidence

We need to think about such things as validity, currency, reliability, and relevance.

Validity

It refers to how suitable the evidence is. If the evidence is illogical, incomplete or out of context, then it isn't valid.

Currency

It refers to whether the evidence is valid in the present time. For example, if you're using an article from ten or more years ago for current statistics on unemployment rates, it wouldn't be considered current.

Reliability

It refers to whether the sources can be trusted. For example, if you wanted to draw on research of policies and programs to end homelessness, a peer review journal in the field of social welfare would be far more reliable than a blog.

Relevance

Does the evidence support the conclusion? Does it have an impact on the argument? Another way of asking this question is, if you took the evidence away, would it affect the conclusion? If the answer is no, then the evidence may not be relevant.

Conclusion and premises

In order to evaluate arguments, you need to determine whether the conclusion immediately follows on from the premise. It's not enough for the conclusion to just make sense. Instead, it has to be the most logical or the most likely conclusion leading from the premises.

SOURCE

https://www.coursera.org/learn/critical-thinking-skills/lecture/fomgS/4-3a-using-critical-thinking-to-evaluate-arguments-1

VACABULARY

scrutiny [ˈskruːtɪni]

fraud [frɔːd]

suitability

validity

currency

reliability [rɪˌlaɪəˈbɪlɪti ]

relevance [ˈrɛlɪvəns]