Critical Reasoning Essay
Being an integral part of analytical science, critical thinking and reasoning present a unique tool for in-depth evaluation of almost any material. Let us try to analyze the passage from particular text. The current passage presents a discussion on a policy of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, accepted during Hague conference. The author criticizes the policy of emission credits that allows industrial plants polluting the environment to trade with facilities with low emission rates, buying the emission credits from them.
The given text has a goal of convincing a reader that a greenhouse gas emissions reduction policy is an absurd practice. The author turns to rather wide audience, aiming his speech to a mass reader. The question posed in this writing covers a problem of environmental pollution as well as ignorance of big politics. The author used a variety of concepts, from clear official facts to metaphorical examples. The language and style used indicate some biased interpretation of material, as the writer expresses his viewpoint emotionally in some passages (where examples of crime reduction in Canada are provided). However, this bias is covert, as author attempts to sound unprejudiced.
The information presented may be looked at as an argument, based on the following explicitly presented thesis – the newly accepted policy on gas is headed on improving statistical indicators rather than on negative effect reduction. The argument framework looks as follows: premise 1 –> premise 2 –> premise 3 –> conclusion. I have identified the next argument in the given article:
1) There is an action named X (facilities with bad indicators purchase statistics from those with permissible level). 2) X is accepted appropriate for A (gas industry). 3) A is similar with B (environmental pollution and crime level both are acute social problems).
Conclusion: Thus, X is appropriate for B too (it is possible to employ this practice for crime reduction).
The author turns to the pseudo-logical evidence in his message. He states that it would be proper to employ the policy of gas emissions credits in other fields of social life. He turns to the example of Canada, which can purchase the statistics of low crime level from Denmark in order to show better numbers to the public. The argument has a metaphorical meaning in order to emphasize an absurd nature of this policy. Although there is a certain irony in this argument, it is rather effective, as the conclusion sounds persuasive for audience. This inductive type of argument expresses an author’s observation, employing a deliberate logical fallacy (false analogy). Implicitly applying the analogy of two different areas of life, the author of the present article demonstrates nonsense of criticized policy. Nevertheless, the argument presented is of no doubt valid, as it is organized in acceptable form. To sum up I may conclude that the current text presents a valid argument with a deliberate logical fallacy (false analogy) applied in order to emphasize a thesis statement. Although the truth of this argument’s conclusion is questionable, the entire soundness of the author’s logic is indisputable.