[MUSIC] In these two lessons, we'll draw on what we've learned so far in the critical thinking module to evaluate arguments. In this first lesson, we'll draw on our understanding of claims and evidence and how to utilize criteria to establish the validity and soundness of evidence. In the second lesson, we'll draw on our understanding of premises and conclusions and the importance of clear logical steps that lead from the premises to the conclusion. It's important to question and evaluate arguments regardless of where they're coming from. Remember Diederik Stapel, the highly respected Dean of the Tilburg University School of Social Behavioral Sciences, who falsified his research findings for many years? His deceit and distortion of the truth was only discovered because of the very careful evaluation of his work by graduate students. Their close scrutiny of his conclusions and the evidence he used to justify them showed anomalies and inconsistencies that exposed his fraud. It's vital that everyone in the academic community strives to present sound arguments, as well as continues to scrutinize the arguments of others. For both of these, evaluation is key. First, let's look at evaluating evidence used in arguments. Remember that according to LeBlanc, an argument in academic context is simply any attempt to justify or prove a conclusion. To be able to do this, we need to provide evidence. As we looked at in our lesson on claims and evidence, evidence can be defined as facts or conditions objectively observable, beliefs or premises generally accepted as true by the audience, or conclusions previously established. It's important now to focus on that definition because as we looked at in lesson 4.1A, what's presented as evidence may, in fact, not be logically sound. If the evidence is unsound or invalid, it can only be considered a claim. If the argument consists of claims without appropriate evidence, the argument isn't valid. So to evaluate an argument, we need a set of criteria to assess evidence. Criteria used to evaluate evidence might vary between disciplines. Overall, however, we can identify two broad sets of criteria to evaluate evidence in both situations. The first set evaluates the context of the evidence, while the second part focuses on the quality and suitability of the evidence. In our lesson on claims and evidence, we looked at assessing evidence using the criteria of origin, mode, purpose, and source. These are some basic factors that establish the context of the evidence. But you need to draw upon other criteria that start to scrutinize its quality and suitability. This leads us to our second set of criteria. In order to evaluate the quality and suitability of evidence, we need to think about such things as validity, currency, reliability, and relevance. Most of these concepts are covered in our information and digital literacy for academic success course. So you may want to go to that lesson for more detail. Here we'll go in a little less depth. Validity refers to how suitable the evidence is. If the evidence is illogical, incomplete or out of context, then it isn't valid. Currency 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 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 or new article, as all articles in journal are peer reviewed. Which means they're carefully scrutinized by experts in the field before the article is published. The issue of sample size and statistical significance should also be considered in cases that present survey data. If a sample size is too small, then we need to question the validity of the evidence. For example, let's say you want to understand the community's perspective on the issue of homelessness. You ask three people about why homelessness occurs and both people say that mental health is the leading factor. Your results will then show 100% of those polled believe mental health is the main factor contributing to homelessness. This, of course, would not be an accurate statistic, as the sample size is far too small. Finally, the aspect of relevance and irrelevance needs to be considered. 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. We hope these criteria can help you in assessing both your own and others' evidence. In the next lesson we'll move on from evaluating evidence to looking at evaluating the logical progression of the argument. [MUSIC]
