FULL SCREEN >>
FRAMES >>
JAVASCRIPT >>
JAVA
Introduction to Statements (or Claims)
- whether they are verifiable, evaluative, or advocatory claims;
- whether they are specific or, if non-specific, whether the qualification strengthens or weakens the claim;
- whether they serve as conclusions, premises, or support in an argument.
45% of the people surveyed supported the reforms.
One-third of the investment has been lost.
This marked the first time that India successfully orbited a satellite.
- 49% of those casting ballots voted for Kennedy.
- Approximately 49% of those casting ballots voted for Kennedy.
- More than 49% of those casting ballots voted for Kennedy.
- Less than half of those casting ballots voted for Kennedy.
- Kennedy received more votes than did Nixon.
Jacques is a good boy.
Americans are rich and well-educated.
Mercedes are reliable cars.
-
China has
about one-quarter of the world's population.
-
China has
more than a quarter of the world's population
-
China has
one-quarter of the world's population.
-
China has
about 25% of the world's population.
-
Babe Ruth hit a lot of home runs.
-
Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs.
-
Babe Ruth hit less home runs than Hank Aaron.
-
Babe Ruth hit more than 700 home runs.
- "Willa thinks that's a shade of blue."
- "Willa thinks that's a lovely shade of blue."
- "That's a shade of blue."
- "That a lovely shade of blue."
-
Pete Wilson
is governor of California.
-
Pete Wilson
is not governor of California.
-
Pete Wilson
is a secret Democrat.
-
Pete Wilson
is a loyal Republican.
-
Returning
that money you found is the right thing to do.
- We should try to help the homeless whenever possible.
-
There should
be enough gas in the tank to get us to San Francisco.
-
Admitting
that you were lying is an example of honesty.
-
China has one-quarter of the world's population.
-
Pete Wilson is a loyal Republican.
-
We should
try to help the homeless whenever possible.
-
a claim of verification
-
China has
about one-quarter of the world's population.
- China has more than a quarter of the world's
population
- China has about 25% of the world's population.
- Babe Ruth hit a lot of home runs.
-
Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs.
-
Babe Ruth hit fewer home runs than Hank Aaron.
-
Babe Ruth hit more than 700 home runs.
-
Pete Wilson is governor of California.
- Pete Wilson
is not governor of California.
- Pete
Wilson is a secret Democrat.
- Returning
that money you found is the right thing to do.
- There should be enough gas in the tank to get us to San Francisco.
-
Admitting that you were lying is an example of honesty.
- a claim of evaluation
-
a claim of advocacy
General DefinitionUniversalQualifiedSpecificNon-SpecificComparativeFact and OpinionVerifiableEvaluativeAdvocatoryFor the purposes of critical thinking, all sentences can be divided into those that can be true or false, and those that cannot. Only a few sentences cannot be true or false: commands ("Just do it."), exclamations ("Far out!"), and questions ("Why not?"). Exclamations and commands are rare in the persuasive appeals that we call arguments in critical thinking, though they are much more frequent in the kind of arguments you get into at home or in a bar or after an accident, where there is a good deal less analysis than anger. Questions can be found more frequently in critical thinking, but these are often rhetorical questions: questions asked in such a way that they make a point without requiring an answer, or questions with answers so obvious they don't really need to be asked.
Sentences that can be true or false--the vast majority of all sentences in critical thinking--are called statements or claims. Note that you don't need to know whether a statement is true or false, just that it has the form of sentence that can be true or false. We may never know the truth of such sentences as "Before he died, Elvis was thinking of becoming a vegetarian" or "The universe is younger than its oldest galaxies"; we may not even completely understand them. But as long as they have the possibility of being true or false, such sentences are statements.
We can further categorize statements by three qualities:
In this section, we will be focusing on the first two qualities only. You can find more information about conclusions, premises, and support in the section on the structure of an argument, and you can find help in distinguishing premises and conclusions in the section on indicators.
Qualified and Specific Statements
Specific claims contain or imply language or figures of an exact nature:
In those three sentence, "45%," "one-third," and "first" represent specific information. Such statistical statements are powerful and persuasive expressions in an argument, but they are also easy to attack, because a single example to the contrary is sufficient to refute them. The most common specific statements are universal ones, in which the figure involved is either "100%" or "0%," usually expressed by words such as always, never, all, none, everyone, no one, and so on. For more on this, see the section on Universal Statements.
Non-specific claims are ones in which no specific number is cited; as a result, they are often more difficult to attack. Consider the following examples:
Only the first example above is a specific claim. The second qualifies that specific claim with the word "approximately," making the statement weaker but harder to disprove. The last three examples are all comparative statements, a type of qualification that operates by comparing the subject of the statement with something else (49% of the votes vs. "more than 49%," half the votes vs. "less than half," the votes for Kennedy vs. the votes for Nixon). Comparative and other non-specific claims are usually harder to disprove than specific claims, but not always; often, they are also more effective in an argument.
A claim with a modifier is considered qualified whether it is specific or non-specific. Non-qualified claims have no modifiers at all: "The investment has been lost" or "Kennedy received votes." These sound universal, but may not be.
Note that many claims appear to be specific, but are usually intended to be non-specific. Consider these examples:
All of these examples convey an implied "all" or "always." But even if we said, "Jacques is always a good boy," we wouldn't be surprised to find out about the time Jacques wasn't good. And though Americans may be rich and well-educated as a group, compared to many other peoples in the world, we surely recognize that there are many Americans individually who are either not rich or not well-educated. Generally speaking, apparently specific claims should be understood as non-specific when they deal with personal behavior or group attributes because humans (and other organisms) are individually inconsistent and collectively diverse. To some extent, this is true of other populations, including manufactured items like automobiles. We understand that "Mercedes are reliable cars" doesn't mean "100% of Mercedes are reliable cars." Yet "Mercedes have aluminum-head engines" may well mean "100% of Mercedes have aluminum-head engines"; and (most interestingly) we may be willing to put "all" in front of the statement, "Mercedes are expensive cars," even though we know that a heavily damaged Mercedes can be bought for only a few dollars. The point here is that, sometimes, context and convention may affect our understanding of even simple statements. The job of a critical thinker is to understand the statements as they were meant, rather than insisting on a purely literal construction.
Exercises: Specific, Universal,
Non-Specific, and Comparative Statements
1. Which of the following claims is specific?
2. Which of the following claims would be easiest to prove or disprove?
Statements of Verification, Evaluation, and Advocacy
Fact and Opinion. In critical thinking, the difference between what are commonly called "facts" and "opinions" is not great--if, in fact, it exists at all. Both "facts" and "opinions" can be used to support arguments, and sometimes strong expert "opinions" can outweigh weak or inconsistent "facts." Indeed, considering that much of what we know about the physical sciences is based on hypotheses--that is, opinions that cannot be confirmed--you might wonder why we bother distinguishing between "fact" and "opinion" at all.
Verification and Evaluation. A more important distinction for critical thinking is between claims that are thought to be verifiable, and those that are presented as evaluative. In this sense, verifiable claims are those that can be confirmed either by observation or by reference to established sources, such as books. Evaluations are statements of taste and interpretation. Notice that opinions can be expressed sometimes as statements of verification and sometimes as statements of evaluation. Consider the following claims:
The first two are clearly opinions, but they are expressed as statements of verification, because the issue is whether that is what Willa thinks, not what the color is. The third one is also a statement of verification, because (for most people) "blue" is something ascertainable by observation. But the fourth claim is a statement of evaluation, because what is "lovely" is a matter of taste. And it doesn't matter whether the claim is true or false--that is, a false statement of verification is not a statement of evaluation. All four of our examples can be false--Willa might think otherwise, for the first two, and the color might be red, for the second two--but they are nevertheless three statements of verification, followed by a statement of evaluation.
Advocatory claims are a little different from verifiable or evaluative claims, in that the latter discusses what was, is, or will be, while the former describes what ought to have been or ought to be. Thus, "Ike is a free man" is a claim of verification, "Ike is a good man" is a claim of evaluation, and "Ike ought to be a free man" and "Ike should be a good man" are both advocatory statements. Advocatory claims usually include the word "should" or "ought" (though not all claims with "should" or "ought" in them are advocatory). The advocatory form is used for statements about morality, ethics, duty, and so on.
The point of categorizing statements into specific and qualified, on one hand, and verifiable, evaluative, and advocatory, on the other, is to understand better the arguments in which they appear. We have already seen that specific claims are the most persuasive but also the most easily refuted. Correctly identifying such statements helps to indicate what needs to be done to attack and defend an argument. Knowing if a statement is one of verification, evaluation, or advocacy helps ensure a consistency of argument, because if the conclusion is a statement of verification, it must be supported by at least one premise that is a verifiable claim; and so too with conclusions of evaluation and advocacy.
Exercises: Statements of
Verification, Evaluation, and Advocacy
3. Which of the following is an evaluative claim?
4. Which of the following is an advocatory claim?
5. What kind of statement is "Yeltsin argued that the rebels should surrender their hostages"?
You have finished the preliminary section on statements. To continue with a different section of Mission: Critical, hit "Main Menu."
1. Which of the following claims is specific (that is, not qualified)? You answered:
3. Which of the following is an evaluative claim? You answered:
4. Which of the following is an advocatory claim? You answered:
5. What kind of statement is "Yeltsin argued that the rebels should surrender their hostages"?
1. Which of the following claims is specific (that is, not qualified)? You answered:
The word "about" qualifies the statement. It means the fraction mentioned is only approximate, and an approximation is never specific.
1. Which of the following claims is specific (that is, not qualified)? You answered:
In this claim, "more than" qualifies the figure given, creating a non-specific range between 25% and 100%.
1. Which of the following claims is specific (that is, not qualified)? You answered:
The word "about" qualifies the statement. It means the percentage mentioned is only approximate, and an approximation is never specific.
You may think that "25%" sounds more specific than "a quarter," but the two are synonymous. Even so, the issue here is the word "about," which would qualify either "25%" or "a quarter."
2. Which of the following claims would be easiest to prove or disprove? You answered:
While there is no obviously "right" answer here, the vagueness of the qualification here makes this statement difficult to prove or disprove. At a minimum, you would have to establish two details: first, what constitutes "a lot of home runs," and second, whether Ruth hit at least that many. Even if there were some easy way to decide how many is "a lot of home runs," your answer still requires more effort (establishing both details) than would another answer that only requires one.
2. Which of the following claims would be easiest to prove or disprove? You answered:
While there is no obviously "correct" answer here, this is one of the two best. The other is "Babe Ruth hit more than 700 home runs." Which of these is easiest to prove or disprove would probably depend upon the method used. If, for example, one were to go back through the records for each game Ruth played, counting the home runs hit in each, then "more than 700" would be the easier, since the counting for that could stop after number 701. To prove or disprove 714, one would have to continue counting every game in which he played, to find out whether the total was less than, more than, or equal to 714.
On the other hand, if one were simply to look up the information in a recognized reference book, it would be just as easy to confirm 714 and any number over 700.
2. Which of the following claims would be easiest to prove or disprove? You answered:
While there is no obviously "right" answer here, the comparison here makes this statement harder to prove or disprove. At a minimum, you would have to establish two details: first, how many home runs Ruth or Aaron hit, and then whether the other hit more, fewer, or the same number. Therefore, your answer still requires more effort (establishing
2. Which of the following claims would be easiest to prove or disprove? You answered:
While there is no obviously "correct" answer here, this is one of the two best. The other is "Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs." Which of these is easiest to prove or disprove would probably depend upon the method used. If, for example, one were to go back through the records for each game Ruth played, counting the home runs hit in each, then "more than 700" would be the easier, since the counting for that could stop after number 701. To prove or disprove 714, one would have to continue counting every game in which he played, to find out whether the total was less than, more than, or equal to 714.
On the other hand, if one were simply to look up the information in a recognized reference book, it would be just as easy to confirm 714 and any number over 700.
3. Which of the following is an evaluative claim? You answered:
Whether Pete Wilson is governor of California or not is an issue of verification; and whether accurate, erroneous, or vague, a statement of verification is still that, and not one of evaluation. So, this is a verifiable claim.
3. Which of the following is an evaluative claim? You answered:
Whether Pete Wilson is governor of California or not is an issue of verification; and whether accurate, erroneous, or vague, a statement of verification is still that, and not one of evaluation. So, this is a verifiable claim.
3. Which of the following is an evaluative claim? You answered:
The problem here is the phrase "secret Democrat." At best, this is vague, but a vague statement of verification is still a verifiable statement, not a statement of evaluation. If this claim means something like, "Pete Wilson secretly sympathizes with Democratic values," or "Pete Wilson has joined the Democratic Party, but has kept it secret," then it is a statement of verification--even if there is no way to verify the truth of the claim. If, on the other hand, the statement means "Pete Wilson's private beliefs are Democratic," it may be considered a claim of evaluation. Notice that "sympathizing" is an act, and therefore indicates a claim of verification, but a judgment on the beliefs may be either a statement of verification or evaluation, depending on whether the interpretation is "Wilson's beliefs are in accord with the Democratic Party platform" (verifiable) or "Wilson's beliefs are Democratic in nature" (evaluative). Chances are, then, that this is a statement of verification.
4. Which of the following is an advocatory claim? You answered:
The difference between a advocatory statement, on one hand, and a statement of verification or evaluation, on the other, is that an advocatory statement is a direct expression of how one should think or act. Advocatory claims, as a result, almost always include words like "should" or "ought." The topic of the statement, "Returning that money you found is the right thing to do," is certainly a moral or ethical one, but the statement itself is an evaluative claim--the value in this case being "what is right." The claim does not directly indicate how one should think or act; and though you might think it is pretty obvious that the speaker believes "one ought to act the right way," that's a second claim separate from the one about returning money.
4. Which of the following is an advocatory claim? You answered:
Advocatory statements almost always have a word like "should" or "ought" in them, to indicate the way one should think or act, but not every "should" indicates that. Here the "should" suggests something like "if I have figured out the mileage correctly," which is clearly not a claim advocating that anyone do anything.
4. Which of the following is an advocatory claim?
The difference between a advocatory statement, on one hand, and a statement of verification or evaluation, on the other, is that an advocatory statement is a direct expression of how one should think or act. Advocatory claims, as a result, almost always include words like "should" or "ought." The topic of the statement, "Admitting that you were lying is an example of honesty," is certainly a moral one, but the statement itself is an evaluative claim--the value being that an admission of lying is an example of honesty. The claim does not directly indicate how one should think or act; and though you might think it is pretty obvious that the speaker believes "one ought to be honest," that's a secondary claim separate from the one about admitting a lie.
5. What kind of statement is "Yeltsin argued that the rebels should surrender their hostages"?
Not all opinions are claims of evaluation, but all claims of evaluation are opinions. For example, a verifiable claim can often be expressed as an opinion: "In my opinion, O.J. Simpson is innocent." Simpson's guilt or innocence is an issue of verification. An evaluative, then, is an opinion or evaluation about something that not only has not been but cannot be established by objective means. If it involves an observation, it cannot be concerned with the simple accuracy of that observation (which would be a claim of verification), but rather with some sort of evaluation of that observation. For example, "Giorgio walked the old lady across the street" is a claim of verification; "Giorgio did a good deed when he walked the old lady across the street" is a claim of evaluation. There are no evaluative claims in "Yeltsin argued that the rebels should surrender their hostages."
5. What kind of statement is "Yeltsin argued that the rebels should surrender their hostages"?
A claim of advocacy usually contains the words "ought" or "should," and identifies what one's thoughts or actions should be. "The rebels should surrender their hostages," therefore, is a advocatory claim. But that's not precisely the statement made here. The primary issue in "Yeltsin argued that the rebels should surrender their hostages" is whether that is what Yeltsin argued, not whether the rebels should do so.