Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking Summary

Hanson’s op-ed piece “Heavy Price Of Defense Spending Cuts: nations that choose butter over guns atrophy and die” contains significant thinking shortcomings. Using Gerras’ paper, “Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking: A Fundamental Guide for Strategic Leaders,” one gains insights to analyze these shortcomings.
Gerras contends that a person will offer evidence during an argument to support their perspective. He also defines a worthy argument as meeting several conditions. It must have an acceptable premise, the premise must be relevant to the conclusion, and missing components are considered and congruent with the conclusion. If an argument does not include these conditions, it is fallacious. Although there are many types of logical fallacies, Gerras describes two styles that apply to the Hanson op-ed: “appealing to fear” and “slippery slope”.

Appealing to fear is a tactic based on unspoken or overt threats of harm to support a conclusion.

The listener’s fear can impair their ability to recognize the fallacies of an argument. Hanson supports the concept that peace is maintained by possessing superior fire power. Our history clearly documents how we reduced our military at the conclusion of WW I, WW II, and Viet Nam. History also points out how we have hastily mobilized to react to unforeseen conflicts after these dramatic reductions. Hanson’s conclusion about the price of defense spending cuts fails to consider missing components of our agile forces that are inconsistent with the conclusion. He appeals to the common fear of being attacked to falsely lead to a conclusion that a strong military is required to keep the

peace.
Hanson uses a second form of logical fallacy known as the slippery slope. Gerras defines this as a situation that “occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to conclude that the chain reaction will actually take place”. Hanson’s slippery slope scenario is based on an “insolvent and largely defenseless, socialist Europe”. His example describes how some societies decide to move appropriations from defense to social programs. As the dependency on benefits increases, defense spending decreases. As the citizens become totally dependent on the government, their desire for subsidies may become insatiable. At some point, the citizens might realize that any dollars spent on defense affects their demands for more social programs. The chain reaction creates a society destined for bankruptcy and unable to provide for its own defense. Fortunately, one can recover from an encounter with a slippery slope by implementing immediate and audacious actions. Similarly, a society can take corrective actions to disrupt the alleged chain reaction before it becomes a foregone conclusion.
Hanson’s op-ed piece provides psychologically compelling arguments containing significant thinking shortcomings recognizable by the tenets of critical thinking. Hanson offered premises based upon common logical fallacies designed to elicit fear and inevitable consequences of being on a slippery slope. Gerras encourages readers to examine Hanson’s premises and provide a healthy dose of skepticism to determine the worthiness of the conclusion. Although Hanson’s conclusions may seem compelling, they do not meet the conditions of a worthy argument.