Critical thinking for Students Read Online Free

therefore follows that…’ Some see a defining feature of explanations as being the opposite. They say that explanations don’t have the function of persuading us of something, but instead merely ‘account for’ something. However, this works only with some explanations.
     
    Winter is the more common time for outbreaks of flu. This could be for a number of reasons. One is that, in winter, people spend far more time indoors so people can infect others more easily. Another is that, in winter, there is less sunshine, so the ultraviolet rays in sunshine are less likely to kill the flu virus.
     
    In this explanation, the claim that ‘Winter is the more common time for outbreaks of flu’ is the claim that is being explained. The writer isn’t trying to persuade us that this is the case, in that presumably we’re not going to dispute it. (We might, of course, dispute the author’s explanation, offering other reasons as to why flu is more common in winter. Importantly, we’re now right back to the question of the significance of claims.)
     
    However, there are explanations which aren’t just accounting for something. Such explanations deal with claims whose significance might be highly disputed. Here’s an example. There have been many explanations as to why the Titanic sank in 1912. Though few people are going to dispute whether or not the ship sank, there are considerable disputes as to the explanation or explanations. One recent explanation is that of the quality of the rivets used in the building of the ship.
     
    The Titanic sank in 1912 because of the poor quality of the rivets used on the ship. According to two scientists, the shipbuilders Harland and Wolff were having considerable trouble getting enough top quality rivets for the three ships they were building all at the same time – the Titanic , the Olympic , and the Britannic . It was decided therefore to use what were termed ‘best’ rivets instead of the usual ‘best-best’. These poorer-quality rivets were less strong than the ‘best-best’. Furthermore, these poorer-quality rivets were used on the bow and the stern of the Titanic, with the stronger ones being used for the centre of the hull, because it was calculated that this was where the ship needed to be the strongest. Unfortunately, it was the bow of the ship that was hit by the iceberg, forcing the poor-quality rivets to fracture.
     
    So what’s going on here?
     
    This is an explanation of why the Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg. In this sense, it could be said to be accounting for why it sank. But it’s importantly doing something different. It amounts to an explanation of why poor-quality rivets would have caused the Titanic to be so badly damaged. To see it in terms of responses to a claim, let’s break it up into its parts.
     
    Claim : Poor-quality rivets were used in the building of the Titanic .
     
Explanation (also a claim): There was a shortage of high-quality rivets at the time of the building of the Titanic .
     
Claim (+ explanation): The poor-quality rivets were used on the bow of the ship. (The high-quality rivets were used in the centre of the ship because it was calculated that that was where the ship needed to be at its strongest.)
     
Claim : The Titanic ’s bow hit an iceberg.
     
Claim / inference (as a result of explanations): The Titanic sank because of the poor quality of the rivets used on the ship.
     
    We can see that the whole thing is a series of claims, with explanations forming a central part of what’s going on here. Though few people dispute that the Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg, it is not the sinking as such that is the centre of this sequence of claims. It is the explanation for it.
     
    Here we have then an explanation which is very much ripe for Critical Thinking. We could ask questions about the claims being made.
     
    What about the other two ships being built at the same time? Did they also sink?
     
    The Britannic hit a mine in