In our day of AI, critical thinking has never proven more important for college graduates to possess than now. Critical thinking is the ability to use logic in doing two things: (1) assessing whether claims are true and whether arguments are good; (2) devising original arguments that are good and convincing. Without the ability to critically think, students have no way of assessing whether any given claim made by AI or any person is true or any given argument made by AI or any person is good. Moreover, without the ability to critically think, students have no way of devising original arguments that are good and convincing. To succeed in virtually any career, college graduates need to do both (1) and (2). Consequently, Ashley Finley, Vice President for Research at the American Association of Colleges and Universities, reports that 79% of employers identify critical thinking as “very important” in ascertaining strong candidates for their positions (2023, p. 13). At McPherson College, we make teaching our students critical thinking a top priority.
One of the most effective ways of teaching students critical thinking is by revealing to them how not to think—in other words, patterns of incorrect reasoning known as logical fallacies—along with the correct patterns they should use instead. At McPherson College, I use this strategy in every philosophy class I teach, especially Critical Thinking and Modern Logic. In my classes, students repeatedly tell me how frequently they encounter these fallacies, especially on social media, on television, in the output of AI, in the arguments of friends and family, and in their own thinking. Hence students, and their future employers, find this material very relevant. Allow me to give a few examples of teaching critical thinking that my students do not forget.
In Critical Thinking and Modern Logic, I ask my students whether this statement is true: “If LeBron James plays for the New York Knicks, then he is a pro basketball player.” They affirm that it is. I continue by asking, “Is LeBron James a pro basketball player?” and they reply, “Yes.” Then I ask if it is proper to reason like this:
- If LeBron James plays for the New York Knicks, then he is a pro basketball player.
- LeBron James is a pro basketball player.
- Therefore, LeBron James plays for the New York Knicks.
When my students say that such reasoning is incorrect, I point out that this pattern allows us to wrongfully combine two true statements, 1 and 2, and derive a false conclusion, 3. Letting A stand for “LeBron James plays for the New York Knicks” and B stand for “LeBron James is a pro basketball player,” the fallacious pattern of reasoning, known as “affirming the consequent,” emerges as follows:
- If A, then B.
- B.
- Therefore, A.
I tell my students that any argument of this form is automatically a bad argument. Even if 1 and 2 are true, we can have no confidence that the conclusion, 3, is true. Any such argument is not worth the paper it is written on and should be dismissed.
So how should students reason instead? I ask my students whether this statement is true: “If Kirk plays the trumpet, then he can play at least one musical instrument.” They affirm that it is. I then ask those students who perform in the McPherson College Concert Band, “Do I (Kirk) play the trumpet?” and they reply, “Yes,” since they know I play trumpet in the band. I continue by asking if it is proper to reason like this:
- If Kirk plays the trumpet, then he can play at least one musical instrument.
- Kirk plays the trumpet.
- Therefore, Kirk can play at least one musical instrument.
My students respond that such reasoning is correct, since it allows us to draw a true conclusion, 3, from two true statements, 1 and 2. Letting A stand for “Kirk plays the trumpet” and B stand for “Kirk can play at least one musical instrument,” the valid pattern of reasoning, known as modus ponens (Latin for “the way of affirming”), emerges as follows:
- If A, then B.
- A.
- Therefore, B.
I inform my students that any argument of this form is good if and only if statements 1 and 2 are true. So whenever students encounter an argument with this structure, they need to think, “The argument is built well. But are statements 1 and 2 true?” If both 1 and 2 are true, the argument is good and students should believe the conclusion; if either 1 or 2 is false, the argument is bad and students should withhold judgment on the truth of the conclusion.
Now I invite my students to imagine that a politician whom they don’t trust any farther than they can throw stated in a campaign speech, “If Kirk plays the trumpet, then he can play at least one musical instrument. Kirk plays the trumpet. Therefore, Kirk can play at least one musical instrument.” I ask them, “Does the argument become bad simply because a person you don’t trust made it?” They reply that the argument is still good. That is because an argument stands or falls on its own merits, irrespective of the person who makes it. I follow up by asking, “Have you ever rejected an argument made by someone you don’t trust simply because you don’t trust them?” The students admit that they have. I let students know that when they do this, they are committing a reasoning fallacy known as ad hominem, which confuses the person making a claim or argument with their claim or argument. I then ask, “If someone you don’t trust makes an argument, does it make more sense to withhold judgment on the argument until you’ve checked it out for yourself?” They agree that this is the course they should take.
I am so passionate about teaching critical thinking that I wrote Exploring Modern Logic: Theory and Applications (Pickwick, 2026), which serves as the textbook for my Modern Logic class. If you’re a prospective student, I hope to see you at McPherson College in my Critical Thinking or Modern Logic class!
SOURCE: Finley, Ashley D. (2023) The Career-Ready Graduate: What Employers Say about the Difference College Makes. Washington: American Association of Colleges and Universities. Available online at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED634818.pdf.
