Page 262 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups 245

Evaluating the information available to the group is only the first element of crit-
ical thinking. It is equally important to evaluate both information sources and group
members’ reasoning from this information.

Evaluating Reasoning
Valid reasoning connects information with conclusions in an appropriate and defensi-
ble way. Once you have evaluated the information (raw data), you must also look at
how speakers and writers reason from that information. Are their conclusions logical
and plausible? Here is where group decision making can be clearly superior to individ-
ual decision making, because one member is usually able to spot a flaw or a reasoning
error, called a fallacy, that another member missed. We now discuss five common Fallacy
fallacies observed in group discussions. 63 A reasoning error.

Overgeneralizing An overgeneralization is a conclusion that is not supported by
enough data. Because something is true about one or a few instances, someone Overgeneralization
claims it is true of all or most instances of the same type. For example, when a per- An assumption that
son concludes that because some college students have defaulted on their because something
government- guaranteed loans, most or all college students are irresponsible, that is true about one or a
person has overgeneralized. Generalizations are not automatically wrong. After all, few items, it is true of
that is what statistics do— help us generalize appropriately from a relatively small all or most items of
sample to a large population. The problem occurs when we overgeneralize. To test the same type.
generalizations, ask whether evidence other than personal testimony is being
offered to support the generalization and how many cases the generalization is
based on.

Ad Hominem Attacks An ad hominem attack is a statement that attacks a person Ad Hominem Attack
instead of pointing out a flaw in the person’s argument. The attack diverts the group’s An attack on a
attention so that members debate the merits of the person rather than his or her posi- person rather than
tion on the issue. Ad hominem attacks may be explicit (“You can’t trust women or his or her argument.
minorities to evaluate affirmative action laws fairly!”) or veiled (“Why do you think
someone like that could help our group?”). In any case, they are a subtle form of
name- calling. Determining the credibility of the person supplying information is
important, but ad hominem attacks condemn individuals on the basis of characteris-
tics irrelevant to the validity of opinions or accuracy of information they provide. And
they do not help evaluate the arguments advanced by the person for or against some
proposal.

Suggesting Inappropriate Causal Relationships Sometimes people assume that
because two events are related or occurred close to each other in time, one must have
caused the other. Common sense suggests that events usually have multiple and com-
plex causes. To suggest that one single event causes another almost always oversimpli-
fies a relationship among numerous variables. For example, we overheard a
newscaster say that because female graduates of women- only colleges were more

gal37018_ch09_225_258.indd 245 3/28/18 12:37 PM