She's a Witch!

Logic and the ability to employ deductive reasoning is my favorite -- and I believe one of the most important -- higher-order critical thinking skills that we teach in high school. Really, it's the ability to argue well.

I get mentally and emotionally exhausted listening to students make a point about simple things. For example...

STUDENT #1 - No, Lebron James is the best player.

STUDENT #2 - Uh uh, it's Kobe.

#1 - Word on what?

#2 - Word on my life, Kobe's better.

#1 - Man, whatever. Word on my life, Lebron got like, 50 points a game last year.

#2 - Who got the championships? What?! WHO GOT THE CHAMPIONSHIPS? Word on what?

#1 - He soft. Lamar Odom did all the work.

#2 - Man whatever. Word on my life Kobe's the MVP.

And so it goes for minutes on end. There's no common ground of assumption. No one has agreed upon the criteria for a good basketball player. And the two combatants certainly aren't actually listening to each other's points. Here's what I'd like to see...

STUDENT #1 - I submit to you on the basis of individual statisical output that Lebron James is a superior basketball player to Kobe Bryant.

STUDENT #2 - I will agree to those grounds on one condition. Team postseason winning percentage must be included as a valid statistic for consideration.

#1 - Agreed. Will you allow plus/minus floor minutes also?

#2 - Yes.

#1 - Lebron James bested Kobe Bryant in every major statistical category last year, including points, rebounds, and assists per game, and even matched Kobe's supposedly superior perimeter shooting at 35%.

#2 - However, Kobe's plus/minus efficiency on the floor during the season was higher, indicating that his team more often outperforms opponents when he is on the floor.

#1 - That may be true for the regular season, but Lebron raised his plus/minus number to a whopping 35 during the playoffs.

#2 - Speaking of the playoffs, how did those wind up? I seem to remember Kobe hoisting the championship trophy after all was said and done.


It may be a juvenile example, but I don't think it an unreachable goal to expect students to be able to say of any given statement, "If 'A' is true, then 'B' is also true, and 'C' is false." We are preparing a generation of legislators, attorneys, philosophers, law enforcement, and writers. Each one should be able to watch an argument, and as Socrates once commanded, follow the evidence where it leads.

Evidence, truth, and reality matter. They should hold sway over all of our students, and should trump commitments based on emotion, assumption, or stubbornness.

Would you like to try your hand at thinking logically? Try this logic puzzle out. I'll post the solution in my next entry.

http://www.logic-puzzles.org/pdf/L911AY.pdf