LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING CAT

The issues of poverty and inequality have been the focus of many political debates over
the course of history. In most cases, policymakers support the argument that the widening gap
between the poorest and the richest citizens is the focal problem in dire need of solving. It is
also common to hear that poverty is a sign of related deeper flaws that can be traced back to
unfair distribution of national resources. Although these perspectives about equality are not
unfounded, they start from a fact of the modern African economy that incomes among the
poor population rise slower that the income rates of the wealthy. This additionally contributes
to the ever-widening inequality gap that has been contended by many critics as both morally
and practically dangerous. In regards to these factors, the statement that even if national
resources were shared to all citizens equally, ten years down the line we would have 1
percent of the population being very rich and 10 percent being very poor. In most poverty
crisis in the past, it has appeared as if an equal distribution of national resources would lessen
the animosity and bitterness between classes, facilitate democracy and stabilize the economy.
Firstly, the critique that our inequality in inherently unjust is flawed. The ratio of
richest to poorest would still be maintained even if all resources were shared equally because
there is lack of understanding of both economic and economic fact. The discourse on
inequality often aims to distinguish between two versions- outcomes and opportunities. In
this case, inequality of outcomes is measured by factors such as wealth, income, and
expenditure whereas that of opportunities is associated with differences in circumstances that
are beyond an individual’s control like ethnicity, gender, background, and location.
Outcomes as such, are determines by the interaction between and individual’s opportunities
and skill, or efforts (Huber and Stephens, 2014). With such an interconnectedness of the

CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING CAT 3
largest determinants of inequality, it is literally impossible to equally distribute opportunities
as well as outcomes. In this case, even if a poor individual was given access to all the
resources that the rich individual has, other barriers to eradication of poverty would still come
in to play. There is always going to be individuals that use the resources wisely, while others
mismanage their resources. Hence, no matter the value of wealth, there will always be a
disparity.
Proponents of wealth redistribution do not realize that inequality is a concept of
relativity. Studies have found that income inequality as per the Gini coefficient, which is 1
when one individual has all the income and 0 when everyone has the same income,
negatively affects sustainability and growth (Engelhardt & Wagener, 2014). It is even more
challenging when it remains unclear whether wealth distribution is a problem, symptom or
cause. Regardless of the lens used to investigate the predicament, it remains factual that
market-based capitalism is the major driving force of prosperity across the globe. However,
this truth is usually marginalized in discourses on income and wealth redistribution. If less
focus is directed towards the absolute elements in inequality and focused on the idea of a
perfect society where status quo is similar across every citizen, the wealth gap would still
exist. Even when socio-economic policies, education, incentives and capital formation was
made accessible to all individuals, factors that are beyond the human control would still lead
to disadvantaged groups and advantaged groups.
The wealth gap would still exist even if resources were redistributed because some
critical aspects of prosperity such as justice are not always synonymous with equality, hence,
focusing only on the economic aspect of a resource gap is an oversight. This can be equated
with the likelihood of adopting ill-advised ideological construct with at the end of the day the
poor remain neglected. Although equality is highly prized in many democratic societies,
human beings cannot be equal in all aspect. The most important approach in the question of

CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING CAT 4
equality can be best presented by examining in what ways human beings are equal and the
ways in which they are not. Overall, the virtue of human life is the only equal element about
the human being, the rest, such as cognitive power, is unequal and cannot be enforced. No
government can reserve the right to stifle individuals’ freedom to exercise their varying
faculties and abilities. In fact, the government has an obligation to protect the property
individuals accumulate as a result of individual power regardless of their economic value.
Question two
a. Science
In the given case, most of Prophet Mananja’s arguments about her healing power are
fallacious. Fallacious arguments usually appear to be better than they really are and employ
faulty reasoning to manipulate people’s thinking. Although some fallacious arguments are
unintentional, the fact that she insists that people who pay for her healing would only receive
healing days after she has left the country means that she intends to persuade by deception.
The first fact about Mananja, as she claims, is that she comes from a small island where
nobody dies from the sickness due to her presence. In this case, this argument can be
considered a fallacy of weak induction because the argument has premises that are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion, and not strong enough to support the conclusion. There is no
logical link to an individual’s presence the health of a large number of people who typically
do not interact with the said person in any way. If the conclusion was a premise that the
Prophet has medical training, thus, healing other people would sound like a valid logical
conclusion.
At the healing crusade, the Prophet could have easily paid off few people to stage as having
received healing due to her spiritual powers. There is an established motive, and certainly a
reward for having the capacity to influence people to pay for her alleged services. To the
critical eye, it is clear that the situation is rife with deception especially due the fact that she

CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING CAT 5
does not want to be near the authorities to risk an arrest for fraud. The act where “She then
thrust her arms towards a man in a wheel chair, and immediately the man got up and started
walking” is strategically staged. In her conclusive arguments, there is probable inference of
the fallacy of grammatical analogy especially when she implies that people will receive their
healing once she returned to her country. This is intended to trick her victims that being at the
island where she has absolute powers would enhance the quality of healing, in which case
those people who believe in faith healing will enjoy divine presence through her prayers and
rituals.
b. Superstition
Prophet Mananja’s arguments are largely superstitious as opposed to religious. According to
Stark, Iannaccone, and Finke (1996), religion is a system that defines the nature of the world
and how it functions while superstition is a vague form of “bad luck” that is inexplicable. In
the prophet’s case, her belief that people’s sickness is a form of bondage to suffering shows
that she is highly superstitious even through she claims a religious stance on the nature of her
divine powers. Her belief in the state of her country’s health can be easily proven false, and
as such this proves the fallacious nature of superstitions. Moreover, religious beliefs include a
code of conduct that is evidently lacking in her spiritual prowess.
c. Religion.
Although Prophet Manaja’s arguments about diseases presents a superstitious nature, the goal
of leading her followers to “healing” demonstrates the religious aspect of her story. In fact,
religion is said to include prophecy that is related to its major doctrines. For example,
Mananja’s belief in herself as a worthy prophet can be linked to the fact that prophets in
many Holy Scriptures possessed the power to heal people.
Question three
i. Difference between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition

CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING CAT 6
According to Duplass and Ziedler (2002), a necessary condition is a condition that must be
present for an event to occur whereas a sufficient condition is a “set of conditions that will
produce the even”. For instance, a necessary condition must be present but the presence alone
does not provide an adequate cause for the occurrence of the event. The occurrence of the
event is actualized by sufficient grounds only. For example, oxygen and water are necessary
elements for human life to be possible, thus these can be referred to as necessary conditions.
In another example, if memory is a capacity for remembering our past experiences, then the
fact that an experienced happened is a necessary condition. In other words, an individual
would not remember an experience that never existed. However, the current conception that
the individual remembers the experience is sufficient for deducing that it was given in the
past.
ii. Difference between an argument and a disagreement
A disagreement happens when an individual has a different opinion from another person
about the same issue. For instance, although two friends might like pizza, they might disagree
on which restaurant makes it best. However, it is not critical that the other individual likes the
other’s preferences so they might not try to convince each other. For a disagreement to morph
into an argument, they might even try to give evidence to support their unique preferences. In
the process, each party might feel pressured to fail to validate the other’s evidences by citing
that they are well made up. As such, a disagreement is not emotionally vested and people just
cite random opinions about a topic of discussion while an argument is a process where each
person tries to show their opinions are more valid that the other’s.
iii. Difference between a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy
Formal fallacies are defined as errors of logic whereby the conclusion is not supported by
premises. This could stem from the fact that premises or untrue or the argument is right out
invalid. For example:

CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING CAT 7
Premise: All goats are herbivores
Premise: All donkeys are herbivores
Conclusion: All donkeys are goats.
Although both goats and donkeys are a subset of herbivores, these two subsets do not
overlap. As such, the conclusion is illogical, making the argument in valid. It is easy to
recognize formal fallacies due to the obvious “silliness” as a result of poor logic. On the other
hand, informal fallacies involve introducing irrelevant information into an argument. They
are based on assumptions that prove to be incorrect when examines. As such, they are based
on misuse of evidence or language, which is different from formal fallacies whereby the the
relationship between the conclusion and premises do not make sense. For example:
Premise: All the students who scored high in the Math test are Muslim.
Premise: My friend, Anna, is a Muslim.
Therefore, Anna is an intelligent person

CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING CAT 8

References

Duplass, J. A., & Ziedler, D. L. (2002). Critical thinking and logical argument. Social
Education, 66(5), M10-M10.
Engelhardt, C., & Wagener, A. (2014). Biased perceptions of income inequality and
redistribution.
Huber, E., & Stephens, J. D. (2014). Income inequality and redistribution in post-industrial
democracies: demographic, economic and political determinants. Socio-Economic
Review, 12(2), 245-267.
Stark, R., Iannaccone, L. R., & Finke, R. (1996). Religion, science, and rationality. The
American Economic Review, 86(2),