In the context of argument analysis what do the authors of the textbook mean when they say "over-simplification masks reality" ?

Question

What will be an ideal response

Answer 1

Our analytical and interpretive work would be easier if speakers would always be clear about their reasons, if speakers always knew their own minds, and if people never withheld their reasons, lied, or concealed their reasons behind political correctness. But that is not the way the world is. And critical thinking, if it is of any value at all, must be applicable to the world as it is, and not as we might wish it were. In reality, the rationale people offer for what they believe or what they decide is often murky, even in their own minds. As we will see in Chapter 10 "Snap Judgments," we humans are not always fully reflective and thoughtful when we make decisions. One of the major benefits of asking why, and of pursuing that question beyond the first or second quick response, is to open up the structure of the reasoning behind a given claim or decision. Obviously, asking why helps us with our analysis. But there is another benefit too. Asking "why" can help the speaker. Being pushed to explain our thinking leads truth-seeking critical thinkers to a clearer understanding of their own beliefs and decisions. Ask "why." And then ask for clarification. Analysis is an active skill. Analysis includes digging below what people first say. We should not be afraid of asking ourselves or others why we think what we think. Like good investigators, analytical people probe. Getting people to explain their own reasons provides the analyst with the material necessary for a fair-minded, complete, and accurate analysis. Guessing at another person's reasons, or worse mistaking our own reasons for the other person's reasons, only leads to misunderstanding. Guesswork and misattribution are marks of weak critical thinking.