1/11 I’ve just published a deconstruction of Trump’s argument “millions would’ve died if we did nothing so we’ve done a great job”, an example of “lowered expectations”. crankyuncle.com/critical-think… 
2/11 Trump’s slow response contributed to the COVID-19 crisis. Over 6 weeks, Trump downplayed the problem, allowing the virus to spread. But when questioned about the number of deaths, Trump referred to the millions who would’ve died if he’d done nothing.
3/11 How do you assess an argument like this? In the paper Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors, @reasondisabled, @davekinkead & I develop a methodology for systematically deconstructing & analysing potentially false claims. sks.to/criticalclimate
4/11 You can watch a 3-minute video introduction to this research which both outlines our technique of deconstructing and analyzing misinformation, and IMO is funny & entertaining :-)
5/11 The steps are 1) deconstruct the claim into premises & a conclusion, 2) assess its logical validity, then 3) assess the truth of its premises. In this case, here is the argument structure of Trump’s claim that he’s done a great job responding to COVID-19.
6/11 This argument is logically invalid – the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premises. We need to add the unstated premise that makes this argument logically valid - in this case, it’s that Trump’s performance should be rated against if he did nothing.
7/11 Adding the 3rd premise helps identify where this argument goes wrong: the technique of lowered expectations. This lowers the standard by which you grade a performance or assess evidence (often seen in science denial where conclusions are based on anecdotal evidence).
8/11 In this case, it suggests grading the government’s performance against the lowest possible standard – doing nothing (although technically, an even lower standard is being actively damaging such as suggesting injecting disinfectant). instagram.com/p/B_XOR55njBX/
9/11 Having a framework to help identify reasoning fallacies is essential and so I’ve developed the FLICC taxonomy. After this post, I’ve just added the technique of lowered expectations to the FLICC taxonomy sks.to/flicc
10/11 What is an accessible, engaging way to communicate Trump’s lowered expectation fallacy? (I mean, I like the critical thinking deconstruction approach but it's not everyones' cup of tea). Satire and visual humor offers one approach.
11/11 I’ve also created a 1920 x 1080 version of this cartoon, which people are welcome to use in Powerpoint presentations (translations are also welcome, I'll add them to my blog post). crankyuncle.com/critical-think…
