A-Level Global Perspectives - Advanced Critical Pathways

Front

Context-Dependent Validity

Back

The principle that an argument's soundness depends entirely on the specific circumstances or scope in which it is applied. In Global Perspectives, you must evaluate whether a proposed solution (e.g., economic sanctions) is valid for *one* cultural context but invalid for another, rather than accepting it as universally true.

Front

Equivocation in Ambiguity

Back

A logical fallacy where a key term shifts meaning subtly within a single argument. For example, using 'freedom' to mean 'political liberty' in the premise, but 'economic freedom from poverty' in the conclusion. Critical analysis requires pinning down definitions to expose this shift.

Front

Sampling Bias & Representativeness

Back

A flaw in research design where the sample population is not representative of the target population. For example, surveying global attitudes about climate change using a sample limited to university students in developed nations. Evaluation requires assessing *who* is included and *who* is excluded to determine reliability.

Front

The Is-Ought Gap (Hume's Guillotine)

Back

The philosophical distinction between descriptive statements (how the world *is*) and prescriptive statements (how the world *ought to be*). A common flaw in student essays is assuming that because a trend exists (e.g., 'globalization is happening'), it is therefore morally good or inevitable.

Front

Teleological Reasoning

Back

Interpreting actions or events based on their apparent outcomes or purposes, often assuming 'progress' is inevitable. For instance, arguing that a specific policy *must* be right because it led to economic growth, while ignoring the ethical means or unintended side effects. Evaluation requires separating the outcome from the intent.