A "good argument" in critical thinking meets certain key standards: accuracy, relevance, coherence, completeness, and fairness in presenting evidence. It is important that the premises are true, that the reasoning is valid or strong, and that all relevant reasons are considered without distorting opposing positions.

It is reasonable to accept a premise when it meets certain criteria: it does not contradict reliable personal experiences or fundamental beliefs, and it comes from a credible source. This criterion helps avoid accepting premises without justified grounds, thus strengthening the validity of our argument.

In my experience, refuting an argument involved identifying a logical fallacy, such as recognizing an appeal to authority without concrete evidence or circular reasoning. An effective strategy was to show that the premise does not provide sufficient support for the conclusion, using reductio ad absurdum or counterexamples.

The content also covers different forms of logic: categorical logic, where statements are structured in terms of classes and subsets, and propositional logic, which works with connectives like "and," "or," "if...then," and "not." For example, categorical syllogisms allow valid deductions by combining class statements, such as "All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." This illustrates how the validity of arguments can be formally analyzed.

In propositional logic, logical connections like conjunction ("and"), disjunction ("or"), and conditionals ("if...then") enable building complex arguments and evaluating their validity precisely. For example, a conditional statement like "If it rains, then the street will be wet" can be evaluated using propositional logic rules to detect fallacies such as affirming the consequent.

Practicing these concepts involves identifying when an argument is valid and when reasoning is weak or fallacious. Recognizing the logical forms within different arguments helps to make more objective and well-founded evaluations.