The Rational Apprentice Newsletter No.12
A number of you contacted me to point out that neither the newsletter nor the podcast were posted to my Substack last week (episode 11.) My apologies. I will make sure that both get posted by the end of the day today (Friday, August 5th).
We often formulate conclusions and opinions quickly, our brains are just wired that way. This can be a great asset when being chased by a bear. But when our early conclusions “get stuck” in our heads and cloud our ability to see what is right there in front of us, it can also be of great detriment1
So how can we take a step back and formulate conclusions based upon facts rather than emotional jumps?
Let me re-introduce you to the Toulmin Model of Argumentation. Combined with some intellectual honesty (to get past our emotional tendencies,) the Toulmin Model can be used to break these early decisions by forcing us to justify our conclusions with tangible facts and logical links.
The logical links are key.
Reminder: The Toulmin Model of Argumentation comprises three primary parts: the “claim,” the “evidence,” or facts supporting the claim, and the “warrant” or the link between the evidence to the claim.
Here’s an easy example.
Take the dog who begs at the table for food scraps. For the frustrated owner, it would be easy to draw the conclusion, “I scold him over and over not to beg at the table but he always does it; therefore that dog must be stupid.” But, if we add some Toulmin methodology and a little intellectual honesty, we might see it from a guest’s point-of-view (or, even your dog’s!)
How about, “I scold him over and over not to beg at the table but he always does it. Generally when he begs, I get frustrated, give in, and feed him. Therefore it’s not the dog who’s stupid.”
The Toulmin method, when used properly, can be a great tool for revealing previously unknown patterns of behavior, unexpected cause and effect relationships, or even outcomes that are 180°opposites from expectations.
“If I vote for this candidate, things will finally change. Generally, after election season, things stay the same or continue to get worse. Therefore I should…”
What?!
As promised, this week’s Mind Over Murder mystery centers around witness testimonies to various acts of arson in a small town. It will be up to you to assign and give weight to each witness’s recollections in order to formulate your findings.
There are four witnesses who have volunteered to give information about what they saw and know about the fires. You can solve it by using the clues and adding your link (or warrant) to connect the evidence to your conclusions about the characters.
Of the four witnesses, only one is telling the truth. Your job is to logically deduce the one truthful witness.
THE ARSONIST
An arsonist started a series of fires in the town of Fayetteville and then demanded a ransom to stop them. When the ransom demand went unpaid, he continued his spree.
THE STORY
The first set of fires was set on Main Street. Several stores in the old Main Street commercial section had been hit in an area where the stores were joined by a common roof.
One of the stores had burned nearly to the ground.
During the second set of fires, a separate call came in about a residential fire, three miles south of the city. But, because the fire fighters were busy at the downtown fire, the fire truck arrived too late to help the resident.
Kerosene soaked rags were used to start all the fires on Main Street and the residential fire.
The police announced a reward to anyone who provided information leading to the arrest of the arsonist. Information was to be submitted via email and, in the event of a legitimate claim to the reward, the recipient should identify themselves, in person, with a duplicate copy of the email.
While all of the fires had been covered by the local newspapers, precise details of the arsons and the ransom demand had not been included.
The first one broke out on Main St. just after midnight on Sunday, March 1. It did serious fire damage to Green’s Hardware Store and smoke damage to adjacent stores.
On March 4, the arsonist struck again on Main St. at Hill’s Drug Store. It was late at night, but the fire department was revved up for action and had put an extra crew on the late shift. They were there within minutes of being called, and, except for some water damage from the sprinkler system, the fire was quickly contained.
A call came to the police station, from a public phone, offering to stop the fires if a large sum of money was paid. A location was given for the ransom to be dropped off behind a loose brick in the schoolyard wall, by the elementary school. The location was well chosen as, from that vantage, there was clear visibility in all directions, for blocks.
The police chose to ignore the call, and the arsonist struck again, twice, on March 11. A fire was set, once again on Main Street, on the roof of the building that housed the Bradley Men’s Store. Fortunately a passerby saw it and called the fire department on his cell phone. Damage was contained
While the fire fighters were at the Bradley Men’s Store fire, another call came in about a residential fire on Sunnyvale Drive, outside of town. But because the fire department was occupied with the commercial fire, they could not respond in time to prevent the house from burning to the ground.
There were four email replies to the police request for information. The emails all referenced the reward money that the Main Street Commercial Association was offering for information that would lead to the arrest of the arsonist.
WITNESS INFORMATION
Scared Stiff said, “I was driving along Main Street on March 11, when I saw the fire break out at Bradley Men’s Store. It was a little after midnight. I can describe the arsonist who was running out the front door. I had gotten a good look at him before he disappeared into a nearby alley. I want police protection in case the arsonist saw me.”
Watchful Waiter said, “I was working across the street from the elementary school at the snack bar. Late in the afternoon after school, a few days previously, while I was looking out my store window, I saw a woman look both ways, then climb the low schoolyard wall. The same woman repeated the action a few days later. Now, I started wondering if this could have had anything to do with the arsons under investigation. I can describe the woman, and the second time it happened, I made a note of her car’s license plate number.”
Keen Observer said, “I live outside of town. I was driving home from a long trip, monitoring the police and fire calls throughout the evening on my car shortwave radio. I listened all the way home. I heard only police calls and then I heard about the residential fire. As I was passing Sunnyvale Drive, not far from my home, I saw a man in a pickup truck watching the fire. I can describe him fairly well, and I look forward to doing so.”
Minding My Own Business said, “I have a friend who worked the late shift at Hill’s Drug Store. After work we saw a movie, I drove her back to the drug store, because she had forgotten to lock a cabinet full of prescription medicines. It had bothered her all during the movie. When we got to the drugstore, flames were billowing forth, so it was not possible to go inside. However, while she was at the door, I saw a man leaving from the drug store’s side door. Fortunately, the arsonist, who looked quickly up and down the street and then ran like a man possessed, hadn’t seen me. I studied art in high school, and I would be able to sketch the person I saw.”
When you’ve finished solving the mysteries, click the button below to hear my analysis.
And for the Mind Over Murder Kids, we have:
THE JEWELRY STORE ROBBERY
John Young always closes his 43rd street and Broadway jewelry store at 4:00 p.m. While he was putting the jewelry in the safe, a masked man came in and took all the jewels.
Police found three suspects, each with an alibi, but one of them stole the jewels. Which one is it?
(Remember: in this type of puzzle, we MUST assume that all statements are true and that no-one is lying.)
THE SUSPECTS
Frederick Cummins is a known jewel thief who lives 10 minutes away from the store, by foot.
Michael Kowalski had been seen standing outside the store, at different times, for the past week.
Charles Lewis was a partner in the store when it first opened. John and Charles disagreed over the direction of business, sometimes arguing loudly in front of customers. Charles finally sold his shares in the business.
SUSPECT STATEMENTS
Frederick Cummins told the police, “I know you guys think I’m a thief, but you don’t have any proof. Anyway, I couldn’t have done it. I always watch football on Sunday afternoon. Yesterday the Giants played the Patriots and the game didn’t end until 4:30 p.m. Go Giants!”
Michael Kowalski told the police, “I don’t know anything about the jewelry store. Besides, I was watching the football game until about 4:20 or 4:30 p.m. It looked like the Giants were going to win. Then the Patriots scored twice in the last ten minutes and won the game. Amazing!”
Charles Lewis told police: “We disagreed about everything; now I’m glad I sold my shares. I mean, who needs to go to work and fight every day? If you want to know where I was, I was home alone, reading a book.”
John Young told police: “Whoever robbed the store knew they were doing. The 10 to 15 minutes directly after closing and before the jewels get put in the safe is the best time to rob the store.
When you’ve finished solving the mysteries, click the button below to hear my analysis.
This is in no way an endorsement of the Toulmin Model as a deterrent to bear attack. If you or a loved one find yourself in an, “Oh my God, that’s a bear,” situation, get the Toulmin out of there!