chapter 2 towards an understanding of critical thinking

Chapter Two: Characterizing Critical Thinking

I. Introduction

A book devoted to a specific subject should supply a general characterization of that subject, and the earlier, the better. In Chapter One, I made strides toward this goal by extracting a provisional formulation of critical thinking from cases in which it was clearly on display. In this chapter, I intend to fill out this characterization more completely and thereby discharge my obligation. I will do so, however, by approaching critical thinking from a different perspective, viz., the perspective of theoretical treatments it has been given in philosophy and education.

I begin by reflecting on the specific words in our term, 'critical' and 'thinking'. I then analyze a sampling of definitions on offer for 'critical thinking'. The goal of this analysis is two-fold: first, it will tie the approach we adopt in this handbook into the literature on critical thinking, enabling those who wish to explore other treatments of the subject to get their bearings; second, it will yield a more detailed description of the subject matter of this handbook, a description that will give shape to the discussion in subsequent chapters. After calling attention to two central assumptions that underpin our characterization of critical thinking, I close this chapter by emphasizing once more the value of our subject as we have understood it.

II. Critical Thinking as Subject Matter

One way to get at critical thinking is to find it out in the world of our experience. This is done in two stages: (a) locate episodes where we intuitively recognize its presence, and (b) detail the aspects of these cases that support our intuitive reactions. We adopt this grassroots, bottom up approach in Chapter One, and the result is this formulation: critical thinking is thinking that involves the application of standards and criteria in evaluating options, both practical and theoretical. There is much to be said for this approach. For one thing, it allows us to focus on those cognitive traits that incline us to value this type of thinking in the first place; for another, it does justice to the feeling we may have that while we may be unable to define critical thinking, we definitely know it when we see it. However, without guidance, this approach can lead to misplaced emphasis and skewed results, as when a newcomer to the arts concludes that the gallery intends to feature all of the fancy frames. One way to avoid this in our case is to check our formulation against other available formulations of critical thinking. On this top down approach, critical thinking is described in advance on the basis of certain assumptions about thinking and criticism, and the result is then confirmed or disconfirmed on the basis of how well it works when applied to particular cases. In this chapter, we adopt the top down approach. As we will see, our provisional formulation from Chapter One will be supported by considerations drawn from theoretical treatments of critical thinking.

II.1 Terminological Analysis

When first introduced to the term 'critical thinking', people often think of unpleasant episodes from their past in which they were on the receiving end of negative criticism. While it is true that remonstrances from mom and "feedback" from the boss can demonstrate critical thinking, these are not the only or the best illustrations of critical thinking. It is a mistake to tie critical thinking too closely to destructive criticism of others, a mistake grounded in misinterpretation of the word 'critical' in our term. This mistake reveals the need to fix the meaning of the two words that our term comprises.

First, consider 'thinking.' The meaning of this is obvious enough, it would seem--thinking is just what happens when we let our mind do its thing. It is what we do when we deliberate, reflect, ponder, explore, interpret, create, consider, and engage in a host of additional cognitive processes. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary ( www.webster.com ) supplies us with this suitably general definition: "to form or have in mind." Fortunately, we needn't spend too much time with this term--any exercise of our cognitive faculties that could involve evaluation is germane to our investigation. Before leaving this word, however, it is worth notion that we will concentrate in what follows on conscious thinking--i.e., thinking of which we are aware. While it is hoped that the skills which constitute critical thinking will become habitual, influencing us even at a sub-conscious level, this must be a consequence of the sustained conscious application of those skills.

Of the two component words, 'critical' is the one requiring more attention, as it is the one that misleads. Once again, we can turn to the dictionary for a relevant sense of 'critical': "exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation." In this sense, it is closely related to the Greek word 'kriterion,' or standard for judging. As defined, 'critical' is essentially concerned with thinking, as judgment and evaluation are types of thinking. Further, the definition focuses attention on types of thinking that involve the consideration of an option (viz., evaluation) or options (viz., judgment) relative to standards that serve to identify the relevant ideal. So understood, the term is free from the negative connotations that rise like spectres when you first consider the term. Instead, it applies without prejudice to evaluative thinking wherever it might be found.

II.2 An Analysis of Definitions

"The primary focus of critical thinking skills is on determining whether arguments are sound, i.e., whether they have true premises and logical strength" (Hughes 1996, 21).
"A critical thinker is someone who uses specific criteria to evaluate reasoning and make decisions" (Diestler 1998, 2).
"Critical thinking is evaluating whether we should be convinced that some claim is true or some argument is good, as well as formulating good arguments" (Epstein 2000, i).
"Critical thinking is the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim--and of the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it" (Moore & Parker 1998, 6).
"The ability to correctly validate or refute claims presented for our belief" (Kiersky & Caste 1995, 3).
"Critical thinking is consciously observing, analyzing, reasoning, and evaluating according to proven standards" (Mayfield 1997, 6).
"A unique kind of purposeful thinking in which the thinker systematically and habitually imposes criteria and intellectual standards upon the thinking, taking charge of the construction of thinking, guiding the construction of the thinking according to the standards, and assessing the effectiveness of the thinking according to the purpose, the criteria, and the standards" (Paul 1993, 21).
"... reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do" (Ennis).
"Active, persistent and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends" (Dewey)
"Critical thinking is correctly defined as the review, evaluation, and revision of previous thinking" (Stratton 1999, 10).

Each of these presupposes thinking as a basic activity and then supplies conditions that must be satisfied by thinking if it is to count as critical thinking. These definitions point to four salient aspects of the relevant type of thinking. First, as Dewey explicitly asserts, the type of thinking we're after is active --a critical thinker must be in charge of her thought processes, controlling their application to the subject at hand. This points to the second prominent aspect, viz., that critical thinking is purposeful thinking, an aspect that is featured in the definitions of Diestler, Moore & Parker, Paul, Ennis, and Stratton. In all of them, though, critical thinking is conceived as leading to conclusions, an essentially purposeful endeavor. Third, critical thinking is principled thinking, where this must be understood in two ways: (a) it is itself principled, being systematic, "reasonable," "careful," and conducted "according to proven standards"; and (b) it involves the application of principles to claims, arguments, beliefs, "previous thinking," courses of action, and the like. The first of these senses underwrites the ability to evaluate particular cases of critical thinking as better or worse, as we did in Chapter One. The second calls attention to the fact that critical thinking is rarely done in a vacuum; rather, it is typically done in specific substantive contexts, e.g., in the auto dealership, the biology laboratory, the forest, etc. The principles one must apply in these cases are drawn largely from the topic at issue. This point is closely related to the fundamentally evaluative character of critical thinking, the last of the salient aspects on display in these definitions. When you apply principles in an active fashion for the purpose of generating a conclusion about some topic, you are generally engaged in evaluation, i.e., in determining whether the topic is good or bad, right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, adequate or inadequate, etc.

Armed with these aspects, we can revisit and assess the provisional formulation we identified in the first chapter. The idea of activity is implicit in that formulation, but the purposive nature of critical thinking deserves more emphasis than it is given there. The second sense in which the thinking must be principled, and the closely associated aspect of evaluation, are given privilege of place, but the first sense in which it must be principled is not expressed in the formulation. Thus, the top down approach reveals the need to enlarge our working definition, which we can express as follows:

Working Definition : Critical thinking is thinking that involves the principled application of standards and criteria in the evaluation of practical and theoretical options for the purpose of reaching conclusions about those options.

So understood, critical thinking is clearly a species of the broader genus of thinking. It is not, for instance, creative thinking. Creative thinking is marked by the production of ideas which can then be regarded practical or theoretical options available for critique. For example, the process of brainstorming, which involves the unchecked production of ideas on a particular topic, is creative and explicitly non-critical. Of course, no good critical thinker can avoid creative thinking, since one is often called upon to generate the options that are then subjected to critical assessment, as well as reasons for or against those options. Hearkening back to the examples at the beginning of Chapter One, consider the process of creative scheduling that Monica must engage in if she is to achieve her goal of graduating in four years, or the creativity demonstrated by Kristine as she generates a relevant list of reasons for and against granting China Most Favored Nation status. In fact, most episodes thinking in which we are interested involve the symbiotic interaction of creativity and criticism, a constant interplay of production and evaluation--of making and shaking, so to speak. Nevertheless, conceptual considerations force us to recognize the difference between these two species of cognitive activity.

Other species that are categorically different from critical thinking include what we might call procedural thinking, which involves applying and following a protocol or recipe, and dogmatic thinking, which is marked by unwavering adherence to a creed or set of guidelines. Both of these are static in an important sense, involving thinking that is insensitive to the variety of results that evaluation can yield. By contrast, critical thinking requires to recognize and appreciate differences of context and complexity, always remaining open to the possibility that previously identified conclusions might be set aside in favor of others.

It is important to call attention to two assumptions that underpin the project of explicit instruction in critical thinking skills as it is developed here. First, as noted above, critical thinking primarily occurs in contexts that serve up standards that are specific to the subject matter considered and methodology employed. Thus, one must have factual knowledge about the domain in which one is working if one is to be an effective critical thinker. If one is to teach critical thinking, one must call attention to the fact that the specific principles applied are grounded in specific domains, and therefore the principles will vary with the domain. (The situation is more complicated than this, actually. Subject matter and methodology do not line up with one another--if you hold subject matter fixed, methods will vary, and vice versa. For example, philosophical subject matter receives both empirical and a priori treatment, and the same is true of the social sciences and the sciences. Given this variation, one must know where one is in the logical space determined by the interaction of subject matter and methodology if one is to know what principles and criteria to apply.)

Second, the variation of principles notwithstanding, we presume that there are general cognitive skills that are employed in any domain where critical thinking is found. Thus, skills like argument reconstruction and logical analysis, problem identification and solution, and so forth are applicable across the wide spectrum of contexts within which thinking is critical. This is not a point on which there is universal consensus; indeed, members of the critical thinking community have expressed deep doubts about the existence of such general skills. (See McPeck.) For now, we will press onward in spite of these reservations, but I will return to them in Chapter Five, developing them in detail and supplying an argument intended to undercut them.

III. Critical Thinking as Technology

Critical thinking is a tool that all of us have in our cognitive toolbox. However, possession does not imply mastery in this case. (Compare: I own a piano, but you don't want to hear me play it.) If a person spends time studying it, then they can develop mastery, in which case the tool becomes very useful indeed. It is applicable whenever there are arguments to be constructed, evaluated, or destroyed. When you are asked to change your belief system by accepting or rejecting some claim, it's time to bust open the toolbox and think critically about what it is you are being asked to do. Your persuasion should only follow on your endorsement, and this demands that you assess and then endorse the claim you are being asked to believe. As with most tools, critical thinking must be applied wisely. There are contexts in which its application is appropriate and contexts where it is not. Recall the example of brainstorming mentioned above--there it is better to refrain from critical evaluation and let everything in at first so that the pool of candidate ideas is as large and as varied as possible. The better part of wisdom is knowing how to pick your spots, and this is certainly true of critical thinking.

We apply principles and make evaluations daily, even hourly. Thus, we think critically all the time. In many of these cases, poor evaluations could lead to discomfort or worse. Given this, pursuit of the good life requires that we be good critical thinkers. Actually, it is too strong to say that it requires this, as the good life could be had by a shoddy but exceedingly lucky critical thinker. However, unless you wish to place your bets and risk significant losses, it is better to have some measure of control over the direction that life takes you. This can be achieved through the explicit study of these skills. Beyond mastering the skills associated with critical thinking, such study results in the cultivation of the "critical spirit", i.e., a willingness to think critically on a regular basis when the situation calls for it. Critical thinking can be conceived as technology, i.e., as a tool we apply to improve our lives, but it is important to see it as essential technology--it forms a part of who we are and how we view the world. When you train your students to think critically, you help them develop skills, but in addition, you influence their sense of self and their worldview.

IV. Critical Thinking Skills: An Annotated List

It is useful to have in hand a list of the relevant skills that you will enhance through explicit instruction in critical thinking. However, there is no standard list, and what stands out as a relevant skill often depends on the type of context within which critical thinking is to be done. Further complicating matters is the fact that theoretical perspectives lead people to emphasize different patterns and, as a result, generate different lists. Critical thinking ability is a many jointed beast, and there are many ways to carve it cleanly. As a consequence, any list is bound to seem incomplete.

Even so, a list of specific skills is valuable. My efforts in this section are guided by the working definition we now have in place. This definition points to three general types of activity comprised by critical thinking: goal pursuit, criteria application, and option evaluation. Critical thinking is purposeful thinking, i.e., thinking that is intended to get us somewhere, and so it requires exercise of goal pursuit skills. This goal is achieved through the application of standards and criteria, both general and subject-specific, and there are certain skills associated with this type of activity. Finally, standards and criteria are applied for the purpose of evaluating the relevant options, and the process of evaluation is one that requires a large suite of skills. As should be clear, the skills in these groups are not only in the business of supporting critical thinking. For instance, there is nothing about the pursuit of goals that requires critical thinking, as my goal of following the waffle recipe exactly illustrates; likewise, we could apply criteria out of curiosity, without having any interest in evaluation. While individually they are not wedded to critical thinking, they relate to one another in a way that yields critical thinking. Specifically, they are nested : if the type of goal pursuit centrally involves criteria application, and if criteria application is done for the purpose of option evaluation, then you have an episode of critical thinking.

In what follows, I use the three types of activity as a framework for organizing critical thinking skills. Some of the classificatory decisions are somewhat arbitrary, as several of these skills have a home in more than one of the sections. For example, observation and recollection, listed under criteria application, certainly figure into the other activities as well. Nevertheless, I’ve attempted to align specific skills with the activities that seem most closely related to them.

IV.1 Goal Pursuit Skills

These skills comprise those involved in the formation of goals and the maintenance of the plans formed to achieve those goals.

Goal Formation: If one is to pursue a goal, one must first have a goal. We form goals in all manner of circumstances and for many reasons; however, there are certain circumstances in which we form goals that require the exercise of critical thinking skills. Often this is nested inside the pursuit of other goals, given that goals are often achieved only after accomplishing sub-goals; in such cases, problem definition follows on criteria application and option evaluation, and so forms a seamless part of the exercise of the whole array of critical thinking skills. Two of those are:

Problem Definition: What is the problem that you are required to solve? Problems require solutions, and solutions serve as goals for whom the problems are troubling. Question Formulation: This is related to problem definition. Questions spur answers, which are held up as goals to pursue.

Quality Control: When you set a goal, you create a plan that you then execute as you pursue the goal. Plan maintenance and execution depend on the exercise of certain quality control skills. Principle among these are:

Coherence Assurance: Are the means of accomplishing the goal logically and logistically coherent with the goal? Do the sub-goals cohere with one another? If you accomplish all the sub-goals in order, will you thereby achieve the goal? Completion: Is the plan complete? Are there parts that must be filled out before the plan as a whole is executed?

IV.2 Criteria Application Skills

Included in this category are skills associated with recognition of the need for criteria application and with identification of the relevant standard.

Observation: What criteria do the circumstances require? Are there specific criteria associated with the subject matter under consideration? Does the plan, with its constituent goals and sub-goals, require specific criteria? Is there a pattern of appearance or behavior into which the option and attendant circumstances fit? You must be able to observe the situation and identify criteria germane to pursuit of your goal in that situation.

Recollection: Given observations about the goal and the circumstances, what is the nature of the criteria that are relevant? How are they to be applied? One must be able to recollect these details. (Note that if you don’t recollect them, research might be required; however, since research is a full-blown context for the complete exercise of critical thinking, research skills do not all fit into the category.)

IV.3 Option Evaluation Skills

Included in this list are all those skills (and there are many) associated with analysis of an option into aspects, inspection of those aspects in light of the relevant criteria, and synthesis of the results into a decision about the option. The skills on this list have application in each of these stages, depending on the circumstances. They are listed alphabetically.

Classification: What category does an aspect of an option or the result of a particular inspection fall into? How do these categories relate to one another?

Comparison: How do the various elements compare to one another? How does the element in question compare to the ideal described by the applied standard? How do the results of the inspections relate to one another?

Discrimination: What are the parts (spatial, temporal, etc.) of the option? What is the structure that binds these parts together?

Elaboration: How can the description of an aspect of an option or inspection be increased in detail without undermining their character?

Inference: What follows from the explicit aspects of the option or inspection? That is, what do they imply? Are these implied aspects relevant to the evaluation?

Ordering: How should the results of inspection be ordered—should one be given logical or thematic or political or ... prominence over others?

Prediction: What should follow if this option is believed or acted upon? (This forms a part of the thought experimentation that often figures into inspection of options, experimentation designed to determine the effects of a belief or course of action. Identification of these effects will often influence the results of an inspection.)

Restructuring: Can the analysis be accomplished in a different way? Can the inspection? Is there a different and preferable way to synthesize the results of inspection into an acceptable result?

Verification: Has the analysis been conducted correctly? The inspection? The synthesis?

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

(10 reviews)

Matthew Van Cleave, Lansing Community College

Publisher: Matthew J. Van Cleave

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by "yusef" Alexander Hayes, Professor, North Shore Community College on 6/9/21

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book is accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

While many modern examples are used, and they are helpful, they are not necessarily needed. The usefulness of logical principles and skills have proved themselves, and this text presents them clearly with many examples.

Clarity rating: 5

It is obvious that the author cares about their subject, audience, and students. The text is comprehensible and interesting.

Consistency rating: 5

The format is easy to understand and is consistent in framing.

Modularity rating: 5

This text would be easy to adapt.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization is excellent, my one suggestion would be a concluding chapter.

Interface rating: 5

I accessed the PDF version and it would be easy to work with.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The writing is excellent.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This is not an offensive text.

Reviewed by Susan Rottmann, Part-time Lecturer, University of Southern Maine on 3/2/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

I reviewed this book for a course titled "Creative and Critical Inquiry into Modern Life." It won't meet all my needs for that course, but I haven't yet found a book that would. I wanted to review this one because it states in the preface that it fits better for a general critical thinking course than for a true logic course. I'm not sure that I'd agree. I have been using Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," and I think that book is a better introduction to critical thinking for non-philosophy majors. However, the latter is not open source so I will figure out how to get by without it in the future. Overall, the book seems comprehensive if the subject is logic. The index is on the short-side, but fine. However, one issue for me is that there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which is pretty annoying if you want to locate particular sections.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I didn't find any errors. In general the book uses great examples. However, they are very much based in the American context, not for an international student audience. Some effort to broaden the chosen examples would make the book more widely applicable.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

I think the book will remain relevant because of the nature of the material that it addresses, however there will be a need to modify the examples in future editions and as the social and political context changes.

Clarity rating: 3

The text is lucid, but I think it would be difficult for introductory-level students who are not philosophy majors. For example, in Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," the sub-headings are very accessible, such as "Experts cannot rescue us, despite what they say" or "wishful thinking: perhaps the biggest single speed bump on the road to critical thinking." By contrast, Van Cleave's "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking" has more subheadings like this: "Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form" or "Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives." If students are prepared very well for the subject, it would work fine, but for students who are newly being introduced to critical thinking, it is rather technical.

It seems to be very consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 4

The book is divided into 4 chapters, each having many sub-chapters. In that sense, it is readily divisible and modular. However, as noted above, there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which would make assigning certain parts rather frustrating. Also, I'm not sure why the book is only four chapter and has so many subheadings (for instance 17 in Chapter 2) and a length of 242 pages. Wouldn't it make more sense to break up the book into shorter chapters? I think this would make it easier to read and to assign in specific blocks to students.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The organization of the book is fine overall, although I think adding page numbers to the table of contents and breaking it up into more separate chapters would help it to be more easily navigable.

Interface rating: 4

The book is very simply presented. In my opinion it is actually too simple. There are few boxes or diagrams that highlight and explain important points.

The text seems fine grammatically. I didn't notice any errors.

The book is written with an American audience in mind, but I did not notice culturally insensitive or offensive parts.

Overall, this book is not for my course, but I think it could work well in a philosophy course.

Reviewed by Daniel Lee, Assistant Professor of Economics and Leadership, Sweet Briar College on 11/11/19

This textbook is not particularly comprehensive (4 chapters long), but I view that as a benefit. In fact, I recommend it for use outside of traditional logic classes, but rather interdisciplinary classes that evaluate argument read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as accurate, error-free, and unbiased

The book is broadly relevant and up-to-date, with a few stray temporal references (sydney olympics, particular presidencies). I don't view these time-dated examples as problematic as the logical underpinnings are still there and easily assessed

Clarity rating: 4

My only pushback on clarity is I didn't find the distinction between argument and explanation particularly helpful/useful/easy to follow. However, this experience may have been unique to my class.

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as internally consistent

I found this text quite modular, and was easily able to integrate other texts into my lessons and disregard certain chapters or sub-sections

The book had a logical and consistent structure, but to the extent that there are only 4 chapters, there isn't much scope for alternative approaches here

No problems with the book's interface

The text is grammatically sound

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

Perhaps the text could have been more universal in its approach. While I didn't find the book insensitive per-se, logic can be tricky here because the point is to evaluate meaningful (non-trivial) arguments, but any argument with that sense of gravity can also be traumatic to students (abortion, death penalty, etc)

No additional comments

Reviewed by Lisa N. Thomas-Smith, Graduate Part-time Instructor, CU Boulder on 7/1/19

The text covers all the relevant technical aspects of introductory logic and critical thinking, and covers them well. A separate glossary would be quite helpful to students. However, the terms are clearly and thoroughly explained within the text,... read more

The content is excellent. The text is thorough and accurate with no errors that I could discern. The terminology and exercises cover the material nicely and without bias.

The text should easily stand the test of time. The exercises are excellent and would be very helpful for students to internalize correct critical thinking practices. Because of the logical arrangement of the text and the many sub-sections, additional material should be very easy to add.

The text is extremely clearly and simply written. I anticipate that a diligent student could learn all of the material in the text with little additional instruction. The examples are relevant and easy to follow.

The text did not confuse terms or use inconsistent terminology, which is very important in a logic text. The discipline often uses multiple terms for the same concept, but this text avoids that trap nicely.

The text is fairly easily divisible. Since there are only four chapters, those chapters include large blocks of information. However, the chapters themselves are very well delineated and could be easily broken up so that parts could be left out or covered in a different order from the text.

The flow of the text is excellent. All of the information is handled solidly in an order that allows the student to build on the information previously covered.

The PDF Table of Contents does not include links or page numbers which would be very helpful for navigation. Other than that, the text was very easy to navigate. All the images, charts, and graphs were very clear

I found no grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The text including examples and exercises did not seem to be offensive or insensitive in any specific way. However, the examples included references to black and white people, but few others. Also, the text is very American specific with many examples from and for an American audience. More diversity, especially in the examples, would be appropriate and appreciated.

Reviewed by Leslie Aarons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, CUNY LaGuardia Community College on 5/16/19

This is an excellent introductory (first-year) Logic and Critical Thinking textbook. The book covers the important elementary information, clearly discussing such things as the purpose and basic structure of an argument; the difference between an argument and an explanation; validity; soundness; and the distinctions between an inductive and a deductive argument in accessible terms in the first chapter. It also does a good job introducing and discussing informal fallacies (Chapter 4). The incorporation of opportunities to evaluate real-world arguments is also very effective. Chapter 2 also covers a number of formal methods of evaluating arguments, such as Venn Diagrams and Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives, but to my mind, it is much more thorough in its treatment of Informal Logic and Critical Thinking skills, than it is of formal logic. I also appreciated that Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index, but there is no glossary; which I personally do not find detracts from the book's comprehensiveness.

Overall, Van Cleave's book is error-free and unbiased. The language used is accessible and engaging. There were no glaring inaccuracies that I was able to detect.

Van Cleave's Textbook uses relevant, contemporary content that will stand the test of time, at least for the next few years. Although some examples use certain subjects like former President Obama, it does so in a useful manner that inspires the use of critical thinking skills. There are an abundance of examples that inspire students to look at issues from many different political viewpoints, challenging students to practice evaluating arguments, and identifying fallacies. Many of these exercises encourage students to critique issues, and recognize their own inherent reader-biases and challenge their own beliefs--hallmarks of critical thinking.

As mentioned previously, the author has an accessible style that makes the content relatively easy to read and engaging. He also does a suitable job explaining jargon/technical language that is introduced in the textbook.

Van Cleave uses terminology consistently and the chapters flow well. The textbook orients the reader by offering effective introductions to new material, step-by-step explanations of the material, as well as offering clear summaries of each lesson.

This textbook's modularity is really quite good. Its language and structure are not overly convoluted or too-lengthy, making it convenient for individual instructors to adapt the materials to suit their methodological preferences.

The topics in the textbook are presented in a logical and clear fashion. The structure of the chapters are such that it is not necessary to have to follow the chapters in their sequential order, and coverage of material can be adapted to individual instructor's preferences.

The textbook is free of any problematic interface issues. Topics, sections and specific content are accessible and easy to navigate. Overall it is user-friendly.

I did not find any significant grammatical issues with the textbook.

The textbook is not culturally insensitive, making use of a diversity of inclusive examples. Materials are especially effective for first-year critical thinking/logic students.

I intend to adopt Van Cleave's textbook for a Critical Thinking class I am teaching at the Community College level. I believe that it will help me facilitate student-learning, and will be a good resource to build additional classroom activities from the materials it provides.

Reviewed by Jennie Harrop, Chair, Department of Professional Studies, George Fox University on 3/27/18

While the book is admirably comprehensive, its extensive details within a few short chapters may feel overwhelming to students. The author tackles an impressive breadth of concepts in Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4, which leads to 50-plus-page chapters that are dense with statistical analyses and critical vocabulary. These topics are likely better broached in manageable snippets rather than hefty single chapters.

The ideas addressed in Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking are accurate but at times notably political. While politics are effectively used to exemplify key concepts, some students may be distracted by distinct political leanings.

The terms and definitions included are relevant, but the examples are specific to the current political, cultural, and social climates, which could make the materials seem dated in a few years without intentional and consistent updates.

While the reasoning is accurate, the author tends to complicate rather than simplify -- perhaps in an effort to cover a spectrum of related concepts. Beginning readers are likely to be overwhelmed and under-encouraged by his approach.

Consistency rating: 3

The four chapters are somewhat consistent in their play of definition, explanation, and example, but the structure of each chapter varies according to the concepts covered. In the third chapter, for example, key ideas are divided into sub-topics numbering from 3.1 to 3.10. In the fourth chapter, the sub-divisions are further divided into sub-sections numbered 4.1.1-4.1.5, 4.2.1-4.2.2, and 4.3.1 to 4.3.6. Readers who are working quickly to master new concepts may find themselves mired in similarly numbered subheadings, longing for a grounded concepts on which to hinge other key principles.

Modularity rating: 3

The book's four chapters make it mostly self-referential. The author would do well to beak this text down into additional subsections, easing readers' accessibility.

The content of the book flows logically and well, but the information needs to be better sub-divided within each larger chapter, easing the student experience.

The book's interface is effective, allowing readers to move from one section to the next with a single click. Additional sub-sections would ease this interplay even further.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Some minor errors throughout.

For the most part, the book is culturally neutral, avoiding direct cultural references in an effort to remain relevant.

Reviewed by Yoichi Ishida, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Ohio University on 2/1/18

This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking. Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic, this textbook does not cover suppositional arguments, such as conditional proof and reductio ad absurdum. But other standard argument forms are covered. Chapter 3 covers inductive logic, and here this textbook introduces probability and its relationship with cognitive biases, which are rarely discussed in other textbooks. Chapter 4 introduces common informal fallacies. The answers to all the exercises are given at the end. However, the last set of exercises is in Chapter 3, Section 5. There are no exercises in the rest of the chapter. Chapter 4 has no exercises either. There is index, but no glossary.

The textbook is accurate.

The content of this textbook will not become obsolete soon.

The textbook is written clearly.

The textbook is internally consistent.

The textbook is fairly modular. For example, Chapter 3, together with a few sections from Chapter 1, can be used as a short introduction to inductive logic.

The textbook is well-organized.

There are no interface issues.

I did not find any grammatical errors.

This textbook is relevant to a first semester logic or critical thinking course.

Reviewed by Payal Doctor, Associate Professro, LaGuardia Community College on 2/1/18

This text is a beginner textbook for arguments and propositional logic. It covers the basics of identifying arguments, building arguments, and using basic logic to construct propositions and arguments. It is quite comprehensive for a beginner book, but seems to be a good text for a course that needs a foundation for arguments. There are exercises on creating truth tables and proofs, so it could work as a logic primer in short sessions or with the addition of other course content.

The books is accurate in the information it presents. It does not contain errors and is unbiased. It covers the essential vocabulary clearly and givens ample examples and exercises to ensure the student understands the concepts

The content of the book is up to date and can be easily updated. Some examples are very current for analyzing the argument structure in a speech, but for this sort of text understandable examples are important and the author uses good examples.

The book is clear and easy to read. In particular, this is a good text for community college students who often have difficulty with reading comprehension. The language is straightforward and concepts are well explained.

The book is consistent in terminology, formatting, and examples. It flows well from one topic to the next, but it is also possible to jump around the text without loosing the voice of the text.

The books is broken down into sub units that make it easy to assign short blocks of content at a time. Later in the text, it does refer to a few concepts that appear early in that text, but these are all basic concepts that must be used to create a clear and understandable text. No sections are too long and each section stays on topic and relates the topic to those that have come before when necessary.

The flow of the text is logical and clear. It begins with the basic building blocks of arguments, and practice identifying more and more complex arguments is offered. Each chapter builds up from the previous chapter in introducing propositional logic, truth tables, and logical arguments. A select number of fallacies are presented at the end of the text, but these are related to topics that were presented before, so it makes sense to have these last.

The text is free if interface issues. I used the PDF and it worked fine on various devices without loosing formatting.

1. The book contains no grammatical errors.

The text is culturally sensitive, but examples used are a bit odd and may be objectionable to some students. For instance, President Obama's speech on Syria is used to evaluate an extended argument. This is an excellent example and it is explained well, but some who disagree with Obama's policies may have trouble moving beyond their own politics. However, other examples look at issues from all political viewpoints and ask students to evaluate the argument, fallacy, etc. and work towards looking past their own beliefs. Overall this book does use a variety of examples that most students can understand and evaluate.

My favorite part of this book is that it seems to be written for community college students. My students have trouble understanding readings in the New York Times, so it is nice to see a logic and critical thinking text use real language that students can understand and follow without the constant need of a dictionary.

Reviewed by Rebecca Owen, Adjunct Professor, Writing, Chemeketa Community College on 6/20/17

This textbook is quite thorough--there are conversational explanations of argument structure and logic. I think students will be happy with the conversational style this author employs. Also, there are many examples and exercises using current events, funny scenarios, or other interesting ways to evaluate argument structure and validity. The third section, which deals with logical fallacies, is very clear and comprehensive. My only critique of the material included in the book is that the middle section may be a bit dense and math-oriented for learners who appreciate the more informal, informative style of the first and third section. Also, the book ends rather abruptly--it moves from a description of a logical fallacy to the answers for the exercises earlier in the text.

The content is very reader-friendly, and the author writes with authority and clarity throughout the text. There are a few surface-level typos (Starbuck's instead of Starbucks, etc.). None of these small errors detract from the quality of the content, though.

One thing I really liked about this text was the author's wide variety of examples. To demonstrate different facets of logic, he used examples from current media, movies, literature, and many other concepts that students would recognize from their daily lives. The exercises in this text also included these types of pop-culture references, and I think students will enjoy the familiarity--as well as being able to see the logical structures behind these types of references. I don't think the text will need to be updated to reflect new instances and occurrences; the author did a fine job at picking examples that are relatively timeless. As far as the subject matter itself, I don't think it will become obsolete any time soon.

The author writes in a very conversational, easy-to-read manner. The examples used are quite helpful. The third section on logical fallacies is quite easy to read, follow, and understand. A student in an argument writing class could benefit from this section of the book. The middle section is less clear, though. A student learning about the basics of logic might have a hard time digesting all of the information contained in chapter two. This material might be better in two separate chapters. I think the author loses the balance of a conversational, helpful tone and focuses too heavily on equations.

Consistency rating: 4

Terminology in this book is quite consistent--the key words are highlighted in bold. Chapters 1 and 3 follow a similar organizational pattern, but chapter 2 is where the material becomes more dense and equation-heavy. I also would have liked a closing passage--something to indicate to the reader that we've reached the end of the chapter as well as the book.

I liked the overall structure of this book. If I'm teaching an argumentative writing class, I could easily point the students to the chapters where they can identify and practice identifying fallacies, for instance. The opening chapter is clear in defining the necessary terms, and it gives the students an understanding of the toolbox available to them in assessing and evaluating arguments. Even though I found the middle section to be dense, smaller portions could be assigned.

The author does a fine job connecting each defined term to the next. He provides examples of how each defined term works in a sentence or in an argument, and then he provides practice activities for students to try. The answers for each question are listed in the final pages of the book. The middle section feels like the heaviest part of the whole book--it would take the longest time for a student to digest if assigned the whole chapter. Even though this middle section is a bit heavy, it does fit the overall structure and flow of the book. New material builds on previous chapters and sub-chapters. It ends abruptly--I didn't realize that it had ended, and all of a sudden I found myself in the answer section for those earlier exercises.

The simple layout is quite helpful! There is nothing distracting, image-wise, in this text. The table of contents is clearly arranged, and each topic is easy to find.

Tiny edits could be made (Starbuck's/Starbucks, for one). Otherwise, it is free of distracting grammatical errors.

This text is quite culturally relevant. For instance, there is one example that mentions the rumors of Barack Obama's birthplace as somewhere other than the United States. This example is used to explain how to analyze an argument for validity. The more "sensational" examples (like the Obama one above) are helpful in showing argument structure, and they can also help students see how rumors like this might gain traction--as well as help to show students how to debunk them with their newfound understanding of argument and logic.

The writing style is excellent for the subject matter, especially in the third section explaining logical fallacies. Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this text!

Reviewed by Laurel Panser, Instructor, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

This is a review of Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, an open source book version 1.4 by Matthew Van Cleave. The comparison book used was Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic 12th Edition published by Cengage as well as... read more

Competing with Hurley is difficult with respect to comprehensiveness. For example, Van Cleave’s book is comprehensive to the extent that it probably covers at least two-thirds or more of what is dealt with in most introductory, one-semester logic courses. Van Cleave’s chapter 1 provides an overview of argumentation including discerning non-arguments from arguments, premises versus conclusions, deductive from inductive arguments, validity, soundness and more. Much of Van Cleave’s chapter 1 parallel’s Hurley’s chapter 1. Hurley’s chapter 3 regarding informal fallacies is comprehensive while Van Cleave’s chapter 4 on this topic is less extensive. Categorical propositions are a topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 4 and 5 provide more instruction on this, however. Propositional logic is another topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 6 and 7 provide more information on this, though. Van Cleave did discuss messy issues of language meaning briefly in his chapter 1; that is the topic of Hurley’s chapter 2.

Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index. A glossary was not included.

Reviews of open source textbooks typically include criteria besides comprehensiveness. These include comments on accuracy of the information, whether the book will become obsolete soon, jargon-free clarity to the extent that is possible, organization, navigation ease, freedom from grammar errors and cultural relevance; Van Cleave’s book is fine in all of these areas. Further criteria for open source books includes modularity and consistency of terminology. Modularity is defined as including blocks of learning material that are easy to assign to students. Hurley’s book has a greater degree of modularity than Van Cleave’s textbook. The prose Van Cleave used is consistent.

Van Cleave’s book will not become obsolete soon.

Van Cleave’s book has accessible prose.

Van Cleave used terminology consistently.

Van Cleave’s book has a reasonable degree of modularity.

Van Cleave’s book is organized. The structure and flow of his book is fine.

Problems with navigation are not present.

Grammar problems were not present.

Van Cleave’s book is culturally relevant.

Van Cleave’s book is appropriate for some first semester logic courses.

Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments

1.1 What is an argument?
1.2 Identifying arguments
1.3 Arguments vs. explanations
1.4 More complex argument structures
1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form
1.6 Validity
1.7 Soundness
1.8 Deductive vs. inductive arguments
1.9 Arguments with missing premises
1.10 Assuring, guarding, and discounting
1.11 Evaluative language
1.12 Evaluating a real-life argument

Chapter 2: Formal methods of evaluating arguments

2.1 What is a formal method of evaluation and why do we need them?
2.2 Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives
2.3 Negation and disjunction
2.4 Using parentheses to translate complex sentences
2.5 “Not both” and “neither nor”
2.6 The truth table test of validity
2.7 Conditionals
2.8 “Unless”
2.9 Material equivalence
2.10 Tautologies, contradictions, and contingent statements
2.11 Proofs and the 8 valid forms of inference
2.12 How to construct proofs
2.13 Short review of propositional logic
2.14 Categorical logic
2.15 The Venn test of validity for immediate categorical inferences
2.16 Universal statements and existential commitment
2.17 Venn validity for categorical syllogisms

Chapter 3: Evaluating inductive arguments and probabilistic and statistical fallacies

3.1 Inductive arguments and statistical generalizations
3.2 Inference to the best explanation and the seven explanatory virtues
3.3 Analogical arguments
3.4 Causal arguments
3.5 Probability
3.6 The conjunction fallacy
3.7 The base rate fallacy
3.8 The small numbers fallacy
3.9 Regression to the mean fallacy
3.10 Gambler's fallacy

Chapter 4: Informal fallacies

4.1 Formal vs. informal fallacies
4.1.1 Composition fallacy
4.1.2 Division fallacy
4.1.3 Begging the question fallacy
4.1.4 False dichotomy
4.1.5 Equivocation
4.2 Slippery slope fallacies
4.2.1 Conceptual slippery slope
4.2.2 Causal slippery slope
4.3 Fallacies of relevance
4.3.1 Ad hominem
4.3.2 Straw man
4.3.3 Tu quoque
4.3.4 Genetic
4.3.5 Appeal to consequences
4.3.6 Appeal to authority

Answers to exercises Glossary/Index

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a “critical thinking textbook.”

About the Contributors

Matthew Van Cleave , PhD, Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, 2007. VAP at Concordia College (Moorhead), 2008-2012. Assistant Professor at Lansing Community College, 2012-2016. Professor at Lansing Community College, 2016-

Contribute to this Page

1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

I. what is c ritical t hinking [1].

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following:

Understand the logical connections between ideas.
Identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.
Detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning.
Solve problems systematically.
Identify the relevance and importance of ideas.
Reflect on the justification of one’s own beliefs and values.

Critical thinking is not simply a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. Critical thinkers are able to deduce consequences from what they know, make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform themselves.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can also use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.

Some people believe that critical thinking hinders creativity because critical thinking requires following the rules of logic and rationality, whereas creativity might require breaking those rules. This is a misconception. Critical thinking is quite compatible with thinking “out-of-the-box,” challenging consensus views, and pursuing less popular approaches. If anything, critical thinking is an essential part of creativity because we need critical thinking to evaluate and improve our creative ideas.

II. The I mportance of C ritical T hinking

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. The ability to think clearly and rationally is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career.

Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy. The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyze information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.

Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills. Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyze the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.

Critical thinking promotes creativity. To come up with a creative solution to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary.

Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection. In order to live a meaningful life and to structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.

Good critical thinking is the foundation of science and democracy. Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.

Critical thinking is a metacognitive skill . What this means is that it is a higher-level cognitive skill that involves thinking about thinking. We have to be aware of the good principles of reasoning, and be reflective about our own reasoning. In addition, we often need to make a conscious effort to improve ourselves, avoid biases, and maintain objectivity. This is notoriously hard to do. We are all able to think but to think well often requires a long period of training. The mastery of critical thinking is similar to the mastery of many other skills. There are three important components: theory, practice, and attitude.

III. Improv ing O ur T hinking S kills

If we want to think correctly, we need to follow the correct rules of reasoning. Knowledge of theory includes knowledge of these rules. These are the basic principles of critical thinking, such as the laws of logic, and the methods of scientific reasoning, etc.

Also, it would be useful to know something about what not to do if we want to reason correctly. This means we should have some basic knowledge of the mistakes that people make. First, this requires some knowledge of typical fallacies. Second, psychologists have discovered persistent biases and limitations in human reasoning. An awareness of these empirical findings will alert us to potential problems.

However, merely knowing the principles that distinguish good and bad reasoning is not enough. We might study in the classroom about how to swim, and learn about the basic theory, such as the fact that one should not breathe underwater. But unless we can apply such theoretical knowledge through constant practice, we might not actually be able to swim.

Similarly, to be good at critical thinking skills it is necessary to internalize the theoretical principles so that we can actually apply them in daily life. There are at least two ways to do this. One is to perform lots of quality exercises. These exercises don’t just include practicing in the classroom or receiving tutorials; they also include engaging in discussions and debates with other people in our daily lives, where the principles of critical thinking can be applied. The second method is to think more deeply about the principles that we have acquired. In the human mind, memory and understanding are acquired through making connections between ideas.

Good critical thinking skills require more than just knowledge and practice. Persistent practice can bring about improvements only if one has the right kind of motivation and attitude. The following attitudes are not uncommon, but they are obstacles to critical thinking:

I prefer being given the correct answers rather than figuring them out myself.
I don’t like to think a lot about my decisions as I rely only on gut feelings.
I don’t usually review the mistakes I have made.
I don’t like to be criticized.

To improve our thinking we have to recognize the importance of reflecting on the reasons for belief and action. We should also be willing to engage in debate, break old habits, and deal with linguistic complexities and abstract concepts.

The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory is a psychological test that is used to measure whether people are disposed to think critically. It measures the seven different thinking habits listed below, and it is useful to ask ourselves to what extent they describe the way we think:

Truth-Seeking—Do you try to understand how things really are? Are you interested in finding out the truth?
Open-Mindedness—How receptive are you to new ideas, even when you do not intuitively agree with them? Do you give new concepts a fair hearing?
Analyticity—Do you try to understand the reasons behind things? Do you act impulsively or do you evaluate the pros and cons of your decisions?
Systematicity—Are you systematic in your thinking? Do you break down a complex problem into parts?
Confidence in Reasoning—Do you always defer to other people? How confident are you in your own judgment? Do you have reasons for your confidence? Do you have a way to evaluate your own thinking?
Inquisitiveness—Are you curious about unfamiliar topics and resolving complicated problems? Will you chase down an answer until you find it?
Maturity of Judgment—Do you jump to conclusions? Do you try to see things from different perspectives? Do you take other people’s experiences into account?

Finally, as mentioned earlier, psychologists have discovered over the years that human reasoning can be easily affected by a variety of cognitive biases. For example, people tend to be over-confident of their abilities and focus too much on evidence that supports their pre-existing opinions. We should be alert to these biases in our attitudes towards our own thinking.

IV. Defining Critical Thinking

There are many different definitions of critical thinking. Here we list some of the well-known ones. You might notice that they all emphasize the importance of clarity and rationality. Here we will look at some well-known definitions in chronological order.

1) Many people trace the importance of critical thinking in education to the early twentieth-century American philosopher John Dewey. But Dewey did not make very extensive use of the term “critical thinking.” Instead, in his book How We Think (1910), he argued for the importance of what he called “reflective thinking”:

…[when] the ground or basis for a belief is deliberately sought and its adequacy to support the belief examined. This process is called reflective thought; it alone is truly educative in value…

Active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought.

There is however one passage from How We Think where Dewey explicitly uses the term “critical thinking”:

The essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment; and the essence of this suspense is inquiry to determine the nature of the problem before proceeding to attempts at its solution. This, more than any other thing, transforms mere inference into tested inference, suggested conclusions into proof.

2) The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (1980) is a well-known psychological test of critical thinking ability. The authors of this test define critical thinking as:

…a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills. This composite includes: (1) attitudes of inquiry that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which the weight or accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically determined; and (3) skills in employing and applying the above attitudes and knowledge.

3) A very well-known and influential definition of critical thinking comes from philosopher and professor Robert Ennis in his work “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities” (1987):

Critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.

4) The following definition comes from a statement written in 1987 by the philosophers Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (link), an organization promoting critical thinking in the US:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.

The following excerpt from Peter A. Facione’s “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction” (1990) is quoted from a report written for the American Philosophical Association:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fairminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society.

V. Two F eatures of C ritical T hinking

A. how not what .

Critical thinking is concerned not with what you believe, but rather how or why you believe it. Most classes, such as those on biology or chemistry, teach you what to believe about a subject matter. In contrast, critical thinking is not particularly interested in what the world is, in fact, like. Rather, critical thinking will teach you how to form beliefs and how to think. It is interested in the type of reasoning you use when you form your beliefs, and concerns itself with whether you have good reasons to believe what you believe. Therefore, this class isn’t a class on the psychology of reasoning, which brings us to the second important feature of critical thinking.

B. Ought N ot Is ( or Normative N ot Descriptive )

There is a difference between normative and descriptive theories. Descriptive theories, such as those provided by physics, provide a picture of how the world factually behaves and operates. In contrast, normative theories, such as those provided by ethics or political philosophy, provide a picture of how the world should be. Rather than ask question such as why something is the way it is, normative theories ask how something should be. In this course, we will be interested in normative theories that govern our thinking and reasoning. Therefore, we will not be interested in how we actually reason, but rather focus on how we ought to reason.

In the introduction to this course we considered a selection task with cards that must be flipped in order to check the validity of a rule. We noted that many people fail to identify all the cards required to check the rule. This is how people do in fact reason (descriptive). We then noted that you must flip over two cards. This is how people ought to reason (normative).

Section I-IV are taken from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ and are in use under the creative commons license. Some modifications have been made to the original content. ↵

Share This Book

Pursuing Truth: A Guide to Critical Thinking

Chapter 2 arguments.

The fundamental tool of the critical thinker is the argument. For a good example of what we are not talking about, consider a bit from a famous sketch by Monty Python’s Flying Circus : 3

2.1 Identifying Arguments

People often use “argument” to refer to a dispute or quarrel between people. In critical thinking, an argument is defined as

A set of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises.

There are three important things to remember here:

Arguments contain statements.
They have a conclusion.
They have at least one premise

Arguments contain statements, or declarative sentences. Statements, unlike questions or commands, have a truth value. Statements assert that the world is a particular way; questions do not. For example, if someone asked you what you did after dinner yesterday evening, you wouldn’t accuse them of lying. When the world is the way that the statement says that it is, we say that the statement is true. If the statement is not true, it is false.

One of the statements in the argument is called the conclusion. The conclusion is the statement that is intended to be proved. Consider the following argument:

Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I. Susan did well in Calculus I. So, Susan should do well in Calculus II.

Here the conclusion is that Susan should do well in Calculus II. The other two sentences are premises. Premises are the reasons offered for believing that the conclusion is true.

2.1.1 Standard Form

Now, to make the argument easier to evaluate, we will put it into what is called “standard form.” To put an argument in standard form, write each premise on a separate, numbered line. Draw a line underneath the last premise, the write the conclusion underneath the line.

Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I.
Susan did well in Calculus I.
Susan should do well in Calculus II.

Now that we have the argument in standard form, we can talk about premise 1, premise 2, and all clearly be referring to the same thing.

2.1.2 Indicator Words

Unfortunately, when people present arguments, they rarely put them in standard form. So, we have to decide which statement is intended to be the conclusion, and which are the premises. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that the conclusion comes at the end. The conclusion is often at the beginning of the passage, but could even be in the middle. A better way to identify premises and conclusions is to look for indicator words. Indicator words are words that signal that statement following the indicator is a premise or conclusion. The example above used a common indicator word for a conclusion, ‘so.’ The other common conclusion indicator, as you can probably guess, is ‘therefore.’ This table lists the indicator words you might encounter.

Each argument will likely use only one indicator word or phrase. When the conlusion is at the end, it will generally be preceded by a conclusion indicator. Everything else, then, is a premise. When the conclusion comes at the beginning, the next sentence will usually be introduced by a premise indicator. All of the following sentences will also be premises.

For example, here’s our previous argument rewritten to use a premise indicator:

Susan should do well in Calculus II, because Calculus II will be no harder than Calculus I, and Susan did well in Calculus I.

Sometimes, an argument will contain no indicator words at all. In that case, the best thing to do is to determine which of the premises would logically follow from the others. If there is one, then it is the conclusion. Here is an example:

Spot is a mammal. All dogs are mammals, and Spot is a dog.

The first sentence logically follows from the others, so it is the conclusion. When using this method, we are forced to assume that the person giving the argument is rational and logical, which might not be true.

2.1.3 Non-Arguments

One thing that complicates our task of identifying arguments is that there are many passages that, although they look like arguments, are not arguments. The most common types are:

Explanations
Mere asssertions
Conditional statements
Loosely connected statements

Explanations can be tricky, because they often use one of our indicator words. Consider this passage:

Abraham Lincoln died because he was shot.

If this were an argument, then the conclusion would be that Abraham Lincoln died, since the other statement is introduced by a premise indicator. If this is an argument, though, it’s a strange one. Do you really think that someone would be trying to prove that Abraham Lincoln died? Surely everyone knows that he is dead. On the other hand, there might be people who don’t know how he died. This passage does not attempt to prove that something is true, but instead attempts to explain why it is true. To determine if a passage is an explanation or an argument, first find the statement that looks like the conclusion. Next, ask yourself if everyone likely already believes that statement to be true. If the answer to that question is yes, then the passage is an explanation.

Mere assertions are obviously not arguments. If a professor tells you simply that you will not get an A in her course this semester, she has not given you an argument. This is because she hasn’t given you any reasons to believe that the statement is true. If there are no premises, then there is no argument.

Conditional statements are sentences that have the form “If…, then….” A conditional statement asserts that if something is true, then something else would be true also. For example, imagine you are told, “If you have the winning lottery ticket, then you will win ten million dollars.” What is being claimed to be true, that you have the winning lottery ticket, or that you will win ten million dollars? Neither. The only thing claimed is the entire conditional. Conditionals can be premises, and they can be conclusions. They can be parts of arguments, but that cannot, on their own, be arguments themselves.

Finally, consider this passage:

I woke up this morning, then took a shower and got dressed. After breakfast, I worked on chapter 2 of the critical thinking text. I then took a break and drank some more coffee….

This might be a description of my day, but it’s not an argument. There’s nothing in the passage that plays the role of a premise or a conclusion. The passage doesn’t attempt to prove anything. Remember that arguments need a conclusion, there must be something that is the statement to be proved. Lacking that, it simply isn’t an argument, no matter how much it looks like one.

2.2 Evaluating Arguments

The first step in evaluating an argument is to determine what kind of argument it is. We initially categorize arguments as either deductive or inductive, defined roughly in terms of their goals. In deductive arguments, the truth of the premises is intended to absolutely establish the truth of the conclusion. For inductive arguments, the truth of the premises is only intended to establish the probable truth of the conclusion. We’ll focus on deductive arguments first, then examine inductive arguments in later chapters.

Once we have established that an argument is deductive, we then ask if it is valid. To say that an argument is valid is to claim that there is a very special logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion, such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Another way to state this is

An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

An argument is invalid if and only if it is not valid.

Note that claiming that an argument is valid is not the same as claiming that it has a true conclusion, nor is it to claim that the argument has true premises. Claiming that an argument is valid is claiming nothing more that the premises, if they were true , would be enough to make the conclusion true. For example, is the following argument valid or not?

If pigs fly, then an increase in the minimum wage will be approved next term.
An increase in the minimum wage will be approved next term.

The argument is indeed valid. If the two premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true also. What about this argument?

All dogs are mammals
Spot is a mammal.
Spot is a dog.

In this case, both of the premises are true and the conclusion is true. The question to ask, though, is whether the premises absolutely guarantee that the conclusion is true. The answer here is no. The two premises could be true and the conclusion false if Spot were a cat, whale, etc.

Neither of these arguments are good. The second fails because it is invalid. The two premises don’t prove that the conclusion is true. The first argument is valid, however. So, the premises would prove that the conclusion is true, if those premises were themselves true. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, I guess, considering what would be dropping from the sky) pigs don’t fly.

These examples give us two important ways that deductive arguments can fail. The can fail because they are invalid, or because they have at least one false premise. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive, an argument can be both invalid and have a false premise.

If the argument is valid, and has all true premises, then it is a sound argument. Sound arguments always have true conclusions.

A deductively valid argument with all true premises.

Inductive arguments are never valid, since the premises only establish the probable truth of the conclusion. So, we evaluate inductive arguments according to their strength. A strong inductive argument is one in which the truth of the premises really do make the conclusion probably true. An argument is weak if the truth of the premises fail to establish the probable truth of the conclusion.

There is a significant difference between valid/invalid and strong/weak. If an argument is not valid, then it is invalid. The two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. There can be no such thing as an argument being more valid than another valid argument. Validity is all or nothing. Inductive strength, however, is on a continuum. A strong inductive argument can be made stronger with the addition of another premise. More evidence can raise the probability of the conclusion. A valid argument cannot be made more valid with an additional premise. Why not? If the argument is valid, then the premises were enough to absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Adding another premise won’t give any more guarantee of truth than was already there. If it could, then the guarantee wasn’t absolute before, and the original argument wasn’t valid in the first place.

2.3 Counterexamples

One way to prove an argument to be invalid is to use a counterexample. A counterexample is a consistent story in which the premises are true and the conclusion false. Consider the argument above:

By pointing out that Spot could have been a cat, I have told a story in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.

Here’s another one:

If it is raining, then the sidewalks are wet.
The sidewalks are wet.
It is raining.

The sprinklers might have been on. If so, then the sidewalks would be wet, even if it weren’t raining.

Counterexamples can be very useful for demonstrating invalidity. Keep in mind, though, that validity can never be proved with the counterexample method. If the argument is valid, then it will be impossible to give a counterexample to it. If you can’t come up with a counterexample, however, that does not prove the argument to be valid. It may only mean that you’re not creative enough.

An argument is a set of statements; one is the conclusion, the rest are premises.
The conclusion is the statement that the argument is trying to prove.
The premises are the reasons offered for believing the conclusion to be true.
Explanations, conditional sentences, and mere assertions are not arguments.
Deductive reasoning attempts to absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Inductive reasoning attempts to show that the conclusion is probably true.
In a valid argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
In an invalid argument, it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
A sound argument is valid and has all true premises.
An inductively strong argument is one in which the truth of the premises makes the the truth of the conclusion probable.
An inductively weak argument is one in which the truth of the premises do not make the conclusion probably true.
A counterexample is a consistent story in which the premises of an argument are true and the conclusion is false. Counterexamples can be used to prove that arguments are deductively invalid.

( Cleese and Chapman 1980 ) . ↩︎

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2: Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 162132

Nathan Smith et al.

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

You have likely heard the term “critical thinking” and have probably been instructed to become a “good critical thinker.” Unfortunately, you are probably also unclear what exactly this means because the term is poorly defined and infrequently taught. “But I know how to think,” you might say, and that is certainly true. Critical thinking, however, is a specific skill. This chapter is an informal and practical guide to critical thinking and will also guide you in how to conduct research, reading, and writing for philosophy classes.

Critical thinking is set of skills, habits, and attitudes that promote reflective, clear reasoning. Studying philosophy can be particularly helpful for developing good critical thinking skills, but often the connection between the two is not made clear. This chapter will approach critical thinking from a practical standpoint, with the goal of helping you become more aware of some of the pitfalls of everyday thinking and making you a better philosophy student.

While you may have learned research, reading, and writing skills in other classes—for instance, in a typical English composition course—the intellectual demands in a philosophy class are different. Here you will find useful advice about how to approach research, reading, and writing in philosophy.

2.1: The Brain Is an Inference Machine
2.2: Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection
2.3: Developing Good Habits of Mind
2.4: Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence
2.5: Reading Philosophy
2.6: Writing Philosophy Papers
2.7: Summary
2.8: Key Terms
2.9: Review Questions

Thumbnail: Critical thinking as chess (Unsplash License; Lou Levit via Unsplash )

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2 – Critical Reading

chapter 2 towards an understanding of critical thinking

“Citizens of modern societies must be good readers to be successful. Reading skills do not guarantee success for anyone, but success is much harder to come by without being a skilled reader. The advent of the computer and the Internet does nothing to change this fact about reading. If anything, electronic communication only increases the need for effective reading skills and strategies as we try to cope with the large quantities of information made available to us.” –William Grabe

The importance of reading as a literacy skill is without a doubt. It is essential for daily life navigation and academic success. Reading for daily life navigation is relatively easier, compared to academic reading. Think about the kinds of reading you did in elementary and high school (e.g., story books, picture books, textbook chapters, literary works, online information, lecture notes, etc.).

Now think about what you were expected to do with your reading at school (e.g., memorize, summarize, discuss, pass a test, apply information, or write essays or papers).

Research shows that what you expect to do with a text affects how you read it.

–Bartholomae & Petrosky (1996)

So, reading is not always the same; you read school texts differently than the texts you choose outside of school tasks. Furthermore, there are many external and internal factors that influence how you interpret and use what you read. Much depends on your background (e.g., cultural participation in communities, identity, historical knowledge), and the context in which you are reading. Classrooms and teachers certainly have an influence. The teaching methods used by your instructor, the texts your instructor chooses, and expectations of student performance on assignments all affect how you read and what you do to accomplish an assignment.

Different levels of education also emphasize different types of reading. For example, in primary or secondary education, you learn what is known, so you focus on correctness, memorization of facts, and application of facts. In higher education, although you might still be required to understand and memorize information, you expand what is known by examining ideas and creating new knowledge. In those processes at different levels, reading has been used for different purposes.

Multilingual reading and writing expert William Grabe has identified six different purposes:

Reading to search for information (scanning and skimming)
Reading for quick understanding (skimming)
Reading to learn
Reading to integrate information
Reading to evaluate, critique, and use information
Reading for general comprehension (in many cases, reading for interest or reading to entertain)

In college, reading to evaluate, critique, and use information is the most practiced and tested skill. But what does it mean? Reading to evaluate, critique, and use information is related to critical reading.

Definition of Critical Reading

Critical reading is a more ACTIVE way of reading. It is a deeper and more complex engagement with a text. Critical reading is a process of analyzing, interpreting and, sometimes, evaluating. When we read critically, we use our critical thinking skills to QUESTION both the text and our own reading of it. Different disciplines may have distinctive modes of critical reading (scientific, philosophical, literary, etc).

[Source: Duncan , n.d., Critical Reading ]

Critical reading does not have to be all negative. The aim of critical reading is not to find fault but to assess the strength of the evidence and the argument. It is just as useful to conclude that a study, or an article, presents very strong evidence and a well-reasoned argument, as it is to identify the studies or articles that are weak.

[Source: What is critical reading? ]

There’s No Reason to Eat Animals by Lindsay Rajt

If we care about the environment and believe that kindness is a virtue-as we all say that we do–a vegan diet is the only sensible option. The question becomes: Why eat animals at all?

Animals are made of flesh, bone, and blood, just as you and I are. They form friendships, feel pain and joy, grieve for lost loved ones and are afraid to die. One cannot profess to care about animals while tearing them away from their friends and families and cutting their throats–or paying someone else to do it–simply to satisfy a fleeting taste for flesh.

[adapted from Pattison, 2015, Critical Reading: English for Academic Purposes for instructional purposes ]

What is your position on the issue?

Do you think that the language used helps the audience? How?

How does the language use affect your evaluation of the issue?

Obesity: A Public Health Failure? By Tavis Glassman PhD, MPH, MCHES, Jennifer Glassman M.A., CCC-SLP, and Aaron J. Diehr, M.A.

Obesity rates continue to increase, bringing into question the efficacy of prevention and treatment efforts. While intuitively appealing, the law on weight gain focusing on calories is too simplistic because calories represent only one factor on issues of weight management. From a historical perspective, the recommendation to eat a low fat, high carbohydrate diet may have been the wrong message to promote, thereby making the obesity situation worse. Suggestions to solve the issues of obesity include taxing, restricting advertising, and reducing the use of sugar. Communities must employ these and other strategies to decrease sugar use and reduce obesity rates.

How would you describe the authors’ educational background?

How does the authors’ background affect your evaluation of the argument?

Students Want More Mobile Devices in Classroom by Ellis Booker

Released last week, the Student Mobile Device Survey reveals that students almost unanimously believe mobile technology will change education and make learning more fun. The survey, which collected the responses of 2,350 US students, was conducted for learning company Pearson by Harris Interactive.

According to the survey, 92% of elementary, middle and high school students believe mobile devices will change the way students learn in the future and make learning more fun (90%). A majority (69%) would like to use mobile devices more in the classroom.

The survey results also contained some surprises. For example, college students in math and science are much more likely to use technology for learning, and researchers expected to see this same pattern in the lower grades.

Are you convinced by the survey results? Why?

Color Scheme Associations in Context

The colors you surround yourself with at work are also important as they make a difference in how you are perceived by members of the public. Traditional workplaces still use dark colors such as navy blue, forest green, and chocolate brown to give clients a sense of seriousness and professionalism.

Think about it: which accountant would you choose to prepare your tax return: the one whose office has navy blue drapes and lamps and a maritime scene on the wall or the one whose office is painted in hot pink with a cartoon character on the wall? An online survey of lawyers carried out by Legal Scene magazine showed that of 287 respondents, 38 percent chose a navy blue color scheme for their office; 32 percent chose brown; 19 percent chose forest green; 7 percent chose burgundy; and only 4 percent chose red, pink or orange (Perkins, 2013).

What kind of bias might be implicated in this survey?

What is your personal experience?

These practices do not ask you to memorize or summarize the information you read, but instead, they ask you to provide your opinions and judgment. To answer those questions, you need to engage in critical reading, a form of active reading.

Active reading, which predominates college-level reading, means reading with the purpose of getting a deeper understanding of the texts you are reading and being engaged in the actions of analyzing, questioning, and evaluating the texts. In other words, instead of accepting the information given to you, you challenge its value by examining the source of the information and the formation of an argument.

The difference in how you read falls into two broad categories:

(Source: Reading Critically ]

Reading critically and actively is essential for college students. But what does critical reading look like in actual practice? Here are the steps that you can follow to do the critical reading.

Step 1: Understand the purpose of your reading and be selective

As college students, you are very busy with your daily coursework. A freshman usually takes four to five courses or even six courses per semester. This means you have tons of reading to do every week. Getting to know the purpose of the reading assignments can save you time as your reading is more targeted. Remember you do not have to read a whole chapter or book. What you can do is through scanning to determine the sections that are useful for you and then read the parts carefully.

Step 2: Evaluate the reading text

While reading a text, you need to question/analyze/evaluate the text by considering the following:

Assess whether a source is reliable (Read around the text for the title, author, publisher, publication date, good/bad examples, tones, etc.)
Distinguish between facts and opinions (Scan for any evidence)
Recognize multiple opinions in a text
Infer meaning when it is not directly stated
Agree or disagree with what you read
Consider the relevance of the text to your task
Consider what is missing from a text

It may well be necessary to read passages several times to gain a full understanding of texts and be able to evaluate the source. In this process, you can underline, highlight, or circle important parts and points, take notes, or add comments in the margins.

Critical reading often involves re-reading a text multiple times, putting our focus on different aspects of the text. The first time we read a text, we may be focused on getting an overall sense of the information the author is presenting – in other words, simply understanding what they are trying to say. On subsequent readings, however, we can focus on how the author presents that information, the kinds of evidence they provide to support their arguments (and how convincing we find that evidence), the connection between their evidence and their conclusions, etc.

[Source: Lane, 2021, Critical Thinking for Critical Writing ]

Step 3: Document your reading and form your own argument

After you finish reading a text, sort out your notes and keep track of the sources you have read on the topic you are exploring. After you read several sources, you might be able to form your own argument(s) and use the sources as evidence for your argument(s).

In college, critical reading usually leads to critical writing.

Critical writing comes from critical reading. Whenever you have to write a paper, you have to reflect on various written texts, think and interpret research that has previously been carried out on your subject. With the aim of writing your independent analysis of the subject, you have to critically read sources and use them suitably to formulate your argument. The interpretations and conclusions you derive from the literature you read are the stepping stones towards devising your own approach.

[Source: Does Critical Reading Influence Academic Writing? ]

In a word, through critical reading, you form your own argument(s), and the evidence used to support your argument(s) is usually from the texts that you read critically. The Source Essay Writing Service explains how critical reading influences academic writing.

How does critical reading influence your writing skills?

Once you start reading texts critically, you develop an understanding of how to write research papers. Here are some practical tips that will help you in academic writing:

Examine introductions and conclusions of the texts while critical reading so when you write an independent content, you would be able to decide how to focus your critical work.
When you highlight or take notes from a text, make sure you focus on the argument. The way the author explains the analytical progress, the concepts used, and arriving at conclusions will help you to write your own facts and examples in an interesting way.
By closely reading the texts, you will be able to look for the patterns that give meaning, purpose, and consistency to the text. The way the arguments are presented in paragraphs will aid you in structuring information in your writing.
When you critically read a text, you are able to learn how an argument is placed in the text. Try to understand how you can use this placement strategy in academic writing. Paying attention to the context is an important aspect that you learn from critical reading.
While reading a text, you will notice that the author has given the due credit to the sources used or the references that were consulted. This will help you in understanding how you can cite sources and quotes in your content.
Critical reading skills enhance your way of thinking and writing skills. The more you read, the better is your knowledge and vocabulary. It is important to use the precise words to express your meaning. You can learn new words and improve your writing by reading as many texts as you can.

Activity 1: Discuss the following questions with your group

A website from the United Nations Educational, Scientific ad Cultural Organization (UNESCO) gives some statistics about the level of education reached by young women in Indonesia. Is this a reliable source?
You find an interesting article about addiction to online gambling. The article has some interesting statistics, but it was published ten years ago. Is it worth using?
You find a book about World War II that presents a different opinion from your other sources. What would you like to know about the author before you decide whether or not to take him seriously?
An article tells you that research into space exploration is a waste of money. Do you think this article is presenting facts or opinions? How can you tell? What might you look for in the article?
You find some research that states that people who own dogs generally live longer lives than those who do not. The author has some convincing arguments, but you are not sure whether or not she has enough evidence. How mush is enough?
A newspaper article tells you about human rights abuses in a certain country. The writer of this article has never visited the country in question; his claims are based on interviews with other people. How would you evaluate his information?
You find two websites about the use of seaweed as a source of energy. One is full of long words and complicated sentences; the other uses simple, clear language. Is the first one a more reliable source?
You have read nine different articles that tell you that there is no connection between wealth and happiness. The tenth article gives the opposite opinion: rich people are happier than those who are poor. What questions would you ask yourself about this article before you decide whether or not to consider it?

Activity 2: Reading for analyzing styles

Please read the news and discuss the importance of the graphs in supporting the arguments of the text.

Gender Pay Gap in U.S. Held Steady in 2020

By amanda barroso and anna brown.

The gender gap in pay has remained relatively stable in the United States over the past 15 years or so. In 2020, women earned 84% of what men earned, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. Based on this estimate, it would take an extra 42 days of work for women to earn what men did in 2020.

As has been the case in recent decades, the 2020 wage gap was smaller for workers ages 25 to 34 than for all workers 16 and older. Women ages 25 to 34 earned 93 cents for every dollar a man in the same age group earned on average. In 1980, women ages 25 to 34 earned 33 cents less than their male counterparts, compared with 7 cents in 2020. The estimated 16-cent gender pay gap among all workers in 2020 was down from 36 cents in 1980.

The U.S. Census Bureau has also analyzed the gender pay gap, though its analysis looks only at full-time workers (as opposed to full- and part-time workers). In 2019, full-time, year-round working women earned 82% of what their male counterparts earned, according to the Census Bureau’s most recent analysis.

Why does a gender pay gap still persist?

Much of this gap has been explained by measurable factors such as educational attainment, occupational segregation and work experience. The narrowing of the gap is attributable in large part to gains women have made in each of these dimensions.

Even though women have increased their presence in higher-paying jobs traditionally dominated by men, such as professional and managerial positions, women as a whole continue to be over-represented in lower-paying occupations relative to their share of the workforce. This may contribute to gender differences in pay.

Other factors that are difficult to measure, including gender discrimination, may also contribute to the ongoing wage discrepancy. In a 2017 Pew Research Center survey , about four-in-ten working women (42%) said they had experienced gender discrimination at work, compared with about two-in-ten men (22%). One of the most commonly reported forms of discrimination focused on earnings inequality. One-in-four employed women said they had earned less than a man who was doing the same job; just 5% of men said they had earned less than a woman doing the same job.

Motherhood can also lead to interruptions in women’s career paths and have an impact on long-term earnings. Our 2016 survey of workers who had taken parental, family or medical leave in the two years prior to the survey found that mothers typically take more time off than fathers after birth or adoption. The median length of leave among mothers after the birth or adoption of their child was 11 weeks, compared with one week for fathers. About half (47%) of mothers who took time off from work in the two years after birth or adoption took off 12 weeks or more.

Mothers were also nearly twice as likely as fathers to say taking time off had a negative impact on their job or career. Among those who took leave from work in the two years following the birth or adoption of their child, 25% of women said this had a negative impact at work, compared with 13% of men.

[Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/25/gender-pay-gap-facts/ ]

Activity 3: Reading for arguments

What’s the main argument of the poem?

Fire and Ice

By robert frost, some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice. from what i’ve tasted of desire i hold with those who favor fire. but if it had to perish twice, i think i know enough of hate to say that for destruction ice is also great and would suffice..

References:

Barroso, A., & Brown, A. (2021, May 25). Gender pay gap in U.S. held steady in 2020. Pew Research Center. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/25/gender-pay-gap-facts/

Bartholomae, D., Petrosky, T., & Waite, S. (2002). Ways of reading: An anthology for writers (p. 720). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Duncan, J. (n.d.). The Writing Centre, University of Toronto Scarborough. Modified by Michael O’Connor. https://www.stetson.edu/other/writing-program/media/CRITICAL%20READING.pdf

Grabe, W. (2008). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.

Lane, J. (2021, July 9). Critical thinking for critical writing. Simon Fraser University. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.lib.sfu.ca/about/branches-depts/slc/writing/argumentation/critical-thinking-writing

Pattison, T. (2015). Critical Reading: English for academic purposes for instructional purposes. Pearson.

Sourceessay. (n.d.). What is critical reading. https://sourceessay.com/does-critical-reading-influence-academic-writing/

University of Leicester. (n.d.). What is critical reading? Bangor University. https://www.bangor.ac.uk/studyskills/study-guides/critical-reading.php.en

Critical Reading, Writing, and Thinking Copyright © 2022 by Zhenjie Weng, Josh Burlile, Karen Macbeth is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 8 min read

Critical Thinking

Developing the right mindset and skills.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

We make hundreds of decisions every day and, whether we realize it or not, we're all critical thinkers.

We use critical thinking each time we weigh up our options, prioritize our responsibilities, or think about the likely effects of our actions. It's a crucial skill that helps us to cut out misinformation and make wise decisions. The trouble is, we're not always very good at it!

In this article, we'll explore the key skills that you need to develop your critical thinking skills, and how to adopt a critical thinking mindset, so that you can make well-informed decisions.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well.

Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly valued asset in the workplace. People who score highly in critical thinking assessments are also rated by their managers as having good problem-solving skills, creativity, strong decision-making skills, and good overall performance. [1]

Key Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinkers possess a set of key characteristics which help them to question information and their own thinking. Focus on the following areas to develop your critical thinking skills:

Being willing and able to explore alternative approaches and experimental ideas is crucial. Can you think through "what if" scenarios, create plausible options, and test out your theories? If not, you'll tend to write off ideas and options too soon, so you may miss the best answer to your situation.

To nurture your curiosity, stay up to date with facts and trends. You'll overlook important information if you allow yourself to become "blinkered," so always be open to new information.

But don't stop there! Look for opposing views or evidence to challenge your information, and seek clarification when things are unclear. This will help you to reassess your beliefs and make a well-informed decision later. Read our article, Opening Closed Minds , for more ways to stay receptive.

Logical Thinking

You must be skilled at reasoning and extending logic to come up with plausible options or outcomes.

It's also important to emphasize logic over emotion. Emotion can be motivating but it can also lead you to take hasty and unwise action, so control your emotions and be cautious in your judgments. Know when a conclusion is "fact" and when it is not. "Could-be-true" conclusions are based on assumptions and must be tested further. Read our article, Logical Fallacies , for help with this.

Use creative problem solving to balance cold logic. By thinking outside of the box you can identify new possible outcomes by using pieces of information that you already have.

Self-Awareness

Many of the decisions we make in life are subtly informed by our values and beliefs. These influences are called cognitive biases and it can be difficult to identify them in ourselves because they're often subconscious.

Practicing self-awareness will allow you to reflect on the beliefs you have and the choices you make. You'll then be better equipped to challenge your own thinking and make improved, unbiased decisions.

One particularly useful tool for critical thinking is the Ladder of Inference . It allows you to test and validate your thinking process, rather than jumping to poorly supported conclusions.

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

Combine the above skills with the right mindset so that you can make better decisions and adopt more effective courses of action. You can develop your critical thinking mindset by following this process:

Gather Information

First, collect data, opinions and facts on the issue that you need to solve. Draw on what you already know, and turn to new sources of information to help inform your understanding. Consider what gaps there are in your knowledge and seek to fill them. And look for information that challenges your assumptions and beliefs.

Be sure to verify the authority and authenticity of your sources. Not everything you read is true! Use this checklist to ensure that your information is valid:

Are your information sources trustworthy ? (For example, well-respected authors, trusted colleagues or peers, recognized industry publications, websites, blogs, etc.)
Is the information you have gathered up to date ?
Has the information received any direct criticism ?
Does the information have any errors or inaccuracies ?
Is there any evidence to support or corroborate the information you have gathered?
Is the information you have gathered subjective or biased in any way? (For example, is it based on opinion, rather than fact? Is any of the information you have gathered designed to promote a particular service or organization?)

If any information appears to be irrelevant or invalid, don't include it in your decision making. But don't omit information just because you disagree with it, or your final decision will be flawed and bias.

Now observe the information you have gathered, and interpret it. What are the key findings and main takeaways? What does the evidence point to? Start to build one or two possible arguments based on what you have found.

You'll need to look for the details within the mass of information, so use your powers of observation to identify any patterns or similarities. You can then analyze and extend these trends to make sensible predictions about the future.

To help you to sift through the multiple ideas and theories, it can be useful to group and order items according to their characteristics. From here, you can compare and contrast the different items. And once you've determined how similar or different things are from one another, Paired Comparison Analysis can help you to analyze them.

The final step involves challenging the information and rationalizing its arguments.

Apply the laws of reason (induction, deduction, analogy) to judge an argument and determine its merits. To do this, it's essential that you can determine the significance and validity of an argument to put it in the correct perspective. Take a look at our article, Rational Thinking , for more information about how to do this.

Once you have considered all of the arguments and options rationally, you can finally make an informed decision.

Afterward, take time to reflect on what you have learned and what you found challenging. Step back from the detail of your decision or problem, and look at the bigger picture. Record what you've learned from your observations and experience.

Critical thinking involves rigorously and skilfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions and beliefs. It's a useful skill in the workplace and in life.

You'll need to be curious and creative to explore alternative possibilities, but rational to apply logic, and self-aware to identify when your beliefs could affect your decisions or actions.

You can demonstrate a high level of critical thinking by validating your information, analyzing its meaning, and finally evaluating the argument.

Critical Thinking Infographic

See Critical Thinking represented in our infographic: An Elementary Guide to Critical Thinking .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

What is causal factor charting.

Avoid Repeating Mistakes

Infographic

Hybrid Working Infographic

How to Make the Most of a Flexible Job

Add comment

Comments (1)

priyanka ghogare

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Discover something new today

Pain points podcast - vacations.

Taking a Break – and Returning Well to Work

Pain Points Podcast - Team-Building Activities

Ideas for Connecting, Energizing and Inspiring Your Team

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Linking your budget to your strategy.

Should You Use Historic Data as the Basis for your Budget or Should You Start Afresh?

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

Module 1: Success Skills

Critical thinking, introduction, learning objectives.

define critical thinking
identify the role that logic plays in critical thinking
apply critical thinking skills to problem-solving scenarios
apply critical thinking skills to evaluation of information

Woman lying on her back outdoors, in a reflective posture

Consider these thoughts about the critical thinking process, and how it applies not just to our school lives but also our personal and professional lives.

“Thinking Critically and Creatively”

Critical thinking skills are perhaps the most fundamental skills involved in making judgments and solving problems. You use them every day, and you can continue improving them.

The ability to think critically about a matter—to analyze a question, situation, or problem down to its most basic parts—is what helps us evaluate the accuracy and truthfulness of statements, claims, and information we read and hear. It is the sharp knife that, when honed, separates fact from fiction, honesty from lies, and the accurate from the misleading. We all use this skill to one degree or another almost every day. For example, we use critical thinking every day as we consider the latest consumer products and why one particular product is the best among its peers. Is it a quality product because a celebrity endorses it? Because a lot of other people may have used it? Because it is made by one company versus another? Or perhaps because it is made in one country or another? These are questions representative of critical thinking.

The academic setting demands more of us in terms of critical thinking than everyday life. It demands that we evaluate information and analyze myriad issues. It is the environment where our critical thinking skills can be the difference between success and failure. In this environment we must consider information in an analytical, critical manner. We must ask questions—What is the source of this information? Is this source an expert one and what makes it so? Are there multiple perspectives to consider on an issue? Do multiple sources agree or disagree on an issue? Does quality research substantiate information or opinion? Do I have any personal biases that may affect my consideration of this information?

It is only through purposeful, frequent, intentional questioning such as this that we can sharpen our critical thinking skills and improve as students, learners and researchers.

—Dr. Andrew Robert Baker, Foundations of Academic Success: Words of Wisdom

Defining Critical Thinking

Thinking comes naturally. You don’t have to make it happen—it just does. But you can make it happen in different ways. For example, you can think positively or negatively. You can think with “heart” and you can think with rational judgment. You can also think strategically and analytically, and mathematically and scientifically. These are a few of multiple ways in which the mind can process thought.

What are some forms of thinking you use? When do you use them, and why?

As a college student, you are tasked with engaging and expanding your thinking skills. One of the most important of these skills is critical thinking. Critical thinking is important because it relates to nearly all tasks, situations, topics, careers, environments, challenges, and opportunities. It’s not restricted to a particular subject area.

Handwritten poster. Guidelines for Critical Thinking when…talking/ reading/ blogging/ writing/ living. 4: justify your answers with text evidence (…because…) and examples from your life/world; agree and disagree with others and authors; ask questions of others and authors; complete sentences, correct punctuation/ capitols. 3: agree and disagree with others and authors; justify your opinions, tell why you agree and disagree; speak and write in complete sentences. 2: answers questions but not justify them; agree and disagree but you can’t tell why; incomplete sentences, incorrect punctuation. 1: does not contribute to the conversation; does not share your thinking; does not agree or disagree with others. Justify: to defend your thinking by showing and telling with examples and evidence.

Critical thinking is clear, reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. It means asking probing questions like, “How do we know?” or “Is this true in every case or just in this instance?” It involves being skeptical and challenging assumptions, rather than simply memorizing facts or blindly accepting what you hear or read.

Imagine, for example, that you’re reading a history textbook. You wonder who wrote it and why, because you detect certain assumptions in the writing. You find that the author has a limited scope of research focused only on a particular group within a population. In this case, your critical thinking reveals that there are “other sides to the story.”

Who are critical thinkers, and what characteristics do they have in common? Critical thinkers are usually curious and reflective people. They like to explore and probe new areas and seek knowledge, clarification, and new solutions. They ask pertinent questions, evaluate statements and arguments, and they distinguish between facts and opinion. They are also willing to examine their own beliefs, possessing a manner of humility that allows them to admit lack of knowledge or understanding when needed. They are open to changing their mind. Perhaps most of all, they actively enjoy learning, and seeking new knowledge is a lifelong pursuit.

This may well be you!

No matter where you are on the road to being a critical thinker, you can always more fully develop your skills. Doing so will help you develop more balanced arguments, express yourself clearly, read critically, and absorb important information efficiently. Critical thinking skills will help you in any profession or any circumstance of life, from science to art to business to teaching.

Critical Thinking in Action

The following video, from Lawrence Bland, presents the major concepts and benefits of critical thinking.

Critical Thinking and Logic

Critical thinking is fundamentally a process of questioning information and data. You may question the information you read in a textbook, or you may question what a politician or a professor or a classmate says. You can also question a commonly-held belief or a new idea. With critical thinking, anything and everything is subject to question and examination.

Logic’s Relationship to Critical Thinking

The word logic comes from the Ancient Greek logike , referring to the science or art of reasoning. Using logic, a person evaluates arguments and strives to distinguish between good and bad reasoning, or between truth and falsehood. Using logic, you can evaluate ideas or claims people make, make good decisions, and form sound beliefs about the world. [1]

Questions of Logic in Critical Thinking

Let’s use a simple example of applying logic to a critical-thinking situation. In this hypothetical scenario, a man has a PhD in political science, and he works as a professor at a local college. His wife works at the college, too. They have three young children in the local school system, and their family is well known in the community.

The man is now running for political office. Are his credentials and experience sufficient for entering public office? Will he be effective in the political office? Some voters might believe that his personal life and current job, on the surface, suggest he will do well in the position, and they will vote for him.

In truth, the characteristics described don’t guarantee that the man will do a good job. The information is somewhat irrelevant. What else might you want to know? How about whether the man had already held a political office and done a good job? In this case, we want to ask, How much information is adequate in order to make a decision based on logic instead of assumptions?

The following questions, presented in Figure 1, below, are ones you may apply to formulating a logical, reasoned perspective in the above scenario or any other situation:

What’s happening? Gather the basic information and begin to think of questions.
Why is it important? Ask yourself why it’s significant and whether or not you agree.
What don’t I see? Is there anything important missing?
How do I know? Ask yourself where the information came from and how it was constructed.
Who is saying it? What’s the position of the speaker and what is influencing them?
What else? What if? What other ideas exist and are there other possibilities?

Infographic titled "Questions a Critical Thinker Asks." From the top, text reads: What's Happening? Gather the basic information and begin to think of questions (image of two stick figures talking to each other). Why is it Important? Ask yourself why it's significant and whether or not you agree. (Image of bearded stick figure sitting on a rock.) What Don't I See? Is there anything important missing? (Image of stick figure wearing a blindfold, whistling, walking away from a sign labeled Answers.) How Do I Know? Ask yourself where the information came from and how it was constructed. (Image of stick figure in a lab coat, glasses, holding a beaker.) Who is Saying It? What's the position of the speaker and what is influencing them? (Image of stick figure reading a newspaper.) What Else? What If? What other ideas exist and are there other possibilities? (Stick figure version of Albert Einstein with a thought bubble saying "If only time were relative...".

Problem-Solving With Critical Thinking

For most people, a typical day is filled with critical thinking and problem-solving challenges. In fact, critical thinking and problem-solving go hand-in-hand. They both refer to using knowledge, facts, and data to solve problems effectively. But with problem-solving, you are specifically identifying, selecting, and defending your solution. Below are some examples of using critical thinking to problem-solve:

Your roommate was upset and said some unkind words to you, which put a crimp in your relationship. You try to see through the angry behaviors to determine how you might best support your roommate and help bring your relationship back to a comfortable spot.

Young man in black jacket looking deep in thought, in foreground of busy street scene

Your final art class project challenges you to conceptualize form in new ways. On the last day of class when students present their projects, you describe the techniques you used to fulfill the assignment. You explain why and how you selected that approach.
Your math teacher sees that the class is not quite grasping a concept. She uses clever questioning to dispel anxiety and guide you to new understanding of the concept.
You have a job interview for a position that you feel you are only partially qualified for, although you really want the job and you are excited about the prospects. You analyze how you will explain your skills and experiences in a way to show that you are a good match for the prospective employer.
You are doing well in college, and most of your college and living expenses are covered. But there are some gaps between what you want and what you feel you can afford. You analyze your income, savings, and budget to better calculate what you will need to stay in college and maintain your desired level of spending.

Problem-Solving Action Checklist

Problem-solving can be an efficient and rewarding process, especially if you are organized and mindful of critical steps and strategies. Remember, too, to assume the attributes of a good critical thinker. If you are curious, reflective, knowledge-seeking, open to change, probing, organized, and ethical, your challenge or problem will be less of a hurdle, and you’ll be in a good position to find intelligent solutions.

Evaluating Information With Critical Thinking

Evaluating information can be one of the most complex tasks you will be faced with in college. But if you utilize the following four strategies, you will be well on your way to success:

Read for understanding by using text coding
Examine arguments
Clarify thinking

Photo of a group of students standing around a poster on the wall, where they're adding post-it notes with handwriting on them

1. Read for Understanding Using Text Coding

When you read and take notes, use the text coding strategy . Text coding is a way of tracking your thinking while reading. It entails marking the text and recording what you are thinking either in the margins or perhaps on Post-it notes. As you make connections and ask questions in response to what you read, you monitor your comprehension and enhance your long-term understanding of the material.

With text coding, mark important arguments and key facts. Indicate where you agree and disagree or have further questions. You don’t necessarily need to read every word, but make sure you understand the concepts or the intentions behind what is written. Feel free to develop your own shorthand style when reading or taking notes. The following are a few options to consider using while coding text.

See more text coding from PBWorks and Collaborative for Teaching and Learning .

2. Examine Arguments

When you examine arguments or claims that an author, speaker, or other source is making, your goal is to identify and examine the hard facts. You can use the spectrum of authority strategy for this purpose. The spectrum of authority strategy assists you in identifying the “hot” end of an argument—feelings, beliefs, cultural influences, and societal influences—and the “cold” end of an argument—scientific influences. The following video explains this strategy.

3. Clarify Thinking

When you use critical thinking to evaluate information, you need to clarify your thinking to yourself and likely to others. Doing this well is mainly a process of asking and answering probing questions, such as the logic questions discussed earlier. Design your questions to fit your needs, but be sure to cover adequate ground. What is the purpose? What question are we trying to answer? What point of view is being expressed? What assumptions are we or others making? What are the facts and data we know, and how do we know them? What are the concepts we’re working with? What are the conclusions, and do they make sense? What are the implications?

4. Cultivate “Habits of Mind”

“Habits of mind” are the personal commitments, values, and standards you have about the principle of good thinking. Consider your intellectual commitments, values, and standards. Do you approach problems with an open mind, a respect for truth, and an inquiring attitude? Some good habits to have when thinking critically are being receptive to having your opinions changed, having respect for others, being independent and not accepting something is true until you’ve had the time to examine the available evidence, being fair-minded, having respect for a reason, having an inquiring mind, not making assumptions, and always, especially, questioning your own conclusions—in other words, developing an intellectual work ethic. Try to work these qualities into your daily life.

"logic." Wordnik . n.d. Web. 16 Feb 2016 . ↵
"Student Success-Thinking Critically In Class and Online." Critical Thinking Gateway . St Petersburg College, n.d. Web. 16 Feb 2016. ↵
Outcome: Critical Thinking. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Self Check: Critical Thinking. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Foundations of Academic Success. Authored by : Thomas C. Priester, editor. Provided by : Open SUNY Textbooks. Located at : http://textbooks.opensuny.org/foundations-of-academic-success/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Image of woman thinking. Authored by : Moyan Brenn. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/8YV4K5 . License : CC BY: Attribution
Critical Thinking. Provided by : Critical and Creative Thinking Program. Located at : http://cct.wikispaces.umb.edu/Critical+Thinking . License : CC BY: Attribution
Critical Thinking Skills. Authored by : Linda Bruce. Provided by : Lumen Learning. Project : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/lumencollegesuccess/chapter/critical-thinking-skills/. License : CC BY: Attribution
Image of critical thinking poster. Authored by : Melissa Robison. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/bwAzyD . License : CC BY: Attribution
Thinking Critically. Authored by : UBC Learning Commons. Provided by : The University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus. Located at : http://www.oercommons.org/courses/learning-toolkit-critical-thinking/view . License : CC BY: Attribution
Critical Thinking 101: Spectrum of Authority. Authored by : UBC Leap. Located at : https://youtu.be/9G5xooMN2_c . License : CC BY: Attribution
Image of students putting post-its on wall. Authored by : Hector Alejandro. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/7b2Ax2 . License : CC BY: Attribution
Image of man thinking. Authored by : Chad Santos. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/phLKY . License : CC BY: Attribution

2.2 Understanding How Critical Thinking Works

Learning objectives.

Learn how and why critical thinking works.
Understand the creative and constructive elements of critical thinking.
Add to the list of productive questions that can be asked about texts.

“Critical thinking” has been a common phrase in education for more than a quarter century, but it can be a slippery concept to define. Perhaps because “critical” is an adjective with certain negative connotations (e.g., “You don’t have to be so critical” or “Everybody’s a critic”), people sometimes think that critical thinking is a fault-finding exercise or that there is nothing creative about it. But defined fairly and fully, critical thinking The ability to separate fact from opinion, to ask questions, to reflect on one’s own role in the process of inquiry and discovery, and to pay close attention to detail. is in fact a precondition to creativity.

Critical thinkers consider multiple sides of an issue before choosing sides. They tend to ask questions instead of accepting everything they hear or read, and they know that answers often only open up more lines of inquiry. Critical thinkers read between the lines instead of reading only at face value, and they also develop a keen sense of how their own minds operate. Critical thinkers recognize that much of the information they read and hear is a combination of fact and opinion. To be successful in college, you will have to learn to differentiate between fact and opinion through logic, questioning, and verification.

Facts are pieces of information that you can verify as true. Opinions are personal views or beliefs that may have very little grounding in fact. Since opinions are often put forth as if they were facts, they can be challenging to recognize as opinions. That’s where critical thinkers tend to keep questioning. It is not enough to question only the obviously opinionated material in a text. Critical thinkers develop a habit of subjecting all textual statements to a whole constellation of questions about the speaker (or writer), the intended audience The individual or group being addressed or targeted by a piece of communication. , the statement itself, and the relevance of it.

Considering the speaker:

Who is making this the statement?
What are the speaker’s affiliations?
How does the speaker know the truth of this statement?

Considering the audience:

Who is being addressed with this statement?
What could connect the speaker of the statement with the intended audience?
Would all people consider this statement to be true?

Considering the statement:

Can this statement be proven?
Will this statement also be true tomorrow or next year?
If this statement is true, what else might be true?
Are there other possible interpretations of the facts behind this statement?

Considering relevance:

What difference does this statement make?
Who cares (and who should care)?
So what? What now? What’s next?

Writers naturally write with some basic assumptions. Without a starting point, a writer would have no way to begin writing. As a reader, you have to be able to identify the assumptions a writer makes and then judge whether or not those assumptions need to be challenged or questioned. As an active reader A person who uncovers the biases, preconceptions, assumptions and implications of a text. , you must acknowledge that both writers and readers make assumptions as they negotiate the meaning of any text. A good process for uncovering assumptions is to try to think backward from the text. Get into the habit of asking yourself, “In order to make this given statement, what else must this writer also believe?”

Whether you recognize it or not, you also have biases and preconceptions on which you base many decisions. These biases and preconceptions form a screen or a lens through which you see your world. Biases and preconceptions are developed out of your life’s experiences and influences. As a critical thinker who considers all sides of an issue, you have to identify your personal positions and subject them to scrutiny.

Just as you must uncover assumptions—those of the writer as well as your own as a reader—to truly capture what you are reading, you must also examine the assumptions that form the foundation of your writing. And you must be prepared to do so throughout the writing process; such self-questioning can, in fact, be a powerful strategy for revision (as you’ll see in more detail in Chapter 8 "Revising" , Section 8.1 "Reviewing for Purpose" ).

Key Takeaways

Far from being a negative or destructive activity, critical thinking is actually the foundation of creative, constructive thinking.
Critical thinkers consider multiple sides of issues, before arriving at a judgment. They must carefully consider the source, the audience, and the relevance of any statement, making a special effort to distinguish fact from opinion in the statement itself.
Biases and preconceptions are ideas based on life experiences and are common components of most everything you say, hear, or read.

Use the set of questions at the end of this section about the speaker , audience , statement , and relevance for a text of your choice from the Note 2.5 "Gallery of Web-Based Texts" in Section 2.1 "Browsing the Gallery of Web-Based Texts" . Here are some promising avenues to pursue:

A public service announcement (PSA) campaign (Ad Council)
A “This I Believe” radio essay (This I Believe)
A television ad spot from a political campaign (The Living Room Candidate)
An entry in one of the debates on a “big question” (Big Questions Essay Series)
Use those same questions for a reading from one of your other classes (even a chapter from a textbook) or a reading in your composition class assigned by your instructor.
Go to the Smithsonian Institution (SIRIS) site in the Note 2.5 "Gallery of Web-Based Texts" and click on the Search Collections tab. Use the search phrase “personal hygiene advertisements” and then choose two of the ads that appear in the archive after you’ve browsed the dozens of hits. Apply this section’s questions to two ads you’ve chosen. Then get to know the search engine on the SIRIS site a little better by trying out a few search phrases of your own on topics of interest to you.

Toward Convergence of Critical Thinking, Metacognition, and Reflection: Illustrations from Natural and Social Sciences, Teacher Education, and Classroom Practice

First Online: 01 January 2011

Cite this chapter

Carole L. Ford 3 &
Larry D. Yore 3

Part of the book series: Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education ((CTISE,volume 40))

3382 Accesses

26 Citations

This chapter argues that the move toward constructivism has necessitated critical considerations of knowledge about thinking, awareness of personal thinking resources, ability to control use of these resources, and the willingness to enact and reflect on these resources in constructing valid and justified understandings and actions. These considerations have promoted a potential convergence of three useful constructs emerging from different academic traditions—critical thinking, metacognition, and reflection—that provide greater and more diverse insights than any single construct. The evolution of these constructs has been moved forward by the interdisciplinary cognitive sciences and in interpretations of education reforms in the social and natural sciences, which emphasize ontological, epistemological, linguistic, and pedagogical considerations. The intersection of these perspectives and reforms promotes domain-specific literacy for all students that involve (a) an interacting collection of abilities, thinking, communications, cognitive resources, habits of mind, and information communication technologies to construct understanding of the big ideas and unifying conceptions in science or social studies and (b) fuller and informed participation in the democratic debate toward sustainable judgments about science, technology, society, and environment (STSE) issues. We claim that the changing perspectives and evolving interpretations have implications for research, teacher education, curriculum, and instruction. This chapter extends the conceptual discussion on metacognition. It shows that the “fuzziness” of the definitions in the area of metacognition extends also to the “fuzzy borders” that exist between metacognition and other important constructs in the field of thinking and learning, such as critical thinking and reflection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Reflective Practice: Critical or Mechanical

Critical Pedagogy: Critical Thinking as a Social Practice

Reflective Practice: Epistemological Perspectives on Learning from Experience in Teacher Education

Anderson, J. O., Chiu, M.-H., & Yore, L. D. (2010). First cycle of PISA (2000–2006)—International perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education., 8 (3), 373–388.

Article Google Scholar

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (3), 285–302.

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1981). Inducing flexible thinking: The problem of access. In M. P. Friedman, J. P. Das, & N. O’Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and learning (pp. 515–529). New York: Plenum Press.

Chapter Google Scholar

Case, J., & Gunstone, R. (2006). Metacognitive development: A view beyond cognition. Research in Science Education, 36 (1), 51–67.

Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education, 1876–1957 . New York: Vintage Books.

Dewey, J. (1997). How we think . New York: Dover Publications (Original work published 1910).

Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education (60th anniversary ed.). Indianapolis: Kappa Delta Pi (International Honor Society in Education). (Original work published in 1938)

Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Education Research Review, 1 (1), 3–14.

Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32 (1), 83–111.

Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1992). The California critical thinking disposition inventory . Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ford, C. L. (1998). Educating preservice teachers to teach for an evaluative view of knowledge and critical thinking in elementary social studies, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria.

Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92 (3), 404–423.

Ford, C. L., Ashlee, J., McDiarmid, T., Frew, N., Fultz, D., Manzo, R., & Musselle, T. (2002). I can make a difference. In R. Case & L. Daniels (Series eds.) & M. Abbott, R. Case, & J. Nicol (Eds.), Critical challenges across the curriculum . Richmond, BC: Critical Thinking Cooperative (TC2).

Gardner, H. E. (2004). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach (10th anniversary ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Garner, R. (1992). Metacognition and self-monitoring strategies. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 236–252). Newark: International Reading Association.

Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (3), 365–383.

Hadwin, A. F. (2008). Self-regulated learning. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook (pp. 175–183). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hand, B. (Ed.). (2007). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic . Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Holden, T. G., & Yore, L. D. (1996, March-April). Relationships among prior conceptual knowledge, metacognitive awareness, metacognitive self-management, cognitive style, science achievement in grades 6–7 students . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED395823)

Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85 (6), 758–768.

Kreber, C. (2005). Reflection on teaching and the scholarship of teaching: Focus on science instructors. Higher Education, 50 (2), 323–359.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Lapan, R. T., Kardash, C. M., & Turner, S. (2002). Empowering students to become self-regulated learners. Professional School Counseling, 5 (4), 257–265.

Larkin, S. (2006). Collaborative group work and individual development of metacognition in the early years. Research in Science Education, 36 (1), 7–27.

Lawr, D. A., & Gidney, R. D. (Eds.). (1973). Educating Canadians: A documentary history of public education . Toronto: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Leou, M., Abder, P., Riordan, M., & Zoller, U. (2006). Using ‘HOCS-centered learning’ as a pathway to promote science teachers’ metacognitive development. Research in Science Education, 36 (1–2), 69–84.

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, J. (2004). Self-regulated learning, social cognitive theory, and agency. Educational Psychologist, 39 (2), 135–145.

Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (9), 696–699.

McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beauchamp, C., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, J. (1999). Building a metacognitive model of reflection. Higher Education, 37 (2), 105–131.

McEneaney, E. H. (2003). The worldwide cachet of scientific literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47 (2), 217–237.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies . Silver Spring: National Council for the Social Studies.

National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school—Expanded edition . Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. R. A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Norris, S. P., Macnab, J. S., Wonham, M., & de Vries, G. (2009). West Nile virus: Using adapted primary literature in mathematical biology to teach scientific and mathematical reasoning in high school. Research in Science Education, 39 (3), 321–329.

Oltman, R. K., Raskin, E., & Witkin, H. A. (1971). Group embedded figures test . Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world (2nd ed.). Santa Rosa: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W. (2006). Reflecting on reflection: Scale extension and a comparison of undergraduate business students in the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of Marketing Education, 28 (1), 5–16.

Procee, H. (2006). Reflection in education: A Kantian epistemology. Educational Theory, 56 (3), 237–253.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education . London: Routledge.

Resnick, L. B. (1976). Introduction: Changing conceptions of intelligence. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 1–10). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Saito, H., & Miwa, K. (2007). Construction of a learning environment supporting learners’ reflection: A case of information seeking on the Web. Computers and Education, 49 (2), 214–229.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . New York: Basic Books.

Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36 (1–2), 111–139.

Siegel, H. (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking skills, dispositions, and epistemology. In S. P. Norris (Ed.), The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal (pp. 97–108). New York: Teachers College Press.

Siegel, H. (1996). Rationality redeemed? Further dialogues on an educational ideal . New York: Routledge.

Silver, H. F., & Hanson, J. R. (1978). The Hanson-Silver learning preference inventory (LPI) . Moorestown: Hanson Silver Strong & Associates.

Song, H.-D., Grabowski, B. L., Koszalka, T. A., & Harkness, W. L. (2006). Patterns of instructional-design factors prompting reflective thinking in middle-school and college level problem-based learning environments. Instructional Science, 34 (1), 63–87.

Spence, D. J., Yore, L. D., & Williams, R. L. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students’ metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11 (2), 15–30.

Thomas, G. P. (2006). Metacognition and science education: Pushing forward from a solid foundation (A changing world: A changing educational focus?) [Editorial]. Research in Science Education, 36 (1), 1–6.

Tiles, M., & Tiles, J. (1993). An introduction to historical epistemology: The authority of knowledge . Cambridge: Blackwell.

Van Gyn, G., & Ford, C. L. (2006). Teaching for critical thinking . London: Society for Teaching in Higher Education.

White, R. T. (2003). Decisions and problems in research on metacognition. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1207–1213). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40 (4), 211–223.

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2010). Self-regulated learning and socio-cognitive theory. In P. P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). New York: Elsevier.

Yore, L. D., Craig, M. T., & Maguire, T. O. (1998). Index of science reading awareness: An interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grades 4–8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (1), 27–51.

Yore, L. D., & Holden, T. G. (2005, August). Case studies of grade 6/ 7 students’ metacognitive awareness, executive control and performance of science reading . Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5 (4), 559–589.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

Carole L. Ford & Larry D. Yore

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Larry D. Yore .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel

Dept. Education in Science &, Technology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa, 32000, Israel

Yehudit Judy Dori

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Ford, C.L., Yore, L.D. (2012). Toward Convergence of Critical Thinking, Metacognition, and Reflection: Illustrations from Natural and Social Sciences, Teacher Education, and Classroom Practice. In: Zohar, A., Dori, Y. (eds) Metacognition in Science Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_11

Published : 27 August 2011

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-2131-9

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-2132-6

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

IMAGES

Critical Thinking Summary
Critical Thinking ch 2
Critical Thinking Is The Process Of Developing Your Study Habits
Critical Thinking Skills Chart
Critical Thinking Skills
The benefits of critical thinking for students and how to develop it

VIDEO

Critical Thinking 02. Definitions
The Importance of Effective Questions
Intelligence Analysis Skills: Critical Thinking (Part 1
Critical Thinking on the Job: Decisions
The DEI Plan: Steal Franchises And Make Men Leave
Logic and Critical Thinking Chapter 2 PART 1: Basic concepts of logic

COMMENTS

PDF Chapter2!! Towards!An!Understanding!! Ofcritical!Thinking!
2.3 Identifying common emphases of critical thinking. Drawing from the discussion above, this study identifies and proposes four common key themes or emphases embedded in the models previously considered. These are skills, dispositions, reflection and social context.
Critical Thinking Chapter 2 Flashcards
Critical Thinking Chapter 2. According to the text's definition of critical thinking, what factors must be present for critical thinking to be realized? Click the card to flip 👆. For critical thinking to be realized, the process must be systematic, it must be a true evaluation or formulation of claims, and it must be based on rational standards.
UI Critical Thinking Handbook: Chapter Two -- Theory
In Chapter One, I made strides toward this goal by extracting a provisional formulation of critical thinking from cases in which it was clearly on display. In this chapter, I intend to fill out this characterization more completely and thereby discharge my obligation. ... 2). "Critical thinking is evaluating whether we should be convinced that ...
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a ...
Introduction to Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following: Understand the logical connections between ideas. Identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.
Chapter 2 Arguments
Chapter 2 Arguments. Chapter 2. Arguments. The fundamental tool of the critical thinker is the argument. For a good example of what we are not talking about, consider a bit from a famous sketch by Monty Python's Flying Circus: 3. Man: (Knock) Mr. Vibrating: Come in.
What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
Chapter 1
Chapter 7 Critical Thinking Impacts Our Everyday Lives; ... We define critical thinking in several different ways that converge on the same basic idea. It is a combination of skills, attitude, and knowledge. ... Assessing secondary students' disposition toward critical thinking: Development of the California measure of mental motivation.
2.2 Understanding How Critical Thinking Works
"Critical thinking" has been a common phrase in education for more than a quarter century, but it can be a slippery concept to define. Perhaps because "critical" is an adjective with certain negative connotations (e.g., "You don't have to be so critical" or "Everybody's a critic"), people sometimes think that critical thinking is a fault-finding exercise or that there is ...
2.2: Understanding How Critical Thinking Works
1. Learn how and why critical thinking works. 2. Understand the creative and constructive elements of critical thinking. 3. Add to the list of productive questions that can be asked about texts. "Critical thinking" has been a common phrase in education for more than a quarter century, but it can be a slippery concept to define.
2: Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing
Here you will find useful advice about how to approach research, reading, and writing in philosophy. 2.1: The Brain Is an Inference Machine. 2.2: Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection. 2.3: Developing Good Habits of Mind. 2.4: Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence. 2.5: Reading Philosophy.
Chapter 2: thinking critically Flashcards
By actively using your mind to integrate new information into your existing knowledge framework, thereby expanding the framework to include this new information. Thinking critically involves actively using your thinking abilities to _____________________. - attack problems, - meet challenges. - analyze issues. identify six categories of questions,
Chapter 7
This chapter defines critical thinking and gives readers a list of critical thinking skills and dispositions to aspire to. Outcomes in numerous domains of life such as science, health, education, politics, and social media, and how those outcomes might be impacted by critical thinking, are discussed. The chapter also touches on contemporary ...
2
Definition of Critical Reading. Critical reading is a more ACTIVE way of reading. It is a deeper and more complex engagement with a text. Critical reading is a process of analyzing, interpreting and, sometimes, evaluating. When we read critically, we use our critical thinking skills to QUESTION both the text and our own reading of it.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well. Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly ...
PDF Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide
Critical Thinking This is the best single text I have seen for addressing the level, presumptions, and interests of the non-specialist. The authors have a ﬁne knack for articulating simply and clearly the most elementary - but also the most important - aspects of critical thinking in a way that should be clear to the novice.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is fundamentally a process of questioning information and data. You may question the information you read in a textbook, or you may question what a politician or a professor or a classmate says. You can also question a commonly-held belief or a new idea. With critical thinking, anything and everything is subject to question ...
2.2 Understanding How Critical Thinking Works
Key Takeaways. Far from being a negative or destructive activity, critical thinking is actually the foundation of creative, constructive thinking. Critical thinkers consider multiple sides of issues, before arriving at a judgment. They must carefully consider the source, the audience, and the relevance of any statement, making a special effort ...
Toward Convergence of Critical Thinking, Metacognition, and ...
This chapter argues that the move toward constructivism has necessitated critical considerations of knowledge about thinking, awareness of personal thinking resources, ability to control use of these resources, and the willingness to enact and reflect on these resources in constructing valid and justified understandings and actions.
PDF Critical Thinking
Glaser defined critical thinking as: (1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experience; (2) knowledge of the methods of logical enquiry and reasoning; and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine ...
Critical Thinking & Problem Solving
Critical Thinking & Problem Solving - Chapter 2: Evaluating Information and Thinking Critically. Flashcards; Learn; Test; Match; Q-Chat; Get a hint. Information Literacy. Click the card to flip 👆. The set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued ...
Critical Thinking Chapter 2 Flashcards
Chapter 2 critical thinking. 59 terms. crhoades1. Preview. Critical thinking chapter 2 quiz. 22 terms. lionardo_jean. Preview. Philosophy 140 Quiz #3 (CP, CS, TT) 50 terms. gracyn_555. Preview. logic. 14 terms. Dead_Rabbit9. Preview. Terms in this set (21) problem of ignorance. you dont know everything. proper form.
What Are Critical Thinking Skills and Why Are They Important?
It makes you a well-rounded individual, one who has looked at all of their options and possible solutions before making a choice. According to the University of the People in California, having critical thinking skills is important because they are [ 1 ]: Universal. Crucial for the economy. Essential for improving language and presentation skills.

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

II. The I mportance of C ritical T hinking

III. Improv ing O ur T hinking S kills

IV. Defining Critical Thinking

V. Two F eatures of C ritical T hinking

B. Ought N ot Is ( or Normative N ot Descriptive )

Share This Book

Pursuing Truth: A Guide to Critical Thinking

2.1 Identifying Arguments

2.1.1 Standard Form

2.1.2 Indicator Words

2.1.3 Non-Arguments

2.2 Evaluating Arguments

2.3 Counterexamples

Margin Size

2: Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

2 – Critical Reading

Definition of Critical Reading

Step 1: Understand the purpose of your reading and be selective

Step 2: Evaluate the reading text

Step 3: Document your reading and form your own argument

How does critical reading influence your writing skills?

Activity 1: Discuss the following questions with your group

Activity 2: Reading for analyzing styles

Gender Pay Gap in U.S. Held Steady in 2020

Why does a gender pay gap still persist?

Activity 3: Reading for arguments

Fire and Ice

Share This Book

Critical Thinking

What Is Critical Thinking?

Key Critical Thinking Skills

Logical Thinking

Self-Awareness

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

Gather Information

Critical Thinking Infographic

Discover more content

Hybrid Working Infographic

Discover something new today

Pain Points Podcast - Team-Building Activities

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

What's Your Leadership Style?

Recommended for you

Module 1: Success Skills

“Thinking Critically and Creatively”

Defining Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking in Action

Critical Thinking and Logic

Logic’s Relationship to Critical Thinking

Questions of Logic in Critical Thinking

Problem-Solving With Critical Thinking

Problem-Solving Action Checklist

Evaluating Information With Critical Thinking

1. Read for Understanding Using Text Coding

2. Examine Arguments

3. Clarify Thinking

4. Cultivate “Habits of Mind”

2.2 Understanding How Critical Thinking Works

Key Takeaways

Toward Convergence of Critical Thinking, Metacognition, and Reflection: Illustrations from Natural and Social Sciences, Teacher Education, and Classroom Practice

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Reflective Practice: Critical or Mechanical

Critical Pedagogy: Critical Thinking as a Social Practice

Reflective Practice: Epistemological Perspectives on Learning from Experience in Teacher Education

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation