C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G , A R G U M E N T C O N S T R U C T I O N ,

A R G U M E N T A N A L Y S I S a n d t e a c h i n g t o t h e
L a w r e n c e v i e t e ! t i n a r g " # e n t $
A % r i e & O v e r v i e w
I' CRITICAL THINKING
Critical Thinking is that mode of thinkingabout any subject, content,
or problemin which the thinker improves the quality of his or her
thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in
thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.
Con!en!"! Li!t o& Critica Thin(ing Cognitive S(i! and S")*S(i!
+' Inter,retation - Categorization
- ecoding !ignificance
- Clarifying "eaning
-' Ana.!i! - #$amining ideas
- %dentifying &rguments
- &nalyzing &rguments
/' Eva"ation - &ssessing Claims
- &ssessing &rguments
0' In&erence - 'uerying #vidence
- Conjecturing &lternatives
- rawing Conclusions
1' E2,anation - !tating (esults
- )ustifying *rocedures
- *resenting &rguments
3' Se&*Reg"ation - !elf+e$amination
- !elf+correction
Delphi Report ,acione -../
A CHECKLIST 4OR REASONING
-0 &ll reasoning has a *1(*2!#
30 &ll reasoning is an attempt to ,%41(# something out, to settle
some '1#!T%25, solve some *(267#".
80 &ll reasoning is based on &!!1"*T%25!.
90 &ll reasoning is done from some *2%5T 2, :%#;.
<0 &ll reasoning is based on &T&, %5,2("&T%25 = #:%#5C#.
>0 &ll reasoning is e$pressed through, and shaped by, C25C#*T! and
%#&!.
?0 &ll reasoning contains %5T#(#5C#! or %5T#(*(#T&T%25! by which we
draw C25C71!%25! and give meaning to data.
@0 &ll reasoning leads somewhere or has %"*7%C&T%25! and
C25!#'1#5C#!.
UNI5ERSAL INTELLECTUAL STAN6AR6S
Carit.
Could you elaborate further on that pointA Could you e$press that point
in another wayA Could you give me an illustrationA Could you give me an
e$ampleA
Acc"rac.
%s that really trueA Bow could we check thatA Bow could we find out if
that is trueA
7reci!ion
Could you give me more detailsA Could you be more specificA
Reevance
Bow is that connected to the questionA Bow does that bear on the issueA
6e,th
Bow does your answer address the comple$ities in the questionA Bow are
you taking to account the problems in the questionA %s that dealing with
the most significant factorsA
%readth
o we need to consider another point of viewA %s there another way to
look at this questionA ;hat would this look like from a conservative
standpointA ;hat would this look like from the point of view ofCA
Logic
oes this really makes senseA oes that follow from what you saidA Bow
does that followA
ESSENTIAL INTELLECTUAL TRAITS
%ntellectual Bumility
%ntellectual Courage
%ntellectual #mpathy
%ntellectual &utonomy
%ntellectual %ntegrity
%ntellectual *erseverance
Confidence in (eason
,airmindedness
Taken from THE MINIATURE GUIDE TO CRITICAL THINKING by rs. *aul and #lder
GOO6 THINKING8
-. using a ang"age o& thin(ing
3. thin(ing with certain dispositions or habits of mind
8. e$ercising mental management or metacognition Dthinking about your
thinking0
9. living life !trategically
<. Dreaching for higher order (nowedge0
>. Dlearning for tran!&er0
Lang"age o& Thin(ing
&dvance Concede eny #vidence
&ffirm Conclude erive #$amine
&llege Confirm etect #$plain
&nalyze Conjecture etermine #$plore
&ppraise Consider isbelieve ,athom
&ppreciate Construe iscern 4lean
&pprehend Contemplate isclaim 4rasp
&scertain Contend iscover 4rope
&ssert Contradict iscredit 4uess
&ssess Contravene iscriminate Bypothesize
&ssume Convince ispute %mply
&ttest Corroborate issect %nfer
&ver Criticize issent %nquire
6elieve ecide ivine %nspect
Calculate eclare oubt %nterpret
Cerebrate educe #lucidate %ntuit
Claim efine #ntertain %nvestigate
Cognize eliberate #stablish )udge
Comprehend emonstrate #stimate )ustify
Enow *rocess (ecollect !ubmit
"aintain *rofess (eflect !uggest
"editate *ropose (emember !uppose
"use *ropound (esearch !urmise
2bserve *rove (esolve !urvey
2pine 'uestion (eview !uspect
*erceive (ate (uminate Theorize
*onder (ealize !crutinize Think
*osit (eason !olve 1nderstand
*ostulate (ebut !peculate :erify
*resume (eckon !tate ;arrant
*robe (ecognize !tudy ;eigh
Thin(ing 6i!,o!ition!
Thin(ing 6i!,o!ition Thinking to avoid
%E CURIOUS AN6 9UESTIONING Lazy Thinking
%E %ROA6 AN6 A65ENTUROUS Narrow Thinking
%E CLEAR AN6 CARE4UL Mey Thinking
%E ORGANI:E6 !"attere# Thinking
GI5E THINKING TIME Haty Thinking
Menta Manage#ent
$e%ore Thinking GET REA6Y
D&ring Thinking *SET GOALS AN6 STAN6AR6S
*KEE7 TRACK O4 THINKING
A%ter Thinking RE4LECT
Strategic S,irit
STATE; < SEARCH; < E5ALUATE; < ELA%ORATE;
#$cerpted from The Thinking Claroo' by Tishman, *erkins and )ay
ESSENTIAL 9UESTIONS to ASK
,rom whose viewpoint are we seeing or reading or
hearingA ,rom what angle or perspectiveA
Bow do we know when we knowA ;hatFs the evidence, and
how reliable is itA
Bow are things, events, or people connected to each
otherA ;hat is the cause and what is the effectA Bow do
they fit togetherA
;hatFs new and whatFs oldA Bave we run across this idea
beforeA
!o whatA ;hy does it matterA ;hat does it all meanA
Centra 7ar( Ea!t Schoo=Meier
II' ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION > ANALYSIS
6e&inition! o& So#e 4"nda#enta Ter#!
- arg"#entG a sequence of propositions intended to establish the
truth of one of the propositions. The components of an argument
are its premises Dreasons0 and conclusionDs0 DclaimHsI0. &rguments
are claims backed by reasons, which are in turn supported by
evidence.
- cai# < ,ro,o!ition < the!i! < conc"!ionG what is asserted or
e$pressed by a declarative sentenceJ a statement.
- ,re#i!e or rea!onG statements of support for claims, making those
claims something more than mere assertions K a part of an argument
that is supposed to help establish the argumentLs conclusion
Dclaim0.
- evidenceG serves as support for the reasons you offer and helps
compel audiences to accept your claims. #vidence comes in
different sorts, and it tends to vary from one academic field or
subject of argument to another. 5eeds to be valid, sufficient and
relevant.
;hen CONSTRUCTING AN ARGUMENT ensure thatG
1. your conclusion (claim) is well stated and clear.
2. subordinate conclusions (sub-claims) (if any) support the main
conclusion (claim).
3. your premises (reasons) support your conclusions (claims).
. the e!amples (evidence) which illustrate your premises are not
contradictory or "uestionable. any unfamiliar or important
concepts are fully defined or e!plained- i.e. - using a word or
term in a manner different from the usual (write to your
audience).
SIM7LE TOULMIN METHO6 4OR ANALYSIS O4 AN ARGUMENT
Ana.?ing the Cai#
%dentify the Claim ( 7ook for the 'ualifiers K ,ind the e$ceptions K !ummarize
the Claim
Ana.?ing the Rea!on!
7ist the reasons K #$amine the reasons
Ana.?ing the Evidence
7ist the evidence K #$amine the evidence
Noting Re&"tation!
S"##ari?ing Yo"r Ana.!i!
Taken from THE AIM! O) ARGUMENT ANAL*!I! by Crusius and Chanells
THE STE7S O4 ARGUMENT ANALYSIS
+@ 6ecide i& there i! an arg"#ent
-@ Recon!tr"ct the arg"#ent
a. %dentify the conclusion Dclaim K thesis0.
b. %dentify the e$plicit premises Dreasons0.
c. Check the argument to see if it is well+formed
d. &dd implicit premises as necessary to make the argument
well+formed.
-@ 4ine*t"ne the recon!tr"ction
a. Clarify the wording of the argument.
b. &dd justifications for each line in the argument
c. %f there are any unnecessary premises in the argument,
delete them or revise them.
/@ Eva"ate the arg"#ent
a. %f the argument is valid, then the only acceptable way to
criticize the argument is to criticize one or more of its
premises.
b. %f the argument is cogent, then you can reasonably reject
the argument only if there is a premise that you have reason
to believe is false or about which it is reasonable for you
to suspend judgment or if it is reasonable for you to think
that the argument is defeated.
c. Criticisms of premises must be directed at specific premises
and must be substantial.
0@ Eva"ate .o"r eva"ation
a. "ake sure that you have reconstructed the argument properly
and fairly.
b. "ake sure that your criticisms are fair and clean.
c. &sk yourself how a defender of the argument would respond to
your criticism.
d. %t is acceptable to be uncertain.
,rom REA!ON AND ARGUMENT (ichard ,eldon
ASSESSING E5I6ENCE
- ;hat is the source of the evidence Ddate, publication, person,
organization0 and what is the bias of the evidence sourceA
- Bow reliable is the source of evidenceA
- ;hat was the intent of the evidence or dataA Bow was the evidence
used previouslyA ;hat was the aim of the authorA
- Bow is the evidence organizedA
"odified from THE AIM! O) ARGUMENT ANAL*!I! by Crusius and Chanells
THE LAARENCE5ILLE ASSESSMENT in con!tr"cting and ana.?ing arg"#ent!
Dsee test documentation for more sample tests and more information on the test0
The 7awrenceville &ssessment aims to measure the broad construct of
critical thinking. The literature about critical thinking emphasizes
that critical thinking is an active process that involves self+
regulation in interpreting, analyzing, evaluating and drawing inferences
on the basis of claims andKor evidence.
-H-I
%t uses basic thinking
processes to develop coherent, logical reasoning patterns that make
assumptions e$plicit and that recognize and correct for the biases of
the self and of others.
Critical thinking is a recursive process in which the thinker
M...improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully
taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing
intellectual standards on them.N
3H3I
Critical thinking is a mental process that
Manalyzes itself, evaluates itself, and improves itself as a
result.N
8H8I
The practiced critical thinker is able to
raise essential questions and formulate them clearly and precisely
recognize, collect, and evaluate relevant information, using
abstract ideas to interpret the information appropriately
draw valid conclusions, evaluating them against relevant criteria
and standards
maintain an open mind, actively seeking and evaluating alternative
points of view and evaluating their implications
clearly and effectively communicate the results of his or her
thinking to others
&s is obvious from the descriptions above, the argumentation skills of
constructing and analyzing arguments are core aspects of critical
thinking. Conceptualizing critical thinking in terms of argumentation
Mprovides a simple, useful way to focus instruction and assessment
according to the type of critical thinking that appears to be valued in
the workplace.N
9H9I
)or the Lawren"e+ille Ae'ent, then, the "ontr&"t "an -e 'ore
pre"iely #e%ine# a the a-ility to &e arg&'entation trategie to
"ontr&"t well.reaone#, well.&pporte# arg&'ent an# to e+al&ate the
rele+an"e, &%%i"ien"y, an# +ali#ity o% e+i#en"e an# "on"l&ion
"ontaine# in arg&'ent "ontr&"te# -y the el% an# -y other thinker/
!t&#ent who ha+e a "o'petent grap o% the rele+ant arg&'entation
trategie will -e a-le to
1[1]
6ased on the e$ecutive summary of The Delphi Report/
2
H3I
The Miniat&re G&i#e to Criti"al Thinking
3
H8I
,rom the ;eb site for the %nternational Center for the &ssessment of ThinkingG
www.critical thinking.org
4
H9I
MTests ;orth Teaching ToG Constructing !tate+"andated Tests that #mphasize Critical
ThinkingN
"on#&"t a "loe an# "are%&l rea#ing o% te0t that "ontain or
re%er to "o'ple0 i#ea an# relationhip
%or'&late an# i#enti%y pre"ie "lai' an# "on"l&ion
%or'&late, i#enti%y, an# e+al&ate the 1&ality o% the reaon
an#(or e+i#en"e o%%ere# to &pport the "lai'23 in their own
arg&'ent an# thoe "ontr&"te# -y other
"oni#er an# e0plain alternati+e +iew or alternati+e hypothee
an# e0planation
re"ognize an# "learly i#enti%y a&'ption 'a#e -y their own
arg&'ent an# thoe "ontr&"te# -y other
e+al&ate the logi"al o&n#ne o% their own arg&'ent an# thoe
"ontr&"te# -y other, re"ognizing an# a+oi#ing %alla"io&
reaoning
"learly arti"&late their own reaoning to an a"a#e'i" a&#ien"e
Annotated Bibliography
Browne, M. Neil and Keeley, Stuart M. Asking the Right Questions. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice all, !""#.
$ %onci&e and co'prehen&ive guide to critical thin(ing.
Bruner, )ero'e. Toward a Theory of Instruction. %a'bridge: arvard Univer&ity
Pre&&,!"**.
$ See chapter& on +Note& on a ,heory o- .n&truction/ and +A Retro&pect on
Ma(ing and )udging/
Bruner, )ero'e. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. %a'bridge: arvard Univer&ity
Pre&&,!"#*.
$ 01tended treat'ent o- two 'ode& o- thought or way& o- (nowing$$the good
&tory 2narrative 'ode3 and well$-or'ed argu'ent& 2paradig'atic3.
%linchy, B. 45n %ritical ,hin(ing and %onnected Knowing.4 .n K.S. 6alter& 2ed.3, Re-
Thinking Reason !ew Pers"ecti#es in $ritical Thinking. Albany: State Univer&ity o-
New 7or( Pre&&, !""8.
$ Sugge&t& 'ore e'pha&i& on uncritical thin(ing called connected thin(ing9
4i'aginative attach'ent4 a& a way to get in&ide another:& view
;e Bono, 0dward. %i& Thinking 'ats. Bo&ton: <ittle Brown, !"#=9 ;e Bono, 0dward.
(ateral Thinking. <ondon: Penguin, !">?.
$ ;e Bono propo&e& di@erent 'ethod& o- thin(ing in contra&t with dialectical
argu'entation. Both e'pha&iAe creativity and +open/ thin(ing.
De"arte, Rene/ The (ationalists 4Di"o&re on the Metho# o% Rightly
Con#&"ting the Reaon an# !eeking Tr&th in the !"ien"e5/ Gar#en City6
Dolphin $ook, 789:/
$ i&toric overview o- the act o- critical thin(ing
Beld'an, Richard. Reason and Argu)ent 2C
nd
ed.3. Upper Saddle River: Prentice all,
!""".
$ .'pre&&ive overview o- the analy&i& and con&truction o- argu'ent&.
0&pecially &trong on how one evaluate& argu'ent&.
a'ilton, 0dith and %airn&, untington. The $ollected *ialogues of Plato. Princeton:
Princeton Univer&ity Pre&&, !"*!.
$ Note: +Phaedru&/, +,heaetetu&/, and +Republic/ e&pecially on argu'ent&.
Mo&t dialogue& de'on&trate critical thin(ing and e@ective argu'entation.
MarAano, Robert ). et al. 4;i'en&ion& o- ,hin(ing.4 .n A.< %o&ta 2ed.3, *e#elo"ing
Minds. Ale1andria, AS%;. !""C.
$ Succinct review o- thin(ing proce&&e& divided into knowledge ac+uisition and
knowledge "roduction,a""lication
McKeon, Richard 2ed.3 Introduction to Aristotle. New 7or(: ,he Modern <ibrary, !"8>.
$ 5- particular intere&t i& the Analytica Posteriora, a treati&e on -or'al logic.
;en&e
reading but &o'e intere&ting pa&&age& to root critical thin(ing in a larger
hi&torical
per&pective.
Paul, Richard. $ritical Thinking. Rohnert Par(, %A: Boundation -or %ritical ,hin(ing,
!""C.
$ Mu&t read -or anyone con&idering teaching critical thin(ing9 contain& an
al'o&t overwhel'ing a'ount o- u&e-ul in-or'ation and teaching &trategie&
Per(in&, ;avid. %)art %chools. New 7or(: ,he Bree Pre&&, !""C.
$ 01plore& the concept& o- generative (nowledge and level& o- under&tanding
a&
it relate& to a learner:& thin(ing
Pre&&ie&en, Barbara. 4,hin(ing S(ill&: Meaning& and Model&.4 .n A.< %o&ta 2ed.3,
*e#elo"ing Minds. Ale1andria, AS%;. !""C.
$ %lear overview o- di@erent thin(ing proce&&e&.
Sternberg, Robert. Thinking %tyles. %a'bridge: %a'bridge Univer&ity Pre&&. !"">.
$ %lear and richly detailed e1a'ination o- di@erent 'ode& o- thin(ing in
analytical, creative, and practical conte1t&
,i&h'an, Shari9 Per(in&, ;avid9 )ay, 0ileen. The Thinking $lassroo). Bo&ton: Allyn and
Bacon, !""=.
$ An overview o- recent wor( at arvard ProDect Eero regarding under&tanding
and cognition.
by ominic (andolph