an argument in the context of critical thinking

Arguments in Context

Thaddeus Robinson, Muhlenberg College

Copyright Year: 2021

Publisher: Muhlenberg College

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Sarah Lonelodge, Assistant Professor of English/Writing Program Director, Eastern New Mexico University on 12/19/23

Robinson presents a very comprehensive text focused on critical thinking and the analysis and evaluation of arguments. Numerous forms of argument are presented, and the author offers useful tools that students will be able to apply. The text does... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Robinson presents a very comprehensive text focused on critical thinking and the analysis and evaluation of arguments. Numerous forms of argument are presented, and the author offers useful tools that students will be able to apply. The text does not offer students explicit instruction in creating or writing arguments, but this goal is not mentioned as one of the aims of the text. However, it is clear that students would be able to develop thoughtful arguments after reading and interacting with this text. While an index/glossary is not provided, the author presents a summary and key terms in a summary portion for each section.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The content looks accurate and unbiased to me. Robinson provides a thorough discussion of various methods and possibilities for argument identification, analysis, and evaluation. The examples employed throughout the chapters tend to be based on very neutral situations.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Because the text is focused on critical thinking, I do not see it becoming obsolete any time soon. Perhaps a few of the examples will eventually need updates, but most are fairly timeless. Robinson also presents an effective discussion of media literacy with social media and web-based arguments. Again, this presentation is effective; however, the growth of social media and the expansion of platforms and apps will require updates in the near future to maintain relevance.

Clarity rating: 4

The content of the book is clear and well organized; however, some terminology may be difficult for some students to grasp easily. Depending on the level of student who is using this text, the language may not be an issue. For first- or second-year students, the style and word choice may cause some frustration or may require the use of a dictionary.

Consistency rating: 5

The book is very consistent in its use of language, examples, etc., and its organization/framework is easy to navigate. From chapter to chapter, students will know what to expect.

Modularity rating: 5

I think the book is well modulated. Robinson has created seven distinct units or sections, and each of them have 3-5 chapters of relatively similar length. The length may feel a bit long for some readers, but this determination will depend on the level of student assigned this text.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Each unit/section is well organized into a text overall and would flow well from one concept to the next. Within each unit/section, the chapters follow a similarly effective organization pattern. I particularly appreciate the summaries at the end of each unit/section as these additions would likely offer students a clear picture of the outcomes of what they read.

Interface rating: 5

I don't see any interface or navigation issues. The display is well organized and easy to follow and read.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I didn't notice any grammatical issues.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I did not notice any culturally insensitive or offensive content. The few images used were neutral and typically more decorative than content specific. The examples utilized through the book were based on concepts that are unlikely to offend anyone, such as a sibling borrowing a vehicle, sports, calculating GPA, and similar topics.

I think this book would be very useful for upper-division college courses in which students would need to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments. The text is very specific about types and uses of argumentation, and Robinson provides a number of quick, illustrative examples that would likely help readers comprehend the concepts presented.

Table of Contents

• I. An Introduction to Reasoning
• II. Argument Analysis
• III. An Introduction to Evaluation
• IV. An Introduction to Deductive Arguments
• V. Common Inductive Arguments
• VI. Social Arguments
• VII. Scientific Reasoning

Ancillary Material

About the book.

Arguments in Context is a comprehensive introduction to critical thinking that covers all the basics in student-friendly language.  Intended for use in a semester-long course, the text features classroom-tested examples and exercises that have been chosen to emphasize the relevance and applicability of the subject to everyday life.  Three themes are developed as the text proceeds from argument identification and analysis, to the standards and techniques of evaluation: (i) the importance of asking the right questions, (ii) the influence of biases, cognitive illusions, and other psychological factors, and (iii) the ways that social situations and structures can enhance and impoverish our thinking.  On this last point, the text includes sustained discussion of disagreement, cooperative dialogue, testimony, trust, and social media.  Overall, the text aims to equip readers with a set of tools for working through important decisions and disagreements, and to help them become more careful and active thinkers.

About the Contributors

Thaddeus Robinson . Associate Professor of Philosophy, Muhlenberg College

Contribute to this Page

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 ) . ↩︎

Wrestling with Philosophy

Official Website for Amitabha Palmer

Critical Thinking: Defining an Argument, Premises, and Conclusions

Defining an Argument Argument: vas is das? For most of us when we hear the word ‘argument’ we think of something we’d rather avoid.  As it is commonly understood, an argument involves some sort of unpleasant confrontation (well, maybe not always unpleasant–it can feel pretty good when you win!).  While this is one notion of ‘argument,’ it’s (generally)  not  what the term refers to in philosophy. In philosophy what we mean by  argument  is “ a set  of reasons offered in support of a claim.”  An argument, in this narrower sense, also generally implies some sort of  structure .  For now we’ll ignore the more particular structural aspects and focus on the two primary elements that make up an argument: premises and conclusions. Lets talk about conclusions first because their definition is pretty simple.   A conclusion  is the final assertion that is supported with evidence and reasons.  What’s important is the relationship between premises and conclusions.   The premises  are independent reasons and evidence that support the conclusion.  In an argument, the conclusion should follow from the premises. Lets consider a simple example: Reason (1):  Everyone thought Miley Cyrus’ performance was a travesty.  Reason (2):   Some people thought her performance was offensive. Conclusion:   Therefore, some people thought her performance was both a travesty and offensive. Notice that so long as we accept reason 1 and reason 2 as true, then we  must  also accept the conclusion.  This is what we mean by “the conclusion ‘follows’ from the premises.” Lets examine premises a little more closely.   A premise  is any  reason  or  evidence  that supports the conclusion of the argument.    In the context of arguments we can use ‘reasons’, ‘evidence’, and ‘premises’ interchangeably.   For example, if my conclusion is that dogs are better pets than cats, I might offer the following reasons: (P1) dogs are generally more affectionate than cats and (P2) dogs are more responsive to their owners’ commands than cats. From my two premises, I infer my conclusion that (C) dogs are better pets than cats.

Lets return to the definition of an argument.  Notice that in the definition, I’ve said that arguments are  a set  of reasons.  While this isn’t  always  true, generally, a good argument will generally have more than one premise.   Heuristics for Identifying Premises and Conclusions Now that we know what each concept is, lets look at how to identify each one as we might encounter them “in nature” (e.g., in an article, in a conversation, in a meme, in a homework exercise, etc…).  First I’ll explain each heuristic, then I’ll apply them to some examples. Identifying conclusions:    The easiest way to go about decomposing arguments is to first try to find the conclusion.  This is a good strategy because there is usually only one conclusion so, if we can identify it, it means the rest of the passage are premises. For this reason, most of the heuristics focus on finding the conclusion.   Heuristic 1:    Look for the most controversial statement in the argument.   The conclusion will generally be the most controversial statement in the argument.  If you think about it, this makes sense.  Typically arguments proceed by moving from assertions (i.e., premises) the audience agrees with then showing how these assertions imply something that the audience might not have previously agreed with. Heuristic 2:    The conclusion is usually a statement that takes a position on an issue .  By implication, the premises will be reasons that support the position on the issue (i.e., the conclusion).  A good way to apply this heuristic is to ask “what is the arguer trying to get me to believe?”.  The answer to this question is generally going to be the conclusion. Heuristic 3:    The conclusion is usually ( but not always ) the first or last statement of the argument.  Heuristic 4:    The “because” test.   Use this method you’re having trouble figuring which of 2 statements is the conclusion.  The “because” test helps you figure out which statement is supporting which.  Recall that the premise(s) always supports the conclusion.  This method is best explained by using an example.  Suppose you encounter an argument that goes something like this: It’s a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit.  It tastes delicious.  Also,  lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer Suppose you’re having trouble deciding what the conclusion it.  You’ve eliminated “it tastes delicious” as a candidate but you still have to choose between “it’s a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit” and “lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer”.  To use the because test, read one statement after the other but insert the word “because” between the two and see what makes more sense.  Lets try the two possibilities: A:   It’s a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit  because  lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer. B:   Lots of facebook posts say that amazonian jungle fruit cures cancer  because  it’s a good idea to eat lots of it.  Which makes more sense?  Which is providing support for which?   The answer is A.  Lots of facebook posts saying something is a  reason  (i.e. premise) to believe that it’s a good idea to eat amazonian jungle fruit–despite the fact that it’s not a very good reason… Identifying the Premises Heuristic 1:   Identifying the premises once you’ve identified the conclusion is cake.  Whatever isn’t contained in the conclusion is either a premise or “filler” (i.e., not relevant to the argument).  We will explore the distinguishing between filler and relevant premises a bit later, so don’t worry about that distinction for now. Example 1 Gun availability should be regulated. Put simply, if your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, they’re  more likely to kill you  than if they don’t have access. Interestingly, this turned out to be true not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too. http://listverse.com/2013/04/21/10-arguments-for-gun-control/

Ok, lets try heuristic #1.  What’s the most controversial statement?  For most Americans, it is probably that “gun availability should be regulated.”  This is probably the conclusion.  Just for fun lets try out the other heuristics. Heuristic #2 says we should find a statement that takes a position on an issue.  Hmmm… the issue seems to be gun control, and the arguer takes a position.  Both heuristics converge on “gun availability should be regulated.” Heuristic #3 says the conclusion will usually be the first or last statement.  Guess what? Same result as the other heuristics. Heuristic #4.   A:  Gun availability should be regulated  because  people with easy access to guns are more likely to kill you.  Or B:  People with easy access to guns are more likely to kill you  because  gun availability should be regulated. A is the winner. The conclusion in this argument is well established.  It follows that what’s left over are premises (support for the conclusion): (P1)   If your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, they’re more likely to kill you than if they don’t have access.  (P2)  Studies show that P1 is true, not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too.  (C)  G un availability should be regulated. Example 2 If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns. This means only “bad” guys would have guns, while good people would by definition be at a disadvantage. Gun control is a bad idea. Heuristic #1:  What’s the most controversial statement? Probably “gun control is a bad idea.” Heuristic #2: Which statement takes a position on an issue? “Gun control is a bad idea.” Heuristic #3:  “Gun control is a bad idea” is last and also passed heuristic 1 and 2.  Probably a good bet as the conclusion.  Heuristic #4:   A: If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns because gun control is a bad idea.

B: Gun control is a bad idea because if you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns.

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Published by philosophami

Philosopher, judoka, coach, traveller, hiker, dancer, and dog-lover. View all posts by philosophami

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• The Key is Being Metacognitive
• The Big Picture
• Learning Outcomes
• Test your Existing Knowledge
• Definitions of Critical Thinking
• Learning How to Think Critically
• Self Reflection Activity
• End of Module Survey
• Test Your Existing Knowledge
• Interpreting Information Methodically
• Using the SEE-I Method
• Interpreting Information Critically
• Argument Analysis
• Learning Activities
• Argument Mapping
• Summary of Anlyzing Arguments
• Fallacious Reasoning
• Statistical Misrepresentation
• Biased Reasoning
• Common Cognitive Biases
• Poor Research Methods - The Wakefield Study
• Summary of How Reasoning Fails
• Misinformation and Disinformation
• Media and Digital Literacy
• Information Trustworthiness
• Summary of How Misinformation is Spread

Critical Thinking Tutorial: How To Analyze an Argument

Learning goal.

How to Analyze an Argument

Learning Goal: In this module, you will learn how to analyze an argument through critical evaluation and analysis of the argument's premises and conclusion.

Learning Charter Pursuit:   Developing and applying appropriate skills of research, inquiry and knowledge creation and translation. 1

Our Learning Charter

1. "Our Learning Charter."  University  of Saskatchewan. 2018. Accessed November 21, 2018.  https://teaching.usask.ca/about/policies/learning-charter.php#OurLearningJourney  

• << Previous: End of Module Survey
• Next: The Big Picture >>
• Library A to Z
• Follow on Facebook
• Follow on Twitter
• Follow on YouTube
• Follow on Instagram

The University of Saskatchewan's main campus is situated on  Treaty 6 Territory and the Homeland of the Métis.

© University of Saskatchewan Disclaimer | Privacy

• Last Updated: Dec 14, 2023 3:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usask.ca/CriticalThinkingTutorial

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

2 Logic and the Study of Arguments

If we want to study how we ought to reason (normative) we should start by looking at the primary way that we do reason (descriptive): through the use of arguments. In order to develop a theory of good reasoning, we will start with an account of what an argument is and then proceed to talk about what constitutes a “good” argument.

I. Arguments

• Arguments are a set of statements (premises and conclusion).
• The premises provide evidence, reasons, and grounds for the conclusion.
• The conclusion is what is being argued for.
• An argument attempts to draw some logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
• And in doing so, the argument expresses an inference: a process of reasoning from the truth of the premises to the truth of the conclusion.

Example : The world will end on August 6, 2045. I know this because my dad told me so and my dad is smart.

In this instance, the conclusion is the first sentence (“The world will end…”); the premises (however dubious) are revealed in the second sentence (“I know this because…”).

II. Statements

Conclusions and premises are articulated in the form of statements . Statements are sentences that can be determined to possess or lack truth. Some examples of true-or-false statements can be found below. (Notice that while some statements are categorically true or false, others may or may not be true depending on when they are made or who is making them.)

Examples of sentences that are statements:

• It is below 40°F outside.
• Oklahoma is north of Texas.
• The Denver Broncos will make it to the Super Bowl.
• Russell Westbrook is the best point guard in the league.
• I like broccoli.
• I shouldn’t eat French fries.
• Time travel is possible.
• If time travel is possible, then you can be your own father or mother.

However, there are many sentences that cannot so easily be determined to be true or false. For this reason, these sentences identified below are not considered statements.

• Questions: “What time is it?”
• Commands: “Do your homework.”
• Requests: “Please clean the kitchen.”
• Proposals: “Let’s go to the museum tomorrow.”

Question: Why are arguments only made up of statements?

First, we only believe statements . It doesn’t make sense to talk about believing questions, commands, requests or proposals. Contrast sentences on the left that are not statements with sentences on the right that are statements:

It would be non-sensical to say that we believe the non-statements (e.g. “I believe what time is it?”). But it makes perfect sense to say that we believe the statements (e.g. “I believe the time is 11 a.m.”). If conclusions are the statements being argued for, then they are also ideas we are being persuaded to believe. Therefore, only statements can be conclusions.

Second, only statements can provide reasons to believe.

• Q: Why should I believe that it is 11:00 a.m.? A: Because the clock says it is 11a.m.
• Q: Why should I believe that we are going to the museum tomorrow? A: Because today we are making plans to go.

Sentences that cannot be true or false cannot provide reasons to believe. So, if premises are meant to provide reasons to believe, then only statements can be premises.

III. Representing Arguments

As we concern ourselves with arguments, we will want to represent our arguments in some way, indicating which statements are the premises and which statement is the conclusion. We shall represent arguments in two ways. For both ways, we will number the premises.

In order to identify the conclusion, we will either label the conclusion with a (c) or (conclusion). Or we will mark the conclusion with the ∴ symbol

Example Argument:

There will be a war in the next year. I know this because there has been a massive buildup in weapons. And every time there is a massive buildup in weapons, there is a war. My guru said the world will end on August 6, 2045.

• There has been a massive buildup in weapons.
• Every time there has been a massive buildup in weapons, there is a war.

(c) There will be a war in the next year.

∴ There will be a war in the next year.

Of course, arguments do not come labeled as such. And so we must be able to look at a passage and identify whether the passage contains an argument and if it does, we should also be identify which statements are the premises and which statement is the conclusion. This is harder than you might think!

There is no argument here. There is no statement being argued for. There are no statements being used as reasons to believe. This is simply a report of information.

The following are also not arguments:

Advice: Be good to your friends; your friends will be good to you.

Warnings: No lifeguard on duty. Be careful.

Associated claims: Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to the dark side.

When you have an argument, the passage will express some process of reasoning. There will be statements presented that serve to help the speaker building a case for the conclusion.

IV. How to L ook for A rguments [1]

How do we identify arguments in real life? There are no easy, mechanical rules, and we usually have to rely on the context in order to determine which are the premises and the conclusions. But sometimes the job can be made easier by the presence of certain premise or conclusion indicators. For example, if a person makes a statement, and then adds “this is because …,” then it is quite likely that the first statement is presented as a conclusion, supported by the statements that come afterward. Other words in English that might be used to indicate the premises to follow include:

• firstly, secondly, …
• for, as, after all
• assuming that, in view of the fact that
• follows from, as shown / indicated by
• may be inferred / deduced / derived from

Of course whether such words are used to indicate premises or not depends on the context. For example, “since” has a very different function in a statement like “I have been here since noon,” unlike “X is an even number since X is divisible by 4.” In the first instance (“since noon”) “since” means “from.” In the second instance, “since” means “because.”

Conclusions, on the other hand, are often preceded by words like:

• therefore, so, it follows that
• hence, consequently
• suggests / proves / demonstrates that
• entails, implies

Here are some examples of passages that do not contain arguments.

1. When people sweat a lot they tend to drink more water. [Just a single statement, not enough to make an argument.]

2. Once upon a time there was a prince and a princess. They lived happily together and one day they decided to have a baby. But the baby grew up to be a nasty and cruel person and they regret it very much. [A chronological description of facts composed of statements but no premise or conclusion.]

3. Can you come to the meeting tomorrow? [A question that does not contain an argument.]

Do these passages contain arguments? If so, what are their conclusions?

• Cutting the interest rate will have no effect on the stock market this time around, as people have been expecting a rate cut all along. This factor has already been reflected in the market.
• So it is raining heavily and this building might collapse. But I don’t really care.
• Virgin would then dominate the rail system. Is that something the government should worry about? Not necessarily. The industry is regulated, and one powerful company might at least offer a more coherent schedule of services than the present arrangement has produced. The reason the industry was broken up into more than 100 companies at privatization was not operational, but political: the Conservative government thought it would thus be harder to renationalize (The Economist 12/16/2000).
• Bill will pay the ransom. After all, he loves his wife and children and would do everything to save them.
• All of Russia’s problems of human rights and democracy come back to three things: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. None works as well as it should. Parliament passes laws in a hurry, and has neither the ability nor the will to call high officials to account. State officials abuse human rights (either on their own, or on orders from on high) and work with remarkable slowness and disorganization. The courts almost completely fail in their role as the ultimate safeguard of freedom and order (The Economist 11/25/2000).
• Most mornings, Park Chang Woo arrives at a train station in central Seoul, South Korea’s capital. But he is not commuter. He is unemployed and goes there to kill time. Around him, dozens of jobless people pass their days drinking soju, a local version of vodka. For the moment, middle-aged Mr. Park would rather read a newspaper. He used to be a bricklayer for a small construction company in Pusan, a southern port city. But three years ago the country’s financial crisis cost him that job, so he came to Seoul, leaving his wife and two children behind. Still looking for work, he has little hope of going home any time soon (The Economist 11/25/2000).
• For a long time, astronomers suspected that Europa, one of Jupiter’s many moons, might harbour a watery ocean beneath its ice-covered surface. They were right. Now the technique used earlier this year to demonstrate the existence of the Europan ocean has been employed to detect an ocean on another Jovian satellite, Ganymede, according to work announced at the recent American Geo-physical Union meeting in San Francisco (The Economist 12/16/2000).
• There are no hard numbers, but the evidence from Asia’s expatriate community is unequivocal. Three years after its handover from Britain to China, Hong Kong is unlearning English. The city’s gweilos (Cantonese for “ghost men”) must go to ever greater lengths to catch the oldest taxi driver available to maximize their chances of comprehension. Hotel managers are complaining that they can no longer find enough English-speakers to act as receptionists. Departing tourists, polled at the airport, voice growing frustration at not being understood (The Economist 1/20/2001).

V. Evaluating Arguments

Q: What does it mean for an argument to be good? What are the different ways in which arguments can be good? Good arguments:

• Are persuasive.
• Have premises that provide good evidence for the conclusion.
• Contain premises that are true.
• Reach a true conclusion.
• Provide the audience good reasons for accepting the conclusion.

The focus of logic is primarily about one type of goodness: The logical relationship between premises and conclusion.

An argument is good in this sense if the premises provide good evidence for the conclusion. But what does it mean for premises to provide good evidence? We need some new concepts to capture this idea of premises providing good logical support. In order to do so, we will first need to distinguish between two types of argument.

VI. Two Types of Arguments

The two main types of arguments are called deductive and inductive arguments. We differentiate them in terms of the type of support that the premises are meant to provide for the conclusion.

Deductive Arguments are arguments in which the premises are meant to provide conclusive logical support for the conclusion.

1. All humans are mortal

2. Socrates is a human.

∴ Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

1. No student in this class will fail.

2. Mary is a student in this class.

∴ Therefore, Mary will not fail.

1. A intersects lines B and C.

2. Lines A and B form a 90-degree angle

3. Lines A and C form a 90-degree angle.

∴ B and C are parallel lines.

Inductive arguments are, by their very nature, risky arguments.

Arguments in which premises provide probable support for the conclusion.

Statistical Examples:

1. Ten percent of all customers in this restaurant order soda.

2. John is a customer.

∴ John will not order Soda..

1. Some students work on campus.

2. Bill is a student.

∴ Bill works on campus.

1. Vegas has the Carolina Panthers as a six-point favorite for the super bowl.

∴ Carolina will win the Super Bowl.

VII. Good Deductive Arguments

The First Type of Goodness: Premises play their function – they provide conclusive logical support.

Deductive and inductive arguments have different aims. Deductive argument attempt to provide conclusive support or reasons; inductive argument attempt to provide probable reasons or support. So we must evaluate these two types of arguments.

Deductive arguments attempt to be valid.

To put validity in another way: if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

It is very important to note that validity has nothing to do with whether or not the premises are, in fact, true and whether or not the conclusion is in fact true; it merely has to do with a certain conditional claim. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

Q: What does this mean?

• The validity of an argument does not depend upon the actual world. Rather, it depends upon the world described by the premises.
• First, consider the world described by the premises. In this world, is it logically possible for the conclusion to be false? That is, can you even imagine a world in which the conclusion is false?

Reflection Questions:

• If you cannot, then why not?
• If you can, then provide an example of a valid argument.

You should convince yourself that validity is not just about the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion. Rather, validity only has to do with a certain logical relationship between the truth of the premise and the truth of the conclusion. So the only possible combination that is ruled out by a valid argument is a set of true premises and false conclusion.

Let’s go back to example #1. Here are the premises:

1. All humans are mortal.

If both of these premises are true, then every human that we find must be a mortal. And this means, that it must be the case that if Socrates is a human, that Socrates is mortal.

Reflection Questions about Invalid Arguments:

• Can you have an invalid argument with a true premise?
• Can you have an invalid argument with true premises and a true conclusion?

The s econd type of goodness for deductive arguments: The premises provide us the right reasons to accept the conclusion.

Soundness V ersus V alidity:

Our original argument is a sound one:

∴ Socrates is mortal.

Question: Can a sound argument have a false conclusion?

VIII. From Deductive Arguments to Inductive Arguments

Question: What happens if we mix around the premises and conclusion?

2. Socrates is mortal.

∴ Socrates is a human.

1. Socrates is mortal

∴ All humans are mortal.

Are these valid deductive arguments?

NO, but they are common inductive arguments.

Other examples :

Suppose that there are two opaque glass jars with different color marbles in them.

1. All the marbles in jar #1 are blue.

2. This marble is blue.

∴ This marble came from jar #1.

1. This marble came from jar #2.

2. This marble is red.

∴ All the marbles in jar #2 are red.

While this is a very risky argument, what if we drew 100 marbles from jar #2 and found that they were all red? Would this affect the second argument’s validity?

IX. Inductive Arguments:

The aim of an inductive argument is different from the aim of deductive argument because the type of reasons we are trying to provide are different. Therefore, the function of the premises is different in deductive and inductive arguments. And again, we can split up goodness into two types when considering inductive arguments:

• The premises provide the right logical support.
• The premises provide the right type of reason.

Logical S upport:

Remember that for inductive arguments, the premises are intended to provide probable support for the conclusion. Thus, we shall begin by discussing a fairly rough, coarse-grained way of talking about probable support by introducing the notions of strong and weak inductive arguments.

A strong inductive argument:

• The vast majority of Europeans speak at least two languages.
• Sam is a European.

∴ Sam speaks two languages.

Weak inductive argument:

• This quarter is a fair coin.

∴ Therefore, the next coin flip will land heads.

• At least one dog in this town has rabies.
• Fido is a dog that lives in this town.

∴ Fido has rabies.

The R ight T ype of R easons. As we noted above, the right type of reasons are true statements. So what happens when we get an inductive argument that is good in the first sense (right type of logical support) and good in the second sense (the right type of reasons)? Corresponding to the notion of soundness for deductive arguments, we call inductive arguments that are good in both senses cogent arguments.

• With which of the following types of premises and conclusions can you have a strong inductive argument?
• With which of the following types of premises and conclusions can you have a cogent inductive argument?

X. Steps for Evaluating Arguments:

• Read a passage and assess whether or not it contains an argument.
• If it does contain an argument, then identify the conclusion and premises.
• If yes, then assess it for soundness.
• If not, then treat it as an inductive argument (step 3).
• If the inductive argument is strong, then is it cogent?

XI. Evaluating Real – World Arguments

An important part of evaluating arguments is not to represent the arguments of others in a deliberately weak way.

For example, suppose that I state the following:

All humans are mortal, so Socrates is mortal.

Is this valid? Not as it stands. But clearly, I believe that Socrates is a human being. Or I thought that was assumed in the conversation. That premise was clearly an implicit one.

So one of the things we can do in the evaluation of argument is to take an argument as it is stated, and represent it in a way such that it is a valid deductive argument or a strong inductive one. In doing so, we are making explicit what one would have to assume to provide a good argument (in the sense that the premises provide good – conclusive or probable – reason to accept the conclusion).

The teacher’s policy on extra credit was unfair because Sally was the only person to have a chance at receiving extra credit.

• Sally was the only person to have a chance at receiving extra credit.
• The teacher’s policy on extra credit is fair only if everyone gets a chance to receive extra credit.

Therefore, the teacher’s policy on extra credit was unfair.

Valid argument

Sally didn’t train very hard so she didn’t win the race.

• Sally didn’t train very hard.
• If you don’t train hard, you won’t win the race.

Therefore, Sally didn’t win the race.

Strong (not valid):

• If you won the race, you trained hard.
• Those who don’t train hard are likely not to win.

Therefore, Sally didn’t win.

Ordinary workers receive worker’s compensation benefits if they suffer an on-the-job injury. However, universities have no obligations to pay similar compensation to student athletes if they are hurt while playing sports. So, universities are not doing what they should.

• Ordinary workers receive worker’s compensation benefits if they suffer an on-the-job injury that prevents them working.
• Student athletes are just like ordinary workers except that their job is to play sports.
• So if student athletes are injured while playing sports, they should also be provided worker’s compensation benefits.
• Universities have no obligations to provide injured student athletes compensation.

Therefore, universities are not doing what they should.

Deductively valid argument

If Obama couldn’t implement a single-payer healthcare system in his first term as president, then the next president will not be able to implement a single-payer healthcare system.

• Obama couldn’t implement a single-payer healthcare system.
• In Obama’s first term as president, both the House and Senate were under Democratic control.
• The next president will either be dealing with the Republican-controlled house and senate or at best, a split legislature.
• Obama’s first term as president will be much easier than the next president’s term in terms of passing legislation.

Therefore, the next president will not be able to implement a single-payer healthcare system.

Strong inductive argument

Sam is weaker than John. Sam is slower than John. So Sam’s time on the obstacle will be slower than John’s.

• Sam is weaker than John.
• Sam is slower than John.
• A person’s strength and speed inversely correlate with their time on the obstacle course.

Therefore, Sam’s time will be slower than John’s.

XII. Diagramming Arguments

All the arguments we’ve dealt with – except for the last two – have been fairly simple in that the premises always provided direct support for the conclusion. But in many arguments, such as the last one, there are often arguments within arguments.

Obama example :

• The next president will either be dealing with the Republican controlled house and senate or at best, a split legislature.

∴ The next president will not be able to implement a single-payer healthcare system.

It’s clear that premises #2 and #3 are used in support of #4. And #1 in combination with #4 provides support for the conclusion.

When we diagram arguments, the aim is to represent the logical relationships between premises and conclusion. More specifically, we want to identify what each premise supports and how.

This represents that 2+3 together provide support for 4

This represents that 4+1 together provide support for 5

When we say that 2+3 together or 4+1 together support some statement, we mean that the logical support of these statements are dependent upon each other. Without the other, these statements would not provide evidence for the conclusion. In order to identify when statements are dependent upon one another, we simply underline the set that are logically dependent upon one another for their evidential support. Every argument has a single conclusion, which the premises support; therefore, every argument diagram should point to the conclusion (c).

Sam Example:

• Sam is less flexible than John.
• A person’s strength and flexibility inversely correlate with their time on the obstacle course.

∴ Therefore, Sam’s time will be slower than John’s.

In some cases, different sets of premises provide evidence for the conclusion independently of one another. In the argument above, there are two logically independent arguments for the conclusion that Sam’s time will be slower than John’s. That Sam is weaker than John and that being weaker correlates with a slower time provide evidence for the conclusion that Sam will be slower than John. Completely independent of this argument is the fact that Sam is less flexible and that being less flexible corresponds with a slower time. The diagram above represent these logical relations by showing that #1 and #3 dependently provide support for #4. Independent of that argument, #2 and #3 also dependently provide support for #4. Therefore, there are two logically independent sets of premises that provide support for the conclusion.

Try diagramming the following argument for yourself. The structure of the argument has been provided below:

• All humans are mortal
• Socrates is human
• So Socrates is mortal.
• If you feed a mortal person poison, he will die.

∴ Therefore, Socrates has been fed poison, so he will die.

• This section is taken from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ and is in use under creative commons license. Some modifications have been made to the original content. ↵

Critical Thinking Copyright © 2019 by Brian Kim is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Monash Online

Student Academic Success

• 1:1 Consultation 1:1 Consultation
• Study better Study better
• Build digital capabilities Build digital capabilities
• Understand assessments Understand assessments
• Excel at writing Excel at writing
• Enhance your thinking Enhance your thinking
• Present confidently Present confidently
• Collaborate with others Collaborate with others
• Improve your academic English Improve your academic English
• Maintain academic integrity Maintain academic integrity
• Advance your graduate studies Advance your graduate studies
• O-week workshops O-week workshops
• Let's Talk Assessments Let's Talk Assessments
• Set up for academic success Set up for academic success
• Writing classes Writing classes
• End of semester End of semester
• PhD writing workshops and courses PhD writing workshops and courses
• First Year Undergraduate Success First Year Undergraduate Success
• Graduate coursework success Graduate coursework success
• Academic Language Skills Analysis Academic Language Skills Analysis
• Mathematics skills analysis Mathematics skills analysis
• Orientation Orientation
• SAS cafe SAS cafe
• SAS pop up SAS pop up
• Written Feedback Written Feedback
• About us About us
• Skip to content
• Skip to navigation

Identify arguments

Being able to identify arguments is an important part of critical thinking. It allows you to understand how people structure their thinking, and prepares the ground for analysis and evaluation, so that you can formulate an argument of your own.

What is an argument?

An argument is any statement or claim supported by reasons. Arguments range from quite simple (e.g. 'You should bring an umbrella, because it looks like it might rain') to very complex (e.g. an argument for changing the law or introducing a new scientific theory).

Arguments can be found everywhere. Whenever somebody is trying to show that something is true, present a point of view or persuade someone else to agree with them, you can identify an argument. News outlets, social media and academic sources are full of arguments that compete for attention and influence.

To succeed at university, you will need to identify academic arguments made by scholars. An academic argument follows the conventions of the relevant discipline, and can also be called a position , main point , contention , or central claim .

What is an argument made of?

A simple argument presents a claim (e.g. 'You should bring an umbrella') supported by reasons (e.g. 'because it’s likely it will rain.')

Strong arguments are supported by reasons that draw on relevant and reliable evidence . In our example, the evidence is a radar map on the website of the Bureau of Meteorology, which shows an approaching storm front.

Real-world scenarios usually involve dealing with multiple competing arguments with their own claims, reasons and evidence. Imagine that your friend presents an opposing argument ( counter-argument ) that goes something like this:

Argument 2 (counter argument)

To resolve the two opposing arguments, you will need to evaluate them, and develop a central or main argument that supports the claims you believe are valid, and provides a rebuttal of claims you believe are not valid.

In our example, argument 2 is the weaker one, and we can provide an easy rebuttal of its main claim:

Rebuttal of argument 2

What is an academic argument?

Academic arguments are more formal and thorough than arguments used in everyday conversations and media. They are presented in formal academic language, include the best up-to-date evidence and use explicit reasoning to support their claims.

Academic arguments are usually also more complex than everyday arguments. They consider relevant claims and counter-claims, as well as a broad array of reasons supported by evidence. This often means that they include responses to other academics’ arguments and counter-arguments, each with their own set of reasons and supporting evidence. Evidence in academic arguments can be quite extensive, and usually draws on research and a range of reliable and relevant sources.

What does an academic argument look like?

What are the best strategies for identifying arguments, strategy 1: find an argument summary.

Authors often summarise their arguments to help their readers, especially as some arguments can take the form of long articles or books with several hundred pages.

In academic sources, argument summaries can be found in the abstract, as well as in the introduction and conclusion or discussion. The argument summary is expressed as the main point, conclusion or take-home message for the reader.

In non-academic sources, look for the summary at the beginning or the conclusion. Reports often include executive summaries that provide an overview of the main point or argument.

The following expressions often indicate an argument summary:

• '... I argue that …' or '... we argue that …'
• '... our position is that …'
• '... in conclusion …' or '... we conclude that …'
• '... the main point we are making is that …'
• '... therefore … [concluding statement]'

Strategy 2: Identify the author’s position

If an argument is not explicitly stated or summarised, you may need to think carefully about what position the author is advocating implicitly . To clarify implicit arguments, ask yourself:

• What is the main point or claim the author wants me to agree with?
• What reason(s) does the author provide to persuade me to agree with them?
• What evidence does the author provide to support their position or reasons?

Strategy 3: Summarise the argument in 1-2 sentences

A good strategy to make sure you have identified the argument is to summarise it in your own words. Writing short summaries or paraphrases will help you develop your own understanding of the ideas expressed in arguments.

If you can't summarise the main argument clearly and concisely in your own words, it often means you do not fully understand it. You may need to read the source more closely, or analyse it in detail to get a clearer picture.

Taking it further

What is critical thinking.

Learn what critical thinking is, what it looks like and how you can demonstrate it.

Clarify your purpose and context

Clarifying your purpose and context will help you focus your thinking and avoid information overload and distractions.

Question your sources

Learn how to select sources of information that are the most credible, accurate and relevant for your thinking tasks.

Analyse sources and arguments

To demonstrate your critical thinking, you need to be able to carefully examine sources, arguments, theories and processes, and explain how they work.

Evaluate the arguments of others

As a critical thinker, you need to be able to evaluate arguments, as well as the claims, evidence and reasoning that comprise them.

Create your own argument

Learn how to bring together evidence, reasoning and claims, and create your own argument.

Your feedback matters

We want to hear from you! Let us know what you found most useful or share your suggestions for improving this resource.

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

9 The Concept of an Argument

David hitchcock, 1. introduction [1] , [2].

The concept of an argument for which I propose an analysis is the reason-giving sense in which one speaks, for example, about Daniel Kahneman’s argument (2011, pp. 334-335) that the tendency of most people to be risk averse about gains but risk-seeking about losses is irrational. This sense of the word ‘argument’ should be sharply distinguished from the disputational sense in which one speaks about two people having an argument, discussed in Chapter 8. That these are two different senses is clear from the fact that languages other than English use two different words for the two senses. For example, in French, ‘to argue’ in the sense of quarrelling is ‘ disputer ’, whereas ‘to argue’ in the sense of giving reasons for or against is ‘ argumenter ’.

We could give a rough lexical definition of the word ‘argument’ in this sense by quoting the definition by the Hellenistic Stoics of an argument as “a system composed of premisses [3] and a conclusion” ( systêma ek lêmmatôn kai epiphoras , Diogenes Laertius 1925/ca. 210-240, 7.45). Aside from its idiosyncratic failure to recognize one-premiss arguments, this definition is an acceptable starting point for a conceptual analysis. That analysis would need to answer a number of questions raised by the lexical definition. What is a premiss? What is a conclusion? What sorts of entities can function as a premiss? What sorts can function as a conclusion? How do premisses and a conclusion form a unified system? Does such a system have an intrinsic function or purpose, or on the contrary can it be used for various purposes? What about complex arguments?

We should recognize that arguments are not necessarily the content or product of argumentation—that is, of communications in which arguments are exchanged. One can consider an argument for a certain position or policy even if nobody has ever used that argument. One can imagine crazy arguments that no sane person would ever put forward. One can apply the term ‘argument’ to unified stretches of solo reasoning where some conclusion is reached on the basis of reasons, as when one considers mentally various aspects of a situation and then describes “the argument that finally convinced me”. Indeed, it seems consistent with our ordinary use of the term ‘argument’ in its reason-giving sense to say that there are arguments that nobody has ever thought of and nobody ever will. The most we can demand is that an argument must be thinkable and expressible. Arguments as a class thus have no common function or purpose. They are not necessarily used to justify or establish something. Nor are they necessarily used to persuade anybody.

Thus, critical thinking textbooks that define ‘argument’ as “rational persuasion—an attempt to influence another or others using reasons” are actually describing one use of arguments, not the concept itself.

2. Simple arguments

Begin by considering simple arguments, in the sense of single-inference systems that consist of one or more premisses and one conclusion. Of what sorts of entities are such arguments composed? That is, what kind of object can function as a premiss, and what kind can function as a conclusion? A common answer is that these components are propositions, in the sense of postulated timeless and non-located entities that can be expressed linguistically (or in some other way) and that can be objects of belief or knowledge. Propositions however are not the right candidates to be premisses or conclusions.

As to premisses, consider the following two arguments:

(1)  Suppose that there is life on other planets in the universe. Then it makes sense to look for it.

(2)  There is life on other planets in the universe. So it makes sense to look for it.

These arguments have the same conclusion, but different premisses. But both premisses express the same proposition, that there is life on other planets in the universe. The difference is in the illocutionary act performed by someone who utters the premiss in standard contexts. In uttering argument (1), the author hypothesizes the propositional content of the premiss. In uttering argument (2), on the other hand, the author asserts the proposition. The difference makes a difference to the evaluation of the two arguments: argument (2) requires a stricter condition of premiss adequacy than argument (1).

If arguments need not be expressed but their premisses are illocutionary acts, the premisses must be illocutionary act-types rather than illocutionary act-tokens. Sometimes the type may have no actual tokens. Someone can use the same argument on different occasions, and different people can use the same argument. A premiss can be a supposition or an assertive or any other member of the class of illocutionary acts that Searle (1976) grouped under the label ‘representatives’, and which he defined (p. 10) as acts whose point is to commit the speaker, perhaps hypothetically or guardedly, to something’s being the case. It cannot be any other kind of illocutionary act, as we can see by noting the peculiarity of putting examples (taken from Hitchcock 2006, pp. 103-104) of the other kinds of illocutionary acts in premissary position before an inferential ‘therefore’:

(3) * What time is it? Therefore, you must go home .

(4) ? I promise to pick up some milk on the way home. Therefore, you don’t need to get it.

(5) * Congratulations on your anniversary. Therefore, you are married.

(6) * I hereby sentence you to two years less a day. Therefore, the guards will now take you to prison.

In standard contexts, the utterances in the premissary position are respectively (3) a directive (in particular, a request for information), (4) a commissive (in particular, a promise), (5) an expressive (in particular, a congratulation), and (6) a declarative (in particular, a judicial verdict). The inappropriateness of these pairings reveal the general inability of illocutionary acts other than representatives to function as premisses. The premiss in (4) is a borderline case, because a promise can be taken to imply a prediction (that the promise will be kept) and a prediction is a kind of assertion. It is the implicit prediction rather than the commitment that makes it possible to construe example (4) as an argument.

Among conclusions, we find a greater variety of illocutionary acts than among premisses. We have already seen two examples ((1) and (2) above) in which the conclusion is a representative. Conclusions (and premisses too) can be hedged by such qualifiers as ‘probably’, ‘presumably’, ‘possibly’, and the like, which are best given a speech-act interpretation. [4] Thus a wide range of representatives can be conclusions of arguments. But the other main kinds of illocutionary acts can also be conclusions, as we can see from the following examples (taken from Hitchcock 2006, p. 105):

(7) There is a forecast of thundershowers, so let’s cancel the picnic.

(8) I know how difficult it will be for you to get the milk, so I pro m ise you that I will pick it up on the way home.

(9) My conduct was inexcusable, so I apologize most sincerely.

(10) The evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime of which you are accused, so I hereby find you guilty as charged.

When these arguments are expressed in standard contexts, their conclusions are respectively (7) a directive, (8) a commissive, (9) an expressive, and (10) a declarative. Thus the conclusion of an argument can be an illocutionary act type of any kind: a representative, a directive, a commissive, an expressive, or a declarative.

A reason can be advanced as a reason against some claim as well as a reason for it. Consider the following example:

(11) Proponent: We need a concerted global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate future climate disruption. Opponent: A cost-benefit analysis needs to be done first to dete r mine whether it makes more sense to adapt to future climate disruption rather than to mitigate it.

Here the opponent’s reason is put forward as a reason against the proponent’s claim. The exchange has an inferential structure that is quite parallel to that in which a reason is put forward in support of a claim. In general, objections and criticisms seem to have just the same inferential structure as supports. In other words, there can be arguments against something as well as arguments for something. Consider an example. In the 11th century the monk Gaunilon objected to Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God that by the same reasoning one could prove the existence of a perfect island (Anselm 1903/1077-78). Gaunilon’s objection is an argument against the cogency of Anselm’s argument. It would involve needless and misleading subtlety to recast his objection as an argument in support of some claim. It is better to follow a number of authors who have recognized that there can be arguments against as well as arguments for (Johnson 2000; Rahwan et al. 2009; Freeman 2010; Wohlrapp 2014/2008).

In fact, the same reason can be adduced for a claim by one person and against the same claim by another person. For example, some people use the principle of self-determination as a reason for legalizing voluntary euthanasia, whereas others use it as a reason against legalizing voluntary euthanasia (Wohlrapp 2014/2008, pp. 264-265 [5] ). Each group advances an argument, and the two arguments clearly differ from each other. Thus it makes sense to add to the conception of an argument as a premiss-conclusion or claim-reason complex a third component indicating whether the reasons are to count for or against the claim. Further, to accommodate the existence of arguments against as well as arguments for, I shall hereafter use the term ‘target’ rather than ‘conclusion’ or ‘claim’ for the part of an argument to which its reasons are directed.

We are now in a position to say what a simple argument is:

A simple argument consists of one or more of the types of expression that can function as reasons, a “target” (any type of expression), and an indicator of whether the reasons count for or against the target. [6]

There may be no tokens of the component illocutionary act types. In other words, simple arguments as just defined are abstract structures that are not necessarily actually realized. We need impose no further restrictions on what can count as a simple argument, thus widening the class of arguments to the craziest combinations that one can imagine.

What gives such a set unity as a single argument is that someone puts forward or entertains, that is—adduces—its reasons as support for its target. In doing so, the person considers that the reasons, if true or otherwise acceptable, provide grounds for accepting or rejecting the target (to an extent indicated). Normally, the assumption motivating adducing the argument is that the person addressed by, or who considers, the argument did not previously think that the reasons provide the claimed support for, or opposition to, the target.

Goddu (2018) has objected to this way of securing the unity of an actualized argument. He contends that a person can entertain an argument mentally without supposing that its reasons support (or oppose) its target. One can for example wonder whether the reasons in an argument one is considering actually support the target. This is true, but in such a case the person considering the argument is viewing it as an argument that someone might or could adduce, i.e., as a hypothetical argument, a possible complex of reasons, indicator, and target.

Someone who adduces reasons as counting for or against a target must express the indicator, and must be the author of either the reasons or the target. But such an adducer need not be the author of both reasons and target. One can draw a conclusion from something someone else has said, in which case the person who draws the conclusion adduces what the other person said as supporting the conclusion drawn. One can provide reasons against someone else’s claim, in which case the person who provides the reasons adduces them as opposing the other person’s claim. In any situation where an argument is expressed, the adducer is the person who articulates the inferential claim conveyed by the indicator that points to the argument’s target.

3. Complex arguments

So far this conception of an argument accommodates only simple arguments, i.e. single-inference arguments with a set of one or more reasons, a target, and an indication of whether the reasons count for or against the target. We need to allow as well for complex arguments that involve a chain of reasoning or embedded suppositional reasoning.

3.1 Chain of reasoning arguments

In chained arguments, a reason of one argument (which I will call ‘the superordinate argument’) is the target of another (which I will call ‘the subordinate argument’ or ‘sub-argument’). Since only representatives can be reasons, the target of any subordinate argument must be a representative. There is no limit to the depth of chaining. The ultimate target in a chain of reasoning is supported or opposed by one or more reasons, each of which may be the target of one or more reasons in a sub-argument, each of which in turn may be the target of one or more reasons in a sub-sub-argument, and so on indefinitely. In an expressed sub-argument at any level, the reasons must be adduced in support of the target. Otherwise the target would have to be the complement of the reason in the superordinate argument to which it was linked. But it is hard to define the complement of a representative illocutionary act. What, for example, is the complement of a hedged assertion of the form ‘probably p ’? Representatives incompatible with ‘probably p ’ include ‘definitely p ’, ‘probably p ′ ’, and ‘definitely p ′ ’, where p ′ is a contradictory of p . An argument against some target that was used to support a reason of the form ‘probably p ’ would therefore need an unwieldy disjunction as its target, for which it would be difficult if not impossible to formulate a set of reasons that successfully opposed each disjunct simultaneously. Since subordinate simple arguments in an expressed complex argument make sense only if their reasons are presented in support of their target, it makes sense to limit unexpressed subordinate simple arguments in the same way.

The natural way to accommodate the indefinite complexity of chained arguments is to use a recursion clause that can be applied again and again so as to build up arguments of increasing complexity. The process is analogous to that by which one defines what a person’s ancestor is by saying that a parent of a person is an ancestor of that person and that a parent of any ancestor of that person is also an ancestor of that person. This definition allows one to construct the class of a person’s ancestors, starting with the person’s parents, then adding the grandparents, then the great-grandparents, and so on without end.

In defining recursively what an argument is, one needs to take some care in constructing the recursion clause for chaining arguments. The most sensible way to do so seems to be to add one at a time a simple argument for a reason in an already constructed argument. One can conceive of a simple argument, which is a triple, as a unit set, a set with one member. One can combine it with a simple argument whose target is a reason in the first argument by taking the union of the two sets, i.e., the set whose members are all the triples that are members of either set. And then one can combine this set of two triples with a third simple argument whose target is a reason in one of the first two triples. And so on. Let us call a reason in any triple in a set of such triples a ‘reason in the argument’. The recursion clause might then read as follows:

If in an argument something is a reason but is not a target, then the union of that argument with a simple argument whose target is that reason and whose indicator is positive is also an argument.

As with the definition of simple arguments, this clause allows that the most fantastic and crazy combinations are arguments in the abstract sense. The condition that the reason is not already a target is meant to exclude from being a single argument structures in which a reason is the target of more than one simple argument. Just as multiple arguments for or against the same ultimate target do not constitute a single argument, so too multiple arguments for the same intermediate target cannot be components of a single complex argument.

3.2 Embedded suppositional reasoning

Chaining is one of two ways to construct complex arguments. The other is embedding, where suppositional reasoning is used to support or oppose a target, with one or more of its suppositions being “discharged” in the process. (E.g., “Suppose the U.S. did not use the atomic bombs in WWII. Had that been the case, then probably…” or “Suppose we take on the debt of a big mortgage and buy a house. If we were to do that, then …”.) Any line of suppositional reasoning is an argument according to the recursive definition of argument developed so far. To allow for embedding one or more such lines of suppositional reasoning, we need to allow that a line of suppositional reasoning can count as something like a reason. [7] One way to do so is to take the line of suppositional reasoning as an implicit assertion that the ultimate target of the line of suppositional reasoning follows from its ultimate supposition in combination with any other ultimate reasons used in derivation of the ultimate target. (The assertion may be qualified, if either an inference or an ultimate reason in the suppositional reasoning is qualified.)

When the suppositional reasoning is embedded in a larger context, the target external to this line of reasoning is a representative, which in the case of nested suppositional reasoning may itself have a suppositional status. The recursion clause allowing embedding of suppositional reasoning thus needs to allow for the dual complexity of chains of reasoning from suppositions and nesting of suppositional reasoning inside suppositional reasoning. It also needs to allow that a line of suppositional reasoning can be used in opposition to a target as well in support of one. If the target of a line of suppositional reasoning is a reason in a sub-argument, however, then the expression of such a complex argument makes sense only if the suppositional reasoning is adduced in support of the target, for the same reason that an expressed chained simple sub-argument makes sense only if its reasons are adduced in support of its target: an opposed target would have to be too complex to count as the complement of the reason in the superordinate argument that is being indirectly supported by opposition to the target of the suppositional reasoning.

In general, too, it makes sense to use a line of suppositional reasoning only if its internal ultimate target is argued for rather than against, since all the recognized legitimate ways of discharging a supposition assume that the supposition is used to support the ultimate target. Similar restrictions to arguments with a positive indicator are therefore appropriate for abstract arguments that need not be expressed. It seems an unnecessary further complication, however, to incorporate in a clause allowing embedding the specific ways in which a supposition in a piece of suppositional reasoning may legitimately be discharged. [8] The abstract definition of an argument will thus allow for embedding pieces of suppositional reasoning in totally illegitimate ways.

The following is a possible recursion clause allowing embedding;

A triple is an argument if its first member is a set whose members include at least one argument with a suppositional ultimate reason, whose third member (the target) is an illocutionary act of any kind, and whose second member is an indicator of whether the members of the set count for or against the target.

As is usual with recursive definitions, there needs to be a final closure clause to the effect that nothing is an argument unless it is an argument according to the base clause and the recursion clauses. [9] One can illustrate and test the resulting definition by using its clauses to construct complex arguments as they appear in argumentative texts.

As with the abstract concept of a single argument, we need a basis for the unity of an expressed complex argument. An expressed chaining of two arguments is a complex illocutionary act of adducing the resulting chain of reasoning as supporting or opposing the ultimate target of the superordinate argument in the chain (i.e. the argument that has a reason which the subordinate simple argument targets). The essence of adducing in this case is that the utterance of the adducer counts as a claim that in each link of the chain the reasons if true or otherwise acceptable would provide epistemic support for the target or as a claim that the reasons if true or otherwise acceptable would provide epistemic opposition to the target. An embedding of an argument is a complex act of adducing the embedded suppositional reasoning, possibly along with one or more reasons, as support for or opposition to the target of the argument in which the suppositional reasoning is embedded. The essence of adducing in this case is that the utterance of the adducer counts as a claim that the suppositional reasoning would if the additional reasons (if any) were true or otherwise acceptable provide epistemic support for the target or as a claim that the suppositional reasoning would if the additional reasons (if any) were true or otherwise acceptable provide epistemic opposition to the target. The content conditions, preparatory conditions and sincerity conditions for these more complex acts of adducing are a function of the content, preparatory and sincerity conditions for the simple acts of adducing from which they are constituted.

As with simple expressed arguments, we can accommodate complex arguments that are merely considered by a hypothetically possible act of adducing. If one is considering a complex abstract argument as a whole that could be used to adduce the reasons as supporting or opposing its ultimate target, then one is considering an argument.

The conception of an argument that I propose has the following distinctive features:

• It takes the ultimate constituents of arguments to be illocutionary act types rather than propositions, statements, utterances, and the like.
• It allows for arguments against something as well as arguments for something.
• It allows the reasons in an argument to be any kind of representative illocutionary act.
• It allows arguments to have as their target any kind of illocutionary act.
• It distinguishes arguments as abstract structures that may never be expressed or even thought of from expressed arguments.
• It locates the unity of an expressed or mentally entertained argument in a second-order illocutionary act of adducing, which may be actual or merely hypothetically entertained.
• It allows for a variety of uses of arguments, since neither the abstract conception of an argument nor the act of adducing that constitutes a complex of illocutionary act types as a single argument includes any conception of the purpose or function of an argument.
• It provides explicitly for complex arguments to be constructed recursively by steps of chaining and embedding.

Anselm, Saint (1903/1077-78). Proslogium ; Monologium : An appendix in behalf of the fool by Gaunilo ; and Cur deus homo , translated from the Latin by Sidney Norton Deane, B.A. with an introduction, bibliography, and reprints of the opinions of leading philosophers and writers on the ontological argument. Chicago: Open Court. Latin original of the Proslogium written in 1077-78.

Diogenes Laertius (1925/ca. 210-240). Lives of eminent philosophers , with an English translation by R. D. Hicks, 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library 184 and 185. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. First published ca. 210-240 CE.

Ennis, Robert H. (2006). ‘Probably’. In David Hitchcock & Bart Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model: New essays on argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 145-164). Dordrecht: Springer.

Freeman, James B. (2010). Commentary on Geoffrey C. Goddu’s “Refining Hitchcock’s definition of ‘argument’”. In Juho Ritola (Ed.), Argument cu l tures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1-10). Windsor, ON: OSSA. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=ossaarchive .

Goddu, Geoffrey C. (2018). Against the intentional definition of argument. In Steve Oswald and Didier Maillat (Eds .), Proceedings of the Second E u ropean Conference on Argumentation, University of Fribourg, Switzerland, 20-23 June 2017 , Vol. II (pp. 337-346). London: College Publications.

Hitchcock, David (2006). Informal logic and the concept of argument. In Dale Jacquette (Ed.), Philosophy of logic , volume 5 of Dov M. Gabbay, Paul Thagard & John Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of sc i ence (pp. 101-129). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Hitchcock, David (2017). The concept of argument. In David Hitchcock, On reasoning and argument: Essays in informal logic and on critical thinking (pp. 518-529). Dordrecht: Springer.

Johnson, Ralph H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of a r gument . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Rahwan, Iyad, & Chris Reed (2009). The Argument Interchange Format. In Guillermo R. Simari (Ed.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 383-402). Boston: Springer.

Searle, John R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society , 5(1): 1-23.

Toulmin, Stephen Edelston (1958). The uses of argument . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wohlrapp, Harald R. (2014/2008). The concept of argument: A philosoph i cal foundation . Dordrecht: Springer. German original first published in 2008.

• © David Hitchcock ↵
• This chapter uses material from “The concept of argument” (Hitchcock 2017, pp. 518-529; © Springer International Publishing AG 2017), with permission of Springer. ↵
• ‘Premise’ and ‘premiss’ are both acceptable spellings of the word. Some authors prefer the first, which is more common in the USA; some prefer the second, which is found more often in Great Britain. ↵
• As Toulmin (1958, pp. 47-62) and Ennis (2006, pp. 145-164) have argued. ↵
• Wohlrapp argues that if voluntary euthanasia becomes legal on the basis that self-determination requires it, those whose condition might qualify them for approval to be euthanized but who want merely to live out the remainder of their natural lives are pressured by appeals to self-determination to submit to euthanasia. The supposedly liberating value becomes coercive. ↵
• More precisely: A simple argument is a triple whose first member is a set of one or more representative illocutionary act types (called ‘the reasons’), whose third member (called ‘the target’) is an illocutionary act type of any kind, and whose second member is an indicator of whether the reasons count for or against the target. ↵
• It won’t do, however, to count it as a reason in the same sense as that in which a representative is a reason. Otherwise the recursion clause for chaining would allow for arguments that are subordinate to a line of suppositional reasoning, which makes no sense. ↵
• One way of legitimately discharging a supposition is conditional proof, in which one derives a conditional from a line of suppositional reasoning that starts from the supposition of the conditional’s antecedent and ends with the conditional’s consequent. A variant form of conditional proof starts from the supposition of a contradictory of a conditional’s consequent and ends with a contradictory of its antecedent. Another way to legitimately discharge a supposition is reductio ad absurdum, in which one uses a line of reasoning from a supposition to some absurdity as a reason for denying the supposed proposition. Another is argument by cases, in which one considers an allegedly exhaustive set of possible cases, deriving the same ultimate target from the supposition of each case, and then drawing this ultimate target as a conclusion. Another is to argue for a proposition in a proof by mathematical induction by supposing at the inductive step that the proposition holds for the number n (or for every number up to and including n) and deriving from this supposition that then it also holds for the number n 1. Another is universal generalization, in which one derives a universal generalization about a kind by reasoning from the supposition that some individual is of that kind to the conclusion that the generalization holds for this individual, without using any other assumption about the individual. ↵
• One can express the recursive definition in the customary form of a statement in which there appears in the first part the term to be defined, in the last part the defining part of the definition, and in between these two parts an indicator (such as ‘means’, ‘=df’, ‘if and only if’, or ‘is a’) that the defining part states the meaning of the defined term. For example, one could say that something is an argument if and only if it belongs to every set that includes everything that satisfies the base clause, as well as everything that can be constructed from its members using the recursion clauses for chaining and embedding. ↵

Studies in Critical Thinking Copyright © by David Hitchcock is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

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
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 23, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

I.  Introduction Arguments are everywhere, but this doesn't mean that everything is an argument. When you get up and go get a soda from the fridge, you're not making an argument.  The credits at the end of The Matrix are not an argument.  And it's not an argument when you whisper "Goodnight".  So much is obvious.  But just how obvious is it?  Consider that a harshly whispered "Goodnight" said by a father to his unruly children might carry an implied "or else!", making it an argument---the conclusion is that the children need to go to bed and the reason is that if they don't, they won't like what happens.  Also, what if a film teacher were to use the credits at the end of The Matrix to support some point about how one should not display movie credit information---in this case, the credits would form part of a reason for a general conclusion, and so figure into an argument.  Finally, if at the climactic moment of soda choice you opt for the Coke over the Jones Soda, you may be acting on a conclusion ingrained in you by years of television without TiVo.   The first stage in critical thinking is argument identification.  Given that some of what people say and do is not argumentative, one must be able to distinguish the arguments from other types of expression.  The situation here is no different than in, say, an English Comp question where you are asked to find the split infinitives in a chunk of text.  It will be difficult to do well on this question unless you know how to properly identify split infinitives. The same is true for arguments, and this section is designed to help you enhance your ability to spot arguments when they are afoot. There are three steps to argument identification: Understand the Context : Is someone trying to convince you of something? Identify the Conclusion : What are they trying to convince you? Identify the Reasons : Why do they think you should believe them? II.  Understanding the Context If you wish to become skilled at grappling with arguments, you must become skilled at spotting them, and if you want to become skilled at spotting them, it helps to know where they are typically found.  When you click on the television to watch the Bush-Kerry debates, you expect arguments.  When you crack open the Newsweek to the back page for the George Will column, you expect arguments.  The same is true for the op-ed page, or C-Span, or Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn, or commercials .  But the same is not true for the comics (unless you like This Modern World ), or a Jackie Chan movie, or the Eredivisie on Fox Sports World. This reveals the fact that in certain situations---call them argument contexts ---you can expect an argument, whereas in other situations you might be surprised to find an argument.  Knowing the argument contexts puts you ahead of the game as a critical thinker.  It puts you on your guard, inclining you to take care so as not to be taken in by an argument that is not really compelling.  (Think shoe commercials.)   In general, we are pretty aware of the obvious argument contexts---debates, classrooms, the media, political discussions among friends, etc.  We are also sensitive to certain words and phrases that mark arguments, e.g., 'argument', 'my view', 'my opinion', 'what you should think'.  (See below for words that mark conclusions and reasons, thereby also marking arguments.) The first step in enhancing critical thinking ability, though, requires careful reflection on this awareness.  Exercise One focuses your attention on specific contexts and asks you to determine whether you take them to be argument contexts.  For more information about argument contexts, please continue by  reading the Expanded Notes on Argument Contexts .  III.  Identifying the Conclusion "Lance Armstrong will win his sixth Tour de France because he has a 1.25 lead and there are only five stages to go.  Vive la Lance!"  This is an argument, one intended to get you to believe that Armstrong will win the Tour de France.   Typically, the main purpose of an argument is to press a point.  That is, arguments are vehicles intended to convince or compel people to believe something.  This "something" is what we have called the conclusion .  Whether the argument works or not depends on whether it supplies compelling reason to believe this conclusion, but first things first---you can't assess the effectiveness of an argument without first identifying its conclusion. As with argument contexts, you can enhance your critical thinking ability by learning of ways to identify the conclusions of arguments.  Most of the time, this won't be too difficult; after all, it is in the best interest of the arguer that their conclusion be clear.  This can be done in several ways.  One technique is to position the conclusion prominently at the beginning or the end of the argument, e.g., at the beginning or end of the paragraph that contains the argument.  Another is to repeat the conclusion during the course of the argument several times, calling attention to the fact that it is the most important point.  Finally, there are words and phrases whose primary purpose is to introduce the conclusion---call these "conclusion markers".  Conclusion markers include the following:  'therefore', 'thus', 'hence', 'as a result', 'in that case', 'then', 'so', 'accordingly', 'the bottom line', 'as a consequence', and 'for this reason'.  Be careful, though---not all appearances of these terms mark conclusions; for example, 'then' often indicates the next event in a series of events.  Proceed now to Exercise Two, where you will apply your ability to identify conclusions.  IV.  Identifying the Reasons The other essential part of the argument that one must identify are the reasons .  These are claims that support the conclusion---as their name suggests, they give you reason to believe it.  Without them, there is no argument---just a claim.  Thus, it is a mistake to respond to a request for your argument by saying, "Bush will win in 2004!"  This may be your conclusion, but without reasons, it is no argument.  As with conclusions, there are ways to identify reasons.  One fast-and-loose method is to take everything that isn't a conclusion in the argument to be a reason.  However, as we will see in the next section, this will give you false positives, that is, claims that are considered reasons without actually being reasons, since arguments often contain claims that serve other purposes (e.g., humor, small talk, rhetorical flourish, etc.).  The most effective method is to look for  "reason markers".  These terms include the following: 'because', 'since', 'for', 'in light of', 'reason', 'assume', 'according to', 'considering', 'by', 'if', 'in fact', etc. As before, you need to take care when evaluating appearances of these terms---not all appearances mark reasons.  The final exercise in this section, Exercise Three, tests your ability to identify reasons. V. Putting It All Together Chapter 5 of Grendel will be the focus of the paper you write after finishing this Worksite.  It is a chapter chock full of arguments---seven, by my count---and one that we want you to focus on.  Read the chapter closely, marking where the dragon's arguments appear in your books or on a piece of paper.  When searching for these, look for reason and conclusion markers, but also look for changes in focus by the dragon and changes in argumentative strategy.  Grendel isn't exactly a quick study, and the dragon has to try a number of different tacks to get through to him.  When you have done this, compare your list of arguments to the list in the key, indicated by conclusion and page number.   VI.  Summary If you are out hunting snipe, it helps to know what snipe are and how to identify them.  If you are critically thinking, where we take this to mean analyzing arguments, it helps to know what arguments are and how to identify them.  By developing a sensitivity to argument contexts and indications of conclusions and reasons, one can become a very effective argument spotter. With this in hand, we can proceed to the next section, Argument Reconstruction , where we will develop critical thinking techniques that come into play after we've located the argument. The Open University Accessibility hub Guest user / Sign out Study with The Open University My OpenLearn Profile Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning About this free course Become an ou student, download this course, share this free course. Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available. 8 Analysis, argument and critical thinking In this section, we are going to look in detail at analysis and argument. Analytical thinking is a particular type of higher order thinking central to much academic activity. It is concerned with examining 'methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of something' (Oxford English Dictionary). This includes looking at variables, factors, and relationships between things, as well as examining ideas and problems, and detecting and analysing arguments. Many essay questions require argument. Skills in manipulating content to make a good argument can make the difference between higher and lower assignment grades. You can start to explore the ideas of analysis and argument by using an everyday example. Image of the back of a cereal packet. It reads: ‘Why is breakfast the most important meal of the day? ‘Hectic lifestyle have become a part of the way we live today, whether we’re rushing off to work, getting the kids off to school or looking after a demanding familty. Eating breakfast refuels the body and helps get the day off to a good start. Breakfast cereals are an important part of a healthy diet as they are low in fat, high in carbohydrates and provide some fibre. Just one bowl of Sainsbury’s cereals also provides the following vitamins and minerals.’ The cereal packet then lists the vitamins and minerals provided, alongside some unreadable information about each. The vitamins and minerals listed are: vitamin D, vitamin B1, vitamin B2, niacin, vitamin B8, vitaming B12, pantothenic acid, iron. Activity 19 Making use of the description of Figure 3 available in the link below the image, on a sheet of paper note down your responses to the following questions. What was your reaction to doing this activity? What do you think the text was aiming to do? Do you feel the writer was successful in achieving what she or he set out to do? What worked and what did not work? How did you feel about this activity? Perhaps your first reaction is that under normal circumstances you would not read the back of a cereal packet. Perhaps you would normally be too busy to read this sort of thing, or would not bother because it is not relevant or of interest. The attention we give to something is dependent on the context. You probably do not have to read and think about cereal packets, but do need to read and think carefully about academic texts. Did you accept what was written or did the text prompt you to ask questions such as 'What is the purpose of this text?' The initial question 'Why breakfast is the most important meal of the day?' seems to suggest that the aim of the text might to be to provide answers, perhaps to convince us that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. You might reasonably have expected the text to provide some good reasons for us to be convinced of this. But perhaps after reading it, you decided that the writer's aim was simply to convince you that eating cereals for breakfast is a good thing. If the aim was to show that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, was the text a convincing argument? The writer certainly tells us that 'breakfast refuels the body and helps get the day off to a good start', which could be a reason to support the view that breakfast is important, but is not really one to convince us that breakfast is the most important meal. The writer has not told us why breakfast is more important than lunch, tea, dinner or supper. He or she seems to unquestioningly accept or assume that breakfast is the most important meal. Telling us about hectic lifestyles or the nutritional benefits of breakfast cereals does not tell us why breakfast is the most important meal. The relevance of these points is not clear at all. All in all, this is not a very convincing case for breakfast being the most important meal of the day. If the aim were really to persuade us to eat cereals, would we be convinced? It is hard to know if the information given as facts is correct and relevant to a healthy diet unless you have some knowledge of nutritional science. Although this is a simple everyday text, it provides an opportunity to exercise analytical thinking skills. The process of looking at the structure and parts of something in the way we have done here is what we mean by analysis. The text also illustrates the ideas of having a point or a case you wish to prove, and providing evidence and reasons to support it - together these form what the academic world calls an argument. This is very different from the everyday sense of the word, 'having a disagreement'. Here, we have been analysing an argument. Activity 20 What do you think is needed to make an argument a really good one (i.e. for the case to be convincing)? What could be done to improve (make more convincing) the argument analysed in Activity 19 ? When arguing a case, it needs to be clear what the case is. Perhaps, in the example above, the title should have been 'Why breakfast cereal is worth eating'. A good argument will have a clear and logical flow (line of reasoning). The sequence of thinking in the example was not clear or logical. For example, starting from the original question, a logical path might lead to discussion of reasons why breakfast is more important than other meals, and perhaps include information on demands on the body and physiological perspectives on the timing and types of food eaten. To be convinced, we need good reasons or evidence which is relevant. It is not immediately clear how the information about the nutritional value of breakfast cereals is relevant to the case for breakfast being the most important meal of the day. Moreover, how do we know the information is correct? Activity 21 Having appropriate evidence to support arguments is important. Which of the following statements might be most convincing and why? ▪ There is life on other planets in the universe. ▪ There is life on other planets in the universe because Mike Edwards says so. ▪ There is life on other planets in the universe because an eminent Cambridge Professor of Astronomy says so. ▪ There is a high probability of life on other planets in the universe because we know from studies by experts that there are in the order of 100 billion stars in our galaxy and there are 100 billion galaxies. This gives 10 22 stars. Some of these stars are likely to have planets associated with them. While the conditions conducive to life are rare, such a large number of planets gives a high probability that life will exist on a planet somewhere in the universe. ▪ Samples of surface material from other planets in the universe have been taken by space missions and found to contain life forms. (Adapted from Collier and Twomey, 1997) It would be reasonable to feel somewhat unconvinced by the first statement; it is an unsupported assertion. It may well just be an opinion, there is no reason or evidence provided. Being able to distinguish fact from opinion is important. In the second case, the statement is apparently given authority by being attributed to Mike Edwards. The question is - who is Mike Edwards? What reason is there for believing him rather than anyone else? We do not know on what basis he has made such a statement. We might feel a bit more convinced by the eminent Cambridge Professor of Astronomy. After all she or he may have spent many years in relevant study and be making a statement based on this wealth of experience. But, what if the professor had not been a professor of astronomy? What credence would we give to someone's views if they were an expert in another area? For example, a pop star or celebrity chef making a statement on a political issue? We need to take care in transferring authority in one area to another. Maybe someone's skills are transferable to another situation - but maybe not. The penultimate case is more convincing, because we are presented with a logical line of reasoning. In the final statement, we appear to have factual evidence that there are life forms on other planets. Even then, we need to think about the certainty of 'facts'. Knowledge changes and depends on context. It is only as good as the methods used to obtain it. Instances of 'facts' turning out to be artefacts of methods are common. Perhaps in this case the life forms found in the samples were contaminants on the equipment (acquired from Earth before or after the sampling journey). Sometimes, general conclusions are drawn from insufficient data or information. Does the evidence provide sufficient information to prove something or only suggest something is probable? We hope this example illustrates the importance of using appropriate evidence or reasoning to support an argument, and the importance of being cautious in what you use and accept as evidence. You should certainly avoid unsupported assertions in academic work and strive to provide the most appropriate and convincing evidence you can. Advertisement Developing Students’ Critical Thinking Skills and Argumentation Abilities Through Augmented Reality–Based Argumentation Activities in Science Classes Published: 22 August 2022 Volume 32 , pages 1165–1195, ( 2023 ) Cite this article Tuba Demircioglu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3567-1739 1 , Memet Karakus   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6099-5420 2 & Sedat Ucar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4158-1038 1   8501 Accesses 11 Citations Explore all metrics Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and adapting the classes urgently to distance learning, directing students’ interest in the course content became challenging. The solution to this challenge emerges through creative pedagogies that integrate the instructional methods with new technologies like augmented reality (AR). Although the use of AR in science education is increasing, the integration of AR into science classes is still naive. The lack of the ability to identify misinformation in the COVID-19 pandemic process has revealed the importance of developing students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities. The purpose of this study was to examine the change in critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities through augmented reality–based argumentation activities in teaching astronomy content. The participants were 79 seventh grade students from a private school. In this case study, the examination of the verbal arguments of students showed that all groups engaged in the argumentation and produced quality arguments. The critical thinking skills of the students developed until the middle of the intervention, and the frequency of using critical thinking skills varied after the middle of the intervention. The findings highlight the role of AR-based argumentation activities in students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation in science education. Similar content being viewed by others Integrating augmented reality into inquiry-based learning approach in primary science classrooms Insights from pre-service teachers using science-based augmented reality. Combining Inquiry, Universal Design for Learning, Alternate Reality Games and Augmented Reality Technologies in Science Education: The IB-ARGI Approach and the Case of Magnetman Explore related subjects. Artificial Intelligence Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript. 1 Introduction With rapidly developing technology, the number of children using mobile handheld devices has increased drastically (Rideout et al., 2010 ; Squire, 2006 ). Technologies and digital enhancements that use the internet have become a part of the daily life of school-age children (Kennedy et al., 2008 ), and education evolves in line with the changing technology. Rapidly changing innovation technologies have changed the characteristics of learners in the fields of knowledge, skills, and expertise that are valuable for society, and circumstances for teachers and students have changed over time (Yuen et al., 2011 ). Almost every school subject incorporates technological devices into the pedagogy to different extents, but science teachers are the most eager to use technological devices in science classes because of the nature of the content they are expected to teach. The COVID-19 pandemic has had an important impact on educational systems worldwide. Due to the fast-spreading of that disease, the educators had to adapt their classes urgently to technology and distance learning (Dietrich et al., 2020 ), and schools have had to put more effort into adapting new technologies to teaching. Z generation was born into a time of information technology, but they did not choose distance courses that were not created for them so they are not motivated during the classes (Dietrich et al., 2020 ). Directing students’ interest in the course content is challenging, while their interest has changed by this technological development. The solution to this challenge emerges through creative pedagogies that integrate the instructional methods with new striking technology. Augmented reality has demonstrated high potential as part of many teaching methods. 2 Literature Review 2.1 augmented reality, education, and science education. AR applications have important potential for many areas where rapid transfer of information is important. This is especially effective for education. Science education is among the disciplines where rapid information transfer is important. Taylor ( 1987 , p. 1) stated that “the transfer of scientific and technological information to children and to the general public is as important as the search for information.” With the rapid change in science and technology and outdating of knowledge, learning needs rapid changes in transfer of information (Ploman, 1987 ). Technology provides new and innovative methods for science education and could be an effective media in promoting students’ learning (Virata & Castro, 2019 ). AR technology could be a promising teaching tool for science teaching in which AR technology is especially applicable (Arici et al., 2019 ). Research shows that AR has great potential and benefits for learning and teaching (Yuen et al., 2011 ). The AR applications used in teaching and learning present many objects, practices, and experiments that students cannot obtain from the first-hand experience into many different dimensions because of the impossibilities in the real world, and it is an approach that can be applied to many science contents that are unreachable, unobtrusive, and unable to travel (Cai et al., 2013 ; Huang et al., 2019 ; Pellas et al., 2019 ). For example, physically unreachable phenomena such as solar systems, moon phases, and magnetic fields become accessible for learners through AR (Fleck & Simon, 2013 ; Kerawalla et al., 2006 ; Shelton & Hedley, 2002 ; Sin & Zaman, 2010 ; Yen et al., 2013 ). Through AR, learners can obtain instant access to location-specific information provided by a wide range of sources (Yuen et al., 2011 ). Location-based information, when used in particular contextual learning activities, is essential for assisting students’ outdoor learning. This interaction develops comprehension, understanding, imagination, and retention, which are the learning and cognitive skills of learners (Chiang et al., 2014 ). For example, an AR-based mobile learning system was used in the study conducted by Chiang et al. ( 2014 ) on aquatic animals and plants. The location module can identify the students’ GPS location, direct them to discover the target ecological regions, and provide the appropriate learning tasks or additional resources. When students explore various characteristics of learning objects, the camera and image editing modules can take the image from the real environment and make comment on the image of the observed things. Research reveals that the use of AR technology as part of teaching a subject has the features of being constructivist, problem solving-based, student-centered, authentic, participative, creative, personalized, meaningful, challenging, collaborative, interactive, entertaining, cognitively rich, contextual, and motivational (Dunleavy et al., 2009 ). Despite its advantages and although the use of AR in science education is increasing, the integration of AR into science classes is still naive, and teachers still do not consider themselves as ready for use of AR in their class (Oleksiuk & Oleksiuk, 2020 ; Romano et al., 2020 ) and choose not to use AR technology (Alalwan et al., 2020 ; Garzón et al., 2019 ), because most of them do not have the abilities and motivation to design AR learning practices (Garzón et al., 2019 ; Romano et al., 2020 ). It is thought that the current study will contribute to the use of AR in science lessons and how science teachers will include AR technology in their lessons. 2.2 Argumentation, Critical Thinking, and Augmented Reality New trends in information technologies have contributed to the development of new skills in which people have to struggle with a range of information and evaluate this information. An important point of these skills is the ability to argue with evidence (Jiménez -Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007 ) in which young people create appropriate results from the information and evidence given to them to criticize the claims of others in the direction of the evidence and to distinguish an idea from evidence-based situations (OECD, 2003 , p. 132). Learning with technologies could produce information and misinformation simultaneously (Chai et al., 2015 ). Misinformation has spread very quickly in public in COVID-19 pandemic, so the lack of the ability to interpret and evaluate the validity and credibility of them arose again (Saribas & Çetinkaya, 2021 ). This process revealed the importance of developing students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities (Erduran, 2020 ) to make decisions and adequate judgments when they encountered contradicting information (Chai et al., 2015 ). Thinking about different subjects, evaluating the validity of scientific claims, and interpreting and evaluating evidence are important elements of science courses and play important roles in the construction of scientific knowledge (Driver et al., 2000 ). The use of scientific knowledge in everyday life ensures that critical thinking skills come to the forefront. Ennis ( 2011 , p. 1) defined critical thinking as “Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe”. Jiménez-Aleixandre and Puig ( 2012 ) found this definition very broad, and they proposed a comprehensive definition of critical thinking that combines the components of social emancipation and evidence evaluation. It contains the competence to form autonomous ideas as well as the ability to participate in and reflect on the world around us. Figure  1 summarizes this comprehensive definition. Argumentation levels by groups Critical thinking skills that include the ability to evaluate arguments and counterarguments in a variety of contexts are very important, and effective argumentation is the focal point of criticism and the informed decision (Nussbaum, 2008 ). Argumentation is defined as the process of making claims about a scientific subject, supporting them with data, using warrants, and criticizing, refuting, and evaluating an idea (Toulmin, 1990 ). Argumentation as an instructional method is an important research area in science education and has received enduring interest from science educators for more than a decade (Erduran et al., 2015 ). Researchers concluded that learners mostly made only claims in the argumentation process and had difficulty producing well-justified and high-quality arguments (Demircioglu & Ucar, 2014 ; Demircioglu & Ucar, 2015 ; Cavagnetto et al., 2010 ; Erdogan et al., 2017 ; Erduran et al., 2004 ; Novak & Treagust, 2017 ). To improve the quality of arguments, students should be given supportive elements to produce more consistent arguments during argumentation. One of these supportive elements is the visual representations of the phenomena. Visual representations could make it easier to see the structure of the arguments of learners (Akpınar et al., 2014 ) and improve students’ awareness. For example, the number of words and comments used by students or meaningful links in conversations increases with visually enriched arguments (Erkens & Janssen, 2006 ). Sandoval & Millwood ( 2005 ) stated that students should be able to evaluate different kinds of evidence such as digital data and graphic photography to defend their claims. Appropriate data can directly support a claim and allow an argument to be accepted or rejected by students (Lin & Mintzes, 2010 ). Enriched visual representations provide students with detailed and meaningful information about the subject (Clark et al., 2007 ). Students collect evidence for argumentation by observing enriched representations (Clark et al., 2007 ), and these representations help to construct higher-quality arguments (Buckingham Shum et al., 1997 ; Jermann & Dillenbourg, 2003 ). Visualization techniques enable students to observe how objects behave and interact and provide an easy-to-understand presentation of scientific facts that are difficult to understand with textual or oral explanations (Cadmus, 1990 ). In short, technological opportunities to create visually enriched representations increase students’ access to rich data to support their arguments. Among the many technological opportunities to promote argumentation, AR seems to be the most promising application for instructing school subjects. AR applications are concerned with the combination of computer-generated data (virtual reality) and the real world, where computer graphics are projected onto real-time video images (Dias, 2009 ). In addition, augmented reality provides users with the ability to see a real-world environment enriched with 3D images and to interact in real time by combining virtual objects with the real environment in 3D and showing the spatial relations (Kerawalla et al., 2006 ). AR applications are thus important tools for students’ arguments with the help of detailed and meaningful information and enriched representations. Research studies using AR technology revealed that all students in the study engaged in argumentation and produced arguments (Jan, 2009 ; Squire & Jan, 2007 ). Many studies focusing on using AR in science education have been published in recent decades. Research studies related to AR in science education have focused on the use of game-based AR in science education (Atwood-Blaine & Huffman, 2017 ; Bressler & Bodzin, 2013 ; Dunleavy et al., 2009 ; López-Faican & Jaen, 2020 ; Squire, 2006 ), academic achievement (Hsiao et al., 2016 ; Faridi et al., 2020 ; Hwang et al., 2016 ; Lu et al., 2020 ; Sahin & Yilmaz, 2020 ;, Yildirim & Seckin-Kapucu, 2020 ), understanding science content and its conceptual understanding (Cai et al., 2021 ; Chang et al., 2013 ; Chen & Liu, 2020 ; Ibáñez et al., 2014 ), attitude (Sahin & Yilmaz, 2020 0; Hwang et al., 2016 ), self-efficacy (Cai et al., 2021 ), motivation (Bressler & Bodzin, 2013 ; Chen & Liu, 2020 ; Kirikkaya & Başgül, 2019 ; Lu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2014 ), and critical thinking skills (Faridi et al., 2020 ; Syawaludin et al., 2019 ). The general trend in these research studies based on the content of “learning/academic achievement,” “understanding science content and its conceptual understanding,” “motivation,” “attitude,” and methodologically quantitative studies was mostly used in articles in science education. Therefore, qualitative and quantitative data to be obtained from studies investigating the use of augmented reality technology in education and focusing on cognitive issues, interaction, and collaborative activities are needed (Arici et al., 2019 ; Cheng & Tsai, 2013 ). Instructional strategies using AR technology ensure interactions between students and additionally between students and teachers (Hanid et al., 2020 ). Both the technological features of AR and learning strategies should be regarded by the teachers, the curriculum, and AR technology developers to acquire the complete advantage of AR in student learning (Garzón & Acevedo, 2019 ; Garzón et al., 2020 ). Researchers investigated the learning outcomes with AR-integrated learning strategies such as collaborative learning (Baran et al., 2020 ; Chen & Liu, 2020 ; Ke & Carafano, 2016 ), socioscientific reasoning (Chang et al., 2020 ), student-centered hands-on learning activities (Chen & Liu, 2020 ), inquiry-based learning (Radu & Schneider, 2019 ), concept-map learning system (Chen et al., 2019 ), problem-based learning (Fidan & Tuncel, 2019 ), and argumentation (Jan, 2009 ; Squire & Jan, 2007 ) in science learning. The only two existing studies using both AR and argumentation (Jan, 2009 ; Squire & Jan, 2007 ) focus on environmental education and use location-based augmented reality games through mobile devices to engage students in scientific argumentation. Studies combining AR and argumentation in astronomy education have not been found in the literature. In the current study, AR was integrated with argumentation in teaching astronomy content. Studies have revealed that many topics in astronomy are very difficult to learn and that students have incorrect and naive concepts (Yu & Sahami, 2007 ). Many topics include three-dimensional (3D) spatial relationships between astronomical objects (Aktamış & Arıcı, 2013 ; Yu & Sahami, 2007 ). However, most of the traditional teaching materials used in astronomy education are two-dimensional (Aktamış & Arıcı, 2013 ). Teaching astronomy through photographs and 2D animations is not sufficient to understand the difficult and complex concepts of astronomy (Chen et al., 2007 ). Static visualization tools such as texts, photographs, and 3D models do not change over time and do not have continuous movement, while dynamic visualization tools such as videos or animations show continuous movement and change over time (Schnotz & Lowe, 2008 ). However, animation is the presentation of images on a computer screen (Rieber & Kini, 1991 ), not in the real world, and the users do not have a chance to manipulate the images (Setozaki et al., 2017 ). As a solution to this shortcoming, using 3D technology in science classes, especially AR technology for abstract concepts, has become a necessity (Sahin & Yilmaz, 2020 ). By facilitating interaction with real and virtual environment and supporting object manipulation, AR is possible to enhance educational benefits (Billinghurst, 2002 ). The students are not passive participants while using AR technology. For example, the animated 3D sun and Earth models are moved on a handheld platform that adjusts its orientation in accordance with the student’s point of view in Shelton’s study ( 2002 ). They found that the ability of students to manage “how” and “when” they are allowed to manipulate virtual 3D objects has a direct impact on learning complex spatial phenomena. Experimental results show that compared with traditional video teaching, AR multimedia video teaching method significantly improves students’ learning (Chen et al., 2022 ). This study, which integrates argumentation with new striking technology “AR” in astronomy education, clarifies the relationship between them and examines variables such as critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities that are essential in the era we live, making this research important. 2.3 Research Questions The purpose of this study was to identify the change in critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities through augmented reality–based argumentation activities in teaching astronomy content. The following research questions guided this study: RQ1: How do the critical thinking skills of students who participated in both augmented reality and argumentation activities on astronomy change during the study? RQ2: How do the argumentation abilities of students who participated in both augmented reality and argumentation activities on astronomy change during the study? In this case study, we investigated the change of critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities of middle school students. Before the main intervention, a pilot study was conducted to observe the effectiveness of the prepared lesson plans in practice and to identify the problems in the implementation process. The pilot study was recorded with a camera. The camera recordings were watched by the researcher, and the difficulties in the implementation process were identified. In the main intervention, preventions were taken to overcome these difficulties. Table 1 illustrates that the problems encountered during the pilot study and the preventions taken to eliminate these problems. During the main intervention, qualitative data were collected through observations and audio recordings to determine the change in the critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities of students who participated in both augmented reality and argumentation activities on astronomy. 3.1 Context and Participants The participants consisted of 79 7th middle school students aged between 12 and 13 from a private school in Southern Turkey. The participants were determined as students in a private school where tablet computers are available for each student and the school willing to participate in the study. Twenty-six students, including 17 females and 9 males, participated in the study. The students’ parents signed the consent forms (whether participating or refusing participation in the study). The researcher informed them about the purpose of the study, instructional process, and ethical principles that directed the study. The teachers and school principals were informed that the preliminary and detailed conclusions of the study will be shared with them. The first researcher conducted the lessons in all groups because when the study was conducted, the use of augmented reality technology in education was very new. Also, the science teachers had inadequate knowledge and experience about augmented reality applications. Before the study, the researcher attended the classes with the teacher and made observations to help students become accustomed to the presence of the researcher in the classroom. This prolonged engagement increased the reliability of the implementation of instructions and data collection (Guba & Lincoln, 1989 ). 3.2 Instructional Activities The 3-week, 19-h intervention process, which was based on the prepared lesson plan, was conducted. The students participated in the learning process that included both augmented reality and argumentation activities about astronomy. 3.2.1 Augmented Reality Activities Free applications such as Star Chart, Sky View Free, Aurasma, Junaio, Augment, and i Solar System were used with students’ tablet computers in augmented reality instructions. Tablet computers were provided by the school administration from their stock. Videos, simulations, and 3D visuals generated by applications were used as “overlays.” In addition, pictures, photographs, colored areas in the worksheets, and students’ textbooks were used as “trigger images.” Students had the opportunity to interact with and manipulate these videos, simulations, and 3D visuals while using the applications. With applications such as Sky View Free and Star Chart, students were provided with the resources to make sky observations. A detailed description of the activities used in augmented reality is given in Appendix Table 8 . 3.2.2 Argumentation Activities Before the instruction, the students were divided into six groups by the teacher, paying attention to heterogeneity in terms of gender and academic achievement. After small group discussions, the students participated in whole-class discussions. Competing theories cartoons, tables of statements, constructing an argument, and argument-driven inquiry (ADI) frameworks were used to support argumentation in the learning process. Argument-driven inquiry consists of eight steps including the following: identification of the task, the generation and analysis of data, the production of a tentative argument, an argumentation session, an investigation report, a double-blind peer review, revision of the report, and explicit and reflective discussion (Sampson & Gleim, 2009 ; Sampson et al., 2011 ). A detailed description of the activities used in argumentation is given in Appendix Table 9 . 4 Data Collection The data were collected through unstructured and participant observations (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994 ; Patton, 2002 ). The instructional intervention was recorded with a video camera, and the students’ argumentation processes were also recorded with a voice recorder. Since all students spoke at the same time during group discussions, the observation records were insufficient to understand the student talks. To determine what each student in the group said during the argumentation process, a voice recorder was placed in the middle of the group table, and a voice recording was taken throughout the lesson. A total of 2653.99 min of voice recordings were taken in the six groups. 4.1 Data Analysis The analysis of the data was conducted with inductive and deductive approaches. Before coding, the data were arranged. The critical thinking data were organized by day. The argumentation skills were organized by day and also on the basis of the groups. After generating codes during the inductive analysis of the development of critical thinking skills, a deductive approach was adopted (Patton, 2002 ). The critical thinking skills dimensions discussed by Ennis ( 2011 ) and Ennis ( 1991 ) were used to determine the relationship between codes. Ennis ( 2011 ) prepared an outline to distinguish critical thinking dispositions and skills by synthesizing of many years of studies. These critical skills that contain abilities that ideal critical thinkers have were used to generate codes from students’ talks. This skills and abilities were given in Appendix Table 10 . Then “clarification skills, decision making-supporting skills, inference skills, advanced clarification skills, and other/strategy and techniques skills” discussed by Ennis ( 1991 ) and Ennis ( 2011 ) were used to determine the categories. The change in the argumentation abilities of the students was analyzed descriptively based on the Toulmin argument model (Toulmin, 1990 ) using the data obtained from the students’ voice recordings. The argument structures of each group during verbal argumentation were determined by dividing them into components according to the Toulmin model (Toulmin, 1990 ). The first three items (data, claim, and warrant) in the Toulmin model form the basis of an argument, and the other three items (rebuttal, backing, and qualifier) are subsidiary elements of the argument (Toulmin, 1990 ). Some quotations regarding the analysis of the arguments according to the items are given in Appendix Table 11 . Arguments from the whole group were put into stages based on the argumentation-level model developed by Erduran et al. ( 2004 ) to examine the changes in each lesson and to make comparisons between the small groups of students. By considering the argument model developed by Toulmin, Erduran et al. ( 2004 ) created a five-level framework for the assessment of the quality of argumentation supposing that the quality of the arguments including rebuttals was high. The framework is given in Table 2 . 4.2 Validity and Reliability To confirm the accuracy and validity of the analysis, method triangulation, triangulation of data sources, and analyst triangulation were used (Patton, 2002 ). For analyst triangulation, the qualitative findings were also analyzed independently by a researcher studying in the field of critical thinking and argumentation, and then these evaluations made by the researchers were compared. Video and audio recordings of intervention and documents from the activities were used for the triangulation of data sources. In addition, the data were described in detail without interpretation. Additionally, within the reliability and validity efforts, direct quotations were given in the findings. In this sense, for students, codes such as S1, S2, and S3 were used, and the source of data, group number, and relevant date of the conversation were included at the end of the quotations. In addition, experts studying in the field of critical thinking and argumentation were asked to verify all data and findings. After the process of reflection and discussion with experts, the codes, subcategories, and categories were revised. For reliability, some of the data randomly selected from the written transcripts of the students’ audio recordings were also coded by a second encoder, and the interrater agreement between the two coders, determined by Cohen’s kappa (Cohen, 1960 ), was κ = 0.86, which is considered high reliability. 5.1 Development of Critical Thinking Ability The development of critical thinking skills was given separately for the trend drastically changed on the day when the first skills were used by the students. All six dimensions of critical thinking skills were included in students’ dialogs or when there was a decrease in the number of categories of critical thinking skills. The codes, subcategories, and categories of critical thinking skills that occurred on the first day (dated 11.05) are given in Table 3 . Clarification skills, inference skills, other/strategy and technical skills, advanced clarification skills, and decision-making/supporting skills occurred on the first day. The students mostly used decision-making/supporting skills ( f  = 55). Under the decision-making/supporting skills category, students mostly explained observation data ( f  = 37). S7, S1, and S20 stated the data they presented about their observations with the Star Chart and Sky View applications as follows: S7: Venus is such a yellowish reddish colour. S1: What was the colour? Red and big. The moon’s color is white. S20: Not white here. S20: It’s not white here. (Audio Recordings (AuR), Group 2 / 11.05). Additionally, S19 mentioned the observation data with the words “I searched Saturn. It is bright. It does not vibrate. It is yellow and it’s large.” (AuR, Group 2 / 11.05). Decision-making/supporting skills were followed by inference ( f  = 17), clarification ( f  = 13), advanced clarification ( f  = 5), and skills and other/strategy technical skills ( f  = 1). In Table 4 , the categories, subcategories, and codes for critical thinking skills that occurred on the fifth day (dated 18.05) are presented. It was observed for the first time on the fifth day that all six dimensions of critical thinking skills were included in students’ dialogs. These are, according to the frequency of use, inference ( f  = 152), decision-making/support ( f  = 116), clarification ( f  = 43), advanced clarification ( f  = 8), other/strategy and technique ( f  = 3), and suppositional thinking and integrational ( f  = 2) skills. On this date, judging the credibility of the source from decision-making/supporting skills ( f  = 1) was the skill used for the first time. Unlike other days, for the first time, a student tried to prove his thoughts with an analogy in advanced clarification skills. An exemplary dialogue to this finding is as follows: S19: Even the Moon remains constant, we will see different faces of the moon because the Earth revolves around its axis. S6: I also say that it turns at the same speed. So, for example, when this house turns like this while we return in the same way, we always see the same face. (AuR, 18.05, Group 2). Here, S6 tried to explain to his friend that they always see the same face of the moon by comparing how they see the same face of the house. In Table 5 , the categories, subcategories, and codes for critical thinking skills that occurred on the sixth day (dated 21.05) are included. There is a decrease in the number of categories of critical thinking skills. It was determined that the students used mostly inference skills in three categories ( f  = 38). Additionally, students used decision-making/support ( f  = 34) and clarification ( f  = 9) skills. In inference skills, it is seen that students often make claims ( f  = 33) and rarely infer from the available data ( f  = 4). Among the decision-making/support skills, students mostly used the skill to give reasons ( f  = 28). S24 accepted herself as Uranus during the activity, and she gave reason to make Saturn as an enemy like that: “No, Saturn would be my enemy too. Its ring is more distinctive, it can be seen from the Earth, its ring is more beautiful than me.” (AuR, 21.05, Group 3/). The categories, subcategories, and codes for critical thinking skills that occurred on the ninth day (dated 28.05) are presented in Table 6 . In the course of the day dated 28.05, six categories of critical thinking skills were observed: clarification, inference, other/strategy and technique, advanced clarification, decision-making/support, suppositional thinking and integration skills. Furthermore, the subcategories under these categories are also very diverse. There are 10 subcategories under clarification skills ( f  = 57), which are the most commonly used skills. The frequency of using these skills is as follows: asking his friend about his opinion ( f  = 15), asking questions to clarify the situation ( f  = 12), explaining his statement ( f  = 10), summarizing the solutions of other groups ( f  = 7), asking for a detailed explanation ( f  = 4), summarizing the idea ( f  = 3), explaining the solution proposal ( f  = 2), asking for a reason ( f  = 2), focusing on the question ( f  = 1), and asking what the tools used in experiment do ( f  = 1) skills. Explaining the solution proposal, asking what the tools used in the experiment do, and focusing on the question are the first skills used by the students. When the qualitative findings regarding the critical thinking skills of the students were examined as a whole, it was determined that there was an improvement in the students’ critical thinking skills dimensions in the lessons held in the first 5 days (between 11.05 and 18.05). There was a decrease in the number of critical thinking skills dimensions in the middle of the intervention (21.05). However, after this date, there was an increase again in the number of critical thinking skills dimensions; and on the last day of the intervention, all the critical thinking skills dimensions were used by the students. In addition, it was determined that the skills found under these dimensions showed great variety at this date. Only in the middle (18.05) and on the last day (28.05) of the intervention did students use the skills in the six dimensions of critical thinking. It was determined that students used mostly decision-making/support, inference, and clarification skills. According to the days, it was determined that the students mostly used inference skills (12.05, 15.05, 18.05, and 21.05) among these skills. 5.2 The Argumentation Abilities of the Students 5.2.1 argument structures in students’ verbal argumentation activities. Instead of the argument structures of all groups, only an example of one group is presented because of including both basic and subsidiary items in the Toulmin argument model. In Table 7 , the argument structures in the verbal argumentation activities of the fourth group of students are presented due to the use of the “rebuttal” item. When the argument structures in the verbal argumentation process of the six groups were examined, it was found that all groups engaged in the argumentation and produced arguments. In the activities, students mostly made claims. This was followed by data and warrant items. In the “the phases of the moon” activity, it was determined that only the second and fourth groups used rebuttal and the other groups did not. The number of rebuttals used by the groups is lower in “the planets-table of statements” activity than in other activities. The rebuttals used are also weak. The use of rebuttals differs in the “who is right?” and “urgent solution to space pollution” activities. The number of rebuttal students used in these activities is higher than that in the other activities. The quality rebuttals are also higher. When the structure of the warrants is examined, there are more unscientific warrants in the “urgent solution to space pollution” and “who is right” activities, while the correct scientific and partially correct scientific warrants were more frequently used in the “the phases of the moon” and “the planets table of statements” activities. When the models related to the argument structures are examined in general, it was found that there is a decrease in the type of items used and the number of uses in the “the phases of the moon” and “the planets-table of statements” activities rather than the “urgent solution to space pollution” and “who is right” activities. When the results were analyzed in terms of groups, it was determined that the argument structures of the second and fourth groups showed more variety than those of the other groups. 5.2.2 The Change of Argumentation Levels The argumentation levels achieved by six groups created in the “who is right,” “ the planets-table of statements,” “phases of the moon,” and “urgent solution to space pollution” activities are shown in Fig.  2 . A characterization of the components of critical thinking (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012 , p. 6) In the first verbal argumentation activity, “who is right?,” the arguments achieved by the five of the six groups were at level 5. Additionally, the arguments achieved by one group, which was group 6, were at level 4. In the second verbal argumentation activity “table of statements,” a decrease was determined at the levels of the argumentation of the other groups except group 1 and group 3. In the “the phases of the moon” activity, there was a decrease at the level of argumentation achieved by the other groups except for group 2 and group 4. In the last argumentation activity, “urgent solution to space pollution,” it was found that the arguments of all groups were at level 5. 6 Conclusions and Discussion The critical thinking skills of the students developed until the middle of the intervention, and the frequency of using critical thinking skills varied after the middle of the intervention. When the activities in the lessons were examined, on the days when critical thinking skills were frequently used, activities including argumentation methods were performed. Based on this situation, it could be revealed that the frequency of using critical thinking skills by students varies according to the use of the argumentation method. Argumentation is defined as the process of making claims about a scientific subject, supporting them with data, providing reasons for proof, and criticizing, rebutting, and evaluating an idea (Toulmin, 1990 ). According to the definition of argumentation, these processes are also in the subdimensions of critical thinking skills. The ability to provide reasons for critical thinking skills in decision-making/supporting skills is the equivalent of providing reasons for proof in the argumentation process using warrants in the Toulmin argument model. Different types of claims under inference skills are related to making claims in the argumentation process, and rejecting a judgment is related to rebutting an idea in the argumentation process. In this context, the argumentation method is thought to contribute to the development of critical thinking skills within AR. Another qualitative finding reached in the study is that the skills most used in the subdimensions differ according to the days. This can be explained by the different types of activities performed in each lesson. For example, on the day when the ability to explain observation data was used the most, students observed the sky, constellations, and galaxies with the Star Chart or Sky View applications or observed the planets with the i-Solar System application, and they presented the data they obtained during these observations. Regarding the verbal argumentation structure of the groups, the findings imply that all groups engaged in argumentation and produced arguments. This finding presented evidence with qualitative data to further verify Squire & Jan’s ( 2007 ) research conducted with primary, middle, and high school students to investigate the potential of a location-based AR game in environmental science concluding that all groups engaged in argumentation. Similarly, Jan ( 2009 ) investigated the experience of three middle school students and their argumentative discourse on environmental education using a location-based AR game, and it was found that all students participated in argumentation and produced arguments. Another finding in the current study was that students mostly made claims in the activities. This situation can be interpreted as students being strong in expressing their opinions. Similar findings are found in the literature (Author, 20xxa; Cavagnetto et al., 2010 ; Erduran et al., 2004 ; Novak & Treagust, 2017 ). In addition, it was concluded that the students failed to use warrants and data, they could not support their claims with the data, and they did not use “rebuttal” in these studies. However, in this study in which both augmented reality applications and argumentation methods were used, students mostly made contradictory claims and used data and warrants in their arguments. This situation can be interpreted as students being strong in defending their opinions. Additionally, although it was stated in many of the studies that students’ argumentation levels were generally at level 1 or level 2 (Erdogan et al., 2017 ; Erduran et al., 2004 ; Venville & Dawson, 2010 ; Zohar & Nemet, 2002 ), it was found that most of the students’ arguments were at level 4 and level 5 in the current study. Arguments are considered to be high quality in line with the existence of rebuttals, and discussions involving rebuttals are characterized as having a high level of argumentation (Aufschnaiter et al., 2008 ; Erduran et al., 2004 ). Students used rebuttals in their arguments, and their arguments were at high levels, which indicates that students could produce quality arguments. The reason for these findings to differ from those of other studies may be due to the augmented reality technology used in the current study. Enriched representations make it easier to see the structure of arguments (Akpınar et al., 2014 ), helping students to improve their awareness, increase the number of words they use and comments they make (Erkens & Janssen, 2006 ), and provide important information about the subject (Clark et al., 2007 ). By observing enriched representations, students collect evidence for argumentation (Clark & Sampson, 2008 ) and explore different points of view to support their claim (Oestermeier & Hesse, 2000 ). AR technology, which includes enriched representations, may have increased the accessibility of rich data to support students’ arguments; and using these data has helped them to support their arguments and enabled them to discover different perspectives. For example, S4 explained that the statement in the table is incorrect because she observed Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune having rings around them in the application “I-solar system” as Uranus. She used the data obtained in the AR application to support her claim. When the models related to the argument structures are examined in general, it was concluded that the type of items, the number of items, and the rebuttals used in scientific activities were less than those in the activities involving socioscientific issues. The rebuttals used were also weak. There are also findings in the literature that producing arguments on scientific issues is more difficult than producing arguments on socioscientific issues (Osborne et al., 2004 ). When the structure of the warrants in the students’ arguments was examined, it was seen that there are more nonscientific warrants in socioscientific activities, and the scientific and partially scientific warrants are more in the activities that contain scientific subjects. This shows that students were unable to combine what they have learned in science with socioscientific issues. Albe ( 2008 ) and Kolsto ( 2001 ) stated that scientific knowledge is very low in students’ arguments on socioscientific issues. Similarly, the results of the studies conducted in the related literature support this view (Demircioglu & Ucar, 2014 ; Sadler & Donnelly, 2006 ; Wu & Tsai, 2007 ). When the argument structures in the activities are analyzed by groups, the argument structures of the two groups vary more than the other groups, and the argumentation levels of these groups are at level 4 and level 5. This might be because some students have different prior knowledge about subjects. Different studies have also indicated that content knowledge plays an important role in the quality of students’ arguments (Acar, 2008 ; Aufschnaiter et al., 2008 ; Clark & Sampson, 2008 ; Cross et al., 2008 ; Sampson & Clark, 2011 ). In many studies, it has been emphasized that the most important thing affecting the choice and process of knowledge is previous information (Stark et al., 2009 ). To better understand how previous information affects argumentation quality in astronomy education, investigating the relationship between middle school students’ content knowledge and argumentation quality could be a direction of future research. 7 Limitations and Future Research There are some limitations in this study. First, this study was implemented in a private school. Therefore, the results are true for these students. Future research is necessary to be performed with the students in public schools. Second, the researcher conducted the lessons because the science teacher had no ability to design AR learning practices. Teachers and students creating their own AR experiences is an important way to bring the learning outcomes of AR available to a wider audience (Romano et al., 2020 ). Further research can be conducted in which the science teacher of the class is the instructor. Another limitation of the study is that the instruction with AR-based argumentation was time-consuming, and the time allocated for the “Solar System and Beyond” unit in the curriculum was not sufficient for the implementation, because students tried to understand to use AR applications, and they needed time to reflect on the activities despite prior training on AR before the instructional process. This situation may cause cognitive overload (Alalwan et al., 2020 ). The adoption and implementation of educational technologies are more difficult and time-consuming than other methods (Parker & Heywood, 1998 ). A longer period is needed to prepare student-centered and technology-supported activities. Acar, O. (2008).  Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquiry class . (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1228972473&disposition=inline Akpınar, Y., Ardaç, D., & Er-Amuce, N. (2014). Development and validation of an argumentation based multimedia science learning environment: Preliminary findings. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116 , 3848–3853. Article   Google Scholar   Aktamış, H., & Arıcı, V. A. (2013). The effects of using virtual reality software in teaching astronomy subjects on academic achievement and retention. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9 (2), 58–70. Google Scholar   Alalwan, N., Cheng, L., Al-Samarraie, H., Yousef, R., Alzahrani, A. I., & Sarsam, S. M. (2020). Challenges and prospects of virtual reality and augmented reality utilization among primary school teachers: A developing country perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 66 , 100876. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38 (1), 67–90. Arici, F., Yildirim, P., Caliklar, Ş, & Yilmaz, R. M. (2019). Research trends in the use of augmented reality in science education: Content and bibliometric mapping analysis. Computers & Education, 142 , 103647. Atwood-Blaine, D., & Huffman, D. (2017). Mobile gaming and student interactions in a science center: The future of gaming in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15 (1), 45–65. Baran, B., Yecan, E., Kaptan, B., & Paşayiğit, O. (2020). Using augmented reality to teach fifth grade students about electrical circuits. Education and Information Technologies, 25 (2), 1371–1385. Billinghurst, M. (2002). Augmented reality in education. New Horizons for Learning, 12 (5), 1–5. Bressler, D. M., & Bodzin, A. M. (2013). A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow experiences during a mobile augmented reality science game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29 (6), 505–517. Buckingham Shum, S. J., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. M., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12 (3), 267–300. Cadmus, R. R., Jr. (1990). A video technique to facilitate the visualization of physical phenomena. American Journal of Physics, 58 (4), 397–399. Cai, S., Chiang, F. K., & Wang, X. (2013). Using the augmented reality 3D technique for a convex imaging experiment in a physics course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29 (4), 856–865. Chai, C. S., Deng, F., Tsai, P. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Assessing multidimensional students’ perceptions of twenty-first-century learning practices. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16 (3), 389–398. Cai, S., Liu, C., Wang, T., Liu, E., & Liang, J. C. (2021). Effects of learning physics using augmented reality on students’ self-efficacy and conceptions of learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (1), 235–251. Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (4), 427–449. Chang, H. Y., Wu, H. K., & Hsu, Y. S. (2013). Integrating a mobile augmented reality activity to contextualize student learning of a socioscientific issue. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (3), 95–99. Chang, H. Y., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2020). Students’ context-specific epistemic justifications, prior knowledge, engagement, and socioscientific reasoning in a mobile augmented reality learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29 (3), 399–408. Chen, S. Y., & Liu, S. Y. (2020). Using augmented reality to experiment with elements in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior, 111 (2020), 106418. Chen, C. H., Yang, J. C., Shen, S., & Jeng, M. C. (2007). A desktop virtual reality earth motion system in astronomy education. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (3), 289–304. Chen, C. H., Huang, C. Y., & Chou, Y. Y. (2019). Effects of augmented reality-based multidimensional concept maps on students’ learning achievement, motivation and acceptance. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18 (2), 257–268. Chen, C. C., Chen, H. R., & Wang, T. Y. (2022). Creative situated augmented reality learning for astronomy curricula. Educational Technology & Society, 25 (2), 148–162. Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22 (4), 449–462. Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17 (4), 352–365. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (3), 293–321. Clark, D. B., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., & Erkens, G. (2007). Technology-enhanced learning environments to support students’ argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 217–243). Springer. Chapter   Google Scholar   Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1), 37–46. Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (6), 837–861. Demircioglu, T., & Ucar, S. (2014). Investigation of written arguments about Akkuyu nuclear power plant. Elementary Education Online, 13 (4), 1373–1386. Demircioglu, T., & Ucar, S. (2015). Investigation the effect of argument-driven inquiry in laboratory instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15 (1), 267–283. Dias, A. (2009). Technology enhanced learning and augmented reality: An application on multimedia interactive books. International Business & Economics Review, 1 (1), 69–79. Dietrich, N., Kentheswaran, K., Ahmadi, A., Teychené, J., Bessière, Y., Alfenore, S., Laborie, S., & Hébrard, G. (2020). Attempts, successes, and failures of distance learning in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education, 97 (9), 2448–2457. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84 , 287–312. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18 (1), 7–22. Ennis, R. H. (1991). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 68–71). The Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. Illinois College of Education. https://education.illinois.edu/docs/default-source/faculty-documents/robert-ennis/thenatureofcriticalthinking_51711_000.pdf Erdogan, I., Ciftci, A., & Topcu, M. S. (2017). Examination of the questions used in science lessons and argumentation levels of students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16 (6), 980–993. Erduran, S. (2020). Science education in the era of a pandemic: How can history, philosophy and sociology of science contribute to education for understanding and solving the Covid-19 crisis? Science & Education, 29 , 233–235. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88 (6), 915–933. Erduran, S., Özdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2 (1), 1–12. Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2006). Automatic coding of communication in collaboration protocols. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (ICLS) , (pp. 1063–1064). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5555/1150034 Faridi, H., Tuli, N., Mantri, A., Singh, G., & Gargrish, S. (2020). A framework utilizing augmented reality to improve critical thinking ability and learning gain of the students in Physics. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29 , 258–273. Fidan, M., & Tuncel, M. (2019). Integrating augmented reality into problem based learning: The effects on learning achievement and attitude in physics education. Computers & Education, 142 , 103635. Fleck, S., & Simon, G. (2013, November). An augmented reality environment for astronomy learning in elementary grades: An exploratory study. In  Proceedings of the 25th Conference on l ’ Interaction Homme-Machine  (pp. 14–22). ACM. Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2019). Meta-analysis of the impact of augmented reality on students’ learning gains. Educational Research Review, 27 , 244–260. Garzón, J., Pavón, J., & Baldiris, S. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings. Virtual Reality , 1–13 Garzón, J., Baldiris, S., Gutiérrez, J., & Pavón, J. (2020). How do pedagogical approaches affect the impact of augmented reality on education? A meta-analysis and research synthesis.  Educational Research Review , 100334. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation . Sage Publications. Hanid, M. F. A., Said, M. N. H. M., & Yahaya, N. (2020). Learning strategies using augmented reality technology in education: Meta-analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8 (5A), 51–56. Hsiao, H. S., Chang, C. S., Lin, C. Y., & Wang, Y. Z. (2016). Weather observers: A manipulative augmented reality system for weather simulations at home, in the classroom, and at a museum. Interactive Learning Environments, 24 (1), 205–223. Huang, K. T., Ball, C., Francis, J., Ratan, R., Boumis, J., & Fordham, J. (2019). Augmented versus virtual reality in education: An exploratory study examining science knowledge retention when using augmented reality/virtual reality mobile applications. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22 (2), 105–110. Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., Chen, C. C., & Tu, N. T. (2016). Effects of an augmented reality-based educational game on students’ learning achievements and attitudes in real-world observations. Interactive Learning Environments, 24 (8), 1895–1906. Ibáñez, M. B., Di Serio, Á., Villarán, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2014). Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Computers & Education, 71 , 1–13. Jan, M. (2009). Designing an augmented reality game-based curriculum for argumentation . (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205–226). Springer. Jiménez –Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Springer. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In  Second international handbook of science education  (pp. 1001–1015). Springer, Dordrecht. Ke, F., & Carafano, P. (2016). Collaborative science learning in an immersive flight simulation. Computers & Education, 103 , 114–123. Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Judd, T., Gray, K., & Chang, R. (2008). Immigrants and natives: Investigating differences between staff and students’ use of technology. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? . Proceedings Ascilite Melbourne, 2008 , 484–492. Kerawalla, L., Luckin, R., Seljeflot, S., & Woolard, A. (2006). “Making it real”: Exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Reality, 10 (3–4), 163–174. Kirikkaya, E. B., & Başgül, M. Ş. (2019). The effect of the use of augmented reality applications on the academic success and motivation of 7th grade students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18 (3), 362. Kolsto, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust,…’-pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (9), 877–901. Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8 (6), 993–1017. López-Faican, L., & Jaen, J. (2020). Emofindar: Evaluation of a mobile multiplayer augmented reality game for primary school children. Computers & Education, 149 (2020), 103814. Lu, S. J., Liu, Y. C., Chen, P. J., & Hsieh, M. R. (2020). Evaluation of AR embedded physical puzzle game on students’ learning achievement and motivation on elementary natural science. Interactive Learning Environments, 28 (4), 451–463. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. The Falmer Press. Novak, A. M., & Treagust, D. F. (2017). Adjusting claims as new evidence emerges: Do students incorporate new evidence into their scientific explanations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55 (4), 526–549. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 (3), 345–359. OECD. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2003 . OECD Publishing. Book   Google Scholar   Oestermeier, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition, 75 (1), 65–104. Oleksiuk, V.P., Oleksiuk, O.R. (2020). Exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching school computer science. In Burov, O.Yu., Kiv, A.E. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Augmented Reality in Education (AREdu 2020) (pp. 91–107). Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 994–1020. Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (1998). The earth and beyond: Developing primary teachers’ understanding of basic astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education, 20 , 503–520. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage. Pellas, N., Fotaris, P., Kazanidis, I., & Wells, D. (2019). Augmenting the learning experience in primary and secondary school education: A systematic review of recent trends in augmented reality game-based learning. Virtual Reality, 23 (4), 329–346. Ploman, E. W. (1987), Global learning: A challenge. In C. A., Taylor (Ed.) Science education and information transfer (pp. 75–80). Oxford: Pergamon (for ICSU Press). Radu, I., & Schneider, B. (2019). What can we learn from augmented reality (AR)? Benefits and drawbacks of AR for inquiry-based learning of physics. In  Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems  (pp. 1–12). Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M [superscript 2]: Media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-olds . Kaiser Family Foundation. Rieber, L. P., & Kini, A. S. (1991). Theoretical foundations of instructional applications of computer-generated animated visuals. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18 , 83e88. Romano, M., Díaz, P., & Aedo, I. (2020). Empowering teachers to create augmented reality experiences: The effects on the educational experience.  Interactive Learning Environments , 1–18. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (12), 1463–1488. Sahin, D., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2020). The effect of augmented reality technology on middle school students’ achievements and attitudes towards science education. Computers & Education, 144 (2020), 103710. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41 (1), 63–97. Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven ınquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71 (8), 465–472. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven ınquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95 (2), 217–257. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23 (1), 23–55. Saribas, D., & Çetinkaya, E. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ analysis of claims about COVID-19 in an online course. Science & Education, 30 (2), 235–266. Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. K. (2008). A unified view of learning from animated and static graphics. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 304–357). Cambridge University Press. Setozaki, N., Suzuki, K., Iwasaki, T., & Morita, Y. (2017). Development and evaluation of the usefulness of collaborative learning on the tangible AR learning equipment for astronomy education. Educational Technology Research, 40 (1), 71–83. Shelton, B. E. & Hedley, N. R. (2002). Using augmented reality for teaching earth-sun relationships to undergraduate geography students. In Augmented Reality Toolkit, The First IEEE International Workshop (8). Sin, A. K., & Zaman, H. B. (2010). Live solar system (LSS): Evaluation of an augmented reality book-based educational tool. In Proceedings of 2010 International Symposium on Information Technology, 1 , 1–6. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35 (8), 19–29. Squire, K. D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16 (1), 5–29. Stark, R., Puhl, T., & Krause, U. M. (2009). Improving scientific argumentation skills by a problem-based learning environment: Effects of an elaboration tool and relevance of student characteristics. Evaluation & Research in Education, 22 (1), 51–68. Syawaludin, A., Gunarhadi, R., & P. (2019). Development of augmented reality-based interactive multimedia to improve critical thinking skills in science learning. International Journal of Instruction, 12 (4), 331–344. Taylor, C. A. (1987). Science education and information transfer (pp.1–15). Oxford: Pergamon (for ICSU Press) Toulmin, S. E. (1990). The uses of argument (10th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (8), 952–977. Virata, R. O., & Castro, J. D. L. (2019). Augmented reality in science classroom: Perceived effects in education, visualization and information processing. In  Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning  (pp. 85–92). Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 101–131. Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (9), 1163–1187. Yen, J. C., Tsai, C. H., & Wu, M. (2013). Augmented reality in the higher education: Students’ science concept learning and academic achievement in astronomy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103 , 165–173. Yildirim, I., & Seckin-Kapucu, M. (2020). The effect of augmented reality applications in science education on academic achievement and retention of 6th grade students. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 7 (1), 56–71. Yu, K. C., & Sahami, K. (2007). Visuospatial astronomy education in immersive digital planetariums.  Communicating Astronomy with the Public , 242–245. Yuen, S., Yaoyuneyong, G., & Johnson, E. (2011). Augmented reality: An overview and five directions for AR in education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 4 (1), 119–140. Zhang, J., Sung, Y.-T., Hou, H.-T., & Chang, K.-E. (2014). The development and evaluation of an augmented reality-based armillary sphere for astronomical observation instruction. Computers & Education, 73 , 178–188. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (1), 35–62. Download references This study is a part of Tuba Demircioğlu’s dissertation supported by the Cukurova University Scientific Research Projects (grant number: SDK20153929). The manuscript is part of first author’s PhD dissertation. The study was reviewed and approved by the PhD committee in the Cukurova University Faculty of Education, as well as by the committee of Ministry of National Education. The parents of students were provided with written informed consent. Author information Authors and affiliations. Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education/Elementary Science Education, Cukurova University, 01330, Saricam-Adana, Turkey Tuba Demircioglu & Sedat Ucar Department of Educational Sciences, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey Memet Karakus You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar Corresponding author Correspondence to Tuba Demircioglu . Ethics declarations Conflict of interest. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Additional information Publisher's note. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Tables 8 , 9 , 10 and 11 Rights and permissions Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. Reprints and permissions About this article Demircioglu, T., Karakus, M. & Ucar, S. Developing Students’ Critical Thinking Skills and Argumentation Abilities Through Augmented Reality–Based Argumentation Activities in Science Classes. Sci & Educ 32 , 1165–1195 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00369-5 Download citation Accepted : 15 July 2022 Published : 22 August 2022 Issue Date : August 2023 DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00369-5 Share this article 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 Find a journal Publish with us Track your research Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Matters Defining critical thinking dispositions and why they’re crucial.. Posted September 23, 2024 | Reviewed by Devon Frye Another way to think about and measure critical thinking is to include aspects of motivational dispositions. Dispositions include open-mindedness and a willingness to be reflective when evaluating information. People scoring low in critical thinking dispositions tend to “keep it simple” when something is complex. Critical thinking dispositions help individuals avoid oversimplification and can facilitate awareness of bias. Critical thinking springs from the notion of reflective thought proposed by Dewey (1933), who borrowed from the work of philosophers such as William James and Charles Peirce. Reflective thought was defined as the process of suspending judgment, remaining open-minded, maintaining a healthy skepticism, and taking responsibility for one’s own development (Gerber et al., 2005; Stoyanov & Kirshner, 2007). Kurland (1995) suggested, “Critical thinking is concerned with reason, intellectual honesty, and open-mindedness, as opposed to emotionalism, intellectual laziness, and closed-mindedness. Thus, critical thinking involves… considering all possibilities… being precise; considering a variety of possible viewpoints and explanations; weighing the effects of motives and biases; being concerned more with finding the truth than with being right…being aware of one’s own prejudices and biases” (p. 3). Thus, being able to perspective-take and becoming conscious of one’s own biases are potential benefits of critical thinking capacities. Reviews of the critical thinking literature (e.g., Bensley, 2023) suggest that the assessment of this construct ought to include aspects of motivational dispositions. Numerous frameworks of critical thinking dispositions have been proposed (e.g., Bensley, 2018; Butler & Halpern, 2019; Dwyer, 2017); some commonly identified dispositions are open-mindedness, intellectual engagement, and a proclivity to take a reflective stance or approach to evaluating information and the views and beliefs of both oneself and others. Demir (2022) posited that critical thinking dispositions reflect persons’ attitudes toward and routine ways of responding to new information and diverging ideas, willingness to engage in nuanced and complex rather than either/or reductionistic thinking, and perseverance in attempts to understand and resolve complex problems. Other examples of dispositions are inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, tolerance for ambiguity, thinking about thinking, honesty in assessing or evaluating biases, and willingness to reconsider one’s own views and ways of doing things (Facione et al., 2001). Individual personality attributes associated with these proclivities include a need for cognition (a desire for intellectual stimulation), which is positively associated with critical thinking, and the need for closure (a motivated cognitive style in which individuals prefer predictability, firm answers, and rapid decision making ) and anti-intellectualism (a resentment of “the life of the mind” and those who represent it), both negatively associated with critical thinking. Further, an ideological component that can impede critical thinking is dogmatism . In addition, rigid, dichotomous thinking impedes critical thinking in that it oversimplifies the complexity of social life in a pluralistic society (Bensley, 2023; Cheung et al., 2002; Halpern & Dunn, 2021) and tries to reduce complicated phenomena and resolve complex problems via “either/or” formulations and simplistic solutions. In other words, folks with low critical thinking dispositions would tend to “keep it simple” when something is really quite complicated, and think it absolute terms and categories rather than seeing “the gray” in between the black and white extremes. In sum, critical thinking dispositions are vitally important because they may help individuals avoid oversimplifying reality; they also permit perspective-taking and can facilitate their awareness of diversity and systematic biases, such as racial or gender bias . Some research has indicated that critical thinking dispositions uniquely contribute to academic performance beyond general cognition (Ren et al., 2020), and may help to reduce unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy beliefs (Bensley, 2023; Lantian et al., 2021). But before we can study the potential impact of critical thinking dispositions, it is necessary to have a reliable, valid, and hopefully brief measure for this construct. I will discuss the development and validation of a measure of critical thinking dispositions in another post. Bensley, D.A. ( 2023.) Critical thinking, intelligence, and unsubstantiated beliefs: An integrative review. Journal of Intelligence, 1 , 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11110207 Bensley, D.A. (2018). Critical thinking in psychology and everyday life: A guide to effective thinking . New York: Worth Publishers. Butler, H.A., & Halpern, D.F. (2019). Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In Robert J. Sternberg (Ed.) The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 183–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheung, C.-K, Rudowicz. E., Kwan, A., & Yue, X.. (2002). Assessing university students’ general and specific criticalthinking. College Student Journal, 36 , 504 – 25. Demir, E. (2022). An examination of high school students’ critical thinking dispositions and analytical thinking skills. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6 , 190–200. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202217357 Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . Lexington: Heath and Company. Dwyer, C. P. (2017). Critical thinking: Conceptual perspectives and practical guidelines . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Facione, P., Facione, N,C,, & Giancarlo, C.A.F. (2001(. California Critical Disposition Inventory . Millbrae: California Academic Press. Gerber, S., Scott, L., Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2005). Instructor influence on reasoned argument in discussion boards. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 53 , 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504864 Halpern, D. F., & Dunn, D.S. (2021). Critical thinking: A model of intelligence for solving real-world problems. Journal of Intelligence, 9 , 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020022 Kurland, D. (1995). I know what it says… What does it mean? Critical skills for critical reading . Belmont: Wadsworth. Lantian, A., Bagneux, V., Delouvee, S., & Gauvrit, N. (2021). Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: High conspiracybelief is associated with low critical thinking ability. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35 , 674 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3790 Ren, X., Tong, Y., Peng, P. & Wang, T. (2020). Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond general cognitiveability: Evidence from adults and children. Intelligence, 82 , 101487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487 Stoyanov, S., & Kirschner, P. ( 2007). Effect of problem solving support and cognitive styles on idea generation:Implications for technology-enhanced learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40 , 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782496 Kyle D. Killian, Ph.D., LMFT is the author of Interracial Couples, Intimacy and Therapy: Crossing Racial Borders. Find a Therapist Find a Treatment Center Find a Psychiatrist Find a Support Group Find Online Therapy International New Zealand South Africa Switzerland Asperger's Bipolar Disorder Chronic Pain Eating Disorders Passive Aggression Personality Goal Setting Positive Psychology Stopping Smoking Low Sexual Desire Relationships Child Development Self Tests NEW Therapy Center Diagnosis Dictionary Types of Therapy It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers. Emotional Intelligence Gaslighting Affective Forecasting Neuroscience Products and services Our innovative products and services for learners, authors and customers are based on world-class research and are relevant, exciting and inspiring. Academic Research English Language Learning English Language Assessment Educational resources for schools Educational Research & Network Assessment Research Cambridge Assessment International Education Cambridge CEM Cambridge Partnership for Education Cambridge Dictionary The Cambridge Mathematics Project We unlock the potential of millions of people worldwide. Our assessments, publications and research spread knowledge, spark enquiry and aid understanding around the world. People and planet News and insights Accessibility Rights and permissions Annual Report No matter who you are, what you do, or where you come from, you’ll feel proud to work here. Language learning materials Language Assessment A deep dive into critical thinking (part 1) – what is it and how is it taught? Life Competencies   Adult Learners   Teens   Young Learners   Insights, Research and Linguistics   We all agree that critical thinking is important, but there is a lack of consensus about what critical thinking is and how to approach the teaching of it. In this post, we get critical about critical thinking and look at the biases that can affect your thoughts without you even realising!  Some believe that critical thinking skills can be generalised and applied to different contexts and subjects, and can be taught in a generic way. For example, understanding the links between ideas can be applied to any area of knowledge. Others believe that critical thinking skills can only be taught in the context of a specific subject. For example, the skills used with an opinion article (analysing the arguments, evaluating the evidence, identifying facts etc.) are different from those used with a scientific article, where the skills mentioned may not be as relevant as the application of the scientific method – establishing facts after making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and analysing the results etc. There are also those who believe some skills are general while others are specific.   Breaking it down So, before we can think of how education can help students to develop this skillset, we need to define what we believe critical thinking is and how to best teach it. The general principles are related to the ability of receiving, collecting and analysing information effectively. That is:  identifying links between ideas,   analysing and evaluating arguments,   identifying patterns and relationships,   separating what’s necessary from what’s irrelevant in a discussion,  identifying gaps in reasoning,   and using these skills to form an argument, solve a problem, or reach a conclusion.   Critical thinking in schools  In schools, critical thinking is mostly treated as a general skill that can be taught in a generic way. The academic load sure makes adding the teaching of critical thinking a challenge, let alone teaching the specific skills for each subject and area of knowledge. However, there is evidence that it’s very difficult for students to transfer the skills that they apply in one context to another. This supports the idea that there are different critical thinking skills for different areas of knowledge.   Daniel Willingham, professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, published a paper in 2019 called ‘How to teach Critical Thinking’, which he wrote for the Department of Education in Australia. He believes that critical thinking is domain-specific – a specific skill related to a specific area of knowledge. He says that different areas of knowledge have different definitions of what it means to know something, and they apply analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in different ways.   So, does that mean that we can’t teach it as a general skill? Well, according to cognitive scientist Tim Van Gelder, that’s not necessarily true. He wrote an article called ‘Teaching Critical Thinking: Some Lessons From Cognitive Science’. Here, he talked about 6 lessons that summarised all the insights he had while studying critical thinking.  Without going into the specifics of the first 5 lessons, he explains that becoming an expert in critical thinking is hard and improving these skills takes time. Additionally, we need to have at least some theoretical knowledge about something to be able to think critically about it.   Van Gelder also said that students improve their critical thinking skills faster when they learn how to present their arguments in maps. Create a visually simple way to see the connections of ideas, reasons, assumptions and objections. This is effective because it helps learners to understand how arguments are constructed. Critical thinking must be learned  Personally, I believe thinking critically is not natural. We can’t assume people know how to get information, understand it, question it, and use it effectively. It’s something that can be learned with life experiences and examples from the world around us. And we need to have discipline to incorporate it in our lives. I also believe that we need to have knowledge about something before we can think critically about it.   As for teaching this honed skill, it’s important to teach students about common sense, open-mindedness, skepticism, reasoning, logic, generalisation, correlation, causality – anything that can help them to develop critical thinking skills. Students must reflect on how their opinions are formed. They should know how they connect and combine assumptions, objections, and facts to form arguments. And finally, I firmly believe that we can’t really think critically unless we are aware of our biases. They can alter our perception of reality, our judgment, and our capacity to make impartial observations.  In part 2 of this blog, we will explore the different types of biases. What biases should you look out for? How can you avoid them? And what does this mean when applied to critical thinking? Be sure to check it out! Check out the Cambridge Life Competencies booklet , which focuses on this one particular skill in detail. Read about this competency, download lesson plans and watch a short video on it, in Cambridge researcher Jasmin Silver’s critical thinking blog post . You have to be logged in to save articles Today's news Reviews and deals Climate change 2024 election Newsletters Fall allergies Health news Mental health Sexual health Family health So mini ways Unapologetically Buying guides Entertainment How to Watch My watchlist Stock market Biden economy Personal finance Stocks: most active Stocks: gainers Stocks: losers Trending tickers World indices US Treasury bonds Top mutual funds Highest open interest Highest implied volatility Currency converter Basic materials Communication services Consumer cyclical Consumer defensive Financial services Industrials Real estate Mutual funds Credit cards Balance transfer cards Cash back cards Rewards cards Travel cards Online checking High-yield savings Money market Home equity loan Personal loans Student loans Options pit Fantasy football Pro Pick 'Em College Pick 'Em Fantasy baseball Fantasy hockey Fantasy basketball Download the app Daily fantasy Scores and schedules GameChannel World Baseball Classic Premier League CONCACAF League Champions League Motorsports Horse racing New on Yahoo Privacy Dashboard Chappell Roan Clarifies “Out of Context” Election Comments, Says She’s Voting for Kamala Harris The post Chappell Roan Clarifies “Out of Context” Election Comments, Says She’s Voting for Kamala Harris appeared first on Consequence . In the latest episode of Chappell Roan ’s struggle against the double-edged sword of fame, she has issued a pair of statements via TikTok clarifying recent comments about the 2024 presidential election that have gone viral. Pushing back against an overly-simple narrative that she’s withholding an endorsement of Kamala Harris solely because there are “problems on both sides” — which, to some, has been taken as tacit support for Donald Trump — Roan made a plea for the public not to take her comments out of context. “I have encouraged people to use critical thinking skills, learn about what they’re voting for, learn about who they’re voting for, and ask questions,” her statement began. “And it’s being completely taken out of context, per usual.” Get Chappell Roan Tickets Here The “taken out of context” part likely refers to social media posts that have gained traction in regards to Roan’s lack of endorsement for Harris, with a recent tweet from Pop Flop about the comments getting over 75 million views in recent days. As Roan noted, “there is a nuance to what I say in interviews, and I think it’s important that people use critical thinking.” In her view, “it’s important for me to question authority and question world leaders, and question myself, question my algorithm, question if some person tweeted something about someone else is even true. It’s important to question because that’s how I think we move forward.” To that end, Roan expressed her desire to “be part of the generation that changes things for good, because we need it,” and stated that “actions speak louder than words, and actions speak louder than an endorsement.” Then, she read the full quote from her recent Guardian interview that spurred the backlash in the first place: “I have so many issues with our government in every way,” she says. “There are so many things that I would want to change. So I don’t feel pressured to endorse someone. There’s problems on both sides. I encourage people to use your critical thinking skills, use your vote – vote small, vote for what’s going on in your city.” The change she wants to see in the US in this election year, she says instantly, is “trans rights. They cannot have cis people making decisions for trans people, period.” After that, Roan emphasized her commitment to trans lives and rights — saying, “this is not lip service, this is not virtue signaling” — and then got to the heart of the hubbub: “Hear it from my mouth, if you’re still wondering: No, I’m not voting for Trump, and yes, I will always question those in power and those making decisions over other people. I will stand up for what’s right and what I believe in, and it’s always at the forefront of my project. I’m sorry that you fell for the clickbait.” Update: Roan posted a follow-up video the next morning emphasizing that “endorsing and voting are completely different.” She continued, “Obviously fuck the policies of the right, but fuck some of the policies on the left. That’s why I can’t endorse. That’s why I can’t put my entire name and my entire project behind one, because there’s no way I can stand behind some of the left’s completely transphobic and completely genocidal views.” “Fuck Trump…. but fuck some of the shit that has gone down in the Democratic party that has failed people like you and me, and more so, Palestine… and every marginalized community in the fucking world,” Roan said. “So, yeah I’m fucking voting for Kamala, but I’m not settling for what has been offered, because that’s questionable.” “This is not me playing both sides,” she added. “This is me questioning both sides because this is what we have in front of us… I’m critiquing both sides because they are so fucked up.” Watch both videos below. All this comes after Roan pushed back against “creepy behavior” from fans last month, followed by an additional statement pushing back against the normalization of predatory behavior against well-known women. That was met with an outpouring of support from other celebrities, but Roan still likened fame to “the vibe of an abusive ex-husband,” and revealed a severe depression diagnosis earlier this week. Up next, she’s set to appear on an upcoming episode of Saturday Night Live alongside host John Mulaney. Meanwhile, she still has a few tour dates on the books for this fall, including sets at All Things Go and the Austin City Limits Festival. Get tickets here. Chappell Roan Clarifies “Out of Context” Election Comments, Says She’s Voting for Kamala Harris Jo Vito Popular Posts "Weird Al" Yankovic Announces "Bigger & Weirder 2025 Tour" 100 Best Drummers of All Time Body Count Recruit David Gilmour for Cover of Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb": Stream The Passion of the Christ Sequel to Begin Filming in 2025 with Jim Caviezel Returning as Jesus Metallica Announces 2025 North American Tour with Pantera and Limp Bizkit Willie Nelson Reveals Tearjerking Cover of The Flaming Lips' "Do You Realize??": Stream Subscribe to Consequence’s email digest and get the latest breaking news in music, film, and television, tour updates, access to exclusive giveaways, and more straight to your inbox. 229 IMAGES Critical Thinking: The Critical Thinking Series, Part 2: What is "An Introduction to Critical Thinking" (Chapter 2): Argument and Argument Evaluation Basics Critical Thinking, Argument, and Composition by Jessica Fisk on Prezi Critical Thinking: What is an Argument? Structuring an argument [Critical thinking 5] Oxford Guide to Effective Argument and Critical Thinking 1st PDF free VIDEO 18.01 Descartes's Ontological Argument Critical Thinking: an introduction (1/8) CRITICAL THINKING TYPES OF ARGUMENT Lect 2: Argument, Premises & Conclusion Critical Thinking & Logic (Lecture #8)- Argument Evaluation Part 1 Stable Diffusion to Grasshopper #computationaldesign #parametricdesign #ai #grasshopper3d COMMENTS McGraw-Hill Ch. 5 Quiz Flashcards Which of the following best describes an argument in the context of critical thinking? Attempting to provide rational support for a claim with a set of premises. Which of the following best describes an informal fallacy? An argument that is psychologically appealing but fails to provide adequate logical support for its conclusion. Arguments in Context Arguments in Context is a comprehensive introduction to critical thinking that covers all the basics in student-friendly language. Intended for use in a semester-long course, the text features classroom-tested examples and exercises that have been chosen to emphasize the relevance and applicability of the subject to everyday life. Three themes are developed as the text proceeds from argument ... 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. Critical Thinking Critical Thinking is the process of using and assessing reasons to evaluate statements, assumptions, and arguments in ordinary situations. The goal of this process is to help us have good beliefs, where "good" means that our beliefs meet certain goals of thought, such as truth, usefulness, or rationality. Critical thinking is widely ... Critical Thinking: Defining an Argument, Premises, and Conclusions A premise is an individual reason or piece of evidence offered in support of a conclusion. A conclusion is the claim that follows from or is supported by the premise (s). Key ideas: 1) Just because a conclusion is true, it doesn't mean that the argument in support of the conclusion is a good one (i.e. valid). 8 Arguments and Critical Thinking Sherry Diestler, Becoming a Critical Thinker, 4th ed., p. 403. " Argument: An attempt to support a conclusion by giving reasons for it.". Robert Ennis, Critical Thinking, p. 396. "Argument - A form of thinking in which certain statements (reasons) are offered in support of another statement (conclusion).". Critical Thinking Tutorial: How To Analyze an Argument Photo by Li-An Lim on Unsplash. How to Analyze an Argument. Learning Goal: In this module, you will learn how to analyze an argument through critical evaluation and analysis of the argument's premises and conclusion. Learning Charter Pursuit: Developing and applying appropriate skills of research, inquiry and knowledge creation and translation. 1 Critical Thinking Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms ... Critical thinking Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation. [1] In modern times, the use of the phrase critical thinking can be traced to John Dewey, who used the phrase reflective thinking. [2] The application of critical thinking includes self-directed ... Analyse sources and arguments Analysing sources means examining their components like arguments, claims, reasons, methods and evidence, and explaining how they work together to make a point or an argument. In the context of critical thinking, analysis is a key preliminary step before evaluation. Good analysis ensures that your evaluation is founded on evidence and ... Logic and the Study of Arguments 2. Logic and the Study of Arguments. If we want to study how we ought to reason (normative) we should start by looking at the primary way that we do reason (descriptive): through the use of arguments. In order to develop a theory of good reasoning, we will start with an account of what an argument is and then proceed to talk about what ... Critical Thinking: What is an Argument? In this lecture from his Critical Thinking college course, Professor Galindo discusses the anatomy of an argument. He explains claims, issues, conclusions, p... Identify arguments An argument is any statement or claim supported by reasons. Arguments range from quite simple (e.g. 'You should bring an umbrella, because it looks like it might rain') to very complex (e.g. an argument for changing the law or introducing a new scientific theory). Arguments can be found everywhere. Whenever somebody is trying to show that ... The Concept of an Argument 1. Introduction[1],[2] The concept of an argument for which I propose an analysis is the reason-giving sense in which one speaks, for example, about Daniel Kahneman's argument (2011, pp. 334-335) that the tendency of most people to be risk averse about gains but risk-seeking about losses is irrational. This sense of the word 'argument ... Ethics: Chpt 4- Critical Thinking Flashcards An illogical argument, often appearing logical at first glance, involving a statement or statements that in one way or another deceive or mislead. Critical thinking model. Identification, Research, Analysis, Application, Decision-making, Evaluation, Reflection. Three parts of an Argument. 1) Premise. 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. Critical Thinking Worksite: Argument Identification The first stage in critical thinking is argument identification. Given that some of what people say and do is not argumentative, one must be able to distinguish the arguments from other types of expression. The situation here is no different than in, say, an English Comp question where you are asked to find the split infinitives in a chunk of text. 8 Analysis, argument and critical thinking 8 Analysis, argument and critical thinking. In this section, we are going to look in detail at analysis and argument. Analytical thinking is a particular type of higher order thinking central to much academic activity. ... Knowledge changes and depends on context. It is only as good as the methods used to obtain it. Instances of 'facts' turning ... Developing Students' Critical Thinking Skills and Argumentation Critical thinking skills that include the ability to evaluate arguments and counterarguments in a variety of contexts are very important, and effective argumentation is the focal point of criticism and the informed decision (Nussbaum, 2008).Argumentation is defined as the process of making claims about a scientific subject, supporting them with data, using warrants, and criticizing, refuting ... Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Matters In addition, rigid, dichotomous thinking impedes critical thinking in that it oversimplifies the complexity of social life in a pluralistic society (Bensley, 2023; Cheung et al., 2002; Halpern ... What critical thinking is and how it's taught Others believe that critical thinking skills can only be taught in the context of a specific subject. For example, the skills used with an opinion article (analysing the arguments, evaluating the evidence, identifying facts etc.) are different from those used with a scientific article, where the skills mentioned may not be as relevant as the ... Chappell Roan Clarifies "Out of Context" Election Comments ... The post Chappell Roan Clarifies "Out of Context" Election Comments, Encourages Critical Thinking appeared first on Consequence. In the latest episode of Chappell Roan's struggle against the ... assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review thesis