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.
Therefore
Since
So
Because
Thus
For
Hence
Is implied by
Consequently
For the reason that
Implies that
It follows that
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 ) . ↩︎
Form : Its reasons and conclusion will be related in such a way that if the reasons are true, the conclusion will likely be true. Content : The reasons will make claims that are true, or have a high probability of being true. Context : The argument as a whole fits the circumstances in which it was intended to apply.
A thorough evaluation should subject an argument to scrutiny along each of these dimensions. In what follows, we present each in turn, commenting on strategies that one can use while evaluating arguments. At the end of this unit, you should be able to provide systematic, three-part evaluations of arguments that determine whether the conclusion should be believed.
If it's hot in Moscow, then it's unbearable in Lewiston. It's hot in Moscow. ---------------------- Therefore, it's unbearable in Lewiston.
While not the most interesting argument in the world, it is useful for our purposes because its structure is easy to observe. One good way of revealing the structure of an argument is to replace the sentences found in the reasons and conclusion with symbols---this takes your mind off of what the argument is about and forces you to attend to the structures of the sentences and the relationships among them. If we do that here, we get the following form (1):
If A, then B. A ---------------------- Therefore, B.
We replaced "It's hot in Moscow" with "A" and "It's unbearable in Lewiston" with "B". Now that we can see the form of the argument, though, we can use it to build other arguments with the same form. All we do is replace "A" and "B" in our symbolic form with other sentences. For more, see Expanded Notes on Argument Forms .
While the form of arguments isn't everything, it is an essential element nevertheless. As with buildings, if the structure of an argument is weak, the argument will be weak. If the structure is strong, then the argument could be a good one, depending on the other essential element, viz., content. If an argument's form is good, then the reasons will support the truth of the conclusion; otherwise, they will not. Given this, it is important to have a clear sense of argument form, as it is one aspect that you will want to evaluate. For our purposes, it will do to talk about two broad categories of argument forms, the certainty producing and the probability producing. Arguments within these categories conform to different standards, and we will describe these standards briefly. More detailed and systematic study of argument form can be found in courses in formal logic .
Certainty Producing Arguments (CPA). Also known as deductive arguments , these are intended to produce their conclusions with certainty. The rhetoric of the argument context can indicate the presence of CPAs, as can reliance on the mere form of sentences and the roles played by certain terms, e.g., "if ... then", "all", "or", etc. (See Expanded Notes on CPAs for more on this.) In addition, CPAs are often associated with the analysis of concepts, as opposed to the investigation of the world of our experience. Note, though, that these are mere rules of thumb for identifying CPAs.
To say that the conclusions are produced with certainty is to say that if the reasons are true in a CPA, then the conclusion must be true. A CPA that meets this standard is known as valid . Note, though, that the standard of validity is merely hypothetical---it says that IF the reasons are true, the conclusion me be true; thus, if the reasons are false, then all bets are off. This is just more evidence that form is only part of the story---you also need content, and it will be the content that determines truth and falsity of particular reasons, as we will see in the next section. In valid CPAs, we say that the conclusion follows from the reasons.
Good CPAs, then, are valid arguments in which the conclusion follows from the reasons. Bad CPAs do not guarantee their conclusions, and you can detect this through the use of counterexamples. A counterexample is a specific example, rooted in what is possible, that makes the reasons in a CPA true and the conclusion false. What this demonstrates is that the truth of the reasons does not force the conclusion to be true, and so the CPA in question fails to meet the standard of validity and is invalid . A very good technique for determining the quality of a CPA involves attempting to identify a counterexample; if you can, the argument is formally weak, but if you can't (and you've really looked), then the argument may well be quite good. Still, it would help to know a bit more about the details of CPAs, and in particular, what makes a good CPA good, aside from the fact that it doesn't make room for counterexample. For these details, see Expanded Notes on CPAs .
Probability Producing Arguments (PPA). Also known as non-deductive arguments , these are intended to increase the probability that their conclusions are true. That is, if the reasons are true in a PPA, then there will be a high probability that the conclusion is true, if the argument is a good one. Signs that indicate the presence of a PPA include (a) the conclusion speaks of things that go beyond the reasons, (b) the conclusion is more tentative and is not presented as certain, given the reasons, and (c) the argument presents a conclusion supported by scientific reasons. As before, these should be regarded as rules of thumb.
If the the truth of the reasons in a PPA raise to a high probability the truth of the conclusion, we will call the argument strong . Note that the standard of "high probability" is vague---there is no clear way of specifying this in general. What counts as "strong" will vary, then, from argument to argument and context to context. (So if you evaluate an argument as strong, it would be a good idea to have an argument ready to back up your evaluation!) To reflect the difference between CPAs and PPAs, we do not say that the conclusion of a PPA follows from its reasons; rather, we say that the reasons support the conclusion.
PPAs come in a greater variety than CPAs, so it is more difficult to provide a general characterization of what makes one good or bad. But there are standards that apply to these arguments, and it is important to familiarize yourself with them. There are several types of PPAs, and in the Expanded Notes on PPAs , we detail these types, describing them and commenting on the standards that apply to each. However, we can make a couple of general observations at this point. First, a PPA will typically be stronger if it is more detailed; the more vague a PPA is, the less compelling it will be. Second, a good PPA will typically have a conclusion that does not depend on a single, specific type of observation or data point, even if there are a lot of them; the broader the types of observations that support the conclusion, the stronger it generally is. (Think of a table---if it only has one leg, it won't be as stable as if it has several legs in different places.) Third, the stronger the conclusion of a PPA, the weaker the argument. If the conclusion is weak, it will not take as much to support it, and other things being equal, this will mean a stronger argument overall.
Form is very important, but it is hardly the only aspect of an argument that can be evaluated. In fact, form is not typically the obvious thing to evaluate---it is hidden beneath the surface and often difficult to ascertain. The more obvious aspect is that of content , i.e., what the argument is about. After completing Exercise One, continue on to the next section, where we discuss how to evaluate the content that fills in an argument's skeletal form.
If Idaho is larger than California, then it is larger than Alaska. Idaho is larger than California. ---------------------- Therefore, Idaho is larger than Alaska.
Evaluated in terms of its form, this is a good argument---it is a valid CPA of form (1) detailed above. But it is nevertheless a bad argument. After all, each of the sentences is false. Sentences (2) and (3) are clearly false, but so too is (1), since if Idaho were larger than California, it could still be smaller than Alaska, given that Alaska is bigger than California. What this demonstrates is that when it comes to argument quality, form isn't everything. Content matters, and here the content is in bad shape.
The content of an argument is what the argument is about , and this is based on what the sentences that constitute the argument are about. The primary measure of content quality is truth value. If any of the sentences are false, then the argument will be weak. If the sentences are true, then the argument will typically be strong, so long as it has good form. Consider argument (III):
Idaho is south of Canada. Nevada is south of Idaho. ---------------------- Therefore, Texas is south of Oklahoma.
All of the sentences in (III) are true, but it is still a bad argument. The truth values of (1) and (2) don't force (3) to be true because (1) and (2) have nothing to do with (3). Thus, the reasons and conclusion should have content that is related. This is often guaranteed by the form of the argument---in the case of (III), the argument has bad form, and this undermines the connection between the reasons and conclusion. (However, in certain unusual cases, an argument can have good form (logically speaking) and have true sentences and still be a bad argument, as is explained in the Expanded Notes on Content Evaluation .)
Thus, the evaluation of content is a two-part job. First, you need to determine the truth values of the reasons. Assuming that the form is in order, assessment of the reasons as true will generally imply that the argument is a good one. (Although don't judge before evaluating the context , as we will do in the next section.) There is little that can be said here about how you do this, as it depends on the discipline within which you're working. You might be able to tell by looking whether the reasons or true, or it might be a lot tougher than this. [INSTRUCTOR: You might wish to introduce at this point some specific detail about how one inspects substantive claims in your discipline for truth or falsity.] Second, you need to determine the overall thematic coherence of the argument. If the conclusion addresses a topic not mentioned in the reasons, or it goes beyond the reasons in a way that seems like a stretch, then that is a sign that the argument content might not be as coherent as it should be for the argument to be strong.
After finishing Exercise Two, proceed to the final section of this unit, Evaluating the Context .
Review the arguments in Grendel , Chapter 5, one last time and proceed to the Final Exercise. In the preceding sections, you should have identified and reconstructed an argument from that chapter. It is now time to bring your critical thinking about it to a close.
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.
Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .
Login Alert
> Critical Reasoning and the Art of Argumentation
> How to analyse arguments
Book contents
Frontmatter
CHAPTER 1 What is critical reasoning?
CHAPTER 2 Obstacles to clear thinking: Preconceived ideas and fallacies
CHAPTER 3 Working with arguments
CHAPTER 4 How to analyse arguments
CHAPTER 5 Definitions, counterexamples and counterarguments
CHAPTER 6 Evaluating arguments
CHAPTER 7 Applying your knowledge and skills to the evaluation of arguments
CHAPTER 8 Constructing arguments and writing argumentative essays
CHAPTER 4 - How to analyse arguments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 February 2020
If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather than by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you.
A s critical thinkers, we should know how to analyse arguments clearly. This is because a complete analysis of an argument helps us to arrive at a better understanding of the meaning of the argument. The word ‘analyse’ means to dissect, or to lay bare. When we analyse an argument we want to lay bare the components of the argument. Differently put, we want to reveal the argument's structure. In order to do this, we should know how to identify premises and conclusions in arguments. This is often made easier by underlining the signal words in an argument. Signal words in an argument indicate which statements are premises and which statements are conclusions. In the first section of this chapter, I will explain the role of conclusion and premise indicators in arguments.
Identifying premises and conclusions
Arguers often supply signal words in their arguments that help us to identify their premises and conclusions. In the following example the person advancing the argument provides clues that help us to identify the conclusion of the argument:
If private enterprise does better than the South African government at running businesses, then it will do better at running railway services. Private enterprise does better at running businesses. We can conclude that private enterprise will do better at running railway services.
In the example above the arguer tells us which statement is the conclusion of the argument: he or she uses the phrase ‘we can conclude that’. Such phrases or expressions serve as clues to identify the conclusion of an argument and we call them conclusion indicators .
The following words and phrases usually signal conclusions:
Let us look at another example where the person offering an argument gives clues that identify the premises of the argument:
Since smoking can harm those around us, we can conclude that there should be tight restrictions on the production of cigarettes. This is because , if smoking is harmful to those around us, then cigarette companies are manufacturing harmful substances; and if cigarette companies are manufacturing harmful substances, there should be tight restrictions on the production of cigarettes.
Access options
Save book to kindle.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .
How to analyse arguments
M. E. S. Van den Bergh
Book: Critical Reasoning and the Art of Argumentation
Online publication: 20 February 2020
Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.25159/858-0.004
Save book to Dropbox
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .
Save book to Google Drive
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .
Undergraduate Courses
Postgraduate Taught Courses
Professional, Part-time and Evening Courses
PhDs and Research Masters
Online Courses
Micro-credentials
How to Apply
Fees & Funding
Modes of Study
Scholarships
Choosing a course is one of the most important decisions you'll ever make! View our courses and see what our students and lecturers have to say about the courses you are interested in at the links below.
View Courses
Accommodation Advisory Service
Campus Activities
Student Support
Study Abroad
International Office
Mature Students
Students with Disabilities
Student Ambassador Programme
For Parents and Guardians
Access Student Information
Life in Galway
University Life
Each year more than 4,000 choose University of Galway as their University of choice. Find out what life at University of Galway is all about here.
Read about life at University of Galway
News & Events
Strategy 2020-2025
Cois Coiribe (Publication)
University Leadership
Sustainability - National SDG Champion
About University of Galway
Since 1845, University of Galway has been sharing the highest quality teaching and research with Ireland and the world. Find out what makes our University so special – from our distinguished history to the latest news and campus developments.
About University of Galway
Adult Learning and Professional Development
College of Arts, Social Sciences, & Celtic Studies
College of Business, Public Policy and Law
College of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences
College of Science and Engineering
Colleges & Schools
University of Galway has earned international recognition as a research-led university with a commitment to top quality teaching across a range of key areas of expertise.
Colleges and Schools
Research Areas
Research Office
Innovation Office
Researcher Development Centre
Research Community Portal
Research centres, institutes, and units
Research & Innovation
University of Galway’s vibrant research community take on some of the most pressing challenges of our times.
Career Development Centre (for Employers)
Business Innovation Centre
Conference & Event Centre
Guiding Breakthrough Research at University of Galway
We explore and facilitate commercial opportunities for the research community at University of Galway, as well as facilitating industry partnership.
Latest News
Alumni Services
Cois Coiribe
Alumni Awards
Follow our Social Channels
Update Your Details
Upcoming Alumni Events
Previous Alumni Events
Alumni & Friends
There are 128,000 University of Galway alumni worldwide. Stay connected to your alumni community! Join our social networks and update your details online.
About Engagement
Learning with Community
Community Partnerships
Research with Communities
University of Sanctuary
Community Engagement
At University of Galway, we believe that the best learning takes place when you apply what you learn in a real world context. That's why many of our courses include work placements or community projects.
Real Learning
Gateway Pages
Prospective Students
Current Students
Ollscoil na Gaillimhe
A High Contrast
Registration
Office 365 (Email)
Student Registry Helpdesk
Fees & Grants
Exam Timetables
Academic Skills Hub
Student Services
Student Volunteering
Students' Union
Financial System (Agresso)
Academic Records
Human Resources
Academic Terms Dates
Information Solutions & Services (IT Services)
Buildings & Estates
Service Desk
Colleges & Schools
Evaluating arguments and evidence
Getting Started
Getting Organised
Communication Skills
IT and Digital Skills
Reading and Research Skills
What is Critical Thinking?
How to develop your critical thinking skills
Reflective practice and reflective writing
Maths and Statistics
Assignments and Exams
Galway Exams 101
For many students, the terms ‘critical’ and ‘argument’ sound a bit negative. You are probably used to thinking of an ‘argument’ as a disagreement or a row – not a very pleasant thing to experience. But the word ‘argument’ has a different meaning in an academic context.
At university, an argument means a statement that is backed up with some kind of objective evidence. You may be trying to identify the arguments of others, or you may be trying to build your own arguments; for example, while writing an academic essay or report.
Often, there is an ‘overarching argument’ or thesis (for example: there is a strong case for the government increasing student fees and introducing a student loan system) supported by a number of ‘contributing arguments’ (for example: current funding mechanisms are unsustainable and inequitable, such a system can be tweaked so that repayments are linked to income after graduation, and so on). Each contributing argument needs to be backed up with evidence .
Of course, for most arguments, there are also ‘counter-arguments’ – that is, opposing arguments – and these must be fully considered as well (for example, if we stay with the student fees and loans example: there are other options for funding higher education in a sustainable and equitable way, linking repayments to income after graduation can be problematic, and so on). Counter-arguments also need to be evidence-based.
When reading and researching for your course, it is really important to be able to, firstly, identify arguments, and then to analyse and evaluate them. Generally a statement is an ‘argument’ if it:
Presents a particular point of view
Bases that view on objective evidence
If you come across an assertion that is not based on evidence that can reasonably be considered objective, it is just that – an assertion, not an argument. Also, a statement of fact is not an argument, although it might be evidence that could be used in support of an argument.
When evaluating an argument, here are some things that you might consider:
Who is making the argument?
What gives them authority to make the argument?
What evidence is given in support of the argument? Has this evidence been tested elsewhere? Could alternative approaches have been used?
Does the evidence upon which the argument is based come from a reliable and independent source? How do you know? Who funded the research that produced the evidence?
Are there alternative perspectives or counter-arguments? You should evaluate any counter-arguments in just the same way.
What are the implications of the argument, for example, for policy or for practice?
See our guide to ‘ Arguments, non-arguments and evidence ’ for more.
You might also find the Reading and Research Skills section of the Academic Skills Hub useful.
Arguments, non-arguments, and evidence PDF (181 KB)
Top tips for reflective practice and writing PDF (156 KB)
Manage Cookies
Some features need cookies to work properly. Cookies also let us (a) remember your preferences, (b) collect anonymous usage statistics, and (c) see how well our online ads are working.
No personal data is stored on these cookies but, under EU law, we still need to ask you this every 6 months. To learn more about our use of cookies, view our Privacy Policy .
Founded in 1845, we've been inspiring students for over 175 years. University of Galway has earned international recognition as a research-led university with a commitment to top quality teaching.
University of Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland H91 TK33 T. +353 91 524411
Publisher: Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
Language: English
Formats Available
Conditions of use.
Learn more about reviews.
Reviewed by Steve Gimbel, Professor, Gettysburg College on 9/29/22
There are separate sections on how to formulate an argument, how to evaluate an argument, the burdens adopted by those engaging in critical discourse, rhetorical strategies for effectively convincing an interlocutor, and errors in reasoning. In... read more
Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less
There are separate sections on how to formulate an argument, how to evaluate an argument, the burdens adopted by those engaging in critical discourse, rhetorical strategies for effectively convincing an interlocutor, and errors in reasoning. In terms of the breadth of topics one generally wants covered in a critical thinking class, the book does a fine job at hitting them all.
Content Accuracy rating: 2
It is an admirable attempt to develop a post-modern, post-truth approach to critical discourse. "Truth is a word best avoided entirely in argumentation," the book tells students, "except when placed in quotes or with careful qualification." Invoking Wittgenstein and Sapir-Whorf in the introductory sections, the book seeks to develop a relational, psychological, rhetorical approach instead of one focused on informal logic. In doing so, it entirely removes the point of argumentation -- rational belief. Some things are true -- smoking DOES cause cancer, human activity is causing global warming, the Founders of the U.S. did want a separation between Church and State. These are true. There is a series of TED talks cited for inspirational rhetorical value, but in a world in which conspiracy theories are endangering democracy, we need to understand that replacing truth with the truthiness that emerges from this sort of post-modernism is playing directly into those who are undermining our discourse. It exacerbates the problem, it does not solve it.
Relevance/Longevity rating: 3
Since the book hinges less on logic and more on social science, there are elements that will be altered over time. Sapir-Whorf, as mentioned above, has not taken seriously by linguists for decades, yet is used as a foundation. The book seeks to speak to students using, in places, contemporary references that will become dated over time, but these are easily updated.
Clarity rating: 1
There are some very good sections in the book. The distinction it draws between matters of fact, value, and policy is very well done. As is the catalogue it gives of different sorts of evidence. The clarity with which it sets out the difference in burdens between the pro and anti sides of a debate is wonderful.
In terms of accessibility, the book is written engagingly in a way that first year students should not be lost. It intentionally uses a new set of technical terms modeled on standard usage -- claim, evidence, issues, contentions, cases,... and does well to define them in accessible (at times loosey-goosey) ways.
However, there are problems for those trying to teach critical thinking as informal logic. You will not find the words "conclusion" or "premise" anywhere in the book. This is clearly intentional as it seeks to eliminate the idea of arguments as providing good reason to believe something is true. Again, truth is not to be discussed. Instead, it sort of tries to use a sort of sliding scale, but it is never at all clear what the scale is actually measuring. The book uses the term validity (much more on that below), but that term is used in a stunningly ambiguous way.
Consistency rating: 2
The central notion in the book is validity. This is not unexpected as that is a standard term in logic. As logicians use the word, an argument is valid if and only, assuming the truth of the premises for the sake of argument, the conclusion is at least likely true, that is, the truth of the conclusion is imp;lied by the truth of the premises. Validity is a matter relating to the internal structure of an argument, connecting the posited truth of the premises to the consequential necessary or probable truth of the conclusion. Yet the book says something quite different, "Critical thinkers need to remember that there is no necessary or inherent connection between Truth and validity." Ummmmm? Validity is DEFINED in terms of a relation between premises and conclusion and how that relation determines or does not determine truth. There could not be a MORE inherent connection between truth and validity.
It is clear that by "capital T Truth," the book is looking to encourage students not to be absolutists, to be able to question deeply held convictions and this is, indeed, a necessary function of any critical thinking class, but with its post-truth orientation, the book uses the term "validity" as a replacement for it in several completely different and inconsistent ways. At times, it is uses validity as a replacement for the truth concept. In this way, sentences are more or less valid, that is, truer or less true. This is the "sliding bead" model that is repeatedly alluded to throughout the text.
At other times, however, the usual meaning of validity is used, where it is not sentences, but arguments that can be valid or invalid according to whether or not the conclusion (claim) is properly connected to the premises (evidence). There is a loose, hand-waving section on what this sense of validity means. In most texts, this is the HEART of critical thinking. How to tell valid from invalid arguments.
At yet other times, there is a third use of the term validity. A viewpoint is more or less valid based upon the support it receives from arguments in favor of it. Unlike the traditional sense of validity, this is not a particular argument that is evaluated as successful in terms of its inner-structure, and it is not the likely truth or falsity of the conclusion of a particular argument, but a more general sense of the degree to which a perspective has arguments to bolster it.
This sort of slipperiness in the central notion of the entire course is problematic. The point of good reasoning is clarity and rigor. But that is exactly what this book tries to eliminate.
Modularity rating: 3
There are parts of this text that are fantastic and which I could absolutely see wanting to use in my critical thinking class. However, because of the intentional avoidance of standard logical terminology and the unusual reinterpretations of the standard terms it does use, it would be difficult to use sections of this book in conjunctions with sections of other critical thinking texts.
Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5
If one were to use this text as the centerpiece of a course on critical thinking, there is a clear and logical flow to the way the pieces build on themselves. There is motivation up front, tools in the middle, applications and concerns about misusing the tools in the end. The structural is well-thought out and well-executed. The one complaint in terms of organization is that it is two-thirds the way through the text before certain central notions are defined.
Interface rating: 5
It is a clean and effective design with images that brighten up the text without distracting. Easy to read and aesthetically well-laid out. There are a couple of line breaks that add a couple of blank lines where they don't need to be here and there, but that is nitpicky stuff. Overall, it looks great.
Grammatical Errors rating: 5
It is a clean and effective design with images that brighten up the text without distracting. Easy to read and aesthetically well-laid out. There are a couple of line breaks that add a couple of blank lines where they don't need to be here and there, but that is nitpicky stuff. Overall, it reads and looks great.
Cultural Relevance rating: 2
The text is not culturally insensitive, indeed, the problem with it is exactly the opposite. It is clear that part of the goal of this text is to change how we think about critical thinking, moving from a logical model in which we strive for truth, to a rhetorical model in which we engage in open dialogue across varied perspectives. This is a noble goal. However, in trying to create discourse communities where voices that are often underrepresented or silenced have a place, the book does away with the point of that discourse. We want multiple perspectives because they provide insights that lead to truths we may have otherwise missed. They are correctives that undermine problematic presuppositions we did not even realize we were making that leads us away from truth. They allow us to see other ways of valuing things that we would not have values under our initial set of meanings. Eliminating the centrality of truth as a goal in discourse does not create room for other voices, it eliminates the point of needing those other voices. Indeed, the unintentional consequence of this approach to critical thinking is the devaluing of rationality, of truth, of scientific findings. We need to take action to reverse climate change. This can only be done if we have a robust notion of truth and its importance.
Logic is an activity you learn by doing. The lack of exercises or active engagement projects in the text is something that would place a load on the instructor to develop if this were to be an effective book in use.
Reviewed by Marion Hernandez, Adjunct Instructor English Department/DCE, Bunker Hill Community College on 12/27/20, updated 1/6/21
The book does name, identify and define key terms of argument and the basis for effective argument. read more
The book does name, identify and define key terms of argument and the basis for effective argument.
Content Accuracy rating: 4
This text has no grammatical errors and is unbiased in the definitions and the various contexts in which arguments occur.
Relevance and longevity do not really apply to the subject and context of this text. The book is very general and the time and place do not play a role.
Clarity rating: 2
The definitions and graphs/charts (only 2 or 3 have been added) are very basic, almost to the point of being counter productive. The Inductive and deductive chart has no value in the design or in the side notes accompanying the graph. No enough detail or design features were added to this one graph.
Consistency is not a feature to discuss because every chapter has a different main idea from types of arguments to resolving arguments to types of behavior commonly seen during arguments. There is no sequencing of material from beginning to end in term of moving from basic through intermediate and advanced level of thinking.
The book clearly defines the title of each section, but again, all taken together, no advancement in theory is developed throughout.
Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 2
The chapters do not appear in any type of order. The book moves from arguing to argument and behaviors commonly found during arguments. The last chapters talk about reasoning skills such as inductive and deductive thinking.
Interface rating: 1
The graphic and pictures do nothing to promote thinking or understanding and are therefore superfluous.
Grammatical Errors rating: 2
This critique here is not so much grammar but but point of view. The book really reads like a self help book or guide for a very basic reader. But the point of view shifts from 'you" as is what "you" should do to the the third person "they". This is very poor writing and leads to the next point which is its lack of value as a high school or college text. It is difficult to understand what student and in what circumstances would benefit or be inspired to read it.
Cultural Relevance rating: 5
There is no politically incorrect content.
As briefly mentioned, the causal, offhand, self help nature of this book is not designed in any way to be used as a text. Because each chapter is separate with no sequencing, it would be impossible to develop any in depth assignments, No exercises are added so nothing would materialize in the way of theory, practice, analysis or discussion.
Table of Contents
1: Standing Up For Your Point Of View
2: Communicating An Argument
5: Building Your Case With Issues, Analysis And Contentions
6: Evidence
7: Reasoning
8: Validity Or Truth
9: Changing Beliefs, Attitudes and Behavior
10: Decision Making - Judging an Argument
11: Discovering, Examining and Improving Our Reality
12: The Foundations of Critical Thinking
Ancillary Material
About the book.
There is a quote that has been passed down many years and is most recently accounted to P.T. Barnum, “There is a sucker born every minute.” Are you that sucker? If you were, would you like to be “reborn?” The goal of this book is to help you through that “birthing” process. Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas and making decisions are important in both your personal and professional life. How good are we at making the decision to marry? According to the Centers for Disease Control, there is one divorce in America every 36 seconds. That is nearly 2,400 every day. And professionally, the Wall Street Journal predicts the average person will have 7 careers in their lifetime. Critical thinking skills are crucial.
Critical thinking is a series learned skills. In each chapter of this book you will find a variety of skills that will help you improve your thinking and argumentative ability. As you improve, you will grow into a more confident person being more in charge of your world and the decisions you make.
About the Contributors
Jim Marteney , Professor Emeritus (Communication Studies) at Los Angeles Valley College
Contribute to this Page
Critical thinking
Categories of arguments.
A key skill when evaluating information is the ability to evaluate the strength of an argument and decide whether it’s reasonable. But what do we mean when we talk about arguments? Pause for a moment to consider the following question. When you have an answer, turn the card to learn more.
Arguments can be divided into two categories:
Deductive arguments
If premises are true, then conclusions must also be true.
Example : Claire likes cats. Bella is a cat. Therefore, Claire likes Bella.
Inductive arguments
If premises are true or have a high likelihood of being true, then conclusions are likely to be true, but not guaranteed.
Example : In most cases, where there is smoke, there is fire. There is smoke on the mountain. Therefore there is probably a fire on the mountain.
Let’s explore through an example the different ways deductive and inductive arguments are constructed and analysed.
Deductive
Inductive
Evaluating arguments
Arguments can be evaluated by following four steps:
Begin by deconstructing the argument so that you can identify its premises, the assumptions that underpin in, and its conclusions.
Establish whether the argument is deductive or inductive
Determine whether the argument is logically valid. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Is there any missing information or hidden premises that would be required to make the conclusion valid?
If you feel that the conclusions are valid, check that the premises are true
Evaluating arguments can be difficult at first. For an example of evaluation in action, watch this video which evaluates a common argument connected to climate change produced by staff at the University of Queensland (and if you’re interested you can read their full paper examining this issue).
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.
5 How to evaluate an argument
Understanding what is meant by the term ‘argument’ is not always clear to students. In academic work an argument is not simply disagreeing with someone, entering into a dispute or quarrel. Argumentation is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as an ‘action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory…’ .
When you evaluate academic material, such as a journal article, you are aiming to form a judgement on the validity of the argument presented. So it is important that you understand the components of the argument(s) being presented.
In this context, an argument can be said to have four basic components:
an arguable premise or claim
use of facts and evidence
any qualifications to the argument that might be necessary.
The claim : this is the point that is being made; what is being argued for. When reading the literature, ask yourself if the claims being made are relevant to your current needs (i.e. can you use them in your course assignment? Are they an important addition to the knowledge of the subject?).
The evidence : this is the grounds upon which the claim is made. An academic argument explores an arguable premise or claim using facts, evidence and different points of view. These would typically derive from outside sources. Sometimes it might be data from a study, other times it might be a quote or reference to someone else’s published work. You will hear it referred to as ‘supporting evidence’. The evidence needs to fully support the claim being made or, if it doesn’t, its weaknesses need to be acknowledged and dealt with in some way (for example, by ‘qualifications’).
The warrant : this is the general principle that forms the bridge between the claim and the evidence it is based on. It is logical reasoning that connects the evidence to the claim. It moves from step to step in a clear, developmental manner.
Qualifications : these are concessions that may have to be made within an argument that limit what someone might be able to claim (see ‘evidence’ above).
An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better by
Get full access to An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better and 60K+ other titles, with a free 10-day trial of O'Reilly.
There are also live events, courses curated by job role, and more.
IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS
8.1 WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT?
In ordinary usage, an argument is often taken to be a somewhat heated dispute between people. But in logic and critical thinking, an argument is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument. An example:
It is raining.
So you should bring an umbrella.
In this argument, the first statement is the premise and the second one the conclusion. The premises of an argument are offered as reasons for accepting the conclusion. It is therefore irrational to accept an argument as a good one and yet refuse to accept the conclusion. Giving reasons is a central part of critical thinking. It is not the same as simply expressing an opinion. If you say “that dress looks nice,” you are only expressing an opinion. But if you say “that dress looks nice because the design is very elegant,” then it would be an argument indeed. Dogmatic people tend to make assertions without giving arguments. When they cannot defend themselves, they often resort to responses such as “this is a matter of opinion,” “this is just what you think,” or “I have the right to believe whatever I want.”
The ability to construct, identify, and evaluate arguments is a crucial part of critical thinking. Giving good arguments helps us convince other people, and improve our presentation and debating skills. More important, using arguments to support our beliefs with reasons is likely to help us discover the ...
Get An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better now with the O’Reilly learning platform.
O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.
Don’t leave empty-handed
Get Mark Richards’s Software Architecture Patterns ebook to better understand how to design components—and how they should interact.
It’s yours, free.
Check it out now on O’Reilly
Dive in for free with a 10-day trial of the O’Reilly learning platform—then explore all the other resources our members count on to build skills and solve problems every day.
Utility Menu
GA4 Tracking Code
bok_logo_2-02_-_harvard_left.png
Evaluate and Critique a Model or Argument
Examples in the ABLConnect Database
The Spectrum Game
Simulated Investment in Genome Editing Technology
Learning through Case Construction
Evaluate and Critique a Model or Argument can be worked into a variety of activity types! Here are just a few examples:
Research : A research project can be expanded to include a peer-review step. A peer-review allows students to evaluate their classmate’s model and provides the author feedback on how well they defended their point. Critically, establish a set of rules and class norms so that students’ reviews are constructive rather than mean. If you think this may be a problem, you may also have students submit reviews to you so that you can rephrase feedback before handing it back to the author.
Think-Pair-Share : After introducing a new model to the class in lecture, take a pause to allow students to evaluate the model on their own. Give a few minutes for each student to think critically on their own and jot down a few strengths/weaknesses of the new model. Then encourage students to speak to their neighbors to compare their evaluations. Finally, bring the class back together to have a larger class discussion.
There are also ways to focus on Evaluate and Critique a Model or Argument in unexpected activity types.
Statement Corrections : Have a series of statements proposing different models/arguments based on the same set of primary sources. Have students compare each different model, pick the one they feel is the most accurate, then correct the other statements to reflect their choice. If done in independent groups, bring the class back together to see if groups had differing opinions and discuss what aspects of the model convinced them. End by having the class settle on a single model that best represents the primary sources.
Collaborate
Compare the Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Models
Defend a Model or Argument
Develop Communication Skills
Develop Subject Specific Intuition
Interpret Primary Sources to Propose a Model
Learn Foundational Knowledge
Make Real World Connections to Course Material
Reflect on the Learning Process
Library Connect
Library tip of the week: Critical thinking and building an argument
by The Library
posted August 5, 2024
AI Image generated by Microsoft Copilot
Critical thinking is an essential part of succeeding at uni. It supports your academic writing and deepens your learning.
Thinking critically doesn’t just mean being critical. It involves:
synthesising ideas
questioning evidence
reflecting on assumptions
applying ideas to different contexts.
Moreover, it is the foundation of building an effective academic argument.
Your academic argument is your stance, claim or position on a topic. It is backed up by relevant evidence. When building an argument:
structure it correctly
consider potential counterarguments
explain why your evidence is sufficient, sound and reliable.
Learning and developing this skill will help you write better assignments. It will also help you to be more persuasive in your professional life.
Find out more about developing study skills . If you have any questions about succeeding at uni, contact the Library .
Library tips: here to help you
Subscribe to Library Connect via Email
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
What Are Arguments?: Evaluating Arguments at The Workplace
What’s the first image that comes to your mind when you hear the word ‘argument’? People fighting? Or heated courtroom…
What’s the first image that comes to your mind when you hear the word ‘argument’?
People fighting? Or heated courtroom dramas on television?
We often use the word ‘argument’ to refer to a disagreement or conflict between people.
In fact, arguments are a crucial part of critical thinking.
As Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
An important part of critical thinking is to identify, construct, and evaluate arguments. An argument is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument.
That’s how the critical thinker works.
A critical thinker won’t just receive and accept a message as it is but will consider what the message says.
Is the message well-supported? Is the logic behind the statement sound or flawed?
In other words, a critical thinker will act on the message before taking any action.
Consider this, the human mind is full of thoughts every hour of the day. According to cognition experts, experiences between 60,000 and 80,000 thoughts every day.
Thanks to the critical thinker within us, we only consider the thoughts that seem important.
Let’s look at an example of critical thinking in an ordinary situation that any of us could have faced.
You are running late for work. You get ready fast and leave the house.
Just as you’re getting out of the gate, you suddenly remember you’ve left the iron on. You go back inside and switch it off.
It’s that simple, or is it?
Did you leave it on or is it just your nervousness from running late that makes you think you did?
You go back in your mind and remember everything that you did since you woke up till you left the house.
You remember that you had ironed the shirt after taking a shower. You got dressed in haste and left the room, and indeed, left the iron on.
The example above demonstrates how a critical thinker is different from a normal thinker in their critical thinking skills including listening, analyzing, and evaluating arguments.
What Are Arguments?
You analyze and process information during the process of critical thinking. You then develop reasons and gather evidence for why you believe in an idea.
Finally, you present these beliefs and ideas to others in an argument.
Therefore, an argument is simply a way of presenting your thoughts or ideas to someone in a convincing manner.
It could be an opinion, an idea, a theory, a perspective, a conclusion, a set of actions—any thought that you want to convey with sound reasoning.
People often argue to make others consider their point. They try to make statements to support their views.
But how would you know if what someone is saying to persuade you is correct or not?
Unless you can trust the person enough to take their word without further discussion, people will need to reason with you and convince you.
They will try to make statements to support their views.
These statements together form what we call arguments.
What Is An Argument?
An argument is a group of statements where the premises are offered in support of the conclusion.
Argument: Meaning And Example
An argument takes the conversation beyond making an assertion. But why would anyone accept your assertion? Because you offer related statements to support the assertion. Further, you aim at giving a good reason to make the other person believe what you are saying is true.
Let’s try to understand argument meaning with a simple example.[AG5]
Arun was driving his car over the speed limit. He wasn’t in a hurry or didn’t have an emergency. So he had no excuse to go over the speed limit. Further, he was drunk. Thus, Arun was breaking the law.
You must have concluded that Arun was breaking the law. And how did you reach this conclusion? By offering related statements, also called premises:
Arun was driving his truck over the speed limit
Arun had no excuse to go over the speed limit
Arun was drunk
The word ‘thus’ in the statement is what we call a conclusion indicator. Conclusion indicators are often used to stress the part of an argument you want to prove or consider. Arguments can sometimes also have premise indicators.
Is There Any Standard Structure For Arguments?
Yes, there is! And that structure often includes premise and conclusion indicators. Premise and conclusion indicators are the words that differentiate premises and conclusions in arguments. These words in the statements are highly important for clarity in the message.
Here’s a list of the most common conclusion and premise indicators:
Conclusion indicators
Premise indicators
Therefore
Because
Thus
Since
Hence
Supposing that
Consequently
Assuming that
Ergo
Given that
But why argue in the first place?
It’s obvious that people argue. and here are the four main reasons why they do:.
To get clarity in your thinking. Often, you, as an individual or a group receive loads of information that needs to be properly interpreted. Arguments can help you learn about issues before taking any action
To explain or defend your actions or beliefs. Everyone has a reason for what they say or do. However, the reasons are not clear sometimes. With a proper argument, you can shed light on the reasons behind your thoughts and actions and make them explicit
To make judgments or solve problems. The world is filled with controversies. Most of us frequently come across situations that question our previous beliefs. Arguments are a good way out of chaos to help facilitate decision-making.
To make fun. Yes, you read that right! Participating in debates can be an intellectually stimulating process. After all, an argument isn’t always serious and deliberative. You must have experienced often, people arguing over relatively unimportant issues.
How To Evaluate Arguments In The Workplace?
The claim: .
This is the point you are arguing to prove; the point that is being made. When making a claim, make sure you are relevant. In other words, make claims related to the subject or issue at hand.
The evidence:
On what ground are you making the claims? The reason, facts, or statement that supports your claim is the evidence. You will find supporting evidence from outside sources such as quotes or published work.
The warrant:
No, it’s not the warrant that police issue before arresting someone. The warrant, when evaluating arguments, forms the bridge between the claim and the related evidence. In other words, it’s the logical reasoning that you make to relate the evidence to the claim or conclusion. It goes in a step-by-step and clear manner.
Let’s go back to Arun’s example again:
Arun was driving his car over the speed limit. He wasn’t in a hurry or didn’t have an emergency. So he could have maintained the speed limit, but he didn’t. Apart from that, he was drunk. Thus, Arun was breaking the law.
Here, the warrant can be the statement: “Arun had no excuse to drive over the speed limit.”
Qualifications:
These are concessions that you may have to make to limit what someone might be able to claim.
If you want to learn the ABCD of arguments, you should join Harappa’s Thinking Critically course. The ABCD framework from the course arms you with the tool you can use in evaluating arguments for Accuracy, Believability, Clarity, and Deficiency. The framework not only strengthens the arguments but also makes them more logical.
Join the course today and take your first step in learning about arguments and critical thinking.
Explore our Harappa Diaries section to know more about topics related to the Think habit such as Critical Thinking , Creative Thinking & Design Thinking .
Privacy Policy
Home » Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide
Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide
Table of Contents
Critical Analysis
Definition:
Critical analysis is a process of examining a piece of work or an idea in a systematic, objective, and analytical way. It involves breaking down complex ideas, concepts, or arguments into smaller, more manageable parts to understand them better.
Types of Critical Analysis
Types of Critical Analysis are as follows:
Literary Analysis
This type of analysis focuses on analyzing and interpreting works of literature , such as novels, poetry, plays, etc. The analysis involves examining the literary devices used in the work, such as symbolism, imagery, and metaphor, and how they contribute to the overall meaning of the work.
Film Analysis
This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting films, including their themes, cinematography, editing, and sound. Film analysis can also include evaluating the director’s style and how it contributes to the overall message of the film.
Art Analysis
This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting works of art , such as paintings, sculptures, and installations. The analysis involves examining the elements of the artwork, such as color, composition, and technique, and how they contribute to the overall meaning of the work.
Cultural Analysis
This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting cultural artifacts , such as advertisements, popular music, and social media posts. The analysis involves examining the cultural context of the artifact and how it reflects and shapes cultural values, beliefs, and norms.
Historical Analysis
This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting historical documents , such as diaries, letters, and government records. The analysis involves examining the historical context of the document and how it reflects the social, political, and cultural attitudes of the time.
Philosophical Analysis
This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting philosophical texts and ideas, such as the works of philosophers and their arguments. The analysis involves evaluating the logical consistency of the arguments and assessing the validity and soundness of the conclusions.
Scientific Analysis
This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting scientific research studies and their findings. The analysis involves evaluating the methods used in the study, the data collected, and the conclusions drawn, and assessing their reliability and validity.
Critical Discourse Analysis
This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting language use in social and political contexts. The analysis involves evaluating the power dynamics and social relationships conveyed through language use and how they shape discourse and social reality.
Comparative Analysis
This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting multiple texts or works of art and comparing them to each other. The analysis involves evaluating the similarities and differences between the texts and how they contribute to understanding the themes and meanings conveyed.
Critical Analysis Format
Critical Analysis Format is as follows:
I. Introduction
Provide a brief overview of the text, object, or event being analyzed
Explain the purpose of the analysis and its significance
Provide background information on the context and relevant historical or cultural factors
II. Description
Provide a detailed description of the text, object, or event being analyzed
Identify key themes, ideas, and arguments presented
Describe the author or creator’s style, tone, and use of language or visual elements
III. Analysis
Analyze the text, object, or event using critical thinking skills
Identify the main strengths and weaknesses of the argument or presentation
Evaluate the reliability and validity of the evidence presented
Assess any assumptions or biases that may be present in the text, object, or event
Consider the implications of the argument or presentation for different audiences and contexts
IV. Evaluation
Provide an overall evaluation of the text, object, or event based on the analysis
Assess the effectiveness of the argument or presentation in achieving its intended purpose
Identify any limitations or gaps in the argument or presentation
Consider any alternative viewpoints or interpretations that could be presented
Summarize the main points of the analysis and evaluation
Reiterate the significance of the text, object, or event and its relevance to broader issues or debates
Provide any recommendations for further research or future developments in the field.
VI. Example
Provide an example or two to support your analysis and evaluation
Use quotes or specific details from the text, object, or event to support your claims
Analyze the example(s) using critical thinking skills and explain how they relate to your overall argument
VII. Conclusion
Reiterate your thesis statement and summarize your main points
Provide a final evaluation of the text, object, or event based on your analysis
Offer recommendations for future research or further developments in the field
End with a thought-provoking statement or question that encourages the reader to think more deeply about the topic
How to Write Critical Analysis
Writing a critical analysis involves evaluating and interpreting a text, such as a book, article, or film, and expressing your opinion about its quality and significance. Here are some steps you can follow to write a critical analysis:
Read and re-read the text: Before you begin writing, make sure you have a good understanding of the text. Read it several times and take notes on the key points, themes, and arguments.
Identify the author’s purpose and audience: Consider why the author wrote the text and who the intended audience is. This can help you evaluate whether the author achieved their goals and whether the text is effective in reaching its audience.
Analyze the structure and style: Look at the organization of the text and the author’s writing style. Consider how these elements contribute to the overall meaning of the text.
Evaluate the content : Analyze the author’s arguments, evidence, and conclusions. Consider whether they are logical, convincing, and supported by the evidence presented in the text.
Consider the context: Think about the historical, cultural, and social context in which the text was written. This can help you understand the author’s perspective and the significance of the text.
Develop your thesis statement : Based on your analysis, develop a clear and concise thesis statement that summarizes your overall evaluation of the text.
Support your thesis: Use evidence from the text to support your thesis statement. This can include direct quotes, paraphrases, and examples from the text.
Write the introduction, body, and conclusion : Organize your analysis into an introduction that provides context and presents your thesis, a body that presents your evidence and analysis, and a conclusion that summarizes your main points and restates your thesis.
Revise and edit: After you have written your analysis, revise and edit it to ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and well-organized. Check for spelling and grammar errors, and make sure that your analysis is logically sound and supported by evidence.
When to Write Critical Analysis
You may want to write a critical analysis in the following situations:
Academic Assignments: If you are a student, you may be assigned to write a critical analysis as a part of your coursework. This could include analyzing a piece of literature, a historical event, or a scientific paper.
Journalism and Media: As a journalist or media person, you may need to write a critical analysis of current events, political speeches, or media coverage.
Personal Interest: If you are interested in a particular topic, you may want to write a critical analysis to gain a deeper understanding of it. For example, you may want to analyze the themes and motifs in a novel or film that you enjoyed.
Professional Development : Professionals such as writers, scholars, and researchers often write critical analyses to gain insights into their field of study or work.
Critical Analysis Example
An Example of Critical Analysis Could be as follow:
Research Topic:
The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance
Introduction:
The introduction of the research topic is clear and provides an overview of the issue. However, it could benefit from providing more background information on the prevalence of online learning and its potential impact on student performance.
Literature Review:
The literature review is comprehensive and well-structured. It covers a broad range of studies that have examined the relationship between online learning and student performance. However, it could benefit from including more recent studies and providing a more critical analysis of the existing literature.
Research Methods:
The research methods are clearly described and appropriate for the research question. The study uses a quasi-experimental design to compare the performance of students who took an online course with those who took the same course in a traditional classroom setting. However, the study may benefit from using a randomized controlled trial design to reduce potential confounding factors.
The results are presented in a clear and concise manner. The study finds that students who took the online course performed similarly to those who took the traditional course. However, the study only measures performance on one course and may not be generalizable to other courses or contexts.
Discussion :
The discussion section provides a thorough analysis of the study’s findings. The authors acknowledge the limitations of the study and provide suggestions for future research. However, they could benefit from discussing potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between online learning and student performance.
Conclusion :
The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study and provides some implications for future research and practice. However, it could benefit from providing more specific recommendations for implementing online learning programs in educational settings.
Purpose of Critical Analysis
There are several purposes of critical analysis, including:
To identify and evaluate arguments : Critical analysis helps to identify the main arguments in a piece of writing or speech and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. This enables the reader to form their own opinion and make informed decisions.
To assess evidence : Critical analysis involves examining the evidence presented in a text or speech and evaluating its quality and relevance to the argument. This helps to determine the credibility of the claims being made.
To recognize biases and assumptions : Critical analysis helps to identify any biases or assumptions that may be present in the argument, and evaluate how these affect the credibility of the argument.
To develop critical thinking skills: Critical analysis helps to develop the ability to think critically, evaluate information objectively, and make reasoned judgments based on evidence.
To improve communication skills: Critical analysis involves carefully reading and listening to information, evaluating it, and expressing one’s own opinion in a clear and concise manner. This helps to improve communication skills and the ability to express ideas effectively.
Importance of Critical Analysis
Here are some specific reasons why critical analysis is important:
Helps to identify biases: Critical analysis helps individuals to recognize their own biases and assumptions, as well as the biases of others. By being aware of biases, individuals can better evaluate the credibility and reliability of information.
Enhances problem-solving skills : Critical analysis encourages individuals to question assumptions and consider multiple perspectives, which can lead to creative problem-solving and innovation.
Promotes better decision-making: By carefully evaluating evidence and arguments, critical analysis can help individuals make more informed and effective decisions.
Facilitates understanding: Critical analysis helps individuals to understand complex issues and ideas by breaking them down into smaller parts and evaluating them separately.
Fosters intellectual growth : Engaging in critical analysis challenges individuals to think deeply and critically, which can lead to intellectual growth and development.
Advantages of Critical Analysis
Some advantages of critical analysis include:
Improved decision-making: Critical analysis helps individuals make informed decisions by evaluating all available information and considering various perspectives.
Enhanced problem-solving skills : Critical analysis requires individuals to identify and analyze the root cause of a problem, which can help develop effective solutions.
Increased creativity : Critical analysis encourages individuals to think outside the box and consider alternative solutions to problems, which can lead to more creative and innovative ideas.
Improved communication : Critical analysis helps individuals communicate their ideas and opinions more effectively by providing logical and coherent arguments.
Reduced bias: Critical analysis requires individuals to evaluate information objectively, which can help reduce personal biases and subjective opinions.
Better understanding of complex issues : Critical analysis helps individuals to understand complex issues by breaking them down into smaller parts, examining each part and understanding how they fit together.
Greater self-awareness: Critical analysis helps individuals to recognize their own biases, assumptions, and limitations, which can lead to personal growth and development.
About the author
Muhammad Hassan
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
You may also like
Thesis – Structure, Example and Writing Guide
Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...
Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...
Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips
Data Verification – Process, Types and Examples
Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples
How educators can train critical thinking with Kialo Edu
It is vital to equip students with the 21st-century skills needed to face future challenges. Perhaps the trickiest skill to purposefully develop in students is critical thinking , which describes the ability to analyze information, evaluate evidence, and draw reasonable conclusions based on sound logic and reasoning .
Luckily, Kialo Edu is purpose-built for this task. Kialo discussions actively engage students to train their logic and reasoning skills and can help students become more autonomous and open-minded thinkers.
Let’s explore how educators can use Kialo discussions to advance students’ critical thinking skills.
How students benefit from critical thinking skills
When students learn how to think critically, they become more active learners capable of applying their knowledge across subject areas.
Cross-subject knowledge transfer means students are better able to learn independently, which in turn leads to better learning outcomes.
That’s because independent learners are self-motivated, making them more likely to persevere in pursuit of their learning goals.
2. Critical thinking helps students become informed citizens
Critical thinking skills are a central pillar of information literacy, and allow students to better assess the reliability of information they come across — especially information found online.
This is essential for students as many get their information from online sources, including social media platforms.
As well as helping students identify misinformation, critical thinking complements the development of students’ civic literacy skills.
The ability to understand different points of view, question political and media rhetoric, and grasp the broader implications of policy decisions empowers students to participate in meaningful discussions about how society functions and their place within it.
3. Students can make better decisions with critical thinking skills
Critical thinking allows students to make informed decisions grounded in evidence. By reflecting on their own thought processes, questioning their assumptions, and understanding the impact of cognitive bias on thinking, students with developed critical thinking skills are better positioned to make good decisions as they progress through life.
4. Students can improve their problem-solving skills through critical thinking
By developing students’ rational capacities , critical thinking helps students become better problem-solvers.
Students who approach problems systematically and remain open to new solutions are better placed to tackle educational and professional challenges. They are also more capable of thinking up innovative solutions to larger societal problems.
Activities to train critical thinking with Kialo discussions
1. map arguments on kialo edu to promote metacognition.
Kialo discussions take the form of a map of all the different parts of an argument, providing a unique, visual method for students to see how ideas are related to each other.
Argument mapping has been shown to be one of the most effective ways of cultivating critical thinking skills, as well as facilitating a deeper understanding of the topic at hand.
As students evaluate the relationships between the connected claims, guide them to examine the thinking process being represented in the discussion.
Metacognitive practices like this — in which students think about their own and others’ thinking — help cultivate self-reflection, an essential component of critical thinking.
2. Use Kialo discussions to train students’ reasoning skills
The cornerstone of critical thinking is the use of reason to evaluate evidence, analyze arguments, and arrive at measured conclusions. To improve their reasoning capacities, students need plenty of practice in both developing their own arguments and critiquing those made by others.
Kialo discussions take the form of interconnected lines of reasoning. Within this structure, students are guided to think about the logical relationship between each point they make and the one they are responding to.
You can encourage them to consider whether each of their peers’ claims logically supports or weakens the one above, and even add some of your own faulty reasoning to the discussion to demonstrate common logical fallacies .
3. Use Kialo Edu as a framework for student-led inquiry
Adept critical thinkers are independent learners, capable of leading their own investigations into a topic and constructing their own understanding . Kialo discussions work to promote student autonomy by creating a framework for student-led inquiry into the discussion topic.
First, Kialo discussions begin with a central question. Then, students have complete freedom as to where and how they analyze, respond to, and contribute arguments.
This nonlinear nature of Kialo discussions promotes active learning by asking students to choose which part of the discussion to contribute to.
It also gives students a sense of ownership over their own learning, as they are encouraged to come to their own conclusions rather than simply reproduce answers provided to them.
Similar to other critical-thinking discussion activities such as Socratic seminars , teachers in Kialo discussions can choose the level of guidance to give to students.
You can assign tasks to students to encourage certain types of participation or use the Discussion Chat to bring students’ attention to a particular branch of the discussion that you would like them to develop.
4. Have students collaborate on Kialo Edu to encourage flexible thinking
To become better critical thinkers, students must be open to new ideas — in other words, they must be flexible in the way that they think. Educators can utilize Kialo discussions to encourage flexible thinking in students.
Because Kialo discussions work great as collaborative activities, students are exposed to opinions they may never have even considered. Exposure to a variety of perspectives helps students become more open and flexible thinkers.
Plus, because students’ claims are open to critique by their peers, discussion participants are encouraged to reflect upon their own thinking.
This self-reflection can help students to question their implicit assumptions and biases, and develop a disposition more open to changing their minds on an issue. Upon collaborating in a discussion, ask students to develop counterarguments to their own claims to interrogate their original position on a topic.
5. Use Kialo discussions to practice research and citing sources
Beyond having purely logical connections between claims, Kialo discussions immerse students in developing their research skills and interrogating the evidence behind each other’s assertions.
First, direct students to add sources to their claims. This is an important skill as it requires students to conduct independent research and find reliable sources that support the points being made. Practicing it on Kialo Edu can also greatly benefit students’ research skills for essay writing.
Then, have students practice source criticism by asking them to evaluate how reliable the sources supporting each other’s arguments truly are.
By doing so, they will need to check the veracity of each source, which is a vital component of information and media literacy . At the same time, they are practicing their reasoning skills.
Helping educators to develop students’ critical thinking skills is at the core of Kialo Edu’s mission, which is to make the world a more thoughtful place.
If you have feedback, thoughts, or suggestions about how we can achieve that goal, reach out to us on social media or directly at [email protected] .
Want to try Kialo Edu with your class?
Sign up for free and use Kialo Edu to have thoughtful classroom discussions and train students’ argumentation and critical thinking skills.
Skip to main content
Skip to FDA Search
Skip to in this section menu
Skip to footer links
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Search
Menu
News & Events for Human Drugs
Evaluating Excipient Safety in Pediatric Populations: Current Thinking from a Bioequivalence Perspective - 08/08/2024
Conference | Virtual
Event Title Evaluating Excipient Safety in Pediatric Populations: Current Thinking from a Bioequivalence Perspective August 8, 2024
About this event.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), proudly present a webinar that explores the critical intersection of excipient safety and pediatric health. Our expert speakers will delve into the current thinking in evaluating excipient safety for the pediatric population for generic drug products.
Learn more about the critical role excipient safety evaluation in the pediatric population plays in the bioequivalence assessment for Abbreviated New Drug Applications. Experts from FDA and AAPS will explore the current thinking through a risk-based approach currently being piloted. Real-world case studies will highlight the challenges and opportunities in ensuring excipient safety for pediatric patients. Each presentation will provide valuable insights and practical takeaways for anyone involved in generic drug development, pediatric health care, or excipient safety evaluation.
Don't miss this opportunity to stay ahead of the curve and ensure the safety and well-being of pediatric patients!
Key Takeaways:
Understand the current state of excipient safety evaluation in pediatric populations
Learn about the risk-based approach being piloted in the Office of Generic Drugs
Gain insights from case studies and expert discussions
Who Should Attend:
Regulatory affairs professionals
Pharmaceutical scientists and researchers
Pediatric health care professionals
Anyone involved in generic drug development or excipient safety evaluation
JFK assassination class in Royal Oak helps students confront conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories spread like wildfire after the July 13 assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, earning millions of views amid speculation about the involvement of the “deep state,” the Secret Service, the Trump campaign and President Joe Biden.
So how do you debunk the false narratives, facts taken out of context, doctored photos and rumors treated as gospel that are so prevalent and popular on the web?
Maybe the answer lies in educational efforts like the class on who killed JFK that has been a staple for more than three decades (and will be offered again this fall starting Sept. 19) at Royal Oak’s Oakland Community College campus.
Topics in History: The JFK Assassination is a three-credit history course taught by Ron Burda and Michael Vollbach that runs for 12 weeks and focuses on one of the most shocking and significant events of the 20th century — a tragedy that has drawn generations of Americans down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories.
The first half of the course covers who President John F. Kennedy was and what happened in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. when he was shot to death while riding in a motorcade. It also explores the findings of two government investigations: the 1964 Warren Commission Report that concluded Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin and the 1979 U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Report that viewed Kennedy's death as probably the result of a conspiracy.
”The whole idea of that first half is we tell the students be on the lookout for suspects because we want you to try to solve this the best way you know how,” says Burda.
In the second half, as the course description puts it, “We intend to put Lee Harvey Oswald on trial.” Relying on Warren Commission testimony and other research sources, students get to role-play as real people connected to the case at a mock court proceeding.
There are two weeks of prosecution witnesses and two weeks of defense witnesses, according to Burda, in the simulation of a trial that never happened in real life because Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald two days after the JFK assassination as he was being transferred to a county jail.
After the testimony, the students take on the ultimate responsibility in any trial. “The very last class, the class gets to deliberate as a jury and come to a conclusion if they can,” says Burda.
Students, of course, don’t have to definitively prove who killed Kennedy, a task that has yet to be accomplished by generations of JFK assassination buffs. The only national consensus on who most likely was responsible was revealed in a 2023 Gallup poll done for the 60th anniversary of Kennedy’s death. It found that that 65% of adults think Oswald worked with others to kill Kennedy, while 29% think it was Oswald’s doing alone.
What students are expected to do is examine the case and reach conclusions by seeking out the facts and weighing the legitimate evidence. It's an approach that's the total opposite of accepting conspiracy theories at face value.
”It’s the back-door way to get students to be critical thinkers," says Burda. “If we can get them interested in this topic — and usually every class, we can get at least of few of them really interested in the topic — then they’re on the path to becoming lifelong active learners and critical thinkers. That’s really our goal.”
The JFK assassination continues to fascinate the public with its trickles of new information and long legacy of competing theories on whether the CIA, the Mafia, Cuba or others were involved.
A year ago, former Secret Service agent Paul Landis, who’s in his late 80s, revealed that he put a bullet he found in the presidential limousine in his pocket and then placed it on a gurney at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, where Kennedy was rushed after being shot. He shared the story in his book released in 2023 , “The Final Witness: A Kennedy Secret Service Agent Breaks His Silence After 60 Years.”
Also in 2023, director Rob Reiner and journalist and producer Soledad O’Brien showcased interviews with witnesses, government officials and forensic analysts in their 10-episode podcast “Who Killed JFK?” Reiner and O’Brien claimed to have evidence on who really was the culprit in what Reiner described as America’s best-known murder mystery, according to Axios.
Burda, an adjunct professor and an attorney with a law practice based in St. Clair Shores, and Vollbach, a full-time history professor, have taught the JFK assassination course since 1993 and earned recognition for their innovative methods.
In November 2023, they spoke about their class at a symposium on the 60th anniversary of the JFK assassination held by the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law at Pittsburgh’s Dusquene University.
Burda says students have reached different jury outcomes over the years. “We give them a jury verdict form that says Oswald did it alone, Oswald did it with others … or Oswald is innocent,” he explains.
He and Vollbach agree that JFK’s assassination wasn’t the result of Oswald as a lone gunman. ”We don’t know who did it, but there is very persuasive evidence that Oswald never fired a rifle that day,” says Burda.
As for the recent Trump assassination attempt theories, Burda sees them as an argument for having the OCC class and others that teach younger generations how to process news and information.
”People believe what, emotionally, they want to happen, I guess,” he muses. “It’s crazy, but it makes it more important, as far as we’re concerned, to try to develop some critical thinkers to go out there and take a look at things.”
Says Burda, “We need to stimulate more of this kind of thinking in students, so that when they go out into the so-called real world, they’re better equipped.”
For more information on "The JFK Assassination" history class and enrollment, go to the official Oakland Community College website.
Contact Detroit Free Press pop culture critic Julie Hinds at [email protected].
5+ Critical Thinking Strategies for your Essay (2023)
Evaluate the arguments of others
PPT
The 5 Most Useful Critical Thinking Flowcharts For Your Learners
Evaluating an argument
VIDEO
EP.1 What is an Argument ?
How to Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills
How to Develop Critical Thinking Skills
Critical Thinking 12: Arguments, analogies
How to Evaluate an Argument with MindMup
Choose Conversation Over Confrontation
COMMENTS
Evaluate the arguments of others
Evaluation then assesses the component parts as well as the entire source, and makes a judgement about their quality, value or significance. Without analysis, evaluation can easily become biased or flawed. The ability to evaluate is a key critical thinking skill. Evaluating arguments made by others will improve your own critical thinking and ...
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 Worksite: Argument Evaluation
In the following exercise, you will have the chance to test your context evaluation skills on a few argument/context pairs. When you have completed this exercise, you have finished the Critical Thinking Worksite. The only thing left to do is the final project, which is described in the next section. Exercise Three.
Evaluating arguments (CHAPTER 6)
I n chapters 3 and 4 we discussed the analysis of arguments. Analysing arguments is, however, only one aspect of critical reasoning. Another important aspect of critical reasoning is evaluating arguments, that is, being able to judge, accurately, whether arguments are valid and sound. Simply put, when we evaluate an argument we decide whether we should be persuaded by it.
Applying your knowledge and skills to the evaluation of arguments
There are many ways to evaluate arguments. As a critical thinker, you can use your own methods. There are, however, certain points we have to look out for when we evaluate arguments. These are highlighted in the following steps: Five steps in the evaluation of arguments. Understand the meaning of the argument
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
How to analyse arguments (CHAPTER 4)
A s critical thinkers, we should know how to analyse arguments clearly. This is because a complete analysis of an argument helps us to arrive at a better understanding of the meaning of the argument. The word 'analyse' means to dissect, or to lay bare. When we analyse an argument we want to lay bare the components of the argument.
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 ...
Evaluating arguments and evidence
Counter-arguments also need to be evidence-based. When reading and researching for your course, it is really important to be able to, firstly, identify arguments, and then to analyse and evaluate them. Generally a statement is an 'argument' if it: If you come across an assertion that is not based on evidence that can reasonably be ...
Arguing Using Critical Thinking
Reviewed by Steve Gimbel, Professor, Gettysburg College on 9/29/22 Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less. There are separate sections on how to formulate an argument, how to evaluate an argument, the burdens adopted by those engaging in critical discourse, rhetorical strategies for effectively convincing an interlocutor, and errors in reasoning.
Argument & Critical Thinking Tips
Welcome to Argument & Critical Thinking! In this learning area, you will learn how to develop an argumentative essay and stronger critical thinking skills. This learning area will help you develop your arguments, understand your audience, evaluate source material, approach arguments rhetorically, and avoid logical fallacies.
Argument
Evaluating arguments. Arguments can be evaluated by following four steps: Begin by deconstructing the argument so that you can identify its premises, the assumptions that underpin in, and its conclusions. Establish whether the argument is deductive or inductive. Determine whether the argument is logically valid.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well. Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly ...
6 Evaluating an argument
4 The importance of critical thinking and analysis in academic studies. 5 How to evaluate an argument. 5.1 Examples. Current section: ... at (i) the coherence of the argument, and (ii) the supporting evidence. Here are some prompts that should help you to evaluate arguments. The activity below should help to put what you have learned so far ...
5 How to evaluate an argument
When you evaluate academic material, such as a journal article, you are aiming to form a judgement on the validity of the argument presented. So it is important that you understand the components of the argument(s) being presented. In this context, an argument can be said to have four basic components: an arguable premise or claim
Chapter 8: Identifying Arguments
But in logic and critical thinking, an argument is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument. An example: ... The ability to construct, identify, and evaluate arguments is a crucial part of critical thinking. Giving good arguments helps us convince other people, and ...
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. ... Evaluate the arguments of others As a critical thinker, you need to be able to evaluate arguments ...
Evaluate and Critique a Model or Argument
Critical thinking is a fundamental part of this process. Students must read, infer, compare, and evaluate to jude the model or argument. They must then communicate their observations to provide constructive feedback and analysis. By understanding how to critique an argument and learning the potential benefits of such critique, students are also ...
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking refers to the process of actively analyzing, assessing, synthesizing, evaluating and reflecting on information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to solve problems or make decisions. Basically, critical thinking is taking a hard look at ...
Library tip of the week: Critical thinking and building an argument
Thinking critically doesn't just mean being critical. It involves: synthesising ideas questioning evidence reflecting on assumptions applying ideas to different contexts. Moreover, it is the foundation of building an effective academic argument. Your academic argument is your stance, claim or position on a topic.
Arguments: What is an Argument & How to evaluate it| Harappa Education
In fact, arguments are a crucial part of critical thinking. As Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.". An important part of critical thinking is to identify, construct, and evaluate arguments. An argument is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the ...
Critical Analysis
To recognize biases and assumptions: Critical analysis helps to identify any biases or assumptions that may be present in the argument, and evaluate how these affect the credibility of the argument. To develop critical thinking skills: Critical analysis helps to develop the ability to think critically, evaluate information objectively, and make ...
How educators can train critical thinking with Kialo Edu
Argument mapping has been shown to be one of the most effective ways of cultivating critical thinking skills, as well as facilitating a deeper understanding of the topic at hand. As students evaluate the relationships between the connected claims, guide them to examine the thinking process being represented in the discussion.
Evaluating Excipient Safety in Pediatric Populations: Current Thinking
Learn more about the critical role excipient safety evaluation in the pediatric population plays in the bioequivalence assessment for Abbreviated New Drug Applications.
JFK assassination class at OCC evaluates conspiracy theories
As for the recent Trump assassination attempt theories, Burda sees them as an argument for having the OCC class and others that teach younger generations how to process news and information.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Evaluation then assesses the component parts as well as the entire source, and makes a judgement about their quality, value or significance. Without analysis, evaluation can easily become biased or flawed. The ability to evaluate is a key critical thinking skill. Evaluating arguments made by others will improve your own critical thinking and ...
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.
In the following exercise, you will have the chance to test your context evaluation skills on a few argument/context pairs. When you have completed this exercise, you have finished the Critical Thinking Worksite. The only thing left to do is the final project, which is described in the next section. Exercise Three.
I n chapters 3 and 4 we discussed the analysis of arguments. Analysing arguments is, however, only one aspect of critical reasoning. Another important aspect of critical reasoning is evaluating arguments, that is, being able to judge, accurately, whether arguments are valid and sound. Simply put, when we evaluate an argument we decide whether we should be persuaded by it.
There are many ways to evaluate arguments. As a critical thinker, you can use your own methods. There are, however, certain points we have to look out for when we evaluate arguments. These are highlighted in the following steps: Five steps in the evaluation of arguments. Understand the meaning of the 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
A s critical thinkers, we should know how to analyse arguments clearly. This is because a complete analysis of an argument helps us to arrive at a better understanding of the meaning of the argument. The word 'analyse' means to dissect, or to lay bare. When we analyse an argument we want to lay bare the components of the argument.
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 ...
Counter-arguments also need to be evidence-based. When reading and researching for your course, it is really important to be able to, firstly, identify arguments, and then to analyse and evaluate them. Generally a statement is an 'argument' if it: If you come across an assertion that is not based on evidence that can reasonably be ...
Reviewed by Steve Gimbel, Professor, Gettysburg College on 9/29/22 Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less. There are separate sections on how to formulate an argument, how to evaluate an argument, the burdens adopted by those engaging in critical discourse, rhetorical strategies for effectively convincing an interlocutor, and errors in reasoning.
Welcome to Argument & Critical Thinking! In this learning area, you will learn how to develop an argumentative essay and stronger critical thinking skills. This learning area will help you develop your arguments, understand your audience, evaluate source material, approach arguments rhetorically, and avoid logical fallacies.
Evaluating arguments. Arguments can be evaluated by following four steps: Begin by deconstructing the argument so that you can identify its premises, the assumptions that underpin in, and its conclusions. Establish whether the argument is deductive or inductive. Determine whether the argument is logically valid.
Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well. Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly ...
4 The importance of critical thinking and analysis in academic studies. 5 How to evaluate an argument. 5.1 Examples. Current section: ... at (i) the coherence of the argument, and (ii) the supporting evidence. Here are some prompts that should help you to evaluate arguments. The activity below should help to put what you have learned so far ...
When you evaluate academic material, such as a journal article, you are aiming to form a judgement on the validity of the argument presented. So it is important that you understand the components of the argument(s) being presented. In this context, an argument can be said to have four basic components: an arguable premise or claim
But in logic and critical thinking, an argument is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument. An example: ... The ability to construct, identify, and evaluate arguments is a crucial part of critical thinking. Giving good arguments helps us convince other people, and ...
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. ... Evaluate the arguments of others As a critical thinker, you need to be able to evaluate arguments ...
Critical thinking is a fundamental part of this process. Students must read, infer, compare, and evaluate to jude the model or argument. They must then communicate their observations to provide constructive feedback and analysis. By understanding how to critique an argument and learning the potential benefits of such critique, students are also ...
Critical thinking refers to the process of actively analyzing, assessing, synthesizing, evaluating and reflecting on information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to solve problems or make decisions. Basically, critical thinking is taking a hard look at ...
Thinking critically doesn't just mean being critical. It involves: synthesising ideas questioning evidence reflecting on assumptions applying ideas to different contexts. Moreover, it is the foundation of building an effective academic argument. Your academic argument is your stance, claim or position on a topic.
In fact, arguments are a crucial part of critical thinking. As Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.". An important part of critical thinking is to identify, construct, and evaluate arguments. An argument is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the ...
To recognize biases and assumptions: Critical analysis helps to identify any biases or assumptions that may be present in the argument, and evaluate how these affect the credibility of the argument. To develop critical thinking skills: Critical analysis helps to develop the ability to think critically, evaluate information objectively, and make ...
Argument mapping has been shown to be one of the most effective ways of cultivating critical thinking skills, as well as facilitating a deeper understanding of the topic at hand. As students evaluate the relationships between the connected claims, guide them to examine the thinking process being represented in the discussion.
Learn more about the critical role excipient safety evaluation in the pediatric population plays in the bioequivalence assessment for Abbreviated New Drug Applications.
As for the recent Trump assassination attempt theories, Burda sees them as an argument for having the OCC class and others that teach younger generations how to process news and information.