how do you evaluate an argument in critical thinking

Pursuing Truth: A Guide to Critical Thinking

Chapter 2 arguments.

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

2.1 Identifying Arguments

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

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

There are three important things to remember here:

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

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

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

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

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

2.1.1 Standard Form

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

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

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

2.1.2 Indicator Words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1.3 Non-Arguments

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

• Explanations
• Mere asssertions
• Conditional statements
• Loosely connected statements

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

Abraham Lincoln died because he was shot.

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

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

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

Finally, consider this passage:

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

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

2.2 Evaluating Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A deductively valid argument with all true premises.

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

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

2.3 Counterexamples

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

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

Here’s another one:

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

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

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

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

( Cleese and Chapman 1980 ) . ↩︎

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

Critical Thinking Tutorial: How To Analyze an Argument

Learning goal.

How to Analyze an Argument

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

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

Our Learning Charter

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

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

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

© University of Saskatchewan Disclaimer | Privacy

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

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. 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
• > Applying your knowledge and skills to the evaluation of 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 7 - Applying your knowledge and skills to the evaluation of arguments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2020

The pure and the simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.

I n this chapter we will apply what we have learnt in the previous chapters to the evaluation of arguments. To help you understand and evaluate arguments, I will set out five steps in argument evaluation. Remember that these steps are only guidelines and are not meant to be followed blindly. 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

Make sure that you understand what the argument is, in fact, saying – in other words, the meaning of the argument. Do not underestimate the importance of this step. The very first thing you need to establish is whether a passage does, in fact, present an argument, or whether it describes, explains, narrates or commands. If it is an argument, make sure you understand its meaning. If there are any words you do not understand, look them up in a good dictionary. If there are ambiguous words or phrases replace them with words or phrases that, in your opinion, clearly express the arguer's meaning. Remember to apply the principle of charitable interpretation here. There is no point in making an argument look silly just so that you can show it to be unsound. Give the arguer the benefit of the doubt and express the argument in its strongest possible form. This might mean that you have to read and reread the passage carefully several times before you understand it.

Keep in mind the context of the passage and consider key words and recurring themes. Decide whether there is one argument, or more – and, if so, how they are related. At this early stage of argument evaluation it is also important to determine what type of argument is being made, because different types of arguments are assessed differently. Determine whether the argument is deductive, inductive, empirical or a value argument. Remember that a single complex argument may include all four types.

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 .

• Applying your knowledge and skills to the evaluation of 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/10.25159/858-0.007

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

Get Directions Send Us an Email

Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube LinkedIn RSS

© 2023 University of Galway. All Rights Reserved. Server AWS University of Galway is a registered charity. RCN 20002107

• Privacy & Cookies
• Contact & Enquiries
• Accessibility

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

Part Three: Evaluating Arguments

Chapter Seven: A Framework for Evaluating

The main aim of education is practical and reflective judgment, a mind trained to be critical everywhere in the use of evidence. —Brand Blanshard, Four Reasonable Men

Standard Evaluating Format

• Complex Arguments
• A Reasonable Objector over Your Shoulder

We now arrive at the portion of the book that is most important for good reasoning, the portion that Parts One and Two have been pointing toward: the evaluation of arguments.

In Part One we saw that good reasoning is ultimately a matter of cultivating the intellectual virtues, including the virtues of critical reflection, empirical inquiry, and intellectual honesty. This requires close attention to arguments, since cultivating each of these virtues is greatly enhanced by skill in clarifying and evaluating arguments. And close attention to arguments is shorthand, really, for close attention to whether arguments have the four merits of clarity, true premises, good logic, and conversational relevance.

In Part Two we saw that clarity is the starting point. This starting point is not only a matter of asking whether an argument is clear, but is also a matter of enhancing the argument’s clarity through the clarifying process. This process includes two general procedures: outlining the argument in standard clarifying format, and, at the same time, paraphrasing the argument for greater clarity. Paraphrasing should accomplish three things: streamlining, specifying, and structuring. And it should be governed by two general principles. The principle of loyalty tells you to imagine that the arguer is looking over your shoulder, checking to be sure that the paraphrased argument reflects the arguer’s intentions. The principle of charity applies if the context does not indicate the arguer’s intentions; it tells you to paraphrase in a way that makes the arguer as reasonable as possible—to paraphrase according to what you probably would have meant had you expressed the same words under similar circumstances.

The whole point of clarifying is to make it simpler to determine whether arguments have the other three merits. The remainder of the book has to do with asking these three questions of clarified arguments: Are the premises true? Is the logic good? And, to a lesser extent, Is the argument conversationally relevant?

7.1 Standard Evaluating Format

Just as there is a standard clarifying format, so is there a standard evaluating format. It systematically links your evaluation to the clarified argument and provides a framework for considering the questions about truth, logic, and conversational relevance. Let’s start with the clarified argument from Scientific American about the air sacs that are spread throughout the bodies of most birds:

• If air sacs of birds play a role in their breathing, then birds are poisoned by carbon monoxide introduced into their air sacs.
• Birds are not poisoned by carbon monoxide introduced into their air sacs.
• ∴ Air sacs of birds do not play a role in their breathing.

Standard evaluating format provides a simple system for discussing the truth of each premise, the logic of the argument, and (where appropriate) the conversational relevance of the argument. Begin with the main heading EVALUATION, and under it provide at least three subheadings: TRUTH, LOGIC, and SOUNDNESS.  (In some cases you will need a fourth subheading, CONVERSATIONAL RELEVANCE.)

Under TRUTH, provide an entry for each premise, and for each premise do two things: state whether you judge the premise to be true, and provide your defense of that evaluation. For the air sac argument, this part of the evaluation would look something like this:

Premise 1. This premise is probably true, assuming large enough quantities of carbon monoxide are involved, since carbon monoxide is known to be poisonous to any animal when breathed in sufficient quantities.

Premise 2. This premise is probably true, since this is reported in Scientific American, known to be a highly reliable publication on topics of this sort, and there is no reason to doubt this particular report.

Under the next subheading, LOGIC, do the same things: state whether you think the logic of the simple argument is good, and provide a defense of that evaluation. The evaluation would continue roughly as follows:

The argument is valid, since it has the form denying the consequent.

It isn’t important at this point in the text that you understand the exact technical meaning of expressions like valid or denying the consequent. For now you only need to know what is intuitively obvious—that expressions like valid, very strong, and fairly strong are ways of saying that the logic is good, while expressions like invalid, fairly weak, and very weak are ways of saying that it is bad.

After this, under the heading SOUNDNESS, provide your summary judgment— sound or unsound —based on the two preceding sections of the evaluation. If you judge that the argument is not sound, state whether this is owing to a problem either with a premise or with the argument’s logic. But if you judge that it is sound, there is no need for further explanation since saying it is sound is the same as saying the premises are true and the logic is good. In our sample air sac case, it would look like this:

The argument is probably sound.

Notice the argument is judged probably sound. Your judgment of the argument’s soundness cannot be any better than the poorest thing said under TRUTH and LOGIC. While under the heading of LOGIC the logic of the air sac argument is judged to be good, under the heading of TRUTH each of the premises is judged merely probably true. Thus, the argument cannot be evaluated as any better than probably sound.

We have not yet provided a place in the format for conversational relevance. This can be an extremely important question, but it will turn out that the majority of the arguments you evaluate will not appear to be defective in this way. My suggestion—which we will follow in this text—is that a fourth subheading, CONVERSATIONAL RELEVANCE, be optional. Include it when an argument is conversationally flawed, and under the heading explain how the argument is thus flawed. But otherwise omit it, simply for the practical reason that it will save you extra writing.

The air sac argument is, so far as I can tell, conversationally relevant. Without any context, there is no good reason to think that it begs the question or misses the point. We could imagine, however, contexts in which it would be conversationally flawed. Suppose, for example, that the same argument had been put forward by a laboratory assistant who was asked by the laboratory director to look into whether air sacs in birds played any role in their breeding. We would in that case add a fourth subheading, as follows:

CONVERSATIONAL RELEVANCE

Even though it is sound, the argument commits the fallacy of missing the point, since the point is to show whether the air sacs play any role in breeding, but the argument only addresses whether they play a role in breathing.

By following this format, you can develop the habit of systematically asking all the right evaluative questions of an argument, and you will always have a straightforward way of presenting your judgments.

Heading: EVALUATION

Subheading: TRUTH. For each premise, state whether you judge it to be true and provide your defense of that judgment.

Subheading: LOGIC. State whether you judge the logic to be successful and provide your defense of that judgment.

Subheading: SOUNDNESS. State whether you judge the argument to be sound; then, if it is not sound, state whether this is owing to a problem with a premise or with the logic.

Subheading (optional): CONVERSATIONAL RELEVANCE. If and only if the argument is flawed in this way, state whether it commits the fallacy of begging the question or missing the point, and explain how.

Exercises Chapter 7, set (a)

Given the brief evaluations provided for truth and logic, provide, in standard form, the correct evaluation of the argument’s soundness.

Sample exercise (1).

TRUTH. Premise 1 is probably true. I can’t decide about premise 2. LOGIC. The argument is valid.

Sample answer (1).

SOUNDNESS. I can’t decide whether the argument is sound, since I can’t decide about the truth of one of the premises.

Sample exercise (2).

TRUTH. Premise 1 is certainly true. LOGIC. The argument is fairly weak logically.

Sample answer (2).

SOUNDNESS. The argument is fairly unsound, since the logic is fairly weak.

• TRUTH. Premise 1 is probably false. I can’t decide about premise 2. LOGIC. The argument is invalid.
• TRUTH. Premise 1 is probably false. LOGIC. The argument is extremely weak.
• TRUTH. Premise 1 is certainly false. I can’t decide about premise 2. LOGIC. The argument is valid.
• TRUTH. Premise 1 is certainly true. LOGIC. The argument is valid.
• TRUTH. Premise 1 is probably true. I can’t decide about premise 2. Premise 3 is certainly true. LOGIC. The argument is fairly strong.
• TRUTH. Premise 1 is probably true. Premise 2 is probably true. Premise 3 is certainly true. LOGIC. The argument is very strong.

7.1.1 The Conclusion

You may have noticed there is no place in this format for evaluating whether the main conclusion of any argument is itself true. This may initially strike you as a serious oversight. But it is not. What we are evaluating here is not the truth of the conclusion, but the quality of the reasoning for the conclusion. Suppose you decided that an argument was utterly unsound, yet at the same time suspected that the conclusion was true. That would be no problem. Recall that for any true statement, it is possible to offer a bad argument in the attempt to support the statement. (If it then turned out that you were especially interested in such a conclusion, it would be up to you to see if you could come up with a better argument for it.) On the other hand, suppose you had a strong hunch that a conclusion was false, even though the argument itself appeared to be sound. This would give you good reason to check more carefully for a flaw in the argument, one that may have initially escaped your notice. Or you could end up changing your mind and accepting the initially implausible conclusion.

7.2 Complex Arguments

There is no important difference between evaluating a simple argument and a complex one. If the argument is complex—that is, if it is a series of linked simple arguments—then, after the clarification of the complex argument, evaluate separately each simple argument that makes up the complex argument. Instead of the heading EVALUATION, use the heading EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT TO N, where n identifies the relevant subconclusion or conclusion. To illustrate, suppose other air sac experiments by Professor Soum, reported in the same Scientific American story, had independently narrowed down the role of air sacs in birds to either flight-enhancement or breathing-enhancement. Suppose further that the air sac argument had been the first part of a larger argument that was designed to settle this issue, concluding thus:

Therefore, since air sacs in birds are known to play a role in either flight or breathing, we can conclude that they play a role in flight.

The complex argument would be clarified thus (adding premise 4 and a new conclusion):

• Air sacs of birds play a role in their breathing or air sacs in birds play a role in their flight.
• ∴ Air sacs of birds play a role in their flight.

The evaluation, framed in standard evaluation format, would then look like this:

EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT TO 3

Premise 2. This premise is probably true, since this is reported in Scientific American, known to be a highly reliable publication on topics of this sort, and there is no special reason to doubt this particular report.

The argument is valid, since it has the form of denying the consequent.

EVALUATION OF ARGUMENT TO C

Premise 3 is probably true, since it is supported by an argument that we have seen is probably sound (see evaluation of argument to 3).

Premise 4 is probably true, since (according to my hypothetical addition to the actual story, for the sake of this illustration) the experiments are reported in Scientific American, known to be a highly reliable publication on topics of this sort, and there is no reason to doubt this particular report.

The argument is valid, since it has the form of the process of elimination.

The evaluation of the first simple argument remains exactly the same, except for expanding the heading to say EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT TO 3. And we add to it the evaluation of the second simple argument—the evaluation of the argument to C . Premise 3 is the subconclusion of the complex argument—so it is both the conclusion of the argument to 3 and a premise in the argument to C . When evaluating its truth (under the heading EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT TO C) it is good to point out that the premise is supported by an argument that you have just evaluated as probably sound.

7.2.1 When a Simple Argument within the Complex Argument Is Unsound

In a complex argument, when one simple argument is sound it has an important effect on your entire evaluation. When you evaluate the subconclusion as a premise in the next simple argument, the soundness of the preceding simple argument serves as a good defense for judging its subconclusion to be true.

But this ripple effect does not naturally occur if the simple argument is unsound. Obviously, its unsoundness would not be something to appeal to in defense of the truth of the subconclusion. But—note this carefully—neither would it be something to appeal to in defense of the falsity of the subconclusion. Any statement, whether true or false, can have an unsound argument offered for it.

This presents an interesting problem: in a complex argument, you can evaluate a simple argument as unsound without its affecting your evaluation of the next simple argument. Thus, in a complex argument, you may evaluate as perfectly sound the argument to the main conclusion, even though the previous simple arguments have been unsound. This is as it should be. But at the same time, since the arguer has presented the complex argument as a whole, there should be some way of indicating earlier problems when you evaluate later simple arguments.

The solution is this: in a complex argument, when one simple argument is unsound and the next one is sound, qualify your evaluation of it as sound but not shown . In this way, you indicate that even though the simple argument is, in your judgment, sound, the arguer has failed to carry out the job of showing it to be sound by the previous simple arguments.

Here is an easy-to-understand example:

You have to be extremely good-looking to get hired as a lifeguard. Not many people are that good-looking, so it’s very tough to land such a job. For that reason, even though it would be great to work on the beach, most people should probably try to find some other sort of summer job.

This argument can be clarified as follows:

• If someone qualifies for a job as a lifeguard, then that person is extremely good-looking.
• Not many people are extremely good-looking.
• ∴ Not many people qualify for a job as a lifeguard.
• If not many people qualify for a particular job, then most people should try for some other sort of job.
• ∴ Most people should try for some other summer job than that of a lifeguard.

The subconclusion— Not many people qualify for a job as a lifeguard —seems clearly to be true. And even though the simple argument offered in its support is a bad one (premise 1, despite evidence you might gather from Baywatch reruns, is surely false), the simple argument from premises 3 and 4 to the main conclusion is a pretty good one. A very brief evaluation might take this rough form:

Premise 1. This premise is certainly false; it isn’t looks, but experience and ability, which qualify you for a job as a lifeguard.

Premise 2. This premise is very probably true. My observations are that most people are average-looking (it may even be that average-looking just means the way most people look ).

The argument is valid, since it has the form of singular denying the consequent.

The argument is unsound, due to the falsity of premise 1.

Premise 3 is certainly true. Most people need a lifeguard just because they aren’t qualified to be one. Qualifying to be a lifeguard requires that you be in excellent physical shape, that you be able to swim well, and that you have extensive training. (Before completing the evaluation, note that even though the argument to 3 has just been evaluated as unsound, I have nevertheless defended here the truth of 3—but for entirely different reasons than those offered in the argument to 3.)

Premise 4 is probably true. Under most circumstances, it doesn’t make good practical sense for people to apply for a job if their chances of getting it are extremely low.

The argument is valid, since it has the form of singular affirming the antecedent.

The argument is probably sound, but is not shown to be so by the rest of the argument.

Note that the argument to C is judged as probably sound (since the poorest thing said about it under TRUTH and LOGIC is that its premises are probably true ). But, to reflect the unsoundness of the simple argument used to lead into it, it is noted that it was not shown to be sound by the preceding simple argument.

Exercises Chapter 7, set (b)

Briefly describe the general conditions under which each of the following evaluations would apply.

• Probably sound.
• Sound but not shown.
• Can’t decide whether it is sound.
• Unsound but not shown.
• True but not shown.
• Logically successful but not shown.
• Logically successful because the preceding simple argument has been evaluated as sound.

7.3 A Reasonable Objector Over Your Shoulder

Whenever you write anything, it is crucially important that you know who your audience is. You may be writing for introductory students, your professor, your parents, a customer, a friend, your professional colleagues, or the general public. Different writing is designed for different audiences. And this applies to argument evaluations. Often they are directed at the arguer, whom you may hope to prove wrong. When doing the exercises in this text, you will be aiming them to your professor, who will grade your paper. When you do them on your job, you may be aiming them to a potential customer, whom you may hope to convince of the flaws in your competitor’s product.

But in the background, your primary audience should always be you. You should be aiming to arrive at the best evaluation you can for your own sake —the evaluation that is most likely to result in your arriving at knowledge and the one most likely to cultivate the habits that would continue to be conducive to your arriving at knowledge. In short, always evaluate arguments with a view to being the most honest, critically reflective, and inquisitive thinker you can be.

It may not always be easy to think in this way when evaluating an argument. It can be much easier to think in terms of an opponent who must be won over. And this can be turned to your advantage. Recall that an important guideline for clarifying is to imagine the arguer looking over your shoulder, checking your paraphrase for loyalty to the arguer’s intentions. I now recommend that you be similarly accompanied while evaluating the argument. In evaluating, though, imagine that looking over your shoulder is a reasonable person who disagrees with your evaluation. This reasonable objector has roughly the same evidence that you have and possesses the intellectual virtues of honesty, critical reflection, and inquiry. What reasons are most likely to persuade this person to accept your evaluation? What objection is this person most likely to raise? Be sure to express your defense in a way that defeats—or ultimately agrees with—the objections of this hypothetical adversary. In this way, you are more likely to exemplify the intellectual virtues yourself.

7.4 Summary of Chapter Seven

Frame your evaluation of every argument in the standard evaluation format, thereby ensuring that you appropriately present and defend your evaluation of the truth of every premise, the success of the argument’s logic, and, when necessary, the conversational relevance of the argument. The key judgment in every case is whether the argument is sound—that is, whether it is successful with respect to both truth and logic. Failure in either respect makes the argument unsound; and the poorest judgment in either respect should be reflected in your evaluation of the argument’s soundness. (Thus, for example, an argument that is logically successful and with a premise you have judged to be probably true can, at best, be probably sound.)

When the argument is complex, separately evaluate each component simple argument. If one of the simple arguments other than the argument to the main conclusion is unsound, and if a later simple argument is sound, be sure the earlier failure is reflected by noting that even the sound argument has not been shown to be sound in the preceding portion of the complex argument.

While thinking about and writing your evaluation, imagine that a reasonable objector—an intellectually virtuous person who has roughly the same evidence you have but disagrees with you—is watching over your shoulder and must be persuaded by your evaluation.

7.5 Guidelines for Chapter Seven

• Evaluate the clarified argument in standard evaluating format.
• Your evaluation of the argument’s soundness should be no better than the poorest evaluation you have provided of its logic and of the truth of its premises.
• If you have judged an argument to be sound, but you find that you still have doubts about the truth of the conclusion, carefully examine the argument again. You may initially have overlooked a flaw.
• Evaluate separately each simple argument that serves as a component of a complex argument.
• In a complex argument, if one simple argument is unsound and a later one is sound, qualify your evaluation of the sound one by saying that it is sound but not shown. This applies only to complex arguments.
• While writing your evaluation, imagine there is a reasonable objector looking over your shoulder, one whom you must persuade.

7.6 Glossary for Chapter Seven

Reasonable objector —someone who has approximately the same information you have, who exhibits the virtues of honesty, critical reflection, and inquiry, yet who disagrees with your evaluation. Imagine that this is your audience for every evaluation you write.

Sound but not shown —evaluation to use under the SOUNDNESS subheading in a complex argument when one simple argument is sound but a preceding simple argument, on which it depends, is unsound. Using this terminology reflects the fact that even though this simple argument happens to be sound, the arguer has failed to show it to be so, by virtue of having supported it with an unsound argument.

Evaluation to use under the SOUNDNESS subheading in a complex argument when one simple argument is sound but a preceding simple argument, on which it depends, is unsound. Using this terminology reflects the fact that even though this simple argument happens to be sound, the arguer has failed to show it to be so, by virtue of having supported it with an unsound argument.

Someone who has approximately the same information you have, who exhibits the virtues of honesty, critical reflection, and inquiry, yet who disagrees with your evaluation. Imagine that this is your audience for every evaluation you write.

A Guide to Good Reasoning: Cultivating Intellectual Virtues Copyright © 2020 by David Carl Wilson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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.

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).

How to Argue in Class

• Posted March 3, 2022
• By Emily Boudreau
• Moral, Civic, and Ethical Education
• Learning Design and Instruction
• Teachers and Teaching

Just like weightlifting or playing the piano, practice is essential to help students develop the analysis skills necessary for evaluating and developing arguments. But what does it look like to practice arguing in the classroom?

ThinkerAnalytix is a nonprofit that partners with the Harvard Philosophy Department to develop resources and lesson plans using something called argument mapping — a visual method of displaying how reasons work to support a claim. These maps show the structures of arguments so students can actually see how an argument is constructed, pinpoint areas of contention, and assemble their own.

“Arguments are everywhere and almost everything is an argument,” says Nate Otey, COO and lead instructor at ThinkerAnalytix. “It’s impossible to imagine education without arguments, since a fundamental goal of education is to help students not only express and communicate their beliefs and reasons for that belief, but to be able to understand other people’s reasons and evidence and update their own thinking based on evidence.”

Early research suggests that argument mapping is incredibly successful at developing these skills, with some analyses of studies of the practice finding that argument mapping courses nearly doubled critical thinking skills, compared to standard critical thinking courses.

To get teachers comfortable using argument mapping in their classes, ThinkerAnalytix has developed professional development offerings and resources to support the method in the classroom. Here, Otey discusses what argument mapping is and how it can be used to evaluate an argument.

What is argument mapping?

Every argument has a structure and one of the potential explanations for the powerful effects of argument mapping is that it conveys that structure visually, rather than as a block of text. Students identify and plot the relationship between the main claim or thesis statement and its supporting premises or co-premises.

“If you read something in paragraph form, it’s washing over you and your brain is trying to decode how these sentences fit together,” says Otey. “What we’re doing is we’re showing students visually how these sentences relate to each other.”

>>  Practice identifying main claims and premises.

It’s impossible to imagine education without arguments, since a fundamental goal of education is to help students not only express and communicate their beliefs and reasons for that belief, but to be able to understand other people’s reasons and evidence and update their own thinking based on evidence.

How do you evaluate an argument?

Students also need to practice thinking about whether an argument is solid. To do so, students need to look at the premises a claim rests on and ask whether they’re true or if they come from a reliable source. If not, the claim may be invalid.

Additionally, the visual structure also allows students to think about inferences — represented by the lines connecting a premise to the conclusion — in an argument. “An inference has to do with how relevant a premise is to the claim above it,” says Otey. “So, students need to think about how persuasive of a reason we should find this premise in supporting a claim — for example, it’s a fact that Tom Brady has won seven Super Bowls. But how relevant is that to the claim that Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time?”

>>  Explore and discuss sample argument maps.

Agreeing to Disagree

While students need to be able to assemble and build a strong case for their beliefs, it’s equally as important that they learn to listen to opposing views. To do that, ThinkerAnalytix asks students and teachers to participate in an assignment inspired by the work of Javier Hidalgo at the University of Richmond called The Disagreement Project .

Participants interview someone who holds an opposing viewpoint. They record the conversation and write it up honestly and without judgment, map the argument, and present it to the class.

“The skill being built here is intellectual charity,” says Otey. “[That means] getting students to think about how they can understand something they disagree with — not necessarily to change their mind — but to try to give it a fair shake.”

>>  Access the disagreement project here.

Key Takeaways

• Forming and evaluating arguments is a skill that can be practiced and can help develop analytical thinking.
• Visual representations of arguments help break them down and make them easier for students to evaluate and understand how they are constructed, as opposed to looking at a block of written text.
• Practice intellectual charity, or treating someone’s beliefs and opinions as you would want your own treated, in addition to argument analysis and have students explore other perspectives.

Additional Resources

• More on the ThinkerAnalytix PPE offering
• You want to teach what?
• The Greatest Battle in History

Usable Knowledge

Connecting education research to practice — with timely insights for educators, families, and communities

Related Articles

A New Vision for Teacher Collaboration

Civic Engagement in 2020 and Beyond

How teachers can help their students become informed, engaged, and active leaders in the world around them

How to Help Kids Become Skilled Citizens

Active citizenship requires a broad set of skills, new study finds

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.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scribbr Citation Checker New

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

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

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

 Plagiarism

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

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

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

• Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view

Series Editor : Michael Theall, Youngstown State University Authors: Patricia Armstrong, Vanderbilt University; Sonja Moyer, US Army Command and General Staff College; Katherine Stanton, Princeton University

The critical evaluation of ideas, arguments, and points of view is important for the development of students as autonomous thinkers (1, 2). It is only through this critical evaluation that students can distinguish among competing claims for truth and determine which arguments and points of views they can trust and those of which they should be skeptical. This work lays the foundation for students’ progressing to staking their own claims in an intellectually rigorous fashion. Learning how to analyze and critically evaluate arguments thus helps them to develop a sound framework to test their own arguments and advance their own points of view.Objective 11 reflects an important component of the educational process – training students in the habits of thought in our disciplines. IDEA research has found that it is related to Objectives #6 through #10 and Objective #12, which all address activities at the upper levels of cognitive taxonomies, activities requiring application and frequent synthesis and evaluation of ideas and events (3). Active processing is critical to our students’ long-term retention of ideas and concepts and their ability to transfer those ideas and concepts to other contexts (4).

There is a link between this objective and developing deeper understandings of the self and the world. By encouraging our students to adopt a critical framework, we prepare them not only to engage in scholarly conversation and debate in our disciplines, but also to be engaged citizens in a democratic society. As Patricia King points out,

a student who appreciates why people approach controversial issues in her discipline from different perspectives is more likely to see and appreciate the reasons people approach social controversies from different perspectives. By the same token, a student who evaluates knowledge claims in his major by reference to the strength of the evidence in support of conflicting hypotheses would also be more inclined to evaluate contradictory claims about current moral issues by reference to the weight of available evidence (5, p. 23).

The ability to weigh alternatives, make decisions, and evaluate contradictory evidence is crucial to scholastic endeavors and adult life more generally—to personal happiness, professional success, and civic engagement.

To achieve this and related objectives, instruction must incorporate intellectual challenge and activity; opportunities for creative or original work; finding and using information and translating that information into coherent communication; and opportunities to produce original work rather than simply recalling information. This is supported by IDEA research finding that instructors stressing this objective frequently stimulate students to intellectual effort (#8), introduce stimulating ideas about the subject (#13), ask students to share ideas (#16), and assign work that requires original or creative thinking (#19). For additional information about this objective, see IDEA Paper #37 Helping Your Students Develop Critical Thinking Skills. [PDF]

Helpful Hints

Teaching students “how to think” may begin by alerting them to the kinds of questions and problems that interest scholars or professionals in your field. So you may consider organizing your courses around such questions and problems to stimulate your students’ intellectual interest. Rather than simply presenting information, be explicit with your students about how you approach such questions, defining critical thinking in your field and modeling disciplinary ways of thought. Engage students in activities that require sophisticated thinking and design assessments that call on students to demonstrate thinking skills. Below, we provide specific ideas for how to teach students to analyze and critically evaluate ideas and assess their abilities to do so. These activities and assessments require students to identify assumptions, weigh competing evidence, make decisions, imagine alternatives, and build arguments.

John Bean writes that once professors decide to focus on developing critical thinking skills, “much of their classroom preparation time shifts from planning and preparing lectures to planning and preparing critical thinking problems for students to wrestle with” (6, p. 122). Below, we suggest a series of what he might call “critical thinking tasks” that give students practice—and the opportunity to receive feedback on—analyzing and critically evaluating ideas, arguments, and points of view.

• In humanities and social science courses, keep the reading load manageable and model for students how to read critically and to evaluate arguments in your field (see IDEA Paper #40 Getting Students to Read: Fourteen Tips [PDF]).
• In math, sciences, and engineering courses, encourage students participating in study groups not only to share ideas for solving problems but also to provide reasons for the problem solving ideas they advance.
• Have students respond to an editorial in a newspaper or to a review essay in a scholarly journal. For that response, ask students to identify unstated assumptions, biases, and points of views and show how they undermine the argument the author is making.
• Teach students to use a pro and con grid to analyze ideas and points of view (7, see pages 168-171).
• Take time in science and engineering classes to explore the ethical considerations of research questions and experimental design.
• In organized class debates, ask students to argue for a point of view counter to their own.
• Give students “ill-structured problems” in class to work through. Such problems have no known answer or solution and cannot be solved with formal rules of logic or mathematical formulas. Ask students to come up with multiple solutions for each problem and rank the viability of each solution.
• Teach students the “believing and doubting game” (Elbow, cited in 6, p.142), which asks them to be both sympathetic and skeptical readers.
• Help students develop strategies for systematically gathering data according to methodologies in your discipline, assessing the quality and relevance of the data, evaluating sources, and interpreting the data (5, p. 24).
• Encourage students to enter into dialogue with the sources they read; encourage them to ask questions, give assent, or protest in the margins of what they read.
• Train students to identify the author’s audience and purpose when they read.
• Encourage students to engage their critical reasoning skills outside of the classroom (5, p. 24).

Assessment Issues

To teach critical evaluation, we must define critical thinking in general and in the discipline, model habits of disciplinary thought, engage students in activities that require sophisticated thinking, and design assessments that call on students to demonstrate thinking skills. Instructional assignments and activities that promote critical thinking have to do more than present information and ask for recall. Rather, they must ask students to demonstrate their thinking, including their analysis and critical evaluation of ideas, arguments, and points of view. These assignments ask students to do more than reproduce what they know; they ask them to produce new knowledge.

Angelo and Cross (7) offer many techniques for assessing critical thinking, problem solving, analysis, and related skills. Echoing and expanding on their ideas, we make the following suggestions:

• Design a writing assignment that asks students to test a critic’s ideas (or an everyday assumption) against a primary text or texts.
• Ask students to apply a theory they’ve learned in a social science class by designing an experiment to test the theory. Have them carry out the experiment and document the results.
• Design a writing assignment that prompts students to position themselves within a scholarly or real-life debate.
• Ask students to review a scientific paper, assessing the evidence the authors use and how they use it.
• Allow students to choose a current political issue relevant to a community to which they are attached. Have them research both major parties’ point of view on this issue and critically analyze them. As a writing assignment or project, ask students to agree with one major party’s stand on this issue and justify their choice.
• Have students use a double-entry journal for reflection and self-assessment of this learning objective, using guided questioning. The journal helps faculty to assess the affective domain, and helps students through possible “road blocks” in the process of learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view. It also reinforces that this process is ongoing, not just an assignment for a class. Sample guided questions include: What happened (when you analyzed and critically evaluated ideas, arguments, and points of view)? What was your reaction as you went through this process? What did you learn about yourself? How can you apply what you learned to your education or your life?
• Construct a rubric (i.e. scoring guide) to provide guidelines for critical analysis and evaluation so students know what to expect when they are assessed. The criteria and standards for this rubric may include the Elements of Reasoning and Intellectual Standards in Paul and Elder’s Critical Thinking (8).

References and Resources

• Perry, W. G. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives : Book 1, Cognitive Domain (2nd ed.). New York, Longman. See pp. 120-121, 162-163, 185-187.
• Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond. Change , 35 (4).
• King, P. (2000). Learning to make reflective judgments. In Baxter-Magolda, M. B. Ed.), “Teaching to promote intellectual and personal maturity.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Angelo, T., & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Instructor’s Manual . NJ: Prentice Hall.

Related POD-IDEA Center Notes

• IDEA Item #8 “Stimulated students to intellectual effort beyond that required by most courses,” Nancy McClure
• IDEA Item #13 “Introduced stimulating ideas about the subject,” Michael Theall
• IDEA Item #16 “Asked students to share ideas and experiences with others whose backgrounds and viewpoints differ from their own,” Jeff King
• IDEA Item #19 “Gave projects, tests, or assignments that required original or creative thinking,” Cynthia Desrochers

Additional Resources

• IDEA Paper No. 38 Enhancing Learning – and More! – Through Cooperative Learning , Millis
• IDEA Paper No. 37 Helping Your Students Develop Critical Thinking Skills, Lynch and Wolcott
• IDEA Paper No. 40 Getting Students to Read: Fourteen Tips, Hobson
• IDEA Paper No. 42 Integrated Course Design , Fink
• Gaining A Basic Understanding of the Subject
• Developing knowledge and understanding of diverse perspectives, global awareness, or other cultures
• Learning to apply course material
• Developing specific skills, competencies, and points of view needed by professionals in the field most closely related to this course
• Acquiring skills in working with others as a member of a team
• Developing creative capacities
• Gaining a broader understanding and appreciation of intellectual/cultural activity
• Developing skill in expressing myself orally or in writing
• Learning how to find, evaluate, and use resources to explore a topic in depth
• Developing ethical reasoning and/or ethical decision making
• Learning to apply knowledge and skills to benefit others or serve the public good
• Learning appropriate methods for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting numerical information

• 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).

Instantly enhance your writing in real-time while you type. With LanguageTool

Get started for free

What Is Critical Thinking? | Meaning & Examples

Critical thinking is the process of analyzing information logically and overcoming assumptions, biases, and logical fallacies. Developing critical thinking skills allows us to evaluate information as objectively as possible and reach well-founded conclusions.

Critical thinking example

Thinking critically is a crucial part of academic success, professional development, civic engagement, and personal decision-making.

Table of contents

What is critical thinking, why is critical thinking important, critical thinking strategies.

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating information and arguments in a disciplined and systematic way. It involves questioning assumptions, assessing evidence, and using logical reasoning to form well-reasoned judgments.

Key critical thinking skills:

• Avoiding unfounded assumptions
• Identifying and countering biases
• Recognizing and refuting logical fallacies

These practices enable us to make informed decisions, analyze evidence objectively, consider multiple perspectives, reflect on our own biases, and seek reliable sources.

Critical thinking is enhanced by the deliberate study of biases, logical fallacies, and the different forms of reasoning:

• Deductive reasoning: Drawing specific conclusions from general premises
• Inductive reasoning: Generalizing from specific observations
• Analogical reasoning: Drawing parallels between similar situations
• Abductive reasoning: Inferring the most likely explanation from incomplete evidence

When assessing sources, critical thinking requires evaluating several factors:

• Credibility: Check the author’s qualifications and the publication’s reputation.
• Evidence: Verify that the information is supported by data and references.
• Bias: Identify any potential biases or conflicts of interest.
• Currency: Ensure the information is up-to-date and relevant.
• Purpose: Understand the motivation behind the source and whether it aims to inform, persuade, or sell.

Critical thinking is crucial to decision-making and problem-solving in many domains of life. Social media disinformation and irresponsible uses of AI make it more important than ever to be able to distinguish between credible information and misleading or false content.

Developing critical thinking skills is an essential part of fostering independent thinking, allowing us to:

• Make informed decisions
• Solve complex problems
• Evaluate the logic of arguments

In the process of developing these skills, we become less susceptible to biases, fallacies, and propaganda.

Examples of critical thinking

Critical thinking is an essential part of consuming any form of media, including news, marketing, entertainment, and social media. Media platforms are commonly used to promote biased or manipulative messages, often in a subtle way.

Critical thinking in media example

A news segment claims eating chocolate daily improves cognitive function. After reading more about the research, you find the study had a small sample size and was funded by a chocolate company, indicating bias. This leads you to conclude the claim is unreliable.

Critical thinking is fundamental in logic, math, law, science, and other academic and professional domains. The scientific method is a quintessential example of systematized critical thinking.

Critical thinking in science example

• Formulate a hypothesis.
• Design experiments.
• Analyze data.
• Draw conclusions.
• Revise the hypothesis if necessary.

Academic research requires advanced critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking academic example

• Evaluating the methodology of each study to determine their reliability and validity
• Checking for potential biases, such as funding sources or conflicts of interest
• Comparing the sample sizes and demographics of the studies to understand the context of their findings
• Synthesizing the results, highlighting common trends and discrepancies, and considering the limitations of each study

Critical thinking enhances informed decision-making by equipping us to recognize biases, identify logical fallacies, evaluate evidence, consider alternative perspectives, and learn to identify credible sources.

Key strategies:

• Recognize biases.
• Identify logical fallacies.
• Evaluate sources and evidence.
• Consider alternative perspectives.

Recommended articles

Do you want to improve your business emails, learn the difference between commonly confused words, or strengthen your understanding of English grammar? Check out the articles below!

Unleash the Professional Writer in You With LanguageTool

Go well beyond grammar and spell checking. Impress with clear, precise, and stylistically flawless writing instead.

Works on All Your Favorite Services

• Thunderbird
• Google Docs
• Microsoft Word
• Open Office
• Libre Office

We Value Your Feedback

We’ve made a mistake, forgotten about an important detail, or haven’t managed to get the point across? Let’s help each other to perfect our writing.

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:

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 .

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Fall 2024 Semester

Undergraduate courses.

Composition courses that offer many sections (ENGL 101, 201, 277 and 379) are not listed on this schedule unless they are tailored to specific thematic content or particularly appropriate for specific programs and majors.

• 100-200 level

ENGL 151.S01: Introduction to English Studies

Tuesday and Thursday, 11 a.m.-12:15 p.m.

Sharon Smith

ENGL 151 serves as an introduction to both the English major and the discipline of English studies. In this class, you will develop the thinking, reading, writing and research practices that define both the major and the discipline. Much of the semester will be devoted to honing your literary analysis skills, and we will study and discuss texts from several different genres—poetry, short fiction, the novel, drama and film—as well as some literary criticism. As we do so, we will explore the language of the discipline, and you will learn a variety of key literary terms and concepts. In addition, you will develop your skills as both a writer and researcher within the discipline of English.

ENGL 201.ST1 Composition II: The Mind/Body Connection

In this section of English 201, students will use research and writing to learn more about problems that are important to them and articulate ways to address those problems. The course will focus specifically on issues related to the mind, the body and the relationship between them. The topics we will discuss during the course will include the correlation between social media and body image; the efficacy of sex education programs; the degree to which beliefs about race and gender influence school dress codes; and the unique mental and physical challenges faced by college students today. In this course, you will be learning about different approaches to argumentation, analyzing the arguments of others and constructing your own arguments. At the same time, you will be honing your skills as a researcher and developing your abilities as a persuasive and effective writer.

ENGL 201.S10 Composition II: Environmental Writing   

Monday/Wednesday/Friday 1-1:50 p.m.

Gwen Horsley

English 201 will help students develop the ability to think critically and analytically and to write effectively for other university courses and careers. This course will provide opportunities to develop analytical skills that will help students become critical readers and effective writers. Specifically, in this class, students will:

• Focus on the relationships between world environments, land, animals and humankind.
• Read various essays by environmental, conservational and regional authors.
• Produce student writings. 

Students will improve their writing skills by reading essays and applying techniques they witness in others’ work and those learned in class. This class is also a course in logical and creative thought. Students will write about humankind’s place in the world and our influence on the land and animals, places that hold special meaning to them or have influenced their lives and stories of their own families and their places and passions in the world. Students will practice writing in an informed and persuasive manner, in language that engages and enlivens readers by using vivid verbs and avoiding unnecessary passives, nominalizations and expletive constructions.

Students will prepare writing assignments based on readings and discussions of essays included in "Literature and the Environment " and other sources. They may use "The St. Martin’s Handbook," as well as other sources, to review grammar, punctuation, mechanics and usage as needed.

ENGL 201.13 Composition II: Writing the Environment

Tuesday and Thursday 9:30-10:45 a.m.

Paul Baggett

For generations, environmentalists have relied on the power of prose to change the minds and habits of their contemporaries. In the wake of fires, floods, storms and droughts, environmental writing has gained a new sense of urgency, with authors joining activists in their efforts to educate the public about the grim realities of climate change. But do they make a difference? Have reports of present and future disasters so saturated our airwaves that we no longer hear them? How do writers make us care about the planet amidst all the noise? In this course, students will examine the various rhetorical strategies employed by some of today’s leading environmental writers and filmmakers. And while analyzing their different arguments, students also will strengthen their own strategies of argumentation as they research and develop essays that explore a range of environmental concerns.

ENGL 201 Composition II: Food Writing

S17 Tuesday and Thursday 12:30-1:45 p.m.

S18 Tuesday and Thursday 2-3:15 p.m.

Jodi Andrews

In this composition class, students will critically analyze essays about food, food systems and environments, food cultures, the intersections of personal choice, market forces and policy and the values underneath these forces. Students will learn to better read like writers, noting authors’ purpose, audience organizational moves, sentence-level punctuation and diction. We will read a variety of essays including research-intensive arguments and personal narratives which intersect with one of our most primal needs as humans: food consumption. Students will rhetorically analyze texts, conduct advanced research, reflect on the writing process and write essays utilizing intentional rhetorical strategies. Through doing this work, students will practice the writing moves valued in every discipline: argument, evidence, concision, engaging prose and the essential research skills for the 21st century.

ENGL 221.S01 British Literature I

Michael S. Nagy

English 221 is a survey of early British literature from its inception in the Old English period with works such as "Beowulf" and the “Battle of Maldon,” through the Middle Ages and the incomparable writings of Geoffrey Chaucer and the Gawain - poet, to the Renaissance and beyond. Students will explore the historical and cultural contexts in which all assigned reading materials were written, and they will bring that information to bear on class discussion. Likely themes that this class will cover include heroism, humor, honor, religion, heresy and moral relativity. Students will write one research paper in this class and sit for two formal exams: a midterm covering everything up to that point in the semester, and a comprehensive final. Probable texts include the following:

• The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Middle Ages. Ed. Alfred David, M. H. Abrams, and Stephen Greenblatt. 9th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012.
• The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Sixteenth Century and Early Seventeenth Century. Ed. George M. Logan, Stephen Greenblatt, Barbara K Lewalski, and M. H. Abrams. 9th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012.
• The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Restoration and the Eighteenth Century. Ed. George M. Logan, Stephen Greenblatt, Barbara K Lewalski, and M. H. Abrams. 9th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012.
• Gibaldi, Joseph. The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 6th ed. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2003.
• Any Standard College Dictionary.

ENGL 240.S01 Juvenile Literature Elementary-5th Grade

Monday, Wednesday and Friday noon-12:50 p.m.

April Myrick

A survey of the history of literature written for children and adolescents, and a consideration of the various types of juvenile literature. Text selection will focus on the themes of imagination and breaking boundaries.

ENGL 240.ST1 Juvenile Literature Elementary-5th Grade

Randi Anderson

In English 240 students will develop the skills to interpret and evaluate various genres of literature for juvenile readers. This particular section will focus on various works of literature at approximately the K-5 grade level. We will read a large range of works that fall into this category, as well as information on the history, development and genre of juvenile literature.

Readings for this course include classical works such as "Hatchet," "Little Women", "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and "Brown Girl Dreaming," as well as newer works like "Storm in the Barn," "Anne Frank’s Diary: A Graphic Adaptation," "Lumberjanes," and a variety of picture books. These readings will be paired with chapters from "Reading Children’s Literature: A Critical Introduction " to help develop understanding of various genres, themes and concepts that are both related to juvenile literature and also present in our readings.

In addition to exposing students to various genres of writing (poetry, historical fiction, non-fiction, fantasy, picture books, graphic novels, etc.) this course will also allow students to engage in a discussion of larger themes present in these works such as censorship, race and gender. Students’ understanding of these works and concepts will be developed through readings, research, discussion posts, exams and writing assignments designed to get students to practice analyzing poetry, picture books, informational books and transitional/easy readers.

ENGL 241.S01: American Literature I

Tuesday and Thursday 12:30-1:45 p.m.

This course provides a broad, historical survey of American literature from the early colonial period to the Civil War. Ranging across historical periods and literary genres—including early accounts of contact and discovery, narratives of captivity and slavery, poetry of revolution, essays on gender equality and stories of industrial exploitation—this class examines how subjects such as colonialism, nationhood, religion, slavery, westward expansion, race, gender and democracy continue to influence how Americans see themselves and their society.

Required Texts

• The Norton Anthology of American Literature: Package 1, Volumes A and B Beginnings to 1865, Ninth Edition. (ISBN 978-0-393-26454-8)

ENGL 283.S01 Introduction to Creative Writing

Steven Wingate

Students will explore the various forms of creative writing (fiction, nonfiction and poetry) not one at a time in a survey format—as if there were decisive walls of separation between then—but as intensely related genres that share much of their creative DNA. Through close reading and work on personal texts, students will address the decisions that writers in any genre must face on voice, rhetorical position, relationship to audience, etc. Students will produce and revise portfolios of original creative work developed from prompts and research. This course fulfills the same SGR #2 requirements ENGL 201; note that the course will involve a research project. Successful completion of ENGL 101 (including by test or dual credit) is a prerequisite.

ENGL 283.S02 Introduction to Creative Writing

Jodilyn Andrews

This course introduces students to the craft of writing, with readings and practice in at least two genres (including fiction, poetry and drama).

ENGL 283.ST1 Introduction to Creative Writing

Amber Jensen, M.A., M.F.A.

This course explores creative writing as a way of encountering the world, research as a component of the creative writing process, elements of craft and their rhetorical effect and drafting, workshop and revision as integral parts of writing polished literary creative work. Student writers will engage in the research practices that inform the writing of literature and in the composing strategies and writing process writers use to create literary texts. Through their reading and writing of fiction, poetry and creative nonfiction, students will learn about craft elements, find examples of those craft elements in published works and apply these elements in their own creative work, developed through weekly writing activities, small group and large group workshop and conferences with the instructor. Work will be submitted, along with a learning reflection and revision plan in each genre and will then be revised and submitted as a final portfolio at the end of the semester to demonstrate continued growth in the creation of polished literary writing.

• 300-400 level

ENGL 424.S01 Language Arts Methods grades 7-12  

Tuesday 6-8:50 p.m.

Danielle Harms

Techniques, materials and resources for teaching English language and literature to middle and secondary school students. Required of students in the English education option.

AIS/ENGL 447.S01: American Indian Literature of the Present 

Thursdays 3-6 p.m.

This course introduces students to contemporary works by authors from various Indigenous nations. Students examine these works to enhance their historical understanding of Indigenous peoples, discover the variety of literary forms used by those who identify as Indigenous writers, and consider the cultural and political significance of these varieties of expression. Topics and questions to be explored include:

• Genre: What makes Indigenous literature indigenous?
• Political and Cultural Sovereignty: Why have an emphasis on tribal specificity and calls for “literary separatism” emerged in recent decades, and what are some of the critical conversations surrounding such particularized perspectives?
• Gender and Sexuality: What are the intersecting concerns of Indigenous Studies and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies, and how might these research fields inform one another?
• Trans-Indigeneity: What might we learn by comparing works across different Indigenous traditions, and what challenges do such comparisons present?
• Aesthetics: How do Indigenous writers understand the dynamics between tradition and creativity?
• Visual Forms: What questions or concerns do visual representations (television and film) by or about Indigenous peoples present?

Possible Texts

• Akiwenzie-Damm, Kateri and Josie Douglas (eds), Skins: Contemporary Indigenous Writing. IAD Press, 2000. (978-1864650327)
• Erdrich, Louise, The Sentence. Harper, 2021 (978-0062671127)
• Harjo, Joy, Poet Warrior: A Memoir. Norton, 2021 (978-0393248524)
• Harjo, Sterlin and Taika Waititi, Reservation Dogs (selected episodes)
• Talty, Morgan. Night of the Living Rez, 2022, Tin House (978-1953534187)
• Wall Kimmerer, Robin. Braiding Sweet Grass, Milkweed Editions (978-1571313560)
• Wilson, Diane. The Seed Keeper: A Novel. Milkweed Editions (978-1571311375)
• Critical essays by Alexie, Allen, Cohen, Cox, King, Kroeber, Ortiz, Piatote, Ross and Sexton, Smith, Taylor, Teuton, Treuer, Vizenor, and Womack.

ENGL 472.S01: Film Criticism

Tuesdays 2-4:50 p.m.

Jason McEntee

Do you have an appreciation for, and enjoy watching, movies? Do you want to study movies in a genre-oriented format (such as those we typically call the Western, the screwball comedy, the science fiction or the crime/gangster, to name a few)? Do you want to explore the different critical approaches for talking and writing about movies (such as auteur, feminist, genre or reception)?

In this class, you will examine movies through viewing and defining different genres while, at the same time, studying and utilizing different styles of film criticism. You will share your discoveries in both class discussions and short writings. The final project will be a formal written piece of film criticism based on our work throughout the semester. The course satisfies requirements and electives for all English majors and minors, including both the Film Studies and Professional Writing minors. (Note: Viewing of movies outside of class required and may require rental and/or streaming service fees.)

ENGL 476.ST1: Fiction

In this workshop-based creative writing course, students will develop original fiction based on strong attention to the fundamentals of literary storytelling: full-bodied characters, robust story lines, palpable environments and unique voices. We will pay particular attention to process awareness, to the integrity of the sentence, and to authors' commitments to their characters and the places in which their stories unfold. Some workshop experience is helpful, as student peer critique will be an important element of the class.

ENGL 479.01 Capstone: The Gothic

Wednesday 3-5:50 p.m.

With the publication of Horace Walpole’s "The Castle of Otranto " in 1764, the Gothic officially came into being. Dark tales of physical violence and psychological terror, the Gothic incorporates elements such as distressed heroes and heroines pursued by tyrannical villains; gloomy estates with dark corridors, secret passageways and mysterious chambers; haunting dreams, troubling prophecies and disturbing premonitions; abduction, imprisonment and murder; and a varied assortment of corpses, apparitions and “monsters.” In this course, we will trace the development of Gothic literature—and some film—from the eighteenth-century to the present time. As we do so, we will consider how the Gothic engages philosophical beliefs about the beautiful and sublime; shapes psychological understandings of human beings’ encounters with horror, terror, the fantastic and the uncanny; and intervenes in the social and historical contexts in which it was written. We’ll consider, for example, how the Gothic undermines ideals related to domesticity and marriage through representations of domestic abuse, toxicity and gaslighting. In addition, we’ll discuss Gothic texts that center the injustices of slavery and racism. As many Gothic texts suggest, the true horrors of human existence often have less to do with inexplicable supernatural phenomena than with the realities of the world in which we live. 

ENGL 485.S01: Undergraduate Writing Center Learning Assistants 

Flexible Scheduling

Nathan Serfling

Since their beginnings in the 1920s and 30s, writing centers have come to serve numerous functions: as hubs for writing across the curriculum initiatives, sites to develop and deliver workshops and resource centers for faculty as well as students, among other functions. But the primary function of writing centers has necessarily and rightfully remained the tutoring of student writers. This course will immerse you in that function in two parts. During the first four weeks, you will explore writing center praxis—that is, the dialogic interplay of theory and practice related to writing center work. This part of the course will orient you to writing center history, key theoretical tenets and practical aspects of writing center tutoring. Once we have developed and practiced this foundation, you will begin work in the writing center as a tutor, responsible for assisting a wide variety of student clients with numerous writing tasks. Through this work, you will learn to actively engage with student clients in the revision of a text, respond to different student needs and abilities, work with a variety of writing tasks and rhetorical situations, and develop a richer sense of writing as a complex and negotiated social process.

Graduate Courses

Engl 572.s01: film criticism, engl 576.st1 fiction.

In this workshop-based creative writing course, students will develop original fiction based on strong attention to the fundamentals of literary storytelling: full-bodied characters, robust story lines, palpable environments and unique voices. We will pay particular attention to process awareness, to the integrity of the sentence and to authors' commitments to their characters and the places in which their stories unfold. Some workshop experience is helpful, as student peer critique will be an important element of the class.

ENGL 605.S01 Seminar in Teaching Composition

Thursdays 1-3:50 p.m.

This course will provide you with a foundation in the pedagogies and theories (and their attendant histories) of writing instruction, a foundation that will prepare you to teach your own writing courses at SDSU and elsewhere. As you will discover through our course, though, writing instruction does not come with any prescribed set of “best” practices. Rather, writing pedagogies stem from and continue to evolve because of various and largely unsettled conversations about what constitutes effective writing and effective writing instruction. Part of becoming a practicing writing instructor, then, is studying these conversations to develop a sense of what “good writing” and “effective writing instruction” might mean for you in our particular program and how you might adapt that understanding to different programs and contexts.

As we read about, discuss and research writing instruction, we will address a variety of practical and theoretical topics. The practical focus will allow us to attend to topics relevant to your immediate classroom practices: designing a curriculum and various types of assignments, delivering the course content and assessing student work, among others. Our theoretical topics will begin to reveal the underpinnings of these various practical matters, including their historical, rhetorical, social and political contexts. In other words, we will investigate the praxis—the dialogic interaction of practice and theory—of writing pedagogy. As a result, this course aims to prepare you not only as a writing teacher but also as a nascent writing studies/writing pedagogy scholar.

At the end of this course, you should be able to engage effectively in the classroom practices described above and participate in academic conversations about writing pedagogy, both orally and in writing. Assessment of these outcomes will be based primarily on the various writing assignments you submit and to a smaller degree on your participation in class discussions and activities.

ENGL 726.S01: The New Woman, 1880–1900s 

Thursdays 3–5:50 p.m.

Katherine Malone

This course explores the rise of the New Woman at the end of the nineteenth century. The label New Woman referred to independent women who rebelled against social conventions. Often depicted riding bicycles, smoking cigarettes and wearing masculine clothing, these early feminists challenged gender roles and sought broader opportunities for women’s employment and self-determination. We will read provocative fiction and nonfiction by New Women writers and their critics, including authors such as Sarah Grand, Mona Caird, George Egerton, Amy Levy, Ella Hepworth Dixon, Grant Allen and George Gissing. We will analyze these exciting texts through a range of critical lenses and within the historical context of imperialism, scientific and technological innovation, the growth of the periodical press and discourse about race, class and gender. In addition to writing an argumentative seminar paper, students will complete short research assignments and lead discussion.

ENGL 792.ST1 Women in War: Female Authors and Characters in Contemporary War Lit

In this course, we will explore the voices of female authors and characters in contemporary literature of war. Drawing from various literary theories, our readings and discussion will explore the contributions of these voices to the evolving literature of war through archetypal and feminist criticism. We will read a variety of short works (both theoretical and creative) and complete works such as (selections subject to change): "Eyes Right" by Tracy Crow, "Plenty of Time When We Get Home" by Kayla Williams, "You Know When the Men are Gone" by Siobhan Fallon, "Still, Come Home" by Katie Schultz and "The Fine Art of Camouflage" by Lauren Johnson.

More From Forbes

High-demand human skills in the ongoing age of ai.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Every day, professionals across industries are confronted with headlines about artificial intelligence’s growing impact. Many people are understandably concerned that their work will be taken over or rendered obsolete by the ever-growing and ever-evolving plethora of AI tools and systems.

While it’s essential for organizations and their team members to come to grips with how AI will impact them, it’s also essential to remember that there are certain invaluable abilities and traits AI can’t replicate, as well as a host of new opportunities the technology is opening up. Below, members of Forbes Technology Council discuss high-demand, wholly human skills that are in more demand than ever in the age of AI, as well as essential traits and expertise that industries need as the use of AI spreads.

1. Motivation And Drive

The most sought-after soft skills will be motivation and drive. AI can already outperform humans at writing, coding, driving and generating ideas. However, AI remains a tool, performing tasks as instructed. In contrast, a motivated and driven individual grasps the scope of tasks and proactively exceeds expectations without additional guidance. This quality will be crucial. - Dmitry Sokolowski , VOLT AI

2. Critical Thinking

Effective use of AI requires someone with the experience and critical thinking skills to understand the model’s insights in the context of a wider industry. For example, when using generative AI to draft documents, such as regulatory submissions for the pharmaceutical industry, one must be able to contextualize the information to ensure the output’s consistency, accuracy and compliance. - Patrick Smith , Certara

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?

Biden Vs. Trump 2024 Election Polls: Trump Leads By 6 Points—And Most Voters Think He’ll Win Debate, New Survey Finds

Iss astronauts take shelter after russian spacecraft breaks up in orbit, samsung confirms highly anticipated galaxy z fold launch details, 3. reasoning and scientific thinking.

Some of the most interesting insights are not in the data—in the sense that Kepler’s laws of planetary motion are not encoded in the measurements of planets’ positions. AI trained on astronomical observations will not deduce them. My guess is that the following will be more, not less, important: reasoning from first principles, assessing causality, and scientific and experimental thinking. - Eric Novik , Generable Inc.

4. Curiosity

Building a culture of curiosity is critical as we enter the age of AI. Any job that consists of rote, repetitive work is likely to be automated out of existence. Even the act of writing code is getting easier and more automatable. But figuring out what code needs to be written, what questions need to be asked, connecting the dots — this is creative, curious work that is unlikely to ever go away. - Charity Majors , Honeycomb.io

5. Data Literacy

Data literacy will be in high demand. As AI continues to be integrated into various sectors, the ability to interpret, manage and analyze data becomes crucial. This skill enables professionals to make informed decisions based on AI-generated insights and ensures that AI applications are used effectively and ethically across industries. - Sivanagaraju Gadiparthi , ADP

6. Communication

It may feel counterintuitive, but excellent communication skills, both verbal and written, will still be in high demand. Tools such as ChatGPT can generate any text you want, but the problem is that they’re trained on millions of pieces of writing. You end up with text with the quality of “one of a million.” However, to win, you need to be “one in a million”—that’s where great communication skills are needed. - Eugene Klishevich , Moodmate Inc.

7. ‘Outside The Box’ Thinking

While AI excels at data processing and pattern recognition, human creativity—the ability to imagine novel ideas and think outside the box—cannot yet be replicated by machines. Businesses will prize individuals who can bring fresh perspectives and produce original work that complements AI’s capabilities. True creativity remains a uniquely human trait, making it an invaluable asset. - Juta Gurinaviciute , NordLayer

8. Collaboration

In our “age of AI,” an important soft skill will be communication. Teams that are able to effectively communicate and problem-solve in a collaborative way, with equal input from all relevant personnel, will be more critical than ever. While AI can make a job faster, team cohesion is an increasingly critical factor in a faster-paced economy. - Jozef Gherman , StealthGPT

9. Proficiency In Programming Languages

One top hard skill that will be in high demand is proficiency in various programming languages—particularly in languages such as Python, Java and Julia. On the soft skill side, critical thinking and data literacy will remain in high demand. - Sumit Bhatnagar , JP Morgan Chase

10. Deep Domain Understanding

A critical need is experience in and deep vertical understanding of a domain—the ability to see the full picture and evaluate data in context. AI technology excels at the tactical productivity level: for example, at summarizing a balance sheet. But it will be key to be able to strategically leverage this information—to be able to advise teams on what to do. Soft skills such as public speaking, presenting and negotiating will also be essential. - Michael Grupp , BRYTER

11. AI Oversight And Data-Driven Decision-Making

Security and ethical, data-driven decision-making are top priorities. The data must be correct for AI algorithms to work accurately, but what if the data is not correct or is incomplete? Decisions will be made by AI based on false or incomplete information, which could impact people’s lives. Responsible AI use with human intervention will be key, as well as securing and monitoring our networks. - Amina Elgouacem , NEOSTEK

12. Persuasiveness

The ability to influence without authority will be an important skill. All professionals will have endless access to data and AI-prepared arguments at their fingertips. Those who can persuade their peers to follow their reasoning will have an edge and progress more quickly in their careers. - Itai Sadan , Duda Inc .

13. Emotional Intelligence

As we move further into the age of AI, emotional intelligence is becoming increasingly important. AI is really good at such things as analyzing data, recognizing patterns and doing tasks automatically. But it’s not so great at understanding and reacting to human emotions. So, as AI becomes more common, being emotionally intelligent will be a valuable skill to have. - Nikhil Jathar , AvanSaber Technologies

14. Prompt Writing

It’s interesting how prompt writing is both underrated and overhyped. You could leverage ChatGPT-3.5 and, with skilled prompting, make it outperform ChatGPT-4. You can achieve top results with strategies including reflection, step-description, multi-AI roleplay and injection. This will not only garner you more accurate outputs from AI tools, but also help you get more out of them. - M. Nash , Integry

15. Problem-Solving

In the age of AI, problem-solving is critical. With AI becoming more prevalent, the ability to analyze complex situations, identify problems and develop innovative solutions is crucial. Tech differentiation is no longer as important. To stand out, businesses will need to know how to apply AI to uncover and capitalize on opportunities, meet market needs and overcome challenges. - Haresh Bhungalia , Casepoint

16. Willingness To Learn

In the age of AI, be flexible and ready to learn. Now is the time to study prompt engineering, data literacy and machine learning. AI offers the ability to compute data as never before, but AI is only as good as the person using it. And while AI handles the heavy lifting when it comes to data, our most human traits—creativity, empathy and the ability to discern ethics—are more important than ever. - Vikas Khorana , Ntooitive Digital

17. Empathy

I believe that empathy will be a top, high-demand soft skill. As AI advances, it can automate tasks, but it cannot replicate the genuine human connection. Empathy enables leaders to understand and relate to others, fostering a supportive environment that AI simply cannot create. And in the world of leadership, nothing is more important. Human skills such as empathy are nonnegotiable. - Prashant Ketkar , Parallels (part of Alludo)

18. Cognitive Science

An understanding of cognitive science will be important as AI developers try to emulate the reasoning and common sense elements of the human mind, the underlying rules of inference, and how people identify logical fallacies. There are still gaps in AI that make it data-dependent and rigid. There will be a need to go deeper into related principles of psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, linguistics, anthropology and education. - AJ Abdallat , Beyond Limits

19. Interpersonal Skills

As AI advances, interpersonal skills will become more important than ever. AI is changing the way people work and replacing the role of humans in many capacities. The ability to navigate challenging situations with grace, show empathy, demonstrate leadership, communicate effectively and relate to diverse groups of people will help you thrive as AI’s changes manifest in the workplace. - Avital Pardo , Pagaya

20. Project Management

The art of project management, including estimations, remains eternal. Determining how long a project will take, assessing the reliability of that assumption, understanding how an individual player could affect the overall team performance—these kinds of problems often lack context. Humans are notoriously bad at probabilities, but so are algorithms when they don’t have enough data. Even if AI does it better, inputting all the data will often take more time than we have to make a call. - Narinder Singh , LookDeep Health

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

View: Session 9A: Percolator: Theory and Praxis of Liberatory Justice in Public Service Organizations: Rewards, Challenges, and the Way Forward 08:30 , , and 08:30 important intermediate mechanisms in the causal linkage between PBF and student success. A few studies have examined PBF-driven shifts in spending patterns in public institutions, finding only marginal to null average treatment effects on financial priorities of public four-year institutions (Rabovsky, 2012; Kelchen & Stedrak, 2016; Hu et al., 2022). However, changes in institutional processes often take time and financial priorities of incentivized institutions may evolve over time as institutions learn and adapt to their changing state funding environments (Heinrich & Marschke, 2010; Mizrahi, 2020). This study examines the dynamic shifts in institutional spending in public four-year institutions subject to PBF policies and by minority-serving institution (MSI) status. The study leverages institution-level data from IPEDS and a comprehensive state-level PBF dataset and employs event study analysis. Understanding the dynamic changes in institutional spending over multiple periods may provide information on why PBF policies continue to yield limited improvements in college completion outcomes. Evidence on the dynamic shifts in institutional spending may also enable states to better design and implement performance incentives that induce desirable institutional changes and improve student outcomes ultimately.                08:45 , and 09:00 09:15 and 08:30 08:45 and 09:00 and 09:15 , and Our analysis employs multivariate regression and other methods, considering variables for major threat categories, consequences of terrorist attacks, and terrorist funding potential through irregular trade. Additional control variables include political, power, and demographic factors. This approach provides a more comprehensive assessment of terrorism risks and funding allocation efficiency. 08:30 and The latter has become especially salient in public administration, with social equity being elevated as a core public service value and the demonstrated performance benefits of a(n) (effectively managed) diverse workforce. More historically, public organizations have sought to be demographically representative institutions, with recognizable implications for responsiveness among street-level bureaucrats, especially in arenas with administrative discretion (Keiser et al., 2002). The objective of this paper is to address these policy-salient concerns by examining what qualities of public sector jobs are most attractive across age groups, as well as race and gender. To do so, we utilize a large-scale pre-registered conjoint experiment that allows us to make valid inferences on the impact of our independent variables on job attractiveness. Our contributions are two-fold: first, we compare the simultaneous effects of a range of variables on job attractiveness whereas previous work has examined them in isolation; and secondly, we devote specific attention to comparing differences in the needs and work values of individuals across age groups. The findings highlight what matters the most in how job seekers self-select into differing organizational/policy domains, professional contexts, as well as job characteristics. The paper ends with a discussion of the findings and future work to advance this area of research. 08:45 and This study focuses on one such stressed organizational context -child welfare services- and uses the job demands-resource model to unpack the reform needed to motivate and engage child welfare caseworkers. By doing so, it builds on the literature of how work engagement in public sector contexts, especially highly stressed ones, may be differently affected by clusters of job demands and resources. Using an explanatory sequential mixed method approach, the study first identifies the clusters of job demands and job resources that are antecedents of high satisfaction and overall work commitment in child welfare caseworkers. This is done by analyzing secondary survey data from the second cohort of the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being(NSCAW II). This analysis is followed by in-depth interviews with current child welfare caseworkers to understand the relative importance of the identified job demand and resource clusters. Additionally, the interviews will add richness to the study by unpacking the personal experiences of caseworkers in the post-pandemic public sector human service work environment. The study, therefore, will provide useful insights to better inform the design and implementation of human resource policy reforms in the public sector. 09:00 and In this paper, we develop a model for understanding where organizations fall on the continuum of preventing exclusion to promoting inclusion in their DEIA work. Preventing exclusion is associated with legal compliance, internal processes, and diversity inputs while promoting inclusion is associated with creating equitable environments where individuals feel a sense of belonging. We test this model using survey data from veteran serving organizations (VSOs) participating in 18 AmericaServes networks across the United States (n=1,000) and individual surveys of veterans utilizing services (n=2,731). We propose that how organizations define and do DEIA work has profound impacts for whether historically marginalized groups access and utilize services. We conclude with guidance for organizations to develop and implement substantive and systematic DEIA work. This work is funded by USAA and done in partnership with the D’Aniello Institute for Veteran and Military Families. 09:15 Specifically, this study explores the impact of organizational inclusion and justice on the behavioral pathways that employees strategically choose in response to harassment experiences and their willingness to report such incidents. The findings reveal diverse effects on behavioral choices: Enhanced justice significantly predicts both the willingness to report incidents and turnover intention, though it is not significantly associated with changes in assignment or transfer. Inclusion, conversely, exhibits nuanced effects across behavioral strategies, significantly predicting the willingness to report but demonstrating positive associations with turnover intention and transfer. Qualitative data further confirm that organizational inclusion and justice play a crucial role in reshaping policies to protect victims, although mixed perspectives exist among employees regarding their behavioral choices when addressing harassment experiences. The study highlights the substantial impact of organizational inclusion and justice as proactive measures in curbing misconduct within highly bureaucratic settings. However, it underscores the necessity for delicate management strategies to ensure effectiveness in addressing workplace harassment. 08:30 and 08:44 , and To address the gaps, we employ a quasi-experimental method, regression discontinuity (RD) design, based on school performance data and ratings from New York City public schools from 2007 to 2013. We find that performance signals affect overall turnover, but only at the lower end of performance ratings. Compared with schools earning a C grade, schools earning a D grade have higher levels of teacher turnover. Moreover, teachers from different racial groups respond to low-performance signals differently. Compared to their counterparts in schools that earned a C, white teachers in D schools are more likely to transfer to higher-rated schools. In contrast, Black teachers in D schools are more likely to exit NYC schools to join other districts or leave the profession entirely. This study deepens our understanding of employee turnover under performance regimes and shows an unintended effect of performance management: performance regimes drive minority teachers away and worsen the lack of representation. 08:58 , and This case study analyzes interviews with 23 CoC representatives, a survey of 114 CoCs (33% response rate), and HUD performance data. We find limited evidence that funding levels are associated with reported measures of performance. Broadly, our data show that governance complexities and environmental constraints violate many of the principal-agent assumptions embodied within performance management doctrine. At the same time, interviews suggest that some CoCs use HUD reporting requirements for varied purposes, including catalytic and discursive capacities (Musso and Weare, 2019; Moynihan, 2008; Nathan 2008). Overall, CoCs are building performance management systems capacities, but still face challenges regarding sustainable organizational culture. Impediments to performance include both internal organizational factors and external factors such as lack of housing, limited funding, and regulatory restrictions. Overall, the evidence supports a more cooperative and discursive model for capacity building rather than a top-down view of performance management governance in networked grant-in-aid systems. 09:12 and Our paper contributes to the collaborative performance literature. We argue that to understand shared data use during the implementation phase, we need to examine groups’ engagement with performance practices during the earlier planning and coordination phases using a temporal view. We also submit that the three mechanisms constitute broader theoretical streams that call for theorizing about specific causal pathways within them. We identify and examine three lower-level mechanisms that can help explain collective data use: ambiguity reduction, formality-informality complementarity, and identity creation. To develop and illustrate our arguments, we employ a mechanism-based case study. This approach relies on the use of explanatory narratives, and it is particularly appropriate if the unit of the analysis is a social, interactive process. As our case, we selected the Citizen Security Plan in Jamaica (2020-2023). The Plan is an initiative that aims to combine addressing crime and safety issues with efforts of community development. It was selected because it requires government to collaborate; it relies on the use of goals and data; and it allowed us to observe changes across project phases. 08:30 and This study conducts a nationwide survey of 50,000+ faculty at public postsecondary education institutions to assess what factors impact their awareness of student homelessness. We will conduct exploratory factor analysis to investigate a myriad of personal backgrounds, professional experience, university engagement, and campus resource item variables. We hypothesize that faculty with personal experience with homelessness, those in human service and social work fields, and those who frequently engage with their university resources are more likely to have increased awareness of student homelessness. Data collection was completed in December 2023. 08:45 To accomplish this, I will employ a two-way fixed-effect model using data sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, Georgia Department of Education, Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The dataset spans the school years from 2011 to 2019, with dependent variables of financial outcomes (total expenditure, instructional expenditure, fixed cost) and student outcomes (Georgia Milestones scores, graduation rate, school safety index). 09:00 09:15 08:30 , and To study this, we investigate disaster resilience planning in a rural county in the Southeast of the US exposed to several natural disasters, including tornadoes, ice storms, and strong winds. The county is characterized as having a high level of social vulnerability compared to the rest of the US (US Federal Emergency Management Administration, 2023). The empirical base includes data from observations of local government public meetings, content analysis of relevant planning documents, and interviews with collaborative partners. The data are analyzed using social network analysis methods, including descriptive and inferential techniques. The findings have implications for public management theory and practice in resilience planning. 08:45 , and 09:00 09:15 and 08:30 Ordinal representation pertains to altering the order of representation among bureaucrats when cardinal representation cannot be improved. For instance, in an organization with four bureaucrats where two are female and two are male regarding gender representation, cardinal representation cannot be enhanced. To address the question of whether ordinal representation holds significance in coproduction, this study examines the ordinal effects of gender representation on individuals’ decisions to coproduce. By employing two distinct policy areas—recycling and emergency preparedness—the study randomizes the order of female officials in a setting with two males and two females, where gender representation cannot be enhanced in a cardinal manner. Both experiments failed to consistently identify evidence of the ordinal effects resulting from placing females in different orders on citizens’ overall willingness to coproduce. However, the results revealed a pattern indicating that the gender of the chief leader influences an increase in the willingness of others of the same gender—and simultaneously decreases the willingness of their gender counterparts—to participate in coproduction. 08:45 09:00 , and 08:30 08:45 , and 09:00 and 09:15 08:30 and This paper addresses the widening academic gap and examines the role of public education in fostering academic equity. This study responds to the call for a more holistic understanding of what perpetuates academically successful youth from historically inequitable backgrounds by linking the individual with their greater environment (McCoy & Bowen, 2015). Specifically, we ask, “what individual and institutional factors promote equitable access to higher education across marginalized student identities?” We propose a two-level, intersectional public education equity framework. The framework is tested using data from surveys conducted among 1,400+ high school seniors and 50 guidance counselors in ten public high schools in the United States. The findings reveal misalignments between schools and individuals regarding perceptions of protective factors for social equity, indicating significant variations in the factors believed to impact access to higher education. Additionally, the study identifies certain risk factors for academic inequity, such as homelessness, first-generation status, lack of school resources, and financial constraints, which can be mitigated through protective factors such as societal expectations, family support, mentorship programs, and peer norming. 08:45 Research on place-based incentives has primarily focused on single incentive programs, concentrating on property values or job creation as desired outcomes. Few studies have compared multiple place-based investments or evaluated the combination of investments and resulting changes in equitable access to capital for neighborhood residents. This paper contributes to existing research by analyzing several programs—Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Neighborhood Opportunity Fund (NOF), New Market Tax Credit (NMTC), Property Tax Abatement (PTA), Small Business Improvement Fund (SBIF), and Tax Increment Financing (TIF)—and how the related investments alter the racial composition of neighborhoods as a result of home loan approvals. In doing so, this paper offers a better understanding of and policy prescriptions for enhancing social equity when redeveloping and revitalizing local communities in need. 09:00 , and We explore these tensions by drawing on quality rating data from England's Care Quality Commission to compare service quality across health and social care organizations that are government-run, CICs "spun-out" of the state, or privately-founded CICs. Specifically, we use ordered logit regression models to compare over 2,000 quality ratings of these three types of providers across five dimensions: safe, effective, caring, responsive, well-led, plus an overall rating. We draw on a 'publicness' theoretical framework to explore whether and to what extent public or private ownership, as well as the loss of public ownership through the ‘spin-out’ of public services into independent social enterprises, impacts quality. Our initial results show that overall, both types of social enterprise CICs performed better than government-run services, whilst non-spin-out CICs performed best on caring and responsive and spin-out CICs performed best on safe and effective dimensions. 09:15 and 08:30 and 08:45 and Understanding this is important, first, because officials often have a more comprehensive view of local financial health than objective financial indicators can capture alone. Compared to information contained in financial statements, commonly used for indicators, local practitioners possess broader relevant data and a nuanced understanding of what it means in the local context. Second, local government officials, i.e. individuals positioned within a network of government and community actors, ultimately make local investment, policy, and programmatic decisions. As such, when it comes to understanding policy outputs, their perceptions of their municipality’s financial condition arguably matter more than objective measures. Drawing from open system theory and the literature on perceived organizational outcomes, this research aims to explore whether public managers holding positions in different city departments have systematically different views on financial health. This research examines survey data from city officials in 273 Kansas cities with populations over 500. The survey, conducted between September 2023 and January 2024, targeted professionals in five positions—City Administrator and Directors of Public Works, Planning and Finance. Through descriptive and empirical analysis, this research illuminates how perceived local financial conditions in influence the decisions and fiscal responses across different organizations. 09:00 and 09:15 , , , and 10:15 and Building upon previous works on policy designs of net energy metering, which have gained less attention despite its prevalence, we explore different tariff designs and create indexes encompassing various NEM tariffs. Using panel data (about 200 investor-owned utilities in 50 states from 2013 to 2021), we evaluate how different tariff designs have affected the penetration of distributed solar. By studying the correlation between policy designs and the adoption of DERs, our study contributes to policy design literature, understanding how various policy designs affect policy outcomes and how to design policies for other distributed resources. 10:30 and Strategic management is often touted as an approach for integrating strategy formulation and implementation in response to environmental challenges. As one of the popular approaches used by the public sector, strategic management is often touted as a means for effective public service delivery. However, it is unclear whether current strategic management approaches are up to the task of addressing climate-related threats to the sustainability of public services at the local level where problems are fundamentally transboundary and require coordination across typical silos. We address this gap by asking: What manager-led processes drive resource-constrained cities to adapt their capabilities to the accelerating impacts of climate change? Using a novel mixed methods approach combining survey, text analysis of planning documents, and interviews, we examine how resource-constrained cities in Indiana integrate their capabilities and planning in response to climate change in the context of GSI. 10:45 11:00 and While regulatory competition suggests a state would relax its enforcement on an entity when its corporate siblings (entities that belong to the same company) in other states have been penalized for violations, regulatory learning theory, predicts otherwise. When an entity’s corporate siblings become violators, it tarnishes the reputation of the whole company and indicates possible wrongdoing of the focal entity itself, prompting regulators to increase scrutiny on the focal entity. We test the two competing theories using a facility-level panel dataset of Clean Air Act enforcement actions. Preliminary results show a mixed pattern. While regulators increase enforcement on a facility when its same-industry siblings located in the same state become high priority violators (regulatory learning dominates), they relax enforcement on the focal facility if the same-industry violator siblings are in competitor states (regulatory competition dominates). 10:15 10:30 , , and 10:45 Public Administration scholars must pay attention to this restructuring and its impacts to agency adjudication practices. This working systematic review of the Federal Administrative Judiciary will analyze distinct approaches employed by legal and public administration scholars to explore the conceptual and very practical tension between judicial independence and bureaucratic discretion. As the first systematic review regarding this topic, I expect to chronicle the development of these positions within the federal government by exploring institutional collaboration and influences. And finally, I hope to identify topics that may bolster comprehension of administrative adjudication in the USA. This presentation is relevant to the overall theme of “Bringing Theory to Practice”. As a heavily applied social science, public administration scholars focusing in management must attend to the legal discourse, particularly regarding judicialized employees. ALJs are in such a position within an agency to provide a unique bridge between public administration and the legal discipline. With the ongoing restructuring of their position, there are ample opportunities for practice to also inform theoretical innovation. 10:15 and 10:29 , , , and 10:43 , and 10:57 and The aim of our review is twofold. First, given the potential of relational contracting as an alternative to traditional contracting in complex situations, we aim to examine how relational approaches may or may not be a viable alternative to traditional transactional approaches. Second, we aim to contribute to the existing literature by developing an integrative framework of relational contracting as a way of managing buyer-supplier relationships in public procurement. Using ASReview Lab, an open-source machine learning software, we identify, collect, and assess relevant articles on this topic. Based on the findings, we develop an integrative framework of relational contracting in public procurement and present a research agenda to tackle theoretical and empirical lacunas in research into relational contracting. 10:15 , , , and While previous literature discusses how politics and power structure shape global public policy and governance transformation, there is a notable gap in understanding grassroots-based practices that explore innovative narratives, actors, and strategies to establish a community of practices for poverty reduction in the global south. To address this research gap, we outline a processual, multilevel, network-centric perspective by investigating two community-based poverty reduction cases in Africa and China. Our findings reveal that development narratives, actors’ networks, and pragmatically evolutionary practices constitute the three key pillars for building a community of practice focused on poverty reduction in the global south. The paper contributes to the literatures on the role of action research in poverty reduction in the global south, aligning with the first priority of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Meanwhile, it highlights the significance of knowledge network in the formulation and implementation of public policies. The study also bridges the knowledge gap between development theory and practical applications in poverty reduction in the global south. 10:30 10:45 and 11:00 and Our mixed method study takes place in the Puget Sound Basin of Washington state, where we gather data on stakeholder perceptions from approximately 48 CGRs working on ecosystem recovery. We use an exploratory sequential design, starting with interviews to generate a list of indicators with which stakeholders evaluate usefulness of scientific information. We then draw on this list to develop a survey sent to approximately 800 stakeholders. Our initial data show that scientific information is considered most useful when it comes from a reputable source and is produced transparently. Unexpectedly, less valuable indicators of usability included peer-review and co-production with information users. Our study contributes to CGR theory on knowledge management, identifying qualities that may enhance likelihood that information influences joint decisions. It also offers policy implications for information producers, suggesting ways to enhance information’s usability for practitioners in ecosystem recovery. 10:15 , , and 10:30 and 10:45 and Our quantitative study investigates the link between learning organization and job satisfaction and the mediating role of psychological safety in a policing context. We use the dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ) developed by Watkins and Marsick (1997), Edmonson’s (1999) instrument for measuring psychological safety and the short index of job satisfaction (Sinval & Marôco, 2020). The participants in our study are experienced German police officers selected for future leadership positions. 11:00 Seeking to identify effective and efficient outreach methods, in 2023 the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District conducted a field experiment involving 56,000 households in the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area. Using a conjoint design, the experiment randomly assigned households to a control condition or one of up to 56 combinations of treatments. Treatments included black and white postcards, color postcards, letters from the utility, letters from a community organization, English-only messages, bilingual messages, and multiple mailings. Some mailings framed assistance in terms of dollar value, while others expressed benefits as percentage discounts. Results indicate that direct mail significantly increased CAP inquiries, and that a single, simple black-and-white postcard was the most cost-effective medium. Surprisingly, messaging variables did not drive significantly different response rates. The study is a model of university-government collaboration, and its findings provide unprecedented evidence about direct mail as a means of reducing learning burdens for public assistance programs. 10:15 10:30 , , and 10:45 To understand data and data skills in city governments, this research proposal uses survey results from local government chief administrators in the census west region of the United States. The findings of this exploratory research suggest that 1) a data-skills gap exists in local government, 2) data skill expertise contributes indirectly to a chief administrator’s satisfaction in their organization’s overall data skills, and 3) data capture, curation, and analysis skills have smaller skill gaps compared to data communication and application skills. The findings provide important insight into the data skill needs of local governments and help identify important research questions for local governments and the acquisition of data skills. 11:00 , and To answer this question, we employ a conjoint experiment on high-level directors in local government to determine their interest in applying to management positions given different job characteristics. Our conjoint survey experiment asks respondents to make four discrete choices between paired job descriptions. These job descriptions vary in characteristics of the work of city managers including the flexibility of the schedule, after-hours commitments, paid time off, perceived stability of the position, and requirements for public engagement. The data is then analyzed considering the respondent characteristics, position, mentorship, and family life considerations to more comprehensively explore the propensity of women to seek out next-level managerial roles based on these job requirements. This paper disentangles the question of whether women would be more interested in applying to city management roles if the position was designed differently. This study offers local governments recommendations for rethinking the nature of the city manager role. 10:15 , and 10:30 , and 10:45 and Our findings indicate that self-motivation emerges as a significant factor positively influencing innovative behavior among national civil servants. Individuals who exhibit a strong internal drive and intrinsic motivation are more likely to engage in innovative practices, contributing to a culture of creativity within the public sector. Peer trust also emerges as a noteworthy factor associated with enhanced innovative behavior. Surprisingly, institutional support, often considered as a key determinant in fostering innovation, was not found to have a significant impact on innovative behavior in our study. Similarly, the presence of competition among organizations within the public sector was not found to significantly influence innovative behavior among national civil servants. This nuanced finding invites a deeper exploration of the nature of competition and its implications for fostering innovation within the unique dynamics of national civil service environments. The implications of these findings are substantial for public sector leaders and policymakers:.recognizing the importance of cultivating self-motivation and fostering peer trust can serve as a strategic approach to promote innovative behavior among civil servants. 11:00 and 10:15 10:30 10:45 and We argue that team leadership assignments are gendered in ways that will disadvantage women. Whereas men are likely to be given leadership assignments that are conducive to continuing career progress within their organizations, women are likely to be given leadership assignments that hamper their progress. One reason for this is *structural*: Women and men begin their careers in different types of teams, and consequently accumulate early-career experiences that delimit their future leadership opportunities in divergent ways. A second reason is *aspirational*: Women who are candidates for open leadership positions will be inclined to doubt their qualifications, to be skeptical of their leadership capabilities, and to experience anxiety about assuming formal team-level leadership responsibilities. And a third reason is *stereotypical*: Organizational stakeholders who have input into promotion decisions will harbor differing expectations about women's and men's leadership potential, expectations that will tend to be more negative when it comes to women's leadership capacities. We test these expectations using longitudinal, individual-level personnel data on United States federal employees. 10:15 However, in contrast to employees, politicians can be conceived as organizational outsiders. Instead, we therefore argue that political considerations affect how politicians assess and value performance measures. Specifically, we hypothesize that (a) politicians will perceive performance information featuring high and low performance signals differently, but also that (b) political ideology in terms of being aligned/opposed to the measured public services and (c) being affiliated/in opposition to the ruling political coalition will affect their perceptions. To test these hypotheses, we conducted a pre-registered survey experiment among political candidates for Danish regional councils charged primarily with governing health care services (n=885). Respondents were randomly exposed to either no information or true performance information (high/low) about their own region’s health care system. They were then asked to evaluate the validity, legitimacy, and usefulness of the information, and whether they wanted to receive additional information. The results have potentially important practical implications concerning when political decision-makers are willing to trust and use performance information and policy evidence. 10:30 The model captures three dimensions at which legitimacy can be created or undermined: the political articulation of public interests (input), the administrative implementation process (throughput), and the results achieved for citizens (output). A comprehensive review of the literature will be structured along the ITO model. Initial findings suggest that results for 1) input and 2) output are mixed, while they are most promising regarding 3) throughput legitimacy. First, while performance systems can increase political control, they are modest regarding strengthening minority interests. The management literature laments that a stronger results focus has not been accompanied by more resource autonomy, but such an increase in control is not a problem from a legitimacy perspective. At the same time, though performance systems can be pluralist in nature, evidence suggests they often reinforce existing power differentials. Second, research documents that performance systems improve outcomes, but gains may not be necessarily equitable. Third, they can enhance the evidence base for decision making, and bias here is less of an issue from a democratic perspective if it reflects political values. Performance systems create process legitimacy if they capture citizen feedback, structure interactions between government and civil society, and increase citizen trust. 10:45 and In this paper, we revisit the relationship between politics and administration, emphasizing how politics can influence agency performance even in the most professional and high performing agencies. We describe the mechanisms by which political alignment or misalignment influence performance. We detail how presidents work to 1) change outputs by directly influencing agency capacity (e.g., budget and personnel levels) and 2) change outputs without directly targeting capacity by using the tools of the administrative presidency to let capacity idle, reorient capacity, or diminish capacity indirectly. We test these relationships using newly created measures of agency performance for 139 U.S. federal agencies during the 2000-2022 period. The new measures combine dozens of subjective and objective measures of performance that vary across agencies and time. We conclude with the implications of our findings for future research focusing on the intersection of both politics and management. 11:00 10:15 , , and 10:30 10:45 and 10:15 , and 10:30 , and 10:45 , and 159 IMAGES How to Write a Critical Thinking Essay: Examples, Topics, & Outline Critical thinking theory, teaching, and practice "An Introduction to Critical Thinking" (Chapter 2): Argument and Argument Evaluation Basics Guide to improve critical thinking skills A Guide To Critical Thinking 25 Critical Thinking Examples (2024) VIDEO EP.1 What is an Argument ? Choose Conversation Over Confrontation CLAT Critical Reasoning Critical Thinking: Flip 5 How to Spot Legit Information: A Guide to Critical Thinking in English Evaluating Arguments COMMENTS 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. 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 ... How to Evaluate Arguments: A Guide for Critical Thinkers 1 Identify the argument. The first step is to identify the argument that you want to evaluate. An argument is a set of statements that aim to persuade or convince someone of something. Usually, an ... 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. 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 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. How to analyse arguments (CHAPTER 4) 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. Applying your knowledge and skills to the evaluation of arguments Make sure that you understand what the argument is, in fact, saying - in other words, the meaning of the argument. Do not underestimate the importance of this step. The very first thing you need to establish is whether a passage does, in fact, present an argument, or whether it describes, explains, narrates or commands. If it is an argument ... 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 ... 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. Chapter Seven: A Framework for Evaluating This presents an interesting problem: in a complex argument, you can evaluate a simple argument as unsound without its affecting your evaluation of the next simple argument. Thus, in a complex argument, you may evaluate as perfectly sound the argument to the main conclusion, even though the previous simple arguments have been unsound. 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. Identify arguments An argument is any statement or claim supported by reasons. Arguments range from quite simple (e.g. 'You should bring an umbrella, because it looks like it might rain') to very complex (e.g. an argument for changing the law or introducing a new scientific theory). Arguments can be found everywhere. Whenever somebody is trying to show that ... Analyse sources and arguments To analyse something means to examine it in detail, explain and interpret it. Analysing sources means examining their components like arguments, claims, reasons, methods and evidence, and explaining how they work together to make a point or an argument. In the context of critical thinking, analysis is a key preliminary step before evaluation ... How to Argue in Class Forming and evaluating arguments is a skill that can be practiced and can help develop analytical thinking. Visual representations of arguments help break them down and make them easier for students to evaluate and understand how they are constructed, as opposed to looking at a block of written text. Practice intellectual charity, or treating ... 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 ... Chapter 8: Identifying Arguments 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 ... What Is Critical Thinking? Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments. How to Evaluate Arguments For deductive arguments, you answer "yes" to the question "Do the premises provide enough logical support for the conclusion?" if the argument is valid, and you answer "no" if otherwise. Take the following deductive argument: Patrick's jeans are blue, therefore, Patrick's jeans are coloured. Is it possible for the premises to be ... Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and The critical evaluation of ideas, arguments, and points of view is important for the development of students as autonomous thinkers (1, 2). ... Instructional assignments and activities that promote critical thinking have to do more than present information and ask for recall. Rather, they must ask students to demonstrate their thinking ... 5 How to evaluate an argument 6 Evaluating an argument - coherence and supporting evidence. 7 Summary and reflection. ... 4 Applying critical and reflective thinking in academic and professional contexts: examples. ... When you evaluate academic material, such as a journal article, you are aiming to form a judgement on the validity of the argument presented. ... How to evaluate an argument Share this step. This video shows you how to evaluate arguments in a step-by-step manner: Identify the conclusion and the premises. Put the argument in standard form. Decide if the argument is deductive or non-deductive. Determine whether the argument succeeds logically. If the argument succeeds logically, assess whether the premises are true. What Is Critical Thinking? What is critical thinking? Critical thinking is the process of evaluating information and arguments in a disciplined and systematic way. It involves questioning assumptions, assessing evidence, and using logical reasoning to form well-reasoned judgments. Key critical thinking skills: Avoiding unfounded assumptions; Identifying and countering biases 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 Thinking Touchstone 4 Template (docx) Critical Thinking - Final Touchstone Page 4 3. What moral framework do you use to justify your normative conclusions (utilitarian, deontological, or virtue ethics)? Explain the meaning of the moral framework and how adopting that perspective leads to your conclusion. The two arguments do not need to follow the same moral theory. (4-6 sentences) The moral framework used to justify the normative ... Improve Objective Information Evaluation in Admin Management Developing critical thinking skills is paramount for objective evaluation. As an administrative professional, you should practice analyzing arguments, identifying logical fallacies, and ... Fall 2024 Semester In this class, you will develop the thinking, reading, writing and research practices that define both the major and the discipline. ... analyzing the arguments of others and constructing your own arguments. At the same time, you will be honing your skills as a researcher and developing your abilities as a persuasive and effective writer.ENGL ... High-Demand Human Skills In The Ongoing Age Of AI Building a culture of curiosity is critical as we enter the age of AI. Any job that consists of rote, repetitive work is likely to be automated out of existence. Even the act of writing code is ... Program for Saturday, June 29th To develop and illustrate our arguments, we employ a mechanism-based case study. This approach relies on the use of explanatory narratives, and it is particularly appropriate if the unit of the analysis is a social, interactive process. As our case, we selected the Citizen Security Plan in Jamaica (2020-2023). assignment essay homework paper report resume review speech thesis