Asking the Right Questions

1. Critical thinking is essential for personal autonomy and informed decision-making

Critical thinking is initially a process of reaction.

Evaluating claims. Critical thinking involves carefully examining the claims, evidence, and reasoning presented to us before accepting them. It requires asking probing questions, identifying assumptions, and evaluating the quality of arguments. This process allows us to make more informed and autonomous decisions rather than simply absorbing information passively.

Developing key skills. Critical thinking skills include:

• Identifying issues and conclusions
• Analyzing reasons and evidence
• Recognizing ambiguity
• Uncovering assumptions
• Evaluating sources
• Detecting fallacies and biases
• Considering alternative explanations
• Drawing warranted conclusions

Lifelong application. These skills apply far beyond the classroom to everyday decisions about health, finances, politics, and other important areas. Critical thinking empowers us to be active participants in shaping our beliefs and choices rather than passive recipients of others' views.

2. Identify the issue and conclusion in any argument

An issue is a question or controversy responsible for the conversation or discussion. It is the stimulus for what is being said.

Locate key components. To evaluate an argument, first identify:

• The issue - the question or controversy being addressed
• The conclusion - the position being argued for
• The reasons - the evidence and logic offered to support the conclusion

Look for clues. Issues are often stated as questions or controversies. Conclusions are typically signaled by indicator words like "therefore," "thus," or "consequently." Reasons are usually presented as support for the conclusion.

Descriptive vs. prescriptive. Arguments can be categorized as:

• Descriptive - making claims about how things are
• Prescriptive - making claims about how things should be
  Understanding this distinction helps in evaluating the appropriate types of evidence and reasoning used.

3. Analyze reasons and evidence supporting claims

Reasons are explanations or rationales for why we should believe a particular conclusion.

Evaluate support. Carefully examine the reasons and evidence offered to support a conclusion. Consider:

• Relevance - Does the evidence directly relate to the conclusion?
• Sufficiency - Is there enough evidence to warrant the conclusion?
• Accuracy - Is the evidence factually correct and from reliable sources?
• Logic - Does the reasoning process from evidence to conclusion make sense?

Types of evidence. Common forms of evidence include:

• Statistics and data
• Expert opinions and studies
• Examples and anecdotes
• Analogies and comparisons
• Logical arguments

Strength of reasoning. The overall argument is only as strong as its weakest link. Identify any gaps or weaknesses in the chain of reasoning from evidence to conclusion.

4. Recognize ambiguity and clarify key terms

Ambiguity refers to the existence of multiple possible meanings for a word or phrase.

Identify vague language. Look for words or phrases that could have multiple interpretations. Common sources of ambiguity include:

• Abstract terms (e.g. "freedom," "justice")
• Euphemisms
• Jargon or technical terms
• Metaphors and analogies

Seek clarity. When ambiguity is present:

• Ask for specific definitions
• Consider different possible interpretations
• Examine how the term is used in context
• Look for examples to illustrate the intended meaning

Impact on reasoning. Ambiguity can lead to:

• Misunderstandings between parties
• Flawed logic if terms shift meaning
• Persuasive but misleading rhetoric
• Difficulty in evaluating claims

5. Uncover hidden assumptions and value conflicts

A value assumption is an implicit preference for one value over another in a particular context.

Identify unstated beliefs. Arguments often rely on unstated assumptions. Look for:

• Value assumptions - implicit priorities between competing values
• Descriptive assumptions - unstated beliefs about how the world is

Recognize value conflicts. Many disagreements stem from different value priorities, such as:

• Individual rights vs. collective good
• Tradition vs. progress
• Security vs. liberty
• Economic growth vs. environmental protection

Question assumptions. Once identified, evaluate whether unstated assumptions are:

• Reasonable and widely accepted
• Controversial and in need of justification
• Potentially biased or flawed

6. Evaluate the quality of evidence and sources

Evidence is explicit information shared by the communicator that is used to back up or to justify the dependability of a factual claim.

Assess credibility. Consider the following about evidence and sources:

• Expertise - Does the source have relevant qualifications?
• Bias - Are there conflicts of interest or ideological leanings?
• Methodology - For studies, was the research design sound?
• Recency - Is the information up-to-date?
• Corroboration - Do other reputable sources agree?

Types of evidence. Evaluate the strengths and limitations of different forms:

• Scientific studies
• Expert opinions
• Statistics and data
• Anecdotes and examples
• Historical precedents
• Analogies and comparisons

Red flags. Be wary of:

• Cherry-picked evidence
• Exaggerated claims
• Emotional appeals disguised as evidence
• Unsupported generalizations
• Outdated or discredited sources

7. Consider alternative explanations and rival causes

A rival cause is a plausible alternative explanation that can explain why a certain outcome occurred.

Look beyond. When presented with a causal claim, consider:

• Other potential causes
• Combination of multiple factors
• Correlation vs. causation
• Reverse causation
• Common cause of both factors

Generate alternatives. Brainstorm other plausible explanations for the observed evidence or outcomes. Consider factors like:

• Historical context
• Cultural influences
• Economic conditions
• Technological changes
• Individual differences

Evaluate comparatively. Assess the relative strength of different explanations based on:

• Explanatory power
• Consistency with known facts
• Simplicity (Occam's Razor)
• Predictive ability
• Testability

8. Detect statistical deceptions and omitted information

Statistics are evidence expressed as numbers. Such evidence can seem quite impressive because numbers make evidence appear to be very scientific and precise, as though it represents "the facts." Statistics, however, can, and often do, lie!

Question numbers. When presented with statistics, ask:

• How was the data collected?
• What's the sample size and selection method?
• Are absolute numbers or percentages more informative?
• What's the baseline for comparison?
• Are there other relevant statistics omitted?

Common deceptions. Be alert for:

• Cherry-picked time frames
• Misleading averages (mean vs. median)
• Confusing correlation with causation
• Ignoring margin of error
• Biased survey questions
• Apples-to-oranges comparisons

Missing context. Consider what additional information would provide a more complete picture:

• Long-term trends
• Comparative data
• Breakdowns by relevant subgroups
• Potential negative outcomes or side effects
• Alternative interpretations of the data

9. Generate multiple possible conclusions

Very rarely will you have a situation in which only one conclusion can be reasonably inferred.

Avoid dichotomous thinking. Most issues are not simple yes/no questions. Consider:

• Qualified or nuanced positions
• Combinations of multiple approaches
• Context-dependent answers
• Temporary or partial solutions

Use if-clauses. Frame multiple conclusions with conditions:

• "If X is true, then..."
• "Assuming Y, we could conclude..."
• "Under circumstances Z, the best approach might be..."

Brainstorm alternatives. Generate multiple possible conclusions by:

• Considering different value priorities
• Changing assumptions
• Applying the issue to varied contexts
• Proposing creative solutions to underlying problems

Evaluate comparatively. Assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of different conclusions based on:

• Consistency with evidence
• Logical validity
• Practical feasibility
• Ethical implications
• Potential consequences

Last updated: January 22, 2025