The Thinker’s Guide to

ANALYTIC THINKING
How to Take Thinking Apart and What to Look for
When You Do

SECOND EDITION

LINDA ELDER and RICHARD PAUL

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD

Lanham • Boulder • New York • London
Originally published by
The Foundation for Critical Thinking
P.O. Box 196
Tomales, California 94971
www.criticalthinking.org

Reissued in 2019 by Rowman & Littlefield

An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706
www.rowman.com

6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2016 by Linda Elder

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or
mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission
from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Elder, Linda
The thinker’s guide to analytic thinking
Linda Elder, Richard Paul
ISBN 9780944583197 (paper : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781538133750 (electronic)
1. analytic thinking 2. critical thinking 3. theory of analysis 4. logic
2013957774

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National
Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO
Z39.48-1992.
The Foundation for Critical Thinking and
the Thinker’s Guide Library
Founded by Dr. Richard Paul, the Foundation for Critical Thinking is the
longest-running non-profit organization dedicated to critical thinking.
Through seminars and conferences, online courses and resources, and a
wide range of publications, the Foundation promotes critical societies by
cultivating essential intellectual abilities and virtues in every field of study
and professional area. Learn more at www.criticalthinking.org and visit the
Center for Critical Thinking Community Online (criticalthinking-
community.org).
The Thinker’s Guide Library introduces the Paul-Elder Framework for
Critical Thinking™ and contextualizes critical thinking across subject areas
and audience levels to foster fairminded critical reasoning throughout the
world.

1. The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools, Eighth

Edition
2. The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking
3. The Thinker’s Guide to Ethical Reasoning
4. The Thinker’s Guide to Socratic Questioning
5. The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies
6. The Nature and Functions of Critical & Creative Thinking
7. The Art of Asking Essential Questions, Fifth Edition
8. The Thinker’s Guide to the Human Mind
9. The Thinker’s Guide for Conscientious Citizens on How to Detect
Media Bias and Propaganda in National and World News, Fourth
Edition
10. The Thinker’s Guide to Scientific Thinking
11. The Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reasoning
12. The Thinker’s Guide to Clinical Reasoning
13. The Aspiring Thinker’s Guide to Critical Thinking
14. The Student Guide to Historical Thinking
15. The Thinker’s Guide for Students on How to Study & Learn a
Discipline, Second Edition
16. How to Read a Paragraph: The Art of Close Reading, Second Edition
17. How to Write a Paragraph: The Art of Substantive Writing
18. The International Critical Thinking Reading and Writing Test, Second
Edition
19. The Miniature Guide to Practical Ways for Promoting Active and
Cooperative Learning, Third Edition
20. How to Improve Student Learning: 30 Practical Ideas
21. A Critical Thinker’s Guide to Educational Fads
22. The Thinker’s Guide to Intellectual Standards
23. A Guide for Educators to Critical Thinking Competency Standards
 Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents

Part I: Understanding the Basic Theory of Analysis

Why a Guide on Analytic Thinking?

Why the Analysis of Thinking is Important

All Thinking is Defined by the Eight Elements That Make It Up

All Humans Use Their Thinking To Make Sense of the World

To Analyze Thinking We Must Learn to Identify and Question Its

Elemental Structures

To Evaluate Thinking, We Must Understand and Apply

Intellectual Standards

Thirty-five Dimensions of Critical Thought

On the Basis of the Above We Can Develop A Checklist for

Evaluating Reasoning

Part 2: Getting Started: Some First Steps

Think About Purpose

State the Question

 Gather Information

Watch Your Inferences

Check Your Assumptions

Clarify Your Concepts

Understand Your Point of View

Think Through the Implications

Part 3: Using Analysis to Figure Out the Logic of Anything

The Figuring Mind
Analyzing the Logic of Human Emotions
Analyzing Problems
Analyzing the Logic of an Article, Essay, or Chapter
Analyzing the Logic of a Textbook
Evaluating an Author’s Reasoning
Analyzing the Logic of a Subject:
• Science
• History
• Sociology
• Economics
• Ecology
• Substantive Writing

Part 4: Taking Your Understanding to a Deeper Level

Analyzing and Assessing:
• Goals, Purposes, or Objectives
• Questions, Problems, and Issues
 • Data, Evidence, Experience, Research
• Inferences, Interpretations, and Conclusions
• Assumptions and Beliefs
• Concepts, Ideas, and Theories
• Points of View and Perspectives
• Implications and Consequences
Distinguishing Between Inferences and Assumptions
Conclusion
 Why a Guide on Analytic Thinking?
Analysis and evaluation are recognized as crucial skills for all students to
master. And for good reason. These skills are required in learning any
significant body of content in a non-trivial way. Students are commonly
asked to analyze poems, mathematical formulas, biological systems,
chapters in textbooks, concepts and ideas, essays, novels, and articles—just
to name a few. Yet how many students can explain what analysis requires?
How many have a clear conception of how to think it through? Which of
our graduates could complete the sentence: “Whenever I am asked to
analyze something, I use the following framework:...”
The painful fact is that few students have been taught how to analyze.
Hence, when they are asked to analyze something scientific, historical,
literary, or mathematical—let alone something ethical, political, or personal
—they lack a framework to empower them in the task. They muddle
through their assignment with only the vaguest sense of what analysis
requires. They have no idea how sound analysis can lead the way to sound
evaluation and assessment. Of course, students are not alone. Many adults
are similarly confused about analysis and assessment as intellectual
processes.
Yet what would we think of an auto mechanic who said, “I’ll do my best
to fix your car, but frankly I’ve never understood the parts of the engine,” or
of a grammarian who said, “Sorry, but I have always been confused about
how to identify the parts of speech.” Clearly, students should not be asked
to do analysis if they do not have a clear model, and the requisite
foundations, for the doing of it. Similarly, we should not ask students to
engage in assessment if they have no standards upon which to base their
assessment. Subjective reaction should not be confused with objective
evaluation.
To the extent that students internalize this framework through practice,
they put themselves in a much better position to begin to think historically
(in their history classes), mathematically (in their math classes),
scientifically (in their science classes), and therefore more skillfully (in all
of their classes). When this model is internalized, students become better
students because they acquire a powerful “system-analyzing-system.”
 This thinker’s guide is a companion to The Miniature Guide to Critical
Thinking Concepts and Tools. It supports, and is supported by, all of the
other miniature guides in the series. It exemplifies why thinking is best
understood and improved when we are able to analyze and assess it
EXPLICITLY. The intellectual skills it emphasizes are the same skills
needed to reason through the decisions and problems inherent in any and
every dimension of human life.
 Why the Analysis of Thinking is
Important
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to
itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced. Yet
the quality of our life and of what we produce, make, or build depends
precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in
money and in quality of life. If we want to think well, we must understand
at least the rudiments of thought, the most basic structures out of which all
thinking is made. We must learn how to take thinking apart.

All Thinking Is Defined by the Eight Elements That Make It

Up
Eight basic structures are present in all thinking: Whenever we think,
we think for a purpose within a point of view based on assumptions leading
to implications and consequences. We use concepts, ideas and theories to
interpret data, facts, and experiences in order to answer questions, solve
problems, and resolve issues.
Thinking, then:

▪ generates purposes
▪ raises questions
▪ uses information
▪ utilizes concepts
▪ makes inferences
▪ makes assumptions
▪ generates implications
▪ embodies a point of view
Each of these structures has implications for the others. If you change your
purpose or agenda, you change your questions and problems. If you change
your questions and problems, you are forced to seek new information and
data. If you collect new information and data...

Essential Idea: There are eight structures that define thinking. Learning
to analyze thinking requires practice in identifying these structures in
use.
 All Humans Use Their Thinking To Make
Sense of the World
The words thinking and reasoning are used in everyday life as virtual
synonyms. Reasoning, however, has a more formal flavor. This is because it
highlights the inference-drawing capacity of the mind.
Reasoning occurs whenever the mind draws conclusions on the basis of
reasons. We draw conclusions whenever we make sense of things. The
result is that whenever we think, we reason. Usually we are not aware of the
full scope of reasoning implicit in our minds.
We begin to reason from the moment we wake up in the morning. We
reason when we figure out what to eat for breakfast, what to wear, whether
to make certain purchases, whether to go with this or that friend to lunch.
We reason as we interpret the oncoming flow of traffic, when we react to
the decisions of other drivers, when we speed up or slow down. One can
draw conclusions, then, about everyday events or, really, about anything at
all: about poems, microbes, people, numbers, historical events, social
settings, psychological states, character traits, the past, the present, the
future.
By reasoning, then, we mean making sense of something by giving it
some meaning in our mind. Virtually all thinking is part of our sense-
making activities. We hear scratching at the door and think, “It’s the dog.”
We see dark clouds in the sky and think, “It looks like rain.” Some of this
activity operates at a subconscious level. For example, all of the sights and
sounds about us have meaning for us without our explicitly noticing that
they do. Most of our reasoning is unspectacular. Our reasoning tends to
become explicit only when someone challenges it and we have to defend it
(“Why do you say that Jack is obnoxious? I think he is quite funny”).
Throughout life, we form goals or purposes and then figure out how to
pursue them. Reasoning is what enables us to come to these decisions using
ideas and meanings.
On the surface, reasoning often looks simple, as if it had no component
structures. Looked at more closely, however, it implies the ability to engage
in a set of interrelated intellectual processes. This thinker’s guide is largely
focused on making these intellectual processes explicit. It will enable you to
better understand what is going on beneath the surface of your thought.

Essential Idea: Reasoning occurs when we draw conclusions based on

reasons. We can upgrade the quality of our reasoning when we
understand the intellectual processes that underlie reasoning.
To Analyze Thinking We Must Learn to
Identify and Question its Elemental
Structures
Be aware: When we understand the structures of thought, we ask
important questions implied by these structures.
 To Evaluate Thinking We Must
Understand and Apply Intellectual
Standards
Reasonable people judge reasoning by intellectual standards. When you
internalize these standards and explicitly use them in your thinking, your
thinking becomes more clear, more accurate, more precise, more
relevant, deeper, broader and more fair. You should note that we focus
here on a selection of standards. Among others are credibility,
sufficiency, reliability, and practicality. The questions that employ these
standards are listed on the following page.

Clarity:
understandable, the meaning can be grasped
Accuracy:
free from errors or distortions, true
Precision:
exact to the necessary level of detail
Relevance:
relating to the matter at hand
Depth:
containing complexities and multiple interrelationships
Breadth:
encompassing multiple viewpoints
Logic:
the parts make sense together, no contradictions
Significance:
 focusing on the important, not trivial
Fairness:
justifiable, not self-serving or one-sided

Could you elaborate further?

Clarity Could you give me an example?
Could you illustrate what you mean?

How could we check on that?

Accuracy How could we find out if that is true?
How could we verify or test that?

Could you be more specific?

Precision Could you give me more details?
Could you be more exact?

How does that relate to the problem?

Relevance How does that bear on the question?
How does that help us with the issue?

What factors make this a difficult problem?

Depth What are some of the complexities of this
question?
What are some of the difficulties we need to
deal with?
Do we need to look at this from another
Breadth perspective?
Do we need to consider another point of view?
Do we need to look at this in other ways?
 Logic Does all this make sense together?
Does your first paragraph fit in with your last?
Does what you say follow from the evidence?

Is this the most important problem to consider?

Significan Is this the central idea to focus on?
ce Which of these facts are most important?

Do I have any vested interest in this issue?

Fairness Am I sympathetically representing the
viewpoints of others?
 35 Dimensions of Critical Thought
A. Affective Dimensions
thinking independently
developing insight into egocentricity or sociocentricity
exercising fairmindedness
exploring thoughts underlying feelings and feelings underlying thought
developing intellectual humility and suspending judgment
developing intellectual courage
developing intellectual good faith or integrity
developing intellectual perseverance
developing confidence in reason

B. Cognitive Dimensions—Macro-Abilities
refining generalizations and avoiding oversimplifications
comparing analogous situations: transferring insights to new contexts
developing one’s perspective: creating or exploring beliefs, arguments,
or theories
clarifying issues, conclusions, or beliefs
clarifying and analyzing the meanings of words or phrases
developing criteria for evaluation: clarifying values and standards
evaluating the credibility of sources of information
questioning deeply: raising and pursuing root or significant questions
analyzing or evaluating arguments, interpretations, beliefs, or theories
 generating or assessing solutions
analyzing or evaluating actions or policies
reading critically: clarifying or critiquing texts
listening critically: the art of silent dialogue
making interdisciplinary connections
practicing Socratic discussion: clarifying and questioning beliefs,
theories, or perspectives
reasoning dialogically: comparing perspectives, interpretations, or
theories
reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives, interpretations, or
theories

C. Cognitive Dimensions—Micro-Skills
comparing and contrasting ideals with actual practice
thinking precisely about thinking: using critical vocabulary
noting significant similarities and differences
examining or evaluating assumptions for justifiability
distinguishing relevant from irrelevant facts
making plausible inferences, predictions, or interpretations
giving reasons and evaluating evidence and alleged facts
recognizing contradictions
exploring logical implications and consequences

Be aware: It is important to realize that the affective dimensions of

critical thought, as well as both the micro and macro abilities, can be
expanded in multiple directions. For instance we might easily add the
following micro-skills to our list:

clarifying purposes
checking purposes for consistency and fairness
stating the question clearly and precisely
formulating the question in multiple ways to target different aspects
of the issue
 A Checklist for Reasoning
1) All reasoning has a PURPOSE.

Take time to state your purpose clearly.

Distinguish your purpose from related purposes.
Check periodically to be sure you are still on target.
Choose significant and realistic purposes.

2) All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some

QUESTION, to solve some problem.

State the question at issue clearly and precisely.

Express the question in several ways to clarify its meaning and
scope.
Break the question into sub-questions.
Distinguish questions that have definitive answers from those that
are a matter of opinion and from those that require consideration of
multiple viewpoints.

3) All reasoning is based on ASSUMPTIONS.

Clearly identify your assumptions and determine whether they are

justifiable.
Consider how your assumptions are shaping your point of view.

4) All reasoning is done from some POINT OF VIEW.

Identify your point of view.

Seek other points of view and identify their strengths as well as
weaknesses.
 Strive to be fairminded in evaluating all points of view.

5) All reasoning is based on DATA, INFORMATION and

EVIDENCE.

Restrict your claims to those supported by the data you have.

Search for information that opposes your position as well as
information that supports it.
Make sure that all information used is clear, accurate and relevant to
the question at issue.
Make sure you have gathered sufficient information.

6) All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, CONCEPTS

and IDEAS.

Identify key concepts and explain them clearly.

Consider alternative concepts or alternative definitions of concepts.
Make sure you are using concepts with precision.

7) All reasoning contains INFERENCES or INTERPRETATIONS

by which we draw CONCLUSIONS and give meaning to data.

Infer only what the evidence implies.

Check inferences for their consistency with each other.
Identify assumptions underlying your inferences.

8) All reasoning leads somewhere or has IMPLICATIONS and

CONSEQUENCES.

Trace the implications and consequences that follow from your

reasoning.
Search for negative as well as positive implications.
Consider all possible consequences.
 Think About Purpose
Your purpose is your goal, your objective, what you are trying
to accomplish. We also use the term to include functions,
motives, and intentions.
You should be clear about your purpose, and your purpose should be
justifiable.
Questions which target purpose:
What is your, my, their purpose in doing _____________?
What is the objective of this assignment (task, job, experiment, policy,
strategy, etc.)?
Should we question, refine, modify our purpose (goal, objective, etc.)?
Why did you say…?
What is your central aim in this line of thought?
What is the purpose of this meeting (chapter, relationship, action)?
What is the purpose of education?
What is the function of this ____________________
(bodily system, machine, tool, economic policy, plant, ecosystem)?

Be aware: All of what we do is guided by our purposes or goals. We are

aware of only some of our goals. When our goals reflect our greed or
possessiveness, or such, we deny them as goals. We then describe our
actions in such a way as to hide purposes to which we cannot admit.
 State the Question
The question lays out the problem or issue and guides our
thinking. When the question is vague, our thinking will lack
clarity and distinctness.
The question should be clear and precise enough to productively guide
our thinking.

Questions which target the question:

What is the question I am trying to answer?
What important questions are embedded in the issue?
Is there a better way to put the question?
Is this question clear? Is it complex?
I am not sure exactly what question you are asking. Could you explain
it?
The question in my mind is this: How do you see the question?
What kind of question is this? Historical? Scientific? Ethical?
Political? Economic? Or…?
What important questions does this discipline address?
What would we have to do to settle this question?
Be aware: Often the real question or problem is hidden or obscure.
People resist admitting problems that cast them in a negative light. We
need intellectual courage to bring the real problems and issues to the
surface.
 Gather Information
Information includes the facts, data, evidence, or experiences
we use to figure things out. It does not necessarily imply
accuracy or correctness.
The information you use should be accurate and relevant to the question
or issue you are addressing.

Questions which target information:

What information do I need to answer this question?
What data are relevant to this problem?
Do we need to gather more information?
Is this information relevant to our purpose or goal?
On what information are you basing that comment?
What experience convinced you of this? Could your experience be
distorted?
How do we know this information (data, testimony) is accurate?
Have we left out any important information that we need to consider?

Be aware: Of missing information, especially information that reveals

contradictions, hypocrisy, and self-deception on our part. Most people
seek only information that supports what they already believe. They
ignore or discount the rest. Critical thinking requires intellectual
integrity.
 Watch Your Inferences
Inferences are interpretations or conclusions you come to.
Inferring is what the mind does in figuring something out.
Inferences should logically follow from the evidence. Infer no more or
less than what is implied in the situation.

Questions you can ask to check your inferences:

What conclusions am I coming to?
Is my inference logical?
Are there other conclusions I should consider?
Does this interpretation make sense?
Does our solution necessarily follow from our data?
How did you reach that conclusion?
What are you basing your reasoning on?
Is there an alternative plausible conclusion?
Given all the facts what is the best possible conclusion?
How shall we interpret these data?

Be aware: Our conclusions are often distorted by our self-serving

interests, which disengage our sense of justice. Make sure that your
conclusions are based on all the relevant information and that you
haven’t excluded information that does not support your preconceptions.
 Check Your Assumptions
Assumptions are beliefs you take for granted. They usually
operate at the subconscious or unconscious level of thought.
Make sure that you are clear about your assumptions and they are
justified by sound evidence.
Questions you can ask about your assumptions:
What am I taking for granted?
Am I assuming something I shouldn’t?
What assumption is leading me to this conclusion?
What is… (this policy, strategy, explanation) assuming?
What exactly do sociologists (historians, mathematicians, etc.) take for
granted?
Why are you assuming…?
What is being presupposed in this theory?
What are some important assumptions I make about my roommate, my
friends, my parents, my instructors, my country?

Be aware: The root of problems in thinking often lies with false

assumptions. Because assumptions are usually unconscious, they often
embody prejudices, biases, stereotypes, and one-sided or false beliefs.
Practice explicitly identifying assumptions and checking them for
justifiability.
 Clarify Your Concepts
Concepts are ideas, theories, laws, principles, or hypotheses we
use in thinking to make sense of things.
Be clear about the concepts you are using and use them justifiably.
Questions you can ask about concepts:
What idea am I using in my thinking? Is this idea causing problems for
me or for others?
I think this is a good theory, but could you explain it more fully?
What is the main hypothesis you are using in your reasoning?
Are you using this term in keeping with established usage?
What main distinctions should we draw in reasoning through this
problem?
What idea is this author using in his or her thinking? Is there a problem
with it?
Can you name and explain some of the basic principles of physics
(chemistry, sociology, etc.)?

Be aware: The ways in which we think about the world are determined
by our ideas or concepts. Yet these concepts are often twisted in self-
serving ways by the mind. We often use concepts to manipulate people
or to pursue vested interests. Use language with care, precision, and
fairness.
 Understand Your Point of View
Point of view is literally “the place” from which you view
something. It includes what you are looking at and the way you
are seeing it.
Your point of view or perspective can easily distort the way you see
situations and issues. Make sure you understand the limitations of your
point of view and that you fully consider other relevant viewpoints.
Questions you can ask to check your point of view:
How am I looking at this situation? Is there another way to look at it
that I should consider?
What exactly am I focused on? And how am I seeing it?
Is my view the only reasonable view? What does my point of view
ignore?
Have you ever considered the way Germans (Japanese, Muslims,
South Americans, etc.) view this?
Which of these possible viewpoints makes the most sense given the
situation?
How often have you studied viewpoints that seriously challenge your
personal beliefs?
What is the point of view of the author of this story?
Am I having difficulty looking at this situation from a viewpoint with
which I disagree?
Am I uncritically assuming that the point of view of my government is
justified?
Be aware: All of reasoning is couched within a point of view. We often
fail to consider viewpoints with which we disagree. Why? Because to
consider those viewpoints might require us to change our own
viewpoint, to give up some beliefs or goals we want to maintain. Realize
that one of the hallmarks of the critical thinker is a willingness to enter
sympathetically into any and every viewpoint, and then to change one’s
views when the evidence warrants a change.
 Think Through the Implications
Implications are claims or truths that logically follow from
other claims or truths. Implications follow from thoughts.
Consequences follow from actions.
Implications are inherent in your thoughts, whether you see them or not.
The best thinkers think through the logical implications in a situation before
acting.
Questions you can ask about implications:
If I decide to do “X”, what things might happen?
If I decide not to do “X”, what things might happen?
What are you implying when you say that?
What is likely to happen if we do this versus that?
Are you implying that…?
How significant are the implications of this decision?
What, if anything, is implied by the fact that a much higher percentage
of poor people are in jail than wealthy people?

Be aware: Thinking through the implications of one’s thought prior to

acting requires discipline and the ability to think at multiple levels.
Every action we take has implications. What is more, we should be
aware that once we identify important implications of an act, we should
also identify important implications of those implications. Implications
are like the concentric circles that radiate outward when a stone is
dropped in a pond.
The Figuring Mind
 Figuring Out the Logic Of Things
Critical thinkers have confidence in their ability to figure out the logic
of anything they choose. They continually look for order, system and
interrelationships. They say “there is a logic to this, and I can figure it out!”
For example, consider the logic of love, fear and anger on this and the next
two pages:

The Logic of Love

Be aware: Even emotionally powerful states of mind have a logic to
them. All emotions have a cognitive content.

The Logic of Fear

Be aware: Understanding the logic of fear is the key to dealing with fear
in a reasonable way. Some fears are justified. Some are not.
The Logic of Anger
Be aware: Anger can be intensified or diminished depending on how we
cognitively relate to it. It is possible to take charge of our emotions.
Emotions are the driving force of human life.
 Analyzing Problems
Identify some problem you need to reason through. Then
complete the following:
What exactly is the problem? (Study the problem to make clear the kind
of problem you are dealing with. Figure out, for example, what sorts of
things you are going to have to do to solve it. Distinguish problems over
which you have some control from problems over which you have no
control. Pay special attention to controversial issues in which it is
essential to consider multiple points of view.)
The key question that emerges from the problem is... (State the question
as clearly and precisely as you can. Details are very important.)
My purpose in addressing the problem is... (Know exactly what you are
after. Make sure you are not operating with a hidden agenda and that
your announced and real purposes are the same.)
Actively seek the information most relevant to the question. (Include in
that information options for action, both short-term and long-term.
Recognize limitations in terms of money, time, and power.)
Some important assumptions I am using in my thinking are... (Figure
out what you are taking for granted. Watch out for self-serving or
unjustified assumptions.)
If we solve this problem, some important implications are... If we fail to
solve this problem, some important implications are... (Evaluate
options, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of
possible decisions before acting. What consequences are likely to
follow from this or that decision?)
The most important concepts, theories, or ideas I need to use in my
thinking are... (Figure out all significant ideas needed to understand
and solve the problem. You may need to analyze these concepts. Use a
good dictionary.)
The point(s) of view is/are as follows: (Know the point of view from
which your thinking begins. Be especially careful to determine whether
 multiple points of view are relevant.)
After reasoning through the parts of thinking above, the best solution
(conclusion) to the problem is... (If the problem involves multiple
conflicting points of view, you will have to assess which solution is the
best. If the problem is one-dimensional, there may be just one “correct”
solution.)
 Analyzing Problems
The Problem of Polution as an Example1
What is the problem? The problem is pollution and the fact that because
people are not doing enough to reduce it, a host of negative
consequences are occurring (e.g. increased medical problems, loss of
animal and plant life, increased contamination of the earth’s water
sources).
Questions that emerge from the problem are... What can I personally
do to reduce pollution? A related question is: What can we
collectively do to reduce pollution?
My purpose in addressing the problem is to increase the things I do to
contribute to a more healthy biosphere.
The important information relevant to the question is information
about what I am currently doing to increase pollution (such as
generating trash that could be recycled, driving a car, etc.),
information about what I could do to reduce the amount of pollution I
contribute to (such as locating recycling centers, pursuing alternative
forms of transportation, etc.), information about environmental
groups I might support, etc.
Some important assumptions I am using in my thinking are that
pollution is causing significant damage to the biosphere, that
everyone can help reduce pollution, that I, and everyone else, have an
obligation to make a significant effort to help reduce pollution.
If many people were to reason well through this issue, some
implications are that there would be a longer and higher quality of
life for millions of people. Additionally, plant and animal species and
ecosystems would be protected. A host of other positive implications
would follow as well, implications for the atmosphere, the
waterways, the forests, etc.
 The most important concepts, or ideas, I need to use in my thinking
are the concepts of pollution, and that of a healthy biosphere. Each of
these concepts leads to a host of further technical, ecological, and
ethical concepts required to understand the multiple dimensions of
pollution and the ethical responsibilities that knowledge of its many
harmful effects entails.
My point of view is as follows: I am looking at pollution. I am seeing it
as something I can help reduce through many means.
After reasoning through the parts of thinking above, the best
solution (conclusion) to the problem will be to put into action the
various options that my research has revealed.

Analyzing the Logic of an Article, Essay or

Chapter
One important way to understand an essay, article or chapter is through the
analysis of the parts of the author’s reasoning. Once you have done this,
you can evaluate the author’s reasoning using intellectual standards (see
page 9). Here is a template to follow:

1) The main PURPOSE of this article is ________________________.

(Here you are trying to state, as accurately as possible, the author’s
intent in writing the article. What was the author trying to
accomplish?)

2) The key QUESTION that the author is addressing is

__________________ ________________________.
(Your goal is to figure out the key question that was in the mind of the
author when he/she wrote the article. What was the key question
addressed in the article?)

3) The most important INFORMATION in this article is

_________________ _______________________.
(You want to identify the key information the author used, or
 presupposed, in the article to support his/her main arguments. Here
you are looking for facts, experiences, and/or data the author is using
to support his/her conclusions.)

4) The main INFERENCES in this article are

_________________________
______________________________________________.
(You want to identify the most important conclusions the author comes
to and presents in the article).

5) The key CONCEPT(s) we need to understand in this article is (are)

______________. By these concepts the author means
______________ ____________________.
(To identify these ideas, ask yourself: What are the most important
ideas that you would have to know to understand the author’s line of
reasoning? Then briefly elaborate what the author means by these
ideas.)

6) The main ASSUMPTION(s) underlying the author’s thinking is (are)

__________________________.
(Ask yourself: What is the author taking for granted [that might be
questioned]? The assumptions are generalizations that the author does
not think he/she has to defend in the context of writing the article, and
they are usually unstated. This is where the author’s thinking logically
begins.)

7a) If we accept this line of reasoning (completely or partially), the

IMPLICATIONS are ___________________________________.
(What consequences are likely to follow if people take the author’s
line of reasoning seriously? Here you are to pursue the logical
implications of the author’s position. You should include implications
that the author states, and also those that the author does not state.)

7b) If we fail to accept this line of reasoning, the IMPLICATIONS are

__________ ______________________.
(What consequences are likely to follow if people ignore the author’s
reasoning?)
 8) The main POINT(S) OF VIEW presented in this article is (are)
___________ _______________________.
(The main question you are trying to answer here is: What is the author
looking at, and how is he/she seeing it? For example, in this mini-
guide we are looking at “analysis” and seeing it “as requiring one to
understand” and routinely apply the elements of reasoning when
thinking through problems, issues, subjects, etc.).
If you truly understand these structures as they interrelate in an article,
essay or chapter, you should be able to empathically role-play the thinking
of the author. These are the eight basic structures that define all reasoning.
They are the essential elements of thought.

Be aware: It is possible to use the basic structures of thinking to analyze

articles, essays, and chapters. This analysis will deepen one’s insight
into the author’s reasoning.
 Analyzing the Logic of an Article: An
Example
On the next page you will find an analysis of the following brief article (see
pages 28–29 for the analysis template).

Is it Possible for the News Media to Reform?2

To provide their publics with non-biased writing, journalists around the
world, would have to, first, enter empathically into world views to which
they are not at present sympathetic. They would have to imagine writing
for audiences that hold views antithetical to the ones they hold. They
would have to develop insights into their own sociocentrism. They
would have to do the things done by critical consumers of the news. The
most significant problem is that, were they to do so, their readers would
perceive their articles as “biased” and “slanted,” as “propaganda.” These
reporters would be seen as irresponsible, as allowing their personal point
of view to bias their journalistic writings. Imagine Israeli journalists
writing articles that present the Palestinian point of view
sympathetically. Imagine Pakistani journalists writing articles that
present the Indian point of view sympathetically.
The most basic point is this: journalists do not determine the nature
and demands of their job. They do not determine what their readers want
or think or hate or fear. The nature and demands of their job are
determined by the broader nature of societies themselves and the beliefs,
values and world views of its members. It is human nature to see the
world, in the first instance, in egocentric and sociocentric terms. Most
people are not interested in having their minds broadened. They want
their present beliefs and values extolled and confirmed. Like football
fans, they want the home team to win, and when it wins to triumph
gloriously. If they lose, they want to be told that the game wasn’t
important, or that the other side cheated, or that the officials were biased
against them.
 As long as the overwhelming mass of persons in the broader society
are drawn to news articles that reinforce, and do not question, their
fundamental views or passions, the economic imperatives will remain
the same. The logic is parallel to that of reforming a nation’s eating
habits. As long as the mass of people want high fat processed foods, the
market will sell high fat and processed foods to them. And as long as the
mass of people want simplistic news articles that reinforce egocentric
and sociocentric thinking, that present the world in sweeping terms of
good and evil (with the reader’s views and passions treated as good and
those of the reader’s conceived enemies as evil), the news media will
generate such articles for them. The profit and ratings of news sources
that routinely reinforce the passions and prejudices of their readers will
continue to soar.

The main purpose of this article is to show why the news media are not
likely to alter their traditional practices of slanting the news in keeping
with audience preconceptions.
The key question that the author is addressing is: “Why is it not possible
for the news media to reform?”
The most important information in this article is:

1. information about how and why the news media currently operates:
a. that the news media slant stories to fit the viewpoint of their
audience. “Most people are not interested in having their views
broadened...Like football fans they want the home team to win...
The overwhelming mass of persons in the broader society are
drawn to news articles that reinforce, and do not question, their
fundamental views or passions.”
b. that the fundamental purpose of the mainstream news media is to
make money. “As long as the mass of people want simplistic
news articles...the news media will generate such articles for
them. The profit and ratings of news sources that routinely
reinforce the passions and prejudices of their readers will
continue to soar.”
2. information about how the news media would have to change to be
more intellectually responsible:
 a. that the news media would have to actively enter differing world
views “Imagine Israeli journalists writing articles that present the
Palestinian point of view sympathetically. Imagine Pakistani
journalists writing articles that present the Indian point of view
sympathetically.”
b. That the news media would have to “develop insights into their
own sociocentrism.”

The main inferences in this article are: “As long as the overwhelming
mass of persons in the broader society are drawn to news articles that
reinforce, and do not question, their fundamental views or passions,” the
news will be presented in a biased way. Because the fundamental
purpose of the media is to make money, and the only way people will
buy papers is if their sociocentric views are reinforced and not
questioned, the media will continue to distort events in accordance with
audience views.
The key concepts that guide the author’s reasoning in this article are:
biased and unbiased journalism, egocentrism and sociocentrism,
propaganda. (Each of these concepts should be elaborated.)
The main assumptions underlying the author’s thinking are: The
driving force behind the news media is vested interest – i.e. making
money; that the news media therefore pander to their readers’ views so
as to sell more papers; but that, at the same time, the news media must
appear to function objectively and fairly.
If this line of reasoning is justified, the implications are: Citizens need to
think critically about the news media and how they systematically
distort stories in accordance with reader bias. They need to notice how
their own sociocentric views are intensified by what they read.
The main point of view presented in this article is: The world news
media function as profit-making enterprises that structure the news to
pander to reader and society prejudices.

Analyzing the Logic of a Textbook

1) The main PURPOSE of this textbook is
__________________________.
2) The key QUESTION(s) that the author is addressing in the textbook
is(are) __
_____________________________________________________ .

3) The most important kinds of INFORMATION in this textbook are

_________
_____________________________________________________ .

4) The main INFERENCES (and conclusions) in this textbook are

__________
_____________________________________________________ .

5) The key CONCEPT(s) we need to understand in this textbook is(are)

______
_____________________________________________________ .
By these concepts the author means
_____________________________
_____________________________________________________ .

6) The main ASSUMPTION(s) underlying the author’s thinking is(are)

______
_____________________________________________________ .

7a) If people take the textbook seriously, the IMPLICATIONS are

____________
_____________________________________________________ .

7b) If people fail to take the textbook seriously, the IMPLICATIONS are
_______
_____________________________________________________ .

8) The main POINT(S) OF VIEW presented in this textbook is(are)

__________
_____________________________________________________ .
Be aware: Students who take the time to figure out the logic of their
textbooks develop central organizers into which they can integrate all of
their learning from those textbooks. Fragmentation and short-term
cramming are now fundamental barriers to deep and integrated learning.

Evaluating an Author’s Reasoning

1. Identify the author’s PURPOSE: Is the purpose of the author well-
stated or clearly implied? Is it justifiable?
2. Identify the key QUESTION which the written piece answers: Is the
question at issue well-stated (or clearly implied)? Is it clear and
unbiased? Does the expression of the question do justice to the
complexity of the matter at issue? Are the question and purpose
directly relevant to each other?
3. Identify the most important INFORMATION presented by the author:
Does the writer cite relevant evidence, experiences, and/or information
essential to the issue? Is the information accurate and directly relevant
to the question at issue? Does the writer address the complexities of
the issue?
4. Identify the most fundamental CONCEPTS which are at the heart of
the author’s reasoning: Does the writer clarify key ideas when
necessary? Are the ideas used justifiably?
5. Identify the author’s ASSUMPTIONS: Does the writer show a
sensitivity to what he or she is taking for granted or assuming (insofar
as those assumptions might reasonably be questioned)? Or does the
writer use questionable assumptions without addressing problems
inherent in those assumptions?
6. Identify the most important INFERENCES or conclusions in the
written piece: Do the inferences and conclusions made by the author
clearly follow from the information relevant to the issue, or does the
author jump to unjustifiable conclusions? Does the author consider
alternative conclusions where the issue is complex? In other words,
does the author use a sound line of reasoning to come to logical
conclusions, or can you identify flaws in the reasoning somewhere?
7. Identify the author’s POINT OF VIEW: Does the author show a
sensitivity to alternative relevant points of view or lines of reasoning?
Does he or she consider and respond to objections framed from other
relevant points of view?
8. Identify IMPLICATIONS: Does the writer display a sensitivity to the
implications and consequences of the position he or she is taking?

Be aware: You can evaluate thinking by applying intellectual standards

to its component parts.
 Analyzing the Logic of a Subject
When we understand the elements of reasoning, we realize that all subjects,
all disciplines, have a fundamental logic defined by the structures of
thought embedded in them.
Therefore, to lay bare a subject’s most fundamental logic, we should
begin with these questions:

What is the main PURPOSE or GOAL of studying this subject? What

are people in this field trying to accomplish?
What kinds of QUESTIONS do they ask? What kinds of problems do
they try to solve?
What sorts of INFORMATION or data do they gather?
What types of INFERENCES or judgments do they typically make?
(Judgments about...)
How do they go about gathering information in ways that are
distinctive to this field?
What are the most basic ideas, CONCEPTS or theories in this field?
What do professionals in this field take for granted or ASSUME?
How should studying this field affect my view of the world?
What VIEWPOINT is fostered in this field?
What IMPLICATIONS follow from studying this discipline? How
are the products of this field used in everyday life?

Analyzing the Logic of Instruction

These questions can be contextualized for any given class day, chapter
in the textbook and dimension of study. For example, on any given day you
might ask one or more of the following questions:
What is our main PURPOSE or GOAL today? What are we trying to
accomplish?
What kinds of QUESTIONS are we asking? What kinds of problems
are we trying to solve? How does this problem relate to everyday life?
What sort of INFORMATION or data do we need? How can we get
that information?
What is the most basic idea, CONCEPT or theory we need to
understand to solve the problem we are most immediately posing?
From what POINT OF VIEW should we look at this problem?
What can we safely ASSUME as we reason through this problem?
Should we call into question any of the INFERENCES that have been
made?
What are the IMPLICATIONS of what we are studying?

The Logic of Science

Be aware: Many people who have studied science in school fail to think
scientifically in their professional and personal lives.

The Logic of History

Be aware: Much human thinking is “historical.” We use our beliefs
(formed in the past) to make thousands of decisions in the present and
plans for the future. Much of this historical thinking is deeply flawed.
The Logic of Sociology
 Be aware: Much of our everyday decision-making is based on poor
“sociological” thinking. For example, we often uncritically conform to
peer groups when we should question them or note their contradictions
and inconsistencies.

The Logic of Economics

Purpose:
To develop theories that explain the distribution of goods and services
within a society, as well as theories that define how goods and services
should be distributed.
Key Questions:
How are goods and services produced, distributed and consumed within any
given society? How should they be? What is the best way to determine what
people should get and how they should be allowed to get it? For example, to
what extent, should people be encouraged to pursue wealth and power
principally for their own benefit? To what extent, on the other hand, should
society try to provide equal access to education, wealth, and power? What
are the strengths and weaknesses of competing economic theories?
Information:
Economists from differing schools of thought disagree on the information
they use in reasoning through economic problems. Those who favor
capitalism, for example, focus on information about supply of products
versus demand, consumer preferences, consumer spending, business
investments, and government support of business. In solving economic
problems, they emphasize information about how to keep aggregate
demand high. Those who favor socialism focus on information that reveals
the impact of the distribution of wealth on the well-being of everyone,
especially the poor and disadvantaged. Their ideal is to distribute wealth so
that resources are made available as equally as possible, taking into account
the crucial problem of how to motivate people to contribute to the well-
being of others as well as themselves. The information that economists use
is ultimately determined by the way they conceptualize ideal economic
systems and the questions implied by the economic theories that guide their
thinking.
Key Concepts:
Economics is the study of how goods, services and resources are/should be
distributed and used within human societies. Leading economic concepts
have evolved, especially through the last 200 years. Some of them are: the
principle of competition, law of supply and demand, utilitarianism,
capitalism, socialism, communism, marxism, exploitation, class conflict
between economic strata (especially between workers and employers),
private property, free markets, self-interest, psychological variables
influencing economic behavior, assumption of scarcity, law of diminishing
returns, principles of marginal utility and productivity, aggregate demand,
labor theory of value, Malthusian population doctrine, and Keynesian
economics.
Assumptions:
By studying the ways and means for distributing goods and services,
economic systems can become more stable and more fair to the people who
vie for resources within those systems. Beyond this shared assumption,
economists’ assumptions differ according to their philosophies, values, and
theories. Those who favor capitalism assume that humans are
fundamentally selfish and that only a system that utilizes the driving force
of human selfishness will be realistic. Socialists, in contrast, assume that
education can be used to shift the emphasis in human activity from self-
aggrandizement to altruism.
Inferences:
Economists make inferences about how best to stabilize and enhance the
distribution, production, and use of goods and services. They make these
inferences in accordance with their economic philosophies, considering
trends and patterns of individual business and government spending,
economic health, and distribution of wealth.
Implications:
The implications that economic theories generate vary from theory to
theory. Which of the theoretical implications are likely to become actual
consequences are a matter of continual debate. The debate focuses on what
actual consequences seem to be accounted for by this or that economic
theory and what consequences (good or bad) result from variables other
than those postulated by a given theory. For example, did the Great
Depression of the 1930s result from a deep flaw in capitalist theory, or did it
result from a failure to practice the theory thoroughly enough?
Point of View:
Economists look at the distribution of goods and services within a society,
along with the distribution of power that distribution entails, as a crucial
object of systematic study.

The Logic of Ecology

Goals of Ecologists: Ecologists seek to understand plants and animals as
they exist in nature, with emphasis on their interrelationships,
interdependence, and interactions with the environment. They work to
understand all the influences that combine to produce and modify an animal
or given plant, and thus to account for its existence and peculiarities within
its habitat.
Questions that Ecologists Ask: How do plants and animals interact? How
do animals interact with each other? How do plants and animals depend on
one another? How do the varying ecosystems function within themselves?
How do they interact with other ecosystems? How are plants and animals
affected by environmental influences? How do animals and plants grow,
develop, die, and replace themselves? How do plants and animals create
balances between each other? What happens when plants and animals
become unbalanced?
Information that Ecologists Use: The primary information used by
ecologists is gained through observing plants and animals themselves, their
interactions, and how they live within their environments. Ecologists note
how animals and plants are born, how they reproduce, how they die, how
they evolve, and how they are affected by environmental changes. They
also use information from other disciplines including chemistry,
meteorology and geology.
Judgments that Ecologists Make: Ecologists make judgments about how
ecosystems naturally function, about how animals and plants within them
function, about why they function as they do. They make judgments about
how ecosystems become out of balance and what can be done to bring them
back into balance. They make judgments about how natural communities
should be grouped and classified.
Concepts that Guide Ecologists’ Thinking: One of the most fundamental
concepts in ecology is ecosystem, defined as a group of living things that
are dependent on one another and living in a particular habitat. Ecologists
study how differing ecosystems function. Another key concept in ecology is
ecological succession, the natural pattern of change occurring within every
ecosystem when natural processes are undisturbed. This pattern includes the
birth, development, death, and then replacement of natural communities.
Ecologists have grouped communities into larger units called biomes,
regions throughout the world classified according to physical features,
including temperature, rainfall and type of vegetation. Another fundamental
concept in ecology is balance of nature, the natural process of birth,
reproduction, eating and being eaten, which keeps animal/plant
communities fairly stable. Other key concepts include imbalances, energy,
nutrients, population growth, diversity, habitat, competition, predation,
parasitism, adaptation, coevolution, succession and climax communities
and conservation.
Key Assumptions that Ecologists Make: Patterns exist within
animal/plant communities; these communities should be studied and
classified; animals and plants often depend on one another and modify one
another; and balances must be maintained within ecosystems.
Implications of Ecology: The study of ecology leads to numerous
implications for life on Earth. By studying balance of nature, for example,
we can see when nature is out of balance, as in the current population
explosion. We can see how pesticides, designed to kill pests on farm crops,
also lead to the harm of mammals and birds, either directly or indirectly
through food webs. We can also learn how over-farming causes erosion and
depletion of soil nutrients.
Point of View of Ecologists: Ecologists look at plants and animals and see
them functioning in relationship with one another within their habitats, and
needing to be in balance for the earth to be healthy and sustainable.

The Logic of Substantive Writing

Purpose: To communicate important concepts, and ideas to a particular
audience.
Question: How can I approach my writing so that I clearly communicate
my ideas to my target audience?
Information: Information about the assumptions, point of view, and
general knowledge of the reader; information about the characteristics of
good writing; information relevant to the thesis of my writing; information
about how to effectively communicate ideas in writing.
Inferences/interpretations: Interpretations of the information we gather;
conclusions we come to about the reader, about the assumptions the reader
may bring to the reading, about the various points of view the readers may
bring to the reading, about the background knowledge of the target reader;
interpretations about the best ways to approach the content to clearly
communicate the key ideas to the reader; interpretations of the information
which form the key ideas of the written piece; key conclusions I am trying
to communicate to the reader.
Concepts: All the key concepts essential to developing my main points; all
the key ideas about how to write well that I use in thinking through my
main points and how to express them.
Assumptions: That the ideas I am communicating can be effectively
communicated; that there are better and worse ways of communicating
these ideas; that if I want to be a good writer I must be committed to writing
and rewriting my work; that the ideas I am communicating are worth
spending the time to communicate well.
Implications: If I commit myself to effective writing, I can become an
effective writer. If I achieve my purpose, I may be able to transform the
thinking of the reader.
Point of View: The point of view of a good writer (in other words looking
at substantive writing as a complex process that one improves at through
discipline and practice); the points of view relevant to the issues in the
written piece.
Footnote
2
Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2002). The Guide for Conscientious Citizens on How to Detect Media Bias
and Propaganda. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
 Purpose
All reasoning has a purpose.
Primary (1) clarity, (2) significance, (3) achievability, (4)
intellectual consistency, (5) justifiability, (6) fairness
standards:
Common (1) unclear, (2) trivial, (3) unrealistic, (4)
problems: contradictory, (5) unjustifiable, (6) unfair
Principle: To reason well, you must clearly understand your purpose, and
your purpose must be reasonable and fair.
Skilled Reasoners Unskilled Critical Reflections
Reasoners
take the time to state their are often unclearHave I made the
purpose clearly. about their central
purpose of my
purpose. reasoning clear?
What exactly am I
trying to achieve?
Have I stated the
purpose in several
ways to clarify it?
distinguish it from related oscillate between What different
purposes. different, purposes do I have in
sometimes mind?
contradictory, How do I see them as
purposes. related?
Am I going off in
somewhat different
directions?
How can I reconcile
these contradictory
purposes?
periodically remind lose track of their In writing this
themselves of their purpose fundamental object historical paper, do I
to determine whether they or goal. seem to be wandering
are straying from it. from my purpose?
How do my third and
fourth paragraphs
relate to my central
goal?
adopt realistic purposes and adopt unrealistic Am I trying to
goals. purposes and set accomplish too much
unrealistic goals. in the paper?
choose significant purposes adopt trivial What is the
and goals. purposes and goals significance of
as if they were pursuing this particular
significant. historical purpose?
Is there a more
significant purpose I
should be focused on?
choose goals and purposes inadvertently Does one part of my
consistent with other goals negate their own paper seem to
and purposes they have purposes. undermine what I am
chosen. do not monitor trying to accomplish in
their thinking for another part?
inconsistent goals.
adjust their thinking do not adjust their Do I stick to the main
regularly to their purpose. thinking regularly issue throughout the
to their purpose. paper?
Am I acting
consistently in pursuit
of my purpose?
choose purposes that are choose purposes Do I have a self-
fair, considering the desires that are self- serving purpose, which
and rights of others equally serving at the causes me to distort the
with their own desires and expense of others’ information to fit that
rights. needs and desires. purpose?
Am I taking into
account the rights and
needs of relevant
 others in pursuing this
purpose?

Question at Issue or Central Problem

All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some
question, solve some problem.
Primary (1) clarity and precision, (2) significance, (3)
intellectual answerability,(4) relevance, (5) depth
standards:
Common (1) unclear and imprecise, (2) insignificant, (3) not
problems: answerable, (4) irrelevant, (5) superficial
Principle: To settle a question, it must be answerable; you must be clear
about it and understand what is needed to adequately answer it.
A deep question requires reasoning through its complexities.
Skilled Unskilled Reasoners Critical Reflections
Reasoners
are clear about are often unclear about the Am I clear about the
the question question they are asking. main question at issue?
they are trying Am I able to state it
to settle. precisely?
can re-express express questions vaguely and Am I able to
a question in a find questions difficult to reformulate my
variety of reformulate for clarity. question in several
ways. ways to recognize the
complexities in it?
can break a are unable to break down the Have I broken down
question into questions they are asking. the main question into
sub-questions. sub-questions to better
think through its
complexities?
What sub-questions are
embedded in the main
question?
routinely confuse questions of different Am I confused about
distinguish types; thus often respond the type of question I
questions of inappropriately to questions and am asking?
different expect the wrong types of For example: Am I
types. answers from others. confusing a conceptual
question with a factual
one?
Am I confusing a
question of preference
with a question
requiring reasoned
judgment?
distinguish confuse trivial with important Am I focusing on
significant questions. superficial questions
from trivial while significant
questions. questions need
addressing?
distinguish confuse irrelevant questions Are the questions I’m
relevant from with relevant ones. raising in this paper
irrelevant relevant to the main
questions. question at this issue?
are sensitive to often ask loaded questions. Am I phrasing the
the question in a loaded
assumptions way?
built into the Am I taking for
questions they granted, from the
ask. outset, the correctness
of my own position?
distinguish try to answer questions they are Am I in a position to
questions they not in a position to answer. answer this question?
can answer What information
from questions would I need before I
they can’t. could answer it?

Information
 All reasoning is based on data, information, evidence, experience,
research.
Primary (1) clear, (2) relevant, (3) important, (4) fairly gathered
intellectual and reported, (5) accurate, (6) adequate, (7) consistently
standards: applied
Common (1) unclear, (2) irrelevant, (3) insignficant, (4) biased, (5)
problems: inaccurate, (6) insufficient, (7) inconsistently applied
Principle: Reasoning can be only as sound as the information upon which
it is based.
Skilled Reasoners Unskilled Reasoners Critical
Reflections
assert a claim only when assert claims without Is my assertion
they have sufficient considering all relevant supported by
evidence to back it up. information. evidence?
Do I have enough
evidence to truly
support my claim?
can articulate and don’t articulate the Have I been
evaluate the information information they are using transparent about
behind their claims. in their reasoning and so do the information I
not subject it to rational am using?
scrutiny. What standards
am I using to
evaluate the
information?
Do I have
evidence to
support my claim
that I haven’t
clearly
articulated?
actively search for gather only that Where is a good
information against (not information that supports place to look for
just for) their own their own point of view. evidence on the
position. opposite side?
 Have I looked
there?
Have I honestly
considered
information that
doesn’t support
my position?
focus on relevant do not carefully distinguish Are my data
information and between relevant relevant to the
disregard what is information and irrelevant claim I’m
irrelevant to the question information. making?
at issue. Have I failed to
consider relevant
information?
draw conclusions only make inferences that go Does my claim go
to the extent that they beyond what the data beyond the
are supported by the support. evidence I’ve
evidence and sound cited?
reasoning. Have I
overgeneralized?
present the evidence distort the data or state it Is my presentation
clearly and fairly. inaccurately. of the pertinent
information clear
and coherent?
Have I distorted
information to
(unfairly) support
my position?
focus primarily on focus on trivial rather than Have I included
important information. important information. all the important
information?
Can I distinguish
primary from
secondary
information?
Am I focused on
the trivial rather
 than significant
information?

Inference and Interpretation

All reasoning contains inferences from which we draw conclusions
and give meaning to data and situations.
Primary (1) clarity, (2) logicality, (3) justifiability, (4)
intellectual profundity, (5) reasonability, (6) consistency
standards:
Common (1) unclear, (2) illogical, (3) unjustified, (4)
problems: superficial, (5) unreasonable, (6) contradictory
Principle: Reasoning can be only as sound as the inferences it makes (or
the conclusions it comes to).
Skilled Unskilled Reasoners Critical Reflections
Reasoners
are clear about the are often unclear about Am I clear about the
inferences they are the inferences they are inferences I am making?
making. making. do not clearly Have I clearly articulated
clearly articulate articulate their my conclusions?
their inferences. inferences.
usually make often make inferences Do my conclusions
inferences that that do not follow from logically follow from the
follow from the the evidence or reasons evidence and reasons
evidence or reasons presented. presented?
presented.
often make often make inferences Are my conclusions
inferences that are that are superficial. superficial, given the
deep rather than problem?
superficial.
often make often make inferences or Are my conclusions
inferences or come come to conclusions that reasonable in context?
to conclusions that are unreasonable. Are these inferences
are reasonable. reasonable given the
 available information?
make inferences or often make inferences or Do my conclusions in the
come to come to conclusions that first part of my analysis
conclusions that are are contradictory. seem to contradict my
consistent with conclusions at the end?
each other.
understand the do not seek to figure out Is my inference based on
assumptions that the assumptions that lead a faulty assumption?
lead to their to their inferences. How would my inference
inferences. change if I were to base it
on a different, more
justifiable assumption?

Assumptions
All reasoning is based on assumptions—beliefs we take for
granted.
Primary intellectual (1) clarity, (2) justifiability, (3)
standards: consistency
Common problems: (1) unclear, (2) unjustified, (3)
contradictory
Principle: Reasoning can be only as sound as the assumptions on which it
is based.
Skilled Reasoners Unskilled Critical Reflections
Reasoners
are clear about the are often Are my assumptions clear to
assumptions they make. unclear about me?
their Why precisely am I assuming
assumptions. in this situation?
Do I clearly understand what
my assumptions are based
upon?
make assumptions that often make Do I make assumptions about
are reasonable and unjustified or the future based on just one
 justifiable, given the unreasonable experience from the past?
situation and evidence. assumptions. Can I really justify what I am
taking for granted?
Are my assumptions
justifiable given the evidence?
make assumptions that make Do the assumptions I made in
are consistent with each assumptions the first part of my paper
other. that are contradict the assumptions I
contradictory. am making now?
constantly seek to figure ignore their What assumptions am I
out their assumptions. assumptions. making in this situation?
Are they justifiable?
Where did I get these
assumptions?
Do I need to rework or
abandon them?

Concepts and Ideas

All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and
ideas.
Primary intellectual (1) clarity, (2) relevance, (3) depth, (4)
standards: accuracy
Common problems: (1) unclear, (2) irrelevant, (3) superficial, (4)
inaccurate
Principle: Reasoning can be only as clear, relevant, realistic and deep as
the concepts that shape it.
Skilled Reasoners Unskilled Critical Reflections
Reasoners
are aware of the are unaware of What is the main ideas I am using
key concepts and the key concepts in my thinking?
ideas they and and ideas they What are the main ideas others
others use. and others use. are using?
are able to explain cannot Am I clear about the implications
the basic accurately of the words I and others use?
implications of the explain basic For example: Does the word
words and phrases implications of cunning have negative
they use. their words and implications that the word clever
phrases. lacks?
are able to are not able to Where did I get my definition of
distinguish special, recognize when this central concept?
nonstandard uses of their use of a For example: Where did I get my
words from word or phrase definition of the concept of...?
standard uses. departs from Have I put my unwarranted
educated usage. conclusions into the definition?
are aware of use concepts in Am I using the concept of “x”
irrelevant concepts ways appropriately? For instance, am I
and ideas and use inappropriate to using the concept of “democracy”
concepts and ideas the subject or appropriately? Or do I mistake it
in ways relevant to issue. for an economic system like
their functions. capitalism?
think deeply about fail to think Am I thinking deeply enough
the concepts they deeply about the about this concept?
use. concepts they For example, am I thinking
use. deeply about the concept of
“cause and effect”?
Do I think deeply about my
concept of history?
Do I see the important of
historical thinking to the
cultivation of human criticality?

Point of View
All reasoning is done from some point of view.
Primary (1) flexibility, (2) fairness, (3) clarity, (4) relevance, (5)
intellectual breadth
standards:
Common (1) restricted, (2) biased, (3) unclear, (4) irrelevant, (5)
 problems: narrow
Principle: To reason well, you must identify the viewpoints
relevant to the issue and enter these viewpoints
empathetically.
Skilled Unskilled Reasoners Critical Reflections
Reasoners
keep in mind that do not credit alternative Have I articulated the
people have reasonable viewpoints. point of view from which
different points of I am approaching this
view, especially on issue?
controversial Have I fully considered
issues. opposing points of view?
consistently cannot see issues from I may have characterized
articulate other points of view my own point of view, but
points of view and significantly different have I considered the
reason from within from their own; cannot most significant aspects
those points of reason with empathy of the problem from the
view to adequately from alien points of point of view of relevant
understand them. view. others?
seek other can sometimes give other Am I presenting X’s point
viewpoints, points of view when the of view in an unfair
especially when issue is not emotionally manner?
the issue is one charged but cannot do so Am I having difficulty
they believe in for issues they feel appreciating X’s
passionately. strongly about. viewpoint because I am
emotional about this
issue?
confine their confuse multilogical with Is the question here
monological monological issues; monological or
reasoning to insist that there is only multilogical?
problems that are one frame of reference How can I tell?
clearly within which a given Am I reasoning as if only
monological.* multilogical question one point of view is
must be decided. relevant to this issue
when in reality other
viewpoints are relevant?
 recognize when are unaware of their own Is my reasoning
they are most prejudices. prejudiced or biased?
likely to be Have I prejudged the
prejudiced. issue? If so how and
why?
approach problems reason from within Is my approach to this
and issues with a inappropriately narrow question too narrow?
richness of vision or superficial Am I considering other
and an perspectives and world viewpoints so I can
appropriately views. adequately address the
broad world view. problem?
Do I think broadly
enough about important
issues?
* Monological problems are ones for which there are definite correct and incorrect answers and
definite procedures for getting those answers. In multilogical problems, there are competing schools
of thought to be considered.

Implications and Consequences

All reasoning leads somewhere. It has implications and, when acted
upon, has consequences.
Primary intellectual (1) significance, (2) logicality, (3) clarity, (4)
standards: completeness
Common problems: (1) unimportant, (2) unrealistic, (3) unclear,
(4) incomplete
Principle: To reason well through an issue, you must think through the
implications that follow from your reasoning. You must think
through the consequences likely to follow from the decisions
you make (before you make them).
Skilled Unskilled Critical Reflections
Reasoners Reasoners
trace out the trace out few or none Did I spell out all the significant
significant of the implications consequences of the action I am
 potential and consequences of advocating?
implications holding a position or If I were to take this course of
and making a decision. action, what other consequences
consequences might follow that I haven’t
of their considered?
reasoning.
clearly and are unclear and Have I delineated clearly and
precisely imprecise in the precisely the consequences likely
articulate the possible to follow from my chosen action?
implications consequences they
and possible articulate.
consequences.
search for trace out only the I may have done a good job of
potentially consequences they spelling out some positive
negative as had in mind at the implications of the decision I am
well as beginning, either about to make, but what are some
potentially positive or negative, of the possible negative
positive but usually not both. implications or consequences?
consequences.
anticipate the are surprised when If I make this decision, what are
likelihood of their decisions have some possible unexpected
unexpected unexpected implications?
negative and consequences. What are some variables out of
positive my control that might lead to
implications. negative consequences?

Distinguishing Between Inferences and

Assumptions
It is important to distinguish between an inference and an assumption.
These two parts of thinking are easily confused with one another. An
inference is a step of the mind, by which one concludes that something is
true based on something else being true, or appearing true. Inferences can
be justified or unjustified. All inferences are based on assumptions, beliefs
we take for granted. Justifiable assumptions lead to reasonable inferences.
Assumptions often operate at the unconscious level. When we uncover our
assumptions, we often find the roots of prejudice, stereotyping, bias, and
other forms of irrational thinking.

Consider these examples:

Situation: Your nation is in a conflict with another nation.
Inference: Your nation is justified in this conflict.
Assumption: Your nation is always justified in its conflicts with other
nations.

Situation: I got an “A” in my composition class.

Inference: That proves I am a good writer.
Assumption: All students who get an “A” in composition class are good
writers.

Be aware: Inferences follow from assumptions. If our assumptions are

faulty, our inferences will be as well.
Consider the following method for identifying inferences and assumptions
in one’s thinking. We first determine what one might infer (either rationally
or irrationally) in a situation. We then figure out the generalization that led
to that inference. This is the assumption.
 Information Possible Assumption Leading to the
(situation) Inference One Inference
Might Make
1. You have 1. It is the 1. Whenever students have
difficulty teacher's difficulty learning, it is
learning in fault theteacher's fault.
class.
2. You notice a 2. The man must 2. All people who read books by
man reading be a Karl Marx are communists.
a book by communist.
Karl Marx.
3. You see a 3. The mother 3. Whenever a child is crying next
child crying has refused to her mother in the
next to her to get the grocerystore, the mother has
mother in the child refusedto give the child
grocery store. something something shewants.
she wants.
4. You see a man 4. The man must 4. All men sitting on curbs with
sitting on a be a bum. paper bags in their hands
curb with a arebums.
paper bag in
his hand.

Now think up your own situations. Formulate inferences that might follow
from those situations. Then figure out the assumption that led to each
inference.
Situation Possible Inference One Assumption Leading to the
Might Make Inference
1.
2.
3.
4.
 Conclusion
Clearly there are many varieties of analysis specific to particular disciplines
and technical practices. These forms of analysis often require technical
training of a specialized nature. For example, one cannot do qualitative
analysis in chemistry without instruction in chemistry.
What we have provided in this guide, however, is the common
denominator between all forms of analysis because all forms require
thoughtful application and all thought presupposes the elements of thought.
For example, one cannot think analytically FOR NO PURPOSE. Or think
analytically, with NO QUESTION in mind. This much should be self-
evident. Unfortunately, it is not self-evident to most students.
Those who would develop analytic minds need guidance, instruction,
and practice in monitoring their thinking using intellectual tools applicable
to every discipline. They need to learn to question purposes, goals, problem
definitions, information, concepts, etc… It is these interdisciplinary analytic
tools that enable those skilled in them to understand and assess their
analytic thinking, whether in a highly technical area or in an everyday
personal application. It is these analytic tools that enable one to get at the
most fundamental logic of any discipline, subject, problem, or issue. They
provide the means for transfer of learning between and among subjects and
disciplines. They enable motivated persons to gain an overview of their
learning in any and every situation analyzed, to think their way into and out
of various intellectual domains.
Of course, there are no magic pills that will create analytic questioning
minds. As in any important area of skills and abilities, all learners need to
log hundreds of hours to gain command and deep insight. There are no
shortcuts. We hope that this thinker’s guide will serve as a launching pad
toward analytic proficiency. It is admittedly a first step only, but it is an
essential, and we believe a powerful, first step. The question is, “Do you
have the will and the insight to commit yourself to the long-term practice
required?”
 The Thinker’s Guide Library
Rowman & Littlefield is the proud distributor of the Thinker’s Guide
Library developed by the Foundation for Critical Thinking. Please visit
www.rowman.com or call 1-800-462-640 for more information. Bulk order
discounts available.

For Everyone
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools, Eighth
Edition
Paperback 9781538134948
eBook 9781538134955

The Thinker’s Guide to Ethical Reasoning

Paperback 9780944583173
eBook 9781538133781

The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies

Paperback 9780944583272
eBook 9781538133774
The Art of Asking Essential Questions
Paperback 9780944583166
eBook 9781538133804

The Thinker’s Guide for Conscientious Citizens on How to Detect

Media Bias and Propaganda in National and World News, Fourth
Edition
Paperback 9780944583203
eBook 9781538133897

The Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reasoning

Paperback 9780944583333
eBook 9781538133798

The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking

Paperback 9780944583197
eBook 9781538133750

The Thinker’s Guide to Socratic Questioning

Paperback 9780944583319
eBook 9781538133842

The Nature and Functions of Critical & Creative Thinking

Paperback 9780944583265
eBook 9781538133958

Thinker’s Guide to the Human Mind

Paperback 9780944583586
eBook 9781538133880

The Thinker’s Guide to Scientific Thinking

Paperback 9780985754426
eBook 9781538133811

The Thinker’s Guide to Clinical Reasoning

Paperback 9780944583425
eBook 9781538133873
For Students
The Aspiring Thinker’s Guide to Critical Thinking
Paperback 9780944583418
eBook 9781538133767

The Thinker’s Guide for Students on How to Study & Learn a

Discipline, Second Edition
Paperback 9781632340009
eBook 9781538133835

The International Critical Thinking Reading and Writing Test, Second

Edition
Paperback 9780944583326
eBook 9781538133965

The Student Guide to Historical Thinking

Paperback 9780944583463
eBook 9781538133941

How to Read a Paragraph, second edition

Paperback 9780944583494
eBook 9781538133828

How to Write a Paragraph

Paperback 9780944583227
eBook 9781538133866

For Educators
The Miniature Guide to Practical Ways for Promoting Active and
Cooperative Learning, Third Edition
Paperback 9780944583135
eBook 9781538133903

A Critical Thinker’s Guide to Educational Fads

Paperback 9780944583340
eBook 9781538133910
A Guide for Educators to Critical Thinking Competency Standards
Paperback 9780944583302
eBook 9781538133934

How to Improve Student Learning: 30 Practical Ideas

Paperback 9780944583555
eBook 9781538133859

The Thinker’s Guide to Intellectual Standards

Paperback 9780944583395
eBook 9781538133927