critical thinking indicator words

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.


Therefore	Since
So	Because
Thus	For
Hence	Is implied by
Consequently	For the reason that
Implies that
It follows that

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1.3 Non-Arguments

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

Explanations
Mere asssertions
Conditional statements
Loosely connected statements

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

Abraham Lincoln died because he was shot.

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

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

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

Finally, consider this passage:

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

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

2.2 Evaluating Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A deductively valid argument with all true premises.

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

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

2.3 Counterexamples

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

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

Here’s another one:

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

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

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

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

( Cleese and Chapman 1980 ) . ↩︎

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

To analyze an argument is to do an “active listening” step. The point is to make sure you understand what the argument actually is before turning to the evaluative question: is it a good argument?

Standard argument form is a graphical method for displaying arguments, making plain the purpose of a statement by its placement. Premises are separated, numbered, and placed above a line, and the conclusion is placed below the line. The act of inference is represented with three dots (or the word “so”) placed next to the conclusion.

_______________________________________________

Some cases are straightforward. Here is a passage, followed by the analysis into standard form.

I have a dental cleaning scheduled for June fourth. Wow, since today is the third, I guess that means the appointment is for tomorrow.

Issue: Is my dental cleaning tomorrow?

1) My dental cleaning is scheduled for the fourth.

2) Today is the third.

SO: my dental cleaning is tomorrow.

The explicit indicator word is “since.” The premise follows that indicator. The conclusion is in the clause following the comma.

If we straightened the sentence, it would read:

The appointment is for tomorrow since today is the third.

This follows a classic pattern:

(Conclusion) since (premise.)

Note: in the analysis, the words “I guess” were left out. These words signal a thinking process is happening, and can also signal how much conviction the thinker has in their own thinking. “I guess” signals a lack of confidence. If the passage had said, “that means my appointment must be tomorrow,” a higher degree of confidence would be signaled. In general, these confidence-signaling words and phrases are not themselves part of the argument.

Here is another example:

If we want to increase defense spending, we would have to either cut domestic programs or raise taxes. You know when conservatives are in control, they aren’t going to raise taxes. So, the increase in defense spending means a cut to domestic programs, for sure.

Issue: Will increased defense spending mean a cut to domestic programs?

1) To increase defense spending requires cutting domestic spending or increasing taxes.

2) Conservatives are in control.

3) Taxes won’t be increased when conservatives are in control.

SO: an increase in defense spending means a cut to domestic programs.

This analysis is more complicated, but the first step is spotting the indicator word “so.” This gives us a clue that the last sentence is the conclusion. We then articulate the issue by putting the conclusion in the form of a question. The statements preceding the conclusion indicator are premises.

We could treat this passage as listing only two premises since the premises are presented in two separate sentences. But for purposes of evaluation, it is better to list more instead of fewer premises. It allows a greater chance for finding common ground among people coming to an issue from different points of view.

Note: the phrase “for sure” in the original passage signals the thinker has a high degree of confidence in their thinking. It was left out when putting the argument into standard form.

Standard Form Examples

Most people don’t like to be lied to. So, if you lie to someone, and they find out, they are probably not going to like it.

Issue: How do people react to be being lied to?

1) Most people don’t like to be lied to

SO: if you lie to someone, they are not going to like it.

I am working full time and going to school full time, so you know I don’t get enough sleep!

Issue: Do I get enough sleep?

1) I am working full time

2) I am going to school full time

SO: I don’t get enough sleep.

Critical Thinking in Academic Research Copyright © 2022 by Cindy Gruwell and Robin Ewing is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Autocomplete

What is a Good Argument?

Welcome and Overview (2:10)
PDF Ebook - Basic Concepts in Logic and Argumentation
Quiz Question Discussion
1. What is an Argument? (4:17)
Quiz: What is an Argument?
2. What is a Claim? (4:25)
Quiz: What is a Claim?
3. What is a Good Argument (I)? (3:58)
Quiz: What is a Good Argument (I)?
4. Identifying Premises and Conclusions (5:34)
Quiz: Identifying Premises and Conclusions
Discuss the Quiz Questions in This Section
1. The Truth Condition (6:29)
Quiz: The Truth Condition
2. The Logic Condition (5:49)
Quiz: The Logic Condition
3. Valid versus Invalid Arguments (5:29)
Quiz: Valid vs Invalid Arguments
4. Strong versus Weak Arguments (6:38)
Quiz: Strong vs Weak Arguments
5. What is a Good Argument (II)? (1:57)
Quiz: What is a Good Argument (II)?
1. Deductive Arguments and Valid Reasoning (2:18)
Quiz: Deductive Arguments and Valid Reasoning
2. Inductive Arguments and Strong Reasoning (1:41)
Quiz: Inductive Arguments and Strong Reasoning
3. Inductive Arguments and Scientific Reasoning (9:41)
Quiz: Inductive Arguments and Scientific Reasoning
Congratulations!
What's Next?

4. Identifying Premises and Conclusions

4. identifying premises and conclusions.

Argument analysis would be a lot easier if people gave their arguments in standard form, with the premises and conclusions flagged in an obvious way.

But people don’t usually talk this way, or write this way. Sometimes the conclusion of an argument is obvious, but sometimes it’s not. Sometimes the conclusion is buried or implicit and we have to reconstruct the argument based on what’s given, and it’s not always obvious how to do this.

In this lecture we’re going to look at some principles that will help us identify premises and conclusions and put natural language arguments in standard form. This is a very important critical thinking skill.

Here’s an argument:

“Abortion is wrong because all human life is sacred.”

Question: which is the conclusion?

“Abortion is wrong” ?

“All human life is sacred” ?

For most of us the answer is clear. “ Abortion is wrong” is the conclusion , and “ All human life is sacred” is the premise .

How did we know this? Well, two things are going on.

First, we’re consciously, intentionally, reading for the argument , and when we do this we’re asking ourselves, “what claim are we being asked to believe or accept, and what other claims are being offered as reasons to accept that claim?”.

Second, we recognize the logical significance of the word “because” . “Because” is what we call an indicator word , a word that indicates the logical relationship of claims that come before it or after it. In this case it indicates that the claim following it is being offered as a reason to accept the claim before it.

So, rewriting this argument in standard form, it looks like this ...

1. All human life is sacred. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

At this point we could start talking about whether this is a good argument or not, but that’s not really our concern right now. Right now we’re more concerned with identifying premises and conclusions and getting the logical structure of an argument right.

Here are some key words or phrases that indicate a CONCLUSION :

therefore, so, hence, thus, it follows that, as a result, consequently ,

and of course there are others.

This argument gives an example using “so”:

It’s flu season and you work with kids, SO you should get a flu shot.

Now, keywords like these make it much easier to identify conclusions, but not all arguments have keywords that flag the conclusion. Some arguments have no indicator words of any kind. In these cases you have to rely on your ability to analyze context and read for the argument.

Here’s a more complex argument that illustrates this point:

"We must reduce the amount of money we spend on space exploration. Right now, the enemy is launching a massive military buildup, and we need the additional money to purchase military equipment to match the anticipated increase in the enemy’s strength."

Notice that there are no indicator words that might help us flag the conclusion.

So, which claim is the conclusion of this argument?

“We must reduce the amount of money we spend on space exploration.” ?

“The enemy is launching a massive military buildup” ?

Or is it ...

“We need the additional money to purchase military equipment to match the anticipated increase in the enemy’s strength” ?

The answer is ...

“We must reduce the amount of money we spend on space exploration.”

Most people can see this just by looking at the argument for a few seconds, but from experience I know that some people have a harder time seeing logical relationships like this.

If it’s not obvious, the way to work the problem is this: for each claim asserted in the argument you have to ask yourself,

“Is this the main point that the arguer is trying to convey?”

“Is this a claim that is being offered as a reason to believe another claim?”

If it’s being offered as a reason to believe another claim, then it’s functioning as a premise . If it’s expressing the main point of the argument, what the argument is trying to persuade you to accept, then it’s the conclusion.

There are words and phrases that indicate premises too. Here are a few:

since, if, because, from which it follows, for these reasons,

And here’s an example that uses “since”:

"John will probably receive the next promotion SINCE he’s been here the longest."

“Since” is used to indicate that John’s being here the longest is a reason for thinking that he will probably receive the next promotion.

So, let’s summarize:

Arguments in natural language aren’t usually presented in standard form, so we need to know how to extract the logical structure from the language that’s given.
To do this, we look at each of the claims in the argument and we ask ourselves, is this the main point that the arguer is trying to convey, or is this being offered as a reason to accept some other claim?
The claim that expresses the main point is the conclusion.
The claims that are functioning as reasons to accept the main point are the premises.
And finally, premises and conclusions are often flagged by the presence of indicator words. Paying attention to indicator words can really help to simplify the task of reconstructing an argument.

» » »

Diagramming Arguments, Premise and Conclusion Indicators, with Many Examples

Abstract: Analyzing the structure of arguments is clarified by representing the logical relations of premises and conclusion in diagram form. Many ordinary language argument examples are explained and diagrammed.

“Argument” Defined

How to Identify Arguments

How to Analyze Simple Arguments

Premise Indicators
Conclusion Indicators
Equal Status Indicators

How to Analyze Complex Arguments

Links to Diagramming Exercises
Tutorials for Diagramming

Formal arguments are evaluated by their logical structure; informal arguments are studied and evaluated as parts of ordinary language and interpersonal discourse.

Statement or Proposition:

How to identify the presence of an argument.

[1] I conclude the dinosaurs probably had to cope with cancer. These are my reasons : [2] a beautiful lower leg bone was found in Alberta, [3] the end of the fibula was grossly malformed, and [4] this appearance closely matches osteosarcoma in humans.

Since [1] the solution turns litmus paper red, [2] I conclude it is acidic, inasmuch as [3] acidic substances react with litmus to form a red color.

Ask yourself “What is the author trying to prove in this passage?” In order to determine whether or not an argument is present in a passage, it sometimes helps to pose this question. If an answer is directly forthcoming, then the passage is most likely an argument. Despite that, the presence of an argument cannot be always known with certainty; often the purpose of the passage can only be contextually surmised. Establishing the intention of a speaker or writer is sometimes the only determining factor of whether or not an argument is present. A charitable , and insofar as possible, an impartial conventional interpretation of the context, content, and purpose of the passage should be sought.

“[1] The types of sentences you use are quite varied. [2] I've noticed that your recent essays are quite sophisticated. [3] You have been learning much more about sentence structure.”

“ Because [1] of our preoccupation with the present moment and the latest discovery, [2] we do not read the great books of the past. Because [3a] we do not do this sort of reading, and [3b] do not think it is important, [4] we do not bother about trying to learn to read difficult books. As a result , [5] we do not learn to read well at all.” [1]

Statement [1] provides evidence for [2].

Next, [2] together with [3] ([3a] and [3b] being combined here as one compound statement for simplification) gives evidence for [4].

Finally, as a result of [4], statement [5] concludes with some degree of probability.

The number of arguments in a passage is conventionally established by the number of conclusions in that passage.

[1] John didn't get much sleep last night. [2] He has dark circles under his eyes. [3] He looks tired.

[1] Studies from rats indicate that neuropeptide Y in the brain causes carbohydrate craving, and [2] galanin causes fat craving. Hence , [3] I conclude that food cravings are tied to brain chemicals [4] because neuropeptide Y and galanin are brain chemicals.

The structure of the argument can be inferred by attending to the premise and conclusion indicators even though the content of the argument might not be fully understood.

[1] The piano teacher should consider an additional study of the pipe organ. [2] As an organist. the teacher would have added income at times when she is not teaching; consequently , and for this reason [3] she would receive added publicity and prestige. Therefore , [4] she would be likely to attract additional students and additional income.

Working with Premise Indicators:

for since as because [* when the term means “for the reason that” but not when it means “from the cause of”] in as much as follows from after all in light of the fact assuming seeing that granted that; given that in view of as shown by; as indicated by deduced from inferred from; concluded from due to the fact that for the reason [* often mistaken for a conclusion indicator ]

[2a] Reading the point of intersection of a graph depends on the accuracy with which the lines are drawn. [2b] Reading the point of intersection also depends upon the ability to interpret the coordinate of the point. [1]Thus, the graphical method for solving a system of equations is an approximation.

“[3] [the mind must] obtain a little strength by a slight exertion of its thinking powers.”

Working with Conclusion Indicators:

thus therefore consequently hence so it follows that proves that; demonstrates that; shows that indicates that accordingly [* an indicator often missed ] implies that; entails that; follows that this means we may infer; it can be inferred that suggests that results in in conclusion for this reason; for that reason [* often mistaken for premise indicators (a conclusion follows these phrases; a premise precedes these phrases .)]

“[3a] So it may well be that cancer is induced not by the original substances but [3b] [it may well be that cancer is induced] by the products of their metabolism once inside the organism.”

Working with Equal Status Indicators:

or [ the inclusive “or,” i.e. “ either or or both ”] and as [* when it connects similar clauses; not when it connects a result with a cause ] in addition although despite; in spite of besides though but yet however moreover nevertheless not only … but also ( and also the semicolon “;”)

If one of the clauses has already been identified as a premise or a conclusion of an argument, then its coordinating clause is probably the same type of statement. Check the following examples.

Comment : Notice that statements [2] and [3] work together as a reason, so both together provide evidence for [1].

“ … [3] it depends on the indices of refraction of the lens material and [4] [it depends on] the surrounding medium.”

For [1] and [2], so [3].

[1] If students were environmentally aware, they would object to the endangering of any species of animal. [2] The well-known Greenwood white squirrel has become endangered [3] as it has disappeared from the Lander campus [4] because the building of the library destroyed its native habitat. [5] No Lander students objected. [6] Thus , Lander students are not environmentally aware.

as because thus

Statement [6] is the final conclusion since it has the conclusion indicator “thus” and the import of the paragraph indicates that this statement is the main point of the argument. (It is also the last sentence in the paragraph.)

[1] If students were environmentally A ware, [ then ] they would O bject to the endangering of any species of animal. [5] No student O bjected [to the endangering of the Greenwood white squirrel].

[1] If A then O [5] Not O

“[6] Thus, Lander students are not environmentally A ware,”

[1] If A then O [5] Not O [6] Not A

“The explanation as to why productivity has slumped since 2004 is a simple one. That year coincided with the creation of Facebook ” [11]

“In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the ship's prow is ‘gilded and shaped like the head of a dragon with wide open mouth’ so when, a moment later, the children stare at the picture ‘with open mouths’, they are being remade in its image … The painted ocean to which Joan is drawn is ‘like a mighty animal’, a ‘wicked virile thing’. The implication in both cases is that art is not safe, and that this is why it's needed.” [emphasis mine] [12]

“He asked: ‘Who are the Âdityas?’ Yâ gñ avalkys replied: ‘The twelve months of the year, and they are Âdityas, because they move along (yanti) taking up everything [ i.e. , taking up the lives of persons, and the fruits of their work] (âdadânâ h ). Because they move along, taking up everything, therefore they are called Âdityas.’”[emphasis mine] [13]

Circular Argument:

Links to diagramming online quizzes with suggested solutions, notes: diagramming arguments.

1. Mortimer J. Adler, How to Read a Book (New York: Simon and Schuster: 1940), 89. ↩

2. Some English textbooks describe argumentative paragraph structure as deductive (proceeding from general to specific statements or inductive (proceeding from specific to general statements). For example, educator and rhetorician Fred Newton Scott writes:

“There are two orders of progress in thought, one proceeding from the statement of a general principle to particular applications of the principle (deductive reasoning), the other proceeding from the statement of particular facts to a general conclusion from those facts (inductive reasoning). In deductive reasoning, the general principle (stated usually at the beginning) is applied in the particulars; in inductive reasoning the general principle (stated usually at the end) if inferred from the particulars, as a conclusion. In a deductive paragraph, as would be expected, the sentences applying the principle to the particular case in hand, usually follow the topic-statement, which announces the principle. In an inductive paragraph the sentences stating the particular facts usually precede the topic-statement, which gives the general conclusion.” [emphases deleted]

Fred Newton Scott, Paragraph-Writing (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1909), 62-63. Since this distinction between induction and deduction proves faulty for many arguments, deductive arguments are now described as those that provide total support for their conclusion ( i.e. ,a they logically entail the conclusion); whereas, an inductive argument give partial support for their conclusion ( i.e. , they provide only some evidence for the conclusion.) ↩

3. Most paragraphs have a three-part structure: introduction (often a topic sentence), body (often supporting sentences), and conclusion (often a summary statement). In argumentative writing, the conclusion of an argument is often the topic sentence or main idea of a paragraph. Consequently, the first sentence or last sentence of many argumentative paragraphs contain the conclusion. ↩

4. René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature (New York: Harcourt, Brace: 1956), 127. ↩

5. Mary Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792 London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1891), 273. ↩

6. Irvin D. Yalom, The Gift of Therapy (New York: Harper Perennial, 2009), 133. ↩

7. Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetskii, Unraveling DNA trans. Lev Liapin (New York: VCH Publishers, 1993), 175. ↩

8. Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind (London: 1921 George Allen & Unwin, 1961), 40. ↩

9. Wollstonecraft, Vindication , 175. ↩

10. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations , trans George Long (New York: Sterling: 2006), 69. ↩

11. Nikko Schaff, “Letters: Let the Inventors Speak,” The Economist 460 no. 8820 (January 26, 2013), 16. ↩

12. Matthew Bevis, “What Most I Love I Bite,” in the “Review of The Collected Poems and Drawings of Stevie Smith ,” London Review of Books 38 No. 15 (28 July 2016), 19. ↩

13. B ri hadâra n yaka-Upanishad in The Upanishads , Pt. II, trans. F. Max Müller in The Sacred Books of the East , Vol. XV, ed. F. Max Müller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1900), 141. ↩

Readings: Diagramming Arguments

Carnegie Mellon University, iLogos: Argument Diagram Software and User Guide Free software cross-platform. Also, a list with links to other argument diagramming tools.

Martin Davies, Ashley Barnett, and Tim van Gelder, “ Using Computer-Aided Argument Mapping to Teach Reasoning, ” in Studies in Critical Thinking , ed. J. Anthony Blair (Windsor, ON: Open Monograph Press, 2019), 131-176. Chapter outlining how to use argument mapping software in logic classes. doi: 10.22329/wsia.08.2019

Jean Goodwin, “ Wigmore's Chart Method ,” Informal Logic 20 no. 3 (January, 2000), 223-243. doi: 10.22329/il.v20i3.2278 Tree diagram method for complex argument representation and inference strength assessment for legal analysis.

Mara Harrell, Creating Argument Diagrams , Carnegie Mellon University. Tutorial on identification of indicators, rewriting statements, providing missing premises, and reconstruction of arguments. (28 pp.)

Dale Jacquette, “ Enhancing the Diagramming Method in Logic ,” Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal 1 no. 2 (February, 2011), 327-360. Also here . An extension of the Beardsley diagramming method for disjunctive and conditional inferences as well as other logical structures.

Michael Malone, “On Discounts and Argument Identification,” Teaching Philosophy 33 no. 1 (March, 2010), 1-15. doi: 10.5840/teachphil20103311 Discount indicators such as “but”, “however”, and “although” are distinguished from argument indicators, but help in argument identification.

Jacques Moeschler, “Argumentation and Connectives,” in Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society , eds. Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey (Cham: Springer, 2016), 653-676.

John Lawrence and Chris Reed, “ Argument Mining: A Survey ,” Computational Linguistics 45 no. 4 (September, 2019), 765-818. doi: 10.1162/coli_a_00364 Review of recent advances and future challenges for extraction of reasoning in natural language.

Frans H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Argumentative Indicators in Discourse (Dordercht: Springer, 2007). Sophisticated study of indicators for arguments, dialectical exchanges, and critical discussion. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5

Wikipedia contributors, “ Argument Map , Wikipedia . History, applications, standards, and references for argument maps used in informal logic.

(Free) Online Tutorials with Diagramming

Carnegie Mellon University, Argument Diagramming v1.5 (Open + Free) . Free online course on argument diagramming using built-in iLogos argument mapping software by Carnegie Mellon's Open Learning Initiative. (With or without registration and two weeks for completion).

Harvard University, Thinker/Analytix: How We Argue . Free online course on critical thinking with argument mapping with Mindmup free diagramming software, videos, and practice exercises. (Requires registration and 3-5 hrs. to complete).

Joe Lau, “ Argument Mapping ” Module A10 on the Critical Thinking Web at the University of Hong Kong. (No registration and an hour to complete).

Send corrections or suggestions to philhelp[at]philosophy.lander.edu Read the disclaimer concerning this page. 1997-2024 Licensed under the Copyleft GFDL license.

The GNU Public License assures users the freedom to use, copy, redistribute, and make modifications only if they allow these same terms, with or without changes, for their copies. Works for sale must link to a free copy.



			Critical Thinking

Following are the main learning objectives from the chapter.

pgs. 52-56)
arguments are those which claim to

arguments attempt to

pgs. 56-62)
the argument to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of the conclusion.

;

from their premises;

from a ;

or makes clear an arguer's intention to offer a logically conclusive argument;

that is characteristically deductive;

that can help one to distinguish whether an argument is either deductive or inductive;

in those cases where it is difficult to discern whether an argument is intended to be deductive or inductive;

pgs. 62-67)
from those which are not. Students should be able to recognize . . .

pgs. 67-71)
.

pgs. 74-78)
. To this end, students should . . .

or .

Further, they should . . .

follow necessarily from the premises is . To this end, students should . . .

and an . Students should . . .

pgs. 78-83)
. To this end, you should . . .

is one in which the conclusion follows probably from the premises;

is an argument in which the conclusion does follow probably from the premises;

Students should . . .

;

and an . Students should understand that . . .

pgs. 88-93)
to determine whether an argument is deductively valid. When testing for validity, students should . . .

to see whether the premises are actually true and the conclusion is false. If so, then the argument is invalid.

of a possible scenario in which the premises would be true and the conclusion false.

Any use is subject to the and .

is one of the many fine businesses of .

PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic

Course introduction.

Time: 40 hours
College Credit Recommended ($25 Proctor Fee) -->
Free Certificate

The course touches upon a wide range of reasoning skills, from verbal argument analysis to formal logic, visual and statistical reasoning, scientific methodology, and creative thinking. Mastering these skills will help you become a more perceptive reader and listener, a more persuasive writer and presenter, and a more effective researcher and scientist.

The first unit introduces the terrain of critical thinking and covers the basics of meaning analysis, while the second unit provides a primer for analyzing arguments. All of the material in these first units will be built upon in subsequent units, which cover informal and formal logic, Venn diagrams, scientific reasoning, and strategic and creative thinking.

Course Syllabus

First, read the course syllabus. Then, enroll in the course by clicking "Enroll me". Click Unit 1 to read its introduction and learning outcomes. You will then see the learning materials and instructions on how to use them.

Unit 1: Introduction and Meaning Analysis

Critical thinking is a broad classification for a diverse array of reasoning techniques. In general, critical thinking works by breaking arguments and claims down to their basic underlying structure so we can see them clearly and determine whether they are rational. The idea is to help us do a better job of understanding and evaluating what we read, what we hear, and what we write and say.

In this unit, we will define the broad contours of critical thinking and learn why it is a valuable and useful object of study. We will also introduce the fundamentals of meaning analysis: the difference between literal meaning and implication, the principles of definition, how to identify when a disagreement is merely verbal, the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, and problems with the imprecision of ordinary language.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 5 hours.

Unit 2: Argument Analysis

Arguments are the fundamental components of all rational discourse: nearly everything we read and write, like scientific reports, newspaper columns, and personal letters, as well as most of our verbal conversations, contain arguments. Picking the arguments out from the rest of our often convoluted discourse can be difficult. Once we have identified an argument, we still need to determine whether or not it is sound. Luckily, arguments obey a set of formal rules that we can use to determine whether they are good or bad.

In this unit, you will learn how to identify arguments, what makes an argument sound as opposed to unsound or merely valid, the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, and how to map arguments to reveal their structure.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 7 hours.

Unit 3: Basic Sentential Logic

This unit introduces a topic that many students find intimidating: formal logic. Although it sounds difficult and complicated, formal (or symbolic) logic is actually a fairly straightforward way of revealing the structure of reasoning. By translating arguments into symbols, you can more readily see what is right and wrong with them and learn how to formulate better arguments. Advanced courses in formal logic focus on using rules of inference to construct elaborate proofs. Using these techniques, you can solve many complicated problems simply by manipulating symbols on the page. In this course, however, you will only be looking at the most basic properties of a system of logic. In this unit, you will learn how to turn phrases in ordinary language into well-formed formulas, draw truth tables for formulas, and evaluate arguments using those truth tables.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 13 hours.

Unit 4: Venn Diagrams

In addition to using predicate logic, the limitations of sentential logic can also be overcome by using Venn diagrams to illustrate statements and arguments. Statements that include general words like "some" or "few" as well as absolute words like "every" and "all" – so-called categorical statements – lend themselves to being represented on paper as circles that may or may not overlap.

Venn diagrams are especially helpful when dealing with logical arguments called syllogisms. Syllogisms are a special type of three-step argument with two premises and a conclusion, which involve quantifying terms. In this unit, you will learn the basic principles of Venn diagrams, how to use them to represent statements, and how to use them to evaluate arguments.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 6 hours.

Unit 5: Fallacies

Now that you have studied the necessary structure of a good argument and can represent its structure visually, you might think it would be simple to pick out bad arguments. However, identifying bad arguments can be very tricky in practice. Very often, what at first appears to be ironclad reasoning turns out to contain one or more subtle errors.

Fortunately, there are many easily identifiable fallacies (mistakes of reasoning) that you can learn to recognize by their structure or content. In this unit, you will learn about the nature of fallacies, look at a couple of different ways of classifying them, and spend some time dealing with the most common fallacies in detail.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 3 hours.

Unit 6: Scientific Reasoning

Unlike the syllogistic arguments you explored in the last unit, which are a form of deductive argument, scientific reasoning is empirical. This means that it depends on observation and evidence, not logical principles. Although some principles of deductive reasoning do apply in science, such as the principle of contradiction, scientific arguments are often inductive. For this reason, science often deals with confirmation and disconfirmation.

Nonetheless, there are general guidelines about what constitutes good scientific reasoning, and scientists are trained to be critical of their inferences and those of others in the scientific community. In this unit, you will investigate some standard methods of scientific reasoning, some principles of confirmation and disconfirmation, and some techniques for identifying and reasoning about causation.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 4 hours.

Unit 7: Strategic Reasoning and Creativity

While most of this course has focused on the types of reasoning necessary to critique and evaluate existing knowledge or to extend our knowledge following correct procedures and rules, an enormous branch of our reasoning practice runs in the opposite direction. Strategic reasoning, problem-solving, and creative thinking all rely on an ineffable component of novelty supplied by the thinker.

Despite their seemingly mystical nature, problem-solving and creative thinking are best approached by following tried and tested procedures that prompt our cognitive faculties to produce new ideas and solutions by extending our existing knowledge. In this unit, you will investigate problem-solving techniques, representing complex problems visually, making decisions in risky and uncertain scenarios, and creative thinking in general.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 2 hours.

Study Guide

This study guide will help you get ready for the final exam. It discusses the key topics in each unit, walks through the learning outcomes, and lists important vocabulary terms. It is not meant to replace the course materials!

Course Feedback Survey

Please take a few minutes to give us feedback about this course. We appreciate your feedback, whether you completed the whole course or even just a few resources. Your feedback will help us make our courses better, and we use your feedback each time we make updates to our courses.

If you come across any urgent problems, email [email protected].

Certificate Final Exam

Take this exam if you want to earn a free Course Completion Certificate.

To receive a free Course Completion Certificate, you will need to earn a grade of 70% or higher on this final exam. Your grade for the exam will be calculated as soon as you complete it. If you do not pass the exam on your first try, you can take it again as many times as you want, with a 7-day waiting period between each attempt.

Once you pass this final exam, you will be awarded a free Course Completion Certificate .

Saylor Direct Credit

Take this exam if you want to earn college credit for this course . This course is eligible for college credit through Saylor Academy's Saylor Direct Credit Program .

The Saylor Direct Credit Final Exam requires a proctoring fee of $5 . To pass this course and earn a Credly Badge and official transcript , you will need to earn a grade of 70% or higher on the Saylor Direct Credit Final Exam. Your grade for this exam will be calculated as soon as you complete it. If you do not pass the exam on your first try, you can take it again a maximum of 3 times , with a 14-day waiting period between each attempt.

We are partnering with SmarterProctoring to help make the proctoring fee more affordable. We will be recording you, your screen, and the audio in your room during the exam. This is an automated proctoring service, but no decisions are automated; recordings are only viewed by our staff with the purpose of making sure it is you taking the exam and verifying any questions about exam integrity. We understand that there are challenges with learning at home - we won't invalidate your exam just because your child ran into the room!

Requirements:

Desktop Computer
Chrome (v74+)
Webcam + Microphone
1mbps+ Internet Connection

Once you pass this final exam, you will be awarded a Credly Badge and can request an official transcript .

Saylor Direct Credit Exam

This exam is part of the Saylor Direct College Credit program. Before attempting this exam, review the Saylor Direct Credit page for complete requirements.

Essential exam information:

You must take this exam with our automated proctor. If you cannot, please contact us to request an override.
The automated proctoring session will cost $5 .
This is a closed-book, closed-notes exam (see allowed resources below).
You will have two (2) hours to complete this exam.
You have up to 3 attempts, but you must wait 14 days between consecutive attempts of this exam.
The passing grade is 70% or higher.
This exam consists of 50 multiple-choice questions.

Some details about taking your exam:

Exam questions are distributed across multiple pages.
Exam questions will have several plausible options; be sure to pick the answer that best satisfies each part of the question.
Your answers are saved each time you move to another page within the exam.
You can answer the questions in any order.
You can go directly to any question by clicking its number in the navigation panel.
You can flag a question to remind yourself to return to it later.
You will receive your grade as soon as you submit your answers.

Allowed resources:

Gather these resources before you start your exam.

Blank paper

What should I do before my exam?

Gather these before you start your exam:
A photo I.D. to show before your exam.
A credit card to pay the automated proctoring fee.
(optional) Blank paper and pencil.
(optional) A glass of water.
Make sure your work area is well-lit and your face is visible.
We will be recording your screen, so close any extra tabs!
Disconnect any extra monitors attached to your computer.
You will have up to two (2) hours to complete your exam. Try to make sure you won't be interrupted during that time!
You will require at least 1mbps of internet bandwidth. Ask others sharing your connection not to stream during your exam.
Take a deep breath; you got this!

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

> Critical Reasoning and the Art of Argumentation
> How to analyse arguments

Book contents

Frontmatter
CHAPTER 1 What is critical reasoning?
CHAPTER 2 Obstacles to clear thinking: Preconceived ideas and fallacies
CHAPTER 3 Working with arguments
CHAPTER 4 How to analyse arguments
CHAPTER 5 Definitions, counterexamples and counterarguments
CHAPTER 6 Evaluating arguments
CHAPTER 7 Applying your knowledge and skills to the evaluation of arguments
CHAPTER 8 Constructing arguments and writing argumentative essays

CHAPTER 4 - How to analyse arguments

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 February 2020

If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather than by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you.

A s critical thinkers, we should know how to analyse arguments clearly. This is because a complete analysis of an argument helps us to arrive at a better understanding of the meaning of the argument. The word ‘analyse’ means to dissect, or to lay bare. When we analyse an argument we want to lay bare the components of the argument. Differently put, we want to reveal the argument's structure. In order to do this, we should know how to identify premises and conclusions in arguments. This is often made easier by underlining the signal words in an argument. Signal words in an argument indicate which statements are premises and which statements are conclusions. In the first section of this chapter, I will explain the role of conclusion and premise indicators in arguments.

Identifying premises and conclusions

Arguers often supply signal words in their arguments that help us to identify their premises and conclusions. In the following example the person advancing the argument provides clues that help us to identify the conclusion of the argument:

If private enterprise does better than the South African government at running businesses, then it will do better at running railway services. Private enterprise does better at running businesses. We can conclude that private enterprise will do better at running railway services.

In the example above the arguer tells us which statement is the conclusion of the argument: he or she uses the phrase ‘we can conclude that’. Such phrases or expressions serve as clues to identify the conclusion of an argument and we call them conclusion indicators .

The following words and phrases usually signal conclusions:

Let us look at another example where the person offering an argument gives clues that identify the premises of the argument:

Since smoking can harm those around us, we can conclude that there should be tight restrictions on the production of cigarettes. This is because , if smoking is harmful to those around us, then cigarette companies are manufacturing harmful substances; and if cigarette companies are manufacturing harmful substances, there should be tight restrictions on the production of cigarettes.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

How to analyse arguments
M. E. S. Van den Bergh
Book: Critical Reasoning and the Art of Argumentation
Online publication: 20 February 2020
Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.25159/858-0.004

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

All Subjects

study guides for every class

That actually explain what's on your next test, conclusion indicator, from class:, critical thinking.

A conclusion indicator is a word or phrase that signals the conclusion of an argument. It helps to identify the statement that follows as a result or outcome of the premises presented beforehand. These indicators guide the reader in understanding the flow of reasoning and are essential for discerning the structure of arguments, linking premises to their conclusions.

congrats on reading the definition of Conclusion Indicator . now let's actually learn it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

Common conclusion indicators include phrases like 'therefore,' 'thus,' 'hence,' 'consequently,' and 'as a result.'
Conclusion indicators are vital for clarity in arguments, helping readers identify what the writer is asserting based on provided evidence.
Not all conclusions will have explicit indicators; sometimes conclusions are implied rather than stated directly.
Recognizing conclusion indicators can improve critical reading skills by allowing readers to follow the reasoning more effectively.
In complex arguments, multiple conclusion indicators may appear, indicating various conclusions derived from several premises.

Review Questions

Conclusion indicators enhance understanding by clearly signaling which statements are the conclusions drawn from the premises. This allows readers to follow the logical flow of an argument more easily, identifying how the premises lead to specific outcomes. By recognizing these indicators, individuals can better assess the strength and validity of the argument presented.
Conclusion indicators play a crucial role in distinguishing between premises and conclusions by explicitly marking the shift from supporting statements to final assertions. They help clarify which parts of an argument serve as evidence and which parts summarize what those evidences imply. This distinction is essential for evaluating arguments effectively and understanding their overall structure.
The presence of conclusion indicators generally enhances clarity and effectiveness by guiding readers through the reasoning process and clearly demarcating conclusions from supporting evidence. In contrast, arguments lacking these indicators can lead to confusion, making it difficult for readers to discern what is being concluded from the premises. Therefore, the use of conclusion indicators is vital for effective communication in written discourse, ensuring that arguments are both understandable and persuasive.

Related terms

Premise : A statement or proposition that provides support or evidence for a conclusion in an argument.

Inference : The mental process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.

Argument : A set of statements, where some statements (premises) are offered as reasons to support another statement (the conclusion).

" Conclusion Indicator " also found in:

Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Matters

Defining critical thinking dispositions and why they’re crucial..

Posted September 23, 2024 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

Another way to think about and measure critical thinking is to include aspects of motivational dispositions.
Dispositions include open-mindedness and a willingness to be reflective when evaluating information.
People scoring low in critical thinking dispositions tend to “keep it simple” when something is complex.
Critical thinking dispositions help individuals avoid oversimplification and can facilitate awareness of bias.

Critical thinking springs from the notion of reflective thought proposed by Dewey (1933), who borrowed from the work of philosophers such as William James and Charles Peirce. Reflective thought was defined as the process of suspending judgment, remaining open-minded, maintaining a healthy skepticism, and taking responsibility for one’s own development (Gerber et al., 2005; Stoyanov & Kirshner, 2007).

Kurland (1995) suggested, “Critical thinking is concerned with reason, intellectual honesty, and open-mindedness, as opposed to emotionalism, intellectual laziness, and closed-mindedness. Thus, critical thinking involves… considering all possibilities… being precise; considering a variety of possible viewpoints and explanations; weighing the effects of motives and biases; being concerned more with finding the truth than with being right…being aware of one’s own prejudices and biases” (p. 3). Thus, being able to perspective-take and becoming conscious of one’s own biases are potential benefits of critical thinking capacities.

Reviews of the critical thinking literature (e.g., Bensley, 2023) suggest that the assessment of this construct ought to include aspects of motivational dispositions. Numerous frameworks of critical thinking dispositions have been proposed (e.g., Bensley, 2018; Butler & Halpern, 2019; Dwyer, 2017); some commonly identified dispositions are open-mindedness, intellectual engagement, and a proclivity to take a reflective stance or approach to evaluating information and the views and beliefs of both oneself and others. Demir (2022) posited that critical thinking dispositions reflect persons’ attitudes toward and routine ways of responding to new information and diverging ideas, willingness to engage in nuanced and complex rather than either/or reductionistic thinking, and perseverance in attempts to understand and resolve complex problems.

Other examples of dispositions are inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, tolerance for ambiguity, thinking about thinking, honesty in assessing or evaluating biases, and willingness to reconsider one’s own views and ways of doing things (Facione et al., 2001). Individual personality attributes associated with these proclivities include a need for cognition (a desire for intellectual stimulation), which is positively associated with critical thinking, and the need for closure (a motivated cognitive style in which individuals prefer predictability, firm answers, and rapid decision making ) and anti-intellectualism (a resentment of “the life of the mind” and those who represent it), both negatively associated with critical thinking.

Further, an ideological component that can impede critical thinking is dogmatism . In addition, rigid, dichotomous thinking impedes critical thinking in that it oversimplifies the complexity of social life in a pluralistic society (Bensley, 2023; Cheung et al., 2002; Halpern & Dunn, 2021) and tries to reduce complicated phenomena and resolve complex problems via “either/or” formulations and simplistic solutions.

In other words, folks with low critical thinking dispositions would tend to “keep it simple” when something is really quite complicated, and think it absolute terms and categories rather than seeing “the gray” in between the black and white extremes.

In sum, critical thinking dispositions are vitally important because they may help individuals avoid oversimplifying reality; they also permit perspective-taking and can facilitate their awareness of diversity and systematic biases, such as racial or gender bias . Some research has indicated that critical thinking dispositions uniquely contribute to academic performance beyond general cognition (Ren et al., 2020), and may help to reduce unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy beliefs (Bensley, 2023; Lantian et al., 2021).

But before we can study the potential impact of critical thinking dispositions, it is necessary to have a reliable, valid, and hopefully brief measure for this construct. I will discuss the development and validation of a measure of critical thinking dispositions in another post.

Bensley, D.A. ( 2023.) Critical thinking, intelligence, and unsubstantiated beliefs: An integrative review. Journal of Intelligence, 1 , 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11110207

Bensley, D.A. (2018). Critical thinking in psychology and everyday life: A guide to effective thinking . New York: Worth Publishers.

Butler, H.A., & Halpern, D.F. (2019). Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In Robert J. Sternberg (Ed.) The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 183–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cheung, C.-K, Rudowicz. E., Kwan, A., & Yue, X.. (2002). Assessing university students’ general and specific criticalthinking. College Student Journal, 36 , 504 – 25.

Demir, E. (2022). An examination of high school students’ critical thinking dispositions and analytical thinking skills. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6 , 190–200. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202217357

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . Lexington: Heath and Company.

Dwyer, C. P. (2017). Critical thinking: Conceptual perspectives and practical guidelines . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Facione, P., Facione, N,C,, & Giancarlo, C.A.F. (2001(. California Critical Disposition Inventory . Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Gerber, S., Scott, L., Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2005). Instructor influence on reasoned argument in discussion boards. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 53 , 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504864

Halpern, D. F., & Dunn, D.S. (2021). Critical thinking: A model of intelligence for solving real-world problems. Journal of Intelligence, 9 , 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020022

Kurland, D. (1995). I know what it says… What does it mean? Critical skills for critical reading . Belmont: Wadsworth.

Lantian, A., Bagneux, V., Delouvee, S., & Gauvrit, N. (2021). Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: High conspiracybelief is associated with low critical thinking ability. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35 , 674 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3790

Ren, X., Tong, Y., Peng, P. & Wang, T. (2020). Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond general cognitiveability: Evidence from adults and children. Intelligence, 82 , 101487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487

Stoyanov, S., & Kirschner, P. ( 2007). Effect of problem solving support and cognitive styles on idea generation:Implications for technology-enhanced learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40 , 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782496

Kyle D. Killian, Ph.D., LMFT is the author of Interracial Couples, Intimacy and Therapy: Crossing Racial Borders.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
International
New Zealand
South Africa
Switzerland
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Get new issue alerts Get alerts
Submit your manuscript

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Identifying Critical Thinking Indicators and Critical Thinker Attributes in Nursing Practice

Chao, Shu-Yuan 1* ; Liu, Hsing-Yuan 2 ; Wu, Ming-Chang 3 ; Clark, Mary Jo 4 ; Tan, Jung-Ying 5

1 DNSc, RN, Professor, Department of Nursing, Hungkuang University

2 PhD, RN, Associate Professor, Department of Nursing, Chang Gung Technology University

3 PhD, Professor, Graduate School of Technological and Vocational Education, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology

4 PhD, RN, Professor, Hahn School of Nursing and Health Science, University of San Diego

5 PhD, RN, Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Hungkuang University.

Accepted for publication: March 1, 2013

*Address correspondence to: Shu-Yuan Chao, No. 34, Chungchi Rd. Shalu District, Taichung City, 433 Taiwan, ROC. Tel: +886 (4) 2631-8652 ext. 3013; E-mail: [email protected]

Background:

Critical thinking is an essential skill in the nursing process. Although several studies have evaluated the critical thinking skills of nurses, there is limited information related to the indicators of critical thinking or evaluation of critical thinking in the context of the nursing process.

Purpose:

This study investigated the potential indicators of critical thinking and the attributes of critical thinkers in clinical nursing practice. Knowledge of these indicators can aid the development of tools to assess nursing students’ critical thinking skills.

Methods:

The study was conducted between September 2009 and August 2010. In phase 1, a literature review and four focus groups were conducted to identify the indicators of critical thinking in the context of nursing and the attributes of critical thinkers. In phase 2, 30 nursing professionals participated in a modified Delphi research survey to establish consensus and the appropriateness of each indicator and attribute identified in phase 1.

Results:

We identified 37 indicators of critical thinking and 10 attributes of critical thinkers. The indicators were categorized into five subscales within the context of the nursing process toreflect nursing clinical practice: assessment, 16 indicators of ability to apply professional knowledge and skills to analyze and interpret patient problems; diagnosis, five indicators of ability to propose preliminary suppositions; planning, five indicators of ability to develop problem-solving strategies; implementation, five indicators of ability to implement planning; and evaluation, six indicators of ability to self-assess and reflect.

Conclusion/Implications for Practice:

The study operationalized critical thinking into a practical indicator suitable for nursing contexts in which critical thinking is required for clinical problem solving. Identified indicators and attributes can assist clinical instructors to evaluate student critical thought skills and development-related teaching strategies.

Introduction

Nursing students must have critical thinking abilities to respond constructively to diverse healthcare environments ( Brunt, 2005a ; Yuan, Willams, & Fan, 2008 ). Both the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission (2007) and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing et al. (2011) have identified critical thinking as an essential element of the nursing curricula. In addition, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (2005) highlighted critical thinking as a key nursing skill and included it in their accreditation standards.

Critical thinking has been defined from multiple perspectives, with various definitions presenting the concepts of cognition, attitude, process, and skill. In nursing practice, critical thinking is usually defined as a skill, with a focus on solving practical problems ( Brunt, 2005a ; Staib, 2003 ). The nursing process provides nursing professionals the means to resolve patient problems. The several steps in the nursing process include collecting data systematically from the patient or family during the assessment phase, making a nursing diagnosis, formulating a plan to resolve the patient’s problems, initiating the plan to implement solutions, and evaluating the effectiveness of these solutions ( Su & Huang, 2000 ). Nursing is a challenging profession that requires astute clinical judgment, decision-making, and problem-solving skills. Critical thinking is required at each phase of the nursing process ( Chabeli, 2007 ; Huckabay, 2009 ).

Assessing nurses’ critical thinking abilities should be addressed in the context of the five stages of the nursing process. However, little information has been published to date on the measurement of critical thinking skills in professional nurses ( Mundy & Denham, 2008 ). Although several standardized tests have been developed to evaluate the critical thinking skills of college and university students in general, none specifically assesses critical thinking in nursing practice. Twibell, Ryan, and Hermiz (2005) proposed that the nature of nursing practice justifies a specialized assessment of critical thinking in this field. Brunt (2005b) noted that measures that are not discipline-specific may fail to capture the context-dependent aspects of critical thinking vital to a discipline, Shirrell (2008) questioned the appropriateness of current tests to measure critical thinking in clinical practice, and Mundy and Denham criticized standardized critical thinking assessment tools for their lack of relevance to clinical decision making in nursing settings.

Chabeli (2007) identified and integrated critical thinking concepts and core cognitive skills into the five-stage nursing process mentioned. However, assessing how effectively learned skills are transferred into practice is difficult to assess ( Marchigiano, Eduljee, & Harvey, 2011 ). Lunney (2010) presented a case study to show the use of critical thinking in formulating nursing diagnoses. However, critical thinking is also required in the other four stages. Critical thinking should influence nurse workplace performance and reflect his or her ability to resolve patients’ health-related problems using relevant contextual factors. Unfortunately, consensus is lacking regarding suitable methods to recognize or evaluate critical thinking in the clinical nursing context.

This study was designed to identify the attributes of critical thinkers and indicators of critical thinking from a nursing perspective. We thus tried to capture the essence of critical thinking as it is applied to clinical practice. Knowledge of these attributes and indicators can facilitate the development of tools to assess nursing students’ critical thinking skills. Furthermore, such knowledge may foster the development of teaching strategies that promote critical thinking and its application in nursing practice. This study asked the following questions:

What indicators identify the effective use of critical thinking skills in clinical practice?
What are the attributes of critical thinkers in the context of professional nursing?

Design and Procedure

This study was conducted in two phases from September 2009 to August 2010. In phase 1, we reviewed the literature to identify published indicators of critical thinking. The key words “critical thinking and nursing” were used to search full-text articles published from 1990 through 2009 and indexed in the CINAHL and CEPS (Chinese) databases. This step identified indicators of critical thinking in standardized inventories and framed these indicators in the context of the nursing process. In total, the indicators included 21 that indicate critical thinking skills in each phase of the nursing process and seven that are attributes of critical thinkers. Four focus groups were then assembled to validate and enrich the indicators of critical thinking and the attributes of critical thinkers in nursing. In phase 2, we used a modified two-round Delphi study to determine the appropriateness and explicitness of the indicators and attributes derived in phase 1. Finally, 37 items of critical thinking indicators and 10 attributes of critical thinkers were identified.

Respondent Groups

Each of the four focus groups comprised six experienced clinical nursing instructors from the fields of medicine and surgery, psychiatry, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and community health nursing. Because the indicators were expected to reflect critical thinking in clinical settings, consulting experts in the field was appropriate to identify these indicators as well as the personal attributes of critical thinkers in the discipline.

Members of the expert group for the Delphi study were drawn from the same clinical specialty areas. Thirty expert nurses were invited to participate, including six nursing faculty members, 10 hospital administrators, six head nurses, three nursing staff members, and five senior clinical instructors.

Data Collection and Analysis

In the focus group, the instructors were asked to provide their perspectives on indicators of critical thinking and the attributes of critical thinkers. The data were recorded and transcribed within 48 hours. The contents of the transcriptions were validated by the group members. Responses were used to create a questionnaire related to the identified indicators and attributes.

During the modified Delphi survey, each expert in the group was asked to independently evaluate and score each item in the first version of the questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale. These evaluations rated the importance and appropriateness of each item, and space was provided for suggestions for revisions and additions. Items with a mean score above 3.5 and a standard deviation ( SD ) of less than 1 were retained in the second round of the Delphi as suggested by Chiou and Tsai (1996) . In this round, the indicators and attributes were reviewed by the same 30 people. Descriptive statistics were calculated using SPSS version 17.0 to determine the level of importance and appropriateness for each item.

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the university. All participants in this study completed a written consent form.

The literature review showed critical thinking in the field of nursing to be defined as the ability to collect and analyze data, reflect and make decisions based on those data, and resolve clients’ problems in the context of specific situations. Critical thinking is an integral part of clinical decision making within the context of the nursing process ( Su, 2002 ). On the basis of relevance, each indicator was assigned to one of five dimensions. The eight indicators related to analyze and interpret data were assigned to the assessment phase, the three indicators related to clinical data integration and conjecture regarding problem cause were assigned to the diagnosis phase, the three indicators related to problem resolution strategies were assigned to the planning phase, the three indicators related to problem resolution strategy implementation were assigned to the implementation phase, and the four indicators related to results evaluation were assigned to the evaluation phase. As shown in Table 1 , seven attributes of critical thinkers were also identified, including “inquisitive,” “open-minded,” “analytical,” “systematic,” “self-confident,” “truth-seeking,” and “flexible.”

Instructors in the focus groups proposed several additional indicators of critical thinking in clinical settings and identified additional attributes of critical thinkers. These indicators and attributes were confirmed by the focus groups and modified by the experts during the two rounds of the Delphi review. This process is shown in Tables 2 and 3 .

In the first round, the average score for each item was greater than 3.5 ( SD < 1); thus, no items were deleted. The result was a list of 36 items across the five stages of the nursing process: assessment, 15 indicators of ability to apply professional knowledge and skills to analyze and interpret patient problems; diagnosis, five indicators of ability to propose preliminary suppositions; planning, five indicators of ability to develop problem-solving strategies; implementation, five indicators of ability to implement planning; and evaluation, six indicators of ability to self-assess and reflect.

However, 10 items were revised based on the experts’ input to more explicitly express their intended meaning. Because the expert group suggested that critical thinking should be based on a client’s individual needs, an additional item was included in the third subdomain of the assessment stage. The item “using appropriate interview, observation, and physical assessment methods to collect information” was suggested by one expert and supported in the second Delphi round. Thus, the final instrument included 37 indicators: assessment, 16 indicators; diagnosis, five indicators; planning, five indicators; implementation, five indicators; and evaluation, six indicators. The mean score and SD for each item and category are shown in Table 4 .

Focus group participants identified 10 major attributes of critical thinkers in nursing. These were reviewed and modified by the experts in the Delphi survey to reflect appropriate behaviors for clinical practice. The resulting attributes were “has an open mind,” “actively pursues truth,” “exhibits patience and confidence,” “engages in self-reflection,” “shows the courage to acknowledge and correct errors,” “exhibits a neutral perspective,” “possesses keen observation skills,” “accepts criticism,” “displays good communication skills,” and “accurately documents findings and actions.” These attributes are presented in Table 3 .

Competence in critical thinking is a priority for practicing nurses. Nurse educators are faced with the challenge of developing strategies to inculcate critical thinking skills in their students and enhance the use of clinical reasoning to solve clients’ health problems in a manner that accounts for diverse contextual factors. Nurse educators lack an appropriate tool to measure critical thinking skills in nursing. The instrument developed in this study had a two-fold purpose: (a) to assist the faculty in providing instruction on clinical problem solving and (b) to identify students’ difficulties with the clinical problem resolution process.

The critical thinking indicators and attributes derived in this study shared similarities and dissimilarities with other published studies. The “determination” indicator in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test ( Ennis & Millman, 1985a , 1985b ) is comparable with the “problem identification” indicator in our findings. However, no other studies incorporate a similar variable. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test ( Facione & Facione, 1992 ) and Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency ( American College Testing, 2011 ) use a “data analysis” indicator that is comparable with the assessment-phase data analysis indicator in this study. Furthermore, several previously published measures incorporate “deduction,” an indicator that the current study includes under “problem identification.” Our indicators related specifically to the nursing process and were thus categorized into domains not evident in most standardized measures. The stages of planning and implementation in our assessment instrument were not included in other tools.

As noted, prior studies have used diverse definitions of critical thinking. The “skills” perspective describes critical thinking as the ability to seek information, discriminate, and analyze ( Cruze, Pimenta, & Lunney, 2009 ). The same approach incorporates processes of reflection, verification, hypothesis investigation, explanation, analysis, inference, and judgment ( Riddell, 2007 ). The “attitude” perspective defines critical thinking as a trait, disposition, or affective aspect. Our study identified critical thinking as both a skill and an attitude. The term “indicator” reflects a skill, whereas “attribute” reflects an attitude. Items used in previous inventories to measure critical thinking ability such as “systematic analysis” and “synthesis skill” were classified in our study as skills, because our focus was on resolving patients’ problems within the nursing context only.

Although past studies have identified the concept of critical thinking, little information exists on the transferability of critical thinking to clinical practice. The concept of critical thinking tended to be quite abstract in most early studies. Thus, Su (2002) suggested developing concrete behavioral indicators of critical thinking to facilitate an understanding of this concept among faculty, staff, and students. For this reason, we described the indicators in terms of measurable behaviors, which allows their use to assess critical thinking in clinical settings. In this context, critical thinking focuses on problem solving and decision making ( Cruze et al., 2009 ; Huckabay, 2009 ; Lee, 2011 ; Staib, 2003 ). The indicators identified in our study reflect the “action” decisions that are derived from critical thinking and necessary in clinical nursing practice. Thus, our instrument may offer a guide to nursing students or novice nurses.

The Taiwanese Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory has been widely used and modified for specific applications. For example, Scheffer and Rubenfeld (2000) added “creativity” and “intuition,” because these two items were considered necessary for problem solving in the field of nursing. Using similar words, Profetto-McGrath (2003) proposed the qualities of being “tolerant of divergent views” and “able to suspend judgment pending additional evidence.” Forneris and Peden-McAlpine (2007) added to the definition with “perseverance, flexibility, contextual perspective, and confidence.” Similarly, Paul and Elder (2004) stated that critical thinkers possess curiosity and the willingness to learn autonomously. The Taiwanese Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory ( Feng, Chen, Chen, & Pai, 2010 ) included the categories of inquisitiveness, system activity and analyticity, open-mindedness, and reflective thinking.

Furthermore, several theorists emphasized that communication skill reflects critical thinking ability ( Forneris & Peden-McAlpine, 2009 ; Lunney, 2010 ; Zygmont & Schaefer, 2006 ). Thus, this study defined the attributes of critical thinkers based on the abilities already described with the addition of the indicator “displays good communication skills.”

Although the experts consulted in our study reached a high level of consensus on the appropriateness of the indicators and attributes, further studies are needed to refine the descriptions. These descriptions pertain to behavioral indicators of critical thinking that were identified for clinical settings. The skills and subskills derived in this study are incorporated across the nursing process. Further research is required to show the use of critical thinking skills in resolving problems in the nursing context.

As Mundy and Denham (2008) indicated, gaps may exist between teaching faculty knowledge and the ability of faculty to incorporate critical thinking into curricula. The indicators and attributes identified in this study provide new information to assist faculty to better guide their students in clinical practice to resolve patient problems. Study results provide guidelines for developing critical thinking in nursing students and novice nurses.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a research grant from the National Science Council, Taiwan, ROC (NSC98-2511-S-241-001-MY2). We thank all participants who helped with this research.

indicator; attribute; critical thinking; nursing education; Delphi research

+ Favorites
View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Measuring professional values among jordanian and palestinian undergraduate..., association between interdisciplinary collaboration and leadership ability in..., development and evaluation of a teamwork improvement program for perioperative..., satisfaction with the quality nursing work environment among psychiatric nurses ..., the relationship between critical thinking skills and learning styles and....

What Makes a Person a Critical Thinker: 8 Developing Traits

A critical thinker is characterized by a keen sense of curiosity and a robust analytical mindset. They possess the ability to understand the links between ideas, critically evaluate arguments, and identify inconsistencies in reasoning. Such individuals approach problems systematically, with a readiness to question assumptions and explore alternative solutions. Their thinking is not just about gathering information but also about discerning its relevance and applying it judiciously to make informed decisions.

Sanju Pradeepa

As you navigate the complexities of modern life, have you ever wondered what sets critical thinkers apart? The ability to analyze information objectively, question assumptions, and draw reasoned conclusions is more valuable than ever in today’s information-saturated world. But critical thinking is not an innate trait—it’s a skill that can be developed and honed over time.

In this article, we’ll explore the key characteristics and driving forces that shape critical thinkers. By understanding these traits, you’ll gain insight into how to cultivate your own critical thinking abilities and approach challenges with a more discerning and analytical mindset.

What makes a person a critical thinker.

Critical thinkers possess a unique set of traits that set them apart from others. These characteristics enable them to analyze information objectively, make sound decisions, and solve complex problems effectively. Let’s explore some key attributes that define a critical thinker.

Analytical Mindset: Critical thinkers approach situations with a keen analytical mindset. They constantly question assumptions, examine evidence, and evaluate arguments. They don’t accept information at face value but instead dig deeper to understand the underlying logic and reasoning. This analytical approach allows them to identify patterns, connections, and inconsistencies that others might overlook.

Open-mindedness and flexibility : Another hallmark of critical thinkers is their open-mindedness. They’re willing to consider alternative perspectives and new ideas, even if they challenge their existing beliefs. This flexibility of thought enables them to adapt to changing circumstances and revise their opinions when presented with compelling evidence. Critical thinkers understand that learning is a lifelong process and embrace opportunities to expand their knowledge and understanding.

Intellectual Curiosity : An insatiable curiosity about the world around them drives critical thinkers. They constantly seek new information and ask probing questions to deepen their understanding. This intellectual curiosity fuels their desire to learn and grow, pushing them to explore diverse subjects and perspectives. By maintaining a curious mindset, critical thinkers are better equipped to make connections across different domains and generate innovative solutions to complex problems.

Logical Reasoning: The ability to reason logically is a cornerstone of critical thinking . Critical thinkers excel at constructing well-reasoned arguments and identifying flaws in others’ reasoning. They can break down complex issues into manageable components, analyze each part systematically, and draw sound conclusions based on evidence and logic. This skill allows them to navigate through ambiguity and make informed decisions in challenging situations.

1. The Desire for Truth

At the heart of critical thinking lies an insatiable appetite for truth. This fundamental trait drives individuals to question, analyze, and seek out accurate information in all aspects of life.

Questioning Assumptions: Critical thinkers are not content with accepting information at face value. You’ll find yourself constantly challenging assumptions, both your own and those presented by others. This skepticism isn’t born from cynicism but rather from a genuine desire to understand the world more deeply.

Embracing intellectual honesty : The pursuit of truth requires a commitment to intellectual honesty. As a developing critical thinker, you’ll learn to:

Acknowledge your own biases and blind spots
Admit when you’re wrong or lack sufficient information
Seek out diverse perspectives, even those that challenge your beliefs

This dedication to honesty fosters a more objective and balanced worldview.

Cultivating Curiosity: Truth seekers are inherently curious. You’ll find yourself driven to explore topics beyond surface-level understanding, delving into the “why” and “how” behind information. This curiosity fuels continuous learning and personal growth .

Valuing Evidence-Based Reasoning: As your desire for truth grows, you’ll naturally gravitate towards evidence-based reasoning. You’ll develop a keen eye for distinguishing between fact and opinion, seeking out reliable sources and verifiable data to support your conclusions.

By nurturing this desire for truth, you lay the foundation for robust critical thinking skills that will serve you well in all areas of life. Remember, the journey towards truth is ongoing, the process of continual discovery and refinement of your understanding

What Does Critical Thinking Involve: 5 Essential Skill

2. an inquisitive and curious mind.

Critical thinkers are driven by an insatiable curiosity and a desire to understand the world around them. This inquisitive nature fuels their ability to analyze, question, and explore complex ideas,

Asking the Right Questions: At the heart of critical thinking lies the art of asking probing questions. You’ll find that successful critical thinkers don’t simply accept information at face value. Instead, they consistently ask “why” and “how” to delve deeper into topics. By challenging assumptions and seeking clarification, you can uncover hidden truths and gain a more comprehensive understanding of any subject.

Embracing Lifelong Learning: Critical thinkers view every experience as an opportunity to learn and grow. You’ll notice that they actively seek out new information, whether through reading, attending lectures, or engaging in thought- provoking discussions. This thirst for knowledge keeps their minds sharp and adaptable, allowing them to approach problems from multiple angles.

Connecting the dots: An inquisitive mind excels at recognizing patterns and making connections between seemingly unrelated ideas. As you develop your critical thinking skills, you’ll find yourself drawing insights from various disciplines and applying them to new situations. This ability to synthesize information from diverse sources often leads to innovative solutions and breakthrough ideas.

By cultivating an inquisitive mindset, you’ll naturally enhance your critical thinking abilities. Remember, the goal isn’t just to accumulate facts, but to develop a deeper understanding of the world and your place in it. Embrace your curiosity, ask thoughtful questions, and never stop learning- these are the hallmarks of a true critical thinker.

3. The Ability to Identify Assumptions

Critical thinkers possess a keen ability to recognize and question underlying assumptions. This skill is crucial for developing a more nuanced understanding of complex issues and avoiding potential pitfalls in reasoning.

Recognizing Hidden Premises: You’ll find that many arguments and beliefs are built upon unstated assumptions. As a critical thinker, you must learn to identify these hidden premises. This involves carefully examining statements and asking yourself, “What underlying beliefs or ideas must be true for this conclusion to hold?” By uncovering these assumptions, you can better evaluate the strength of an argument and consider alternative perspectives.

Challenging Your Own Assumptions: Perhaps even more important than identifying others’ assumptions is recognizing and questioning your own. This requires a high degree of self-awareness and intellectual humility . You must be willing to examine your deeply held beliefs and consider the possibility that they may be based on faulty premises. By regularly challenging your own assumptions, you can refine your thinking and avoid falling into cognitive traps.

Contextual Analysis: Critical thinkers understand that assumptions often arise from specific cultural, historical, or personal contexts. You’ll need to develop the ability to analyze information within its broader context. This means considering factors such as:

The source of the information and potential biases
Historical and cultural influences on the topic
Relevant stakeholders and their motivations

By examining assumptions through this contextual lens, you can gain a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues and make more informed judgments.

Developing the ability to identify assumptions is an ongoing process that requires practice and reflection. As you hone this skill, you’ll find yourself better equipped to navigate the complexities of modern life and make more reasoned decisions.

Perception and Critical Thinking: 2 Thinking Influences

4. considering multiple perspectives.

Embracing Diverse Viewpoints: Critical thinkers excel at examining issues from various angles. You cultivate this skill by actively seeking out diverse opinions and interpretations. When faced with a problem or decision, challenge yourself to consider at least three different perspectives. This practice broadens your understanding and helps you avoid narrow, biased thinking.

To develop this trait, engage in discussions with people from different backgrounds and experiences. Listen attentively to their viewpoints, even if they contradict your own. You’ll find that this approach often leads to more nuanced and well-rounded conclusions.

Analyzing Assumptions and Biases: A key aspect of considering multiple perspectives is recognizing your own biases and assumptions. You must constantly question the foundations of your beliefs and thought processes. Ask yourself: “Why do I think this way?” and “What experiences or influences have shaped my opinion?”

By acknowledging your biases, you open yourself up to new ideas and interpretations. This self-awareness is crucial for developing a more objective and balanced approach to critical thinking.

Synthesizing Information from Various Sources: To truly consider multiple perspectives, you need to gather information from a wide range of sources. This includes academic research, expert opinions, personal experiences, and even unconventional viewpoints. Your goal is to create a comprehensive picture of the issue at hand.

As you collect diverse information, practice synthesizing these different viewpoints into a cohesive understanding. Look for common threads and points of divergence. This skill allows you to form well-rounded opinions and make more informed decisions, hallmarks of a critical thinker.

5. Seeking Out Evidence and Facts

Critical thinkers are not content with surface-level information. They possess an insatiable curiosity that drives them to dig deeper, seeking out evidence and facts to support or challenge their beliefs. This trait is crucial in developing a well-rounded perspective on any given topic. You’ll find that as you cultivate this habit, your ability to make informed decisions and form logical arguments will improve significantly.

Strategies for Effective Research: To become adept at seeking evidence, you must first learn to identify reliable sources. Peer-reviewed journals, reputable news outlets, and academic institutions are excellent starting points. However, don’t limit yourself to these alone. Develop the skill of cross-referencing information from multiple sources to gain a comprehensive understanding.

Additionally, familiarize yourself with various research methodologies. Understanding how data is collected and analyzed will help you critically evaluate the validity of the information you encounter. This knowledge will prove invaluable as you navigate through the vast sea of information available in today’s digital age.

Overcoming Confirmation Bias: One of the greatest challenges in seeking evidence is overcoming your own biases. It’s human nature to gravitate towards information that confirms our existing beliefs. However, a true critical thinker actively seeks out contradictory evidence. This practice not only broadens your perspective but also strengthens your arguments by addressing potential counterpoints.

Remember, the goal is not to prove yourself right but to arrive at the truth. Embrace the discomfort that comes with challenging your own beliefs. This willingness to change your mind in the face of compelling evidence is a hallmark of a mature critical thinker.

7 Types of Critical Thinking: A Guide to Analyzing Problems

6. logical reasoning skills.

Developing strong logical reasoning skills is crucial for becoming an effective critical thinker. These skills enable you to analyze complex problems, draw sound conclusions, and make well-informed decisions. By honing your logical reasoning abilities, you’ll enhance your capacity for critical thinking across various aspects of life.

Understanding Logical Structures: To improve your logical reasoning, start by familiarizing yourself with different types of logical arguments and their structures. Learn to identify premises, conclusions, and the relationships between them. Recognizing common logical fallacies is equally important, as it helps you avoid faulty reasoning in your own thinking and spot flaws in others’ arguments.

Practicing Deductive and Inductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning involves drawing specific conclusions from general principles, while inductive reasoning works in the opposite direction. Both are essential for critical thinking. To strengthen these skills:

Engage in logic puzzles and brain teasers
Analyze arguments in academic papers or opinion pieces
Practice creating valid syllogisms

By regularly exercising these reasoning methods, you’ll become more adept at constructing and evaluating arguments.

Applying Logic to Real-World Scenarios: The ultimate goal of developing logical reasoning skills is to apply them in everyday situations. Challenge yourself to:

Analyze news articles for logical consistency
Evaluate the reasoning behind policy decisions
Assess the validity of scientific claims

As you consistently apply logical thinking to real-world problems, you’ll find your critical thinking abilities naturally improving. Remember, logical reasoning is a skill that requires constant practice and refinement. By dedicating time to developing this crucial trait, you’ll become a more effective critical thinker capable of navigating complex issues with clarity and precision.

7. Openness to New Ideas

Critical thinkers are characterized by their willingness to embrace novel concepts and perspectives. This openness is a fundamental trait that sets them apart from rigid thinkers. By cultivating a receptive mindset, you can enhance your critical thinking skills and broaden your intellectual horizons.

Embracing Intellectual Curiosity: At the heart of openness to new ideas lies intellectual curiosity. You should actively seek out diverse viewpoints and unfamiliar concepts, treating them as opportunities for growth rather than threats to your existing beliefs. This curiosity drives you to explore different fields of knowledge, enabling you to make unexpected connections and develop innovative solutions.

Challenging Personal Biases: To truly be open to new ideas, you must be willing to confront your own biases and preconceptions. This involves acknowledging that your current understanding may be limited or flawed. By questioning your assumptions and considering alternative viewpoints, you can develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of complex issues.

Practicing Active Listening: Openness to new ideas also manifests in how you interact with others. Practice active listening by giving your full attention to speakers and genuinely considering their perspectives. This approach allows you to absorb new information more effectively and fosters an environment of mutual respect and intellectual exchange.

Embracing Constructive Criticism: A critical thinker views constructive criticism as an opportunity for growth rather than a personal attack. By welcoming feedback and using it to refine your ideas, you demonstrate true openness and a commitment to continuous improvement. This receptiveness to criticism is essential for developing robust, well-reasoned arguments and solutions.

Critical Thinking and Non-Critical Thinking: Key Differences

8. the drive for self-improvement.

Critical thinkers are often characterized by their insatiable appetite for growth and self-improvement . This drive propels them to continuously refine their thinking skills and expand their knowledge base.

Embracing a Growth Mindset : At the core of a critical thinker’s journey is the adoption of a growth mindset . You recognize that your abilities and intelligence can be developed through dedication and hard work . This belief fuels your motivation to:

Seek out new challenges
Learn from failures
Persist in the face of setbacks

By embracing this mindset, you’re more likely to push beyond your comfort zone and tackle complex problems head-on.

Cultivating Intellectual Curiosity: Your drive for self-improvement is closely tied to an innate curiosity about the world around you. This intellectual curiosity manifests in various ways:

Asking probing questions
Exploring diverse perspectives
Delving deep into unfamiliar subjects

As you nurture this curiosity, you’ll find yourself constantly expanding your knowledge and refining your critical thinking skills.

Commitment to Lifelong Learning: Critical thinkers understand that learning is a lifelong process. You’re committed to continuous education, whether through formal channels or self-directed study. This dedication to learning helps you:

Stay current with new developments in your field
Adapt to changing circumstances
Develop a more nuanced understanding of complex issues

By prioritizing ongoing education, you ensure that your critical thinking skills remain sharp and relevant in an ever-changing world.

Remember, the journey to becoming a proficient critical thinker is ongoing. Your drive for self-improvement will serve as a constant motivator, pushing you to refine your skills and expand your intellectual horizons.

As you cultivate these traits of a critical thinker, remember that developing your analytical skills is an ongoing journey. By consistently questioning assumptions, seeking diverse perspectives, and evaluating evidence objectively, you’ll sharpen your ability to think critically about the world around you. Embrace intellectual curiosity, remain open to new ideas, and practice logical reasoning in your daily life.

With time and dedication, you’ll find yourself approaching challenges more analytically and making better-informed decisions. By honing these essential skills, you’ll not only become a more discerning thinker but also a more engaged and thoughtful participant in both personal and professional spheres.

Critical thinking . From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems. by Diane F. Halpern 1,* and Dana S. Dunn . J Intell. 2021 Jun; 9(2): 22. Published online 2021 Apr 7. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020022

Let’s boost your self-growth with Believe in Mind.

Interested in self-reflection tips, learning hacks, and knowing ways to calm down your mind? We offer you the best content which you have been looking for.

Sanju Danthanarayana

Follow Me on