logic and critical thinking past papers

KNEC| KASNEB| KISM| Ebooks Kenya

KNEC| KASNEB| KISM| Study notes and Revision materials for schools in Kenya. KNEC certificate courses, Diplomas, Higher Diplomas, KISM courses cpsp-k and aps-k, KASNEB cpa, atd, cs, cifa, ccp, dcm, cict and cict, Ksce and Kcpe

Logic and Critical Thinking – November 2019 Past Paper KNEC Diploma

Journalism november 2019 past examination question paper – knec.

This Past Paper examination was examined by the Kenya National Examination Council (KNEC) and it applies to the following courses

Diploma in Print Journalism
Diploma in Broadcast Journalism
Diploma in Digital Journalism

THE KENYA NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL

DIPLOMA IN PRINT JOURNALISM

DIPLOMA IN BROADCAST JOURNALISM

DIPLOMA IN DIGITAL JOURNALISM

NEWS WRITING AND REPORTING

1. (a) Highlight six characteristics of ordinary language arguments. (12 marks)

(b) In each of the following assertions, explain whether a deductive argument is valid if it is stated that: (i) The premises are said to entail the conclusion. (ii) Its conclusion is false. (iii) All its statements are true. (iv) Its premises are true. (8 marks)

2. (a) Explain five fallacies of relevance that occur when evidence introduced shifts focus away from the thesis. (10 marks) (b) Highlight five features of sentential logic. (10 marks)

3. (a) Explain the four logical relationships between propositions according to the square of opposition model. (8 marks) (b) Explain six functions of language in basic logic. (12 marks)

4. (a) Highlight five sentential connectives. (10 marks) (b) In each of the following extracts, explain the type of fallacy of presumption depicted. (10 marks) (i) I agree that everything has a price but I believe that life is priceless. (ii) People should keep their promises. I loaned Mike may car. He is now refusing to bring it back to me and I need to use it right now to hunt for my neighbour who killed my dog. (iii) Question from a reporter to the CEO; Sir, are you going to continue with your policy of wasting shareholders money on fancy road shows? (iv) Do you drink coffee? I am pretty sure that caffeine will not be strong enough, then you will have taken something stronger. Then something even stronger. Eventually you will be an addict. So, do not drink black coffee.

(v) He loves me. There are so many ways he was shown it. When I called him and he told me to never call him again, he first asked me how I was doing and if I passed the interview. When I told him that is none of his business, he laughed lovingly. If he can laugh with me, I know he really loves me.

5. (a) Highlight six rules that should be followed when making a valid categorical syllogism. (12 marks) (b) Describe the arrangement that the structure of propositions in a dilemma should follow in syllogistic reasoning. (8 marks)

6. (a) Explain four essentials of a good argument. (8 marks) (b) Highlight six limitations of using Venn Diagrams in dissemination of information. (12 marks)

7. (a) Explain four types of categorical propositions. (8 marks) (b) Explain six roles of critical thinking in journalism. (12 marks)

Quantitative Methods November 2019 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Taxation November 2016 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Taxation November 2018 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Taxation November 2008 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Taxation November 2014 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Statistics November 2018 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Personnel Management July 2017 Past Paper – KNEC Diploma
Financial management July 2016 Past Paper – KNEC Diploma
Financial management July 2017 Past Paper – KNEC Diploma
Cost Accounting July 2017 Past Paper – KNEC Diploma
Management accounting July 2016 Past Paper – KNEC Diploma
Mathematics November 2010 Past paper KNEC DTE Diploma
Financial Management July 2012 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Purchasing Management July 2015 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Purchasing Management November 2012 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Visual programming July 2016 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Financial Management November 2015 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Financial Management July 2015 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Supply Management July 2015 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Structured programming July 2016 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Internet based programming July 2017 Past Paper – KNEC Diploma
Operating systems November 2018 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Internet based programming July 2016 Past Paper – KNEC Diploma
Managerial Accounting November 2013 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Visual programming November 2017 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Statistics June/July 2014 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Statistics Oct/Nov 2013 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Cost Accounting November 2013 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
DTE Geography Paper 3 March April 2011 Past paper KNEC DTE Diploma
DTE Mathematics Paper 1 March April 2011 Past paper KNEC DTE Diploma
DTE Physics Paper 1 March April 2011 Past paper KNEC DTE Diploma
Structured programming July 2017 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Quantitative Techniques July 2014 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Quantitative Methods November 2018 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Management Accounting November 2012 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Cost Accounting November 2018 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Financial Accounting November 2018 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
Physics Paper 1 March-April 2014 Past Paper - KNEC DTE Diploma
Managerial Accounting November 2018 Past Paper - KNEC Diploma
DTE English Paper 2 March April 2011 Past paper KNEC DTE Diploma

Programmes & Qualifications

Cambridge international as & a level thinking skills (9694).

Past papers, examiner reports and specimen papers

You can download one or more papers for a previous session. Please note that these papers may not reflect the content of the current syllabus.

Unlock more content

This is only a selection of our papers. Registered Cambridge International Schools can access the full catalogue of teaching and learning materials including papers from 2018 through our School Support Hub .

Past papers

-->June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 11 (PDF, 249KB)
-->June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 21 (PDF, 399KB)
-->June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 31 (PDF, 246KB)
-->June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 41 (PDF, 314KB)

Examiner reports

-->June 2022 Examiner Report (PDF, 3MB)

Specimen papers

-->2020 Specimen Paper 1 Mark Scheme (PDF, 973KB)
-->2020 Specimen Paper 2 Mark Scheme (PDF, 985KB)
-->2020 Specimen Paper 3 Mark Scheme (PDF, 994KB)
-->2020 Specimen Paper 4 Mark Scheme (PDF, 180KB)

Stay up to date

Syllabus overview
Published resources

KNEC notes and Revision materials

Study notes, Revision materials and Past papers for courses examined by KNEC

Critical Thinking

MEANING OF CRITICAL THINKING

Critical thinking is the ability to think through a situation correctly, assessing the advantages and disadvantages so as to be able to make appropriate decisions concerning one’s course of action.

We are confronted by multiple and contradictory issues, messages, expectations and demands. We need therefore to be able to critically analyze situations and challenges and confront them. This involves weighing options and making rational decisions. It requires an inquisitive mind instead of accepting things at a face value

IMPORTANCE OF CRITICAL THINKING

It is an important skill in assisting one to shape his reasoning.
Helps one to express independent judgment in all issues.
It requires that one take time to ask questions before taking action. It therefore helps one to avoid making rash decisions that we may end up regretting.
It helps us address the root cause of a problem rather than just dealing with the symptoms.
It helps us pick the most effective alternative after evaluating the others.
It enables you to think of consequences of a given choice.
It will help you avoid being influenced into irresponsible behavior because you will see negative consequences.
Self awareness is made possible through critical thinking; you will know your strengths, weakness, and abilities.

SITUATION IN WHICH PEOPLE USE CRITICAL THINKING

When doing an exam.
Challenging friends and colleagues who are involved in actions that deviate from the norm for example drug abuse.
Refusing to give up in challenging situation or when one needs a setback.
Setting life goals and life dreams –critical thinking assists individuals to make out how they can achieve their goals.
Challenging and exposing injustice in the society.
Providing constructive criticism at all levels for example college level, community level.

RISKY SITUATIONS

Going to a bar.
Attending unruly parties.
Getting involved in riots.
Becoming drunk.

Dangers in such situations

You can become reckless.
Your reasoning ability is affected.
We can engage in risk behavior for example the pre-marital sex which can lead to STI, HIV and AIDS, pregnancy, rape; you can injure yourself and other health problems.

WAYS OF EVALUATING IDEAS

Weighing options objectively
Making rational choices
Consequences of making decisions before thinking critically
HIV infection
Drug and substance abuse.
Unplanned pregnancy.
Early marriages.

VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH CRITICAL THINKING

Freedom –It enables you freely to explore options. You also learn to think for yourself.
Integrity – you make decision based on facts rather than personal preferences
Simplicity – it makes your faces difficult situations with a simple mind.

Written by KNEC notes and Past Papers

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

Events and open days
Fees and finance
Student blogs and videos
Why Cambridge
Course directory
How to apply
Fees and funding
Frequently asked questions
International students
Continuing education
Executive and professional education
Courses in education
How the University and Colleges work
Visiting the University
Term dates and calendars
Video and audio
Find an expert
Publications
Global Cambridge
Public engagement
Give to Cambridge
For current students
For business
Colleges & departments
Libraries & facilities
Museums & collections
Email & phone search
Computer Laboratory
Past exam papers

Logic and Proof

Department of Computer Science and Technology

Academic staff
Support staff
Contract researchers
Fellows & affiliates
PhD students
Wednesday Seminar Series
Wheeler Lectures
women@cl 10th Anniversary
Computer Laboratory 75th Anniversary
Shopping and leisure
Library induction
Electronic resources
Virtual journals shelf
Local services
Lab technical reports
External technical reports
Resource lists
Reading lists
Maps and directions
Contact information
Group Meetings
Project ideas for current students
Projects and research topics
[no title found]
Selected Publications
Open source components
Contact Details
Digital Technology
Applying to do a PhD
Project suggestions
Other information
Reading Club
Postgraduate opportunities
Programming, Logic, Semantics
Projects and topics
Security Seminar Series
Mailing lists
Research Projects
Student Projects
Research Admin
PhD applications
Graduate Admissions Prospectus
Funding deadlines
MPhil in Advanced Computer Science
Premium Research Studentship
Student Administration
Induction for M.Phil and Part III students
Part III and ACS projects
Part IA CST
Part IB CST
Part II CST
Lecturer index
Instructions for lecturers
Examination dates
Examination results
Examiners' reports
Plagiarism and collusion
Purchase of calculators
Data Retention Policy
Guidance on deadlines
Part III Assessment
MPhil Assessment
Student Complaint Procedure
Short form timetable
Part II supervisions overview
Part II sign-up dates
Notes on supervising
Supervisor support
Advice for students visiting Cambridge
UROP internships
Previous years
Briefing document (Pink Book)
Important dates
Phase 1 report
Back-up advice
Resources Declaration
Studies Involving Human Participants
Failure to submit proposal
Selection Tips
Declaration of originality
Submission of dissertation
IP ownership
Diploma model projects
Older project suggestions
Supervising Notes
Overseer Briefing Notes
Directors of Studies
Managed Cluster Service
Part III and MPhil machines
Online services
Installing Linux
Microsoft Azure for Education Membership
Neil Wiseman, 1934–1995
Roger Needham, 1935–2003
David Wheeler, 1927–2004
Karen Spärck Jones, 1935–2007
Judith Ann Bailey, 1934–2008
Robin Milner, 1934–2010
Sir Maurice Wilkes, 1913–2010
Michael JC Gordon, 1948–2017
Richard Gibbens, 1962–2018
An introduction to our computing facilities
Information for new PhD students
Information for new staff
Information for visitors
Information for hosts of visitors
General information
Induction Guidelines
Specialist resources
Printing and scanning
The CL network
SSH access to the CL systems
Supported platforms
Generic Unix/Linux information
Web servers and sites
The RT ticketing system
Lecture theatre AV
Departmental policies
Meeting rooms
Personnel information
Staff training
Wiseman prize
General health and safety
Environment
H&S policies & committees
Risk assessment
Laser safety
Useful links
Index of Health & Safety pages
PhD supervisors
Graduate Advisers
First Year Report: PhD Proposal
Second Year Report: Dissertation Schedule
Third Year Report: Progress Statement
Fourth Year Report: the last year
Papers and conferences
Thesis formatting
Submitting your dissertation
Exemption from University Composition Fees
Leave to work away, holidays and intermission
Researcher Development
Application deadlines
List of PhD thesis
Graduate Students' Forum
PAT, recycling and Building Services
Preparing Tripos exam questions in LaTeX
Information for CST examiners
Information for Directors of Studies
ACS module definition
Providing advice to incoming ACS students
ACS interviewing and admissions
Outreach material
Faculty Board
Degree Committee
Graduate Education
Tripos Management
Health & Safety
IT Strategy
Equality and Diversity
Research Staff
Staff–Student
Graduate Students
Buildings and Environment
Discontinued committees
Building Services
Access and security
Care of the WGB
Facilities in offices
Energy & Environment
West Cambridge Site
Leaving the department

Past exam papers: Logic and Proof

Solution notes are available for many past questions to local users. They were produced by question setters, primarily for the benefit of the examiners. These are not model answers : there may be many other good ways of answering a given exam question!

The solution notes for the most recent two year’s worth of examinations (with exceptions for 2020 and 2021) are held back by the department and only made available to supervisors and other teaching staff (marked with 🔒). Supervisors are instructed not to release hardcopy or electronic versions of these notes to students, although they may be shown to students during supervisions when helpful. Access to any solution notes here requires a Raven login, i.e. they are not public.

Making corrections: Question setters who want to amend solution notes can find the source files under /anfs/www/tripospapers/ and may email updated files to pagemaster.

2023 Paper 6 Question 7 – 🔒solution notes
2023 Paper 6 Question 8 – 🔒solution notes
2022 Paper 6 Question 9 – 🔒solution notes
2022 Paper 6 Question 10 – 🔒solution notes
2021 Paper 6 Question 9 – solution notes
2021 Paper 6 Question 10 – solution notes
2020 Paper 6 Question 9 – solution notes
2020 Paper 6 Question 10 – solution notes
2019 Paper 6 Question 9 – solution notes
2019 Paper 6 Question 10 – solution notes
2018 Paper 6 Question 9 – solution notes
2018 Paper 6 Question 10 – solution notes
2017 Paper 6 Question 5 – solution notes
2017 Paper 6 Question 6 – solution notes
2016 Paper 6 Question 5 – solution notes
2016 Paper 6 Question 6 – solution notes
2015 Paper 6 Question 5 – solution notes
2015 Paper 6 Question 6 – solution notes
2014 Paper 6 Question 5 – solution notes
2014 Paper 6 Question 6 – solution notes
2013 Paper 6 Question 5 – solution notes
2013 Paper 6 Question 6 – solution notes
2012 Paper 6 Question 5 – solution notes
2012 Paper 6 Question 6 – solution notes
2011 Paper 6 Question 5 – solution notes
2011 Paper 6 Question 6 – solution notes
2010 Paper 6 Question 5 – solution notes
2010 Paper 6 Question 6 – solution notes
2009 Paper 6 Question 7 – solution notes
2009 Paper 6 Question 8 – solution notes
2008 Paper 3 Question 6 – solution notes
2008 Paper 4 Question 5 – solution notes
2007 Paper 5 Question 9 – solution notes
2007 Paper 6 Question 9 – solution notes
2006 Paper 5 Question 9 – solution notes
2006 Paper 6 Question 9 – solution notes
2005 Paper 5 Question 9
2005 Paper 6 Question 9
2004 Paper 5 Question 9
2004 Paper 6 Question 9
2003 Paper 5 Question 9
2003 Paper 6 Question 9
2002 Paper 5 Question 11
2002 Paper 6 Question 11
2001 Paper 5 Question 11
2001 Paper 6 Question 11
2000 Paper 5 Question 11
2000 Paper 6 Question 11
1999 Paper 5 Question 10
1999 Paper 6 Question 10
1998 Paper 5 Question 10
1998 Paper 6 Question 10
1997 Paper 5 Question 10
1997 Paper 6 Question 10
1996 Paper 5 Question 10
1996 Paper 6 Question 10
1995 Paper 5 Question 9
1995 Paper 6 Question 9

🔒 = access to solution notes is restricted to cl-supervisors, teaching, wednesday, undergrad-directors-of-studies .

University A-Z
Contact the University
Accessibility
Freedom of information
Terms and conditions
Undergraduate
Spotlight on...
About research at Cambridge

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

(10 reviews)

Matthew Van Cleave, Lansing Community College

Publisher: Matthew J. Van Cleave

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by "yusef" Alexander Hayes, Professor, North Shore Community College on 6/9/21

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book is accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

While many modern examples are used, and they are helpful, they are not necessarily needed. The usefulness of logical principles and skills have proved themselves, and this text presents them clearly with many examples.

Clarity rating: 5

It is obvious that the author cares about their subject, audience, and students. The text is comprehensible and interesting.

Consistency rating: 5

The format is easy to understand and is consistent in framing.

Modularity rating: 5

This text would be easy to adapt.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization is excellent, my one suggestion would be a concluding chapter.

Interface rating: 5

I accessed the PDF version and it would be easy to work with.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The writing is excellent.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This is not an offensive text.

Reviewed by Susan Rottmann, Part-time Lecturer, University of Southern Maine on 3/2/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

I reviewed this book for a course titled "Creative and Critical Inquiry into Modern Life." It won't meet all my needs for that course, but I haven't yet found a book that would. I wanted to review this one because it states in the preface that it fits better for a general critical thinking course than for a true logic course. I'm not sure that I'd agree. I have been using Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," and I think that book is a better introduction to critical thinking for non-philosophy majors. However, the latter is not open source so I will figure out how to get by without it in the future. Overall, the book seems comprehensive if the subject is logic. The index is on the short-side, but fine. However, one issue for me is that there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which is pretty annoying if you want to locate particular sections.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I didn't find any errors. In general the book uses great examples. However, they are very much based in the American context, not for an international student audience. Some effort to broaden the chosen examples would make the book more widely applicable.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

I think the book will remain relevant because of the nature of the material that it addresses, however there will be a need to modify the examples in future editions and as the social and political context changes.

Clarity rating: 3

The text is lucid, but I think it would be difficult for introductory-level students who are not philosophy majors. For example, in Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," the sub-headings are very accessible, such as "Experts cannot rescue us, despite what they say" or "wishful thinking: perhaps the biggest single speed bump on the road to critical thinking." By contrast, Van Cleave's "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking" has more subheadings like this: "Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form" or "Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives." If students are prepared very well for the subject, it would work fine, but for students who are newly being introduced to critical thinking, it is rather technical.

It seems to be very consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 4

The book is divided into 4 chapters, each having many sub-chapters. In that sense, it is readily divisible and modular. However, as noted above, there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which would make assigning certain parts rather frustrating. Also, I'm not sure why the book is only four chapter and has so many subheadings (for instance 17 in Chapter 2) and a length of 242 pages. Wouldn't it make more sense to break up the book into shorter chapters? I think this would make it easier to read and to assign in specific blocks to students.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The organization of the book is fine overall, although I think adding page numbers to the table of contents and breaking it up into more separate chapters would help it to be more easily navigable.

Interface rating: 4

The book is very simply presented. In my opinion it is actually too simple. There are few boxes or diagrams that highlight and explain important points.

The text seems fine grammatically. I didn't notice any errors.

The book is written with an American audience in mind, but I did not notice culturally insensitive or offensive parts.

Overall, this book is not for my course, but I think it could work well in a philosophy course.

Reviewed by Daniel Lee, Assistant Professor of Economics and Leadership, Sweet Briar College on 11/11/19

This textbook is not particularly comprehensive (4 chapters long), but I view that as a benefit. In fact, I recommend it for use outside of traditional logic classes, but rather interdisciplinary classes that evaluate argument read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as accurate, error-free, and unbiased

The book is broadly relevant and up-to-date, with a few stray temporal references (sydney olympics, particular presidencies). I don't view these time-dated examples as problematic as the logical underpinnings are still there and easily assessed

Clarity rating: 4

My only pushback on clarity is I didn't find the distinction between argument and explanation particularly helpful/useful/easy to follow. However, this experience may have been unique to my class.

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as internally consistent

I found this text quite modular, and was easily able to integrate other texts into my lessons and disregard certain chapters or sub-sections

The book had a logical and consistent structure, but to the extent that there are only 4 chapters, there isn't much scope for alternative approaches here

No problems with the book's interface

The text is grammatically sound

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

Perhaps the text could have been more universal in its approach. While I didn't find the book insensitive per-se, logic can be tricky here because the point is to evaluate meaningful (non-trivial) arguments, but any argument with that sense of gravity can also be traumatic to students (abortion, death penalty, etc)

No additional comments

Reviewed by Lisa N. Thomas-Smith, Graduate Part-time Instructor, CU Boulder on 7/1/19

The text covers all the relevant technical aspects of introductory logic and critical thinking, and covers them well. A separate glossary would be quite helpful to students. However, the terms are clearly and thoroughly explained within the text,... read more

The content is excellent. The text is thorough and accurate with no errors that I could discern. The terminology and exercises cover the material nicely and without bias.

The text should easily stand the test of time. The exercises are excellent and would be very helpful for students to internalize correct critical thinking practices. Because of the logical arrangement of the text and the many sub-sections, additional material should be very easy to add.

The text is extremely clearly and simply written. I anticipate that a diligent student could learn all of the material in the text with little additional instruction. The examples are relevant and easy to follow.

The text did not confuse terms or use inconsistent terminology, which is very important in a logic text. The discipline often uses multiple terms for the same concept, but this text avoids that trap nicely.

The text is fairly easily divisible. Since there are only four chapters, those chapters include large blocks of information. However, the chapters themselves are very well delineated and could be easily broken up so that parts could be left out or covered in a different order from the text.

The flow of the text is excellent. All of the information is handled solidly in an order that allows the student to build on the information previously covered.

The PDF Table of Contents does not include links or page numbers which would be very helpful for navigation. Other than that, the text was very easy to navigate. All the images, charts, and graphs were very clear

I found no grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The text including examples and exercises did not seem to be offensive or insensitive in any specific way. However, the examples included references to black and white people, but few others. Also, the text is very American specific with many examples from and for an American audience. More diversity, especially in the examples, would be appropriate and appreciated.

Reviewed by Leslie Aarons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, CUNY LaGuardia Community College on 5/16/19

This is an excellent introductory (first-year) Logic and Critical Thinking textbook. The book covers the important elementary information, clearly discussing such things as the purpose and basic structure of an argument; the difference between an argument and an explanation; validity; soundness; and the distinctions between an inductive and a deductive argument in accessible terms in the first chapter. It also does a good job introducing and discussing informal fallacies (Chapter 4). The incorporation of opportunities to evaluate real-world arguments is also very effective. Chapter 2 also covers a number of formal methods of evaluating arguments, such as Venn Diagrams and Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives, but to my mind, it is much more thorough in its treatment of Informal Logic and Critical Thinking skills, than it is of formal logic. I also appreciated that Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index, but there is no glossary; which I personally do not find detracts from the book's comprehensiveness.

Overall, Van Cleave's book is error-free and unbiased. The language used is accessible and engaging. There were no glaring inaccuracies that I was able to detect.

Van Cleave's Textbook uses relevant, contemporary content that will stand the test of time, at least for the next few years. Although some examples use certain subjects like former President Obama, it does so in a useful manner that inspires the use of critical thinking skills. There are an abundance of examples that inspire students to look at issues from many different political viewpoints, challenging students to practice evaluating arguments, and identifying fallacies. Many of these exercises encourage students to critique issues, and recognize their own inherent reader-biases and challenge their own beliefs--hallmarks of critical thinking.

As mentioned previously, the author has an accessible style that makes the content relatively easy to read and engaging. He also does a suitable job explaining jargon/technical language that is introduced in the textbook.

Van Cleave uses terminology consistently and the chapters flow well. The textbook orients the reader by offering effective introductions to new material, step-by-step explanations of the material, as well as offering clear summaries of each lesson.

This textbook's modularity is really quite good. Its language and structure are not overly convoluted or too-lengthy, making it convenient for individual instructors to adapt the materials to suit their methodological preferences.

The topics in the textbook are presented in a logical and clear fashion. The structure of the chapters are such that it is not necessary to have to follow the chapters in their sequential order, and coverage of material can be adapted to individual instructor's preferences.

The textbook is free of any problematic interface issues. Topics, sections and specific content are accessible and easy to navigate. Overall it is user-friendly.

I did not find any significant grammatical issues with the textbook.

The textbook is not culturally insensitive, making use of a diversity of inclusive examples. Materials are especially effective for first-year critical thinking/logic students.

I intend to adopt Van Cleave's textbook for a Critical Thinking class I am teaching at the Community College level. I believe that it will help me facilitate student-learning, and will be a good resource to build additional classroom activities from the materials it provides.

Reviewed by Jennie Harrop, Chair, Department of Professional Studies, George Fox University on 3/27/18

While the book is admirably comprehensive, its extensive details within a few short chapters may feel overwhelming to students. The author tackles an impressive breadth of concepts in Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4, which leads to 50-plus-page chapters that are dense with statistical analyses and critical vocabulary. These topics are likely better broached in manageable snippets rather than hefty single chapters.

The ideas addressed in Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking are accurate but at times notably political. While politics are effectively used to exemplify key concepts, some students may be distracted by distinct political leanings.

The terms and definitions included are relevant, but the examples are specific to the current political, cultural, and social climates, which could make the materials seem dated in a few years without intentional and consistent updates.

While the reasoning is accurate, the author tends to complicate rather than simplify -- perhaps in an effort to cover a spectrum of related concepts. Beginning readers are likely to be overwhelmed and under-encouraged by his approach.

Consistency rating: 3

The four chapters are somewhat consistent in their play of definition, explanation, and example, but the structure of each chapter varies according to the concepts covered. In the third chapter, for example, key ideas are divided into sub-topics numbering from 3.1 to 3.10. In the fourth chapter, the sub-divisions are further divided into sub-sections numbered 4.1.1-4.1.5, 4.2.1-4.2.2, and 4.3.1 to 4.3.6. Readers who are working quickly to master new concepts may find themselves mired in similarly numbered subheadings, longing for a grounded concepts on which to hinge other key principles.

Modularity rating: 3

The book's four chapters make it mostly self-referential. The author would do well to beak this text down into additional subsections, easing readers' accessibility.

The content of the book flows logically and well, but the information needs to be better sub-divided within each larger chapter, easing the student experience.

The book's interface is effective, allowing readers to move from one section to the next with a single click. Additional sub-sections would ease this interplay even further.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Some minor errors throughout.

For the most part, the book is culturally neutral, avoiding direct cultural references in an effort to remain relevant.

Reviewed by Yoichi Ishida, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Ohio University on 2/1/18

This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking. Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic, this textbook does not cover suppositional arguments, such as conditional proof and reductio ad absurdum. But other standard argument forms are covered. Chapter 3 covers inductive logic, and here this textbook introduces probability and its relationship with cognitive biases, which are rarely discussed in other textbooks. Chapter 4 introduces common informal fallacies. The answers to all the exercises are given at the end. However, the last set of exercises is in Chapter 3, Section 5. There are no exercises in the rest of the chapter. Chapter 4 has no exercises either. There is index, but no glossary.

The textbook is accurate.

The content of this textbook will not become obsolete soon.

The textbook is written clearly.

The textbook is internally consistent.

The textbook is fairly modular. For example, Chapter 3, together with a few sections from Chapter 1, can be used as a short introduction to inductive logic.

The textbook is well-organized.

There are no interface issues.

I did not find any grammatical errors.

This textbook is relevant to a first semester logic or critical thinking course.

Reviewed by Payal Doctor, Associate Professro, LaGuardia Community College on 2/1/18

This text is a beginner textbook for arguments and propositional logic. It covers the basics of identifying arguments, building arguments, and using basic logic to construct propositions and arguments. It is quite comprehensive for a beginner book, but seems to be a good text for a course that needs a foundation for arguments. There are exercises on creating truth tables and proofs, so it could work as a logic primer in short sessions or with the addition of other course content.

The books is accurate in the information it presents. It does not contain errors and is unbiased. It covers the essential vocabulary clearly and givens ample examples and exercises to ensure the student understands the concepts

The content of the book is up to date and can be easily updated. Some examples are very current for analyzing the argument structure in a speech, but for this sort of text understandable examples are important and the author uses good examples.

The book is clear and easy to read. In particular, this is a good text for community college students who often have difficulty with reading comprehension. The language is straightforward and concepts are well explained.

The book is consistent in terminology, formatting, and examples. It flows well from one topic to the next, but it is also possible to jump around the text without loosing the voice of the text.

The books is broken down into sub units that make it easy to assign short blocks of content at a time. Later in the text, it does refer to a few concepts that appear early in that text, but these are all basic concepts that must be used to create a clear and understandable text. No sections are too long and each section stays on topic and relates the topic to those that have come before when necessary.

The flow of the text is logical and clear. It begins with the basic building blocks of arguments, and practice identifying more and more complex arguments is offered. Each chapter builds up from the previous chapter in introducing propositional logic, truth tables, and logical arguments. A select number of fallacies are presented at the end of the text, but these are related to topics that were presented before, so it makes sense to have these last.

The text is free if interface issues. I used the PDF and it worked fine on various devices without loosing formatting.

1. The book contains no grammatical errors.

The text is culturally sensitive, but examples used are a bit odd and may be objectionable to some students. For instance, President Obama's speech on Syria is used to evaluate an extended argument. This is an excellent example and it is explained well, but some who disagree with Obama's policies may have trouble moving beyond their own politics. However, other examples look at issues from all political viewpoints and ask students to evaluate the argument, fallacy, etc. and work towards looking past their own beliefs. Overall this book does use a variety of examples that most students can understand and evaluate.

My favorite part of this book is that it seems to be written for community college students. My students have trouble understanding readings in the New York Times, so it is nice to see a logic and critical thinking text use real language that students can understand and follow without the constant need of a dictionary.

Reviewed by Rebecca Owen, Adjunct Professor, Writing, Chemeketa Community College on 6/20/17

This textbook is quite thorough--there are conversational explanations of argument structure and logic. I think students will be happy with the conversational style this author employs. Also, there are many examples and exercises using current events, funny scenarios, or other interesting ways to evaluate argument structure and validity. The third section, which deals with logical fallacies, is very clear and comprehensive. My only critique of the material included in the book is that the middle section may be a bit dense and math-oriented for learners who appreciate the more informal, informative style of the first and third section. Also, the book ends rather abruptly--it moves from a description of a logical fallacy to the answers for the exercises earlier in the text.

The content is very reader-friendly, and the author writes with authority and clarity throughout the text. There are a few surface-level typos (Starbuck's instead of Starbucks, etc.). None of these small errors detract from the quality of the content, though.

One thing I really liked about this text was the author's wide variety of examples. To demonstrate different facets of logic, he used examples from current media, movies, literature, and many other concepts that students would recognize from their daily lives. The exercises in this text also included these types of pop-culture references, and I think students will enjoy the familiarity--as well as being able to see the logical structures behind these types of references. I don't think the text will need to be updated to reflect new instances and occurrences; the author did a fine job at picking examples that are relatively timeless. As far as the subject matter itself, I don't think it will become obsolete any time soon.

The author writes in a very conversational, easy-to-read manner. The examples used are quite helpful. The third section on logical fallacies is quite easy to read, follow, and understand. A student in an argument writing class could benefit from this section of the book. The middle section is less clear, though. A student learning about the basics of logic might have a hard time digesting all of the information contained in chapter two. This material might be better in two separate chapters. I think the author loses the balance of a conversational, helpful tone and focuses too heavily on equations.

Consistency rating: 4

Terminology in this book is quite consistent--the key words are highlighted in bold. Chapters 1 and 3 follow a similar organizational pattern, but chapter 2 is where the material becomes more dense and equation-heavy. I also would have liked a closing passage--something to indicate to the reader that we've reached the end of the chapter as well as the book.

I liked the overall structure of this book. If I'm teaching an argumentative writing class, I could easily point the students to the chapters where they can identify and practice identifying fallacies, for instance. The opening chapter is clear in defining the necessary terms, and it gives the students an understanding of the toolbox available to them in assessing and evaluating arguments. Even though I found the middle section to be dense, smaller portions could be assigned.

The author does a fine job connecting each defined term to the next. He provides examples of how each defined term works in a sentence or in an argument, and then he provides practice activities for students to try. The answers for each question are listed in the final pages of the book. The middle section feels like the heaviest part of the whole book--it would take the longest time for a student to digest if assigned the whole chapter. Even though this middle section is a bit heavy, it does fit the overall structure and flow of the book. New material builds on previous chapters and sub-chapters. It ends abruptly--I didn't realize that it had ended, and all of a sudden I found myself in the answer section for those earlier exercises.

The simple layout is quite helpful! There is nothing distracting, image-wise, in this text. The table of contents is clearly arranged, and each topic is easy to find.

Tiny edits could be made (Starbuck's/Starbucks, for one). Otherwise, it is free of distracting grammatical errors.

This text is quite culturally relevant. For instance, there is one example that mentions the rumors of Barack Obama's birthplace as somewhere other than the United States. This example is used to explain how to analyze an argument for validity. The more "sensational" examples (like the Obama one above) are helpful in showing argument structure, and they can also help students see how rumors like this might gain traction--as well as help to show students how to debunk them with their newfound understanding of argument and logic.

The writing style is excellent for the subject matter, especially in the third section explaining logical fallacies. Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this text!

Reviewed by Laurel Panser, Instructor, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

This is a review of Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, an open source book version 1.4 by Matthew Van Cleave. The comparison book used was Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic 12th Edition published by Cengage as well as... read more

Competing with Hurley is difficult with respect to comprehensiveness. For example, Van Cleave’s book is comprehensive to the extent that it probably covers at least two-thirds or more of what is dealt with in most introductory, one-semester logic courses. Van Cleave’s chapter 1 provides an overview of argumentation including discerning non-arguments from arguments, premises versus conclusions, deductive from inductive arguments, validity, soundness and more. Much of Van Cleave’s chapter 1 parallel’s Hurley’s chapter 1. Hurley’s chapter 3 regarding informal fallacies is comprehensive while Van Cleave’s chapter 4 on this topic is less extensive. Categorical propositions are a topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 4 and 5 provide more instruction on this, however. Propositional logic is another topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 6 and 7 provide more information on this, though. Van Cleave did discuss messy issues of language meaning briefly in his chapter 1; that is the topic of Hurley’s chapter 2.

Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index. A glossary was not included.

Reviews of open source textbooks typically include criteria besides comprehensiveness. These include comments on accuracy of the information, whether the book will become obsolete soon, jargon-free clarity to the extent that is possible, organization, navigation ease, freedom from grammar errors and cultural relevance; Van Cleave’s book is fine in all of these areas. Further criteria for open source books includes modularity and consistency of terminology. Modularity is defined as including blocks of learning material that are easy to assign to students. Hurley’s book has a greater degree of modularity than Van Cleave’s textbook. The prose Van Cleave used is consistent.

Van Cleave’s book will not become obsolete soon.

Van Cleave’s book has accessible prose.

Van Cleave used terminology consistently.

Van Cleave’s book has a reasonable degree of modularity.

Van Cleave’s book is organized. The structure and flow of his book is fine.

Problems with navigation are not present.

Grammar problems were not present.

Van Cleave’s book is culturally relevant.

Van Cleave’s book is appropriate for some first semester logic courses.

Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments

1.1 What is an argument?
1.2 Identifying arguments
1.3 Arguments vs. explanations
1.4 More complex argument structures
1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form
1.6 Validity
1.7 Soundness
1.8 Deductive vs. inductive arguments
1.9 Arguments with missing premises
1.10 Assuring, guarding, and discounting
1.11 Evaluative language
1.12 Evaluating a real-life argument

Chapter 2: Formal methods of evaluating arguments

2.1 What is a formal method of evaluation and why do we need them?
2.2 Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives
2.3 Negation and disjunction
2.4 Using parentheses to translate complex sentences
2.5 “Not both” and “neither nor”
2.6 The truth table test of validity
2.7 Conditionals
2.8 “Unless”
2.9 Material equivalence
2.10 Tautologies, contradictions, and contingent statements
2.11 Proofs and the 8 valid forms of inference
2.12 How to construct proofs
2.13 Short review of propositional logic
2.14 Categorical logic
2.15 The Venn test of validity for immediate categorical inferences
2.16 Universal statements and existential commitment
2.17 Venn validity for categorical syllogisms

Chapter 3: Evaluating inductive arguments and probabilistic and statistical fallacies

3.1 Inductive arguments and statistical generalizations
3.2 Inference to the best explanation and the seven explanatory virtues
3.3 Analogical arguments
3.4 Causal arguments
3.5 Probability
3.6 The conjunction fallacy
3.7 The base rate fallacy
3.8 The small numbers fallacy
3.9 Regression to the mean fallacy
3.10 Gambler's fallacy

Chapter 4: Informal fallacies

4.1 Formal vs. informal fallacies
4.1.1 Composition fallacy
4.1.2 Division fallacy
4.1.3 Begging the question fallacy
4.1.4 False dichotomy
4.1.5 Equivocation
4.2 Slippery slope fallacies
4.2.1 Conceptual slippery slope
4.2.2 Causal slippery slope
4.3 Fallacies of relevance
4.3.1 Ad hominem
4.3.2 Straw man
4.3.3 Tu quoque
4.3.4 Genetic
4.3.5 Appeal to consequences
4.3.6 Appeal to authority

Answers to exercises Glossary/Index

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a “critical thinking textbook.”

About the Contributors

Matthew Van Cleave , PhD, Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, 2007. VAP at Concordia College (Moorhead), 2008-2012. Assistant Professor at Lansing Community College, 2012-2016. Professor at Lansing Community College, 2016-

Contribute to this Page

PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic (2018.A.01)

Enrollment options.

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

Logic and Critical Thinking Past Papers

[OBJECTIVE]

Subject: Logic and Critical Thinking

Time Allowed: 15 Minutes

Max Marks: 10

NOTE: Attempt this Paper on this Question Sheet only. Please encircle the correct option. Division of marks is given in front of each question. This Paper will be collected back after expiry of time limit mentioned above.

Part-I Encircle the right answer, cutting and overwriting are not allowed. (10)

An inductive argument is either

a) Valid or Invalid b) True or False

c) Correct or incorrect d) More or Less Probable

2 . __________ cannot both be false at the same time but can be true simultaneously.

a) Contraries b) Sub-Contraries

c) Contradictories d) Contingents

3 . In __________ argument, reasoning always starts from general premises to particular conclusion.

a) Deductive b) Inductive

c) Correct d) Invalid

4 . Major term never appears in the __________ of any syllogistic argument.

a) Mood b) Minor Premise

c) Figure d) Conclusion

5 . The converse of A proposition is __________:

c) I. d) not- A

6 . __________ is a valid standard form of categorical syllogism.

a) AAA-4 b) EAE-1

c) OOO-1 d) III-1

7 . If O proposition is given as false, then E is:

a) True b) False

c) Undetermined d) Probable

8 . “Happy Birthday to you” is use __________ of language.

a) Informative b) Expressive

c) Directive d) Ceremonial

9 . Inference from a single premise is called:

a) Mediate b) Indirect

c) Intermediate d) Immediate

10 . __________ is a universal negative proposition.

[SUBJECTIVE]

Time Allowed: 2 Hours 45 Minutes

Max Marks: 50

NOTE: ATTEMPT THIS (SUBJECTIVE) ON SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET PROVIDED

Part-II (a) Give Short Answers, Each question carries equal marks. (10)

Q# 1: What is the difference between Universal and Particular Propositions?

Q# 2: Define “middle term and Major term” with example.

Q# 3: What are “Coversion” and “Obversion”?

Q# 4: What is “Distribution”?

Q# 5: What is Quantity?

Part-II (b) Translate the following into symbolic logic. Use first letter of the underlined words. (10)

a) Iran will raise the price of oil and Jordan will buy five hundred more warplanes.

b) Neither Panama nor Indonesia will join the meeting.

c) Saima will cook food if Yusra will help.

d) Either John is a political or he is not a politician.

e) If Iran raises the price of oil and Jordan requests more U.S aid, then Egypt will call for a meeting.

Part-III Answer the following Long questions. (30)

Q# 1: Discuss the uses of language with examples.

Q# 2: Use Venn Diagram to test the validity of the following.

More Critical Logic Thinking – Past Papers

AS and A level Thinking Skills Past Papers

Complete as and a level thinking skills past papers.

Thinking Skills develops a set of transferable skills, including critical thinking, reasoning and problem solving, that students can apply across a wide range of subjects and complex real world issues.

The syllabus enables students to develop their ability to analyse unfamiliar problems, devise problem solving strategies, and evaluate the diverse ways a problem may be solved. During a Thinking Skills course, students learn to put their personal views aside in favour of examining and evaluating the evidence. Students learn how to make informed and reasoned decisions and construct evidence-based arguments.

These independent thinking skills build confidence and equip students with a toolkit for tackling complex and unfamiliar subjects, essential for successful progression to higher education or into professional employment.

Thinking Skills – 9694 – AS and A level – Syllabus

Thinking Skills – 9694 – AS and A level – 2013

Thinking Skills – 9694 – AS and A level – 2014

Thinking Skills – 9694 – AS and A level – 2015

Thinking Skills – 9694 – AS and A level – 2016

Thinking Skills – 9694 – AS and A level – 2017

Thinking Skills – 9694 – AS and A level – 2018

Thinking Skills – 9694 – AS and A level – 2019

Thinking Skills support: 417947-support-for-cambridge-international-as-a-level-thinking-skills-9694

Thinking Skills FAQ: Thinking-skills-frequently-asked-questions

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
–––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
–––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
–––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
–––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
–––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
–––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
–––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
–––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
–––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
–––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
–––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
–––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
–––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
–––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
–––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
–––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
–––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
–––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
–––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
–––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
–––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
–––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
–––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
–––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
–––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
–––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
–––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
–––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
–––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
–––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
–––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
–––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
–––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
–––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
–––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
–––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
–––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
–––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
–––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
–––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
–––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
–––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
–––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
–––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
–––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
–––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
–––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
–––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
–––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
–––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
–––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
–––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
–––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
–––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
–––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
Foundation for Critical Thinking
Insight Assessment
Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
The Critical Thinking Consortium
The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

May 2023 Papers for CAIE Qualifications Available Now! Read More.

Cambridge O levels

Cambridge IGCSE

Cambridge Int'l AS & A Levels

ðŸ“Œ Update(s): 13/08/2023 NEW! AS/A Level latest papers added!

If any paper is still missing, please report using the Contact Us! tab.

Other Resources
Specimen Papers

Common Search Terms:

Resource Guide for File Naming System.

Click the image to view.

TOLC-MED (Soon)
NEET (Soon)
Milano Statale
Milano Bicocca
Tor Vergata
Ancona (M.D. & Tech)
La Sapienza
Luigi Vanvitelli
Federico II
Bari Aldo Moro
Universities in Italy

UNITED KINGDOM

Kings College London
Anglia Ruskin
Brighton and Susses
Imperial College London
🆕 IMAT 2023 Scores
The IMAT Explained
🆕 IMAT 2024 News
🆕 IMAT 2024 Syllabus
IMAT Application
Test Samples
Dentistry in English
All Medical Schools
Scholarships
🆕 Old IMAT vs. New IMAT
IMAT Past Papers
Problem Solving
More Similar Papers
How to Use Anki
Study Planner
Math and Physics
Exam Strategies
Read More IMAT Posts!
ALL-IN-ONE Guide
Main Community
Notifications
EU Candidates
Ari’s Students Forum
IMAT Biology Book
Simulator Score Calculator
IMAT 2024: Study Planner
Submit Questions
IMAT Anki Deck
Get ready for UCAT 2023
Ari Horesh’s Study Techniques and Mentorship Program
Get Ready for IMAT 2024
Italian Medical Schools (English)

All Previous IMAT Test Papers 2011-2022 | PDFs, Breakdown + Analysis

Read in a different language 👇

Download PDFs of all previous IMAT tests papers from 2011 to 2022 with our topic analysis! Gain an edge in your preparation.

Additional related resources

Ari Horesh University of Pavia, Italy

In this article, we have collected all previous IMAT test papers from 2011 to 2022, available for download in PDF format. The International Medical Admissions Test (IMAT) is a challenging exam that assesses the skills and knowledge of prospective medical students from all over the world. It is used by many top universities in Italy and other countries to select the most qualified candidates for their medical programs. With such high stakes, it is no wonder that many students feel nervous and overwhelmed when preparing for this test.

Content Quick Navigation

If you are one of those students, don’t worry – we have got you covered. By having access to a wealth of past questions and answers, you will be able to practice and refine your skills. By practicing with these previous test papers, you will get a feel for the types of questions that are asked, the format of the exam, and the level of difficulty.

But that’s not all – we will also be breaking down the trends and analyzing the past papers to give you a better understanding of the types of questions that are being asked every year. This information will help you to focus on your preparation and increase your confidence going into the exam. For example, by analyzing the previous papers, we may discover that certain topics or types of questions are being emphasized more frequently. Armed with this knowledge, you can tailor your study plan to ensure that you are well-prepared for the exam.

In addition, we will provide insightful analysis and breakdowns of each question and answer to help you better understand the reasoning behind each solution. This will help you to not only memorize the correct answer, but also to understand the underlying concepts and principles that are being tested. By doing so, you will be able to apply this knowledge to other questions on the exam, and to your future studies as well.

In conclusion, by using the past IMAT papers that we have gathered and analyzed, you will be able to effectively prepare for the exam, increase your confidence, and maximize your chances of success. So whether you are a first-time test taker or a seasoned pro, read on to learn how to ace the IMAT!

IMAT Past Papers, Changes, Topics, and Format

To better prepare for this examination, students must familiarize themselves with the previous exam papers. In this article, we will take a closer look at the past papers of the IMAT exam from 2011 to 2022.

IMAT 2011 and 2012 were very different from the rest of the exams. These exams consisted of 80 questions and were considered less challenging than subsequent years. The questions were more straightforward, and there were not as many general knowledge questions as seen in other years.

From 2013 until 2019, we saw a significant trend in the past papers of the IMAT exam. These exams had 60 questions written in a tricky way familiar with Cambridge. Every question of the exam required logical thinking and analysis, including questions that weren’t part of the logic section.

In 2019, the exam saw a change in its format. Instead of critical thinking and problem-solving questions, there were ten more general knowledge questions. Despite this change, the scores remained around the same. This is because no one manages to solve all 60 questions, and as critical thinking and problem-solving questions take the most amount of time to solve, most of the past candidates just solved biology and chemistry questions instead.

In 2022, the exam format saw another change. For the first time, there were 10 math and physics questions instead of 8 and 15 chemistry questions instead of 12. Three questions were taken away from biology. It remains to be seen how this change will affect the scores of the candidates.

In conclusion, the past papers of the IMAT exam from 2011 to 2022 have seen various changes. These changes have been reflected in the number of questions, the level of difficulty, and the type of questions asked. Understanding these changes and reviewing past papers can help students better prepare for the IMAT exam.

IMAT 2023 Past Paper PDF

Imat 2022 past paper pdf, imat 2021 past paper pdf, imat 2020 past paper pdf, imat 2019 past paper pdf, imat 2018 past paper pdf, imat 2017 past paper pdf, imat 2016 past paper pdf, imat 2015 past paper pdf, imat 2014 past paper pdf, imat 2013 past paper pdf, imat 2012 past paper pdf, imat 2011 past paper pdf, what are the most important imat topics to study.

In this section, we will discuss some of the most important IMAT topics to study.

When it comes to critical thinking, it’s essential to learn how to find the main conclusion and assumption that the author makes. These are the basics of reading a paragraph, and we recommend starting from here. Understanding the author’s main point and the assumptions they make can help you answer related questions more effectively.

Problem-solving is another crucial area to focus on when studying for the IMAT exam. There are always questions related to spatial recognition, folding shapes, 3D shapes, and more. While there are plenty of ways to practice for these types of questions, it’s important to remember that there is no one way to study for them. The key is to practice and develop a sense of familiarity with these types of questions.

In addition to critical thinking and problem-solving skills, the IMAT exam also includes questions related to biology and chemistry. These sections can be challenging, and it’s important to focus on key concepts and topics.

In biology and chemistry, you’ll find questions that cover basic concepts, but also more advanced topics related to physiology. It’s important to have a solid understanding of basic concepts such as cell biology, mitosis, meiosis, and the reproduction of cells. These are topics that appear on the exam every year, so it’s essential to review and practice these concepts thoroughly.

In chemistry, there are several key subjects that you must know by heart. Basic stoichiometry, gas laws, redox reactions, and periodicity are among the most important. These concepts may seem straightforward, but they require a solid foundation and a lot of practice to master. Make sure to review these concepts regularly and work through practice questions to solidify your understanding.

When Should I Practice IMAT Past Papers?

Preparing for the IMAT exam requires a well-planned approach, and practicing with past papers is an essential part of this process. In this section, we will discuss when the best time to practice IMAT past papers is and how to use them effectively.

A regular preparation for the IMAT exam usually takes 5-6 months. During the first three months, it is recommended to focus on the IMAT study planner, studying from books and watching videos. This will help you build a strong foundation in the concepts and skills needed for the exam. It is not recommended to use any IMAT past papers during this period.

After completing the IMAT study planner, start practicing questions from similar exams such as the SATs, BMAT past papers, TSAs, IBs, MCAT books, and more. Practicing as many questions as possible will allow you to understand how to deal with questions without spoiling the simulators for you.

Around three months before the exam, start solving one past paper per week, starting from IMAT 2013. You can use 2011 and 2012 as well, but the questions are very different from the more recent papers. Solving past papers will allow you to start getting used to solving the exam under real test conditions. Use a timer, a quiet place, and do not go to the bathroom for 100 minutes, focusing only on the IMAT exam!

It is important to simulate the real exam conditions as closely as possible. This will help you get used to the time pressure and focus required for the exam. When solving past papers, pay attention to the types of questions that take longer to solve and the types of questions that are easier for you. This will help you develop a strategy for approaching the exam and managing your time effectively.

Analyzing your mistakes is crucial to ensure that you are making progress and improving your performance. Reviewing every mistake you make on the past paper, including the questions you answered correctly, will help you identify areas where you need improvement and make adjustments to your study plan accordingly.

Using Past IMAT Papers as Simulators to Prepare for Exam Day

Preparing for the IMAT exam can be a daunting task, but using past IMAT papers as simulators is an effective way to prepare for the exam day itself. In this section, we will discuss how to use past IMAT papers as simulators to help you prepare for the exam day.

First, it’s important to start practicing with past IMAT papers early in your preparation. Ideally, you should begin practicing with past papers after you have studied the key concepts and topics that are covered on the exam.

Second, simulate the real test conditions as closely as possible. Set a timer for 100 minutes, find a quiet place to work, and do not go to the bathroom during this time. This will help you get used to the time pressure and focus required for the exam.

Third, solve one past IMAT paper per week starting from 2013. You can use 2011 and 2012 as well, but the questions are different from the more recent papers. Solving past papers will allow you to start getting used to solving the exam under real test conditions.

Fourth, pay attention to the types of questions that take longer to solve and the types of questions that are easier for you. This will help you develop a strategy for approaching the exam and managing your time effectively.

Fifth, analyze your mistakes thoroughly. Review every mistake you make on the past paper, including the questions you answered correctly. This will help you identify areas where you need improvement and make adjustments to your study plan accordingly.

Finally, use the past IMAT papers as simulators to help you build your confidence and reduce your anxiety levels. By practicing with past papers under real test conditions, you will be better prepared for the exam day itself and will feel more confident in your ability to succeed.

Using past IMAT papers as simulators is an effective way to prepare for the IMAT exam. By simulating the real test conditions, solving past papers, analyzing your mistakes, and building your confidence, you can maximize your chances of success on exam day. Remember to start practicing with past papers early, pay attention to your mistakes, and use the past papers as simulators to build your confidence and reduce your anxiety levels.

Exam Past Questions

Institutions & Schools
Courses / Fields of Study
Request Board
Study & Discussion Groups
Members Profile
New Uploads - Past Question Papers
Top Downloads - Past Question Papers
Tutors & Professionals
Training & Certifications
Job Vacancies
News Portal
0 Credits Bal.
Make Request
Sell Online
Buy Credits

Credits History

Logic and critical thinking - gst 112.

University of Maiduguri | 124 Downloads --> Change Exam Institution --> -->

Purchase credit once and download as many as possible from your credits.

Your download credits never expire. Not having enough credits ?

Available Contents

Download available soon, chat on whatsapp with +234 814 131 2217.

Continue To Chat

Can't find the past questions you need ? Don't panic! We'll get it here for you!

11,869 Requests submitted already

24,456 Downloads by members

6,427 Past questions available

Request : Banking and finance ND 1 ?

Reply by Blessing Edah

Request : general studies 100L?

Please help me

Reply by Friday Felix

Request : Past question paper and solutions for EKSU MANAGEMENT SCIENCE 100L?

Please I need EKSU PAST QUESTIONS FOR FMS 101 FOR 100L

Reply by Testimony Onibon

How It Works

Scan & Upload
Set Your Price

Learn more...

Medical Laboratory Science Past Questions

Browse more

University of Maiduguri Past Questions

Past questions by.

To download your desired past questions from ExamPastQuestions.com simply follow these steps. Enter the exam course code (e.g. MAC411) or the exam course title (e.g Accounting) into the search box above. Click the search button icon. Depending on your search criteria, you will see list of related exam question titles listed.

Click any of the list item to display details. From the view details page, you will see list of download buttons associated with each past questions available for download. The past questions are grouped by year which the exam was taken.

Some downloads are free while others require donwload credits. As you download, the required credits is deducted from your wallet (account balance).

You can purchase download credits online by clicking the button "But more credits". From the pop-up screen, select the unit of credits you wish to purchase. Click the Proceed button to confirm your details. Finally click the button "Make Payment Online", you will be directed to Paystack secured payment processing page. Enter your card details and complete the transaction.

Your wallet (account balance) is credited immediately after successful payment. Then you can proceed to download.

Interestingly, members can now upload their past question papers online. It is a simple process. Simply compile your past questions in word or pdf format. If your past questions are in hard copy (physical paper), you can quickly convert them to pdf using a mobile app called CamScanner. Simply download it from Google play store.

After convertion, just login to your profile and start uploading. Fill in all required information for the upload. Set your download credits (price) if you wish to earn money from your upload or leave it blank for free download.

Note that all uploads are encrypted and stored securely on our cloud servers. Upload once and earn credits on every download. The more people download your cantent, the more credits you get. You can convert your credits to cash which is paid directly to your registered bank account once you credits reaches payment threshold.

We have made it possible for our members to submit their request to us. As we source for past questions for processing and upload, we take priority from request queue in our database. That is, we treat request on relevance and importance. There is no particular order in treating members request.

You can submit your request (what you are looking for) to us. Our expert team will work on your request and you will be notified once it is available for download.

New Requests

Past questions for Nwafor Orizu College of Education 100L by Chiamaka Deborah
Past question for school of nursing mkar entrance exam by Omobolaji Amusan
Past question paper for Food science and technology 200l by Vivian Kelechi
Business maths 100L by Peter Sarah
TPC by Bashir Hotoro
Use of English 100L by Patrick Akan
Political science by Kalvin Ezekiel
Social studies 100L by Aderotoye Abiodun
AFUED social studies 100l degree by Aderotoye Abiodun
Past question paper for NOUN business introduction 100l by Ajiboye Boluwatife

New Past Questions

SOIL MICROBIOLOGY ( MCB 204 )
CHEMISTRY ( CHEM 201 )
BIOLOGY - JAMB ( BIO )
Integrated Marketing Communication ( MAC 428 )
ADVERTISING COPY AND LAYOUT ( MAC 332 )
BROADCAST COMMENTARY AND ANNOUNCING ( MAC 444 )
ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT ( MKT 833 )
CIIN - Marine and Aviation Insurance ( D13 )
CIIN - Long Term Business ( D12 )
CIIN - Personal Insurance Practice ( D11 )

Recent Downloads

Business and Company Law ( MBA 804 ) by Caroline Ateli
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS OF THE COLD WAR (1945-1991) ( PCR 419 ) by Ibrahim Dauda Tada
ELEMENTARY MECHANICS, HEAT AND PROPERTIES OF MATTER ( PHY 101 ) by Marvellous Ajayi
ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE ( POL 111 ) by Patrick Uzoma
PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY III ( CHM 301 ) by Okorienta Ugonnaya

New Members

Boti Monwabisi joined 13 Apr
Emmanuel David joined 13 Apr
Chiamaka Deborah joined 13 Apr
Peters Miracle joined 13 Apr
Ogunfowoke Deborah joined 13 Apr
Ezekiel Abolarin joined 13 Apr
[email protected] Bella joined 13 Apr
Paul James joined 13 Apr
Calista Agozie joined 13 Apr
Omobolaji Amusan joined 13 Apr

Get notifications when new past questions are uploaded

WhatsApp : 08141312217

NORLAND Investment Training...!

CALA Robot Earns You N600,000+ Monthly

Boost your earnings with Artificial Intelligent

Join 84,523 Active Members

Earn Your U.S.A. Accredited Degree Online

Boost your career with an American degree (MBA, MSc, BBA). Monthly payment plan available.

Join Us Now

Hire a Solution / Project Writter

Post a Project

Coming soon...

Exam Past Questions (EPQ) is Nigeria's foremost examination resource platform, built with technology to allow anyone to search, preview, upload, share, find and download millions of examination related files/resources that fuel their educational goals. Past question papers, answer to questions, marking scheme, course outline, project materials, research papers, aptitude tests, interview questions, assignments from various hosted institutions within Nigeria – you name it, we power it.

Our mission? To build the largest community of students, researchers and tutors through live solutions.

EPQ Directory

Past Question Papers
Exam Institutions & Schools
Request for Past Questions
Quick Questions
Solution & Project Writters
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Frequently Ask Questions
Selling Past Questions
Affiliate Program
Local & International Partnerships
Help / Contact Us

Why Use EPQ?

Free access to thousands of past question papers, answers, e-books, project materials, marking scheme and lots more
Downloads of quality exam papers
Connect with members in the community
Earn free credits from all referrals
Your download credits does not expire
Get solutions and answers to your questions
Share and sell your papers online
Cash-out your credits to your registered bank account
Grow your network from our referral program
Secured multiple payment channels powered by PayStack
100% verified and secured by GoDaddy

Address : Egbeda, Alimosho Lagos, Nigeria
Email : exampastquestions [.] com [at] gmail.com support [at] exampastquestions [.] com
Phone / Whatsapp : +2348141312217
Facebook : exampastquestions
Twitter : @EPastQuestions

Payment Methods

USSD, Bank Transfer, Cash Deposit

Face of the moment.

Caroline Ateli

Abuja Federal Capital Ter, Nigeria

Apply for Face Of The Day

Charity Onoriode purchased 4,000 credits
nenkimwa catheine purchased 900 credits
Eli Y. Ibrahim purchased 500 credits
Salaudeen Anifat purchased 500 credits
Daodu Rotimi purchased 400 credits

School News

Virtual Library
Editorial Board Member
Write For Us
February 16, 2019
Posted by: RSIS
Category: Social Science

International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) | Volume III, Issue II, February 2019 | ISSN 2454–6186

An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

Ayedero Taiwo Martins

Ekiti State University, Nigeria

Abstract:-Our main objective in this paper is to improve our logical thinking skills and to expose us to basic pitfalls in human reasoning. The most important critical thinking skill is the skill of making judgments, not spontaneous judgment that occurs in the twinkle of an eye, but those that require careful and deliberate reasoning. The purpose of studying Logic and Philosophy at this level of academic tutelage is to facilitate students’ thinking ability in tackling herculean tasks, addressing recalcitrant and intractable issues and been able to easily confront problem areas in their respective field of study. Good thinking therefore, is a necessary factor to securing excellent academic performance. Logic provides rigorous ground for whatsoever belief, position or opinion we are holding. It enables us to develop critical attitude in us to query and investigate some assumptions and presuppositions in our various disciplines that we often take for granted. It also enables us to identify common errors (fallacies) in human reasoning. As matter of fact, we need logic for good business plan and to manage personal, corporate or public affairs.

Keywords: Logic, Reasoning, Arguments, Reasoning, and Fallacies

INTRODUCTION

Nature and Meaning of Logic

Reasoning is a kind of thinking in which problems are solved, inferences take place, and conclusions are drawn. All reasoning involves thinking but all thinking does not necessarily imply reasoning. What then is reasoning and how can we identify good reasoning? Reasoning could be defined as a systematized or organized chain-process of thought. Reasoning is a transition in thought, where some beliefs (or thoughts) provide the ground or reason for coming to another. High quality of reasoning is called logical reasoning or critical thinking. Logical reasoning can be learned or improved. It is not a question whether you are naturally good at it or you’re not. Rather, every student or learner has the ability to reason well, and everyone is capable of improvement. The usefulness of logical reasoning as a means to making more effective decisions about your own life lies in decision about what to believe, accept and decision about what to do and when to do it.

A. What is Logic?

What is logic and what is its subject matter? Logic is the study of the principles and methods of correct reasoning. Put more technically, it is the study of principles and methods of valid inference. (Adeniyi O.R & Ayedero T.M, 2016:2). It is not, as is it is often supposed that, logic is the science of thinking as such. for thinking can take many forms, such as

remembering, intuiting, imagining, and freely associating, which however interesting in themselves, are of little consequence to the logician. Our concern is with reasoning only. It is true that all reasoning involves thinking, but all thinking is not reasoning. Some thinking does not involve reasoning.

Logic simply put is a method and technique of distinguishing between valid, correct, sound, and good reasoning (arguments) from invalid, incorrect, unsound and bad reasoning (arguments). Logic is the general science of argument (Robert J.F & Armstrong W.S 2005, 2). It is chiefly concerned with arguments. In logic, the term argument denotes any group of propositions consisting of conclusion i.e (the proposition the argument is alleged to establish) and one or more premise(s) (propositions offered as evidences for the conclusion). An argument therefore is made up of premises (evidences) and a conclusion. „Premises‟ and „Conclusion‟ constitute the structure of an argument. The propositions which are affirmed as providing support or reasons for the conclusion are the premises of an argument. The concern of logic is not actual process of reasoning but rather the correctness and soundness of products of reasoning. It should be noted that, philosophical reasoning is argumentative by nature. Argument therefore involves chain of reasoning where by certain inferences are made on the basis of others . What then is an inference?

B. Inference

An inference is a process by which one proposition is arrived and affirmed on the basis of one or more other propositions accepted as the initial point of the process, and the end point comes with the drawing of the conclusion from given set of premises (Adeniyi 2004,139). It has also been argued in some quarters that inferences are statements we make about the unknown using the known as their foundation (Ucheaga D.N 1992, 35). Inference is endpoint of reasoning which may be characterized as either inductive or deductive reasoning. Let consider the example below:

All Ravens observed in Africa are black All Ravens observed on Asia are black

All Ravens observed in South America are black All eagles observed in United State are black Inference . Therefore, all Ravens are black

The inference drawn is the conclusion arrived at from the premises offered to support the conclusion.

C. Proposition

A proposition is a statement of fact which can be appraised as either true or false. Propositions are expressed in sentences, but the reverse is not the case of all sentences. Logicians are not interested in all kinds of sentences. There is the need to distinguish those which express propositions and those which do not. Let us briefly consider the following sentences;

Martins is a female lecturer
Water boils at 100 o c
The H.O.D is not on seat
Shut the door behind you!
Get out of my office!

Examples (i-ii) are propositional sentences because they can be true or false. On the contrary, examples (iv-v) are ordinary command sentences which cannot be said to be true or false. At most, they can either be said to be grammatical or ungrammatical whereas sentences that express proposition are either true or false. Sentences that express proposition are called statements (Adeniyi 2004).

Literarily speaking, the word “argument” may suggest quarrel or squabbles, or conversational disagreement. But this is just a layman understanding of an argument and a broader sense of usage. Technically, in logic, argument means giving reasons for or against some claims. For purpose of logical analysis, the components of an argument (premises and conclusion) are usually written in a sequence whose last member is the conclusion. For the purpose of clarity, we shall briefly consider some arguments and identify their premises and conclusions.

Premise1= All men are mortal

Premise2= All mortal are predetermined to die Premise3= Socrates is mortal

Conclusion= Socrates is predetermined to die

The argument above comprises of four propositions. The first three propositions are premises which provide „evidence‟ for the alleged claim the last proposition that is, the conclusion of the argument.

Premise1= All African countries are going through economic recession

Premise2= Nigeria is an African Country

Conclusion= Nigeria is going through economic recession

Note that, arguments are not always pattern in line with the pattern of our two examples above. In some cases, the

conclusion may be sandwiched within the body of the argument or it may even start with the argument.

Example iii

Premise1= All teenagers are students Conclusion= and all my children are students Premise2= since all children teenagers

In the above arguments, to identify the structure, that is, the premises and the conclusion, attention has to be paid to contexts. We need to discover the issue at stake. However, the structure of many arguments can be identified by the provision of certain indicators we may call premises and conclusion indicators.

Conclusion and Premise Indicators

To carry out logicians‟ task of distinguishing good from bad arguments, we must be able to recognize arguments when they occur and must be able to identify the premises and the conclusions of those arguments. When we confront a passage that we understand to be an argument, how can we tell what its conclusion is, and what are its premises? We have already seen that an argument can be stated with its conclusion first, last or sandwiched between its premises. Hence the conclusion of an argument cannot be identified in terms of its position in the formulation of the argument. How, then, can it be recognized?. Some words or phrases typically serve to introduce the conclusion of an argument. Such expressions are referred to as “conclusion-indicators” . The presence of any of them often, signal that what follows is the conclusion of an argument. (Copi Irving & Cohen Carl 2001). Here are partial list of conclusion indicators:

Therefore, Hence, And, So, Thus, Accordingly, It follows that, Proves that, Consequently, As a result, For these reasons, Which entails, Which implies, which allow us to infer that, In consequence Other words or phrases typically serve to mark the premises of an argument. Such expressions are called “ premise indicators ”. The presence of any of them often signals that what follows is a premise of an argument. Here is a partial list of premise indicators: Since, Because, For, As, As indicated by, The reason is this, For the reason that, More also (See Adeniyi & Ayedero 2016).

Once an argument has been recognized, the words and phrases listed above help to identify its premises and conclusions.

Types of Logic

Traditionally, reasoning in logic could be deductive (Formal Logic) or inductive (Informal Logic). Formal logic is logic of „PURE FORM‟ while inductive logic or (Informal logic) is logic of „CONTENT‟ . It is true that every argument

involves the claim that its premises provide some grounds for the truth of its conclusion, but only a deductive argument involves the claim that its premises provide conclusive grounds for its conclusion (Copi Irving & Cohen Carl 2001, 61). What exactly we are saying when we claim that deductive logic is a logic of „pur e form‟ is all about the relation that exists between the set of propositions that make up an argument. The arrangement of the proposition is such that we can infer that one follows from others. Therefore, formal or deductive reasoning (logic) can be said to be Valid or Invalid .

D. Arguments

E. Conclusion and Premise Indicators

I. Inductive Logic

Inductive logic is an empirical science that concerns itself with what people do or say in their daily activities. It is the logic of content rather than of form (Nwigwe B.E 1992, 4). The most important thing to stress is that informal logic is a supremely practical enterprise. It is directly concerned with ordinary human activities as defending position, citing observed cases or event in making general statements, attacking unsupported claims, and detecting misleading examples and bad analogies or arguments.

The concept of validity or invalidity is not applicable to inductive logic. Rather, inductive logic can be said to be sound or unsound. The premises of an inductive argument may not provide conclusive support for the conclusion. Hence, the conclusion of an inductive argument only be said to be probable.

II. Deductive Logic

In a deductive (formal argument), the premises give absolutely conclusive grounds for the conclusion. “Valid” and “Invalid” are used in place of “Correct” and “Incorrect” to characterized deductive arguments. A deductive is valid when its premises and conclusion are so related that it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be true unless the conclusion is true also. (Copi Irving 2001,3). If a deductive argument is valid and, if all the premises of that argument are true, then the conclusion must also be true. There can never be in a valid deductive argument with all true premises and at the same time a false conclusion. (Adeniyi, 2004, 26). Thus, the term “Valid” and “Invalid” is not applicable to inductive arguments. Inductive arguments differ among themselves in the degree of likelihood or probability that their premises conferred upon their conclusions.

A. Truth and Validity

Propositions or statements can either be true or false. We cannot speak of arguments as being true or false. Arguments are not properly characterized as being either true or false but rather as valid or invalid. This distinction however, does not mean there are no connections between validity and invalidity or truth and falsity of its premises and conclusion. While the notion of truth and falsity, validity and invalidity are quite distinct, there is an important relation holding between them in deductive argument. The fact is that, this connection may not be a simple one. For instance, a valid argument may contain only true propositions. A good example is this argument:

All cats are mammal.

All mammals have lungs

Therefore, all cats have lungs

Both the premises and conclusion of this argument are true proposition, but it is equally possible for a valid argument to contain false propositions exclusively. For example;

All boys are male students All male students have wings

Hence, all male-students have wings

This is a valid argument, for if its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be true also, even though they are actually false. Our two examples have shown that the validity of an argument does not guarantee the truth of its component propositions. An argument may be valid or invalid even if all its compound propositions are either true or false. An argument is only invalid if its premises are true and its conclusion is false.

Logical Symbols

Although traditional categorical logic can be used to represent and assess many of our most common patterns of reasoning, modern logicians have developed much more comprehensive and powerful systems for expressing rational thought. These newer logical languages are often called “symbolic logic,” since they employ special symbols to represent clearly even highly complex logical relationships.

In order to avoid the vagueness of ordinary language, logicians reduced their arguments to their forms by the use of specialized logical symbols. This reduction becomes possible because the concern of symbolic logic seems to be the syntactic rather than semantic relations between propositions. More also, formal logicians are more concerned with the forms of an argument rather than their contents (S.O Dada 2001). A further point of logicians‟ special symbol is the aid they give in the actual use and manipulation of statements and arguments. Drawing of inferences and the appraisal of arguments is greatly facilitated by the adoption of special logical notation. The importance of symbolic logic when will consider Alfred North Whitehead claim is that:

… by the aid of symbolism, we can make transition in reasoning almost mechanically by the eye, which, otherwise would call into play the higher faculties of the brain. (Alfred N.W 1911, 61

Commenting or Alfred N.W claim, Copi Irving argues that, logic is not concerned with developing our powers of thought but with developing techniques that permits us to accomplish some task with outmost ease.

B. Propositional Variables

Propositional variables are lower case alphabetical letters ranging from p to z which are used to represent propositions. There are ordinary letters for which any statement may be represented. Propositional variable could be employed to represent either simple or compound statements. It is simple when the statements lack other component parts to serve its meaning. Simple statements are also referred to as atomic statements (SO. Dada 2001, 153). or example, “Martins is a lecturer” is an example of simple statement. Compound statements on the other hand, have other component parts to serve its meaning or to provide additional information. Example, the statement, Martins is a lecturer and Martins is a student.

Let “r” represent Martins is a Lecturer and “p” represent Martins is a student. Where „r‟ and „p‟ are variables and can stand for any object. The statement Martins is a lecturer and Martins is a student becomes (r.p). Here, „and‟ represented with a „dot‟ is a logical connectives. There are other logical connectives as will be discovered below.

C. Logical Connectives

Logical connectives are statements connectives as demonstrated above by means of which compound and complex statements are derivable from simple ones. They are also referred to as logical constant or logical operators since their meaning and values are fixed. They are also called truth functional connectives since they enable us to determine the truth value of the statements resulting from their use.

The table below shows us the five main logical connectives.

I. Conjunction

The truth-value of a conjunction is determined by the truth values of its conjuncts. Given any statements „p‟ and „q‟ (where „p‟ and „q‟ are statement variables), there are just four possible sets of truth-values they can have, and in every case the truth value of their conjunction is uniquely determined. The four possible sets of truth value can be displayed by means of truth table as follows:

Given any two statements „p‟ and „q‟ then (p•q) is true if, both „p‟ and „q‟ are true. In all other cases, (p•q) is false. Therefore, a conjunction can only be TRUE under only one circumstance, that is, when the two conjuncts are TRUE . In other circumstances, a conjunction is false (Adeniyi 2004, 32) .

II. Disjunction

Disjunction is formed of two compound statements by inserting the word „or‟ in them. In other words, two statements are combined disjunctively by inserting the word “or” between them. The two component statements so combined are called disjuncts. The statements either Martins is a Lecturer or Martins is a student may be conjoined to formed a disjunctive statement. The word “disjunct” may be used either inclusively or exclusively. An inclusive disjunct is true in case one or the other or both disjuncts are true; only when both disjuncts are false is when exclusive disjunction is false (Copi Irving & Cohen Carl 2001, 326). We interpret the inclusive disjunction of two statements as an assertion that at least one of statement is true, and we interpret their exclusive disjunction as an assertion that at least one of the statements is true but not both are true.

Given any statement „p‟ and „q‟, then any statement “pvq” is true if and only, at least one (and perhaps both) of its disjuncts are true. A disjunct is false only under one circumstance, that is when the two disjuncts are false together.

III. Negation

The (negation or the contradictory or the denial) of a statement in English is often formed by the inserting “not” in the original statement. Alternatively, one can express the negation of a statement in English by prefixing to it the phrase “ it is not the case ” or “ it is false tha t” ot is customary to use the symbol “~” curl or “tilde”. Take for instance,” it is not the case that all men are mortal” or “it is false that Martins is a student” are both negative statements. The negation of any true statement is false and the nation of any false statement is true. This fact can be clearly and perfectly represented by truth table below

The truth table may be regarded as the definition of the negation symbol “~”. Given any statement „p‟ is true, „~p‟ is false and if „p‟ is false, „~p‟ is true.

IV. Conditional

A statement compounded by “if then…” is known as a conditional or hypothentical statement. The first of its two component statements is called the antecedent (protasis or hypothesis). The second component placed after “then” is called the consequent (or apodesis). In any conditional statement with true antecedent and false consequent is false. In all other three combinations of truth-values, the conditional is true. Therefore, all truth-functional conditional with false antecedents and all with true consequents are true. Only those are false which have true antecedents and false consequents. Symbolically, the truth-functional conditional is rendered by the connectives “ ⊃ ” and its truth is defined by the following table:

Given any statement ‟p‟ and „q‟ then any statement (p ⊃ q) is true EXCEPT when „p‟ is true and „q‟ is false. The only

condition or circumstance a conditional statement is false is only when the antecedent is true and the consequence is false. In all other circumstances, it is true.

A conditional statement according to Copi asserts that in any case which is its antecedent is true, its consequent is true. It does not assert that its antecedent is true, but rather that, if its antecedent is true, its consequent is true also. It does not as well assert that its consequent is true, but only that it‟s consequent is true if its antecedent is true (Copi Irving & Cohen C 2001, 356). A conditional statement is true in all cases except when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. By implication, all truth functional conditionals with false antecedent and all with true consequents are true.

V. Bi Conditional

We have a bi-conditional statement when two statements (forming one compound statement) are said to be materially equivalent. They are materially equivalent when they have the same truth-value. Then, the two statements materially imply each other. We introduce the three-bar or taldes “≡” to symbolize material equivalence and it may be read “if and only if”. The bi-conditional “p≡q” is defined by the following truth-table:

Given any statement „p‟ and „q‟, p≡q is true if and only if

bothe „p‟ and „q‟ are true or both are false, that is, when they both have the same truth-value.

Nine Rules of Inference

There are basic formal rules of establishing the validity of logical reasoning most especially when it pertain formal arguments. These rules specify the methods of deducing inferences and how to arrive validly at a conclusion. In this respect, Copi outlined Nineteen Rules of Inference (Copi & Cohen 2001, 357). However, considering the scope of this study, we shall limit ourselves to the first Nine Rules of Inference in this paper.

The first rule Modus Ponens (M.P) states that the truth of the antecedent of conditional statements implies the truth of its consequent. In other words, given that (p ⊃ q), the moment we have p, necessarily q must follow.

Modus Ponens (M.P) P ⊃ Q

2. The second rule of inference Modus Tollens (M.T) states that the negation of the consequent of a conditional statement implies the negation of its antecedent.

Modus Tollens (M.T) P ⊃ Q

The third rule of inference which is Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S) states that, if there are two conditional statements and the consequent of one is the antecedent of the other, then the antecedent of the first implies the consequent of the second.

Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S) P ⊃ Q

. . . p ⊃ q.

The fourth rule of inference Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S) states that when we have a disjunction of two statements, the denial of the first disjunct implies the truth of the second disjuncts.

Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S) P v Q

3. Constructive Dilemma (C.D) which is the fifth rule of inference states that, if we have a conjunction of two

conditional statements, the disjunction of their antecedents also implies the disjunction of their consequents.

Constructive Dilemma (C.D) (P ⊃ Q) • (R ⊃ S)

. . . q v s.

4. The sixth rule of inference, Absorption (ABS.) states that in conditional statements, the antecedent implies the conjunction of both the antecedent and the consequent.

Absorption (Abs.) P ⊃ Q

. . . P ⊃ (P•Q)

5. According to the seventh rule of inference Simplification (Simp.) , in a truth functional conjunction, the truth of the first conjunct is deducible from the conjunction of the two conjuncts

Simplification (Simp.)

6. According to the eighth rule Conjunction (Conj.) , given the truth of two compound statements, their conjunction could therefore be logically inferable from the set of atomic statements

Conjunction (Conj.) P

7. Addition (Add.) The ninth rule of inference states that, when you have a simple statement, you may add another simple statement through conjunction to make it conjunctive statement provided it will give you desired result.

. . . P • Q

Application of the Nine Rules of Inference

First we have to make it a practice to begin our proof with the conclusion of an argument and work “backward” to the premises. This is to say that we need always to first inspect our conclusion and ask what type of statement it is; and how does the conclusion appear in the premises. Second we try to apply certain “ rules of thumb ” to premises. When we do this, the construction of proofs will become relatively easy.

∴ (A•B) ⊃ [(A•B) •C

= Absorption Rule 6 (Abs.)

2. (DvE) • (FvG)

Simplification Rule7(Simp.)

3. H ⊃ I

∴ (H ⊃ I) v R =

Addition Rule 9 (Add.)

(A ⊃ B) ⊃ (CvD) A ⊃ B

Modus Ponens Rule 1 (M.P)

(J ⊃ K) • (K ⊃ L) L ⊃ M

∴ [(J ⊃ K) • (K ⊃ L)] • (L ⊃ M)] = Conjunction Rule 8 (Conj.)

For each of the following elementary valid arguments state the rule of inference by which its conclusion follows from its premise(s).

(XvY) ⊃ ~ (Z•~A)
(W•~X) ≡ (Y ⊃ Z)

~~ (Z•~A) ∴

[(w•~x) ≡ (Y ⊃ Z)]v(X ≡ ~Z)

∴ ~(XvY)

[N ⊃ (O•P)] • [Q ⊃ (O•R)] 4.

[(O ⊃ P) ⊃ Q] ⊃ ~ (CvD)

(CvD) ⊃ [(O ⊃ P) ⊃ Q]

∴ (O•P)v(O•R)

∴ (CvD) ⊃ ~ (CvD)

[1]. Adeniyi O.R (2001), “The Nature and Subject Matter of Logic”, in Introduction to Philosophy and Logic, ed. O.R Adeniyi,

Newsletter Limited: Yaba Lagos. Pp138

[2]. Grice H.P (2001), Aspects of Reasoning, R. Warner, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

[3]. Ibid p. 45

[4]. See Adeniyi (2001), pp 139

[5]. Uchaga D.N (19920, “The Nature of Arguments in Logic”, in Introduction to Logic and Scientific Reasoning , Hercon Publisher; lagos Nigeria

[6]. Copi, Irvin (1978) Introduction to Logic , 5 th ed. New York: Macmillan Publisher Co. Inc.

[7]. Adeniyi (2001) pp. 126

[8]. Robert J.F, Walter S.A (2005), Understanding Argument: An Introduction to Formal Logic, ed. Steve Wainwright, Holly J. Allen Wadsworth: Canada. pp.2.

[9]. Dada S.O (2001), “Symbolic Logic and Logical Symbols”, in Introduction to Philosophy and Logic, ed. O.R Adeniyi,

Newsletter Limited: Yaba Lagos. Pp 136

[10]. Alfred N.W (1911), An Introduction to Mathematics , New York: Holt and Co. pp 61.

[11]. Nwigwe B.E (1992), “Logic: Its Development and Areas of Study”, in Introduction to Logic and Scientific Reasoning, Hercon Publishers: Lagos

[12]. Adeniyi O.R (2004), Formal Deductive Logic, Newsletters Ltd.

Iwaya Yaba: Lagos.

[13]. Copi Irving & Cohen, (2001) Introduction to Logic ,

[14]. Adeniyi O.R (2000), Introduction to Philosophy and Logic , Petoa Education Publishers: Ado Ekiti pp25-27

[15]. Adeniyi (2004), pp. 27

[16]. See Dada S.O (2001), p. 136

[17]. Alfred N.W (1911) p.62

[18]. Adeniyi (2004, 34)

[19]. See Adeniyi 2000, p. 27

[20]. Dada S.O. (2001) p.135

[21]. Adeniyi, (2000)p28

[22]. 21 Ibid p. 33

[23]. Copi Irving & Cohen (2001) pp. 326

[24]. Adeniyi 2004, 27

[25]. Ibid pp.45

[26]. Ibid pp46

[27]. Copi Irving and Cohen (2001) p. 136

[28]. See Copi & Cohen (2001) pp. 176-180

Search Products
Mark Schemes
Masterclasses
For Parents
My Dashboard
11+ School Search

Product Types

Tuition for Parents
Tuition for Tutors

For specialist resources for CAT, ISEB Pretest, CEM Select and UKiset exams, visit our other site: Pretest Plus

Visit Pretest Plus

2024-2025 Edition · VIDEO EXPLANATIONS INCLUDED!

11+ Critical Thinking & Analysis Pack 1

E-papers - Download immediately after purchase. Unlimited access for two years.

Free step-by-step video solutions included for every question! Get access to 80 specific tutorial videos for this product for free.

Specifically designed for 11+ Exams that assess Critical Thinking and Analysis
Logic based questions that test your child’s ability to use words and numbers to solve multi-step problems
3 Complete practice tests with answers and answer sheets
Detailed explanations for every question included
Created by assessment experts
Builds confidence and improves performance
Click here to learn how this pack will benefit your child

Buy together and save:

11+ critical thinking & analysis pack 2, 11+ critical thinking & analysis pack 3.

Thank you for submitting a review!

Your input is very much appreciated. Share it with your friends so they can enjoy it too!

A brilliant resource to practise problem solving and to train your child to really analyse questions thoroughly, looking at all details.

A range of questions and very helpful!

Well-constructed

And challenging practice papers which can be used to help logic and reasoning.

Thought provoking

Great resource to get the mind thinking and very useful for exams. Recommend

Great to have some practice tests on critical thinking for the Whitgift exams.

spot on revision and great answer illustrations

OUR PRODUCTS

Packs available per subject for 11+ independent school and grammar school examinations.

Full 11+ curriculum covered and all packs include answers.

TESTIMONIALS

"We have been using the 11+ independent school range to help prepare students at our after-school club. The papers focus on the specific skills required for these exams and have proved immensely beneficial." Maggie Chun

"The 11+ grammar school range is highly recommended if your child is taking exams set by GL Assessment." Shahid Khan, father of 11+ student

KEY BENEFITS

The 11+ examination is used to select students for Year 7 entry into schools across the country. Our resources recognise the key differences in format and style between independent and grammar school testing. For this reason, we have developed specific test papers for various exam formats across all subjects and exam styles. You can use our School Search feature to find the exact resources you need.

Our papers cover every aspect of the written examination process for Mathematics, English, Non-Verbal Reasoning, Spatial Reasoning and Verbal Reasoning.

A great way for students to familiarise themselves with the exam format and question styles, whilst perfecting their exam technique. Designed to be challenging and engaging.

Accurate reflection of the actual exams. Reviewed and updated regularly to ensure they are current and up to date.

11+ Non-Verbal Reasoning Pack 1

11+ verbal reasoning pack 1, 11+ verbal reasoning pack 2, recent posts.

*NEW* Henrietta Barnett (Stage One) Pre-11+ Practice Tests
Cardiff Sixth Form College: 16 Plus (16+)/Year 12 Entry for A-Levels, and 14 Plus (14+) and 15 Plus (15+)/Years 10-11 for GCSEs
*NEW* Dorset 11+ Practice Tests
Hymers College 11 Plus (11+)/Year 7: Entry Information
Hymers College 8 Plus (8+)/Year 4: Entry Information

Contribute and share

If there is a topic you would like to have covered, or indeed if you have some information that you would like to share and contribute, please get in touch and we can make it happen!

Be the first to hear about new product releases!

New resources released every week.

Thank you for subscribing!

For exclusive discounts and special offers, join our WhatsApp Group

Thanks, we will get in touch if a place becomes available.

Get 10 Expert Tips for Entrance Exam Success!

Enter your email address below and get free & exclusive access to our 10 top tips for entrance exam success.

Exam Papers Plus, 690 Great West Road, Osterley Village, Isleworth, England, TW7 4PU Company Number: 09089974

D.F in THREEKINGHAM, SLEAFORD, purchased 11+ Redbridge Practice Test 2 About 2 minutes ago

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

Developing technical and problem-solving skills
Engaging in more active listening
Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
Seeking out more diversity of thought
Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

What information should be included?
Which information resources should the author look to?
What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
What is the most effective way to show information?
How should the report be organized?
How should it be designed?
What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

IMAGES

Logic and Critical Thinking
ULTIMATE CRITICAL THINKING CHEAT SHEET Published 01/19/2017 Infographic
Logic and critical thinking Mid exam
Critical Thinking Assignment 6-3
PPT
Ocr critical thinking unit 2 past papers

VIDEO

2013 A/L ICT Past Paper
Logic & Critical thinking freshman course chapter 1 part 3Axiology &logic በአማርኛ
logic and critical thinking chapter 3 part 5
ሎጅክና የምክኑያዊ እሳቤ ጥያቄ (Logic & Critical Thinking Questions)
Logic and Critical Thinking
AS/OL

COMMENTS

Logic and Critical Thinking
Journalism November 2019 Past Examination Question Paper - KNEC This Past Paper examination was examined by the Kenya National Examination Council (KNEC) and it applies to the following courses Diploma in Print Journalism Diploma in Broadcast Journalism Diploma in Digital Journalism Note: To easily navigate through the KNEC Past Examination Paper Pdf below, Mobile phone Read more →
Critical Logic Thinking Past Papers Exam Questions
Guess Paper 2: Critical Logic Thinking Spring - 2020 Past Papers. Time Allowed: 3 hours. Total Marks: 70, Passing Marks (35) Q 1: Describe the following with reference to uses of languages and disputes: i. Discourse serving Multiple Functions ii. Arguments, Premises and Conclusions iii. Emotive Words
Thinking Skills 9694 AS and A Level Past Papers
15/08/2022 : Thinking skills 9694 Past Papers of Feb March and May June 2022 are now Available. ... including critical thinking, reasoning and problem solving, that students can apply across a wide range of subjects and complex real world issues. ... They also need to be able to clearly grasp the underlying logical structure in Problem Solving ...
Cambridge International AS & A Level Thinking Skills (9694)
Thinking Skills develops a specific set of intellectual skills, independent of subject content, reflecting the need voiced by universities and employers for more mature and sophisticated ways of thinking. ... Past papers. 2022. June. June 2022 Question Paper 11 (PDF, 967KB) June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 11 (PDF, 249KB)
PDF PHIL 110 Logic and Critical Thinking Course Reader (Textbook) This work
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking pg 139-146 Clear and Present Thinking pg 63-66 (plus exercises on pg 69-70) An Introduction to Reasoning pg 2-5 (plus exercises on pg 17) Chapter 6 is derived from Fundamental Methods of Logic pg 163-175 Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking pg 158-169 Chapter 7 is derived from
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the ability to think through a situation correctly, assessing the advantages and disadvantages so as to be able to make appropriate decisions concerning one's course of action. We are confronted by multiple and contradictory issues, messages, expectations and demands. We need therefore to be able to critically analyze ...
Bhu1101: Introduction To Critical Thinking And Logic Question Papers
Bucu 002:Computer Skills And Application. Enhance your teaching with our comprehensive Schemes of Work and Notes! Find Mount Kenya University Bhu1101: Introduction To Critical Thinking And Logic previous year question paper. Feel free to use the past paper as you prepare for your upcoming examinations. - 52503.
Past exam papers: Logic and Proof
MPhil Assessment. Student Complaint Procedure. Past exam papers: Logic and Proof. Solution notes are available for many past questions to local users. They were produced by question setters, primarily for the benefit of the examiners. These are not model answers: there may be many other good ways of answering a given exam question!
Logic & Critical Thinking Past Papers
Subject: Logic & Critical Thinking (Commerce) Time Allowed: 15 Minutes. Maximum Marks: 10. NOTE: Attempt this Paper on this Question Sheet only. Please encircle the correct option. Division of marks is given in front of each question. This Paper will be collected back after expiry of time limit mentioned above.
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a ...
PDF University of the Punjab
PAPER: Logic and Critical Thinking Course Code: SOC-102-N Part-I (Compulsory) MAX. TIME: 15 Min.\s MAX. MARKS: 10 \Signature of Supdt.: Attempt this Paper on this Ouestion Sheet only. Please encircle the correcto tion. Division of marks is ' en in fron of ach uestion. This Paper will be collected back after expiry of time limit mentioned above.
PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic
Free Certificate. This course will introduce you to critical thinking, informal logic, and a small amount of formal logic. Its purpose is to provide you with the basic tools of analytical reasoning, which will give you a distinctive edge in a wide variety of careers and courses of study. While many university courses focus on presenting content ...
PHIL102 (2018.A.01)
PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic (2018.A.01) Time: 40 hours College Credit Recommended Free Certificate Improve your practice of nearly every major discipline, from the physical sciences and medicine to politics, law, and the humanities, by learning how to think critically and reason through problems. ...
Logic and Critical Thinking Past Papers
Part-III Answer the following Long questions. (30) Q# 1: Discuss the uses of language with examples. Q# 2: Use Venn Diagram to test the validity of the following. a) AEA-4. b) EAE-2. [OBJECTIVE] Subject: Logic and Critical Thinking Time Allowed: 15 Minutes Max Marks: 10 NOTE: Attempt this Paper on this Question Sheet only.
PHIL 204: LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
PHIL 204: LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING. Share to: Gyamfi, Nancy Baffour - Personal Name. INSTRUCTION: Answer all questions on the question paper. Do not use any answer booklet. Questions should be answered strictly in the space provided for each question on the question. paper.
AS and A level Thinking Skills Past Papers
Complete AS and A level Thinking Skills Past Papers Thinking Skills develops a set of transferable skills, including critical thinking, reasoning and problem solving, that students can apply across a wide range of subjects and complex real world issues. The syllabus enables students to develop their ability to analyse unfamiliar problems, devise problem solving strategies, […]
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms ...
Past Papers
Past Papers of : Papers | A Levels | Thinking Skills (9694) 13/08/2023 NEW! AS/A Level latest papers added! If any paper is still missing, please report using the Contact Us! tab.
(Updated) All Previous IMAT Test Papers
From 2013 until 2019, we saw a significant trend in the past papers of the IMAT exam. These exams had 60 questions written in a tricky way familiar with Cambridge. Every question of the exam required logical thinking and analysis, including questions that weren't part of the logic section. In 2019, the exam saw a change in its format.
Logic and Critical Thinking
Download Logic and Critical Thinking (GST 112) Past Questions, University of Maiduguri. Get free past questions, answers, marking scheme, projects and reseach materials, test, course materials from your favourite hosted institutions ... Past question papers, answer to questions, marking scheme, course outline, project materials, research papers ...
An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. Ayedero Taiwo Martins. Ekiti State University, Nigeria. Abstract:-Our main objective in this paper is to improve our logical thinking skills and to expose us to basic pitfalls in human reasoning. The most important critical thinking skill is the skill of making judgments, not spontaneous judgment ...
11+ Critical Thinking & Analysis Pack 1 || Tests Logic & Problem Solving
11+ Critical Thinking & Analysis Pack 1. £ 25. E-papers - Download immediately after purchase. Unlimited access for two years. Specifically designed for 11+ Exams that assess Critical Thinking and Analysis. Logic based questions that test your child's ability to use words and numbers to solve multi-step problems.
Using Critical Thinking in Essays and other Assignments
Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement. Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process ...

KNEC| KASNEB| KISM| Ebooks Kenya

Logic and Critical Thinking – November 2019 Past Paper KNEC Diploma

Related Posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Programmes & Qualifications

Unlock more content

Past papers

Examiner reports

Specimen papers

Stay up to date

Critical Thinking

Written by KNEC notes and Past Papers

Study at Cambridge

Past exam papers: Logic and Proof

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic (2018.A.01)

Logic and Critical Thinking Past Papers

More Critical Logic Thinking – Past Papers

AS and A level Thinking Skills Past Papers

Bibliography

Critical Thinking

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2. Examples and Non-Examples

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

12. Controversies

Support SEP

Resource Guide for File Naming System.

All Previous IMAT Test Papers 2011-2022 | PDFs, Breakdown + Analysis

Content Quick Navigation

IMAT Past Papers, Changes, Topics, and Format

IMAT 2023 Past Paper PDF

When Should I Practice IMAT Past Papers?

Using Past IMAT Papers as Simulators to Prepare for Exam Day

Exam Past Questions

Credits History

Available Contents

How It Works

Medical Laboratory Science Past Questions

University of Maiduguri Past Questions

New Requests

New Past Questions

Recent Downloads

New Members

EPQ Directory

Why Use EPQ?

Payment Methods

USSD, Bank Transfer, Cash Deposit

School News

Given any statement „p‟ and „q‟, then any statement “pvq” is true if and only, at least one (and perhaps both) of its disjuncts are true. A disjunct is false only under one circumstance, that is when the two disjuncts are false together.

The truth table may be regarded as the definition of the negation symbol “~”. Given any statement „p‟ is true, „~p‟ is false and if „p‟ is false, „~p‟ is true.

Given any statement ‟p‟ and „q‟ then any statement (p ⊃ q) is true EXCEPT when „p‟ is true and „q‟ is false. The only

Given any statement „p‟ and „q‟, p≡q is true if and only if

Modus Tollens (M.T) P ⊃ Q

Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S) P ⊃ Q

Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S) P v Q

Constructive Dilemma (C.D) (P ⊃ Q) • (R ⊃ S)

Absorption (Abs.) P ⊃ Q

Simplification (Simp.)

Conjunction (Conj.) P

Simplification Rule7(Simp.)

Addition Rule 9 (Add.)

Modus Ponens Rule 1 (M.P)

11+ Critical Thinking & Analysis Pack 1

Buy together and save:

Well-constructed

Thought provoking

11+ Non-Verbal Reasoning Pack 1

Contribute and share

Critical thinking definition

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS