is the inference of critical thinking process here sound

• Content Is Thinking, Thinking is Content
• Critical Thinking in Every Domain of Knowledge and Belief
• Using Intellectual Standards to Assess Student Reasoning
• Open-minded inquiry
• Valuable Intellectual Traits
• Universal Intellectual Standards
• Thinking With Concepts
• The Analysis & Assessment of Thinking
• Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms
• Distinguishing Between Inert Information, Activated Ignorance, Activated Knowledge
• Critical Thinking: Identifying the Targets

Distinguishing Between Inferences and Assumptions

• Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory
• Becoming a Critic Of Your Thinking
• Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Back to top

For full copies of this and many other critical thinking articles, books, videos, and more, join us at the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online - the world's leading online community dedicated to critical thinking!   Also featuring interactive learning activities, study groups, and even a social media component, this learning platform will change your conception of intellectual development.

M18 Critical Thinking & Reasoning

Critical thinking and reasoning: logic and the role of arguments.

Critical thinkers tend to exhibit certain traits that are common to them. These traits are summarized in Table 6.1: [1]

Recall that critical thinking is an active mode of thinking. Instead of just receiving messages and accepting them as is, we consider what they are saying. We ask if messages are well-supported. We determine if their logic is sound or slightly flawed. In other words, we act on the messages before we take action based on them. When we enact critical thinking on a message, we engage a variety of skills including: listening, analysis, evaluation, inference and interpretation or explanation, and self-regulation [2]

Next, we will examine each of these skills and their role in critical thinking in greater detail. As you read through the explanation of and examples for each skill, think about how it works in conjunction with the others. It’s important to note that while our discussion of the skills is presented in a linear manner, in practice our use of each skill is not so straightforward. We may exercise different skills simultaneously or jump forward and backward.

“ Martha Stewart ” by nrkbeta.  CC-BY-SA .

Without an open-minded mind, you can never be a great success. ~ Martha Stewart

In order to understand listening, we must first understand the difference between listening and hearing . At its most basic, hearing refers to the physiological process of receiving sounds, while listening refers to the  psychological process of interpreting or making sense of those sounds.

Every minute of every day we are surrounded by hundreds of different noises and sounds. If we were to try to make sense of each different sound we would probably spend our day just doing this. While we may hear all of the noises, we filter out many of them. They pass through our lives without further notice. Certain noises, however, jump to the forefront of our consciousness. As we listen to them, we make sense of these sounds. We do this every day without necessarily thinking about the process. Like many other bodily functions, it happens without our willing it to happen.

Critical thinking requires that we consciously listen to messages. We must focus on what is being said – and not said. We must strive not to be distracted by other outside noises or the internal noise of our own preconceived ideas. For the moment we only need to take in the message.

Listening becomes especially difficult when the message contains highly charged information. Think about what happens when you try to discuss a controversial issue such as abortion. As the other person speaks, you may have every good intention of listening to the entire argument.

However, when the person says something you feel strongly about you start formulating a counter-argument in your head. The end result is that both sides end up talking past each other without ever really listening to what the other says.

Once we have listened to a message, we can begin to analyze it. In practice we often begin analyzing messages while still listening to them. When we analyze something, we consider it in greater detail, separating out the main components of the message. In a sense, we are acting like a surgeon on the message, carving out all of the different elements and laying them out for further consideration and possible action.

Let’s return to Shonda’s persuasive speech to see analysis in action. As part of the needs section of her speech, Shonda makes the following remarks:

Americans today are some of the unhealthiest people on Earth. It seems like not a week goes by without some news story relating how we are the fattest country in the world. In addition to being overweight, we suffer from a number of other health problems. When I was conducting research for my speech, I read somewhere that heart attacks are the number one killer of men and the number two killer of women. Think about that. My uncle had a heart attack and had to be rushed to the hospital. They hooked him up to a bunch of different machines to keep him alive. We all thought he was going to die. He’s ok now, but he has to take a bunch of pills every day and eat a special diet. Plus he had to pay thousands of dollars in medical bills. Wouldn’t you like to know how to prevent this from happening to you?

If we were to analyze this part of Shonda’s speech (see Table 6.2), we could begin by looking at the claims she makes. We could then look at the evidence she presents in support of these claims. Having parsed out the various elements, we are then ready to evaluate them and by extension the message as a whole.

When we evaluate something we continue the process of analysis by assessing the various claims and arguments for validity. One way we evaluate a message is to ask questions about what is being said and who is saying it. The following is a list of typical questions we may ask, along with an evaluation of the ideas in Shonda’s speech.

Is the speaker credible?

Yes. While Shonda may not be an expert per se on the issue of health benefits related to wine, she has made herself a mini-expert through conducting research.

Does the statement ring true or false based on common sense?

It sounds kind of fishy. Four or more glasses of wine in one sitting doesn’t seem right. In fact, it seems like it might be bordering on binge drinking.

Does the logic employed hold up to scrutiny?

Based on the little bit of Shonda’s speech we see here, her logic does seem to be sound. As we will see later on, she actually commits a few fallacies.

What questions or objections are raised by the message?

In addition to the possibility of Shonda’s proposal being binge drinking, it also raises the possibility of creating alcoholism or causing other long term health problems.

How will further information affect the message?

More information will probably contradict her claims. In fact, most medical research in this area contradicts the claim that drinking 4 or more glasses of wine a day is a good thing.

Will further information strengthen or weaken the claims?

Most likely Shonda’s claims will be weakened.

What questions or objections are raised by the claims?

In addition to the objections we’ve already discussed, there is also the problem of the credibility of Shonda’s expert “doctor.”

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ~ David Hume

Inference and Interpretation or Explanation

“Imply” or “Infer”?

For two relatively small words, imply and infer seem to generate an inordinately large amount of confusion. Understanding the difference between the two and knowing when to use the right one is not only a useful skill, but it also makes you sound a lot smarter!

Let’s begin with imply. Imply means to suggest or convey an idea. A speaker or a piece of writing implies things. For example, in Shonda’s speech, she implies it is better to drink more red wine. In other words, she never directly says that we need to drink more red wine, but she clearly hints at it when she suggests that drinking four or more glasses a day will provide us with health benefits.

Now let’s consider infer. Infer means that something in a speaker’s words or a piece of writing helps us to draw a conclusion outside of his/her words. We infer a conclusion. Returning to Shonda’s speech, we can infer she would want us to drink more red wine rather than less. She never comes right out and says this. However, by considering her overall message, we can draw this conclusion.

Another way to think of the difference between imply and infer is: A speaker (or writer for that matter) implies. The audience infers.

Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that Shonda infers we should drink more rather than less wine. She implies this. To help you differentiate between the two, remember that an inference is something that comes from outside the spoken or written text.

The next step in critically examining a message is to interpret or explain the conclusions that we draw from it. At this phase we consider the evidence and the claims together. In effect we are reassembling the components that we parsed out during analysis. We are continuing our evaluation by looking at the evidence, alternatives, and possible conclusions.

Before we draw any inferences or attempt any explanations, we should look at the evidence provided. When we consider evidence we must first determine what, if any, kind of support is provided. Of the evidence we then ask:

• Is the evidence sound?
• Does the evidence say what thespeaker says it does?
• Does contradictory evidenceexist?
• Is the evidence from a validcredible source?

Seatbelt by M.Minderhoud, CC-BY-SA .

Even though these are set up as yes or no questions, you’ll probably find in practice that your answers are a bit more complex. For example, let’s say you’re writing a speech on why we should wear our seatbelts at all times while driving. You’ve researched the topic and found solid, credible information setting forth the numerous reasons why wearing a seatbelt can help save your life and decrease the number of injuries experienced during a motor vehicle accident. Certainly, there exists contradictory evidence arguing seat belts can cause more injuries. For example, if you’re in an accident where your car is partially submerged in water, wearing a seatbelt may impede your ability to quickly exit the vehicle. Does the fact that this evidence exists negate your claims? Probably not, but you need to be thorough in evaluating and considering how you use your evidence.

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all. ~ Oscar Wilde

Self-Regulation

The final step in critically examining a message is actually a skill we should exercise throughout the entire process. With self-regulation, we consider our pre-existing thoughts on the subject and any biases we may have. We examine how what we think on an issue may have influenced the way we understand (or think we understand) the message and any conclusions we have drawn. Just as contradictory evidence doesn’t automatically negate our claims or invalidate our arguments, our biases don’t necessarily make our conclusions wrong. The goal of practicing self-regulation is not to disavow or deny our opinions. The goal is to create distance between our opinions and the messages we evaluate.

Man thinking on bus , by IG8. CC-BY .

The Value of Critical Thinking

In public speaking, the value of being a critical thinker cannot be overstressed. Critical thinking helps us to determine the truth or validity of arguments. However, it also helps us to formulate strong arguments for our speeches. Exercising critical thinking at all steps of the speech writing and delivering process can help us avoid situations like Shonda found herself in. Critical thinking is not a magical panacea that will make us super speakers. However, it is another tool that we can add to our speech toolbox.

As we will learn in the following pages, we construct arguments based on logic. Understanding the ways logic can be used and possibly misused is a vital skill. To help stress the importance of it, the Foundation for Critical Thinking has set forth universal standards of reasoning. These standards can be found in Table 6.3.

When the mind is thinking, it is talking to itself. ~ Plato

Logic and the Role of Arguments

“Sharia Law Billboard” by Matt57. Public domain.

We use logic every day. Even if we have never formally studied logical reasoning and fallacies, we can often tell when a person’s statement doesn’t sound right. Think about the claims we see in many advertisements today—Buy product X, and you will be beautiful/thin/happy or have the carefree life depicted in the advertisement. With very little critical thought, we know intuitively that simply buying a product will not magically change our lives. Even if we can’t identify the specific fallacy at work in the argument (non causa in this case), we know there is some flaw in the argument.

By studying logic and fallacies we can learn to formulate stronger and more cohesive arguments, avoiding problems like that mentioned above. The study of logic has a long history. We can trace the roots of modern logical study back to Aristotle in ancient Greece. Aristotle’s simple definition of logic as the means by which we come to know anything still provides a concise understanding of logic. [3] Of the classical pillars of a core liberal arts education of logic, grammar, and rhetoric, logic has developed as a fairly independent branch of philosophical studies. We use logic everyday when we construct statements, argue our point of view, and in myriad other ways. Understanding how logic is used will help us communicate more efficiently and effectively.

Defining Arguments

When we think and speak logically, we pull together statements that combine reasoning with evidence to support an assertion, arguments. A logical argument should not be confused with the type of argument you have with your sister or brother or any other person. When you argue with your sibling, you participate in a conflict in which you disagree about something. You may, however, use a logical argument in the midst of the argument with your sibling. Consider this example:

“Man and Woman Arguing” by mzacha. morgueFile .

Brother and sister, Sydney and Harrison are arguing about whose turn it is to clean their bathroom. Harrison tells Sydney she should do it because she is a girl and girls are better at cleaning. Sydney responds that being a girl has nothing to do with whose turn it is. She reminds Harrison that according to their work chart, they are responsible for cleaning the bathroom on alternate weeks. She tells him she cleaned the bathroom last week; therefore, it is his turn this week. Harrison, still unconvinced, refuses to take responsibility for the chore. Sydney then points to the work chart and shows him where it specifically says it is his turn this week. Defeated, Harrison digs out the cleaning supplies.

Throughout their bathroom argument, both Harrison and Sydney use logical arguments to advance their point. You may ask why Sydney is successful and Harrison is not. This is a good question. Let’s critically think about each of their arguments to see why one fails and one succeeds.

Let’s start with Harrison’s argument. We can summarize it into three points:

• Girls are better at cleaning bathrooms than boys.
• Sydney is a girl.
• Therefore, Sydney should clean the bathroom.

Harrison’s argument here is a form of deductive reasoning, specifically a syllogism. We will consider syllogisms in a few minutes. For our purposes here, let’s just focus on why Harrison’s argument fails to persuade Sydney. Assuming for the moment that we agree with Harrison’s first two premises, then it would seem that his argument makes sense. We know that Sydney is a girl, so the second premise is true. This leaves the first premise that girls are better at cleaning bathrooms than boys. This is the exact point where Harrison’s argument goes astray. The only way his entire argument will work is if we agree with the assumption girls are better at cleaning bathrooms than boys.

Let’s now look at Sydney’s argument and why it works. Her argument can be summarized as follows:

1. The bathroom responsibilities alternate weekly according to the work chart.

2. Sydney cleaned the bathroom last week.

3. The chart indicates it is Harrison’s turn to clean the bathroom this week.

4. Therefore, Harrison should clean the bathroom.

“Decorative toilet seat” by Bartux~commonswikiv. Public domain.

Sydney’s argument here is a form of inductive reasoning. We will look at inductive reasoning in depth below. For now, let’s look at why Sydney’s argument succeeds where Harrison’s fails. Unlike Harrison’s argument, which rests on assumption for its truth claims, Sydney’s argument rests on evidence. We can define evidence as anything used to support the validity of an assertion. Evidence includes: testimony, scientific findings, statistics, physical objects, and many others. Sydney uses two primary pieces of evidence: the work chart and her statement that she cleaned the bathroom last week. Because Harrison has no contradictory evidence, he can’t logically refute Sydney’s assertion and is therefore stuck with scrubbing the toilet.

Defining Deduction

Deductive reasoning refers to an argument in which the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusions. Think back to Harrison’s argument for Sydney cleaning the bathroom. In order for his final claim to be valid, we must accept the truth of his claims that girls are better at cleaning bathrooms than boys. The key focus in deductive arguments is that it must be impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. The classic example is:

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

We can look at each of these statements individually and see each is true in its own right. It is virtually impossible for the first two propositions to be true and the conclusion to be false. Any argument which fails to meet this standard commits a logical error or fallacy. Even if we might accept the arguments as good and the conclusion as possible, the argument fails as a form of deductive reasoning.

A few observations and much reasoning lead to error; many observations and a little reasoning to truth. ~ Alexis Carrel

Another way to think of deductive reasoning is to think of it as moving from a general premise to a specific premise. The basic line of reasoning looks like this:

“Deductive Reasoning” CC-BY-NC-ND .

This form of deductive reasoning is called a syllogism. A syllogism need not have only three components to its argument, but it must have at least three. We have Aristotle to thank for identifying the syllogism and making the study of logic much easier. The focus on syllogisms dominated the field of philosophy for thousands of years. In fact, it wasn’t until the early nineteenth century that we began to see the discussion of other types of logic and other forms of logical reasoning.

It is easy to fall prey to missteps in reasoning when we focus on syllogisms and deductive reasoning. Let’s return to Harrison’s argument and see what happens.

Logic: the art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. ~ Ambrose Bierce

“Applied Deductive Reasoning” CC-BY-NC-ND .

Considered in this manner, it should be clear how the strength of the conclusion depends upon us accepting as true the first two statements. This need for truth sets up deductive reasoning as a very rigid form of reasoning. If either one of the first two premises isn’t true, then the entire argument fails.

Let’s turn to recent world events for another example.

“US Invasion Deductive Reasoning Example” CC-BY-NC-ND .

In the debates over whether the United States should take military action in Iraq, this was the basic line of reasoning used to justify an invasion. This logic was sufficient for the United States to invade Iraq; however, as we have since learned, this line of reasoning also shows how quickly logic can go bad. We subsequently learned that the “experts” weren’t quite so confident, and their “evidence” wasn’t quite as concrete as originally represented.

Defining Induction

Inductive reasoning is often though of as the opposite of deductive reasoning; however, this approach is not wholly accurate. Inductive reasoning does move from the specific to the general. However, this fact alone does not make it the opposite of deductive reasoning. An argument which fails in its deductive reasoning may still stand inductively.

Unlike deductive reasoning, there is no standard format inductive arguments must take, making them more flexible. We can define an inductive argument as one in which the truth of its propositions lends support to the conclusion. The difference here in deduction is the truth of the propositions establishes with absolute certainty the truth of the conclusion. When we analyze an inductive argument, we do not focus on the truth of its premises. Instead we analyze inductive arguments for their strength or soundness.

“Inductive Reasoning Model” CC-BY-NC-ND .

Another significant difference between deduction and induction is inductive arguments do not have a standard format. Let’s return to Sydney’s argument to see how induction develops in action:

• Bathroom cleaning responsibilities alternate weekly according to the work chart.
• Sydney cleaned the bathroom last week.
• The chart indicates it is Harrison’s turn to clean the bathroom this week.
• Therefore, Harrison should clean the bathroom.

What Sydney does here is build to her conclusion that Harrison should clean the bathroom. She begins by stating the general house rule of alternate weeks for cleaning. She then adds in evidence before concluding her argument. While her argument is strong, we don’t know if it is true. There could be other factors Sydney has left out. Sydney may have agreed to take Harrison’s week of bathroom cleaning in exchange for him doing another one of her chores. Or there may be some extenuating circumstances preventing Harrison from bathroom cleaning this week.

You should carefully study the Art of Reasoning, as it is what most people are very deficient in, and I know few things more disagreeable than to argue, or even converse with a man who has no idea of inductive and deductive philosophy. ~ William John Wills

Let’s return to the world stage for another example. After the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, we heard variations of the following arguments:

• The terrorists were Muslim (or Arab or Middle Eastern)
• The terrorists hated America.
• Therefore, all Muslims (or Arabs or Middle Easterners) hate America.

“1993 Word Trade Center bombing” by Bureau of ATF 1993 Explosives Incident Report. Public domain.

Clearly, we can see the problem in this line of reasoning. Beyond being a scary example of hyperbolic rhetoric, we can all probably think of at least one counter example to disprove the conclusion. However, individual passions and biases caused many otherwise rational people to say these things in the weeks following the attacks. This example also clearly illustrates how easy it is to get tripped up in your use of logic and the importance of practicing self-regulation.

• Adapted from Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction, The Delphi Report (Executive Summary) . Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press. ↵
• Adapted from Facione, P. A. (1990). ↵
• Aristotle. (1989). Prior Analytics (Trans. Robin Smith). Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing. ↵
• Image of man and woman arguing. Authored by : mzacha. Provided by : MorgueFile. Located at : http://mrg.bz/ynkIUa . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Free to remix, commercial use, no attribution required. http://www.morguefile.com/license/morguefile
• Chapter 6 Logic and the Role of Arguments. Authored by : Terri Russ, J.D., Ph.D.. Provided by : Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN. Located at : http://publicspeakingproject.org/psvirtualtext.html . Project : The Public Speaking Project. License : CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
• Martha Stewart nrkbeta. Authored by : nrkbeta. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martha_Stewart_nrkbeta.jpg . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Seat belt BX. Authored by : M.Minderhoud. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seat_belt_BX.jpg . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Man thinking in a bus. Authored by : IG8. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/ig8/4295549232/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Sharia-Law-Billboard. Authored by : Matt57. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sharia-law-Billboard.jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
• Decorative toilet seat. Authored by : Bartux. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Decorative_toilet_seat.jpg%20 . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
• Image of 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Provided by : Bureau of ATF 1993 Explosives Incident Report. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

Privacy Policy

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.2: Introduction to Analysis As Critical Thinking

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 58359
• Lumen Learning

What you’ll learn to do: describe analysis

Analysis is a critical thinking skill that has been applied to academic study since the time of Aristotle (384–322 BCE). It is a foundational tool across disciplines, from chemistry to literature to business to philosophy. Understanding what analysis is will be of value to you throughout your college career.

Contributors and Attributions

• Outcome: Analysis As Critical Thinking. Provided by : University of Mississippi. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of stone sculpture heads. Authored by : morhamedufmg. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : pixabay.com/photos/bustos-filsofia-aristotle-756620/. License : Other . License Terms : pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

• Career Services

• About USC Gould
• Commencement
• Mission Statement
• Message from the Dean
• History of USC Gould
• Board of Councilors
• Jurist-in-Residence Program
• Social Media
• Consumer Information (ABA Required Disclosures)

• Academic Calendar
• LLM Programs
• Legal Master’s Programs
• Certificates
• Undergraduate Programs
• Bar Admissions
• Concentrations
• Corporate & Custom Education
• Course Descriptions
• Experiential Learning and Externships
• Progressive Degree Programs

Faculty & Research

• Faculty and Lecturer Directory
• Research and Scholarship
• Faculty in the News
• Distinctions and Awards
• Centers and Initiatives
• Workshops and Conferences

• Alumni Association
• Alumni Events
• Class Notes
• USC Law Magazine

• Student Affairs Office
• Student Life and Organizations
• Academic Services and Honors Programs
• Student Wellbeing
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging
• Law School Resources
• USC Resources
• Business Law & Economics
• Constitutional Law
• New Building Initiative
• Law Leadership Society
• How to Give to USC Gould
• Gift Planning
• BS Legal Studies

Explore by Interest

• Legal Master’s Programs

Give to USC Gould

• Giving to Gould
• How to Give

Application Information

Quick links.

• Graduate & International Programs

Understanding the Ladder of Inference: Navigating Cognitive Pitfalls

Dispute resolution education provides many tools for students to use in diagnosing and facilitating resolution of conflict. One such tool that I have used in my teaching for many years is known as the ladder of inference . In our daily lives, we often make decisions based on our perceptions and interpretations of events. However, these interpretations are not always accurate and can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts. The ladder of inference, a concept introduced by organizational psychologist Chris Argyris, sheds light on how our thoughts and beliefs can shape our actions and influence the outcomes of our interactions.

The ladder of inference illustrates the mental process we go through when making sense of the world around us. It consists of seven steps, each building upon the previous one, leading to a potentially biased conclusion. These steps are:

• Observation: We start by observing a situation or event. However, we cannot observe everything, so we select and focus on certain aspects based on our personal biases, experiences, and beliefs.
• Selecting Data: From the information we observe, we filter and select certain data points that seem relevant to us. This filtering process is influenced by our personal preferences and existing mental models.
• Adding Meaning: Once we have selected the data, we ascribe meaning to it based on our beliefs and assumptions. We interpret the data through the lens of our existing knowledge and past experiences.
• Making Assumptions: Next, we make assumptions based on the meaning we have assigned to the selected data. These assumptions may be unconscious and are often influenced by our biases and preconceived notions.
• Drawing Conclusions: Based on our assumptions, we draw conclusions about the situation. These conclusions may be incomplete or distorted due to the limited data we have considered, as well as the biases and assumptions we hold.
• Forming Beliefs: We adopt beliefs based upon the conclusions we have drawn from our current situation, which may be stronger if also based on conclusions drawn from past experience. Our beliefs are further reinforced and applied in similar future situations.
• Taking Action: Lastly, we take action based on our conclusions. Our actions are driven by our beliefs and assumptions, which may not accurately match the reality of the situation. This can lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, and ineffective decision-making.

Application of the ladder of influence is illustrated in the following example I frequently use when introducing this framework to students.

A corporate president, Alex, contacted a dispute resolution professional, Megan, for consultation regarding the president’s plan to fire a high-level sales employee who had been with the company for many years. When asked about the reason for the firing decision, Alex said, “Ed is just not committed to the company. He’s got to go.” Megan then asked, “Can you tell me what Ed has done, or not done, that leads you to conclude he is not committed to the company?” Alex responded, “He is constantly late in submitting his monthly and quarterly sales reports. I have spoken to him about this before, but the reports are still late. I can’t stand it when people are late! It’s just a sign of laziness, and a clear indication that he is not committed to his work, or to this company. I know he loves golf. He should be spending less time on the golf course and more time doing his work. He’s got to go.”

Megan then spoke with Ed. “Tell me how things are going with your work.” Ed responded, “Couldn’t be better! Things are great! In fact, I think I’m getting a promotion next week.” Megan then asked, “What makes you think you are going to be promoted?” Ed replied, “Well, the president wants to meet with me next week and I just have a feeling that I am going to be promoted. My sales have exceeded all expectations, and our customers love me. I have been the top salesperson nine of the past twelve months, and my customer satisfaction ratings are the highest in the company.” Megan asked about his work schedule, to which Ed replied, “My family accuses me of being a workaholic. I probably work 14-15 hours a day. I know it’s not fair to them, but I need to keep my customers happy. I do wish I had more time to myself; I love golf but haven’t had time to play in over a year. But that’s ok; I love my job, and whatever free time I do have, I spend with my family.”

Megan used the ladder of inference to help Alex and Ed see the circumstances more objectively and to help Alex avoid acting in a way that would have been extremely detrimental to the company and to Ed. First, Megan walked Ed down the ladder of inference in order to look more carefully at the data pool. Previously, Alex only selected data that supported his preconceived ideas (Ed was habitually late submitting his monthly and quarterly reports) and that also were consistent with his own personal preferences and preexisting mental models or biases (people who submit their work late are lazy, unreliable, and not committed to the company.) Alex attached meaning and made assumptions based on the limited data selected (Ed was purposefully ignoring his repeated instructions to submit his reports on time; and intentionally doing so because he was lazy, unreliable, distracted, and not committed to the company.) Alex further assumed that Ed’s late submission of reports was caused by his spending excessive time playing golf instead of completing his reports, because Alex had noticed several golf trophies, golf themed pictures and other golf paraphernalia in Ed’s office.

Megan helped Alex see, and consider, additional data that he previously ignored. In that regard, she asked Alex questions about the quality of Ed’s work, including comparative sales data, thoroughness, and detail of reports submitted, as well as customer satisfaction feedback. She also reviewed with Alex Ed’s past employee evaluations, which were always excellent. Not only had Alex initially ignored this information, but he had never even considered that it could be relevant to his analysis and decision. He was surprised to learn that Ed was top salesperson nine of the past twelve months. He was astonished by the glowing customer feedback the company consistently received about Ed. He was embarrassed by his erroneous assumption that Ed was slacking off in his work by spending excessive time playing golf. In short, Alex had been so focused on Ed’s late submission of reports that he failed to consider additional relevant information necessary for good judgment and sound decision making.

With this additional data selected and considered, Megan then walked Alex back up the ladder of inference resulting in a more objective analysis of the situation. It allowed Alex to consider the late submission of reports in the broader context of Ed’s overall performance. This did not cause Alex to set aside his need for Ed to submit his reports in a timely fashion, but it did prompt Alex to consider Ed’s shortcoming in the context of Ed’s overall performance, and thus provided a more effective framework for analyzing the situation.

Megan next met with Ed, and was able to walk him down the ladder of inference, helping him recognize additional data relevant to his late submission of reports. With this additional information now in mind, Megan walked Ed back up the ladder of inference, helping him see the importance of timely submission of reports in the broader context of the needs and attitudes of the corporate president. Not surprisingly, Ed was unaware of the critical importance of the information he had ignored, as well as questions he should have asked in order to understand the impact his late submission of reports had on the president’s evaluation of his employment. He had failed to grasp the urgency and importance of the president’s repeated reminders and, by focusing only on data supporting the positive side of his employment record, Ed made biased assumptions and reached erroneous conclusions that almost cost him his job. Walking him back up the ladder of inference, Ed gained more objective insight into his status with the company and his relationship with its president.

In the end, Ed was not fired; nor did he get a promotion at that time. In a joint meeting facilitated by Megan, Alex acknowledged the tremendous contribution Ed had made to the success of the company. He also was able to discuss with Ed, in a collaborative manner, the reasons why timely submission of his reports was so important. In that regard he learned that it was not only Alex’s personal preferences for punctuality, but also the fact that, when Ed submitted his reports late, Alex was often unable complete and submit his own reports to the Board of Directors, and sometimes lacked the full information he needed to discuss sales data at board meetings.

As seen in this example, the ladder of inference highlights the cognitive pitfalls we encounter in our decision-making processes. It emphasizes the importance of being aware of our own mental filters, biases, and assumptions. By understanding how our thought process influences our actions, we can improve our ability to make more objective and informed decisions.

Awareness of the ladder of inference allows us to challenge our assumptions and seek out additional information before drawing conclusions. It encourages open-mindedness, empathy, and the ability to consider multiple perspectives. By consciously climbing down the ladder, we can reduce misunderstandings, enhance communication, and build stronger relationships.

The ladder of inference serves as a valuable tool in understanding the complexities of human cognition and decision-making. By recognizing our tendency to ascend the ladder quickly, we can take steps to slow down, question our assumptions, and seek out additional information. This will lead to more accurate interpretations, effective decision-making, and improved relationships with others.

In a world where misunderstandings and conflicts are common, the ladder of inference provides a framework for developing self-awareness and critical thinking skills. By actively engaging with this concept, we can navigate the cognitive pitfalls that hinder our understanding and work towards building more harmonious relationships in a more productive society.

Learn more about dispute resolution programs at USC Gould .

• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99-109.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.

Explore Related

• Dispute Resolution

Related Stories

Mentor inspiration

The power of hands-on learning.

15 Dec, 2022

14 Dec, 2022

USC Gould School of Law 699 Exposition Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90089-0071 213-740-7331

USC Gould School of Law

699 Exposition Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90089-0071

• Academic Programs
• Acceptances
• Articles and Book Chapters
• Awards and Honors
• Book Chapters
• Book Reviews
• Business Law and Economics
• Center for Dispute Resolution
• Center for Law and Philosophy
• Center for Law and Social Science
• Center for Law History and Culture ​
• Center for Transnational Law and Business
• Centers and Institutes
• Continuing Legal Education
• Contribution to Amicus Briefs
• Contributions to Books
• Criminal Justice
• Degree Programs
• Election Law
• Environmental Law
• Experiential Learning
• Externships
• Graduate & International Programs
• Hidden Articles
• Housing Law and Policy Clinic
• Immigration Clinic
• Immigration Law
• Initiative and Referendum Institute
• Institute for Corporate Counsel
• Institute on Entertainment Law and Business
• Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic
• Intellectual Property Institute
• International Human Rights Clinic
• International Law
• Jurist in Residence
• Legal History
• Legal Theory and Jurisprudence
• LLM On Campus
• Media Advisories
• Media, Entertainment and Technology Law
• Mediation Clinic
• MSL On Campus
• Other Publications
• Other Works
• Planned Giving
• Post-Conviction Justice Project
• Practitioner Guides
• Presentations / Lectures / Workshops
• Public Interest Law
• Publications
• Publications and Shorter Works
• Publications in Books
• Publications in Law Reviews
• Publications in Peer-reviewed Journals
• Real Estate Law and Business Forum
• Redefined Blog
• Research & Scholarship
• Saks Institute for Mental Health Law, Policy, and Ethics
• Scholarly Publications
• Short Pieces
• Small Business Clinic
• Tax Institute
• Trust and Estate Conference
• Uncategorized
• Undergraduate Law
• Working Papers
• Works in Progress

Copyright © 2024 USC Gould. All Rights Reserved

• Media Contacts
• Make a Gift
• Emergency Information

• Privacy Policy
• Notice of Non-Discrimination
• Digital Accessibility
• Contact Webmaster

5.4 Types of Inferences

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define deductive, inductive, and abductive inferences.
• Classify inferences as deductive, inductive, or abductive.
• Explain different explanatory virtues used in abductive reasoning.

Inferences can be deductive, inductive, or abductive. Deductive inferences are the strongest because they can guarantee the truth of their conclusions. Inductive inferences are the most widely used, but they do not guarantee the truth and instead deliver conclusions that are probably true. Abductive inferences also deal in probability.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive inferences, which are inferences arrived at through deduction (deductive reasoning), can guarantee truth because they focus on the structure of arguments. Here is an example:

• Either you can go to the movies tonight, or you can go to the party tomorrow.
• You cannot go to the movies tonight.
• So, you can go to the party tomorrow.

This argument is good, and you probably knew it was good even without thinking too much about it. The argument uses “or,” which means that at least one of the two statements joined by the “or” must be true. If you find out that one of the two statements joined by “or” is false, you know that the other statement is true by using deduction. Notice that this inference works no matter what the statements are. Take a look at the structure of this form of reasoning:

• X or Y is true.
• X is not true.
• Therefore, Y is true.

By replacing the statements with variables, we get to the form of the initial argument above. No matter what statements you replace X and Y with, if those statements are true, then the conclusion must be true as well. This common argument form is called a disjunctive syllogism.

Valid Deductive Inferences

A good deductive inference is called a valid inference , meaning its structure guarantees the truth of its conclusion given the truth of the premises. Pay attention to this definition. The definition does not say that valid arguments have true conclusions. Validity is a property of the logical forms of arguments, and remember that logic and truth are distinct. The definition states that valid arguments have a form such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. You can test a deductive inference’s validity by testing whether the premises lead to the conclusion. If it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are assumed to be true, then the argument is valid.

Deductive reasoning can use a number of valid argument structures:

Disjunctive Syllogism :

• Therefore X.

Modus Ponens :

• If X, then Y.
• Therefore Y.

Modus Tollens :

• Therefore, not X.

You saw the first form, disjunctive syllogism, in the previous example. The second form, modus ponens, uses a conditional, and if you think about necessary and sufficient conditions already discussed, then the validity of this inference becomes apparent. The conditional in premise 1 expresses that X is sufficient for Y. So if X is true, then Y must be true. And premise 2 states that X is true. So the conclusion (the truth of Y) necessarily follows. You can also use your knowledge of necessary and sufficient conditions to understand the last form, modus tollens. Remember, in a conditional, the consequent is the necessary condition. So Y is necessary for X. But premise 2 states that Y is not true. Because Y must be the case if X is the case, and we are told that Y is false, then we know that X is also false. These three examples are only a few of the numerous possible valid inferences.

Invalid Deductive Inferences

A bad deductive inference is called an invalid inference . In invalid inferences, their structure does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion—that is to say, even if the premises are true, the conclusion may be false. This does not mean that the conclusion must be false, but that we simply cannot know whether the conclusion is true or false. Here is an example of an invalid inference:

• If it snows more than three inches, the schools are mandated to close.
• The schools closed.
• Therefore, it snowed more than three inches.

If the premises of this argument are true (and we assume they are), it may or may not have snowed more than three inches. Schools close for many reasons besides snow. Perhaps the school district experienced a power outage or a hurricane warning was issued for the area. Again, you can use your knowledge of necessary and sufficient conditions to understand why this form is invalid. Premise 2 claims that the necessary condition is the case. But the truth of the necessary condition does not guarantee that the sufficient condition is true. The conditional states that the closing of schools is guaranteed when it has snowed more than 3 inches, not that snow of more than 3 inches is guaranteed if the schools are closed.

Invalid deductive inferences can also take general forms. Here are two common invalid inference forms:

Affirming the Consequent:

• Therefore, X.

Denying the Antecedent:

• Therefore, not Y.

You saw the first form, affirming the consequent, in the previous example concerning school closures. The fallacy is so called because the truth of the consequent (the necessary condition) is affirmed to infer the truth of the antecedent statement. The second form, denying the antecedent, occurs when the truth of the antecedent statement is denied to infer that the consequent is false. Your knowledge of sufficiency will help you understand why this inference is invalid. The truth of the antecedent (the sufficient condition) is only enough to know the truth of the consequent. But there may be more than one way for the consequent to be true, which means that the falsity of the sufficient condition does not guarantee that the consequent is false. Going back to an earlier example, that a creature is not a dog does not let you infer that it is not a mammal, even though being a dog is sufficient for being a mammal. Watch the video below for further examples of conditional reasoning. See if you can figure out which incorrect selection is structurally identical to affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent.

The Wason Selection Task

Testing deductive inferences.

Earlier it was explained that logical analysis involves assuming the premises of an argument are true and then determining whether the conclusion logically follows, given the truth of those premises. For deductive arguments, if you can come up with a scenario where the premises are true but the conclusion is false, you have proven that the argument is invalid. An instance of a deductive argument where the premises are all true but the conclusion false is called a counterexample . As with counterexamples to statements, counterexamples to arguments are simply instances that run counter to the argument. Counterexamples to statements show that the statement is false, while counterexamples to deductive arguments show that the argument is invalid. Complete the exercise below to get a better understanding of coming up with counterexamples to prove invalidity.

Think Like a Philosopher

Using the sample arguments given, come up with a counterexample to prove that the argument is invalid. A counterexample is a scenario in which the premises are true but the conclusion is false. Solutions are provided below.

Argument 1:

• If an animal is a dog, then it is a mammal.
• Charlie is not a dog.
• Therefore, Charlie is not a mammal.

Argument 2:

• All desserts are sweet foods.
• Some sweet foods are low fat.
• So all desserts are low fat.

Argument 3:

• If Jad doesn’t finish his homework on time, he won’t go to the party.
• Jad doesn’t go to the party.
• Jad didn’t finish his homework on time.

When you have completed your work on the three arguments, check your answers against the solutions below.

Solution 1: Invalid. If you imagine that Charlie is a cat (or other animal that is not a dog but is a mammal), then both the premises are true, while the conclusion is false. Charlie is not a dog, but Charlie is a mammal.

Solution 2: Invalid. Buttercream cake is a counterexample. Buttercream cake is a dessert and is sweet, which shows that not all desserts are low fat.

Solution3: Invalid. Assuming the first two premises are true, you can still imagine that Jad is too tired after finishing his homework and decides not to go to the party, thus making the conclusion false.

Inductive Inferences

When we reason inductively, we gather evidence using our experience of the world and draw general conclusions based on that experience. Inductive reasoning (induction) is also the process by which we use general beliefs we have about the world to create beliefs about our particular experiences or about what to expect in the future. Someone can use their past experiences of eating beets and absolutely hating them to conclude that they do not like beets of any kind, cooked in any manner. They can then use this conclusion to avoid ordering a beet salad at a restaurant because they have good reason to believe they will not like it. Because of the nature of experience and inductive inference, this method can never guarantee the truth of our beliefs. At best, inductive inference generates only probable true conclusions because it goes beyond the information contained in the premises. In the example, past experience with beets is concrete information, but the person goes beyond that information when making the general claim that they will dislike all beets (even those varieties they’ve never tasted and even methods of preparing beets they’ve never tried).

Consider a belief as certain as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” The Scottish philosopher David Hume famously argued against the certainty of this belief nearly three centuries ago ([1748, 1777] 2011, IV, i). Yes, the sun has risen every morning of recorded history (in truth, we have witnessed what appears to be the sun rising, which is a result of the earth spinning on its axis and creating the phenomenon of night and day). We have the science to explain why the sun will continue to rise (because the earth’s rotation is a stable phenomenon). Based on the current science, we can reasonably conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. But is this proposition certain ? To answer this question, you have to think like a philosopher, which involves thinking critically about alternative possibilities. Say the earth gets hit by a massive asteroid that destroys it, or the sun explodes into a supernova that encompasses the inner planets and incinerates them. These events are extremely unlikely to occur, although no contradiction arises in imagining that they could take place. We believe the sun will rise tomorrow, and we have good reason for this belief, but the sun’s rising is still only probable (even if it is nearly certain).

While inductive inferences are not always a sure thing, they can still be quite reliable. In fact, a good deal of what we think we know is known through induction. Moreover, while deductive reasoning can guarantee the truth of conclusions if the premises are true, many times the premises themselves of deductive arguments are inductively known. In studying philosophy, we need to get used to the possibility that our inductively derived beliefs could be wrong.

There are several types of inductive inferences, but for the sake of brevity, this section will cover the three most common types: reasoning from specific instances to generalities, reasoning from generalities to specific instances, and reasoning from the past to the future.

Reasoning from Specific Instances to Generalities

Perhaps I experience several instances of some phenomenon, and I notice that all instances share a similar feature. For example, I have noticed that every year, around the second week of March, the red-winged blackbirds return from wherever they’ve wintering. So I can conclude that generally the red-winged blackbirds return to the area where I live (and observe them) in the second week of March. All my evidence is gathered from particular instances, but my conclusion is a general one. Here is the pattern:

Instance 1 , Instance 2 , Instance 3  . . . Instance n --> Generalization

And because each instance serves as a reason in support of the generalization, the instances are premises in the argument form of this type of inductive inference:

Specific to General Inductive Argument Form:

• General Conclusion

Reasoning from Generalities to Specific Instances

Induction can work in the opposite direction as well: reasoning from accepted generalizations to specific instances. This feature of induction relies on the fact that we are learners and that we learn from past experiences and from one another. Much of what we learn is captured in generalizations. You have probably accepted many generalizations from your parents, teachers, and peers. You probably believe that a red “STOP” sign on the road means that when you are driving and see this sign, you must bring your car to a full stop. You also probably believe that water freezes at 32° Fahrenheit and that smoking cigarettes is bad for you. When you use accepted generalizations to predict or explain things about the world, you are using induction. For example, when you see that the nighttime low is predicted to be 30°F, you may surmise that the water in your birdbath will be frozen when you get up in the morning.

Some thought processes use more than one type of inductive inference. Take the following example:

Every cat I have ever petted doesn’t tolerate its tail being pulled. So this cat probably will not tolerate having its tail pulled.

Notice that this reasoner has gone through a series of instances to make an inference about one additional instance. In doing so, the reasoner implicitly assumed a generalization along the way. The reasoner’s implicit generalization is that no cat likes its tail being pulled. They then use that generalization to determine that they shouldn’t pull the tail of the cat in front of them now. A reasoner can use several instances in their experience as premises to draw a general conclusion and then use that generalization as a premise to draw a conclusion about a specific new instance.

Inductive reasoning finds its way into everyday expressions, such as “Where there is smoke, there is fire.” When people see smoke, they intuitively come to believe that there is fire. This is the result of inductive reasoning. Consider your own thought process as you examine Figure 5.5 .

Reasoning from Past to Future

We often use inductive reasoning to predict what will happen in the future. Based on our ample experience of the past, we have a basis for prediction. Reasoning from the past to the future is similar to reasoning from specific instances to generalities. We have experience of events across time, we notice patterns concerning the occurrence of those events at particular times, and then we reason that the event will happen again in the future. For example:

I see my neighbor walking her dog every morning. So my neighbor will probably walk her dog this morning.

Could the person reasoning this way be wrong? Yes—the neighbor could be sick, or the dog could be at the vet. But depending upon the regularity of the morning dog walks and on the number of instances (say the neighbor has walked the dog every morning for the past year), the inference could be strong in spite of the fact that it is possible for it to be wrong.

Strong Inductive Inferences

The strength of inductive inferences depends upon the reliability of premises given as evidence and their relation to the conclusions drawn. A strong inductive inference is one where, if the evidence offered is true, then the conclusion is probably true. A weak inductive inference is one where, if the evidence offered is true, the conclusion is not probably true. But just how strong an inference needs to be to be considered good is context dependent. The word “probably” is vague. If something is more probable than not, then it needs at least a 51 percent chance of happening. However, in most instances, we would expect to have a much higher probability bar to consider an inference to be strong. As an example of this context dependence, compare the probability accepted as strong in gambling to the much higher probability of accuracy we expect in determining guilt in a court of law.

Figure 5.6 illustrates three forms of reasoning are used in the scientific method. Induction is used to glean patterns and generalizations, from which hypotheses are made. Hypotheses are tested, and if they remain unfalsified, induction is used again to assume support for the hypothesis.

Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning is similar to inductive reasoning in that both forms of inference are probabilistic. However, they differ in the relationship of the premises to the conclusion. In inductive argumentation, the evidence in the premises is used to justify the conclusion. In abductive reasoning, the conclusion is meant to explain the evidence offered in the premises. In induction the premises explain the conclusion, but in abduction the conclusion explains the premises. 

Inference to the Best Explanation

Because abduction reasons from evidence to the most likely explanation for that evidence, it is often called “inference to the best explanation.” We start with a set of data and attempt to come up with some unifying hypothesis that can best explain the existence of those data. Given this structure, the evidence to be explained is usually accepted as true by all parties involved. The focus is not the truth of the evidence, but rather what the evidence means.

Although you may not be aware, you regularly use this form of reasoning. Let us say your car won’t start, and the engine won’t even turn over. Furthermore, you notice that the radio and display lights are not on, even when the key is in and turned to the ON position. Given this evidence, you conclude that the best explanation is that there is a problem with the battery (either it is not connected or is dead). Or perhaps you made pumpkin bread in the morning, but it is not on the counter where you left it when you get home. There are crumbs on the floor, and the bag it was in is also on the floor, torn to shreds. You own a dog who was inside all day. The dog in question is on the couch, head hanging low, ears back, avoiding eye contact. Given the evidence, you conclude that the best explanation for the missing bread is that the dog ate it.

Detectives and forensic investigators use abduction to come up with the best explanation for how a crime was committed and by whom. This form of reasoning is also indispensable to scientists who use observations (evidence) along with accepted hypotheses to create new hypotheses for testing. You may also recognize abduction as a form of reasoning used in medical diagnoses. A doctor considers all your symptoms and any further evidence gathered from preliminarily tests and reasons to the best possible conclusion (a diagnosis) for your illness.

Explanatory Virtues

Good abductive inferences share certain features. Explanatory virtues are aspects of an explanation that generally make it strong. There are many explanatory virtues, but we will focus on four. A good hypothesis should be explanatory, simple , and conservative and must have depth .

To say that a hypothesis must be explanatory simply means that it must explain all the available evidence. The word “explanatory” for our purposes is being used in a narrower sense than used in everyday language. Take the pumpkin bread example: a person might reason that perhaps their roommate ate the loaf of pumpkin bread. However, such an explanation would not explain why the crumbs and bag were on the floor, nor the guilty posture of the dog. People do not normally eat an entire loaf of pumpkin bread, and if they do, they don’t eviscerate the bag while doing so, and even if they did, they’d probably hide the evidence. Thus, the explanation that your roommate ate the bread isn’t as explanatory as the one that pinpoints your dog as the culprit.

But what if you reason that a different dog got into the house and ate the bread, then got out again, and your dog looks guilty because he did nothing to stop the intruder? This explanation seems to explain the missing bread, but it is not as good as the simpler explanation that your dog is the perpetrator. A good explanation is often simple . You may have heard of Occam’s razor , formulated by William of Ockham (1287–1347), which says that the simplest explanation is the best explanation. Ockham said that “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” (Spade & Panaccio 2019). By “entities,” Ockham meant concepts or mechanisms or moving parts.

Examples of explanations that lack simplicity abound. For example, conspiracy theories present the very opposite of simplicity since such explanations are by their very nature complex. Conspiracy theories must posit plots, underhanded dealings, cover-ups (to explain the existence of alternative evidence), and maniacal people to explain phenomena and to further explain away the simpler explanation for those phenomena. Conspiracy theories are never simple, but that is not the only reason they are suspect. Conspiracy theories also generally lack the virtues of being conservative and having depth .

A conservative explanation maintains or conserves much of what we already believe. Conservativeness in science is when a theory or hypothesis fits with other established scientific theories and explanations. For example, a theory that accounts for some physical phenomenon but also does not violate Newton’s first law of motion is an example of a conservative theory. On the other hand, consider the conspiracy theory that we never landed on the moon. Someone might posit that the televised Apollo 11 space landing was filmed in a secret studio somewhere. But the reality of the first televised moon landing is not the only belief we must get rid of to maintain the theory. Five more manned moon landings occurred. Furthermore, the reality of the moon landings fits into beliefs about technological advancement over the next five decades. Many of the technologies developed were later adopted by the military and private sector (NASA, n.d.). Moreover, the Apollo missions are a key factor in understanding the space race of the Cold War era. Accepting the conspiracy theory requires rejecting a wide range of beliefs, and so the theory is not conservative.

A conspiracy theorist may offer alternative explanations to account for the tension between their explanation and established beliefs. However, for each explanation the conspiracist offers, more questions are raised. And a good explanation should not raise more questions than it answers. This characteristic is the virtue of depth . A deep explanation avoids unexplained explainers, or an explanation that itself is in need of explanation. For example, the theorist might claim that John Glenn and the other astronauts were brainwashed to explain the astronauts’ firsthand accounts. But this claim raises a question about how brainwashing works. Furthermore, what about the accounts of the thousands of other personnel who worked on the project? Were they all brainwashed? And if so, how? The conspiracy theorist’s explanation raises more questions than it answers.

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Is it possible that our established beliefs (or scientific theories) could be wrong? Why give precedence to an explanation because it upholds our beliefs? Scientific thought would never have advanced if we deferred to conservative explanations all the time. In fact, the explanatory virtues are not laws but rules of thumb, none of which are supreme or necessary. Sometimes the correct explanation is more complicated, and sometimes the correct explanation will require that we give up long-held beliefs. Novel and revolutionary explanations can be strong if they have evidence to back them up. In the sciences, this approach is expressed in the following principle: Extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence. In other words, a novel claim that disrupts accepted knowledge will need more evidence to make it credible than a claim that already aligns with accepted knowledge.

Table 5.2 summarizes the three types of inferences just discussed.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Nathan Smith
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Philosophy
• Publication date: Jun 15, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/5-4-types-of-inferences

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Critical Thinking, Its Components and Assessment

In higher education and advanced education exemplified by graduate school education, demonstrating critical thinking skills is crucial to good scholarship. But what really is critical thinking? How is it demonstrated and how can professors measure such level of thinking?

In this article, I clarify critical thinking by exploring its definition, importance, components, and ways to develop this skill, among other things. This discussion considers the context of the world that gradually undergoes significant change due to artificial intelligence that gradually creep into our lives. We need to be discerning of what information is presented to us given the preponderance of erroneous information, misinformation, or simply the infodemic we face every day.

In general, how can we employ critical thinking to discern fact from fiction? How can we avoid being misled? Again, I highlight the important points in this discussion.

Let’s see our tool to survive the age of misinformation and disinformation.

Table of Contents

Introduction.

In a fast-paced world where information and data flood our daily lives, it is increasingly essential to navigate with discernment, clarity, and analytical acumen in both personal and professional spheres. This necessity is where the profound relevance of critical thinking becomes clear.

Encompassing components like analysis, interpretation, and self-regulation, critical thinking is a cognitive process that enriches decision-making, problem-solving, and quality management across varied sectors.

This discussion will delve into what critical thinking entails, why it holds utmost significance in today’s world, the integral skills and dispositions it comprises, and how it can be effectively developed and measured.

Defining Critical Thinking

Critical thinking defined.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment . It involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomenon, and research findings.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze information objectively and make a reasoned judgment. It involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomenon, and research findings.

Critical thinkers can separate facts from opinions, evaluate credibility, identify prejudice or bias , distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information, and ascertain the validity of the information. This involves clear, rational, open-minded, and informed thinking.

So, what is critical thinking exactly? It’s the capability to think in a clear and rational manner about what actions to take or beliefs to hold. It includes the ability to independently engage in reflective thinking .

A critical thinker is able to discern the logical connections between ideas, construct and evaluate arguments, detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning, solve problems systematically, recognize the relevance and significance of ideas, and reflect on the justification of their own beliefs and values.

The Critical Thinking Mindset

Beyond the very technical aspects, critical thinking fundamentally involves a mental discipline that calls for reflective mindfulness, a sense of skepticism, and intellectual humility . Balancing these qualities with curiosity, creativity, and an appreciation for complexity, this mindset becomes pivotal within the decision-making process.

Essentially, the adoption of a critical thinking mindset allows for a robust evaluation of different possibilities. This process is based on established criteria and standards that enable clear, rationale thought, thus unlocking more informed, evidence-based decision making.

The Importance of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking plays a crucial role in professional environments. It is integral in problem-solving and decision-making processes, enabling professionals to analyze issue-related data, consider alternate perspectives, and make informed decisions based on sound reasoning and evidence.

Within academic settings, critical thinking is vital for understanding and interpreting complex theories or concepts. It fosters independent thinking, encourages intellectual curiosity, and prepares students to navigate the complexities of real-world scenarios, by enabling them to assess the value or validity of claims and arguments presented to them.

Critical thinking is often assessed through various assignments, presentations, class discussions, and project-based activities. The purpose of these tasks is not only to measure a student’s ability to process and synthesize information but also their ability to draw connections between different concepts and build up well-reasoned arguments.

In science, for example, critical thinking helps researchers design experiments, interpret data, and derive conclusions. In business, critical thinking assists organizations in strategic planning, problem-solving, decision-making, and innovation. In education, critical thinking is crucial in developing skills in reading, writing, and learning.

In personal decision-making, critical thinking can significantly improve the quality of life. It aids in making sound financial decisions, solving day-to-day problems effectively, and choosing the most optimal course of action in various situations.

Furthermore, critical thinking can foster creativity by necessitating the exploration of multiple viewpoints and solutions, it can enhance communication by promoting clarity, accuracy, and relevance in the exchange of ideas, and promote social harmony by encouraging open and objective discussions.

Critical thinking is a vital skill in today’s world, as it allows individuals to process information more effectively and make well-informed decisions. Rather than merely accepting information as presented, a critical thinker will question, analyze, and often challenge that information. This process helps to avoid faulty reasoning, cognitive biases, and manipulation.

6 Components of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking includes specific components such as analysis, interpretation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation.

1. Analysis

This involves examining information in detail in order to understand it better and to draw conclusions. It could be data , a concept , or a process .

Analysis is a key component of critical thinking. It involves breaking down complex problems or arguments into parts to better understand their nature and relationship.

This can include questioning assumptions, recognizing patterns, identifying underlying causes, and pursuing relevant evidence. For example, in a heated political debate, a critical thinker might analyze the validity of each party’s claims, their supporting facts, and the implications of their proposals.

2. Interpretation

This is the act of explaining the meaning of information . Critical thinkers deeply focus on a topic or issue, questioning and analyzing it from multiple perspectives.

Interpretation refers to the ability to understand and express the meaning or significance of a wide variety of experiences, situations, data, events, judgments, conventions, and criteria. It also involves making inferences — drawing out unseen implications from the information given.

For instance, someone using interpretation during a political debate will not only understand what the speakers say but draw insights about their political ideologies, plans, or biases.

3. Inference

It is the act of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. Inferences can be accurate or inaccurate, logical or illogical, justified or unjustified.

4. Explanation

Here, the critical thinker tries to make something clear or easy to understand with detailed and observable facts. They clarify the cause-a nd-effect relationships surrounding an event or situation.

5. Evaluation

Evaluation in critical thinking refers to the process of determining the credibility and relevance of the information. This involves assessing the evidence supporting a claim, determining its source’s reliability, and judging the logical consistency of arguments.

Returning to the political debate example, evaluating might involve checking the sources of factual claims or judging whether the proposed solutions are feasible given the present socio-political conditions.

6. Self-Regulation

This is the process where the thinker examines his or her own cognitive processes to make decisions about how to think and draw conclusions. This skill ensures that the thinking process is effective, efficient, and yields the intended results.

Dispositional Elements of Critical Thinking

Dispositional elements refer to the attitudes or mindsets conducive to critical thinking. These include open-mindedness, intellectual humility, skepticism, and intellectual courage.

Open-mindedness

Open-mindedness involves being receptive to new ideas or conflicting perspectives. It implies the willingness to revise pre-existing beliefs based on new evidence or understandings. This characteristic helps critical thinkers avoid biases, consider all available evidence, and make fair judgments.

Intellectual Humility

Intellectual humility refers to recognizing that one’s own knowledge has limits . This disposition helps establish an unbiased view and a continuing interest in acquiring new knowledge.

Being skeptical involves questioning the authenticity and credibility of the information rather than accepting it at face value. Skeptics seek to validate information through evidence, logic, and rational arguments.

Intellectual Courage

Intellectual courage refers to the willingness to evaluate all ideas and beliefs, even those that conflict with one’s own. Challenging comfortable assumptions in pursuit of truth is essential for critical thinking.

How to Develop Critical Thinking Skills

1. pursue continuous learning.

To hone your critical thinking skills, continuous learning is of paramount importance. This includes opening oneself up to an array of experiences and environments, entertaining diverse viewpoints and actively seeking opportunities to challenge your pre-existing beliefs.

As mentioned in the previous discussion, open-mindedness is an element of critical thinking. It’s not too late to learn something new. Old dogs can learn new tricks with perseverance. You are not too old to learn how to use Moodle in your online classes .

Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at twenty or eighty. Anyone who keeps learning stays young.

– Henry Ford

2. Challenge the Status Quo

Being a critical thinker also involves questioning the accepted norms and challenging the traditional wisdom. Instead of simply accepting things as they are, delve deeper to understand the reasons behind their existence.

3. Understand Diverse Perspectives

The essence of critical thinking lies in viewing situations from various perspectives . This requires understanding others’ viewpoints, even if they are contradictory to your personal beliefs. This varied understanding can help you make more informed decisions.

4. Embrace Calculated Risks

Developing your critical thinking skills may entail taking calculated risks. This includes stepping out of your comfort zone to experience new things and ideas that might challenge your previous assumptions. This involves a careful analysis of the pros and cons before making an informed decision based on your findings.

5. Promote Open-Mindedness

Critical thinkers are often open-minded individuals. They are open to new ideas and different perspectives. Developing this trait involves embracing diversity, understanding others’ experiences, and actively participating in challenging conversations.

6. Keep a Reflective Journal

Maintaining a reflective journal helps you document your thought process over time. You can analyze your experiences, thoughts, and decisions made. Writing down your thoughts offers a chance to critically analyze your actions, understand why you made certain decisions, and thereby foster self-awareness and critical thinking.

Measuring Critical Thinking

Critical thinking can fundamentally be described as one’s aptitude to assess, conceptualize, apply, and critically examine information gathered or produced through various means, such as observation, dialogue, reflection, or reasoning. This intellectual process encourages making well-reasoned judgments based on solid evidence and logic rather than accepting arguments and conclusions at face value.

How we measure critical thinking, however, can vary. While these capabilities may sound subjective, there are objective ways on how to measure critical thinking. I enumerate some of them in the next section.

1. Standardized Tests to Measure Critical Thinking

Typically, standardized testing is utilized to gauge a person’s critical thinking competence. Such tests, like the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal or the Cornell Critical Thinking Test , evaluate areas such as inference, recognition of assumptions, interpretation, deduction, and evaluation of arguments.

The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test measures the ability of students to reason through a problem and to express their reasoning in writing. This type of measurement tool is used mainly in educational settings, but it offers valuable insight into individual critical thinking skills.

2. Performance Assessments

Beyond standard testing, another metric involves practical performance assessments . These involve the observation of how an individual tackles a complex problem.

Specific critical thinking aspects might be identified and evaluated using rubrics – criteria set to ascertain a person’s ability to identify, summarize, and offer solutions to problems while also taking various perspectives into account.

3. Self and Peer Evaluations

In addition to the aforementioned, self and peer evaluations provide another measure of critical thinking. These require individuals to introspect on their cognitive processes or inspect the same in their peers.

Interpreting The Results

Interpretation of these tests depends largely on the benchmarks set by the individual administering the exam. As a rule, the results of such evaluations should always be interpreted in the context of all available data from the assessment of the individual’s cognitive abilities and academic skills.

Overall, the measurement of critical thinking provides invaluable insight into one’s ability to reason, make judgments, solve problems, and make decisions. These abilities are of immense importance in both personal and professional realms.

Key Takeaways

As we stand in an era of information overload, the value of critical thinking in deciphering truth from noise cannot be overstated. It enhances our ability to analyze, interpret, evaluate, and take calculated risks in various facets of life, ensuring we make informed, intelligent decisions.

Furthermore, it fosters a culture of curiosity, open-mindedness, and intellectual courage, promoting better communication and fostering social harmony.

As effortlessly as it might seem to come for some, critical thinking, like any other skill, can be cultivated and honed over time with dedication and the right strategies. These skills can be measured with tools like the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, leading to a more informed understanding of an individual’s critical thinking capabilities.

Therefore, investing in the development and assessment of critical thinking skills is an investment in a more discerning, informed, and intellectual society.

In conclusion, critical thinking is not only a valuable but a crucial life skill. In today’s information-rich world, the ability to analyze data and make swift, efficient decisions is vital. Thus, understanding critical thinking and its significance, and knowing how it is measured and can be improved, is key to personal and professional growth.

Related Posts

5 Eye-Opening Reasons Why You Need A Physics Tutor

Crabbing: a sustainable livelihood in the coasts of magsaysay, bioblitz of a disturbed mangrove ecosystem, about the author, patrick regoniel.

Dr. Regoniel, a faculty member of the graduate school, served as consultant to various environmental research and development projects covering issues and concerns on climate change, coral reef resources and management, economic valuation of environmental and natural resources, mining, and waste management and pollution. He has extensive experience on applied statistics, systems modelling and analysis, an avid practitioner of LaTeX, and a multidisciplinary web developer. He leverages pioneering AI-powered content creation tools to produce unique and comprehensive articles in this website.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Constructing a critical thinking evaluation framework for college students majoring in the humanities

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Introduction

Education for sustainable development (ESD) has focused on the promotion of sustainable thinking skills, capacities, or abilities for learners of different educational stages. Critical thinking (CT) plays an important role in the lifelong development of college students, which is also one of the key competencies in ESD. The development of a valuable framework for assessing college students’ CT is important for understanding their level of CT. Therefore, this study aimed to construct a reliable self-evaluation CT framework for college students majoring in the humanities.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Item analysis were conducted to explore the reliability and validity of the CT evaluation framework. Six hundred and forty-two college students majoring in the humanities were collected. The sample was randomly divided into two subsamples ( n 1 = 321, n 2 = 321).

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the whole scale was 0.909, and the values of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for individual factors of the scale ranged from 0.724 to 0.878. Then CFA was conducted within the scope of the validity study of the scale. In this way, the structure of the 7-factor scale was confirmed. Results indicated that the constructed evaluation framework performed consistently with the collected data. CFA also confirmed a good model fitting of the relevant 22 factors of the college students’ CT framework ( χ 2 /df  = 3.110, RMSEA = 0.056, GFI = 0.927, AGFI = 0.902, NFI = 0.923, and CFI = 0.946).

These findings revealed that the CT abilities self-evaluation scale was a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the CT abilities of college students in the humanities. Therefore, the college students’ CT self-evaluation framework included three dimensions: discipline cognition (DC), CT disposition, and CT skills. Among them, CT disposition consisted of motivation (MO), attention (AT), and open-mindedness (OM), while CT skills included clarification skills (CS), organization skills (OS), and reflection (RE). Therefore, this framework can be an effective instrument to support college students’ CT measurement. Consequently, some suggestions are also put forward regarding how to apply the instrument in future studies.

Nowadays, individuals should be equipped with the abilities of identifying problems, in-depth thinking, and generating effective solutions to cope with various risks and challenges caused by the rapid development of science and technology ( Arisoy and Aybek, 2021 ). In this context, critical thinking (CT) is gaining increasing attention. Promoting college students’ CT is an important way of improving their abilities of problem solving and decision making to further enhance their lifelong development ( Feng et al., 2010 ). Although human beings are not born with CT abilities ( Scriven and Paul, 2005 ), they can be acquired through learning and training, and are always sustainable ( Barta et al., 2022 ).

Especially in the field of education, CT should be valued ( Pnevmatikos et al., 2019 ). Students should be good thinkers who possess the abilities of applying critical evaluation, finding, and collating evidence for their views, as well as maintaining a doubting attitude regarding the validity of facts provided by their teachers or other students ( Sulaiman et al., 2010 ). Many countries have regarded the development of students’ CT as one of the fundamental educational goals ( Flores et al., 2012 ; Ennis, 2018 ). CT is helpful for students to develop their constructive, creative, and productive thinking, as well as to foster their independence ( Wechsler et al., 2018 ; Odebiyi and Odebiyi, 2021 ). It also provides the power to broaden their horizons ( Les and Moroz, 2021 ). Meanwhile, when college students have a high level of CT abilities, they will likely perform better in their future careers ( Stone et al., 2017 ; Cáceres et al., 2020 ). Therefore, college students should be capable of learning to access knowledge, solve problems, and embrace different ideas to develop their CT ability ( Ulger, 2018 ; Arisoy and Aybek, 2021 ).

Due to the significant meaningfulness of CT abilities at all education levels and in various disciplines, how to cultivate students’ CT abilities has been the focus of CT-related research ( Fernández-Santín and Feliu-Torruella, 2020 ). Many studies have shown that inquiry-based learning activities or programs are an effective way to exercise and enhance students’ CT abilities ( Thaiposri and Wannapiroon, 2015 ; Liang and Fung, 2020 ; Boso et al., 2021 ; Chen et al., 2022 ). Students not only need the motivation and belief to actively participate in such learning activities and to commit to problem solving, but also need the learning skills to cope with the problems that may be encountered in problem-solving oriented learning activities. These requirements are in line with the cultivation of students’ CT abilities. Meanwhile, research has also indicated that there is an interrelationship between problem solving and CT ( Dunne, 2015 ; Kanbay and Okanlı, 2017 ).

However, another important issue is how to test whether learning activities contribute to improving the level of students’ CT abilities. It is effective to measure students’ CT abilities through using CT measurement instruments. Some CT measurement frameworks have been developed to cope with the need to cultivate CT abilities in teaching and learning activities ( Saad and Zainudin, 2022 ). However, there are still some imperfections in these existing CT evaluation frameworks. For example, most studies on college students’ CT are in the field of science, with very little research on students in the humanities, and even less on specifically developing CT assessment frameworks for college students in the humanities. Only Khandaghi et al. (2011) conducted a study on the CT disposition of college students in the humanities, and the result indicated that their CT abilities were at an intermediate level. However, there are few descriptions of college students’ CT with a background in humanities disciplines. Compared to humanities disciplines, science disciplines seem to place more emphasis on logical and rational thinking, which might cater more to the development of CT abilities ( Li, 2021 ). However, it is also vital for college students in the humanities to engage in rational thinking processes ( Al-Khatib, 2019 ). Hence, it is worth performing CT abilities evaluations of college students in the humanities by constructing a CT evaluation framework specifically for such students. In addition, previous measurements of CT have tended to be constructed according to one dimension of CT only, either CT skills or CT disposition. CT skills and disposition are equally important factors, and the level of CT abilities can be assessed more comprehensively and accurately by measuring both dimensions simultaneously. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a self-evaluation CT framework for college students that integrates both CT skills and disposition dimensions to comprehensively evaluate the CT ability of college students in the humanities.

Literature review

Ct of college students in the humanities.

CT is hardly a new concept, as it can be traced back 2,500 years to the dialogs of Socrates ( Giannouli and Giannoulis, 2021 ). In the book, How We Think, Dewey (1933 , p 9; first edition, 1910) mentioned that thinking critically can help us move forward in our thinking. Subsequently, different explanations of CT have been presented through different perspectives by researchers. Some researchers think that CT means to think with logic and reasonableness ( Mulnix and Mulnix, 2010 ), while others suggest that CT refers to the specific learning process in which learners need to think critically to achieve learning objectives through making decisions and problem solving ( Ennis, 1987 ).

Generally, for a consensus, CT involves two aspects: CT skills and CT disposition ( Bensley et al., 2010 ; Sosu, 2013 ). CT skills refer to the abilities to understand problems and produce reasonable solutions to problems, such as analysis, interpretation, and the drawing of conclusions ( Chan, 2019 ; Ahmady and Shahbazi, 2020 ). CT disposition emphasizes the willingness of individuals to apply the skills mentioned above when there is a problem or issue that needs to be solved ( Chen et al., 2020 ). People are urged by CT disposition to engage in a reflective, inferential thinking process about the information they receive ( Álvarez-Huerta et al., 2022 ), and then in specific problem-solving processes, specific CT skills would be applied. CT disposition is the motivation for critical behavior and an important quality for the learning and use of critical skills ( Lederer, 2007 ; Jiang et al., 2018 ).

For college students, the cultivation of their CT abilities is usually based on specific learning curriculums ( O’Reilly et al., 2022 ). Hence, many studies about students’ CT have been conducted in various disciplines. For example, in science education, Ma et al.’s (2021) study confirmed that there was a significant relationship between CT and science achievement, so they suggested that it might be valuable to consider fostering CT as a considerable outcome in science education. In political science, when developing college students’ CT, teachers should focus on not only the development of skills, but also of meta-awareness ( Berdahl et al., 2021 ), which emphasizes the importance of CT disposition, i.e., learners not only need to acquire CT skills, such as analysis, inference, and interpretation, but also need to have clear cognition of how to apply these skills at a cognitive level. Duro et al. (2013) found that psychology students valued explicit CT training. For students majoring in mathematics, Basri and Rahman (2019) developed an assessment framework to investigate students’ CT when solving mathematical problems. According to the above literature review, there have been many studies on CT in various disciplines, which also reflects the significant importance of CT for the development of students in various disciplines. However, most studies on CT have been conducted in the field of science subjects, such as mathematics, business, nursing, and so on ( Kim et al., 2014 ; Siew and Mapeala, 2016 ; Basri and Rahman, 2019 ), but there have been few studies on the CT of students in the humanities ( Ennis, 2018 ).

There is a widespread stereotype that compared to humanities subjects, science majors are more logical, and so more attention should be paid to their CT ( Lin, 2016 ). This begs the question, are all students in the humanities (e.g., history, pedagogy, Chinese language literature, and so on) sensual or “romantic”? Do they not also need to develop independent, logical, and CT? Can they depend only on “romantic” thinking? This may be a prejudice. In fact, the humanities are subjects that focus on humanities and our society ( Lin, 2020 ). Humanities should be seen as the purpose rather than as a tool. The academic literacy of humanities needs to be developed and enhanced through a long-term, subtle learning process ( Bhatt and Samanhudi, 2022 ), and the significance for individuals is profound. Hence, the subjects of both humanities and sciences play an equally important role in an individual’s lifelong development. As such, what should students majoring in humanities subjects do to develop and enhance their professional competence? Chen and Wei (2021) suggested that individuals in the humanities should have the abilities to identify and tackle unstructured problems to adapt to the changing environments, and this suggestion is in line with a developmental pathway for fostering CT. Therefore, developing their CT abilities is an important way to foster the humanistic literacy of students in the humanities. Specifically, it is important to be equipped with the abilities to think independently and questioningly, to read individually, and to interpret texts in depth and in multiple senses. They also need to learn and understand the content of texts and evaluate the views of others in order to expand the breadth of their thinking ( Barrett, 2005 ). Moreover, they need the ability to analyze issues dialectically and rationally, and to continually reflect on themselves and offer constructive comments ( Klugman, 2018 ; Dumitru, 2019 ). Collegiate CT skills are taught via independent courses or embedded modules ( Zhang et al., 2022 ). The humanities are no exception. Yang (2007) once designed thematic history projects, as independent courses, to foster students’ disposition toward CT concerning the subject of history, and the results showed that the history projects can support learners’ development of historical literacy and CT. In a word, the humanities also play an important role in fostering the development and enhancement of college students’ CT, esthetic appreciation and creativity, and cultural heritage and understanding ( Jomli et al., 2021 ). Having good CT therefore also plays a crucial role in the lifelong development of students in the humanities.

An accurate assessment of the level of CT abilities is an important prerequisite for targeted improvement of students’ CT abilities in special disciplines ( Braeuning et al., 2021 ). Therefore, it might be meaningful to construct a self-evaluation CT framework for college students in the humanities according to their professional traits.

Evaluating college students’ CT

Given that CT can be cultivated ( Butler et al., 2017 ), more attention has been paid to how to improve students’ CT abilities level in instruction and learning ( Araya, 2020 ; Suh et al., 2021 ). However, it is also important to examine how CT can be better assessed. The evaluation of thinking is helpful for students to think at higher levels ( Kilic et al., 2020 ). Although the definitions of CT are controversial ( Hashemi and Ghanizadeh, 2012 ), many researchers have reached a consensus on the main components of CT: skills and disposition ( Bensley et al., 2016 ), and different CT evaluation frameworks have been developed according to one of the two dimensions. For example, Li and Liu (2021) developed a five-skill framework for high school students which included analysis, inference, evaluation, construct, and self-reflection. Meanwhile, in recent years, the assessment of CT disposition has also attracted the interest of a growing number of researchers. Sosu (2013) developed the “Critical Thinking Disposition Scale” (STDS), which included two dimensions: critical openness and reflective skepticism. The specific taxonomies of the evaluation framework of CT skills and dispositions is shown in Table 1 . As illustrated in Table 1 , there are some universal core items to describe CT skills. For the dimension of CT skills, the sub-dimensions of interpretation, analysis, inference, and evaluation are the important components. Those CT skills are usually applied along with the general process of learning activities ( Hsu et al., 2022 ). For instance, at the beginning of learning activities, students should have a clear understanding of the issues raised and the knowledge utilized through applying interpretation skills. Likewise, there are some universal core items to describe CT dispositions, such as open-mindedness, attentiveness, flexibility, curiosity, and so on.

Taxonomies of the evaluation framework of CT skills and dispositions.

For a good critical thinker, it is equally important to have both dispositional CT and CT skills. Students need to have the awareness of applying CT abilities to think about problem-solving and subsequently be able to utilize a variety of CT skills in specific problem-solving processes. Therefore, we argue that designing a CT self-evaluation framework that integrates the two dimensions will provide a more comprehensive assessment of college students’ CT. In terms of CT disposition, motivation, attentiveness, and open-mindedness were included as the three sub-dimensions of CT disposition. Motivation is an important prerequisite for all thinking activities ( Rodríguez-Sabiote et al., 2022 ). Especially in problem-solving-oriented learning activities, the development of CT abilities will be significantly influenced by the motivation level ( Berestova et al., 2021 ). Attentiveness refers to the state of concentration of the learner during the learning process, which reflects the learners’ level of commitment to learning, playing a crucial role in the development of CT abilities during the learning process. Open-mindedness requires learners to keep an open mind to the views of others when engaging in learning activities. The three sub-dimensions have been used to reflect leaners’ disposition to think critically. Especially in the humanities, it is only through in-depth communication between learners that a crash of minds and an improvement in abilities can take place ( Liu et al., 2022 ), and it is therefore essential that learners maintain a high level of motivation, attentiveness, and open-mindedness in this process to develop their CT abilities. In terms of CT skills, three sub-dimensions were also selected to measure the level of learners’ CT skills, namely clarification skills, organization skills, and reflection. In the humanities, it should be essential abilities for students to understand, analyze, and describe the literature and problems comprehensively and exactly ( Chen and Wei, 2021 ). Then, following the ability to extract key information about the problem, to organize and process it, and to organize the information with the help of organizational tools such as diagrams and mind maps. Finally, the whole process of problem solving is reflected upon and evaluated ( Ghanizadeh, 2016 ), and research has shown that reflection learning intervention could significantly improve learners’ CT abilities ( Chen et al., 2019 ).

Research purpose

CT plays an important role in college students’ academic and lifelong career development ( Din, 2020 ). In the current study on college students’ CT measurement, it can be improved in two main ways.

Firstly, the attention to the discipline cognition related to CT in previous studies is insufficient. Generally, students’ CT abilities can be cultivated based on two contexts: the subject-specific instructional context and the general skills instructional context ( Ennis, 1989 ; Swartz, 2018 ). In authentic teaching and learning contexts, the generation and development of CT usually takes place in problem-oriented learning activities ( Liang and Fung, 2020 ), in which students need to achieve their learning objectives by identifying problems and solving them. According to Willingham (2007) , if you are to think critically, you must have a sound knowledge base of the problem or topic of enquiry and view it from multiple perspectives. Due to the difference in nature of the disciplines, the format of specific learning activities should also vary. Hence, an adequate cognition of the discipline is an important prerequisite for learning activities; meanwhile, college students’ cognition level regarding their discipline should also be an important assessment criterion for them to understand their own level of CT abilities. Cognition refers to the acquisition of knowledge through mental activity (e.g., forming concepts, perceptions, judgments, or imagination; Colling et al., 2022 ). Learners’ thinking, beliefs, and feelings will affect how they behave ( Han et al., 2021 ). Analogically speaking, discipline cognition refers to an individual’s understanding of their discipline’s backgrounds and knowledge ( Flynn et al., 2021 ). Cognition should be an important variable in CT instruction ( Ma and Luo, 2020 ). In the current study, we added the dimension of discipline cognition into the self-evaluation CT framework of college students in the humanities. What’s more, in order to represent the learning contexts of humanities disciplines, the specific descriptions of items are concerned with the knowledge of the humanities, (e.g., “I can recognize the strengths and limitations of the discipline I am majoring in.,” and “Through studying this subject, my understanding of the world and life is constantly developing.”).

Secondly, the measurement factors of CT skills and disposition should be more specific according to the specific humanities background. In previous studies, researchers tended to measure students’ CT in terms of one of the two dimensions of CT skills. CT thinking skills used to be measured from perspectives such as analysis, interpretation, inference, self-regulation, and evaluation. However, in specific learning processes, how should students concretely analyze and interpret the problems they encounter, and how can they self-regulate their learning processes and evaluate their learning outcomes? Those issues should also be considered to evaluate college students’ levels of CT abilities more accurately. Therefore, the current study attempted to construct a CT framework in a more specific way, and by integrating both dimensions of CT disposition and skills. Therefore, what specific factors would work well as dimensions for evaluating the CT abilities of college students in the humanities? In the current study, firstly, students’ disposition to think critically is assessed in terms of three sub-dimensions: motivation, attention, and open-mindedness, to help students understand the strength of their own awareness to engage in CT ( Bravo et al., 2020 ). Motivation is an important prerequisite for all thinking activities ( Rodríguez-Sabiote et al., 2022 ), and it could contribute to the development of engagement, behavior, and analysis of problems ( Berestova et al., 2021 ). Meanwhile, there was a positive relationship between academic motivation and CT. Therefore, in the current study, motivation is still one of the crucial factors. The sub-dimension of attentiveness was also an important measurement factor, which aimed to investigate the level of the persistence of attention. Attentiveness also has a positive influence on a variety of student behaviors ( Reynolds, 2008 ), while the sub-dimension of open-mindedness mainly assesses college students’ flexibility of thinking, which is also an important factor of CT ( Southworth, 2020 ). A good critical thinker should be receptive of some views that might be challenging to their own prior beliefs with an open-minded attitude ( Southworth, 2022 ). Secondly, college students’ CT skills were then assessed in the following three sub-dimensions of clarification skills, organization skills, and reflection, with the aim of understanding how well students use CT skills in the problem-solving process ( Tumkaya et al., 2009 ). The three sub-dimensions of CT skills selected in this framework are consistent with the specific learning process of problem solving, which begins with a clear description and understanding of the problem, i.e., clarification skills. In the humanities, it should be an essential competence for students to understand, analyze, and describe the literature and problems comprehensively and exactly ( Chen and Wei, 2021 ).

We thus constructed a model for evaluating the CT of college students in the humanities (see Figure 1 ). The proposed evaluation framework incorporates three dimensions: discipline cognition (DC), CT disposition, and CT skills. Among them, CT disposition includes the three sub-dimensions of motivation (MO), attention (AT), and open-mindedness (OM), while CT skills include the three sub-dimensions of clarification skills (CS), organization skills (OS), and reflection (RE). In other words, this study aimed to construct a seven-dimensional evaluation framework and to test whether it is an effective instrument for measuring the CT of college students in the humanities.

A model for evaluating the CT abilities of college students in the humanities.

Materials and methods

Research design.

In order to address the two problems of the existing college students’ CT evaluation frameworks mentioned above, a CT self-evaluation framework for college students in the humanities was preliminarily developed in this study, including the following seven factors: discipline cognition (2 items), motivation (5 items), attentiveness (5 items), open-mindedness (5 items), clarification skills (3 items), organization (3 items), and reflection (4 items).

Then, to ensure the content validity of the measurement framework, four experts who have studied CT and five teachers who have worked in the field of humanities were invited to review all items and give feedback. The research team compared the similarities and differences in expert opinions and made joint decisions. Meanwhile, to ensure the popularity, accuracy, and objectivity of the items, 25 college students majoring in humanities participated in the pretest, and the presentation and description of the items was improved according to their feedback. Finally, a questionnaire consisting of 30 items was constructed, including three items for participants’ socio-demographic information (e.g., gender, grade, and subject), two for discipline cognition, five for motivation, five for attention, five for open-mindedness, three for clarification skills, three for organization skills, and four for reflection (as shown in Table 2 ). For each item, a 5-point Likert-style scale (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree) was used.

Dimensions and items of the college students’ CTS evaluation framework.

Participants and data collection

In the current study, simple random sampling was adopted and the online questionnaire was uploaded on Questionnaire Star 1 (accessed on 18 March 2022), a professional online survey tool widely used in China ( Sarjinder, 2003 ). The link to the online questionnaire was sent to the teachers in the humanities of some colleges in Jiangsu, China. Then teachers sent the link to their students. In the first part of the questionnaire, students were told that they were participating in an anonymous study, the content of which may be published without any commercial use. If they did not want to participate in the survey, they could quit the website of the online questionnaire. Students who agreed to participate in the survey filled in the questionnaire. In addition, to ensure the reliability of the results of the subsequent data analysis, the ratio of the number of questionnaire items to the number of participants should be 1:5, and the larger the sample size the better ( Gorsuch, 1983 ). Therefore, eventually, 654 college students agreed to take part in the study, and completed the online questionnaire. After deleting those questionnaires with the same answer for all items or overly short response times, the effective number of samples was 642, with an effective rate of 98.2%.

The recruited effective sample comprised 642 participants, of whom 67.4% were female ( n  = 433), and 32.6% were male ( n  = 209). Sophomores ( n  = 215, 33.5%) and juniors ( n  = 249, 38.8%) made up most of the total number of participants. Meanwhile, the current study aimed to construct a CT framework for college students in the humanities field; hence, all participants were students in humanities disciplines, such as history ( n  = 187, 29.1%), educational history ( n  = 78, 12.2%), philosophy ( n  = 97, 15.1%), Chinese language and literature ( n  = 221, 34.4%), and pedagogy ( n  = 59, 9.2%). The specific socio-demographic information is shown in Table 3 .

Socio-demographic profile of respondents.

Data analysis

To construct an evaluation framework of college students’ CT skills and to confirm its reliability and validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and item analysis were carried out. Firstly, 642 samples were randomly assigned to two groups, with 321 samples in each ( Yurdakul et al., 2012 ) to avoid inflation of the Cronbach’s alpha value or other effects ( Devellis, 2011 ). EFA was used to analyze the first group of samples. CFA was applied to the second sample. Firstly, EFA was conducted in order to determine the underlying factor structure of the CT-evaluation framework and to make decisions about item retention ( Kieffer, 1988 ). During this process, principal component analysis (PCA) was applied as an EFA factor extraction technique ( Vogel et al., 2009 ). CFA was then used to confirm the factor structure of the scale using the second group of 321 samples ( Kline, 2005 ). Lastly, all samples were analyzed to test the differentiation and suitability of the items ( Yurdakul et al., 2012 ). SPSS 18.0 and AMOS 24.0 were applied to analyze the collected data.

SPSS 22.0 was used for conducting EFA, and the maximum variance method was adopted for factor rotation.

Reliability analysis of the scale

Prior to the EFA, sample variance and sample size evaluations were conducted. An evaluation of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was found to be significant, thus confirming homogeneity of variance ( χ 2  = 9162.198; p  < 0.001). Then, the Cronbach’s alpha value ( Pallant, 2007 ) was applied to evaluate the reliability of the scale, and the results showed that the whole scale had good reliability ( α  = 0.909). Specifically, the Cronbach’s alpha values of the seven factors were 0.724 (DC), 0.771 (MO), 0.878 (AT), 0.839 (OM), 0.819 (CL), 0.755 (OR), and 0.878 (RE), indicating their reliability. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) value of the questionnaire was 0.907, showing the appropriateness of the EFA ( Kaiser, 1974 ).

Validity analysis of the scale

To confirm the validity of the evaluation dimensions, the method of PCA was applied to extract factors, and maximum variance rotation was used for the EFA. Seven factors were finally obtained. Kieffer (1988) suggested that two strategies should be applied for EFA. Thus, oblique rotation and orthogonal rotation were both used. If the results of the two methods are similar, the results obtained by the orthogonal rotation method can be used. Therefore, in the current study, two methods were both applied for EFA, namely optimal skew and maximum variance orthogonal rotation. The results of the two methods showed no significant difference. This study thus applied the results of the maximum variance orthogonal rotation method. MO5, OM4, and OM5 were removed since their maximum factor loadings were not in line with their initial evaluation dimension ( Conway and Huffcutt, 2016 ). In addition, the factors with an eigenvalue higher than 1 were picked. Items with a factor loading of less than 0.4 and with inconsistent content were removed through the multiple orthogonal rotations ( Zhao et al., 2021 ). There were 25 items with eigenvalues greater than 1 and independent factor loadings greater than 0.5 which were retained ( Fabrigar et al., 1999 ). Table 4 presents the results of the component transformation matrix. Finally, seven factors were selected, with a cumulative variance contribution of 71.413% ( Conway and Huffcutt, 2016 ). The eigenvalues and cumulative variance contributions of the seven factors are shown in Table 5 .

The factor analysis of college students’ CT framework ( N  = 321).

The eigenvalues and contribution rates of the five factors in the model.

The first-order CFA was adopted to determine the validity, convergence, and identifiability of the framework in this study ( Kline, 2005 ). CFA was used to explore the relationships between each factor, and then to construct the evaluation framework of humanities college students’ CT.

Fitting validity analysis for the framework

As shown in Figure 2 , first-order CFA was conducted. According to Hair et al. (2014) , items that do not meet the standard load (<0.5) must be eliminated. The absolute and relative fitting indexes were applied to verify the framework fit. The Chi-square/ df in this research was 3.651, and the value of RMSEA was 0.044 (<0.08; Liu et al., 2021 ). In addition, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and adjusted fitness index (AGFI) were 0.923 and 0.906 respectively, which both met the reference standard proposed by Foster et al. (1993) . Moreover, consistent with Hair et al. (2014) recommendations, the normed fitness index (NFI), comparative fitness index (CFI), incremental fitness index (IFI), and relative fitness index (RFI) were 0.975, 0.982, and 0.972 (>0.9). In addition, the values of simplifying the specification fitness index (PNFI), and streamlining fitness indicator (PGFI) were more than 0.5. Therefore, these results indicated the good fitting validity of the framework ( Table 6 ).

The first-order CFA model.

The fitting index of the evaluation framework.

Convergence validity analysis for the framework

The CFA results are shown in Table 7 . The comprehensive reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were used to test the construct validity of the framework. According to Hair et al. (2014) , the CR value of all items should be more than 0.7. Thus, the CR of the 22 remaining items was good. What is more, Fornell and Larcker (1981) pointed out that if the AVE is higher than 0.5, the framework shows good convergence validity. Therefore, the results in Table 5 show that this evaluation framework has high validity and is reasonable.

Results of the confirmatory factor analysis.

Discriminant validity analysis of the framework

The discriminant validity of the framework could be ensured by testing the correlation matrix among dimensions. Schumacker and Lomax (2016) proposed that in the structural discriminant validity analysis of tools, the AVE square root of all factors must be more than the absolute value of the Pearson correlation coefficient between two factors in order to be recognized as having discriminant validity. Therefore, as shown in Table 8 , the result of structural discriminant validity analysis indicated that this framework had good discriminant validity.

The results of interrelated coefficient matrix and square roots of AVE.

***Significant at the 0.001 level; **Significant at the 0.01 level; *Significant at the 0.05 level.

Item analysis

Item analysis was conducted to determine how well the items discriminate between college students with high abilities and those with low abilities in terms of CT within the scope of the item validity of the CT-evaluation scale form. In order to accomplish this goal, item discrimination statistics were calculated based on the differences between the lowest group means of 27% and the highest group means of 27% of the participants determined according to the scores of each item and to the total scores of the scale ( Aridag and Yüksel, 2010 ). Therefore, first, the total scores for everyone were calculated by using the scale. This was followed by the calculation of total scores that were then ranked from the highest to the lowest. Of all the participants constituting the study group ( N  = 642), 27% (174) of them who had the highest scores were determined to be the higher group, and 27% of all the participants who had the lowest scores were determined to be the lower group. The independent samples t -test was applied for the purpose of statistically testing the difference between the mean scores of the two groups. The results obtained are presented in Table 9 . Further, items with dimensional Pearson correlation coefficients and standardized factor loadings that did not reach the standard value (less than 0.4 and 0.45 respectively) were eliminated. Finally, for the remaining 22 items, the decisive values were higher than 0.3, and the gross interrelated coefficient between questions and items was higher than 0.4. Overall, the item analysis results showed that the remaining 22 items reached the standard.

t -test results for the item means of the high-low-27% group.

CT is one of the key competencies that college students need to acquire ( Bandyopadhyay and Szostek, 2019 ). This study aimed to construct a self-evaluation CT framework for college students in the humanities. In the initial framework, three dimensions and 27 items were conceived; then EFA was conducted, and items with independent factor loadings below 0.5 were excluded ( Fabrigar et al., 1999 ). As a result, 25 items were retained for CFA. The results showed that three items should be eliminated because of their lower standard load (less than 0.5). Subsequently, the evaluation model with 22 items had an acceptable fitting index; meanwhile, good convergence and discriminant validity of the framework was also shown by calculating CR, AVE, and the square roots of AVE. Finally, to verify the suitability and distinctiveness of the constructed items, item analysis was conducted. The result showed that for the remaining 22 items, the decisive values were higher than 0.3, and the gross interrelated coefficient between questions and items was higher than 0.4, so the remaining 22 items reached the standard. Therefore, the final self-evaluation CT framework is a 22-item instrument, measuring three dimensions and six sub-dimensions: discipline cognition, CT disposition (open-mindedness, motivation, and attentiveness), and CT skills (reflection, organization skills, and clarification skills).

Compared to previous studies about the construction of an assessment framework for CT, this study focused on three important issues: the CT abilities of college students majoring in the humanities was the focus of this study; both CT skills and CT dispositions were included; and more specific dimensions of CT were the core measurement factors. In previous CT assessment frameworks, students in the disciplines of science (mathematics, business, nursing, engineering, etc.) were often the main subjects of study ( Kim et al., 2014 ; Michaluk et al., 2016 ; Siew and Mapeala, 2016 ; Basri and Rahman, 2019 ), while college students majoring in the humanities have received less attention. However, CT as a guide of belief and action ( Gyenes, 2021 ) is an important ability for college students in all fields ( Davies, 2013 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). In humanities subjects, research has shown that independent thinking skills are valuable indicators of students’ discipline-specific abilities in humanities subjects ( Bertram et al., 2021 ). College students in the humanities need CT abilities to identify problems and find critical solutions ( Baş et al., 2022 ). Meanwhile, the assessment instrument developed in this study added the dimension of disciplinary cognition, which is considered a prerequisite to help college students have a clear idea of their subject background. Therefore, the CT assessment framework provided a practical method for teachers and learners in the humanities to investigate the level of their CT abilities. For example, in the discipline of history, thematic history projects could be applied to foster students’ CT abilities in authentic history teaching contexts ( Yang, 2007 ). In order to verify whether the projects help to improve learners’ CT abilities, this CT evaluation framework can be applied before and at the end of the project to determine whether there are differences in learners’ levels of CT abilities before and after learning. Likewise, in philosophy classroom, philosophical whole-class dialog can be useful teaching strategies to activate learners to think critically about moral values ( Rombout et al., 2021 ). Learners in dialogs must take others’ perspectives into account ( Kim and Wilkinson, 2019 ), which is in line with the sub-dimension of open-mindedness in the current CT evaluation framework. Hence, the CT evaluation framework can also be applied in specific disciplines.

In addition, in the current CT evaluation framework, both CT skills and CT dispositions were included, and more specific dimensions of CT were the core measurement factors. In terms of CT disposition, it reflects the strength of students’ belief to think and act critically. In the current evaluation instrument, the three sub-dimensions of motivation, open-mindedness, and attentiveness are the evaluation factors. The cultivation of college students’ CT abilities is usually based on specific educational activities. When college students get involved in learning activities, there are opportunities for them to foster their CT abilities ( Liu, 2014 ; Huang et al., 2022 ). An important factor influencing student engagement is motivation ( Singh et al., 2022 ), which has an important effect on college students’ behavior, emotion, and cognitive process ( Gao et al., 2022 ). Hence, it makes sense to regard motivation as a measure factor of CT disposition, and it is crucial for college students to self-assess their motivation level in the first place to help them have a clear insight into their overall level of CT. The sub-dimension of attentiveness was also an important measurement factor, which aimed to investigate the level of the persistence of attention. Attentiveness also has a positive influence on a variety of student behaviors ( Reynolds, 2008 ), while the sub-dimension of open-mindedness mainly assesses college students’ flexibility of thinking, which is also an important factor of CT ( Southworth, 2020 ). A good critical thinker should be receptive of some views that might be challenging to their own prior beliefs with an open-minded attitude ( Southworth, 2022 ). CT skills were then assessed in the following three sub-dimensions of clarification skills, organization skills, and reflection, with the aim of understanding how well students use CT skills in the problem-solving process ( Tumkaya et al., 2009 ). The three sub-dimensions of CT skills selected in this framework are consistent with the specific learning process of problem solving, which begins with a clear description and understanding of the problem, i.e., clarification skills, followed by the ability to extract key information about the problem, to organize and process it, and to organize the information with the help of organizational tools such as diagrams and mind maps. Finally, the whole process of problem solving is reflected upon and evaluated, and research has shown that reflection learning intervention could significantly improve learners’ CT abilities ( Chen et al., 2019 ).

In other words, the self-evaluation framework of college students’ CT constructed in this study focused on the investigation of college students in the humanities, and the descriptions of specific items combined the characteristics of the humanities. What’s more, because there are some differences in the extent to which students apply specific CT skills and are aware of how to use CT to solve problems based on their different disciplinary backgrounds ( Belluigi and Cundill, 2017 ), the construction of the CT assessment framework for college students provides a practical pathway and a more comprehensive instrument for assessing the CT abilities of college students majoring in the humanities, and a research entry point was provided for researchers to better research the CT of college students majoring in the humanities.

Based on a previous literature review of CT, this study further investigated the necessity of college students’ CT to construct a framework for evaluating the CT of college students in the humanities, and to test its effectiveness. The EFA, CFA, and item analysis methods were conducted in this study to construct a three-dimensional college students’ CT self-evaluation framework. The results indicate that the framework constructed in this study has good reliability and validity. Finally, a framework with three dimensions (discipline cognition, CT disposition, and CT skills) and seven sub-dimensions (discipline cognition, motivation, attentiveness, open-mindedness, reflection, organization skills, and clarification skills) totaling 22 items was developed.

Implications

The main significance of this study is reflected in three aspects. Firstly, the current study constructed a CT-evaluation framework for college students majoring in the humanities. The results of the EFA, CFA, and item analysis supported the reliability and validity of the three-dimensional framework which indicates that it consists of discipline cognition, CT disposition, and CT skills. The specific assessment factors not only integrate the two dimensions of CT (skills and disposition), making the assessment framework more comprehensive, but also integrate the dimension of discipline cognition, enabling specific measures to be developed based on specific disciplinary contexts, ensuring that CT is assessed more accurately and relevantly. Second, the CT-evaluation framework can be applied in specific instruction and learning contexts. It is well known that CT has become one of the abilities in the 21st century. In instruction and learning, specific instructional strategies and learning activities should be purposefully applied according to specific humanistic backgrounds. Prior to undertaking specific teaching activities, it is worth having a prerequisite understanding of college students’ level of CT abilities by inviting students to complete the self-evaluation CT competence instrument. Likewise, after the learning activities, it is also an important instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of learning activities in terms of cultivating college students’ CT abilities. Finally, the construction of the CT assessment framework for college students provides a practical pathway for assessing the CT abilities of college students majoring in the humanities, and a research entry point was provided for researchers to better research the CT of these students majoring in the humanities in the future.

Limitations and future work

There are two main limitations of this study. First, the sample in this study was from one area and was selected by random sampling, which cannot cover all the college students in the major. More and larger representative samples will be needed in the future to assess the extent to which the findings are applicable to other population groups to confirm the conclusions of the study. In addition, this evaluation framework of college students’ CT is still in the theoretical research stage and has not yet been put into practice. Therefore, the framework should be practically applied in further research to improve its applicability and usability according to practical feedback.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

QL: conceptualization. SL: methodology. SL and ST: writing—original draft preparation. SL, XG, and QL: writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This study was supported by the School Curriculum Ideological and Political Construction Project (no. 1812200046KCSZ2211).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of inter.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1 www.wjx.cn

• Abrami P., Bernard R. M., Borokhovski E., Wade A., Surkes M. A., Tamim R., et al.. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis . Rev. Educ. Res. 78 , 1102–1134. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahmady S., Shahbazi S. (2020). Impact of social problem-solving training on critical thinking and decision making of nursing students . BMC Nurs. 19 :94. doi: 10.1186/s12912-020-00487-x, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Khatib O. (2019). A Framework for Implementing Higher-Order Thinking Skills (Problem-Solving, Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, and Decision-Making) in Engineering & Humanities. Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET).
• Álvarez-Huerta A., Muela A., Larrea I. (2022). Disposition toward critical thinking and creative confidence beliefs in higher education students: the mediating role of openness to diversity and challenge . Think. Skills Creat. 43 :101003. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Araya A. E. M. (2020). Critical thinking for civic life in elementary education: combining storytelling and thinking tools/pensamiento critico Para la Vida ciudadanaen educacion primaria: combinando narrativa y herramientas de pensamiento . Educacion 44 , 23–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aridag N. C., Yüksel A. (2010). Analysis of the relationship between moral judgment competences and empathic skills of university students . Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri 10 , 707–724. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arisoy B., Aybek B. (2021). The effects of subject-based critical thinking education in mathematics on students’ critical thinking skills and virtues . Eur J of Educ Res 21 , 99–120. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2021.92.6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandyopadhyay S., Szostek J. (2019). Thinking critically about critical thinking: assessing critical thinking of business students using multiple measures . J. Educ. Bus. 94 , 259–270. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2018.1524355 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrett A. (2005). The information-seeking habits of graduate student researchers in the humanities . J Acad Libr 31 , 324–331. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2005.04.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barta A., Fodor L. A., Tamas B., Szamoskozi I. (2022). The development of students critical thinking abilities and dispositions through the concept mapping learning method – a meta-analysis . Educ. Res. Rev. 37 :100481. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100481 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baş M. T., Özpulat F., Molu B., Dönmez H. (2022). The effect of decorative arts course on nursing students’ creativity and critical thinking dispositions . Nurse Educ. Today :105584. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105584 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Basri H., Rahman A. A. (2019). Investigating critical thinking skill of junior High School in Solving Mathematical Problem . Int. J. Instr. 12 , 745–758. doi: 10.29333/iji.2019.12345a [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bellaera L., Weinstein-Jones Y., Ilie S., Baker S. T. (2021). Critical thinking in practice: the priorities and practices of instructors teaching in higher education . Think. Skills Creat. 41 :100856. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100856 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belluigi D. Z., Cundill G. (2017). Establishing enabling conditions to develop critical thinking skills: a case of innovative curriculum design in environmental science . Environ. Educ. Res. 23 , 950–971. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1072802 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bensley D. A., Crowe D. S., Bernhardt P., Buckner C., Allman A. L. (2010). Teaching and assessing critical thinking skills for argument analysis in psychology . Teach. Psychol. 37 , 91–96. doi: 10.1080/00986281003626656 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bensley D. A., Rainey C., Murtagh M. P., Flinn J. A., Maschiocchi C., Bernhardt P. C., et al.. (2016). Closing the assessment loop on critical thinking: the challenges of multidimensional testing and low test-taking motivation . Think. Skills Creat. 21 , 158–168. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.06.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models . Psychol. Bull. 107 , 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berdahl L., Hoessler C., Mulhall S., Matheson K. (2021). Teaching critical thinking in political science: A case study . J. Political Sci. Educ. 17 , 910–925. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2020.1744158 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berestova A., Kolosov S., Tsvetkova M., Grib E. (2021). Academic motivation as a predictor of the development of critical thinking in students . J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 14 , 1041–1054. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-02-2021-0081 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertram C., Weiss Z., Zachrich L., Ziai R. (2021). Artificial intelligence in history education. Linguistic content and complexity analyses of student writings in the CAHisT project (computational assessment of historical thinking) . Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell 100038 :100038. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100038 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhatt I., Samanhudi U. (2022). From academic writing to academics writing: transitioning towards literacies for research productivity . Int. J. Educ. Res. 111 :101917. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101917 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boso C. M., Van Der Merwe A. S., Gross J. (2021). Students’ and educators’ experiences with instructional activities towards critical thinking skills acquisition in a nursing school . Int J. Afr Nurs Sci 14 :100293. doi: 10.1016/j.ijans.2021.100293 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braeuning D., Hornung C., Hoffmann D., Lambert K., Ugen S., Fischbach A., et al.. (2021). Cognitive development . 58 :101008. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101008, [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bravo M. J., Galiana L., Rodrigo M. F., Navarro-Pérez J. J., Oliver A. (2020). An adaptation of the critical thinking disposition scale in Spanish youth . Think. Skills Creat. 38 :100748. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100748 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler H. A., Pentoney C., Bong M. P. (2017). Predicting real-world outcomes: critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence . Think. Skills Creat. 25 , 38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cáceres M., Nussbaum M., Ortiz J. (2020). Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: a teacher’s perspective . Think. Skills Creat. 37 , 100674–100618. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100674 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan C. (2019). Using digital storytelling to facilitate critical thinking disposition in youth civic engagement: A randomized control trial . Child Youth Serv. Rev. 107 :104522. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104522 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen F., Chen S., Pai H. (2019). Self-reflection and critical thinking: the influence of professional qualifications on registered nurses . Contem Nurs 55 , 59–70. doi: 10.1080/10376178.2019.1590154, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Q., Liu D., Zhou C., Tang S. (2020). Relationship between critical thinking disposition and research competence among clinical nurses: A cross-sectional study . J. Clin. Nurs. 29 , 1332–1340. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15201, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen K. L., Wei X. (2021). Boya education in China: lessons from liberal arts education in the U.S. and Hong Kong . Int. J. Educ. Dev. 84 :102419. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102419 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Zhai X., Zhu Y., Li Y. (2022). Exploring debaters and audiences’ depth of critical thinking and its relationship with their participation in debate activities . Think. Skills Creat. 44 :101035. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101035 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colling J., Wollschlager R., Keller U., Preckel F., Fischbach A. (2022). Need for cognition and its relation to academic achievement in different learning environments . Learn. Individ. Differ. 93 :1021110. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102110 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conway J. M., Huffcutt A. I. (2016). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research . Organ. Res. Methods 6 , 147–168. doi: 10.1177/1094428103251541 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies M. (2013). Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered . High. Educ. Res. Dev. 32 , 529–544. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2012.697878 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Devellis R. F. (2011). Scale Development . New York: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey J. (1933). How We Think . D C Heath, Boston. [ Google Scholar ]
• Din M. (2020). Evaluating university students’ critical thinking ability as reflected in their critical reading skill: A study at bachelor level in Pakistan . Think. Skills Creat. 35 :100627. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100627 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dumitru D. (2019). Creating meaning. The importance of arts, humanities and culture for critical thinking development . Stud. High. Educ. 44 , 870–879. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586345 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunne G. (2015). Beyond critical thinking to critical being: criticality in higher education and life . Int. J. Educ. Res. 71 , 86–99. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.03.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duro E., Elander J., Maratos F. A., Stupple E. J. N., Aubeeluck A. (2013). In search of critical thinking in psychology: an exploration of student and lecturer understandings in higher education . Psychol. Learn. Teach. 12 , 275–281. doi: 10.2304/plat.2013.12.3.275 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer C. P., Hogan M. J., Stewart I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century . Think. Skills Creat. 12 , 43–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking . Harvard Educ Rev 32 , 81–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis R. H. (1987). Critical Thinking and the Curriculum Think Skills Ins: Con. Tec., 40–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research . Educ Res. 18 , 4–10. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018003004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision . Springer 37 , 165–184. doi: 10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fabrigar L. R., Wegener D. T., Mac Callum R. C., Strahan E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research . Psychol. Method. 4 , 272–299. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED315423.pdf (Accessed November 3, 2022).
• Facione N. C., Facione P. A., Sanchez C. A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: the development of the California critical thinking disposition inventory . J. Nurs. Educ. 33 , 345–350. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-19941001-05, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feng R. C., Chen M. J., Chen M. C., Pai Y. C. (2010). Critical thinking competence and disposition of clinical nurses in a medical center . J. Nurs. Res. 18 , 77–87. doi: 10.1097/JNR.0b013e3181dda6f6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Santín M., Feliu-Torruella M. (2020). Developing critical thinking in early childhood through the philosophy of Reggio Emilia . Think. Skills Creat. 37 :100686. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100686 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flores K. L., Matkin G. S., Burbach M. E., Quinn C. E., Harding H. (2012). Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates: implications for leadership . Educ. Philos. Theory 44 , 212–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flynn R. M., Kleinknecht E., Ricker A. A., Blumberg F. C. (2021). A narrative review of methods used to examine digital gaming impacts on learning and cognition during middle childhood . Int. J. Child Comput. Int. 30 :100325. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100325 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fornell C., Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error . J. Mark. Res. 18 , 39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800312 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foster J., Barkus E., Yavorsky C. (1993). Understanding and Using Advanced Statistics. New York: SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao Q. Q., Cao B. W., Guan X., Gu T. Y., Bao X., Wu J. Y., et al.. (2022). Emotion recognition in conversations with emotion shift detection based on multi-task learning . Knowl-based Syst. 248 :108861. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108861 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghanizadeh A. (2016). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education . High. Educ. 74 , 101–114. doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giannouli V., Giannoulis K. (2021). Critical thinking and leadership: can we escape modern Circe's spells in nursing? Nursing leadership Toronto . Ont 34 , 38–44. doi: 10.12927/cjnl.2021.26456 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gorsuch R. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gyenes A. (2021). Student perceptions of critical thinking in EMI programs at Japanese universities: A Q-methodology study . J. Eng Aca Pur 54 :101053. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101053 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hair J. F., Black W. C., Babin B. J., Anderson R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis , 7th Edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring . Am. Psychol. 53 , 449–455. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Han J., Usher E. L., Brown C. S. (2021). Trajectories in quantitative and humanities self-efficacy during the first year of college . Learn. Individ. Differ. 91 :102054. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hashemi M. R., Ghanizadeh A. (2012). Critical discourse analysis and critical thinking: an experimental study in an EFL context . System 40 , 37–47. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2012.01.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsu F. H., Lin I. H., Yeh H. C., Chen N. S. (2022). Effect of Socratic reflection prompts via video-based learning system on elementary school students’ critical thinking skills . Comput. Educ. 183 :104497. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104497 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang Y. M., Silitonga L. M., Wu T. T. (2022). Applying a business simulation game in a flip classroon to enhance engagement, learning achievement, and higher-order thinking skills . Comput. Educ. 183 :104497. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104494 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang J., Gao A., Yang B. Y. (2018). Employees' critical thinking, Leaders' inspirational motivation, and voice behavior the mediating role of voice efficacy . J. Pers. Psychol. 17 , 33–41. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000193 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jomli R., Ouertani J., Jemli H., Ouali U., Zgueb Y., Nacef F. (2021). Comparative study of affective temperaments between medical students and humanities students (evaluation by validated temps-a) . Eur. Psychiatry 64 :S199. doi: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.529 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaiser H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity . Psychometrika 39 , 31–36. doi: 10.1007/BF02291575 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanbay Y., Okanlı A. (2017). The effect of critical thinking education on nursing students’ problem-solving skills . Contemp. Nurse 53 , 313–321. doi: 10.1080/10376178.2017.1339567, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kember D., Leung D. Y. P., Jones A., Loke A. Y., Mckay J., Sinclair K., et al.. (2010). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking . Asses. Eval. High. Edu. 25 , 381–395. doi: 10.1080/713611442 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khandaghi M. A., Pakmehr H., Amiri E. (2011). The status of college students’ critical thinking disposition in humanities . Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci 15 , 1866–1869. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.017 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kieffer K. M. (1988). Orthogonal Versus Oblique Factor Rotation: A Review of the Literature Regarding the Pros and Cons. In Proceedings 554 of the Annual Meeting of the 27th Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA;4 November 1998, 4-6, 555. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED427031.pdf (Accessed November 3, 2022).
• Kilic S., Gokoglu S., Ozturk M. A. (2020). Valid and reliable scale for developing programming-oriented computational thinking . J. Educ. Comput. Res. 59 , 257–286. doi: 10.1177/0735633120964402 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim D. H., Moon S., Kim E. J., Kim Y. J., Lee S. (2014). Nursing students' critical thinking disposition according to academic level and satisfaction with nursing . Nurs. Educ. Today 34 , 78–82. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.03.012, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim M.-Y., Wilkinson I. A. G. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk . Learn. Cult Soc. Inter 21 , 70–86. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline T. J. B. (2005). Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation . Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klugman C. M. (2018). How health humanities will save the life of the humanities . J. Med. Humanit. 38 , 419–430. doi: 10.1007/s10912-017-9453-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lederer J. M. (2007). Disposition toward critical thinking among occupational therapy students . Am. J. Occup. Ther. 61 , 519–526. doi: 10.5014/ajot.61.5.519, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Les T., Moroz J. (2021). More critical thinking in critical thinking concepts (?) A constructivist point of view . J Crit Educ Policy Sci 19 , 98–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li N. (2021). Reasonable or unwarranted? Benevolent gender prejudice in education in China . Asia Pac. Educ. Res 31 , 155–163. doi: 10.1007/s40299-020-00546-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li X. Y., Liu J. D. (2021). Mapping the taxonomy of critical thinking ability in EFL . Think. Skills Creat. 41 :100880. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100880 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang W., Fung D. (2020). Development and evaluation of a WebQuest-based teaching programme: students’ use of exploratory talk to exercise critical thinking . Int. J. Educ. Res. 104 :101652. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101652, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin S. S. (2016). Science and non-science undergraduate students’ critical thinking and argumentation performance in reading a science news report . Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 12 , 1023–1046. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9451-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin L. (2020). The future of "useless" Liberal arts . Univ. Mon. Rev. Philos. Cult. 47 , 93–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu O. L., Frankel L., Roohr K. C. (2014). Assessing critical thinking in higher education: current state and directions for next-generation assessment . ETS Res. Rep. Series 2014 , 1–23. doi: 10.1002/ets2.12009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu H., Shao M., Liu X., Zhao L. (2021). Exploring the influential factors on readers' continuance intentions of e-book APPs: personalization, usefulness, playfulness, and satisfaction . Front. Psychol. 12 :640110. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.640110, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu T., Zhao R., Lam K.-M., Kong J. (2022). Visual-semantic graph neural network with pose-position attentive learning for group activity recognition . Neurocomputing 491 , 217–231. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.03.066 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma L., Luo H. (2020). Chinese pre-service teachers’ cognitions about cultivating critical thinking in teaching English as a foreign language . Asia Pac. J. Educ 41 , 543–557. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2020.1793733 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michaluk L. M., Martens J., Damron R. L., High K. A. (2016). Developing a methodology for teaching and evaluating critical thinking skills in first-year engineering students . Int. J. Eng. Educ. 32 , 84–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulnix J. W., Mulnix M. J. (2010). Using a writing portfolio project to teach critical thinking skills . Teac. Phi 33 , 27–54. doi: 10.5840/teachphil20103313 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy E. (2004). An instrument to support thinking critically about critical in thinking online asynchronous discussions . Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 20 , 295–315. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1349 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nair G. G., Stamler L. L. (2013). A conceptual framework for developing a critical thinking self-assessment scale . J. Nurs. Educ. 52 , 131–138. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20120215-01, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Reilly C., Devitt A., Hayes N. (2022). Critical thinking in the preschool classroom - a systematic literature review . Think. Skills Creat. 46 :101110. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101110 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Odebiyi O. M., Odebiyi A. T. (2021). Critical thinking in social contexts: A trajectory analysis of states’ K-5 social studies content standards . J. Soc. Stud. Res. 45 , 277–288. doi: 10.1016/j.jssr.2021.05.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pallant J. F. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS . 3rd Edn.. Routledge. Region 6th Series, Bangi, 551 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Perkins D. N., Jay E., Tishman S. (1993). Beyond Abilities: A Dispositional Theory of Thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982), 1-21. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23087298 (Accessed November 3, 2022).
• Pnevmatikos D., Christodoulou P., Georgiadou T. (2019). Promoting critical thinking in higher education through the values and knowledge education (VaKE) method . Stud. High. Educ. 44 , 892–901. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586340 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quinn S., Hogan M. J., Dwyer C., Finn P. (2020). Development and validation of the student-educator negotiated critical thinking dispositions scale (SENCTDS) . Think. Skills Creat. 38 :100710. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100710 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? J. Appl. Psycho. 93 , 1027–1041. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1027, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez-Sabiote C., Olmedo-Moreno E. M., Expósito-López J. (2022). The effects of teamwork on critical thinking: A serial mediation analysis of the influence of work skills and educational motivation in secondary school students . Think. Skills Creat. 45 :101063. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101063 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rombout F., Schuitema J. A., Volman M. L. L. (2021). Teaching strategies for value-loaded critical thinking in philosophy classroom dialogues . Think. Skills Creat. 43 :100991. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100991 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saad A., Zainudin S. (2022). A review of project-based learning (PBL) and computational thinking (CT) in teaching and learning . Learn. Motiv. 78 :101802. doi: 10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101802 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarjinder S. (2003). “ Simple random sampling ,” in Advanced Sampling Theory with Application (Dordrecht: Springer; ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Schumacker R. E., Lomax R. G. (2016). A Beginner' s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling (4th Edn..) New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scriven M., Paul R. (2005). The Critical Thinking Community. Available at: http://www.criticalthinking.org (Accessed November 3, 2022).
• Siew M., Mapeala R. (2016). The effects of problem-based learning with thinking maps on fifth graders’ science critical thinking . J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 15 , 602–616. doi: 10.33225/jbse/16.15.602 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simpson E., Courtney M. (2002). Critical thinking in nursing education: Literature review . Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 8 , 89–98. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-172x.2002.00340.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh M., James P. S., Paul H., Bolar K. (2022). Impact of cognitive-behavioral motivation on student engagement . Helyon 8 . doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09843 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sosu E. M. (2013). The development and psychometric validation of a critical thinking disposition scale . Think. Skills Creat. 9 , 107–119. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Southworth J. (2020). How argumentative writing stifles open-mindedness . Arts Hum. High. Educ. 20 , 207–227. doi: 10.1177/1474022220903426 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Southworth J. (2022). A perspective-taking theory of open-mindedness: confronting the challenge of motivated reasoning . Educ. Theory 93 , 1027–1041. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1027 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stone G. A., Duffy L. N., Pinckney H. P., Templeton-Bradley R. (2017). Teaching for critical thinking: preparing hospitality and tourism students for careers in the twenty-first century . J. Teach. Travel Tour. 17 , 67–84. doi: 10.1080/15313220.2017.1279036 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suh J., Matson K., Seshaiyer P., Jamieson S., Tate H. (2021). Mathematical modeling as a catalyst for equitable mathematics instruction: preparing teachers and young learners with 21st century skills . Mathematics 9 :162. doi: 10.3390/math9020162 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sulaiman W. S. W., Rahman W. R. A., Dzulkifli M. A. (2010). Examining the construct validity of the adapted California critical thinking dispositions (CCTDI) among university students in Malaysia . Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 7 , 282–288. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swartz R. J. (2018). “ Critical thinking, the curriculum, and the problem of transfer ,” in Thinking: The Second International Conference . eds. Perkins D. N., Lochhead J., Bishop J. (New York: Routledge; ), 261–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thaiposri P., Wannapiroon P. (2015). Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills through teaching and learning by inquiry-based learning activities using social network and cloud computing . Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 174 , 2137–2144. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas K., Lok B. (2015). “ Teaching critical thinking: an operational framework ,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education . eds. Davies M., Barnett R. (New York: Palgrave Handbooks; ), 93–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tumkaya S., Aybek B., Aldag H. (2009). An investigation of university Students' critical thinking disposition and perceived problem-solving skills . Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 9 , 57–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulger K. (2018). The effect of problem-based learning on the creative thinking and critical thinking disposition of students in visual arts education . Interdis. J. Probl-Bas. 12 :10. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1649 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vogel D. L., Wade N. G., Ascheman P. L. (2009). Measuring perceptions of stigmatization by others for seeking psychological help: reliability and validity of a new stigma scale with college students . J. Couns. Psychol. 56 , 301–308. doi: 10.1037/a0014903 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wechsler S. M., Saiz C., Rivas S. F., Vendramini C. M. M., Almeida L. S., Mundim M. C., et al.. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: independent or overlapping components? Think. Skills Creat. 27 , 114–122. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willingham D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: why it is so hard to teach? Am. Fed. Teach. Summer 2007 , 8–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang S. (2007). E-critical/thematic doing history project: integrating the critical thinking approach with computer-mediated history learning . Comput. Hum. Behav. 23 , 2095–2112. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2006.02.012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yurdakul I. K., Odabasi H. F., Kiliçer K., Çoklar A. N., Birinci G., Kurt A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale . Comput. Educ. 58 , 964–977. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Q., Tang H., Xu X. (2022). Analyzing collegiate critical thinking course effectiveness: evidence from a quasi-experimental study in China . Think. Skills Creat. 45 :101105. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao L., He W., Su Y. S. (2021). Innovative pedagogy and design-based research on flipped learning in higher education . Front. Psychol. 12 :577002. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.577002, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Choosing Effective Vocabulary
• How to Fill a Page (When You Have Nothing to Say)
• Resources – Books
• Critical Thinking and Reading Skills
• Key Terms and the Inference Continuum
• Bad Inferences – Fallacies and Biases
• Application: Inferences and History
• An Aside: Strong Inferences vs. Ghosts
• Eight Types of Evidence – Strengths and Weaknesses
• Bad Evidence – Fallacies and Poor Appeals
• Value Conflicts and Key Terms
• Tragic Application of Values
• Common Value Systems
• Fallacies and a Few Fun Techniques
• Donna Hicks’s Essential Elements of Dignity
• Fundamental Needs
• Mapping Classroom Culture – Support and Humiliation
• The Dignity Pledge
• Separation and Segregation
• Stripping Away Resources and Protections
• Violence and Intimidation
• Murder and Elimination
• Toxic Mythologies and Deep Narratives
• Scapegoating and Conspiracy Theories
• Caricature and Stereotypes
• Denial and Willful Ignorance
• Conclusion and FAQs

The pages below offer an introduction and exploration of inferences, a.k.a. educated guesses. Using this vocabulary in the classroom allows students to explore a larger world of causation and prediction. They can then apply this power to literary, historical, and scientific claims and questions.

The program offered here is an attempt to teach students how to generate and analyze inferences and how to avoid relying on weak inferences when strong inferences are available.

Benefits of teaching inferences and related skills explicitly: 

1. It requires students to “zoom out,” to move beyond their initial intuitions or past impressions, and to search for a wide variety of causal explanations .

2. It reinforces the uncertainties of historical, literary, and scientific inquiry and opens the door to understanding biases and fallacies, quality and quantity of evidence, and other practical limitations.

3. It allows students to question openly without fear of getting “the right answer,” or trying to guess what’s in the teacher’s head.

4. It underscores the importance of understanding the underlying mechanisms and engines of history, e.g. Economics, Government, Social Groups, Religion, etc. and various analytic lenses of literature.

1. Key Skills and the Inference Continuum

2. Bad Inferences: Fallacies and Biases

3. Application: Inferences and History

Summary Points:

1. The ability to generate and evaluate inferences, both weak and strong, is a crucial skill and measure of intelligence. A vocabulary of inferences helps students increase both the quality and quantity of the inferences they generate, and allows them to measure the relative strengths and weaknesses of a given inference.

2. Like any skill, these abilities are plastic and current ability is simply a reflection of a student’s experience, prior knowledge, and practice.

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

• Search for:

• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• Manage subscriptions

3 Activities to Enhance Your Inference in Critical Thinking

Practice drawing reasonable conclusions: critical thinking exercise 4.

Posted November 5, 2021 | Reviewed by Tyler Woods

At the beginning of 2021, I posted a piece on this blog asking if any readers wanted to develop their critical thinking as a kind of New Year’s resolution. In light of the positive feedback I received from that piece, I have since posted a series of additional exercises throughout the year—including one on analysis and one on evaluation . Today, I post a set of exercises on inference , which is a critical thinking skill dedicated to the gathering of credible, relevant, logical, balanced, and (as much it can be) unbiased information, for the purpose of drawing a reasonable conclusion (Dwyer, 2017; Facione, 1990).

Critical thinking is a metacognitive process, consisting of a number of skills and dispositions, that when used through self-regulatory reflective judgment, increases the chances of producing a logical conclusion to an argument or solution to a problem (Dwyer, 2017; Dwyer et al., 2016; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014; 2015). The purpose of this particular activity set, consistent with the description of inference above, is to provide you with an opportunity to practice drawing reasonable conclusions. If you’re interested in enhancing your critical thinking skills , please start with the first set of exercises and then the second and third, before jumping into this next set below. Remember, when we are given opportunities to think about our thinking , we are engaging our metacognitive processes; and that’s a foundational part of critical thinking.

In the first activity of this exercise, you are asked to infer an appropriate conclusion for each of the three pairs of propositions provided.

Foreign holidays broaden the mind.

I’m going on holiday to Spain.

Conclusion: _____________________________________

The food in the Kebab Hut is terrible.

People don’t want to eat in a restaurant when the food is poor.

Violent television rots the mind.

I don’t like watching violent television.

In the second activity of this exercise, you are asked to gather or develop, a pair of propositions that will appropriately infer each of the three conclusions provided.

1. John’s house will fall down.

Proposition 1: _____________________________________

Proposition 2: _____________________________________

2. Red Rum will win the race.

3. Milk is healthy for humans.

In the third activity of this exercise, you are asked to infer an appropriate conclusion from the first two propositions on level 1. With this resulting conclusion, use the proposition provided on level 2 to infer another conclusion. Finally, use this conclusion, along with the proposition provided on level 3, to infer an overall conclusion. Essentially, what you are doing here is filling-in-the-blanks with your inferences of intermediate conclusions until you reach your overall conclusion.

Proposition: Students who achieve their academic goals report higher life satisfaction.

Proposition: Having higher levels of life satisfaction is associated with lower levels of anxiety .

Intermediate conclusion 1: _______________________________________________

Proposition: Students with lower levels of anxiety do better in exams.

Intermediate conclusion 2: _______________________________________________

Proposition: Students who do better in exams get better jobs and earn more money.

Overall conclusion: _____________________________________________________

I hope you enjoyed this set of activities to exercise your inference skills. Being able to draw reasonable conclusions is an important skill to practice and improve. Though we draw conclusions on a daily basis, quite often they aren't optimal (i.e., either wrong or not entirely accurate) or based on less than credible information. Though it's often the case that some such conclusions will not have a massive impact on decision-making in our lives (e.g., which outfit is best to wear today? ), why take the chance in situations where our conclusions truly do matter (e.g. what should I be looking for in a health insurance policy? )

Along with the completion of the previous exercises, you should be at a stage where you can recognize the cognitive processes necessary in the critical thinking process. However, just because you are able to analyze, evaluate, and infer doesn't ensure that you will approach scenarios that require critical thought. A reflective sensibility— reflective judgment —is also necessary to 'govern' the application of these skills. So, I hope you're looking forward to the final exercise set in this series - on reflective judgment, coming soon.

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

Dwyer, C. P., Harney, O., Hogan, M. J., & Kavanagh, C. (2016). Facilitating a Student-Educator Conceptual Model of Dispositions towards Critical Thinking through Interactive Management. Educational Technology & Research, doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9460-7.

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 12, 43–52.

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2015). The evaluation of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction as a method of enhancing reflective judgment performance. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 16, 11–26.

Facione, P.A. (1990). The Delphi report: Committee on pre-college philosophy. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

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

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

16.2: Critical Thinking

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 136256

• Lisa Schreiber and Morgan Hartranft
• Millersville University via Public Speaking Project

Critical thinking has been defined in numerous ways. At its most basic, we can think of critical thinking as active thinking in which we evaluate and analyze information in order to determine the best course of action. We will look at more expansive definitions of critical thinking and its components in the following pages. Before we get there, though, let's consider a hypothetical example of critical thinking in action.

We are approaching a new age of synthesis. Knowledge cannot be merely a degree or a skill... it demands a broader vision, capabilities in critical thinking and logical deduction, without which we cannot have constructive progress. ~ Li Ka Shing

Shonda was researching information for her upcoming persuasive speech. Her goal with the speech was to persuade her classmates to drink a glass of red wine every day. Her argument revolved around the health benefits one can derive from the antioxidants found in red wine. Shonda found an article reporting the results of a study conducted by a Dr. Gray. According to Dr. Gray’s study, drinking four or more glasses of wine a day will help reduce the chances of heart attack, increase levels of good cholesterol, and help in reducing unwanted fat. Without conducting further research, Shonda changed her speech to persuade her classmates to drink four or more glasses of red wine per day. She used Dr. Gray’s study as her primary support. Shonda presented her speech in class to waves of applause and support from her classmates. She was shocked when, a few weeks later, she received a grade of “D”. Shonda’s teacher had also found Dr. Gray’s study and learned it was sponsored by a multi- national distributor of wine. In fact, the study in question was published in a trade journal targeted to wine and alcohol retailers. If Shonda had taken a few extra minutes to critically examine the study, she may have been able to avoid the dreaded “D.”

Shonda’s story is just one of many ways that critical thinking impacts our lives. Throughout this chapter we will consider the importance of critical thinking in all areas of communication, especially public speaking. We will first take a more in-depth look at what critical thinking is – and isn’t.

Before we get too far into the specifics of what critical thinking is and how we can do it, it’s important to clear up a common misconception. Even though the phrase critical thinking uses the word “critical,” it is not a negative thing. Being critical is not the same thing as criticizing. When we criticize something, we point out the flaws and errors in it, exercising a negative value judgment on it. Our goal with criticizing is less about understanding than about negatively evaluating. It’s important to remember that critical thinking is not just criticizing. While the process may involve examining flaws and errors, it is much more.

critical thinking defined

Just what is critical thinking then? To help us understand, let’s consider a common definition of critical thinking. The philosopher John Dewey, often considered the father of modern day critical thinking, defines critical thinking as:

“Active, persistent, careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey, 1933, p. 9).

The first key component of Dewey’s definition is that critical thinking is active . Critical thinking must be done by choice. As we continue to delve deeper into the various facets of critical thinking, we will learn how to engage as critical thinkers.

Probably one of the most concise and easiest to understand definitions is that offered by Barry Beyer: "Critical thinking... means making reasoned judgments" (Beyer, 1995, p. 8). In other words, we don’t just jump to a conclusion or a judgment. We rationalize and justify our conclusions. A second primary component of critical thinking, then, involves questioning. As critical thinkers, we need to question everything that confronts us. Equally important, we need to question ourselves and ask how our own biases or assumptions influence how we judge something.

In the following sections we will explore how to do critical thinking more in depth. As you read through this material, reflect back on Dewey’s and Beyer’s definitions of critical thinking.

critical thinking traits and skills

Critical thinkers tend to exhibit certain traits that are common to them. These traits are summarized in Table 6.1 (adapted from Facione, 1990, p. 6):

Recall that critical thinking is an active mode of thinking. Instead of just receiving messages and accepting them as is, we consider what they are saying. We ask if messages are well-supported. We determine if their logic is sound or slightly flawed. In other words, we act on the messages before we take action based on them. When we enact critical thinking on a message, we engage a variety of skills including: listening, analysis, evaluation, inference and interpretation or explanation, and self- regulation (adapted from Facione, 1990, p. 6)

Next, we will examine each of these skills and their role in critical thinking in greater detail. As you read through the explanation of and examples for each skill, think about how it works in conjunction with the others. It’s important to note that while our discussion of the skills is presented in a linear manner, in practice our use of each skill is not so straightforward. We may exercise different skills simultaneously or jump forward and backward.

Without an open-minded mind, you can never be a great success. ~ Martha Stewart

In order to understand listening, we must first understand the difference between listening and hearing . At its most basic, hearing refers to the physiological process of receiving sounds, while listening refers to the psychological process of interpreting or making sense of those sounds.

Every minute of every day we are surrounded by hundreds of different noises and sounds. If we were to try to make sense of each different sound we would probably spend our day just doing this. While we may hear all of the noises, we filter out many of them. They pass through our lives without further notice. Certain noises, however, jump to the forefront of our consciousness. As we listen to them, we make sense of these sounds. We do this every day without necessarily thinking about the process. Like many other bodily functions, it happens without our willing it to happen.

Critical thinking requires that we consciously listen to messages. We must focus on what is being said – and not said. We must strive not to be distracted by other outside noises or the internal noise of our own preconceived ideas. For the moment we only need to take in the message.

Listening becomes especially difficult when the message contains highly charged information. Think about what happens when you try to discuss a controversial issue such as abortion. As the other person speaks, you may have every good intention of listening to the entire argument.

However, when the person says something you feel strongly about you start formulating a counter-argument in your head. The end result is that both sides end up talking past each other without ever really listening to what the other says.

Once we have listened to a message, we can begin to analyze it. In practice we often begin analyzing messages while still listening to them. When we analyze something, we consider it in greater detail, separating out the main components of the message. In a sense, we are acting like a surgeon on the message, carving out all of the different elements and laying them out for further consideration and possible action.

Let’s return to Shonda’s persuasive speech to see analysis in action. As part of the needs section of her speech, Shonda makes the following remarks:

If we were to analyze this part of Shonda’s speech (see Table \(\PageIndex{2}\)), we could begin by looking at the claims she makes. We could then look at the evidence she presents in support of these claims. Having parsed out the various elements, we are then ready to evaluate them and by extension the message as a whole.

When we evaluate something we continue the process of analysis by assessing the various claims and arguments for validity. One way we evaluate a message is to ask questions about what is being said and who is saying it. The following is a list of typical questions we may ask, along with an evaluation of the ideas in Shonda’s speech.

Is the speaker credible?

Yes. While Shonda may not be an expert per se on the issue of health benefits related to wine, she has made herself a mini-expert through conducting research.

Does the statement ring true or false based on common sense?

It sounds kind of fishy. Four or more glasses of wine in one sitting doesn’t seem right. In fact, it seems like it might be bordering on binge drinking.

Does the logic employed hold up to scrutiny?

Based on the little bit of Shonda’s speech we see here, her logic does seem to be sound. As we will see later on, she actually commits a few fallacies.

What questions or objections are raised by the message?

In addition to the possibility of Shonda’s proposal being binge drinking, it also raises the possibility of creating alcoholism or causing other long term health problems.

How will further information affect the message?

More information will probably contradict her claims. In fact, most medical research in this area contradicts the claim that drinking 4 or more glasses of wine a day is a good thing.

Will further information strengthen or weaken the claims?

Most likely Shonda’s claims will be weakened.

What questions or objections are raised by the claims?

In addition to the objections we’ve already discussed, there is also the problem of the credibility of Shonda’s expert “doctor.”

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ~ David Hume

inference and interpretation or explanation

The next step in critically examining a message is to interpret or explain the conclusions that we draw from it. At this phase we consider the evidence and the claims together. In effect we are reassembling the components that we parsed out during analysis. We are continuing our evaluation by looking at the evidence, alternatives, and possible conclusions.

Before we draw any inferences or attempt any explanations, we should look at the evidence provided. When we consider evidence we must first determine what, if any, kind of support is provided. Of the evidence we then ask:

• Is the evidence sound?
• Does the evidence say what the speaker says it does?
• Does contradictory evidence exist?
• Is the evidence from a valid credible source?

Even though these are set up as yes or no questions, you’ll probably find in practice that your answers are a bit more complex. For example, let’s say you’re writing a speech on why we should wear our seatbelts at all times while driving. You’ve researched the topic and found solid, credible information setting forth the numerous reasons why wearing a seatbelt can help save your life and decrease the number of injuries experienced during a motor vehicle accident. Certainly, there exists contradictory evidence arguing seat belts can cause more injuries. For example, if you’re in an accident where your car is partially submerged in water, wearing a seatbelt may impede your ability to quickly exit the vehicle. Does the fact that this evidence exists negate your claims? Probably not, but you need to be thorough in evaluating and considering how you use your evidence.

“Imply” or “Infer”?

For two relatively small words, imply and infer seem to generate an inordinately large amount of confusion. Understanding the difference between the two and knowing when to use the right one is not only a useful skill, but it also makes you sound a lot smarter!

Let’s begin with imply. Imply means to suggest or convey an idea. A speaker or a piece of writing implies things. For example, in Shonda’s speech, she implies it is better to drink more red wine. In other words, she never directly says that we need to drink more red wine, but she clearly hints at it when she suggests that drinking four or more glasses a day will provide us with health benefits.

Now let’s consider infer. Infer means that something in a speaker’s words or a piece of writing helps us to draw a conclusion outside of his/her words. We infer a conclusion. Returning to Shonda’s speech, we can infer she would want us to drink more red wine rather than less. She never comes right out and says this. However, by considering her overall message, we can draw this conclusion.

• Another way to think of the difference between imply and infer is:
• A speaker (or writer for that matter) implies.
• The audience infers.

Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that Shonda infers we should drink more rather than less wine. She implies this. To help you differentiate between the two, remember that an inference is something that comes from outside the spoken or written text.

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all. ~ Oscar Wilde

self-regulation

The final step in critically examining a message is actually a skill we should exercise throughout the entire process. With self-regulation, we consider our pre-existing thoughts on the subject and any biases we may have. We examine how what we think on an issue may have influenced the way we understand (or think we understand) the message and any conclusions we have drawn. Just as contradictory evidence doesn’t automatically negate our claims or invalidate our arguments, our biases don’t necessarily make our conclusions wrong. The goal of practicing self- regulation is not to disavow or deny our opinions. The goal is to create distance between our opinions and the messages we evaluate.

the value of critical thinking

In public speaking, the value of being a critical thinker cannot be overstressed. Critical thinking helps us to determine the truth or validity of arguments. However, it also helps us to formulate strong arguments for our speeches. Exercising critical thinking at all steps of the speech writing and delivering process can help us avoid situations like Shonda found herself in. Critical thinking is not a magical panacea that will make us super speakers. However, it is another tool that we can add to our speech toolbox.

As we will learn in the following pages, we construct arguments based on logic. Understanding the ways logic can be used and possibly misused is a vital skill. To help stress the importance of it, the Foundation for Critical Thinking has set forth universal standards of reasoning. These standards can be found in Table \(\PageIndex{3}\).

When the mind is thinking, it is talking to itself. ~ Plato