questioning assumptions in critical thinking

• Archives & Special Collections home
• Art Library home
• Ekstrom Library home
• Kornhauser Health Sciences Library home
• Law Library home
• Music Library home
• University of Louisville Hospital home
• Interlibrary Loan
• Off-Campus Login
• Renew Books
• Cardinal Card
• My Print Center
• Business Ops
• Cards Career Connection

Search Site

Search catalog, critical thinking and academic research: assumptions.

• Information
• Point of View
• Assumptions
• Implications

Question Assumptions

An assumption is an unexamined belief: what we think without realizing we think it. Our inferences (also called conclusions) are often based on assumptions that we haven't thought about critically. A critical thinker, however, is attentive to these assumptions because they are sometimes incorrect or misguided. Just because we assume something is true doesn't mean it is.

Think carefully about your assumptions when finding and analyzing information but also think carefully about the assumptions of others. Whether you're looking at a website or a scholarly article, you should always consider the author's assumptions. Are the author's conclusions based on assumptions that she or he hasn't thought about logically?

Critical Questions

• What am I taking for granted?
• Am I assuming something I shouldn't?
• How can I determine whether this assumption is accurate?
• What is this author assuming?
• How can I determine if this author's assumptions are accurate?

Consider the following situations, then respond to these questions:

• Do you agree or disagree with the inference/conclusion? Why or why not?
• What assumption(s) may have led to the inference/conclusion?
• What are some alternative ways of thinking about this situation?

Situation #1

Bill needs six scholarly articles for his paper on the psychological effects of domestic violence. He searches Google for "psychological effects of domestic violence," looks through the first few hits, and finds six sources, including some articles on the websites of legitimate organizations. A few of these articles include bibliographies.

• Bill's Inference/Conclusion: I'm going to stop researching because I have my six sources.

Situation #2

Christie is researching representations of gender in popular music. She decides to search Google and, within a few minutes, locates more sources that she could possibly incorporate into her final paper.

• Christie's Inference/Conclusion: I can just use Google for my research.

Situation #3

Jennifer has decided to write her literary analysis paper on drug use in David Foster Wallace's novel, Infinite Jest (1996). She tries a few Google searches for Infinite Jest, drugs, and drug use, but she has trouble finding scholarly sources. She gives up on Google and moves on to EBSCO Academic Search Premier, one of the databases she heard about in a library instruction class. She runs a search for Infinite Jest and drug use, but she still can't find much.

• Jennifer's Inference/Conclusion: I need to change my topic.
• << Previous: Inferences
• Next: Implications >>
• Last Updated: Jul 10, 2023 11:50 AM
• Librarian Login

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

• Critical thinking (CT) is evaluative.  An evaluation is a statement that compares what is the case to a standard about how things should be. CT requires people to make lots of judgments about good and bad, right and wrong, what we should or shouldn’t do. The standard of evaluation used in critical thinking for reasoning is reliability. Good reasoning is reliable, and bad reasoning is unreliable.
• In CT, reasoning implies evaluation, both individual (“You should recycle your aluminum!”) and collective (“We should abolish the death penalty!”). Each statement can be supported by reasons, and the reasons can be evaluated as better or worse.
• In CT, truth is treated as absolute — not partial, changing, or relative to different points of view.
• The ultimate “should” in critical thinking is this: you should not contradict yourself. There are other “should” statements, but they are all based on this idea that self-contradiction is bad. Contradictory statements, by definition, cannot all be true, and based on #3 above that means they can’t be partly true, or true to some people but not others. A statement that is self-contradictory is absolutely, eternally, necessarily and inevitably not true.

If you don’t agree with one or more of the above assumptions, expect some trouble even understanding what is going on when trying to use critical thinking.  The assumptions listed above are offered not to convince you to accept any of these assumptions or to “prove” them in the formal (CT) sense, but just to offer a bit more about what is assumed in this field.

There is also one more assumption to consider, that is people shouldn’t judge other people’s opinions.

Critical thinking requires energetically judging other people’s opinions (along with our own!) – not in isolation, but in relation to each other. That is, CT requires asking if the reason given to support or back up an opinion is a good one. If no good reason can be found to support an opinion, that opinion is treated as unsupported or unproved. Generally, opinions are better if proved, and not as good if unproved.  By extension, there is a preference for reflective opinions arrived at through slow thinking over opinions of the moment which are formed in fast thinking.

Many people put the majority of their critical thinking energy into judging the thinking of those they disagree with. Our hope is that you will have come to understand that thinking carefully about your own beliefs is worth more of your time, and that you will have come to appreciate the vital importance of people who do not share your same ideas to your process of slow thinking.

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

Share This Book

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

What is Critical Thinking?

What About Assumptions?

Assumptions are beliefs or ideas that are  believed to be true without proof or evidence and are used to support reasoning. This lack of verification can create bias when thinking critically. Like any human activity, the practice of critical thinking requires several basic assumptions to make sense. For people who don’t share these assumptions, the whole process can be experienced as confusing or nonsensical. Here is a partial list of assumptions that sometimes cause trouble for people new to critical thinking.

• In CT, reasoning implies evaluation, both individual (“You should recycle your aluminum!”) and collective (“We should abolish the death penalty!”). Each statement can be supported by reasons, and the reasons can be evaluated as better or worse. Although this should not be confused with opinions or facts .
• In CT, “Truth is what is so  about something, the reality of the matter, as distinguished from what people wish  were so, believe  to be so, or assert to be so” (Ruggiero, 2015, p. 25)
• When using critical thinking you should not contradict yourself. Contradictory statements , by definition, cannot all be true, and based on #3 above that means they can’t be partly true, or true to some people but not others.
• Critical thinking requires judging other people’s opinions (along with our own!) – not in isolation, but in relation to each other.

Many people put the majority of their critical thinking energy into judging the thinking of those they disagree with (fast thinking). Our hope is that you will have come to understand that thinking carefully about your own beliefs is worth more of your time, and that you will have come to appreciate the vital importance of people who do not share your same ideas to your process of slow thinking.

Check Your Knowledge: Assumptions

Read the following statements and then determine the assumption.

The U.S. is overreacting to the growth of AI. Technology is meant to be utilized to its fullest.

“Eating healthy is important. Doctors and physical fitness advisors tell you about the advantages of health foods. Then why are these foods so expensive? Companies that sell these foods are raising prices for simple things such as fruits and vegetables….People want to be healthy but it seems that corporate America really doesn’t want to make that prospect cheap. You should avoid wasting money just to eat healthy; go buy cheap frozen vegetables at the grocery store.” (Browne & Keeley, 2018, p.56)

Taking an act or statement for granted (Merriam-Webster Online)

Judgements about good or bad, right or wrong

Evaluations for better or worse

A view or judgement

Something known or proven true

False statement

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

Share This Book

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

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

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

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Examples and Non-Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Imagination Activities and Brainstorming Sessions
• Gantt Charting: A Primer for Problem Solving & Planning Techniques
• Exploring Trial and Error Problem Solving Strategies
• Solving Relationship Issues
• Analytical problem solving
• Identifying root causes
• Analyzing consequences
• Brainstorming solutions
• Heuristic problem solving
• Using analogies
• Applying existing solutions
• Trial and error
• Creative problem solving
• Mind mapping
• Brainstorming
• Lateral thinking
• Research skills
• Interpreting information
• Data collection and analysis
• Identifying patterns
• Critical thinking skills
• Recognizing bias
• Analyzing arguments logically
• Questioning assumptions
• Communication skills
• Negotiation and compromise
• Listening skills
• Explaining ideas clearly
• Planning techniques
• SWOT analysis
• Gantt charting
• Critical path analysis
• Decision making techniques
• Force field analysis
• Paired comparison analysis
• Cost-benefit analysis
• Root cause analysis
• Five whys technique
• Fault tree analysis
• Cause and effect diagrams
• Brainstorming techniques
• Brainwriting
• Brainwalking
• Round-robin brainstorming
• Creative thinking techniques
• Serendipity technique
• SCAMPER technique
• Innovation techniques
• Value innovation techniques
• Design thinking techniques
• Idea generation techniques
• Personal problems
• Deciding what career to pursue
• Managing finances effectively
• Solving relationship issues
• Business problems
• Increasing efficiency and productivity
• Improving customer service quality
• Reducing costs and increasing profits
• Environmental problems
• Preserving natural resources
• Reducing air pollution levels
• Finding sustainable energy sources
• Individual brainstorming techniques
• Thinking outside the box
• Word association and random word generation
• Mind mapping and listing ideas
• Group brainstorming techniques
• Synectics technique
• Online brainstorming techniques
• Online whiteboarding tools
• Virtual brainstorming sessions
• Collaborative mind mapping software
• Team activities
• Group decision making activities
• Debate activities and role-play scenarios
• Collaborative problem solving games
• Creative activities
• Creative writing exercises and storyboards
• Imagination activities and brainstorming sessions
• Visualization activities and drawing exercises
• Games and puzzles
• Crossword puzzles and Sudoku
• Logic puzzles and brain teasers
• Jigsaw puzzles and mazes
• Types of decisions
• Structured decisions
• Simple decisions
• Complex decisions
• Problem solving skills
• Questioning Assumptions: A Critical Thinking Skill

Understand the importance of questioning assumptions and learn to use it as an effective critical thinking skill when problem solving.

It's easy to take things at face value and assume that the information we receive is reliable and accurate. But it's important to remember that questioning assumptions is a key critical thinking skill. Taking the time to pause, reflect, and challenge the assumptions we encounter can often lead us to more meaningful insights, solutions, and conclusions. In this article, we’ll explore why it's important to question assumptions, and how to do so in an effective way. By the end of it, you'll have a better understanding of how to think critically and identify potential assumptions in any situation. Questioning assumptions involves looking at the underlying beliefs and ideas that are being used to solve a problem.

This can be done by asking questions such as “What assumptions am I making?” , “What am I assuming is true?” , and “What other possibilities exist?” . By questioning assumptions, we can gain a better understanding of the situation, which can lead to more effective solutions. When questioning assumptions, it is important to keep an open mind and consider all possibilities. This means looking beyond what is immediately obvious and being willing to explore different ideas.

It also involves considering different perspectives and being willing to challenge previously held beliefs. When questioning assumptions, it is also important to consider the context in which the assumptions are being made. This means looking at the environment, culture, values, and beliefs that may be influencing the way we think about a problem. By understanding the context in which assumptions are being made, we can better identify potential biases and blind spots that could be impacting our judgement. In addition to questioning assumptions, it is also important to be aware of how our own biases and values may be influencing our thinking. It is easy to get stuck in our own perspectives and not consider other possibilities.

Using Questioning Assumptions Effectively

In addition, it is important to be aware of how our own biases and values may be influencing our thinking, as well as how our questioning might be influencing others. In order to use questioning assumptions effectively, it is important to be curious and ask questions that are focused on understanding the underlying assumptions and beliefs that drive certain decisions or behaviors. It is also important to recognize that the assumptions we make can shape the way we approach a problem or situation. Asking questions that challenge these assumptions can help us uncover better solutions.

The Benefits of Questioning Assumptions

By taking the time to question assumptions, we can gain a deeper understanding of the context in which a problem is being solved, as well as our own biases and values. This increased understanding can lead to more effective solutions. By questioning assumptions, we can see issues from different angles and gain insight into potential solutions that may not have been apparent before. Additionally, it can help us think outside of the box and challenge conventional wisdom. In addition to problem solving, questioning assumptions can also help us to identify our own personal biases and values. This can be useful when forming opinions or making decisions as it allows us to take a more informed approach.

It also encourages us to think critically and question our own beliefs. Overall, questioning assumptions is an important part of problem solving and critical thinking. It is a process that can help us gain a deeper understanding of the context in which a problem is being solved, as well as our own biases and values. Ultimately, it can lead to more effective solutions. Questioning assumptions is a powerful tool for problem solving and critical thinking. It is a way to uncover hidden assumptions and biases, and look at situations from different angles.

By actively questioning our beliefs, thoughts, and ideas, we can develop better solutions, make better decisions, and create more effective outcomes. Questioning assumptions encourages open-mindedness and encourages us to consider all perspectives. This can ensure that our decision making is based on accurate information and unbiased judgement.

• information

• Maximizing Efficiency and Productivity

This article provides an overview of ways to increase efficiency and productivity in the workplace. Learn how to better manage your time, utilize technology, and create a productive work environment.

• Choosing the Right Career: Problem-Solving Examples

This article provides advice on how to choose the right career, with problem-solving examples to help you make an informed decision.

• Brainwriting: A Creative Problem-Solving Technique

Learn about brainwriting, a creative problem-solving technique that can help you generate new ideas and solutions.

• Negotiation and Compromise

Learn the key strategies for successful negotiation and compromise, and how to use them to effectively solve problems. Suitable for all skill levels.

Mind Mapping - Creative Problem Solving and Creative Thinking Techniques

• Paired Comparison Analysis: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Brainwalking: A Creative Problem-Solving Technique
• Fault Tree Analysis: A Comprehensive Overview
• Simple Decisions - An Overview
• Identifying Root Causes
• Analyzing Arguments Logically
• How to Explain Ideas Clearly
• Interpreting Information: A Problem-Solving and Research Skills Primer
• Group Decision Making Activities
• Brainwriting: A Group Brainstorming Technique
• Improving Customer Service Quality
• Recognizing Bias: A Problem Solving and Critical Thinking Skills Guide
• Design Thinking Techniques: A Comprehensive Overview
• Collaborative Mind Mapping Software
• Creative Writing Exercises and Storyboards
• Debate Activities and Role-Play Scenarios
• Reducing Air Pollution Levels
• Crossword Puzzles and Sudoku: A Problem-Solving Exploration
• Listening Skills: A Comprehensive Overview
• SWOT Analysis: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Synectics Technique: A Comprehensive Guide
• Exploring Online Whiteboarding Tools for Brainstorming
• Visualization Activities and Drawing Exercises
• Brainstorming: A Comprehensive Look at Creative Problem Solving
• Managing Your Finances Effectively
• Virtual Brainstorming Sessions: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring the SCAMPER Technique for Creative Problem Solving
• Analyzing Consequences: A Problem Solving Strategy
• Exploring Lateral Thinking: A Comprehensive Guide to Problem Solving Strategies
• Finding Sustainable Energy Sources
• Applying Existing Solutions for Problem Solving Strategies
• Jigsaw Puzzles and Mazes: Problem Solving Activities for Fun and Learning
• Mind Mapping and Listing Ideas
• Logic Puzzles and Brain Teasers: A Comprehensive Overview
• Thinking Outside the Box: An Overview of Individual Brainstorming Techniques
• Using Analogies to Solve Problems
• Preserving Natural Resources
• Exploring the Serendipity Technique of Creative Problem Solving
• Data Collection and Analysis - Problem Solving Skills and Research Skills

Brainstorming Solutions: A Problem-Solving Guide

• Round-robin brainstorming: Exploring a Group Brainstorming Technique
• Identifying Patterns: A Practical Guide

Critical Path Analysis: A Comprehensive Guide

• Making Complex Decisions: A Comprehensive Overview
• Five Whys Technique: A Comprehensive Analysis
• Structured Decisions: An Overview of the Decision Making Process
• Mind Mapping: A Creative Problem Solving Tool
• Reducing Costs and Increasing Profits: A Problem Solving Example
• Value Innovation Techniques
• Cost-benefit Analysis: A Guide to Making Informed Decisions
• Round-robin Brainstorming: A Creative Problem Solving Tool
• Force Field Analysis for Problem Solving and Decision Making
• Idea Generation Techniques: A Comprehensive Overview
• Collaborative Problem Solving Games: Exploring Creative Solutions for Teams
• Word Association and Random Word Generation
• Cause and Effect Diagrams: A Problem-Solving Technique

New Articles

Which cookies do you want to accept?

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Unlocking the Power of Critical Thinking (Questioning Assumptions)

In the quest for personal and professional growth, critical thinking is a fundamental skill that can revolutionize one’s problem-solving abilities, decision-making processes, and overall perspective on the world. The art of deep thought empowers individuals to make well-informed decisions and fosters a systematic approach to evaluating information and ideas. Questioning assumptions is a key aspect of critical thinking that can have a meaningful impact on every aspect of our lives.

Assumptions often serve as hidden foundations shaping our thoughts, actions, beliefs, and relationships. Challenging these assumptions leads to benefits such as enhanced problem-solving, improved decision-making, increased empathy, and personal growth. Real-life examples of individuals who questioned assumptions and changed the world include Galileo Galilei, Rosa Parks, and Steve Jobs. By embracing the practice of questioning assumptions, a more thoughtful, informed, and enriched life can be achieved.

Key Takeaways

• Critical thinking is a fundamental skill for problem-solving and decision-making.
• Questioning assumptions has numerous benefits, including enhanced problem-solving and personal growth.
• Examples of those who have questioned assumptions and made a significant impact include Galileo Galilei, Rosa Parks, and Steve Jobs.

Defining Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a comprehensive method for evaluating information and ideas to make well-informed decisions. It is not merely being critical without purpose; instead, it serves as a valuable instrument for problem-solving and decision-making. Assumptions can significantly affect our thoughts, actions, beliefs, decisions, and relationships. By questioning these assumptions, we can enhance our problem-solving abilities, improve decision-making processes, and gain a better overall perspective on the world.

Some of the benefits of questioning assumptions include:

• Enhanced problem-solving : Critically examining assumptions allows for the discovery of creative solutions that may have been overlooked.
• Improved decision-making : Challenging preconceived notions results in better-informed choices.
• Increased empathy : Questioning assumptions about others enables us to understand their perspectives more accurately.
• Personal growth : Encouraging open-mindedness and adaptability fosters personal development.
• Strengthened relationships : Reducing misunderstandings and conflicts in our interactions with others.

Real-life examples of individuals who questioned assumptions and made a significant impact include Galileo Galilei, Rosa Parks, and Steve Jobs. Each challenged existing assumptions and revolutionized their respective fields.

To begin questioning assumptions in everyday life, consider these steps:

• Identify assumptions : Recognize the assumptions underlying your thoughts and decisions.
• Ask why : When encountering an assumption, consider why you believe in it.
• Seek diverse perspectives : Engage with people holding different viewpoints to challenge your assumptions.
• Embrace uncertainty : Accept that not all assumptions can be easily discarded, but strive to maintain an open mind.
• Reflect and learn : Regularly review your thought processes to improve critical thinking abilities.

Questioning assumptions is crucial to unlock the true potential of critical thinking. By embracing this practice, a more thoughtful, informed, and enriching life awaits.

The Significance of Challenging Assumptions

Assumptions are often overlooked aspects of our thought processes, serving as the unseen groundwork for our beliefs, decisions, and relationships. They are ingrained in our mental framework, and it is only by challenging them that we can truly unlock the power of critical thinking.

Investigating the premises upon which we base our thoughts and actions allows us to illuminate the various layers of our cognitive processes, enabling us to grasp alternative viewpoints and more comprehensive solutions to problems. By doing so, we achieve the following:

• Enhanced problem solving: Probing our assumptions prompts us to think outside the box and discover innovative solutions we might not have otherwise considered.
• Improved decision-making: By examining our preconceived notions, we can make informed choices backed by a balanced perspective.
• Increased empathy: When we scrutinize the presumptions we make about others, we foster a greater understanding of their perspectives, facilitating deeper connections.
• Personal growth: Challenging our assumptions fuels open-mindedness and adaptability, contributing to our personal development journey.
• Strengthened relationships: When we scrutinize the assumptions we hold about others, we pave the way for clearer communication and fewer conflicts in our interactions.

Inspirational figures such as Galileo Galilei, Rosa Parks, and Steve Jobs disrupted the status quo and changed the world by questioning prevailing assumptions. To start questioning assumptions in our daily lives, we can use the following steps:

• Identify assumptions: Recognize the underlying assumptions that shape your thoughts and decisions.
• Ask “why”: Ponder the reasons behind your beliefs and question their validity.
• Seek diverse perspectives: Engage with others who hold different viewpoints to challenge your own assumptions.
• Embrace uncertainty: Accept that not all assumptions can be immediately discarded, and maintain an open mind as you navigate alternative perspectives.
• Reflect and learn: Periodically review your thinking processes to enhance your critical thinking skills.

By putting these steps into practice, we unlock the true potential of critical thinking , ushering in a more thoughtful, informed, and enriched life. Embrace the value of questioning assumptions, and be sure to share your newfound wisdom with others to foster a collective growth in critical thinking.

The Advantages of Challenging Assumptions

Improved problem solving skills.

By questioning assumptions, we open up new possibilities and uncover creative solutions that may have previously been overlooked.

Better Decision Making

Challenging our preconceived ideas leads to more informed choices, as we consciously evaluate the basis of our decisions.

Enhanced Empathy

Examining assumptions about others helps us better comprehend their perspectives, fostering a deeper understanding and connection.

Encouraging Personal Growth

This practice promotes open-mindedness and adaptability, which contribute to our personal development.

Solidifying Relationships

Identifying and questioning assumptions can reduce misunderstandings and conflicts in our interactions with others, leading to stronger relationships.

Real Life Examples

Galileo galilei.

Galileo Galilei, an influential astronomer, questioned the prevailing assumption that Earth was at the universe’s center. His curiosity and critical thinking skills led to groundbreaking discoveries in astronomy, contributing to a scientific revolution.

Rosa Parks, a civil rights activist, boldly challenged the assumption that she should give up her bus seat due to her race. Her courage to question this assumption ignited the Civil Rights Movement, bringing about significant and lasting social change.

Steve Jobs, the visionary behind Apple, questioned the assumption that computers needed to be complicated. By thinking critically about this preconception, he revolutionized the tech industry with user-friendly Apple products, making technology accessible to the masses.

How to Assess Underlying Beliefs

Recognizing presumptions.

The first step in questioning assumptions is to identify them. Be aware of the assumptions that underlie your thoughts and decisions.

Inquire the Reasons

When you come across an assumption, ask yourself why you believe it. This will help you evaluate the reasons behind your beliefs.

Look for Multiple Viewpoints

Engage with individuals having diverse opinions to challenge your assumptions. This will provide you with different perspectives that can help you rethink your views.

Accept Ambiguity

Understand that not all assumptions can be easily discarded. Keep an open mind and strive to accept uncertainty.

Reflect and Improve

Periodically review your thought processes to enhance your critical thinking abilities. By reflecting on your assumptions and learning from them, you can grow as an individual.

You may also like

5 Critical Thinking Exercises for a Healthy and Alert Brain

Critical thinking is the ability to translate complex circumstances into meaningful insights. It has become an essential skill that every individual should […]

Using Critical Thinking to Find Your Strengths and Passions

When you hear the words “critical thinking”, the first thought that probably crossed your mind is that this person is a natural […]

The 7 Best Critical Thinking Books for Beginners

Have you heard the phrase “critical thinking” thrown around a lot? You probably have if you think about it for a second. […]

Divergent vs Convergent Thinking – What are They and How are They Different?

They say that necessity is the mother of invention but without a dash of creativity and clear thinking, innovation would stall out […]

Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions

• First Online: 20 March 2024

Cite this chapter

• Gregory J. Feist 3  

62 Accesses

Critical thinking and creative thinking are two related and yet distinct constructs. The core connection is they both start by challenging assumptions. After all, assumptions are simply the implicit starting point of our reasoning process, and starting points can and often do lead us astray and prevent us from solving important and difficult problems (just think of the 9-dot problem). People who can reflect on their assumptions (meta-cognition) and can see the invisible starting points, are more likely to come up with new assumptions, which lead to novel and original and meaningful (creative) solutions to a problem. In addition, the flip-side to critical thinking is conspiratorial, gullible, anti-evidence-based thinking that is ubiquitous in politics and online conversations. In this chapter, I raise and try to answer two basic questions: First, are creative thinkers critical thinkers and are critical thinkers creative thinkers? Second, how can fostering critical and creative thinking mitigate the trend toward non-rational, polarized, public conversation?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Alghafri, A. S. R., & Ismail, H. N. B. (2014). The effects of integrating creative and critical thinking on schools students’ thinking. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 4 (6), 518–525.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amabile, T. M., Collins, M. A., Conti, R., Phillips, E., Picariello, M., Ruscio, J., & Whitney, D. (2018). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Anderson, B. R., & Feist, G. J. (2017). Transformative science: A new index and the impact of non-funding, private funding, and public funding. Social Epistemology, 31 (2), 130–151.

Avsec, S., & Savec, V. F. (2019). Creativity and critical thinking in engineering design: The role of interdisciplinary augmentation. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 21 (1), 30–36.

Google Scholar  

Baker, M., Rudd, R., & Pomeroy, C. (2001). Relationships between critical and creative thinking. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 51 (1), 173–188.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32 , 439–476. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255

Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Barry Kaufman, S., & Silvia, P. J. (2015). Default and executive network coupling supports creative idea production. Scientific Reports, 5 (1), 1–14.

Beaty, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Christensen, A. P., Rosenberg, M. D., Benedek, M., Chen, Q., et al. (2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (5), 1087–1092.

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1 (2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73

Birgili, B. (2015). Creative and critical thinking skills in problem-based learning environments. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 2 (2), 71–80.

Bleedorn, B. D. (1993). Introduction: Toward an integration of creative and critical thinking. American Behavioral Scientist, 37 (1), 10–20.

Caddick, Z. A., & Feist, G. J. (2021). When beliefs and evidence collide: Psychological and ideological predictors of motivated reasoning about climate change. Thinking & Reasoning, 1–37 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1994009

Calaprise, A. (2005). The new quotable Einstein . Princeton University Press.

Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67 (6), 380–400.

Chan, Z. C. (2013). Exploring creativity and critical thinking in traditional and innovative problem-based learning groups. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 22 (15–16), 2298–2307.

Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., Merrill, J. A., Clifton, W., & DeDios, S. (2011). Assessing creativity specific to engineering with the revised creative engineering design assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 100 (4), 778–799.

Chatfield, T. (2018). Critical thinking . Sage.

Combs, L. B., Cennamo, K. S., & Newbill, P. L. (2009). Developing critical and creative thinkers: Toward a conceptual model of creative and critical thinking processes. Educational Technology , 3–14.

Davies, M., Barnett, A., & van Gelder, T. (2021). Using computer-assisted argument mapping to teach reasoning to students. In J. A. Blair (Ed.), Studies in Critical Thinking (2nd ed., pp. 115–152). Windsor Studies in Argumentation.

De Pisapia, N., Bacci, F., Parrott, D., & Melcher, D. (2016). Brain networks for visual creativity: A functional connectivity study of planning a visual artwork. Scientific Reports, 6 (1), 1–11.

Durante, D., & Dunson, D. B. (2018). Bayesian inference and testing of group differences in brain networks. Bayesian Analysis, 13 (1), 29–58.

Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 390–405.

Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 , 255–278.

Feist, G. J. (1991). Synthetic and analytic thought: Similarities and differences among art and science students. Creativity Research Journal, 4 (2), 145–155.

Feist, G. J. (2022). The creative personality: Current understandings and debates. In J. Plucker (Ed.), Creativity and innovation: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 45–65). Prufrock Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1996). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications . MIT Press. (two stage generative/exploration GENPLOR model)

Freud, S. (1900/1981). Die Traumdeutung [Interpretation of Dreams] . Fisher Verlag.

Gelder, T. V. (2015). Using argument mapping to improve critical thinking skills. In The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 183–192). Palgrave Macmillan.

Gimpel, H., Heger, S., Olenberger, C., & Utz, L. (2021). The effectiveness of social norms in fighting fake news on social media. Journal of Management Information Systems, 38 (1), 196–221.

Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2 (1), 10–18.

Gonen-Yaacovi, G., De Souza, L. C., Levy, R., Urbanski, M., Josse, G., & Volle, E. (2013). Rostral and caudal prefrontal contribution to creativity: A meta-analysis of functional imaging data. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7 , 465.

Grohman, M., Wodniecka, Z., & Kłusak, M. (2006). Divergent thinking and evaluation skills: Do they always go together? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40 (2), 125–145.

Gross, J. (2023, January 10). How Finland is teaching a generation to spot misinformation. New York Times . Retrieved January 10, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/world/europe/finland-misinformation-classes.html?searchResultPosition=1

Halpern, D. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2020). An introduction to critical thinking: Maybe it will change your life. In R. J. Sternberg & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (pp. 1–9). Cambridge University Press.

Hidayati, N., Zubaidah, S., Suarsini, E., & Praherdhiono, H. (2019). Examining the relationship between creativity and critical thinking through integrated problem-based learning and digital mind maps. Universal Journal of Education Research, 7 (9A), 171–179.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Creative and critical thinking through academic controversy. American Behavioral Scientist, 37 (1), 40–53.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Macmillan.

Kant, I. (1790/1987). Critique of Judgment (W.S. Pluhar translator). Hackett Publishing Co.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688

Kenett, Y. N., Medaglia, J. D., Beaty, R. E., Chen, Q., Betzel, R. F., Thompson-Schill, S. L., & Qiu, J. (2018). Driving the brain towards creativity and intelligence: A network control theory analysis. Neuropsychologia, 118 , 79–90.

Kleinmintz, O. M., Ivancovsky, T., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2019). The two-fold model of creativity: The neural underpinnings of the generation and evaluation of creative ideas. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27 , 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.11.004

Kris, E. (1952). Psychoanalytic explorations in art . International University Press.

Ku, K. Y., Kong, Q., Song, Y., Deng, L., Kang, Y., & Hu, A. (2019). What predicts adolescents’ critical thinking about real-life news? The roles of social media news consumption and news media literacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33 , 100570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.05.004

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108 (3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

Lau, J. Y. (2011). An introduction to critical thinking and creativity: Think more, think better . John Wiley & Sons.

Marmion, J.-F. (Ed.). (2018). The psychology of stupidity . Penguin Books.

Matthews, M. L. (2011). Connecting creativity and critical thinking to the campaign planning process. Communication Teacher, 25 (1), 61–67.

Padget, S. (Ed.). (2013). Creativity and critical thinking . Routledge.

Paul, R. W. (1993). The logic of creative and critical thinking. American Behavioral Scientist, 37 (1), 21–39.

Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education, 30 (2), 34.

Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31 (7), 770–780.

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (7), 2521–2526.

Roozenbeek, J., Van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowski, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8 (34). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo625

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark . Random House.

Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time . Freeman & Co..

Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist . Cambridge University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (2022). The blind-variation and selective-retention theory of creativity: Recent developments and current status of BVSR. Creativity Research Journal , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2059919

Sola, E., Hoekstra, R., Fiore, S., & McCauley, P. (2017). An investigation of the state of creativity and critical thinking in engineering undergraduates. Creative Education, 8 (09), 1495.

Sowden, P. T., Pringle, A., & Gabora, L. (2015). The shifting sands of creative thinking: Connections to dual-process theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 21 (1), 40–60.

Spuzic, S., Narayanan, R., Abhary, K., Adriansen, H. K., Pignata, S., Uzunovic, F., & Guang, X. (2016). The synergy of creativity and critical thinking in engineering design: The role of interdisciplinary augmentation and the fine arts. Technology in Society, 45 , 1–7.

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking . MIT Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational creativity: The link between creativity, wisdom, and the solution of global problems. Philosophies, 6 (3), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies60330075

Sternberg, R. J., & Halpern, D. F. (2020). How to think critically about politics…and anything else. In R. J. Sternberg & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 354–376). Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (3rd ed., pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press.

Stupple, E. J., Maratos, F. A., Elander, J., Hunt, T. E., Cheung, K. Y., & Aubeeluck, A. V. (2017). Development of the Critical Thinking Toolkit (CriTT): A measure of student attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23 , 91–100.

Ülger, K. A. N. İ. (2016). The relationship between creative thinking and critical thinking skills of students. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi-Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 31 , 695–710.

Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrerra, M., Jacotin, G., et al. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school. Educational research and innovation . OECD Publishing.

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018, March 9). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359 (6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559

Wechsler, S. M., Saiz, C., Rivas, S. F., Vendramini, C. M. M., Almeida, L. S., Mundim, M. C., & Franco, A. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27 , 114–122.

Weston, A. (2007). Creativity for critical thinkers . Oxford University Press.

Wu, X., Yang, W., Tong, D., Sun, J., Chen, Q., Wei, D., et al. (2015). A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on divergent thinking using activation likelihood estimation. Human Brain Mapping, 36 (7), 2703–2718.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, USA

Gregory J. Feist

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory J. Feist .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Robert J. Sternberg

Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA

Sareh Karami

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Feist, G.J. (2024). Creatively and Critically Challenging Assumptions. In: Sternberg, R.J., Karami, S. (eds) Transformational Creativity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_9

Published : 20 March 2024

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-51589-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-51590-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Critical Thinking Is About Asking Better Questions

• John Coleman

Six practices to sharpen your inquiry.

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and effectively break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution. At the heart of critical thinking is the ability to formulate deep, different, and effective questions. For effective questioning, start by holding your hypotheses loosely. Be willing to fundamentally reconsider your initial conclusions — and do so without defensiveness. Second, listen more than you talk through active listening. Third, leave your queries open-ended, and avoid yes-or-no questions. Fourth, consider the counterintuitive to avoid falling into groupthink. Fifth, take the time to stew in a problem, rather than making decisions unnecessarily quickly. Last, ask thoughtful, even difficult, follow-ups.

Are you tackling a new and difficult problem at work? Recently promoted and trying to both understand your new role and bring a fresh perspective? Or are you new to the workforce and seeking ways to meaningfully contribute alongside your more experienced colleagues? If so, critical thinking — the ability to analyze and effectively break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution — will be core to your success. And at the heart of critical thinking is the ability to formulate deep, different, and effective questions.

• JC John Coleman is the author of the HBR Guide to Crafting Your Purpose . Subscribe to his free newsletter, On Purpose , follow him on Twitter @johnwcoleman, or contact him at johnwilliamcoleman.com.

Partner Center

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

What you need to know—and read—about one of the essential skills needed today..

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• In research for "A More Beautiful Question," I did a deep dive into the current crisis in critical thinking.
• Many people may think of themselves as critical thinkers, but they actually are not.
• Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically.

Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion about who and what to believe.

These are some of the hallmarks of the current crisis in critical thinking—which just might be the issue of our times. Because if people aren’t willing or able to think critically as they choose potential leaders, they’re apt to choose bad ones. And if they can’t judge whether the information they’re receiving is sound, they may follow faulty advice while ignoring recommendations that are science-based and solid (and perhaps life-saving).

Moreover, as a society, if we can’t think critically about the many serious challenges we face, it becomes more difficult to agree on what those challenges are—much less solve them.

On a personal level, critical thinking can enable you to make better everyday decisions. It can help you make sense of an increasingly complex and confusing world.

In the new expanded edition of my book A More Beautiful Question ( AMBQ ), I took a deep dive into critical thinking. Here are a few key things I learned.

First off, before you can get better at critical thinking, you should understand what it is. It’s not just about being a skeptic. When thinking critically, we are thoughtfully reasoning, evaluating, and making decisions based on evidence and logic. And—perhaps most important—while doing this, a critical thinker always strives to be open-minded and fair-minded . That’s not easy: It demands that you constantly question your assumptions and biases and that you always remain open to considering opposing views.

In today’s polarized environment, many people think of themselves as critical thinkers simply because they ask skeptical questions—often directed at, say, certain government policies or ideas espoused by those on the “other side” of the political divide. The problem is, they may not be asking these questions with an open mind or a willingness to fairly consider opposing views.

When people do this, they’re engaging in “weak-sense critical thinking”—a term popularized by the late Richard Paul, a co-founder of The Foundation for Critical Thinking . “Weak-sense critical thinking” means applying the tools and practices of critical thinking—questioning, investigating, evaluating—but with the sole purpose of confirming one’s own bias or serving an agenda.

In AMBQ , I lay out a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you’re thinking critically. Here are some of the questions to consider:

• Why do I believe what I believe?
• Are my views based on evidence?
• Have I fairly and thoughtfully considered differing viewpoints?
• Am I truly open to changing my mind?

Of course, becoming a better critical thinker is not as simple as just asking yourself a few questions. Critical thinking is a habit of mind that must be developed and strengthened over time. In effect, you must train yourself to think in a manner that is more effortful, aware, grounded, and balanced.

For those interested in giving themselves a crash course in critical thinking—something I did myself, as I was working on my book—I thought it might be helpful to share a list of some of the books that have shaped my own thinking on this subject. As a self-interested author, I naturally would suggest that you start with the new 10th-anniversary edition of A More Beautiful Question , but beyond that, here are the top eight critical-thinking books I’d recommend.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , by Carl Sagan

This book simply must top the list, because the late scientist and author Carl Sagan continues to be such a bright shining light in the critical thinking universe. Chapter 12 includes the details on Sagan’s famous “baloney detection kit,” a collection of lessons and tips on how to deal with bogus arguments and logical fallacies.

Clear Thinking: Turning Ordinary Moments Into Extraordinary Results , by Shane Parrish

The creator of the Farnham Street website and host of the “Knowledge Project” podcast explains how to contend with biases and unconscious reactions so you can make better everyday decisions. It contains insights from many of the brilliant thinkers Shane has studied.

Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World , by David Robert Grimes

A brilliant, comprehensive 2021 book on critical thinking that, to my mind, hasn’t received nearly enough attention . The scientist Grimes dissects bad thinking, shows why it persists, and offers the tools to defeat it.

Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know , by Adam Grant

Intellectual humility—being willing to admit that you might be wrong—is what this book is primarily about. But Adam, the renowned Wharton psychology professor and bestselling author, takes the reader on a mind-opening journey with colorful stories and characters.

Think Like a Detective: A Kid's Guide to Critical Thinking , by David Pakman

The popular YouTuber and podcast host Pakman—normally known for talking politics —has written a terrific primer on critical thinking for children. The illustrated book presents critical thinking as a “superpower” that enables kids to unlock mysteries and dig for truth. (I also recommend Pakman’s second kids’ book called Think Like a Scientist .)

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters , by Steven Pinker

The Harvard psychology professor Pinker tackles conspiracy theories head-on but also explores concepts involving risk/reward, probability and randomness, and correlation/causation. And if that strikes you as daunting, be assured that Pinker makes it lively and accessible.

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion , by David McRaney

David is a science writer who hosts the popular podcast “You Are Not So Smart” (and his ideas are featured in A More Beautiful Question ). His well-written book looks at ways you can actually get through to people who see the world very differently than you (hint: bludgeoning them with facts definitely won’t work).

A Healthy Democracy's Best Hope: Building the Critical Thinking Habit , by M Neil Browne and Chelsea Kulhanek

Neil Browne, author of the seminal Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, has been a pioneer in presenting critical thinking as a question-based approach to making sense of the world around us. His newest book, co-authored with Chelsea Kulhanek, breaks down critical thinking into “11 explosive questions”—including the “priors question” (which challenges us to question assumptions), the “evidence question” (focusing on how to evaluate and weigh evidence), and the “humility question” (which reminds us that a critical thinker must be humble enough to consider the possibility of being wrong).

Warren Berger is a longtime journalist and author of A More Beautiful Question .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• 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

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

7 Use Deep Questioning to Promote Critical Thinking

Critical thinking.

In Level One Tutor Training we define critical thinking as the process we use to reflect on, access and judge the assumptions underlying our own and others ideas and actions. This includes: “the thinker’s dispositions and orientations; a range of specific analytical, evaluative, and problem-solving skills; contextual influences; use of multiple perspectives; awareness of one’s own assumptions; capacities for metacognition; or a specific set of thinking processes or tasks” (Stassen, Herrington, Henderson, 2011).

 Deep Questioning

Questioning is learning-centered approach that challenges a person to develop their critical thinking skills and engage in analytic discussion which leads to independent learning and thinking. This questioning can be used to explore ideas, to get to the root of things, to uncover assumptions, and to analyze complex concepts. The questions usually focus on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems.

This type of questioning is at the heart of critical thinking and the following questions can be used by tutors to help draw information from their tutees. These are adapted from R.W. Paul’s six types of Socratic questions:

 (Adapted from: http://www.umich.edu/~elements/probsolv/strategy/cthinking.htm )

This critical thinking tool focuses on open-ended questions with the goal of bringing a person to realize an answer for themselves. It avoids giving the answer to the tutee without giving any tools for solving the next questions. As you ask questions, if the student doesn’t seem to be finding the answer, ask a different question or ask your question in a different way.

Deep Questioning Activity:

Frame a series of questions from your subject area, using Socratic questioning.

Assumptions

Perspectives

Implications

Questions about Questions

Notes and Questions:

Level Two Peer Tutoring Fundamentals and Integration Workbook Copyright © 2019 by Kwantlen Polytechnic University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Avoid Making Assumptions

What is an assumption in terms of problem solving? It is an idea based on too little or not very good information. For example, the manager of a convenience store has an employee who is often late for her shift. The manager makes the assumption that the employee is lazy and does not take her job seriously. In fact, the employee has had car trouble and must rely on unreliable public transportation to get to work.

When you avoid making assumptions, you get all the information you need before deciding anything. With the right information, you can see the problem clearly rather than focusing on its consequences or mistaking them for the real problem. Then you can work toward a satisfactory solution. For instance, when the manager realizes that transportation is the real problem, she might be able to help the employee find another way to work rather than reprimand her for being lazy .

Continue reading here: Venn Diagram

Was this article helpful?

Related Posts

• Pretest - Critical Thinking
• Chicken and Egg Confusing Cause and Effect
• What Is a Judgment Call - Critical Thinking
• Lesson 9 Persuasion Techniques

Readers' Questions

How does assumption affect possibilities?

Assumptions can greatly impact the possibilities that we consider and ultimately pursue. When we make assumptions, we are limiting our perspective and closing ourselves off to new ideas and opportunities. For example, if someone assumes that they are not capable of learning a new skill, they may never try to learn it and therefore limit their growth and potential. On the other hand, if someone approaches a situation without assumptions and an open mind, they may uncover possibilities that they never even considered before. By challenging our assumptions and being open to new ways of thinking, we can expand our possibilities and create opportunities for growth and success. It is important to remember that assumptions are not always based on reality and can often hold us back from achieving our full potential.

How to avoid embarrassing yourself by making assumptions?

There are several strategies you can follow to avoid embarrassing yourself by making assumptions: Practice active listening: Focus on what others are saying and avoid jumping to conclusions or making assumptions based on partial information. Listen attentively, ask clarifying questions, and seek further information to ensure you have a clear understanding. Seek confirmation: Instead of assuming something to be true, verify your assumptions by asking for confirmation from others. Double-checking facts can help you avoid any potential embarrassment caused by incorrect assumptions. Keep an open mind: Acknowledge that your assumptions might not always be accurate and be willing to challenge them. Embrace a mindset of curiosity and be open to new information or perspectives that may contradict your assumptions. Consider different perspectives: Try to put yourself in others' shoes and consider alternative viewpoints. Recognize that different people have different experiences and beliefs, which may affect their perspectives and opinions. Avoid assuming that your own perspective is always correct. Ask questions: When in doubt, ask questions to gather more information and clarify any uncertainties. This can help you avoid faulty assumptions and foster a better understanding of the situation. Reflect on past experiences: If you have made embarrassing assumptions in the past, take some time to reflect on those situations. Analyze what led you to make those assumptions and identify any patterns or triggers. Learning from past mistakes can help you avoid making similar assumptions in the future. Cultivate self-awareness: Be mindful of your own assumptions and biases. Recognize that everyone has biases, and be proactive in challenging your own assumptions. This self-awareness will help you become more conscious of your thinking patterns and prevent embarrassment caused by faulty assumptions. Remember, it's impossible to completely eliminate all assumptions. However, by consciously practicing these strategies and cultivating a mindset of curiosity and open-mindedness, you can significantly minimize the risk of embarrassing yourself through assumptions.

How to avoid assumptions in critical thinking?

To avoid assumptions in critical thinking, you can follow these strategies: Be aware of your biases: Recognize that you have inherent biases and preconceived notions that can influence your thinking. Try to be conscious of these biases and actively challenge them. Seek multiple perspectives: Consider alternative viewpoints and opinions before forming your own conclusions. Listen to different arguments and weigh the evidence objectively. Question everything: Develop a habit of questioning information, claims, and assumptions. Ask yourself: What evidence supports this claim? Are there any counterarguments? Is this information reliable and accurate? Gather evidence: Base your conclusions on verifiable evidence rather than assumptions or personal beliefs. Seek credible sources, conduct research, and critically evaluate the information before drawing any conclusions. Avoid generalizations: Avoid making sweeping generalizations based on limited evidence or personal experiences. Recognize that each situation is unique, and making general assumptions can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Consider probability: Instead of assuming something to be true without evidence, assess the likelihood of it being true based on the available evidence. Avoid jumping to conclusions without proper reasoning. Practice empathy: Put yourself in others' shoes and try to understand their perspectives. Be open to different viewpoints and consider how biases and assumptions may affect your understanding of a particular issue. Be open to change: Be willing to revise your beliefs and opinions based on new information and evidence. Avoid rigid thinking and embrace intellectual flexibility. Validate information: Verify the accuracy and reliability of information by cross-referencing multiple sources. Avoid relying on single sources or unverified claims. Reflect and evaluate: Continuously reflect on your own thinking processes, assumptions, and biases. Regularly evaluate your critical thinking skills and identify areas for improvement. Remember that avoiding assumptions is not about eliminating all assumptions entirely, but rather being aware of them and examining them critically.

How to make critical ssumptions?

To make critical assumptions, follow these steps: Identify the purpose and scope: Clearly define the problem or situation you are working on and identify the objective you want to achieve. Determine the extent of knowledge required to make assumptions. Gather relevant information: Collect all the available data, information, and evidence related to the problem or situation. Ensure that the sources are reliable and accurate. Analyze the information: Carefully examine and evaluate the information you have gathered. Look for patterns, discrepancies, or gaps that may affect your assumptions. Identify potential biases: Be aware of your own biases and any potential biases in the information you have collected. Consider the source of the information and any possible vested interests that may affect its reliability. Consider multiple perspectives: Evaluate the problem or situation from different angles and viewpoints. This helps you to see different possibilities and anticipate potential outcomes. Apply critical thinking: Engage in thorough and objective analysis. Ask probing questions, challenge assumptions, and consider alternative explanations or scenarios. Make assumptions based on evidence: Base your assumptions on logical reasoning and evidence from the information you have gathered. Avoid assumptions that are solely based on personal beliefs or opinions. Test assumptions: Validate your assumptions by checking them against additional evidence or by conducting experiments or tests. This ensures that your assumptions are reliable and accurate. Revise assumptions if necessary: Be open to revising your assumptions if new information or evidence emerges that contradicts or challenges your initial assumptions. Communicate assumptions: Clearly communicate your assumptions to others involved in the decision-making process or affected by the situation. This facilitates transparency and ensures that assumptions are understood by all parties. Remember, critical assumptions are based on thorough analysis, evidence, and a willingness to revise or adjust them as new information becomes available.

How to apply critical thinking techniques and methods(avoiding assumptions?

Question assumptions: Challenge the underlying assumptions behind an argument or statement. Ask yourself if there is any evidence to support these assumptions or if they are based on biases or conjecture. Seek clarity: Clarify vague or unclear statements by asking for more information or definitions. This helps prevent jumping to conclusions based on incomplete or misunderstood information. Consider alternative perspectives: Look at the issue from different angles and consider conflicting viewpoints. This allows you to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective and avoid forming biased or one-sided opinions. Evaluate evidence: Examine and analyze the evidence or information presented to support an argument. Assess the credibility and reliability of the sources, as well as the sufficiency and relevance of the evidence. Avoid accepting information at face value without verifying its accuracy. Identify and analyze reasoning: Pay attention to the reasoning used to support arguments or claims. Look for logical fallacies or flawed reasoning, such as generalizations, false cause-effect relationships, or appeal to emotions. Assess the strength and validity of the reasoning presented. Use logical thinking: Apply logical reasoning to evaluate arguments. Assess if the premises logically lead to the conclusion. Use deductive and inductive reasoning to identify any weaknesses in the argument's logic. Stay open-minded: Be receptive to new information and revise your beliefs or opinions based on evidence. Avoid being overly attached to your own ideas, as this can hinder critical thinking. Avoid biases: Be aware of your own biases and consciously try to eliminate them when analyzing information or making judgments. Biases can cloud your judgment and prevent objective analysis. Use reflective thinking: Take the time to reflect on your own thinking process. Analyze how you arrived at a certain conclusion and if there are any gaps or biases in your own reasoning. Reflective thinking helps strengthen critical thinking skills and improve decision-making. Engage in active learning: Continuously learn and seek out new knowledge. Regularly engage in activities that challenge your thinking and improve your critical thinking skills, such as reading challenging books or engaging in thought-provoking discussions.

How avoiding assumptions in workplace helps develop critical thinking skills?

Avoiding assumptions in the workplace can help develop critical thinking skills in several ways: Increases objectivity: By avoiding assumptions, individuals are forced to look at situations objectively and consider all available evidence. This helps develop critical thinking skills by encouraging individuals to analyze information in a logical and unbiased manner. Encourages open-mindedness: Avoiding assumptions requires individuals to withhold judgment until they have gathered enough information and considered different perspectives. This fosters open-mindedness, which is a key aspect of critical thinking. It allows individuals to explore various possibilities and consider different solutions to problems. Promotes better decision-making: When assumptions are avoided, individuals are less likely to make hasty decisions based on limited or incomplete information. Critical thinking involves analyzing the situation from multiple angles, gathering evidence, and considering different alternatives. This approach to decision-making helps individuals make more informed and thoughtful choices. Enhances problem-solving abilities: Avoiding assumptions helps individuals identify and challenge their biases and preconceived notions. This is crucial for effective problem-solving. By considering alternative viewpoints and potential solutions, individuals can develop more creative and innovative approaches to solving workplace problems. Facilitates effective communication: Assumptions often lead to misunderstandings and miscommunication in the workplace. By avoiding assumptions and actively listening to others, individuals can better understand different perspectives and engage in more productive discussions. This enhances critical thinking skills as it requires individuals to consider multiple viewpoints and integrate them into their own thinking. Overall, avoiding assumptions in the workplace promotes critical thinking by fostering objectivity, open-mindedness, better decision-making, enhanced problem-solving abilities, and effective communication. These skills are valuable for individual growth, team collaboration, and overall organizational success.

How does avoiding assumption contribute to critical thinking techniques and methods?

Avoiding assumptions is a crucial aspect of critical thinking as it helps in effectively arriving at well-reasoned and logical conclusions. Here are some ways in which avoiding assumptions contributes to critical thinking techniques and methods: Enhanced accuracy: When assumptions are made without sufficient evidence or reasoning, it can lead to flawed conclusions. By avoiding assumptions, critical thinkers are more likely to gather accurate and reliable information, ensuring that their reasoning and analysis are based on solid foundations. Objective analysis: Assumptions tend to be biased or influenced by personal beliefs or preconceived notions. Avoiding assumptions allows critical thinkers to approach a situation or problem objectively. They consider multiple perspectives, assess evidence impartially, and remain open to new information, thus fostering a more well-rounded analysis. Identification of biases: Assumptions often result from biases, stereotypes, or generalizations. By actively avoiding assumptions, critical thinkers can pinpoint their own biases and challenge them. This helps in promoting a fair and unbiased evaluation of information, leading to a deeper understanding of complex issues. Improved problem-solving: Assumptions can limit one's ability to think creatively and find innovative solutions. By avoiding assumptions, critical thinkers are encouraged to explore various possibilities, question traditional wisdom, and consider alternative viewpoints. This broader mindset can lead to more effective problem-solving techniques. Increased intellectual humility: Avoiding assumptions requires consistently questioning and challenging one's own beliefs and ideas. This process fosters intellectual humility by recognizing the limitations of one's knowledge and being open to the idea that others may have valid perspectives. Critical thinkers who avoid assumptions are more likely to embrace lifelong learning and seek continuous improvement. Effective communication: Assumptions can create misunderstandings and misinterpretations in communication. By avoiding assumptions, critical thinkers are more inclined to actively listen, clarify information, and ask relevant questions. This promotes clearer and more accurate communication, reducing the chance of errors or miscommunication. Overall, avoiding assumptions is a fundamental component of critical thinking, enabling individuals to think critically, analyze information objectively, and arrive at well-informed conclusions.

How does assumption hinder critical thinking?

Assumptions can hinder critical thinking because they are often based on incomplete or inaccurate information and can lead to flawed reasoning. When individuals rely on assumptions without questioning their validity or seeking evidence to support them, they may overlook alternative perspectives and potential solutions. This can prevent them from fully analyzing a situation or problem and coming up with the most effective and accurate conclusions. Assumptions can also create biases and preconceived notions that cloud judgment and prevent open-minded thinking. Overall, critical thinking requires careful examination of assumptions and a willingness to challenge them in order to arrive at well-informed and logical conclusions.

What is assumption in critical thinking?

An assumption in critical thinking refers to a belief or a statement that is taken for granted or accepted as true without proper evidence or justification. In the context of critical thinking, assumptions can be both implicit (not explicitly stated) or explicit (clearly stated). In order to think critically, it is important to identify and evaluate assumptions, as they can impact the validity and soundness of an argument or a proposition.

Do good critical thinkers avoid making working assumptions?

Good critical thinkers do not avoid making working assumptions entirely, as assumptions can be useful in the thinking process. However, they are careful about the assumptions they make and approach them with skepticism, subjecting them to critical analysis and evaluation. A working assumption is a provisional assumption made in the absence of complete or definitive information. It helps to guide thinking and decision-making when faced with incomplete data or uncertainty. Critical thinkers recognize that assumptions can be necessary and useful in the absence of complete information, but they also understand the limitations and potential biases associated with making assumptions. To effectively use working assumptions, critical thinkers: Acknowledge assumptions: They are aware of and acknowledge the assumptions they are making. They do not take assumptions for granted or see them as absolute truth. Subject assumptions to critical evaluation: Critical thinkers question and evaluate assumptions rigorously, seeking evidence and logical reasoning to support or challenge them. They validate or modify assumptions based on available information. Recognize biases: They are aware of their own biases and biases that may be present in assumptions. They strive to minimize the impact of biases in their thinking process. Seek alternative perspectives: Critical thinkers actively seek out alternative perspectives and consider multiple assumptions that may be applicable to a given situation. They recognize that different assumptions can lead to different conclusions and outcomes. Revisit assumptions: As new information becomes available, critical thinkers reassess their assumptions to ensure they align with the latest knowledge and understanding. In summary, good critical thinkers do not avoid making working assumptions. Instead, they approach assumptions with skepticism, critically evaluate them, and remain open to revising or discarding them as new information emerges.

More From Forbes

Improve your critical thinking by avoiding assumptions.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

In a post earlier this month, I shared three questions we can ask ourselves in the moment to avoid allowing our snap decision about someone’s idea hardening into a firm conviction without more critical thinking. Let’s deepen that skill set by reframing our approach to individuals, contexts, and perspectives.

All effective changes to behavior happen on an immediate, tangible level, not on a broad philosophical plane. Saying to yourself, I’m going to be a nicer person doesn’t impact your actions. Saying, I’m going to hold the door for someone, hold someone’s hand when they need me, or hold my tongue when I want to criticize – those specific actions make us a nicer person.

Likewise, when we are trying to think more critically about an issue, it’s helpful to have specific questions or approaches that allow us to actually put critical thinking techniques in place. It doesn’t help to say, “I’m going to be a deeper thinker,” since I’m not even sure what that would mean. Instead, adopt approaches that combat the habits that keep us from thinking more openly about an issue and factoring in better information. Here are three specific statements we can say to ourselves that will help us remain more open.

1. There’s an old adage that “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” (This assumes an analog clock, not an unplugged digital clock.) Likewise, even the person in our life with questionable judgment whose opinion we immediately discount or ignore might occasionally have a nugget of wisdom to share. Remain open. Who is the stopped clock in your life? When Uncle Bud or Lulu from Marketing approaches with that eager look of, “Have I got an idea for you!” instead of ducking for cover, say to yourself, “It’s half-past-two…again.” This may be their one good idea for the year, and you don’t want to miss it. Be patient. Hear them out. You can still decide to discount their conclusion, but you will have remained open to their analysis, and there may be a learning moment in there for you. To discount an entire human being is a great loss and deprives us of possible wisdom, however cluttered with our previous experience with someone.

2. It’s human nature to develop patterns of behavior and apply them to specific settings. For instance, some people act one way at home and a different way at work. When we attend certain meetings or engage with particular teams at the office, we get into patterns of behavior and thinking that can limit us and our impact and rob the company or firm of our insights. We might be the most open, thoughtful, creative contributor in some meetings and then withdraw and shut down in other contexts. Sometimes these shifts in behavior are justified by our knowledge base on a topic, the presence of certain colleague at the table, or other factors. But sometimes, our shift in behavior is arbitrary or a matter of habit.

My wife and I have four kids. When they were still home, the six of us each had our particular seat at the table for dinner – same seat every night – like many families. It would have felt weird if, when we went to sit down for dinner, Sam plopped down in Teresa’s chair. And yet, for other meals, we all sat anywhere. Why such formality at one time and such reckless abandon at others? What’s the metaphorical seat you take at certain meetings at work? You’re open and enthusiastic at the Marketing Meeting, asking great questions and comfortable challenging assumptions - your own and others’. As you’re walking into the Sales Meeting where you tend to be more withdrawn, tell yourself, “This is lunch, not dinner. I can sit anywhere. I can contribute like I do in the Marketing Meeting.”

The Best Romantic Comedy Of The Last Year Just Hit Netflix

Apple iphone 16 unique all new design promised in new report, rudy giuliani and mark meadows indicted in arizona fake electors case.

I’m not suggesting you bring your worst behaviors into every setting. If you’re overbearing at one meeting and quiet at another, please don’t bulldoze through every meeting. It’s about bringing out your better qualities more frequently – about listening and remaining open more consistently.

3. We’re all self-centered. It’s part of human nature. It’s not bad, or Machiavellian; it’s just a basic survival instinct. To contribute most meaningfully at work, and to avoid the kinds of assumptions that keep us from being more successful, we need to challenge that most basic thinking. When we offer an opinion at work, we often fall prey to two forces that keep us from making better decisions - our ego and our self-interest.

When we’re weighing options in a meeting, and one of the options on the table is our suggestion, we’re likely to want to see that option succeed because it’s our idea, regardless of whether, objectively, it’s the best solution. Completely separately, one of the options might actually hold more value for us, and sometimes that value may be outside the knowledge of the group at large. In that case, we’ll often side with the option where the benefit inures to us over others. When these situations arise, we’re best served to ask ourselves a very tough question. “To what extent am I part of the problem?” Is the way we’re contributing truly in the best interest of the group, or is my ego, self-interest, or stubbornness getting in the way?

Asking this question of ourselves is tough enough. If we conclude we are, in fact, part of the problem, acting to rectify the situation is even harder. Hopefully, we can get there. But if not, just asking the question of ourselves will naturally temper our reactions and encourage us to be more open.

In sum, to remain more open and to think more critically, we should challenge ourselves to:

1. remain open to ideas from others, even those with whom we don’t usually agree,

2. rethink why we behave differently in certain settings and assess whether it’s time to contribute more meaningfully (sometimes this might mean talking less, not more),

3. challenge the motive behind the ideas we support and decide if we need to get out of the way.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Importance of Questioning: Unlocking Critical Thinking Skills

By: Author Paul Jenkins

Posted on April 7, 2023

Categories Self Improvement

Questioning is one of the most powerful tools in our repertoire. Whether we’re engaged in thoughtful conversations with someone else, actively exploring a problem to find a solution, or simply looking to understand ourselves better and the world around us – questioning plays a vital role! Asking the right questions can spark insightful dialogue, uncover new perspectives, stimulate creativity, and inspire meaningful growth. In today’s society, it can be easy to accept ideas without pause; however, just a moment to interrogate our thoughts can open up countless possibilities. We invite you to join us on this journey as we explore why questioning should be at the heart of all learning experiences!

The Importance of Questioning in Enhancing Critical Thinking and Learning

Questioning plays a crucial role in the development of critical thinking and learning.

Students, for example, engage in deeper analysis and evaluate the information presented by asking questions. This process helps them not only to retain new knowledge but also to comprehend complex ideas and make meaningful connections between different concepts.

The act of questioning promotes curiosity and enhances thinking, ultimately improving the overall learning experience.

Intentional questioning can significantly influence the quality of teaching and learning. Teachers who ask thought-provoking questions encourage students to think critically and exercise their problem-solving skills.

Moreover, better questions stimulate students’ curiosity and motivate them to participate actively in learning.

The practice of questioning not only improves critical thinking but also enhances communication skills. Students who engage in questioning-based learning are more likely to articulate their thoughts and ideas effectively. This fosters a culture of independent thinking and enriches the learning environment.

Furthermore, implementing questioning techniques within classrooms helps students develop vital skills for the future.

In a rapidly changing world, asking better questions and analyzing problems thoroughly are essential for success. Using questions as a foundation for learning, students can acquire the mental agility to navigate the complexities of the 21st century.

Roles of Questioning

Critical thinking.

Questioning plays a crucial role in developing critical thinking skills. By asking questions, we are encouraged to think deeply and analyze the information before reaching a conclusion. This approach helps us develop the ability to evaluate and synthesize data, improving our decision-making and problem-solving skills.

Furthermore, questioning helps us understand different perspectives by challenging assumptions.

Active Learning

Employing questioning techniques supports active learning.

When we actively ask and answer questions, we are more likely to retain information and gain a deeper understanding of the material. We can use various questions, such as open-ended, closed, leading, or probing, to engage in topics and create an interactive learning environment.

When encouraged to participate in questioning, we become more invested in learning and more likely to acquire new knowledge and skills.

Building Engagement

Questioning fosters engagement and curiosity. We can stimulate and maintain our interest in subjects by asking thought-provoking and relevant questions. Engaging our minds through questioning increases participation, enhancing learning outcomes.

Effective questioning techniques can establish a positive climate where we feel comfortable expressing our ideas and opinions.

This environment promotes collaboration and peer learning together to explore and analyze ideas.

Types of Questions

Questioning promotes learning, fosters critical thinking, and facilitates communication. This section introduces different types of questions that can be used to elicit various responses and stimulate meaningful conversations. It is important to be aware of these distinctions when constructing questions, whether in an educational, professional, or personal context.

Open-Ended Questions

Open-ended questions encourage a comprehensive, thoughtful response and foster an open conversation. These questions typically begin with words such as “what,” “how,” “why,” or “describe.” Some examples of open-ended questions:

• What did you learn from that experience?
• How would you approach this problem?
• Why do you think this is the best course of action?

Open-ended questions can be used to probe further into a topic, foster creative thinking, or gather opinions or insights about a specific issue. They allow respondents to express their thoughts and opinions more freely and deeply than closed-ended questions.

When making documentary films, I found open-ended questions essential in garnering worthy testimonies from interviewees on camera.

Closed-Ended Questions

Closed-ended questions typically have a limited set of possible answers, such as “yes” or “no,” “true” or “false,” or a choice between multiple options. These questions help obtain specific information or gauge someone’s knowledge. Examples of closed-ended questions:

• Did you complete the project on time?
• Is that statement true or false?
• Which option do you prefer: A, B, or C?

While closed-ended questions can limit the depth of responses, they can provide focused answers and streamline decision-making in certain situations. Additionally, closed-ended questions are effective for surveys or assessments requiring quantitative data analysis.

Socratic Questioning

Socratic questioning refers to a disciplined and thoughtful style of questioning that encourages critical thinking and deep reflection. Socratic questioning can include clarifying, analyzing, probing assumptions, questioning viewpoints, and exploring implications. Examples of Socratic questions:

• What evidence supports your claim?
• What might be the consequences of that decision?
• Can you explain the reasoning behind your opinion?

Socratic questioning can enrich discussions, stimulate critical thinking, and challenge assumptions or biases. This approach helps develop a deeper understanding of a topic and fosters an environment of inquiry and intellectual curiosity.

Benefits of Questioning

Questioning serves a crucial role in personal and professional growth. This section discusses the various benefits of questioning, focusing on three key sub-sections: Improved Decision Making, Enhanced Problem Solving, and Increased Creativity.

Improved Decision Making

Asking the right questions helps individuals gather vital information to make informed decisions. It allows them to explore different perspectives and weigh the pros and cons of each option.

Furthermore, questioning promotes critical thinking, enabling individuals to evaluate the credibility of sources and the accuracy of information. In the long run, a proper questioning practice builds a foundation for sound decision-making skills and helps individuals achieve better outcomes.

Enhanced Problem Solving

Questioning is a powerful tool for identifying the root causes of problems and developing efficient solutions. By asking relevant questions, individuals can isolate the critical aspects of a challenge and connect the dots between different pieces of information. This process fosters clarity and understanding, which are essential for effective problem-solving.

The habit of questioning also helps individuals develop the skills of pattern recognition, analysis, and synthesis, contributing to their overall problem-solving abilities.

Increased Creativity

One of the main drivers of creativity and innovation is the ability to ask open-ended, thought-provoking questions. Effective questioning encourages individuals to think outside the box, foster curiosity, and cultivate a sense of wonder.

When people engage in questioning, they form new patterns and connections in the brain, resulting in increased mental flexibility and adaptability. This enhanced mental agility enables individuals to consider alternative viewpoints and generate unique ideas, ultimately leading to heightened creativity.

Questioning in Education

The role of questioning in promoting a deeper understanding of subject matter.

Questioning is crucial in promoting a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Educators can stimulate discussion, foster creative and critical thinking, and identify student misconceptions by engaging students with thought-provoking questions.

This process helps students review, restate, and emphasize essential concepts, making them more likely to retain and apply their knowledge meaningfully.

Different Types of Questions and Their Impact on Student Learning

In the classroom, various types of questions can impact student learning differently. Some examples include:

• Lower-order questions: These questions typically focus on recalling information and basic comprehension. While they help build a foundation, they may not push students to develop higher-order thinking skills.
• Higher-order questions require students to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information, promoting deeper learning and critical thinking.
• Inquiry-based questions are open-ended and designed to inspire curiosity, empowering students to participate in their learning journey actively.

Supporting Inquiry-Based Learning

Educators can support inquiry-based learning by fostering an environment in which questions are encouraged and valued. This approach prioritizes student curiosity, allowing them to explore the subject matter through their questions and ideas rather than relying solely on teacher-led instruction.

Inquiry-based learning helps students develop essential skills such as independent thinking, problem-solving, and effective communication.

Developing Essential Skills

Effective questioning techniques can help students develop essential skills beyond the classroom. By engaging with meaningful questions, students learn to think critically, communicate complex ideas, and collaborate with peers to solve problems. These abilities are vital for academic success and personal and professional growth.

Overcoming Barriers to Effective Questioning

Effective questioning is essential in promoting learning and critical thinking. However, specific barriers may hinder the questioning process.

Dealing with Fear

Fear is one of the main barriers to effective questioning, as it may discourage us from asking questions or expressing our thoughts. To address this issue:

• We should foster an open, non-judgmental atmosphere where everyone feels comfortable asking questions.
• Encourage people to practice asking questions in a non-threatening setting, such as small groups or pair works.
• Offer positive reinforcement for questioning, emphasizing the value of curiosity and learning from mistakes.
• In an educational context, teach students how to ask clear, concise questions by providing examples and guidance.

Cultivating a Positive Environment

A positive environment is also crucial in facilitating effective questioning. We can cultivate a conducive learning atmosphere by:

• Modeling open-mindedness and demonstrating respect for diverse opinions.
• Creating opportunities for collaborative learning that encourage inquiry and problem-solving.
• Recognizing and addressing any biases, stereotypes, or misconceptions that may hinder questioning.
• Building trust by consistently assigning equal value to their contributions and promoting a sense of camaraderie.

Encouraging Peer Support

Peer support plays a vital role in overcoming the barriers to effective questioning. To nurture peer support with students, for example:

• Implement collaborative learning activities, such as group discussions, debates, or projects, where students work together towards a common goal.
• Teach students the importance and value of supporting their peers in the quest for knowledge, highlighting the collective benefits of a knowledge-sharing culture.
• Encourage students to offer positive feedback and constructive criticism.
• Provide opportunities for students to teach and learn from each other, illustrating the power of a knowledge-sharing network.

By implementing these strategies for Dealing with Fear, Cultivating a Positive Environment, and Encouraging Peer Support, teachers can effectively overcome the barriers to questioning in the learning environment.

Professional Development for Effective Questioning

Effective questioning is crucial for educators, team leaders, and professionals in various fields. As such, seeking professional development opportunities to hone this skill is essential. Focusing on different questioning techniques can lead to better communication, enhanced problem-solving, and improved group dynamics.

One way to develop questioning skills is by attending workshops, seminars, or communication and questioning techniques courses. Examples include the Chicago Center for Teaching and the Center for Teaching Innovation programs. These offerings provide information on asking open-ended questions, encouraging higher-order thinking, and stimulating group discussion.

Another approach is self-reflective practice, which involves reviewing and evaluating one’s questioning habits. This can be done by:

• Auditing the types of questions you ask in various contexts
• Analyzing the impact of your questions on group dynamics
• Identifying areas for improvement and setting specific goals

Online resources, like articles on questioning techniques and professional advice, can also help supplement professional development efforts. These sources offer tips and examples of effective probing, leading, and open questions that can be adapted to various settings.

Finally, engaging with peers and mentors is essential to professional development. Participating in professional learning communities, seeking feedback from colleagues, and observing skilled questioners in action can provide valuable insights on improving one’s questioning techniques.

The Impact of Effective Questioning on Comprehension and Idea Generation

Effective questioning is crucial in fostering deep comprehension and promoting idea generation. Using thought-provoking questions, we can actively engage with the content and think critically about the subject matter.

This approach reinforces learning and encourages us to develop our perspectives and ideas.

Utilizing various questioning techniques allows us to address different learning styles and preferences, catering to our diverse needs.

How to Tackle Critical Reading Assumption Questions

Assumption questions ask you to find the unstated link between a question’s premise and its conclusion. Assumptions are crucial in understanding and refuting arguments, so they play a large role in two major Critical Reasoning question types . In this post, we’ll cover GMAT Critical Reasoning tips and practice questions to help you tackle assumption questions.

How to Tackle Critical Reasoning Assumption Questions

Luckily, arguments on GMAT Critical Reasoning questions are relatively formulaic, so let’s go over the basics first:

• A premise is the starting point of the argument.
• The conclusion is what the author wants you to believe by the end of the argument.
• The assumption is the missing link between the premise and conclusion. Think of it like the linchpin holding the whole thing together. You can strengthen an argument by validating its assumption, or weaken the argument by denying the assumption.

Assumption questions will usually ask you, “Which would most strengthen the argument?” or “Which of the following would most weaken the argument?” (the latter is one of the most common on Critical Reasoning).

Make Your Assumption a General Statement

This is a crucial point to remember: assumptions are most often general statements , not specific statements. When you identify the assumption, you can omit any specific people, places, or items mentioned.

If my premise is “Fred has quality A,” and my conclusion is “Therefore, Fred has quality B,” Fred is a specific person that we can omit (sorry, Fred). The assumption would be something like “most/all folks who have quality A also have quality B.”

Identify the Assumption

Isolating an assumption is an important skill and one of our favorite GMAT Critical Reasoning tips. Let’s try it with this argument:

• The premise is “Hawaii is a place with beautiful scenery.” (We can safely assume that at least 99 out of a hundred people would agree with that!) Hawaii is the specific, so you can omit that—the final premise has to do with a “place with beautiful scenery.”
• The conclusion is “trouble concentrating.”
• The assumption must provide a link. If we put those together with a strong logical connection, we get this assumption: “People in places with beautiful scenery generally have trouble concentrating.” Even though it’s a little absurd, that’s a possible way to state the assumption!

It would most strengthen this argument if one could somehow provide data or evidence supporting this assumption. This argument would be weakened if we could cite data or evidence that directly contradicts the assumption.

Now, consider an argument you’re more likely to see on the GMAT:

• If we drop the specifics, the premise is about increasing spending on advertising, and the conclusion is: more new customers. An assumption would link these.
• A very broad assumption: “Companies that increase what they spend on advertising generally see an increase in new customers.”
• A slightly more specific assumption: “When companies in the steel industry increase advertising, this generally results in more new customers.”

This is a relatively poor argument, and if we were asked for a statement to weaken it, the best choice would be something that zeroed in on the assumption. For example, something like Studies of companies in the steel industry show little correlation between advertising dollars and new customers strikes right at the center of the argument.

Use the Negation Test to Verify the Assumption

If you want to verify that your assumption is really the correct one, you can use the Negation Test —put simply, try negating the statement and seeing if the conclusion is still true. If you haven’t tried the Negation Test yet (another of our key GMAT Critical Reasoning tips!), then I would definitely recommend checking out our post and studying this powerful technique for isolating assumptions of arguments.

Practice Questions and Explanations

1. Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reasons given for that conclusion?

Click here for the answer and video explanation!

2. Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reasons given for that conclusion?

3. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the conclusion depends?

If folks with Laestrygonian Disease cannot assimilate the Vitamin C in the rice, then it won’t help them, and eating the fortified rice will not provide them any particular benefit. If we negate this option, it shatters the argument. This is a true assumption.

(A) This may be true, although I am skeptical that any human-made improved food would be better than the fruits designed by Nature! Regardless, whether this is true or not does not have any bearing on how helpful the fortified rice will be for the folks with Laestrygonian Disease. This option is incorrect.

(B) This is intriguing. Let’s negate this. Suppose it were the exact same problem, say, the exact same missing enzyme, that made it impossible to digest both fruit and vitamin supplements. Then what? Would that mean they also couldn’t digest the fortified rice, or get the vitamin C they need from it? We cannot say. It’s conceivable that the argument could still work, so negating this does not destroy the argument. This is not an assumption.

(D) Let’s negate this. Suppose the fortified rice benefits everyone—even the no-carbs fanatic who hasn’t touched carbs in a decade: even when this person breaks his carb-fast and has the fortified rice, he has benefit from it. What then? Whether these other people benefit or not from the fortified rice has no bearing on whether it helps the folks with Laestrygonian Disease. This choice is incorrect.

(E) Let’s negate this. Suppose we can infused dozens of other vitamins and minerals into the rice, all with high nutritional yield. That would only be good for the folks with Laestrygonian Disease—the more vitamins, the better! It certainly would not impact whether these folks derived any benefit from the vitamin C in the rice. This choice is incorrect.

Final Thoughts

Assumption questions will require you to read closely, but with practice you can identify the missing link. For more GMAT Critical Reasoning tips, check out our introduction to the CR section , then test your knowledge further with a GMAT Verbal diagnostic test .

Mike served as a GMAT Expert at Magoosh, helping create hundreds of lesson videos and practice questions to help guide GMAT students to success. He was also featured as “member of the month” for over two years at GMAT Club . Mike holds an A.B. in Physics (graduating magna cum laude ) and an M.T.S. in Religions of the World, both from Harvard. Beyond standardized testing, Mike has over 20 years of both private and public high school teaching experience specializing in math and physics. In his free time, Mike likes smashing foosballs into orbit, and despite having no obvious cranial deficiency, he insists on rooting for the NY Mets. Learn more about the GMAT through Mike’s Youtube video explanations and resources like What is a Good GMAT Score? and the GMAT Diagnostic Test .

View all posts

More from Magoosh

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *