The Miniature Guide

to

Critical Thinking
Concepts & Tools

by
Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder
The Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org
1

Contents

Why Critical Thinking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Elements of Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A Checklist for Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 6
Questions Using the Elements of Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Problem of Egocentric Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Universal Intellectual Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 11
Analysing the Logic of Articles and Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Criteria for Evaluating Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 16
Three Kinds of Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A Template for Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A Checklist for Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
What Critical Thinkers Routinely Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Stages of Critical Thinking Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
xxx

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem:
Everyone thinks that it is in our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself,
is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of
our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality
of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and quality of life. Excellence
in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

A Definition:
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking about any subject, content or problem in
which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skilfully taking charge
of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards on them.

The Result:
A well cultivated critical thinker:

Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and

precisely.

Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to

interpret it effectively.

Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against

relevant criteria and standards.

Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognising

and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical
consequences.

Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex

problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and selfcorrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and
mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving
abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

The Elements of Thought

Pauls Wheel of Reason

Used with Sensitivity to the Universal Intellectual Standards

Clarity

Accuracy

Precision
Relevance

Depth

Significance

A Checklist for Reasoning

1)

2)

All reasoning has a PURPOSE.

Take time to state your purpose clearly.

Distinguish your purpose from related purposes.

Check periodically to be sure that you are still on target.

Choose significant and realistic purposes.

All reasoning is an attempt to FIGURE something out, to settle some

QUESTION, solve some PROBLEM.

Take time to clearly and precisely state the question at issue.

Express the question in several ways to clarify its meaning and scope.

Break the question into sub-questions.

Identify if the question has one right answer, is a matter of mere opinion,
or requires reasoning from more than one point of view.

3)

All reasoning is based on ASSUMPTIONS.

Clearly identify your assumptions and determine whether they are

justifiable.

4)

Consider how your assumptions are shaping your point of view.

All reasoning is done from some POINT OF VIEW.

Identify your point of view.

Seek other points of view and identify their strengths as well as

weaknesses.

Strive to be fairminded in evaluating all points of view.

5)

All reasoning is based on DATA, INFORMATION and EVIDENCE.

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

Search for information that opposes your position as well as information

that supports it.

Make sure that all information used is clear, accurate, and relevant to the
question at issue.

6)

Make sure you have gathered sufficient information.

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

IDEAS.

7)

Identify key concepts and explain them clearly.

Consider alternative concepts or alternative definitions to concepts.

Make sure you are using concepts with care and precision.

All reasoning contains INFERENCES or INTERPRETATIONS by which we

draw CONCLUSIONS and give meaning to data.

8)

Infer only what the evidence implies.

Check inferences for their consistency with each other.

Identify assumptions which lead you to your inferences.

All reasoning leads somewhere or has IMPLICATIONS and

CONSEQUENCES.

Trace the implications and consequences that follow from your reasoning.

Search for negative as well as positive implications.

Consider all possible consequences.

Questions Using the Elements of Thought

(in a paper, an activity, a reading assignment)

Purpose

What am I trying to accomplish?

What is my central aim? My purpose?

Information

What information am I using in coming to that conclusion?

What experience have I had to support this claim?
What information do I need to settle this question?

Inferences /
Conclusions

How did I reach this conclusion?

Is there another way to interpret the information?

Concepts

Assumptions

What is the main idea here?

Could I explain this idea?

What am I taking for granted?

What assumption has led me to that conclusion?

Implications /
Consequences

If someone accepted my position, what would be the

implications?
What am I implying?

Points of View

From what point of view am I looking at this issue?

Is there another point of view I should consider?

Questions

What question am I raising?

What question am I addressing?

The Problem of Egocentric Thinking

Egocentric thinking comes from the unfortunate fact that humans do not naturally
consider the rights and needs of others, nor do we naturally appreciate the point of
view of others or the limitations in our own point of view. We become explicitly aware
of our egocentric thinking only if trained to do so. We do not naturally recognise our
egocentric assumptions, the egocentric way we use information, the egocentric way
we interpret data, the source of our egocentric concepts and ideas, the implications
of our egocentric thought. We do not naturally recognise our self-serving perspective.
As humans, we live with the unrealistic but confident sense that we have
fundamentally figured out the way things actually are, and that we have done this
objectively. We naturally believe in our intuitive perceptions however inaccurate.
Instead of using intellectual standards in thinking, we often use self-centred
psychological (rather than intellectual) standards to determine what to believe and
what to reject. Here are the most commonly used psychological standards in human
thinking.
ITS TRUE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT. Innate egocentrism: I assume that what I believe is true, even
though I have never questioned the basis for many of my beliefs.
ITS TRUE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT. Innate sociocentrism: I assume that the dominant beliefs
within the groups to which I belong are true, even though I have never questioned the basis for many
of these beliefs.
ITS TRUE BECAUSE I WANT TO BELIEVE IT. Innate wish fulfilment: I believe in, for example,
accounts of behaviour that put me (or the groups to which I belong) in a positive rather than a negative
light even though I have not seriously considered the evidence for the more negative account. I
believe what feels good, what supports my other beliefs, what does not require me to change my
thinking in any significant way, what does not require me to admit I have been wrong.
ITS TRUE BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED IT. Innate self-validation: I have a strong
desire to maintain beliefs that I have long held, even though I have not seriously considered the extent
to which those beliefs are justified, given the evidence.
ITS TRUE BECAUSE IT IS IN MY SELFIS INTEREST TO BELIEVE IT. Innate selfishness: I hold
fast to beliefs that justify my getting more power, money, or personal advantage even though these
beliefs are not grounded in sound reasoning or evidence.

Since humans are naturally prone to assess thinking in keeping with the above
criteria, it is not surprising that we, as a species, have not developed a significant
interest in establishing and teaching legitimate intellectual standards. It is not
surprising that our thinking is often flawed. We are truly the self-deceived animal.
8

Universal Intellectual Standards and questions that

can be used to apply them
Universal intellectual standards are standards which must be applied to thinking
whenever one is interested in checking the quality of reasoning about a problem,
issue or situation. To think critically entails having command of these standards. To
help students learn them, teachers should pose questions which probe student
thinking, questions which hold students accountable for their thinking, questions
which, through consistent use by the teacher in the classroom, become internalised
by students as questions they need to ask themselves.
The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become infused in the
thinking of students, forming part of their inner voice, which guides them to better and
better reasoning. There are a wide variety of intellectual standards, including:

Clarity:
Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another
way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example? Clarity is a
gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is
accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we dont yet
know what it is saying. For example, the question What can be done about the
education system in America? is unclear. In order to adequately address the
question, we would need to have a clear understanding of what the person asking
the question is considering the problem to be. A clearer question might be What
can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help
them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?

Accuracy:
Is that really true? How could we check on that? How could we find out if that is true?
A statement can be clear, but not accurate, as in Most dogs are over 100 kg in
weight.

Precision:
Could you give me more details? Could you be more specific? A statement can be
both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in Jack is overweight. (We dont know
how overweight Jack is, 1 kg or 100 kg).
9

Relevance:
How is that connected to the main question? How does that bear on the issue? A
statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at
issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a
course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, effort
does not measure the quality of student learning, and when that is so, effort is
irrelevant to their appropriate grade.

Depth:
How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking
into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant
factors? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial
(that is, lack of depth). For example, the statement Just Say No which is often used
to discourage children and teens from taking drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and
relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue,
the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal
with the complexities of the issue.

Breadth:
Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this
question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this
look like from the point of view of? A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate,
precise, relevant, and deep, but lacks breadth (as in an argument from either the
conservative or liberal standpoints which gets deeply into an issue, but only
recognises the insights of one side of the question).

Logic:
Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that
follow? But before you implied this and now you are saying that, I dont see how both
can be true. When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order.
When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in
combination, the thinking is logical. When the combination is not mutually
supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not make sense, the
combination is not logical.
10

Clarity

Could you elaborate further?

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

Accuracy

How could we check on that?

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

Precision

Could you be more specific?

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

Relevance

How does that relate to the problem?

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

Depth

Breadth

Logic

Significance

Fairness

What factors make this a difficult problem?

What are some of the complexities of this question?
What are some of the difficulties that we need to deal with?

Do we need to look at this from another perspective?

Do we need to consider another point of view?
Do we need to look at this in other ways?

Does all this make sense together?

Does your first paragraph fit in with your last?
Does what you say follow from the evidence?

Is this the most important problem to consider?

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

Do I have any vested interest in the issue?

Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?
11

Template for Analysing the Logic of an Article

Take an article that you have been assigned to read for class, completing the logic of it using the
template below. This template can be modified for analysing the logic of a chapter in a textbook.

The Logic of ______________________________ (name of the article).

1)

The main purpose of this article is __________________________________.

(State as accurately as possible the authors purpose for writing the article).

2)

The key question that the author is addressing is ______________________.

(Figure out the key question in the mind of the author when he / she wrote the
article).

3)

The most important information in the article is _______________________.

(Figure out the facts, experiences, data the author is using to support his / her
conclusions).

4)

The main inferences / conclusions in this article are ____________________.

(Identify the key conclusions the author comes to and presents in the article).

5)

The key concept(s) we need to understand in this article is (are) __________

________________________________. By these concepts the author means
________________________________. (Figure out the most important ideas
you would have to understand in order to understand the authors line of
reasoning).

6)

The main assumption(s) underlying the authors thinking is (are) __________

________________________________. (Figure out what the author is taking
for granted [that might be questioned]).

7)

a)

If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are ______

__________________________. (What consequences are likely to
follow if people take the authors line of reasoning seriously?)

b)

If we fail to take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are

__________________________. (What consequences are likely to
follow if people ignore the authors reasoning?)

8)

The main point(s) of view presented in this article is (are) _______________

________________________________. (What is the author looking at, and
how is he / she seeing it?)
12

Criteria for Evaluating Reasoning

1)

Purpose: What is the purpose of the reasoner? Is the purpose clearly stated
or clearly implied? Is it justifiable?

2)

Question: Is the question at issue well-stated? Is it clear and unbiased? Does

the expression of the question do justice to the complexity of the matter at
issue? Are the question and purpose directly relevant to each other?

3)

Information: Does the writer cite relevant evidence, experiences, and / or

information essential to the issue? Is the information accurate? Does the writer
address the complexities of the issue?

4)

Concepts: Does the writer clarify key concepts when necessary? Are the
concepts used justifiably?

5)

Assumptions: Does the writer show a sensitivity to what he or she is taking

for granted or assuming? (Insofar as those assumptions might reasonably be
questioned?) Does the writer use questionable assumptions without
addressing problems which might be inherent in those assumptions?

6)

Inferences: Does the writer develop a line of reasoning explaining well how
he / she is arriving at his / her main conclusions?

7)

Point of View: Does the writer show a sensitivity to alternative relevant points
of view or lines of reasoning? Does he / she consider and respond to
objections framed from other relevant points of view?

8)

Implications: Does the writer show a sensitivity to the implications and

consequences of the position he / she is taking?

13

14

Essential Intellectual Traits

Intellectual Humility

verses

Intellectual Arrogance

Having a consciousness of the limits of ones knowledge, including a sensitivity to

circumstances in which ones native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively;
sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of ones viewpoint. Intellectual humility
depends on recognising that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It
does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual
pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical
foundations, or lack of such foundations, of ones beliefs.
Intellectual Courage

verses

Intellectual Cowardice

Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or
viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have
not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas
considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in
part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or
misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and
uncritically accept what we have learned. Intellectual courage comes into play
here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered
dangerous or absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our
social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances.
The penalties for non-conformity can be severe.
Intellectual Empathy

verses

Intellectual Close-mindedness

Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of

others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of
our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of longstanding thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct
accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises,
assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the
willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an
intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being
similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.

15

Intellectual Autonomy

verses

Intellectual Conformity

Having a rational control of ones beliefs, values, and inferences. The ideal of critical
thinking is to learn to think for oneself, to gain command over ones thought
processes. It entails a commitment to analysing and evaluating beliefs on the basis of
reason and evidence, to question when it is rational to question, to believe when it is
rational to believe, and to conform when it is rational to conform.
Intellectual Integrity

verses

Intellectual Hypocrisy

Recognition of the need to be true to ones own thinking; to be consistent in the

intellectual standards one applies; to hold ones self to the same rigorous standards
of evidence and proof to which one holds ones antagonists; to practice what one
advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in
ones own thought and action.
Intellectual Perseverance

verses

Intellectual Laziness

Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of
difficulties, obstacles and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite
the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and
unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper
understanding or insight.
Confidence in Reason

verses

Distrust of Reason and Evidence

Confident that, in the long run, ones own higher interests and those of humankind at
large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to
come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that,
with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves,
to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and
logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite
the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society
as we know it.
Fairmindedness

verses

Intellectual Unfairness

Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to
ones own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of ones
friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without
reference to ones own advantage or the advantage of ones group.
16

Three Kinds of Questions

In approaching a question, it is useful to figure out what type of question it is. Is it a
question with one definitive answer? Is it a question that calls for a subjective choice?
Or does the question require you to consider competing answers?

17

A Template for Problem Solving

To be an effective problem solver:
1)

Figure out, and regularly re-articulate, your goals, purposes, and needs.
Recognise problems as emergent obstacles to reaching your goals, achieving
your purposes, and satisfying your needs.

2)

Wherever possible, take problems one-by-one. State the problem as clearly

and precisely as you can.

3)

Study the problem to make clear the kind of problem you are dealing with.
Figure out, for example, what sorts of things you are going to have to do to
solve it. Distinguish problems over which you have some control from
problems over which you have no control. Set aside the problems over which
you have no control. Concentrate your efforts on those problems you can
potentially solve.

4)

Figure out the information you need and actively seek that information.

5)

Carefully analyse and interpret the information you collect, drawing what
reasonable inferences you can.

6)

Figure out your options for action. What can you do in the short term? In the
long term? Recognise explicitly your limitations as far as money, time, power.

7)

Evaluate your options, taking into account their advantages and

disadvantages in the situation you are in.

8)

Adopt a strategic approach to the problem and follow through on that strategy.
This may involve direct action or a carefully thought-through wait-and-see
strategy.

9)

When you act, monitor the implications of your actions as they begin to
emerge. Be ready at a moments notice to revise your strategy if the situation
requires it. Be prepared to shift your strategy or your analysis or statement of
the problem, or all three, as more information about the problem becomes
available to you.
18

A Checklist for Assessment

1)

What are you assessing and why? (Be precise).

2)

Ask probing, evaluative questions (that reflect your

purpose).

3)

Specify the information you need to collect (to

answer your question).

4)

Decide on criteria or standards. (Are they practical,

reasonable, and in line with your purpose?)

5)

Be clear about what exactly you are trying to find

out.

6)

Are there any unintended negative consequences of

your mode of evaluation?

7)

Review your evaluation overall. Is it coherent,

logical, realistic and practical?

19

Critical thinkers routinely apply the intellectual standards

to the elements of reasoning in order to develop
intellectual traits.

20

Stages of Critical Thinking Development

21