Clarity

Clarity is the 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 don't yet know what it
is saying. For example, the question, "What can be done about the education system in
Alberta?" is unclear. In order to address the question adequately, we need a clearer
understanding of the nature of the question/problem/issue at hand. 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?"
 Questions fostering clarity:
o Could you elaborate further on that point?
o Could you express that point in another way?
o Could you give me an illustration?
o Could you give me an example/non-example?
 Terms related to clarity:
o Specific details, elaboration, examples, non-examples, apt illustrations and
descriptions.

Accuracy

A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight."
Accuracy refers to the degree to which a statement reflects what is true or correct. Accuracy
involves being correct (as much as possible) from within a specific context.
 Questions fostering accuracy:
o Is that really true?
o How could we check that?
o How could we find out if that is true?
 Terms related to accuracy:
o True, false, factual, verify, and test, check, plausible, correct information/data.

Precision

A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Lance is overweight." (We
don’t know how overweight Lance is; one pound or 500 pounds.) Again, the degree of precision
required is always context-specific.
 Questions fostering precision:
o Could you give more details?
o Could you be more specific?
o Could you be more exact?
 Terms related to precision:
o Exact to the required level of detail, refined, calculated, rigorous, meticulous, and
careful with exactitude.
Breadth:

A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in
an argument from only the conservative or liberal standpoint; such a line of reasoning gets
deeply into an issue but only recognizes the insights of one standpoint.)
 Questions fostering breadth:
o Do we need to consider another point of view?
o Is there another way to look at this question?
o What would this look like from an alternative perspective?
o What would this look like from the viewpoint of . . .?
o What related areas of research do we need to further explore?
 Terms related to breadth:
o Alternative perspectives, related areas/concepts/information, dialectical, open,
fair and full-minded, inter-related, integrative, interdependent, diversity.

Depth

A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lacking depth).
For example, the statement, "Just say No!" which is often used to discourage children and teens
from using 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. Depth of thinking occurs when the
complex structures of a discipline, issue, problem or question are sufficiently attended to.
 Questions fostering depth:
o Why is this question/problem/issue difficult?
o How does the answer/solution/resolution address the complexities of the
question/problem/issue?
o How are we taking into account possible problems with the question itself?
o What complex structures might need exploring in order to address this issue?
(ex. research methods)
o What concepts are grounding these research methods? Are those concepts
sufficient?
o Are we considering the most significant factors involved in this issue?
 Terms related to depth:
o Complexity, structures, conceptual, valid, reliability, intensity, profound, insightful.
Logic

When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When combinations of
thoughts are mutually supporting, the thinking is logical. When a combination of thoughts is
internally incoherent/inconsistent/contradictory, they are not mutually supporting. Hence, such a
combination of thoughts is not logical.
 Questions fostering logic:
o Does this really make sense?
o Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow?
o What are the premises of your argument? Do they support its conclusion?
o But before you implied this, and now you are saying that; how can both be true?
o Is your argument sound (valid and true)?
 Terms related to logic:
o Validity, internal coherence, soundness, consistent/ inconsistent, deductive,
inductive, dialogical, dialectical, modal, fallacy, argumentation, premise, reasons,
conclusion.
Fairness

Human thinking and reasoning is often biased in the direction of the thinker - in what are the
perceived interests of the thinker. Often, we don’t naturally consider the rights and needs of
others as being on the same plane with our own rights and needs. This attitude can
dangerously skew our thinking, creating biases and prejudices. Hence, we must actively work to
make sure we are applying the intellectual standard of fairness to our thinking. Since we
naturally see ourselves as fair even when we are unfair, this can be difficult. A commitment to
fairness is a starting place.
 Questions fostering fairness:
o Do I have a vested interest in this issue?
o Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?
o Can I summarize the opposing position in a way that would satisfy the people
who hold it?
 Terms related to fairness:
o Alternative positions, counter-arguments, self-critical, appreciative, equitable,
balanced, fair-minded, honest appraisal, integrity, respectful.