1

Critical Thinking
Portfolio

Jenita Layden
Education 4391
December 9, 2020
 2

Table of Contents:

Page Number: Title:

1 Title Page
2 Table of Contents
3 Definitions of Critical Thinking
3-5 Elements of Reasoning
5-8 Intellectual Standards
9 Inquiry
9-11 Guidelines for Inquiry
11-12 Fallibilism, A Reasoned judgment, An Issue
13 Characteristics of an Issue
13- 25 Paragraph descriptions and Examples
26 Bibliography
 3

Part 1: Definitions of Critical Thinking

1) Critical Thinking: Critical thinking is “forming a closely reasoned judgement after paying

close attention to the evidence” (Nosich, 47).

2) Critical Thinking: Critical thinking is when the thinking is reflective (thinking about your own

thinking), and it has high standards to meet (it must be done well) (Nosich, 47).

3) Personal Definition of Critical Thinking: critical thinking is a way of thinking that goes

beyond widely accepted ideas, biases, and personal values to come to the most justified way of

thinking about a particular issue.

Part 2: Paragraph Descriptions

Elements of Reasoning:

1) Purpose: The purpose is the goals or objectives of what you are doing. Purpose can be

identified in anything that contains the process of reasoning. Purposes come through asking

questions, such as why this is being presented, and why it is being presented in this way. Picking

out the purpose can become a skill we automatically use with practice. Purpose helps us structure

our own work and that of others in our own mind. The purpose is at the center of asking relevant

questions and high-order thinking.

2) Point of view: The point of view element in reasoning deals with the fact that looking at an

issue from a different point of view will lead to different conclusions. We all have a unique

psychological point of view, based on our own experiences. Some disciplines call for you to use

a particular point of view, such as with biology you would use a biological point of view rather
 4

than an ethical one. Learning to use a specific point of view in a specific discipline allows you to

make valuable findings. You should be learning new perspectives and seeing issues in ways you

have not seen them before. Evaluating, comparing, and relating to the points of view other

people have are all necessary skills for critical thinking.

3) Questions: When we are reasoning through something, we are seeking to answer at least one

question. This is looking into a problem or issue. The question is more specific than the purpose,

as you are addressing a question to achieve that purpose. All reasoning is about answering a

question, so you must understand and bring to light what that question really is before moving

forward in your reasoning. After you identify the main question in an issue, you can go deeper

by asking more questions. Asking more questions helps you answer your specific questions,

making sure you don’t leave anything of importance out, thus creating guidelines for your

inquiry.

4) Concepts: Concepts are the big terms you reason through. You should be asking yourself

what concepts you need to look at for your inquiry. At other times, you should be looking at the

definitions of a concept from other sources, as you may not understand the concept very well yet

yourself. Looking at concepts by describing them as one word is helpful for remembering and

being concise in your reasoning and to apply the concept to a variety of contexts. A critical

thinker is aware of all concepts relevant to their inquiry.

5) Assumptions: Once you begin to reason through an issue, you start with your own

assumptions about the issue. This can make you look deep within yourself, as many of the

assumptions we hold are not always easy for us to identify or admit. When we can identify

assumptions an author is not even aware of, we gain insight to their work. We should not just

focus on the assumptions of others, but also on our own assumptions. Critical thinkers are aware
 5

of their assumptions as they write. Critical thinkers oversee their thinking when they are aware of

their assumptions.

6) Implications and consequences: Implications and consequences are beyond where your

reasoning has ended. If you decide you have a particular position on an issue, you should be

looking beyond at the implications of the issue, which can be either good, bad, or neutral.

Thinking critically is beyond simply identifying implications and consequences, it is looking into

the likelihood of them happening. At times you may even have to accept unwelcome

implications of your decisions, understanding that this is a price you must pay. Looking beyond

allows you to take charge of your thinking, going beyond in ways you perhaps did not explore

before.

7) Conclusions: Conclusions are your interpretations. We need to be able to distinguish the

differences between information and a person’s interpretation of information. A critical thinker

will compare their interpretations to those of other people, they will determine what

interpretations are most reasonable, and will contextualize the interpretations. Interpretations can

also be grouped to show where they came from, and how the conclusion came to be. When you

categorize your own conclusions and those of others, you gain insight to what the conclusion is

based on.

Intellectual Standards:

1) Clarity: Clarity comes when your thinking is easily understood. When you state exactly what

you mean and can elaborate, explain, and give good examples of it. When you are seeking to

have clarity in your arguments, you need to break down relevant concepts so you can fully
 6

understand each part of your argument. There are two parts to clarity; that of understanding

yourself, and that of clearly explaining what you mean to others. At times, we may feel we have

achieved clarity about someone else’s work, but we can check our understanding by using the

SEE-I model and we may even find it difficult to complete. When you can clearly state what the

concept is, elaborate on that concept, exemplify it, and illustrate it, you have achieved clarity.

When explaining your ideas, you should consider your audience, the subject matter, and your

own stage of thinking; this helps those who are listening to or reading your ideas understand

exactly what you are explaining.

2) Accuracy: A critical thinker must have an eye out for accuracy in their own arguments, along

with the arguments of other people. Our thoughts and words are accurate when they describe

how things truly are. It does not matter if we think something is accurate in our own opinion, we

must be able to check accuracy with facts. Relating the words ‘true’ and ‘accuracy’ to each other

is not helpful, because accuracy relates to the best judgement or best answer based on evidence.

Informed conclusions that have very good reasoning are very likely to be accurate. Our own

accuracy in thought can be difficult to obtain at times, especially if we let too much of ourselves

or our own experiences influence us. When we hear something that threatens us, being too

comfortable with only our own beliefs, having too much wishful thinking, and generalizing very

quicky; causes us to impede our own accuracy. Testing our ideas and opinions to those of

opposing views helps us to correct and establish our accuracy.

3) Precision: Precision comes with detail. When you are specific and detailed enough to reason

through an issue, you have achieved precision. Giving enough details ensures you pinpoint what

you are trying to say. Being clear and being precise are related, but when you give both clarity

and precision in your arguments, you are reaching a level of excellence. It is easier to settle for
 7

being general rather than precise, but precision allows us to see the larger picture. When we can

anticipate when others will need details for our reasoning, when we report on our findings

exactly as we found them, and when we take the time to look up details, we are successful at

achieving precision.

4) Depth: Depth is about diving deep into your reasoning and arguments. If you are giving

opinions without evidence, you are lacking depth. You must look beyond surface questions and

issues at hand, identify the complexities within it, and address underlying issues when answering

a question. Oversimplifying an issue makes it shallow and not very informing in the long run.

Some issues or sides of an argument may only need to be highlighted, but your main argument

and strong opposing arguments should be researched in-depth. Depth is obtained when we study

our own psychological attitudes. Looking into theories that relate to issues is part of reaching

depth in your argument, as you begin to understand more about a specific part of the issue.

Superficial answers can allow us to have our opinions be known, but they do not provide enough

depth to persuade others and even ourselves at times to agree with our general argument.

5) Breadth: Breadth comes by looking at various arguments. When more than one, two, or even

three sides of an argument are studied, it provides a great breadth to your inquiry. Other

perspectives should always be addressed, as you identify them, and take account of them through

your reasoning. Narrow-mindedness is only focusing on your own opinion or one opposing

opinion; this is the opposite of having breadth in your reasoning. Broadening your thinking can

be taken in the form of simply looking for more opinions and asking people with different

values, gaining a broader picture of the discussion around the issue at hand. Looking at various

sides of an issue can be alarming, as our brains would like to find certainty. The fact is, we
 8

should be willing for a bit of uncertainty in our findings, realizing there will always be at least a

small amount of uncertainty.

6) Logic: We achieve a certain amount of order to our ideas as we think through them. As we

think through our argument, we need to categorize it into a coherent flow of information. Logical

reasoning leads from one place to our goal in an organized, understandable way. Combining

thoughts that support each other is part of the organization we must practice. Combining these

thoughts makes our thinking logical. Asking ourselves if our thoughts makes sense, if they lead

up to the next thought, and if our arguments support each other, all lead us to having logical

arguments.

7) Fairness: Committing to fairness should be done at the beginning of our inquiry and we

should keep coming back to it to make sure we are committed to fairness. Our thinking is often

biased, even though we often do not realize it. Considering the ideas and values of other people

helps us focus on not just ourselves, but on the arguments of others, a very necessary part of

critical inquiry. With the attitude of fairness comes the ability to quickly consider various

perspectives. Without the attitude of fairness, we can have very biased thinking and we might

even hold onto unfounded prejudices. When focusing on fairness, we need to think about our

own interests in the issue, our representations of the viewpoints of others, and how we can

explain our argument in a way that satisfies our opposition.

 9

Inquiry:

Inquiry is the term you use when referring to critical inquiry. Critical inquiry is carefully

examining an issue through a process that gives you a reasoned judgement about the issue. To

elaborate, critical inquiry is an in-depth examination, resulting in the most reasonable decision or

answer. Critical inquiry first has an issue to focus on, it must carefully examine the issue at hand,

then end in a reasoned judgment. Instead of looking at people and situations with an eye on

stereotypes, biases, and small issues, critical inquiry pushes these away to look at large issues in

our world. When professionals are taught how to be critical thinkers, they can teach the process

of inquiry to others, helping others to make reasoned judgements. We need more people to

practice critical inquiry, getting rid of the tendency of narrow-mindedness.

Guidelines for Inquiry:

There are five guidelines for inquiry. It is important for an individual to understand these

guidelines before carrying out an inquiry.

1) What is the issue? Determining the issue to discuss is the first step, necessary before

undertaking the search for answers. Narrowing the inquiry is often done at this stage, so one

specific issue is addressed. Forming an inquiry into a question helps make the purpose clear.

When we look closely at an issue, it may have many questions within the issue, but we need to

be able to determine what the one question is that will lead us to answer the inquiry.

2) What kinds of claims or judgments are at issue? Often, the judgements you are looking for

are about the way things are, a factual judgement. At other times we are looking for evaluative

judgments, such as ethical or aesthetic judgements. Relevant criteria for the type of judgement in
 10

the inquiry is found at this stage. Criteria indicate the considerations which are relevant to the

evaluation of an issue.

3) What are the relevant reasons and arguments on various sides of the issue? Relevant

reasons are unbiased reasons, so they can be used in a critical inquiry. There are many arguments

present on various sides of controversial issues, but many are not relevant to a critical inquiry.

Conspiracy theories are arguments that are not helpful to useful in an inquiry. This third

guideline must be used by open and fair minds, with the willingness to investigate various

arguments. Being fair-minded in this is done through including both positive and negative views.

4) What is the context of the issue? There is always a background or context for an issue.

Laying out the history and background of the issue is needed for developing the inquiry.

Understanding how views have changed over time and to what the change is due to, helps you

see what aspects are relevant in making a reasoned judgment. Controversial issues usually have a

very large contextual background. When issue have been discussed often, there is a wealth of

context to look back on when forming your argument.

5) How do we comparatively evaluate the various reasons and arguments to reach a

reasoned judgement? Evaluating various reasons by comparing them to each other and

weighing positive and negative aspects of the issue is part of this guideline. You want to make

sure your decision is justifiable, and that it is the best judgement possible. If an issue is

controversial, it will likely be more difficult to weigh out the positive and negative aspects, so

you must weigh them against each other. Having basic criteria to look back on aides the process

of weighing aspects of the argument. Criteria must be relevant and constantly looked back on to

ensure it is helping you form the best judgment possible.

 11

Fallibilism:

Fallibilism is recognizing that any claim to knowledge can be mistaken. What we know is always

changing, so we can never be certain about what is true. New and changing information is

constantly being made available, changing old ideas and beliefs. Fallibilism can happen to a

whole society around an idea, or individually by scientists in a lab. Doctors realized their old

ways of doing one surgery after another was not the safest way to help patients in the Civil War

after it was figured out they were spreading infection among the troops. Doctors began to see the

need of washing their hands after each surgery. We need to make reasoned judgments with the

understanding that there is a possibility of our judgment being wrong. All ideas are fallible, and

in recognizing this, we should have humility in our arguments, being willing to consider

arguments which differ from our own.

A reasoned judgement:

A reasoned judgement is a judgment based on critical evaluation of relevant information and

arguments. This is arguably the most important aspect of inquiry. The goal of inquiry is to come

to a reasoned judgment. Rather than gathering information on an issue, an inquiry comes to an

answer, also known as a reasoned judgement. Not all inquiries will result in an agreed upon

judgement, instead, they will sometimes end in respectful disagreement. Inquiry involves

evaluation with the purpose of coming to a reasoned judgement. An example of a reasoned

judgment occurs when the students in chapter one of Bailin and Battersby are arguing about the

necessity of eating meat. If they complete a critical inquiry, they will learn about the positive and

negative aspects of eating meant and not eating meat. Coming to a reasoned judgement would
 12

only occur if all participating in the inquiry were openminded to arguments in opposition to their

own. The students may not change their mind about eating meat or not, but they will all come to

a reasoned judgement based on the criteria of their inquiry.

An issue:

An issue can be in the form of a challenge, controversy, or difference in view. An issue is the

focus of an inquiry. The issue could be a political controversy, a social problem, or even a

scientific debate. Issues present in situations of our daily life. An example of an issue currently

ongoing regards the COVID-19 guidelines. Many people in Alberta do not want to wear a mask

for reasons such as choice, underlying health problems, and the fact it is difficult to breath when

wearing a mask. Some people gladly adhere to the governments health guidelines because they

trust the government or already have some medical knowledge. This is a very controversial issue

to some people who do not like when the government imposes restrictions on us, rather than

giving us freedom of choice. On the other side of the controversy, the government thinks they

must impose stricter guidelines and restrictions, because the ones they currently have are not

enough to hold back the virus from spreading.

Key Characteristics of an issue:

1) Focus: An issue should not be too broad, instead, it must have a focus. Relevant aspects of the

issue should be focused on, while leaving out extraneous information. The issue cannot be too

broad, or there will be many other issues present in the discussion.

 13

2) Phrased as a question: The issue should be in the form of a question, rather than a topic. A

topic is too general to be fully explored. Exploring a topic does not come to an answer, instead, it

leads to a wealth of information with a broad focus.

3) Precision: A vague statement allows for too many ideas and opinions to be explored at once.

The statement of the issue should be clear and precise, so the focus is easily understood.

4) Controversy: An issue should have some controversy. Generally accepted or known ideas are

not issues, because an issue is something people dispute. Controversial issues have a wealth of

arguments both in support for your view and in opposition. Looking at various arguments

ensures you are surrounding the issue with enough arguments to help you come to a reasoned

judgement.

5) Neutrality: An issue must also be neutral, meaning it should not be worded in a way that

brings opinions and emotions out from the start. Each side of the issue should be able to see that

the issue is worded neutrally.

Criteria:

Criteria specifies relevant considerations that provide the basis for making a judgment. Critical

evaluation of an issue must be based upon criteria. We may not realize how much we use criteria

to make decisions without specifically laying out the criteria. In a critical inquiry, laying out the

criteria at the beginning helps you gain a specific focus for the issue. Laying out criteria also

gives you something to keep looking back on as you learn more about the issue at hand. When

buying a car, you would often make a portion of criteria for yourself. Price, safety rating,
 14

reliability, and appearance are all criteria you could make when looking to purchase a new car.

Kijiji even has filters that help you narrow your search when you are looking to buy a used car.

Prima facie judgement:

The words prima facie mean “first glance” in Latin. This presents the clue that a prima facie

judgement is a judgement given by first glance. A Prima facie judgement is a preliminary

judgement, created through tentative knowledge that is open to revision. This is all due to

subsequent information or different considerations, making the knowledge questionable. Some

arguments are obviously fallacious upon first look, while others require further investigation to

test their validity. A prima facie judgement sometimes occurs when people are looking to buy an

old house to fix up. Upon first look and examination, the house may seem to have a lot of

potential, even to have “good bones”. A first time homeowner or first time house flipper may

over look many warning signs. I have a couple of friends who bought a house to flip it, but only

realized there was a very large crack in the basement foundation wall when the floor and drywall

were getting soaked from rain and snow melt. Without looking at the house with a trained eye,

the house looked like a very good option, but it ended up being more work than they had planned

for.

Valid deductive argument:

If the premises/arguments are true, then the conclusion must be true in a valid deductive

argument. An argument is deductive if it appears the author intended the truth of the premises to

guarantee the truth of the conclusion. An argument is valid deductive if it succeeded by

 15

guaranteeing the conclusion. An example of a valid deductive argument is present in the below

argument. You can narrow down the argument to come to a true conclusion when the arguments

you use are true.

1.All humans are mortal.

2. Jenita is a human.

Conclusion: Jenita is a mortal.

Both premises in this argument are true, making it a valid deductive argument.

Sound argument:

A sound argument is a valid deductive argument with true premises. Valid arguments with true

premises, therefore true conclusions, are sound arguments. Sound arguments can be in the form

of having well-known or widely accepted facts. Sound arguments require a lot of evidence, as

they must be backed up. An example of a sound argument is:

1. Shutting down small businesses in Canada for COVID-19 might help slow the spread.

2. Small businesses rely on staying open to employ themselves and their employees.

Both premises are sound, they are both true. The likely conclusion you could discover is that

shutting down small businesses for COVID would harm small businesses.
 16

Inductive argument:

The premises provide support for the conclusion, but do not entail/involve the conclusion. The

premises may even be true in an inductive argument, but the argument does not guarantee the

conclusion will be true. An example of this is:

1. Spending less money will help you save for retirement.

2. Keeping more money in a savings account at a bank will help you save for retirement.

Conclusion: These two premises are the best way to save for retirement.

While both premises are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true, there are other ways

arguably better for saving for retirement. Investing your money is an example of a very good

way to save for retirement, arguably the best as well.

Strong, inductive argument:

In strong inductive arguments, if the premises are true, it is likely that the conclusion will be true.

In strong inductive arguments with true premises, even if the premises are true, the premises do

not always ensure that the conclusion is true. If someone is arguing that getting rid of minimum

wage will help decrease unemployment, there could be an argument that many poor countries do

not have a minimum wage, but also have very large amounts of unemployed people. The premise

may be true that there are many unemployed people in poorer countries, but it may have nothing

to do with the conclusion that no minimum wage caused or aided that.

 17

Cogent, inductive argument:

A cogent inductive argument is a strong inductive argument with credible premises. This type of

argument is the counterpart of a sound deductive argument. A cogent inductive argument has

premises that support the conclusion; premises, that, if true, make the conclusion more likely or

more credible. One example of this is:

1) Feathers are very light.

2) Most birds can fly.

Conclusion: The lightness of a bird’s feathers must aid their ability to fly in some way.

This arguments premises are true, so it makes the possibility of feathers having something to do

with a bird’s ability to fly be very likely.

Analogical argument:

There are two types of analogical arguments: precedent analogies and causal analogies.

Precedent analogies are an argument which attempts to establish a conclusion that the

circumstances of the case are like another case that has the accepted conclusion (the precedent).

If you accept the conclusion of the first case, you accept the conclusion of the case at hand. The

crucial part of this argument is that the cases are alike in relevant ways. An example of a

precedent analogy can be seen in the argument that alcohol is illegal, so marijuana should also be

illegal.

Causal analogies are used in attempt to understand one phenomenon by comparing it to another.

Historical analogies in which you use your understanding of one event to explain what would
 18

happen now if we took similar actions is a causal analogy. An example of a causal analogy is

present in thinking that if we made marijuana illegal, it would likely result in law-abiding

citizens breaking the law to use it, just as law-abiding citizens broke the law to use alcohol

during prohibition.

Reductio ad absurdum:

Reductio ad absurdum is an argumentative strategy that argues a particular position should be

rejected because it would justify absurd outcomes. This is a useful argumentative strategy,

making your opponent see that their view would lead to something absurd. Opponents are often

influenced to abandon their view after being told of an absurd result of their view. An example of

this type of argument is that if we stop eating animals ourselves to be humane, we might as well

stop letting animals eat other animals to ensure they too are being humane. This is absurd,

because many animals are carnivores, so only eat meat.

Fallacy:

A fallacy is a common weak argument, sometimes very unbelievable, that is very persuasive.

Fallacies often provide little or no support and evidence but remain influential. This type of

argument is sometimes in the form of an overgeneralization. The persuasive power of a fallacy is

greater than the logical worth of the argument attempting to be made. Fallacies of illusory

support can be tested on the grounds of if they provide good support for a conclusion. A common

weak argument found in our society, is that Indigenous people should be able to get over past

abuses that happened to them. Indigenous people were sent to Residential Schools for many
 19

years, extending the legacy of abuse into their lives today. Many people in the older non-

Indigenous generation have ideas about residential schools that are not actually true, making it

difficult to help them understand the correct information that is supported by much more than an

opinion.

Ad hominem fallacy:

Ad hominem is committed when an opponent makes remarks about the proponent rather than the

proponent’s argument, making the argument personal. Discrediting your opponent’s argument is

done by discrediting the proponent. This is only done when discrediting the opponent’s argument

is the conscious goal. The most notorious ad hominem is an abusive one, whereby the opponent

attacks the proponent in effort to shift focus from the issue to the person. At times, politicians use

ad hominem’s to shift blame or a negative association from themselves or their party to another

political group. Bringing up the wrongs of fellow politicians in a debate shifts the focus to a

personal level, rather than the political focus it should have.

Straw person fallacy:

The straw person fallacy occurs when you attack an incorrectly described argument or position.

This can occur when an opponent alters your argument or view in effort to show it in a negative

light, attributing a view to you that you do not actually have. This makes your argument appear

weaker if you do not recognize and correct the misdirection. An example of a straw person

fallacy is:
 20

Jimmy: Most mechanics I know are men, I don’t think women like to work on cars.

Suzy: Wow Jimmy, you sure are sexist.

Red Herring Fallacy:

A red herring is used to change or distract the focus. This is committed when a participant in the

argument adds an irrelevant issue to the discussion. The irrelevant issue or fact distracts focus

from the main purpose of the argument. Politicians sometimes do this when they bring up past

wrongs of their opponent in a political debate for an election. Bringing up past wrongs shifts the

focus away from the promises and ideas the politician would like to enact now if they get

elected. Using this red herring can totally shift the focus away from the beneficial ideas that the

politician has.

Equivocation:

Equivocation is committed when a word is used to mislead, because it has two different

definitions or associations. Equivocation is changing the meaning of a word key to validating the

argument. An example of equivocation is:

1) Feathers are light.

2) What is light is not dark

Conclusion: A feather cannot be dark.

 21

The word light has two meanings, and both are used, making the argument false. This is not a

true argument, because the meaning has been changed.

Ideological fixity:

Ideological fixity is the unwavering and unquestioning commitment to a particular position. This

type of fixity can easily occur in political, social, or philosophical positions. Fixity in our views

creates a major obstacle to open-mindedness and flexibility. Rationally having a position occurs

when we are open to considering arguments that oppose our own. When you have ideological

fixity, it is easy to use your ideology to insulate your position against challenges. I have seen

ideological fixity in my Uncle, who believes Communism and Fascism (Naziism) are the same

thing, that Canada is turning fascist by the government wanting to provide more social welfare

systems. It is not easy to explain to him that fascism and communism are very different. He

latches onto the fact they both have a high degree of government control and uses that to insulate

his position.

Groupthink:

This bias occurs when a particular opinion is strong within a group, so pressure to support that

opinion is felt. When a group member already holds a similar opinion, it is easy to feel your

opinion is being confirmed as correct. If an individual in the group does not already hold the

common opinion, it can be difficult for them to speak up, as they feel social pressure to fit in. I

have experienced this in group projects, where one person can be very vocal about their opinion,
 22

and it feels easier to sit back and accept or agree with their ideas, rather than to fight back when

they already have support from other group members.

Confirmation bias (Anchoring bias):

Confirmation bias is the tendency to look for and focus only on information and evidence that

confirms our own views. This bias fails to seek and accept information that counters our views.

Rational inquiry is undermined with this bias. Seeking evidence that challenges our own ideas

can completely change our views in a situation, letting us learn more. An example of

confirmation bias is present in views about the current COVID-19 pandemic. Many people think

vaccines need a few years to be tested and for long-term side effects to be known. Focusing on

looking at past pandemics and epidemics that took years to make a vaccine is not helpful. We

know we have very good research equipment now, and that people are likely working night and

day to solve this problem. Even the H1N1 epidemic was only about 10 years ago, so we still

could be seeing side effects of that vaccine. It is not helpful to focus on just what the media is

saying about vaccines, but rather on what medical professionals are saying. The media is a very

powerful source in confirmation bias, taking us to similar information of what we first searched.

Loaded language:

Along with a word’s denotation (dictionary definition), many words also have a connotation

(words or expressions connected with them). It is very likely you can often use different words

that have different connotations to describe the same phenomena. Each connotation you use can

evoke a different reaction; even though they may describe something similar. Loaded language
 23

makes words carry different emotional loads. Connotations can be positive, negative, or neutral

at times. Using specific connotations rather than the denotation can influence people to support

our argument, based simply on our choice of words. When think that someone likes to gossip, we

may have a negative reaction, when we say someone is in the loop, we have a much more

positive feeling towards them.

Euphemism:

A euphemism is being used when neutral or positively charged words are used instead of

negative words of phrases. Euphemisms can replace attitudes and emotions towards something

negative or unpleasant. People can become less distressed to something unpleasant, or even have

a positive attitude towards it when euphemisms are used. This can cause us to miss or overlook

the true negative aspects of a situation or argument. When we say someone has ‘passed away’,

we are using a euphemism for the fact someone has ‘died’. Euphemisms can make something

unpleasant and uncomfortable to talk about more acceptable in conversation, such as in talking

about death.

Factual judgment: Factual judgements describe the way the world is. To say a claim is a fact, is

saying that the claim is true. A fact often appears guaranteed, and critical thinkers know that

nothing is absolutely guaranteed. It is important to remember that factual judgments are not

beyond dispute. These judgments are fallible just like all other judgements and are subject to

revision when more evidence is presented. An example of this is that grass is usually green

throughout the summer months.

 24

Ethical judgment:

Ethical judgements deal with questions of right and wrong. These arguments may also be in the

form of good vs bad and praiseworthy vs blameworthy. A few criteria for ethical judgements are

fairness and virtue. Judgements in this category can have people, actions, or states of affairs at

the center of the argument. An example of an ethical judgement is found in the discussion about

whether it was admissible for the United States to drop the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and

Nagasaki.

Interpretive judgment: Interpretive judgments are concerned with meaning. This judgment

involves making sense of data or phenomenon. Human behavioral research contains many

interpretive judgments. Simply wondering if your actions are clearly saying you are not

interested in a guy is another interpretive judgement. When there is an issue over what an author

is trying to portray in a text, it comes into the realm of interpretive judgement. The arts force us

to make many interpretive judgements.

Aesthetic judgment:

Aesthetic judgments deal with questions regarding the sensory, perceptual, or formal properties

of objects or experiences. The Arts is where this type of argument is most prevalent. Terms

describing the appearance, sound, or presentation are used when making aesthetic judgements.

At times, aesthetic judgements can pair or conflict with nonaesthetic judgements. An example of

an aesthetic judgement is in the question of whether the Mona Lisa painting by Leonardo da
 25

Vinci deserves as much fame as it has. Is Mona Lisa a beautiful painting or a painting typical of

up and coming artists of today.

 26

Bibliography:

Bailin, S., & Battersby, M. (2016). Reason in the balance an inquiry approach to critical

thinking. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Nosich, G. M. (2014). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the

curriculum.