Critical Thinking and Clear Reasoning

Rewrite a vague concern as a precise, answerable question.

Define an ambiguous term by specifying how it will be used in a discussion.

Identify an assumption built into the framing of a problem.

Generate two alternative framings of the same situation and explain how they change the analysis.

Distinguish a conclusion from the reasons offered to support it.

Separate evidence from explanation in a short argument.

Diagram the supporting and opposing reasons in a simple argument map.

Identify an unstated premise needed to connect a reason to a conclusion.

Restate another person's argument accurately and charitably before evaluating it.

Distinguish deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning in practical examples.

Test a deductive inference by looking for a counterexample.

Distinguish necessary conditions from sufficient conditions in everyday claims.

Determine whether the reasons in a practical argument are relevant to and sufficiently strong for its conclusion.

Diagnose a common informal fallacy by explaining how the reasoning fails rather than merely naming the fallacy.

Evaluate an analogy by comparing its relevant similarities and differences.

Match a type of evidence to the kind of claim it can reasonably support.

Evaluate a source using its expertise, incentives, methods, and track record.

Evaluate a testimonial claim by considering the witness's directness, opportunity to observe, and independent corroboration.

Assess whether a sample is appropriate for the population being discussed.

Identify omitted information that could materially change a conclusion.

Compare conflicting sources by examining their evidence and methods rather than treating popularity as proof.

Distinguish correlation from evidence of causation in a real-world example.

Generate plausible alternative causal explanations, including confounding and reverse causation, for an observed association.

Interpret a percentage by identifying its baseline, denominator, and comparison group.

Use a base rate to assess the plausibility of a specific claim.

Express confidence in a conclusion using calibrated rather than absolute language.

Revise a confidence judgment when relevant new evidence appears.

Recognize confirmation bias in a search for information.

Identify how incentives or group loyalties may distort a judgment.

Specify evidence that would lower confidence in a favored belief.

Apply the same standards of evidence to claims that support and challenge one's view.

Distinguish a criticism of an idea from a criticism of the person presenting it.

Audit a recent judgment for framing, evidence, alternatives, and possible bias, then identify one blind spot.

Extract a general principle from a concrete example.

Apply a principle learned in one context to a different context.

Compare two concepts by stating one meaningful similarity and one meaningful difference.

Construct a causal map showing how several factors may produce an outcome.

Analyze an apparent contradiction by checking whether the ideas rely on different definitions, assumptions, or contexts.

Synthesize several relevant claims into one coherent explanation while preserving important qualifications.

Separate a problem's symptoms from its likely underlying causes.

Break a complex practical problem into smaller questions that can be investigated.

Generate multiple options before evaluating a decision.

Define decision criteria based on the goals and values at stake.

Compare options with a simple weighted decision matrix and identify where subjective weights affect the result.

Run a premortem to identify how a chosen plan might fail.

Choose a reversible test when evidence is insufficient for a high-confidence decision.

Present a recommendation using a clear claim-reason-evidence structure.

Explain the strength and limitations of evidence without overstating the conclusion.

Ask a clarifying question that reveals a hidden assumption or disagreement.

Give a concise, reasoned disagreement without becoming adversarial.

Adapt an explanation to an audience's knowledge and practical concerns.

Analyze a workplace or personal claim from framing through conclusion.

Evaluate a consequential choice using evidence, alternatives, uncertainty, and values.

Facilitate a disagreement by locating the parties' actual point of divergence.

Write a one-page reasoning brief that connects evidence to a recommendation.

Create a reusable critical-thinking checklist for recurring decisions.

Review a completed analysis and identify the single most important improvement.