Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a key skill for university and students can find the concept hard to
grasp. However, it is something that you do already; when you choose how to spend
your time, which news sources to listen to, and which products to buy. At university,
you need to apply this analytical thinking to what you read, hear and write.
Additionally, you must make sure to demonstrate that you have done so in your
assessments.

What is critical thinking?

Imagine that someone tells you, “You’re going to need an umbrella.”

Umbrellas Colourful Clipart image under Public Domain license.

You have two options. You could take this information at face value and grab an
umbrella. Alternatively, before deciding to do anything, you could think about the
statement and ask yourself some questions.

Who said this? Was it a friend, a weather forecaster, a young child?

What are they basing their information on? Are they looking at the clouds, at
scientific data, at cows lying in a field?

What are the implications of taking an umbrella? Will you need it straight away?
Will you be able to carry it? Could you use something else instead?

What are the assumptions they are making? That dark clouds always produce
rain? That people don’t like getting wet? That you are going outside?

With such a simple statement, it is likely that these questions are so automatic and
take such little effort that you barely notice yourself asking them.
You need to use the same process in your academic studies. When you come
across information, you can take it at face value and accept it as true, or you can
step back and ask some questions. The difference is that the information you meet
at university is new, more complex and less concrete. Therefore, the process of
asking these questions takes more time and needs to be done consciously and
deliberately, rather than automatically. This is critical thinking.

The word ‘critical’ often confuses students. Critical thinking does not mean that you
need to always find fault with everything. It means that you analyse and evaluate
arguments before deciding if you agree with them. Each argument may have some
strong points and some weaker ones. Identifying both is important, as is
understanding why you think they are strong or weak.

Critically evaluating sources

You are expected to do a lot of research while at university. The books, journal
articles and websites recommended on your reading lists have already been
evaluated for their quality by your lecturers. When you are asked to find your own
information, it’s important to take a critical approach. This starts with looking at the
source itself, even before you read the text.

There is a significant difference between an article on "diets which may prevent

cancer" published in a popular culture magazine, and one that is published in the
Nutrition Research journal. For your work to meet assessment criteria at university
level, you need to be able to base it on with acceptable sources which you have
evaluated for credibility, reliability and impartiality.

Evaluating academic texts

Peer review is a process whereby an article submitted to an academic journal is
vetted by several experts in that field. The reviewer decides if the article should be
published and may make suggestions for changes before publishing. Peer review is
a rigorous vetting process. Consequently, peer-reviewed articles are held in higher
regard than those which aren't. You can usually rely on these sources.

Open access publishing

If you are searching on Google Scholar or similar search engines and find a
scholarly article you can freely access, this article is probably an open access article.
The rise of open access publishing has changed the ways scholars share and use
journal articles. You need to be extra vigilant when evaluating what appear initially to
be scholarly journals.

The growth of open access publishing has resulted in an increase of predatory or

vanity publishing. Opportunistic publishing houses publish content in exchange for
publication fees, paid for by the authors. These predatory publishers don’t provide
any of the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate academic
journals, such as a peer-review process. As a result, unreliable, unvetted
publications are published and circulated online. Because of this lack of
transparency, you need to be careful with texts from such sources and evaluate

Have I thought
about this?

When was the information published, posted or updated?

Is the information relevant to the present day?

Does your topic require current information or are older

sources acceptable?

Does the information relate to your topic or answer your

question?

Who is the target audience?

Is the information aimed at a university level?

Who is the author?

What is the source?

What is the author’s or source’s credentials?

Are they qualified to write on this topic?

Is the information supported by evidence and

references?

Is there any bias?

Has the text been peer-reviewed?

If it is a website, what is the URL? (Some reliable URL’s

end in .org, .gov, .edu, .ac.uk)

Is a variety of views provided?

 What is the purpose of the information? To inform/
persuade/sell/entertain?

What is the main aim of the organisation providing the

information?

How does the author benefit from people reading the

text?

them yourselves.

Evaluating web pages

Anyone can put anything on the internet. It contains a large number of resources that
are inaccurate or incorrect. Although some sites do not intend to misinform their
readers, others are designed to mislead and so it is important to critically evaluate
what you are reading.

Use the CRAAP method, in the table below, to evaluate a web page:

You can download this Method as a Word document or PDF to print out or to save
for future use.
(Important: The PDF will open in this window so remember to click on the browsers
back button to return to the Skills Hub).

Remember
You won’t ever find a flawlessly unbiased and reliable source of information. Critical
evaluation means showing an awareness of a source’s strengths and weaknesses
and choosing sources that have many strengths to back up your argument.

Evaluating news sources

If a news article seems too good to be true, or too sensationalist to be correct, it
usually is. If you are unsure whether a news source is genuine, refer to the list
below.

Five factors to consider when evaluating a source:

 Fact check. Use fact-checking websites such as factcheck.org to check the

credibility of citations and quotes, and tinyeye.com for images
 Verify the URL. Look carefully at the URL address. Fake sites often have urls
that are extremely similar to well-known respected news outlets, but with a
slight variation. For example, a fake news site modelled on abcnews.com was
added to the internet with the URL abcnews.com.co
  Vet the source. Is the source who they say they are? Are they vetted and
verified? For example, if the information is coming from Twitter, the account
holder will be independently verified if their profile includes a blue checkmark
 Loaded language. Is the headline of the piece phrased in a way that is
sensationalist or highly emotional? This is often a manipulative method
referred to as loaded language and can be a form of clickbait, enticing the
reader to click on the news story
 Adverts. A high proportion of adverts on an article platform or news site can
often be a sign of a platform primarily driven by pay-per-clicks, and not by
journalistic integrity.

Tools to help detect misinformation:

 Wayback machine. Search for websites that have since been taken off the
internet
 Quote Investigator. Quote checker
 Politifact. Political facts checker.

Remember
A valid source for one discipline may not be valid for another. Always consult with
your tutor if you are unsure.

Identifying and evaluating arguments

'Good critical thinking includes recognising good arguments even when we disagree
with them, and poor arguments even when these support our own point of view.'
Cottrell, S. (2017) Critical Thinking Skills, Third Edition, London, Palgrave, p33

This section is the key to critical thinking. If you are able to follow the argument in a
source, and determine its strengths and weaknesses, then you are thinking critically.

Identifying arguments and reasons

Before you can evaluate an argument, you must be able to find it. This can be tricky,
since lines of reasoning are usually spread throughout a whole text, as the writer
slowly builds up their position, layering point after point backed up with evidence,
and builds to a final conclusion. Reading abstracts and introductions is very useful to
get an overview of an article or book and a summary of the argument that a writer is
going to make. Always read them so that you know the general direction of a writer’s
argument.

The conclusion is often indicated by signposting phrases such as so, therefore, thus,
then, as a result, as a consequence, and for this reason. Generally, writers make
their conclusions clear because they want their audience to see and understand
them.
  Sustainability is being embedded into the curriculum of several schools at the
Universities. As a consequence, more students are learning practical
methods of living sustainably for the future.

In the above example, the section after as a consequence is the writer’s conclusion.

Once you have found the conclusion, you also need to find the reasons. Phrases
that demonstrate these are more varied, but some common ones are because (of),
since, as, the reason being, according to, and considering. Sometimes, such as in
the above example, the reasons are not signposted, but simply put before the
conclusion.

 Since British students learn to communicate in English classes, and

considering that coding is a language which contains many elements of
English, then the fundamentals of computational language should be taught
to British students in their English classes.

In this example, there are two reasons given for the conclusion. One after since, and
one after considering that. The conclusion is signposted with then.

Activity: Identifing the Conclusion

Read the following passage and identify the conclusion and the reasons that the
writer makes. The video below the passage gives the solution to this activity.

Some areas of the curriculum are well suited to particular activities. In language-
linked and social studies courses, group writing projects offer more benefits to the
student than simple improvements in writing skills. The negotiation required by group
work encourages semantic webbing, gives practice in the evaluation and
organization of gathered information, and offers reflection on the development of
knowledge (Andrews, 1992). The group can serve as a respectfully critical audience
for individual writing as well, honing the novice writer's presentation style with an
immediacy and absence of threat that is less available in traditional assignments.
The feedback of peers in the negotiation of the final product helps students gain a
sense of authority over their own writing, in turn leading to a greater motivation to
write (Chan 1988).

S. Marie A. Cooper. (2002). Classroom Choices for Enabling Peer Learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(1),
53–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477538

https://vimeo.com/780761834 (this video goes with the above

activity)
Remember
A conclusion that a writer reaches in one paragraph can become a reason for
another conclusion in a following paragraph. For example, if one paragraph argues
that dairy products are unhealthy, the next paragraph might use this as a reason why
dairy products should be banned from school cafeterias.

Implicit assumptions
Writers may base their conclusions and reasons on assumptions. These can be
basic, general, or cultural and they can be very hard to spot. Use your critical
thinking to keep an eye out for these assumptions and decide if and how they affect
the conclusion.

 Employers need to ensure that their employees are kept safe so that the
costs of paying damages to injured workers do not become unfeasible.

An implicit assumption in this example is that the fundemental goal of businesses is

to make as much money as possible. This might be a very pervasive mindset in
capitalist society, but is it always true? It may be that the writer has designed an
argument based on an assumption that you don’t agree with.

From the first assumption come others, such as:

1. Employers always want to keep costs down

2. Keeping employees safe is only important to employers because they can
save money
3. The costs of paying damages to injured workers can become unfeasible
4. Injured workers demand to be paid damages
5. It is the role of employers to keep their employees safe

Once you have identified the underlying assumptions made by a writer, you can then
decide if you agree with them or not, and explore the evidence for them.

Evaluating arguments
The conclusions a writer has made, the reasons they have given for their
conclusions and the assumptions that they have relied on all make up the
writer’s argument, or line of reasoning. Once you can pinpoint this, it is time to start
evaluating the argument’s effectiveness.

To do this, you need to reflect on the argument and ask questions of it. In the table
below there are some examples of questions you could think about:
You can download this table as a Word document or PDF to print out or to save for
future use.
(Important: The PDF will open in this window so remember to click on the browsers
back button to return to the Skills Hub).

Remember
Don't expect yourself to answer all these questions for everything you read or listen
to. The point is to make sure that you are asking some questions and engaging in
critical thought.

Logical and faulty thinking

Thinking logically
In logic, an argument can be valid or invalid. This is important for critical thinking
because you can use it to determine whether an argument is one you should take
seriously to or not.

A valid argument needs two conditions:

1. All the premises upon which the argument is based are true.
2. The conclusion can be shown to be the result of the premises.

For example:

 John is a human. (premise - true)

 All humans have brains. (premise - true)
 Therefore, John has a brain. (conclusion - valid)

An invalid argument is one in which one or both of the conditions are missing:

 The speed of sound is faster than the speed of light. (premise - not true)
 The speed of sound is 343m/second. (premise - true)
 Therefore, light travels slower than 343m/second. (conclusion - invalid
because of a false premise)

 Courtney is a fast runner. (premise - true)

 Courtney is a University student. (premise - true)
 Therefore, all University students are fast runners. (conclusion – invalid as not
the result of the premises)

Sometimes, the conclusion does not follow from the premises but in isolation is still
true. In this case though, the argument is still invalid:

 All seagulls are birds. (premise - true)

  Some birds fly. (premise - true)
 Therefore, all seagulls fly. (conclusion – invalid as not the result of the
premises)

Examples like the last one are much harder to spot!

For practice with analysing logical reasoning, look at the below question. Answer
them and each question, the answer is explained afterwards.

Please refrain from looking at the answers until you have

answered the question or are unsure. You are cheating yourself if
you look

Logical Reasoning Sample Questions

The sample questions on the following pages are typical of the Logical
Reasoning questions you will find on the LSAT.

Directions:
Each question in this section is based on the reasoning presented in a brief
passage. In answering the questions, you should not make assumptions that are
by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the
passage. For some questions, more than one of the choices could conceivably
answer the question. However, you are to choose the best answer; that is,
choose the response that most accurately and completely answers the question.

Question 1
Laird: Pure research provides us with new technologies that contribute to saving
lives. Even more worthwhile than this, however, is its role in expanding our
knowledge and providing new, unexplored ideas.

Kim: Your priorities are mistaken. Saving lives is what counts most of all. Without
pure research, medicine would not be as advanced as it is.

Laird and Kim disagree on whether pure research

A. derives its significance in part from its providing new technologies

B. expands the boundaries of our knowledge of medicine
C. should have the saving of human lives as an important goal
D. has its most valuable achievements in medical applications
E. has any value apart from its role in providing new technologies to save
lives
Explanation for Question 1
This question asks you to identify the point on which Laird and Kim disagree with
respect to pure research. Laird identifies two contributions of pure research: its
medical applications (“technologies that contribute to saving lives”) and its role in
expanding knowledge and providing new ideas. Of these, Laird considers the
second contribution to be more worthwhile. Kim, on the other hand, maintains
that “Saving lives is what counts most of all.” Since pure research saves lives
through medical applications, Kim disagrees with Laird about whether pure
research has its most valuable achievements in medical applications. The correct
response, therefore, is (D).

Response (A) is incorrect since we can determine, based on their statements,

that Laird and Kim agree that pure research “derives its significance in part from
its providing new technologies.” Laird explicitly cites the value of pure research
with respect to providing new technologies. Kim indicates agreement with (A), at
least in the case of medical technologies, by asserting that “Without pure
research, medicine would not be as advanced as it is.”

Response (B) is incorrect since we can determine, based on their statements,

that Laird and Kim would likely agree that pure research “expands the boundaries
of our knowledge of medicine.” Laird notes that pure research provides us with
new technologies that have medical applications. Kim points out that “Without
pure research, medicine would not be as advanced as it is.”

Response (C) is incorrect. Kim indicates agreement that pure research “should
have the saving of human lives as an important goal” since Kim’s position is that
“Saving lives is what counts most of all.” Since Laird cites the saving of lives as
one way in which pure research is worthwhile or valuable, Laird also indicates
agreement that pure research “should have the saving of human lives as an
important goal,” although Laird indicates that expanding knowledge and providing
new ideas should be an even more important goal of pure research. The same
activity can of course have more than one goal.

Response (E) is incorrect. Laird clearly agrees that pure research has value
“apart from its role in providing new technologies to save lives,” given that Laird
explicitly cites a second way in which pure research is valuable. However,
nothing in what Kim says suggests disagreement with (E). Kim’s position is that
the greatest value of pure research is its role in providing new technologies to
save lives. We cannot infer from this that Kim believes this role to be the only
value of pure research.

This question was of medium difficulty, based on the number of test takers who
answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

Question 2
Executive: We recently ran a set of advertisements in the print version of a travel
magazine and on that magazine’s website. We were unable to get any direct
information about consumer response to the print ads. However, we found that
consumer response to the ads on the website was much more limited than is
typical for website ads. We concluded that consumer response to the print ads
was probably below par as well.

The executive’s reasoning does which one of the following?

A. bases a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon on information about

the intensity of that phenomenon’s cause
B. uses information about the typical frequency of events of a general kind to
draw a conclusion about the probability of a particular event of that kind
C. infers a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of
specific instances
D. uses a case in which direct evidence is available to draw a conclusion
about an analogous case in which direct evidence is unavailable
E. bases a prediction about future events on facts about recent comparable
events

Explanation for Question 2

This question asks you to identify how the executive’s reasoning proceeds. The
ads discussed by the executive appeared in two places—in a magazine and on
the magazine’s website. Some information is available concerning the effect of
the website ads on consumers, but no consumer response information is
available about the print ads. The executive’s remarks suggest that the ads that
appeared in print and on the website were basically the same, or very similar.
The executive reasoned that information about the effect of the website ads could
be used as evidence for an inference about how the print ads likely performed.
The executive thus used the analogy between the print ads and the website ads
to infer something about the print ads. (D), therefore, is the correct response.

Response (A) is incorrect. The executive’s conclusion about the likely consumer
response to the print ads does not constitute a prediction, but rather a judgment
about events that have already transpired. Moreover, the executive’s conclusion
is not based on any reasoning about the cause of the consumer response to the
print ads.

Response (B) is incorrect. The executive does conclude that certain events are
likely to have transpired on the basis of what was known to have transpired in a
similar case, but no distinction can be made in the executive’s argument between
events of a general kind and a particular event of that kind. There are two types
of events in play in the executive’s argument and they are of the same level of
generality—the response to the website ads and the response to the print ads.

Response (C) is incorrect. The executive does not infer a statistical

generalization, which would involve generalizing about a population on the basis
of a statistical sample. The executive merely draws a conclusion about the likely
occurrence of specific events.
Response (E) is also incorrect. The executive does use the comparability of the
print and website ads as the basis for the conclusion drawn; however, as noted
above, the executive’s conclusion about the likely consumer response to the print
ads does not constitute a prediction about future events, but rather a judgment
about events that have already transpired.

This was an easy question, based on the number of test takers who answered it
correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

Question 3
During the construction of the Quebec Bridge in 1907, the bridge’s designer,
Theodore Cooper, received word that the suspended span being built out from
the bridge’s cantilever was deflecting downward by a fraction of an inch (2.54
centimeters). Before he could telegraph to freeze the project, the whole cantilever
arm broke off and plunged, along with seven dozen workers, into the St.
Lawrence River. It was the worst bridge construction disaster in history. As a
direct result of the inquiry that followed, the engineering “rules of thumb” by which
thousands of bridges had been built around the world went down with the
Quebec Bridge. Twentieth-century bridge engineers would thereafter depend on
far more rigorous applications of mathematical analysis.

Which one of the following statements can be properly inferred from the
passage?

A. Bridges built before about 1907 were built without thorough mathematical
analysis and, therefore, were unsafe for the public to use.
B. Cooper’s absence from the Quebec Bridge construction site resulted in the
breaking off of the cantilever.
C. Nineteenth-century bridge engineers relied on their rules of thumb because
analytical methods were inadequate to solve their design problems.
D. Only a more rigorous application of mathematical analysis to the design of
the Quebec Bridge could have prevented its collapse.
E. Prior to 1907 the mathematical analysis incorporated in engineering rules
of thumb was insufficient to completely assure the safety of bridges under
construction.

Explanation for Question 3

The question asks you to identify the response that can be properly inferred from the passage.
The passage indicates that the Quebec Bridge disaster in 1907 and the inquiry that followed
caused the engineering “rules of thumb” used in construction of thousands of bridges to be
abandoned. Since the Quebec Bridge disaster in 1907 prompted this abandonment, it can be
inferred that these were the rules of thumb under which the Quebec Bridge was being built
when it collapsed and that these were the rules of thumb used in bridge building before 1907.
Further, since the Quebec Bridge collapsed while under construction and the rules of thumb
being used were abandoned as a result, it can be inferred that the rules of thumb used in
building the Quebec Bridge and bridges prior to 1907 were insufficient to completely assure
the safety of bridges under construction. Finally, since the alternative that was adopted in
place of the old engineering rules of thumb was to “depend on far more rigorous applications
of mathematical analysis,” it can be inferred that the mathematical analysis incorporated in
the engineering rules of thumb used prior to 1907 made them insufficient to completely
assure the safety of bridges under construction. Thus, (E) is the correct response.

Response (A) is incorrect. (A) asserts that bridges built before about 1907 were unsafe for the
public to use because they were built without thorough mathematical analysis. But this
conclusion goes far beyond what is established by the passage. The passage gives evidence
only about the safety of bridges built before 1907 while they were under construction. It is
silent on whether bridges built before about 1907 were safe when open for use by the public.
Moreover, the passage indicates that the rules of thumb used in bridge construction before
1907 were abandoned because the use of those rules did not provide adequate assurance of
safety for bridges under construction. It does not follow that bridges built using those rules of
thumb (those built before about 1907) actually were unsafe, either while under construction
or when open for public use.

Response (B) is incorrect in claiming that Cooper’s absence from the construction site caused
the breaking off of the cantilever. The passage does not establish that, had Cooper been at the
site, he could have successfully intervened to prevent the cantilever from breaking off. By
freezing the project, he might have spared lives by stopping work, but there is nothing in the
passage to indicate that he necessarily would have prevented the collapse.

Response (C) is incorrect; there is no evidence in the passage about why nineteenth-century
bridge engineers relied on their rules of thumb.

Response (D) is also incorrect. While the passage suggests that a more rigorous application of
mathematical analysis would have prevented the collapse of the bridge, it offers no evidence
that it is the only way the collapse could have been prevented. For example, it might have
been prevented had corrective measures been taken in time.

This question was of medium difficulty, based on the number of test takers who answered it
correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

Question 4
The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that there is still no evidence of the neutron star
that current theory says should have remained after a supernova of that size. This is in spite of
the fact that many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched for the tell-
tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit. Thus, current theory is wrong in claiming that
supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a neutron star nearby.
B. Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away
than the location of the 1987 supernova.
C. The supernova of 1987 was the first that scientists were able to observe in progress.
D. Several important features of the 1987 supernova are correctly predicted by the
current theory.
 E. Some neutron stars are known to have come into existence by a cause other than a
supernova explosion.

Explanation for Question 4

This question asks you to identify the response that most strengthens the argument. The
argument concludes that “current theory is wrong in claiming that supernovas of a certain
size always produce neutron stars” based on the observation that no evidence has been found
of a neutron star left behind by the supernova event of 1987. However, the failure to find
evidence of the predicted neutron star does not necessarily indicate that such evidence does
not exist. It may instead indicate that the instruments used to search for the evidence are not
powerful enough to detect a neutron star in the area where the 1987 supernova event
occurred. The argument would thus be strengthened if there was evidence that the search
instruments used would in fact be capable of finding the predicted neutron star if that star
existed.

Response (B) provides such evidence. If “sensitive astronomical instruments have detected
neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova,” then it is less
likely that the predicted neutron star is outside the detection range of “the most sensitive
instruments ever developed.” Thus, (B) is the correct response.

Response (A) reports that most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a
neutron star nearby. Since (A) gives no information about the size of the supernovas that
produced these remnants, it is possible that all of the remnants detected to date are consistent
with the current theory’s claim that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars.
(A), therefore, lends no support to the argument that the current theory is wrong in this claim.

Response (C) reports that the supernova of 1987 was the first supernova that scientists were
able to observe in progress. This information has no direct bearing on the question of whether
this event produced a neutron star and thus cannot be used to strengthen the argument that the
current theory is wrong.

Response (D) asserts that several important features of the 1987 supernova are correctly
predicted by the current theory. This bolsters the support for the current theory and would
thus, if anything, weaken the argument that the current theory is wrong.

Response (E) reports that not all neutron stars are the products of supernova events. Since this
information pertains to neutron stars that were not produced by supernovas, it is irrelevant to
the question of whether all supernovas of a certain size produce neutron stars, as the current
theory claims. Hence, (E) lends no support to the argument.

This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly
when it appeared on the LSAT.

Question 5
Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom.
There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most
oppressive societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that
have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects.
The reasoning in the political scientist’s argument is flawed because it

A. confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the conditions sufficient
to bring it about
B. fails to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might
cause a society to become more democratic
C. appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made
D. overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being
necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it
E. bases its historical case on a personal point of view

Explanation for Question 5

This question asks you to identify how the reasoning in the political scientist’s argument is
flawed. The argument bases its conclusion—that democracy does not promote political
freedom—on two sets of historical examples. The first set of examples demonstrates that
democracy is not sufficient for political freedom, and the second set demonstrates that
democracy is not necessary for political freedom. But it does not follow from these examples
that democracy does not promote political freedom. Even if democracy is not, by itself,
sufficient for political freedom, it can still promote political freedom by contributing to it in
most instances. Even if democracy is not necessary for political freedom, it can still be true
that democracy is something that promotes political freedom wherever it is found. Thus, (D)
is the correct response.

Response (A) is incorrect. The political scientist’s argument does not indicate that any
particular conditions are necessary for political freedom, nor does it indicate that any
particular conditions are sufficient to bring about political freedom. Thus the argument could
not be said to confuse these two sorts of conditions. Rather, the political scientist’s argument
attempts to demonstrate that democracy does not promote political freedom on the grounds
that democracy is neither necessary nor sufficient for bringing about political freedom.

Response (B) is incorrect. The argument does fail to consider whether a substantial increase
in the level of political freedom would cause a society to become more democratic, but this
does not constitute a flaw in its reasoning. The truth of the claim that increased political
freedom causes greater democratization would not by itself undermine the political scientist’s
conclusion that democracies do not promote political freedom. Nor does that claim engage
with the argument’s premises, which are concerned with the effect of democracy on political
freedom, not the effect of political freedom on democracy.

Response (C) is incorrect. The “causal claim being made” could only be the argument’s
conclusion that democracy does not promote political freedom, which denies that there is a
causal connection between democracy and political freedom. The historical examples in the
argument are relevant to this claim, however. These examples are an important part of the
larger body of historical evidence that one would look to when investigating the issue of
whether democracy promotes political freedom.

Response (E) is also incorrect. The political scientist does not express a personal point of
view or base the historical examples on such a view. On the contrary, the historical examples
themselves are an impersonal, though flawed, basis for the argument’s conclusion.
This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly
when it appeared on the LSAT.

Question 6
Journalist: To reconcile the need for profits sufficient to support new drug research with the
moral imperative to provide medicines to those who most need them but cannot afford them,
some pharmaceutical companies feel justified in selling a drug in rich nations at one price and
in poor nations at a much lower price. But this practice is unjustified. A nation with a low
average income may still have a substantial middle class better able to pay for new drugs than
are many of the poorer citizens of an overall wealthier nation.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the journalist’s
reasoning?

A. People who are ill deserve more consideration than do healthy people, regardless of
their relative socioeconomic positions.
B. Wealthy institutions have an obligation to expend at least some of their resources to
assist those incapable of assisting themselves.
C. Whether one deserves special consideration depends on one’s needs rather than on
characteristics of the society to which one belongs.
D. The people in wealthy nations should not have better access to health care than do the
people in poorer nations.
E. Unequal access to health care is more unfair than an unequal distribution of wealth.

Explanation for Question 6

The journalist states that pharmaceutical companies have both a need for profits to support
future research and a moral obligation to provide medicines to those who most need them and
cannot afford them. In order to balance these requirements, they have adopted a practice of
selling drugs at lower prices in poorer countries. The journalist’s conclusion is that this
practice is unjustified. To support this claim, the journalist points out that different
individuals in the same nation have differing abilities to pay, but this consideration does not,
by itself, establish that the pharmaceutical company’s policy is unjustified. The question asks
you to choose the principle that would most help to justify the journalist’s reasoning.

The principle stated in response (C) connects the question of whether special consideration is
deserved to personal, rather than societal, needs. The pharmaceutical companies’ practice
provides special consideration based on the characteristics of one’s society, and not based on
one’s personal needs. As a result, according to this principle, the practice tends to deny
special consideration to some who deserve it (the poorer citizens of wealthier nations), while
giving special consideration to some who do not deserve it (the middle class citizens of
poorer nations). In this way the practice is failing to meet the pharmaceutical companies’
obligation to provide special consideration for those who most need the drugs and cannot
afford them, and, in giving undeserved special consideration, failing to generate income that
could have been used to support new drug research. The principle in (C) thereby provides
strong support for the journalist’s reasoning that the pharmaceutical companies’ practice is
unjustified. Thus, (C) is the correct response.
The principle stated in response (A) applies to balancing the consideration deserved by ill
people and healthy people. However, the pharmaceutical companies’ practice, and the
journalist’s argument against that practice, concerns only ill people (that is, people who need
drugs). As a result, response (A) is not relevant to the journalist’s reasoning.

The principle stated in (B) requires that wealthy institutions use some of their resources to aid
those in need. This tends to affirm the pharmaceutical companies’ moral imperative to
provide medicines to those who need them but cannot afford them. However, this principle
gives no support to the journalist’s reasoning, which contends that the pharmaceutical
companies’ pricing policy is not justified by this moral imperative.

The principle stated in (D), that people in wealthy nations should not have better access to
health care than those in poorer nations, is a principle that tends to support the companies’
practice, because the companies’ practice is one that tends to lessen the health care disparities
between wealthy and poorer nations. For this reason, (D) actually runs counter to the
journalist’s reasoning.

The principle stated in (E) concerns whether an unequal distribution of health care or an
unequal distribution of wealth is more unfair. However, this is a different issue than the one
the journalist is addressing. Response (E) is thus not relevant to the journalist’s reasoning.

This was an easy question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly
when it appeared on the LSAT.

Question 7
Several critics have claimed that any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry—poetry
that is rhymed and metered—is performing a politically conservative act. This is plainly
false. Consider Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker, two contemporary poets whose poetry is
almost exclusively formal and yet who are themselves politically progressive feminists.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

A. No one who is a feminist is also politically conservative.

B. No poet who writes unrhymed or unmetered poetry is politically conservative.
C. No one who is politically progressive is capable of performing a politically
conservative act.
D. Anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not politically conservative never writes
poetry that is politically conservative.
E. The content of a poet’s work, not the work’s form, is the most decisive factor in
determining what political consequences, if any, the work will have.

Explanation for Question 7

This question asks you to identify the option containing information that makes the
conclusion of the argument follow logically. The conclusion of the argument is that it is false
that any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry is performing a politically conservative
act. To draw this conclusion logically, one only needs to show at least one contemporary poet
who is writing formal poetry and is not thereby performing a politically conservative act.
Showing such an instance would provide a counterexample to the claim attributed to the
critics, demonstrating that the critics’ generalization is false.

The premise given is that there are two contemporary and politically progressive feminist
poets who write formal poetry—Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker. If no one who is
politically progressive is capable of performing a politically conservative act, and Peacock
and Hacker are politically progressive, it follows logically that neither is capable of
performing a politically conservative act. Since both write formal poetry, their writing of
formal poetry cannot be a politically conservative act. This shows that one can write formal
poetry without performing a politically conservative act, so (C) is the correct response.

If it is true that no one who is a feminist is politically conservative, as response (A) says, we
can conclude that Peacock and Hacker, who are identified as being feminists, are not
politically conservative. But we already knew this, as they were also identified as being
politically progressive. As long as people who are not themselves politically conservative are
capable of performing politically conservative acts, the question of whether it is possible for
someone to write formal poetry without performing a politically conservative act remains
unanswered. (A) is thus incorrect.

If no poet who writes unrhymed and unmetered poetry is politically conservative, as response
(B) indicates, this tells us little about Peacock and Hacker, whose poetry, we are told, is
almost exclusively formal. Insofar as (B) may indicate that Peacock and Hacker are not
politically conservative (because they write some poetry that is not both rhymed and
metered), we already knew this, as they are identified as being politically progressive. Since
the argument works by presenting Peacock and Hacker as counterexamples to the claim that
to write formal poetry is to perform a politically conservative act, (B) contributes nothing in
the way of additional support for the conclusion.

Response (D) says that anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not politically
conservative never writes poetry that is politically conservative. However, to make the
conclusion of the argument follow logically, one must show that some contemporary poets
who write formal poetry are sometimes not performing a politically conservative act. The
information in (D) is not applicable to this question.

Response (E) concerns the effects of the content of a poet’s work on determining the political
consequences of the work. However, the question that must be answered is whether any
contemporary poet who writes formal poetry is performing a politically conservative act, not
what the consequences of that poetry might be. The question of whether writing a particular
poem is a politically conservative act is different from the question of what that poem’s
political consequences will be. Moreover, because the content of neither Peacock’s nor
Hacker’s work has been specified, (E) does not even allow us to draw a conclusion about the
political consequences of their work.

This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly
when it appeared on the LSAT.

Question 8
About two million years ago, lava dammed up a river in western Asia and caused a small lake
to form. The lake existed for about half a million years. Bones of an early human ancestor
were recently found in the ancient lake-bottom sediments that lie on top of the layer of lava.
Therefore, ancestors of modern humans lived in western Asia between two million and one-
and-a-half million years ago.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

A. There were no other lakes in the immediate area before the lava dammed up the river.
B. The lake contained fish that the human ancestors could have used for food.
C. The lava that lay under the lake-bottom sediments did not contain any human fossil
remains.
D. The lake was deep enough that a person could drown in it.
E. The bones were already in the sediments by the time the lake dried up.

Explanation for Question 8

This question asks you to find the assumption required by the argument. In other words, find
the statement whose truth is required if the argument is to succeed in demonstrating its
conclusion.

Response (E) is the correct response. If the bones were not already in the sediments when the
lake dried up, that means that they got into the sediments later; that is, less than one-and-a-
half million years ago. But then their existence would not provide evidence that there were
human ancestors in western Asia between two million and one-and-a-half million years ago;
that is, the conclusion of the argument would not follow if (E) is false.

Response (A) is incorrect. The existence of other lakes in the area is irrelevant to the
argument.

Response (B) is incorrect. If response (B) turned out to be true, that might provide a reason
why humans were in the area of the lake, but this particular explanation need not be assumed
in order for the argument to succeed in demonstrating its conclusion.

Response (C) is incorrect. It does not matter for the argument whether or not there were such
remains in the lava, and the argument does not state or imply that there were no humans in
the region prior to two million years ago. This was by far the most popular incorrect
response.

Response (D) is incorrect. The remains could have gotten into the lake in any number of
other ways; to give just one, perhaps the people in the area put their dead into the lake.

This was of medium difficulty, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly
when it appeared on the LSAT.

Question 9
In jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, drivers who use
headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than are drivers who use
headlights only when visibility is poor. Yet Highway Safety Department records show that
making use of headlights mandatory at all times does nothing to reduce the overall number of
collisions.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the
information above?

A. In jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, one driver
in four uses headlights for daytime driving in good weather.
B. A law making use of headlights mandatory at all times is not especially difficult to
enforce.
C. Only very careful drivers use headlights when their use is not legally required.
D. There are some jurisdictions in which it is illegal to use headlights when visibility is
good.
E. The jurisdictions where use of headlights is mandatory at all times are those where
daytime visibility is frequently poor.

Explanation for Question 9

This question asks you to resolve an apparent discrepancy in information. The discrepancy
arises because the passage presents two pieces of information that are in conflict.

Response (C) is correct. If only very careful drivers use headlights when their use is not
legally required, then this explains why, when headlight use is optional, those drivers are less
likely to be involved in a collision than are drivers who use headlights only when visibility is
poor. It stands to reason that if headlight use is made mandatory, many less-careful drivers
will also use headlights. But then the group of drivers using headlights expands to include not
only the very careful drivers, but drivers of all sorts—including some who are not very
careful. So it is not at all surprising that the overall number of collisions is not reduced:
unsafe drivers do not become more careful when forced to use headlights.

Response (A) is incorrect. Statistical information about the percentage of drivers who use
headlights for daytime driving in jurisdictions where such use is optional does not help to
explain why making the use of headlights mandatory does not reduce overall collisions.

Response (B) is incorrect. Rather than helping to resolve the apparent discrepancy, this
statement would, if true, rule out a possible resolution. If, contrary to response (B), such a
law were difficult to enforce, that might help explain why such laws do not reduce collision
rates.

Response (D) is incorrect. This choice can do nothing to explain discrepancies between cases
in which the use of headlights is optional when visibility is good and cases where the use of
headlights is mandatory at all times. This choice introduces a third scenario that does not
explain anything about either of the situations discussed in the passage.

Response (E) is incorrect. If it is true that the jurisdictions in which the use of headlights is
mandatory are areas that have poor daytime visibility, one might expect the use of headlights
to reduce the overall number of collisions, at least in those places. But in any case, response
(E) does not explain why, in jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional, drivers who use
headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in collisions. This was the most popular
incorrect answer.
This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly
when it appeared on the LSAT.

Question 10
The Venetian Renaissance painter Vittore Carpaccio used sumptuous reds in most of his
paintings. Since the recently discovered Venetian Renaissance painting Erato Declaiming
contains notable sumptuous reds, it is probably by Carpaccio.

Which one of the following contains a pattern of flawed reasoning most similar to that in the
argument above?

A. Most Renaissance painters worked in a single medium, either tempera or oil. Since
the Renaissance painting Calypso's Bower is in oil, its painter probably always used
oil.
B. In Italian Renaissance painting, the single most common subject was the Virgin and
Child, so the single most common subject in Western art probably is also the Virgin
and Child.
C. Works of art in the Renaissance were mostly commissioned by patrons, so the
Renaissance work The Dances of Terpsichore was probably commissioned by a
patron.
D. The anonymous painting St. Sebastian is probably an early Florentine painting since it
is in tempera, and most early Florentine paintings were in tempera.
E. Since late-Renaissance paintings were mostly in oil, the Venetian late-Renaissance
painter Arnoldi, whose works are now lost, probably painted in oil.

Explanation for Question 10

This question asks you to find the response that contains a pattern of flawed reasoning most
similar to that contained in the passage’s argument. To do this, you must understand the
flawed pattern in the passage’s argument. Then choose the response that exhibits the most
similar flawed pattern.

Response (D) is correct. Just because most As are Bs, that does not mean a particular B is
likely to be an A. There may be many more Bs than As. This is the flaw in the passage, and in
response (D).

Response (A) is incorrect. This argument is not flawed. Its premises, if true, provide good
evidence for drawing its conclusion.

Response (B) is incorrect. This argument is flawed in generalizing from a specific case that
may not be representative. But that is not the flawed pattern in the passage’s argument.

Response (C) is incorrect. This argument is not flawed. Its premises, if true, provide good
evidence for drawing its conclusion.

Response (E) is incorrect. This argument is not flawed. Its premises, if true, provide good
evidence for drawing its conclusion.
This was a very difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it
correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.

Faulty thinking
There are many ways that premises may not be true, or that conclusions may not
follow logically from the premises given. Look out for these errors when analysing
academic texts and try to avoid these faults in your own arguments. Below are
fourteen explanations and examples (flip card activity) of the more common ones
(there is a text only version below the activity):

1. Correlation vs causation
Just because two things occur at the same time, does not necessarily mean that one
causes the other. They may just often correlate together.
- Most people with left feet also have right feet. Therefore, having a left foot causes a
person to also have a right foot.

2. Reverse causation
When two events occur at the same time, make sure the writer is accurately assigning
the cause and effect.
- The more people using umbrellas outside, the heavier the rain. Therefore, people
using umbrellas causes heavy rainfall.

3. Third factor
Two events that occur together may actually both be the effect of a third, unmentioned
factor.
- There is a strong link between people's shoe size and the size of their vocabulary.
Therefore. having a large vocabulary causes your feet to grow.

4. Bi-directional causation
Two events that occur together may actually be both the effect and the cause of each
other.
- The most successful students visit the Skills Hub website frequently. This is a just
coincidence.

5. Ignoring alternative explanations

Make sure that you are watching out for other possible reasons that would also lead to a
writer’s conclusions
- I always get bad tempered when I have a hangover. I must have a hangover right now,
because I am bad tempered.

6. Making implicit assumptions

Implicit assumptions are not always wrong, but they are hard to spot. If they are wrong,
you must work harder to realise that they are present!
- The meal contains nuts, so the patients should not eat it.

7. Generalising from anecdotal evidence

- My friend tried acupuncture and it worked. Therefore, acupuncture can cure anything.

8. Thinking in black and white

- His theory is either completely correct, or 100% wrong.

9. Being inconsistent

- Some people prefer an early start, but everyone likes a lie in.

10. Including irrelevant information

- Let's consider whether music should be taught in schools. My great-grandmother used

to send me to sleep by playing lullabies on the trombone.

11. Using emotive language

It is easy to become swept away by words that provoke emotions in the audience, but
that cannot be backed up objectively.

- This kind of stupidity is the main threat to the health of our precious young people.

12. Using persuasive language

Words that try to persuade the reader of a particular viewpoint need to be analysed
carefully!
- Obviously we should follow every instruction issued by a doctor.

13. Over-generalising

- From the two case studies, it is clear that this outcome is inevitable for measles
patients.

14. Wishful thinking

- Clearly, sending all patients home at this stage will reduce the cost of care without
significantly impairing their recovery.

Criticising experts
A lot of students worry about whether they really can question an expert’s opinions
and data. The academic may have been researching and studying the subject for
many years whereas you might simply be writing a 1500-word essay on the topic. Is
it really possible to critique someone who is so much further along in their
knowledge? The answer is yes, for the following reasons:

 Critically analysing theories, pointing out issues with ideas, and suggesting
methods of improvement are how scientific and cultural progress occurs. If
 people didn’t do this, people would still be using astrology to make medical
decisions and travelling in bullock carts!
 The fact that there are competing ideas and theories surrounding so many
concepts in the world proves that academics disagree with one another. You
can disagree too.
 Other students, journalists, academics and thinkers question expert opinion all
the time. They are not more intelligent than you.
 You are not looking for the ‘correct’ answer when you think critically. You are
only looking at what another person has said and deciding if it is something
you can trust or not.
 Academics can be wrong. There are countless examples of mainstream
theories that have later been proven false. For instance: Dr Spock’s advice to
parents in the 1950’s which caused thousands of cot deaths; Einstein’s
stationary universe theory; or the centuries-long idea that Australia was the
most southerly landmass on Earth.
 Evidence can be poor. An expert might have carried out a well-designed
research project and written up a convincing argument. But perhaps the
sample size was very small or the research goes against what 100 other
experts are arguing. While they might have made a good start, is the evidence
enough to convince you?

Remember
Critical thinking does not always mean finding fault in someone else’s work. It can be
finding what is good about it. If you can argue why someone is correct, this is also a
demonstration of critical thought.