CRITICAL THINKING     (New AS/A2 Course)

Download: Information Pack (4 pages, Word doc)

AS CRITICAL THINKING  (NEW OCR SYLLABUS) 

UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING 

The first of the AS units has two main sections: 

1. The Language of Reasoning

Section 1, “The Language of Reasoning”, prepares students for analysing arguments. It looks at the components and structures of arguments and provides a common notation for analysing them. Students learn how to evaluate evidence by considering issues like the nature and size of samples, how and why evidence was collected, and possible ambiguity of findings or alternative interpretations of statistics. 

After this basic training, students should be able to comment on the strength or weakness of reasons used to support conclusions. The extent and reasonableness of assumptions should also be assessed.

 All of this is achieved by reading stimulus material and using authors’ words to provide evidence for their evaluation of any argument.

2. Credibility           

 Section 2, “Credibility”, prepares students to apply credibility criteria within a context of conflicting reports about a simple scenario. Some of these criteria are: plausibility; corroboration; consistency; neutrality or bias; vested interest; reputation and ability to see. These credibility criteria are used to explain how claims are strengthened or weakened. Students should be able to comment on the comparative credibility of different organisations or individuals. Finally, students should be able to come to a reasoned judgement about the probable course of events in any given scenario.

 Clever  R A V E N

 We use this mnemonic to remember the major credibility criteria:

Context,        Reputation, Ability to see or perceive,     Vested interest, Expertise,    Neutrality or bias.

UNIT 2 ASSESSING AND DEVELOPING ARGUMENT

 The second AS unit has three main sections: 

1. Analysis of Argument

 This topic introduces specialist terms and allows practice in using them appropriately in critical thinking. (e.g. counter, challenge, refute, repudiate, inference, consistency, converse, implication). There is also some work on intermediate conclusions, analogies and general principles. Overall, the student is considering the difference between an explanation and an argument.

2. Evaluating Arguments 

 This is mainly about flaws in reasoning, for example: the slippery slope; post hoc; conflation; circular argument; confusing necessary and sufficient conditions; ad hominem, and the “straw man” or “straw person” flaw. We also look at various appeals to things other than reason. All of these things can be used to try to support a conclusion, but critical thinkers should be able to identify, name and describe all of these things that may not actually give good support to a conclusion.

3. Developing One’s Own Reasoned Arguments

This part allows students to put into practice all the work done in evaluating other arguments. Students should be able to build well structured arguments containing recognisable components like reasons, intermediate and main conclusions, evidence or examples, counter assertions, counter arguments and hypothetical reasoning and general principles. Students are asked to make arguments on various topics using just general knowledge and the tools of critical thinking.

UNIT 3 ETHICAL REASONING AND DECISION-MAKING

 The first A2 unit has two main sections:

 1.        Ethical Reasoning

 Students learn to apply ethical theories to issues raised in resource material. This unit builds on skills from AS, this time in the context of complex ethical and moral problems. The influences of many factors, e.g. social, political, religious or moral are considered. Students learn how to analyse and apply hypothetical reasoning. Various criteria can be applied to evaluate responses to moral problems, e.g. public opinion, cost, practicality, social, political and environmental considerations.

 2.        Dilemmas, Applying Principles, and Decision-making

 Students study the nature of a dilemma and should be able to identify or construct a dilemma from source material. In response to real issues, students will construct their own arguments. The quality of language in the A2 units should be precise and appropriate, including things like: means, end, entitlement, deserts, values, good, deontological, consequentialist, elitist and altruistic.

At this stage, arguments have to be coherent and cogent. Students should also be able to apply hypothetical reasoning and apply a range of principles.

UNIT 4 CRITICAL REASONING

1. Analysis and Evaluation of Complex Arguments

Students will be presented with a wide range of material from articles, books, magazines, images and statistical data. Students will be adept at recognising and describing assumptions, valid and invalid arguments, syllogisms, sustained suppositional reasoning and sustained counter-argument. This unit allows students to bring together previous learning about flaws, appeals, strengths and weaknesses in reasoning. At this level, we should be able to see that a complex argument can have strengths and weaknesses within it, but we should still be able to make a holistic evaluation of reasoning. 

2. Developing One’s own Cogent and Complex Arguments

 This unit is all about forming one’s own cogent arguments in response to source material. At this stage, arguments need to be perceptive, complex and structured.

CRITICAL THINKING:

a form of reflective reasoning that emphasises the logical connection of ideas within a sound structure. It involves the analysis and evaluation of information and argument; and the development of a range of intellectual skills that support the use of reasoning to reach clear, logical and coherent judgements (conclusions) within a given context.

   (definition from the OCR syllabus)

=======================================================================

Critical Thinking

New AS/A2 course

Information Pack

What is the  

“straw man”

 fallacy?

                         How is a claim strengthened

 or weakened by vested  

 interest?

Did the moon landings really happen? Was it a hoax? How do we assess the evidence?

FULL SYLLABUS INFORMATION ON

www.ocr.org.uk , Specifications, AS/A2, Critical Thinking     or

www.allsaints.york.sch.uk, Departments, Critical Thinking

There are four examined units, two for AS and two for A2.

Deciding if A2 is for you:

It looks a lot more challenging than AS, but the reasoning level it teaches will be very good for all of your academic thinking, reading and writing. There is quite a lot of philosophical material, and some political ideas, so you will be dealing with real issues at an advanced level.

Usually students do go on to A2 after putting in the basic skill work at AS. The A2 revisits some of the same ground as AS but with more demanding levels of critical analysis, precision of language, and application of knowledge and skill.

 AS UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING

The first of the AS units has two main sections:  1. The Language of Reasoning

Section 1, “The Language of Reasoning”, prepares students for analysing arguments. It looks at the components and structures of arguments and provides a common notation for analysing them. Students learn how to evaluate evidence by considering issues like the nature and size of samples, how and why evidence was collected, and possible ambiguity of findings or alternative interpretations of statistics.

After this basic training, students should be able to comment on the strength or weakness of reasons used to support conclusions. The extent and reasonableness of assumptions should also be assessed.

All of this is achieved by reading stimulus material and using authors’ words to provide evidence for their evaluation of any argument.

2. Credibility           

 Section 2, “Credibility”, prepares students to apply credibility criteria within a context of conflicting reports about a simple scenario. Some of these criteria are: plausibility; corroboration; consistency; neutrality or bias; vested interest; reputation and ability to see. These credibility criteria are used to explain how claims are strengthened or weakened. Students should be able to comment on the comparative credibility of different organisations or individuals. Finally, students should be able to come to a reasoned judgement about the probable course of events in any given scenario.

Context,        Reputation, Ability to see Vested interest, Expertise,  Neutrality   (the Clever RAVEN mnemonic to remember credibility criteria)

AS UNIT 2 ASSESSING AND DEVELOPING ARGUMENT

The second AS unit has three main sections: 

1. Analysis of Argument

 This topic introduces specialist terms and allows practice in using them appropriately in critical thinking. (e.g. counter, challenge, refute, repudiate, inference, consistency, converse, implication). There is also some work on intermediate conclusions, analogies and general principles. Overall, the student is considering the difference between an explanation and an argument.

2. Evaluating Arguments 

 This is mainly about flaws in reasoning, for example: the slippery slope; post hoc; conflation; circular argument; confusing necessary and sufficient conditions; ad hominem, and the “straw man” or “straw person” flaw. We also look at various appeals to things other than reason. All of these things can be used to try to support a conclusion, but critical thinkers should be able to identify, name and describe all of these things that may not actually give good support to a conclusion.

 3. Developing One’s Own Reasoned Arguments

 This part allows students to put into practice all the work done in evaluating other arguments. Students should be able to build well structured arguments containing recognisable components like reasons, intermediate and main conclusions, evidence or examples, counter assertions, counter arguments and hypothetical reasoning and general principles. Students are asked to make arguments on various topics using just general knowledge and the tools of critical thinking.

 A2 UNIT 3 ETHICAL REASONING AND DECISION-MAKING

The first A2 unit has two main sections:

 1. Ethical Reasoning

 Students learn to apply ethical theories to issues raised in resource material. This unit builds on skills from AS, this time in the context of complex ethical and moral problems. The influences of many factors, e.g. social, political, religious or moral are considered. Students learn how to analyse and apply hypothetical reasoning. Various criteria can be applied to evaluate responses to moral problems, e.g. public opinion, cost, practicality, social, political and environmental considerations.

 2 Dilemmas, Applying Principles, and Decision-making

Students study the nature of a dilemma and should be able to identify or construct a dilemma from source material. In response to real issues, students will construct their own arguments. The quality of language in the A2 units should be precise and appropriate, including things like: means, end, entitlement, deserts, values, good, deontological, consequentialist, elitist and altruistic. At this stage, arguments have to be coherent and cogent. Students should also be able to apply hypothetical reasoning and apply a range of principles.

 A2 UNIT 4 CRITICAL REASONING

 1 Analysis and Evaluation of Complex Arguments

Students will be presented with a wide range of material from articles, books, magazines, images and statistical data. Students will be adept at recognising and describing assumptions, valid and invalid arguments, syllogisms, sustained suppositional reasoning and sustained counter-argument. This unit allows students to bring together previous learning about flaws, appeals, strengths and weaknesses in reasoning. At this level, we should be able to see that a complex argument can have strengths and weaknesses within it, but we should still be able to make a holistic evaluation of reasoning.

 2 Developing One’s Own Cogent and Complex Arguments

 This unit is all about forming one’s own cogent arguments in response to source material. At this stage, arguments need to be perceptive, complex and structured.