Web: http://libguides.hull.ac.

uk/skills
Email: skills@hull.ac.uk

Critical Thinking
From the Skills Team, University of Hull
While at university you are required to base much of your assessed work on your
ability to express a well formulated point of view or argument. Naturally, this requires
certain skills which you may not have as you make the transition into higher education.
The aim of this booklet is to introduce you to some of the necessary skills that will
equip you to become a successful critical and analytical thinker.
Critical and analytical thinking at university
First, remember that being critical is a highly valued skill in academic life. You are
expected to challenge the information presented to you in a constructive manner and
within the limits of the knowledge that tutors can expect of you. It involves:
Considering an issue carefully and more than once.
Evaluating the evidence put forward in support of the belief or viewpoint.
Considering where the belief or viewpoint leads - what conclusions would
follow; are these suitable and rational; and if not, should the belief or viewpoint
be reconsidered?
Critical thinking goes hand in hand with analytical thinking. For Cottrell (2008: 275)
analytical thinking involves the following additional processes:
Standing back from the information given.
Examining it in detail from many angles.
Checking closely whether it is completely accurate.
Checking whether a statement follows logically from what went before.
Looking for possible flaws in the reasoning, the evidence, or the way that
conclusions are drawn.
Comparing the same issue from the point of view of other theorists or writers.
Being able to see and explain why different people arrive at different conclusions.
Being able to argue why one set of opinions, results or conclusions is preferable
to another.
Being on guard for literary or statistical devices that encourage the reader to
take questionable statements at face value.
Checking for hidden assumptions.
Checking for attempts to lure the reader into agreement.


2
What is critical thinking?
When you research any aspect of your subject in the relevant journals, articles, books
etc you will be expected not only to learn from them but to assess the validity and
reliability of their arguments and conclusions. If you are a passive reader and you
unquestioningly accept what is presented to you, you will find yourself becoming
increasingly confused as the conflicting texts contradict and undermine each other.
Therefore, you should adopt a reasonably sceptical position when reading at university.
Critical analysis is the careful, deliberation of whether you should accept or reject
judgement about a claim and the degree of confidence with which you do so (Moore &
Parker, 2008). Like a jury member, you have a responsibility to weigh up the evidence
when critically reading a text. You must give due consideration to the evidence and the
context of the judgement. When reading critically you should consider the claims of
the piece and question the basis of those claims. Furthermore, there are a number of
questions you need to ask to determine the validity of the text you are reading or the
argument being advanced.
1. What is the piece about?
2. What are the conclusions?
3. Does the evidence logically match the
conclusions?
4. Is there an alternative position?
5. Do I accept or reject the piece?
These are five basic questions you may wish to ask when approaching any text.
What is the piece about?
This is relatively straightforward. After you have read a piece of academic writing
summarise it in your own words. This will help you identify the main points or
arguments. It will also provide you with some insights into how to compare it
against other pieces of writing.

What are the conclusions?
Conclusions are found at the end of a piece. Their purpose is to summarise the
main points in the preceding paragraphs and make authoritative declarations based
on how the material has been interpreted. Pay attention to the final stages of a
piece of academic writing and pick out the end summary.

Does the evidence logically match the conclusions?
The conclusion should not introduce new material or ideas, but draw upon what has
been discussed throughout the text. Therefore, there should be a logical match
between how the ideas are presented and how those ideas have been interpreted to
make the conclusion.
3

Is there an alternative position?
There is a reason why you need to read so much at university. It is not just because
there is so much more to the subject, but because there will be multiple points of
view on the subject. If you do not critically evaluate your extensive reading you will
become confused when your materials contradict each other and even give contrary
information.

Do I accept or reject the piece?
There are many reasons why you may accept or reject a piece of writing, but if you
were critically evaluating it you may disagree with the conclusions on principle, or
you might not be convinced that the evidence is conclusive enough for you not to be
convinced by an alternative perspective.
Read the following the extract by Jeremy Paxman. After you have read the piece, ask
the above questions.
The English fixation with the weather is nothing to do with histrionics like the
English countryside, it is, for the most part, dramatically undramatic. The interest
is less in the phenomena themselves, but in uncertainty... One of the few things you
can say about England with any absolute certainty is that it has a lot of weather. It
may not include tropical cyclones but life at the edge of an ocean and the edge of
a continent means you can never be entirely sure what youre going to get
(Paxman, 1999: 126).
1. The piece is about English weather, specifically the English attitude to the weather.
2. It concludes with the idea that the English have an unusual fixation with the
weather because of its unpredictable nature. He observes that there is a lot of
weather, it is not easily predicted, and this is the cause of the English fascination
with it.
3. Paxman does not use evidence in the sense that there is nothing to back up his
observations. Therefore, it would be reasonable to suggest that the conclusions
do not match evidence, as the evidence itself is based wholly on his personal
opinions and observations.
Read the following extract by Kate Fox:
...Our conversations about the weather are not really about the weather at all:
English weather-speak is a form of code, evolved to help us overcome our natural
reserve and actually talk to each other. Everyone knows, for example, that Nice
day, isnt it?, Ooh, isnt it cold?, Still raining, eh? and other variations on the
theme are not requests for meteorological data: they are ritual greetings,
conversation starters or default fillers. In other words, English weather-speak is a
form of grooming talk the human equivalent of what is known as social
grooming among our primate cousins, where they spend hours grooming each
others fur, even when they are perfectly clean, as a means of social bonding (Fox,
2004: 26).

4
Clearly there is an alternative position to Paxman. As you can see there is a definite
contradiction between the two authors. However, while Paxman draws his
conclusions from his own insights and observations, Fox mentions her own evidence
and additional research undertaken amongst primates.
Accept or reject? Certainly Paxman can be accepted as an observation piece, but it
is important that even if you agree with his opinions it would be unwise to accept
them, especially in the light of Fox's alternative ideas.
Evaluating the text
You will not be expected to read your subject material and accept it at face value as, at
university, the depth and level of your reading will be greater than you ever undertook
at college or school. You will be expected to critically engage with your text books,
journals, articles etc in a way which will at first seem alien to you. Most students who
are unsure of critical analysis and evaluation simply do not feel confident in their own
subject knowledge to 'take on,' as it were, established academics in their own
specialisms. This is why there are certain steps you can take to make a start at critical
analysis.
First, identify the focus of your assignment
Look carefully at the wording of the instruction or title. Are you being
asked to discuss, compare/contrast, evaluate etc. Often you will be
given specific instructions in your assignment brief which you can use to
focus on what relevant material you should research.

Next, identify your own position
Assignments which require a large degree of critical analysis will often
want you to reflect on your own position. Even if you are unsure at the
beginning whether you even have an opinion always bear in mind that as
your reading/research progresses, and as you become more informed,
you should be thinking about where you stand on certain issues.

Consider how you will persuade other people of your point of
view
During the course of your research it is best advised that you take time
to reflect on what you know, and why. If you wish to convince other
people of your position, what evidence do you have to justify your
points? Is the evidence reliable and can it be used effectively to draw
your conclusions?
5
Reading
When researching any academic book, journal, article etc begin by reading through it
and identify the line of reasoning. Essentially, what is the text about?
Critically evaluate the line of reasoning: summarise in your own words what the
conclusions are. Then look at the evidence used to make these conclusions. The
accepted format of most academic journals, articles etc will expect the author to use
evidence in such a way as to make his/her arguments and conclusions appear rational
and authoritative. This will not stop you asking specific questions:
Are there hidden or unquestioned assumptions within the text?
Is the language used designed to persuade logically or emotionally?
Does the evidence support the conclusions?
Is there a logical connection with how the evidence is used and how the
conclusions are drawn?
Are personal beliefs driving the writer?
As you can see, the expectation here is very much on evaluating evidence and
conclusions. When you read any academic piece you are not being asked to accept it
without question. Most academic writing does not exist outside of certain contexts,
therefore you will be required to give due consideration to the external influences that
may have contributed to an author's position.
What is the context of the judgement? Is the author coming at the reader from any
political or ideological position? This is quite important as it allows you to evaluate the
credibility of those positions and any conclusions that could have been drawn from
them. This will help you read between the lines and weigh up any false logic you may
feel is present in the text. Even if you read a piece of academic writing you disagree
with, but the argument is well presented and the evidence is sound, you will of course
have to think why you disagree and on what grounds you reject the conclusions. Just
because you identify the underlying influences of a theoretical or political ideology
within a text does not mean that the logic and arguments are unsound. But nor does
it necessarily mean that you cannot argue against logic from a similarly principled
position.
Here is an example from the historian Niall Ferguson's book Empire. Read through
the following extract and identify the position of the author:
"Once there was an Empire that governed roughly a quarter of the world's
population, covered about the same proportion of the earth's land surface and
dominated nearly all its oceans. The British Empire was the biggest Empire ever,
bar none. How an archipelago of rainy islands off the north-west coast of Europe
came to rule the world is one of the fundamental questions this book seeks to
answer. The second and perhaps more difficult question it addresses is simply
whether the Empire was a good or bad thing... In 1700 the population of India
was twenty times that of the United Kingdom. India's share of total world output
at that time has been estimated at 24 per cent - nearly a quarter; Britain's share
was just 3 per cent. The idea that Britain might one day rule India would have
struck a visitor to Delhi in the late seventeenth century as simply preposterous... It
is a point worth emphasizing that to a significant extent British rule did have [that]
6
benign effect. According to the work of political scientists like Seymour Martin
Lipset, countries that were former British colonies had a significantly better chance
of achieving enduring democratization after independence than those ruled by
other countries. Indeed, nearly every country with a population of at least a million
that has emerged from the colonial era without succumbing to dictatorship is a
former British colony. True, there have been many former colonies which have not
managed to sustain free institutions: Bangladesh, Burma, Kenya, Pakistan,
Tanzania and Zimbabwe spring to mind. But in a sample of fifty-three countries
that were former British colonies, just under half (twenty-six) were still democracies
in 1993. This can be attributed to the way that British rule, particularly where it
was 'indirect', encouraged the formation of collaborating elites; it may also be
related to the role of the protestant missionaries, who clearly played a part in
encouraging western-style aspirations for political freedom in parts of Africa and
the Caribbean (Ferguson, 2003: xii, 29, 362)."
Ask yourself:
What is the authors position?
Pick out examples of evidence he uses to justify his position.
Is there a match between evidence and conclusions?
Ferguson is writing from a position which is favourable towards the British
Empire and its positive legacy within its former colonies.
As evidence he suggests that in 1700 the British had no plans to expand into the
empire it subsequently became; it was essentially a practical trading enterprise.
Ferguson also mentions political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset to justify the
position that on the whole the long-term effects on former British colonies have
been positive, especially in terms of political stability. He also sees the role of
protestant missionaries as playing a vital part in the spreading of western-style
aspirations for political freedom. The use of indirect rule, by which native
elites were co-opted into the British system of government, is presented
positively.
There is a match between evidence and conclusion. However, although
Ferguson is writing positively of empire, this is not to suggest a principled
alternative position cannot be adopted. His conclusions, based on his use of
evidence, are practical rather than ideological. Successful former colonies from
his point of view are typically those which have adopted western values and by
doing so have stable democratic governments.
Compare now with the following extract written by Jean-Paul Sartre:
"Not so long ago, the earth numbered two thousand million inhabitants: five
hundred million men, and one thousand five hundred million natives. Between the
two there was hired kinglets, overlords and a bourgeoise, sham from beginning to
end, which served as go-betweens. The European elite undertook to manufacture
native elite. They picked out promising adolescents; they branded them, as with a
red hot iron, with the principles of western culture; they stuffed their mouths full
with high sounding phrases, grand glutinous words that stuck to the teeth. After a
short stay in the mother country they were sent home, white-brothers... (Sartre,
1961)."
7
What is the authors position?
What are the similarities between Sartres main points and Fergusons?
Compare the language; is one more emotive than the other?
In your opinion which position would you find most convincing?
Why?
Sartre is taking completely the opposite opinion to Ferguson. His position is
anti-imperial and he does not see the effects of colonialism as positive in any way.
Fergusons language is less emotive, relying instead on a neutral tone. His main
points are presented logically in a manner designed to appeal to the readers
rationality.
Sartres language is highly emotive. He uses the simile of branding with hot irons
to highlight his objection to the use of native elites, seeing them as a sham. He
refers to the native hired kinglets etc by suggesting that rather than encouraging
a system of democratic stability, the use of native elites is a violent means of
imperial oppression. He sees them as alien to their own culture by adopting the
values of western society.
It may be difficult to decide which one you agree with, as on the one hand
Ferguson is putting forward a logical argument backed up with evidence. On the
other hand Sartre is taking a highly principled objection based on his
disagreement to collusion, as he sees it, and the loss of native identity. To
choose between the two rather depends on how strongly you feel about the
principle of anti-colonialism and your willingness to accept/reject the practical
realties of imperial rule.
Critical thinking does not have to mean being critical.
As you may have already worked out it is the ability to look in depth at something,
weigh up the main arguments or themes, and pick out the strengths and weaknesses of
a text. To that end it is key that you know what questions to ask when analysing an
academic text. For example:
What else could we assume?
Essentially this entails asking how the author has come to 'know' something and for
you to remain suitably sceptical until you have researched alternative perspectives.
How reliable is the author?
Often in the course of your reading you may come across authors whose work has
possibly been wholly discredited or has fallen out of favour, or maybe even been
shown to be inaccurate. For this reason the critical thinker will certainly need to
know the relations between validity and truth, or putting it another way, the premises
and conclusions. Consider the following:
Cats are animals, and all animals need food; therefore cats need food.
First Premise Second Premise Conclusion
True True Valid and True

8
Fish are vegetarians, and vegetarians eat nothing but bread; therefore fish eat nothing
but bread.
First Premise Second Premise Conclusion
False False Invalid and False
At Length:
Consider now the article below written by Jeanette Winterson. As you read the piece
ask the following questions in relation to the article:
1. What is the piece about?
2. What are the conclusions?
3. What evidence is used to justify the conclusions?
4. What is the context of the judgement?
5. How is the language used?
6. Are personal beliefs driving the argument?
7. What else can we assume? E.g. further reading, additional research.
"I have a temperature of 102, spots on my throat. I call Hilary Fairclough, a homeopath.
She sends round a remedy called Lachesis, made from snake venom. Four hours later I
have no symptoms whatsoever. Dramatic stuff, and enough to convince me that while it
might use snake venom, homeopathy is no snake oil designed for gullible
hypochrondriacs. Right now, though, a fierce debate is raging between those, like me,
who trust homeopathy because it works for them, and those who call it shamanistic
claptrap, without clinical proof or any scientific base. Good homeopaths know the value
of conventional medicine and do not seek to undermine that value.
There will soon be an article in the Lancet calling on doctors to tell their patients that
homeopathic medicines offer no benefit. Until now the caveat has been no "proven"
benefit. But where is the scientific sense in saying that because we don't understand
something, even though we can discern its effects, we have to ignore it, scorn it, or
suppress it?
This homeophobia is, I think, a genuine terror of what homeopathy is suggesting; which is
that we think differently about the relationship between the cure and the disease. It is
not enough to say Disease A is caused by B and can be cured by C.
Homeopathy, in common with other holistic approaches, asks that we look at the whole
picture - the person, and not just his illness. Specifically, in the case of homeopathy, the
remedy picture, which is carefully drawn up after full consultation with the patient,
follows the "like by like" premise - that tiny dilutions of the "problem" can prompt the
body to effect its own cure. This is why the homeopathic code of practice does not talk
about the medicines themselves having a simple causal effect - C cures A. Homeopathy
seeks to understand everything we are, everything we do, as a web of relatedness. This
seems to be partly why tests used for conventional medicines fail when used to test
homeopathy. Sceptics will say it is the medicines that fail, and not the trials, but if the
medicines really are ineffective, why is it that so many people who have tried
homeopathy have found that it makes a difference to their wellbeing?
9
As I understand it, homeopathy is not a linear medicine - a drug aiming for a target - nor
does it seek to remove the human factor. The patient and the practitioner are both
important and relevant when it comes to understanding how humans respond to
treatment. That a good doctor is part of the therapeutic process is commonsense to
anyone who has ever visited their GP or been for surgery. We know too that patients
heal differently, develop complications or not, secondary infections or not, and so on.
Objections to homeopathy begin with what are viewed as the impossible dilutions of the
remedies, so that only nano amounts of the original active substance remain, and in
some cases are only an imprint, or memory. Yet our recent discoveries in the world of the
very small point to a whole new set of rules for the behaviour of nano-quantities.
Thundering around in our Gulliver world, we were first shocked to find that splitting the
atom allowed inconceivable amounts of energy to be released. Now, we are discovering
that the properties of materials change as their size reaches the nano-scale. Bulk
material should have constant physical properties, regardless of its size, but at the nano-
scale this is not the case. In a solvent, such as water, nano particles can remain
suspended, neither floating nor sinking, but permeating the solution. Such particles are
also able to pass through cell walls, and they can cause biochemical change. We do not
know whether this has a bearing on homeopathic dilutions, but it may well be that
nanoparticles offer a clue. Fisher says that water as a solvent has properties that are not
yet understood, and there was great excitement recently when a team of Korean
scientists seemed to show that water has "memory". I would like to see homeopathy
better regulated. I would like to see the Society of Homeopaths engaging with its critics,
as well as initiating more research. There will always be rogue homeopaths and bad
homeopaths, but that is true of any profession. Above all we should be careful of
dismissing the testimony of millions who say the remedies have worked for them.
(Winterson, 2007)."
Here is a summary based upon the above seven questions
The article is about homeopathy, its effectiveness and the effects it seemingly has
on patients. It concludes that although homeopathy has its benefits, it needs to be
properly regulated and defended through systematic research into its properties.
The evidence is mostly based on personal experience, specifically the anecdote.
She presents a refutation of homeopathys critics also as evidence. In the article
Winterson asserts that conventional medicine tests are inappropriate to test the
validity of homeopathy. She offers no alternative testing technique. She also uses
the differences in treatments between conventional medicine and homeopathy as
evidence for its credibility, as well as mentioning the nano science of water
memory. The context is that Winterson seems to have made her conclusion
based on personal belief, reinforced through individual experience. Therefore,
her experiences are reinforcing a bias in favour of homeopathy. The language,
quite apart from being defensive, is critical of conventional medicine as
homeopathy is ...without clinical proof. The entire article is driven by her
personal beliefs!
10
We can also subject the article to the same premise/conclusion framework we looked
at earlier:
First Premise Second Premise Third Premise Conclusion
Homeopathy worked
for me
Conventional
medicine is
incompatible with
homeopathy
More research is
needed into
homeopathic qualities
Homeopathy works

Not necessarily. It is
quite possible her
cold was just running
its course and would
have gotten better
anyway.
Perhaps she got
better because of the
medicine she took
earlier (she doesn't
say she did, but she
doesn't say she didn't
either).
Perhaps her
homeopathic remedy
was spiked with a
real drug

This is an assumption
based on the belief
that 'conventional'
medicine only treats
diseases.
While both
homeopathy and
'conventional'
medicine do take into
account the whole
person, homeopathy
ignores the
mechanisms of disease
and infection, as well
as the biological
response to it.
Homeopathy asserts
the belief that putting
trust in the person of
the homeopath is as
equally effective as
the remedy being
prescribed.
This is inconsistent.
On the one hand she
concedes that so far
the established and
accepted scientific
means of testing have
yielded negative
results; on the other
hand she is calling for
further tests to be
conducted which will
necessarily have to be
different.
She justified this by
claiming that
homeopathy is
materially different
from real medicine,
but as this cannot be
proven using the
established means of
testing it therefore
cannot be proven to
be true
There is no evidence
to suggest
homeopathy works.

Conclusion
As we have seen, critical thinking is a complex process of evaluation, reflection and
research. Although this guide cannot provide all the necessary techniques and skills to
enable you to become an effective critical thinker, it can suggest a number of ways to
approach academic texts and engage with them on an appropriate level. Critical
thinking is not a means of finding answers, but it is something you do to assess a piece
of work. Therefore, you should always bear in mind that being critical is a skill, and
like all skills should be practised until you feel confident of the improvements in your
abilities.
11
Bibliography
Black, M. (1962). Critical Thinking. New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bowell, T. & Kemp, S. (2006). Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Padstow. Routledge.
Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument.
Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cottrell, S. (2008). The Study Skills Handbook. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferguson, N. (2003). Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. London. Penguin.
Fox, K. (2004). Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour. London.
Hodder & Stoughton.
McMillan, K. & Weyers, J. (2006). The Smarter Student: Study Skills & Strategies for
Success at University. Harlow. Pearson Education Ltd.
Moore, N.B. & Parker, R. (2008). Critical Thinking. USA. McGraw-Hill.
Paxman, J. (1999). The English: A Portrait of a People. London. Penguin.
Sartre, J.P. (1961). Preface to Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth". Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/1961/preface.htm [Accessed 11 March 2010].
Winterson, J. (2007). In Defence of Homeopathy. The Guardian. 13 November 2007.
Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/nov/13/healthandwellbeing.health
[Accessed 11 March 2010].

All web addresses in this leaflet were correct at the time of publication.
The information in this leaflet can be made available in an alternative format on request
email skills@hull.ac.uk