IEEE-USA E-BOOKS

Critical Thinking
Skills for Engineers–
BOOK 1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS
by Sridhar Ramanathan

PANTONE SOLID COATED:

RED 185C - BLUE 286C
To Gina, my soul mate, best friend, and ever-loving wife.

Copyright © 2019 by IEEE-USA and by Sridhar Ramanathan. All rights reserved.

Published and Hosted by IEEE-USA.

Copying this material in any form is not permitted without prior written approval from IEEE/
IEEE-USA.

Editing, Review, Production and Publishing by Georgia C. Stelluto,

IEEE-USA Publishing Manager; Manager/Editor, IEEE-USA E-BOOKS

Cover design and layout by Hello. Hillary R. Coggeshall, LLC

This IEEE-USA publication is made possible through funding by a special dues assessment
of IEEE members residing in the United States.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Asking Thoughtful Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Information Seeking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Questioning Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Recognizing Differences and Similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Skepticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 1

INTRODUCTION

W
e live in times when facts, claims, opinions, and even data are
vying for our attention—ultimately aiming to drive us to some
desired action—to purchase something, go somewhere, vote for
someone, experience something, build something, etc. If we’re not careful,
we are acting on someone else’s best interests—not necessarily your own.
And if you are an engineer, or in a technical field, then critical thinking is all
the more important to delivering the most effective and potentially novel,
break-through solution you can. In this book series, we explore the key
aspects of critical thinking: analytical skills, data analysis, interpretation,
judgment, questioning evidence, recognizing similarities and differences,
creativity, communication, and skepticism.

In this first book, we delve into analytical skills—the ability to examine

something carefully—whether it is a problem, a set of data, or text. People
with analytical skills can examine information, and then understand what
it means, and what it represents. And that aptitude allows for much richer,
better solutions to real-world challenges. Let’s start now with the elements
of analytical thinking.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 2

ASKING THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS

C
harles Kettering, the head of research for GM, once said: “A problem well-
stated is half-solved.”1 Therefore, it’s critical to ask the right questions,
so you focus engineers/staff on solving the right problem(s). Let’s use an
example to explore how to frame thoughtful questions.

A smartphone manufacturer's marketing department tells their VP of

Engineering that consumers complain they have to re-charge their phones
way too often. She asks her team, “How can we increase the battery
capacity by 25 percent?”

Before engineers leap to answer that question, it’s helpful first to ask why it’s
important to increase battery capacity. You’ll soon find that the real need is
actually reduced time between charges—and that certainly one way to achieve
that, is by increasing battery capacity. Instead of framing the question so
narrowly on battery capacity, the VP might have asked “How do we extend the
time between battery re-charges by 25 percent?”

Engineers and their managers should generate a few more “how” and “why”
questions that point to possible solutions, or even unexpected breakthroughs.
For example:

• Why is increasing battery capacity the best solution to reducing re-charge

times? Why is 25 percent the right goal, versus something even bolder,
like 100 percent? What breakthrough would we have to achieve to double
the lifetime?

• Why are applications and systems processes consuming so much power?

• How should we optimize mobile applications to conserve battery usage?

• How should we optimize system processes, or even defer their activation,

to save power?

• How can we encourage users to make small tweaks (e.g., turning down
the brightness, deleting unused apps, etc.) that save power?

• How can we improve the efficiency of the battery itself to hold charges longer?

1 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/charles_kettering_181210

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 3

• How are other important factors affecting the length of time a battery
holds its charge?

• How can our battery supplier squeeze out longer storage times?

• Why couldn’t we use the phone itself to generate power (e.g., maybe a
thin solar cell on the back)?

• As you can see, by dramatically expanding the line of questions beyond

just battery capacity, the VP of Engineering is casting a much wider net
for capturing potentially more elegant and far-reaching solutions.

Tip: Ask at least ten questions—especially starting with “why” and

“how,” when someone presents you with an engineering challenge.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 4

DATA ANALYSIS

I
nvestorWords, offers a good working definition of data analysis, as
follows: “The process of extracting, compiling and modeling raw data—
for purposes of obtaining constructive information that can be applied
to formulating conclusions, predicting outcomes, or supporting decisions
in business, scientific and social science settings.”2

Analyzing data really boils down to applying critical thinking to a data

set you have to work with. We will focus here on just one key concept—
causation vs correlation. Professionals often mistakenly conclude that
one factor causes or directly affects another factor. Let’s look at two
examples in the tables and charts below.

What do you conclude from this data? It’s clear the two data sets are
highly correlated but can we prove that the factor in Data Set 1 is actually
causing the figures in Data Set 2? No. We cannot.

It’s entirely possible that a third underlying factor is causing Data Sets
1 and 2 to have this response curve. A real-world example of this factor
might be that Data Set 1 is blood pressure and Data Set 2 is blood sugar
level. Does high blood pressure cause blood sugar to go up, or vice versa?
Maybe. What if it’s actually a cup of coffee that is the underlying cause of
both blood pressure and blood sugar going up?

2 http://www.investorwords.com/19279/data_analysis.html

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 5

To establish causation, we need a clearer smoking gun, such as this example:

As you can see, the factor behind Data Set 1 is causing an impact in Data
Set 2, with a lag time of about four time periods. The shape of the curve is
the same, but offsets some time periods. Continuing with the blood pressure
example, Data Set 1 could be the rise of caffeine in the blood system, causing
a rise in heart rate and blood pressure, shortly after drinking the coffee.

As with the previous chapter, the key here is to ask critical questions to test
the strength of your conclusions.

Tip: Test your conclusion by first asking: How do I know this conclusion
isn’t just correlation versus a causal relationship? What other factors
could be behind the data causing the observed results?

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 6

INFORMATION SEEKING

T
here’s a famous passage in “Alice in Wonderland,” in a dialogue between
the Cheshire Cat and Alice, which goes as follows:

Cat: Where are you going?

Alice: Which way should I go?

Cat: That depends on where you are going.

Alice: I don’t know.

Cat: Then, it doesn’t matter which way you go.

This exchange captures the essence of information seeking—always start with

knowing why you are seeking information—the veritable, “Where are you going?”
Are you seeking information to make a specific decision? Is it to help you build a
persuasive case for action? Is it to validate a belief or supposition you have? Is it
to lend additional color, data, or description to an idea? The next step is listing out
what information or insight would most inform your decision or action. To help
generate possible information sources, let’s go back to the example of the smart-
phone company executives asking the VP of Engineering to lengthen battery
life. What information should her team seek—before building a solution to the
problem? Journalists are masters at information seeking, because they ask “wh”
questions: who, what, when, where, why and how. Let’s apply the journalists’
framework to our VP of Engineering’s battery challenge:

• Who?—Which users seem most frustrated with battery life, and are most
vocal about it (e.g., mobile professionals)?

• What?—Mobile professionals rely so much on their smartphone, that they

find a mid-day power loss intolerable.

• Why?—Mobile professionals are too busy and too on-the-go to charge

their phone at work, or at any one spot.

• When?—The battery seems to run out of gas around 5-6pm—after a

heavy day’s usage.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 7

• Where?—The battery tends to run out during the mobile professionals'
late afternoon meetings—at the office; or in their car; or during their
train, subway, ferry or plane commutes.

• How?—How might we lengthen the time between charges? See the

questions we generated in Chapter 1. Use these questions to gather
hard data for later interpretation.

The engineering team might then look to three sources of information to

answer these questions:

• People—interviews of customers, partners, employees, managers, investors,

and so on

• Documents—industry publications, analyst reports, research papers, articles,

blog posts, user forums, event proceedings, etc.

• Data—conduct experiments, or test different factors to see the impact on

desired outcomes

The third step in information seeking is to build a few stories, or use cases
that bring these data points together into compelling narratives that point
to an action or decision. We won’t create the story here, but the questions
above have already begun to paint a picture in your mind about why and
how extending battery life might be a big win for mobile professionals.
Take a look again at the questions we generated in Chapter 1. Note how
useful they are in focusing our information collection process to solving the
battery life challenge. Remember, we’re not yet ready to interpret these
stories, vet them, and come to a final decision. Those steps come later in
our critical thinking journey.

Tip: First articulate why you’re seeking information. Then, frame a

set of “wh” (who, what, when, where, why, and how) questions that
focus your information needs, and help you develop narratives for
later use, when informing your decision or action.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 8

INTERPRETATION

O
nce you have a data set—whether it’s qualitative or quantitative data, you
now have information on which to begin formulating some hypotheses, and
even a conclusion. This phase is very delicate in decision-making, because
it’s tempting to leap to conclusions that may not, in fact, be valid. One such trap
is confirmation bias—the conscious or unconscious preference placed on data that
supports a belief, hypothesis, or conclusion you already have in mind.

Here’s a simple example of a software company that’s growing fast. Note

how revenue is growing about 40 percent each year, as advertising spending
is also growing at a similar pace.

The VP of Marketing might genuinely believe the rapid growth in revenue was
due to aggressive and wise investment in digital social media advertising.
This conclusion would certainly make the executive look savvy in the eyes of
fellow executives. But what if the company had other data that contradicted
this conclusion? What if, on closer inspection of many more variables affecting
revenue, that the biggest driver of revenue turned out to be a large technology
partner that was sending over leads directly to the software company’s sales
force, and that very few of the deals actually came from the Marketing Team’s
digital ad campaigns? Here’s the data set that might cast doubt on the VP of
Marketing’s claim:

We see that advertising spending is growing at 40 percent per year—yet, the

number of leads from digital ad campaigns that actually converted to sale—is
only growing at five percent per year. Something’s wrong. Clearly, another
big factor is at work here; one that is not the VP of Marketing’s ad campaign.
This element is confirmation bias. How do you combat confirmation bias?
Well, one of the best ways is to ask critical questions:

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 9

• Have I jumped to a premature conclusion?

• What data might I have that contradicts my conclusion?

• What hypotheses come to mind as I examine the data?

• Do I see patterns or trends that deserve deeper examination for underlying

causes, or possible correlations?

• Are their outliers, or data points that I shouldn’t dismiss too quickly, but
rather should investigate a little further—for a possible surprising insight?

• What qualitative data should I collect or examine to lend additional

perspective to my preliminary interpretations?

• What quantitative data should I seek to corroborate, or refute, my

initial interpretations?

Tip: To avoid confirmation bias, interpret data with the aim of generating
rich hypotheses, rather than defending a pre-existing belief.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 10

JUDGMENT

W
e take for granted that engineers are using their best judgment
when they build airplanes, bridges, dams, buildings, electric grids,
and surgical equipment. Poor judgment could result in loss of life,
so it’s critical engineers hone their judgment skills. How does one develop
good judgment? To begin with, judgment is making a considered choice.
By “considered,” we mean weighing a number of factors—some of which
may even be in conflict. Let’s look at an example of an engineer in charge
of designing an extensive solar panel for a large public high school. What
factors should go into the final design? Here are eight to consider:

• Costs—Both the initial purchase price and the ongoing maintenance costs

• Performance—Will the solar panel provide the right amount of power

throughout the year, even in some occasional peak periods?

• Reliability—Will the panel be trouble free, despite weather effects?

• Aesthetics—Will the panel fit well with the architecture of the school?

• Ease of installation and repair—Will service technicians be able to

deploy the panels, and make maintenance repairs without difficulty?

• Vendor reputation—Does the manufacturer of the panels have a solid

reputation, and glowing customer references?

• Financing—Is the solar panel being offered as a lease, or as a capital

purchase? Which fits better with the school’s procurement strategy?

• Future proof—Is the solar panel based on technology that will very soon
be rendered obsolete by a next-generation capability?

• Gut feeling—Yes, even emotions have a place in exercising good judgment.

Executives often listen to their gut before making a final choice.

Note that there is a balance between two extremes. On one end, is

“analysis paralysis” (agonizing too much about too many factors for too
long). On the other, is being impetuous (making a snap judgment based
largely on feelings, rather than considered thought). Finding the right
balance takes time and experience.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 11

Tip: The more that is at stake with a judgment, then the more you
should consider multiple factors—before arriving at a conclusion.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 12

QUESTIONING EVIDENCE

O
ne of the important dimensions of critical thinking is questioning the
evidence upon which to base an engineering decision or action. Let’s
take a look at an example from astrophysics—where Cecilia Payne-
Gaposchkin, a Harvard Ph.D. candidate, questioned the conventional wisdom
that the sun and earth had similar elemental composition (e.g., carbon, oxygen,
nitrogen, iron, nickel, etc.). In her 1925 doctoral thesis, Payne-Gaposchkin
took a more critical look at the spectral data, and the relationship between the
sun’s temperature, and its spectral class, to arrive at a startling conclusion:
the sun was a million times more abundant in hydrogen and helium than other
elements. While it’s not a surprise to us today to know that the sun is a burning
ball of mostly hydrogen gas, it was absolutely not the prevailing wisdom at the
time. In fact, her advisor and peers summarily rejected her findings. She was
ultimately vindicated five years later, when another astronomer revisited her
conclusions, and endorsed them in his own journal article. It took years for the
history books to give Payne-Gaposchkin the proper credit she deserved. What
we see here, is that there’s always room for a fresh look at seemingly “conven-
tional wisdom,” based on well-established evidence.

A more recent example would be Steve Jobs—questioning the user experience

of portable music players—and handheld, personal digital assistants (PDAs) that
were clunky and difficult to use. The evidence at the time would have suggested
that the market for such digital devices was limited to a few early adopters
and enthusiasts. As we all know in hindsight, Jobs created a multi-billion dollar
smartphone industry, one that, even today, commands a premium of 50-100%
over the nearest competitors.

A final example of questioning evidence is to look at Salesforce.com, a

customer relationship management (CRM) solution that works by using
internet browsers—rather than having software licenses installed on servers,
or on the desktop. Salesforce.com even had a logo with the word, “software,”
stricken through in red—indicating no software was required to use their CRM
solution. At the time, the evidence was overwhelming that enterprises required
the use of software licenses for business applications—and that “cloud-based”
solutions, like Salesforce.com, were just too risky—and not secure. Again, as
hindsight tells us now, the industry was more than ready to adopt a solution
that didn’t require the cost and complexity of traditional enterprise software,
to deliver the user benefits possible with an internet browser connected to
backend systems.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 13

As an engineer, you’ll routinely encounter data sets used to support
“conventional wisdom"; but the truth is, big breakthrough innovations are
only possible when questioning such evidence, and looking for new insights
that others may have missed.

Tip: When examining evidence, consider the possibility that a startling

new insight lies hidden in the dataset—one just waiting to be revealed—
by applying a fresh new lens, or perspective.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 14

RECOGNIZING DIFFERENCES
AND SIMILARITIES

S
ome of the best science and engineering accomplishments come from
recognizing something that is different from, or out of, the ordinary.
Let’s take a look at another historical example. Stephanie Kwolek was
an American chemist. Kwolek worked at DuPont in 1964, when she discovered
Kevlar—a polymer that was heat resistant, five times stronger than steel, and
lighter than fiberglass.3 At first, Kwolek and her research co-workers thought
the polymer was a mistake, because they had been looking for a substance
that would help tires to be stronger and lighter weight. The cloudy solution
she created was normally thrown away—because it was different from all the
other possible tire chemicals. But Stephanie saw that this difference could
have very intriguing, important applications. Thankfully, her department head
concurred with Stephanie’s realization that this substance was important.
Soon, Kevlar was commercialized—to great success—in products ranging from
bullet proof vests, to tennis racket strings, to parachute cables—and more.

A more recent example of spotting important differences is Atlassian, the

collaboration software company founded by two Australian software engineers,
in 2002. Atlassian is the company that provides software tools such as JIRA,
Confluence and Bitbucket, so that teams of all sorts can unleash the potential
within. The co-founders, Scott Farquhar and Mike Cannon-Brookes, set out
with only a $10,000 credit card investment to build a software company that
would be dedicated to helping teams build great products.4 While Atlassian
is similar to many other enterprise software companies in many ways, the
founders chose two important differences: 1) No Atlassian sales people were
necessary, because products could be bought off the company website; and 2)
Atlassian products would be so easy to use, that virtually any team member
can get value quickly. Today, Atlassian has a market cap of 25 billion dollars,
and continues to grow rapidly.

What can we learn from Stephanie Kwolek, Scott Farquhar and Mike
Cannon-Brookes? The main lesson is that there is power in differences.
As an engineer, you will be called on many times to build something that
might be similar to what is already on the market. The challenge is to
press hard to build something that is unique, different, and individualized
from competing solutions.

3 https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/stephanie-l-kwolek
4 Source: Wikipedia on Atlassian co-founders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlassian

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 15

Tip: Before setting out to build something, look for what’s both similar
and different from prevailing solutions. Often, what’s different is the
factor that will make all the difference in the value of your creation.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 16

SKEPTICISM

W
e covered the importance of questioning evidence in Chapter
Six, but let’s look at the underlying quality that engineers
must embrace when critically examining data and preparing
conclusions: skepticism. Here, we’ll look at the story of Abraham Wald,
a Hungarian mathematician who challenged the conclusions of World
War II Navy statisticians. Wald argued that the pattern of bullet holes
in aircraft pointed to a need to reinforce metal in certain parts of the
craft—to improve survivability from gunfire.5 He was skeptical that this
conclusion was the right one. Wald argued the statisticians were only
looking at bullet-hole distributions on aircraft that actually survived their
missions—rather than the ones that were shot down—and therefore
not available for inspection. So, he proposed a radical conclusion to the
Navy: Shore up the metal on parts of the aircraft, where there were no
bullet holes. Wald reasoned that if there was a bullet hole in a particular
spot, then the plane would have been shot down. As it turned out, he
was right. The survival rate of military aircraft went up, and Abraham
Wald was heralded as a genius.

Another famous example of healthy skepticism is Dr Richard Feynman, the

Nobel prize winning physicist who was asked to find the root cause of the
NASA Challenger Space Shuttle catastrophic explosion. Feynman's thorough
investigation led to the conclusion that the failure was due to the O-rings used
in the solid rocket booster joints. NASA claimed a chance of failure of one in
100,000, but Feynman expressed skepticism at such a low number. Through a
stunning visual experiment, he showed the true number to be one in 100—far
from acceptable.6 NASA has since rewarded engineers for expressing healthy
skepticism regarding exuberant claims of safety and reliability.

One way to develop a healthy sense of skepticism is to pose a few questions

when examining a data set, or working on an engineering problem:

• What is in the intrinsic bias or limitation of the data that might skew my
conclusions (e.g., note how Abraham Wald was the first to notice that the
military data set did not include the aircraft that were shot down)?

• Does the conclusion seem “too good to be true,” or perhaps based more
on beliefs—rather than hard evidence?
5 Source: Wikipedia on Abraham Wald; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald
6 Source: Wikipedia on Richard Feynman and the Challenger disaster: http://www.feynman.com/science/
the-challenger-disaster/

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 17

• What data or insight might challenge the “prevailing wisdom,” and potentially
lead to a breakthrough conclusion or innovation?

• What would be an unpopular conclusion that might be worth exploring—and

then accepting or rejecting, depending on the merits of the supporting data?

• How credible and relevant is the underlying evidence used to base

a conclusion?

• Does the conclusion flow logically from the data?

Tip: You can cultivate a healthy skepticism by asking yourself a

set of questions when examining data carefully—before arriving at
preliminary conclusions.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 18

CONCLUSION

I
hope you’ve found this e-book useful in honing your critical thinking
skills—not only for engineering—but for life, in general. Practice these
skills in everyday life; whether it’s reading a news article, discussing
technical issues at work, or making important life decisions. To recap, I
have reviewed a number of key elements to critical thinking, including:

• Analyzing data, and avoiding the trap of assuming causation, when only
correlation can be proven

• Expanding your line of inquiry, when generating solutions for a

problem statement

• Applying considered judgment, when arriving at conclusions

• Maintaining a healthy skepticism—to push for better solutions

• Recognizing important differences that can lead to superior results

In our next book in the series, we turn to communications—how engineers can

maximize their impact by communicating and collaborating more effectively in
a team context. Thank you for investing your time in this e-book series. May it
help you achieve greater heights of personal contribution—both professionally
and personally.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 19

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

S
ridhar Ramanathan has thirty years of experience in technology
companies, from startups to blue chip firms. As Managing Director
and Co-founder of Aventi Group, a product marketing agency, he
has been instrumental in leading many tech firms through high-growth
phases. Prior to Aventi Group, Ramanathan was the marketing executive for
Hewlett-Packard’s Managed Services business, where he was responsible for
marketing worldwide, and managing the portfolio of HP services’ 1.1 billion
dollar unit. He also held profit & loss responsibility for electronic messaging
outsourcing and e-service business units.

Ramanathan holds an MBA from the Wharton School of Business, and a

BS in Engineering Physics, from U.C.-Berkeley. He is active in nonprofit
work—from Boy Scouts, to St. Michael church ministries, to serving as
Vice Chair Emeritus of the Board of Child Advocates of Silicon Valley—an
organization that provides stability and hope to abused and neglected
children. Ramanathan lives in Livermore, California, with his wife, Gina,
and their four teenage children.

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/charles_kettering_181210

• http://www.investorwords.com/19279/data_analysis.html

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Payne-Gaposchkin

• https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/stephanie-l-kwolek

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald

• http://www.feynman.com/science/the-challenger-disaster/

CRITICAL THINKING FOR ENGINEERS–BOOK1: ANALYTICAL SKILLS 21

2001 L Street, NW, Suite 700 • Washington, D.C. 20036-4928
+1 202 785 0017 • www.ieeeusa.org
www.ieeeusa.org/communications/ebooks