Analyzing Reasoning

Substantive writing can be used to understand an author’s reasoning, to enter into the author’s thinking. To think
through the logic of an author’s reasoning, complete the following statements in writing (see Appendix A for a
fuller template):

The author’s purpose is...

The main question the author addresses in the article is...

The most important information the author uses in reasoning through the question is...

The most important inferences or conclusions the author comes to are...

The key concepts the author uses in his or her thinking in writing the article are...

The assumptions underlying the author’s reasoning are...

The implications of the author’s views (if people take them seriously) are...

The main point of view presented in the article is...

We now provide two brief excerpts. Read each one, then, using the template in Appendix A, write the logic of the
author’s reasoning. After doing so, compare your written work to the sample analysis that follows each excerpt.

Writing Substantively to Analyze Reasoning: An Example

A sample analysis follows this brief article.

1
Is it Possible for the News Media to Reform?

To provide their publics with non-biased writing, journalists around the world,
would have to, first, enter empathically into world views to which they are not
at present sympathetic. They would have to imagine writing for audiences that
hold views antithetical to the ones they hold. They would have to develop
insights into their own sociocentrism. They would have to do the things done
by critical consumers of the news. The most significant problem is that, were
they to do so, their readers would perceive their articles as “biased” and
“slanted,” as “propaganda.” These reporters would be seen as irresponsible, as
allowing their personal point of view to bias their journalistic writings. Imagine
Israeli journalists writing articles that present the Palestinian point of view
sympathetically. Imagine Pakistani journalists writing articles that present the
Indian point of view sympathetically.
The most basic point is this: journalists do not determine the nature and demands of their job. They do not
determine what their readers want or think or hate or fear. The nature and demands of their job are determined
by the broader nature of societies themselves and the beliefs, values and world views of its members. It is human
nature to see the world, in the first instance, in egocentric and sociocentric terms. Most people are not interested
in having their minds broadened. They want their present beliefs and values extolled and confirmed. Like football
fans, they want the home team to win, and when it wins to triumph gloriously. If they lose, they want to be told
that the game wasn’t important, or that the other side cheated, or that the officials were biased against them.

As long as the overwhelming mass of persons in the broader society are drawn to news articles that reinforce, and
do not
question, their fundamental views or passions, the economic imperatives will remain the same. The logic is parallel
to that of reforming a nation’s eating habits. As long as the mass of people want high fat processed foods, the
market will sell high fat and processed foods to them. And as long as the mass of people want simplistic news
articles that reinforce egocentric and sociocentric thinking, that present the world in sweeping terms of good and
evil (with the reader’s views and passions treated as good and those of the reader’s conceived enemies as evil), the
news media will generate such articles for them. The profit and ratings of news sources that routinely reinforce the
passions and prejudices of their readers will continue to soar.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2003). The Miniature Guide for Conscientious Citizens on How to
Detect Media Bias and Propaganda. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Sample Analysis
The main purpose of this article is to show why the news media are not likely to alter their traditional practices of
slanting the news in keeping with audience preconceptions. The key question that the author is addressing is:
“Why is it not possible for the news media to reform?”

The most important information in this article is:

information about how and why the news media currently operates:
that the news media slant stories to fit the viewpoint of their audience. “Most people are not interested in having
their views broadened... Like football fans they want the home team to win... The overwhelming mass of persons
in the broader society are drawn to news articles that reinforce, and do not question, their fundamental views or
passions.”

that the fundamental purpose of the mainstream news media is to make money. “As long as the mass of people
want simplistic news articles...the news media will generate such articles for them. The profit and ratings of news
sources that routinely reinforce the passions and prejudices of their readers will continue to soar.”

information about how the news media would have to change to be more intellectually responsible:

that the news media would have to actively enter differing world views “Imagine Israeli journalists writing articles
that present the Palestinian point of view sympathetically. Imagine Pakistani journalists writing articles that
present the Indian point of view sympathetically.”

that the news media would have to “develop insights into their own sociocentrism.”

The main inferences in this article are: “As long as the overwhelming mass of persons in the broader society are
drawn to news articles that reinforce, and do not question, their fundamental views or passions,” the news will be
presented in a biased way. Because the fundamental purpose of the media is to make money,
and the only way people will buy papers is if their sociocentric views are reinforced and not questioned, the media
will continue distort events in accordance with audience views.

The key concepts that guide the author’s reasoning in this article are: biased
and unbiased journalism, egocentrism and sociocentrism, propaganda. (Each of
these concepts should be elaborated.)
The main assumptions underlying the author’s thinking are: The driving force behind the news media is vested
interest — i.e., making money; that the news media therefore pander to their readers’ views so as to sell more
papers; but that, at the same time, the news media must appear to function objectively and fairly.

If this line of reasoning is justified, the implications are: Citizens need to think critically about the news media and
how they systematically distort stories in accordance with reader bias. People need to notice how their own
sociocentric views are intensified by what they read.

The main point of view presented in this article is: The world news media function as profit-making enterprises
that structure the news to pander to reader and society prejudices.

On the next three pages you will find another sample article analyzed (using the analysis template in Appendix A).

The Problem of Pseudo-Ethics

2
The Sociocentric Counterfeits of Ethical Reasoning

Skilled ethical thinkers routinely distinguish ethics from other domains of thinking such as those of social
conventions (conventional thinking), religion (theological thinking), politics (ideological thinking), and the law (legal
thinking). Too often, ethics is confused with these very different modes of thinking. It is not uncommon, for
example, for highly variant and conflicting social values and taboos to be treated as if they were universal ethical
principles.

Thus, religious ideologies, social “rules,” and laws are often mistakenly taken to be inherently ethical in nature. If
we were to accept this amalgamation of domains, by implication every practice within any religious system would
necessarily be ethical,
every social rule ethically obligatory, and every law ethically justified.

If religion were to define ethics, we could not then judge any religious practices — e.g., torturing unbelievers or
burning them alive — as unethical. In the same way, if ethical and conventional thinking were one and the same,
every social practice within any culture would necessarily be ethically obligatory — including social conventions in
Nazi Germany. We could not, then, condemn any social traditions, norms, mores, and taboos from an ethical
standpoint — however ethically bankrupt they were. What’s more, if the law were to define ethics, by implication
politicians and lawyers would be considered experts on ethics and every law they finagled to get on the books
would take on the status of a moral truth.

It is essential, then, to differentiate ethics from other modes of thinking commonly confused with ethics. We must
remain free to critique commonly accepted social conventions, religious practices, political ideas, and laws, using
ethical concepts not defined by them. No one lacking this ability can become proficient in ethical reasoning.

Examples of confusing ethical principles with theological beliefs:

Members of majority religious groups sometimes enforce their beliefs on minorities.
Members of religious groups sometimes act as if their theological beliefs are self-evidently true, scorning those
who hold other views.

Members of religious groups sometimes fail to recognize that “sin” is a theological concept, not an ethical one.
(“Sin” is theologically defined.)

Divergent religions do not agree on what is sinful (but often expect their views to be enforced on all others as if a
matter of universal ethics).
Examples of confusion between ethics and social conventions:

Many societies have created taboos against showing various parts of the body and have severely punished those
who violated the taboos.

Many societies have created taboos against giving women the same rights as men.

Many societies have socially legitimized religious persecution.

Many societies have socially stigmatized interracial marriages.

Examples of confusing ethics and the law:

Many sexual practices (such as homosexuality) have been unjustly punished with life imprisonment or death
(under the laws of one society or another).

Many societies have enforced unjust laws based on racist views.

Many societies have enforced laws that discriminated against women.

Many societies have enforced laws that discriminated against children.

Many societies have made torture and/or slavery legal.

Many societies have enforced laws arbitrarily punishing people for using some drugs but not others.

Sample Analysis

The main purpose of this article is to convince the reader that ethics should not be confused with other modes of
thinking — specifically religion, social conventions, and the law.

The key question that the author is addressing is: How does ethics differ from other ways of thinking?

The most important information in this article consists of:

Examples of confusing ethical principles with theological beliefs: Members of majority religious groups often
enforce their
beliefs on minorities.

Examples of confusion between ethics and social conventions: Many societies have created taboos against
showing various parts of the body and have severely punished those who violated the taboos.

Examples of confusing ethics and the law: Many sexual practices (such as homosexuality) have been unjustly
punished with life imprisonment or death (under the laws of one society or another).

The main inferences/conclusions in this article are: that “it is essential to differentiate ethics from other modes of
thinking commonly confused with ethics,” and that only when we can differentiate ethics from other modes of
thinking can we critique practices within other modes of thinking from an ethical perspective.

The key ideas that guide the author’s reasoning in this article are: ethical reasoning, social conventions
(conventional thinking), religion (theological thinking), politics (ideological thinking), and the law (legal thinking).

The main assumptions underlying the author’s thinking are: that it is

important for people to understand that ethics cannot be commandeered by
or confused with other modes of thinking, that many people do not
understand ethics as separate from other modes of reasoning, and that it is
dangerous for people to consider ethics as something that can be defined by
theology, society, or laws.
If this line of reasoning is justified, the implications are: that people need to understand ethics and to clearly
separate in their own minds ethics from other modes of thinking often confused with ethics. Moreover, people
need to call into question the common practice of confusing ethics with other domains of thought. If they fail to do
so, religious practices, social conventions, and the law will determine what is to be considered ethical within a
society.

The main point of view presented in this article is: that people largely fail to differentiate ethics from other modes
of thinking, and, therefore, they often use the wrong standards for determining what is ethically right and wrong in
human conduct.
Evaluating Reasoning
Every written piece is not of the same quality. We can assess what we write by applying intellectual standards to it
— standards such as clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, significant, depth, breadth, logic, and fairness. We
might be clear in stating our position, while at the same time using information that is not accurate. We might use
relevant information in a written piece but fail to think through the complexities of the issue (e.g., fail to achieve
depth). Our argument might be logical but not significant. As writers, then, we need to become adept at assessing
the quality of our reasoning.

It’s your turn to practice

Use the template in Appendix B to assess the logic of the author’s reasoning in the previous two examples (the
Analyzing Reasoning section).
Appendix A:
The Logic of an Article
One important way to understand an essay, article, or chapter is through the analysis of the parts of the author’s
reasoning. Once you have done this, you can evaluate the author’s reasoning using intellectual standards. Here is a
template to follow:

(1) The main purpose of this article is

__________________________. (Here you are trying to
state, as accurately as possible, the author’s intent in writing the article. What was the author trying to
accomplish?)

The key question that the author is addressing is

__________________________. (Your goal is to figure out the key question that was in the mind of the author
when he/she wrote the article. What was the key question addressed in the article?)

The most important information in this article is

_________________________. (You want to identify the key information the author used, or presupposed, in the
article to support his/her main arguments. Here you are looking for facts, experiences, and/or data the author is
using to support his/her conclusions.)

The main inferences in this article are________________________. (You want to identify the most important
conclusions the author comes to and presents in the article.)

The key concept(s) we need to understand in this article is (are)_______________________. By these concepts the
author means_____________________. (To identify these ideas, ask yourself: What are the most important ideas
that you would have to know to understand the author’s line of
reasoning? Then briefly elaborate what the author means by these ideas.)

The main assumption(s) underlying the author’s thinking is (are)_________________________. (Ask yourself:
What is the author taking for granted [that might be questioned]? The assumptions are generalizations that the
author does not think he/she has to defend in the context of writing the article, and they are usually unstated. This
is where the author’s thinking logically begins.)

(7a) If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are________________________. (What
consequences

are likely to follow if people take the author’s line of reasoning seriously? Here you are to pursue the logical
implications of the author’s position. You should include implications that the author states, and also those that
the author does not state.)

(7b) If we fail to take this line of reasoning seriously, the

implications are_____________________. (What

consequences are likely to follow if people ignore the author’s reasoning?)

The main point(s) of view presented in this article is (are)

__________________________. (The main question you are trying to answer here is: What is the author looking
at, and how is he/she seeing it? For example, in this guide we are looking at “writing” and seeing it “as requiring
intellectual discipline and routine practice.”)
If you truly understand these structures as they interrelate in an article, essay, or chapter, you should be able to
empathically role-play the thinking of the author. These are the eight basic structures that define all reasoning.
They are the essential elements of thought.
Appendix B:
Evaluating an Author’s Reasoning
Identify the author’s purpose: Is the purpose of the author well-stated or clearly implied? Is it justifiable?
Identify the key question which the written piece answers: Is the question at issue well-stated (or clearly implied)?
Is it clear and unbiased? Does the expression of the question do justice to the complexity of the matter at issue?
Are the question and purpose directly relevant to each other?
Identify the most important information presented by the author: Does the writer cite relevant evidence,
experiences, and/or information essential to the issue? Is the information accurate and directly relevant to the
question at issue? Does the writer address the complexities of the issue?
Identify the most fundamental concepts which are at the heart of the author’s reasoning: Does the writer clarify
key ideas when necessary? Are the ideas used justifiably?
Identify the author’s assumptions: Does the writer show a sensitivity to what he or she is taking for granted or
assuming (insofar as those assumptions might reasonably be questioned)? Or does the writer use questionable
assumptions without addressing problems inherent in those assumptions?
Identify the most important inferences or conclusions in the written piece: Do the inferences and conclusions
made by the author clearly follow from the information relevant to the issue, or does the author jump to
unjustifiable conclusions? Does the author consider alternative conclusions where the issue is complex? In other
words, does the author use a sound line of reasoning to come to logical conclusions, or can you identify flaws in
the reasoning somewhere?
Identify the author’s point of view: Does the author show a sensitivity to alternative relevant points of view or
lines of
reasoning? Does he or she consider and respond to objections framed from other relevant points of view?
Identify implications: Does the writer display a sensitivity to the implications and consequences of the position he
or she is taking?
Appendix C
For Instructors

Mapping Sentences
The English language has five basic sentence patterns that every student should be able to recognize. These
sentences consist of one or more clauses and are constructed as shown below.

There are two kinds of clauses in English: independent (I) and dependent (D), as follows:

subject + predicate (Jack went to the library) D subordinator + I (since Jack went to the library)

There are three kinds of connectors: coordinators, subordinators, and transitional words.

There are only six coordinators: and, or, nor, but, yet, for.

There are many subordinators, including, among others: because, if, since, even though. Placed in front of an
independent clause, a subordinator makes it dependent.

There are many transitional words, among them: however, therefore, nevertheless, of course. (See a map of
transitional words and their functions on page 59.)

Five major English sentence patterns:

I (Jack went to the library.)

I, coordinator I (Jack went to the library, and Frank went with him.)

I, D (Jack went to the library because he wanted to check out a book.)

D, I (Because he wanted to check out a book, Jack went to the library.)

I; transitional word, I (Jack went to the library; however, the book he wanted was checked out.)

Appendix D
For Instructors

How to Teach Students to Assess Writing

Writing is a powerful tool in learning. Yet, many instructors avoid assigning writing to avoid excessive grading.
Actually, it is possible to develop writing-intensive classes within all disciplines without having to grade lots of
papers. This can be accomplished by: (a) having students maintain a portfolio of their work, (b) regularly requiring
students to bring their written work to class, (c) using the activities below as means of providing students with
high-quality peer-feedback, (d) modeling before the class the feedback you want students to give (use the
guidelines for assessing reasoning in Appendix B), and (e) grading the work in the portfolio periodically and
randomly — for example, grading one paper in seven. The result is that students get individualized daily feedback
from peers. The instructor gives daily feedback to the class as a whole, but only periodic and selective feedback to
individual students.
First Strategy. Begin with a brief review of the criteria to be used in giving feedback. Working in groups of three or
four, students take turns reading their papers aloud slowly and discussing the extent to which they have or have
not fulfilled the performance criteria relevant to the paper. All recommendations must be constructive, indicating
where and how each paper could be improved.
Second Strategy. Begin with a brief review of the criteria to be used in giving feedback. Working in groups of four,
students choose the best paper (using standards of clarity, logic, etc. as well as any specific criteria you have given
them). Then they join with a second group and choose the best paper of the two (one from each group). These
papers (chosen by the eight-person groups) are collected and read to the class as a whole. A class-wide discussion
is held, under your direction, to make clear the strengths and weaknesses of the competing remaining papers,
leading to the class voting on the best
paper of the day (again, using explicit intellectual standards in the assessment).
Third Strategy. Begin with a brief review of the criteria to be used in giving feedback. Working in groups of three or
four, students write out their recommendations for improvement on three or four papers (from students not in
the group). All recommendations must be constructive, indicating where and how each paper could be improved.
The written recommendations go back to the original writers, who do a revised draft for the next class. Using this
method, all students receive written feedback on their papers from a “team” of critics using specific guidelines.
Fourth Strategy. Begin with a brief review of the criteria to be used in giving feedback. One student’s paper is read
aloud slowly to the class while the instructor leads a class-wide discussion on how the paper might be improved.
All recommendations must be constructive, indicating where and how each paper could be improved. This
discussion serves as a model for what is expected in the assessment process. Then the students work in groups of
two or three to try to come up with recommendations for improvement for the students in their group (based on
the model established by the instructor).
Students write regularly to internalize the skills and knowledge required in the discipline, learning at the same time
how to assess and improve their work. The instructor serves as a model, leader, and supervisor, but is not
burdened by extensive grading of papers.

References

Frankl, Viktor E. (1959). Man’s Search for Meaning. NY, NY: Washington Square Press.

McWilliams, Peter. (1996). Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual
Crimes in Our Free Country. Los Angeles, CA: Prelude Press, pp. 3, 7.

Mencken, H. L. (1923). “On Liberty.” The Nation Magazine.

Myers, Gustavus. (1907). History of the Great American Fortunes. Chicago, IL:

Charles H. Kerr & Co.

Appendix E
The Function of Transitional Words
How they

Connectives are used Examples

besides what’s more To add Two postal cards are
furthermore in addition another often more effective
for example for instance thought than one letter.
GroupI

in other words Besides, they are

cheaper.
To add He has lost confidence
an in his game. For
example example, yesterday he
got nervous at the end

of the match.
in fact as a matter of To add Last week I was ill, in
fact therefore emphasis fact, I had to stay in
GroupII

consequently to an bed until Monday.

idea
To The President vetoed
highlight the bill. Consequently,
what it never became a law.

follows
of course to be sure To grant He said he would
though still however on an study all day. I doubt it,
GroupIII

the other hand exception though.

however, I can’t

nevertheless rather I like to paint;

understand modern

art.
first next finally To First, drink some fruit
meanwhile later arrange juice. Next, have a
afterwards nearby ideas in bowl of soup. Then eat

eventually above order, the quiche. Finally,

behond in short in brief to sum up in summary in
conclusion time, or have some pie and

space coffee.
To sum Scientists say that we
up should eat food that
several has all the proteins,
ideas fats, and vitamins we
need. In short, they
recommend a

balanced diet.
The Thinker’s Guide Library
Rowman & Littlefield is the proud distributor of the Thinker’s Guide Library developed by the Foundation for
Critical Thinking. Please visit www.rowman.com or call 1-800-462-640 for more information. Bulk order discounts
available.

For Everyone

The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools, Eighth Edition
Paperback 9781538134948

eBook 9781538134955

The Thinker’s Guide to Ethical Reasoning Paperback 9780944583173 eBook 9781538133781

The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies

Paperback 9780944583272
eBook 9781538133774

The Art of Asking Essential Questions Paperback 9780944583166 eBook 9781538133804

The Thinker’s Guide for Conscientious Citizens on How to Detect Media Bias and Propaganda in National and
World News, Fourth Edition
Paperback 9780944583203
eBook 9781538133897

The Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reasoning Paperback 9780944583333 eBook 9781538133798

The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking Paperback 9780944583197 eBook 9781538133750

The Thinker’s Guide to Socratic Questioning Paperback 9780944583319 eBook 9781538133842

The Nature and Functions of Critical & Creative Thinking

Paperback 9780944583265
eBook 9781538133958

Thinker’s Guide to the Human Mind

Paperback 9780944583586
eBook 9781538133880

The Thinker’s Guide to Scientific Thinking Paperback 9780985754426 eBook 9781538133811

The Thinker’s Guide to Clinical Reasoning Paperback 9780944583425 eBook 9781538133873

For Students

The Aspiring Thinker’s Guide to Critical Thinking Paperback 9780944583418 eBook 9781538133767

The Thinker’s Guide for Students on How to Study & Learn a Discipline, Second Edition

Paperback 9781632340009
eBook 9781538133835

The International Critical Thinking Reading and Writing Test, Second Edition
Paperback 9780944583326

eBook 9781538133965

The Student Guide to Historical Thinking Paperback 9780944583463 eBook 9781538133941

How to Read a Paragraph, second edition Paperback 9780944583494 eBook 9781538133828

How to Write a Paragraph

Paperback 9780944583227
eBook 9781538133866

For Educators

The Miniature Guide to Practical Ways for Promoting Active and Cooperative Learning, Third Edition
Paperback 9780944583135

eBook 9781538133903

A Critical Thinker’s Guide to Educational Fads Paperback 9780944583340 eBook 9781538133910

A Guide for Educators to Critical Thinking Competency Standards

Paperback 9780944583302

eBook 9781538133934

How to Improve Student Learning: 30 Practical Ideas

Paperback 9780944583555
eBook 9781538133859

The Thinker’s Guide to Intellectual Standards

Paperback 9780944583395
eBook 9781538133927