CHAPTER 1: The benefit of asking the right questions:
Mental check:
Did i ask "why" someone wants me to believe something?
Did I take notes as i thought about potential problems with what was being said?
Did I evaluate what was being said?
Did I form my own conclusion about the topic?
You must be an active reader and listener. You can do this by asking questions.
We bring lots of personal baggage to every decision we make. However if you are to grow, you need to recognize these feelings, and, as much as you are able, put them on a shelf for a bit. Only that effort will enable you to listen carefully when others offer arguments that threaten or violate your current beliefs.
This openness is imoportant because many of our own positions on issues are not especially reasonable ones; they are opinions given to us by others, and over many years we develop emotional attachments to them.
A successful active learner is one who is willing to change his mind. If you are ever to change your mind, you must be as open as possible to ideas that strike you as weird or dangerous when you first encounter them.
Your time is valuable. Before taking the time to critically evaluate an issue, ask the question, " who cares?"
To see domination and victory over those who disagree with your as the objective of critical thinking is to ruin the potentiallly humane and progressive aspects of critical thinking.
He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that.
Doing is usually more fun than watching;doing well is more fun than simply doing.
Frequently, those faced with an opinion different from their own respond by saying, "Oh, that's just your opinion." But the issue should not be whose opinion it is, but rather whether it is a good opinion.
The right questions:

1. what are the issues and the conclusions?
2. what are the reasons?
3. which words or phrases are ambiguous?
4. what are the value conflicts and assumptions?
5. what are the descriptive assumptions?
6. are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
7. How good is the evidence?
8. Are there rival causes?
9. Are the statistics deceptive?
10. what significant information is omitted?
11. what reasonable conclusions are possible?
    Ending P13

CHAPTER 2: WHAT ARE THE ISSUE AND THE CONCLUSSION?
In general, those who create web pages, editorials, books, magzine articles, are trying to change your perceptions or beliefs. You must first identify the controversy or issue as well as the thesis or conclusion being pushed onto you. Otherwise, you will be reacting to a distorted version of the attempted communication.
we often react to the images, dramatic illustrations, or tone of what was said instead of the reasoning that was intended by the person communicating with us. so, getting straight about the person's conclusion and issue is an essential first step in effective human interaction.
Descriptive issues are those that raise questions about the accuracy of the past, present, or future. They demand answers attempting to describe the way the world is, was, or going to be. Questions begin with "DO, WHAT, WHO, HOW" probably are descriptive questions.
Prescriptive issues are those that raise questions about what we should do or what is right or wrong, good or bad.Questions with "SHOULD, WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE, MUST..." usually are prescriptive questions.
social controversies are often prescriptive issues.
Identify the issue and conclusion first, otherwise you will get lost when you reading the remaining. A conclusion is the message that the speaker or writer wishes you to accept.
To identify the conclusion, ask the questions:
what is the writer or speaker trying to prove?
what is the communicator's main point?
In short, the basic structure of persuasive communication or argument is: This because of that; this refers to te conclusion; that refers to the support for the conclusion. this structure represents the process of inference.
Remember: To believe one statement/conclusion because you think it is well supported by other beliefs is to make an inference. When people engage in this process, they are reasoning; the conclusion is the outcome of this reasoning.
Once you have found the conclusion, use it as the focus of your evaluation. It is the destination that the writer or speaker wants you to choose. Your ongoing concern is: Should I accept that conclusion on the basis of what is supporting the claim?
How to find the conclusion:

1. ask what the issue is. First, look at the title. Next, look at the openning paragraphs.
2. look for indicator words.(逻辑关联词）
3. look at the beginning and at the end.
4. Remember what a conclusion is not.( examples, statistics, definitions, background information, evidence)
5. check the author's background.
6. Ask the question "and therefore?"
   Ending at Page 23

CHAPTER 3: WHAT ARE THE REASONS?
Identifying reasons is a particularly important step in critical thinking. An opinion cannot be evaluated fairly unless we ask why it is held and get a satisfactory response. Focusing on reasons requires us to remain open to and tolerant to of views that might differ from our own.
Question: what are the reasons?
Reasons + Conclusion = Argument
You can not determine the worth of a conclusion until you identify the reasons.
Reasons are explanations or rationales for why we should believe a particular conclusion.
The first step in identifying reasons is to approach the argument with a questioning attitude, and the first question you should ask is a why question. If a statement does not answer the question, "why does the writer or speaker believe that?" then it is not a reason.
In especially complicated arguments, it is frequently difficult to keep the structure straight in your mind as you attempt to critically evaluate what you have read. to overcome this problem, try to develop your own organizing procedure for keeping the reasons and conclusions separate and in a logical pattern.

1. circle indicator words
2. Underline the reasons and conclusion in different colors of ink, or highlight the conclusion and underline the reasons.
3. label the reasons and conclusion in the margin.
4. after reading long passages, make a list of reasons at the end of the essay.
   Note: when someone is eager to share an opinion as if it was a conclusion, but looks puzzled or angry when asked for reasons, weak-sense critical thinking is the probable culprit.
   we come to each conversation, essay, or lecture with a loyalty to the beliefs we already have. Thus, our existing beliefs can be an obstacle to our listening and learning. But at another level, we know there are thoughtful reasons that we have not yet encountered. For our personal growth, we have to give "fresh" reasons a real chance to speak to us.

CHAPTER 4：WHAT WORDS OR PHRASES ARE AMBIGUOUS?
While identifying the conclusion and reasons gives your the basic visible structure, you still need to examine the precise meaning of these parts before you can react fairly to the ideas being presented. Now you need to pay specia attention to the details of the language.
you cannot react to an argument unless you understand the meanings (explicit or implied) of crucial terms and phrases.
Question: WHAT WORDS OR PHARASES ARE AMBIGUOUS?
A warning: we often misunderstand what we read or hear because we presume that the meaning of words is obvious
Whenever you are reading or listening, force yourself to search for ambiguity; otherwise, you may simply miss the point.
There is no way to avoid ambiguity in reality. But what can and should be avoided is ambiguity in an argument. when someone is trying to persude us to believe or do something, that person has a responsibility to clarify any potential ambiguity before we consider the worth of the reasoning.
Ambiguity refers to the existence of multiple possible meanings for a word or phrase.
example
equality-having equal access to necessities of life
responsibility-directly causing a event
aggression-doing deliberate phisical harm to another person
You now know where to look for ambiguous terms or phrases. The next step is to focus on each term or phrase and ask yourself, " do i understand its meaning?" In answering this very important question, you will need to overcome several major obstacles:
1.you need to get into the habit of asking, "what does the author mean by that?" instead of, " i know just what you mean."

2. could any of the words or phrases have a different meaning?
   a good test for determing whether you have identified an important ambiguity is to substitute the alternative meanings into the reasoning structure and see whether changing the meaning makes a difference in how well a reason supports the conclusion.
   The adversiser hoped that you would assign the most attractive meaning to the ambiguous words.
   Try to creat a mental picture of what these phrases represent. if you cannot, the phrases are ambiguous. if different images would cause you to react to the reasons differently, you have identified an important ambiguity.
   examine the context carefully to determine the meaning of key terms and phrases. If the meaning remains uncertain, you have located an important ambiguity. If the meaning is clear and you disagree with it , then you should be wary of any reasoning that involves that term or phrase.
   一个值得思考的例子：
   军队官员希望控制监狱里自杀者的数目，但自杀难免会发生，可能因为自杀代表荣誉。他们怎么做呢，他们建立一个叫"self-inflicted Hazardous Incidents"的目录，并告诉犯人自杀的话只能被判定进入以上那个目录，而不算作自杀.
   Political terms aids to cause the intended emotional impact.
   Revenue enhancement-positive response to tax hikes
   Extreme-undesirable, unreasonable
   Terrorist-Wild, crazy, uncivilized
   Reform- Desirable changes
   As a critical thinker, we must be sensitive to their intended emotional impact and the role of ambiguity in encouraging that impact.
   After you have attempted to identify and clarify ambiguity, what can you do if you are still uncertain about the meaning of certain key ideas? The next step we suggest you ignore any reason containing ambiguity that makes it impossible to judge the acceptability of the reason.

CHAPTER 5: WHAT ARE THE VALUE CONFLICTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Remember: the visible surface of an argument will almost always be dressed in its best clothes because te person presenting the argument wishes to encourage you to make the argument your own.
Assumptions are:
1.hidden or unstated (in most cases)
2.taken for granted
3.influential in determining the conclusion
4.potentially deceptive
An assumption is an unstated belief that supports the explicit reasoning.
For ethical or prescriptive arguments, an individual's values influence the reasons he provides and , consequently, his conclusion. In fact, the reasons will logically support the conclusion only if the value assumption is added to the reasoning.
By value assumption, we mean a taken-for-granted belief about the relative desirability of certain competing values. when authors take a position on a social controversy, they typically prefer one value over another value- they have value priorities or preferences.
Values are the unstated ideas that people see as worthwhile. They provide standards of conduct by which we measure the quality of human behavior.
when you look for value assumptions, look for an indication of value priorities. ask yourself what values are being upheld by this position and what values are being relatively downgraded in importance.
we hold our value preferences only up to a point
value assumptions are very contextual
NOte: we suggested earlier that a good starting point in finding value assumptions is to check the background of the author. One cautions is omportant. It isn't necessarily ture that, bevause a person is a member of a group, she shares the particular value assumptions of the group.
One important means of determing value assumptions, then, is to ask the question, "why do the particular consequences or outcomes presented as reasons seem so desirable to the writer or speaker?"
Remember: when you identify value assumptions, you should always try to state value priorities.
clues for identifying value assumptions:

1. investigate the author's background
2. ask "why do the consequences of the author's position seem so important to her?"
3. search for similar social contrversies to find analogous value assumptions
4. use reverse role-playing. take a position opposite the author's position and identify which values are important to that opposit position
5. look for common value conflicts, such as individual responsibility versus community responsiility
   Remember that complete reasoning with respect to prescriptive issues requires reasons and value assumptions.

CHAPTER 6: WHAT ARE THE DESCRIPTIVE ASSUMPTIONS?
Descriptive assumptions are beliefs about the way the world is; prescriptive or value assumptions are beliefs about how the world should be.
One important kind of descriptive assumption to look for is a definitional assumption-the taking for granted of one meaning for a term that has multiple possible meanings.
How to locate the assumption:

1. Keep thinking about the gap between the conclusion and reasons.
   Keep asking " how do you get from the reason to the conclusion?",
   "if the reason is true, what else must be true for the conclusion to follow?",
   "supposing the reason were true, is there any way in which the conclusion nevertheless could be false?"
2. Look for ideas that support reasons.
3. Avoid stating incompletely established reasons as assumptions.

CHAPTER 7: ARE THERE ANY FALLACIES IN THE REASONING?
how acceptable is the conclusion in light of the reasons provided?
Remember: the objective of critical reading and listening is to judge the acceptability or worth of conclusions.
your first step at this stage of the evaluation process is to examine the reasoning structure to determine whether the communicator's reasoning has depended on false or hightly doubtful assumptions or has trcked you through either a mistake in logic or other forms of deceptive reasoning.
3 common tricks are:

1. providing reasoning that requires erroneous or incorrect assumptions.
2. distracting us by making information seem relevant to the conclusion when it is not
3. providing support for the conclusion that depends on the conclusion's already being true.
   Quetion: are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
   A fallacy is a reasoning "trick" that an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion.
   there are a variety of ways of making irrelevant attacks against a person making a claim, the most common of which is attacking his character or shifing attention to his circumstances or interests.
   Ad hominem: an attack, or an insult, on the person, rather than directly addressing the person's reasons.
   we suggest that you adopt the following thinking steps in locating fallacies:
4. Identify the conclusions and reasons.
5. Always keep the conclusion in mind and consider reasons that you think might be relevant to it; contrast these reasons with the author's reasons.
6. If the conclusion supports an action, determine whether the reason states a specific and/or concrete advantage or a disadvantage; if not, be wary!
7. Identify any necessary assumption by asking yourself, "if the reason were true, what would one have to believe for it to logically support the conclusion, and what does one have to believe for the reason to be true?"
8. ask yourself, " do these assumptions make sense?" if anobviously false assumption is being made, you have found a fallacy in reasoning, and that reasoning can then be rejected.
9. check the possibility of being distracted from relevant reasons by phrases that strongly appeal to your emotions.
   Slippery slope: making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events.
   Searching for perfect solution: Falsely assuming that because part of a problem would remain after s solution is tried, the solution should not be adopted.
   It takes the form: a solution to X does not deserve our support unless it destroys the problem entirely. if we ever find a perfect solution, then we should adopt it. but because the fact that part of a problem would remain after a solution is tried does not mean the solution is unwise.
   Equivocation: a key word is used with two or more meanings in an argument such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized.
   Appeal to popularity: an attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favored by a large group is desirable.
   The public often has not sufficiently studied a problem to provide a reasoned judgement. be wary of appeals to common opinion or to popular sentiment.
   Appeal to questionable authority: supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand.
   Unless we know that these authorities have special knowledge about this issue, we must treat this reason as a fallacy.
   The best way to check how fairly a position is being represented is to get the facts about all positions.
   Appeals to Emotions: the use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence.
   Straw person: Distorting our opponent's point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view does not truly exist.
   Always be cautious when controversies are treated as if only two choices are possible, there are usually more than two. when a communicator oversimplifies an issue by stating only two choices, the error is referred to as an either-or false dilemma fallacy. to find either-or fallacies, be on the alert for phrases like the following:
   either...or
   the only alternative is
   the two choices are
   because A has not worked, only B will
   Either-Or( or False Dilemma): Assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two.
   Wishful thinking: making the faulty assumption that because we wish X were true or false, then X is indeed true or false.

CHAPTER 8: HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE
Almost all reasoning we encounter includes beliefs about the way the world is, was, or is going to be that the communicator wants to accept as "facts." These beliefs can be conclusions, reasons, or assumptions. We can refer to such beliefs as factual claims.
the first question you should ask about a factual claim is, "why should I believe it?"
your next question is, "does the claim is a mere assertion. you should seriously question the dependability of mere assertions.
IF there is evidence, your next question is, "how good is the evidence?"
To evaluate evidence, we first need to ask, "what knd of evidence is it?" Knowing the kind of evidence tells us what questions we should ask.
Major kinds of evidence include:
intution
personal experience
testimonials
appeals to authorities
personal observations
case examples
research studies
analogies
when a communicator supports a claim by saying "common sense tells us" or "I just know that it's true." she is using intuition as her evidence.
we must be very wary of claims backed up only by intuition.
sometimes "hunches" are not blind. As critical thinkers, we would want to find out whether claims relying on intution have any other kinds of evidential support.
Hasty Generalization Fallacy: A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group.
Personal testimonials: commercials, ads for movies oftern try to persuade by using a special kind of appeal to personal experience.
people's experiences difer gretly.
we need to ask, "does the person providing the testimony have a relationship with what he is advocating such that we can expect a strong bias in his testimony?
authorities are much more careful in giving an opinion than others. For example, Newsweek and Time are much more likely to carefully evaluate the available evidence prior to stating an opinion than is "The National Enquirer". our relatives are much less likely than editorial writers or major newspapers to have systematically evaluated a political candidate.
was she a firsthand observer of the events about which she makes claims?
has a newspaper reporter, for example, actually witnessed an event, or has she merely relied upon reports from others?
if she authority is not a firsthand observer, whose claims is she repeating?
why should we rely on those claims?
In general, you should be more impressed by primary sources or direct observers than by secondary sources, those who are relying on others or their evidence.
Has the authority developed a reputation for frequently making dependable claims?
Have we been able to rely on this authority in the past?

CHAPTER 9: HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE 2
A difficulty iwth personal observation, however, is the tendency to see or hear what we wish to see or hear, selecting and remembering those aspects of an experience that are most consistent with our previous experience and background.
Research findings do not prove conclusions. At best, they support conclusions. Research findings do not speak for themselves! Researchers must always interpret the meaning of their findings, and all findings can be interpreted in more than one way. Thus, researchers' conclusions should not be treated as demonstrated "truths".
The need for financial gain, status, security, and other factors can affect reserch outcomes.
clues for evaluating research studies:

1. what is the quality of the source of the report
2. does the report detail any special strengths of the researh?
3. has the study been replicated
4. how selective has the communicator been in choosing studies
5. is there any evidence of strong-sense critical thinking
6. is there any reason for someone to have distorted the research
7. are conditions in the research artificial and therefore distorted
8. how far can we generalize, given the research sample
9. are there any biases or distortions in the surveys, questionnaires, ratings, or other measurements that the researcher usus?
   Remember: we can generalize only to people and events that are like those that we have studied in the research.
   For variety of reasons, people frequently shade the truth. For example, they may give answers they think they ought to give, rather than answers that reflect their true beliefs.
   Remember: you cannot assume that verbal reports accurately reflect true attitudes.
   political candidates have increasingly resorted to case examples in their speeches, knowing that the rich details of cases generate an emotional reaction. such case, however, should be viewed more as striking examples or anecdotes than as proof, and we must be very suspicious of their use as evidence.
   Be wary of striking case examples as proof!