The Checklist Page

Based on the checklists in

Current Issues and Enduring Questions

• Does my critical thinking show imaginative open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity?
• Am I willing to entertain new ideas - both those that I encounter while reading and those that come to mind while writing?
• Am I willing to exert myself - for instance, to do research - to acquire information and to evaluate evidence?

Skills

• Can I summarize an argument accurately?
• Can I evaluate assumptions, evidence, and inferences?
• Can I present my ideas effectively - for instance, by organizing and by writing in a manner appropriate to my imagined audience?

• What assumptions does the writer's argument presuppose?
• Are these assumptions important to the author's argument or only incidental?
• Are these assumptions explicit or implicit?
• Does the author give any evidence of being aware of the hidden assumptions in her or his argument?
• Would a critic be likely to share these assumptions, or are they exactly what a critic would challenge?
• What sort of evidence would be relevant to supporting or rejecting these assumptions?
• Are you willing to grant the author's assumptions?
• If not, why not?

• What assumption(s) does the letter writer make? Do you share the assumption(s)?
• What is the writer's claim?
• What evidence, if any, does the writer offer to support the claim?
• Is there anything about the style of the letter - the distinctive use of language, the tone - that makes the letter especially engaging or especially annoying?

• Have I adequately previewed the work?
• Can I state the thesis?
• If I have hotted down the summary:
• Is the summary accurate?
• Does the summary mention all the chief points?
• If there are inconsistencies, are they in the summary or the original selection?
• Will the summary be clear and helpful?

• Was it compiled by a disinterested source? Of course, the name of the source does not always reveal its particular angle (for example, People for the American Way), but sometimes the name lets you know what to expect (National Rifle Association, American Civil Liberties Union).
• Is it based on and adequate sample? (A study pointed out that criminals have an average IQ of 91 - 93, whereas the general population has an IQ of 100. The conclusion drawn was that criminals have a lower IQ than the general population. This reading may be accurate, but some doubts have been expressed. For instance, because the entire sample of criminals consisted only of convicted criminals, this sample may have been biased; possibly the criminals with higher IQ's have enough intelligence not to get caught. Or if they are caught, perhaps they are smart enough to hire better lawyers.)
• Is the statistical evidence recent enough to be relevant?
• How many of the factors likely to be relevant were identified and measured?
• Are the figures open to a different and equally plausible interpretation? (Remember the decline in violent crime, for which law enforcement officers took credit.)

• What is the writer's thesis? Ask yourself:
• What is the claim being asserted?
• What assumptions are being made - and are they acceptable?
• Are important terms satisfactorily defined?
• What support is offered on behalf of the claim? Ask yourself:
• Are these examples relevant, and are they convincing?
• Are the statistics (if any) relevant, accurate, and complete? Do they allow only the interpretation that is offered in the argument?
• If authorities are cited, are they indeed authorities on the topic, and can they be regarded as impartial?
• Is the logic - deductive and inductive - valid?
• If there is an appeal to emotion - for instance, if satire is used to ridicule the opposing view - is this appeal acceptable?
• Does the writer seem to you to be fair? Ask yourself:
• Are counterarguments adequately considered?
• Is there any evidence of dishonesty or of a discreditable attempt to manipulate the reader?