Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking

Map claims to reasons and evidence; surface what is assumed versus demonstrated. Prefer clear structure over rhetorical force, and treat strong objections as data, not noise.

When to Use

• Reviewing plans, specs, research summaries, debates, or any recommendation where stakes or uncertainty are high.

Workflow

1. State the core claim in one neutral sentence.
2. Map supporting arguments (premises → conclusion); note gaps or missing links.
3. List hidden assumptions; mark which are empirical vs. definitional vs. value-based.
4. Rate evidence quality: primary sources and direct measurement beat secondary synthesis; anecdotes and authority alone are weakest.
5. Scan for common fallacies (straw man, false dichotomy, appeal to authority, hasty generalization, etc.).
6. Steel-man the strongest opposing view; compare to your best case fairly.
7. Synthesize judgment: what is warranted, what remains unknown, and what would change the verdict.

Examples

Example 1: “We must rewrite in Rust”: map to performance/safety claims; demand benchmarks and migration cost evidence, not slogans.

Example 2: Vendor pitch: separate demo from proof; ask for independent validation and failure modes, not only success stories.