Critical Thinking and Student

Components of Critical Thinking Critical thinking skills have become the focus of a growing body of research in recent years (Borg & Stranahan, 2010), due in large part to the flood of information that is now available and the need to analyze and interpret this information to identify flawed reasoning (Halpern, 2009; Hummell, 2016). To this end, this paper applies all of the eight steps recommended by the U.S. Army Management Staff College's critical thinking model developed by Dr.

Ron Paul as disseminated by Eichhorn (n.d.) to assess selected arguments made in a memorandum to the board of directors of Penn-Mart concerning its health care strategy by highlighting the fallacies identified by Almossawi (2013) in his book, An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning the application of critical thinking skills to identify fallacious reasoning are presented in the conclusion.

Review and Analysis According to the definition provided by Cantu (2015), critical thinking skills "involve the active and deliberate application of higher-order thinking in order to solve a given problem or given situation" (p. 4). The eight steps recommended by the U.S. Army Management Staff College that are based on research by Dr.

Ron Paul are set forth and applied to a memorandum dated August 6, 2016 to the Penn-Mart board of directors from Salvador Monella, senior vice president of human resources (hereinafter "the Monella memorandum"), who makes several points concerning the proposed revisions to the organization's health care benefit strategies that can be regarded as fallacious, in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Eight steps to critical thinking applied to the Monella memorandum Step Description Application to Monella Memorandum Purpose, Goal, or End in View Whenever we reason, we reason to some end, to achieve some objective, to satisfy some desire, or fulfill some need. One source of problems in student reasoning is traceable to defects at the level of goal, purpose, or end.

If the goal is unrealistic, for example, or contradictory to other goals the student has, if it is confused or muddled in some way, the reasoning used to achieve it is problematic. The purpose of the Monella memorandum was to provide board members with an "update on our efforts to review and revise Penn-Mart's healthcare benefits strategy." Based on this straightforward assertion, the purpose of this memorandum is realistic and unambiguous.

Question at Issue or Problem to be Solved Whenever we attempt to reason something out, there is at least one question at issue, at least one problem to be solved. One area of concern for assessing student reasoning, therefore, will be the formulation of the question to be answered or the problem to be solved, whether with respect to the student's own reasoning, or to that of others. The problem of interest addressed by the Monella memorandum concerns the rising costs of the organization's health care benefits program.

The Monella memorandum, however, uses a straw man approach as described by Almossawi (2013) because it oversimplifies this problem as discussed further below. (Information) The Empirical Dimension of Reasoning Whenever we reason, there is some "stuff," some phenomena about which we are reasoning. Any "defect" then in the experiences, data, evidence, or raw material upon which a person's reasoning is based is a possible source of problems.

The Monella memorandum is flawed by "not a cause for a cause" and an "appeal to fear" fallacies Almossawi (2013) by citing "internal research" only which indicates that wages and benefits account for about 40% of Penn-Mart's annual budget as well as estimates that these costs will consume at least 15% of its profits by 2015; however, the memorandum is dated 2016 and a realistic calculation should be available concerning the actual correlation between wages and benefits and profits.

Inferences Reasoning proceeds by steps in which we reason as follows: "Because this is so, that also is so (or probably so)," or "Since this, therefore that." Any "defect" in such inferences is a possible source of problems in our reasoning The Monella memorandum uses "hasty generalizations" Almossawi (2013) to group all employees into one of two groups, essentially those who are fit and healthy (the desirables) and those who are not (the undesirables), without taking into account any other factors.

For instance, Monella claims that, "It is not fair to the young and fit, to allow those who are not to be a drag on earnings." The Conceptual Dimension of Reasoning. All reasoning uses some ideas or concepts and not others. These concepts can include the theories, principles, axioms and rules implicit in our reasoning. Any "defect" in the concepts or ideas of the reasoning is a possible source of problems in student reasoning.

The Monella memorandum uses an "appeal to ignorance" and "appeal to irrelevant authority" Almossawi (2013) strategy by simply stating in isolation from other commentary that, "There have been numerous research studies on obesity published in scholarly journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine," but does not explain how these findings relate to the organization's employees or health care program. Assumptions All reasoning must begin somewhere, must take some things for granted.

Any "defect" in the assumptions or presuppositions with which the reasoning begins is a possible source of problems in student reasoning. Assessing skills of reasoning involves assessing their ability to recognize and articulate their assumptions, again according to the relevant standards. The student's assumptions may be stated clearly or unclearly; the assumptions may be justifiable or unjustifiable, crucial or extraneous, consistent or contradictory. The Monella memorandum assumes that the optimal approach to reducing health care program costs is to make participation in the organization's existing wellness program mandatory.

This assertion is flawed, though, because it assumes that some employees are culpable in generating these higher costs without taking into account other salient factors, such as genetics and environment, that could also have an effect on their health care status. Implications and Consequences No matter where we stop our reasoning, it will always have further implications and consequences. As reasoning develops, statements will logically be entailed by it. Any "defect" in the implications or consequences of our reasoning is a possible source of problems.

The ability to reason well is measured in part by an ability to understand and enunciate the implications and consequences of the reasoning. Students therefore need help in coming to understand both the relevant standards of reasoning out implications and the degree to which their own reasoning meets those standards. The Monella memorandum commits a "No True Scotsman" fallacy by "arbitrarily redefining the criteria for membership into that category" (Almossawi, 2013, p.

28) In this regard, the Monella memorandum states that, "We firmly believe that many Penn-Mart employees want to get fit and that the 'Get Well' initiative will provide the necessary incentives for them to take charge of their own wellness... Those who might oppose 'Get Well' are either unfit, or they have something to hide in their medical history." Point-of-View or Frame of Reference Whenever we reason, we must reason within some point-of-view or frame of reference.

Any "defect" in that point-of-view or frame of reference is a possible source of problems in the reasoning. A point-of-view may be too narrow, too parochial, may be based on false or misleading analogies or metaphors, may contain contradictions, and so forth. It may be restricted or unfair. Alternatively, student reasoning involving articulation of their point-of-view may meet the relevant standards to a significant degree: the point-of-view may be broad, flexible, fair; it may be clearly stated and consistently adhered to.

The frame of reference used in the Monella memorandum is a false dilemma as described by Almossawi (2013).