Critical Thinking Unit 1 - Assessing Plausability

Henry Cookson
Mind Map by , created over 5 years ago

AS Levels AS OCR Critical Thinking (Unit One - Introduction to Critical Thinking) Mind Map on Critical Thinking Unit 1 - Assessing Plausability, created by Henry Cookson on 05/22/2014.

93
2
0
Henry Cookson
Created by Henry Cookson over 5 years ago
Patterns and Trends in Social Class - A2 OCR SOCIOLOGY
Millie Salt
Exchange surfaces and breathing
megan.radcliffe16
Cell Structure
megan.radcliffe16
Geography: Population
ameliaalice
BM 13 - COMENIUS, HERBART, DEWEY, HÖNIGSWALD
christoph wimmer
Critical Thinking Unit 1- Language of Reasoning
Henry Cookson
French: Cinema (part 1)
angelamin98
Cognitive Approach
09Reynok
Physical activity
Thomas Marshall
Disability identity
Yasmine King
Critical Thinking Unit 1 - Assessing Plausability
1 PLAUSABILITY
1.1 Does a claim have merit? (Does the claim accord with what we already know/have experienced?)
1.2 Is it ambiguous? (Does the claim need further interpretation? Is it worded too strongly?)
1.3 Does it require further support? (Would a claim/piece of evidence be more plausible if it had more reasons/evidence to support it?)
2 CREDIBILITY
2.1 R A V E N
2.1.1 Reputation
2.1.1.1 What is generally said or to believed about an organisation or an individual based on things they've done in the past
2.1.2 Ability to perceive
2.1.2.1 The credibility of a witness to an event can be assessed by scrutinizing their ability to observe, judge and assess a situation
2.1.2.1.1 How much of an event did they see?
2.1.2.1.2 Any medical condition or disability that may affect their ability to observe and recall an event?
2.1.2.1.3 Under any stress?
2.1.2.1.4 Were they distracted or under the influence of drugs?
2.1.3 Vested interest
2.1.3.1 A source may have something to gain (usually financial) from making particular claims
2.1.4 Expertise
2.1.4.1 Does a source have any particular training or expertise which suggests they may be a reliable source of information in the particular area they're commenting on?
2.1.5 Neutrality (or bias)
2.1.5.1 If a source has no reason to favour one side or the other, they would be neutral and their credibility strengthened
2.2 R A V E N C C (Used for sources but NOT documents)
2.2.1 Corroboration
2.2.1.1 Is the claim made by the person/organisation confirmed or contradicted by other sources? If confirmed, it's known as corroborated
2.2.2 Consistent
2.2.2.1 If a source's claims contradict each other, the evidence would be inconsistent and credibility is limited

Media attachments