Critical Thinking Unit 1 - Assessing Plausability

Critical Thinking Unit 1 - Assessing Plausability

1. PLAUSABILITY

   • Does a claim have merit? (Does the claim accord with what we already know/have experienced?)
   • Is it ambiguous? (Does the claim need further interpretation? Is it worded too strongly?)
   • 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

   • R A V E N
     • Reputation
       • What is generally said or to believed about an organisation or an individual based on things they've done in the past
     • Ability to perceive
       • The credibility of a witness to an event can be assessed by scrutinizing their ability to observe, judge and assess a situation
         • How much of an event did they see?
         • Any medical condition or disability that may affect their ability to observe and recall an event?
         • Under any stress?
         • Were they distracted or under the influence of drugs?
     • Vested interest
       • A source may have something to gain (usually financial) from making particular claims
     • Expertise
       • 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?
     • Neutrality (or bias)
       • If a source has no reason to favour one side or the other, they would be neutral and their credibility strengthened
   • R A V E N C C (Used for sources but NOT documents)
     • Corroboration
       • Is the claim made by the person/organisation confirmed or contradicted by other sources? If confirmed, it's known as corroborated
     • Consistent
       • If a source's claims contradict each other, the evidence would be inconsistent and credibility is limited