null
US
Sign In
Sign Up for Free
Sign Up
Remove ads
We have detected that Javascript is not enabled in your browser. The dynamic nature of our site means that Javascript must be enabled to function properly. Please read our
terms and conditions
for more information.
Info
Ratings
Comments
Mind Map
by
Henry Cookson
, created
more than 1 year 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 22/05/2014.
Pinned to
108
2
0
No tags specified
critical
thinking
ocr
as
as critical thinking
as ocr critical thinking
unit one - introduction to critical thinking
as levels
Created by
Henry Cookson
about 11 years ago
Rate this resource by clicking on the stars below:
(1)
Ratings (1)
0
1
0
0
0
0 comments
There are no comments, be the first and leave one below:
To join the discussion, please
sign up for a new account
or
log in with your existing account
.
Close
915869
mind_map
2016-09-05T00:30:48Z
Critical Thinking Unit 1 -
Assessing Plausability
PLAUSABILITY
CREDIBILITY
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?)
R A V E N
Reputation
Ability to
perceive
Vested interest
Expertise
Neutrality (or
bias)
What is generally said or to believed about an
organisation or an individual based on things
they've done in the past
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?
A source may have something to gain
(usually financial) from making
particular claims
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?
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
Consistent
Is the claim made by the
person/organisation confirmed or
contradicted by other sources? If confirmed,
it's known as corroborated
If a source's claims contradict each other, the
evidence would be inconsistent and credibility is
limited
Double click this node
to edit the text
Click and drag this button
to create a new node
New
0
of
0
Go to link
Track All
Untrack All
You need to log in to complete this action!
Register for Free