Essay Example. The Difference in Authority Between Developed Critical Thinkers and Those in The Early Stages.

The thoughts of developed critical thinkers are often committed to fair-minded thinking. They tend to have their egocentric nature on a high, though not a perfect level of control (Facione, 2015). However, on the other hand, critical thinkers at an earlier stage of cognitive development recognize the basic understanding of authority in their thinking and make efforts to take charge of them while lacking a systematic system for improving their level of thinking on authority.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Definition of Expert.

An expert is a famous or influential person who believes in their claims to be true. Most of the time, their expertise is often misinterpreted and used wrongly (Facione, 2015). People often rely on the word of the "experts" to decide on what to believe.

Options of A Critical Thinker.

The first option is viewing the truthfulness of the statement; this tends to evaluate if the speaker of the statement is telling the truth. He may have to rely on the fact that people do not lie to each other. The second is analyzing the logical strength of the statement (Facione, 2015). That is done by listening to the reasons that are given on the truthfulness of the statement. The third option is relevance: when an argument is made, it is presumed that the truth is relevant to the claim.

A Claim of An Independent Investigation.

The statement is false. As a critical thinker, before dismissing or rejecting a claim, you need to highlight problems with the soundness of the statement that is being given.

The Truth of The Statement.

The claim is false. That is because it will be a simple mob belief. As a critical thinker, it should be understood that it is not false because you believe that something is not true (Facione, 2015). There should be a review of the logic and reasons that uphold the facts of the claim.

Conditions an Argument Must Meet to Be Accepted.

The four conditions to be met include: the flow of reasoning should be such that the truth of the claim is not dependent on the truth of the reason: the relevance of reasons backing the claim should be such that the truth of the claim is dependent on the truth of the reason: the reason is true to the best of our understanding and knowledge: the logical relationship between claim and reason should be such that a true claim is supported strongly by a reason (Facione, 2015).

Application of Logical Strength.

A critical thinker should not ignore such an argument where one of the statements is false. He should, however, in such a scenario, apply the test of logical strength by finding out the problem with the soundness of the argument that is being brought forward (Facione, 2015). That is because the true statement may be independent of the false statement.

Erwin's Failure of The Tests of Worthiness.

Erwin's argument fails the relevance test of worthiness. That is because the reasons he is given is not relevant to the fact that he committed statutory rape. The lady will indeed be 18 in two weeks; however, the fact that they were planning to get married is irrelevant (Facione, 2015). The truth is that he had sex with a minor and it is an offence

Condition of Worthiness the Example Does Not Meet.

It does not meet the non-circulatory condition. People believe that sex was created for the sole purpose of reproduction; it is not necessarily against same-sex marriage (Facione, 2015). The reasons for justifying reproduction should not be a reason for believing in unions of opposite sexes.

The Flaw of Janet's Claims and The Fallacy She Commits.

The flaw in Janet's claim is how she shuts out Daria's contribution to the issue of minority race relations just because he is not a minority. As a critical thinker, one should be open to all ideas on the table to settle on the best one (Facione, 2015). She fails the logical strength test because her claim against Daria lacks any rational explanation.

Reference

Facione, P., & Gittens, C. A. (2015). Think Critically.https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/faculty_books/201/