2. Given Required Quality Standards
College & University Goal of Critically
Thinking Alumni
Class uses the details found in Paul & Elder text .
Intellectual Standards
Clarity, Accuracy, Precision, Relevance, Depth,
Breadth, Logic, Significance, Fairness
Criteria for Evaluating Reasoning
Purpose, Question, Concepts, Assumptions,
Information, Point of View, Inferences, Implications
Logical Arguments (NOT IN Paul & Elder BUT USED
EXTENSIVELY)
Claim, Grounds, Warrants
(Toulmin, 1958)
3. Universal Intellectual Standards
Reside Outside Of Your Opinion
Clarity
Accuracy
Precision
Relevance
Depth
Clarity requires elaboration, examples and illustrations.
Accuracy requires verification that it is true or
Breadth
Significance
Fairness
Logic/Reasoning
testable.
Precision requires being specific, providing details, and
being exact.
Relevance requires that it be related to your
problem/issue and that it helps to address any
questions or the issue.
Depth means identifying what makes the problem
difficult or complex and detailing what to do to handle
it.
Breadth means that all appropriate perspectives have
been included including pro/con, as well as, the range of
people impacted by the problem/issue.
Significance means that we have determined that this
is the most important problem to consider or that it is
the central idea and why.
Fairness means that any personal biases are revealed
4. Basic Critical Thinking is Translated into
Strategic Management Process
Generic
Purpose
Question
Concepts
Assumptions
Information
Point of View
Inferences
Implications
Strategic Management
Process
Purpose =
Questions =
Concepts =
Recommendation for Future Actions
Series of Strategic Management
Questions
Strategic Management Tools
Assumptions = APPLE & Theories behind analyses
Information =
Primary sources (e.g. financial statements),
Secondary sources (e.g. articles and write
ups by others), and Analytical Results
Point of View = All relevant stakeholder groups including
the organization as a personified entity
Inferences =
How operations will be affected given
information and analysis and
implementation efforts.
Implications = how stakeholders will be affected by
implementation
5. Persuasive Logic and You
Small Business Owners and Managers spend a lot of time
Presenting evidence to support own ideas
Evaluating others’ ideas
Effective managers are effective thinkers
Not necessarily brilliant BUT
Approach evidence|facts and data
With openness
Healthy skepticism
Good at
Framing own arguments
Reacting to arguments of others
6. Persuasive Logic and You
Arguments are
Small Business Owners and Managers spend a lot of time
Presenting evidence to support own and
rational ideas
Evaluating others’ ideas
logical reasons
Effective managers are effective thinkers
put together
Not necessarily brilliant BUT
Approach evidence|facts and data
and
With openness
presented
Healthy skepticism
Good at
to one or more
Framing own arguments
people.
Reacting to arguments of others
7. Can be
Simple
Complex
ARGUMENTS
Need to Show
Your Work
Have 3 elements
Claim
Grounds
Warrant
When
you make these explicit,
you show your work.
8. ARGUMENTS
Can be
“Show work” means:
Simple
1. to include all
Complex
analyses directly in
Need to Show
body of text OR
Your Work
2. put in appendix and
Have 3 elements appendix in body
cite
of text.
Claim
Grounds
Warrant
When
you make these explicit,
you show your work.
9. CLAIM
Conclusion of argument
It is only as good as the quality of the grounds and
warrants.
Answers the question
Under investigation.
What’s the point here?
So…why do we care?
10. THE GROUNDS
Facts or Evidence that support claim
Claim is no stronger than the grounds that support it
Quality of Grounds arises from quality of source…
Unless you have appropriate degrees or decades of
experience….
YOU ARE NOT CONSIDERED
A QUALITY SOURCE BY
Important Stakeholders
Bankers
Lawyers
Investors
Teachers …Etc.
So…
cite someone with a high quality background!
Show that several relevant sources agree!
Grounds answer the question
What do you have to go on?
What leads you to say that?
11. THE WARRANT
The bridge between the claim
and the grounds
Why are the grounds and conclusions linked
causal relationship, similar category,
on same road to destination, analytical tool….???
Can be obvious
(we will always use this one)
Can be implicit
Answers the Question
How does your claim connect
to the grounds that you’ve offered?
Is the most subtle of the three
Do Practice Assessment of an Executive Summary
Report.
12. Participation 2
Look at your Individual
Case Materials (see
individual resource area
and your assigned
company from the forum).
1. What claims are being
made?
What evidence and
warrants support each
claim?
Was it actually a claim?
Why or Why not?
3. What could be done to
improve the claim?
2.
Post your answers to those
questions on the Bidding
Forum.
13. Discuss the results you read about
from the forum with your team via
the chat room.
SHARE HOW CLAIMS WERE FOUND AND
HOW MANY WERE SUPPORTED WITH
EVIDENCE AND REASONS.
IF NO EVIDENCE AND REASONS WERE
PROVIDED, WERE THERE ANY CLAIMS?
WHAT COULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY?
