© 2010, World Peace One          

Top of page 

Use a Trusted Source


This method requires little thinking on your part. You merely get someone to do your thinking for you.  It could be a friend whose opinion you respect, or it could be an organization that studies issues and makes recommendations.

If you are going to choose a person, pick someone who stays well informed politically and who can give good reasons for their stance on the issues or candidates. Some people can be confident, but not really have any rational thoughts about an issue. They go on impressions and feelings.

If you are going to rely on an organization, you can probably find several that match your values and politics. These organizations often send out emails regarding issues, and also voter guides.  One place to find these organizations is to look at the organizations you belong to, such as any professional groups, cultural groups, or religious groups. Leaders in these groups can often point you to related advocacy organizations. Another way to find these is to go to Congress.Org''s advocacy section and find an organization that sponsors several pieces of legislation that you support.  Then go to their website and sign up for their email alerts.

These organizations will do the thinking for you, and send you pre-digested analyses of issues and recommended steps to take.



Use pro and con sources and make a gut decision

If you read Part 4 on news sources, you were asked to choose at least two sources of news from different points of the political spectrum. If you did this, you will be able to find news articles, op-eds, or blogs that present both the pros and cons of many issues. As long as you have two sources that strongly disagree and that make good arguments, you will be able to do some simple critical thinking. You simply read both articles, and then pick the side on the issue that seems to make the strongest case.

Note that it's best to have more than two sources, since there are sometimes more than two sides to an issue, and since different people miss different aspects of an issue.

You can also do this simple analysis if you have two or more friends who usually land on opposite sides of the issues. Again, they would both need to be well-informed and also rational thinkers. People who care about politics usually like to talk about the issues, and will usually appreciate people who ask for their help in deciding issues.

You could also sign up for updates from two advocacy groups that normally oppose each other.  When you get two emails, one telling you to support an issue, and the other telling you to oppose it, you can study the arguments.  Just be sure that you choose advocacy groups that give a roughly equal amount of background information.





Use several sources and do a simple five-step analysis


1.  What is the conclusion, the main point that the article is trying to make?

2.  What are the reasons, quasi-reasons or evidence that are presented to support the conclusion? (Quasi-reasons can be things like stories, the opinions of others, isolated facts, statistics and other things that may or may not be very strong.)

3.  What kind of garbage, emotional language, or deceptive techniques are used? (Some anecdotes may be irrelevant; and in video footage, some music or visual images may be meant to create an emotional reaction.) If you are dealing with a printed article, it may be fun to draw lines through all the garbage.  

4.  How well has the case been made for the conclusion.  (Note that in some cases, it's impossible to totally prove a conclusion. If something is an issue, it's probably an issue because there are some good reasons for both sides of an argument.)

5.  How relevant or significant to the overall issue is the conclusion, if supported? For example, the debate over whether or not there is really significant manmade global warming seems to be ending. But that is only part of the bigger issue: what to do about it? Or, another example: If you read one article that seems to make a solid case for strict gun control, and another article that makes a solid case for allowing widespread ownership of guns, you need to compare the two arguments, and choose the strongest one.

To help you recall these five questions, think that you want the argument to be as strong as a CEDAR tree (like the one pictured above). The CEDAR critical thinking questions are:

1.  What is the CONCLUSION?

2.  What is the EVIDENCE that proves the conclusion?  (Reasons, and quasi-reasons like stories, analogies, etc.)

3.  What DISTORTION techniques are used?   Propaganda techniques, emotionally loaded words, and so forth.

4.  How ACCURATE or valid is the argument?

5.  How RELEVANT or significant is the conclusion to the overall issue, if true or probably true?


[The CEDAR critical thinking questions were developed by Proof Through the Night.]

A Thorough Step-By-Step Method for Analysis 


Issue Choice 

Is thinking about this issue a priority?  (Or is there a better, more strategic issue? If so, then work on the more strategic issue.)

Is it too late or too early to think about this issue?   If so, stop and work on another, more strategic issue.

Issue Definition

What is the issue? What is in question?

Is this a question about ends or about means? In other words, if it’s about ends, we are talking about goals or desired scenarios, but if the argument is about the means, we have already decided on a goal and are arguing about the best way to accomplish it.

Information on the issue

Do I have enough information on this issue? Do I have articles on both or all sides of the issue?  (If not, get more articles.) 

Is the information trustworthy?

Is the information high quality? (Is it oversimplified?  Is it easy to understand and without lots of manipulative language?)

Are there any precedents or previous experiences that can help you understand this situation?
 
Is there background information that I need to understand the issue? (prior history of the issue? politics of the people involved? )

The basic argument

What are the conclusions? (What does the author ultimately believe about this issue or candidate? What does the author wish us to do or not do? What is the bottom line?)

What are the reasons given to support the conclusion?  (Note the reasons that are presented, whether or not you think they really support the conclusion.)

Are there any jumps in the logic? In other words, are certain things assumed?  If so, what are the assumptions? Are these value assumptions or descriptive assumptions?  [Descriptive assumptions are beliefs about how the world is; value assumptions (also called prescriptive assumptions) are beliefs about how the world should be.]

Assuming that the information in the argument is true, do the reasons support the conclusion? (Later, we will examine the strength and validity of evidence given.)

Check:  Reconstruct the basic argument, including assumptions. Does the argument make sense?  Or are there errors in logic, or logical fallacies being used? (For a list of logical fallacies, go here.)

Check: Is anything being called the cause of anything else?  (Look for words or phrases like “factor”  “is linked to”  “leads to”  “causes”  “increases the likelihood of”  “contributes to”) If so, think about whether the stated or implied causality is accurate. 

When people say that one thing causes another, (that X causes Y or is a major factor in causing Y) that may be the case, but there are several alternatives that may be what’s really happening:

1.  X does not really cause Y, or is a minor cause (by you should by thinking about Z causing Y. In other words, ask the question “Is another cause of Y more likely?”)

 

2.  X and Y are often found together but are caused by W.

 

3.  Y actually causes X.

 

4. X and Y are not really related, but historically they were found together and traditionally people believe they are related.

 

5.  X and Y influence each other (sometimes in a cycle). 

 

6.  X merely happened before Y, and so people think it’s the cause. (For example, after President John Doe went into office, inflation went down, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that President Doe's policies caused inflation to go down. It could have been due to the policies of the president before him, or due to factors completely unrelated to the US government, for instance more and cheaper labor in other countries driving down the cost of goods.) 

Examining each part of the argument

(The Reasons)

Are there ambiguous or undefined terms in the reasons? 

Is there emotionally loaded language in the reasons? In other words, is there language that carries a judgment? (For instance, “mainstream values”  “justice” “vision” “realism” “reform” “self-discipline” “strategic interests” “peace through strength” all carry positive associations. But words like “bailout” and “tax and spend” usually carry negative associations. (By the way, isn’t taxing and spending the job of all legislators?) 

Is the evidence solid?  

- Are factual claims being made?

- Is intuition or an appeal to authority used as evidence?

- Are personal testimonials or opinions used as evidence?

Are analogies used as reasons? If so, are the similarities described in the analogy more weighty than the differences not mentioned in the analogy? 

If statistics are used, what is the source? And do the statistics actually help prove the conclusion, or do they prove something else? See statistics for detailed analysis.

(The conclusions)

Are other conclusions possible?

Should the conclusion be qualified (in other words, limited or restricted)? 

Missing Information Check

Have all alternatives to the proposed action or candidate been considered?

If some very expensive legislation is being proposed, has anyone explained where the money will come from to pay for the new project?

Have all of the costs been listed?  (money, time, and hidden costs such as increased health problems, environmental damage, or from stress or long-term economic problems.) 

Have counterarguments for an action or candidate been left out? Have other useful ways of looking at the situation been left out?

Has information been left out from any relevant authority or expert source?

Have benefits to the person making the argument been left out? (“Follow the money.”)

Have the benefits and costs to all players been included?

(First list the players. Then list the benefits and costs to each.)

Have any long term effects been left out?  (For instance, to people’s health, to certain sectors of the economy, to the environment, to related or analogous laws (In other words, has as a precedent been set?)

If someone has been quoted, was the context given? Were their words taken out of context? 

Has the option of doing nothing been considered?

Were reasons given for why this issue is coming up now? Is the timing natural, or does it seem that it this issue is being delayed or moved ahead for some reason not disclosed?  (If so, this might be a diversionary issue that’s meant to take attention away from a more crucial issue or action.) 

How does the proposed action affect the distribution of power? 

Decide your position

First restate all positions.

Restate the main (or most solid) arguments for and against each position.

Summarize the costs and benefits of each position.

Pick the position with the greatest benefits and lowest costs.

When ready, please continue with Money and Politics.