Critical Thinking Checklist

Does the logic of the argument make sense?
Is it clear how you could falsify the argument?
What evidence for the argument has been cited?
Is that evidence sufficient, accurate, and relevant?
Has the argument been framed in a way to persuade you with emotion rather than convince you with evidence?
What’s missing?

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the ‘facts’;
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents from all points of view;
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are experts but not authorities);
Derive more than one hypothesis. If there is something to be explained, think of all the different ways that that it could be explained. Then think of tests for each of these hypotheses. Multiple working hypotheses is a much better way forward than running with the first idea which catches your fancy;
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. Ask yourself, what would it take to convince you this idea is wrong (or that you are wrong?);
If there is a chain of argument, make sure every link in the chain works;
Use Occam’s Razor: When faced with two workable hypotheses which explain the data equally as well, choose the simpler one;
Always ask if the hypothesis can be falsified. What would it take to prove this idea wrong?

Clarity: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example?
Accuracy: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true?
Precision: Could you give me more details? Could you be more specific? (note that a statement can be both clear and accurate without being specific – ‘my dog is fat and really needs to lose some weight’ is both clear and accurate without being precise. It doesn’t’ tell us how overweight Henry is – one kilo, five kilos, or ten kilos).
Relevance: How is that connected with the question? How does that bear on the issue?
Depth: How does your answer address the complexities of the question? How are you taking into account the problems of the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors?
Breadth: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of … (fill in the dots).
Logic: Does that really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? Before you implied this and now you are saying that – how can both be true?