Skip to content

Critical Thinking Framework for Ethical Analysis

Run the Critical Thinking Framework MicroSim Fullscreen Edit the Critical Thinking Framework MicroSim with the p5.js editor

About This MicroSim

This interactive circular infographic provides students with a visual framework for applying critical thinking to ethical claims and data. The framework addresses the central question: "Is this claim credible?"

When evaluating claims about industry practices, harm data, or ethical issues, students should systematically work through six key evaluation criteria arranged in a circle around the central question.

How to Use

  1. Explore the Framework: Hover over any segment of the circle to highlight it
  2. Learn More: Click a segment to see detailed evaluation criteria with color-coded indicators
  3. Understand the Signals:
    • Green: Strong indicators of credibility
    • Yellow: Caution warranted - proceed with care
    • Red: Major red flags - be skeptical
  4. Reset: Click the center circle or press ESC to evaluate a new claim

The Six Evaluation Criteria

1. SOURCE

Who is making this claim? What are their incentives?

Consider the source's expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and track record of accuracy.

2. EVIDENCE

What data supports this? Is it peer-reviewed?

Look for empirical evidence, not just opinions. Peer-reviewed research is more reliable than press releases.

3. METHODOLOGY

How was this measured? Are there biases?

Understand how the data was collected. Watch for sampling bias, leading questions, or cherry-picked results.

4. CONSISTENCY

Does this align with other reliable sources?

Claims that contradict established science or all other sources deserve extra scrutiny.

5. ALTERNATIVES

What other explanations exist?

Good critical thinking considers alternative explanations before drawing conclusions.

6. IMPLICATIONS

What follows if this is true? Does that make sense?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Check if the logical consequences make sense.

Embedding This MicroSim

You can include this MicroSim on your website using the following iframe:

1
<iframe src="https://dmccreary.github.io/ethics-course/sims/critical-thinking/main.html" height="602px" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Lesson Plan

Learning Objective

Students will apply a systematic critical thinking process when evaluating ethical claims and industry data.

Bloom's Taxonomy Level

Apply (L3) - Students apply the critical thinking framework to evaluate real-world claims.

Suggested Activities

Activity 1: Claim Analysis (15 minutes)

  1. Present students with a claim from an industry source (e.g., "Our product is 100% safe")
  2. Have students work through each segment of the framework
  3. Discuss which segments raise green, yellow, or red flags

Activity 2: Comparative Evaluation (20 minutes)

  1. Present two claims about the same topic from different sources
  2. Have student groups evaluate each claim using the framework
  3. Groups present their findings, explaining which claim is more credible and why

Activity 3: Personal Application (10 minutes)

  1. Students identify a claim they've recently encountered (social media, news, advertising)
  2. Apply the framework independently
  3. Reflect on how the framework changed their perspective

Assessment Questions

  1. A tobacco company publishes research showing their new product is "95% safer." Using the critical thinking framework, which evaluation criteria would raise the most concerns? Explain your reasoning.

  2. You find two sources with conflicting information about a company's environmental impact. Describe how you would use this framework to determine which source is more reliable.

  3. Why is it important to consider "alternatives" when evaluating claims? Give an example where failing to consider alternative explanations led to incorrect conclusions.

Connection to Course Themes

This MicroSim directly supports the course's emphasis on:

  • Data-driven ethics: Evaluating the quality and credibility of data sources
  • Measuring harm: Understanding how methodology affects harm measurements
  • Systems thinking: Recognizing that claims exist within complex systems with multiple stakeholders
  • Advocating for change: Building credible arguments requires credible evidence

Technical Details

  • Framework: p5.js
  • Responsive: Width-responsive design
  • Interaction: Mouse hover, click, keyboard (ESC to reset)
  • Accessibility: Screen reader description included

References

  • Facione, P.A. (2015). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts
  • Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow

Remember to create a screenshot image (critical-thinking.png) for social media previews.