critical thinking verbal reasoning

• AON Hewitt G.A.T.E.
• PI Cognitive Assessment (PLI Test)
• Korn Ferry Leadership Assessment
• Berke Assessment
• Ergometrics
• Thomas International
• Predictive Index (PI)
• NEO Personality Inventory
• Leadership Assessment
• Gallup’s CliftonStrengths
• Sales Personality Tests
• Personality Management Tests
• Saville Wave
• McQuaig Word Survey
• Bell Personality Test
• Myers Briggs Personality Test
• DISC Personality Test
• Management SJT
• Supervisory SJT
• Administrative SJT
• Call Center SJT
• Customer Service SJT
• Firefighter SJT
• Numerical Reasoning Tests

Verbal Reasoning Tests

• Logical Reasoning Tests
• Cognitive Ability Tests
• Technical Aptitude Tests
• Spatial Reasoning Tests
• Abstract Reasoning Test
• Deductive Reasoning Tests
• Inductive Reasoning Tests
• Mechanical Reasoning Tests
• Diagrammatic Reasoning Tests
• Fault Finding Aptitude Tests
• Mathematical Reasoning Tests
• Critical Thinking Tests
• Analytical Reasoning Tests
• Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test
• Criteria’s CCAT
• Matrigma Test
• Air Traffic Controller Test
• Administrative Assistant Exam
• Clerical Ability Exam
• School Secretary Tests
• State Trooper Exam
• Probation Officer Exam
• FBI Entrance Exam
• Office Assistant Exam
• Clerk Typist Test
• Police Records Clerk Exam
• Canada’s Public Service Exams
• Firefighter Exams
• Police Exams
• Army Aptitude Tests
• USPS Postal Exams
• Hiring Process by Professions

Select Page

Verbal Critical Reasoning Test: Free Practice Questions & Helpful Tips – 2024

• Information
• Free Practice

A verbal critical reasoning test will push your limits and challenge your intellect. As opposed to a standard verbal comprehension test, these pre-employment aptitude tests will force you to analyze not only the content of the text, but the writer’s assumptions and logic as well. If you’re applying for a job that requires you to analyze complex arguments and develop informed opinions, you might be asked to take an online psychometric assessment of this sort. Read through our brief description below and then click over to the second tab for a couple free sample questions.

What Are Verbal Critical Reasoning Tests?

On a standard reading comprehension or grammar exam, you’ll be asked to answer questions about passages you’ve read. You might also have to correct grammatical errors, define vocabulary words, and correct poor word choice. Most of these questions deal with technical matters. While these questions might ask you about the author’s intention or the passage’s conclusion, it won’t ask you to analyze the argument itself.

On a verbal critical reasoning test, graduates and job-seekers should analyze the argument logically. You’ll need to contest false assumptions, evaluate the strength of a conclusion, and identify possible objections. Not only will you have to thoroughly understand the content of the argument, but you’ll have to deconstruct it as well.

How to Prepare for a Verbal Critical Reasoning Test?

If you need to take a verbal critical reasoning exam, you’ll want to make sure you practice ahead of time. Critical reasoning tests can seem pretty daunting if you haven’t come across anything similar before; however, if you train yourself to identify various components of an argument, you’ll be able to answer the questions more efficiently. Here are basic terms you should be able to recognize:

• Premise: A premise is a stated fact upon which a writer will base his conclusion. In most cases there are at least two premises.
• Assumption: An assumption is an unstated belief the author holds that will influence his argument.
• Conclusion: A conclusion is an argument’s final statement. It is the opinion the author forms based on the facts presented to him in the premises.
• Inference: An inference is a conjecture one might make based on the conclusion.

Verbal Critical Reasoning Tips:

Verbal critical reasoning tests are certainly not easy. However, with a bit of practice and some expert advice, you’ll head into the assessment center confidently.

• Remain Unbiased- It can be easy to assume that the writer or the speaker holds your beliefs. However, make a conscious effort to clear your mind of any unconscious bias or pre-conceived notions. You want to make sure you’re analyzing the writer’s argument and not creating your own.
• Ask Why- Instead of thinking about whether the author is right or wrong, ask yourself why the author thinks what she does. Remember, your goal is to assess her logic, not her opinions. You may disagree with her, and that’s fine. However, make sure you stay focused on the task at hand.
• Correlation not Causation- Watch out for common logical fallacies. Just because two phenomena happen at the same time does not mean they’re necessarily connected. They may be related, but it is presumptuous to assume that one causes the other without explicit proof.

Final Thoughts on Verbal Critical Reasoning Tests:

Verbal critical reasoning tests are by no means simple. If you’ve only taken standard reading comprehension or writing exams in the past, you’ll be in for a surprise. Much closer to the LSAT’s than the SAT’s, this aptitude assessment will force you to think logically and analytically. Make sure to click over to the questions tab to try your hand at a few questions now.

Sample Questions:

Read the text below and answer the questions that follow.

UNITED NATIONS—The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Thursday naming terrorist financing a serious crime and demanding that all countries set up a domestic legal framework to counter the practice. The U.N.’s counterterrorism chief Vladimir Voronkov said the resolution came at a critical time, as terrorist attacks around the globe have demonstrated that groups like Islamic State and al Qaeda have continuing access to vast financial revenues. Mr. Voronkov said that the Security Council resolution demanded that every country “ensure that their domestic laws and regulations establish terror financing as serious criminal offense.” The global web of terrorist financing is complex and diverse, according to experts. Cash flow is generated from oil sales, kidnapping ransoms, drug trafficking and investments in business ventures such as construction and car trade. Militant groups such as Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and Hamas, of the Gaza Strip, both designated as terrorist organizations by U.S. and Europe, have managed to remain afloat with funding from nations like Iran.

Source: The Wall Street Journal .

• Terrorism is at an all-time high and is only gaining power
• It’s essential to crack down on terrorism financing if we want to stem the growth of militant groups.
• You can’t fight terrorism without having a legal framework in place.
• Fighting terrorist groups on the ground and increased security hasn’t helped to effectively wipe out or even reduce terrorism.
• Few nations already have legal frameworks in place for fighting terrorism financing.
• Militant groups have lost almost all of their territory in Iraq and Syria.
• Terrorists typically earn their funds through legal means.
• The United Nations is becoming increasingly worried about the rise in terrorism.
• Verbal Critical Reasoning
• True/False/Cannot Say
• Reading Comprehension Test
• Sentence Completion Test
• Vocabulary Test
• Spelling Test
• Synonym Test
• Punctuation Test
• Capitalization Test
• Analogy Reasoning Test
• Speed Reading Test
• Paragraph Organization Test
• English Placement Test
• Verbal Ability Test

Get 25% off all test packages.

Get 25% off all test packages!

Click below to get 25% off all test packages.

Verbal Reasoning Tests

• 450 questions

Verbal reasoning tests assess your understanding and comprehension skills. You will be presented with a short passage of text, which you’ll be required to interpret and then answer questions on. These are typically in the ‘True, False, Cannot Say’ multiple-choice format, although there are a range of alternatives too.

What is a verbal reasoning test?

A verbal reasoning test assesses your ability to make deductions from text. The format is typically a written passage followed by a statement, and you must decide whether the statement is true, false or that you cannot say. They evaluate your understanding of language and level of verbal comprehension and logic.

Depending on the role you are applying for, questions may range from basic reading comprehension to more advanced reasoning. There are also a number of different test providers used by recruiters, offering a range of verbal reasoning assessments for different industries and job levels. We will look at these in more detail later in this article.

Why do employers use verbal reasoning tests?

Verbal reasoning tests are psychometric tests designed to reveal a candidate’s language and comprehension skills, and their ability to apply reasoning and logic.

These are key in any working environment, which is why verbal reasoning tests are so popular with employers in a wide range of industries – even those you might not think require strong verbal skills.

Many employers also regard verbal reasoning tests as more fair than other types of assessment, such as an unstructured interview. This is because all candidates face questions of a similar level of difficulty and their tests are scored objectively.

So verbal reasoning tests may help to provide a more level playing field for applicants from all backgrounds. However, a verbal reasoning test is likely only to form one part of a wider selection process, and your performance in all areas will be taken into consideration by the employer.

How do verbal reasoning tests work?

There are two main formats of verbal reasoning tests:

Verbal critical reasoning – these test your ability to apply logic by confirming whether a given statement is verified by the text provided.

Reading comprehension – these assess your ability to digest written information and then use the information provided to answer questions quickly and accurately.

The most common form is the true/false/cannot say test , where you are required to read some text and then determine whether the statement that follows is true, false or impossible to say based on the information provided.

Other forms of verbal reasoning tests you may encounter are:

Explicit multiple choice – here the answer to questions will be explicitly stated in the text. For example ‘Who said..?’ or ‘How many..?’

Implicit multiple choice – here the answer will not be explicitly stated but can be inferred from details provided in the text. For example ‘What made the employee decide to…?’; or ‘What caused…?’

Meta multiple choice – here the answer does not refer to details specifically given in the text but requires the candidate to answer broader questions such as ‘What can we conclude from…?’ or ‘Which statement would weaken the argument..?’

Regardless of the format of the test, you will need to read the text, interpret the information and decide on the most logical conclusion. It is important to remember that no previous knowledge of the passage topic is required , so make your decisions based solely on the information you’re given.

As well as or instead of verbal reasoning tests, you may also be asked to take a verbal test assessing your language and literacy skills. This could include:

Grammar and spelling – checking your knowledge of correct spelling and grammar . These might include questions such as find the new word and word swap (for more on those, check out the videos at the bottom of this article).

Vocabulary – testing the range of your vocabulary and your ability to identify correctly how ideas are related. This is usually in the form of synonyms or antonyms (words that have the same or opposite meaning to another).

Word analogy - testing your ability to find the relationship between a pair of words. Examples of word analogy questions can be found here .

How best to prepare for a verbal reasoning test

The best way to perform well in a verbal reasoning test is to make sure you are familiar with the format and have done plenty of practice before you sit the test. Practice questions will help you to identify your weaknesses and develop your own methods for success.

If you’d like to practice online, you can start with our verbal reasoning test questions and answers . Or download our verbal reasoning test pdf if you’d prefer to work offline.

During your practice, make a note of your most common mistakes or the aspects you struggle most with, and then focus on improving your performance in these areas. And be sure to take the practice tests under timed conditions – speed as well as accuracy will be crucial when it comes to the real thing.

Try to find out which test provider the recruiter will be using (see next section), and the type of test you will be sitting. You should then be able to visit the provider’s website to find more information and possibly try a few example questions.

Also check out our article on how to prepare for a verbal reasoning test for more advice on getting ready for your assessment, as well as our verbal reasoning tips and tricks article .

Common verbal test providers

Below are some of the most widely used verbal reasoning test providers. These are the ones you are most likely to come across, though check with the employer first if you can.

Some will have their own bespoke tests, tailored to situations the candidate will encounter in the role.

SHL Verify Ability Test

SHL is probably the most popular test publisher. SHL verbal reasoning tests typically have a time limit of 17 to 19 minutes and cover various difficulty levels, often including reports and documents. You can try some practice questions here .

Criterion Utopia Verbal Reasoning Test

The questions in this high-level verbal reasoning test – aimed at managers and graduates – get more difficult as the test progresses. You will have 30 minutes to answer 40 questions.

Talent Q Elements Verbal Ability

These tests are adaptive, which means the difficulty level is automatically adjusted according to your performance in the previous questions. There is typically a time limit of 90 seconds per question. You can try out a practice test here .

Cubiks Logiks Verbal Ability Test

The Logiks tests have two levels: intermediate and advanced. In the intermediate test, you have to answer 24 questions in 4 minutes (only 10 seconds per question; but the difficulty is low). In the advanced test, you have 25 minutes to answer 36 questions. You can try some sample questions here .

Kenexa/PSL Advance Verbal Reasoning Test

There are two levels to this test: general ability, which has an 18-minute time limit for 24 questions, and graduate/managerial, which has a 25-minute time limit for 32 questions. More on Kenexa tests here .

Prepare yourself for leading employers

Free example verbal reasoning questions

Below are some example questions for the types of test you may encounter. Answers to each are below the questions.

Verbal critical reasoning

Statement : The passage suggests that it is safer to spread your savings across a range of different investments.

• C) Cannot say

Reading comprehension

If more tourists come to this country, it will mean:

• A) Fewer jobs in some restaurants
• B) Fewer people wanting fast food
• C) More jobs in many hotels
• D) The government doesn’t worry about job creation

Word analogy

Which of the following would best replace the word ‘outstanding’ in sentence 3?

• A) Remaining
• C) Multiple
• D) Supportive

Verbal critical reasoning : True – the third sentence explains that the very rich have been diversifying their portfolios to reduce the risk of sudden changes in share prices.

Reading comprehension : The second paragraph talks about the fact that if more tourists are encouraged to come to this country it will translate into more business for hotels and this will result in more jobs (‘Just think of the new jobs this will generate!’). This makes C) the only correct response.

Word analogy : The use of the word ‘outstanding’ suggests that customer service has to be really great. Option B – superb – is the best word to replace outstanding in this case.

I’ve practiced hundreds of numerical questions and still have plenty more to try.

Verbal Reasoning Tests FAQs

Are verbal reasoning tests difficult.

While the difficulty level varies from test to test, candidates struggle most when they are unfamiliar with the format and have not prepared thoroughly. You will find the test easier if you have checked what to expect and practised beforehand.

What do verbal reasoning tests measure?

Verbal reasoning tests measure how well a person can process and interpret information. By giving correct answers, test-takers show how well and fast they can filter information. Such skills are crucial for many white-collar jobs nowadays.

Do I need to be a fast reader?

Being able to read quickly will help, but it’s more important that you can understand the information in front of you and draw logical conclusions from the facts. The assessor can check how many questions you attempted, and how many of these you answered correctly. So you need to find a balance between racing through the questions and giving accurate responses to those you attempt.

What is the pass score for verbal reasoning tests?

After completing your test, you’ll be presented with your raw score as well as your percentile. The percentile shows you how you performed compared to others taking the test. So if you are placed in the 90th percentile you have performed well above average. while if you fall in the 30th percentile your performance was only average. Your aim is to outperform other candidates, rather than simply ‘passing’ the test.

Where can I practice verbal reasoning tests?

The best way to become familiar with verbal reasoning is through regular practice. Our website provides all the most popular types of verbal reasoning tests for you to practise. The major verbal reasoning publishers usually offer free sample tests too, including Cubiks , Kenexa , Cut-e , Korn Ferry and SHL .

How should I answer verbal reasoning tests?

You should make decisions based on the information provided, not your own expertise. The objective of verbal reasoning tests is to reveal your skills, not check your knowledge. If it’s neither true or false, it can be ‘hard to say’. While it is often tempting to strive for black and white answers to complex or troubling questions, that might not be the right approach.

Hire better talent

At Neuroworx we help companies build perfect teams

Verbal Reasoning Tests Tips

1 rely on the facts alone.

Remember that you are not expected to have any prior knowledge and all the information you need will be included in the text, either explicitly or implicitly. Do not try to assume anything that cannot be supported by the information provided. In the case of true, false or cannot say questions, if you are having trouble deciding whether or not the statement is supported by the text, it is most likely that the answer is ‘cannot say’.

2 One question = one minute rule

Make sure you understand how many questions you will have to answer and how long you have to complete the test. Usually, verbal reasoning tests consist of 15 to 20 questions and don’t last longer than 15 to 20 minutes. Also note that while some tests have a number of questions per passage of prose, others have a new one for each.

3 Go with the flow

Don’t get stuck on one question, as easier ones may follow. It’s as important to stick to timings as it is to get a right answer. Some assessments allow you to review or amend answers at the end. If you finish early, go back and look again at the questions you flagged earlier.

4 Learn from your mistakes

Focus on reviewing the questions you got wrong at the end of each practice verbal reasoning test. Read the solutions and try to understand why you have answered incorrectly. You will learn more from your errors than from the answers you got right.

5 Practise under exam conditions

This means completing practice tests in one sitting and to time. Do not practise in an environment where you are easily distracted and not fully engaged. This will maximise the efficiency of your preparation time and help you to accurately track your progress.

6 Be competitive

Try to measure your achievements against other users to make sure you stand out in a crowd. The average results might help you get to the next stage, but may not be enough to secure the job. Preparation can be tedious and stressful, but think of this time as an opportunity to differentiate yourself from the competition.

7 Ask questions

On the day, make sure you are clear on what you need to do. If you are taking the test at an assessment centre, the administrator will explain the instructions and you will usually have the opportunity to try one or two example questions first. Raise any issues at this point, as you won’t be able to ask questions once the test has begun for real.

Enjoy what you’ve read? Let others know!

• Share on whatsapp
• Share on linkedin
• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook
• Share via email

Verbal Reasoning Video Tutorials

English Language

Find the New Word

Try verbal reasoning tests for free, verbal reasoning 01.

20 Questions | 20 Minutes

Verbal Reasoning 02

Verbal reasoning 03, improve your scores with our intelligent learning system, prepare for your verbal reasoning test.

Immediate access. Cancel anytime.

• 30 Numerical reasoning tests
• 30 Verbal reasoning tests
• 30 Diagrammatic reasoning tests
• 30 Situational judgement tests
• 34 Publisher packages e.g. Watson Glaser
• 252 Employer packages e.g. HSBC
• 29 Extra packages e.g Mechanical
• Dashboard performance tracking
• Full solutions and explanations
• Tips, tricks, guides and resources
• Access to free tests
• Basic performance tracking
• Solutions & explanations
• Tips and resources

Reviews of our Verbal Reasoning tests

What our customers say about our Verbal Reasoning tests

Oluwajomiloju Joda

November 01, 2023

To understand to read the passage well before answering the questions

My like is that they give options that are complete and my dislike isnthani need more understanding comprehensive passage

Marcelo Boy Zamora

Philippines

October 30, 2023

Thinking Fast

The thing I like in this test is I was able to think fast and at the same time I am thinking critically because of the time given to me

Patricia Maloney

Reading carefully

I like that it seems quick and simply however you do have to really read the questions as carefully as you can. It is easy to misunderstand what the question is that's been asked.

Nthabi Nthabi

South Africa

October 29, 2023

I loved the experience

The questions really trained your mind. They required you to think as fast as you could given the time

Yannick Moses

United Kingdom

October 27, 2023

Challenging

Good amount of relevant information - challenging to get through given the time limit though realistic

K60 Nguyễn Nhan Thuỳ Dương

October 23, 2023

This might be a good example of verbal reasoning test

I have done this test with a do-it-to-know attitude so I am not sure about my result, it might not be very good

October 20, 2023

Interesting

Interesting test but with my lack of experience I am unsure if this is reflective of industry standard

I liked the range of texts used. This encouraged lateral thinking and ensured it was always interesting

Shihan richie

October 16, 2023

Tips & help

Although it was quite challenging, test is effectively well designed to test candidates' ability to respond accurately.

Johnny Sofras

October 15, 2023

Best practice tests for verbal reasoning

It resembles very well the real aptitude tests that I have given for job interviews. The texts are bigger than usual but overall highly simulative and distinctive work!

By using our website you agree with our Cookie Policy.

What Is Verbal Reasoning, and Why Does It Matter?

Sep 28, 2021 6:03:09 PM / by Louise El Yaafouri

Need to Know

• Verbal reasoning helps us make sense of what we read and hear.
• These skills are central to student performance assessments. They’re also useful to us in the real world.
• Elements of verbal reasoning are embedded in most language/literacy curricula, but we can support students by supplementing these materials with targeted skills practice.

A Closer Look

Verbal reasoning helps us make sense of what we read and hear. These skills facilitate literacy by enabling us to make predictions, inferences, and connections. Ultimately, verbal reasoning makes it possible to access complex content through spoken and written word. Kids and teens are assessed on these skills at school, but we rely upon them in the real world, too. Verbal reasoning skills are essential for 21st-century thinkers—and they’re just as important in the history, math, or art room as they are in the language arts setting!

In the classroom, we run into six types of verbal reasoning questions: 

• Logical sequence of words 
• Classification 

Cause and effect

• Verification of truth (True/False)

Logical sequence of words

Logical sequencing exercises kids’ reasoning muscles. It asks the doer to place a series of words into a meaningful and logical order. Sometimes, these questions can appear simple but require effortful consideration. 

Example: Place the following words in a logical sequence: 

• a) classroom  
• b) bus  
• c) home  
• d) bus stop  
• e) school. 

Best answer: c, d, b, e, a.

Classification

When kids classify objects, words, or thoughts, they’re doing more than just sorting by qualities and characteristics. They’re problem-solving and laying a foundation for more complex critical thinking capabilities. 

Example: Choose the word that is least like the other members of the group: 

• a) daffodil 
• b) marigold 
• c) sweet pea 
• d) begonia 
• e) lily 

Answer: Sweet pea is fruit/vegetable producing; the others are not. 

Most of us have used analogies in the classroom. But what are they, exactly? “An analogy, ” says Paul Bartha for Stanford , “is a comparison between two objects, or systems of objects, that highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar. Analogical reasoning is any type of thinking that relies upon an analogy.” The use of analogies accelerates learning, increases retention, and boosts conceptual development. 

Example:  bees : hive :: bears : _____ 

Best answer: den.

Verbal reasoning can be practiced and assessed via puzzles. Besides being fun, puzzles offer a range of cognitive benefits: they engage both brain hemispheres, develop spatial reasoning, spur creative thinking, and improve memory. 

Example: Solve for this word if D=E, K=L, and T=U. “bqqmf”

Best answer: crrng

Cause and effect statements highlight the relationship between two events. Something happens (cause), which results in something else occurring (effect). These verbal reasoning questions are common in performance assessments, but they have a practical purpose, too. Ashle Bailey-Gilreath for Learning and the Brain explains that “Cause-and-effect thinking, or causality, allows us to make inferences and reason about things that happen around us.” 

Example: Read these statements and determine the effect. 

• a) The principal called for indoor recess.  
• b) At noon, it started to rain. 

Best answer: a.

Verification of truth  

Is it absolutely so? Is the statement true or false? Can one thing exist without the other? When it comes to verbal reasoning, these types of questions are examples of verification of truth. The process of solving these scenarios invites students to draw on background knowledge, practice sense-making, and refine elimination processes. 

Example: ‘Bravery’ must include an element of:  

• a) surprise  
• b) knowledge  
• c) courage  
• d) kindness.  

Best answer: c.

While most language and reading curricula embed verbal reasoning practice, helping students build up these critical skill sets can advance their critical thinking and logic capacity, which will benefit them far beyond their K-12 schooling. Finding captivating and purposeful activities can be a challenge, so WordMasters is an exciting option to consider. 

Unlike other language arts competitions for this age group—which focus on grammar, punctuation, spelling, and other language mechanics—the WordMasters Challenge helps students think analytically and metaphorically. The contest addresses higher-level word comprehension and verbal reasoning in two ways:

• It challenges students to complete analogies based on relationships among words they have learned.
• It bases the analogies on unique vocabulary lists, developed for each grade and difficulty level by experienced teachers, which participants are encouraged to study before each meet.

When looking to advance your language arts instruction, join WordMasters Challenge . There’s a world of value in developing these skills in the language arts classroom and beyond.

Want to join the next WordMasters Challenge with your students? Learn more about their latest challenge , launching October 1st, 2021, and check out future challenges, too!

Topics: Elementary Education , Academic Language , Vocabulary

Written by Louise El Yaafouri

Louise El Yaafouri is a Recent Arriver & Cultural Competency Consultant at DiversifiED Consulting. She provides professional development and curriculum design in the areas of Emergent Multilingual education, trauma-informed practice, culturally responsive pedagogy, and equity/inclusion work. Louise has authored a wide range of ed-related books and articles, including the forthcoming Restoring Students’ Innate Power: Trauma-Responsive Strategies for Teaching Multilingual Newcomers (ASCD press). Louise lives between Denver, Colorado and Saida, Lebanon with her husband and sons Noor and Joud.

Lists by Topic

• Elementary Education (21)
• Literacy (21)
• Secondary Education (16)
• 21st Century Skills (14)
• Mathematics (13)
• College & Career Readiness (10)
• Classroom Management (9)
• Learning Loss (8)
• EdCuration (7)
• Academic Language (6)
• Computer Science (6)
• English Language Learners (5)
• Professional Learning (5)
• Student Leadership (5)
• special education (5)
• Art Education (4)
• School Leadership (4)
• Vocabulary (4)
• Differentiated (3)
• Project-Based Learning (3)
• Student Agency (3)
• Student Voice (3)
• Using Video in the Classroom (3)
• World Language (3)
• Build Global Citizens (2)
• Early Childhood Education (2)
• EdTrustees (2)
• Media Literacy (2)
• Mental Health (2)
• Reading (2)
• Social Studies (2)
• Anti-racist (1)
• Data Analysis (1)
• Educator Tools (1)
• Financial Literacy (1)
• K-12 Funding (1)
• Pilot Programs (1)
• Professional Learning Communities (1)
• RTI/MTSS (1)
• Scheduling (1)
• School and Family Partnerships (1)
• Summer School (1)
• Tutoring (1)

Posts by Topic

Recent posts.

Partner With Us

Copyright © 2022 EdCuration

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

The GRE ® General Test

One test for graduate, business and law school

Select a step to learn more about your GRE ® General Test journey.

Test Content

The GRE General Test closely reflects the kind of thinking you’ll do in today's demanding graduate school programs, including business and law. It measures your verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, critical thinking and analytical writing skills — skills that have been developed over a long period of time and aren’t related to a specific field of study but are important for all.

Verbal Reasoning

The Verbal Reasoning section measures your ability to:

• analyze and draw conclusions from discourse; reason from incomplete data; identify author's assumptions and/or perspective; understand multiple levels of meaning, such as literal, figurative and author's intent
• select important points; distinguish major from minor or irrelevant points; summarize text; understand the structure of a text
• understand the meaning of individual words, sentences and entire texts; understand relationships among words and among concepts

Take a closer look at the Verbal Reasoning section .

Quantitative Reasoning

The Quantitative Reasoning section measures your ability to:

• understand, interpret and analyze quantitative information
• solve problems using mathematical models
• apply basic skills and elementary concepts of arithmetic, algebra, geometry and data analysis

Take a closer look at the Quantitative Reasoning section .

Analytical Writing

The Analytical Writing section measures your ability to:

• articulate complex ideas clearly and effectively
• support ideas with relevant reasons and examples
• sustain a well-focused, coherent discussion
• control the elements of standard written English

It requires you to provide focused responses based on the tasks presented, so you can accurately demonstrate your skill in directly responding to a task.

Take a closer look at the  Analytical Writing section .

Modified versions of Verbal Reasoning and Quantitative Reasoning questions

The test you take may include questions that are modified versions of published questions or of questions you’ve already seen on the test. Some modifications are substantial; others are less apparent.

Even if a question appears to be similar to a question you’ve already seen, it may in fact be different and have a different answer. Pay careful attention to the wording of each question.

Test structure

Learn more about the test sections and their timing .

• Numerical Reasoning
• Verbal Reasoning
• Inductive Reasoning
• Diagrammatic Reasoning
• Logical Reasoning
• Mechanical Reasoning
• Situational Judgement
• Deductive reasoning
• Critical thinking
• Abstract reasoning
• Spatial reasoning
• Error checking
• Verbal comprehension
• Reading comprehension
• Psychometric tests
• Personality test
• In-Tray exercise
• E-Tray exercise
• Group exercise
• Presentation exercise
• Analysis exercise
• Game based assessments
• Competency based assessment
• Strengths based assessment
• Strengths based interviews
• Video interview
• Saville Assessment
• Talent Q / Korn Ferry
• Watson Glaser
• Criterion Partnership
• Test Partnership
• Cut-e / Aon
• Team Focus PFS
• Sova Assessment
• For Practice
• For Business

Verbal Reasoning Tests

Practice tests, solutions, and tips to help you pass employers' verbal reasoning tests.

Page contents:

What is a verbal reasoning test.

• Why do employers use verbal reasoning tests?

Verbal reasoning tutorial - part 1

Free practice verbal reasoning tests.

• Most common verbal reasoning tests used by employers

What's the best technique for verbal tests?

• Top tips for verbal reasoning
• Verbal Reasoning test FAQs

Updated: 17 January 2023

Have you been asked to take a verbal reasoning test but not sure on what to expect? Need to boost your test performance score?

Our experts have all the advice and practice tests you need to prepare for your test. The practice tests on AssessmentDay simulate the tests used by employers, so read through this guide and take some of our example questions to become familiar with the industry-standard style and layout.

A verbal reasoning test is used to assess your ability to understand and comprehend written passages. They are designed to measure your verbal comprehension, reasoning and logic, all through your understanding of language. Some people when reading a statement jump to conclusions or misinterpret information - this is what the test will be able to find out about you.

Verbal reasoning tests usually take the form of a written passage followed by a series of questions with possible True, False or Cannot Say responses. It is important you know and appreciate the meaning of each response if you are to score highly.

• True - The statement follows logically given the information contained within the passage.
• False - The statement cannot logically follow given the information contained within the passage.
• Cannot Say - It is not possible to determine given the information contained within the passage alone; i.e. more information would be required to say for certain.

The best way to perform your best in a psychometric test is to be familiar with the test format and know what to expect. Practice is the best way to maximise your chances of test success.

What is an example of verbal reasoning?

Take a look at the following images to see the format of a typical verbal reasoning question:

Why do employers use verbal reasoning tests? 🤔

Verbal Reasoning tests are used because they are better at predicting candidates' job performance than interviews, CVs and other traditional methods of selection. Employers use your verbal reasoning score, together with other selection factors such as interview performance, to help them decide which candidate is most suitable for the role.

Employers who use verbal reasoning tests are able to determine your skill level when dealing with language. This is a core skill in any working environment making verbal reasoning tests extremely popular, even for roles which are not immediately thought of as requiring strong verbal skills.

Survey results

We conducted a study to find out which job sectors feature verbal reasoning tests most prevalently - our results showed that 90% of job applications for teaching and law roles required a verbal reasoning test. You can find our results below:

We have created a two-part verbal reasoning tutorial, in which we go through some verbal reasoning questions. This tutorial is designed to help you understand the format and process of a question.

The following video is part one of that tutorial:

Free Verbal Reasoning Test 1

This free verbal reasoning test contains 9 questions and has a time limit of 10 minutes . This test is rated as medium and is about the same difficulty as real verbal tests graduate employers use.

Free Verbal Reasoning Test 2

Verbal reasoning test 3.

• 30 questions

Verbal Reasoning Test 4

Verbal reasoning test 5, verbal reasoning test 6, the most common verbal reasoning tests used by employers.

When you are invited by an employer to take any reasoning test, try asking which test publisher they are using . You can then go to that test publisher's website to get more information and possibly example test questions. Some HR staff are surprisingly helpful with this. If it's an online test, it may mention somewhere in the emails or on the employer's website which test publishers they use.

Once you've found what test publisher is being used you can start doing research into the style of that particular test. Here are the most popular test publishers for verbal reasoning tests:

• 1. SHL Verify Ability Tests - SHL are the most widely used test publisher so you are likely to come across their tests during your application process. Their verbal tests have a time limit of between 17 and 19 minutes so you will need to work quickly and accurately to perform well.
• 2. SHL VMG - This series of tests belong to a test battery known as MGIB (Managerial and Graduate Item Bank). The questions on the test are selected from an item bank, with each item chosen based on its difficulty level, and its content varying in each test to prevent candidates sharing answers. The VMG takes 12 minutes to complete and contains 24 questions.
• 3. Talent Q Elements Verbal Ability - The big difference with these tests is that they are adaptive. That is to say the difficulty of each question is automatically determined by your performance in the previous question. So the questions become more difficult as you progress in order to quickly find your level of ability. A typical time limit is 90 seconds for questions with a fresh set of information and 75 seconds per question after that. Also the number of multiple choice options is a lot greater compared with what you might be used to from SHL, making it more difficult to make a best guess.
• 4. Criterion Partnership Utopia Verbal Critical Reasoning Test - These tests have an environmental theme. There are 30 questions with a time limit of 20 minutes but beware the questions get progressively more difficult.
• 5. Cubiks Verbal Reasoning for Business - Designed to test candidates' business-orientated verbal reasoning skills. You usually get less than a minute per question.
• 6. Kenexa/PSL Advance Verbal Reasoning Tests - This series of tests contains two levels: general ability and graduate/managerial. The general ability test comprises 24 questions and an 18 minute time limit. The graduate and managerial test comprises 32 questions and a 25 minute time limit.
• 7. Kenexa/PSL Infinity Verbal Reasoning Tests - Unlike other verbal reasoning tests, these have a number of fixed comparable tests. The test takes 20 minutes to complete and is comprised of 24 questions.
• 8. Cappfinity Verbal Reasoning Test - a unique mixture of verbal questions. There are drag-and-drop, drop down passage, edit passage, ranking, and multiple choice style questions. With 15 questions but no time limit, you have lots of time for each question. But the diversity of question styles can make this test challenging.
• 9. Bespoke verbal reasoning tests - Some larger companies prefer to have their own tests created which closely match the situations candidates can expect in the job role. These tests vary slightly in style and time limit but you will still benefit from practising the industry-standard tests such as those on AssessmentDay.

Don't leave your future career down to chance!

Get a completely free starter account

• Over 20 tests
• Track your progress

Through practice you will develop your own technique for answering aptitude test questions to the best of your ability. Many people have their own preference for how they like to answer verbal questions, and you may wish to switch your technique depending on whether you are running out of time.

There is a general technique which most people find useful to follow:

• Read the entire passage through once, then each of the questions in turn.
• Read the first statement and refer back to the relevant part of the passage to carefully consider if the statement is true, false, or impossible to determine without further information.

It will often come down to just one or two sentences within the passage which will contain the relevant information to answer the question.

Advice for before your test

Get a good night's sleep before your test so that you stay focused during your real test. It's tempting to treat an online test less seriously, but be sure you are focused and alert. If it's at an assessment centre then arrive in plenty of time so that when you sit down to take your test you are calm and collected.

Make sure you understand the instructions. If your test is at an assessment centre the test administrator will explain the instructions and you will have the opportunity to ask questions. You usually get to go through a couple of example questions before the test begins for real. You will not be allowed to ask questions once the test has started, so make sure you take this opportunity to understand the test.

Are you comfortable? Is your desk wobbly? Are you distracted by noise from the next room? Make sure you raise any problems before the test starts with the test administrator, or eliminate the problems if you are at home.

Advice for during your test

Have an idea of how much time to allow yourself for each question and know when to move on. Concentration is essential, especially when every second counts. Don't let yourself get distracted by other test takers, this will slow you down.

Don't guess. The administrator probably won't tell you if negative marking is being used but rest assured it rarely is in the verbal reasoning tests used by employers. Instead of guessing outright, often it is possible to eliminate one of the possible three answers, thus reducing your options down to two. Beware some tests do have mechanisms for detecting random guessing, and this won't look good when the employer sees that you're a slap-dash risk taker. So don't be tempted to quickly guess the last questions just before the time runs out.

Base your answers on only the information contained in the passage. This is crucial, and if you don't do this you will probably get a lot of the questions wrong. Verbal reasoning tests are not tests of what you know, they are tests of how well you understand written information.

Advice for after your test

Focus on the next test. Employers use a whole series of tests, interviews and assessments to select candidates. The results are used in the whole; it is not the case that a poor result in one test instantly removes you from the running. If you don't think you did particularly well in one test, try not to let this affect your performance in another test.

It is becoming ever more important for candidates to receive feedback on their performance so they know how they can improve for future assessments. Goldman Sachs Recruiter

Ask for feedback. Not all employers have the time or resource to offer this but it's worth asking. If you know how you performed, this feedback can help you better prepare for that aspect next time .

Top tips for verbal reasoning 🙌

The following video is part two of our two part verbal reasoning tutorial. If you still require extra information about verbal reasoning tests then check out verbal reasoning test tutorial and tips .

Verbal reasoning test FAQs

By far the most common form of verbal reasoning test is one in which you are presented with a passage of text, then asked whether certain statements relating to that text are true, false, or impossible to say without more information. Some employers also test things such as word meaning, for example "which word is the odd one out". But these are rarely used anymore as they can be culturally biased.

Although this particular style of verbal reasoning test is the most common, it always best to check online to see if it reveals the test publisher used.

Verbal reasoning tests are designed to measure your powers of comprehension, reasoning, and logic. You will be tested on whether you jump to conclusions or you appreciate the limitations of a statement. If a passage says "it has been reported..." it does not follow that the reported aspect is necessarily true; only that it has been reported.

Another classic example is: if the lights in a house come on, does that mean there is someone inside the building? Not necessarily. If A is bigger than B, does that mean B is small? Not necessarily. You will be tested to sort fact from inference, a lot like what's required in a real work environment. You can see why lawyers almost always have to pass a verbal reasoning test, or a critical thinking test.

Something which will not be tested by the verbal reasoning tests used by employers is spelling. The employer is trying to measure your reasoning ability, not your vocabulary or spelling. This knowledge can be learned on the job, whereas verbal ability is an innate capability unique to each person. Recruitment tests are nothing to do with old-fashioned tests such as word association or missing words.

It helps, but more important than speed is how well you understand what you are reading, and recognising the difference between fact and inference.

Aptitude tests are normally strictly timed. The assessor will be able to see how many questions you attempted and how many of those you answered correctly. So you will need to strike a balance between attempting lots of questions and getting correct those you have attempted. For most aptitude tests you will find it difficult to answer all the questions within the time limit. However some tests allow a lot longer and they are all about your analysis and reasoning ability.

If it's done properly, yes. A verbal reasoning test is much more fair on candidates than a subjective form of assessment, such as an unstructured interview, because it presents questions of similar difficulty to all candidates and is objectively scored. The results from verbal reasoning tests also tend to be less affected by background or race, so they are beneficial to both candidates and employers.

The best way to master verbal reasoning is to use practice verbal tests. There is no substitute to taking timed practice assessments that are of the same format to the real tests. Our verbal reasoning tips will help you understand what is required to tackle a question.

Yes, you can fail a verbal reasoning test. A lot of verbal reasoning test failings are not due to poor english skills, but are due to misunderstanding of the questions / what is required. It's important to learn the rules of verbal reasoning tests and clearly understand what is expected of you, for example, you should not bring any outside knowledge of the question topic to steer your answer.

Logical Reasoning - Verbal Reasoning

Why should i learn to solve logical reasoning questions and answers section on "verbal reasoning".

Learn and practise solving Logical Reasoning questions and answers section on "Verbal Reasoning" to enhance your skills so that you can clear interviews, competitive examinations, and various entrance tests (CAT, GATE, GRE, MAT, bank exams, railway exams, etc.) with full confidence.

Where can I get the Logical Reasoning questions and answers section on "Verbal Reasoning"?

IndiaBIX provides you with numerous Logical Reasoning questions and answers based on "Verbal Reasoning" along with fully solved examples and detailed explanations that will be easy to understand.

Where can I get the Logical Reasoning section on "Verbal Reasoning" MCQ-type interview questions and answers (objective type, multiple choice)?

Here you can find multiple-choice Logical Reasoning questions and answers based on "Verbal Reasoning" for your placement interviews and competitive exams. Objective-type and true-or-false-type questions are given too.

How do I download the Logical Reasoning questions and answers section on "Verbal Reasoning" in PDF format?

You can download the Logical Reasoning quiz questions and answers section on "Verbal Reasoning" as PDF files or eBooks.

How do I solve Logical Reasoning quiz problems based on "Verbal Reasoning"?

You can easily solve Logical Reasoning quiz problems based on "Verbal Reasoning" by practising the given exercises, including shortcuts and tricks.

• Verbal Reasoning - Type 1

Current Affairs

Interview questions, group discussions.

• Data Interpretation
• Verbal Ability
• Verbal Test
• C Programming
• Technical Interview
• Placement Papers
• Submit Paper

• IBPS RRB Exam 2023 - Free Course
• Current Affairs
• General Knowledge
• SSC CGL Pre.Yrs.Papers
• SSC CGL Practice Papers
• SBI Clerk PYQ
• IBPS PO PYQ
• IBPS Clerk PYQ
• SBI PO Practice Paper

Logical Reasoning Questions and Answers

• Number Series Reasoning Questions and Answers
• Alphanumeric Series Reasoning Questions and Answers
• Analogy Reasoning Questions and Answers
• Making Judgements: Reasoning Questions
• Course of Action: Logical Reasoning Questions
• Statement and Conclusion Logical Reasoning
• Cause and Effect: Logical Reasoning Questions and Answers
• Statement and Argument-Analytical Reasoning
• Logical Deduction Questions and Answers (2023)
• HCL Placement Paper | Verbal Reasoning Set - 2
• Reasoning Tricks to Solve Coding -Decoding and Calendar Problems
• Statement and Assumption in Logical Reasoning
• Venn Diagram

Logical Reasoning _ Verbal Reasoning

• Verbal Reasoning: Logical Arrangement Of Words
• Placement | Reasoning | Blood Relationship
• Syllogism: Verbal Reasoning Questions and Answers
• Cubes: Verbal Reasoning Questions and Answers
• Seating Arrangement : Aptitude Questions and Answers
• Direction Sense test
• Data Sufficiency in Logical Reasoning

Logical Reasoning _ Non-Verbal Reasoning

• Mirror Image: Verbal Reasoning
• Picture Analogies Questions - Non Verbal Reasoning

Logical Reasoning involves the ability to use and understand logical connections between facts or ideas.

• In verbal reasoning , questions are expressed in words or statements and require the reader to think critically about the language used in order to choose the correct answer from the given options.
• Non-verbal reasoning meanwhile involves questions presented as images and figures, requiring the reader to comprehend how one element relates to another before selecting the right answer out of a list of potential answers.

Logical Reasoning is a key component of many competitive and reasoning ability-testing exams in India and abroad. Reasoning questions allow organizations to assess a candidate’s problem-solving skills, critical thinking capabilities, and capacity for logical and analytical thinking. 

Aptitude Questions such as Quantitative Aptitude and Logical Reasoning are considered essential skills for success in a wide range of competitive exams worldwide. These two sections often form the backbone of entrance exams, whether it’s for a public sector job in India or a university admission test in the United States.

Go through the following article to learn more about the various types of reasoning ability queries generally included in competitive tests.

Logical Reasoning Topics

Logical Reasoning is a crucial section in various competitive exams, and aspirants must study these topics to improve their problem-solving abilities and score better.

Types of Questions included in logical reasoning:

• Verbal Questions
• Puzzle Questions
• Image-Based Questions
• Sequence Questions

Topic-wise practice questions on logical reasoning:

• Number Series
• Letter and Symbol Series
• Verbal Classification
• Essential Part
• Artificial Language
• Matching Definitions
• Making Judgments
• Logical Problems
• Logical Games
• Analyzing Arguments
• Course of Action
• Statement and Conclusion
• Theme Detection
• Cause and Effect
• Statement and Argument
• Logical Deduction
• Letter Series
• Verification of the Truth of the Statement
• Coding Decoding
• Assertion and Reason
• Statement and Assumptions
• Logical Venn Diagram

Verbal Reasoning

Verbal reasoning is the cognitive ability to understand and interpret information presented in written or spoken language and apply logical reasoning to draw conclusions and solve problems.

It involves analyzing and evaluating information, making inferences and deductions, and identifying relationships between concepts and ideas. Verbal reasoning often tests a candidate’s language comprehension, critical thinking, and analytical skills and is commonly used in aptitude tests, job interviews, and higher education admissions.

A strong grasp of verbal reasoning can help individuals communicate effectively, think critically, and make informed decisions in their personal and professional lives.

Verbal Reasoning Questions and Answers Topics

• Logical Sequence of Words
• Blood Relation Test
• Series Completion
• Cube and Cuboid
• Seating Arrangement
• Character Puzzles
• Direction Sense Test
• Classification
• Data Sufficiency
• Arithmetic Reasoning
• Verification of Truth

Non-Verbal Reasoning

Non-verbal reasoning is the cognitive ability that involves questions presented as images and figures, requiring the reader to comprehend how one element relates to another before selecting the right answer out of a list of potential answers.

Non-verbal reasoning often tests a candidate’s ability to think creatively, solve problems, and make quick decisions, and is commonly used in aptitude tests, job interviews, and higher education admissions.

A strong grasp of non-verbal reasoning can help individuals develop their creativity, spatial awareness, and problem-solving abilities, making them more effective at tackling complex challenges in their personal and professional lives.

If you are a government exam aspirant or a student preparing for college placements, the reasoning is the topic that you need to practice thoroughly. Below are some topics that need to be practiced well for the reasoning section of the exam. So, let’s go through the following article to learn more about the various types of reasoning queries generally included in competitive tests.

Non-Verbal Reasoning Questions and Answers Topics

• Analytical Reasoning
• Mirror Images
• Water Images
• Embedded Images
• Pattern Completion
• Figure Matrix
• Paper Folding
• Paper Cutting
• Rule Detection
• Grouping of Images
• Dot Situation
• Shape Construction
• Image Analysis
• Cubes and Dice
• Picture Analogies

Logical reasoning is an important assessment tool for a wide range of competitive examinations. Questions in this section are designed to judge a candidate’s analytical and logical thinking abilities. Various types of reasoning questions are included in this section to test the student’s capacity for problem-solving, deduction, and inference.

Practicing questions is the only way to prepare for the reasoning test section. This way, even those who may struggle in this section can have an equal chance at success during exams or applications. The article contains concepts, questions, and topics of the reasoning section from the competitive exams and the placement exams’ point of view. 

FAQs – Logical Reasoning

Q1. what is logical reasoning  .

Logical reasoning involves the ability to use and understand logical connections between facts or ideas. The reasoning is a critical component of many tests and interviews. In order to perform well, it can be beneficial to practice doing reasoning questions with solutions available. 

Q2. What are logical reasoning questions? 

Logical reasoning questions can be both verbal and non-verbal: In verbal logical reasoning questions, questions are expressed in words or statements and require the reader to think critically about the language used in order to choose the correct answer from the given options and in non-verbal logical reasoning questions, it involves questions presented as images and figures, requiring the reader to comprehend how one element relates to another before selecting the right answer out of a list of potential answers.

Q3. What is the approach to solving reasoning questions? 

Follow the steps given below for preparation: 1. Practice with a timer and solve questions within the time limit. 2. Read the question carefully and try to understand the logic behind it. 3. Practice as many questions as you can and brush up on your skills.

Q4. Which book is good for the preparation of reasoning question sets? 

Students can practice from the following books: 1. A Modern Approach to Verbal & Non-Verbal Reasoning by R.S. Agarwal 2. Shortcuts in Reasoning (Verbal, Non-Verbal, Analytical & Critical) for Competitive Exams by Disha Experts 3. How to Crack Test of Reasoning by Arihant Experts

Q5. What is the syllabus of the Reasoning Aptitude section for competitive exams? 

Reasoning Aptitude covers a wide range of topics. Those topics are already given in the article. Aspirants must go through the article to learn about those topics and practice them thoroughly.

Please Login to comment...

• SSC/Banking
• 10 Best Zoho Vault Alternatives in 2024 (Free)
• 10 Best Twitch Alternatives in 2024 (Free)
• Top 10 Best Cartoons of All Time
• 10 Best AI Instagram Post Generator in 2024
• 30 OOPs Interview Questions and Answers (2024)

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

• Order Tracking
• Create an Account

200+ Award-Winning Educational Textbooks, Activity Books, & Printable eBooks!

• Compare Products

Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Social Studies

• Search by Book Series
• Algebra I & II  Gr. 7-12+
• Algebra Magic Tricks  Gr. 2-12+
• Algebra Word Problems  Gr. 7-12+
• Balance Benders  Gr. 2-12+
• Balance Math & More!  Gr. 2-12+
• Basics of Critical Thinking  Gr. 4-9
• Brain Stretchers  Gr. 5-12+
• Building Thinking Skills  Gr. Toddler-12+
• Building Writing Skills  Gr. 3-7
• Bundles - Critical Thinking  Gr. PreK-9
• Bundles - Language Arts  Gr. K-8
• Bundles - Mathematics  Gr. PreK-9
• Bundles - Multi-Subject Curriculum  Gr. Toddler-12+
• Bundles - Test Prep  Gr. Toddler-12+
• Can You Find Me?  Gr. PreK-1
• Complete the Picture Math  Gr. 1-3
• Cornell Critical Thinking Tests  Gr. 5-12+
• Cranium Crackers  Gr. 3-12+
• Creative Problem Solving  Gr. PreK-2
• Critical Thinking Activities to Improve Writing  Gr. 4-12+
• Critical Thinking Coloring  Gr. PreK-2
• Critical Thinking Detective  Gr. 3-12+
• Critical Thinking Tests  Gr. PreK-6
• Critical Thinking for Reading Comprehension  Gr. 1-5
• Critical Thinking in United States History  Gr. 6-12+
• CrossNumber Math Puzzles  Gr. 4-10
• Crypt-O-Words  Gr. 2-7
• Crypto Mind Benders  Gr. 3-12+
• Daily Mind Builders  Gr. 5-12+
• Dare to Compare Math  Gr. 2-7
• Developing Critical Thinking through Science  Gr. 1-8
• Dr. DooRiddles  Gr. PreK-12+
• Dr. Funster's  Gr. 2-12+
• Editor in Chief  Gr. 2-12+
• Fun-Time Phonics!  Gr. PreK-2
• Half 'n Half Animals  Gr. K-4
• Hands-On Thinking Skills  Gr. K-1
• Inference Jones  Gr. 1-6
• James Madison  Gr. 8-12+
• Jumbles  Gr. 3-5
• Language Mechanic  Gr. 4-7
• Language Smarts  Gr. 1-4
• Mastering Logic & Math Problem Solving  Gr. 6-9
• Math Analogies  Gr. K-9
• Math Detective  Gr. 3-8
• Math Games  Gr. 3-8
• Math Mind Benders  Gr. 5-12+
• Math Ties  Gr. 4-8
• Math Word Problems  Gr. 4-10
• Mathematical Reasoning  Gr. Toddler-11
• Middle School Science  Gr. 6-8
• Mind Benders  Gr. PreK-12+
• Mind Building Math  Gr. K-1
• Mind Building Reading  Gr. K-1
• Novel Thinking  Gr. 3-6
• OLSAT® Test Prep  Gr. PreK-K
• Organizing Thinking  Gr. 2-8
• Pattern Explorer  Gr. 3-9
• Practical Critical Thinking  Gr. 9-12+
• Punctuation Puzzler  Gr. 3-8
• Reading Detective  Gr. 3-12+
• Red Herring Mysteries  Gr. 4-12+
• Red Herrings Science Mysteries  Gr. 4-9
• Science Detective  Gr. 3-6
• Science Mind Benders  Gr. PreK-3
• Science Vocabulary Crossword Puzzles  Gr. 4-6
• Sciencewise  Gr. 4-12+
• Scratch Your Brain  Gr. 2-12+
• Sentence Diagramming  Gr. 3-12+
• Smarty Pants Puzzles  Gr. 3-12+
• Snailopolis  Gr. K-4
• Something's Fishy at Lake Iwannafisha  Gr. 5-9
• Teaching Technology  Gr. 3-12+
• Tell Me a Story  Gr. PreK-1
• Think Analogies  Gr. 3-12+
• Think and Write  Gr. 3-8
• Think-A-Grams  Gr. 4-12+
• Thinking About Time  Gr. 3-6
• Thinking Connections  Gr. 4-12+
• Thinking Directionally  Gr. 2-6
• Thinking Skills & Key Concepts  Gr. PreK-2
• Thinking Skills for Tests  Gr. PreK-5
• U.S. History Detective  Gr. 8-12+
• Understanding Fractions  Gr. 2-6
• Visual Perceptual Skill Building  Gr. PreK-3
• Vocabulary Riddles  Gr. 4-8
• Vocabulary Smarts  Gr. 2-5
• Vocabulary Virtuoso  Gr. 2-12+
• What Would You Do?  Gr. 2-12+
• Who Is This Kid? Colleges Want to Know!  Gr. 9-12+
• Word Explorer  Gr. 6-8
• Word Roots  Gr. 3-12+
• World History Detective  Gr. 6-12+
• Writing Detective  Gr. 3-6
• You Decide!  Gr. 6-12+

• Special of the Month
• Sign Up for our Best Offers
• Bundles = Greatest Savings!
• Sign Up for Free Puzzles
• Sign Up for Free Activities
• Toddler (Ages 0-3)
• PreK (Ages 3-5)
• Kindergarten (Ages 5-6)
• 1st Grade (Ages 6-7)
• 2nd Grade (Ages 7-8)
• 3rd Grade (Ages 8-9)
• 4th Grade (Ages 9-10)
• 5th Grade (Ages 10-11)
• 6th Grade (Ages 11-12)
• 7th Grade (Ages 12-13)
• 8th Grade (Ages 13-14)
• 9th Grade (Ages 14-15)
• 10th Grade (Ages 15-16)
• 11th Grade (Ages 16-17)
• 12th Grade (Ages 17-18)
• 12th+ Grade (Ages 18+)
• Test Prep Directory
• Test Prep Bundles
• Test Prep Guides
• Preschool Academics
• Store Locator
• Submit Feedback/Request
• Sales Alerts Sign-Up
• Technical Support
• Mission & History
• Articles & Advice
• Testimonials
• Our Guarantee
• New Products
• Free Activities
• Libros en Español

Reading People: Non-Verbal Communication

Non Verbal Reasoning Skills

September 4, 2005, by The Critical Thinking Co. Staff

As anyone who has traveled to a foreign land with only a very limited knowledge of the local language can tell you, verbal skills are only half of the pie. Even though speech is the most obvious form of communication, we are constantly bombarded with non-verbal cues and required to decipher non-verbal symbols every day. As important as verbal skills and reasoning are, non-verbal reasoning skills are just as important.

Non-verbal reasoning involves drawing conclusions based on a set of givens. Exercises include activities like describing the similarities and differences between two pictures, finding the shape that does not belong in a sequence of shapes, predicting what shape should next appear in the sequence, and so on. Non-verbal reasoning exercises can also include numerical and aural activities, where non-speech sounds must be matched, differentiated, or compared and contrasted.

Practicing non-verbal reasoning is important because it forces the brain to use resources other than those that respond to speech and the written word. Non-verbal reasoning serves to reinforce verbal reasoning by emphasizing the type of thinking involved apart from the verbal default. Both verbal and non-verbal reasoning should be practiced regularly--and not just because they show up on standardized tests.

Critical thinking is the use of logic and reason to evaluate a set of known information to discover the correct solution, accept or reject a given argument, or make an appropriate decision. Not coincidentally, critical thinking is behind everything The Critical Thinking Co. develops. Our products are used in homes and top-performing high schools around the country because they yield results.

Verbal Reasoning Activities | Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

• Google Apps™

What educators are saying

Description.

Dive into verbal reasoning and build critical thinking and problem-solving skills with these engaging activities for upper elementary. They are the perfect critical thinking activities in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades.

This resource includes eight sets of verbal reasoning activities .

✅Introduction Set (includes a teacher's guide to get you started)

✅Summer-themed Verbal Reasoning

✅Back to School Verbal Reasoning

✅Fall-themed Verbal Reasoning

✅Halloween Verbal Reasoning

✅Winter Verbal Reasoning

✅Valentine's Day Verbal Reasoning

✅Spring Verbal Reasoning

Don't worry about timing! All sets are suitable to be used year-round.

Each set of verbal reasoning activities includes the following pages:

• Words and Wordplay - This page includes problem-solving with basic information involving words. It is designed to help students see the relationships between words.
• Codes and Sequences - This page is designed to help students see patterns so that they can solve problems and break codes.
• Logical Conclusions - Students will read short passages on this page and come to a logical conclusion using only the information provided.

What's included in my purchase?

• Introductory Verbal Reasoning (3 printable pages plus teacher guide)
• Summer Verbal Reasoning (3 printable pages)
• Back to School Verbal Reasoning (3 printable pages)
• Fall Verbal Reasoning (3 printable pages)
• Halloween Verbal Reasoning (3 printable pages)
• Winter Verbal Reasoning (3 printable pages)
• Valentine's Day Verbal Reasoning (3 printable pages)
• Spring Verbal Reasoning (3 printable pages)
• Answer Keys
• Full-Color Digital Versions in Google Slides

How can I use this activity in my classroom?

Logical Reasoning activities are the perfect tool to build critical thinking and problem-solving skills. They can be used as enrichment, extension, morning work, homework, and more.

Teaching in a gifted or talented program? This is also the perfect activity to help students foster their verbal and critical thinking skills. You can also use these tasks as you familiarize students with the types of questions found on ability tests like CogAT.

Looking for even more activities to teach critical thinking? Don't miss these:

Math Logic Puzzles

Reading Logic Puzzles

Daily Critical Thinking Journal

Monthly Enrichment Task Cards

Questions & Answers

Teaching with a mountain view.

• We're hiring
• Help & FAQ
• Privacy policy
• Student privacy
• Terms of service
• Tell us what you think