915869
Description
Mind Map by Henry Cookson, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Henry Cookson
over 10 years ago
|
|
Critical Thinking Unit 1 -
Assessing Plausability
- PLAUSABILITY
- Does a claim have merit? (Does the claim accord
with what we already know/have experienced?)
- Is it ambiguous? (Does the claim need further
interpretation? Is it worded too strongly?)
- Does it require further support? (Would a claim/piece of
evidence be more plausible if it had more
reasons/evidence to support it?)
- Does a claim have merit? (Does the claim accord
with what we already know/have experienced?)
- CREDIBILITY
- R A V E N
- Reputation
- What is generally said or to believed about an
organisation or an individual based on things
they've done in the past
- What is generally said or to believed about an
organisation or an individual based on things
they've done in the past
- Ability to perceive
- The credibility of a witness to an event can
be assessed by scrutinizing their ability to
observe, judge and assess a situation
- How much of an
event did they
see?
- Any medical condition or disability that
may affect their ability to observe and
recall an event?
- Under any stress?
- Were they distracted or
under the influence of drugs?
- How much of an
event did they
see?
- The credibility of a witness to an event can
be assessed by scrutinizing their ability to
observe, judge and assess a situation
- Vested interest
- A source may have something to gain
(usually financial) from making particular
claims
- A source may have something to gain
(usually financial) from making particular
claims
- Expertise
- Does a source have any particular training or
expertise which suggests they may be a reliable
source of information in the particular area
they're commenting on?
- Does a source have any particular training or
expertise which suggests they may be a reliable
source of information in the particular area
they're commenting on?
- Neutrality (or bias)
- If a source has no reason to favour one
side or the other, they would be neutral and
their credibility strengthened
- If a source has no reason to favour one
side or the other, they would be neutral and
their credibility strengthened
- Reputation
- R A V E N C C (Used for sources but NOT documents)
- Corroboration
- Is the claim made by the
person/organisation confirmed or
contradicted by other sources? If confirmed,
it's known as corroborated
- Is the claim made by the
person/organisation confirmed or
contradicted by other sources? If confirmed,
it's known as corroborated
- Consistent
- If a source's claims contradict each other, the
evidence would be inconsistent and credibility is
limited
- If a source's claims contradict each other, the
evidence would be inconsistent and credibility is
limited
- Corroboration
- R A V E N
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.