Logical Limitations to Writing Critical Thinking Papers

Arriving at a logical conclusion is not as simple as it may sound. Below are some logical limitations that students should watch out for when writing critical thinking papers and how they can overcome them.

Irrelevant comparisons– it means that you compare variables that are not closely related. To avoid this, make a comparison between variables that have a relationship.

Non sequitur – the argument raised and the evidence provided to support the fact have no relationship; there is no sequence leading from an argument, evidence produced, and conclusion derived.

Ad hoc hypothesis– this is a thesis statement that cannot be tested independently; it is not closely related to the subject under study. Avoid working or constructing thesis statements that cannot be tested independently.

Arguing based on ignorance– just because a claim has not been confirmed to be false it does not automatically imply that it is true.  Work with arguments or propositions that have been confirmed to be true through logical reasoning and experimentation for high-quality submission of critical thinking papers.

Begging the question– arguing that something you are trying to prove is true. Differentiate between what is true and what has not been proven yet, or seek an option explanation to your query.

False analogies– it involves making analogies between two variables in order to validate a claim. Writing critical thinking papers requires that you sharpen your analysis and writing skills so that you differentiate between logical and false analogies.

Gambler’s fallacy– this is the assumption that based on certain factors or recent occurrences, something with fixed probability will increase or decrease.  Effective critical thinking papers require that students differentiate between events with variable probabilities and fixed probabilities.

Superstition and apophenia– this is a belief in the existence of a connection between two events that are not related. You must be in a position to differentiate between a coincidence in two events that are not correlated and cause and effect relationship to write excellent critical thinking papers.