Paper Sample on 8 Essential Elements of Thinking: A Framework for Critical Thinking

It is natural to think, but people's reasoning is often biased, uninformed, or distorted. Therefore, if individuals want to reason appropriately, then they must consider understanding the rudiments of thoughts. According to the framework designed by Elder and Paul, there are eight fundamental elements in a person’s thinking. The structure assists instructors and students to have a common language in operationalizing, defining, and capturing how critical thinking reflects on intellectual work (Welch, 2015). They developed 8 questions from the 8 elements, which are present in all critical thinking, and a person must answer them to understand the author of the material. Therefore, the analysis in this paper will critically analyze the reasoning of the writer of “Another intellect twist” by answering the 8 inquiries of worldwide structures of thinking by Elder and Paul.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The first question in the worldwide constructions of thought by Elder and Paul relates to the fundamental purpose or objective that the author aims to accomplish with a given subject or topic. A close analysis of the article published by Washington Post Company (2007) reveals that the author focused on elaborating and justifying the cancellation of the “agreed framework” of Clinton’s administration with North Korea’s Pyongyang in 2002. The administration of Bush made the decision based on intel provided by the CIA Intelligence concerning the creation of a uranium-producing plant by North Korea.

The second element of the framework relates to critical questions posed by the author of the article, in the process of finding their answers. In this article for this analysis, the author raises several issues, including, “of whether the 2002 CIA approximation was justified.” (Washington Post Company, 2007). Also, the author raises the question of whether Pyongyang and North Korea will reveal what happened to the centrifuges acquired from Pakistan and other materials essential for the creating of a large-scale enhancement facility? On the other end, the report from the New York Times that the uranium project is still underway in North Korea posed the question of how far the program has advanced. Finally, the principal United States delegate with North Korea, Christopher Hill, presented the problem of whether the North has been able to produce highly enriched uranium.

Thirdly, Elder, and Paul's framework includes the question on the author’s “point of view.” In this article, the author's point of view is that North Korea has gone against the previous agreements with the U.S. despite the CIA exaggerating the report. Therefore, the country has to still has to provide answers to justify its actions.

Elder and Paul also emphasize 'assumptions" as a crucial element of critical thinking. The assumptions or presuppositions entails individual beliefs upon which the authors base their logic of reasoning on the topic. In this article, the author assumes that the U.S. and its allies abide by the guidelines of the “Agreed Framework,” while North Korea does not. Another assumption relates to the CIA report to Congress concerning the ongoing construction of a plant by the North Koreans. With this information, the author did not need any proof but straightly accepted it to be true. Also, the U.S. assumed that North Korea had frozen the nuclear programs, and therefore begun supplying energy and food to the country.

The next element is the equation of pieces of evidence, such as opinions of various parties with facts of the issue. In the article “another intelligence twist,” evidence that supports the author’s topic included the report on October 2002 from the State Department, which revealed that North Korea secretly admitted to starting a uranium enrichment program (Washington Post Company, 2007). Also, the CIA availed a report to Congress, which revealed that North Korea is building a plant that is capable of producing uranium for more than two nuclear weapons every year. Elsewhere, the North Koreans secretly purchased twenty centrifuges from Pakistan for enriching uranium. The three scenarios provide enough evidence to support the decision of the Bush administration regarding the suspension of the "Agreed Framework."

The next question of the framework is the “concept,” which entails theories or principles relating to the application of the proposed solution by the author. For instance, the author suggests the ideas or notions of diplomacy, intelligence information, and negotiations as the main reasons for the cancellation of the “Agreed Framework.”

The next question involves interpretations, inferences, or proposed conclusions that offer a solution to a particular problem or issue. Concerning the article, the author indicates that weak information from the CIA about the continuation of the uranium program will not drop the matter in the next negotiation meetings between the two parties (Washington Post Company, 2007). Instead, the author concludes that the issue is based on criminal regimes and should not be ignored but addressed through diplomatic means.

The final step or question is the consequences of the reasoning process. The author of this article implies that despite the CIA overstating North Korea's uranium program, the latter still has to answer for it. The administration used the exaggerated report from the CIA to suspend an agreement with North Korea; however, it turns out that the erroneous information assisted the U.S. to make a right call, as Pyongyang had proceeded secretly with the uranium program.

References

Washington Post Company. (2007, March 2). Another intelligence twist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101507.htmlWelch, K.C., Heib, J., & Graham, J. (2015). A systematic approach to teaching critical thinking

skills to electrical and computer engineering undergraduates. American Journal of Engineering Education, 6(2): 113-124. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083225.pdf