Peter Elbow's Argumentative Analysis

Critical thinking involves skillfully analyzing and assessing thoughts, using abstract ideas to interpret thoughts effectively, and coming to well reasoned conclusions. Peter Elbow’s proposal is different than what we ordinarily call critical thinking because the doubting game is “seeing” while critical thinking is “looking for.” When people think critically, they question others, they want to see all evidence involved that supports their argument, and they want to answer all questions involving their side of the argument. Critical thinkers tend to stay on the side of an argument that seems more logical or that makes the most sense to them without trying to believe the side that seems illogical. They look for the flaws in the other argument rather than looking at their own through the eyes of the individual with the opposing idea. Elbow’s proposal involves accepting more than one

To do this, I had to understand the situation clearly and apprehend the truths of its consequences. In order to skip my junior year of high school, I needed an English and a math credit. I decided to do this by taking summer classes at UCA. The situation could have gone two ways; I could have not gotten the credit I needed, or I could receive credit for them and graduate high school a year early. I achieved insight through Elbow’s “methodological belief,” which resulted in my believing one outcome over the other. I could have reached the same result, skipping my junior year, by playing the “doubting game.” If someone believed that I could not graduate early, I could find holes in their view. Examples of holes in their view would be my GPA, ACT score, outstanding work ethic, and my determination. Filling these holes would disprove their point. By finding errors and holes, I would strengthen my belief that I could achieve the result of gaining the credit I would need to finish high school one year