Critical Reasoning: Examining How You Formed a Position
The prompt says the post is not about being right. It is about examining your own reasoning, which is harder and much rarer.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 16, 2026
Metacognition: the post is about how you decided
The prompt removes the usual incentive: it is not about how correct your position is, it is about how you arrived at it. That instruction is doing real work, because everything in a discussion about opioids, marijuana, vaping, immigration, the electoral college or gun control pulls toward advocacy. State your position clearly and without hedging, as the prompt requires, and then spend the rest of the post on the reasoning rather than on the issue. The named concepts give you a structure. System 1 thinking is fast, automatic and effortless; System 2 is slow and deliberate; and the honest observation for almost everyone is that the position arrived through System 1 and the reasons were recruited afterwards. Saying so about yourself is the strongest move available and the one almost nobody makes. Notice too that the instruction removes the usual defence, since there is nothing to win.
Then work the other three concepts specifically. Heuristics are the shortcuts: availability, where vivid or recent cases feel representative; anchoring on the first figure you heard; affect, where you decide by how the option feels. Cognitive bias includes confirmation bias, which is the reason your position feels well-supported — you have been collecting supporting evidence for years without seeking contrary evidence with equal energy. Dominance structuring is the specific phenomenon the course is naming: once a preference forms, people restructure their evaluation of alternatives to make the chosen one look clearly superior, so the option you rejected gets remembered as worse than it was. Then answer the factual question honestly. Do you actually know the statistics, or do you know a few figures that support you? Go and check one, and report what you found, including if it complicated your view — that single act of checking is what the assignment is trying to produce.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01State a position without hedging, then analyse rather than defend it.
- 02Distinguish System 1 from System 2 thinking in your own reasoning.
- 03Identify specific heuristics and biases operating on your view.
- 04Test a factual belief against a source and report the result.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A clear position on one listed issue.
- 02An account of how the position formed.
- 03System 1 and System 2 applied to your own process.
- 04Named heuristics and biases, with instances.
- 05Dominance structuring addressed.
- 06One statistic checked, with what you found.
The position, then how you arrived at it
The position
State where you stand, unambiguously.
Where it came from
Trace the position to its origin — family, experience, media.
System 1 or System 2
Say honestly which produced the position and which produced the reasons.
Heuristics and bias
Name the shortcuts operating and give an instance of each.
Dominance structuring
Examine how you now evaluate the option you rejected.
Checking a fact
Verify one statistic and report what you found.
Checking what you think you know about the statistics
Recommended databases
- The assigned textbook chapters
- Government statistical sources
- Academic Search Complete
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Search sequence
- 1.Write your position down before reading anything, so you can examine it honestly.
- 2.Take the concept definitions from the assigned chapters.
- 3.Choose one statistic you are confident about and go to the primary source.
- 4.Read one credible source arguing the other side, and note your own reaction.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Critical Thinking
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2022
Critical thinking as a disposition, including the willingness to examine your own reasoning.
- 02
12.1 What Is Social Psychology?
Psychology 2e, OpenStax · 2020
Social influence on attitude formation, which is where most positions originate.
- 03
1.1 Definitions of Statistics, Probability, and Key Terms
OpenStax, Introductory Statistics 2e · 2023
What a statistic actually claims, for the fact-checking step.
- 04
1.1 What Is Sociology?
OpenStax, Introduction to Sociology 3e · 2021
How social position shapes what looks obvious.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Arguing for the position instead of examining how it formed.
- Naming the concepts without applying any to yourself.
- Claiming to have reasoned entirely through System 2.
- Asserting knowledge of the statistics without checking one.
Submission checklist
- Is the position stated without ambiguity?
- Is the majority of the post about your reasoning rather than the issue?
- Have you applied all four named concepts to yourself?
- Did you check a statistic and report what you found?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.