Every order is original, expert-done, and screened for AI — full report on request.See how it works

Assignment questions
PhilosophyDiscussion postCritical thinking

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

01

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.

  • 01
    State a position without hedging, then analyse rather than defend it.
  • 02
    Distinguish System 1 from System 2 thinking in your own reasoning.
  • 03
    Identify specific heuristics and biases operating on your view.
  • 04
    Test a factual belief against a source and report the result.
Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity: Initial Post Instructions Consider one of the following current social issues – or one of your choice: For the initial post, address the following: The initial post is not about how “correct” your position is; it is about how you arrived at your position on the issue. This discussion requires application of metacognition – thinking about how you think. Follow-Up Post Instructions Textbook: Chapter 10, 11 Lesson Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook) Opioid crisis Legalization of recreational or medical marijuana Vaping Immigration Elimination of the electoral college Gun control State your position on one of these issues – are you for, against, or neutral? Explain why. Avoid vagueness or ambiguity in your response. Make your position very clear. Examine how you have formed that opinion. How well do you think you know the facts? Do you know and understand statistical information that applies to the issue? Do you think you have formed your opinion using only System-1 thinking, or have you applied System-2? What part have heuristics, cognitive bias, and dominance structuring played in how you have formed your opinions? 8/6/20, 11:11 PM Page 1 of 52 Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification. In your responses, look for another student’s post, either on the same or a different issue. Choose, where possible, a peer whose initial post has not yet been examined by another student, and examine it. Do you agree or disagree with your peer? You should also look at responses to your initial post: You may find that just the minimum three posts are not sufficient to discover whether you can identify these elements. You will have to make a judgement call: do the minimum three and miss out on the deep thinking required by this exercise, or go beyond the minimum three and really begin to understand your thought processes and the concept of critical thinking. A very valuable final post would be to discuss your judgment call: perhaps you “got it” in three; perhaps you opted for more than three; perhaps other demands on your time did not allow you to exercise as much deep thinking as you would have liked to do. Perhaps you did not see much value in the discussion – a very valuable final post would be a brief statement of why you found it so. Do not be shy about critiquing the exercise. Look at “A Poorly Crafted Assignment” in section 11.1 of the text in which the authors critique a similar assignment. Critical Reasoning Week 5 Discussion 2 Writing Requirements Grading This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link: Course Outcomes (CO): 2, 4, 5, 6 Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday Is your initial reaction to your peer “So, right; you bet!” or is it “So wrong, you’re all wet!” Examine carefully your thinking in response to your peers: What part, if any, have facts, heuristics, or dominance structuring played in your response? What part, if any, has cognitive bias played in your response? Did your peer fairly evaluate you? Discuss this with your peer. Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up) Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source) APA format for in-text citations and list of references
02

Turn the brief into deliverables

  1. 01
    A clear position on one listed issue.
  2. 02
    An account of how the position formed.
  3. 03
    System 1 and System 2 applied to your own process.
  4. 04
    Named heuristics and biases, with instances.
  5. 05
    Dominance structuring addressed.
  6. 06
    One statistic checked, with what you found.
03

The position, then how you arrived at it

01

The position

State where you stand, unambiguously.

02

Where it came from

Trace the position to its origin — family, experience, media.

03

System 1 or System 2

Say honestly which produced the position and which produced the reasons.

04

Heuristics and bias

Name the shortcuts operating and give an instance of each.

05

Dominance structuring

Examine how you now evaluate the option you rejected.

06

Checking a fact

Verify one statistic and report what you found.

04

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. 1.
    Write your position down before reading anything, so you can examine it honestly.
  2. 2.
    Take the concept definitions from the assigned chapters.
  3. 3.
    Choose one statistic you are confident about and go to the primary source.
  4. 4.
    Read one credible source arguing the other side, and note your own reaction.
05

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.

  1. 01

    Critical Thinking

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2022

    Critical thinking as a disposition, including the willingness to examine your own reasoning.

  2. 02

    12.1 What Is Social Psychology?

    Psychology 2e, OpenStax · 2020

    Social influence on attitude formation, which is where most positions originate.

  3. 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.

  4. 04

    1.1 What Is Sociology?

    OpenStax, Introduction to Sociology 3e · 2021

    How social position shapes what looks obvious.

06

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.

Want feedback on your plan before you draft?

Get help interpreting the brief, checking your evidence strategy, and strengthening your outline while keeping the work your own.

Get assignment guidance
Start your order