Read the following information and understand the content, as you are going to be required to apply this information to three different passages:

Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. (Paul and Elder, 2001). The Paul-Elder framework has three components; two of which we will cover this semester:

The elements of thought (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
The intellectual standards (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
According to Paul and Elder (1997), there are two essential dimensions of thinking that students need to master in order to learn how to upgrade their thinking. They need to be able to identify the "parts" of their thinking, and they need to be able to assess their use of these parts of thinking.

Elements of Thought (reasoning)

The "parts" or elements of thinking are as follows:

All reasoning has a purpose
All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, to solve some problem
All reasoning is based on assumptions
All reasoning is done from some point of view
All reasoning is based on data, information and evidence
All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and ideas
All reasoning contains inferences or interpretations by which we draw conclusions and give meaning to data
All reasoning leads somewhere or has implications and consequences
Universal Intellectual Standards

The intellectual standards applied to these elements are used to determine the quality of reasoning. Good critical thinking requires having a command of these standards. According to Paul and Elder (1997 ,2006), the ultimate goal is for the standards of reasoning to become infused in all thinking so as to become the guide to better and better reasoning. The intellectual standards include:

Clarity

Could you elaborate?

Could you illustrate what you mean?

Could you give me an example?

Accuracy

How could we check on that?

How could we find out if that is true?

How could we verify or test that?

Precision

Could you be more specific?

Could you give me more details?

Could you be more exact?

Relevance

How does that relate to the problem?

How does that bear on the question?

How does that help us with the issue?

Depth

What factors make this difficult?

What are some of the complexities of this question?

What are some of the difficulties we need to deal with?

Breadth

Do we need to look at this from another perspective?

Do we need to consider another point of view?

Do we need to look at this in other ways?

Logic

Does all of this make sense together?

Does your first paragraph fit in with your last one?

Does what you say follow from the evidence?

Significance

Is this the most important problem to consider?

Is this the central idea to focus on?

Which of these facts are most important?

Fairness

Is my thinking justifiable in context?

Am I taking into account the thinking of others?

Is my purpose fair given the situation?

Am I using my concepts in keeping with educated usage, or am I distorting them to get what I want?

ASSIGNMENT

Read each passage. Utilizing the information above identify "The Elements" then apply the "Universal Standards" to each passage.

Use the following format to complete the assignment: You will use this format for each passage.

Identify the Eight Elements:

Purpose:

Questions:

Points of View:

Information:

Inferences:

Concepts:

Implications:

Assumptions:

Universal Intellectual Standards: Use the Paul Elder Information to address each of the questions related to the elements: So, ask yourself if the passage had each of the following standards:

Clarity

Accuracy

Relevance

Logicalness

Breadth

Precision

Significance

Completeness

Fairness

Depth

Criminalization of Drug Use vs. Legalization

Another current issue with roots in the 1970s is the treatment of drug use. Even liberal authorities like Nelson Rockefeller, New York governor from 1959 to 1973, thought the best way to reduce drug use was to criminalize it further - most of the targeted drugs had always been illegal in the United States - by prescribing longer prison terms. Critics of the policy today present statistical evidence showing that increasing the severity of punishments for drug use has little effect on drug use.

Other critics point out that marijuana is a relatively benign drug that is less addicting than alcohol. Anti-drug advocates, however, do not concede that marijuana is at all benign. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has stated bluntly that legalizing the drug would inevitably "lead to violence." An opposing body of opinion advocates legalizing all drugs and treating drug addiction as a disease, not a crime.

Incarceration Rates

A 2015 Washington Post article on U.S. incarceration rates noted that, according to the Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics, the median European prison population rate in 2013 was 133.5 inmates per 100,000 persons in the general population. In the United States, the rate was 478 per 100,000, about 3.5 times the median rate for Europe.

Even Americans as conservative as the Koch brothers think that too many Americans are imprisoned and further disadvantaged by excessive penalties.

The disagreements over incarceration rates arise over both the causes of the situation and the remedies for it. Many attribute the high rate to an ill-advised war on drugs. Others believe it results from institutional racism. A view first proposed in 2017, however, presents statistical evidence that neither of these are primary causes. This theory suggests that the real problem is the imbalance between well-financed offices of district attorneys and underfunded and understaffed offices of public defenders, resulting in more than 90 percent of defendants accepting plea bargains rather than engaging in the unequal courtroom contest between prosecutor and public defender.

The Death Penalty

The United States is the only country in the seven leading industrial nations that still executes prisoners. Opponents of the death penalty provide statistical evidence showing that states with death penalties do not have lower murder rates than states without them.

Yet despite arguments against the death penalty, as of 2016 it remained in force in 31 states. Perhaps the most important reason for this is that the American public supports the penalty by a two-to-one margin. Until this changes, many states will very likely continue to impose the death penalty no matter how many arguments opponents of the penalty put forward.