There are three questions we can ask:1. Factual Questions: Ask for relatively straightforward

information that does not need personal interpretation to answer. Factual Questions usually have a correct answer. The answers to factual questions can be proven right or wrong with the use of empirical observable data.

2. Interpretive Questions: Has more than one valid answer, but they still must be supported with evidence. Interpretive questions are effective for starting discussions and for leading to good critical thinking especially in academic environments.

3. Opinion Questions: Asks the respondent what they personally think of or about something. An answer to an opinion question cannot be proven right or wrong: it is simply the opinion of the respondent and is inaccessible to independent empirical verification.

Issues are phrased as questions, but not all questions qualify as issued. In order for a question to be considered an issue, it must be relevant to the claim under discussions.

Issues can be introduced by either the pro or con side in a dispute. Both sides have the right to question the claim, and thus both have the right to ask appropriate questions regarding the claim.

There is no set number of issues a person can discover. The number of issues will vary from claim to claim. Time for discussion or debate and research capabilities will limit the number of issues.

Issues bring organization to the argumentative environment. This is especially the case when the questions are prioritized so that the answer to a questions is dependent on the answer to the question preceding it.

Issues should be as specific as one can make them. Vague questions lead to vague answers and are useless. Specific questions lead to specific answers and are useful.

There are four patterns of analysis that a critical thinker

can use to help him or her discover the key arguments that he or she can use to try

and convince a target audience to accept their stand on a claim.

1. Cost/Benefit Analysis2. Priorities Analysis3. Programs Analysis

4. Continuities Analysis

Cost/Benefit Analysis- The term is used frequently in planning and decision making. It is an evaluation of the pros and cons before taking a course of action. Cost-benefit analysis is the process of weighing the total expected costs vs. the total expected benefits of one or more actions in order to choose the most profitable option. Priorities Analysis- This pattern of analysis says we live in a world of scarce resources. Neither individuals nor societies can have everything they want; pursuing one objective invariably involves trade-offs or sacrifices of other objectives. This pattern of analysis discovers issues by asking the following questions: What are the claim’s objectives? How are they prioritized? What are the trade-offs if we assume adoption of the claim?

Programs Analysis- According to this pattern, policies are adopted to achieve certain goals; they are continued or abandoned depending on their effectiveness in meeting these goals. As a result, current policies are evaluated against the goals that have or have not been reached. Issues, using this pattern, are discovered by asking the following questions: What are the specific goals of the claim? Assuming adoption of the claim, can the goals be met? What will the impact of claim adoption be? Are there any reasonable alternatives?

Continuities Analysis- Seldom do our choices make sharp, overt breaks from the past. Instead we usually try to make our decisions consistent with tradition. In light of this traditionalist orientation, issues are discovered by asking the following questions: Has this claim been debated before? Has a claim similar to this ever been adopted? When? With what results? Is this choice consistent with other facts, meanings, values, or actions that we regard as justified or appropriate? If not, is a break from tradition warranted? Why?

1. Potential Issues2. Admitted Issues

3. Real Issues4. Ultimate Issues

1. Potential Issues- These are all of the possible questions that can be asked of the claim. In theory, the number of potential issues is unlimited. In practice, the number of potential questions that can be discovered is limited by the amount of research and time one has to spend on the claim being argued. The greater the number of potential issues discovered, the greater the chance of discovering the right questions in order to make the best quality decision on the claim under debate.

2. Admitted Issues- These are questions raised by one side and agreed to by the other side. The purpose of an admitted issue is to make that issue non-controversial or “moot.” In this way both sides hope these issues will turn out to have little or no bearing on the final outcome in terms of claim adherence. Finding the admitted issues is a way of narrowing the list of potential issues.

Real Issues- These are the important questions that remain after narrowing the potential issues down. The real issues can have an impact on the outcome of the claim and merit consideration for discussion. Depending on the amount of research done and the number of potential issues, there may be an excessive number of real issues to discuss in a limited period of time. Real issues need to be prioritized in some descending order of importance.

Ultimate Issues- These are the key questions that, in and of themselves, are sufficient for the disposition of the claim. These are issues that determine adherence. The ultimate issue(s) must be answered correctly by either side, or the audience will deny adherence, no matter how many other real issues the side wins. Usually, the ultimate issue comes from one of the real issues.

A contention is basically a fancy word for an argument. There are several things to understand

about contentions: 1. Contentions are the main arguments that support your position on

the claim.2. Contentions mostly come from the ultimate issues that both the pro

and con reached as a result of their careful consideration of the claim being argued.

3. Contentions become the justifications for your position on the claim being argued.

4. Contentions should flow from one to the next, advancing the overall case for your side.

5. Contentions should reflect a logical organization of the arguments you are making in support of your position on the claim.

6. Contentions are the foundation of all argumentative presentations. 7. Contentions organize & logically structure an advocate’s ideas as to

why a target audience should accept their point of view.