In order to make her case, Sarah will mostly look over the evidence and discuss how it relates to the case. This is clear from the case study, which claims that she use logical reasoning to disprove the opposing viewpoint in addition to analyzing the material and explaining its significance.
The psychologists' study's goal was to evaluate the participants' verbal reasoning abilities. The passage makes this clear by saying that people with good verbal reasoning abilities were better at telling facts from views.
There is merit to both of the arguments made in the passage. Tougher gun control legislation may contribute to a decrease in gun violence, but it also raises issues with individual rights. It will take more deliberation and thought to arrive at a fair approach that takes individual rights and public safety into account.
Emma is drawing a generalization from particular data, which is an example of inductive thinking in action.
This is the best synonym since it indicates that the sentence sparked a global debate.
When it comes to critical thinking, Argument A—which is supported by scientific facts and research—is more trustworthy as it is based on factual and unbiased data.
The passage mentions that the prosecution produced CCTV footage as evidence.
Tom is drawing a generalization from particular observations, which is an example of inductive thinking in action.
The case study outlines potential difficulties, like linguistic and cultural obstacles, that could occur from outsourcing the customer support division. These elements could have a detrimental effect on client satisfaction, indicating that outsourcing might not be Company X's best option.
The capacity to impartially assess and analyze data in order to arrive at well-informed conclusions is known as critical thinking.