Definition: critical thinking is the systematic evaluation of claims and arguments — deciding what to believe or do by examining the reasons offered, the evidence behind them, and the logic connecting them. "Critical" here means skilled judgment (from Greek krinein, to judge), not negativity.
The two components (learn this pair):
1. Skills — analysing arguments, spotting assumptions, evaluating evidence, detecting fallacies, drawing valid inferences;
2. Dispositions — the habits of mind: intellectual honesty, curiosity, scepticism in the right dose, willingness to revise, and listening to opposing views.
Why a law faculty teaches it: law is applied critical thinking. A judgment is an argument (facts → rule → conclusion); advocacy is argument construction; cross-examination is argument destruction; statutory interpretation is reasoning about texts. Lawyers who cannot evaluate reasoning lose cases they should win.
How to improve it (the practical list — a guaranteed short question):
1. Practise actively — analyse one argument daily (an editorial, a judgment, a minister's speech);
2. Read arguments in standard form (see 1.2) until reconstructing becomes reflex;
3. Argue both sides — brief the case, then brief its opposite;
4. Ask the canonical questions — What is the claim? What are the reasons? Are theyacceptable? Does the conclusion follow? What is assumed? What has been omitted?
5. Seek disconfirmation — deliberately hunt evidence against your view;
6. Study fallacies (Legal English-I's list — ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, appeal to authority) — naming a fallacy is half of defeating it;
7. Write to think — writing forces the logic visible;
8. Cultivate intellectual humility — the strongest disposition of all.