The Political headline news story that I read was accurate and the story did give enough depth for you understand what was going on. The facts were all stated in this article. The story was about Romney losing to a state he had thought he had won over and how the election was going to be a close call. The article never had any bias on who they thought was going to win the election, which was a good thing. They stated Romney progress and had also stated Obama’s, so they did not leave out any facts.
Yes, the story did consider alternative perspectives as in they were stating that Romney could or could not win Iowa, they did not know either way. They also gave statements on why Romney did not win over Ohio. There were no questionable assumptions, in the beginning and the end of the article they had two questions, the first was if there were trouble signs in Iowa for Romney? The last one was asking if all of Romney’s efforts and hard work were enough, which they did not answer this, they just stated we would know in two days.
The article did not ignore any implications on the two presidents; they talked about them equally passing no judgment on one or the other. I believe that it is important to make distinctions when undertaking a critical evaluation because you need to point out everything good about the person and the other person involved. Also you need to state the bad. But make sure that they are all facts before you write them. You do not want a bunch of fiction or assumptions or bias in your article. You want facts.
A lot goes into critical thinking. The list of core critical thinking skills includes observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and meta-cognition. There is a reasonable level of consensus among experts that an individual or group engaged in strong critical thinking gives due consideration to evidence through observation Context Relevant criteria for...