My assessment is of Statement 1 that reads, “It is pretty obvious that smoking marijuana causes people to crave more potent drugs, such as cocaine or heroin. Statistics show that almost all people who become addicted to drugs smoked marijuana before they began using more potent drugs.” In assessing this statement I found that it does not meet the “Guidelines to Thinking Critically about Psychological Issues.” I found that it met only half of the guidelines and didn’t meet the other half. In this particular statement it was not easy to find flaws that didn’t meet the guidelines. Is finding the flaws always going to be so difficult?
The first flaw I identified was the statement was it already had a set way of thinking. There was no question or wonder if the statistic might have been wrong or the type of people the statistics based its studies on. The statement didn’t show a willing to wonder since it only viewed drug addicts one way, leaving no room to see if there were people that didn’t go on to crave more potent drugs. This leads to another flaw of not examining the evidence because the statement based its conclusion off of one theory. If the statement was made after several different studies that lead to the same outcome then it would have been considered examining the evidence.
The third flaw in the statement was it didn’t analyze assumptions and biases. The statement showed complete bias that smoking marijuana causes people to crave more potent drugs just because of statistics show this to be true. The statement didn’t show other research studies or possibilities that would have shown different. Making the statement based off assumptions and biased one way. The statement also lacks to tolerate uncertainty because it didn’t try to explore other opinions or source for information. The statement only saw one certain way and that was that if you smoke marijuana then it causes you to crave more potent drugs.
Another reason I think...