1. R. Paul’s Eight Elements of Thought / Paul’s Wheel of Reasoning
A useful critical thinking tool to question claims, ideas, perspectives

2. READING & ANALYSING ARTICLES USING PAUL’S WHEEL OF ANALYSIS*
QUESTION
AT ISSUE
PURPOSE
What is the text type?
What do you think is the
purpose of the article?
Why did the
writer write this?
What is the main
issue of the
article?
What are the
related sec.
issues?
INFERENCES
EVIDENCE/
DATA
What inferences can be
made from the article?
What can you infer about the
tone and attitude of the writer?
What evidence does
the writer use to support
his point? Does he quote
sources?
IMPLICATIONS/
CONSEQUENCES
ASSUMPTIONS
What are the writer’s
assumptions on the issue?
assumptions of his
readers?
What are the possible implications/
consequences of the issues
inherent in the article?
What are the p.i.c.s
of the article?
CONCEPTS
P.O.V.
What concepts/
abstract ideas
are present in the
article?
Whose point of view
is presented?
Which interest group does the
writer represent?
8 Possible Points of Entry (P.O.E.)
*Based on Joyce Van Tasselbaska’s modification of Paul’s Reasoning Model
TWP/ENGLISH/T1WK502

3. READING & ANALYSING ARTICLES USING PAUL’S WHEEL OF ANALYSIS* TEMPLATE
Title of article : _____________________ Writer : ______________________
Article taken from __________________ Issue : _______________________
QUESTION
AT ISSUE
PURPOSE
INFERENCES
EVIDENCE/
DATA
IMPLICATIONS/
CONSEQUENCES
ASSUMPTIONS
CONCEPTS
P.O.V.
*Based on Joyce Van Tasselbaska’s modification of Paul’s Reasoning Model
TWP/ENGLISH/T1WK502

4. Question at Issue
When we attempt to reason, there must be a question at issue or a problem to be solved
We should be able to formulate the question to be answered or the issue to be addressed when we reason
Likewise, we should be able to identify the question at hand in articles when we read.

5. Purpose When we attempt to reason, there must be an intended goal
This goal focuses the message in a coherent (or incoherent) direction
Are we able to spot hidden agendas in messages?

6. Evidence / Data
We must be able to support our point of view with reasons or evidence.
The presence of evidence distinguishes mere opinions from reasoned judgment.
We can evaluate the strength of an argument by examining the supporting data / evidence.

7. Assumptions
We need to be aware of the assumptions we make as well as the assumptions of others
Does our audience share our point of view?
Do we share the point of view of the writer?
Are claims made simply assumptions or supported by evidence?

8. Point of View
As we take on an issue, we are influenced by our own POV and experiences.
E.g. $100 for a shirt might be cheap to some, but ridiculously expensive to others
We need to identify the POV of the writer and his frames of reference.

9. Concepts What are the key ideas / theories presented?
Are they logical?
Are they significantly subscribed to in the academic community?

10. Implications
What are the consequences of the course of path we support?
What are, for example, the implications of writing an essay portraying Adolf Hitler as a great, moral leader?

11. Inferences
Are we making reasoned and logical inferences / conclusions based on the raw data that we have?

12. Tasks: In groups of threes:
Analyse the text using Paul’s Wheel of Reasoning
Formulate questions, directed at the writer, that will critically examine the shortcomings of the text, and allow him to concede these shortcomings.