Evaluating Arguments
Two broad sets of criteria to evaluate evidence
The first set evaluates the context of the evidence, while the second part focuses on the quality and suitability of the evidence.
Evaluating the context of the evidence
The criteria of origin, mode, purpose, and source establish the context of the evidence.
Evaluating the quality and suitability of evidence
We need to think about such things as validity, currency, reliability, and relevance.
Validity
It refers to how suitable the evidence is. If the evidence is illogical, incomplete or out of context, then it isn't valid.
Currency
It refers to whether the evidence is valid in the present time. For example, if you're using an article from ten or more years ago for current statistics on unemployment rates, it wouldn't be considered current.
Reliability
It refers to whether the sources can be trusted. For example, if you wanted to draw on research of policies and programs to end homelessness, a peer review journal in the field of social welfare would be far more reliable than a blog.
Relevance
Does the evidence support the conclusion? Does it have an impact on the argument? Another way of asking this question is, if you took the evidence away, would it affect the conclusion? If the answer is no, then the evidence may not be relevant.
Conclusion and premises
In order to evaluate arguments, you need to determine whether the conclusion immediately follows on from the premise. It's not enough for the conclusion to just make sense. Instead, it has to be the most logical or the most likely conclusion leading from the premises.
SOURCE
https://www.coursera.org/learn/critical-thinking-skills/lecture/fomgS/4-3a-using-critical-thinking-to-evaluate-arguments-1
VACABULARY
scrutiny [ˈskruːtɪni]
fraud [frɔːd]
suitability
validity
currency
reliability [rɪˌlaɪəˈbɪlɪti ]
relevance [ˈrɛlɪvəns]