Critical thinking is the capacity to analyse and evaluate a statement, assess the evidence supporting the claim, and make a sound judgment. At school, it’s not about being negative, it’s about being critical. It requires making productive inquiries about assumptions, methods, context, alternatives and the strength of conclusions. Students and professionals can rely on our critical thinking and critical review expertise to go beyond description and achieve a balanced, clear and evidence-based analysis.

Services apply to journal articles, theories, policies, case studies, research methods, business decisions or bodies of literature. The starting point is to establish the object to be reviewed and the criteria to be used for it. For a research article, it could be evaluated with regards to its question, design, sampling, measurement, analysis, ethics and relevance. Considerations for a policy include objectives, stakeholders, evidence, feasibility, and unintended effects. Clear criteria minimise the chances of a disjointed opinion from the review.

An expert assists in dissecting the argument: the argument’s main claim, supporting reasons, evidence, and what the evidence may be assuming. The evidence is taken into account and whether it is valid and reliable, for example limitations of samples, bias, missing perspectives, correlation as causation. Various hypotheses are examined fairly. The aim is not to criticise everything, but not only to make the right choices about conclusions, but also to make the right choices about caution and what additional information would lend more confidence to the choice of conclusions.

Customers may ask for an outline of the review framework, an annotated feedback, or support to build an argument already in place, or for the editing of a full draft. Subject experts can model the use of evaluative academic language, include counterarguments and link evaluation to a verdict. Assistance with an assessed piece is educational: examples and feedback help the student to draw their own conclusions rather than to have their own thoughts done for them. The student is still responsible for reading the sources, the sense of judgement, and submission of the work that conforms to the rules of the University.

Common weaknesses that we examine in our quality checks are paragraphs that summarise, criticism based on preference, claims without supporting evidence, and conclusions that present new ideas. We will also examine if strengths and limitations are appropriately weighted. Citations are checked for consistency, and quotations are properly contextualised and transitions link ideas together and support the main point. High level thinking is easier to perceive when there is a clear language.

The outcome is a critical review that is rigorous and not aggressive, decisive and not make-believe, but at the same time critical. The reader can follow the reasoning of the judgement and can see the boundaries of the judgement. We serve our clients by providing a structured approach and subject-specific guidance to become one of the most valuable academic and professional skills: to evaluate information carefully and to explain a defensible conclusion.

Where an appraisal tool is needed, support can be provided using an appraisal tool that is used in the discipline, such as structured checklists for clinical research and criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. The framework is designed to focus attention, not to take away the need to make a judgment; the final review should give reasons for the limitation and the impact this has on interpretation. We are also able to assist creating an evidence matrix of claims, methods, strengths and weaknesses of several sources. This helps to see patterns and disagreements. The same can be simplified for an oral presentation or poster as claim, evidence, limitation and implication. The customer is therefore given a tool that could be applied to the following assignment, on the job selection, or a future study instead of just a list of comments on a single text.