Just as The Elements of Style provides a quick and authoritative reference for writers, The Rowman & Littlefield Handbook for Critical Thinking provides a quick and authoritative reference for issues regarding reasoning. The Handbook provides clear and succinct discussions of the following issues: * Issues germane to clarifying sentences: ambiguity, vagueness, and propositional attitudes * General discussions of descriptions, explanations, and arguments * Criteria for evaluating observational statements and testimony * Categorical syllogisms, including issues germane to both the Boolean and Aristotelian interpretations * A complete system of propositional logic and a brief discussion of the use of truth tables * Induction: generalization and particularization arguments, analogies, arguments to the best explanation, Mill's Methods, counterfactual reasoning, and making decisions under risk and uncertainty * A brief discussion of the principle formulas involved in calculating probabilities * An extended discussion of informal fallacies * An essay on the relationship between critical thinking and writing

The goal of Reasoning for Intelligence Analysts is to address the three distinct dimensions of an analyst's thinking: the person of the analyst (their traits), the processes they use (their techniques), and the problems they face (their targets). Based on a decade of academic research and university teaching in a program for aspiring intelligence analysts, this multidimensional approach will help the reader move beyond the traditional boundaries of accumulating knowledge or critical thinking with techniques to assess the unique targets of reasoning in the information age. This approach is not just a set of techniques, but covers all elements of reasoning by discussing the personal, procedural, and problem-specific aspects. It also addresses key challenges, such as uncertain data, irrelevant or misleading information, indeterminate outcomes, and significance for clients through an extensive examination of hypothesis development, causal analysis, futures exploration, and strategy assessment. Both critical and creative thinking, which are essential to reasoning in intelligence, are integrated throughout. Structured around independently readable chapters, this text offers a systematic approach to reasoning a long with an extensive toolkit that will serve the needs of both students and intelligence professionals.

The goal of Reasoning for Intelligence Analysts is to address the three distinct dimensions of an analyst's thinking: the person of the analyst (their traits), the processes they use (their techniques), and the problems they face (their targets). Based on a decade of academic research and university teaching in a program for aspiring intelligence analysts, this multidimensional approach will help the reader move beyond the traditional boundaries of accumulating knowledge or critical thinking with techniques to assess the unique targets of reasoning in the information age. This approach is not just a set of techniques, but covers all elements of reasoning by discussing the personal, procedural, and problem-specific aspects. It also addresses key challenges, such as uncertain data, irrelevant or misleading information, indeterminate outcomes, and significance for clients through an extensive examination of hypothesis development, causal analysis, futures exploration, and strategy assessment. Both critical and creative thinking, which are essential to reasoning in intelligence, are integrated throughout. Structured around independently readable chapters, this text offers a systematic approach to reasoning a long with an extensive toolkit that will serve the needs of both students and intelligence professionals.

Counterfactual reasoning evaluates conditional claims about alternate possibilities and their consequences (i.e., "What If" statements). Counterfactuals are essential to intelligence analysis. The process of counterfactual reasoning has three stages. First, one must establish the particular way in which the alternate possibility comes to be (i.e., develop its "back-story"). Second, one must evaluate the events that occur between the time of the alternate possibility and the time for which one is considering its consequences. And third, one must examine the possible consequences of the alternate possibility's back-story and the events that follow it. In doing so, an analyst must connect conclusions to specific types of strategic assessment: decision making under risk or decision making under uncertainty. This book includes notes, glossary and references. (Noel Hendrickson is Director of the Institute for National Security Analysis. Originally published by Proteus.)

Counterfactual reasoning is the process of evaluating conditional claims about alternate possibilities and their consequences (i.e., "What If " statements). These alternatives can be either past possibilities (e.g., "If the United States had not abolished the Iraqi army in 2003, then the Iraqi insurgency would have been significantly smaller in 2005") or future possibilities (e.g., "If Iran had nuclear weapons, then it would provide this technology to Hezbollah"). Counterfactuals are essential to intelligence analysis because they are implicit in all strategic assessments. For, any proposal about the appropriate response to a particular situation (past or future) assumes that certain things would or might occur if that response were made. However, at present, there is no comprehensive system of counterfactual reasoning to establish if these underlying assumptions are plausible. Such a system would have immense potential for analytic transformation as it could unite (or replace) a series of extant techniques of assessing alternate possibilities, such as "What If " Analysis, "High Impact/Low Probability" Analysis, and "Alternate Futures/Scenario" Analysis. And, ultimately, counterfactual reasoning represents the most ideal way to analyze possibilities, for it considers what would or might happen if the possibility were to occur, rather than attempting to determine if the possibility itself is probable. The process of counterfactual reasoning has three stages. The first two of these are somewhat counterintuitive and are easily ignored by analysts. But, they are essential to structuring one's counterfactual reasoning properly. First, one must establish the particular way in which the alternate possibility comes to be (i.e., develop its "back-story"). Second, one must evaluate the events that occur between the time of the alternate possibility and the time for which one is considering its consequences. And third, one must examine the possible consequences of the alternate possibility's back-story and the events that follow it. In doing so, an analyst must connect their conclusion to the specific type of strategic assessment the counterfactual will be used to support: decision making under risk or decision making under uncertainty.