Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Problem-solving isn't just about finding answers—it's about how you think through challenges systematically. In critical thinking, you're being tested on your ability to recognize which approach fits which situation, understand the reasoning behind each model, and apply structured thinking to messy, real-world problems. These models represent different philosophical approaches: some prioritize empirical evidence, others emphasize human-centered design, and still others focus on continuous improvement or root cause identification.
Don't just memorize the steps of each model—know when and why you'd choose one over another. Can you explain why the Scientific Method works for testable hypotheses but Design Thinking works better for ambiguous human problems? Can you distinguish between models that generate ideas versus those that evaluate them? That's the comparative thinking that separates surface-level recall from genuine critical thinking mastery.
These models follow a structured, sequential process where each step builds logically on the previous one. The underlying principle is that complex problems become manageable when broken into discrete, ordered phases.
Compare: Scientific Method vs. PDCA Cycle—both test hypotheses through evidence, but the Scientific Method aims for definitive conclusions while PDCA assumes continuous refinement. If asked about one-time research questions, use Scientific Method; for ongoing organizational improvement, PDCA is your example.
Rather than treating symptoms, these models dig deeper to find why problems occur in the first place. The core insight is that surface-level fixes often fail because the underlying cause remains unaddressed.
Compare: 5 Whys vs. Fishbone Diagram—both support root cause analysis, but 5 Whys goes deep on a single causal chain while Fishbone maps broadly across categories. Strong critical thinkers use them together: Fishbone first to identify where to look, then 5 Whys to investigate the most promising branches.
These models prioritize producing ideas before evaluating them. The principle here is that premature criticism kills innovation—separate divergent thinking (generating options) from convergent thinking (selecting the best one).
Compare: Brainstorming vs. Design Thinking—both generate creative solutions, but Brainstorming is a single-session technique while Design Thinking is a comprehensive framework. Brainstorming answers "what could we do?" while Design Thinking first asks "what do users actually need?"
Once you have options, these models help you choose systematically. The key insight is that good decisions require explicit criteria—otherwise, bias and gut reactions dominate.
Compare: Six Thinking Hats vs. Decision Matrix—both structure evaluation, but Six Thinking Hats organizes perspectives (how to think) while Decision Matrix organizes criteria (what to measure). Use Six Thinking Hats for group discussion and Decision Matrix for final selection among defined options.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Sequential/Systematic Process | Scientific Method, IDEAL Model, PDCA Cycle |
| Root Cause Identification | Root Cause Analysis, 5 Whys, Fishbone Diagram |
| Creative Idea Generation | Brainstorming, Design Thinking |
| Structured Evaluation | Six Thinking Hats, Decision Matrix |
| Continuous Improvement | PDCA Cycle, Design Thinking |
| Visual/Collaborative Tools | Fishbone Diagram, Six Thinking Hats, Decision Matrix |
| Human-Centered Approaches | Design Thinking, Six Thinking Hats |
| Quick/Accessible Techniques | 5 Whys, Brainstorming |
Which two models both emphasize iterative cycles but differ in their primary purpose—one for process improvement and one for human-centered innovation?
You've identified that customer complaints are increasing, but you're not sure why. Which two tools would you combine to first map all possible causes and then drill into the most likely one?
Compare and contrast the Scientific Method and Design Thinking: What types of problems is each best suited for, and why would empirical validation work for one but not the other?
A team keeps arguing about which solution to implement, with different members championing their favorites. Which model would help them evaluate options more objectively, and which would help them explore perspectives without conflict?
If an essay prompt asks you to "describe a systematic approach to solving a problem you've never encountered before," which model provides the most complete framework from problem identification through post-implementation reflection?