Today, when news headlines compete for our attention around the clock, and almost anyone can publish or share content, critical inquiry (angl. critical inquiry) is not just an academic privilege – it is an important skill in everyday life. Simply put, critical inquiry involves evaluating claims, data, and arguments with a healthy balance of curiosity and skepticism – seeking evidence, logic, and context before drawing conclusions.
- 5W + H: The questions "Who, What, When, Where, Why, How" offer a systematic way to analyze any information to avoid rushing to premature judgments.
- Logical fallacies: Recognizing faulty reasoning patterns such as straw man, ad hominem, or appeal to authority helps us protect ourselves from persuasive but flawed arguments.
By combining these two parts, we gain a solid foundation to evaluate modern media, argue effectively, and make informed decisions.
2. "5W + H" system: a more detailed analysis
2.1 Why this system is important
5W + H (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How) are universal questions used for decades by journalists, researchers, and investigators to comprehensively evaluate presented material. However, they are also useful for everyday readers:
- Comprehensiveness: Ensures we do not miss important aspects, such as time or geographical context.
- Context understanding: Understanding the circumstances can make the difference between misinterpretation and clarity.
2.2 "Who?" – source identification
- Source reliability: Who provides this information? Is it an expert in the field or someone with undisclosed interests? For example, a publication by an experienced cardiologist may be more important than an unprofessional blog post.
- Possible biases: Is the person associated with a political group, corporation, or movement? This can determine which factual details are emphasized and which are omitted.
Example: You find a YouTube video about a miracle diet. "Who" created it – a medical researcher with peer-reviewed scientific articles or a supplement distributor seeking commercial gain?
2.3 "What?" – understanding the main claim
- Clarification of the claim: Is it a fact or an opinion? It is very important to distinguish objective data ("The study shows X...") from subjective attitudes ("I believe that X...").
- Provided evidence: Is there a reference to studies, statistics, or only personal stories? Is the data comprehensive or selectively chosen?
Example: The headline claims: "80% memory improvement when taking supplement X!" What does this memory improvement mean here? How is it measured: by subjective evaluation or clinical tests?
2.4 “When?” – importance of time
- Publication date: Is the article new? Was it written decades ago? Maybe the latest scientific research has already disproved old data?
- Timeliness: In rapidly changing fields – for example, technology or health – it is important not to rely on outdated information.
Example: Advice about phone security from 2015 may lose relevance if data encryption practices changed in 2023.
2.5 “Where?” – source location and environment
- Physical / digital origin: Is the information taken from a reputable newspaper, a personal blog, or a viral “TikTok” clip? Each channel has different editorial or fact-checking standards.
- Cultural / regional context: What is successful in one region may not work elsewhere due to cultural or economic differences.
Example: A social program that worked in a small homogeneous state may not work in a large, diverse country where different solutions are needed.
2.6 “Why?” – searching for motives
- Intent: Is the goal to inform, sell, or persuade? Financial or political interests can affect which “facts” are presented.
- Financial / political interests: If a tobacco company claims that “smoking is not very harmful,” it is likely their motivation is profit, not public health.
Example: A sports or health influencer praises certain supplements – ask “Why?” Is he collaborating with a brand and getting paid?
2.7 “How?” – evaluation of methods and processes
- Methodology: How were the data collected or conclusions made? Are serious scientific studies relied upon, or just anecdotes and social media polls?
- Logic and reasoning: Reliable data can be misinterpreted. Make sure they haven't mixed facts by omitting important variables or drawing quick conclusions.
Example: The study states: “Coffee drinkers have fewer heart problems” – was diet, physical activity, or socioeconomic factors considered?
3. Most Common Logical Fallacies (in detail)
Logical fallacies distort proper reasoning, creating a strong but actually false impression. Below we describe three common fallacies in more detail: straw man, ad hominem, and appeal to authority.
3.1 Straw Man Fallacy
Definition: The opponent's position is distorted or simplified to make it easier to criticize or ridicule.
- Why is this done?: It's easier to belittle an extreme or exaggerated argument than to face a real, nuanced discussion.
- Consequence: Constructive discussion is distorted, and the real issue remains unanswered.
Illustration:
Initial statement: "We need a 5% higher budget for renewable energy to reduce pollution."
Straw man: "So you want to shut down all power plants and force everyone to have solar panels? Nonsense!"
Reality: Only a small budget adjustment was proposed, not shutting down all power plants.
3.2 Ad hominem
Definition: Attacking the person's personality, origin, or character rather than their argument.
-
Variations:
- Abusive ad hominem: Direct insults or belittling.
- Circumstantial ad hominem: It is claimed that the speaker's argument is wrong solely due to possible personal gain.
- Tu Quoque: "You do it too!" – accused of hypocrisy but the main argument is not addressed.
Example: "Don't listen to her marketing plan – she has never had a successful business."
This way the plan itself is rejected, focusing instead on the person's experience rather than the essence of the arguments.
3.3 Appeal to Authority (Appeal to Authority)
Definition: Relying on an influential person or institution as the main argument instead of providing objective evidence.
- The difference between legitimate expertise and error: Expert opinions can strengthen an argument but do not replace factual evidence or logical basis.
Examples:
Celebrity endorsement: "A famous actor says this supplement cures all diseases – so it must be true."
Company leader: "Our CEO doesn't believe in climate change, so we can ignore the scientific data."
Irrelevant field: A PhD in physics talking about a new diet may lack the relevant nutritional knowledge.
4. Other logical traps (for those who want to go deeper)
- Slippery Slope: Claiming that small actions will trigger a chain reaction leading to the end of the world ("If we allow X, it will be the end of civilization!").
- Hasty Generalization: A broad conclusion drawn from insufficient data ("I met two rude people in that store – everyone there is rude.").
- Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("After this, therefore because of this"): Confusing correlation with causation ("I wore red shirts and got a promotion, so the shirts caused it!").
5. How to combine "5W + H" with knowledge of logical fallacies
By combining 5W + H with awareness of common logical fallacies, we gain comprehensive analytical thinking:
- Ask "Who?": Does the source use ad hominem attacks or rely on an incompetent "authority"?
- Ask "What?": Does the presentation distort the opponent's claims (straw man) or confuse correlation with causation?
- Ask "When?" and "Where?": Could the information be outdated or only valid in a specific context, leading to misleading results when oversimplified?
- Ask "Why?": Are there financial or personal interests encouraging manipulation or bypassing logic?
- Ask "How?": Are the methods transparent and justified, or could the reasoning have logical gaps?
6. Practical application in everyday life
6.1 Social networks and viral posts
When you see a viral post:
- Watch, "Who" published it and who might benefit from it?
- Evaluate, "What" facts or sources are provided?
- Suspicion of oversimplifications or pure emotional appeals – are there ad hominem attacks to silence critics?
6.2 Health and wellness claims
- "When?" importance: Does the advice align with the latest medical research?
- "Who?" presents it?: Does the brand or influencer have a financial interest? Do we see an appeal to authority from a person lacking proper expertise?
6.3 Political debates
- Recognize straw man arguments where a candidate distorts the opponent's position.
- Notice ad hominem when a personal attack is disguised as political criticism.
- Check whether real data supports the claim or if emotions or appeals to authority overshadow everything.
7. Combating cognitive biases
Besides external rhetorical traps, we are influenced by internal biases – for example, confirmation bias (seeking data that confirms our opinion) or groupthink (conforming to the majority to avoid feeling excluded). To overcome this:
- Test contradictory evidence: Ask yourself if you are ignoring facts that challenge your accepted position.
- Listen to different perspectives: Reading authors of alternative opinions can help recognize straw man arguments or incomplete narratives.
- Stay open but cautious: Be curious, but verify facts based on reliable sources.
8. Practical tips for developing critical inquiry
- Practice daily: Spend at least a few minutes on one article, advertisement, or social media post to apply 5W + H.
- Have a “checklist”: Whether mentally or written down – systematically track “Who, What, When, Where, Why, How.”
- Ask additional questions: If something is unclear, inquire about the data or methods used.
- Discuss with others: Friends or online forums can help spot weaknesses or challenges in your own assumptions.
Critical inquiry does not mean living in constant doubt – it is reasoned investigation, fact-checking, and logical consistency analysis. Using 5W + H ensures that all aspects of a claim are examined, and knowing logical fallacies (e.g., straw man, ad hominem, appeal to authority) helps avoid the traps of empty rhetoric.
Why it matters
In a world full of sensational headlines, polarized debates, and strong opinions, critical inquiry helps maintain evidence-based thinking. Instead of passively accepting or blindly rejecting information, start verifying it consistently. This improves not only personal decisions but also enriches public discourse, steering it away from spontaneous emotional reactions toward thoughtful, nuanced understanding.
Including these practices – whether scrolling through social media, evaluating a news article, or discussing with loved ones – fosters clarity, fairness, and intellectual consistency. This approach cultivates a more confident, observant, and open way to understand the complexity of the modern world.