The claim about gender made in this article is that “gender intelligence” is an important aspect for both men and women to realize as it can aid in the successful implementation of gender-equality programs in the workplace. The article states that it is critical to realize that men and women don’t operate in the same ways, and by acknowledging this we can better understand each other. The expert that is quoted in this article is Barbara Annis who is the CEO and founder of the Gender Intelligence Group, which suggests her expertise is in the subject of gender intelligence, the main topic of this article. It is not made clear whether she has any psychology or social sciences background, but it could possibly be assumed due to her quote that’s provided. The title, which provides intrigue for the reader to find out the missing piece that is important to improving gender equality programs, is supported by the information in the article as the reader learns the crucial missing piece: gender intelligence.The strengths of the article include providing a step by step outline of the necessary ideas for both men and women to consider in order for the gender equality programs to be effective. This allows the reader to immediately become aware of the important talking points of the article. Another strength is the use of examples for each step that may be relevant to many people. This allows for moments where the reader can easily identify with the ideas that are discussed and are therefore more likely to pass on the information to others, perhaps to even better their own workplace.The article both supports and violates the 7 Guidelines for critical thinking. First off, the article utilizes and defines the jargon/technical term “gender intelligence”/”gender intelligence theory” to relay the importance of acknowledging the differences in how men and women think and respond in certain situations. However, no scientific terms are defined such as gender or anything else pertaining to it. The article also only makes use of only two genders, male and female, and doesn’t acknowledge any other identities. Next, the article mentions the “gender intelligence theory” which allows the reader to make assumptions that research was done in order to develop the theory that men and women don’t operate in the same ways. The article also mentions the G2 Crowd business and implies that they’ve done research on women’s groups and have discovered useful information to aid in creating dialogue between men and women. Besides these two instances and the various general examples, the article doesn’t delve into the research component or explore hard evidence. The research on the gender intelligence was done by the Gender Intelligence Group, which the author of the article draws information about to relay the ways it can be used to strengthen gender-equality programs. The article is featured on the Entrepreneur website that focuses on business related content, and in this case how gender plays a role in the workplace. The research was done in order to gain insight about why gender-equality programs weren’t doing well and the steps that can be taken to make them more successful. The assumptions made about the audience are that they have a basic understanding of gender and have experienced some of the things being discussed, as either a man or woman. The reader may also assume then there are only two gender identities if they weren’t made aware of the other ways people may choose to identify themselves. The agenda this article is trying to serve is the promotion of gender intelligence as a way to make gender-equality programs successful. The article does somewhat play on the reader’s emotions by providing examples, such as the account told in Step 3 of a woman being degraded by a comment that was meant to be perceived as a compliment. This can create a bias by drawing in many women who have experienced this/workplaces that have encountered any issues and may result in them wanting to take advantage of the new approach to gender-equality programs. The article relies on both emotional and logical explanations by using specific examples but also tying it to general things that have been experienced by women and men, thus driving the point about the need for acknowledgment of gender intelligence. There is some oversimplification as the article fails to provide more detailed evidence and definitions to backup the theory, and also omits the relevant information about other possible gender experiences and how that relates to the steps listed. The article doesn’t clearly denote a study and so the use of gender intelligence theory is the primary finding that is being explored as an alternative to the current methods used in gender-equality programs. The article doesn’t use definitive terms, rather offers a possible solution to bettering gender-equality programs. No acknowledgment of other research is provided, but this counteracted by the various different steps that one can take in order to improve the programs in accordance with the gender intelligence theory. Some questions that I have about the article would be: What scientific research has been done to backup the theory? Can more research be done to provide possible steps for improvement in regards to equality of other gender identities? I would recommend this article to someone, but I would also encourage them to look at other sources that delve deeper into the idea of gender intelligence and how it relates to business. I thought the article was a good introduction and offered steps that I feel could help improve the workplace. I learned about the term gender intelligence which I had not previously known about, and I also felt that the steps mentioned were relevant and good starts to improving gender-equality programs.