In his manuscript there are several instances where the ability to critically think has been appreciated, even if von Baeyer did not mention it directly. That is what the one individual on the scoring committee probably had seen. I believe that he would argue to the other members of the scoring committee that in his manuscript he shows signs of what the main goal of physics teaches. For example, in the recount of the formation of the second law of thermodynamics, von Baeyer talks about an individual named Sadi Carnot. Carnot was a French military engineer, and during his time with the military he had noticed that the significance of the steam engine. Carnot’s goal was to critically think about steam engines and how he believed that it was necessary to, “establish principles applicable not only to steam engines but to all imaginable heat-engines” (von Baeyer, 39). von Baeyer, although not directly showing praise, is telling how Carnot’s ability to not just use the steam engine as a day to day tool but instead to realize its importance in the world and how that the concept behind the steam engine can be related to a more complex solution. Continuing this example, von Bayer tells that just by thinking about a concept, Carnot developed new solutions that has eluded everyone.
“… he tried, in his imagination, to follow the flow of the caloric as it emerged from the coal fire and swirled around the parts of the machine. In this way he came to a startling realization that had eluded everyone before him” (von Bayer, 41).
This quote shows what critically thinking can lead to and this is what the argument of the scoring committee is revolved around. I believe that after reading a few more examples, similar to that of Carnot, the scoring committee would come to a consensus and allow von Baeyer to attend OU with physics credit.