In 2012, Psychologist Heather Butler studied the importance that critical thinking plays in our everyday lives. “Critical thinking is not just the new buzzword in education.

In 2012, Psychologist Heather Butler studied the importance that critical thinking plays in our everyday lives. “Critical thinking is not just the new buzzword in education. Critical thinking involves real outcomes that can be measured, predicted, and—perhaps for the negative life events—avoided” (Butler, 2012, p. 725).

 

In 2013, studies by Grossmann, Varnum, Kitayama, and Nisbett concluded that wise reasoning, rather than intelligence, was a predictor of well-being. In 2017, Dr. Butler and her colleagues, referencing the Grossmann study and based on their own research, determined that the ability to think critically was a better predictor of effective life decisions than was intelligence (Butler, Pentoney, & Bong, 2017).

 

Initial Post Instructions

 

For the initial post, address the following:

 

Do you agree that wisdom/critical thinking is a better predictor of well-being than intelligence? To answer, you will have to define what the following terms mean for you:

 

Critical thinking

 

Wisdom

 

Intelligence

 

Well-being

 

Reflect on what you read in the text this week. Think of the people you know.

 

Are the good people smart?

 

Are the smart people good?

 

How do you define “good”? How do you define “smart”?

 

Can we use our intelligence to become “good”? If yes, how? If no, why not?

 

Follow-Up Post Instructions

 

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification. Look at your peers’ definitions. Do you agree with them? If yes, why, if no, why not?

 

Writing Requirements

 

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)

 

Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)

 

APA format for in-text citations and list of references

 

Grading

 

This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:

 

Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines

 

Course Outcomes (CO): 1, 7

 

Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday

 

Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

 

References

 

Butler,H.A. (2012, Sep/Oct). Halpern critical thinking assessment predicts real-world outcomes of critical thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 721-729. 10.1002/acp.2851

 

Butler, H.A., Pentoney, C., & Bong, M. P. (2017). Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25, 38-46. https://www.umass.edu/preferen/You%20Must%20Read%20This/ThinkingSkills.pdf

 

Grossmann, I., Na, J., Varnum, M.E.W., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R.E. (2013). A route to well-being: intelligence versus wise reasoning. Journal of Experiential Psychology: General, 142(3), 944–953. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3594053

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 2 Discussion

 

Context, Meaning, and Value

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 4, 5

 

Lesson

 

At least 1 news article (e.g., latimes.com, usatoday.com, nytimes.com)

 

Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

 

Initial Post Instructions

 

Select one of the following options to research for this discussion:

 

Option 1: Google <California Washington mural>. You will find numerous reports concerning a California school district that voted to paint over a mural in the high school. The Life of Washington was painted by Depression-era artist Victor Arnautoff.

 

Option 2: Google <Indiana University Thomas Hart Benton mural>. You will find numerous articles on the controversy surround a panel from Benton’s A Social History of Indiana (1933) murals.

 

Option 3: Conduct research on a mural or statue or monument in your town that is the subject of controversy.

 

Before you read the news articles, try to look at the artworks through an image search in Google. Then, read the news articles to see the different viewpoints about the murals.

 

For the initial post, address at least four (4) of the following questions for the option you selected:

 

What do you think should be done with the artwork (e.g., painted over, covered, destroyed, left as is in plain view, etc.)? Why?

 

Should the context in which the artwork was created (the Great Depression of the 1930s in the case of the Benton and Arnautoff murals) have an impact on the decision of what to do with the artwork?

 

Should the context in which people now view the artwork have an impact on the decision of what to do with it?

 

What message do you think the artwork conveys?

 

Do you think there is ambiguity in the message?

 

Do you think the message is vague?

 

Does the artistic value of the artwork require that it be saved regardless of message?

 

Does the historic value of the artwork require that it be saved regardless of message?

 

Do you think the message of the artwork is sufficiently important that the message alone requires that it be saved?

 

Do you think the artists were biased or prejudiced? If yes, explain specifics about the artwork that support your opinion. Do you think viewers might be bringing bias or prejudice to their opinions? Are you?

 

Follow-Up Post Instructions

 

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Respond to one peer who chose a controversial artwork other than the one you chose. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification. Do you agree or disagree with your peers’ positions? Explain why. In addition, address different issues than what your peer focused on.

 

Writing Requirements

 

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)

 

Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 3 Discussion

 

Evaluating Sources

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 6, 7

 

Lesson

 

Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

 

Introduction

 

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions – but not their own facts.” (Daniel Patrick Moynihan, cited in Vanity Fair, 2010, para. 2)

 

We form opinions – and make our judgments – based on facts we observe and values we hold. Our judgments are also influenced by the opinions of others. In the section “An Expert on Hate in America” in Chapter 6, one of the authors, Dr. Peter Facione, renders an opinion on a non-profit civil rights organization: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Dr. Facione is a leading advocate and one of the most influential voices in the field of critical thinking.

 

His endorsement of the civil rights organization is unqualified. It is also transparent: Dr. Facione reveals that he is a financial supporter of the organization and has arranged speaking engagements for its founder. This is Dr. Facione’s invitation to you, the reader:

 

Knowing where you can learn more about the SPLC for yourself, and knowing about Dr. Facione’s endorsement and support of the Center’s work, evaluate this claim made by Dr. Facione: “The SPLC is an expert on hate in America” (p. 124).

 

The endorsement of the SPLC is contained in the most current edition of the text, whose copyright date is 2016. Since that time Morris Dees, co-founder and former chief trial counsel, has been fired (Hassan, Zraick & Blinder, 2019). Previously, there has been controversy about groups and individuals that are listed by the SPLC as “hate groups” (Graham, 2016; Price, 2018). The organization, which has nearly a half-billion dollars in assets, has also been criticized for how it spends these funds (Robinson, 2019).

 

Self-Assessment Question

 

Before you submit your initial post, make sure to read the assigned chapter. Then, ask yourself the following: Did the article in Chapter 6 of the text seem credible and reliable? Why? Be very specific:

 

Was it because it is in a textbook?

 

Because it was written by a learned and respected person?

 

Because of content in the article?

 

Because of your previous knowledge of the SPLC?

 

Initial Post Instructions

 

For the initial post, address the following:

 

Conduct additional research on the SPLC. Did your opinion alter in any way? Why?

 

Only after you have done some responsible research should you begin to respond to the discussion prompt. The discussion is not about the SPLC; it is not about Dr. Facione. It is about what you have learned about forming opinions.

 

Your post must answer this question:

 

How do you define the term “expert”?

 

Your post must also discuss at least two (2) of the following questions:

 

How important are facts in the process of forming an opinion? Explain what you believe to be the purpose or function of facts in making a judgment.

 

How did you respond to the self-assessment question? Since doing further research, have you re-thought the way in which you assess credibility and reliability? What is the importance of factoring the recency of a reference or opinion (i.e., how old is it?) into an assessment of credibility and reliability?

 

How would you evaluate Dr. Facione’s claim “The SPLC is an expert on hate in America” (p. 124). Does the SPLC fit your definition of “expert”? Be specific in your answer.

 

Follow-Up Post Instructions

 

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

 

Writing Requirements

 

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)

 

Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)

 

APA format for in-text citations and list of references

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 4 Discussion

 

Distinguishing Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 8, 9, 17 (Introduction)

 

Lesson

 

Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

 

Click on the following tabs to review the concepts that will be addressed in this activity:

 

Valid Argument StructuresDeductiveInductive

 

A valid structure is the way in which an argument is put together that assures it will pass the test of logical strength.

 

The Basic Structure of Deductive and Inductive Arguments

 

Click on the following links to view argument examples:

 

Link: Deductive Argument Example

 

Link: Inductive Argument

 

Initial Post Instructions

 

For the initial post, address the following:

 

Find and post examples of deductive and inductive arguments.

 

For each example, evaluate its logical strength, using the concepts and ideas presented in the textbook readings, the lesson, and any other source you find that helps you to evaluate the validity (deductive) or strength (inductive) of the argument. You can use examples from the text, or you can find examples elsewhere.

 

Editorials and opinion columns are a good source, as are letters to the editor. Blogs will also often be based on arguments.

 

Use mapping and evaluative techniques to make sure it is an argument.

 

Is it inductive or deductive? Explain why.

 

Does it pass the tests of validity and strength? Explain.

 

Follow-Up Post Instructions

 

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification. Do you agree with their analysis – be very specific about why you agree or disagree.

 

Writing Requirements

 

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)

 

Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)

 

APA format for in-text citations and list of references

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 5 Discussion

 

In My Opinion

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 10, 11

 

Lesson

 

Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

 

Initial Post Instructions

 

Consider one of the following current social issues – or one of your choice:

 

Opioid crisis

 

Legalization of recreational or medical marijuana

 

Vaping

 

Immigration

 

Elimination of the electoral college

 

Gun control

 

For the initial post, address the following:

 

State your position on one of these issues – are you for, against, or neutral? Explain why. Avoid vagueness or ambiguity in your response. Make your position very clear.

 

Examine how you have formed that opinion.

 

How well do you think you know the facts?

 

Do you know and understand statistical information that applies to the issue?

 

Do you think you have formed your opinion using only System-1 thinking, or have you applied System-2?

 

What part have heuristics, cognitive bias, and dominance structuring played in how you have formed your opinions?

 

The initial post is not about how “correct” your position is; it is about how you arrived at your position on the issue. This discussion requires application of metacognition – thinking about how you think.

 

Follow-Up Post Instructions

 

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

 

In your responses, look for another student’s post, either on the same or a different issue. Choose, where possible, a peer whose initial post has not yet been examined by another student, and examine it. Do you agree or disagree with your peer?

 

Is your initial reaction to your peer “So, right; you bet!” or is it “So wrong, you’re all wet!”

 

Examine carefully your thinking in response to your peers:

 

What part, if any, have facts, heuristics, or dominance structuring played in your response?

 

What part, if any, has cognitive bias played in your response?

 

You should also look at responses to your initial post:

 

Did your peer fairly evaluate you? Discuss this with your peer.

 

You may find that just the minimum three posts are not sufficient to discover whether you can identify these elements. You will have to make a judgement call: do the minimum three and miss out on the deep thinking required by this exercise, or go beyond the minimum three and really begin to understand your thought processes and the concept of critical thinking.

 

A very valuable final post would be to discuss your judgment call: perhaps you “got it” in three; perhaps you opted for more than three; perhaps other demands on your time did not allow you to exercise as much deep thinking as you would have liked to do. Perhaps you did not see much value in the discussion – a very valuable final post would be a brief statement of why you found it so. Do not be shy about critiquing the exercise. Look at “A Poorly Crafted Assignment” in section 11.1 of the text in which the authors critique a similar assignment.

 

Writing Requirements

 

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)

 

Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)

 

APA format for in-text citations and list of references

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 6 Discussion

 

DQ1 Comparative Reasoning

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 12

 

Lesson 1, 2

 

Link (library article): The Doctors’ Choice is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930-1953 (Links to an external site.)

 

Link (library article): The Opioid Epidemic: Who Is to Blame? (Links to an external site.)

 

Link (article): The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It Belongs (Links to an external site.)

 

Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings)

 

Introduction

 

The medical profession has a muddled and contradictory association with its approach toward the tobacco industry. While the profession now firmly opposes to smoking and vigorously publicizes the serious, even fatal, health hazards associated with smoking, this was not always so. Advertisements for tobacco products, including cigarettes “… became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations” (Wolinsky & Brune, 1994). Physicians and reference to doctors and smoking were once common in tobacco industry advertisements. The story of physicians and promotion of smoking can be found in “The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice” (Gardner & Brandt, 2006).

 

The role of physicians in the current opioid crisis is now under scrutiny on television (Farmer, 2019) by trade publications (King, 2018), peer-reviewed journals (deShazo, et al, 2018), and by physicians themselves (Hirsch, 2019).

 

Initial Post Instructions

 

For the initial post, research the history of the association of doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco advertising. Read about the association of doctors with the opioid crisis. Then, address the following:

 

In what way are the two situations comparable?

 

In what way are they different?

 

Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific.

 

Follow-Up Post Instructions

 

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

 

Writing Requirements

 

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)

 

Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)

 

APA format for in-text citations and list of references

 

Grading

 

This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:

 

Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines

 

Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 4, 5, 6

 

Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday

 

Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

 

References DeShazo, R.D., Johnson, M., Eriator, Ike, Rodenmeyer, K. (2018). Backstories on the U.S. opioid epidemic. Good intentions gone bad, an industry gone rogue, and watch dogs gone to sleep. The American Journal of Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(18)30084-6/fulltext

 

Farmer, B. M. (2019, August 25). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? 60 Minutes. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-opioid-epidemic-who-is-to-blame-60-minutes-2019-08-25/

 

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

 

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

 

King, S.A. (2018). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? Psychiatric Times. https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131448427&site=eds-live&scope=site

 

Wolinsky H., & Brune, T. (1994). The serpent on the staff: The unhealthy politics of the American Medical Association. Tarcher/Putnam.

 

DQ2 Empirical Reasoning

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 14

 

Lesson 1, 2

 

Link (library article): Myopia and Ambient Lighting at Night (Links to an external site.)

 

Link (library article): Myopia and Ambient Night-Time Lighting (Links to an external site.)

 

Link (website): What Are Clinical Trials and Studies? (Links to an external site.)

 

Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings)

 

Introduction

 

As the text points out, causal reasoning is used in clinical studies. As a professional in the health field, you will undoubtedly be referring to cause/effect studies for the rest of your professional life. In this discussion, you are asked to expand and deepen your understanding of clinical studies.

 

In 1999, a study on the causes of myopia appeared in the prestigious journal Nature (Quinn). The study received wide-spread publicity in leading newspapers, such as the New York Times, and on television outlets, such as CBS and CNN. Within a year, another article in Nature followed up the 1999 study (Zadnik et al., 2000). The studies had dramatically different findings.

 

Initial Post Instructions

 

Using what you have learned from the text, as well as any other sources you may find useful (including the website in the Required Resources), analyze and evaluate the methodology of both studies and how methodology affected the differences in how the studies were reported.

 

Reportage of both studies can be found with an Internet search using all of the following terms: <Philadelphia myopia night lights>.

 

Follow-Up Post Instructions

 

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

 

Writing Requirements

 

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)

 

Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)

 

APA format for in-text citations and list of references

 

Grading

 

This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:

 

Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines

 

Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 4, 5

 

Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday

 

Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

 

References

 

National Intitute on Aging. (n.d.). What are clinical trials and studies? https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-are-clinical-trials-and-studies

 

Quinn, G. E., Shin, C. H., Maguire, M. G. & Stone, R. A. (1999). Myopia and ambient lighting at night. Nature, 399 (6732), 113-114. https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=10335839&site=eds-live&scope=site

 

Zadnik, K., Jones, L. A., Irvin, B. C., Kleinstein, R. N., Manny, R. E., Shin, J. A., & Mutti, D. O. (2000). Myopia and ambient night-time lighting. CLEERE study group. Collaborative longitudinal evaluation of ethnicity and refractive error. Nature, 404(6774), 143-144. https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=10724157&site=eds-live&scope=site

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 7 Discussion

 

What Do I Value?

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 13

 

Lesson

 

Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

 

Introduction

 

At the very end of Chapter 13, there is a Group Exercise that asks: What ideals would you go to war to defend? We are not going to ask you to go to war, but we are going to ask you to think about what ideals or values you believe would be worth defending – even to the point of risking your life in their defense.

 

When Nazi Germany overtook Europe in the early 20th Century, resistance movements sprung up in the occupied countries, and many civilians risked – and lost – their lives against Nazisim. Today, in Saudi Arabia, women who protested restrictions on the rights of women imposed by that country have been jailed, and remain jailed, even after some of the rights they asked for have been granted.

 

Initial Post Instructions

 

For the initial post, address the following:

 

What core values would you risk your life and freedom to defend?

 

Could a nation going to war be appropriate in certain circumstances – or is war never an appropriate response?

 

This is not a group exercise – post your thoughts, considering the scenarios proposed in the text or any others you find important. Be sure to give your reasons for your answer.

 

Notice that this exercise requires deductive reasoning. You are stating a position and supporting it with “top down” reasoning. Be sure to review Three Features of Ideological Reasoning. Apply these concepts as you create your own arguments and evaluate those of your peers.

 

Remember that you are using ideological reasoning here. Is your post structured like an ideological argument, beginning with a general idea (opinion, belief, or principle) and moving down from these abstractions to their specific applications?

 

The text warns us that ideological arguments often fail the test of Truthfulness of the Premises. Have you tested the truth of your premises?

 

Note

 

You will be writing here about what you value highly. Others may not share your values. Indeed, you may find that someone will write something that is entirely opposed to your values. As critical thinkers and reasoners, we do not take offense because someone disagrees with us. Critical thinkers examine their own argument, and the arguments of others, objectively, rationally, and logically. Critical thinkers and reasoners do not find the opinions of others “right” or “wrong” – they find them well-supported or not well-supported.

 

Respect the opinion of your classmates. If you feel the need to disagree, do so respectfully and acknowledge the valid points in your classmate’s argument.

 

Do not write anything that sounds angry or sarcastic even as a joke, because without hearing your tone of voice, your peers might not realize you are joking.

 

The real objective here is discovering what values and beliefs are important to you and whether or not you have a sound basis for those beliefs.

 

Follow-Up Post Instructions

 

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

 

Do you agree with their answers?

 

Would you join them in going to war for the reasons they advance, or do you disagree with their reasons? Explain why.

 

Writing Requirements

 

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)

 

Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)

 

APA format for in-text citations and list of references

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 8 Discussion

 

When the People You Love Don’t Think Like You

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 16

 

Lesson

 

Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

 

Introduction

 

Facione & Gittens (2016) state, “Strong critical thinking about complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect those with whom we disagree” (p. 344). The authors of your text ask us to take seriously the points of view of those with whom we disagree.

 

Should I respect the point of view of a misogynist – a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women?

 

Should I respect the point of view of a racist?

 

How about someone who believes marriage is only between one man and one woman?

 

How about someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?

 

How about someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred?

 

Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five questions above that you find particularly repugnant – one that you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in conversation with such a person, how could you ethically respond to the statement of such a point of view? Keep in mind that you are expressing a value opinion, which requires ideological reasoning, so you may want to review Chapter 13.

 

As you form your response, keep in mind the following; these are things you need to think about but not necessarily to write about in your initial post:

 

Reflect if you are using System-1 or System-2 thinking? Are your responses tinged with cognitive bias?

 

Do you think there is a qualitative difference between believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman?

 

Do you think there is a qualitative difference between not believing in human contribution to climate change and not believing in the Holocaust?

 

Follow-Up Post Instructions

 

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

 

Writing Requirements

 

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)

 

Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)

 

APA format for in-text citations and list of references

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 1 Assignment  

 

Journal

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 1, 2, 3

 

Lesson

 

Introduction

 

The journal is an essential assignment that is meant to sum up the conclusions you come to after having reflected on the readings in the text, the online lecture, discussion posts, including your own and those of your peers, and any outside material you consult. You will probably find that you do as much or more thinking than you do writing in responding to the journal prompts – and that is perfectly okay. In general, the weekly journal should meet the noted length requirement – not including the space needed for the prompts.

 

You may feel the need to write out longer reflections – and that is also okay. If you do feel the need for longer reflections, then, once you have written them out, try to edit them, reducing them to their essence.

 

Part of this course is process – training ourselves to think critically. Part of it is learning to understand how we think and why we think or believe what we think or believe. While the journal prompts will occasionally address the process, it will more often ask you to reflect on the hows and whys of what you know and believe – or what you think you know and believe.

 

Instructions

 

For this journal assignment, briefly answer each of the following prompts:

 

Critical Thinking

 

After reading the required resources for this week and participating in the discussion, how do you define critical thinking? You will want to carry this definition with you, so keep it brief – perhaps 4 to 6 lines. You will find many definitions online – don’t be tempted to just quickly copy one; try to form your own so that it is meaningful to you.

 

Heart of the Matter

 

Considering just what is in this weeks’ readings, why do you think the authors (looking forward in the text) see Chapters 12, 13, and 14 as the “heart of the matter”?

 

What do you think they mean by that?

 

What two concepts do the authors say these chapters emphasize?

 

How do you define these concepts?

 

Why do you think the authors find these concepts important to critical thinking?

 

Challenges & Insights

 

What do you see as your greatest challenge for this session in general? For this class in particular?

 

How do you think you can use the concepts in these first three chapters to help you meet these challenges as well as challenges in your personal life as a member of your family and your community?

 

If you include references to outside sources (beyond the textbook), make sure you cite them properly.

 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

 

Length: 2-3 pages (not including title page or references page)

 

1-inch margins

 

Double spaced

 

12-point Times New Roman font

 

Title page

 

References page (as needed)

 

 

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 2 Assignment  

 

Journal

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 4, 5

 

Lesson

 

Instructions

 

Remember – these journal questions require more thinking than writing. Think about exactly what you are asked to do, and then write as economically as possible.

 

For this journal assignment, answer each of the following prompts:

 

Important Idea

 

Considering only the Introduction to Chapter 5, in terms of developing critical thinking and reasoning, what do you consider is the most valuable and important idea in that section? You can either summarize or directly quote the text; then, briefly explain why you find this idea important and valuable.

 

Critical Thinking

 

In Chapter 5, the section “Making Arguments” states: “In some ways applying our core critical thinking skills to analysis can be more difficult than offering an evaluative opinion. Analysis, like interpretation, is understanding at a deep level (p. 89)”

 

What concepts discussed in Chapter 4 might make analysis of a statement difficult – and why?

 

Beliefs

 

Why do you believe what you believe?

 

What is your “evidence”?

 

Test one of your beliefs by asking yourself, “Why?” As you answer each “why,” go down another layer – four layers will probably give you a good idea of why you believe what you believe.

 

Your product should show a well-reasoned and logical basis for your belief. Stay away from the big stuff, like believing in God, or who to vote for in the next election, and don’t look for sources – this is about what you believe and why you believe it. After all, this is only an 8-week course, and we can’t settle everything!

 

Click on the following link for an example of layers of why:

 

Link: Example of Layers of Why

 

Note

 

Don’t be tempted to skip steps. If you start with layer 5, you have just opened up a whole new line of “whys.” For example, why should everyone be afforded an opportunity to reach his or her highest potential? After all, for most of the history of the world, that has not been the case.

 

If you include references to outside sources (beyond the textbook), make sure you cite them properly.

 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

 

Length: 2 pages (not including title page or references page)

 

1-inch margins

 

Double spaced

 

12-point Times New Roman font

 

Title page

 

References page (as needed)

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 4 Assignment  

 

Journal

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 8, 9, 17 (Introduction); review Chapter 7

 

Lesson

 

Introduction

 

Remember – your actual journal entry should be somewhat brief; most of your time should be spent thinking about the questions asked and the issues raised. Your thoughts should then be distilled into a mini-argument that will respond affirmatively to the four tests for evaluating arguments: truthfulness of premises, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity.

 

Instructions

 

For this journal assignment, briefly answer each of the following prompts:

 

Inference: The differing meanings of “valid inference” and “warranted inference” are closely related to the differing purposes of deductive and inductive arguments – the purpose of deductive being to prove; the purpose of inductive to make the conclusion most probable.

 

Look up the words “valid” and “warranted.” Each of these words, you will find, has what is known as a lexical definition – that is just the dictionary definition of the word. Words also have a certain connotations – meanings that go beyond their lexical definitions; associated ideas and concepts – think of terms such a “fur baby” as the name for a pet.

 

Briefly discuss how the lexical definitions and connotations of “valid” and “warranted” can help us understand the differing purposes of deductive and inductive arguments.

 

Fallacies: In Section 8.2, the text states that there are “fallacious argument templates” (Facione & Gittens, p. 167) and then gives a number of examples. The authors further state: “Analysis of the meanings of the terms used and the grammatical rules of the language reveal the source of error” (p.167).

 

Choose one of the fallacies in this section, such as Denying the Antecedent or False Classification and pair it with the valid argument template. For example, if you choose Denying the Antecedent, the valid argument template will be Denying the Consequent. False Classification would pair with one of the fallacies in Reasoning About Classes of Objects.

 

Explain, in your own words, how the fallacy is revealed through analysis of the valid argument template. Think of it this way – if you know how the heart works, you will know that certain malfunctions will prevent it from working.  For example, if you know that the coronary arteries supply the heart with blood, then you can reason that a blockage will stop that vital flow. So this journal prompt asks you to explain, in your own words, how one of the valid argument templates work – and how that exposes the fallacy connected with that type of argument.

 

Civic Responsibility: At the end of Chapter 9 there is a Bonus Exercise that asks you to research and analyze the 2009 debate over the healthcare public option. If you were actually to complete that exercise, it would take quite a bit of time and effort.

 

Do you think that completing such an exercise would be time well spent or time wasted? If well-spent, why? If time wasted, why?

 

Is there any issue on which you think a comparable amount of time and effort would be worthwhile?

 

As a critical thinker, do you believe that citizens have an obligation to be informed on topics of current interest? If yes, why, if no, why not?

 

If you include references to outside sources (beyond the textbook), make sure you cite them properly.

 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

 

Length: 2-3 pages (not including title page or references page)

 

1-inch margins

 

Double spaced

 

12-point Times New Roman font

 

Title page

 

References page (as needed)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 5 Assignment  

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 10, 11

 

Lesson

 

Introduction

 

Remember – these journal questions require more thinking than writing. Think about exactly what you are asked to do, and then write as economically as possible. 

 

Instructions

 

For this journal assignment, briefly answer each of the following prompts. For all instances where you are required to provide a definition, do not copy definitions from the text. Use your own words.

 

Self-Regulation

 

The textbook mentions the skill of self-regulation. How do you define this term? You may want to review Chapter 2 (to review critical thinking skills) before your write out your definition.

 

Sytem-1 and System-2

 

Define System-1 and System-2 thinking in your own words.

 

Give an example from your personal or work life where you would use each of them, explaining why each is appropriate to the situation in which you use it.

 

Heuristics

 

Define “heuristic” in your own words.

 

Give an example of a heuristic might be used in your personal or professional life and briefly show how it could have a positive or negative effect.

 

Do not use examples found in the text.

 

Dominance Structuring

 

Explain the term “dominance structuring” in your own words.

 

Is dominance structuring a positive or negative attribute of critical thinking? Explain.

 

Use examples if that is helpful to your explanation.

 

Cognitive Bias

 

Briefly examine what part you think mastery of facts and understanding of data have in avoiding cognitive bias in System-1 thinking.

 

If you include references to outside sources (beyond the textbook), make sure you cite them properly.

 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

 

Length: 2-3 pages (not including title page or references page)

 

1-inch margins

 

Double spaced

 

12-point Times New Roman font

 

Title page

 

References page (as needed)

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 8 Assignment  

 

Journal

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 16

 

Lesson

 

Introduction

 

Remember – these journal questions require more thinking than writing. Think about exactly what you are asked to do, and then write as economically as possible.

 

Instructions

 

Critical Thinking

 

Go back to your very first journal entry – review your definition of critical thinking. After studying critical thinking for the past eight weeks, would you change your definition in any way? If yes, how and why? If no – if it was perfect – what parts of the text were best reflected in your definition?

 

Heart of the Matter

 

Recall in your first journal entry that you discussed the authors’ statement that the concepts in Chapters 12, 13 and 14 were “the heart of the matter.” After having studied those chapters, answer again, with renewed understanding, the question posed there: Why do you think the authors find these concepts important to critical thinking?

 

Ethical Decision-Making

 

The lecture claims that an argument is no good unless it has a “strong and reasoned ethical base.” Do you agree that ethics is an essential element of a good argument? If yes, why? If no, why not?

 

Looking Forward

 

Do you believe that you now know everything you need to know about critical thinking – or is learning to think critically a life-long task? Explain your answer.

 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

 

Length: 2-3 pages (not including title page or references page)

 

1-inch margins

 

Double spaced

 

12-point Times New Roman font

 

Title page

 

References page

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 1 Course Project  

 

Topic Selection

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 1, 2, 3

 

Lesson

 

Introduction

 

Over the eight weeks of the course, you will work on a paper that addresses a current controversial issue. This paper is to be in the form of an argument. You will select a topic, choose an issue related to that topic, thoroughly research both sides of the issue, and then write a paper that supports one side or the other of the issue. Your paper must define the issue, present evidence on both sides of the issue, and then argue that one side is stronger and more persuasive than the other. Your paper must address at least three relevant aspects of the issue. More specific directions for each part of the paper will be found within the specific assignment in the weekly modules.

 

Here is a brief breakdown of the project so that you can plan your time in the course:

 

Week

 

Task

 

Week 1

 

Topic Selection

 

Week 3

 

Issue Review (both sides)

 

Week 5

 

Thesis & Annotated Bibliography (both sides)

 

Week 7

 

Argumentative Paper

 

Instructions

 

This week, you will choose one of the following topics for your project:

 

Immigration

 

Gene therapy

 

Single-payer health care

 

Free college for everyone

 

Cancel student-loan indebtedness

 

Capital punishment

 

Universal basic income

 

Artificial intelligence

 

Care of the aging

 

Legalization of prostitution

 

Euthanasia

 

If you want to propose a different topic, you must have the consent of your instructor. When you choose a topic, think of specific issues under that topic that you will explore. Click on the following link for an example:

 

Link: Immigration Topic Example

 

For the assignment this week, address the following:

 

State the topic chosen from the list or topic approved by instructor.

 

State the specific issue you will explore.

 

This must be stated either as a question (“Should prostitution be legalized?”) or a whether-or-not statement (“Whether prostitution should be legalized”).

 

For the stated issue, state three (3) aspects of the issue that you think you will likely develop in your paper. Briefly state why you have chosen each aspect.

 

You are not confined to three aspects only, but you must develop at least three. As you develop your paper, you may find other aspects that you deem more relevant, and may add or substitute those.

 

Example: For the topic of prostitution, you might examine the aspect of personal autonomy, public health aspects, and law enforcement aspects, at a minimum.

 

Example: For the topic of free healthcare for undocumented persons, you might address economic aspects, ethical aspects, and public health aspects, at a minimum.

 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

 

Length: 1-1.5 pages (not including title page or references page)

 

1-inch margins

 

Double spaced

 

12-point Times New Roman font

 

Title page

 

References page

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 3 Course Project  

 

Issue Review

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 6, 7

 

Lesson

 

Link (website): Conducting Research (Purdue OWL) (Links to an external site.)

 

Link (website): How to Search the Library (Links to an external site.)

 

Link (website): Library Workshop Archive (Links to an external site.) (various videos about research and APA format)

 

Minimum of 6 scholarly sources

 

Introduction

 

This week you continue to work on your paper that addresses a current controversial issue. This paper is to be in the form of an argument. You have selected a topic and chosen issues related to that topic; this week, you will thoroughly research both sides of the issues you have chosen. Keep in mind that your paper must define the issue, present evidence on both sides of the issue, and then argue that one side is stronger and more persuasive than the other. Your paper must address at least three relevant aspects of the issue. More specific directions for each part of the paper will be found within the specific assignment in the weekly modules; the assignment this week is to research both the pro and con sides of the issues you have chosen to address.

 

Here is a brief breakdown of the project so that you can plan your time in the course:

 

Week

 

Task

 

Week 1

 

Topic Selection

 

Week 3

 

Issue Review (both sides)

 

Week 5

 

Thesis & Annotated Bibliography (both sides)

 

Week 7

 

Argumentative Paper

 

Instructions

 

This week, you will conduct an issue review for your selected topic for your project. Present a brief report of your research on both sides of the issue. This should include the following:

 

Citation of your sources

 

Links to the sources where available

 

Brief description of the content of each of the sources (50 to 80 words for each source)

 

Your research review should address at least three (3) aspects of the issue that is the subject of your paper and must present at least one pro and one con article review on each aspect. Sources should be scholarly or of very high substantive quality.

 

Click on the following link to view an example. The first aspect is written out completely, with APA citation and brief description of content. The next two aspects should be completely written out by you in your report, including correct APA citation and brief description of content.

 

Link: Example Issue Review

 

Because the topics vary widely, the nature of your research will also vary. If you are writing about gene therapy, for example, you will have to support your points with scholarly medical opinion. You may need to review researching techniques. Visit the research links provided in the Required Resources section in this activity for more information.

 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

 

Length: 1-2 pages (not including title page)

 

1-inch margins

 

Double spaced

 

12-point Times New Roman font

 

Title page

 

References page

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 5 Course Project  

 

Annotated Bibliography and Source Evaluation

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: review Chapter 6

 

Lesson

 

Link (website): Reading and Understanding Scholarly Literature (Links to an external site.)

 

Link (Word doc): Source Evaluation WorksheetPreview the document (Download and save doc as “[your name] Annotated Bibliography”)

 

Minimum of 5 scholarly sources (You may include sources you developed in Week 3 if they meet scholarly criteria).

 

Introduction

 

You have arrived at the third part of the Course Project. By this week, you should have collected the sources that you need to support, with relevant evidence, the position you have taken on the issue you chose, and the three aspects of the issue you will write about. This week you will submit a thesis statement and an annotated bibliography of at least five sources that you will use in your paper.

 

Here is a brief breakdown of the project so that you can plan your time in the course:

 

Week

 

Task

 

Week 1

 

Topic Selection

 

Week 3

 

Issue Review (both sides)

 

Week 5

 

Thesis & Annotated Bibliography (both sides)

 

Week 7

 

Argumentative Paper

 

Instructions

 

This week, submit the following:

 

A thesis statement stating your opinion/conclusion on the issue, the supporting points you will offer and at least one relevant opposing view you will address.

 

An annotated bibliography with evaluation of at least five (5) sources you intend to use in your final paper to support your claim.

 

These are sources that provide evidence to support that your claim should be accepted by the reader.

 

Scholarly sources are preferred and should be used where available; due to the nature of some of the topics, authoritative articles in very high quality substantive journals may also be acceptable.

 

Use the Source Evaluation Worksheet to determine the following:

 

If your source is current

 

If it is not current, explain why you think it is acceptable.

 

If your source is credible, reliable, and authoritative

 

How well your source supports your thesis

 

If the annotation does not make this obvious, explain to your instructor how you will use it.

 

If your support is popular

 

If it is, explain to your instructor why you think it is acceptable.

 

Prepare a citation, annotation, and evaluation for each source.

 

Click on the following link for an example:

 

Link: How to Complete the Source Evaluation Worksheet

 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

 

Length: 100-150 words per source for Part 1; 50-80 words per source for Part 2 (not including title page or references page)

 

1-inch margins

 

Double spaced

 

12-point Times New Roman font

 

Title page

 

References page

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 7 Course Project  

 

Argumentative Paper

 

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Textbook: Chapter 15

 

Lesson

 

Completed Week 5 Source Evaluation Worksheet (included annotated bibliography)

 

Minimum of 5 scholarly sources

 

Introduction

 

This week, all the hard work you have done in researching your topic and issue will come to fruition in your argumentative paper. Once you feel you have got the final draft, try to put the paper aside, even for a few hours, and then read it again.

 

Did you address at least three aspects of the issue you chose?

 

Does each aspect have relevant and authoritative evidence in support of your point?

 

Have you included a view that is in opposition to your viewpoint, and have you answered that opposing view, pointing out its flaws in such a way as to refute it?

 

Edit your paper – look for wordiness, repetition, vagueness, ambiguities. Check the organization of the paper as a whole; make sure each paragraph maintains focus. After you are satisfied that the content of your paper is good, carefully proofread it and correct mechanical errors.

 

Here is a brief breakdown of the project so that you can plan your time in the course:

 

Week

 

Task

 

Week 1

 

Topic Selection

 

Week 3

 

Issue Review (both sides)

 

Week 5

 

Thesis & Annotated Bibliography (both sides)

 

Week 7

 

Argumentative Paper

 

Instructions

 

This week, you will complete your argumentative paper. Following the directions in assigned textbook reading on how write an argumentative essay on the issue you chose in Week 1. Be sure your essay contains the following:

 

An opening paragraph that states a clear thesis that is focused, plausible, and arguable and that gives direction and purpose to the paper

 

A fair-minded, balanced, and objective development of the pros and cons of the issue in a well-organized sequence of ideas, free of mechanical errors

 

Credible, reliable, and authoritative evidence in support of the points made

 

A strong conclusion that summarizes your views, reminds the audience of the issue and its importance, and shows in brief that you have successfully defended your thesis

 

Note

 

As you do your research, it is permissible to change your sources. Also, because of the recency and relevance of these issues, no sources older than 5 years should be used other than as historical information. Critical thinkers do the research first and then side with the preponderance of evidence. You might want to follow that principle.

 

Writing Requirements (APA format)

 

Length: 4-6 pages (not including title page or references page)

 

1-inch margins

 

Double spaced

 

12-point Times New Roman font

 

Title page

 

References page

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 7 Course Project  

 

 

 

 

 

PHIL347N Critical Reasoning

 

Week 7 Course Project