Week 4 Assignment: Journal
- Due Sunday by 11:59pm
- Points 35
- Submitting a file upload
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
- Textbook: Chapter 8, 9, 17 (Introduction); review Chapter 7
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.
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.
- 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)
This activity will be graded using the Journal Grading Rubric.
Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 4, 5, 6
Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Journal Grading Rubric – 35 ptsJournal Grading Rubric – 35 ptsCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength5.0 ptsMeets length requirement0.0 ptsDoes not meet length requirement5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent Reflection15.0 ptsReflection demonstrates a high degree of critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions activities, and/or assignments. Insightful and relevant connections made through contextual explanations, inferences, and examples.12.75 ptsReflection demonstrates some degree of critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and/or evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions activities, and/or assignments. Connections made through explanations, inferences, and/or examples.11.25 ptsReflection demonstrates limited critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and/or evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions, activities, and/or assignments. Minimal connections made through explanations, inferences, and/or examples.9.0 ptsReflection lacks critical thinking. Superficial connections are made with key course concepts and course materials, activities, and/or assignments.0.0 ptsLittle or no reflection; copies or repeats text or lecture.15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePersonal Growth10.0 ptsConveys strong evidence of reflection on own work with a personal response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates significant personal growth and awareness of deeper meaning through inferences made, examples, well developed insights, and substantial depth in perceptions and challenges. Synthesizes current experience into future implications.8.5 ptsConveys evidence of reflection on own work with a personal response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates satisfactory personal growth and awareness through some inferences made, examples, insights, and challenges. Some thought of the future implications of current experience.7.5 ptsConveys limited evidence of reflection on own work in response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates less than adequate personal growth and awareness through few or simplistic inferences made, examples, insights, and/or challenges that are not well developed. Minimal thought of the future implications of current experience.6.0 ptsConveys inadequate evidence of reflection on own work in response to the self-assessment questions posed. Personal growth and awareness are not evident and/or demonstrates a neutral experience with negligible personal impact. Lacks enough inferences, examples, personal insights and challenges, and/or future implications are overlooked.0.0 ptsNo evidence of reflection.10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Quality5.0 ptsWell written and clearly organized using standard English, characterized by elements of a strong writing style and basically free from grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling errors.4.25 ptsAbove average writing style and logically organized using standard English with minor errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling.3.75 ptsAverage and/or casual writing style that is sometimes unclear and/or with some errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling.3.0 ptsPoor writing style lacking in standard English, clarity, language used, and/or frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling. Needs work.0.0 ptsLacks coherence; errors in grammar, usage and spelling interfere with readability and understanding to significant degree.5.0 pts
Total Points: 35.0PreviousNext