Question.1615 - R e q u i r e d R e s o u r c e s Read/review the following resources for this activity: Textbook: Chapter 8, 9, 17 (Introduction); review Chapter 7 Lesson I n t r o d u c t i o n 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. I n s t r u c t i o n s 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 ? ?04/08/2023, 09:27 Week 4: Journal https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/127112/assignments/4125377 2/5 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. Wr i t i n g R e q u i r e m e n t s ( A PA f o r m a t ) Length: 1 ½ -2 pages (not including prompts, title page or references page) 1-inch margins Double spaced 12-point Times New Roman font04/08/2023, 09:27 Week 4: Journal https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/127112/assignments/4125377 3/5 Journal Grading Rubric - 35 pts Title page References page (as needed) G r a d i n g This activity will be graded using the Journal Grading Rubric. O u t c o m e s CO 3: Analyze deductive and inductive reasoning structures. CO 4: Evaluate arguments by applying tests of truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. CO 5: Evaluate the role of cognitive bias and fallacies of relevance in critical reasoning and decision-making. CO 6: Apply principles of critical reasoning to political, educational, economic, and/or social issues. D u e D a t e By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday R e f e r e n c e s Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Pearson.04/08/2023, 09:27 Week 4: Journal https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/127112/assignments/4125377 4/5 Criteria Ratings Pts 5 pts 15 pts 10 pts Length 5 pts Meets length requirement 0 pts Does not meet length requirement Content Reflection 15 pts Reflection 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 e x am ples. 12.75 pts Reflection 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 exa m ples. 11.25 pts Reflection 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 exa m ples. 9 pts Reflection lacks critical thinking. Superficial connections are made with key course concepts and course materials, activities, and/or assignments. 0 pts Little or no reflection; copies or repeats text or lecture. Personal Growth 1 0 p ts Conveys 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 8.5 p ts Conveys 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, 7.5 p ts Conveys 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 6 pts Conveys 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 0 pts No evidence of reflection.04/08/2023, 09:27 Week 4: Journal https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/127112/assignments/4125377 5/5 Total Points: 35 Criteria Ratings Pts 5 pts through inferences made, examples, well developed insights, and substantial depth in perceptions and c hal lenges. Syn thes izes cu rren t e x pe rie n ce into future im p l icat ions. examples, insights, and challenges. Some thought of the future implications of current experience. inferences made, examples, insights, and/or challenges that are not well developed. Minimal thought of the fu ture im p li cations of cu rre n t e x p er ie nce. with negligible personal impact. Lacks enough inferences, examples, personal insights and challenges, and/or future implications a re o v er lo oked. Writing Quality 5 pts W e ll wr itten a nd c le arly o rgan i z ed using s tan d ard English, characterized by elements of a strong writing style and basically free from grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling errors. 4.25 pts Above average writing style and logically organized using standard English with minor errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling. 3.7 5 pts Ave rag e and /o r ca sual wr it ing s tyle that is sometimes unclear and/or with some errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling. 3 pts Poo r writing style lack ing in standard English, clarity, language used, and/or frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling. Needs work. 0 pts Lacks coherence; errors in grammar, usage and spelling interfere with readability and understanding to significant degree.
Answer Below:
INFERENCE Associated ideas and concepts When the tires of the bicycle had holes in them, Ben desired new tires for his bicycle. Ben bought a pair of new tires for his cycle from a supermarket, after searching and considering many shops and options, to find the correct tires for his cycle, now Ben had been satisfied with fulfilling his requirements (Cesana et al., 2018). The practical value moderately defines the value present in Ben, as when the comprehensive demands or requirements sought by the people were remarkably fulfilled by invading the right choice, making a poor condition calmer and easier to understand. Valid implies acceptable through some principles or laws whereas warranted implies assurance or guarantee of something (yourdictionary.com, 2023). The lexical definitions and connotations of valid can be applied in inductive arguments, as it means accepting or justifying something based on principles and laws. Inductive arguments intend to give probability and if the argument is valid, the reasoning will be true. This is the reason why validity is associated with the inductive argument (degruyter.com, 2023). The connotations and lexical definitions of warrant can be applied in deductive argument as it gives a guarantee or surety of something. Deductive arguments intend to give assurance or certainty and if the arguments are warranted, the reasoning will be true. This is the reason why warranted assurance is associated with a deductive argument (iep.utm.edu, 2023). FALLACIES Here, denying the Antecedent fallacy had been chosen and it is paired with the valid argument template of denying the Consequent. Denying the Antecedent is a logical fallacy, here a conditional statement is approved for example, if antecedent and then Consequent. If the antecedent is rejected then the Consequent will also be rejected. This fallacy lies in the supposition that a situation being wrong spontaneously makes the outcome wrong which is not always true. One example of the antecedent is: If it is showering then the flow is damp. If it is not showering, the flow is not damp. The example is a fallacy because there can be oh her reasons for damping the floor (palomar.edu, 2023). Understanding how denying the Antecedent functions helps to understand the fallacy in denying the Consequent. The refusal of the situation doesn't logically lead to the refusal of the outcome, as the outcome can be caused by other situations and this is the condition when fallacies lie. CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY Prompt 1 If anyone is interested in politics, policies of healthcare, or history, then such an exercise could be considered a well-spent time. It will give a better knowledge and understanding of the events. But if anyone is not interested in these topics or these are not related to their studies or career, then it might be a waste of time. Prompt 2 Some many issues or problems could require a sufficient amount of effort and time. The issue depends on choice, interest, career goals, or academic focus. Some examples involved are- The role of function of technological advancement in the education system The impact of social media or the internet on the mental health of children and adults (Moubayed et al., 2020) The alteration of the climate and its effect on the worldwide economy. Prompt 3 As a critical thinker, it is surely important to be informed or knowledgeable on the content of current interest because it permits a person to appeal to knowledgeable debates and discussions, serving a more developed society. It also permits a person to make their point of view based on evidence and facts. It also gives a person the potential to make decisions related to their daily life, choices, career and voting (psyche.co, 2023). Reference Cesana-Arlotti, N., Martin, A., Teglas, E., Vorobyova, L., Cetnarski, R., and Bonatti, L. L. (2018, March 15). Precursors of logical reasoning in preverbal human infants. Science, 359(6381), pp. 1263-1266. 10.1126/science. aao3539 degruyter.com, (2020), Models of Lexical Meaning, https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110440577-010/html#:~:text=In%20this%20chapter%2C%20we%20discuss,%2C%20symbolic%2C%20conceptual%20and%20distributional. iep.utm.edu (2023), Deductive and inductive arguments, https://iep.utm.edu/deductive-inductive-arguments/#:~:text=Deductive%20arguments%20are%20and%20always,the%20conclusion%20will%20be%20also Moubayed, A., Injadat, M., Shami, A. and Lutfiyya, H., 2020. Student engagement level in an e-learning environment: Clustering using k-means. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(2), pp.137-156. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08923647.2020.1696140 palomar.edu, (2023), fallacy, https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/What%20is%20a%20Fallacy.html#:~:text=This%20argument%20is%20clearly%20valid,valid%20arguments%20can%20be%20fallacious. psyche.co, (2023), Moral responsibility, https://psyche.co/ideas/on-the-moral-responsibility-to-be-an-informed-citizen yourdictionary.com, (2023), valid, https://www.yourdictionary.com/validMore Articles From Philosophy
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
