Week 4 Assignment: Journal Valid inference
Week 4 Assignment: Journal Valid inference
Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity:
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:
Textbook: Chapter 8, 9, 17 (Introduction); review Chapter 7 Lesson
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.
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).
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.
Choose one of the fallacies in this section, such as Denying the Antecedent or False
Top
!
7/30/20, 8:16 PM Page 1 of 5
If you include references to outside sources (beyond the textbook), make sure you cite them properly.
Writing Requirements (APA format)
Grading This activity will be graded using the Journal Grading Rubric.Week 4 Assignment: Journal Valid inference
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.
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.
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?
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)
7/30/20, 8:16 PM Page 2 of 5
Journal Grading Rubric – 35 pts
Criteria Ratings Pts
5.0 pts
15.0 pts
Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 4, 5, 6
Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
References
Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Length 5.0 pts Meets length requirement
0.0 pts Does not meet length requirement
Content Reflection
15.0 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
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,
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,
9.0 pts Reflection lacks critical thinking. Superficial connections are made with key course concepts and course materials, activities, and/or assignments.
0.0 pts Little or no reflection; copies or repeats text or lecture.
7/30/20, 8:16 PM Page 3 of 5
10.0 pts
contextual explanations, inferences, and examples.
and/or examples.
inferences, and/or examples.
Personal Growth
10.0 pts 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 through inferences made, examples, well developed insights, and substantial depth in perceptions and challenges. Synthesizes current experience
8.5 pts 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, examples, insights, and challenges. Some thought of the future implications of current experience.
7.5 pts 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 inferences made, examples, insights, and/or challenges that are not well developed. Minimal thought of the future implications of current experience.
6.0 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 with negligible personal impact. Lacks enough inferences, examples, personal insights and challenges, and/or future implications are overlooked.
0.0 pts No evidence of reflection. Week 4 Assignment: Journal Valid inference
