Category: Philosophy : Critical Thinking

There are three assignments  each has it own pages!! Each assignment two pages please 
Please please read the instructions well 
Intermediate Assessment 1 – Module 4
Attached Files:

 Dolphins Show Self-Recognition Earlier Than Children – The New York Times.pdf
 Dolphins Show Self-Recognition Earlier Than Children – The New York Times.pdf – Alternative Formats
(71.115 KB) 
Some students find it challenging to move from the short, more structured examples we’ve been doing to the longer, more broad and sometimes complicated types of arguments people actually give in the world. I’m happy to look at drafts – several if needed – of this assessment before you turn it in, to ensure that you’re comfortable with the process of outlining longer arguments. It’s important that you get comfortable, so that outside of the classroom setting you’re able to utilize these skills. To that end, I’m happy to work through some more examples with you – just email me.
This assignment is designed to begin applying the concepts that we’ve learned to the types of arguments people give in the real world. This is a real argument a person made, in print. Being able to identify clearly what an argument is will then let us, going forward, develop the skills to evaluate those arguments.
Read the attached article on dolphins, then do the following:
  Put the argument in standard form.
Answer the following questions:
Is the argument inductive or deductive?
Is the argument inductively strong?
Is the argument sound?
__________________________________
Intermediate Assessment 2 – Module 
 Weigh More, Pay More by Peter Singer – Project Syndicate.pdf
 Weigh More, Pay More by Peter Singer – Project Syndicate.pdf – Alternative Formats
 (425.54 KB) 
Some students find it challenging to move from the short, more structured examples we’ve been doing to the longer, more broad and sometimes complicated types of arguments people actually give in the world. I’m happy to look at drafts – several if needed – of this assessment before you turn it in, to ensure that you’re comfortable with the process of outlining longer arguments. It’s important that you get comfortable, so that outside of the classroom setting you’re able to utilize these skills. To that end, I’m happy to work through some more examples with you – just email me.
This assignment is designed to begin applying the concepts that we’ve learned to the types of arguments people give in the real world. This is a real argument a person made, in print. Being able to identify clearly what an argument is will then let us, going forward, develop the skills to evaluate those arguments.
Read the attached article on airline weight, then do the following:
  Put the argument in standard form.
Answer the following questions:
Is the argument inductive or deductive?
Is the argument inductively strong?
Is the argument sound?
————————————————————-
Intermediate Assessment 3 – Module 4 (optional)
Attached Files:

 Why Do Men’s Legacies Matter More Than Women’s Safety_ _ by Jessica Valenti _ GEN.pdf
 Why Do Men’s Legacies Matter More Than Women’s Safety_ _ by Jessica Valenti _ GEN.pdf – Alternative Formats
 (2.216 MB) 
Some students find it challenging to move from the short, more structured examples we’ve been doing to the longer, more broad and sometimes complicated types of arguments people actually give in the world. I’m happy to look at drafts – several if needed – of this assessment before you turn it in, to ensure that you’re comfortable with the process of outlining longer arguments. It’s important that you get comfortable, so that outside of the classroom setting you’re able to utilize these skills. To that end, I’m happy to work through some more examples with you – just email me.
This assignment is designed to begin applying the concepts that we’ve learned to the types of arguments people give in the real world. This is a real argument a person made, in print. Being able to identify clearly what an argument is will then let us, going forward, develop the skills to evaluate those arguments.
Here’s one more, for those of you who would like some additional practice and the opportunity to earn some extra credit(remember, we can work through even more – all you have to do is email me):
Read the attached article by Jessica Valenti, then do the following: (Chapters 2 and 3)
 (Links to an external site.)
Put the argument in standard form. 
Answer the following questions:
Is the argument inductive or deductive?
Is the argument inductively strong?
Is the argument sound

Read Thomas Nagel’s “The Absurd” Make sure you understand
Nagel’s main point about absurdity as well as his other, related arguments.
2. Write an essay on ONE of the following topics.
a. Do you agree with Nagel’s distinction between ordinary and philosophical types of
absurdity?
First, and most importantly, you should give a careful exposition of Nagel’s argument. This should constitute approximately 1/2 of your essay. Make sure that your exposition is focused. In other words, if you are dealing with one part of Nagel’s argument, there is no need for you to summarize the whole paper. You are partly being evaluated on your ability to focus your paper on the topic that you are interested in. Ask yourself: What is the structure of Nagel’s argument? What are his premises? What are his conclusions? What support does he offer for his premises? (You may, if you wish, set out part of all of Nagel’s argument in standard form, as part of your exposition. But if you do this, you must still describe the argument: in
other words, the standard form cannot be the entirety of your exposition.)
2. Critical Evaluation
Second, you should offer a critical evaluation of exactly one part or aspect of Nagel’s
argument. This should come in the second part of your essay, after the exposition, and should constitute approximately 1/2 of your essay. Your critical evaluation should be narrowly focused, and should be directed specifically at one aspect of Nagel’s argument. Your critical evaluation might, for instance, address one of the following questions: How well does Nagel set out his topic? Are there defects in either his conception of the topic or of the relevant notions involved? (Be specific.) How successful is one part or aspect of Nagel’s argument? (Be specific.). Does Nagel’s conclusion follow logically from his premises? Why, or why not? (Be specific.)

Textbook: Chapter 12
Lesson 1, 2
The Doctors’ Choice is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930-1953Links to an external site.
The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It BelongsLinks 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.

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: 1 ½ -2 pages (not including prompts, title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (as needed)

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: 1 ½ -2 pages (not including prompts, title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (as needed)

Textbook: Chapter 8, 9, 17 (Introduction)
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Find and post examples of deductive and inductive arguments. Do NOT use an argument example which clearly indicates it is an example of an inductive/deductive argument.
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.
Minimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 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

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.