Modesto Junior College

Modesto Junior College

PHILO 105, REASONING

SPRING TERM, 2002

Dr. Joseph Monast

104 C Founders Hall

MJC East Campus

Phone: 575-6124

Email: monastj@yosemite.cc.ca.us

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION: Critical Thinking introduces a student to the basic elements of argumentation. It focuses on the analysis, evaluation, and development of claims and arguments as these appear in the sciences, the humanities, the social sciences, the applied sciences, and everyday life. The course will strengthen the student's abilities to analyze, evaluate, and develop claims and arguments.

II. TEXTBOOK: Brooke Moore and Richard Parker, Critical Thinking, 6^th ed. (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2001).

III. COURSE ADMINISTRATION

III A. Homework: Homework assignments (both reading and written exercises) are due at the beginning of the class

period for which assigned. I will collect many homework exercises. Homework not turned-in will result in a

recorded score of zero. Without prior notice I will grade a significant number of the homework assignments.

Late submission of homework assignments is not allowed. You must explain each answer to each homework

item; you must explain even when the textbook does not ask you to explain. Any item not explained gets no

credit. The answers to some items are in the back of the book. You should complete these items before

checking the answers; whenever you answer an item incorrectly, determine why you missed it; find the correct

information in Moore and Parker and/or talk with me. Answers in the back of the book are for you to use to

check your work; they are not there for you to copy. Copied responses get no credit. On occasion I may give

you a quiz on topics covered by the homework; these quizzes will count as homework grades. I may or may

not announce quizzes in advance.

Please note: It is customary and appropriate for university students to make marginal notes and

otherwise mark textbooks. However, please refrain from marking answers to exercises in your textbook.

Review of the exercises will be a very effective means for studying for exams; such review will be most

helpful if you do not have answers written in the margins. In addition, marking answers in your book will be

disadvantageous to others who may use your book if you sell it at the end of the term. You may, of course,

wish to record correct answers in some other place for use in study and practice.

III B. Grading:

To determine your final grade, the graded items will be weighted according to the following scale:

Grading Components Letter Values

Graded exercises (homework) 20% A 90-100

Essays 20% B 80-89

First exam 10% C 70-79

Second exam 15% D 60-69

Third exam 15% F Less than 60

Comprehensive final exam 20%

100%

(1) Any assignment that is not turned in on time (ie. at the beginning of the class period on which it is due) and for

which I have not agreed in advance to a late submission, gets a score of zero.

(2) Grading standards are as follows: A correct and complete item gets an "A"; one that otherwise meets the

standard for an "A" but that has minor mistakes and/or blemishes of expression gets a "B"; one that

does an adequate basic job and misses no more than one important point gets a "C"; one with serious

omissions or errors, but that does express some important points gets a "D"; and, anything below that

gets an "F". Standard English usage is considered in assigning grades.

III C. Exams - At least 50% of all test items will be exercises taken directly from the Moore and Parker text, and all

test items will be derived from the objectives stated in this syllabus. Each test question will specifically

identify the objective being tested. Hence, the best preparation for the exams is to write responses to the

objectives as a study guide, and to complete as many exercises as you can beyond the ones that are assigned.

III D. Essay Resources: Some of the essay assignments require that you find resource material and all of the essay

assignments can involve the use of such references. Unless otherwise approved by me in advance, you may

only use resources published after November 1, 2001.

III E. Essay Guidelines: Each essay must be typed or written clearly in blue or black ink on white paper.

Requirements for each of the essay assignments in the course are listed below. (I may add to or modify these

lists.) The requirements are different for each essay. These requirements are stated in the form of questions.

To meet the requirements you should be able to answer "yes" to each question in checking your essay. I will

use these lists and the grading standards to determine your grade for each essay.

(1) Area 3: MISTAKES IN REASONING: FAKE REASONING

(a) Is the essay typed or written clearly in blue or black ink on white paper?

(b) Is the source attached?

(d) Does the source advocate a conclusion; not simply make a report, etc.?

(e) Does the essay state the issue?

(f) Does the essay state the side of the issue (the conclusion) that is advocated by the source?

(g) Does the essay state a mistake in reasoning that is made in the source?

(h) Does the essay explain why the source does not really support its conclusion, ie., does the essay

explain the mistake in reasoning made by the source?

(i) Does the essay either describe another conclusion supported by the source, or state that no other

conclusion is supported by the source?

(2) Area 7: EXPLANATIONS

(a) Is the essay typed or written clearly in blue or black ink on white paper?

(b) Is the source attached?

(d) Does the source present an explanation?

(e) Does the essay state the phenomenon explained in the source?

(f) Does the essay describe the explanation given in the source?

(g) Does the essay evaluate the explanation given in the source based on each of the criteria listed in

the syllabus, Area 2, Objective 7?

(h) Does the essay either compare alternative explanations, or state that only one explanation is

given in the source?

(3) Area 8: UNDERSTANDING AND EVALUATING ARGUMENTS

(a) Is the essay typed or written clearly in blue or black ink on white paper?

(b) Is the first sentence (the essay's conclusion) stated correctly (as given in the assignment)?

(d) Does the essay evaluate the truth of the premises of the assigned argument?]

(e) Does the essay evaluate the support the premises of the argument from exercise 8-16 give to the

conclusion of the argument from exercise 8-16?

(f) Does the essay's argument support its conclusion (as stated in the first sentence)?

Note: Repeat steps (a) thru (f) for a second unanswered item.

(4) Area 11: MORAL ARGUMENTS

(a) Is the essay typed or written clearly in blue or black ink on white paper?

(b) Is the first sentence the conclusion?

(d) Are the premises either probably true or true beyond a reasonable doubt?

(e) Is there at least one general moral prescriptive premise in the argument?

(f) Is/are the moral prescriptive premise(s) supportable on the basis of moral reasoning? (This

means you must use moral reasoning in this essay. Mystical, spiritual, or religious claims; or claims

about "higher powers"; or claims about the political, moral, or legal beliefs or standards of any group,

culture, or society; or claims about how you or someone "feels" are descriptive claims about a source

and do not meet the reasoning requirements of this assignment. Such issues will be addressed in the

discussion of area 11. But the basic idea is that once you give reasons (not descriptive claims about a

source) to support, for example, a claim like "Lying is wrong" in a particular situation, then you are

engaging in moral reasoning. And moral reasoning is what this assignment, and this part of the

course, are about.)

(g) Do the premises support the conclusion?

(h) Does the essay consider reasons that support at least one alternative to the essay's conclusion,

and does the essay respond to these reasons?

III F. Attendance: Class attendance and participation are important in this class, as in your other classes. My

policy is to consider over 6 hours (2 class weeks) of unexcused absences as excessive, and I reserve the

right to withdraw from the class those students who exceed this. [If your absences are ones I would

consider legitimately worthy of excuse, make certain you contact me as soon as possible.] Although I

intensely dislike tardiness and strongly discourage it, I do not intend to count tardies as absences, although I

do reserve the right to change that policy if tardiness proves to be a problem..

III G. Responsibility for Assignments: Students are responsible for all course material from the first day of class to

the last day of the semester; this includes material missed due to late registration and/or excused absences, and

all assignments whether or not discussed in class.

III H. Class meeting structure: The major focus in this course is to produce as much student practice relevant to

objectives as possible. To that end there are few lectures. Graded homework is required in advance of

class discussion. I spend class time working with students (usually in small groups) on exercises. I intend

to provide explanations only in response to questions, and then immediately return students to the

completion of exercises.

IV. COURSE OBJECTIVES AND COURSE OUTLINE NOTES: Some of the objectives (marked with an

asterisk, *) can be answered directly; you should prepare written answers to these objectives in preparation

for exams. The remaining objectives require response to exercises, and practice with these exercises is the

other method needed to prepare for exams. Finally, many objectives require both kinds of response

(written answer and practice with exercises). Completing homework assignments will make this clear.

You should note that each homework assignment is matched to objectives, and the objectives also match

planned classroom activities, essays, and each test item.

Area 1: WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

*1. Distinguish claims from other types of verbal expressions, such as questions, commands, and exclamations.

*2. Define critical thinking.

*3. Distinguish premises and conclusions.

*4. Explain the relationships between logic and critical thinking.

5. Identify three purposes for which claims are made: a. to convey information, b. to affect our attitudes,

c. to influence our behavior.

*6. Distinguish claims supported by reasons from those not supported by reasons.

*7. Define the term issue.

*8. Explain the relationship between an issue and an argument.

9. Distinguish the issues addressed by specific arguments.

*10. Define the term argument.

*11. State the rule for distinguishing matters of fact from matters of pure opinion.

12. Distinguish matters of fact and matters of pure opinion.

Area 2: MISTAKES IN REASONING: NONARGUMENTATIVE PERSUASION

1. Identify nonargumentative persuasive devices within claims or arguments.

2. Identify several linguistic devices employed in the slanting of information: a. Euphemisms; b. Dysphemisms; c. Innuendo; d. Loaded Questions; e. Weaselers; f. Downplayers; g. Proof Surrogates; h. Stereotypes;

i. Hyperbole; j. Persuasive Definitions; k. Persuasive Explanations; l. Persuasive Comparisons

3. Apply critical listening and watching skills to electronic media news reports.

4. Analyze nonargumentative persuasive devices.

5. Assess additional sources of information in responding to advertising claims.

Area 3: MISTAKES IN REASONING: FAKE REASONING (PSEUDOREASONING I)

1. Identify "pseudoreasoning" techniques such as: a. Smokescreen/Red herring b. Subjectivist fallacy; c. Appeal

to belief; d. Wishful thinking; e. Scare tactics; f. Appeal to pity; g. Peer pressure; h. Bandwagon;

i. Apple polishing (Appeal to vanity); j. Horse laugh/Ridicule; k. Appeal to spite or indignation; l. Two

wrongs make a right; m. Appeal to common practice

2. Analyze pseudoreasoning techniques and their effects.

3. Apply knowledge of pseudoreasoning techniques to specific examples or passages by: a. Stating the main issue;

b. Identifying the feeling or sentiment evoked; c. Stating whether the feeling or sentiment is relevant to

the main issue; d. Explaining particular types of pseudoreasoning used; e. Determining the credibility of

claim(s) based on the above (a thru d) analysis.

Area 4: MISTAKES IN REASONING: MORE FAKE REASONING (PSEUDOREASONING II)

1. Cite in examples pseudoreasoning patterns (patterns less dependent upon emotional appeal than those outlined

above, such as: a. Ad hominem fallacy [(1) Personal attack; (2) Circumstantial ad hominem;

(3) Pseudorefutation; (4) Genetic fallacy; (5) Poisoning the well]; b. Burden of proof fallacy;

c. Straw man fallacy; d. False dilemma [ (1) Perfectionist fallacy; (2) Line drawing fallacy];

e. Slippery slope fallacy; f. Begging the question

2. Sort out elements of pseudoreasoning and reasoning in examples of decision making.

3. Evaluate in examples the influence of certain pseudoreasoning patterns as they affect actions on claims.

Area 5: CLARITY

1. Cite in examples typical sources of unclarity in claims: ambiguity, vagueness, and complexity of language.

2. Recognize in examples types of ambiguity in ambiguous claims: semantical, syntactical, and grouping.

3. Restate ambiguous claims in an unambiguous manner.

4. Evaluate claims according to unclarity or precision.

5. Distinguish ambiguity and vagueness.

6. Use the following questions to evaluate comparisons:

a. Is important information missing?

b. Is the same standard of comparison used for both terms?

c. Are the same reporting and recording practices being used?

d. Are the items comparable?

e. If the comparison is expressed as an average, have important details been omitted? What kind of

average is being expressed?

Area 6: EVALUATING CLAIMS

1. Distinguish the possible relationships between any two claims (contradictory, contrary, not conflicting.

*2. Define two kinds of possible conflict between any two claims (contradictory, contrary).

3. Recognize the relationship between any two claims (i.e, either contradictory, or contrary, or not conflicting).

*4. State conditions that generally speaking make it reasonable to accept an unsupported informative claim.

*5. Explain the single most effective means of increasing our ability as critical thinkers.

*6. State our most reliable source of information.

*7. State at least eight factors that may reduce the reliability of a person's observations.

*8. Explain the relationship between observation and memory.

9. Apply the factors or resources suggested by Moore and Parker in assessing the credibility of the following

sources of unsupported claims: a. an expert's report (5 factors); b. a report of an observer (at least 6

factors); c. a reference work (one resource); d. a government publication (two resources); e. a news

media report (at least 6 factors)

*10. Distinguish the kinds of activity involved in evaluating the credibility of unsupported informative claims.

11. Assess the credibility of the source of an unsupported claim using the factors suggested by Moore and Parker.

(education, experience, accomplishments, reputation, position).

*{12. Explain why it is generally speaking true but not always nor necessarily true that is reasonable to accept an

unsupported informative claim if it issues from a credible source and does not conflict with (1) what you

have observed, (2) your background information, or (3) other creditable claims.}

Area 7: EXPLANATIONS

*1. Distinguish an argument from an explanation.

2. Evaluate explanations based on:

*a. noncircularity [does not repeat the phenomenon in other words]

*b. testability [subject to checking; no ad hoc hypotheses]

*c. relevance [makes prediction(s)]

*d. freedom from excessive vagueness [is specific and gives more information than the phenomenon]

*e. reliability [does not lead to prediction(s) that turn-out to be false]

*f. explanatory power [accounts for more than alternative competing explanation(s)]

*g. freedom from unnecessary assumptions [makes fewer assumptions than alternative competing

explanations]

*h. consistency with well-established theory [does not conflict with well-established theory]

*i. absence of alternative explanations [does not ignore plausible alternative explanations of the

phenomenon being explained]

j. reasons stated in your own words

*3. Distinguish and recognize examples of the following:

a. physical explanations

b. behavioral explanations

c. functional explanations

d. explanatory comparisons (analogies)

e. arguments

(1) justifications

*4. Distinguish phenomena and explanations, i.e., distinguish (a) the thing being explained and (b) the explanation.

5. Recognize what an argument is supposed to be proving.

Area 8: UNDERSTANDING AND EVALUATING ARGUMENTS

*1. Define the terms conclusion, premise, and good argument.

2. Identify conclusions and conclusion indicators.

3. Identify premises and premise indicators.

*4. Distinguish dependent reasons from independent reasons.

*5. Distinguish deductive arguments from inductive arguments.

*6. Distinguish valid arguments from strong arguments.

*7. Distinguish sound arguments from valid arguments; and, from unsound arguments.

8. Evaluate conclusions and premises of arguments as:

a. true beyond a reasonable doubt (accept)

b. probably true (accept)

c. possibly true or possibly false (suspend judgement)

d. probably false (reject)

e. false beyond a reasonable doubt (reject)

9. Identify unstated claims for arguments.

10. Diagram arguments using the procedure presented by Moore and Parker.

11. Develop arguments that support their conclusions as either: (a) true beyond a reasonable doubt, or

(b) probably true.

*12. Distinguish the valid argument pattern, Modus Ponens, from the invalid pattern of affirming the consequent.

*13. Distinguish the valid argument pattern, Modus Tollens, from the invalid pattern of denying the antecedent.

14. Recognize the valid argument pattern of chain argument.

Chapter 8 Review

Directions: Please answer true or false and then support your answers.

1. In an inductive argument, the premises are meant to provide good but not conclusive grounds for the

conclusion.

2. If an argument is valid, then it is strong.

3. If an argument has true premises and a true conclusion, then it must be valid.

4. In a valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true.

5. In an invalid argument, the conclusion might be false even if the premises are true.

6. An invalid argument may have true premises and a true conclusion.

7. If an argument is strong, then its conclusion has to be true if its premises are true.

8. A valid argument may have false premises and a false conclusion.

9. A sound argument may have a false premise or be invalid.

10. If an argument has a false premise, then that means the argument's conclusion is false.

11. The following argument is invalid: All politicians are Democrats. Davis is a politician, so he is a

Democrat.

12. The following argument is sound: Everytime I've ever used this washing machine it's worked fine.

Probably, therefore, it'll work fine when I use it this time.

Area 9: INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

*1. Define analogical argument, sample, target, target population, property (in question), generalization, representativeness, bias, random sample, statistical generalization, error margin, confidence level.

2. Evaluate inductive arguments (both analogical arguments and inductive generalization) based on the following criteria:

a. The larger the sample, the stronger the argument. (No hasty generalization.)

b. The greater percentage of the sample that has the property in question, the stronger the argument. (No

anecdotal evidence.)

c. The greater the number of similarities between the target and the members of the sample, the stronger

the argument.

d. Except for the property in question, the greater the diversity within the sample, the stronger the

argument. (No biased generalization.)

e. The less narrow the conclusion (ie. the wider the range of possibilities the conclusion admits), the

stronger the argument.

3. Identify characteristics of a sample that create bias, or reduce confidence level, or increase margin of error.

4. Identify the following fallacies: hasty generalization, anecdotal evidence, biased generalization.

5. Apply a Table of Error Margins to the evaluation of inductive generalizations.

Area 10: CAUSAL ARGUMENTS

1. Identify causal claims.

2. Distinguish between claims about causation for individual events and claims about causation regarding populations.

3. Evaluate causal arguments regarding individual events as follows:

(a) Identify the causal claim(s).

(b) Identify the causal descriptive pattern as

(1) X is the difference (legitimate causal reasoning); or

(2) X is the common thread (legitimate causal reasoning); or

(3) fallacy of ignoring a common cause.

(4) fallacy of assuming a common cause; or

(5) fallacy of reverse causation; or

(6) post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

(d) Invent plausible alternative causal explanations.

(e) Based on the above steps describe the causal claim(s) as:

(1) true beyond a reasonable doubt.

(2) probably true.

(3) possibly true, possibly false: The conclusion is left an open question since the argument

neither gives it support nor gives reason to conclude it is false.

(4) probably false.

(5) false beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Evaluate "X is the difference" causal arguments by checking whether the suspected cause (X) is the only relevant

factor that distinguishes the situation(s) in which the effect occurs from situation(s) in which the effect does

not occur.

5. Evaluate "X is the common thread" causal arguments by responding to both of the following:

(a) Is the suspected cause (x) the only relevant common factor preceding the occurrences of the effect?

(b) Are there any likely independent factors that could cause the effect.

6. Evaluate causal arguments regarding populations as follows:

(a) Identify the causal claim(s).

(b) Identify the target population.

(1) controlled cause to effect experiment; or

(2) nonexperimental cause-to-effect study; or

(3) nonexperimental effect-to-cause study.

(d) Summarize the differences between the experimental and control groups, including size.

(e) Identify the frequency of the effect in the experimentaland control groups. (For nonexperimental

effect-to-cause studies, identify the frequency of the cause in the experimental and control

groups.)

(f) Identify the statistical significance of the findings.

(g) Identify unreported aspects and/or weaknesses of the investigation.

(h) Identify the causal claim supported by the investigation as compared with the reported causal claim.

(i) Based on the above steps describe the causal claim(s) as:

(1) true beyond a reasonable doubt.

(2) probably true.

(3) possibly true, possibly false; the conclusion is left an open question since the argument neither

gives it support nor gives reason to conclude it is false.

(4) probably false.

(5) false beyond a reasonable doubt.

Area 11: MORAL ARGUMENTS

*1. Distinguish descriptive claims, nonmoral presciptive claims, and moral prescriptive claims.

2. Identify the various kinds of values expressed by prescriptive claims such as moral and aesthetic values.

3. Demonstrate the ability to use properly the words should, ought, right, and wrong in their respective nonmoral as well as moral senses.

4. Derive an "ought" from an "is" statement which has implications of moral value or moral obligation by filling in the missing or implied premise in such an argument.

5. Characterize and evaluate utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and Kant's duty theory.

6. Explain how a utilitarian, a virtue ethicist, and a Kantian duty theorist would reason about particular moral questions.

7. Ascertain the relative strength of various arguments of moral reasoning.

8 Apply moral reasoning to moral questions or problems.

Topics for Essay Four::

1. Which is better, for one innocent person to be punished for murder, or for ten murderers to go free?

2. Should contraceptives be made easily available to everyone under 16?

3. Should you inform your lover if you had one-time sex with someone else and there is no chance that

your lover will find out about it?

4. Are there any situations in which it is right to hurt another human being physically?

5. Could there be situations in which it would be right for your university's administration to censor your

student newspaper?

6. Is it right to terminate an engagement with someone because he or she has been in an accident and will

be an invalid for life?

7. A woman's husband and her child have both ingested deadly mushrooms, and there is only enough

antidote for her to save one of them. Should she save her husband's life?

8. Is it morally acceptable for women pose in the nude for sex magazines?