1.

Question :

(TCO 1) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term critical

thinking. Critical thinking is made critical by
Student Answer:

careful and deliberate work without guidance.

an analytic process unrelated to issues.
coming up with claims, true or otherwise.
applying common sense to complex problems.
guiding us about critiquing thinking.

Instructor Explanation:

Points Received:

Chapter 1, page 3. Definition of critical thinking

4 of 4

Comments:

Question 2.

Question :

(TCO 1, 2, 4) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term issue.

The first order of business when it comes to thinking critically about
an issueis:
Student Answer:

formulating a proposal.
discovering what side youre on.
determining exactly what the issue is.
realizing that all claims are equally valid.

Instructor Explanation:

Points Received:

Chapter 1, pages 6 7. Definition of issue

4 of 4

Comments:

Question 3.

Question :

(TCO 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the

term argument. The two parts of an argument are:
Student Answer:

proposition and issue.

claim and question.

* Times are displayed in (GMT-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada)

1.

Question :

(TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical fallacy.

Name the fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is
irrelevant to the point at issue. Here is your example for this question:
An editorial says, "Taxes have jumped by more than 30% in just two
years! The governor is working for a balanced state budget, but it'll be
on the backs of us taxpayers; the people who have the very least to
spend! It seems pretty clear that these increased taxes are undermining
the social structure in this state. Anybody who isn't angry about this just
doesn't understand the situation and hasn't figured out just how
miserable they are."
Student Answer:

Instructor Explanation:

Points Received:

It can be said that the Fallacy within the example is a statement which opens up about "The way that Taxes have
gone up over 30% within the last couple of years!. This is what a fallacy is because of the reason for the rise in
taxes are not really stated in the passage and the corrective activities which are the reason for the jump. There is a
vague passage which is political in nature that seems to want the people to rise up and take some actions.

Chapter 6, page 185. This is the argument from outrage. There is also an
example of the strawman in the final sentence.

10 of 15

Comments:

Question 2.

Question :

(TCOs 5, 8) In the example below, identify the presumed cause and the
presumed effect. Does the example contain or imply a causal claim, a
hypothesis, or an explanation that cannot be tested? If it does fall into
one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due to vagueness,
circularity, or some other problem of language. Also, tell whether there
might be some way to test the situation, if it is possible at all. Here is
your example:
Our class instructor has blue eyes, because she had them in a previous
incarnation.
Student Answer:

Instructor Explanation:

Points Received:
Comments:

The explanation given here for the is an explanation that cannot be tested that person had blue eyes in a prior
can't be proven, we know that eye color is determined based on genetics . It only points to the blue eyes being
some form or some other problem of the language not based on facts. Therefore I believe that this statement is a
fallacy and can best be termed a defective statement, because of a lack of logical progression no justification as to
what is provided in the assumption.

Chapter 11, pages 350-352

Presumed cause: Having blue eyes in a previous incarnation
Presumed effect: Having blue eyes in this incarnation
Testable: No. Not testable because we cannot tell whether someone has
been in a previous incarnation

15 of 15

Question 3.

Question :

(TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement

is wrong or defective. Give reasons for your judgment.
There must be something to palm reading. Millions of people believe in
it.
Student Answer:

Instructor Explanation:

Points Received:

This statement is wrong based on the facts that majic has not been proven to be real or eveln logical. The
attribution of this causal relationships is a baseless notion between the person reading the palm and the person
having their palm read. These actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason or observation. In
some religions, folklore, and magical and superstitious beliefs, the posted idea is often looked at as some more or
closely related to religious rituals or prayer. Those that do believe is palm reading tend to be grasping at straws.

Chapter 7, pages 204-205

Everyone Knows...
Invalid argument: appeal to popularity

3 of 10

Comments:

Question 4.

Question :

(TCOs 3, 9) Moral relativism is the belief that what is right or wrong may
differ from group to group, or culture to culture. What are the difficulties
of moral relativism?
Student Answer:

Instructor Explanation:

Points Received:

Based on the information in our text book it can be said that; Moral relativism is a view that a moral judgment can
be true or false it is relative to some particular standpoint (example: that of a certain cultural period) no standpoint
is unique or privileged over others. There is a denial that there may be many universal moral values that are
shared by everyone within our society; and that we need to refrain from looking at our own society as the only
correct and moral judgment alone, this is based on a belief and a practice of looking at each and every cultures
and how they tend to stack up to other moral relativism.

Chapter 12, Moral Relativism

There are three difficulties: 1) the definition of group or culture is not clear;
2) conflicting moral views exist within groups, as well as between them; and
3) moral relativism creates self-contradictory moral positions.

3 of 10

Comments:

Question 5.

Question :

(TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation.

Does jogging keep you healthy? Two independent researchers
interested in whether exercise prevents colds interviewed 20 volunteers
about the frequency with which they caught colds. The volunteers, none
of whom exercised regularly, were then divided into two groups of 10,
and one group participated in a six-month regimen of jogging three miles
every other day. At the end of the six months, the frequency of colds
among the joggers was compared, both with that of the nonjoggers and
with that of the joggers prior to the experiment. It was found that,

compared with the nonjoggers, the joggers had 25% fewer colds. The
record of colds among the joggers also declined in comparison with their
own record prior to the exercise program.
Here are also four questions/tasks. Write a paragraph to answer each
one of them:
(1) Identify the causal hypothesis at issue.
(2) Identify what kind of investigation it is.
(3) There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in
effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups.
(4) State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report.
Student Answer:

Instructor Explanation:

Points Received:

Q) Identify the causal hypothesis at issue. A) In a nutshell the statement states that runners will catch less colds.
That the study conducted by was over a six month period, that they used 20 volunteers for the test 10 ran and 10
the did not run. They also looked at how often they ran and were the running took place at. Q) Identify what kind
of investigation it is. A) This investigation was a statistical investigation based on a control and not control group.
The group was used for the purpose of finding out weather or not a person could lower their chances of catching a
cold based on jogging in comparison to nonjoggers. Q) There are control and experimental groups. State the
difference in effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups. A) The controls for the experiment
was based over a six moth period and with 20 joggers being tested during their run time and none run times. The
jogger were also looked at based on what the runners could offer the research. This was based on a fact that they
needed the runners and non runners in the group based on the active things they did (Running and non running).
Q) State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report. A) Based on the evidence that was collected
during the experiment, it appeared that the runner were 25% less likely to get colds as compaired to the
nonrunners. The colds in the joggers also declined even more based on what was learned during testing phase.

Chapter 11, pages 351-355

Causal claim: Exercise prevents colds. The study is a controlled cause-toeffect experiment with one experimental group and two control groups. The
first control group consists of 10 nonexercising volunteers; the second
consists of the experimental group prior to the jogging program.
The experimental group had 25% fewer colds than the first control group
and some nonindicated percent fewer than the second control group. We
do not know enough about the groups or how they were chosen to tell if
there are significant differences. Given the small sizes of the groups, a d of
40% is necessary to have a statistical significance. The 25% figure is
substantial and may indicate a causal connection, but it is not enough to
convince one to take up jogging in order to prevent catching colds.

30 of 30

Comments:

Question 6.

Question :

(TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so,
answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.
Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former
Congressman] Tom DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he's mean. By
and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans
and quite often well intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to
observe, if you took all the fools out of the [Congress], it would not be a
representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong,
and vindictive behavior punishing pols for partisan reasons was simply
not done. But those are Tom DeLay's specialties, his trademarks. The
Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I'm sorry to
say, hated.

-excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram

(1) What position does the author take on the issue at hand?
(2) What rhetorical fallacies are being used in the article?
(3) If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the
argument in your own words.
A.
(1) Issue: Whether DeLay is mean and not in-line with normal behavior
among Texas politicians.
(2) Position taken: Delay is mean and is not like other Texas politicians.
(3) One claim defines vindictive behavior and then another claim is
made that DeLay often behaves vindictively, whereas most other Texas
politicians do not.
(4) By and large and quite often might be taken as weaselers. The
Hammer is a dysphemism.
Student Answer:

Points Received:

Q) What position does the author take on the issue at hand? A) The author feels that Texan Republican and former
Congressman is very mean and unprofessional. The author feels that anyone that got in the way of Tom Delay
would be road kills for the birds to pick at. The old ways in Washington DC have not changed and will not change.
Q) What rhetorical fallacies are being used in the article? A) Rhetorical Fallacy are techniques of false reasoning
(intentional or unintentional) that lead people to wrong conclusions. The main things that I took from the author is
that: It was Attacking the Person, trying to Appeal to as many readers as possible, The author joined the Crowd,
The Reasoning they had could not be justified, the article was Oversimplificatied and full of personal attacks. Q) If
the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the argument in your own words A) All politician tend
to be mean and hated by someone. The Politicians needs to work hard for all and not just a select few.

30 of 30

Comments:

Question 7.

Question :

(TCOs 7, 8) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer
the question in at least one full paragraph, giving specific reasons.
Ed likes to argue with just about anybody on just about anything. One of
his favorite arguments is against speeding laws. Why cant I go as fast
as I like? he asks. Its a free country, isnt it? I have the right, dont I?
Does Ed have a valid point?
Student Answer:

Instructor Explanation:

Points Received:
Comments:

It can be said that this is hypocritical to treat the high number of deaths from drivers that speed without them
even understanding the repercussions of driving so fast. Every ones Life is can't be measured, with that being said;
I don't think that anyone should not speed. Speeding is against the law in every state and every country. Ed argues
and states that this is a free world and everyone has the right to do as they wish. Well Ed you are wrong driving is
a previliage not a right, however; Ed knows that speed can kill and therefore; this argument needs to be based
safety of everyone that drives rather than the speeder alone. Based on this; I can say that Ed has no reason to
speed, other then he just wants to. I feel that this is fallacious argument. SLOW DOWN ED.

Chapter 3. Purposes of Definitions

Eds point is really not valid. First, he is using rhetorical definitions, not
lexical ones. His use of the words free and right
are vague and self-serving and do not correspond to common usage of the
terms. He is also relying upon emotive meanings of the words, instead of
precise meanings.

20 of 20

Question 8.

Question :

(TCOs 6, 7, 9) Read this passage below. When you have done so,
answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.
Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political
doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment
of politics. If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content,
that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won't
expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other
case, that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what?
If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to
be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political position
must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each
political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its
fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to
choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people
who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly,
making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the
rightness of a political position.
Your three questions are:
(1) What premises is the author using?
(2) What conclusions does the author come to?
(3) Does the passage contain any errors in reasoning?
Student Answer:

Instructor Explanation:

Q) What premises is the author using? A) I feel that the Premises is pointing out the following statements: Either
one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for
the commitment of politics; If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content; If we consider the
other case, that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief; If the belief is that a specific political position
is true; since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social
problems. This is the premises, that is being address to the people. Q) What conclusions does the author come to?
A) Conclusions is that many people will be will be quite content to watch a good political debate as it goes on,
many people will not expect expect anything useful to happen, from them; Any one can be intolerant of the
political beliefs, since each political position needs to be must be held to the false relative to the belief one has;
this can make it seem very rational to choose it over other alternatives; several arguments can be used as a
premises. Q) Does the passage contain any errors in reasoning? A) I think that the very first sentence has a false
notions, also sentence number four has errors. We can accept these arguments as true, the passage will follow a
Chain Hypothetical Syllogism Pattern, by which the conclusion is that one premise can lead from one to another.
The errors and the passages need to be corrected and required.

Chapter 1, Arguments
(1) Premises include the following statements: Either one thinks that there
is no reason for believing any political doctrine or one sees some reason,
however shaky, for the commitment of politics; If a person believes that
political doctrines are void of content; If we consider the other case, that
there is a patriotic justification for a political belief; If the belief is that a
specific political position is true; since each political position holds out the
promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems
(2) Conclusions include: that person will be quite content to see political
debates go on, but won't expect anything useful to come from them; one
ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political
position must be held to be false relative to the belief one has; that
makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives; plus, several
arguments are themselves used as premises.
(3) The first sentence contains a possible false dilemma, as does sentence
four. If one accepts these statements as probably true, then the passage
follows a chain hypothetical syllogism pattern by which the conclusion of
one argument becomes the premise for the next.

Points Received:
Comments:

20 of 20