W​‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​orksheet 4 Module 4 Evaluating a long-form argument Direc

By
Responsive Centered Red Button

Need Help with this Question or something similar to this? We got you! Just fill out the order form (follow the link below), and your paper will be assigned to an expert to help you ASAP.

Order Form

W​‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​orksheet 4 Module 4
Evaluating a long-form argument
Directions
For this assignment, first read the assigned online reading from The Philadelphia Inquirer listed in the
readings for this module.
You can find that reading by going to the Modules page of our course website. Then, scroll down to
Module 4. Then, click the link labelled “Click here for the readings for Module 4.”
Then, use the boxes below to do the following:
? Identify the argument’s conclusion
? Identify its main premises
? Evaluate its validity
? Evaluate the truth of its premises
? Identify the kind of argument (inductive or deductive and why)
? Make an overall judgment about whether or not the argument is “sound” and its conclusion
should be believed; or if it’s “unsound” and its conclusion can NOT be believed
Analyzing the parts of the argument (4 points)
What is the main conclusion of the argument?
Conclusion:
Identify three main premises that the author gives to support/prove that conclusion:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
Premise 3:
Evaluating the argument: validity (2 point)
Now, evaluate the argument to see if it is “valid.”
Remember what we learned in Module 3. We test for validity like this. Just assume the premises are
true. Now, if the premises are true, would they prove the conclusion is true?
(In other words, are the premises relevant to proving the conclusion?)
Is this argument a “valid” one?
Why or why not?
Evaluating the argument: truth of premises (4 points)
Now, evaluate the truth of EACH premise.
As that reading notes, you may need to do additional research to determine the truth of these premises.
If so, use APA style to cite your source or sources.
What is Premise 1? (Cut and paste from above)
Is it true? Why or why not?
What is Premise 2? (Cut and paste from above)
Is it true? Why or why not?
What is Premise 3? (Cut and paste from above)
Is it true? Why or why not?
Identifying the kind of argument (3 points)
Is the argument a deductive one or an inductive one? Why?
Coming to an overall judgment about the argument (2 points point)
At this point, you’ve evaluated the validity and truth of the argument.
Now, make an overall judgment based on that evaluation. Is this argument “sound” (meaning it is valid
AND it has true premises)? Why or why not?
In one paragraph—about 3-4 sentences—give your overall evaluation. Is this argument “sound” or
no? Why or why not?
CRITICAL THINKING• EVALUATING A LONG-FORM ARGUMENT
WELCOME!
•In this unit we will cover:
• How to evaluate a “long-form” argument
REVIEW: WHY DOES CRITICAL THINKING
MATTER?
• So that we’re not robots just doing what others tell us to do, and believing what
others tell us to believe
• Critical thinking, above all, means thinking for ourselves, and not letting others do the
thinking and deciding for us
• In other words: critical thinking is essential to living a free human life—a life where we find
the truth for ourselves, instead of just following orders
REVIEW: THE PARTS OF AN ARGUMENT
• Every argument has two parts, which were just
mentioned in the definition a couple slides ago
• An argument is made up of a “conclusion” and
of at least one “premise.”
• A conclusion is “a statement that explains,
asserts, or predicts on the basis of statements
that are offered as evidence for it” (Chaffeee
2019).
• In other words a conclusion is the main thing
that someone is trying to convince you is true
—it’s the “point” someone is trying to make.
• A premise is a reason given to try to convince us that a
conclusion is true. Premises are the reasons or “proof”
that someone offers to try to show that we should
believe their conclusion.
• Every argument has these—no matter how long the
argument.
AN EXAMPLE …
“Philosophy is a wonderful subject, because it
teaches you to see the world in new and exciting
ways.”
• This is an argument.
• It has both a conclusion—the main thing it’s trying to
convince us of—and a premise.
• Before clicking forward, can you find the conclusion—
the main point that this person is trying to convince you
of?
• The conclusion is: “Philosophy is a
wonderful subject.”
• The premise is “It teaches you to see the
world in new and exciting ways.”
• The premise gives us a REASON or “proof” for
why we should believe the conclusion
REVIEW: EVALUATING ARGUMENTS
• But we did MORE than just find the PARTS of an argument
• We’ve also been learning how to EVALUATE arguments as well.
• To evaluate arguments you have to do the following:
• Find out if it has a good “structure”: that means testing an argument’s “validity”
• Find out if its supporting reasons—premises—are actually true: that means testing an
argument’s “truth”
VALIDITY, A REMINDER …
• To tell whether or not an argument is VALID is all about the structure of the
argument itself
• Assume the premises are true; do they lead us to the conclusion?
• To test validity, you do NOT need to know ANYTHING
• You do NOT need to do RESEARCH AT ALL.
• You do NOT need to be an EXPERT
• … because you are NOT judging whether or not the facts are true!
This politician makes me feel good.
This politician makes me laugh.
Therefore, this politician is telling
the truth.
• Find conclusion and premises.
• Then, see if it’s valid.
• Click ahead when you’re ready.
The defendant is obviously guilty. We have no
idea where she was on the night of the murder,
and plus, she’s homeless.
Conclusion: This politician is telling the truth.
Premise I: This politician makes me feel good
Premise II: This politician makes me laugh.
Valid or invalid?
This argument is INVALID. Assume the premises
are true. Assume this politician DOES make me
feel good (prem. 1). Assume this politician DOES
make me laugh (prem. 2). But that’s STILL not
enough to prove that this politician is telling the
truth.
EXAMPLE 1
EXAMPLE 2
• Find conclusion and premises.
• Then, see if it’s valid.
• Click ahead when you’re ready.
Conclusion: The defendant is obviously guilty.
Premise I: We have no idea where she was on the
night of the murder.
Premise II: Plus, she’s homeless.
Valid or invalid?
This argument is INVALID. Assume the premises are true. Even
if we don’t know where the defendant was on the night in question;
and even if she IS homeless—this is NOT enough to prove that
the defendant committed murder.
EVALUATING “TRUTH”: A REMINDER
• The first rule for evaluating an argument: an argument must have “validity.”
• The SECOND rule for evaluating an argument:
• The premises must actually be true.
• Are the premises ACTUALLY TRUE? Do they get the facts right?
TO TEST “TRUTH”
• To test the truth of an argument, GO OUT AND FIND THE FACTS FOR
YOURSELF!
• Here’s an example.
• Someone says to you:
You know, you shouldn’t vote for X. That’s because they’re violently racist and
homophobic.
• Let’s work on this example together.
You know, you shouldn’t vote for X.
That’s because they’re violently racist
and homophobic.
• Find conclusion and premises.
• Then, see if it’s valid.
• Click ahead when you’re ready.
Conclusion: You shouldn’t vote for X.
Premise I: They’re violently racist and homophobic.
Validity
Valid or invalid?
This argument is VALID. Assume the premise is
true—assume that X really is racist and
homophobic.
It’s a natural conclusion that we should not vote for
X.
EXAMPLE 1
Truth
OK … but is the premise actually true?
Well, we don’t know yet!
We need to go out and research on our own!
Find reliable facts to see if the premises are
true!
TO TEST “TRUTH”
• To test the truth of an argument, GO OUT AND FIND THE FACTS FOR
YOURSELF!
• Remember, to go out and find the facts for yourself, YOU NEED TO CHOOSE
GOOD, RELIABLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION
• GO back and look at my lecture video on “Evaluating Sources of Information” for
more details on exactly how to do this!
A “SOUND” ARGUMENT
• A “good” argument is good ONLY when it is BOTH valid AND true
• In other words, a “good” argument has a GOOD STRUCTURE, as well as TRUE PREMISES
• The technical term for a “good” argument is a SOUND ARGUMENT
• To be sound, an argument must have BOTH:
• Validity
• True premises
• And THAT means that an argument is BAD if it lacks EITHER!
• If an argument has true premises, but doesn’t have validity, IT IS UNSOUND—THROW IT OUT
• If an argument is valid, but its premises are false, IT IS UNSOUND—THROW IT OUT
• If an argument is valid AND its premises are true, ONLY THEN IS IT SOUND! YOU SHOULD ACCEPT
IT!
TAKING THE NEXT STEP
• So far we’ve mostly been analyzing and evaluating pretty short analyses.
• But most of the arguments that people will give you will NOT be simple. They will be longer arguments that are much
more complex.
• For example: here are places where people will give you longer and more complex arguments:
• At work, when management tries to convince you why its ideas are correct, or when management tries to convince you
to do something
• At school, when teachers try to convince you why their ideas are correct, or when they try to convince you to do
something
• Online, like in the “Opinion/Editorial” page of a newspaper, when someone tries to convince you that some idea is right
or wrong
• From lawyers, who are trying to convince you or others that someone is guilty, or not guilty, of some crime
• From politicians trying to get you to vote for them
• From Supreme Court judges who are trying to justify why they are making something illegal or legalTAKING THE NEXT STEP
• So far we’ve mostly been analyzing and evaluating pretty short analyses.
• But most of the arguments that people will give you will NOT be simple. They will be longer arguments that are much
more complex.
• For example: here are places where people will give you longer and more complex arguments:
• At work, when management tries to convince you why its ideas are correct, or when management tries to convince you
to do something
• At school, when teachers try to convince you why their ideas are correct, or when they try to convince you to do
something
• Online, like in the “Opinion/Editorial” page of a newspaper, when someone tries to convince you that some idea is right
or wrong
• From lawyers, who are trying to convince you or others that someone is guilty, or not guilty, of some crime
• From politicians trying to get you to vote for them
• From Supreme Court judges who are trying to justify why they are making something illegal or legal
TAKING THE NEXT STEP
• So in this class we want to go further.
• We want to be able to ANALYZE and EVALUATE in-depth, complex analysis
of longer arguments.
• We want to be able to:
• Analyze its parts—premises and conclusion
• … and then evaluate whether or not the argument is sound
• That’s what we’re going to concentrate on nowTAKING THE NEXT STEP
• So in this class we want to go further.
• We want to be able to ANALYZE and EVALUATE in-depth, complex analysis
of longer arguments.
• We want to be able to:
• Analyze its parts—premises and conclusion
• … and then evaluate whether or not the argument is sound
• That’s what we’re going to concentrate on now
SOME POINTERS
• We want to be able to read a longer argument, and then offer a longer analysis
and evaluation of it
• Remember, though, evaluating any argument just means answering some basic
questions:
• What is the conclusion?
• What are the premises?
• And is the argument “sound”? Does it have validity and truth?
• The final question, then, is this: “Is the argument good—should we believe its
conclusion? Or is it bad—in which case we should THROW OUT this argument?”
THIS MODULE, WE’RE GOING TO BE
ANALYZING AND EVALUATING THE FOLLOWING
ARGUMENT:• An essay from The Philadelphia Inquirer
• Just like any argument, it will have a conclusion, as well as a few premises trying
to convince you that the conclusion is trueTHIS MODULE, WE’RE GOING TO BE
ANALYZING AND EVALUATING THE FOLLOWING
ARGUMENT:• An essay from The Philadelphia Inquirer
• Just like any argument, it will have a conclusion, as well as a few premises trying
to convince you that the conclusion is true
SO WHERE DO WE START?
• The first thing you want to do, as always, is identify the conclusion of this
argument
• You want to ask: “What is it that this argument is trying to convince me of?”
• Then, you want to identify the premises.
• You want to ask: “What supporting reasons is the author giving to try to convince me
that the conclusion is true?”SO WHERE DO WE START?
• The first thing you want to do, as always, is identify the conclusion of this
argument
• You want to ask: “What is it that this argument is trying to convince me of?”
• Then, you want to identify the premises.
• You want to ask: “What supporting reasons is the author giving to try to convince me
that the conclusion is true?”
NOW WHAT?
• Ok, let’s say you found the conclusion as well as the premises.
• Only NOW can you start evaluating the argument.
• Remember, evaluating the argument happens in two steps.
• FIRST you test for validity. In other words you ask: “Assuming the premises are true, are
they relevant for proving the conclusion is true? Do they prpvide enough support to show
that the conclusion is true?”
• SECOND you test for truth. In other words, you ask: “Are the premises given actually
true?”
• To do this, see the other reading, “Evaluating Sources of Information.”
• This second step may require you to do your own research. See that other reading,
“Evaluating Sources of Information,” for more on this topic as well
FINALLY
• Now you’re ready to answer the big question.
• Is this argument a good one? In other words, does it have BOTH validity AND
true premises? Why or why not?
THE WORKSHEET THIS WEEK
• This week’s worksheet takes you through the various steps of this process
• It’ll lead you through the steps of:
• Identifying conclusion
• Identifying premises
• Evaluating validity
• Evaluating truth
• And coming to an overall conclusion: is this argument sound, or no?
CONFUSED? ANXIOUS?
• Are you confused or anxious about this assignment?
• Then GO BACK to re-watch the videos from previous units, to help you remember
how to:
• Find premises
• Find conclusions
• Evaluate validity
• Evaluate the truth, and evaluate the source of information
Mayor Kenney should create a cabinet of experts to stem gun violence | Opinion
by Caterina G. Roman and John K. Roman, For The Inquirer

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services