Philosophy > EXAM > PHIL 347 Critical Thinking Week Two Checkpoint Quiz GRADED 2021 score 50/50 points (All)

PHIL 347 Critical Thinking Week Two Checkpoint Quiz GRADED 2021 score 50/50 points

Document Content and Description Below

PHIL 347 Critical Thinking Week Two Checkpoint Quiz GRADED 2021 score 50/50 points Score for this quiz: 50 out of 50 Submitted May 17 at 12:42pm This attempt took 131 minutes. Question 1 10 / 10 pts Briefly state how the text defines “claim.” Question 2 10 / 10 pts Reread the section in the text entitled “Two Confusions to Avoid” in Chapter 5. From what you read there, construct a definition of the term “argument” that includes both what the term is, in the context of this chapter, and what it is not. Your Answer: Definition of the term argument: are the discussions that result when making arguments and giving reasons that can be civil, constructive, respectful, and collaborative. The term argument is not termed as a disagreement or a quarrel (even if it's emotionally charged). Question 3 10 / 10 pts What questions does the text suggest we ask to distinguish conclusions and reasons? Your Answer: Questions to distinguish conclusions and reasons are as follows: "What is the conclusion that the speaker is trying to establish as true?" "What is the decision that the speaker is trying to explain or justify" "What considerations does the speaker present to establish the truth of that claim or the basis of that decision" Question 4 10 / 10 pts What are the component premises are there in the following statement: "If it weren’t for how much it costs and how big it is, I’d buy that TV for our bedroom." Your Answer: The two component premises in this statement are as follows: 1) this person has a small bedroom/cannot fit the TV in their room 2) this person does not have enough money to afford the TV or is unwilling to spend so much money on the TV. Question 5 10 / 10 pts Below are four common misconceptions about mapping an argument. Choose any two and briefly explain why each is wrong. When making an analysis and map of another person’s argument, you should correct obvious mistakes. Every line of reasoning in an argument map eventually leads to a conclusion. Unless the speaker actually states a reason, we can’t tell what they are thinking. In analyzing and mapping the statements in an argument, context is not important. Your Answer: When making an analysis and map of another person’s argument, you should correct obvious mistakes. As an analyst, fixing an argument is not our job. Our job is to describe the speakers argument while being objective about the speakers claims, reasons and unspoken assumptions In analyzing and mapping the statements in an argument, context is not important. When we present an argument and give reasons, we assume that a lot does not need to be said because whoever we are talking to understands the context. It is important to consider the context of an argument when creating a map because there is a lot that is unsaid by the person making the argument Quiz Score: 50 out of 50

[Show More]

Last updated: 3 years ago

Preview 1 out of 2 pages

Buy Now

Instant download