critical reasoning

Instructions:

The Signature Assignment for this course combines all the concepts you have explored in this term. In this assignment, you will choose one of the TED Talks below and form a response based on the provided guidance using

. As you respond to the questions, you will be expected to connect the concepts covered in this course to the information in your chosen video.

As you develop your Signature Assignment, it is a mandatory requirement to support your logic with in-text citations from our textbook. These citations are essential for substantiating your claims and demonstrating your understanding of the course concepts.

Please ensure that you use the template and follow APA format for your paper, including a title page, in-text citations, and a reference page. Incorrect or missing citations may impact your grade, so be diligent in citing the textbook appropriately.

Please choose ONE of the following TED Talks to respond to.

• TED. (2019, October). Ethics: Yes, Even When Nobody is Watching / Dawne Ware
• [Video].
• TED. (2017, October). Money and Morals: The Art of Philosophic Investing / Henrik Syse [Video].
• TED. (2021, August). AI Isn’t as Smart as You Think–But It Could Be / Jeff Dean [Video].

For each number below, complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the subject matter of the class.

1. The Argument and Syllogism: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
2. Summarize the overall argument of the video in your own words. Be sure to include details and the main points the speaker used to make the argument.
3. Identify the three parts of the syllogism the speaker uses to make the overall argument:

• Major Premise
• Minor Premise
• Conclusion

1. Testing the Syllogism: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
2. Based upon the syllogism (your answer to Part 1. B), does this argument demonstrate inductive or deductive reasoning? Provide support for your choice. Be sure to only choose deductive OR inductive; you cannot choose both or neither.
3. If the argument is deductive, test your syllogism (your answers to Part 1. B) in terms of logical validity and soundness. Be sure to not only tell if the syllogism is valid and sound but also show how/how not or why/why not. If the argument is inductive, test your syllogism (your answers from Part 1. B) in terms of being a stronger or weaker inductive argument. Be sure to not only tell if the syllogism is stronger or weaker but also show how or why.
4. Rhetorical Appeals: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
5. Identify examples of all three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos) that you noticed in this video and what information from the video has led you to your choices. Be sure to select specific words, phrases, or ideas and explain their connections to each type of appeal. Also, indicate what effect the use of these appeals has on the persuasiveness of the argument.
6. Rhetorical Devices and Logical Fallacies: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
7. Identify at least one specific rhetorical device and one specific logical fallacy in the way this topic is presented. Be sure to define the rhetorical device and fallacy and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether you think the use of each device and fallacy was deliberate or not and assess the effect that each one has on the argument.
8. NOTE: Remember, ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical appeals, NOT devices, so they are not what is being asked here. This is asking about rhetorical devices.
9. Moral Reasoning: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
10. A. Which specific kind of moral reasoning is demonstrated in your topic? Briefly elaborate on why you chose the one you did. Be sure to define the specific kind of moral reasoning you chose and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether the use of this kind of moral reasoning was deliberate and what effect it has on the persuasiveness of the argument.
11. Reaction and Reflection: Offer your position on the argument presented in the video you selected. Using your critical thinking skills, explain whether the speaker’s argument was effective or ineffective, and why.
12. Conclusion: What are the positive implications and negative consequences for the critical reasoning concepts that were used throughout your paper and in the video?

When completing this assignment, please keep the following in mind:

• Use the provided template.
• First and third person (I, we, her, him, they) are fine for this assignment, but do not use second person (you, your).
• Include a title page, indicating which topic you chose.
• Adhere to basic APA formatting, including:
• 12-point Times New Roman font
• Double-spaced text
• 1-inch margins throughout
• Support your logic with in-text citations from our textbook.
• Cite any outside sources that you used to support your ideas in proper APA format with in-text citations and references.
• Be sure to review the associated rubric for more guidance on the content that your response is expected to contain.

Review the rubric for specific grading criteria.

Due Sunday, 11:59 p.m. (Pacific time)

Rubric

PHIL 341 BL Signature Assignment Final

PHIL 341 BL Signature Assignment Final

CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Understanding the Arguments

Does the student demonstrate the ability to discern the speaker’s 1) issue, 2) target audience, 3) conclusion, 3) main points, and 4) unstated, implied, or assumed perspectives. Does the student accurately and faithfully summarize them in the students own words in detail without being too reductive or without oversimplifying the sources points?

40 to >37.2 pts

Exceeds Expectations

The student is specific and detailed in describing the speakers position and main ideas. The student can systematically explain what the speakers claims are and describe how the speakers claims relate to one another, exemplifying sophistication, and comprehension. The student clearly identifies the sources target audience.

37.2 to >34.0 pts

Meets Expectations

The student describes the speakers position and main ideas and identifies the sources target audience.

34 to >28.8 pts

Approaches Expectations

The student generalizes or oversimplifies the speakers claims, and/or may have trouble expressing how the points relate to one another. The student may not clearly identify the target audience.

28.8 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

The student misinterprets or misrepresents the sources claims, and/or how the claims relate to one another. The student reacts personally or shows little understanding of the target audience.

40 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Identifying and Applying Course Concepts

Does the student accurately identify and define the course terms and ideas indicated by the prompts? The student can correctly identify course concepts including objectivity/subjectivity, facts/beliefs/ideas, fallacies, biases, rhetorical devices/appeals, valid and sound deductive syllogisms, stronger or weaker inductive syllogisms, and various types of moral reasoning.

30 to >27.75 pts

Exceeds Expectations

The student accurately and adeptly identifies and defines all the course terms and ideas indicated by the prompts, exemplifying sophistication and comprehension.

27.75 to >25.5 pts

Meets Expectations

The student accurately identifies and defines most of the course terms and ideas indicated by the prompts.

25.5 to >21.6 pts

Approaches Expectations

The student identifies and defines all of the course terms and ideas indicated by the prompts, but they may be generalized, incomplete, or oversimplified.

21.6 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

The student does not accurately identify or define the course concepts indicated by the prompts, or egregiously misinterprets those course concepts.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Analysis and Evaluation of Course Concepts

Can the student explain if the sources use of course concepts are effective or ineffective, and why they would be effective or ineffective to the target audience? The Exceeds response assumes the student understands who the target audience is and can posit how that audience may respond to different arguments and rhetoric. They are explaining why a specific rhetorical strategy works on the target audience or how a fallacy like ad hominem preys on an in-group bias.

30 to >27.75 pts

Exceeds Expectations

The student understands who the target audience is and can posit how the audience may respond to different arguments and rhetoric. The student may also explain why a specific course concepts improve or diminish the effectiveness of other course concepts.

27.75 to >25.5 pts

Meets Expectations

The student understands who the target audience is and can posit how the audience may respond to different arguments and rhetoric. The student may also explain why specific course concepts are generally effective or ineffective and provides a detailed rationale for their assertions.

25.5 to >21.6 pts

Approaches Expectations

The student may generally understand who the target audience is and may posit how the audience may respond to different arguments and rhetoric. The student inadequately or inaccurately explains why a specific course concept is effective or ineffective and provides a detailed rationale for their assertions.

21.6 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

The student does not understand who the target audience is, nor can they posit how the audience may respond to different arguments and rhetoric. The student does not explain why specific course concepts are generally effective or ineffective.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

General Writing Mechanics

5 to >4.5 pts

Exceeds Expectations

The writing demonstrates sophisticated clarity and conciseness and is extremely well organized. Punctuation, spelling, and capitalization are all correct with minimal to no errors.

4.5 to >4.0 pts

Meets Expectations

The writing is clear, concise, and well organized. May contain a few punctuation, spelling, or capitalization errors.

4 to >3.5 pts

Approaches Expectations

Writing lacks clarity, conciseness, or organization. Several errors in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization detract from the readability of the paper.

3.5 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

The writing is unfocused and poorly organized. Many errors in punctuation, spelling, and capitalization detract from the readability of the paper.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

APA Style

5 to >4.5 pts

Exceeds Expectations

The assignment accurately and consistently follows APA Style. Meets length and formatting requirements of the assignment.

4.5 to >4.0 pts

Meets Expectations

The assignment consistently follows current APA Style with only isolated and inconsistent mistakes. Mostly meets length and formatting requirements of the assignment.

4 to >3.5 pts

Approaches Expectations

The assignment has numerous errors in APA Style. Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA Style. May not meet length and formatting requirements of the assignment.

3.5 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

The assignment has significant errors in APA Style. Does not meet length and formatting requirements of the assignment.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Sources, Citations and References

10 to >9.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

The required number of relevant audience-appropriate sources have been expertly cited and integrated into the content to support ideas.

9 to >8.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Most sources are cited and referenced correctly. Meets most of required sources for the assignment.

8 to >7.0 pts

Approaches Expectations

At least one source is not cited properly, not reputable, or is inappropriate for the audience or topic.

7 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Does not meet the required sources for the assignment. Sources are cited and referenced incorrectly or missing.