PHIL 347 Week 3 Quiz Critical Thinking

PHIL 347 Week 3 Quiz Critical Thinking

Student Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name:

Date

Week 3 Checkpoint Quiz

• Due Date: January 25, 1:59 AM
• Points: 50
• Questions: 10
• Available: January 17, 1:59 AM to January 25, 1:59 AM (8 days)
• Time Limit: None

Instructions

Required Resources:

• Textbook: Chapters 6 and 7

Lesson Instructions:

The checkpoint quizzes are short assessments to check your understanding of the terms and concepts from the reading.
Time Limit: None
Attempts: 1

Grading

This quiz will be graded based on the correctness of responses.

Course Outcomes (CO): 2, 4, 6

Due Date: By 11:59 PM MT on Sunday
Quiz Locked: January 25 at 1:59 AM

Quiz Attempt History

Questions and Responses:

1. Question 1:
   How do the views of stronger, more developed critical thinkers toward authority differ from those in earlier stages of cognitive development?
   Response: As children, we are taught right from wrong by parents, teachers, and coaches. These individuals guide us in forming opinions and learning how to think and trust. As we grow, we develop our reasoning based on this learning and begin asking questions like “why” and “how.” These questions are essential for critical thinking, helping us find deeper understanding.

2. Question 2:
   Briefly, in your own words, state how the text defines “expert.”
   Response: The text defines an expert as someone with valuable knowledge in a specific field, acquired through formal training, education, and experience.

3. Question 3:
   When presented with a claim unsupported by reasons (e.g., “the health risks of vaping have been underestimated”), what three options does a critical thinker have to evaluate such a claim?
   Response:

   1. Evaluate the credibility of the claim.
   2. Examine the plausibility of the claim to check for ulterior motives.
   3. Investigate the claim independently.

4. Question 4:
   Is the following statement true or untrue? “If a claim cannot be confirmed by an independent investigation, then it must be false.”
   Response: The statement is untrue. A claim could still be valid even if it cannot be independently confirmed. Lack of confirmation does not necessarily mean falsification.

5. Question 5:
   Is the following statement true or untrue? “If we do not believe that a claim is true, then we must believe that the claim is false.”
   Response: False. Disbelief in a claim does not automatically mean that the claim is false. It may reflect incomplete information or reluctance to accept the claim’s validity.

6. Question 6:
   What four conditions must an argument meet if we are to accept the worthiness and reasonableness of its conclusions?
   Response:

   1. Truthfulness of the premises.
   2. Logical strength.
   3. Relevance.
   4. Test of non-circularity.

7. Question 7:
   In an argument with two or more independent reasons, if one of those reasons turns out to be false, how does a critical thinker apply the test of logical strength to the argument? Should the critical thinker reject such an argument?
   Response: A critical thinker should not automatically reject an argument if one of its independent reasons is false. The argument’s validity can still be upheld if the other reasons hold true. The argument should only be dismissed if all the reasons presented are false.

8. Question 8:
   Erwin is charged with statutory rape, which involves having sex with a minor under 18. Erwin argues: “You can’t arrest me just because she’s 17 and I’m 21. Yes, we had sex, but it was consensual, plus she will be 18 in two weeks, and we are planning to get married.” Which of the four tests of worthiness does Erwin’s argument fail?
   Response: Erwin’s argument fails the test of truthfulness. Although the girl will be 18 soon, at the time of the sexual act, she was legally a minor, making the situation statutory rape.

9. Question 9:
   Evaluate Example 4 from Chapter 7, starting with “If God intended marriage…” Assume the premises are true. Applying tests 2, 3, and 4 (logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity), which condition of worthiness and reasonableness does this argument not meet?
   Response: The argument violates the relevance test. The reasoning behind excluding same-sex couples from marriage based on reproduction is flawed, as not all heterosexual couples marry with the intention to have children.

10. Question 10:
    Janet says: “Daria is not a person of color, so I see no reason why we should listen to her on the issue of minority race relations. Jose is Hispanic; he’s the one we should listen to.” What is the flaw in Janet’s claim? Which test of worthiness and reasonableness does her argument fail, and which fallacy does it commit?
    Response: Janet’s claim is flawed because it selectively ignores the possibility that Daria may have valuable insights into minority race relations. The argument fails the relevance test, and it commits the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, which involves cherry-picking data to support a predetermined conclusion.

PHIL 347 Week 3 Quiz Critical Thinking