WestCoast PHIL341 Discussions Latest 2021 September (Full)

PHIL341 Critical Reasoning Week 1 Discussion

Identify:

A subjective claim that people might call “a fact” An objective claim that people might call “an opinion” What is the difference between a claim that is “objective” and a claim that is “subjective?” Explain how mislabeling these claims could negatively impact the quality of a person’s thinking. You might try thinking of claims you could hear in a hospital or another work-related environment. If a person has confused objective with subjective or fact with opinion, what is the solution? In addition to your initial post, post two substantive peer responses that demonstrate how you connect to their explanations. Provide thoughts, insight, and analysis of their answers. Your response should extend the dialogue. PHIL341 Critical Reasoning Week 2 Discussion Consider the terms vague, ambiguity and generality as they relate to our textbook reading for this week. How are vagueness, ambiguity and generality used in politics or in law in order to achieve a desired outcome? What are some examples of how this might be applied in your future career? Include an example or two from current events that demonstrates the use of vagueness, ambiguity and generality. Feel free to share an article, a screenshot of a social media post, a video, etc. In addition to your initial post, respond to at least two of your peers’ posts. These responses should be substantive and build upon their thoughts, provide additional examples, ask questions, and extend dialogue PHIL341 Critical Reasoning Week 3 Discussion We often hear claims that “seem” credible and the sources of these claims can also seem credible at least at first glance.

Analyze the credibility of media sources:

Do you believe that all media sources are credible? Why or why not? Why should we (or should we not) question the credibility of the information that is presented to us from media sources? In addition to your initial post, you must also post substantive responses to at least two of your classmates’ posts in this thread. Provide an analysis of your peers’ post. Build on their examples and explanations to extend meaningful discussion PHIL341 Critical Reasoning Week 4 Discussion Find an example of a fallacy used in popular advertising or any persuasive text. Upload the image/words or provide a link. Identify the fallacy and why you think that this particular type of advertisement represents the fallacy that you have chosen. In addition to your initial post, respond to at least two of your peers’ posts. These responses should address questions, problems, or issues presented in their ad analysis. Please remember to be respectful and appropriate with your analysis of their work. Don’t just agree or disagree; continue the conversation! PHIL341 Critical Reasoning Week 5 Discussion This week, we are learning about categorical logic. Why is it important to understand categorical logic? Provide some examples of how you could apply these concepts to your personal and professional life. In addition to your initial post, post substantive responses to at least two of your classmates’ posts in this thread. Provide an analysis of your peers’ post. Build on their examples and explanations to extend meaningful discussion. PHIL341 Critical Reasoning Week 6 Discussion This week we're exploring causation and correlation. Why is it a fallacy to confuse causation and correlation? Provide an example of a statement that confuses causation with correlation. In addition to your inital post, you must also post substantive responses to at least two of your classmates’ posts in this thread. Provide an analysis of your peers’ post. Build on their examples and explanations to extend meaningful discussion. PHIL341 Critical Reasoning Week 7 Discussion Should there be a death penalty for first-degree murder? Make an argument that either supports or opposes the use of the death penalty in first-degree murder cases. Be sure to define what is involved with first-degree murder and provide adequate reasoning and support for your argument. When responding to your classmates’ posts, be sure to identify any fallacies and evaluate whether arguments provide sufficient evidence to support their assertions. You are encouraged to challenge each other, but please remember to use appropriate netiquette when responding to one another. Your response should be respectful and constructive. PHIL341 Critical Reasoning Week 8 Discussion Consider two types moral reasoning: Consequentialist and Non-Consequentialist approaches (and the specific theories involved). Which of these theories, if any, do you find most reasonable, and why? Provide a clear example to demonstrate your thinking. In responses to at least two peers, check their work. Were their explanations and examples clear and accurate? Identify any problems/errors in their logic or explain why you agree with their rationale. Make sure your responses are substantive and contribute extra to the discussion.