HUM 101 CSU Investigating & Language Arguments Questions

Everything is outlined in the attachment. I need Q uestion 3 by Wednesday, but you can take an additional week to finish the rest.

Requirements for all questions 3-8:
– 350-400 words for each, include citations and references after each question.
•
•
•
•
•
Utilize and interface with the required readings to analyze and engage the discussion
board questions.
Your initial post should be concise and to the point and be supported by the required
readings. Be sure to include a reference in each post, including peer responses.
You must include a scholarly source (Links to an external site.) that is not part of the
required or recommended reading for the HUM101 course. The CSU-Global
Library (Links to an external site.) is a good place to find these sources.
Format your discussion, including all in-text citations and references, according to
the CSU-Global Guide to Writing & APA (Links to an external site.).
Each discussion board post should include citations from course content and/or scholarly
sources.
3. Investigating language, arguments, and cognitive biases
For your initial post, address one of the following:
a. Watch Cohen’s video How can you have a fair argument? (Links to an external
site.) In Cohen’s view, what is the true benefit of philosophical or academic
argumentation? Explain how we can go beyond argument as war, proof, or
performance in academic discourse, or any discourse, in a spirit of
collaboration rather than contention. How can we overcome the dominant
war metaphor in our arguments?
b. After reviewing the interactive lecture this week and the reading Let’s think
about cognitive bias (Links to an external site.) (Anonymous, 2015), explain
how vague or imprecise language can lead to cognitive biases. Can you point to
an example? Explain how we can address imprecise/vague language and
associated cognitive biases in our own thinking.
c. Review Arguing with other people (Links to an external site.) (Lau & Chan,
2019) and How to criticize with kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett and the
four steps to arguing intelligently (Links to an external site.) (Popova, 2014).
Explain how could you use Dennett’s four steps to strengthen your critical
thinking when conversing with others.
4. This week’s discussion question is an exercise in logical analysis. When we engage in a
logical analysis, we want to first put aside whether or not we agree with the argument.
Instead, we want to analyze the structure of an argument. By doing this, we can determine
the type of reasoning and whether or not the argument is sound. Please complete the
following:
•
•
•
Find an editorial opinion from a credible local or national newspaper. Identify the topic
of the editorial, the media source, date, and author.
o Note: Be sure that the source you choose is an editorial opinion, not a news story.
See this example (Links to an external site.).
Use standard argument form to present your own argument as you paraphrase (Links to
an external site.) the conclusion or main claim and the premises. Be sure to address the
following information in your analysis:
o What is the main claim or final conclusion of the editorial? What are the supporting
premises for the main claim? What premises are missing?
o What type of argument is this? Deductive? Inductive?
o Is the argument made in the editorial valid? Sound?
What critiques of the premises or conclusions do you have?
After analyzing the structure of the argument, consider whether you see common ground
with your own perspectives and where you see room to make counter claims. For a good
example of how you might approach this, see pp. 39-48 of Van Cleave (2016).
5. Critical Thinking and Media Literacy
For this discussion choose one of the questions noted below and provide a substantive
response. Be sure to first include with your response the question you are addressing and
then your response to the question.
•
•
•
•
Review chapter 1 in Media, Society, Culture and You in the required readings. What is
meant by the mass media dynamic and what are some of the challenges we face in
critically assessing media content? Why might news media outlets engage in sophistic
objectivity?
Review chapter 3 in Media, Society, Culture and You. How is media literacy defined and
what is the role of critical thinking? What is meant by a ‘bad dynamic’? How can we
apply one or more of the theoretical perspectives to help illuminate our own critical
thinking?
Review chapter 3 of Media, Society, Culture and You. Outline at least one theoretical
approach to media analysis. What alternative sources of information would you suggest
to find less-biased accounts of current events? Why do you suggest these?
Review chapter 9 in Media, Society, Culture and You. Discuss the effects of cable news in
terms of polarization mechanisms, and economic and entertainment motivations.. What
are some of the ethical issues of the interaction of marketing, ads and journalism? What
solutions do you suggest?
6. The Scientific Method and Statistical Reasoning
Using the tools of the scientific method and understanding statistical reasoning can
strengthen our critical thinking. Answer two of the following questions to explore these
issues:
1. Review Chapter 3 of Van Cleave (2016). If we need to make complex inferences, what
intellectual virtues does Van Cleave argue we should employ? Discuss an example from
your professional or personal life where these virtues would help strengthen your ability
to make logical inferences.
2. What misconceptions often rise around the idea of a scientific “theory”? What are the
characteristics of good scientific theories?
3. Review Chapter 3 of Van Cleave (2016). Look at the example of Linda the bank teller on
p. 175. What is the conjunction fallacy? Where have you committed this fallacy in your
thinking?
4. Where have you seen statistical data (or charts or graphs) used in a way that obscures
critical thinking? Describe the issues and how you might correct these.
7. Ethical Reasoning, Values, and Critical Reasoning
This week’s discussion question asks you to draw upon the interactive lecture and readings
for this week and address two of the following four questions regarding concepts of ethical
reasoning:
a. What is the essential basis for ethical reasoning, according to Paul and Elder? Why
are ethical principles not a matter of subjective preference?
b. How might reasoning processes be used to achieve unethical goals? What examples of
this have you witnessed in your personal or professional life?
c. What are some challenges of moral absolutism and moral relativism?
d. How do you assess religious ideals as a source of value and ethics? How would Azlin
Puteh Salin, Ab Manan, Kamaluddin, and Nawawi (2017) argue for specific types of
religious ethics as a means to think critically? Why might Norenzayan (2014) challenge
their thinking?
8. Select one of the following questions to answer this week.
1. Read the interview with Dr. Csikszentmihalyi (Beard, 2015). What is the connection
between strategic thinking and creativity? (Consider watching Csikszentmihalyi’s
TedTalk (Links to an external site.).)
2. What barriers to strategic thinking discussed by Paul and Elder (2015) do you see in the
workplace? What practical steps would you suggest to overcome these?
3. Lau and Chan (2017) provided several tools for thinking more strategically. Which tools
could you use to think more strategically in your work or personal life?