Riverside City College Name Writing

Riverside City College Name Writing

Riverside City College Name Writing and Reading Center Directed Learning Activity CT.1 The purpose of this activity is to help students understand and identify facts, opinions, and reasoned judgments through reading comprehension and critical thinking exercises. Students should read the attached passage from Eudora Welty's “Why I Live at the P.O.” and answer related questions that assess their ability to distinguish between facts, opinions, and reasoned judgments. The activity involves analyzing the text for factual statements, personal opinions, and arguments based on standards of judgment. Students are expected to reflect on the attempts made by the speaker to reach reasoned judgments and evaluate their success.

Paper For Above instruction

The ability to differentiate between facts, opinions, and reasoned judgments is fundamental to critical thinking and effective communication. It allows individuals to analyze information critically, develop well-founded arguments, and engage in meaningful debates. Understanding these distinctions enhances one's capacity to evaluate information sources, recognize biases, and articulate clear, logical positions.

Facts are assertions that can be verified through empirical evidence or established methods. For instance, as presented in the passage, statements like “Stella-Rondo is exactly twelve months younger than I am” constitute facts because they can be confirmed through objective measurement or records. Facts, however, do not necessarily imply truth; they are only claims that are either verifiably true or false.

Opinions, on the other hand, are subjective beliefs or preferences that cannot be conclusively proven or disproven. For example, phrases like “Diet soda tastes bland compared to regular soda” express personal preferences and are therefore opinions. Opinions vary among individuals because they are based on personal experiences, tastes, or beliefs and are inherently perspective-dependent.

Reasoned judgments go beyond mere facts or opinions by involving standards or criteria for evaluation. They often require weighing evidence, applying relevant laws or rules, and constructing arguments to support a particular stance. In the passage, the speaker criticizes Stella-Rondo’s actions and makes judgments about her character and behavior, such as describing her as “spoiled” and accusing her of “throwing away” valuable items. These involve personal assessments and cultural standards, sometimes based on moral or social criteria.

The speaker makes various attempts toward reasoned judgments, such as questioning Stella-Rondo's honesty or character. While some of these judgments are based on specific instances—like throwing away pearls or hiding her child—they are also influenced by personal biases and emotional responses. Consequently, their success depends on whether the judgments are supported by evidence and logical reasoning. In this passage, the speaker's judgments are emotionally charged and rooted in personal opinions about Stella-Rondo, which limits their objectivity and, therefore, their strength as reasoned judgments.

To develop effective reasoned judgments, it is necessary to evaluate claims critically, consider alternative perspectives, and provide supporting reasons. For example, if the speaker aims to argue that Stella-Rondo is spoiled, they should substantiate this claim with clear examples and avoid emotional bias. In this case, the speaker's judgments are somewhat successful in portraying Stella-Rondo negatively, but they rely heavily on subjective impressions rather than systematically analyzing evidence.

In conclusion, distinguishing between facts, opinions, and reasoned judgments enhances critical thinking skills. Facts are verifiable, opinions are subjective, and reasoned judgments involve evaluation based on standards or criteria. Effective reasoning requires constructing arguments that are supported by evidence and logical analysis, rather than relying solely on personal feelings or unverified claims. Developing this understanding is essential for engaging in informed discussion, making sound decisions, and fostering thoughtful communication.

References

• Bailin, S., & Overton, J. (2006). Critical thinking and subject specificity. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(4), 431-441.
• Ennis, R. H. (2011). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective. Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines, 26(1), 4-18.
• Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Insight Assessment.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking.
• Sunda, R. (n.d.). Distinguishing facts, opinions, and reasoned judgments. Riverside City College.
• Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press.
• Norris, S. P. (1985). Content analysis. In D. L. Levinson (Ed.), Thinking and Writing About History. Student Book.
• Kuhn, D. (1999). A functional perspective on educational assessments of reasoning. Educational Researcher, 28(1), 20-26.
• Siegel, H. (1988). Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education. Routledge.
• Swartz, R. J., & Parks, S. (1994). Values and Critical Thinking. The Education Digest, 59(4), 48-51.