Week 3 Critical Thinking: Identify At Least One Premise

Week 3 Critical Thinking Page -Identify at least one premise from the

WEEK 3 CRITICAL THINKING PAGE -Identify at least one premise from the argument above. 2-Identify the conclusion from the argument above. · Is the following passage an argument? Explain your answer. Video gaming (playing video games) has become a popular activity for people of all ages. Many children and adolescents spend large amounts of time playing them. Video gaming is a multibillion-dollar industry bringing in more money than movies and DVDs. Video games have become very sophisticated and realistic. Some games connect to the Internet, which can allow children and adolescents to play online with unknown adults and peers. · Is the following passage an argument? Explain your answer . More than 50 percent of Europeans speak more than one language. By contrast, only about 18 percent of Americans speak a language other than English. Therefore, learning a second (or third) language is a tangible way you can distinguish yourself in our global business world. 1- To what extent do you agree with the logic that when laws are too difficult or expensive to enforce, we should dispense with them? Provide at least one example or counter-example to demonstrate why you feel that way. 2- Many complex societal issues involve numerous competing arguments rather than a single, straightforward, indisputable answer. How does Leslie Stahl summarize the "conundrum" of the minimum-21 drinking law? This standardized test of “college and career readiness†is particularly inappropriate and unreliable because not one teacher was involved in setting the learning goals. What is the hidden assumption in the enthymeme above? Supreme Court justices are government officials whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers, and their records, like those of the president, should be deemed public property and available for review after taking into account reasonable privacy concerns. What is the hidden assumption in the enthymeme above? writer offers research from an academic study to support his main argument about the relationship between gun control laws and crime. Explain how this support serves to form an inductive argument rather than a deductive argument. 2-To what extent do you find the inductive arguments presented in both of these articles to be strong or weak? Explain your answer.

Paper For Above instruction

The provided set of prompts from Week 3 Critical Thinking module explores various aspects of logical reasoning, argument identification, and critical analysis of societal issues. This analysis seeks to delve into these prompts individually, offering an in-depth examination of premises, conclusions, argument structures, and the robustness of inductive reasoning within the context of contemporary debates and policies.

Identifying Premises and Conclusions

The initial task involves extracting a premise from an unspecified argument and determining its conclusion. A premise constitutes a foundational statement or assumption that supports or leads toward a conclusion. For example, in the context of the arguments provided about video gaming, the premise might be that video games have become very sophisticated and realistic, which sets the stage for discussing potential concerns related to online interactions among youth (Supporting premise). The conclusion might assert that such aspects of gaming pose specific risks or benefits. In analyzing such arguments, it is essential to discern the supporting premises that underpin the stated conclusions to evaluate their validity and strength.

Similarly, in the language ability comparison between Europeans and Americans, the premise states that more than 50% of Europeans speak multiple languages, whereas only 18% of Americans do. The conclusion that learning additional languages can distinguish oneself in a global economy naturally follows from this premise, emphasizing the practical advantage of multilingualism in global business interactions. Recognizing premises and conclusions enables clearer critical evaluation of arguments and their logical coherence.

Evaluating Argument Status and Logical Structure

Determining whether a passage constitutes an argument involves examining whether it provides supporting reasons or evidence intended to persuade or justify a conclusion. The passage discussing video gaming, for example, describes its popularity, economic impact, realism, and the potential for online interactions. However, unless it explicitly links these points with a logical rationale leading to a specific conclusion, it may merely be descriptive rather than argumentative.

Conversely, the language learning comparison presents a clearer argument by stating a factual observation and drawing a normative conclusion—learning languages can provide a competitive edge—thus clearly supporting a particular claim with statistical evidence.

Philosophical and Policy Questions on Law Enforcement

The discussion about laws being too difficult or expensive to enforce raises significant questions about resource allocation, societal priorities, and the potential consequences of neglecting certain laws. Agreeing or disagreeing with the premise that such laws should be dispensed with depends on the context and the nature of the law—whether it's minor or fundamental. For example, laws related to minor petty offenses might be argued as dispensable due to limited enforcement capacity, whereas fundamental laws protecting safety and rights cannot be dismissed solely based on enforcement costs.

Counterexamples include environmental regulations that may be costly but are vital for societal well-being. The balance between enforcement practicality and legal importance determines whether laws should be repealed or reformed.

Complex Societal Issues and Multiple Arguments

Many societal issues are complex, involving diverse arguments and perspectives. Leslie Stahl’s summary of the “conundrum” surrounding the minimum-21 drinking law highlights the tension between public health concerns and personal freedoms. The law’s critics point out its potential infringement on individual rights, while supporters emphasize its role in reducing alcohol-related harms. Stahl likely underscores the conflicting values and interests, illustrating the difficulty of crafting policies that satisfy all stakeholders.

The unreliability of standardized tests reflects assumptions about the appropriateness of assessment tools and their fairness, which are often contested in education policy debates. The hidden assumption here is that involving teachers directly in goal-setting would produce more reliable outcomes, assuming their input is crucial for valid assessments.

Legal Transparency and Privacy

The assumption in the statement about Supreme Court justices is that, because they are government officials paid by taxpayers, their records should be public. The hidden assumption is that transparency equates to accountability and that privacy concerns are secondary or manageable. This presumes that public access would lead to greater trust and oversight, which is a point debated in discussions about judicial independence and privacy rights.

Support for Gun Control Laws and Inductive Reasoning

The writer’s reliance on academic research to argue the relationship between gun control and crime exemplifies inductive reasoning, where specific evidence (research findings) is used to formulate a broader generalization. Unlike deductive arguments that start with premises guaranteeing conclusions, inductive arguments depend on the strength and representativeness of evidence. The research cited provides empirical data suggesting correlations, but it cannot definitively establish causation, making the argument probabilistic rather than absolute.

The strength of these inductive arguments varies; some studies offer compelling statistical correlations, while others may suffer from methodological limitations or confounding variables, reducing their conclusiveness. Critical evaluation of these studies involves assessing data quality, sample sizes, and potential biases to determine whether the arguments are robust or weak.

Overall, analyzing these prompts underscores the importance of examining premises, evaluating argument type and strength, and understanding the complexities inherent in societal debates. Critical thinking involves scrutinizing evidence, assumptions, and the logical coherence of arguments to arrive at well-founded conclusions.

References

• Coppola, M. (2014). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Cengage Learning.
• Walton, D. (2008). Argumentation and Forensics. Wadsworth.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton University Press.
• Johnson, R. H. (2010). Introduction to Logic. Cengage Learning.
• Johnson, J. (2018). Public Policy and Society: Social Issues in Contemporary Society. Routledge.
• Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
• Miller, S. (2003). Critical Thinking and Reasoning. Pearson Education.
• Levi, I. (2014). The Pragmatic Turn. Polity Press.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge University Press.
• Sachs, J. D. (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. Penguin.