Below, you'll find study guides and rubrics for the course:
The pre-test will be graded generously according to the following rubric:
0 incomplete or plagiarized; any level of detail which indicates instructions have not been followed
1 little to no detail or justification included
2 detail included, but primarily summary of content
3 primarily summary of content and/or reflection on related topics
4 analysis and appraisal of strength of argument accompanied heavily by summary and/or reflection on related topics
5 thorough appraisal and analysis (whether accurate or inaccurate) of the strength of argument utilizing tools from the course or associated with the course material
This exam includes 19 multiple choice questions (1 pt each) which will cover all lectures and readings. To prepare for this
Review all notes from chapters 1 and 2
Review all textbook exercises and readings from chapters 1 and 2
This exam also includes 4 short answer questions. You must answer them as completely and succinctly as possible, using no less than 2 and no more than 4 sentences. If you use only 1 sentence, you will lose points. If you use 5 or more sentences, you will lose points. Because of these requirements, you are strongly encouraged to develop and your answers fully before the exam. Answers which are not course referential - i.e., do not clearly indicate that you have taken this course by making reference to concepts or materials from the course - will receive a score of zero. (3 pts each)
In what way, if at all, is education in the humanities essential to a well-rounded education?
Should we speak before we know exactly what it is we wish to speak about?
How important is understanding a person's perspective in one’s attempt to understand that person's argument?
Concisely state the three criteria for reliable premises and give an example of a statement that might be used as a reliable premise under those criteria.
What does it mean to think critically? Develop your own unique answer to this question based on your own experience and what you have learned/discussed in this course.
This exam also includes a Rule Application section. Questions will be drawn from the textbook exercises directly, and will require students to apply rules from the textbook separate arguments in 1 paragraph each. Arguments will be drawn from each of Chapters 1 and 2.
There will also be a set of 5 statements which you must analyze for reliability using Rule 3 and its associated criteria. The instructions are as follows: State the degree to which each statement is reliable or unreliable. Your answers should address each of the three criteria for reliability that we have discussed in class.
This exam includes 23 multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank questions (1 pt each) which will cover all lectures and readings. To prepare for this
Review all notes from chapters 3, 4, and 5
Review all textbook exercises and readings from chapters 3, 4, and 5
This exam also includes 4 short answer questions. You must answer them as completely and succinctly as possible, using no less than 2 and no more than 4 sentences. If you use only 1 sentence, you will lose points. If you use 5 or more sentences, you will lose points. Because of these requirements, you are strongly encouraged to develop and your answers fully before the exam. Answers which are not course referential - i.e., do not clearly indicate that you have taken this course by making reference to concepts or materials from the course - will receive a score of zero. (3 pts each)
List at least two important similarities between cooking a meal and living a life, and explain why these similarities are relevant. (See Exercise Set 3.1 for examples.)
When, if at all, is testimony a trustworthy source of knowledge?
Offer an argument for the most likely explanation of the following correlation (see Exercise Sets 5.1 and 5.2 for examples):
People who graduated from college tend to make more money than those who never attended or never graduated from college.
What does it mean to think critically? Develop your own unique answer to this question based on your own experience and what you have learned/discussed in this course (NOTE: This answer should improve upon or refine your answer to the same question from the previous exam).
This exam also includes a rule application section. Questions will be drawn from one of the textbook exercises directly, and will require students to apply rules from the textbook to three separate arguments in 1 paragraph each. Arguments will be drawn from each of Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
There will also be a set of 5 statements which you must analyze for reliability using Rule 3 and its associated criteria. The instructions are as follows: Imagine you find one of the following sentences used in an argument as a premise. Other than the words given, no further support is offered. State the degree to which each statement is reliable or unreliable, and explain your answer. Your answers should address each of the three criteria for reliability that we have discussed in class.
Deductive Logic Multiple Choice (11 pts)
Multiple choice questions will cover deductive argument forms and fallacies. To prepare for this section
Study your notes from Chapter 6 and Appendix I (Chapter 11)
Reread Chapter 6 and Appendix I (Chapter 11)
Review the lecture slides from Chapter 6 and Appendix I (Chapter 11)
Memorize all the following deductive forms:
modus ponens
modus tollens
disjunctive syllogism
hypothetical syllogism
dilemma
reductio ad absurdum
Deductive Arguments (15pts)
To prepare for this section
Complete a few exercises in exercise set 6.2 and 6.3 for practice
Review sample answers in your textbook
Fallacy Multiple Choice (14pts)
For this section, you need to memorize all the following fallacies and be able to identify them in ordinary language arguments:
ad hominem
ad ignorantiam
ad misericordiam
ad populum
begging the question
complex question
equivocation
false cause
false dilemma
loaded language
non sequitur
overgeneralizing
overlooking alternatives
persuasive definition
poisoning the well
post hoc ergo propter hoc
red herring
straw man
Fallacy Identification (4pts)
In this section, you will be given lines of reasoning which commit at least one informal fallacy. You should name the most prominent fallacy committed and explain your answer in the space provided.
Short Essay (6pts)
You must answer each question as completely and succinctly as possible, using no less than 2 and no more than 4 sentences. If you use only 1 sentence, you will lose points. If you use 5 or more sentences, you will lose points. Because of these requirements, you are strongly encouraged to develop and your answers fully before the exam. Answers which are not course-referential - i.e., do not clearly indicate that you have taken this course - will receive a score of zero. (3 pts each)
Define "deductive" reasoning. What distinguishes it from other styles of argumentation (inductive or non-deductive)?
Explain one of the most common informal fallacies and offer a simple example of it.
What does it mean to think critically? Develop your own unique answer to this question based on your own experience and what you have learned/discussed in this course. (NOTE: This answer should improve upon or refine your answer to the same question from the previous exam)
Can critical thinking training contribute to a quality business education? Develop a short argument in support of your answer.