Need an expert with Critical Thinking course. Phi 210
Seeking someone who can master this….
Must be done in APA format, citing all references, 4 full pages, and complete reference page. Also subtitles must be included to response to each question….subtitles are in bold below. Must be finished by Sunday May 5th, by 9pm.
I have attached the logistics and the rubric as a guide to follow.
Assignment 1: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay
Due Week 4 and worth 130 points
When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist confirmation bias by seeking out sources that might contradict your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking. This assignment is divided into two (2) parts. In Part I of the assignment, you will read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes, review one (1) Website in order to gather information, and engage in pre-writing to examine your thoughts. In Part II of the assignment, you will write an essay geared towards synthesizing your ideas. As author E.M. Forster said, “How do I know what I think until I see what I say?”
Part I
Preparation and Pre-writing : Follow the steps below to explore an issue through reading and writing – Read “The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful” by Peter Elbow at http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/believinggame.pdf. Devise strategies for playing the “Believing Game” and the “Doubting Game,” which are discussed in the Elbow article. According to the article, “the doubting game represents the kind of thinking most widely honored and taught. It’s the disciplined practice of trying to be as skeptical and analytic as possible with every idea we encounter. The believing game is the mirror image of the doubting game or critical thinking. It’s the disciplined practice of trying to be as welcoming as possible to every idea we encounter.” Select one (1) of the issues from ProCon.org that your professor has approved as a topic choice for your essay. Go to www.procon.org, scroll to the list of issues, click on the issue you selected, and read the background information section on the issue. To play the “Believing Game,” read either the Pro section or the Con section on the www.procon.org Website – whichever argument is in opposition to your position on the chosen issue. Consider at least three (3) of the premises (reasons) listed in that section. Apply the “believing” questions suggested by Elbow, such as “What’s interesting or helpful about the view? What would you notice if you believed this view? … In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true?” To play the “Doubting Game,” read either the Pro column or the Con column on the www.procon.org Website – whichever argument is in agreement with your position. Consider at least three (3) of the premises (reasons) listed in that section. Apply the “doubting” questions suggested by Elbow, such as the journalistic questions who, what, when, where, why, how.
Part II
Synthesizing and Writing : Now that you have examined your thinking about an issue by pre-writing about your ideas –
Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you (SUBTITLES) Present an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises. Identify three (3) premises of the argument in opposition to your conclusion, and describe your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow, such as “What’s interesting or helpful about the view? What would you notice if you believed this view? In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true?” Identify three (3) premises of the argument in agreement with your conclusion, and explain your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow, such as the journalistic questions who, what, when, where, why, and how. Examine at least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument. (Note: Refer to the specific types of biases discussed in Chapter 2 of the Webtext.) Describe whether or not your position on the issue has changed. Indicate whether or not your premises supporting the issue have changed. Explain why or why not.
The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing: Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph. Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences. Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA Style format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
You must follow these submission guidelines: Submit the essay to Turnitin.com and then submit the originality report and final essay with any needed revisions to Blackboard.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are: Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language. Write clearly and concisely about critical thinking using proper writing mechanics. Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.
RUBRIC:
Grading for this assignment will be based on quality, logic / organization, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.
Points: 130
Assignment 1: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 60% F Meets Minimum Expectations
60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A 1. Present an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely presented an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises.
Insufficiently presented an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises.
Partially presented an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises.
Satisfactorily presented an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises.
Thoroughly presented an argument on an issue by stating your conclusion and identifying your premises. 2. Identify three (3) premises of the argument in opposition to your conclusion, and describe your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely identified three (3) premises of the argument inopposition to your conclusion; did not submit or incompletely described your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow.
Insufficiently identified three (3) premises of the argument inopposition to your conclusion; insufficiently described your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow.
Partially identified three (3) premises of the argument inopposition to your conclusion; partially described your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow.
Satisfactorily identified three (3) premises of the argument inopposition to your conclusion; satisfactorily described your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow.
Thoroughly identified three (3) premises of the argument inopposition to your conclusion; thoroughly described your reactions to these premises, based on the believing questions suggested by Elbow. 3. Identify three (3) premises of the argument in agreement with your conclusion, and explain your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely identified three (3) premises of the argument inagreement with your conclusion, did not submit or incompletely explained your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow.
Insufficiently identified three (3) premises of the argument inagreement with your conclusion, insufficiently explained your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow.
Partially identified three (3) premises of the argument inagreement with your conclusion, partially explained your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow.
Satisfactorily identified three (3) premises of the argument inagreement with your conclusion, satisfactorily explained your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow.
Thoroughly identified three (3) premises of the argument inagreement with your conclusion, thoroughly explained your responses to the journalistic questions you asked in order to probe these premises, based on the doubting questions suggested by Elbow. 4. Examine at least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely examined at least three (3) types of biases that you likely experienced when you read the premises on the Pro side of the argument and the premises on the Con side of the argument.
Insufficiently examined at…
