PHI 103 Week 4 PHI 103 Week 4 Fallacies in Media
DQ 1
Fallacies in Media
Fallacies in Media
Please read the instructions below for information on how to participate in this discussion. Please make sure to read the instructions thoroughly as not all Discussion Questions will have the same guidelines.
For a list of resources that are specific to this assignment, please utilize the “Resources Tab” located below.
If you feel that you need help with any of the main topics below, please revisit the Practice Activities located in the Weekly Overview.
Discussion
Resources
One rich source of fallacies is the media: television, radio, magazines, and the Internet. The arguments you experience in your daily life (work, family, shopping) are another source of fallacies. Identify three distinct informal logical fallacies you have experienced in the media or in your life. Explain how the fallacies were used and the context in which they occurred. Then, explain what the person presenting the fallacy should have done to ensure that he or she was not committing a logical error.
You must post to this discussion on at least four separate days of the week and your posts must total at least 500 words as you address the questions noted above. Your first post must be completed by Day 3 (Thursday) and the remainder of your posts must be completed by Day 7 (Monday). You must answer all aspects of the prompt at some point during the week. Also, be sure to reply to your classmates and instructor. Try to attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target and try to analyze things in as much detail as you can.
Guided Response: Review several of your classmates’ posts. Respond to your classmates by commenting on whether or not you would have been fooled by these fallacies and how your new knowledge impacts how you view truth in the media and in your life.
For further instruction about how to address discussion prompts in the new format, please view the key terms and Discussion Videos visible on the right in Week 1 Discussion 1.
Fallacies in Media
Please read the instructions below for information on how to participate in this discussion. Please make sure to read the instructions thoroughly as not all Discussion Questions will have the same guidelines.
For a list of resources that are specific to this assignment, please utilize the “Resources Tab” located below.
If you feel that you need help with any of the main topics below, please revisit the Practice Activities located in the Weekly Overview.
Discussion
Resources
Resources
Required Resources
Text
An introduction to logicChapter 4: Mistakes in Reasoning: The World of Fallacies
Chapter 5: Applications of Logic
Article
Harrison, J. (2012). Informal fallacies[Unpublished work]. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Ashford University, Clinton, IA
Recommended Resources
Examples of Arguments in Media
These examples of arguments and fallacies can be used to help you identify what fallacies within arguments in the media may look like. You may use these examples in your discussion post or find your own fallacies in the media or in your life. It is not necessary to view all examples, but it is encouraged that you view as many as necessary to fully grasp the concept of fallacies in media.
(2012, Oct. 24). The Slap[Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFvpzK8_PDEThis commercial presents students with a specific logical fallacy example.Transcript.
Dunning, B. (2013). Logical Fallacies 2[Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z71w-rHkeSk&feature=episodic&NR=1This video demonstrates multiple informal logical fallacies that the students will examine during this week. Transcript.
(2011, March 31). The fallacy project: Examples of fallacies from advertising, politics, and popular culture[Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXLTQi7vVsITranscript.
(2006, Oct. 30). Monty Python – The Annoying Peasant[Video file]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVAMonty Python and the holy grail: Peasant scene. (2009). In net[Transcript]. Retrieved from http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-peascene.php
DQ 2
Legendary Hoax
Legendary Hoax
Please read the instructions below for information on how to participate in this discussion. Please make sure to read the instructions thoroughly as not all Discussion Questions will have the same guidelines.
For a list of resources that are specific to this assignment, please utilize the “Resources Tab” located below.
If you feel that you need help with any of the main topics below, please revisit the Practice Activities located in the Weekly Overview.
Discussion
Resources
Explore a legendary hoax from the Museum of Hoaxes. Describe the elements and details of the hoax. Applying what you know about how to evaluate arguments, pretend you were presented with this hoax and outline the steps you would take to evaluate it. How does this hoax encourage critically evaluating sources of information? Explain three methods by which you can prevent yourself from being fooled by hoaxes or other sources of misinformation.
You must post to this discussion on at least four separate days of the week and your posts must total at least 500 words as you address the questions noted above. Your first post must be completed by Day 3 (Thursday) and the remainder of your posts must be completed by Day 7 (Monday). You must answer all aspects of the prompt at some point during the week. Also, be sure to reply to your classmates and instructor. Try to attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target and try to analyze things in as much detail as you can.
Guided Response: Review several of your classmates’ posts. Reply to at least two of your classmates by sharing why you think some people believed the hoax and why others might have been more skeptical. You might also reflect on times when you were fooled by hoaxes or misinformation and how you plan on preventing this in the future.
For further instruction about how to address discussion prompts in the new format, please view the key terms and Discussion Videos visible on the right in Week 1 Discussion 1.
Resources
Required Resources
Text
An introduction to logicChapter 4: Mistakes in Reasoning: The World of Fallacies
Chapter 5: Applications of Logic
Website
Museum of Hoaxes(http://www.hoaxes.org)Students will analyze hoaxes from the past with the goal of learning how to evaluate information such that they will not fall into error when they analyze future information.
Week 4 – Assignment
Evaluate an Argument
Please read the instructions below for information on how to complete this assignment.
For a list of resources that are specific to this assignment, please utilize the “Resources Tab” located below.
If you feel that you need help with any of the main topics for this week, please revisit the Practice Activities located in the Weekly Overview.
Assignment
Resources
Choose an argument that you found online (you may utilize an argument from a video posted online, a blog, a news source, a political website, or any other resource that will allow you to satisfactorily meet the requirements of the assignment). You may also select from this week’s relevant recommended resources.
Once you have selected your source, you will then evaluate the argument being presented in the source in an essay of 400 words. In your evaluation:
Identify the issue, the premises, and conclusions of the argument.
Determine whether the argument is sound or unsound (deductive), valid or invalid (deductive), or strong or weak (inductive).
Explain why you have chosen to label it as sound or unsound, valid or invalid, and/or strong or weak.
Use the “Steps for evaluating an argument” template for assistance with structuring your evaluation; however, you should construct and submit your evaluation in an essay format. Do not merely turn in a bulleted outline.
The essay must be 400 words in length, excluding title and reference pages, and formatted according to APA style. For information regarding APA formatting, including samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center, located within the Learning Resources tab on the left navigation toolbar in your online course. The only required resource for this assignment is the media object or written work you analyze. This should be the piece that you primarily use to complete this assignment. Secondary sources are welcome but not necessary, and they should not be used in place of the argument piece you analyze.
The Ashford Writing Center (AWC) has two kinds of tutoring available to you.
Live Chat– If you have writing-related questions about a topic before you draft a discussion post or submit a written assignment, you will now be able to chat live with a tutor for a short (up to 20 minute) conversation. Live Chat will be available Monday through Friday from 10:00-11:00 am and 4:00-5:00 pm (PST). AWC Live Chat
Email Paper Review– If you have a draft, partial draft, or even if you’re having trouble getting started, you can complete a submission form and email your paper to the AWC for review.Writing Tutors will do their best to return your paper with their comments within 48 hours, not including Saturdays and Sundays. Please plan accordingly if you would like to receive feedback before an assignment due date.AWC Email Paper Review
Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.
Late Policy: Written assignments (essays, journals, presentations) are due on the specified days in the course. Written assignments will be subject to a late penalty of up to 10% per day up to three days late. If written assignments are submitted after 72 hours past the due date, instructors can give a penalty up to and including a grade of 0 for the assignment.
PHI103.W4A1.10.2013
Description:
Total Possible Score: 3.00
Identifies the Issue, Premises, and Conclusion of the Argument
Total: 0.70
Distinguished – Accurately and clearly identifies the issue, premises, and conclusion of the argument. The identification is clear and concise.
Proficient – Accurately identifies the issue, premises, and conclusion of the argument. The identification is slightly unclear or imprecise.
Basic – Accurately identifies at least two of the three components of the argument. The identification of the issue, premises, or conclusion is unclear, imprecise, or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Accurately identifies at least one component of the argument. The identification of the issue, premises, and/or conclusion is significantly unclear, imprecise, and/or inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The identification of the issue, premises, and conclusion of the argument is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Determines Whether the Argument Is Valid/Invalid, Sound/Unsound, and/or Strong/Weak
Total: 1.40
Distinguished – Clearly determines whether the argument is valid/invalid, sound/unsound, and/or strong/weak in accordance with the properties of deductive and inductive arguments, and fully explains reasoning.
Proficient – Somewhat clearly determines whether the argument is valid/invalid, sound/unsound, and/or strong/weak, and adequately explains reasoning. The explanation omits minor details related to the properties of inductive and deductive arguments.
Basic – Determines whether the argument is valid/invalid, sound/unsound, and/or strong/weak, and partially explains reasoning. The explanation omits relevant details that are necessary to fully explain the properties of inductive and deductive arguments.
Below Expectations – Attempts to determine whether the argument is valid/invalid, sound/unsound, and/or strong/weak and explain reasoning; however, the explanation omits or inaccurately represents significant details that are necessary to explain the properties of inductive and deductive arguments.
Non-Performance – The determination of whether the argument is valid/invalid, sound/unsound, and/or strong/weak is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Total: 0.30
Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors, and is very easy to understand.
Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors, and is mostly easy to understand.
Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors, which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors, which distract the reader.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Word Requirement
Total: 0.30
Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of words.
Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of words.
Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of words.
Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of words.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
APA Formatting
Total: 0.15
Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.
Basic – Exhibits basic knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.
Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Resource Requirement
Total: 0.15
Distinguished – Uses more than one scholarly source, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient – Uses one scholarly source to support ideas. The source is used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment and on the reference page.
Basic – Uses one scholarly source to somewhat support ideas. Citations may not be formatted correctly within the body of the assignment and/or on the reference page.
Below Expectations – Uses one source that provides little or no support for ideas. The source may not be scholarly, and citations are not formatted correctly within the body of the assignment and/or on the reference page.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Powered by
