ivedFor each of the following terms, find three sources that contain a meaning of that term, then

summaries these three meanings in order to produce a single definition for each term. The

prescribed text “Critical Thinking” by Moore & Parker is NOT to be used as a referenced source.

a. Problems that are dilemmas

Hamby (2007) defines problems with dilemmas as those problems which present two

possible yet distinct options in their solutions. Paul (2002) almost similarly notes that problems

with dilemmas occur when two incompatible solutions have to be compared. The same direction

is taken by Pavlidis (2010) who says that when efforts towards choosing either solution seems to

compromise or even negate the efforts towards choosing the other solution, then a problem can

be sad to have a dilemma. Taking into consideration these divergent definitions once can

conclude that problems with dilemmas are those problems which present two diverging feasible

solutions and where selection of one will most definitely cancel the possibility of the other.

b. Root Cause Analysis

The definition of ‘Root Cause Analysis’ has not changed over the years. Like Mayer

(1992) defined as it a technique seeking to establish what occurred initially to trigger a series of

actions leading to an occurrence, so does Kopcak (2007) who ‘Root Cause Analysis’ as a quest

to identify the origin cause of a problem or occurrence. A more comprehensive definition is

however offered by Treffinger, Isaksen, & Stead-Dorval (2006) who defines ‘Root Cause

Analysis’ as a systematic analysis of an occurrence by breaking it down into its individual

elements to establish facts supporting its initial trigger. Closely look at these definitions, one can

come to one conclusion, ‘Root Cause Analysis’ is an analytic process which looks at the possible

cause of an event by analyzing its elements and seeking to establish the triggering factor for the

event.

c. Subjective Claim

Multiple definitions have been put forth with regard to subjective claims although most

converge to the same point. In Butte College (2013) subjective claim is defined a claim which

cannot be proven for falsehood or truth through any specified general acceptance criterion. On

the other hand, Burstein, Marcu, Andreyev, & Chodorow (2010) define subjective claims as

opinion expressions, preference expressions and hence lack factual basis. They cannot be

categorically classified as either false or true. This definition is supported by Yu &

Hatzivassiloglou (2003) who define subjective claims as claims which are neither true nor false

and as such lack tangible basis. Based on these definitions, subjective claims can be defined as

claims which can never be classified as true or false give the fact that they only express opinions,

tastes and attract different views form different people.

d. Argument

In the piece titled, argument evaluation (2013) the authors not for a statement to be

classified as an argument, it must offer strong and reasonable basis for wanting the audience to

believe in the conclusion being put forward. On the other hand, Kopcak (2007) define an

argument as a statement aimed at justifying a reason for believing something is as it is. In Butte

College (2013) however, an argument is defined as expression of different ideas in a bid to

convince each that one’s perception is the correct one. Borrowing from these ideas, it can be

simply concluded that an argument is statement which seeks to explain why one hold a certain

point of view over an issue.

e. Unstated Premise

Butte College (2013) defines an unstated premise as something which is presumed in

making a statement but is not mentioned. This happens where the speaker thinks the unstated

premise is too obvious. Pavlidis (2010) buys this idea noting that unstated premise is something

that assumed so obvious such the speaker will most likely not mention it. Hamby (2007) notes

that often unstated arguments are those premises which should be stated in order to support the

conclusion but the authors choose not to on assumption that they are too obvious. In essence,

unstated premises are the premises which support statement conclusions but due to assumption

of obviousness the authors fail to mention them.

f. Vagueness

Vagueness is a relative term and consequently different authors have offered divergent

definitions. While Deemter (2010) defines it as lacking specific meaning, Keefe (2000) argues

that vagueness arises where a whole range of deductions can be made from a word or a

statement. This is supported by Smith (1997) who defined something vague as something that

can be interpreted in a myriad ways. In essence, borrowing from these definitions, something

vague can be defined as something that lacks specific meaning and hence attracts different views

and interpretations.

2.

Conclusion/Argument Premise

Australia's foreign aid budget is expanding dramatically, and taxpayers should be worried.Not because aid has doubled in the past five years, to $4.3 billion, and will double again in the next five years, to $8.6 billion

…Argument Premise/ Conclusion

No, taxpayers should be concerned because the government does not have a clear plan for how it is going to use that money, and prevent it being wasted.

…Statement Matthew Morris, the deputy director of the Development Policy

Centre at the Australian National University, asked in a recent blog: "How will we know what programs aid is spent on, which programs work and what results have been delivered?"

Claim All excellent questions!… Statement Another question is how AusAID, Australia's international

development agency, is going to keep up with the immense burden that an escalating aid budget will have on its ability to cope

… Argument Premise/Conclusion

An auditor-general's report has already found the agency is struggling; staffs are stressed and its turnover is high.

Statement Australia also has one of the highest rates of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development donor countries for the amount of aid spent on "technical assistance" or, to put it more plainly, expensive consultants. Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd has taken steps to improve this situation, but the ratio of aid money Australia spends on consultants is still one of the highest in the world.

Statement Where does poverty eradication fit in to this murky picture, you might ask?

Claim Well, when the objective of Australia's aid program is to assist developing countries to reduce poverty "in line with Australia's national interest", almost anything goes, doesn't it?

Claim So, for instance, we see aid for the first time being set aside for Central and South America.

Statement Three years ago Australia's aid allocation to this distant region was zero, two years ago it was $20 million, and now it is $36 million.

Argument The obvious question is why is Australia spending money in a

Premise/Conclusion region with which it has limited connection? The United Nations Security Council bid perhaps?

Argument Premise/Conclusion

While Australia's aid program has its problems, what is not in doubt is that it has a person in charge who cares about it deeply. This stuff matters to Rudd.

Claim His big challenge now is not only to set out, as transparently as possible, the Gillard government's plan for what it is going to do with Australia's aid money; he also has to bring public opinion along.

Conclusion/statement Rudd's task will not be easy, in part because it requires dramatically changing a risk-averse culture, which has marked AusAID until this point, and has seen it shy away from scrutiny.

Claim There are signs the new director-general, Peter Baxter, might be changing things.

Statement/ Conclusion Recent work done by AusAID researching community attitudes shows 77 per cent of Australians believe Australia is a "lucky country" and should share its wealth.The government is obliged not to squander that goodwill.

3. Using the method explained in the text book, diagram the following arguments a. The slide in the dollar must be stopped. It contributes to inflation and increases the cost

of imports. True, it helps exports but on balance it is bad for the economy. [7.5 marks]

b. They really ought to build a new airport. It would attract more business to the area, not to mention the fact that the old airport is overcrowded and dangerous.

4.

Slide of the dollar

Helps exports Inflation and increased import

costs

Inflation and increased import costs

New Airport

Reduce overcrowding and dangers

Attract more investment

a. For each of the following, determine if they are subjective claims or objective claims i. Buttermilk tastes kind of funny. Like its gone bad? – Subjective ii. Pam told the truth to the police, plain and simple. – Objective iii. Carol can’t hit a high C when she sings. – Objective iv. The most economical car of this year would be the new Volt. – Subjective

b. For each of the following, identify the premise and the conclusion and write one short sentence to support your answer

i. Since all Communists are Marxists, all Marxists are Communists. Premise Since all Communists are Marxists (supports the reason why all Marxists are

communists)Conclusion All Marxists are Communists (makes a conclusion based on the premise

identified. ii. Presbyterians are not fundamentalists, but all born-again Christians are. So no born-

again Christians are Presbyterians. Premise Presbyterians are not fundamentalists, but all born-again Christians are (Lays

foundation for making a conclusions about Born again Christians not being Presbyterians)

Conclusion So no born-again Christians are Presbyterians (Affirms that not born again Christians are Presbyterians based on the previous statement)

iii. When blue jays are breeding, they become aggressive. Consequently, scrub jays, which are very similar to blue jays, can also be expected to be aggressive when they are breeding.

Premise When blue jays are breeding, they become aggressive (Introduces a reason why the conclusion is so)

Conclusion Consequently, scrub jays, which are very similar to blue jays, can also be expected to be aggressive when they are breeding (bases its argument of the previous statement to make a conclusive remarks)

5.a. Use the full truth table method to determine the validity of the following argument

All runners are athletes and sportspersons Eve is not an athleteEve is a sportspersonEve is not a runner~ (P V Q) R P P ~R ~P ~V ~Q R P P ~R

F F F F F TF F T F F TF T F F F T

F T T F F TT F F F F TT F T F F TT T F F F TT T T T T F

Invalid

b. Use the short truth table method to determine the validity of the following argument

P V (QR)

Q &~ R ~ P

P V Q R Q &~ R ~ P

T T T T F FT T T F T TT T F T F FT T F F F FT F T T F FT F T F T TT F F T F FT F F F F FF T T T F PF T T F T TF T F T F FF T F F F FF F T T F FF F T F T TF F F T F FF F F F F F

Invalid

References

Argument evaluation, 2013, retrieved 16 August 2013,< http://ww w.webpages.uida ho.e du/cri t_think/ctw-m/eval.htm>.

Burstein, J., Marcu, D., Andreyev, S., Chodorow, M. 2001,Towards Automatic Classification of Discourse Elements in Essays. In Proceedings of ACL-01,Toulouse, France.

Butte College. 2013. Objective and subjective claims. retrieved 16 August 2013,<http:/ /www. butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/claims.html>.

Deemter, Kees van n.d, Not Exactly: In Praise of Vagueness, Oxford University Press, London.

Hamby, B.W 2007, The Philosophy of Anything: Critical Thinking in Context. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque Iowa.

Keefe, R. 2000, Vagueness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, London.

Kopcak, T 2007, ‘Applying thinking tools to research and creative learning today’, vol.15, no.3, p.3

Mayer, R. E 1992, Thinking, problem solving, cognition.Second edition, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Paul, R 2002.Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life.Financial Times Prentice Hall

Pavlidis, P 2010, ‘Critical Thinking as Dialectics: a Hegelian-Marxist Approach’, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.14-19.

Smith, P 1997, Vagueness: A Reader, MIT Press, Washington DC.

Treffinger, D. J, Isaksen, S. G & Stead-Dorval, K. B 2006. Creative problem solving: An introduction (4th ed.), Prufrock Press, Waco, TX

Yu, H. and Hatzivassiloglou, V 2003, Towards Answering Opinion Questions: Separating Facts from Opinions and Identifying the Polarity of Opinion Sentences, Sapporo Publishers, Tokyo.