Key to all exercises - None PDF

Preview

Summary

None...

Description

Exercise Answers and Teaching Tips Chapter 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Students enjoy the exercises in Chapter 1. Most are Socratic exercises, designed to ease students into the course and encourage self-reflection in dialogue with others. Instructors probably won't want to do all the exercises in this chapter: We generally do about half. Exercise 1.1.1 works well as an icebreaker. Students always enjoy Exercises 1.2 and 1.3, and Exercises 1.6.I and 1.6.III work well for instructors who stress writing.

Exercise 1.1 I. As noted above, this exercise works well as an icebreaker. We use it mainly to highlight the difference between lower-order thinking and higher-order thinking.

II. Having grown up on Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake, today's students are surprisingly frank about their practical and intellectual inconsistencies. If discussion does falter, try discussing the hypocrisies of public figures.

Exercise 1.2 Students enjoy this simple test, which takes only a few minutes to take and self-grade. Students are amazed by how poorly they do. (Most only get two or three answers correct.) This brings home to them in a way no lecture could their own proneness to intellectual overconfidence.

Exercise 1.3 Students have fun with this exercise, and it is very effective in making clear to them how strongly our thinking is influenced by unconscious assumptions and stereotypes. Students invariably assume, for example, that the Captain is a man, that Dr. Brown is a man, that Dr. Brown is a medical doctor, that Dr. Brown and Marie Brown are related as either husband and wife or as father and daughter—despite the fact there is no textual evidence to support any of these assumptions. Allow at least 20-30 minutes for this exercise.

2

Exercise 1.4. Below are some crib notes we use in our own classes when teaching this exercise. Case 1

Key Facts:    

You are a member of Culture C and a moral relativist. You are studying cultures A and B. A is a pacifist culture; B is a militaristic and slaveholding culture. B invades A.

Discussion questions: 1. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture A? Answer: You must believe that it is right for Culture A to be a totally pacifist culture, and hence that it is right for Culture A to permit themselves to be conquered and enslaved by Culture B. (Assuming that this belief is consistent with what you must believe as a member of Culture C.) 2. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture B? Answer: You must believe that it is right for Culture B to be a militaristic and slaveholding culture, and hence that it is right for Culture B to conquer and enslave Culture A. (Assuming that this belief is consistent with what you must believe as a member of Culture C.) 3. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture A? Answer: Since both Culture A and Culture B are doing what they consider to be morally right, you cannot do anything to interfere with the invasion. (Assuming that your noninterference is permitted by the values of Culture C.) 4. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture B? Answer: You cannot do anything to interfere with Culture B’s conquest of Culture A. (Assuming that your noninterference is permitted by the values of Culture C.) Main Lesson of Case 1: Moral relativism may commit us to certain beliefs or practices that, intuitively, seem to us to be terribly wrong. It makes it impossible for us to criticize the values and practices of other cultures that may seem to us to be clearly wrong or misguided.

3

Case 2

Key Facts:    

You are a member of Culture B and a moral relativist. A is a pacifist culture; B is a militaristic and slaveholding culture. Culture B believes that it is wrong for Culture A to practice pacifism. Culture B invades Culture A, and seeks to enslave them and force many of them to participate in gladiatorial bouts.

Discussion questions: 1. Is there any logical difficulty with being a relativist and also belonging to Culture B? Answer: Yes. As a moral relativist you must believe that it is right for Culture A to practice pacifism (since this is what Culture A believes is right). But as a member of Culture B you must believe that it is wrong for Culture A to practice pacifism (since this is what Culture B believes). 2. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture A? Answer: As explained above, you are committed to inconsistent beliefs with regard to Culture A. You must believe that it is right for Culture A to practice pacifism and that it is wrong for Culture A to practice pacifism. 3. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture B? Answer: You must believe that it is right for Culture B to subjugate and enslave Culture A. (Instructors might wish to note that, strictly speaking, inconsistent beliefs imply any conclusion.) 4. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture A? Answer: Since both Culture A and Culture B are doing what they consider to be right, you, as a member of Culture B, must support the invasion—and indeed participate in it if required to do so. 5. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture B? Answer: You must support and possibly participate in the invasion and subjugation.

4

Main Lessons of Case 2: 1. Moral relativism may commit us to certain beliefs or practices that, intuitively, seem to us to be terribly wrong. 2. Moral relativism can easily lapse into inconsistency. One way this can happen is when a relativist is a member of a society that holds beliefs that conflict with moral relativism (as Culture B does in this scenario). Another way inconsistency can occur is when a relativist belongs to a culture that holds inconsistent moral beliefs. A third way in which relativism can lead to inconsistency is explored in Case 3.

Case 3

Key Facts:      

You are a member of Culture B, a moral relativist, and a member of sub-culture Beta. Culture A is a totally pacifist culture. Culture B consists of two sub-cultures: the Alphas, a ruling majority group, and the Betas, an oppressed minority group with its own distinctive beliefs and practices. The Alphas believe that it is morally right to annually sacrifice a young child; the Betas believe strongly that child sacrifice is wrong. The Alphas also believe that it is wrong that Culture A does not practice child sacrifice, and that it is right for them to impose this belief on Culture A. Culture B invades Culture A, and begins its program of indoctrination.

Discussion questions: 1. Is it possible for an individual to belong to more than one culture at the same time? If so, does this impose any logical difficulty for the moral relativist? Answer: Arguably, yes. The Amish, for example, plausibly belong to two cultures: the larger American culture and their own distinctive sub-culture. If an individual belongs to different cultures, and the cultures hold mutually inconsistent moral beliefs, then moral relativism implies inconsistent moral duties. 2. Is there any logical difficulty in being a relativist and belonging to Culture B? Answer: Yes, for the same reason stated in Case 2. You must believe both that Culture A is right not to practice child sacrifice and that Culture A is wrong not to practice child sacrifice.

5

3. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture A and Culture B? Answer: You seem to be committed to holding inconsistent beliefs: that child sacrifice is both right and wrong for Culture B, and that child sacrifice is both right and wrong for Culture A. 4. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture A and Culture B? Answer: You would have inconsistent duties--for example, both to support and not to support child sacrifice. 5. If someday the Betas become the majority sub-culture in Culture B, and consequently most members of Culture B no longer believe in child sacrifice, can this be described as "moral progress" from the standpoint of moral relativism? Answer: No. According to moral relativism, what is morally right for a society is whatever that society believes is right at a particular time. Thus, according to relativism, it is not the case, for example, that contemporary Americans' attitudes toward slavery are "truer" or "more enlightened" than those of most 18th century Americans. Both views are equally true for the people at those times.

Exercise 1.5 Students may be confused at first about how some of these critical thinking hindrances differ from one another. Encourage them to begin with definitions of the hindrances and then to work systematically through them, providing examples of each.

Exercise 1.6 I. Students enjoy this exercise in self-examination, and it provides a good opportunity early in the course for instructors to offer rapport-building feedback. II. The following definitions are offered on the Center for Critical Thinking Web site (http://www.criticalthinking.org): 

Intellectual humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations.

6



Intellectual courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing.



Fair-mindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation.



Intellectual perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.

The Web site also offers definitions of three additional intellectual traits: intellectual empathy, intellectual integrity, and faith in reason. Here are two dictionary definitions of open-mindedness: "Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others." (Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd ed.) "Willingness to listen to other people and consider new ideas, suggestions and opinions." (Source: Cambridge International Dictionary of English.)

III. Unfortunately, many students know very little about such intellectually courageous figures as Socrates, Luther, St. Thomas More, Spinoza, or Susan B. Anthony. If time permits, you might ask students to read Plato's Apology and perhaps the Crito or Phaedo as well. This will take a few class periods but the critical-thinking lessons they teach are important.

Chapter 2: Recognizing Arguments Exercise 2.1 I. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Statement Nonstatement (question) Statement Nonstatement (suggestion) Statement

7

6. Nonstatement (suggestion or exhortation) 7. Statement (This is a brief and emphatic way of saying, "This is great.") 8. Nonstatement (command) 9. Nonstatement (order or request) 10. Statement (You might be lying.) 11. Statement (rhetorical question) 12. Nonstatement (exclamation) 13. Nonstatement (request) 14. Statement (rhetorical question) 15. Nonstatement (question) 16. Statement (This is an emphatic way of saying, "This is a crock.") 17. Nonstatement (This could be an ought imperative in some contexts, but more likely it is a request, suggestion, or order.) 18. Statement 19. Nonstatement ("Please" indicates that this is a request) 20. Nonstatement (petition) 21. Nonstatement (suggestion or proposal) 22. Statement (Spanish for "My house is your house.") 23. Statement (rhetorical question) 24. Statement (rhetorical question) 25. Nonstatement (exclamation) II. 1. Yes 2. No (command) 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. No (suggestion) 6. No 7. Yes 8. Yes 9. Yes 10. Yes 11. No 12. Yes 13. Yes 14. No 15. Yes

Exercise 2.2 I. 1.

Premise: Light takes time to reach our eyes.

8

Conclusion: All that we see really existed in the past. 2.

Premise 1: Life changes when you least expect it to. Premise 2: The future is uncertain. Conclusion: Seize this day, seize this moment, and make the most of it.

3.

Premise: A good name shall continue with thee, more than a thousand treasures precious and great. Conclusion: Take care of a good name.

4.

Premise: Faith means believing a proposition when there is no good reason for believing it. Conclusion: Faith is a vice.

5.

Premise: If you are not very careful about lying, you are nearly sure to get caught. Conclusion: You want to be very careful about lying.

6.

Premise: There is no definitive way to prove any one set of religious beliefs to the exclusion of all others. Conclusion: Religious freedom is a human right.

7.

Premise: Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is. Conclusion: Science sometimes requires courage--at the very least the courage to question the conventional wisdom.

8.

Premise 1: You may not be able to hear warning sirens from emergency vehicles. Premise 2: Hearing damage from loud noise is almost undetectable until it's too late. Conclusion: Do not play your sound system loudly.

9.

Premise 1: Without symbols, no intellectual advance is possible. Premise 2: With symbols, there is no limit set to intellectual development except inherent stupidity. Conclusion: The invention or discovery of symbols is doubtless by far the single greatest event in the history of man.

10.

Premise: On average, the lowest animal is a lot nicer and kinder than most of the human beings that inhabit the earth. Conclusion: Animals have souls.

11.

Premise: The more stupid a member of Parliament is, the more stupid his constituents were to elect him. Conclusion: Democracy has at least one merit, namely, that a member of Parliament cannot be stupider than his constituents.

9

12.

Premise: When senility hit you, you won't know it. Conclusion: Don't worry about senility.

13.

Premise: Oil isn't helping anyone when it sits in the ground. Conclusion: There's nothing wrong with burning crude [oil] like crazy, so long as there's a plan for energy alternatives when the cheap oil runs out.

14.

Premise: Everyone recalls the famous incident at Sybil Seretsky's when her goldfish sang "I Got Rhythm"--a favorite tune of her deceased nephew. Conclusion: There is no doubt that certain events recorded at seances are genuine. 15.

Premise: We need quality highways to handle the sharp increase in the number of Mercedes automobiles purchased by lawyers enriched by the tobacco settlement. Conclusion: It's good that so far states are spending more than 90 percent of the tobacco settlement money on programs unrelated to smoking, such as building highways. 16.

Premise: If we encourage each other to blame God for injustice, we are giving the evil or dark side a victory by keeping God's precious children–that's all of us–away from His loving arms. Conclusion: Although it's part of human nature to be angry at God when bad things happen, there' s no point in doing so.

17.

Premise 1: In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Premise 2: God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. Conclusion: Both parties in great contests may be, and one must be, wrong.

18.

Premise 1: The Alaska bears are a distinct species. Premise 2: Relegating grizzlies to Alaska is like relegating happiness to heaven-one may never get to heaven or Alaska. Conclusion: It is not good enough for me if grizzlies survive only in Canada and Alaska.

19.

Premise 1: More than 99 percent of the creatures that have ever lived have died without progeny. Premise 2: Not a single one of your ancestors falls into this group. Conclusion: You are very lucky to be alive.

20.

Premise: You put a pen in there, you roll over in the middle of the night, you kill yourself. Conclusion: You don't need a breast pocket on your pajamas.

10

II. 1.

Premise 1: Man knows that he is dying. Premise 2: Of its victory the universe knows nothing. Conclusion: When the universe has crushed him man will still be nobler than that which kills him.

2.

Premise 1: Rights are either God-given or evolve out of the democratic process. Premise 2: Most rights are based on the ability of people to agree on a social contract, the ability to make and keep agreements. Premise 3: Animals cannot possibly reach such an agreement with other creatures. Premise 4: Animals cannot respect anyone else's rights. Conclusion: Animals cannot be said to have rights.

3.

Premise 1: I need a man. Premise 2: My heart is set on you. Conclusion: You’d better shape up.

4.

Premise 1: Moral responsibility presupposes free-will. Premise 2: This freedom is not compatible with universal causal determinism. Premise 3: Universal causal determinism appears to be the case. Conclusion: Contrary to what most people believe, human beings are not morally responsible.

5.

Premise 1: Our faith comes in moments. Premise 2: Our vice is habitual. Premise 3: There is a depth in those brief moments which constrains us to ascribe more reality to them than to all other experiences. Conclusion: The argument which is always forthcoming to silence those who conceive extraordinary hopes of man, namely the appeal to experience, is forever invalid and vain. 6.

Premise 1: Travel articles appear in publications that sell large, expensive advertisements to tourism-related industries. Premise 2: These industries do not wish to see articles with headlines like "Uruguay: Don't Bother." Premise 3: (subconclusion): No matter what kind of leech-infested, plumbing free destination travel writers are writing about, they always stress the positive. Conclusion: Never trust anything you read in travel articles.

7.

Premise 1: If you are not speeding, you don't have to worry about speed traps. Premise 2: Speed traps could save your life if some other speeder is caught. Conclusion: No one in his right mind can criticize the state police for speed traps.

11

8.

life

Premise 1: Philosophy is dangerous whenever it is taken seriously. Premise 2: So is life. Premise 3: Safety is not an option. Conclusion: Our choices are not between risk and security, but between a life lived consciously, fully, humanly in the most complete sense and a that just happens.

9.

Premise: Our nation protests, encourages, and even intervenes in the affairs of other nations on the basis of its relations to corporations. Conclusion: We cannot dissociate ourselves from the plight of people in those countries.

10.

Premise: He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen. Conclusion: If a man say, "I love God" and hateth his brother, he is a liar.

11.

Premise 1: Each of us has an intellectual dimension to his existence. Premise 2: We need ideas as much as we need food, air, or water. Premise 3: Ideas nourish the mind as the latter provide for the body. Conclusion: We need good ideas as much as we need good food, good air, and good water.

12.