Student Name Chamberlain University PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning Prof. Name Date Critical Thinking Revisiting My Definition of Critical Thinking In my initial journal entry, I defined critical thinking as the ability to effectively apply one’s knowledge to real-life situations. After studying this concept over the past eight weeks, I find that my core definition remains consistent. I still believe that critical thinking involves not only acquiring knowledge but also utilizing it in practical, problem-solving contexts. For example, in nursing practice, critical thinking is essential when making patient care decisions. A nurse must assess symptoms, interpret data, and apply clinical judgment to ensure patient safety and optimal health outcomes. While my definition remains the same, my understanding has deepened. I now recognize that critical thinking also involves questioning assumptions, recognizing biases, and considering multiple perspectives before forming conclusions. PHIL 347 Week 8 Journal Aspect Original Perspective Expanded Understanding After Study Application of Knowledge Applying knowledge to real-life problems Applying knowledge while critically questioning and evaluating the reliability of that knowledge Decision-Making Making sound judgments in professional settings Considering ethical, cultural, and contextual factors in decision-making Perspective-Taking Not explicitly included Recognizing and respecting alternative viewpoints to enhance reasoning Heart of the Matter Importance of Chapters 12, 13, and 14 to Critical Thinking The authors describe the concepts in Chapters 12, 13, and 14 as “the heart of the matter” because they address the core principles of human reasoning and thought processes. These chapters explore how individuals form beliefs, evaluate evidence, and resolve disagreements—skills that are foundational to critical thinking. From my renewed understanding, these chapters are essential because they emphasize the interplay between logic, perception, and open-mindedness. When people disagree, effective critical thinkers do not simply defend their own stance; they seek to understand the reasoning behind opposing views. This process fosters mutual respect and leads to more informed conclusions. Moreover, the discussions in these chapters highlight the role of metacognition—thinking about one’s own thinking—which allows individuals to refine their reasoning skills continuously. In professional and personal contexts alike, this self-awareness is key to improving problem-solving abilities. Ethical Decision-Making Ethics as the Foundation of a Strong Argument I agree with the lecture’s claim that a strong argument must have a reasoned ethical foundation. Ethics, which deals with principles of right and wrong conduct, ensures that arguments are not only logically sound but also morally responsible. Without ethical grounding, even a logically consistent argument can be harmful or unjust. An effective argument combines factual accuracy, logical structure, and ethical reasoning. For instance, arguing that cheating on a test is wrong is not only supported by institutional rules but also grounded in fairness, integrity, and respect for the efforts of others. Ethical considerations ensure that persuasive reasoning does not promote actions that could cause harm, violate rights, or undermine trust. Component of a Good Argument Description Example Logic Clear, consistent reasoning Using evidence to support a claim Ethics Moral justification for the argument Cheating is wrong because it undermines fairness Evidence Data and examples supporting the claim Statistics on the consequences of academic dishonesty Looking Forward Lifelong Nature of Critical Thinking I believe that learning to think critically is a lifelong process. While this eight-week course has provided valuable tools, critical thinking evolves through continuous learning, self-reflection, and exposure to diverse experiences. It is not a skill mastered in weeks or years but one refined over a lifetime. In nursing, for example, every patient interaction presents a new scenario that challenges one’s reasoning abilities. As healthcare practices, technologies, and patient needs change, so must the practitioner’s approach to problem-solving. Similarly, in everyday life, new information and perspectives require us to reassess prior conclusions. Therefore, critical thinking should be seen as a dynamic, ongoing process that adapts to changing knowledge, contexts, and challenges. References Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools (7th ed.). Foundation for Critical Thinking. Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment. PHIL 347 Week 8 Journal Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2018). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (12th ed.). Pearson.

Student Name Chamberlain University PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning Prof. Name Date Should the Police Be Defunded? In recent years, societies around the world have increasingly questioned traditional structures, from gender norms to political institutions. Citizens are more engaged, informed, and vocal about their rights than ever before. A key event that intensified this shift was the killing of George Floyd, an African American man, in May 2020. Allegedly suspected of a minor offense, Floyd was detained by police officers, placed in handcuffs, and restrained on the ground. One officer infamously knelt on Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes, even after Floyd repeatedly said, “I can’t breathe.” His death became a catalyst for renewed Black Lives Matter protests and reignited debates on police reform, racial injustice, and systemic inequality. The incident was not an isolated case—there is a long-standing history of disproportionate violence and discrimination against people of color in the U.S. criminal justice system. In response, some activists proposed a radical measure: defunding the police. This concept involves reducing police budgets and redirecting funds toward social services, education, housing, and mental health programs. Advocates argue that such a shift could address systemic problems more effectively than traditional policing. However, critics contend that defunding the police could jeopardize public safety and fail to address the root causes of racial injustice. PHIL 347 Week 7 Course Project: Argumentative Paper This paper evaluates both the advantages and disadvantages of defunding the police. While the author ultimately argues against fully defunding law enforcement, it is important to consider the full range of implications before reaching a conclusion. Advantages of Defunding the Police 1. Reducing Abuses of Power Defunding the police could limit the extent to which officers misuse their authority, particularly against marginalized communities. Research indicates that African Americans are disproportionately targeted within the criminal justice system. For example, one in three Black men born today can expect to be incarcerated during their lifetime, compared to one in six Latino men and one in seventeen white men (Hinton et al., 2018). Similarly, Black women face higher incarceration rates—one in eighteen compared to one in 111 white women (Hinton et al., 2018). DeAngelis (2021) highlights that U.S. policing practices exhibit systemic racial bias and lack diversity, leading to discriminatory enforcement of laws. Data from the Mapping Police Violence database reveals that Black individuals are 17% less likely to be armed than white individuals in fatal police encounters, yet they are more frequently shot (DeAngelis, 2021). By reducing police budgets, some argue that the structural power enabling these inequities would also diminish. 2. Redirecting Resources to Community Needs Another argument for defunding the police is the potential to reallocate financial resources to underserved areas. For instance, a survey in Washington, D.C., found that nearly 90 residents opposed a 3.3% increase in the police budget, preferring that the money go toward public safety initiatives, education, housing, and mental health services (The Economist Newspaper, 2020). Communities with high poverty and crime rates often receive heightened police presence, yet little investment in long-term solutions. Redirecting funds toward social infrastructure could address root causes of crime, such as lack of opportunity, mental health crises, and housing instability, reducing the need for aggressive policing in the first place. Table 1Potential Areas for Reallocation of Police Funding Sector Potential Benefits Education Improved graduation rates, increased career opportunities Mental Health Reduced crisis-related incidents, fewer incarcerations Affordable Housing Decreased homelessness, improved neighborhood stability Public Safety Programs Community-led safety initiatives, youth engagement projects Healthcare Increased access to preventative care, reduced medical emergencies Disadvantages of Defunding the Police 1. Risk of Increased Crime Rates Opponents argue that reducing police funding could lead to higher crime rates. Lum et al. (2021) report that 17% of police calls are for non-violent offenses, implying that a substantial portion involve urgent public safety concerns. Violent crimes, though not quantified in this study, are likely even more dependent on law enforcement intervention. While it is true that misconduct exists, it is also important to acknowledge the essential work many officers perform. The absence of a fully equipped police force could hinder responses to emergencies, investigations, and public safety threats. 2. Failure to Fully Address Racial Injustice Defunding the police might not eliminate systemic racism because discrimination is rooted in deeper societal and psychological structures. Roberts and Rizzo (2021) identify factors such as segregation, power hierarchies, and media representation as drivers of racial prejudice. Even with reduced police power, individuals could still harbor and act on racist beliefs in other aspects of life. Addressing racial injustice requires comprehensive social change, including educational reforms, anti-bias training, and cultural transformation—not solely budgetary adjustments. 3. Economic Consequences for Local Governments Local governments often rely on revenue generated through police enforcement, such as fines and fees, to fund community projects. Following the 2007–2009 global financial crisis, these revenues became an important budgetary supplement (The Economist Newspaper, 2020). Reducing police operations could therefore limit available funds for infrastructure, public services, and other community needs. Conclusion The debate over whether the police should be defunded is complex and emotionally charged. Advocates see it as a pathway to reducing systemic abuse and investing in preventative social programs. Critics warn of the risks to public safety, the limited impact on deep-rooted racism, and potential fiscal strain on local governments. After weighing both perspectives, this paper concludes that while policing reforms and budget reallocations are necessary, fully defunding the police is not the optimal solution. A more balanced approach—combining accountability measures, targeted resource redistribution, and long-term societal reform—offers a more sustainable path toward equity and safety. References DeAngelis, R. (2021). New Evidence from the Mapping Police Violence Database. Sage Journals. https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687211047943 Hinton, E., Henderson, L., & Reed, C. (2018). An unjust burden: The disparate treatment of Black Americans in the criminal justice system. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-unjust-burden-racial-disparities.pdf PHIL 347 Week 7 Course Project: Argumentative Paper Lum, C., Koper, C., & Wu, X. (2021). Can we really defund the police? A nine-agency study of police response to calls for service. Police Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111211035002 Roberts, S., & Rizzo, S. (2021). The psychology of American racism. American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-45459-001 The Economist Newspaper. (2020). Cutting American police budgets might have perverse effects: Defunding

Student Name Chamberlain University PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning Prof. Name Date Week 6 Checkpoint Question 1 — What are the three fundamental reasoning strategies listed in the text? Answer The text identifies three primary modes of reasoning: comparative reasoning, ideological reasoning, and empirical reasoning. Strategy Core idea Typical use / example Comparative reasoning Inference by analogy or contrast Explaining why one business strategy may work by comparing it to a similar historical case Ideological reasoning Interpreting facts through a value/theory lens Arguing policy from a libertarian or utilitarian framework Empirical reasoning Drawing conclusions from observed data Concluding a drug is effective based on clinical trial results Question 2 — What is comparative reasoning? On what skill is it based? Answer Comparative reasoning is a way of thinking that reaches conclusions by comparing two or more things — asking how they are alike in relevant respects and how they differ. It is fundamentally an analogical process: we use what we know about a familiar case to make inferences about a less familiar one. This form of reasoning depends heavily on critical thinking skills: identifying which similarities matter (relevance), spotting important differences (disanalogies), and judging whether the analogy supports the conclusion. Good comparative reasoning requires not only noticing surface resemblances, but also evaluating causal or structural parallels that genuinely bear on the question at hand. Question 3 — We learned four tests for evaluating arguments: truthfulness of the premises, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. How well do these tests work with respect to evaluating comparative reasoning? Consider each of the four tests. Answer Each of the four classic tests can be applied to analogical or comparative arguments, but they often require reinterpretation or additional checks to be useful. The table below summarizes how each test applies and what special considerations comparative reasoning introduces. PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint Test What the test normally asks How it applies to comparative reasoning Limitations & extra checks Truthfulness of premises Are the factual claims in the premises accurate? For comparisons, this means checking the factual claims about both the familiar and the unfamiliar cases (e.g., “X had feature A”) Analogies often rest on relational or interpretive claims rather than simple true/false facts. You must verify the empirical facts and the reported similarities/differences. Logical strength Do the premises provide good support for the conclusion? Analogical inferences are inductive: strength depends on number, relevance, and independence of similarities and on absence of crucial dissimilarities Strength must be judged probabilistically — more and more relevant similarities → stronger analogy. Look for counterexamples and assess how typical the similarities are. Relevance Are the premises connected to the conclusion in the right way? This is central for analogies: only similarities that matter to the conclusion are relevant The arguer must justify why a given similarity is relevant (mechanism, causal link, structural parallel). Otherwise the analogy can be persuasive but misleading. Non-circularity Does the argument assume what it tries to prove? Analogies can become circular if the analogy presupposes the conclusion (e.g., using the conclusion’s perspective to select similarities) Check whether the analogical claim depends on hidden assumptions that already imply the conclusion. Seek independent grounds for the analogy. Overall assessment: The four tests are still useful but they need tailoring. Comparative reasoning benefits from extra criteria (see Q4) — especially careful scrutiny of relevance and of disanalogies — because analogies are probabilistic and sensitive to context. In practice, you should combine these tests with domain knowledge and explicit justification of why the chosen similarities matter. Question 4 — What are the five criteria for evaluating comparative reasoning? Name and define them in your own words. Answer Below are the five widely used criteria for judging the quality of a comparison, restated and expanded with short examples. Criterion Definition (in my own words) Why it matters / Example Familiarity How well the audience understands the familiar case used in the analogy. If listeners know the comparison case well, they can better judge whether the analogy fits; otherwise the analogy can mislead. Simplicity How straightforward and uncluttered the comparison is — few, clear points of comparison rather than many messy distinctions. Simple analogies are easier to evaluate and less likely to hide relevant dissimilarities. Comprehensiveness The extent to which the comparison covers the key, relevant features rather than just a narrow slice. A comparison that attends to most relevant dimensions (not just convenient ones) is more trustworthy. Productivity Whether the analogy generates useful new questions, hypotheses, or predictions beyond the immediate claim. A productive analogy suggests further testable consequences or helps solve problems in the new case. Testability The degree to which the analogy leads to predictions or consequences that can be empirically checked and potentially falsified. Testable analogies can be validated or overturned by evidence (stronger than purely rhetorical analogies). These criteria help move an analogy from being merely rhetorically attractive to being epistemically valuable. Question 5 — According to the text, the basic question to ask when evaluating a comparison between two objects or ideas or events is “Are they alike enough in the important ways or not?” (p. 248). What are those “important ways” that determine the credibility of conclusions based on similarities? Answer The “important ways” are the features or relationships that are causally or structurally relevant to the conclusion you want to draw. Key elements include: In short: similarities matter only when they are relevant to what you are trying to explain or predict. (See the textbook’s formulation on p. 248 for the basic diagnostic question.) Question 6 — In your own words, define empirical reasoning. Answer Empirical reasoning is drawing conclusions from observations, measurements, or experiments. It is an evidence-based mode of inference: claims rest on data collected from the world, and those claims are judged by how well the data support them. Empirical reasoning is characteristically inductive (it generalizes from instances), self-correcting (updatable when new evidence appears), and open to independent verification (others can check the observations and analyses). Question 7 — What are the three defining characteristics of empirical reasoning? Answer Question 8 — What is meant by “the null hypothesis”?

Student Name Chamberlain University PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning Prof. Name Date Week 5: Journal What is Self-Regulation and How Does It Impact Our Thinking? Self-regulation refers to the ability to observe and recognize our actions or decisions and make corrections when necessary. It requires conscious effort to direct, sustain, and shift attention, especially when distractions arise. This skill is essential in everyday activities such as studying or driving, where maintaining focus is critical. Two distinct modes of thinking illustrate how self-regulation operates: PHIL 347 Week 5 Journal Critical thinking is a form of System 2 thinking that focuses on solving problems while simultaneously monitoring and correcting one’s reasoning process. What Role Do Heuristics Play in Decision-Making? Heuristics are mental shortcuts based on past experiences or known information, allowing for quick decisions. For example, if you are running late and need to pick an outfit, you might default to a familiar combination to save time. While heuristics are efficient and often helpful, they can sometimes lead to errors when overused. Heuristic Type Example Effect Default Heuristic Choosing a default outfit when in a rush Positive – speeds decision-making Representative Heuristic Assuming someone who likes donuts and wears blue is a police officer Negative – can lead to stereotyping Dominance structuring is another cognitive tendency where a person is convinced their decision is the best and refuses to reconsider it. This can be beneficial when persistence is required, such as completing homework or helping a family member, but detrimental if it leads to poor decisions, such as misdiagnosing a patient. The habit of truth-seeking and self-regulation in critical thinking helps identify and correct these errors (Facione, 2016). How Does Cognitive Bias Affect Our Judgments? Cognitive bias stems largely from how we remember past events, which influences future judgments. For example, witnessing someone fall ill after vaccination may lead to a mistaken belief that vaccines cause sickness. However, understanding the facts—such as differentiating between a vaccine reaction and unrelated illness—can help mitigate this bias. Mastery of factual knowledge and data allows individuals to challenge these biases, especially in fast, intuitive System 1 thinking, leading to more accurate and fair judgments. PHIL 347 Week 5 Journal Summary Table: Thinking Processes and Their Characteristics Thinking Process Description Example Advantages Risks System 1 Fast, automatic, heuristic-based Ordering your regular coffee Quick decisions, efficient Can rely on biases and stereotypes System 2 Slow, deliberate, analytical Selecting a college Thoughtful decisions, long-term planning Requires more effort and time Heuristics Mental shortcuts based on experience Default outfit when running late Saves time and effort Can lead to stereotyping and errors Dominance Structuring Firmly holding onto one’s decision Persisting with homework despite challenges Helps maintain focus Prevents reconsideration of wrong decisions Cognitive Bias Judgment influenced by past memories Assuming vaccines cause sickness Quick judgment Can lead to false conclusions

Student Name Chamberlain University PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning Prof. Name Date Inference Inference involves drawing conclusions from evidence and reasoning. Two primary types of reasoning are inductive and deductive reasoning. Both aim to reach a valid conclusion, but they approach it differently. Deductive reasoning starts with a hypothesis or general principle and then examines specific cases to confirm or refute it. In contrast, inductive reasoning begins with observations or data and works toward forming new hypotheses or generalizations. The terms “valid” and “warranted” are closely related to inference as they both imply justification of a conclusion. Their meanings can change depending on the context in which they are used. For example, the word valid can refer to the correctness of test results, as in “Mary’s test results are not valid because she cheated,” or it can describe a reasonable statement, as in “He made a valid remark by bringing up the event that occurred last year.” Similarly, warranted can describe justified actions, such as “John’s actions warranted that he be sent home from work,” or refer to a legal document, as in “He received a warrant from the court.” Both terms share linguistic roots but differ widely in application depending on the context. Term Example Sentence 1 Example Sentence 2 Explanation Valid Mary’s test results are not valid because she cheated. He made a valid remark by bringing up last year’s event. Refers to correctness or reasonableness depending on context. Warranted John’s actions warranted that he be sent home from work. He received a warrant from the court. Can mean justified or a legal authorization depending on context. Fallacies Understanding fallacies is essential for evaluating arguments critically. Fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. Facione and Gittens (2016) emphasize the importance of being able to identify fallacies and explain their faulty logic in simple, everyday language. This skill enhances one’s ability to assess arguments more accurately and avoid being misled by flawed reasoning. An example of a fallacious statement is:“Anyone that is imprisoned can still be innocent, as understanding one’s condition is true freedom. The more you are aware of yourself, the more you are completely free” (Facione & Gittens, 2016). This argument wrongly equates physical imprisonment with a lack of freedom, suggesting that self-awareness alone constitutes freedom. While self-awareness can contribute to a sense of freedom, it cannot negate the external reality of imprisonment. Therefore, the argument is flawed because it confuses inner awareness with physical liberty, demonstrating a classic fallacy where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Civic Responsibilities The healthcare system in the United States has been a controversial and highly debated topic for many years. The question of whether the U.S. should adopt a universal, free healthcare system like many other countries—some less wealthy and developed—remains unresolved. This issue requires thorough research and consideration, especially as healthcare policies evolve. Although the debate referred to occurred in 2009, revisiting it can still offer valuable insights into the structure and challenges of the current healthcare system. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the critical need for accessible healthcare coverage to help individuals manage costs related to hospital stays, doctor visits, and medications. The pandemic highlights the urgency for the government to explore affordable healthcare options for the uninsured, as lack of coverage can mean life or death for many. PHIL 347 Week 4 Assignment: Journal From personal experience working in a doctor’s office, I witness daily how patients struggle emotionally and financially when unable to pay copays or afford prescriptions. Although I attempt to assist by providing copay cards, discount websites, and medication samples, these efforts are often insufficient. Many patients delay seeking necessary medical care out of fear of overwhelming medical bills, which exacerbates health disparities. References Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). PHIL 347 Week 4 Assignment: Journal

Student Name Chamberlain University PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning Prof. Name Date Week 3 Checkpoint Quiz Overview The Week 3 Checkpoint Quiz consisted of 10 questions designed to assess comprehension of key terms and concepts from Chapters 6 and 7 of the textbook, as well as the associated lesson materials. The quiz was available from January 17 to January 25, with no time limit and only one attempt allowed. It focused on evaluating critical thinking skills and understanding of argumentation principles. PHIL 347 Week 3 Quiz Critical Thinking Quiz Details Attribute Description Due Date January 25, 1:59 a.m. Points Possible 50 Number of Questions 10 Attempts Allowed 1 Time Limit None Course Outcomes CO 2, CO 4, CO 6 Questions and Responses Question 1 How do views of stronger, more developed critical thinkers toward authority differ from those in earlier stages of cognitive development? As children, individuals learn right from wrong from parents, teachers, and other authority figures who guide opinion formation and thinking. However, as cognitive development progresses, critical thinkers develop independent reasoning by questioning established ideas. They begin asking questions such as why and how to explore the validity of information, moving beyond mere acceptance of authority to deeper inquiry and personal judgment. Question 2 How does the text define “expert”? An expert is someone who possesses valuable knowledge in a particular field, acquired through formal education, training, and practical experience. This expertise enables them to offer informed opinions and insights within their area of specialization. Question 3 What are the three options a critical thinker has when evaluating an unsupported claim (e.g., “the health risks of vaping have been underestimated”)? Question 4 True or False: “If a claim cannot be confirmed by an independent investigation, then it must be false.” Explain. This statement is false. The inability to independently confirm a claim does not automatically render it false. Lack of confirmation could result from limited access to evidence or insufficient investigation rather than the claim’s invalidity. Question 5 True or False: “If we do not believe a claim is true, then we must believe it is false.” Explain. This is false. Disbelief does not necessarily equate to believing a claim is false. Sometimes, people reject a claim due to incomplete information, personal bias, or unwillingness to accept the truth. A neutral or undecided stance is also possible. Question 6 What four conditions must an argument meet to be accepted as worthy and reasonable? Condition Description Truthfulness of Premises The premises must be factually accurate and verifiable. Logical Strength The argument must be logically coherent and consistent. Relevance Premises should be directly related to the conclusion. Non-Circularity The argument should not use its conclusion as a premise. Question 7 If an argument contains multiple independent reasons and one reason is false, should a critical thinker reject the entire argument? Explain. A critical thinker should not reject the argument solely because one independent reason is false. Each reason must be evaluated separately, and the argument is only invalid if all supporting reasons fail. Thus, a single false reason does not necessarily invalidate the whole argument. Question 8 Erwin argues that he cannot be arrested for statutory rape because the minor involved will be 18 soon and the sex was consensual. Which test of worthiness does his argument fail? Explain. Erwin’s argument fails the truthfulness test. Although the minor will soon be legally an adult, the law considers anyone under 18 a minor. Therefore, consensual sex with a 17-year-old is legally classified as statutory rape regardless of impending age or marital plans. Question 9 Evaluating Example 4 from Chapter 7 (“If God intended marriage…”) and assuming premises are true, which test of worthiness does the argument fail? The argument fails the relevance test. It claims that because same-sex couples cannot biologically reproduce, God did not intend marriage for them. This reasoning ignores that many heterosexual couples may not or cannot reproduce due to choice or fertility issues, making reproduction irrelevant to the definition of marriage. Question 10 Janet claims Daria should not be listened to on minority race relations because she is not a person of color, while Jose, who is Hispanic, should be listened to. What is flawed about Janet’s claim, which test does it fail, and what fallacy does it commit? PHIL 347 Week 3 Quiz Critical Thinking Janet’s claim is flawed because it selectively chooses data supporting a preconceived conclusion without considering the full range of evidence. Dismissing Daria’s perspective solely based on race ignores her potential knowledge or experience. Janet’s argument fails the worthiness and reasonableness test and commits the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, which involves cherry-picking evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion.

Student Name Chamberlain University PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning Prof. Name Date Week 2 Discussion: Context, Meaning, and Value Selected Option 1: California Washington Mural The Life of Washington mural was painted by Victor Arnautoff during the Great Depression era. Upon first viewing the images of this mural through a Google search, my initial reaction was one of offense and discomfort. The depiction of Native Americans being targeted by European settlers and the implied violence struck me as painful and inappropriate for public display. The mural seemed to portray Europeans as having a dismissive and unjust attitude towards human rights and devaluing minorities. However, after reading various news articles and reviews about the controversy surrounding these murals, I realized that the meaning, value, and historical context are complex and multifaceted. Four Key Questions Regarding the Mural Question Answer 1. What should be done with the artwork? The murals should not be destroyed but relocated from the school to an art museum where they can be viewed with historical context. Painted in 1936 during the Great Depression, the mural reflects the social realities and attitudes of that time. While offensive by today’s standards, it serves as an important historical record of the era’s struggles with human rights, war, and societal inequality. Preserving such artworks allows future generations to understand the brutal and complex history of the United States rather than erase it. As Facione (2016) noted, interpretation varies, and history should not be altered. 2. Should contemporary context influence what happens to the artwork? Yes, modern perceptions and values should influence decisions regarding the mural’s placement. Today’s society recognizes the mural’s offensive and biased portrayal of minorities. Therefore, relocating the mural to a museum and replacing it in the school with artwork created by current students reflecting contemporary values and diversity would be appropriate. This approach balances historical preservation with sensitivity toward current social ethics. 3. What message does the artwork convey? The mural conveys a political message meant to provoke thought and debate. It reflects the harsh realities of the American Revolutionary War era, highlighting the mistreatment of Native Americans and African Americans. The imagery forces viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about history, including violence, slavery, and genocide. It was likely intended to spark critical reflection on society’s past injustices. 4. Was the artist biased or prejudiced? Do viewers bring bias? Victor Arnautoff likely used his art to critique society, possibly aiming for notoriety through controversy. His depiction reflects his perception of societal injustice and the brutal treatment of minorities. Viewers inevitably bring their own biases and prejudices to their interpretations, which can vary widely based on personal experiences and perspectives. I believe my interpretation recognizes the artist’s intent to reveal harsh realities rather than to celebrate them. Expanded Discussion The mural’s creation during the 1930s—a period marked by economic depression, social inequality, and the looming threat of global war—must be understood in that historical framework. At that time, public discourse around human rights was limited, and many minorities were marginalized. The mural serves as a historical document, albeit one that depicts painful truths in stark, unsettling ways. While modern viewers might find the imagery disturbing or offensive, it is crucial to recognize the role of such art in challenging sanitized historical narratives. Removing these murals from educational settings and situating them in museums enables thoughtful engagement without perpetuating harm in everyday spaces. Additional Perspectives: The Kara Walker Mural Controversy In a related discussion, the placement of Kara Walker’s mural at the Newark State Liberty Library raised concerns due to its graphic content. The artwork portrays disturbing scenes of racial violence and sexual exploitation, which many argue are inappropriate for a public library frequented by children. The library’s decision to cover the piece sparked debate about censorship and artistic freedom. Interestingly, a previously covered painting depicting male nudity was later revealed, suggesting inconsistent standards over time (Carter, 2019). PHIL 347 Week 2 Discussion This situation highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing art’s provocative power with considerations of audience and venue appropriateness. It stresses the need for institutions to carefully assess how and where sensitive artworks are displayed. References Carter, B. (2019, March 30). Controversial painting in Newark Library is bared once again. NJ Advance Media. https://www.nj.com/njv_barry_carter/2013/01/library_painting_controversy_i.html PHIL 347 Week 2 Discussion Cherny, R. W. (2019, September 3). The “Life of Washington” Murals Explained. The Living New Deal. https://livingnewdeal.org/the-life-of-washington-murals-explained/ Facione, P. G. (2016). Think Critically (3rd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

Student Name Chamberlain University PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning Prof. Name Date Week 1 Assignment: Journal Critical Thinking Critical thinking can be defined as the process of thoughtfully considering information before reaching a conclusion or making a decision. Although we use critical thinking daily, many individuals may not consciously recognize it because these decisions have become almost automatic or habitual. This automaticity is akin to muscle memory, where decisions are made without deliberate thought. However, there are times when a more careful, analytical approach is necessary, particularly in complex or important situations. As a nurse, critical thinking plays a vital role in patient care. It involves integrating personal knowledge, evidence-based research, and medical orders to ensure that decisions lead to the best possible patient outcomes. For example, when a nurse evaluates a patient’s condition, critical thinking allows them to interpret symptoms, compare interventions, and anticipate potential complications, all while ensuring alignment with clinical guidelines and physician instructions. Heart of the Matter The authors, Facione and Gittens (2016), refer to chapters 12, 13, and 14 as the “heart of the matter” because these chapters form the core of the critical thinking process by connecting various ideas and concepts presented earlier. These chapters emphasize the differences in individual thinking styles and how these differences influence reasoning. Even with careful consideration, uncertainty often remains in our thought processes. Our cognitive frameworks tend to be shaped more by how we believe than by what we actually believe. This subtle distinction influences how we make inferences and explanations—two key components discussed in these chapters. What are inference and explanation? Understanding both is crucial because to reach a valid inference, a solid explanation is necessary. For instance, if a favorite TV show suddenly stops airing, one might feel upset or confused (inference). However, having an explanation—such as the show’s cancellation due to low ratings—can help in comprehending and accepting the situation. 3 Challenges & Insights Challenges Insights 1. Keeping up with weekly readings The volume and frequency of assigned readings pose a challenge, especially for someone who prefers visual aids like PowerPoint slides over traditional textbooks. 2. Adapting to an online learning environment Without the direct guidance of lectures, self-discipline and mental focus must be strengthened to complete chapters independently. 3. Managing personal temperament The tendency to be hot-tempered, especially around family, may interfere with effective communication and decision-making. The first three chapters have provided valuable strategies for overcoming these challenges. A key lesson is to avoid rushing to conclusions and instead carefully analyze situations to find explanations for any issues. This approach fosters patience and a more thorough understanding, which can help in both academic and personal settings. PHIL 347 Week 1 Assignment: Journal Additionally, recognizing one’s temperament—such as becoming easily agitated around family—can prompt intentional efforts to regulate emotions and improve interactions. The critical thinking skills learned will not only benefit academic success but also enhance personal relationships. References Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Pearson. PHIL 347 Week 1 Assignment: Journal