PHIL 347 Week 3 Quiz Critical Thinking
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”)?
- Assess the credibility of the source making the claim.
- Examine the claim for plausibility and check for any hidden motives.
- Conduct an independent investigation to verify the claim.
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.