HUM101 Chamberlain College of Nursing Critical Reasoning Evaluating Arguments

User Generated

nynan1479

Health Medical

HUM101

Chamberlain College of Nursing

Description

Introduction
The first two steps in evidence-based practice are to identify knowledge gaps and formulate relevant questions. In this writing exercise, you will be doing just that, across three types of inductive reasoning. In addition, you will be applying evaluation techniques to determine how credible, authoritative, and reliable the arguments are.

Scenario
Imagine your boss has asked you to evaluate four ideas that she is thinking of using to implement programs. You must evaluate whether these are good ideas that she can safely and immediately green-light or whether further evidence is needed. She is anxious to move forward, so she will be unhappy if you reject a good idea; however, if you approve a bad idea, she will be equally as unhappy. She has specifically directed you not to do any outside research. You must evaluate the ideas strictly on the brief passages available. She also wants to know what specific kind of reasoning is used in each passage

Instructions
Using everything you have learned from the text, as well as any other information you have gathered from your searches related to this week's discussion, evaluate the following four arguments:

  • Chapter 8 Exercise 8.9 Examples 7 and 10
  • Chapter 9 Exercise 9.9 Example 1
  • Chapter 10 Exercise 10.9 Example 1

For each exercise, address the following:

  • Identify the type of inductive argument and any features of the way the argument is constructed that you find relevant.
  • Explain how convincing you think the argument is.
  • Does it have sufficient evidence to allow you to suggest that she move forward with the idea or does the argument have knowledge gaps?
  • What questions need to be answered to close these gaps?
  • Does the argument contain any information that adds to its authority, credibility, or reliability?

You need to show your boss that you know what factors have to be considered in evaluating each type of argument and how well the argument meets the criteria.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

  • Length: 100-150 words per exercise (not including title page or references page)
  • 1-inch margins
  • Double spaced
  • 12-point Times New Roman font
  • Title page
  • References page

Grading
This activity will be graded using the Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric.

Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 5

Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

Rubric

Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric - 75 pts

Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric - 75 pts

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Timeliness of Submission

7.0 pts Assignment submitted by due date

0.0 pts Assignment not submitted by due date

7.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Exercise Identification

20.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified for all 4 exercises.

15.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified for 3 exercises.

10.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified for 2 exercises.

5.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified 1 exercise.

0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Evaluation of Criteria

12.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for all 4 exercises.

9.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 3 exercises.

6.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 2 exercises.

3.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 1 exercise.

0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.

12.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Value of Evidence

12.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for all 4 exercises.

9.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 3 exercises.

6.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 2 exercises.

3.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 1 exercise.

0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.

12.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Questions

12.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for all 4 exercises.

9.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 3 exercises.

6.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 2 exercises.

3.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 1 exercises.

0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.

12.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Authority, Credibility, Reliability

12.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for all 4 exercises.

9.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 3 exercises.

6.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 2 exercises.

3.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 1 exercises.

0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.

12.0 pts

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Jennifer Del Corio 02/13/2019 Week 6 Assignment: Evaluating Arguments The first two steps in evidence-based practice are to identify knowledge gaps and formulate relevant questions. In this writing exercise, you will be doing just that, across three types of inductive reasoning. In addition, you will be applying evaluation techniques to determine how credible, authoritative, and reliable the arguments are. For each exercise, address the following: Identify the type of inductive argument and any features of the way the argument is constructed that you find relevant. Explain how convincing you think the argument is. Does it have sufficient evidence to allow you to suggest that she move forward with the idea or does the argument have knowledge gaps? What questions need to be answered to close these gaps? Does the argument contain any information that adds to its authority, credibility, or reliability? Chapter 8 Exercise 8.9 Example 7 Among people who use multiple dietary supplements, fish oil/omega-3 supplements now top multivitamins in popularity. The conclusion is based on 6,012 responses collected in November from a sampling of subscribers to our free e-newsletter. Fish oil/omega-3 supplements were used by 74% of respondents, followed in popularity by multivitamins, which were used by 72% ConsumerLab.com First let’s break down this claim Premise: Of the 6,012 respondents to an e-newsletter online survey Fish oil/omega-3 supplements were used by 74% of respondents. : Fish oil/omega 3 supplements are the most popular. Issue: Whether Fish oil/Omega 3 is the most popular supplement. Sample: The 6,012 respondents to an e-newsletter online survey Target: All subscribers of an e-newsletter written by ConsumerLab.com Feature/Conclusion: Responses that fish oil/omega-3 supplements was their go to supplement. Identify the type of inductive argument and any features of the way the argument is constructed that you find relevant. This is an analogical argument because the claim compares 2 things each of the following claims draws an analogy providing percentages. Explain how convincing you think the argument is. I believe this argument is true because of the ways they presented the facts from the data acquired from the survey done. Although, the sample group was very limited to just the subscribers of ConsumerLab.com, and the survey was done only for one month. Does it have sufficient evidence to allow you to suggest that she move forward with the idea or does the argument have knowledge gaps? Yes, is does have sufficient evidence that can be built upon, allowing for the expansion of a sample group but does have some gaps. What questions need to be answered to close these gaps? The gaps can be closed by obtaining information of why they choose one supplement over another? Does the argument contain any information that adds to its authority, credibility, or reliability? Yes, the argument does contain information that adds credibility due the subjective components of providing percentage values. Chapter 8 Exercise 8.9 Example 10 For-profit hospices do not focus on the best interests of their patients. In one study assessing the impact of ownership status on care provided to patients, researchers found that patients receiving care from for-profit hospices received a narrower range of services than patients from non-profit hospices. The narrower range of services meant that patients with for-profit hospices were not receiving as much counseling services, medications, and personal care.—Carlson, Gallo, and Bradley, “Ownership Status and Patterns of Care in Hospice” Chapter 9 Exercise 9.9 Example 1 The University of Hawaii at Manoa is a lot like the University of Colorado at Denver. They are both public, coeducational universities located in the capital city of their state, and they both have student populations of approximately 20,000 students. Since 64% of the students at the University of Hawaii are of Asian or Pacific Island descent, approximately the same number of students at the University of Colorado at Denver are of Asian or Pacific Island descent. Chapter 10 Exercise 10.9 Example 1 Recently researchers compared 286 depressed workers with 193 others who were not depressed. Since only the depressed workers had such problems as fatigue, lack of motivation, and trouble managing their usual workload, researchers concluded that depression was the cause of their problems at work. American Journal of Health Promotion
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached final. Cheerscontact if you need any help

1
INDUCTIVE REASONING

Inductive Reasoning
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

2
INDUCTIVE REASONING
Inductive Reasoning
Chapter 8.9 example 10
Type of inductive argument
The argument from authority type of reasoning was used as the conclusion was drawn
from how various researchers.
How convincing it is
The claim argued about did very little in convincing the audience as no figures or any
other proof was presented from the survey; instead, assumptions were made.
Sufficient evidence
No ...


Anonymous
Very useful material for studying!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags