Critical Reasoning
Module 4: Mastery of the Process of Thinking
Module Introduction
Readings
Required
Chapters 4 & 7 in Critical Thinking
Buckle Henning, P., & Chen, W. (2012). Systems thinking: Common ground or untapped
territory? (https://searchebscohostcom.csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=bth&AN=83405324&site=ehostlive) Systems Research & Behavioral
Science, 29(5), 470483. doi:10.1002/sres.2155
Viator, M. (2012). Developing historical thinking through questions. (https://search
ebscohostcom.csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=pbh&AN=77508957&site=ehostlive) Social Studies, 103(5), 198200.
doi:10.1080/00377996.2011.606438
For Your Success
Welcome to Week 4. This week we examine how to analyze intellectual critical thinking and to
recognize and avoid fallacies in our reasoning. In this module we study the relationship of ideas,
theories, assumptions, claims, and facts to how we critically think.
The art of critical thinking pertains to the process of reasoning where you come to a conclusion and
justify it with reasons.
The art of critical thinking also includes asking questions. How can you apply what you are learning
about the different components of critical thinking to your success as a college student? Is it enough
to understand subjects through critical thinking or can you become a creative critical thinker?
How School Kills Creativity
(Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en)
Description: Sir Ken Robinson (2006) makes an entertaining and profoundly moving case for
creating an education system that nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity.
An evaluation of the parts of critical thinking are discussed to highlight how your purpose will
influence the questions you ask. To guide you in your professional and personal life an evaluation of
the process of how you interpret, conceptualize, and understand is presented, as is a discussion of
the possible implications that follow from your reasoning. Note: Keep in mind the creative element
of critical thinking.
Reflection Questions: How you determine if your reasoning is valid:
What is your purpose, goal, or objective?
Have you identified the essential questions about the problem or issue?
How have you collected your information: data, facts, observations, research, or experiences?
How have you interpreted or evaluated the information to infer conclusions or solutions to your
problem?
Are you basing your thinking on theory, hypothesis, claims, assumptions, laws, principles, models
or definitions?
What facts, axioms or assumptions have you taken for granted?
What are the implications and consequences of your thinking when you put it into action?
What world view or perspective are you filtering your thought process through: religion, politics, or
a specific social issue you feel strongly about?
Filmed July 2011 at TEDGlobal 2011 Allan Jones: A map of the brain
A Map of the Brain
(Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_jones_a_map_of_the_brain )
Description: In this Ted Talk, Allan Jones asks, how can we begin to understand the way the
brain works? The same way we begin to understand a city: by making a map. In this visually
stunning talk, Allan Jones shows how his team is mapping which genes are turned on in each
tiny region, and how it all connects up.
This week you have a Portfolio Milestone Assignment. Review it early in the week to understand
what is required of you and to allot your time appropriately. The activity requires time and analysis,
so don’t wait until the end of the week to begin.
Submit your Portfolio Topic, which is worth 20 points to your final Portfolio Project score. Be sure
to review the complete Portfolio Project assignment description and the Portfolio Grading Rubric
found in the Module 8 folder.
Optional: Keep a Critical Thinking Journal – Take time to reflect on your readings, class
discussions, theories, models, definitions of critical thinking and jot down your thoughts, feelings,
ideas, and questions. This journal is for your use and you are encouraged to keep writing in it after
the course ends. It will document how you think today and your growth to become an advanced
critical thinker.
HUM101 Module 4
(Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyDgqfGF0kI)
Learning Outcomes
1. Analyze elements of strategic thinking, logic and reasoning, and deductive and inductive arguments.
2. Apply methods to separate out bias from content: concepts, logic, and reasoning.
1. Recognize How the Brain Functions
Neuroscientist Daniel Wolpert starts from a surprising premise: the brain evolved, not to think or
feel, but to control movement. Watch this entertaining, datarich talk he gives us with a glimpse into
how the brain creates the grace and agility of human motion.
Filmed July 2011 at TEDGlobal 2011 Daniel Wolpert: The real reason for brains
(Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for_brains?language=en )
The Development of Thinking
Advancement of intuition, insights, reasoning, and critical thinking.
Intellectual skill development takes practice, as in learning how to play a musical instrument.
Choice of selfcentered or fairminded thinking.
How the brain produces creativity
Watch the Ted Talk video by Charles Limb to discover what he and his team found to have deep
implications about our understanding of creativity.
Filmed November 2010 at TEDxMidAtlantic Charles Limb: Your brain on improv
(Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/charles_limb_your_brain_on_improv?language=en)
Description: Musician and researcher Charles Limb wondered how the brain works during
musical improvisation — so he put jazz musicians and rappers in an MRI to find out. What he
and his team found has deep implications for our understanding of creativity of all kinds.
Reflect on the possibilities of the brain to think artistically, musically, literature, and not just as a
tool for decision making, problem solving, or critical thinking.
Watch this video with Simon Sinek and discover how great leaders inspire action.
Simon Sinek, TEDx Puget Sound Speaker, 2009. Start with why how great leaders
inspire action.
(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA&index=1&list=PL150F0D1C78036B46)
Description: Simon Sinek discusses how great leaders inspire action – start with why in this
TEDx video.
2. Evaluating Fallacies in Reasoning
We now progress in our study of critical thinking to examine fallacies in reason, which influence
beliefs, behavior, and attitudes in a misleading manner. We study fallacies in order to learn how
critical thinkingbased arguments may "go wrong" that is, how the basis for a claim fails to defend
a claim. Appeals to emotion are ubiquitous in arguments and are often hard to disconnect from the
argument itself (and from the arguer, for that matter). However, the purpose of identifying fallacies
is not to destroy someone’s argument, but to help all parties sort out strong critical thinking from
weak critical thinking and thus improve our understanding of an issue.
Essentially, fallacies are mistakes of reasoning rather than mistakes based on evidence. We know
that good, sound arguments provide justification for accepting a claim. Fallacies are likely to have
some connection to a legitimate claim that they are trying to support; however, they do not support
the claim.
Categories of Fallacies
Overall, the study of fallacies is an application of the principles of critical thinking. Being familiar
with typical fallacies helps us to avoid making them in our own critical thinking and reasoning as
well as helping us to explain other people’s reasoning.
The Long Reach of Reason (TED 2012)
(Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_and_rebecca_newberger_goldstein_the_long_reach_of_reason?language=en)
Description:An animated Socratic dialog by Steven Pinker and Rebecca Newberger Goldstein.
In a time when irrationality seems to rule both politics and culture, has reasoned thinking finally
lost its power? Watch as psychologist Steven Pinker is gradually, brilliantly persuaded by
philosopher Rebecca Newberger Goldstein that reason is actually the key driver of human moral
progress, even if its effect sometimes takes generations to unfold. The dialog was recorded live at
TED, and animated, in incredible, often hilarious, detail by Cognitive.
Four broad categories of fallacies
Click on the category of fallacy to learn more about each one.
Fallacies of Inconsistency
Fallacies of Inappropriate Presumption
Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies of Insufficiency
(Source: http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn
152/t0mbston3/seakari.jpg )
Something inconsistent or selfdefeating has been proposed or accepted.
Example: Believing that pigs can fly
There is a distinction between arguments that aim to motivate us to action and those that aim to
convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are rarely appropriate when others try to
influence our beliefs, but are often reasonable when they motivate us to actfor example, think
about a natural disaster and motivational appeals for volunteers. Irrelevant information is typically
about a natural disaster and motivational appeals for volunteers. Irrelevant information is typically
introduced as the "truth" of the claim in order to engender an emotional response that leads one to
assume mistakenly that the argument is valid.
To identify “pseudo” reasoning:
1. Identify the motivation to which the argument is appealing.
2. Ask whether the reasoning pertains to the question at hand.
Within the broader categories there are many (far too many to list here) specific fallacies. The
following is a list of common types of fallacies using emotional tactics:
Guilt Fallacy
Pity Fallacy
Scare Tactics Fallacy
Envy Fallacy
Rationalization Fallacy
Vanity or ApplePolishing Fallacy
Two Wrongs Make a Right Fallacy
Desire for Social Approval or Group Think Fallacy
Wouldbe Argument Fallacy
Scapegoating Fallacy
Popularity, Tradition or Common Practice Fallacy
Click here for more information about Fallacies.
(http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies/)
3. Evaluate Ideas, Concepts, and Data
We learned that there are several fallacies designed to appeal to our emotions. The fallacies we focus
on now are those that are constructed in the manner of a sound argument, but in which some
element of the argument is distorted and misleading. These fallacious arguments resemble good
reasoning, but when we look at their conclusions, we see they are examples of poor reasoning. It is
therefore essential that we examine additional fallacies, which distort ideas, concepts, and data.
We’ll begin with the most common type of fallacy (ad hominem) and look at its subcategories before
moving to the next type of fallacy, the ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) and its subcategories.
Ad Hominem Fallacies (Latin meaning "to the person")
The most common example of poor reasoning is the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem in Latin
means "to the person." This fallacy often attempts to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a
negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting a claim. This fallacy takes on many forms
and is designed to skew the claim using a contradictory claim.
Ad Hominem
The following list provides the common ad hominem arguments. Click on the tabs to reveal the
definition.
Personal attack ad hominem
In this argument the tactic is to malign a person in order to dismiss that person's beliefs. An
individual’s personal failings have nothing to with deciding or proving that the individual is
making a false claim.
Example: “What Senator Barney Frank says about air pollution is a joke! That clown will say
anything to get attention!”
Inconsistency ad hominem
In this argument the tactic is to take a selfdefeating approach or propose or accept something
inconsistent with the claim. This may include a more personal attack or a contradiction of
claims.
Example: “You say that eggs are loaded with cholesterol, but I notice you eat them every
morning!”
morning!”
Circumstantial ad hominem
In this argument the tactic is to reduce the argument to an abusive attack on someone's beliefs
or the group to which they may belong.
Example: “Your physician says he doesn't believe in homeopathic cures, but that is what they
drill into students in medical school!”
Poisoning the well (circumstantial ad hominem)
In this argument the tactic is to reduce an argument by attacking one's personal character.
Example: “Ron Paul is providing us with his tax reform plan today. Well, it's just going to be
more rhetoric. He will say anything to get a vote!”
Genetic fallacy (circumstantial ad hominem)
In this argument the tactic is to reject a claim purely on the grounds of its source.
Example: “Labradoodles are not a legitimate breed of dog; that is why they are not recognized
by Westminster Kennel Club!”
Ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)
As with the nature of the ad hominem fallacies, ad ignoratiam fallacies are constructed like
arguments but use poor reasoning skills. Let’s look now at some of these types of fallacies.
The following list provides common ad ignorantiam fallacies. Click on the tabs to reveal the
definition.
Personal attack ad hominem
The basis of the truth of a claim is established only on lack of evidence against it. A simple
The basis of the truth of a claim is established only on lack of evidence against it. A simple
obvious example of such a fallacy is to argue that unicorns exist because there is no evidence
against such a claim. At first sight it seems that many theories that we describe as scientific
involve such a fallacy.
Ad populum (appeal to popularity)
The basis of the truth of a claim is established on its popularity and familiarity. This is the fallacy
committed by many advertisements. You have seen ads, for example, that suggest you buy a
certain product because it is selling well or because the brand is the city's "favorite."
Example: “This is London’s favorite night cream, and it will make you look years younger.”
Affirming the consequent
This means implying that X is true solely because Y is true, and it is also true that if X is true, Y
is true. This type of reasoning ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from
X that might lead to Y.
Example: If there is a traffic jam, a student may be late for class. But if we argue from the
position that the student is late because of that traffic jam, we are guilty of this fallacy the
student may be late due to other reasons, such as getting out of bed too late. However, if we have
evidence showing that the traffic jam is the only or most likely condition that led to the student
being late, then it would be true (not a fallacy).
Begging the question (petito principia)
The argument for a claim is already assumed in the premise.
Example: "God exists because this is what the Bible says, and the Bible is reliable because it is
the word of God."
Loaded question or complex problem
This is a question presented in such a way that a person, no matter what answer he or she gives
to the question, will inevitably commit himself/herself to some other claim, which should not be
presupposed in the context in question. The common tactic is to ask a yesno question that tricks
people to agree to something they never intended to say.
Example: "Are you still as much of a perfectionist as you used to be?" In this case, no matter
whether you answer "yes" or "no," you are bound to admit that you were a perfectionist in the
past. The same question would not count as a fallacy if the question about one's perfectionism
was indeed accepted in the conversational context. For example: “To get this job done in a high
quality manner it requires attention to all the details. Are you still as much of a perfectionist as
you used to be?”
Composition (opposite of division)
The whole is assumed to have the same properties as its parts.
Example: Anne might be humorous and funloving and, thus, be an excellent person to invite
to the party. The same might be true of Ben, Chris and David when considered individually. But
it does not follow that it will be a good idea to invite all of them to the party. Perhaps they have
reason to avoid each other, and having all four in the same room could ruin the party.
Denying the antecedent
Inferring that Q is false just because if P is true then Q is also truebut P is false. This fallacy is
similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Again the problem is that some alternative
explanation or cause might be overlooked. Although P is false, some other condition might be
sufficient to make Q true.
Example: If there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But it is not logical to argue
that if there is no traffic jam, the colleague will not be late. Again, his alarm clock may have
stopped working.
False dilemma
This argument assumes that only two alternatives exist in a given situation. Thus, anyone who
does not agree with the first alternative has to accept the second.
Example: “Either we balance our checking account or we will starve.” Obviously, the
conclusion is too extreme because you may have plenty of money in your checking account.
Whether it is balanced or not does not lead logically to starvation.
Gambler’s fallacy
An assumption is made that an independent statistic is dependent.
Example: The mind untrained in argument and reasoning might tend to think, for example,
that if a fair coin is tossed five times and each time comes up heads, then the next toss will more
likely come up as a tail. This is not true, however. If the coin is fair, the result for each toss is
completely independent of the others. Notice the fallacy hinges on the fact that the final result is
not known. Had the final result been known already, the statistic would have been dependent.
Non sequitur
A conclusion is drawn that does not follow from the premise. This is not a specific fallacy but a
very general term for a bad argument. Many of the examples in this exercise can be said to be
non sequitur.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, or false cause (literally, “after this, there because of this”)
This argument is based on the false idea that correlation always implies causation. You find that
a Dilbert cartoon (http://www.dilbert.com/) provides a perfect example of post hoc, ergo
propter hoc.
Slippery Slope
This argument uses the tactic of predicting that if one thing happens, or is permitted to happen,
another thing (always undesirable) will be the result. This implies when arguing that if an
opponent were to accept some claim M(1), then he or she has to accept some other closely
related claim M(2), which in turn commits the opponent to a still further claim M(3), eventually
leading to the conclusion that the opponent is committed to something absurd or obviously
unacceptable.
This style of argumentation constitutes a fallacy only when it is inappropriate to think if one
were to accept the initial claim, one must accept all the other claims.
Example: “The state government should not prohibit drugs. Otherwise the government should
also ban alcohol or cigarettes. And then fatty food and junk food would have to be regulated, too.
The next thing you know, the state government would force us to brush our teeth and do
exercises every day.”
Straw man
The tactic in this argument is to argue against a distorted or simplified version of what someone
has said, and treating the argument you give as if it is true. It often is attacking an opponent by
attributing to him or her an implausible position that is easily defeated when this is not actually
the opponent's position. In many ways, it is used to change the topic, almost like a smokescreen
fallacy.
Example: “The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq.” An individual might reply to this, “That
is not warranted because Iraq does not supply oil to the U.S.” or say it is not warranted because
Iraq will never become democratic. In either case, the fact remains that there is a war in Iraq
that the U.S. is involved in, and whether Iran supplies oil or becomes democratic are distorting
and simplifying (straw man fallacy) the claim.
Tautology (unconditional truths that are always valid) or circular reasoning or begging the question.
These are a series of selfreinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the
These are a series of selfreinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the
statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct. These types of arguments
use a tactic of starting with the conclusion to try to get a person to accept the premises that is
most desirable. However, it defeats the purpose of an argument.
Example: “It's impossible to believe that space goes on infinitely, because that's inconceivable.”
Word Bank:
two wrongs make a right
popularity
fallacious reasoning
smokescreen
argument from outrage
nationalism
apple polishing
tradition
scare tactics
argument by force
guilt trip
peer pressure
group think
appeal to pity
scapegoating
Instructions: For each question, select the best answer from the following word bank. “Flip”
the card to see if you are correct
Check Your Understanding
Click Here to Begin
References
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and
your life (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
your life (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
HUM101: Portfolio Project Rubric
Criteria
Meets Expectation
Content, Research, and Analysis
33-40 Points
Preliminary
Delivered the portfolio topic
Deliverables
in Week 4 and the portfolio
outline in Week 6 as
required.
Requirements
Content
Analysis
Synthesis and
Evaluation
Critical
Analysis
Sources
Application of
Source
Material
49-60 Points
The Portfolio includes all of
the required components,
as specified in the
assignment.
57-70 Points
Demonstrates strong or
adequate knowledge of
critical thinking theories and
applications; correctly
represents knowledge from
the readings and sources.
25-30 Points
Provides strong or adequate
thought, insight and
analysis of concepts and
applications regarding
critical thinking skills.
25-30 Points
Demonstrates strong or
adequate synthesis and
evaluation of course
concepts in critical
reasoning.
25-30 Points
Demonstrates strong or
adequate critical analysis of
critical thinking theories and
applications.
13-15 Points
Cites and integrates 5-6
credible sources.
13-15 Points
Sources well or adequately
chosen to provide
substance and perspectives
on the issue; knowledge
from the course linked
properly to source material.
Approaches Expectation
Below Expectation
Limited Evidence
25-32 Points
Delivered the portfolio
topic in Week 4 and the
portfolio outline in Week
6 as required with a
significant omission or
error.
37-48 Points
The Portfolio includes
most of the required
components, as specified
in the assignment.
17-24 Points
Delivered the
portfolio topic in
Week 4 OR the
portfolio outline in
Week 6 as required,
but not both.
25-36 Points
The Portfolio
includes some of the
required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
29-42 Points
Major errors or
omissions in
demonstration of
knowledge.
9-16 Points
Did not deliver the
portfolio topic in
Week 4 and the
portfolio outline in
Week 6 as required.
19-24 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in thought, insight and
analysis.
13-18 Points
Major errors or
omissions in thought,
insight and analysis.
7-12 Points
Fails to demonstrate
thought, insight and
analysis.
19-24 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in synthesis and
evaluation.
13-18 Points
Major errors or
omissions in
synthesis and
evaluation.
7-12 Points
Fails to demonstrate
synthesis and
evaluation.
19-24 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in critical analysis.
13-18 Points
Major errors or
omissions in critical
analysis.
7-12 Points
Fails to demonstrate
thought, insight and
analysis.
10-12 Points
Cites and integrates 3-4
credible sources.
10-12 Points
Some significant but not
major problems with
selection and linkage of
sources.
7-9 Points
Cites and integrates
1-2 credible sources.
7-9 Points
Major problems with
selection and linkage
of sources.
4-6 Points
Cites and integrates
no credible sources.
4-6 Points
Source selection is
seriously flawed; no
linkage to knowledge
from the course.
43-56 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in demonstration of
knowledge.
13-24 Points
The Portfolio
includes few of the
required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
15-28 Points
Fails to demonstrate
knowledge of the
materials.
HUM101: Portfolio Project Rubric
Mechanics and Writing
Organization
Grammar and
Style
Demonstrates
proper use of
APA style
17-20 Points
Project is clearly organized,
well written, and in proper
essay format including an
introduction, body, and
conclusion. Conforms to
project requirements.
13-16 Points
Small number of
significant but not major
flaws in organization and
writing; is in proper essay
format. In a minor way
does not conform to
project requirements.
17-20 Points
Strong sentence and
paragraph structure; few or
no minor errors in grammar
and spelling; appropriate
writing style; clear and
concise with no
unsupported comments.
13-16 Points
Small number of
significant but not major
errors in grammar and
spelling; generally
appropriate writing.
17-20 Points
Project contains proper APA
formatting, according to the
CSU-Global Guide to Writing
and APA Requirements, with
no more than one
significant error.
13-16 Points
Few errors in APA
formatting, according to
the CSU-Global Guide to
Writing and APA
Requirements, with no
more than two to three
significant errors.
Total points possible = 350
9-12 Points
Major problems in
organization and
writing; does not
completely follow
proper essay format.
In a significant way
does not conform to
project
requirements.
9-12 Points
Inconsistent to
inadequate sentence
and paragraph
development; work
needed on grammar
and spelling; does
not meet program
expectations.
9-12 Points
Significant errors in
APA formatting,
according to the CSUGlobal Guide to
Writing and APA
Requirements, with
four to five
significant errors.
5-8 Points
Project is not well
organized or well
written and is not in
proper essay format.
Does not conform to
project
requirements.
5-8 Points
Poor quality;
unacceptable in
terms of grammar
and/or spelling;
inappropriate writing
style that interferes
with clarity.
5-8 Points
Numerous errors in
APA formatting,
according to the CSUGlobal Guide to
Writing and APA
Requirements, with
more than five
significant errors.
HUM101: Portfolio Project Rubric
Criteria
Meets Expectation
Content, Research, and Analysis
33-40 Points
Preliminary
Delivered the portfolio topic
Deliverables
in Week 4 and the portfolio
outline in Week 6 as
required.
Requirements
Content
Analysis
Synthesis and
Evaluation
Critical
Analysis
Sources
Application of
Source
Material
49-60 Points
The Portfolio includes all of
the required components,
as specified in the
assignment.
57-70 Points
Demonstrates strong or
adequate knowledge of
critical thinking theories and
applications; correctly
represents knowledge from
the readings and sources.
25-30 Points
Provides strong or adequate
thought, insight and
analysis of concepts and
applications regarding
critical thinking skills.
25-30 Points
Demonstrates strong or
adequate synthesis and
evaluation of course
concepts in critical
reasoning.
25-30 Points
Demonstrates strong or
adequate critical analysis of
critical thinking theories and
applications.
13-15 Points
Cites and integrates 5-6
credible sources.
13-15 Points
Sources well or adequately
chosen to provide
substance and perspectives
on the issue; knowledge
from the course linked
properly to source material.
Approaches Expectation
Below Expectation
Limited Evidence
25-32 Points
Delivered the portfolio
topic in Week 4 and the
portfolio outline in Week
6 as required with a
significant omission or
error.
37-48 Points
The Portfolio includes
most of the required
components, as specified
in the assignment.
17-24 Points
Delivered the
portfolio topic in
Week 4 OR the
portfolio outline in
Week 6 as required,
but not both.
25-36 Points
The Portfolio
includes some of the
required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
29-42 Points
Major errors or
omissions in
demonstration of
knowledge.
9-16 Points
Did not deliver the
portfolio topic in
Week 4 and the
portfolio outline in
Week 6 as required.
19-24 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in thought, insight and
analysis.
13-18 Points
Major errors or
omissions in thought,
insight and analysis.
7-12 Points
Fails to demonstrate
thought, insight and
analysis.
19-24 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in synthesis and
evaluation.
13-18 Points
Major errors or
omissions in
synthesis and
evaluation.
7-12 Points
Fails to demonstrate
synthesis and
evaluation.
19-24 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in critical analysis.
13-18 Points
Major errors or
omissions in critical
analysis.
7-12 Points
Fails to demonstrate
thought, insight and
analysis.
10-12 Points
Cites and integrates 3-4
credible sources.
10-12 Points
Some significant but not
major problems with
selection and linkage of
sources.
7-9 Points
Cites and integrates
1-2 credible sources.
7-9 Points
Major problems with
selection and linkage
of sources.
4-6 Points
Cites and integrates
no credible sources.
4-6 Points
Source selection is
seriously flawed; no
linkage to knowledge
from the course.
43-56 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in demonstration of
knowledge.
13-24 Points
The Portfolio
includes few of the
required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
15-28 Points
Fails to demonstrate
knowledge of the
materials.
HUM101: Portfolio Project Rubric
Mechanics and Writing
Organization
Grammar and
Style
Demonstrates
proper use of
APA style
17-20 Points
Project is clearly organized,
well written, and in proper
essay format including an
introduction, body, and
conclusion. Conforms to
project requirements.
13-16 Points
Small number of
significant but not major
flaws in organization and
writing; is in proper essay
format. In a minor way
does not conform to
project requirements.
17-20 Points
Strong sentence and
paragraph structure; few or
no minor errors in grammar
and spelling; appropriate
writing style; clear and
concise with no
unsupported comments.
13-16 Points
Small number of
significant but not major
errors in grammar and
spelling; generally
appropriate writing.
17-20 Points
Project contains proper APA
formatting, according to the
CSU-Global Guide to Writing
and APA Requirements, with
no more than one
significant error.
13-16 Points
Few errors in APA
formatting, according to
the CSU-Global Guide to
Writing and APA
Requirements, with no
more than two to three
significant errors.
Total points possible = 350
9-12 Points
Major problems in
organization and
writing; does not
completely follow
proper essay format.
In a significant way
does not conform to
project
requirements.
9-12 Points
Inconsistent to
inadequate sentence
and paragraph
development; work
needed on grammar
and spelling; does
not meet program
expectations.
9-12 Points
Significant errors in
APA formatting,
according to the CSUGlobal Guide to
Writing and APA
Requirements, with
four to five
significant errors.
5-8 Points
Project is not well
organized or well
written and is not in
proper essay format.
Does not conform to
project
requirements.
5-8 Points
Poor quality;
unacceptable in
terms of grammar
and/or spelling;
inappropriate writing
style that interferes
with clarity.
5-8 Points
Numerous errors in
APA formatting,
according to the CSUGlobal Guide to
Writing and APA
Requirements, with
more than five
significant errors.
HUM101: Portfolio Project Rubric
Criteria
Meets Expectation
Content, Research, and Analysis
33-40 Points
Preliminary
Delivered the portfolio topic
Deliverables
in Week 4 and the portfolio
outline in Week 6 as
required.
Requirements
Content
Analysis
Synthesis and
Evaluation
Critical
Analysis
Sources
Application of
Source
Material
49-60 Points
The Portfolio includes all of
the required components,
as specified in the
assignment.
57-70 Points
Demonstrates strong or
adequate knowledge of
critical thinking theories and
applications; correctly
represents knowledge from
the readings and sources.
25-30 Points
Provides strong or adequate
thought, insight and
analysis of concepts and
applications regarding
critical thinking skills.
25-30 Points
Demonstrates strong or
adequate synthesis and
evaluation of course
concepts in critical
reasoning.
25-30 Points
Demonstrates strong or
adequate critical analysis of
critical thinking theories and
applications.
13-15 Points
Cites and integrates 5-6
credible sources.
13-15 Points
Sources well or adequately
chosen to provide
substance and perspectives
on the issue; knowledge
from the course linked
properly to source material.
Approaches Expectation
Below Expectation
Limited Evidence
25-32 Points
Delivered the portfolio
topic in Week 4 and the
portfolio outline in Week
6 as required with a
significant omission or
error.
37-48 Points
The Portfolio includes
most of the required
components, as specified
in the assignment.
17-24 Points
Delivered the
portfolio topic in
Week 4 OR the
portfolio outline in
Week 6 as required,
but not both.
25-36 Points
The Portfolio
includes some of the
required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
29-42 Points
Major errors or
omissions in
demonstration of
knowledge.
9-16 Points
Did not deliver the
portfolio topic in
Week 4 and the
portfolio outline in
Week 6 as required.
19-24 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in thought, insight and
analysis.
13-18 Points
Major errors or
omissions in thought,
insight and analysis.
7-12 Points
Fails to demonstrate
thought, insight and
analysis.
19-24 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in synthesis and
evaluation.
13-18 Points
Major errors or
omissions in
synthesis and
evaluation.
7-12 Points
Fails to demonstrate
synthesis and
evaluation.
19-24 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in critical analysis.
13-18 Points
Major errors or
omissions in critical
analysis.
7-12 Points
Fails to demonstrate
thought, insight and
analysis.
10-12 Points
Cites and integrates 3-4
credible sources.
10-12 Points
Some significant but not
major problems with
selection and linkage of
sources.
7-9 Points
Cites and integrates
1-2 credible sources.
7-9 Points
Major problems with
selection and linkage
of sources.
4-6 Points
Cites and integrates
no credible sources.
4-6 Points
Source selection is
seriously flawed; no
linkage to knowledge
from the course.
43-56 Points
Some significant but not
major errors or omissions
in demonstration of
knowledge.
13-24 Points
The Portfolio
includes few of the
required
components, as
specified in the
assignment.
15-28 Points
Fails to demonstrate
knowledge of the
materials.
HUM101: Portfolio Project Rubric
Mechanics and Writing
Organization
Grammar and
Style
Demonstrates
proper use of
APA style
17-20 Points
Project is clearly organized,
well written, and in proper
essay format including an
introduction, body, and
conclusion. Conforms to
project requirements.
13-16 Points
Small number of
significant but not major
flaws in organization and
writing; is in proper essay
format. In a minor way
does not conform to
project requirements.
17-20 Points
Strong sentence and
paragraph structure; few or
no minor errors in grammar
and spelling; appropriate
writing style; clear and
concise with no
unsupported comments.
13-16 Points
Small number of
significant but not major
errors in grammar and
spelling; generally
appropriate writing.
17-20 Points
Project contains proper APA
formatting, according to the
CSU-Global Guide to Writing
and APA Requirements, with
no more than one
significant error.
13-16 Points
Few errors in APA
formatting, according to
the CSU-Global Guide to
Writing and APA
Requirements, with no
more than two to three
significant errors.
Total points possible = 350
9-12 Points
Major problems in
organization and
writing; does not
completely follow
proper essay format.
In a significant way
does not conform to
project
requirements.
9-12 Points
Inconsistent to
inadequate sentence
and paragraph
development; work
needed on grammar
and spelling; does
not meet program
expectations.
9-12 Points
Significant errors in
APA formatting,
according to the CSUGlobal Guide to
Writing and APA
Requirements, with
four to five
significant errors.
5-8 Points
Project is not well
organized or well
written and is not in
proper essay format.
Does not conform to
project
requirements.
5-8 Points
Poor quality;
unacceptable in
terms of grammar
and/or spelling;
inappropriate writing
style that interferes
with clarity.
5-8 Points
Numerous errors in
APA formatting,
according to the CSUGlobal Guide to
Writing and APA
Requirements, with
more than five
significant errors.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment