PART A (150 words )
- Explain the difference between the conditional and the bi conditional.
- Include in your explanation the specific truth conditions for each connective.
- State why it is important to understand the difference between these two connectives.
Include in your explanation the specific truth conditions for each connective.
PART B
The ability to communicate logical arguments in an oral form is an important tool in our personal life as well as our career.This component of the Portfolio Project allows you to demonstrate this competency.
PART C
- Discuss what you learned about the relationship of logical thought to ethical behavior in the workplace based on your consideration of your case study.
- Discuss your understanding of how to approach ethical problems in the workplace.
- Summarize what you learned from interacting with classmates that you might not have previously considered.
- Explain how what you learned will make you a better professional, co-worker, and colleague.
Completing this reflection will allow you to meet the following course outcome:
PART D
This week we studied the main logical connectives used on ordinary language. Reflect on how understanding the connection between logic and grammar can make you a better communicator in your personal, academic, and professional life.
- In your own words, describe some insights have you gained into your own communication style.
- Explain how this understanding can improve your personal and professional relationships.
Oral Presentation Instructions
Create a PowerPoint presentation with voiceover that you will use in your oral presentation
and will serve as the basis of your written research paper (see a-d below). Quality of this
component is represented as “Content” on the applicable rubric.
a. Detailed explanation and analysis of fallacy
• Here, you should not only define the fallacy that you chose, but also
describe/define any other instances of it.
• Identify any other names or terms that might be used for your chosen fallacy.
• Indicate whether your chosen fallacy can be defined in multiple ways (and be sure
to provide these definitions).
• Your goal here is to offer the reader a thorough and authoritative analysis of the
fallacy that you chose.
b. The fallacy as seen in your professional life
• Here, you will examine and outline the consequences of the fallacy and of faulty
argumentation in general and in the workplace.
• Explain at least one way that you can anticipate encountering your chosen fallacy
in your professional life.
i. Here, you should summarize your potential career path, ways that you can
imagine the fallacy arising, and how the problems that come with the
fallacy might be avoided.
ii. Thinking about your professional life and career path: has the fallacy arisen
in the past? If so, when? How did you approach it? What were the results?
Was there anything that you could have/should have done differently?
c. Ways that the fallacy disrupts argumentation:
• Based on your findings in the previous section, outline the various ways that your
chosen fallacy can disrupt argumentation and/or one’s critical thinking ability.
i. In short, explain why it is important that your fallacy is identified and
avoided.
d. Means to lessen problems arising from fallacy:
• Based on your findings, evaluate some of the best practices to avoid this fallacy.
When the fallacy is encountered, what should be done?
Other important tips:
• Video clips, pictures, advertisements, excerpts from speeches, etc. may be used to
enhance the message of the presentation.
• Grading will be based the oral presentation rubric provided.
• PowerPoint Presentations should be three to five minutes in length.
• You will be posting your presentation to discussion in Week 5.
PHIL310 – Logic and Reasoning
Portfolio Project Directions and Rubric
This Portfolio Project is worth 15% of your grade
Completing this Assessment will help you to meet the following outcomes:
Course Outcomes
• Combine theory and practice to communicate logical arguments orally and in written form.
• Construct and defend arguments for one self.
• Critically assess the argument of others.
• Relate the importance of basic logical concepts such as validity, soundness and consistency to reasoning
•
practice.
Translate, formalize, and evaluate simple arguments in categorical and propositional form.
Institutional Outcomes
• Thinking Abilities – Employ strategies for reflection on learning and practice in order to adjust learning
processes for continual improvement.
Deadline
Deliverable items for the Portfolio Project will be required at different points during the
course. Details for each submission are included below in the Deliverable Descriptions.
Deliverable Descriptions
Week 2: Topic Selection
•
Due by the end of Week 2 at 11:59 pm, ET.
This week, you will be choosing your topic of interest for the Portfolio Project. You will
choose one of four formal fallacies: Affirming the Consequent, Denying the
Antecedent, Denying a Conjunct, or Affirming a Disjunct. Review the possible topic list
and workplace scenarios for your project provided in Blackboard. If there is a formal
fallacy that interests you, but is not on the potential topic list, you may also propose this
topic to your instructor.
You will either choose from this list of workplace related scenarios for your fallacy, or
you may provide an example of a workplace conversation, communication, or scenario
that follows the pattern of the fallacy that you have chosen. You will present that
material in its simplest form so that the pattern of the fallacy is clearly evident.
Your fallacy and scenario must be approved by the instructor before beginning research
on a non-provided topic. If you do not choose from the list of provided scenarios, you
must be sure that you can demonstrate how your choice follows the exact pattern of the
PHIL310 – Portfolio Project
2
fallacy you are going to explore. Once you have selected your topic, please upload it to
Blackboard in a Word Document, including the chosen fallacy, the pattern of the fallacy,
and a workplace scenario.
Week 3: Annotated Bibliography
•
Due by the end of Week 3 at 11:59 pm, ET.
Conduct a search using the Bryant & Stratton College Virtual Library. Locate four
resources, including at least two scholarly journal articles, for your Portfolio Project.
Keep in mind that the final paper requires at least 4 scholarly sources. These sources
should fall into one of the following categories: a) support your understanding of the
fallacy you are examining, b) explain how faulty reasoning in the workplace causes
confusion or complications, c) explain how identifying fallacies improves
communication, and/or d) explain how identifying fallacies can help to avoid the
problems that arise from fallacious reasoning.
For each of your chosen resources, complete the following in a Word Document and
upload it to Blackboard:
• Provide an APA-style reference.
• For each reference, answer the following prompts:
o Explain why this is a credible source for your Portfolio Project.
o Detail why you selected this source and why you believe it will be
helpful in completing your Portfolio Project.
Week 4: PowerPoint Presentation with Voiceover
•
Due by the end of Week 5 at 11:59 pm, ET.
The PowerPoint presentation with voiceover section of this Portfolio Project requires
you to orally communicate the fallacious argument you have chosen (to inform an
audience of peers). You will prepare this presentation during Week 4 and then present
it in discussion in Week 5. You will be presenting the information you are developing
for your final paper. Your classmates will employ metacognition to reflect on their
personal connections with the fallacy. In addition, your classmates will compare the
fallacies they see in your presentation to the fallacy they selected for their own
presentation and paper.
The ability to communicate logical arguments in an oral form is an important tool in our
personal life as well as our career. This component of the Portfolio Project allows you to
demonstrate this competency.
PHIL310 – Portfolio Project
3
Requirements and Formatting
The PowerPoint presentation with voiceover must be formatted as follows:
• Minimum of 5 slides
• Presentation between 3 and 5 minutes in length
• Be based on information that you will include in Part I of your final paper
Week 5: PowerPoint Presentation with Voiceover and Peer Review Discussion
Post your Power Point presentation with voiceover as your initial post to discussion no
later than Wednesday at 11:59 ET. Respond to at least three classmates’ posts with a
critical assessment of their argument. Try to choose classmates who have not yet
received a response. Your response should include the following:
•
•
•
Identify the fallacy your classmate chose for their presentation
Explain whether or not the scenario your classmate chose fits with the stated
fallacy. Justify your decision.
Recommend a resolution to the workplace problem your classmate presented
based on their fallacy.
Week 6: Submit Draft of your Paper
•
Due by the end of week 6 at 11:59pm, ET.
This week, you will be submitting a draft of the Standardization and Truth Table
section of your Final Paper. Make sure you include any feedback from your instructor
and your classmates. Please review the Final Paper Guidelines provided in Blackboard
and the rubric below to ensure you include all required components.
Formatting Requirements:
• Your paper must adhere to APA guidelines and requirements.
Week 7: Final Submission to ePortfolio
• Due by the end of Week 7 at 11:59 pm, ET.
This week is the final submission of your Portfolio Project. Make sure you incorporate
instructor feedback, make any additional corrections, and submit your final paper to
your ePortfolio.
Upload your Portfolio Project to the Institutional Outcome in your ePortfolio listed
below. Use the following naming convention: PHIL310 – Portfolio Project:
•
Thinking Abilities – Employ strategies for reflection on learning and practice in
order to adjust learning processes for continual improvement.
PHIL310 Portfolio Project: Research Paper
Criteria
Content
40 points
Conventions
10 points
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
40-36 points
The paper provides an in-depth
exploration and analysis of a
fallacious argument. The argument is
translated into standard form, and a
truth table is constructed to test the
argument for validity with no errors.
The analysis states how the fallacious
reasoning can affect argumentation
and subsequently affect our critical
thinking abilities, ways that the
fallacy can be seen in either personal
or professional life, and any means
discovered to circumvent problems
that arise from the chosen fallacious
argument
35.9-31 points
The paper provides an explanation and
analysis of a fallacious argument, but not
in the depth required by the assignment.
The analysis contains both translation of
the argument into standard form and the
construction of a truth table to test validity,
but there are one of more errors in this
area. The ways that the fallacious
argument can affect argumentation and
subsequently affect our critical thinking
abilities, ways that the fallacy can be seen
in personal or professional life is touched
upon, but not it any great and/or
necessary detail. The paper may not
provide any means discovered to avoid
problems that arise from the chosen
fallacy.
8.9 –7.8 points
A written summary overview is presented
(100-150 words). The summary statement
could provide more elaboration in
outlining the details of the fallacious
argument/or the consequences that arise
from its deployment. May or may not
touch upon how the fallacy is utilized in
either personal or professional life.
The paper exhibits an adequate ability to
choose, integrate, and document source
material in support of the thesis (Cites 4
sources).
30.9 – 26 points
A fallacious argument is present and
clear, but there is no explanation or
analysis. Only a brief overview/
definition is given. The analysis is
missing one of the following two
components: Translation into standard
form, or construction of a truth table to
test validity. Necessary connections are
not made between the nature of the
fallacy and any possible consequences
that may arise from its deployment in
professional or personal life. There is
no means presented by which to avoid
problems that arise from the chosen
fallacy.
25.9-0 points
The fallacious argument
presented by the paper is
unclear or not present. There
is no translation into standard
form, or construction of a
truth table to test validity.
Paper is mostly opinionbased and does not touch
upon the required elements of
the assignment.
7.7 –6.5 points
A summary overview (100-150 words)
is attempted, but the fallacy,
consequences, and possible resolution
is not fully expressed, or is lacking in
length. Does not reflect upon how the
chosen fallacy is utilized in
professional or personal life.
The paper exhibits a passable ability to
choose, integrate, and/or document
source material in support of the thesis
(Cites 2-3 sources).
6.4-0 points
A summary overview (100150 words) is missing, or not
attempted. A statement of the
fallacy, consequences, and
resolution is not fully
expressed.
The paper exhibits an
inability to choose, integrate,
and document source
material in support of a thesis
(Cites one or no sources).
No citations and/or missing
reference page will indicate
plagiarism and will result in a
ZERO for the paper.
10-9 points
A concisely written summary
overview highlighting the fallacious
argument, consequences, and possible
resolution is present (100-150 words).
It provides a brief overview of the
argument in question, touches upon
how and why the argument
represents a fallacy, and how this
fallacy is seen in either professional or
personal life, and gives a short
conclusion statement.
The paper exhibits an excellent ability
to choose, integrate, and document
source material in support of the
thesis (Cites 4 sources).
PHIL310 – Portfolio Project
Grammar/
Mechanics
10 points
10-9 points
The paper exhibits strong writing,
mechanical and grammatical skills;
there are no significant errors in
punctuation or spelling. The paper
accurately follows the assignment
format directions.
40-36 points
Metacognition
40 points
Metacognitive reflection
demonstrates thorough
understanding and application of
critical thinking skills, clearly
connecting what was learned by
completing this project to life, career
and/or school, and demonstrates
how thinking abilities are important
to personal, professional and/or
educational development. Includes
reference to how this learning can be
adapted or transferred to new
contexts and tasks.
5
8.9 – 7.8 points
The paper exhibits strong writing,
mechanical and grammatical skills; there
may be occasional lapses (1-2 per page),
but these do not detract from the overall
impression of “correctness.” The paper
follows the assignment format directions.
7.7 – 6.5 points
The paper evidences writing,
mechanical and grammatical skills in
need of some improvement (3-4 per
page). The paper follows some of the
assignment format directions.
6.4 -0 points
The paper is characterized by
frequent (4+ per page)
grammatical and mechanical
errors. The paper does not
follow assignment format
directions.
35.9-31 points
30.9-26 points
25.9-0 points
Metacognitive reflection demonstrates
thorough understanding and application
of critical thinking skills, clearly
connecting what was learned by
completing this project to life, career
and/or school, and demonstrates how
thinking abilities are important to
personal, professional and/or educational
development; however, the description
effectiveness is questionable due to
inconsistent use of appropriate strategies
and rationale. Reference to how this
learning can be adapted or transferred to
new contexts and tasks provides limited
detail/ elaboration.
Metacognitive reflection demonstrates
partial understanding and application
of critical thinking skills and offers a
limited description of how critical
thinking is important to personal,
professional, and/or educational
development; however, the lack of
specificity and detail conveys a general
lack of understanding. Rationale for
the importance of critical thinking skills
in one’s development is limited. The
connection between what was learned
and use in new contexts and tasks is
present, but limited.
Metacognitive reflection does
not demonstrate any
understanding/ application
of critical thinking skills;
metacognition does not
clearly connect new learning
to life, career and/or school,
no highlighting how thinking
abilities are important to
personal, professional and/or
educational development.
Rationale for the importance
of critical thinking skills in
one’s development is
inaccurate. There is no
mention of how learning can
be adapted or transferred to
new contexts and tasks.
PHIL310 – Portfolio Project
6
PHIL310 Portfolio Project: PowerPoint Presentation with Voiceover & Peer Review Discussion
Content
50 points
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
50 – 45 points
44.5 – 40 points
39.5 – 35 points
• Slides clearly and adequately describe and
explain the fallacious argument, show clear
examples of it in daily life, and provide
meaningful commentary on argument
structure and logical integrity. (Videos,
pictures, advertisements, excerpts from
speeches may be used.)
• Content is sufficient to inform and persuade
others to appreciate and reflect upon the
student’s argument.
• Message is skillfully synthesized from the
written paper, focusing on most salient
points.
20 – 18 points
Presentation
Skills
20 points
• Demonstrates a strong, enthusiastic
presentation of the topic
• Employs appropriate emphasis on major
components to inform and persuade.
• Articulates effectively (pronunciation,
diction, eye contact) to engage the listener in
the message.
30 – 27 points
Metacognition/
Peer
Reflection
30 points
• Clearly connects the fallacious argument
presented to one’s own life and prospective
field of employment including related
consequences of such fallacious thinking.
• Clearly relates this fallacy to that presented
in the student’s own presentation.
• Slides describe and explain the
fallacious argument moderately
well. Good examples are given
from daily life. Commentary on
argument structure and logical
integrity is good, but could be
elaborated upon further.
• Content is sufficient to inform and
persuade others to appreciate and
reflect upon the student’s
argument, but could be stronger.
• Message is reflective of the written
paper, but could be stronger.
17.8 – 16 points
• Demonstrates some enthusiasm
about the topic
• Employs emphasis on major
components, but does not do so
convincingly enough to both
inform and persuade.
• Articulates somewhat effectively,
but pronunciation, diction or eye
contact do not enhance
communication of the message.
• Slides describe and explain the
fallacious argument, but more detail
is needed. Examples are given, but
are not clear. Commentary on
argument structure and logical
integrity is of only fair quality.
• Content does not clearly inform and
persuade others to appreciate and
reflect upon the student’s argument.
• Message is vaguely connected to the
written paper.
15.8 – 14 points
• Demonstrates little interest about the
topic presented
• Emphasis is lacking or misplaced on
aspects of minor importance, and
fails to inform and persuade.
• Pronunciation, diction and/or eye
contact distract from the message
26.7 -24 points
23.7 – 21 points
• Connects the fallacious argument
presented to one’s own life and
prospective field of employment
including related consequences,
but could explain this more
clearly.
• Relates this fallacy to that
presented in the student’s own
presentation but could explain this
more clearly.
• Partially connects the fallacious
argument presented to one’s own life
and prospective field of employment
but could explain this more
clearly/thoroughly.
• Partially relates this fallacy to that
presented in the student’s own
presentation but could explain this
more clearly/thoroughly.
Level 1
34.5 – 0 points
• Slides poorly describe and
explain the fallacious argument.
Examples are either not given or
are of poor quality. Commentary
is inadequate.
• Content does not inform and
persuade others to appreciate and
reflect upon the student’s
argument.
• Message is not connected to the
written paper.
13.8 – 0 points
• Demonstrates no interest in the
topic presented
• Ineffectively uses emphasis to
inform and persuade.
• Problems with pronunciation,
diction and eye contact clearly
distract from the message.
20.7 – 0 points
• Explanation of the connection
between the fallacious argument
in this presentation to one’s own
life or employment is poor.
• Does not relate or poorly relates
this fallacy to that presented in
the student’s own presentation.