PHIL 347 WEEK 3 CHECKPOINT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SOLUTIONS

1. According to the text, how do the views of stronger, more developed critical thinkers toward authority differ from those in earlier stages of cognitive development? (pg. 116- 117) Our text explains that folks in the earlier stages of cognitive development view authority as someone who is powerful and capable of controlling others' behavior, or as someone trustworthy, who can offer good advice (Facione & Gittens, 2016). For example, parents and teachers have authority over children, police have authority over the general public, and ministers have authority in their church. However, strong critical thinkers understand that because the term authority is vague and has two meanings that it divulges problematic ambiguity (2016). More advanced critical thinkers view authority as someone who offers expertise. Facione and Gittens note, "the authorities we may wish to trust are those with expertise (2016)." Lastly, more advanced critical thinkers have a sense of skepticism, do not trust easily, and "understand that some reasons, perspectives, and theories are actually superior to others (2016, p. 116)." 2. Briefly, in your own words, state how the text defines “expert.” (pg. 134) Expert is defined as someone who is highly knowledgeable and proficient in a distinct, skillful and trained environment, or in a specific subject matter area (Facione & Gittens, 2016). 3. When presented with a claim unsupported by reasons (for example, “the health risks of vaping have been underestimated”), what three options does a critical thinker have to evaluate such a claim? (pg. 115-116 – last sentence on 115, going into 116) The three options the critical thinker has to evaluate are: How can we use our critical thinking skills to evaluate the credibility of the source of the claim? Whom should we trust? Whom should we not trust? 4. Is the following statement true or untrue? Explain your answer. “If a claim cannot be confirmed by an independent investigation, then it must be false.” (pg. 130- 131) I think the following statement is untrue. I feel that there should be more than one avenue for investigation. This allows for verification of the proposed claims. Also, I do not feel that the lack of endorsement from an independent inquiry is adequate enough to discredit a claim. The accuracy or falsehood of claim is not dependent on the source of the inquiry, rather it is dependent on the methods used to fact check and the disposition of the claim. Being said, no matter how the investigation is conducted, the verification should produce the same results. 5. Is the following statement true or untrue? Explain your answer. “If we do not believe that a claim is true, then we must believe that the claim is false.” (pg. 132-33) I believe the following statement is untrue, because the claim could simply be lacking some supporting evidence; however, that does not necessarily deem the claim to be false. Personally, I may hear a claim and not quite feel convinced, or that claim may be dependent on the outcome of an event, making me skeptical until I can disconfirm the claim (Facione & Gittens, 2016). By doing so, we are also conducting an independent investigation. For example, my daughter might tell me, on Sunday night, that she is going to make her bed every morning for the next five days. If she is successful, she feels she deserves a reward. Though I do not believe her claim is true, because I think she will forget to do it at least once, it is not untrue, because the claim's veracity is dependent on her performance. Therefore, we can conclude that some claims have dependent variables, making us skeptical until we disconfirm the claim, and making the original statement untrue. 6. What four conditions must an argument meet if we are to accept the worthiness and reasonableness of its conclusions? "The four conditions that must be met: 1. To the best of our knowledge and understanding, the reason is true. 2. The logical relationship between the reason and the claim is such that the reason implies, entails, strongly warrants or strongly supports the claim, such that the claim must be true or very probably true if the reason is assumed to be true. 3. The relevance of the reason to the claim is such that the truth of the claim actually depends on the truth of the reason. 4. The flow of the reasoning is such that truth of reason must not depend on the truth of the claim. An argument that satisfies all four conditions is worthy of our acceptance as a proof that its claim is true or very probably true (Facione & Gittens, 2016, p. 142)." 7. In an argument with two or more independent reasons, if one of those reasons turns out to be false, how does a critical thinker apply the test of logical strength to the argument? Should the critical thinker reject such an argument? Explain your answer. Our text states, "before determining that a claim should be rejected, a strong critical thinker would first need to find problems with the soundness of all the arguments being advanced (Facione & Gittens, 2016, p. 144)." The critical thinker should not reject the argument because people are oftentimes more inclined to yield many autonomous rationales to support a claim, regardless if some of those rationales turn out to be false; however, rejecting a person's claim solely because one (or more) of their rationales had invalid contents is a common error in human logic (Facione & Gittens, 2016). 8. Erwin is charged with statutory rape, which is defined as a having sex with a minor, a person under the age of 18. Erwin argues: “You can’t arrest me just because she’s 17 and I’m 21. Yes, we had sex, but it was consensual, plus she will be 18 in two weeks, and we are planning to get married.” Which of the four tests of worthiness does Erwin’s argum