# HUM101 Chamberlain College of Nursing Critical Reasoning Evaluating Arguments

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
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

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

0 replies