1 Portfolio Drexel University Critical Reasoning Philosophy 105 Patrick Denehy This document provides more information about the portfolio project and guidelines to complete each content area to the best of your ability. Use the information here and contained in the syllabus to answer initial questions you may have. And don’t forget to include citations for every piece of text you reference or use to help you formulate your own work. You can either include a short works cited/bibliography at the end of each content area, or one large works cited/bibliography encompassing all content areas. Any style is fine so long as it is consistent. Meeting You need to schedule a 30-minute meeting with me during the term. You should bring two content areas of your choosing with you for review. These need to be full first drafts, not merely ideas or notes. I will read as much as time permits to provide you feedback on how to improve these pieces of writing and approach the remaining content areas. I will also give you a sense of where you stand with your APC grade. Fallacies For the fallacies content area, you should find examples of fallacies committed in texts or videos.* If all else fails, create a dialogue between different persons that represents fallacious arguments you have heard in the past or in which you were personally involved. After providing the fallacy, you should identify the fallacy and then explain how this text, video, or dialogue commits this fallacy. Students usually complete this section in one of three ways. One option is to provide a number of examples with brief explanations (roughly 5-8 fallacies). The second option discusses fewer fallacies in more depth (roughly 2-3 fallacies). Finally, other students take up some issue of the day and locate a number of fallacies in arguments surrounding that issue. This third option usually involves discussing fewer fallacies in depth as well, thereby overlapping with the second option. Morals and Markets While some people attempt to respond to the overall claims of Sandel’s book – and this is all well and good – I encourage everyone to focus on at least two concrete cases or scenarios he raises. This will allow you to provide a more in-depth response or investigate a case even further. Some people also use this as an opportunity to perform light research in order to substantiate or criticize various points in the book. Feel free to bring in other cases that display a dilemma of norms in a market-driven culture. * You should not simply repeat fallacies from our textbook, another logic textbook, or some website dedicated to explaining fallacies. There would be no point to such an exercise. The purpose is to display that you can apply the concept of a fallacy to real-world cases, not ones already identified by others. Finally, if you are wondering why I have included thi ...

1. 1
Portfolio
Drexel University
Critical Reasoning
Philosophy 105
Patrick Denehy
This document provides more information about the portfolio
project and guidelines to complete each
content area to the best of your ability. Use the information
here and contained in the syllabus to answer
initial questions you may have. And don’t forget to include
citations for every piece of text you reference
or use to help you formulate your own work. You can either
include a short works cited/bibliography at the
end of each content area, or one large works cited/bibliography
encompassing all content areas. Any style
is fine so long as it is consistent.
Meeting
You need to schedule a 30-minute meeting with me during the
term. You should bring two content areas of
your choosing with you for review. These need to be full first
drafts, not merely ideas or notes. I will read
as much as time permits to provide you feedback on how to
improve these pieces of writing and approach
the remaining content areas. I will also give you a sense of
where you stand with your APC grade.

2. Fallacies
For the fallacies content area, you should find examples of
fallacies committed in texts or videos.* If all
else fails, create a dialogue between different persons that
represents fallacious arguments you have heard
in the past or in which you were personally involved. After
providing the fallacy, you should identify the
fallacy and then explain how this text, video, or dialogue
commits this fallacy.
Students usually complete this section in one of three ways.
One option is to provide a number of
examples with brief explanations (roughly 5-8 fallacies). The
second option discusses fewer fallacies in
more depth (roughly 2-3 fallacies). Finally, other students take
up some issue of the day and locate a
number of fallacies in arguments surrounding that issue. This
third option usually involves discussing
fewer fallacies in depth as well, thereby overlapping with the
second option.
Morals and Markets
While some people attempt to respond to the overall claims of
Sandel’s book – and this is all well and good
– I encourage everyone to focus on at least two concrete cases
or scenarios he raises. This will allow you
to provide a more in-depth response or investigate a case even
further. Some people also use this as an
opportunity to perform light research in order to substantiate or
criticize various points in the book. Feel
free to bring in other cases that display a dilemma of norms in a
market-driven culture.

3. * You should not simply repeat fallacies from our textbook,
another logic textbook, or some website
dedicated to explaining fallacies. There would be no point to
such an exercise. The purpose is to display
that you can apply the concept of a fallacy to real-world cases,
not ones already identified by others.
Finally, if you are wondering why I have included this footnote
because this just seems so obvious to you,
this would be a good opportunity to remind yourself that the
obvious does not extend to all of your peers.
2
If you are completely stuck, though I don’t think you will be,
there are some overarching questions one
could ask throughout the work and by the end. Let me suggest a
few, though these need not be your focus:
• Are there cases in which moral, civic, familial, or other values
should be upheld against market
values?
• Are there cases in which market values should be upheld
against these other values?
• If there is a mix of cases, by what criteria should we
distinguish them? If there is not a mix of
cases, why not?
• What are potential solutions or strategies for upholding non-
market values in the face of market

4. norms and pressures, or vice-versa?
• How can market and non-market values sometimes point to
identical solutions?
Op-Ed Analysis
The goal of this content area is to critically analyze an opinion
piece from a reputable source, whether a
newspaper, online news source, blog, or magazine. Opinion
pieces are not news reports. The latter have
the responsibility of truthfully and accurately relaying
information about events in the world; the former,
informed by news reports and much more, attempt to offer
arguments about all kinds of important (and
sometimes unimportant) human events.
You have undoubtedly been taught that different media offer
different, and politically charged, points of
view. That’s true but not terribly interesting. What is more
interesting and dangerous is the idea that, if
media are politically charged, they must therefore be biased in
some manner. This leads many people into
utter skepticism about any and all news sources. This attitude
is unhealthy (and, possibly, a concerted
political effort in and of itself.) To alleviate this concern, I
want you to just glimpse at the following two
Wikipedia pages, the first about media bias in the U.S., and the
other listing orientations of political
magazines:
Wikipedia: Media Bias in the U.S.
Wikipedia: Political Magazine Orientations
It will be more interesting, especially as you complete this
portion of the assignment, to worry less about

5. bias and more about political orientation. Bias attempts to
undercut credibility. Orientation, on the other
hand, just admits that people have points of view underpinned
by political outlooks and values. (How
could we not?) The list also points to far more than just the
usual two political categories so dominant in
the U.S., like most opinion pieces in, say, The New York Times
opinion page. Choose whatever reputable
source you like. If you would like references to other sources,
ask me in person.
Generally, you should do two things:
• Summarize the article(s) by charitably interpreting the
author’s argument(s)
• Respond to the argument – here are typical maneuvers:
o Agree with the author and provide further reasons supporting
the claim
o Agree with the author’s conclusion, but disagree with her
reasons or support
o Disagree with the author’s conclusion and provide reasons for
a different conclusion
3
Videos
The major videos and films we will watch this term are the
following: Frank Luntz on political speech,
George Lakoff on political speech, 12 Angry Men, Born Rich,
and Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices.
There are also a few of articles (Greenfield, Culler) that could

6. be included in this section, even though they
aren’t videos. (This is really the “third thread” content area.)
You do not need to write a reflection on every single video or
alternative article. You should, however,
write something on at least 60% of them, so roughly 3 out of 5
videos or so. Alternatively, students
sometimes write on all five videos but write combined
reflections on the Luntz and Lakoff videos (because
they form a pair) and the Born Rich and Walmart films (because
they form a pair as well).
Unlike the op-ed content area, you should not feel the need to
summarize much of the video. A sentence or
two would be sufficient. The basic reason is that I am familiar
with all of these, while I will not be familiar
with the opinion piece you choose until I read it. As such, you
should launch straightaway into a critical
reflection or analysis of some portion of each film you choose.
Self-Assessment
While the self-assessment content area is part of your grade, I
usually tell students that this is more for you
than for me. You should write a reflection of your own learning
throughout the course, including the effort
you were able to put into the class, particular ideas you think
were especially important, concepts or
examples you will definitely remember going into the future, or
other items reflecting and assessing
yourself.
There are two ways the self-assessment is generally weak,
especially upon a first draft. First, many
students say overly abstract or general things (“this course
taught me how to think more critically”)

7. without, frankly, saying much at all or providing examples.
That’s not particularly reflective. Second, and
somewhat strangely, students sometimes write self-assessments
as if they were professor assessments akin
to evaluations at the end of the course. But again, this is for
and about you, not me. Those evaluations will
be something separate.
Generally speaking, students approach this in one of two ways,
perhaps three. The first is to leave this
content area until the very end. The second is to give yourself a
kind of midterm self-assessment, thereby
at least beginning it by week 5 and then finishing the rest after
week 10. The final approach jots down
various notes throughout the term and compiles them into a
short essay. I will leave it up to you.
1
Patrick Denehy
Drexel University
Critical Reasoning
Updated: April 18, 2014
Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd Edition)
Douglas Walton

8. I recommend reading as much of the text as possible. Walton
will occasionally repeat
examples in subsequent chapters in order to make new points or
provide a different angle
on the same topic. Nevertheless, there is too much information
contained within the book
for us to go over each point in detail. Here’s a guide for
concepts and examples I intend
to discuss broken down by chapter.
Chapter 1: Argument as reasoned dialogue
• Logical pragmatics and logical semantics
• Basic types of reasoning
• Deductive
• Inductive
• Defeasible (plausible)
• Roughly 8 dialogue types
• Emphasis: persuasion dialogue (critical discussion)
• Symmetrical and asymmetrical dialogues
• Internal and external proofs
• The nature of commitments
• Fallacy: Straw Man
• Silencing technique: example 1.14
Chapter 2: Questions and answers in dialogue

9. • Presuppositions
• Complex, Loaded, Black/White Questions
• Strategies to respond to certain questions
• Questions in polls and their effects
2
Chapter 3: Criticisms of irrelevance
• Relevance and irrelevance
• Four notions of relevance
• Fallacies:
• Ignoratio Elenchi
• Red Herring
• Wrong Conclusion
• Fallacy work and review
Chapter 4: Appeals to emotion
• Fallacies:
• Ad Populum
• Ad Baculum
• Ad Misericordiam
• Fallacies compared and contrasted with:

10. • Appeals in advertising
• Silencing techniques
• Warnings
• Appeals to sympathy and compassion
Chapter 5: Valid arguments
• Working on deduction (LSAT example)
• Logical semantics versus logical pragmatics
• Common deductive forms:
• Modus ponens
• Modus tollens
• Disjunctive syllogism
• Hypothetical syllogism
• Fallacies:
• Composition
• Division
3
Chapter 6: Personal attack in argumentation
• Fallacies:
• Ad Hominem abusive

11. • Ad Hominem circumstantial & tu quoque
• Ad Hominem poisoning the well
• Connections and impact:
• Negative political campaigns (p. 173)
• The bias paradox (p. 188)
• 12 Angry Men examples
• Plutocracy and the greed objection (including Sandel)
Chapter 7: Appeals to authority
• Lesson from Milgram experiments
• Cognitive and administrative authority
• Appeal to authority as a problem of modern history
• Rational structure of the appeal to authority
• Reasonable appeals to authority
• Fallacious appeals to authority
• Middle cases
• Criteria & tools for evaluating appeals to authority
• Senator Al Franken example (anti-gay study) [outside book]
Chapter 8: Inductive errors, bias, and fallacies
• Reminder: internal and external proof (ch. 1, p. 4-5)
• Foci: inductive generalizations, statistical arguments, causal
arguments
• Statistical arguments

12. • Meaningless stats
• Unknowable stats
• Simple random samples
• Stratified random samples
• Insufficient stats
• Biased stats
• Causal arguments
• Variety of post hoc errors
• Gambler’s fallacy [outside book]
4
Chapter 9: Natural language argumentation
• Common linguistic problems
• Ambiguity
• Vagueness
• Fallacies
• Slippery slope
• Assessing slippery slopes
• Connections
• Gay marriage example [outside book]
• Connection to Sandel on morally robust aims