Assignment InstructionsResearch via the internet and find an art.docx

Assignment Instructions
Research via the internet and find an article in the news
regarding wireless hacking, hardware hacking, or other security
breach.
As security and IT change so rapidly, your article should be no
older than 2007 (i.e. Less than 5 years old).
Summarize the article using at least 500 words.
The key to this assignment is to demonstrate your understanding
of the topics, not to re-word the text or reference material.
Please complete the scenario below following these guidelines
for your deliverable.
· The assignment must be a minimum of 2 pages double spaced,
plus a title page and a reference page for a total of 4 pages.
· Make sure you are using at least two (2) academic references.
· This submission should be created following APA 6th edition
guidelines.
Barriers and Obstacles To Critical Thinking: The
Individual/Psychology and The
Group/Sociology
-these are natural, but provide unreliable standards for
judgment, or the bypassing of judgment
overall. While being individuals with private perspectives,
thoughts, emotions, desires,
motivations and self-interests is normal for us, many barriers to

critical thinking come from this
aspect of human nature. Likewise, while we are innately social
beings who require coexistence
with others for development and success, we can be prevented
from thinking critically by this
aspect of ourselves. All of the points below are potential
barriers to critical thinking. In order to
think critically, one must, initially, make sure that none of these
barriers are in effect.
1.) egocentrism: Using one's own perspective as authoritative or
one's own self-interests as
standards for no other reason than that they are one's own
perspective or interests. One is being
egocentric when they fail to view reality or evaluate beliefs
from a vantage point other than the
one they come most naturally with. This is tragic in the sense
that this person will be unable to
see reality as anything other than what their limited view or
motivations make of it, which is not
even helpful for for the pursuit of their own self-interests.
2.) self-serving biases: We tend to overestimate our own
strengths and merits while ignoring our
weaknesses and faults; it is easy to think that we are above
average for no other reason than that
we are us; others tend to be blamed for our failures, and we tend
to take all the credit for our
successes. This is a kind of double-standard we apply to
ourselves. It prevents us from seeing
things as they are, because we distort our vision with our own
self-delusions.
3.) Subjectivism: We are committing a subjectivist fallacy when
we think that, just because we

believe something is true, it is true for no other reason that that
we believe it. It is easy for us to
be deluded into thinking that our our beliefs are true just
because they are ours, but this is
obviously misleading. A further problem arises in that our
brains release dopamine which makes
us feel happy when we think we are right. If I say, "you're
right," you are likely to receive
happiness from this. In this way there is a physiological
incentive for us to think we are right,
whether we are right or not.
4.) Confirmation bias: One commits confirmation bias when
they attempt to prove that a belief
they hold is correct by finding evidence in favor of it. This
sounds like proper investigation, but
is flawed. If one only attempts to find evidence which confirms
their beliefs, all that they will
accomplish is the confirmation of their beliefs. One must also
look for disconfirming evidence,
or evidence that would contradict their belief. There is enough
evidence in the world to confirm
any belief at all. The trick is to figure out which beliefs have
the most, the best, evidence in favor
of them. In order to do this, we have to try to both confirm and
disconfirm beliefs at the same
Prof. Eckel, U. Toledo, FA17
time. There may be a tiny fragment of confirming evidence for
my belief. If that's all I look for, I
could be ignoring a mountain of evidence that disconfirms my
belief.

5.) Selective attention: When a particular belief of ours limits
our ability to fairly analyze all the
relevant information, we are selectively tuning out certain
information. This is a form of
narrow-mindedness that should be avoided because it leads us to
lack access to the facts we need
to make good decisions. One is being selectively attentive when
a prior belief makes it so that
certain later beliefs are impossible to hold or even evaluate
since certain information which
would lead to that later belief is simply ignored.
6.) Avoidance: When we intentionally block out certain sources
of information because they do
not conform to our pre-existing beliefs. This is a way of
sidestepping the hard work of evaluating
the support for beliefs by simply not paying attention to other
beliefs so that ours look like the
strongest supported ones. We are essentially making sure that
our beliefs are the only game in
town as far as we're concerned.
7.) Anger: We become angry when our beliefs are challenged so
we react toward whatever
challenged them in a hostile way. The impulse is that if we can
destroy or force a retreat from the
source of conflict, then our beliefs will somehow be more true.
This is irrational. Anger is an
emotion, and it is incapable of discerning true from false beliefs
because it is a response, not a
way to evaluate. By forcefully ejecting the source of opposition,
it simply becomes easier to
seem correct. Anger is an understandable response, but we
should not feel attacked when our
beliefs are challenged. We should want to see if the challenge is
legitimate. I identify with my

beliefs, but I am not well served if I identify with false beliefs.
8.) Cliche: A cliche is a platitude that may be used to deflect,
disarm, or simply end the
evaluation of beliefs. "To each their own," "Everyone is entitled
to their own opinion," or "That's
true for you but not for me," are simply ways to end an
otherwise legitimate search for true
beliefs because we don't want to be proven wrong or hurt
someone else. When a cliche is
employed, it is against critical thinking. Be cautious of tactical
uses of cliche. I may be inclined
to use a cliche to end a debate when I know that I'm about to
lose. Don't let me off the hook so
easily.
9.) Denial: We commit to denialism when we simply refuse to
connect evidence and support to
the beliefs which they support. I am in denial I simply refuse to
think, act, or behave in
accordance with what is known. This is generally done because
one would rather hold the belief,
because it matters that much to them for some reason, rather
than have a true belief, when one
thinks that beliefs are supposed to do something other than be
true (like make us happy, make us
feel good, give us power, etc.).
10.) Ignorance: We are prevented from thinking critically if we
are ignorant of relevant
information we need in order to evaluate a belief. This can
occur deliberately or accidentally. I

can choose to be ignorant of information so that I'm not guilty
of blunt denial, if holding my
belief matters that much to me. I may willfully refuse to
understand a topic because I am afraid
to uncover information which would force me to either change
my cherished beliefs or bluntly
commit to denial.
11.) Struggle: I may choose to struggle as a way a deferring my
understanding of a topic instead
of allowing that understanding to force me to revise my beliefs.
If evidence leads me to believe
that my most cherished belief is false, I may choose to simply
turn the struggle against that
evidence into my focus rather than focus on my belief. I may
simply bury myself in information
until I'm lost and choose to stay lost so that I don't have to
proportion my belief to evidence. I
would be constantly working on understanding but refusing to
acknowledge what I need to do
with that understanding. At a certain point, conclusions can be
drawn. If I let the fact that we
don't have absolute knowledge about the issue prevent me from
drawing a conclusion I don't
like, then I'm choosing to struggle. Humans do not have
absolute knowledge about anything;
inquiries are always ongoing, but we have more or less evidence
on certain cases so should have
more or less confidence in the beliefs which that evidence
supports. Letting the imperfections of
human knowledge keep us from accepting a belief we don't like
is a cop-out.
12.) Distraction: When I defer coming to a conclusion I don't
like by filling my mind with
irrelevant matters and tasks, I'm simply distracting myself in a

tactical way to preserve the
lifespan of the belief I'm worried will have to be revised. There
will always be something to
distract ourselves with, and others may also keep us in the dark
by distracting us. Keeping
priorities regarding truth intact regardless of where that pursuit
leads is critical thinking.
Anything else is running away.
13.) Rationalization: We rationalize whenever we come up with
a justification for a belief or act
after we have already decided to hold the belief or do the act.
This is the reverse order of only
accepting a belief when we have a good reason to. If one has a
belief, then needs to justify it
later, then they definitionally don't have a good reason to have
that belief in the first place.
Making a justification up later is simply writing a story to make
the belief seem more acceptable
after it has already been accepted. One essentially cherry-picks
a belief then concocts a story to
makes it seem more acceptable to themselves and others. This
will never yield a true belief in
any other way than by accident.
14.) Double-Think/Double-Standard: One is guilty of double-
think when they hold two
contradictory views as true. The definition of a contradiction is
when two beliefs both cannot be
true at the same time. Thus, at least one of the beliefs is a false
belief. It is easy to do this, since
our worldviews are collections of a great many beliefs which we
generally pick up in a

scattershot way. We also tend to use our belief pragmatically: as
long as they work they are good
beliefs. Thus it becomes possible for me to do something like
believe that there should be a
separation of church and state, then vote for a candidate whose
agenda represents that candidate's
religious beliefs which represent mine. This could be ignorance
of the contradiction on my part,
or I may understand that contradiction but not care because I
gain from it. In one context, it
makes sense to believe one of those beliefs. In another context,
the other seems fine. Taken as a
whole, they contradict. The deeper concern would be if we
doublethink in a self-serving way,
that is, we flip-flop our principles if it is advantageous for us
personally. If an opposing
candidate has religious views that don't conform to mine, I may
play my separation of church
and state card. When a candidate comes along whose views do
support mine, I may play my vote
for the personal who will best represent my political interests
card. This is simply abandoning a
commitment to true beliefs so that one can use them as
weapons.
15.) Stereotypes: A stereotype is an overgeneralization about a
group, normally of people. We'll
look at overgeneralization more, but understand it this way: I
overgeneralize when I conclude
something about a group based on evidence from an insufficient
number of members of that
group. We extend past what the evidence can account for. We
have to make generalizations to
live. If I wait to pay for my groceries because I haven't

determined whether every cashier in the
world is reliable so I don't know about the one in front of me,
I'm being ridiculous. At a certain
point, we must decide. Then again, we are too easily lazy with
our generalizations and able to
cherry-pick, since it's an imperfect way of understanding.
Stereotypes are employed against
people as a way of gaining some kind of power over them. It is
easy to remove someone's power
or worth by placing them in an incredibly broad category,
asserting some common feature of that
category which would justify the treatment, then assuming that
the person is one of the members
of the group with that feature. Overall, stereotypes are way of
making cheap determinations on
insufficient evidence.
16.) Fear of Challenge: Many barrier come from a fear of
revising cherished beliefs,
undermining oneself, or having to do the hard work of
determining what is true or good. Critical
thinking is hard, tedious, and uncomfortable. The urge to take
the path of least resistance is
strong. Overall, if we don't challenge ourselves, we simply will
not grow, personally, or as a
society. We'll simply stop at a certain point, saying things are
good enough. This is a kind of
laziness and avoidance which essentially ends the human project
of advancement in every way.
We are never finished, never perfect, but can always get better.
The only thing that is good
enough is realizing this and trying to get better.
17.) Misperception of random data: Humans impose meanings
on otherwise meaningless
information. The human mind is a meaning-producing machine.

From all of the sensory data that
pours in, the mind organizes it according to certain concepts,
rules, and beliefs. In the absence of
order, we make order, no matter what. This is why in ambiguous
phenomena like smoke, clouds,
crumbly walls, or cheese-puffs we see things that aren't there.
The lesson for critical thinking:
don't assume that the world is the way it seems at first glance.
Make sure you're not putting
meaning where it doesn't actually belong. If you believe
something, make sure that there's more
going on than just you making it believable.
18.) Memorable events error: The human mind recalls events
primordially based on the criteria
of strongest emotive impact. We recall evidence from memory
based on things like fear, love,
trauma, bliss, then we use that recollection as a standard. This
runs the risk of giving us a bad
belief to use for evaluation which then causes selective
attention. If I need to determine whether
or not I should eat a salad, then only recall that salad which
made me sick ten years ago, then
refuse to eat salad now because it might make me sick, I'm
simply misrepresenting the
probabilities because I'm letting my emotions give one factor a
power it doesn't have.
19.) Innumeracy: Humans are traditionally bad at determining
probabilities and statistics, even
doing simple math, in an experiential way. We often commit the

gambler's fallacy: thinking that
our actions determine the outcomes of random events (pay
attention to the meaning of the word
random). We also tend to mythologize events, making
probabilities seem improbable. For
example, we often think of what a coincidence it is when
something happens which we were just
thinking about. In fact, we are retroactively going back in time,
picking that thought out of the
thousands of thoughts we had in the previous hour, and
assigning it a value it doesn't have based
on the fact that it corresponds to an event we just experienced.
Think of your friend calling you
after you thought of them. You likely think of friends every
minute in an unconscious, quick,
associative way without noting it. When the friend calls, you
retrieve the thought and assign it a
kind of magic improbability. When we say, "What are the
chances of that?" They're often quite
good. Don't assign a mystical value to these situations. The true
improbability is that your
thought of the friend somehow caused them to call, far more
improbable than the coincidence
you made too much of. The problem is that, if we add small
situations like this together, it
becomes too easy to think the world allows for some kind of
magic in general.
20.) Self-fulfilling prophecy: When a belief causes it's own
confirmation, this is a self-fulfilling
prophecy. If I believe that I am unlikable, so become anti-
social, I will have fewer people who
like me, thus confirming my initial belief by causing the
evidence to come into existence for it
when this evidence wouldn't have otherwise been there. Make
sure that beliefs don't produce

their own evidence. This is a kind of accidental confirmation
bias which is quite dangerous. If I
believe that all Muslims are terrorists, then go about destroying
and alienating as many Muslims
as I can, I'm quite easily making more Islamic terrorists which
only confirms my initial belief
more and more. To avoid this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy,
one must always ask why until
they reach the origin. If I don't look back far enough, I may just
see that I'm friendless and
therefore unlikable, or that Islamic terrorists are more prevalent
and hence Muslims must be
terrorists.
21.) Absolutism: see the previous lecture notes on this topic.
Also consider relativism a barrier.
22.) Conformism: When one simply accepts the values, beliefs,
and practices of their social
group without any additional evidence in favor of the legitimacy
of those values, beliefs, or
practices, they are simply conforming to their group without
thinking critically. We do this when
we are young because we have few other options; we simply are
socialized into whatever
random society we happen to be born into. Maturity, however,
brings the option of revising that
initial random selection by questioning your socialization.
Experience with diverse groups is
crucial here, since the tools to fight conformity come from
outside the initial group. Only by

maximal experience with diversity can we be sure that we are
not only avoiding conformity, but
picking the best beliefs for the best reasons from synthesis and
comparison.
23.) Ethnocentrism/group-think: This is the same problem as
egocentrism, but with a broader
circle. Instead of only seeing things from the perspective of
one's own subjective view, with
ethnocentrism or group-think, one only sees things from the
perspective of whatever social group
they happen to be in. The limitations are exactly the same,
however. In fact, the risk is worse. As
an egocentrist, the world will consistently disconfirm that you
are, in fact, its center. As an
ethnocentric person, on the other hand, the world will
disconfirm that your group is, in fact, the
center of it all, but it's far easier to ignore or rationalize this
disconfirmation. An egocentric
person may be able to push their narcissism to nearly psychotic
proportions, but not often. A
person who completely conforms to their socialization,
however, by definition has a bunch of
other people to use for confirmation. For an egocentric person,
they have to start blaming their
failures to understand and act effectively on everyone and
everything else. For an ethnocentric
person, they still start blaming everything external for their
failures, but they are able to see
others like them and use that as confirmation that they aren't
crazy. The problem is that they
simply might be in a group of irrational people who use the fact
that there are others like them as
confirmation that they are behaving or thinking rationally. If
they are properly ethnocentric and
committed to groupthink, full conformity, they'll have no other

perspective to judge by than their
group's standards, so even their definition of 'rationality' will be
determined by their irrational
group. This is why diversity is the only antidote to fanaticism.
At the very least, we should be
concerned with using group-beliefs as a lens to interpret the
world through. While this is
unavoidable, not all beliefs track reality in equally adequate
ways. Group expectations can incite
mass delusions which are nearly unstoppable. A collective
delusion is simply a bogus worldview
shared by a group. The irrationality has officially become all-
powerful at that point. The Salem
Witch Trials is a good example of this. One may see the
Holocaust similarly, which was based
on a collective delusion that genocide would somehow be
advantageous to enact or permit.
24.) One of us/them: From an extreme enough kind of
groupthink, it becomes easy to see the
social world as an absolute dualist: either one of us or one of
them. This is easy to do for
extremist groups, who have a lot of push-back from the world
around them. They are able to turn
that disconfirmation into confirmation by blaming that world
and the others in it rather than their
own irrationality for their shortcomings caused by limited
perspective. This is a kind of
self-serving bias at the level group-psychology in the sense that
bad=them and good=us is an
absurdly simplified way. The error makes sense: first the
limited perspective of group-think

makes it hard for the group to be effective in their endeavors
because they don't understand the
world efficiently; then the group can rationalize this frustration
by externalizing it onto another
group since they seem rational enough to themselves and have
no external standard to check
with; finally, this act of turning another group into an evil
group makes sense to the initial group,
since they don't actually understand that group they've just
overgeneralized anyway due to their
initial lack of perspective which caused the whole mess in the
first place. A significant danger
comes from groups whose identity is either threatened or loose
to begin with. If a group's identity
needs defining, strengthening, or clarifying, it is cheap and easy
to construct the revised identity
as a negative definition: we are not them. Groups that lack
substance make this move easily.
Those who wish to construct a certain group will use this to
their advantage. This often takes a
moral connotation. They are bad; we are not them, so we are
good. Nothing gets a group
cohesive like predicating its own identity on an enemy when
that identity is otherwise
illegitimate, broken, or impotent. Those who seek control over
groups know this, and are able to
construct obedience by constructing enemies to fear, then
mobilize the obedient followers with
hate. This is the road to political authoritarianism. You should
be able to see it interpersonally as
well. When two friends are talking together but have very little
to talk about, the conversation
can be easily propped up and the bond deepened by listing off
all of the ways that they dislike a
third, non-present friend. In this way, groupthink creates myths
that serve the group which often

take on dualistic dangers with real consequences.
25.) Peer-pressure: Peer-pressure is a way for social groups to
maintain themselves by ensuring
conformity though coercion. All social groups are made of
individuals who are members of that
group in virtue of sharing some kind of beliefs, values, or
practices with the rest of the members
of that group. When a member deviates from the group identity
by not sharing the appropriate
beliefs, values, or practices which define that group, the group
self-corrects by (1) making sure
the deviation is made explicit and (2) punishing the deviation.
In this way, groups stay alive by
reproducing their rules ("We believe, value, do this....") as
though they were replicating DNA.
Peer-pressure is that auto-correct. It may be laughter; it may be
killing someone; it may be
anything in between. People succumb to peer-pressure then
conform because there is an
incentive to. They may be punished, humiliated, harmed, or they
could simply have the benefits
of being a member of that group revoked. This could include
anything from security, money, or a
future, to the love of friends and family. None of this has
anything to do with true beliefs in the
slightest. It works the same for any belief. This is why we must
examine our socialization. We
may be coerced into propagating a falsehood because we didn't
like the consequences.

26.) Face-saving: We save face whenever we believe, claim, or
do something simply because we
want to affirm that we are the kind of person who believes,
says, or does that kind of thing. This
is often for some kind of reward like group-membership or
personal gratification. Again, it has
nothing to do with the truth. It's a form of self-marketing.
27.) Anthropocentrism: Anthropocentrism is when we limit our
view to the human perspective. It
runs the same risks as egocentrism and ethnocentrism, just with
a broader circle.
Anthropocentrism views everything from the vantage point of
humans. On the one hand, this is
natural. On the other hand, the truth of things is not disclosed
by their relation to humans alone.
Things are not for humans. Reality both preceded and will
exceed humans in time and space.
Reality is not FOR human understanding or use. If we think that
reality is FOR us, we will never
understand it as it is. One must understand a phenomenon from
a non-human perspective as
much as it can be understood that way. This eliminates biases.
First, this how we avoid
anthropomorphizing things, turning them into people or
understanding them by analogy with
people. We used to understand everything this way by
attributing some human-like god or spirit
to it. To understand the weather, we cannot understand it as the
product of the human-like desires
and actions of Zeus or Poseidon, and we do better when we
understand it as atmospheric
variations, as what it is. To understand our cat, we'd do better to
understand him as a cat, not Mr.
Fluffy who is a refined gentleman. Anthropomorphizing is not a
good way to gain access to true

beliefs; it is an obvious projection of our own selves onto the
world around us. A further danger
of anthropocentrism is to believe that things are for our own
use. A biologist who understood a
tree only through the lens of an object to be used would be a
terrible biologist. They might
understand the features of a tree that make it a good bit of
lumber, or producer of fruit, or bit of
cover to hide from enemies behind, but they could never
understand the tree for what it is in
itself in all of its features. Crucially, the tree's being does not
conform to our uses of it. It has
features that exceed our use of it. It is something more. We
have to eliminate our human biases
as much as possible in order to objectively analyze things in
their non-human being.
28.) Diffusion of Responsibility: This is when people are less
inclined to take responsibility due
to the presence of other people. In short, the more people there
are in a situation, the less likely
those same individuals are to take responsibility for something
compared to if those individuals
were in a situation with less people, or alone. The error is in
conforming to group-think
unconsciously, where we for some reason ignore moral impulses
under conditions which are
irrelevant to the moral standing of the situation. If it is wrong in
a group of 10, it is wrong in a
group of 1,000 if nothing but that quantities of people change.
Humans, however, aren't wired to
operate like this. Make sure you are not letting this diffusion
effect your beliefs.

Fallacies
A fallacy is an error in reasoning. The kinds of fallacies we are
currently interested in are called
informal fallacies. These are fallacious arguments which are
psychologically compelling, but
logically empty. Fallacies are essentially bad inferences in
arguments. Certain information is
used to support an idea (premises supporting a conclusion in an
argument), but the connection
between that information and the idea it is intended to support
is either not sufficient or
completely absent. Psychologically, however, we are inclined to
think that the inference is an
acceptable one. These errors rest on ambiguous language,
unwarranted assumptions, or irrelevant
premises.
1. Equivocation: A key term changes its meaning during the
argument, allowing one to
conclude anything based on slipping definitions.
a. We have a right to determine the conditions of our own death.
Therefore,
voluntary active euthanasia is legal.
b. Man is a rational animal; no woman is a man; therefore, no
woman is rational.
2. Division: A bad inference from the characteristics of a whole
group to its individual
parts.

a. The team is the best in the league. Therefore, the players are
the best players in
the league.
3. Composition: A bad inference from the characteristics of the
individual parts to the whole
group.
a. You can’t see the atoms that make up my body. I am,
therefore, quite invisible.
4. Ad Hominem: When one attacks the person who made an
argument in an effort to refute
it rather than the argument itself; can be abusive (poison the
well) or contextual
(hypocrite or stereotype).
a. My opponent claims that we should all vote for him because
he’ll save the
country, but he can’t even maintain a marriage, so we should
not vote for him
b. The defendant has been accused of theft, fraud, and criminal
negligence in the
past, so he must be guilty this time.
c. Bob says that burning fossil fuels contributes to greenhouse
gas buildup in the
atmosphere, so it’s wrong to drive. I know he drives
everywhere, even down the
street, so I’m not buying it.
d. She claimed that we should avoid giving too much power to
the state, but she’s a
Republican so of course she’d say that.

5. Appeal to force: Use or threat of force/fear/loss/gain to
compel without rational support
for truth or falsity; one is forced to think of personal stakes
instead.
a. It’s not right for us to vote for a tax increase because it
would make our revenues
less.
b. You should stop cheating because you’ll eventually get
caught.
6. Appeal to pity: Evoking irrelevant emotions or sympathies
for others’ losses or
circumstances rather than reasons for truth or falsity; context
matters for relevance.
a. Officer, I can’t get a speeding ticket because I can’t afford it
and I’m already late
to work.
b. If you don’t come to my fundraiser, you will break my heart.
7. Popular appeal: Appeal to popular opinion as source of truth
itself; what most people
believe is said to be true for that reason; snob appeal is the
elitist/niche version, where
one is said to be correct because they are not like everyone else.
a. Most consumers choose Bank of America for their personal
banking needs. So
you should too.

b. Joe the Plumber is the ideal candidate because he’s like
everyone else, an
average, normal American.
c. Be better than average; be you; be unique. You deserve it
because you’re a
person of discernment and fine tastes. You deserve a [insert
snobbish product
here].
8. Appeal to tradition: Claiming that since something has been
believed or done in a
traditional sense through history that it is true or moral for no
other reason.
a. We allowed redrawing of districts since the inception of this
country so should
continue to allow it.
9. Appeal to ignorance: Claiming that a belief must be true/false
because it hasn’t been
proven otherwise (false/true); absence of proof is said to be
positive proof; shifting the
burden of proof as an alternative.
a. There is no evidence of the inexistence of bigfoot, so it is
rational to believe in this
creature until proven otherwise.
b. Until we’ve ruled out the effect of solar activity on the
climate, we should not
accept that climate change is due to carbon emissions.
c. You are guilty. There is no evidence of your innocence, and
you will be guilty
until there is.

10. Hasty generalization: Using too small or biased of a sample
group to make an inference
about a larger group of which the sample is a part
a. We’ve polled five hundred students on campus this morning
about whether the
school should have a Chick-fil-A; 74% say yes; 26% say no. A
majority of people
on campus are for having Chick-fil-A on campus.
11. Straw man: Using a distorted, more imperfect version of an
opponent's argument as
though it were their own in order to refute it
a. Person A: We should regulate the financial industry more
closely because the acts
that led to the 07/08 crash are still very possible.
Person B: Person A believes that we need more regulations on
the financial
industry. I think we need less. Person A claims that either we
have a massive
bureaucracy to regulate the industry so that it can’t operate
freely, or there will
be a catastrophic financial collapse, which is a fallacy. It
doesn’t matter, because
if we regulate the industry that much, lenders will not be able to
lend and there
will be a financial collapse anyway. Less regulation is better.
12. Red herring: Responding to a claim or making a point by

taking a tangent away from the
original line of reasoning, directing attention away from it to
conceal faulty reasoning
before returning to the intended conclusion. Associations take
the place of reasoning.
a. We cannot provide humanitarian aid to Puerto Rico since
they’re debt is too high
and it’s not clear how they’ll pay the debts they already had.
b. The candidate for senate shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Though they have great
ideas, experience in passing laws, and a perfect legislative
platform, they look
like an eccentric bum and aren’t very compelling in front of a
podium. They are
neither passionately progressive nor conservative, but a kind of
worker who will
get overshadowed by Washington's self-interested political
games without being
on either team.
13. Begging the question: An argument where the conclusion is
the same thing as a premise
but reworded; accepting the premise is accepting the
conclusion.
a. The biologist found that 90% of the trees in the forest had the
fungus. The other
10% showed resistance and were healthy. Of the 90% less than
half will live to
their normal life range. Because of all of this, therefore, one in
ten trees did not
have the fungus.
b. We cannot allow democracy to fall because it would be

unacceptable to fail to
maintain political arrangements in which the people hold
political power.
14. Inappropriate appeal to authority: Taking an expert in one
field to be an expert in a field
in which they are not an expert, a halo effect.
a. A new study signed by 1,000 physical scientists has claimed
that climate change is
not necessarily human-caused. Therefore, there is good reason
to think that there
is a lack of consensus about climate change being human-
induced.
15. False dilemma: When a complex situation is reduced to two
oversimplified solutions as
either/or; this is an absolutist inflexibility and can be a stacked
deck.
a. Either we destroy North Korea or they destroy us.
16. Questionable cause: Assuming, without sufficient evidence,
that there is a cause/effect
relation when there is not; post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this
therefore because of this).
a. We gave the patient the prescribed dosage but were unable to
save them. The
illness, therefore, was too much, and they succumbed to it.
b. He stopped talking to me after I told him he drinks too much,
so obviously he was
offended by what I said and it caused our friendship to collapse.

17. Slippery slope: The assumption that if certain actions are
permitted, all actions of this
type will be permissible, or worse.
a. If we allow gay people to get married then it will become the
norm. If gay
marriage becomes the norm instead of heterosexual marriage,
then there will be
nothing stopping people from marrying children or pet turtles.
We obviously can’t
allow that, so shouldn’t allow gay marriage in the first place.
18. Naturalistic fallacy: Assuming that what is natural is good
and unnatural is bad.
a. Foods that have been manipulated by humans are less natural
than foods we’d
find in the wild. They are less healthy for us for that reason.
b. We should legalize marijuana use because it is a more natural
substance and a
healthier option compared to cigarettes which are filled with so
many different
chemicals.
19. Faulty analogy: Making an assertion about something by
comparing it to something
similar and assuming that the two things must be similar in a
further way.
a. I passed the last class I had when I showed up every day, it
was in the morning, I
studied once a week, I turned in 9/10 of the homework, and the

professor was
easy to reach. In my current class, the professor is easy to
reach, I have turned in
9/10 of the homework, I study once every week, it’s in the
morning, and I show up
every day. So I will pass this class too.
Rhetoric and Definitions
Rhetoric: The use of language for the purpose of convincing an
audience to believe or do
something. Rhetoric is psychologically motivating, but does not
use rational argumentation and
has no real commitment to truth, reason, or justification. Reject
rhetoric on site. Assertions
grounded in rhetoric are disqualified for that reason. The
following are common rhetorical
devices and brief examples:
1. Innuendo: Suggesting something subtextually and implicitly
without actually and
explicitly stating it; may take the form of a rhetorical question.
a. Public: I didn’t say my opponent was a draft dodger or
unpatriotic; I merely said
that they got an exemption to study philosophy at a university
during the war.
b. Interpersonal: I got groceries, took out the trash, made
dinner, picked up the yard,

and cleaned the living room. Can you do the dishes?
2. Euphemism/Dysphemism: Using positive/negative
connotations of words to force the
audience's understanding in one direction.
a. Euphemisms: downsize, between jobs, military consultant,
kinetic strike,
collateral damage, economic development, innocent, passed
away, private parts
b. Dysphemisms: death tax, vulture fund, tree hugger, feminazi,
trust fund baby,
talking head, jarhead, meathead, slut, nerd, blonde, bossy, thug,
sheeple
3. Ridicule/Sarcasm: Removing legitimacy, seriousness, or
power through consistent
undermining with humor or irony.
4. Hyperbole: Using overstated and embellished language to
frame an issue for the purpose
of compelling certain beliefs or actions regarding that issue.
a. The Iran nuclear deal is the worst deal ever.
b. They hate us and they hate our freedom.
5. Rhetorical Definition: Defining a word so that it suits the
speaker’s purposes, which is
stacking the deck.
a. The low-class is a socio-economic category comprised of
people who don’t work
enough to support themselves adequately.
b. A terrorist is a religious extremist.

6. Lying and Deception: Intentionally misinforming,
disinforming, obscuring, or deflecting
the audience’s understanding in ways that advantage the
speaker.
Definitions: The meaning of key words (themselves
representing things, events, phenomena,
ideas, etc.) in an argument should be clear and precise to avoid
not only rhetorical definitions,
but general problems that result from ambiguity or implicit
assumptions. Search for the most
precise, accurate definition: the denotative meaning of the term;
avoid being led astray by
contextual, associative definitions: connotative meanings of the
term. Being able to tell a ‘good’
from a ‘bad’ definition is key, and must be done in a justifiable,
rational way. A good definition
is such because it is more adequate than other options. The best
definitions are the most adequate
ones. In order to be the most adequate, a definition will score
best on the following criteria for an
adequate definition:
1. Scope: The definition should be neither too broad nor too
narrow in scope. It should not
be so broad that it applies to other terms equally or so narrow
that it only defines a
portion of the term.
a. Too broad: A honeybee is an insect.
b. Too narrow: A worker honeybee only stings once.

2. Descriptiveness: The definition should state all of the
essential attributes of the term,
those attributes which make the term what it is, and without
which it would cease to be
the term. This eliminates connotative meanings.
a. Decent definition: A community college is an institution of
higher education
without residential facilities often funded by the government
and is characterized
by a two-year curriculum that leads to a certificate, associate's
degree, or
transfer.
3. Non-Redundancy: The definition should not refer to itself
circularly. The meaning of a
term should be in words and concepts that are different than the
term itself, or else no
understanding is advanced.
a. Circular: Teachers are people who educate.
4. Clarity: The definition should be free of obscurity and
metaphor. It should be simplest,
using words and concepts that don’t beg for more definitions,
and it should be make
references accurately, without appealing to analogies,
disanalogies, or poetic language.
a. Too comparative: An apartment is like a hotel room except
you stay there longer,
there’s no staff, and you pay for utilities.
b. Too metaphorical: The ocean is a mysterious, beautiful void
where one can lose
oneself in thought.

5. Objectivity: The definition should not include any kind of
emotionally provoking
language, subjectivity, or rhetorical devices.
a. Environmentalists are people I respect, people fighting to
save the world against
greed and corruption.
Journals 1-2 Prompt
Description:
This is a personal journal where students record, track, and
process personal observations
and reflections about critical thinking in their daily life. The
students should be focusing
on their own, internal infractions of critical thinking principles
and those of others, such
as family and friends in interpersonal interactions. Focus on
infractions that are unique to
your own, personal life, your inner reflection about your life
and actions, your thoughts,
your interactions with others, things your family or friends do.
The point is to take note of
situations in which critical thinking is not present and the
effects of this are apparent. The
purpose of this journal is for students to be more self-aware of
the regularity of critical
thinking problems in their lived, daily life so that those
problems are less pernicious.

Directions:
1. In at least one paragraph, describe the critical thinking
infraction as it occurred.
Think of the following points in your description:
a. What, exactly, happened? Tell the story, paying attention to
the
who-what-when-where-how details. This context matters for
critical
thinking infractions, both in provoking them and understanding
them.
b. What, specifically, was the infraction? Thinking of critical
thinking as
principles of good reasoning, which principles were absent or
violated?
2. In at least one paragraph, interpret the situation and the
infraction. Think of the
following points in your interpretation:
a. Why did the infraction occur in this situation? Attempt to
form an
explanation of the situation such that it produced this infraction
as a result.
b. Of all of the possible ways for the situation to proceed, why
did it proceed
this way--where a critical thinking rule was broken or absent--
rather than
the other ways? What was the cause, in other words?
c. In your interpretation, how severe or consequential was the
infraction?
Aside from leading to irrationality and false beliefs, what else

could occur
as a result if anything?
3. In at least one paragraph, consider how to resolve the critical
thinking infraction
as best as you can. Consider the following points in this
resolution:
a. If the situation were repeated, what measures would have to
be taken in
order to prevent the infraction from occuring?
b. Given that the infraction actually occurred, what do you do
about it now,
after the fact?
c. What factors do you foresee getting in the way of, or at least
making
difficult, the prevention or resolution of this infraction?
Prof. Eckel, U. Toledo, SP18
Dietary Needs while Hosting Guests
Hello journal, I got plenty to share today, Wednesday 21st
September 2016, my most eventful day of the year thus far.
Remember Judy, my high school friend, communications
director at the white house, Asian-American lady from my
writing back in March Judy? Yes, Judy got me an invitation to
the 35th edition of the state house dinner. Came as a surprise to
me too but I was certainly glad to attend and true to her words it
was spectacular. I have never seen such diversity in one room,
all races, religions, genders you name it were present. The menu
reflected its importance. Cold dark beers with small talks,
canapés with niceties, wine to fill the hollowness of the laugh,
sorbets to cover the stereotype jokes and coffee to keep the

guests awake on the return journey. I did, however, note some
unusual things. The Qatari lady representative, the guest
professor from Israel and one of the most important people
present, the former first lady, did not indulge much and instead
restricted their diets to drinks only.
The lady representative I could understand her reasons must
have been religion based. The former first lady too is an open
advocate for clean eating and insists on people becoming
vegetarians for better lifestyle hence her obvious reasons. The
Professor, however, I could not understand and just had to get
his reasons from him. Standing next to him was a professor too
from Poland. I figured they must be friends because of the
conversation they were having which made it much easier for
me to talk to them both. “Did you know that Hitler had ordered
all German soldiers to become vegetarians and it became the
first ever state-sponsored incident of a vegetarian diet.” The
professor’s response was simple; it is cruel to kill animals for
food. See the three had different reasons for restricting their
diets. Paying close attention to the crowd, I noticed more people
restricting their diets to certain foods. The Usher too had
noticed and directed the staff to put identity labels beside the
dishes for ease and bam!! The change was drastic. Simply put,
more people ate.
Basically, I learned it is important to know your guests in
advance as well as understand their preferences. They will
actually appreciate your views on healthy eating, animal welfare
or whichever other reasons you have to undertake whatever diet
you choose to. It is also critical to educate yourself on the
options available in a vegetarian diet. One of the options is to
go to the stores and find meat substitutes available. There are
mind-blowing options like soy-chorizo or vegan roasts that you
might not even know they exist until you look around. If you
are not able to prepare a fully vegetarian meal by yourself, you
can choose to host the occasion in a restaurant. This might
sound far-fetched but depending on the cuisine that the
restaurant offers, together with some creativity, there can be a

lot of interesting choices. After all, I was able to learn a lot and
I am even considering to blog about tips for vegetarians
together with tips for becoming dairy-free. I will also include
dining out options as well share my favorite cookbooks.

Assignment InstructionsResearch via the internet and find an art.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assignment InstructionsResearch via the internet and find an art.docx

Similar to Assignment InstructionsResearch via the internet and find an art.docx (20)

More from rock73

More from rock73 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assignment InstructionsResearch via the internet and find an art.docx