1.) An electron with mass 9.11 × 10−31 kg has a velocity of 4.30 × 105 m/s in the innermost orbit of a hydrogen atom. What is the de Broglie wavelength of the electron? ___ × 10^__ m 2.) Thompson determined the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron to be −1.76 × 1011 coulomb/kilogram. Millikan determined the charge on the electron to be −1.60 × 10−19 coulomb. According to these findings, what is the mass of an electron? __ × 10^__ kg 3.)(has two parts) Referring to the figure below, how much energy is needed to move an electron in a hydrogen atom from n = 1 to n = 5? Give the answer (a) in joules ___x10^__ J (b) in eV ___ 5.) (has two parts) Explain how you know that the electron configurations (a) boron = 1s2 2s22p1 (b) aluminum = 1s2 2s22p6 3s23p1 (c) potassium = 1s2 2s22p6 3s23p6 4s1 have the correct total number of electrons. (a) Boron is atomic number__(fill in)__ and there are _(fill in)___ electrons. (b) Aluminum is atomic number_(fill in)___ and there are __(fill in)____ electrons. (c) Potassium is atomic number __(fill in)__and there are ___(fill in)___electrons. 6.) Explain how you know the following electron configurations are correct. (a) Nitrogen 1s22s22p3 (b) Phosphorus 1s22s22p63s23p3 (c) Chlorine 1s22s22p63s23p5 (a) Nitrogen's atomic number is _(fill in)__ and the number of electrons shown in the configuration is __(fill in) (b) Phosphorus' atomic number is __fill in_and the number of electrons shown in the configuration is __fill in__ (c) Chlorine's atomic number is __(fill in)__ and the number of electrons shown in the configuration is __(fill in)__- 1     The Graduate School - UMUC CRITICAL THINKING Rubric SUMMER 2015 Learners demonstrate the ability to apply logical thinking processes to formulate clear, defensible ideas and to draw ethical conclusions. Critical Thinking Evaluation Criteria: 1. Identify and clearly explain the main issue or problem under critical consideration. See: Defining Critical Thinking 1.1 Summarize the issue or problem with supporting details to provide full understanding. Explanation: What, exactly, is the problem or issue you’re meant to consider? If you can’t state it clearly in your own words, you don’t really understand it. Make sure you’ve covered the facts and the background in your summary, and make the key relationships clear. 1.2 Identify the underlying causes or conditions contributing to the issue or problem and consider the context. Explanation: What factors have contributed to the issue or problem? Be sure you can explain how the circumstances may be shaping the issue. Look for assumptions people may be operating under, including your own assumptions. If any assumptions seem unsound, challenge them. 1.3 Pose significant questions to be answered prior to analyzing and addressing the issue or problem. Explanation: As you think about an issue, you need to pose 2     questions to guide your analysis. These quest ...

1. 1.) An electron with mass 9.11 × 10−31 kg has a velocity of
4.30 × 105 m/s in the innermost
orbit of a hydrogen atom. What is the de Broglie wavelength of
the electron?
___ × 10^__ m
2.) Thompson determined the charge-to-mass ratio of the
electron to be −1.76 × 1011 coulomb/kilogram. Millikan
determined the charge on the electron to be −1.60 × 10−19
coulomb. According to these findings, what is the mass of an
electron?
__ × 10^__ kg
3.)(has two parts) Referring to the figure below, how much
energy is needed to move an electron in a hydrogen atom from n
= 1 to n = 5? Give the answer
(a) in joules ___x10^__ J
(b) in eV ___
5.) (has two parts) Explain how you know that the electron
configurations
(a) boron = 1s2 2s22p1
(b) aluminum = 1s2 2s22p6 3s23p1
(c) potassium = 1s2 2s22p6 3s23p6 4s1
have the correct total number of electrons.
(a) Boron is atomic number__(fill in)__ and there are _(fill
in)___ electrons.
(b) Aluminum is atomic number_(fill in)___ and there are

2. __(fill in)____ electrons.
(c) Potassium is atomic number __(fill in)__and there are
___(fill in)___electrons.
6.) Explain how you know the following electron configurations
are correct.
(a) Nitrogen 1s22s22p3
(b) Phosphorus 1s22s22p63s23p3
(c) Chlorine 1s22s22p63s23p5
(a) Nitrogen's atomic number is _(fill in)__ and the number of
electrons shown in the configuration is __(fill in)
(b) Phosphorus' atomic number is __fill in_and the number of
electrons shown in the configuration is __fill in__
(c) Chlorine's atomic number is __(fill in)__ and the number of
electrons shown in the configuration is __(fill in)__-
1
The Graduate School - UMUC
CRITICAL THINKING Rubric
SUMMER 2015
Learners demonstrate the ability to apply logical thinking
processes to formulate clear, defensible ideas
and to draw ethical conclusions.

3. Critical Thinking Evaluation Criteria:
1. Identify and clearly explain the main issue or problem under
critical consideration. See: Defining Critical Thinking
1.1 Summarize the issue or problem with supporting
details to provide full understanding.
Explanation: What, exactly, is the problem or issue you’re
meant
to consider? If you can’t state it clearly in your own words, you
don’t really understand it. Make sure you’ve covered the facts
and the background in your summary, and make the key
relationships clear.
1.2 Identify the underlying causes or conditions
contributing to the issue or problem and consider the
context.
Explanation: What factors have contributed to the issue or
problem? Be sure you can explain how the circumstances may
be
shaping the issue. Look for assumptions people may be
operating
under, including your own assumptions. If any assumptions
seem
unsound, challenge them.
1.3 Pose significant questions to be answered prior to
analyzing and addressing the issue or problem.
Explanation: As you think about an issue, you need to pose
2

4. questions to guide your analysis. These questions can vary
widely: what is the significance of the issue? How relevant and
accurate is the information? How accurate and appropriate are
the interpretations or assumptions? What are the implications of
the analysis? How reasonable or ethical are the analysis or the
responses? Obviously, you won’t ask ALL of these questions
every time, and you’re not limited to them – but use them as a
starting point.
2. Gather and analyze information to investigate the issue or
problem. See: The Critical Thinking.org Logical Analysis
Model; The
Foundations of Ethical Reasoning
2.1 Scan the environment for information relevant to the
issue or problem.
Explanation: Don’t assume you know everything about the issue
or problem from the get-go. Look around – ask questions, do
some reading, find analogous situations. Gather information
from
a variety of sources in order to inform your analysis.
2.2 Assess the reliability of the information gathered.
Explanation: Information needs to be reliable before you can
use
it. This reliability comes in five different realms: authority,
credibility, objectivity, quality, and currency. Authority relates
to
the author’s expertise in the field; you want to rely on experts
who are actually experts. The credibility of a source concerns
its
trustworthiness. Your source material should be objective

5. (based
in fact) rather than subjective (based in opinion). The content
should be high quality, fact-based, well documented, complete
and accurate. Your information also needs to be current; while
some information doesn’t change, the ways people think about it
does. Your sources should be as current and up-to-date as
possible.
2.3 Analyze the information in a logical and organized
3
manner to see how concepts are developed and
connected.
Explanation: Once you’ve got a pile of information, you need to
be systematic in the way you examine it. Can the issue be
broken down into individual parts? Once it’s broken down,
examine each part to see how it connects to the others. If you
can see how they relate to each other or to other problems, you
might be able to see how the problem developed. Compare and
contrast related ideas or pieces of information.
2.4 Identify contradictory information and seek to
reconcile contradictions.
Explanation: Does the information you’ve gathered support or
undermine your analysis? Where do the individual bits of
information NOT fit together? Where do they contradict each
other? If information is contradictory, check the trustworthiness
of the sources; perhaps one source is more reliable than the
other. If necessary, do a little further research.

6. 3. Consider and analyze other possible viewpoints, conclusions
or
solutions to the issue or problem. See:
3.1 Articulate clearly and fairly the viewpoints of others
and their reasoning to provide adequate understanding.
Explanation: You can’t just rush into an argument or analysis
without considering more than one side of the issue. Your side
MIGHT be the most-correct side, but you need to make sure
your
blinders are off before you declare that to be the case. Give “the
other guy” his due, and explain other perspectives fairly. This
will
broaden your own understanding, and it will assure your
audience that you’ve considered alternatives.
3.2 Identify significant, potential implications and
4
consequences of alternative points of view.
Explanation: Now that you’ve given “the other guy” his say,
think
about his point of view. Do these other viewpoints have
implications for the issue at hand? Explain those implications
relative to the previously identified ones.

7. 3.3 Evaluate assumptions underlying other possible
viewpoints, conclusions or solutions.
Explanation: Now that you know what the other viewpoints are,
think about what informs them. Is “the other guy” laboring
under
a different set of assumptions? Identify them; evaluate them;
consider how they inform his viewpoint.
4. Develop well-reasoned ideas, conclusions or decisions,
checking them against relevant criteria and benchmarks.
See:
4.1 Articulate inferences that follow logically from the
evidence presented.
Explanation: You need to be able to explain your line of
reasoning clearly, so that the reader/listener/client can follow.
The inferences need to make sense both individually and
together (sometimes each one makes sense, but when they’re all
packaged together they don’t work).
4.2 Assert logical conclusions only when sufficient
evidence supports them, and distinguish between
attainable and unattainable solutions.
Explanation: A conclusion is only logical when enough
evidence
supports it; you can’t jump to a conclusion and hope that
missing
pieces of evidence don’t matter. It is also important to know the
difference between a solution that is within the realm of
possibility and one that is not. If your conclusion leads you to a
solution that will cost millions of dollars or a change in basic
5

8. human nature, that may not be attainable – but perhaps one that
involves a few thousand dollars or takes into consideration
human limitations would be.
4.3 Incorporate ethical reasoning when formulating ideas,
conclusions or decisions.
Explanation: No decision is a good decision unless it’s ethical,
and there are several different ethical models. (Some ethical
models include the Utilitarian approach, the Rights approach,
the
fairness approach, the Common-Good approach, and the Virtue
approach. You’ll want to find the right approach for the issue at
hand. Consider the most appropriate ethical model, and then
apply it to your decision. What are the ethical implications of
your
idea, conclusion, or decision? Can you live with these
implications?
OVERALL EVALUATION LEVEL
Case Study
Responsibility for Accident
On June 7, John Schmidt, one of the company’s employees,
seriously injured
his hand while pushing a large piece of wood through a table

9. saw in the
production shop. There is now a dispute over who is to blame
for the accident,
the company or the employee.
The injured employee claims that he followed all the company’s
safety
procedures and that the company is at fault because it did not
guarantee that the
machine was as safe as possible for use. The company shop
manager, David
Donald, asserts that the machine was in safe condition, because
if it hadn’t
been, the shop foreman, Harry Hiller, would have informed him.
The foreman, Harry Hiller, insists that the machine was
maintained
satisfactorily; he has produced the written maintenance records.
The foreman
also claims that prior to the accident he saw the employee
“joking, laughing
and goofing around” with his co-workers.
A co-worker supports the claim of the injured employee,
insisting that despite
regular maintenance on the table saw, it was not safe because
the safety guard
was poorly designed and didn’t function well. The co-worker
claims that shop
workers informed the foreman about the issues with the safety
guard.
A health and safety report determined and reported that the
safety guard was
poorly designed to protect operators in a number of
circumstances.

10. (Adapted: AF, 2011)