Critical Thinking Proficiency Exam - Assignment Example

 Student name ___________________ ID# ____________ Date__________ PART 1: ANALYZE POSITIONS DIRECTIONS Attached are different articles where writers present “pro” and “con” arguments on an issue. You will be asked to respond to six questions about one of the articles. Start by previewing the questions, which are listed below. Then, choose the article you want to analyze—responding to the six questions. Insert your answers after each question. Topic Chosen for this exam: ________________________________________________ Writers whose positions you analyzed in this exam: ______________________________________________ QUESTIONS TO ANSWER FOR PART 1 After each question, insert your response by typing directly into this document. You may include as long a response as needed to make your points clear. Be specific when addressing each question. Please note that, in responding to questions 1 and 2 (and, perhaps, 5 and 6), facts cited by the authors do not need to have a formal citation; they need only to be presented as facts or examples. While in academic papers there is a requirement for citations, the passages you are analyzing are persuasive statements. You are being asked to determine if the author includes facts, and you should therefore accept that they are facts that have substantiation. Be sure to identify writers by name when you respond to the following questions so it is clear which author’s position you are analyzing 1. What evidence and examples does each writer cite to support his/her argument? (Do not cite assertions as evidence. Do not summarize arguments.) McClendon, the supporter of the hydraulic fracturing, states that the first piece of evidence is the revenue generated by the industry. The writer states that the industry generated $11 billion in GDP the previous year, and the major industry, Chesapeake, has paid out almost $2 billion in leases. The author also states that the industry has created more that 140,000 jobs and increases state and local taxes to about $1.2 billion. Conversely, the opposing writer, Barth, gives one piece of solid evidence, where the writer states that the Highway Department reported a $455 million worth of damage to the highways caused by the gas industry. The writer also estimates that the Arkansan taxpayer will probably pay more than $400 million of the estimated road repairs. 2. Do you think the evidence and examples offered by each writer provide adequate support for her/his argument? Explain why or why not. The evidence offered by McClendon, the proposing writer, is enough to support his argument for hydraulic fracturing. This opinion is drawn from the fact the author covers all the pertinent facts to the case, giving sufficient reason why the practice is beneficial to the community, region and state. The writer gives a reader the sufficient information to support his facts. Conversely, Barth, the opposing writer, does not give sufficient evidence. This writer makes arguments that are not backed up by tangible or factual evidence. The writer only gives one piece of credible evidence to support his argument. 3. What additional kinds of verifiable evidence, not found in these texts, would tend to refute each writer’s assertions? (You do NOT need to look for evidence but rather identify KINDS OF plausible, verifiable evidence.) McClendon’s argument could be refuted using evidence about the creation of jobs in the future. The writer states that further development of Marcellus will support 216,000 jobs in 2015; however, this could be refuted by evidence disputing the viability of the gas resources in the identified region. Conversely, Barth’s argument that the gas industry provides insufficient funds to the state could be refuted by tax figures acquired from the state itself. This is because McClendon’s argument clearly states that the gas industry provides a lot of tax to the state and government. 4. What additional kinds of verifiable evidence, not found in these texts, would tend to support each writer’s assertions? (Again, you do not need to look for that evidence—you should indicate the kinds of evidence that would be appropriate.) Conversely, the argument by McClendon could be supported by confirming more facts available from the state and government regarding employment and tax figures. Since the major points boosting McClendon’s argument center around this figures, this argument would be well supported by outside figures from the state. Barth’s argument can also be supported by using factual figures that depict the environmental destruction cause by the gas industry. This includes figures showing the amount of pollutants released by the industry every year. 5. Explain the major strength of each writer's argument as stated in the text. From the article, the major argument given by McClendon, the proposer, is the potential benefit to the American people. The writer bases his whole argument on the benefit that the American public would derive from the gas industry, in this case, employment (McClendon, 2). In this case, the writer means that the continuation of the gas industry will help in the continued development of the region due to an increase in employment opportunities for the people living in the region. Both formal and informal employment will be enhanced, since the gas industry will need professionals to run it, and non-professionals to provide the other needed services. Conversely, the major argument put forward by the opposing writer, Barth, is the detrimental effects of the gas industry, which in this case are pollution and damage to the infrastructure (Barth, 2). This major argument implies that the environment will be adversely affected by the actions of the gas prospectors. In this case, Barth means that the possibility of failure by the gas prospectors would negatively hurt the region. The writer also implies that the actions of the prospectors are already hurting the infrastructure of the region. 6. Explain the major weakness of each writer's argument. However, the argument by McClendon is weakened by one critical fact; the environmental effect. This means that the writer completely ignores the effect that the gas industry will have on the environment, which would have been a critical factor. The writer does not state whether the gas industry will be detrimental or beneficial to the environment. Conversely, Barth’s main weakness is the lack of facts to support arguments, since a reader expects to find facts pertinent to the argument being made by the writer. PART 2: DEVELOP AND SUPPORT THEORIES DIRECTIONS In this section, you will analyze data. You will then develop and propose testable theories. Use the data below to answer two questions based on the information provided in the graph. The graph above depicts homicides by types of weapons between the years 1976-2002. The x-axis relates to the years in question. The y-axis relates to the number of victims. The lighter red bar refers to blunt objects; the blue bar refers to knives; the darker red bar refers to handguns; the purple bar refers to other types of guns; the black bar refers to other weapons or methods. 1. Summarize the data and patterns depicted in the graph. Be clear, specific, and accurate in your summary. Explain any patterns you identify, and support your identification with examples. Use as much space as you need to be clear and accurate in your summary. You may expand the size of the space for your answer as needed. The data presented in the graph depicts that in all the years, the number of homicides by handguns exceed all other forms of homicide. Blunt objects present the least common type of homicides, while guns and knives are fluctuating in commonality. The use of blunt objects as a homicide weapon has remained fairly constant during the years in question, while the use of knives rose slightly between 1976 and 1980, remaining fairly constant between then and 1990, the dropping slightly between 1990 and 2002. Conversely, the use of other guns display a completely opposite relationship to the use of knives, rising slightly between 1976 and 1980, dipping between 1980 and 1990, and rising slightly between 1990 and 2002. Lastly, the use of handguns as the weapon of choice is the biggest in all the years. The use of the weapon rose slightly between 1976 and 1980, the rose sharply to reach a peak in 1980. The popularity of the weapon then gradually fell to a low in 1995, after which it started rising to a new high between 1990 and 1995. 2. One important component of critical thinking is viewing data and generating theories from multiple perspectives. The question below requires students to analyze and understand these data from different perspectives. If theories cannot have disconfirming evidence, then by definition they are not testable. Propose 2-3 plausible, causal, testable theories to explain the change depicted in this graph. You should propose only 2-3 theories, and you may propose contradictory theories as long as they deal with causation. The first theory is that the use of knives is directly caused by the use of other handguns, which means that popularity of the knives is determined by the availability of other handguns. This theory is supported by the fact the use of knives is popular when the use of other handguns falls. The second testable theory is that the increase in the use of knives between 1980 and 1990 was due to a shortage in the availability of handguns and other guns. This theory is partly supported by the fact that the use of both handguns and other guns fell during the mentioned years. PART 3: DEVELOP AND SUPPORT THEORIES DIRECTIONS In this section, explain one way in which you have applied critical thinking to make a decision. Your explanation should be three paragraphs in length. Be sure to clearly communicate the decision and how you used critical thinking to make it. It can be a decision relating to the workplace, an election, or any other situation in which you applied critical thinking to make a decision. The best example of a situation in which I applied the critical thinking model is in the investing process, or the selection of the best stock to buy in the stock exchange. The critical thinking process is involved in the identification of a problem, critically analyzing the available options using available facts, and identifying the best solution for the problem. In my problem solution, I analyzed the available options in the market to get the best options. I then gathered all the pertinent facts to be used in the decision making process, including past market activity for all the stock investing options available, and the statistics predicting the future behavior of the shares. The last part of the decision making process was the selection of the final stock to invest in, which was done after analyzing the available options, and discarding the unviable ones. The critical thinking process was used by identifying all the available facts and using them to make a decision. Work Cited McGlynn, Daniel. Fracking Controversy, 2011. The CG Researcher, Vol. 21(44). Web. Read More