St. Cloud State University
General Education Goal Area 2
Critical Reasoning
Academic Affairs Use Only:
Response Date:
Effective Date:
1.
Proposal Number:
Prepared by: Carolyn G. Hartz
Phone: 308-5160
Email: cghartz@stcloudstate.edu
2.
Requesting Unit: Philosophy
3.
Department, Course Number, Title: Philosophy 194 Critical Reasoning
4.
New Course
5.
Will this course be flagged as a diversity course?
Already Designated as Diversity
6.
Will this course also satisfy another General Education Goal Area?
If “Yes” specify which goal area.
Existing Course
No
Diversity Proposal Accompanying This Form
No
Yes
7.
Course bulletin description, including credits and semesters to be offered:
Reasoning about human values, human knowledge and our place in the scheme of things.
Conceptual analysis, identifying and analyzing arguments, and recognizing fallacious reasoning. 3 cr.
F, S, Sum.
8.
Indicate the clientele for whom this course is designed. Is the course for general education only, or
does it fulfill general education and other program needs for this or another department? Obtain
signatures from any affected departments.
General education only.
9.
Indicate any changes that must be made in offerings or resources in your department or other
departments by offering this course.
None.
10.
For new courses or courses not yet approved for General Education, indicate any other SCSU departments
or units offering instruction that relates to the content of the proposed course.
11.
Courses designated as General Education are included in the assessment plan for the Goal Area(s) for
which they are approved. Courses for which assessment is not included in the annual GE assessment
12/11/2009
report for two years will be removed from the General Education Program.
The Requesting Unit understands and recognizes the above conditions.
12.
Provide a concise explanation of how the following goal is a “significant focus” of the proposed course.
Goal Area 2: Critical Reasoning
Identify, analyze, and critically evaluate reasoning in a variety of domains in order to develop well founded
beliefs and engage in rational and effective action.
The main topics of Phil. 194 are argument analysis and evaluation. The course requires
students to understand what an argument is trying to support, what reasons it uses as support,
assumptions the argument relies on, objections to the argument, etc. The course also requires
students to understand what makes an argument good and to judge when these criteria are met in
contexts that range from everyday issues to scientific domains to aesthetic issues to civic and ethical
reasoning.
13. In order for a course to be designated as fulfilling Goal Area 2, it must address at least 5 of the 6 student learning
outcomes (SLOs) below. Check the SLOs below that are focused on in the proposed general education course.
1. Distinguish between discourse that contains reasoning and that which does not.
2. Distinguish between different types of reasoning.
3. Analyze arguments, distinguishing premises and conclusions.
4. Evaluate inductive and deductive reasoning.
5. Apply basic logical techniques.
6. Identify and avoid fallacies.
14.
Discuss how each Student Learning Outcome checked above is achieved in this course. (Note: Although
descriptions of typical assignments or types of assignments may be part of this discussion, it is not
appropriate to submit copies of actual assignments.)
1. Distinguish between discourse that contains reasoning and that which does not.
Students learn the definition of “argument” and do problem sets in which they read passages and specify whether
a view is being argued for, explained, questioned, stated, objected to, etc. in each.
2. Distinguish between different types of reasoning.
Students learn the definitions of inductive and deductive reasoning and do problem sets in which they categorize
the reasoning as inductive or deductive.
3. Analyze arguments, distinguishing premises and conclusions.
Students learn the definitions of “premise” and “conclusion” and specify for given arguments which part is which.
They identify unstated premises or assumptions and reconstruct the resulting arguments. They map the structure
of complex arguments and specify what the main conclusion is for each and which premises are sub-conclusions.
4. Evaluate inductive and deductive reasoning.
12/11/2009
Students learn the concepts of validity and soundness and categorize deductive arguments with respect to these.
They learn the concept of inductive strength and the factors that contribute to it, and judge inductive arguments
with respect to relative strength on the basis of these factors.
5. Apply basic logical techniques.
Students learn how to do truth tables or trees, and elementary propositional and categorical arguments patterns.
They apply these to arguments to judge their validity.
6. Identify and avoid fallacies.
Students learn basic invalid deductive argument patterns (such as affirming the consequent and denying the
antecedent) and evaluate arguments with respect to these. They learn a variety of informal fallacies of relevance
(such as ad hominem, straw man, and emotional appeals) and evaluate arguments with respect to these. Attention
is given to discerning fallacious from non-fallacious uses of emotion in argument.
15.
List or attach the Course Outline (adequately described and including percentage of time to be allocated
to each topic). Curriculum Committees may request additional information. Topics larger than 20% need
to be broken down further. Indicate in your course outline where the Student Learning Outcomes
checked above are being met.
Recognizing arguments; distinguishing arguments from other kinds of discourse: 10% (SLO1)
Distinguishing premises and conclusions: 10% (SLO 3)
Deductive vs. nondeductive reasoning: 5% (SLO 2)
Evaluating deductive reasoning: 40% (SLO 2, 4, 5)
Validity: 10%
Soundness: 5%
Argument patterns (propositional or predicate): 15%
Other formal techniques (truth tables, Venn diagrams): 10%
Evaluating nondeductive reasoning: 20% (SLO 2, 4, 6)
Analogies: 10%
Generalizations: 10%
Fallacies: 15% (SLO 4, 5, 6)
12/11/2009
St. Cloud State University
General Education Transmittal Form
Academic Affairs Use Only:
Response Date:
Effective Date:
Proposal Number
Department: Philosophy
Course or Course(s): Phil. 194 Critical Reasoning
Carla A. H. Johnson
Department or Unit Chair Signature
February 10, 2010
Date
Department forward to Academic Affairs for publication and electronically to Chair of General Education Committee, Chair
of College Curriculum Committee, College Dean
Recommendation of General Education Committee:
Approve
Remarks:
Disapprove
Chairperson
Committee
Signature
Date
Recommendation of University Curriculum Committee:
Approve
Remarks:
Disapprove
Chairperson
Committee
Signature
Date
Recommendation of Faculty Association:
Approve
Remarks:
Disapprove
FA Senate
Signature
Date
Action of Academic Vice President:
Approve
Disapprove
Signature
Entered in Curriculum Data File
12/11/2009
Remarks:
Date