Communication ARC Scenario
DESERT: Three families are stranded on a desert:
Jones Family: an army captain, his fiancée, and a famous movie star;
Smith Family: a twelve-year-old boy, a wealthy society woman, and a Nobel-prize-winning
scientist;
Clark Family: the CEO of a major corporation, the governor of a large state, and a priest.
The helicopter can save only one family. Which family would you save and why?
Use the following steps to think critically through Situation DESERT, then write your
responses to each of these six thinking-points, and put your paper in the DESERT
drop box in our ANGEL shell:
1. Define the situation in your own words.
2. Compare and contrast the possible ways to make your choices. Consider the word
“save.” What are ways to define “save” and how would those ways change
your choices? Consider using a deliberate selection system versus using a
random selection system. What are the selection systems available to you and
how would those ways change your choices?
3. Select a family to be saved and defend your choice.
4. Explain the weaknesses or uncertainty in your choice.
5. Suggest ways to strengthen your choice – could be related to the definitions of
“save” and “selection systems” but could refer to other information not included
within the scenario.
6. Reflect on what your decisions say about you. What did you learn from this
process? What would you do differently next time to improve?
SPC’s Assessment of Critical Thinking (ARC) Scoring Template
Rater (scorer) name: _____________________________Paper ID: _____________________Date: ____________________
Performance
Element
I. Communication
Define problem in
your own words.
II. Analysis
Compare &
contrast the
available solutions.
III. Problem
Solving
Select & defend
your final solution.
Exemplary
(4)
Identifies the main
idea or problem with
numerous supporting
details and examples
which are organized
logically and
coherently.
Proficient
(3)
Identifies the main idea
or problem with some
supporting details and
examples in an
organized manner.
Developing
(2)
Identifies the main
idea or problem
with few details or
examples in a
somewhat organized
manner.
Emerging
Not Present
(1)
(0)
Identifies the main
Does not identify
idea or problem
the main idea or
poorly with few or no problem.
details or states the
main idea or problem
verbatim from the
text.
Uses specific
inductive or
deductive reasoning
to make inferences
regarding premises;
addresses
implications and
consequences;
identifies facts and
relevant information
correctly.
Thoroughly identifies
and addresses key
aspects of the
problem and
insightfully uses facts
and relevant evidence
from analysis to
support and defend
potentially valid
solutions.
Uses logical reasoning
to make inferences
regarding solutions;
addresses implications
and consequences;
Identifies facts and
relevant information
correctly.
Uses superficial
reasoning to make
inferences regarding
solutions; Shows
some confusion
regarding facts,
opinions, and
relevant, evidence,
data, or information.
Makes unexplained,
unsupported, or
unreasonable
inferences regarding
solutions; makes
multiple errors in
distinguishing fact
from fiction or in
selecting relevant
evidence.
Identifies and
addresses key aspects
of the problem and
uses facts and relevant
evidence from analysis
to develop potentially
valid conclusions or
solutions.
Identifies and
addresses some
aspects of the
problem; develops
possible conclusions
or solutions using
some inappropriate
opinions and
irrelevant
information from
analysis.
Identifies and
Does not select and
addresses only one
defend a solution.
aspect of the problem
but develops
untestable
hypothesis; or
develops invalid
conclusions or
solutions based on
opinion or irrelevant
information.
Does not analyze
multiple solutions.
Score
4 3 2 1 0
    
N/A 
Comments:
4 3 2 1 0
    
N/A 
Comments:
4 3 2 1 0
    
N/A 
Comments:
Rater (scorer) name: _____________________________Paper ID: _____________________Date: ____________________
Performance
Element
IV. Evaluation
Identify weaknesses
in your final solution.
V. Synthesis
Suggest ways to
improve/strengthen
your final solution.
VI. Reflection
Reflect on your own
thought process.
“What did you learn
from this process?”
“What would you do
differently next time
to improve?”
Exemplary
(4)
Insightfully interprets
data or information;
identifies obvious as
well as hidden
assumptions,
establishes credibility
of sources on points
other than authority
alone, avoids fallacies
in reasoning;
distinguishes
appropriate arguments
from extraneous
elements; provides
sufficient logical
support.
Insightfully relates
concepts and ideas
from multiple sources;
uses new information
to enhance final
solution; recognizes
missing information;
correctly identifies
potential effects of new
information.
Identifies strengths and
weaknesses in own
thinking: recognizes
personal assumptions,
values and
perspectives, compares
to others’, and
evaluates them in the
context of alternate
points of view.
Proficient
(3)
Accurately interprets
data or information;
identifies obvious
assumptions,
establishes credibility
of sources on points
other than authority
alone, avoids fallacies
in reasoning;
distinguishes
appropriate
arguments from
extraneous elements;
provides sufficient
logical support.
Developing
(2)
Makes some errors in
data or information
interpretation; makes
arguments using
weak evidence;
provides superficial
support for
conclusions or
solutions.
Accurately relates
concepts and ideas
from multiple
sources; uses new
information to
enhance final
solution; correctly
identifies potential
effects of new
information.
Identifies strengths
and weaknesses in
own thinking:
recognizes personal
assumptions, values
and perspectives,
compares to others’,
with some
comparisons of
alternate points of
view.
Inaccurately or
incompletely relates
concepts and ideas
from multiple
sources; shallow
determination of
effect of new
information on final
solution.
Identifies some
personal
assumptions, values,
and perspectives;
recognizes some
assumptions, values
and perspectives of
others; shallow
comparisons of
alternate points of
view.
Emerging
(1)
Interprets data or
information
incorrectly;
Supports
conclusions or
solutions without
evidence or logic;
uses data,
information, or
evidence skewed
by invalid
assumptions; uses
poor sources of
information; uses
fallacious
arguments.
Poorly integrates
information from
more than one
source to support
final solution;
Incorrectly predicts
the effect of new
information on
final solution.
Not Present
(0)
Does not evaluate
data, information,
or evidence related
to final solution.
Identifies some
personal
assumptions,
values, and
perspectives;
does not consider
alternate points of
view.
Does not reflect on
own thinking
Score
4 3 2 1 0
    
N/A 
Comments:
Does not identify
new information
for final solution.
4 3 2 1 0
    
N/A 
Comments:
4 3 2 1 0
    
N/A 
Comments: