Proposal for General Education Program
1. Course/Department/Representative: PHIL 110 Critical Thinking /
Philosophy / Kevin Possin kpossin@winona.edu Please see attached forms.
2. Proposed WSU GEP Goal Area: Goal 4—Math/Logical Reasoning
This course currently meets Goal 4 at all the other Minnesota State Universities
that have abandoned Goal 2 as a separate requirement
3-4. WSU GEP Goal Area 4: Goal and Student Competencies and
Documentation:
GEP Goal: To increase students’ knowledge about mathematical and logical modes
of thinking. This will enable students to appreciate the breadth of applications of
mathematics, evaluate arguments, and detect fallacious reasoning. Students will
learn to apply mathematic, logic, and/or statistics to help them make decisions in
their lives and careers.
Critical Thinking PHIL 110 Goal Documentation: This is an applied
introductory logic course, dedicated to the logical analysis of arguments in
ordinary language and the detection of fallacious reasoning that occurs when
the conditions of cogency are violated. Critical Thinking, by its very definition
[below], aids one in forming the beliefs, desires, and intentions crucial to making
rational decisions.
CRITICAL THINKING is the process of requiring and assessing
reasons for a person's beliefs, values, and actions. The ultimate goals
of critical thinking are truth and avoidance of error. The means to
these goals are 1) to adopt beliefs, values, and action plans for which
one has the best reasons and 2) to refrain from adopting those beliefs,
values, and action plans for which one either lacks reasons or has
reasons to believe are in error.
Among the logical skills/competencies studied in PHIL 110 Critical Thinking, so as
to meet this Goal, are:



Argument identification—distinguishing arguments from other speech acts,
such as mere assertions, mere descriptions, and explanations.
Anatomy of an argument—dissecting arguments into their parts—premises,
conclusions, and subconclusions.
Taxonomizing arguments—distinguishing between deductive and inductive
arguments on the basis of their different cogency conditions.




Assessing arguments—by means of the ARG cogency conditions:
Acceptability of premises, their Relevance, and their capacity to Ground the
conclusion.
Fallacy identification—analysis of rhetorical tricks, informal fallacies, that
persuade but still violate the ARG cogency conditions, e.g., appeal to false
authority, straw man, ad hominem, appeal to ignorance, begging the
question, equivocation, slippery slope, et al. Identification of frequently
committed formal fallacies, e.g., affirming the consequent and denying the
antecedent, affirming the disjunct, giving rise to invalid arguments.
Linguistic Analysis—The clarification of meaning, definitions, and concepts.
How to logically defend one’s position, anticipate criticisms of both one’s
arguments and one’s position, and critically review alternative positions.
Both Categorical logic and Propositional logic are learned in historical succession,
with their differences and limitations detailed. Students learn the symbolic notation
for both logical systems, their respective methods for doing proofs [Rules of
Immediate Inference and Venn Diagrams, Long and Short Truth Tables, and the
identification of Argument Forms], and how to use both systems to assess the
validity of arguments as they are found in ordinary language.
Goal Area 4 Student Competencies:
Students will be able to:




Illustrate historical and contemporary applications of mathematics/logical
systems.
Clearly express mathematical/logical ideas in writing.
Explain what constitutes a valid mathematical/logical argument (proof).
Apply higher-order problem-solving and/or modeling strategies.
Critical Thinking PHIL 110 Student Competencies Documentation:
Students will acquire, practice, and demonstrate the ability to:



Illustrate historical and contemporary applications of logical systems by
illustrating and applying logical systems to assess the cogency of any
readings or debates, using both categorical logic or propositional logic and
their respective methods of testing for validity and assessing the overall
cogency of arguments and identifying formal and informal fallacies.
Clearly express logical ideas in writing by constructing proofs, testing arguments for
validity and cogency, and writing or critically reviewing op/ed pieces, proposals or
other position papers.
Explain what constitutes a valid logical argument by demonstrating and explaining
what constitutes logical proof and cogent argumentation, using categorical logic
and propositional logic and the ARG conditions of cogency.
2

Apply higher-order problem-solving strategies by applying higher-order
logical analysis to arguments and definitions, using categorical logic and
propositional logic, the ARG conditions of cogency, and conceptual analysis in
the critiquing of definitions.
5. Course outline:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Argument definition and identification
Anatomy of an argument—premises, conclusions, subconclusions
Taxonomy of arguments—inductive & deductive
Linguistic analysis
i) Definitions
ii) Ambiguity
iii) Vagueness
iv) Informal fallacies
v) Loaded and euphemistic language
5) ARG conditions for cogency—introduction
6) Acceptability
i) Definition
ii) Unacceptability
iii) Informal fallacies
7) Relevance
i) Definition
ii) Irrelivance
iii) Informal fallacies
8) Groundedness—categorical logic
i) Symbolization and translation
ii) Standard categorical form
iii) Conversion, obversion, contraposition
iv) Immediate inferences
v) Venn diagrams
vi) Syllogisms
vii) Enthymemes
9) Groundedness—propositional logic
i) Symbolization and translation
ii) Standard propositional form
iii) Logical connectives
iv) Truth-functional definitions of connectives
v) Truth tables
vi) Testing validity
vii) Short truth tables
viii) Argument forms
10)Anatomy of a position paper—the elements of a position paper
All course contents and requirements satisfy Goal Area 4 competencies.
3
Current Catalog Description: This computer-assisted , self-mastery course
teaches you how to employ good reasoning skills and how to avoid being fooled by
bad reasoning and rhetorical tricks. Competencies acquired in this course include
the following: Identifying, evaluating, and constructing arguments; identifying
informal fallacies; testing syllogisms and propositional arguments for validity and
overall cogency; and assessing and constructing position papers. Practice exercises
and exams are done on computer. Offered each semester.
6. Assessment Plan:
Various means are employed to verify that students have acquired and can
demonstrate all of the Goal Area 4 Student Competencies, such as homework
exercises and computer-assisted, in-class, and/or take-home exams, whereby
students demonstrate their understanding and application of all the individual
critical thinking skills listed in the course outline.
4