General Education Submission Form
Electronic submissions are preferred.
A.
GE component for which course is being proposed:
Reasoning Abstractly
B.
Submitted by David Vander Laan
C.
Ideally, submissions should be discussed by the entire department prior to submittal.
x Chair has reviewed and approved the course.
D.
Course being proposed (please attach syllabus):
Critical Reasoning and Logic (PHI-012)
A syllabus was submitted separately.
E.
This course
Has not been modified, but is being submitted to check its suitability
Has had its syllabus rewritten to communicate the course’s contribution to GE
Has had its contents modified to address the relevant GE issues
Is a new course designed to fulfill the GE requirement
x Has been modified, and is being resubmitted to check its suitability
F.
This course is being submitted as
A Template. Applicable to courses with multiple sections which require only general
training in the discipline. The submission should come from the department chair and
should clearly identify what course content and what elements of the syllabus the
department has agreed will common to all sections. Upon approval by the GE
Committee, any course whose syllabus is determined by the department to meet the
specifications of the template is approved to satisfy this area requirement. A copy of
each syllabus should be forwarded to the GE Committee for record keeping purposes.
x An Individual Course. Applicable to courses requiring specialized training in the
discipline or are typically offered by a particular instructor. The course should be
resubmitted and reassessed in the event of a change in staffing or syllabus.
G.
Statement of rationale:
(Include a list of the area certification criteria (formerly called GE objectives) and GE Student
Learning Outcomes (if applicable). These certification criteria and GE SLOs are listed in the GE
Committee Combined document. After each certification criterion and GE SLO, list several course
activities (lectures, readings, assignments, etc.) that address it. If it is not completely obvious,
explain how the activities relate to the certification criterion or outcome. Please attach a copy of
the syllabus which has been annotated to identify the corresponding activities. Electronic
annotations are required. Please use the comment feature in Word to annotate electronic copies).
The Reasoning Abstractly certification criteria are:
“Students will be able to
1. identify instances of abstract reasoning about abstract objects or concepts (in
the form of arguments, explanations, proofs, analyses, modeling, or processes of
problem solving) and can distinguish premises from conclusions (or their
analogues);
2. construct an instance of valid reasoning about abstract objects or concepts (in
the form of arguments, explanations, proofs, analyses, modeling, or processes of
problem solving);
3. distinguish valid forms of reasoning about abstract objects or concepts (in the
form of arguments, explanations, proofs, analyses, modeling, or processes of
problem solving) from invalid and/or fallacious forms of reasoning.”
Students will be doing these kinds of things all semester long. Here are a few examples
of readings and assignments that address the criteria.
Criterion 1
 The Power of Logic, 2.1, Arguments and Non-arguments: This reading is aimed at
identifying arguments and distinguishing them from assertions, descriptions,
explanations, &c.
 The Power of Logic, 2.2, Well-Crafted Arguments: This reading directs students in
understanding the structure of arguments, i.e., understanding which statements
are premises, which is the conclusion, and which are intermediate steps.
 Application assignment #1 (argument evaluation): This assignment requires to
students to identify an argument and to make its logical structure explicit,
labeling premises and inferred statements as such.
Criterion 2
 The Power of Logic, 1.2, Forms and Validity: This reading introduces argument
forms; the exercises will include occasions for constructing arguments that have
valid forms.
 The Power of Logic, 6.3, Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms: Students will
show that certain abstract argument forms are valid.
 The Power of Logic, 6.5, Enthymemes: The exercises for this chapter will include
making valid arguments fully explicit.
Criterion 3
 The Power of Logic, 1.3, Counterexamples and Invalidity: This section will define
invalidity and provide a method for demonstrating that an argument is invalid.
 Informal Fallacies: Fallacies Involving Irrelevant Premises: In this section of the
course, students will learn to identify particular ways in which arguments fail,
and how to distinguish them from good arguments that superficially resemble
fallacious ones.
 Application assignment #2 (fallacy identification): Students will locate a fallacious
argument and explain precisely how it fails.