20809264Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
Course Information
Description
An informal logic course (previously called Reason in Communication) that emphasizes critical thinking. Students will learn argument structure, different forms of inductive reasoning, how to recognize informal fallacies, and how to distinguish better and worse reasoning in the media and our everyday lives. Fulfills the Quantitative Reasoning Part A requirement at UW-Madison, as well as the logic requirement at Edgewood College. This course includes an introduction to propositional logic, but for those students interested in a formal (symbolic) logic course, see course #20809261, Elementary Logic, which fulfills the Quantitative Reasoning Part B requirement at UW-Madison, as well as the logic requirement at Edgewood College.
Total Credits
3
Course Competencies
  1. Identify the basic components of critical thinking
    Assessment Strategies
    Oral or Written Product
    Criteria
    Differentiate claims vs. non-claims, value claims vs non-value claims, objective (factual) vs. Subjective (non-factual) claims, and explanations vs. arguments
    Identify an issue vs. topic
    Differentiate between validity and soundness, differentiate deductive vs. inductive arguments
    Identify arguments and create argument diagramming

  2. Construct arguments, including unstated premises/conclusion
    Assessment Strategies
    Oral or Written Product
    Criteria
    Arguments are well-structured with clear premises and conclusions
    Explain unstated premises and conclusions in complex arguments
    Analyze underlying assumptions

  3. Recognize and evaluate flaws in reasoning
    Assessment Strategies
    Oral or Written Product
    Criteria
    Identify a variety of logical fallacies (e.g., ad hominem, straw man, slippery slope, false dilemma, appeal to emotion, red herring)
    Assess reasoning flaws (e.g., equivocation, irrelevant appeals)
    Explain why the identified flaw undermines the argument's validity or soundness

  4. Apply critical thinking to current and historical examples of reasoning
    Assessment Strategies
    Oral or Written Product
    Criteria
    Analyze arguments from diverse contexts (nuance, identifying underlying assumptions, biases, and the quality of evidence)

  5. Separate and assess value claims vs. non-value claims in reasoning
    Assessment Strategies
    Oral or Written Product
    Criteria
    Distinguish between factual (non-value) claims and normative (value) claims within arguments
    Examine how the nature of the claim impacts its evaluation
    Identify instances where value claims are disguised as factual claims or vice-versa

  6. Identify, construct and evaluate moral reasoning principles used in reasoning
    Assessment Strategies
    Oral or Written Product
    Criteria
    Identify underlying moral reasoning principles (e.g., utilitarian, deontological, virtue ethics) in arguments
    Construct coherent moral arguments based on specific principles
    Evaluate the consistency, coherence, and ethical implications of moral reasoning in diverse contexts

  7. Judge the quality of reasoning
    Assessment Strategies
    Oral or Written Product
    Criteria
    Judgement is justified based on differentiation of argument patterns where applicable (i.e., difference between a slippery slope fallacy and a defensible slippery slope argument)
    Synthesize an evaluation of premises, logical structure, evidence, and freedom from fallacies to form a holistic and nuanced assessment (e.g., sound, cogent, weak, fallacious, unsound)

  8. Use systems of deductive logic to detail and evaluate deductive arguments
    Assessment Strategies
    Oral or Written Product
    Criteria
    Translate natural language arguments into formal systems of deductive logic (e.g., propositional logic, truth tables, natural deduction)
    Apply rules of inference and logical equivalences to determine the validity and soundness of deductive arguments

  9. Distinguish better and worse reasoning in the media and our everyday lives
    Assessment Strategies
    Oral or Written Product
    Criteria
    Distinguish between strong/credible and weak/flawed reasoning in real-world contexts (e.g., news articles, advertisements, political speeches, personal conversations)
    Rationalize why one piece of reasoning is superior to another, referencing specific critical thinking principles