Postwatching discussion

0 Comment

Post-Watching DiscussionPost to Discussion Question: BUS COM WK4 DQWhat keys or tips can raise suspicion about the validity of arguments, presented verbally and in writing? Cite specific examples. Upon watching the videos, the keys or tips noted that could raise suspicion about the validity of arguments include the need to consider soundness (truth, factual, logical) of the any one of the premises used. as well as avoiding fallacious statements that do not provide logical contentions to effectively support a valid argument. The perfect example was arguing the validity of the statements wherein Scott Gold, an author and writer, who explained the way deductive reasoning is used through indicating that: A: it is raining. B: Godzilla attacks Tokyo C: It is raining so Godzilla attacks Tokyo – could be valid using deductive reasoning but since there is evident unreliability on the existence of Godzilla, in the second premise, then, the soundness of the argument is questionable and fallacious. affecting the overall validity of the outcome.Consider the list titled In Depth: Critical Thinking, The Long Version in Ch.1 of Critical Thinking starting on page 8. What do you consider to be the most important points? Why do you think this? One considers the most important points from In Depth: Critical Thinking, The Long Version to include skills that would evidently recognize students’ adeptness in critical thinking such as: (1) recognize logical flaws in arguments. (2) attend to contradictory, inadequate, or ambiguous information. (3) identify holes in the evidence and suggest additional information to collect. (4) propose other options and weigh them in the decision. [Moo09] among others. These points are deemed most important because to be able to manifest skills in critical thinking, students or writers must be able to use analytical, evaluative, reflective and cognitive skills that go beyond seeing what is obvious and examining the discourse in a more in-depth manner to determine any irregularities, flaws, inconsistencies, or fallacies on reasoning that could render the argument unreliable, unsubstantiated, inconclusive and invalid.ReferencesHow to Argue More Effectively Using Deductive Reasoning – Scott Gold. (2011). YouTube. Retrieved from Moo09: , (Moore amp. Parker, 2009, p. 3),