Introduction
The first two steps in evidence-based practice are to identify knowledge gaps and formulate relevant questions. In this writing exercise, you will be doing just that, across three types of inductive reasoning. In addition, you will be applying evaluation techniques to determine how credible, authoritative, and reliable the arguments are.
Scenario
Imagine your boss has asked you to evaluate four ideas that she is thinking of using to implement programs. You must evaluate whether these are good ideas that she can safely and immediately green-light or whether further evidence is needed. She is anxious to move forward, so she will be unhappy if you reject a good idea; however, if you approve a bad idea, she will be equally as unhappy. She has specifically directed you not to do any outside research. You must evaluate the ideas strictly on the brief passages available. She also wants to know what specific kind of reasoning is used in each passage
Instructions
Using everything you have learned from the text, as well as any other information you have gathered from your searches related to this week’s discussion, evaluate the following four arguments:
- Chapter 8 Exercise 8.9 Examples 7 and 10
- Chapter 9 Exercise 9.9 Example 1
- Chapter 10 Exercise 10.9 Example 1
For each exercise, address the following:
- Identify the type of inductive argument and any features of the way the argument is constructed that you find relevant.
- Explain how convincing you think the argument is.
- Does it have sufficient evidence to allow you to suggest that she move forward with the idea or does the argument have knowledge gaps?
- What questions need to be answered to close these gaps?
- Does the argument contain any information that adds to its authority, credibility, or reliability?
You need to show your boss that you know what factors have to be considered in evaluating each type of argument and how well the argument meets the criteria.
Writing Requirements (APA format)
- Length: 100-150 words per exercise (not including title page or references page)
- 1-inch margins
- Double spaced
- 12-point Times New Roman font
- Title page
- References page
Grading
This activity will be graded using the Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric.
Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 5
Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
Rubric
Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric – 75 pts
Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric – 75 pts
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Timeliness of Submission
|
7.0 pts Assignment submitted by due date
|
0.0 pts Assignment not submitted by due date
|
7.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Exercise Identification
|
20.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified for all 4 exercises.
|
15.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified for 3 exercises.
|
10.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified for 2 exercises.
|
5.0 pts Type of argument correctly identified 1 exercise.
|
0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.
|
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Evaluation of Criteria
|
12.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for all 4 exercises.
|
9.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 3 exercises.
|
6.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 2 exercises.
|
3.0 pts Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 1 exercise.
|
0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.
|
12.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Value of Evidence
|
12.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for all 4 exercises.
|
9.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 3 exercises.
|
6.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 2 exercises.
|
3.0 pts Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 1 exercise.
|
0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.
|
12.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Questions
|
12.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for all 4 exercises.
|
9.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 3 exercises.
|
6.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 2 exercises.
|
3.0 pts Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 1 exercises.
|
0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.
|
12.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Authority, Credibility, Reliability
|
12.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for all 4 exercises.
|
9.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 3 exercises.
|
6.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 2 exercises.
|
3.0 pts Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 1 exercises.
|
0.0 pts None are correct, fully developed, or present.
|
12.0 pts
The post HUM101 Chamberlain College of Nursing Critical Reasoning Evaluating Arguments first appeared on The Nursing Tutors.
“Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now”
“Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!”
The post HUM101 Chamberlain College of Nursing Critical Reasoning Evaluating Arguments first appeared on Homework Handlers.
HUM101 Chamberlain College of Nursing Critical Reasoning Evaluating Arguments was first posted on November 4, 2020 at 11:52 pm.
©2019 "Essay Lords | Bringing Excellence to students world wide". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at support@academicheroes
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"
