Will be based off of which TED Talk you choose.

This Assignment is for Philosophy Critical Reasoning. Instructions: The Signature Assignment for this course combines all the concepts you have explored in this term. In this assignment, you will choose one of the TED Talks below and form a response based on the provided guidance. As you respond to the questions, you will be expected to connect the concepts covered in this course to the information in your chosen video. Please choose ONE of the following TED Talks to respond to. TED. (2017, July). Why museums are returning cultural treasures / Chip Colwell [Video]. https://www(dot)ted(dot)com/talks/chip_colwell_why_museums_are_returning_cultural_treasuresLinks to an external site. TED. (2022, April). You Don't Actually Know What Your Future Self Wants / Shankar Vedantam [Video]. https://www(dot)ted(dot)com/talks/shankar_vedantam_you_don_t_actually_know_what_your_future_self_wantsLinks to an external site. TED. (2021, December). A "Seat at the Table" Isn't the Solution for Gender Equity / Lilly Singh [Video]. https://www(dot)ted(dot)com/talks/lilly_singh_a_seat_at_the_table_isn_t_the_solution_for_gender_equityLinks to an external site. For each number below, complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the subject matter of the class. The Argument and Syllogism: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Summarize the overall argument of the video in your own words. Be sure to include details and the main points the speaker used to make the argument. Identify the three parts of the syllogism the speaker uses to make the overall argument: Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion Testing the Syllogism: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Based upon the syllogism (your answer to Part 1. B), does this argument demonstrate inductive or deductive reasoning? Provide support for your choice. Be sure to only choose deductive OR inductive; you cannot choose both or neither. If the argument is deductive, test your syllogism (your answers to Part 1. B) in terms of logical validity and soundness. Be sure to not only tell if the syllogism is valid and sound but also show how/how not or why/why not. If the argument is inductive, test your syllogism (your answers from Part 1. B) in terms of being a stronger or weaker inductive argument. Be sure to not only tell if the syllogism is stronger or weaker but also show how or why. Rhetorical Appeals: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Identify examples of all three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos) that you noticed in this video and what information from the video has led you to your choices. Be sure to select specific words, phrases, or ideas and explain their connections to each type of appeal. Also, indicate what effect the use of these appeals has on the persuasiveness of the argument. Rhetorical Devices and Logical Fallacies: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Identify at least one specific rhetorical device and one specific logical fallacy in the way this topic is presented. Be sure to define the rhetorical device and fallacy and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether you think the use of each device and fallacy was deliberate or not and assess the effect that each one has on the argument. NOTE: Remember, ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical appeals, NOT devices, so they are not what is being asked here. This is asking about rhetorical devices. Moral Reasoning: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Which specific kind of moral reasoning is demonstrated in your topic? Briefly elaborate on why you chose the one you did. Be sure to define the specific kind of moral reasoning you chose and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether the use of this kind of moral reasoning was deliberate and what effect it has on the persuasiveness of the argument. Reaction and Reflection: Identify the most interesting takeaway that you got from this video. Reflect on how your application of the course concepts affect your understanding and reaction to the video and argument. When completing this assignment, please keep the following in mind: First and third person (I, we, her, him, they) are fine for this assignment, but do not use second person (you, your). This is not a formal essay, but please: Include a title page, indicating which topic you chose. Adhere to basic APA formatting, including: 12-point Times New Roman font Double-spaced text 1-inch margins throughout Cite any outside sources that you used to support your ideas in proper APA format with in-text citations and references. Be sure to review the associated rubric for more guidance on the content that your response is expected to contain. Review the rubric for specific grading criteria. Due Sunday, 07:00 p.m. (Pacific time) Signature Assignment Final Draft Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUnderstanding the Arguments Does the student demonstrate the ability to discern the speaker's 1) issue, 2) target audience, 3) conclusion, 3) main points, and 4) unstated, implied, or assumed perspectives. Does the student accurately and faithfully summarize them in the student’s own words in detail without being too reductive or without oversimplifying the source’s points? 100 to >93.0 pts Exceeds Expectations The student is specific and detailed in describing the speaker’s position and main ideas. The student can systematically explain what the speaker’s claims are and describe how the speaker’s claims relate to one another, exemplifying sophistication, and comprehension. The student clearly identifies the source’s target audience. 93 to >85.0 pts Meets Expectations The student describes the speaker’s position and main ideas and identifies the source’s target audience. 85 to >72.0 pts Approaches Expectations The student generalizes or oversimplifies the speaker’s claims, and/or may have trouble expressing how the points relate to one another. The student may not clearly identify the target audience. 72 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The student misinterprets or misrepresents the source’s claims, and/or how the claims relate to one another. The student reacts personally or shows little understanding of the target audience. 100 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentifying and Applying Course Concepts Does the student accurately identify and define the course terms and ideas indicated by the prompts? The student can correctly identify course concepts including objectivity/subjectivity, facts/beliefs/ideas, fallacies, biases, rhetorical devices/appeals, valid and sound deductive syllogisms, stronger or weaker inductive syllogisms, and various types of moral reasoning. 50 to >46.25 pts Exceeds Expectations The student accurately and adeptly identifies and defines all the course terms and ideas indicated by the prompts, exemplifying sophistication and comprehension. 46.25 to >42.5 pts Meets Expectations The student accurately identifies and defines most of the course terms and ideas indicated by the prompts. 42.5 to >36.0 pts Approaches Expectations The student identifies and defines all of the course terms and ideas indicated by the prompts, but they may be generalized, incomplete, or oversimplified. 36 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The student does not accurately identify or define the course concepts indicated by the prompts, or egregiously misinterprets those course concepts. 50 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis and Evaluation of Course Concepts Can the student explain if the source’s use of course concepts are effective or ineffective, and why they would be effective or ineffective to the target audience? The “Exceeds” response assumes the student understands who the target audience is and can posit how that audience may respond to different arguments and rhetoric. They are explaining why a specific rhetorical strategy works on the target audience or how a fallacy like ad hominem preys on an in-group bias. 50 to >46.25 pts Exceeds Expectations The student understands who the target audience is and can posit how the audience may respond to different arguments and rhetoric. The student may also explain why a specific course concepts improve or diminish the effectiveness of other course concepts. 46.25 to >42.5 pts Meets Expectations The student understands who the target audience is and can posit how the audience may respond to different arguments and rhetoric. The student may also explain why specific course concepts are generally effective or ineffective and provides a detailed rationale for their assertions. 42.5 to >36.0 pts Approaches Expectations The student may generally understand who the target audience is and may posit how the audience may respond to different arguments and rhetoric. The student inadequately or inaccurately explains why a specific course concept is effective or ineffective and provides a detailed rationale for their assertions. 36 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations The student does not understand who the target audience is, nor can they posit how the audience may respond to different arguments and rhetoric. The student does not explain why specific course concepts are generally effective or ineffective. 50 pts Total Points: 200