Syllogisms, deductive validity, and the principles of inductive probability for evaluating evidence-based claims. Targets common logical fallacies and the construction of sound, persuasive arguments.
A culminating mock defense where students justify a complex decision to a panel, demonstrating mastery of reasoning synthesis.
Students apply the Toulmin model to fine-tune the structural connections between different reasoning frameworks in their arguments.
Students practice pivoting between reasoning types during high-pressure Q&A sessions to maintain argumentative momentum.
Students engage in dialectical exercises to anticipate counter-arguments and draft pre-emptive rebuttals using varied reasoning models.
Students analyze complex thesis topics to determine the optimal deployment of deductive, inductive, and analogical reasoning frameworks.
In this culminating seminar, students present a formal critique of a foundational text in their field, assessing the durability of its claims against modern evidence. They must defend their critique against peer questioning, demonstrating mastery of evidentiary evaluation.
Students investigate the ethics of contextualizing evidence, looking at how selective quoting or ignoring conflicting data constitutes academic dishonesty. The lesson involves auditing a literature review to verify if the cited sources actually support the claims made.
Moving beyond basic fallacies, students analyze high-level rhetoric for subtle errors such as ecological fallacies, p-hacking in narratives, and the confusion of correlation with causation in policy proposals. The focus is on how sophisticated language can mask weak evidentiary links.
This lesson examines how different disciplines define 'valid evidence' (e.g., quantitative data vs. qualitative ethnography). Students compare methodologies to understand how epistemological stances dictate which data is included or excluded in a central argument.
Students apply the Toulmin method (claim, data, warrant, backing, counter-argument, qualifier) to analyze a dense academic article in their field. They will map the argument's architecture to identify implicit assumptions and the strength of the warrants connecting data to claims.
Students compare a focal text with a conflicting scholarly work, writing a synthesis that evaluates methodological soundness. This culminates in a 'scholarly smackdown' debate based on textual evidence.
Examination of syntax, diction, and tone as tools for ethos construction. Students analyze how scholarly objectivity is performed and where rhetorical flourishes mask analytical gaps.
Students categorize and assess the sufficiency of qualitative, quantitative, and archival evidence. The lesson focuses on recognizing selection bias and distinguishing between correlation and causation in scholarly narratives.
Using the Toulmin model, students diagram specific chapters to identify warrants and backing. They examine how authors use logical bridges to connect data to claims and identify unstated assumptions.
Students analyze the introduction and first chapter of a scholarly monograph to isolate the primary thesis and the theoretical framework. They will distinguish between the 'hook,' the statement of the problem, and the specific argumentative contribution.
Students present a formalized research proposal, justifying the novelty of their argument based on their synthesized literature review.
Students transition to synthesis by building visual conceptual frameworks that connect existing theories to their newly identified research gaps.
By visualizing literature coverage, students infer logical gaps and formulate precise problem statements for their own research.
Students analyze conflicting high-impact papers to infer the methodological or epistemological differences that caused their divergent conclusions.
Students learn to code multiple academic articles simultaneously to identify recurring themes and dominant narratives, establishing the 'status quo' of a research topic.
