PHR 100 Reasoning
Unit I: Reflection Essay
Overview: We learned about the dangers of the so–called “post–truth” era and the importance of
information literacy in chapter 1. We also learned about the basics of logic (structure, types of arguments)
and the goal of good reasoning (believing the truth or what’s most likely the truth) in chapter 2. Lastly, in
chapter 3 we learned about the main obstacles to good reasoning, the psychological blocks to truth–
centered and effective critical thinking. You’ve heard from me and the textbook author, now I’d like to
hear from you.
Learning Goals: In this assignment you will reflect on what you learned about critical thinking in chapters
1–3 by sharing your experiences arguing with others and then apply chapters 1–3 to those arguments.
These are all central skills for work and life! The assignment also meets the goals of PHR 100 by asking
you to apply and reflect on good reasoning practices.
The Assignment:
Write a 2–3–page essay about a disagreement with another person, applying what you’ve learned about
logic from chapters 1–3. Here are the parts of the essay I will looking for:
1. Recount the disagreement (approx. 1 page). Tell about a disagreement you had with another
person. The disagreement you recount could be a political, factual, philosophical or ethical; it
should NOT be just an all–out fight, as you want to consider one another’s reasons not dwell on
insults and bad behavior. In this section, tell the story of the discussion.
2. Provide analysis (½ – 1 page). Describe the premises and conclusions of each of arguments each
of you gave. Describe the strategy you both employed. You should NOT evaluate the arguments
here (that is, do NOT decide in this section if the arguments are good or bad). If you can, talk about
whether any of the arguments was deductive or inductive, or what evidence was used to defend
your positions.
3. Provide some evaluation (½ – 1 page). Finally, you will explain the ways in which you or the other
person failed to reason well. You must use the biases and fallacies discussed in chapter 3. Did
you or the other person engage in motivated reasoning, confirmation bias or availability error, etc?
Did anyone appeal to the person or use stereotypes? How so? This may be the first time you’ve
applied the standards of logic, don’t worry. Just try to reason as objectively as possible.
