PHL 320T All Discussions

The Latest Version A+ Study Guide

**********************************************

PHL 320T All Discussions Link

https://hwsell.com/category/phl-320/

**********************************************

PHL 320T Wk 1 Discussion – Cognitive Bias

Post a total of 3 substantive responses over 2 separate days for full participation. This includes your initial post and 2 replies to other students.

Due Thursday

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:

• Which of the cognitive biases discussed in this section do you think you might be most subject to?
• What might you do to compensate for this bias factor?

Due Monday

Reply to at least two of your classmates. Be constructive and professional in your responses.

PHL 320T Wk 2 Discussion – Dishonesty as a Character Issue

Post a total of 3 substantive responses over 2 separate days for full participation. This includes your initial post and 2 replies to other students.

Due Thursday

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:

Expertise doesn’t transfer automatically from one field to another: Being an expert in one area does not automatically qualify a person as an expert (or even as competent) in other areas. Is it the same with dishonesty? Many people think dishonesty does transfer, that being dishonest in one area automatically discredits that person in all areas. For example, when Bill Clinton lied about having sexual encounters with his intern, some said he couldn’t be trusted about anything.

Respond to the following:

• If someone is known to have been dishonest about one thing, should we automatically be suspicious of his or her honesty regarding other things?

Due Monday

Reply to at least two of your classmates. Be constructive and professional in your responses.

PHL 320T Wk 3 Discussion – Experiment Design

Post a total of 3 substantive responses over 2 separate days for full participation. This includes your initial post and 2 replies to other students.

Due Thursday

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:

Select one of the following general claims and explain how you might find out if it is true. Begin by making the generalization more precise by clearly specifying the population and attribute in question and how you might select a sample from the population. Alternatively, if you think you already have evidence the claim is true, produce an argument that supports it.

• Politicians can’t be trusted.
• Government intrudes in our private lives/business affairs too much.
• Many welfare recipients take advantage of the system.
• Anyone who really wants a job can find one.
• University professors are liberals.
• The media are biased.

Due Monday

Reply to at least two of your classmates. Be constructive and professional in your responses.

PHL 320T Wk 4 Discussion – Rhetorical Fallacies

Post a total of 3 substantive responses over 2 separate days for full participation. This includes your initial post and 2 replies to other students.

Due Thursday

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:

• Discuss an example of a rhetorical strategy or rhetorical fallacy that you might hear in the workplace.
• How might you use reasoning to counteract these arguments?

Due Monday

Reply to at least two of your classmates. Be constructive and professional in your responses.

PHL 320T Wk 5 Discussion – Clarifying a Statement

Post a total of 3 substantive responses over 2 separate days for full participation. This includes your initial post and 2 replies to other students.

Due Thursday

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:

What are the similarities and differences among moral, legal, and aesthetic reasoning? Which do you think is the most prominent type of reasoning you will use at work? Why? Include a specific example in your response.

Due Monday

Reply to at least two of your classmates. Be constructive and professional in your responses.