Spring 2010 Critical Thinking Student Sample Work

Please post model work here:

Graeded Reconstruction

Student #1

The general conclusion that Michael Ruse is making is that intelligent design should be kept out of biology classes in state run schools. This overall conclusion is supported by two separate arguments. First, he argues, that teaching Intelligent design in biology class is unconstitutional. Additionally, it should not be taught because it is not the best that we have to offer students.

The argument that it is unconstitutional is supported with the ideas that it is religious. This breaches the constitutional separation of church and state, and teaching religion in any class other than comparative religions is illegal. To support that it is he religious he argues that intelligent design requires an intelligent designer to explain life’s complexities, because no other theories, such as Darwinism can. He claims that this intelligent designer is pretty universally understood as the Christian idea of God. According to the author, intelligent design advocates a set of beliefs, which is the basis of religion. Having freedom of religion in the United States means that religions or values cannot be forced, but he argues that intelligent design projects a certain value set, so is unconstitutional. Further he argues that is under the umbrella of creationism, which is understood as religious. He is able to make this argument, because they both support that moral issues are critical to evolution. Further he argues that writings for intelligent design often argue in favor of Christianity. These points all support that teaching intelligent design is religious, which is unconstitutional.

The second reason that intelligent design should not be taught in biology class is that it is not the best option for a science class. The premise for this is that intelligent design is a “science stopper.” To argue this point he writes that once it is understood that an intelligent being acts, there is no where to move or grow scientifically. Science works because people try to find answers to problems, but intelligent design stops the search for answers. This hinders scientific learning, making it a poor way to teach and perpetuate biology. The best thing to teach students is the most accurate information available, and critical skills to move learning onward. Ruse argues that intelligent design cannot do that, which prescribes that it should not be taught in biology classes.

Therefore because intelligent design is religious, making it unconstitutional to teach in biology, and because it is not the best theory to teach, it should not be taught in biology classes.

Student #2

In the article, “Intelligent Design Should Be taught in Religion Classes, Not Science” the general conclusion stated is, Intelligent Design should not be taught in science classes. The critic supports this conclusion with three claims. The first claim states that intelligent design is unconstitutional; secondly he states that intelligent design is a form of creationism and thirdly he makes the claim that intelligent design is not a fruitful science. Mr. Ruse states that teaching intelligent design in science classrooms is unconstitutional. He is basing this claim off of the amendment in the constitution that explicitly creates a separation between church and state. He supports his claim with two premises. The first premise states that on Dec. 20, 2005 a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in a Pennsylvania school district if in a science classroom. The second premise to support his claim states, Intelligent design is religion carefully disguised as a science to get around the constitution therefore, it is deemed unconstitutional. The second claim Mr. Ruse made to support his general conclusion states, Intelligent Design is a form of creationism which is a biblical science hence being a science based on religion. The first premise to support his claim states, that both intelligent design and creationists believe that the earth was created by a higher being or, God. The second premise to support his claim, which supports the general conclusion, says that both groups worry more about “moral values”. Lastly Mr. Ruse makes the claim that Intelligent Design is, “Not a fruitful science”. His first premise to support his claim is that Intelligent Design is a science stopper, he believes that if you say that someone (God) intervened, then you are stuck about what to do next. He believes that science works by assuming blind law and then going out to find it (the solution). The second premise is that Intelligent Design adds nothing to our store of knowledge therefore it is not a valid or useful science; hence, a “fruitful science”. In conclusion, Mr. Ruse believes that Intelligent Design should stay out of science classrooms because it is unconstitutional based on the constitutional amendment separating church and state, secondly because it has a direct correlation to creationism which is a biblical science, and lastly because it is a fruitful science.

1st practice reconstruction: "The Court's Blow to Democracy"

Student One

In “The Court’s Blow to Democracy” the author argues that the recent The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a bad decision and should be overturned. The author uses six rationales to defend this conclusion, five of which are arguments, and one is an explanation. The premises of the first argument are that corporations are no longer banned from spending directly on political campaigns, and corporations can threaten to campaign against elected officials that do not vote in the corporation’s favor. The conclusion of this argument is that the court’s decision has opened the door for corporations to use their money to manipulate elections and elected officials. The premises of the second argument are that in 1907 Congress banned corporations from contributing to candidates, and in the 1950’s Congress enacted a broader ban on corporate political spending that was repeatedly reaffirmed over the years. The conclusion of this argument is that the court’s decision radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and elections. The premise of the third argument is that the founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence, and that founding fathers knew what was good for the country. The conclusion is that we should listen to the founder’s advice that corporate influence is dangerous. The fourth argument is that corporations are not people and should not be granted the same First Amendment rights as people because they are artificial legal constructs that exist to make money. The fifth argument is that independent expenditures by corporations do cause corruption or the appearance of corruption, for example if Wall Street had threatened to campaign against anyone who opposed their bailout, it would look corrupt. The last rationale and only explanation is that the court’s decision was politically motivated to give Republican candidates an advantage in future elections.

Student Two

There are 3 rationales in this article. For the first rationale, the author utilizes 2 premises to draw an intermediate conclusion that contributes to the general conclusion. The first premise is that corporations are artificial legal constructs. The second premise states that corporations are created by the state to make money. Because of these premises, the author makes the intermediate conclusion that corporations should not be legally considered “people”. The second rationale has 2 premises. The first premise is that this ruling will presumably ensure that Republican candidates will have an advantage in future elections. The second premise states that democracy is crucial for fair elections. The intermediate conclusion is that this ruling strikes at the heart of democracy. The third rationale includes 3 premises. The first premise is that the constitution does not mention corporations as institutions that are protected by the First Amendment. The second premise states that in 1907 it was decided that corporations should not contribute to candidates. The third premise states that midcentury this decision was reaffirmed and has been ever since. The intermediate conclusion here is that we should follow time-proven tradition of the constitution. Thus, the general conclusion of this argument is that this court ruling was a bad decision.

Student Three

In this article, the author argues that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to spend whatever amount they want in the country’s elections to elect a candidate is a bad ruling and should be overturned. This is his general conclusion. The first rationale he gives to support his underlying statement is that the courts did not make a good legal decision. His first premise for this argument is that the decision “reverses well-established law,” meaning that since this issue has come to the court before and was ruled oppositely, it has overturned the laws that the Supreme Court has already passed. Secondly, that the decision should not have been decided in the first place because they didn’t look enough into it and made their decision too quickly. The second rationale is that the ruling goes against previous warnings about corporations. The premise states that the founders had not included rights for corporations in the Constitution because they are not people and they should not have the same rights as people. Because they were not included in the Constitution, their freedom of speech rights would not support democracy and should therefore not be given to them. The third rationale the author presents to the readers is about how corporations will corrupt democracy. He states that giving corporations these rights will sway elections so much that they will appear corrupt.